Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Hon John Banks—Confidence and Police Investigation into Electoral Returns

1. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: “The test is whether I can rely on the member’s word and he has given me assurance that he met the law … There is a statute of limitations and he has complied with the law”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement that “The test is whether I can rely on the member’s word, and he has given me an assurance that he met the law. The police have quite clearly said there was insufficient evidence. There is a statute of limitations, and he has complied with the law.”

David Shearer: Does he accept the police findings, paragraph 40, that John Banks breached section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen the actual report, but, funnily enough, I have seen the New Zealand Herald today where it said the “Police concluded the report was ‘false’ but could not prove Banks had known when he signed it,”.

David Shearer: Does John Banks enjoy his confidence not because he breached the Act but because he was not prosecuted for breaching the Act?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: He enjoys my confidence because I can rely on his word.

David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe Simpson Grierson partner Greg Towers when he says in a sworn statement to police that “John Banks said that as much as [he] wished to publicly support Kim, that may backfire on Kim if it became known about the election support.”, given that Mr Towers would risk his career, including being disbarred as a lawyer, if he was found to be lying?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite possible that both men are right. I would note that in this morning’s Dominion Post newspaper it said that Greg Towers “also told the police he was unaware of any donation from Dotcom to Mr Banks’ campaign.” Support can take many forms. What I do know is that I have a caucus that supports me, and that leader—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will note that when you got to your feet Mr Key kept talking, but the sound system for him did not go off. So I want to know what is going on here, because you told us that that was a practice round—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure that had he kept going, it would have gone off.

David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe Kim Dotcom when he says in a sworn statement to police that he offered Mr Banks $50,000 and “Mr Banks immediately accepted my offer,” and that “Mr Banks then said to me that it would be better to split it into two cheques for $25,000 ... He told me it was because then he would not have to declare where it came from.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to assess the merits of that, but what I do know is that the Local Electoral Act, as it was designed by the Labour Government, or at least not changed by it, made it quite legal for someone to solicit a donation and, in fact, to ask a donor to give those donations anonymously. I will be pretty sure that the Labour Party did that under the old laws for general elections all the time.

David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe Wayne Tempero when he says in a sworn statement to police that he remembers John Banks saying “No, not one cheque, write two cheques out for $25,000 each.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am just not in a position to judge that, but I accept John Banks at his word.

David Shearer: In the interests of having a transparent ministry, will he ask John Banks to release his witness statement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not something I have ministerial responsibility for.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister asking one of his Ministers to release a document is something he has ministerial responsibility for when it goes to the ethics of that Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister, in fact, does not have responsibility for that document, and the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to answer in that way.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He does not have responsibility for that document. We are not saying that he has responsibility for that document, but he does have responsibility for the integrity of his Ministers, and it is within his power and responsibility as to whether or not he chooses to ask for that statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has given one answer to one question. It is not beyond the wit of members to devise more questions to test the Prime Minister further on the matter.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister had said “I’m not wanting and willing to do that.”, that would have been an answer that would have addressed the question. But to say that he has not got ministerial responsibility and, therefore, does not have to answer the question is, with respect, wrong.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The convention that Mr Key, as Prime Minister, is entitled to rely on was well established by Helen Clark in the middle period of 2002, just prior to that year’s election, when, in fact, she was in a situation of having considerable disruption due to the breakdown of the Alliance, which was a party in the House at the time. It made it very clear that there are quite strong distinctions between a Prime Minister dealing with the ministerial responsibilities of Ministers and a Prime Minister as a leader dealing with the leadership or other issues relating to any other party. The Hansard will record all of that. I believe that Speakers’ rulings have been relied on, particularly by Speaker Hunt, in the past, and there is no case being made by the Opposition in this matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard briefly.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I would like to refer you to the precedent of Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith and his questioning of Helen Clark on the Taito Phillip Field matter, where there were a number of documents that had to do with a commission, which was not her responsibility, that he questioned her about. The Speaker did not protect Helen Clark in those circumstances.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Speaker happens to have a reasonable memory of those matters, and following certain events yesterday he checked up on a number of those matters very exhaustively. In fact, if the member’s memory is serving him well, he will recollect that, in fact, the Government commissioned an investigation, and that I raised a number of questions around that document. That is a totally different matter. This is not a document that the Government has commissioned.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My recollection of those events was that the point that you were making in your questions was that the inquiries did not go far enough, and so you had leeway to ask the Prime Minister as to what other information was available that ought to be taken into account by the Prime Minister in judging the situation—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need to take this any further. The member should know I do my homework. [Interruption] Order! I do my homework very thoroughly. All the Hansards have been scrutinised from that period, I can assure the honourable member, and the questions all related, in fact, to content of that Government-commissioned report. Further supplementary questions can be asked, but the answer the Prime Minister gave to that particular question was not an unreasonable answer, because the Prime Minister does not have responsibility for that particular document.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I have dealt with this matter, so I hope it is a new point of order.

Hon David Parker: I would ask you to go through those Hansards again, because I think that what you just said to the House is not correct. You said that all of the questions to the Prime Minister arose out of what was in the report. I have a clear recollection of those times, and your questions were addressing what was not addressed in those reports, which was one of your main criticisms at the time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to take this matter any further. The member is litigating a matter I have already ruled on and I suggest he does go back and look at it as carefully as I have.

David Shearer: Is the handling of the John Banks case consistent with his undertaking to lift the standard of ethics in Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: At one level, yes, because that would not be hard compared with the previous Government. At a second level, let me summarise the situation. My office has relied on the word of the member. The police in their statement have made it quite clear that there was insufficient evidence. The police have also made it quite clear that although the return may have been false they could not prove that John Banks had known it was signed in that particular way. And we know that the law was very loose. So although the Labour Party might think this is the biggest—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, there has been sufficient answer.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, Grant Robertson, and it will be heard in silence.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table paragraphs 39 and 40 of the police report, which says that the police concluded that the elements of section 134(2) were met for a prosecution of Mr Banks.

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

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

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Paul Goldsmith. [Interruption] I beg your pardon, I missed Metiria Turei. I do apologise. Supplementary question, Metiria Turei.

Metiria Turei: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Suffrage Day to you. Does the Prime Minister accept the finding of fact—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Metiria Turei, supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister accept the finding of fact in the police report of 26 July 2012 that “Police have established that on 9 June 2010 Mr John Banks personally solicited a donation from Mr Kim Dotcom.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to judge that, but I know that the local electoral law in the way it is crafted would mean that it is quite legal to do that. You see, if members do not like other members complying with the law, they are free to think that way, but actually the test is whether you meet the law.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clear. The Prime Minister has said previously that he read that particular report, and he has not addressed the question, which is very simple: does he agree with the police finding of fact that John Banks solicited a donation from Kim Dotcom, in a report he has read. He has not addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister answered the question in so far as he pointed out that to have done that is perfectly legal under the current Act. He does not have to agree with the member, but he pointed out that there is nothing wrong with having done that, under the current law.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a copy of the 26 July 2012 report from the police stating that the police have established that John Banks personally solicited a donation from Kim Dotcom.

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.

Metiria Turei: Did John Banks tell the Prime Minister or his office earlier this year that he was not aware that Kim Dotcom made a donation to his mayoral campaign?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have told the House earlier, Mr Banks assured me, through my chief of staff, that he had fully complied with the requirements of the legislation.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I go back to the honourable member, that is not exactly what the question asked. The member may repeat her question if there is some doubt as to that.

Metiria Turei: Did John Banks tell the Prime Minister or his office earlier this year that he was not aware that Kim Dotcom made a donation to his mayoral campaign?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was not party to the conversation, but to the best of my knowledge he was unaware of donations that were made. That is why they are anonymous. At the end of the day, you can solicit them and you can have your own supposition, but it does not mean that you actually know.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister not think that if John Banks was being genuinely honest with him, he would have told him that he solicited a donation from Mr Kim Dotcom, as the police found in their finding of facts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not think you can draw that conclusion. What you can draw as a conclusion from the police report is two things: first, there was insufficient evidence, and, secondly, although the return was false, the police themselves said they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that, when he signed it, because it was put together by another individual, whom Mr Banks relied on.

Metiria Turei: Is not the Prime Minister’s denial just his dancing on the head of a pin, when most New Zealanders believe that John Banks was dishonest in his communication to the Prime Minister, and are not New Zealanders right to expect more from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I think there is a genuine misunderstanding of what is actually permissible under the Local Electoral Act.

Hon David Parker: In light of that answer and the answer given about three supplementary questions earlier, is it the Prime Minister’s position that it is legal under the existing local electoral donation laws for a member to solicit a donation, to know that a donation was made by someone whom they solicited it from, but then to declare that it was anonymous?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking for a legal opinion, and I am not in a position to offer that. But what I can say is that, in my understanding of the way that it was put by the member, that would not be legal. It is quite legal to go and to ask for support. It is quite legal to give indications of how that could be made anonymously, but in the end the point there, of course, is that one never really knows. There were many donations made, as I can see from newspaper reports. As for the $25,000 donations, it is impossible to know who they came from. Lots of people tell organisations that they will give money. They do not necessarily always do so.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table paragraph 38 of the police report, which states: “Further analysis in respect of the evidence collected in the investigation established that the return was wrong in content as the donations for Skycity, Dotcom … should not have been recorded as anonymous.”

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that page from that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, supplementary question. [Interruption] Order! I want to hear—[Interruption] Order! I must be able to hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister accept that the police report says that the elements for a prosecution were established; if so, why is he claiming in this House to be able to trust Mr Banks’ word?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen the report, so it is possible. I do know that the police statement that they put out, which summarises the report, said a couple of things, one being there is insufficient evidence, but what I also know from the report this morning is that the police concluded that the return was false. So, on that basis, yes, the member may have some validity there, but they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that when he signed it. What the police are quite clearly saying is that on the main charge of whether there could be a position where—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —that the situation was knowingly, by Mr Banks, false, there is no claim of that by the police.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If you have 42 donations, all of which were anonymous, all of which were forgotten, would you then trust that man’s word in this House, if he gave it to you?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Speaker should not be involved in the question in that way. I invite the right honourable gentleman to reword his question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister is aware that there were 42 donations, all of which were substantial, all of which were anonymous—that means the whole lot were all regarded as being anonymous—why would the Prime Minister then trust the word of Mr Banks on this issue?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The question, at heart, is whether the member complied with the law. That is the assurance he has given my office, and I accept that.

Grant Robertson: Further to that answer, does the Prime Minister understand that filing a false return is a breach of the Local Electoral Act, and that that is what the police have found that Mr Banks did?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It could be, but as the police themselves said—

Grant Robertson: It could be!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it could be, but, as the police said, it is a lesser offence and it was outside the period of time. They also went on to say that although they concluded that the return was false, they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that. So if you want to go after the person who put it together, that might be right, but not Mr Banks.

Better Public Services—Targets

2. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to deliver better public services within its wider economic programme?

Mr SPEAKER: Before the Minister answers, please, a little less interjection from my left.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The delivery of higher-quality public services is one of the Government’s four priorities for this term. It sits alongside responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive economy, and rebuilding Christchurch. The Government’s Better Public Services programme sets ambitious targets in five key areas, which include welfare dependency, education, health, crime, and the economy. The Government aims to achieve these targets with little or no new money and under a lower cap on core government administration. New Zealanders care about the quality and the success of the public services they receive, and they also deserve value for money.

Paul Goldsmith: What are some examples of the results targets under the Better Public Services programme?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Our education targets include increasing the proportion of 18-year-olds achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, and increasing the proportion of children in early childhood education. We have set goals of a 20 percent reduction in violent crime and a 15 percent reduction in overall crime. We have also set a goal of having 70 percent of transactions with government performed online, and we are aiming to lower benefit dependency and increase immunisation rates. We aim to achieve all of these results by 2017.

Paul Goldsmith: What progress has been made in delivering better public services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Over the last few months the Government has launched action plans for each of the 10 result areas. The recently announced welfare reforms will encourage families to enrol children in early childhood education. Justice agencies will work as one operational unit, aiming to reduce reoffending by 25 percent. The police report good progress in reducing crime and reoffending. We have also introduced legislative changes to the House to improve cross-agency collaboration and use of shared services. These efforts are focused on—

Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House for Dr Coleman to table his statement and sit down.

Mr SPEAKER: Even though it is not a strictly valid point of order, I think the point the member is making is that these answers are too long.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Too long for what?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Too long for what? You want accuracy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the Speaker’s opinion they are too long—that is what. They are too long. There has been a tendency in recent weeks for Ministers, in responding to questions from their own colleagues, to give speeches rather than succinct answers. It is not good enough. We want succinct answers. I do not—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Succinct!

Mr SPEAKER: It is not a difficult word—succinct.

State-owned Assets, Shares—Consultation with Māori on “Shares Plus” Proposal

3. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree that “Consulting involves the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done”; if so, how do the Government’s consultation hui about the “shares plus” proposal align with this definition?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes; and totally. Is that succinct enough?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I come back to the honourable member, it might be, but it is not a good enough answer to a primary question. The Minister will now give a considered answer, because the Standing Orders actually require a Minister to give a constructive answer to a primary question—[Interruption]—I am on my feet; Ministers should just take a deep breath for a moment—where there are no words in that question that are in any way provocative. There are no such words in the question whatsoever. I do not believe that is an acceptable answer to the House. I accept that it is an answer, but it is not acceptable, given the Standing Orders, in that Ministers are expected to provide information in answering questions, and that answer did not provide any information.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: “Succinct” is obviously elastic.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The Minister will desist from that line of action. He will just treat the House with the respect it deserves.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The quote draws on the finding of the Court of Appeal in 1992 in a case involving Wellington International Airport, reported I think in [1993] 1 NZLR 671. What that decision confirms is that the party consulting can have a working plan in mind, and that is the position here. The Government has a preliminary view on “shares plus” and a working plan based on that preliminary view, but it has an open mind and is willing to change its mind if submissions are persuasive—succinct and to the point.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister support the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that “The Government has already said that such a shareholding would be unattractive, unnecessary, and unworkable …”; if so, what assurance can he give Māori that the Government is not entering into consultation with a predetermined outcome in mind?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I can give that member and the House an assurance that the Government has an open mind. As I said, the Government has formed a preliminary view about “shares plus”, and that view is noted in its letters on the Treasury website, and it is in that context that the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments are to be understood. Again, the view is preliminary, and the Government is consulting in good faith in order to hear whether there are other views about “shares plus”.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with Māori lawyer Joshua Hitchcock that “In many respects the Government is treating this as a pro-forma exercise of consultation. It is merely ticking the boxes to satisfy the Court in the event of a challenge to the sale process that it has followed due process.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I certainly do not. It is not a matter of simply ticking boxes, and Governments have learnt a lot since the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1993. The Government has a preliminary view. It wants to test that view, and that is why the Deputy Prime Minister—and next week the Deputy Prime Minister and I—will be having these hui, one of which was very well attended in Taupō today. The Government acknowledges it may not have thought of everything. It wants to hear other views, and then it will make a decision, and that is why we will have a consultation.

Hon Peter Dunne: Given the terse and succinct nature of the Minister’s answer, could he elaborate on what the Government’s preliminary view is?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes. The Government’s preliminary view, as set out on the website and in Treasury papers, and in the view of the Deputy Prime Minister, is that there are more minuses than pluses with “shares plus”. Take, for example, the suggestion that minority shareholders could have some say in the appointment of directors to the company, who would then act on the wishes of the minority shareholders. Well, in terms of company law, that is quite problematic because directors, once appointed, owe a duty to the company, not to the people who put them there.

Exchange Rate—Economic Measures

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What did he mean in his reported statement “we’re considering what we can do to resist a rising exchange rate”, and how does he reconcile this statement with that given by the Associate Minister of Finance on behalf of the Minister of Finance yesterday to the effect that the New Zealand Government has absolutely no way of influencing the New Zealand dollar down?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I meant that the Government is taking a number of steps to help take pressure off the exchange rate and to help the economy adapt to a relatively high currency. They include getting back to fiscal surplus so that the Government is not borrowing heavily and pushing up interest rates, encouraging households to save, and putting the right settings in place to help New Zealand firms become more competitive. The Associate Minister correctly referred to the fact that with a floating exchange rate there is nothing the Government can do to permanently bring down the value of the dollar without also having undesirable effects show up elsewhere in the economy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he considered any alternative counter-inflationary measures to curb excessive bank lending and thereby ease the pressure on the exchange rate caused by interest rates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that Alan Bollard in his capacity as Governor of the Reserve Bank has actually moved in that area. There have been quite a number of changes over the last few years whereby the Reserve Bank now has much greater capacity to limit the loan-to-value ratios that banks have and their capital requirements under Basel III.

Hon David Parker: Does the Prime Minister agree with the outgoing Governor of the Reserve Bank that if the objectives of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act were wider and included more than giving primacy to inflation, like the level of a competitive exchange rate, the decisions taken by the Reserve Bank would be different, and the exchange rate—and these are not his words; they are mine, so I do not want to attribute them to him—might be lower?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: With the greatest respect to that member, I think he is actually misquoting Alan Bollard. The member will be aware that Alan Bollard as Reserve Bank governor was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. In fact, what he said about the current legislation is that it is “completely fit for purpose”. So in my view, and knowing a number of discussions I have had with the governor in the 4 years I have been Prime Minister, he has concluded that, in fact, New Zealand has world-leading legislation when it comes to the way that we manage the exchange rate and inflation targeting. Interestingly enough, also, that member will know that, because he was part of a Government that had Charles Chauvel chair the Finance and Expenditure Committee in 2008, and what that select committee found was the following. It found that New Zealand’s monetary policy approach is now standard among small, open, developed economies, and is regarded as “world’s best practice. We are advised that there are more than 20 countries now using a similar approach to monetary policy.”

Hon David Parker: I do not deny the Prime Minister’s quote, but I was not referring to that quote. I seek leave to table the transcript of Dr Bollard at the select committee where he acknowledged the point that I made in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand that this document is publicly available from the select committee.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My other point of order would be, then, that the Prime Minister obviously has not addressed—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Order! The Prime Minister absolutely did address the question. He answered it quite explicitly in that he—[Interruption] Order! The member in asking his question acknowledged towards the end of his question that he may have used words that were not exactly Dr Bollard’s words. In answering the question the Prime Minister pointed out what Dr Bollard had said to the select committee, and although it may not be exactly the answer the member expected, it is certainly an answer to that question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to the availability of the transcript. My understanding is that the transcript is not available until the report back from the select committee—

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just check that fact.

Hon Trevor Mallard: —and it has not been reported back yet.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member is correct there, and therefore I will put it to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the Prime Minister’s marvellous ideological theory of doing nothing about the soaring New Zealand dollar rate, at US82c or US83c, has he considered the use of capital controls as a means of reducing the inflow of “hot” money, which is causing our high dollar?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Look, I think from time to time it would be fair to summarise that the Reserve Bank and Treasury always look at those broader issues as they look at the general view about whether the policy targets agreement that is set between the governor and the Minister of Finance is working appropriately. What I think the general conclusion is—although I might have to go back and have a look—is that it is very difficult to put capital controls on a country like New Zealand, which is a large capital importer and relies on that capital to fund so much of its domestic investment. It may be possible in places like Singapore. It is actually not possible in a place like New Zealand, I think, easily.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That being the case, why did he say that the Government is “considering what it can do to resist a rising exchange rate”, when it is clear from his previous three answers that he never intended to do anything, whilst on average 100 manufacturing jobs are being lost every week, and the high dollar has cost exporters a total of over $10 billion since 2009?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I accept the member does not have it, because he got that out of a Wall Street Journal approach, but if the member wants me to give him the full transcript of the entire conversation that I had with the Wall Street Journal, I am more than happy to do that. What I went on to actually say, or did say as part of that overall discussion with that journalist, was that I do not believe that intervention is a mechanism that works, and that New Zealand is broadly happy with the policy targets agreement that we have got. What I basically said was that there are only certain things that the Government can control. They are the things like the inputs for businesses. Whether it is reforming the Resource Management Act, tax reform, or employment law reform, all of those things do take the pressure off our exporters. And the reality is that if the member really thinks that he can get the New Zealand dollar down while it remains a floating exchange rate, then he needs to go away and read a few books. I will give him a clue: it does not work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I have read a few books, including about Merrill Lynch—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I cannot for the life of me see what that has got to do with the proceedings of this House. That is not a point of order, and the member will not pursue—he cannot disagree with the Prime Minister’s answer by way of point of order. The Prime Minister answered the member’s question in a very fulsome way. He referred to the quote that the member had used in his question, and he went on to explain how that quote fitted into an interview the Prime Minister had given. I think he probably went a bit far at the end there, but you cannot litigate the answer by way of point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not litigating the answer at all. The answer was fine, until he started recommending that other members of this House read books. That was when he was out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that he should not have done that, indeed, but worse things happen across the floor of the House than that, unfortunately. But I accept the member’s point. The Prime Minister should not have added that. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Interjections from—the honourable gentleman is better than some of his interjections today. [Interruption] Order! I cannot hear what the right honourable gentleman is seeking. Is this a supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No. I wish to table a document, given that the Prime Minister disputed what my authority was. I wish to table this National Business Review, dated 17 April 2012.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we do not table press clippings from newspapers.

Health Targets—Progress

5. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making with National Health Targets?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): We have obtained a fourth year of record increases in elective surgery, which means that 95,000 more elective surgeries were performed in the last 4 years compared with the number performed under the previous Government. In the past 4 years, 12,300 more patients have received orthopaedic operations, including hip and other joint replacements. On top of this there were an extra 6,800 ear, nose, and throat operations, 13,800 more general surgeries, 4,300 more operations for children 9 years and under, and 14,800 more ophthalmology operations.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other good performance can he report on elective surgery?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would like to thank the member for the opportunity to answer that question. Over the next 4 years we are investing tens of millions of dollars to maintain our record levels of elective surgery and further reduce waiting times for patients. At the end of June this year, excluding Canterbury, only 150 patients across the nation were waiting over 6 months for a surgical first specialist assessment or for elective surgery. Timely operations, as the member will know, make a big difference to being able to live a full and happy life, and this Government is committed to providing more New Zealanders with the surgery they need.

Child Poverty—Prime Minister’s Statements

6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “… I am prepared to commit Government resources to try to lift children out of poverty”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement in the context in which it was given. I also note that at the time I went on to say that a decent education was important and that this Government’s investment in national standards was an important step in that regard. It is a shame that the member’s party is so confused about what its position is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no; again, there were no words in the primary question that were provocative. That is unfair.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he also stand by his statements that child poverty needs to be measured and that his Government “will bring a special focus to improving the results of public services for New Zealand’s vulnerable children”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I am not sure which quote the member is referring to, but I certainly know that in the past what I have said is that there are a number of measures for child poverty. Personally, I think you actually need a number of measures. They can include everything from household indicators to health indicators or to education, welfare, and housing indicators.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he support the concept of a bill to aim to reduce child poverty by requiring the Government to do the very things he has already indicated support for—namely, measure poverty using a range of measures, set targets to reduce it, and report to Parliament on progress?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is talking about her bill, no, I do not think we are likely to support that.

Jacinda Ardern: Why is he happy to spend $1 million to measure the cost of welfare, to set targets to reduce it, and to report on progress via a board, but he will not do the same for child poverty?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, because, firstly, we spend about $14 billion a year on welfare, so I think it is important that we get good measurements and look to make some changes there. But I think, secondly, it comes back to the point I made earlier. I do not think a single measure for poverty would be the right way to go, and we have a range of measures already.

Sue Moroney: Does he have a view on what Kate Sheppard and the women who won the right to vote 119 years ago today would think about child poverty in New Zealand in the year 2012?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure I would be quite so presumptuous as to assume I know what women of the day were thinking. I am sure they celebrated the chance to vote, and we celebrate alongside them.

Child Protection—Child, Youth and Family and Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāpuhi Memorandum of Understanding

7. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister for Social Development: How will the recently established partnership between Child, Youth and Family and Te Rūnanga A Iwi O Ngāpuhi better protect children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): We have recently signed a formal memorandum of understanding between Child, Youth and Family and Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāpuhi agreeing to work closely together to protect children. I want to commend the parties for this partnership. Ngāpuhi are the first iwi to reach this milestone. It is an unfortunate reality that home is not a safe place for some children, and I believe iwi have an important role to play in decisions about these children and their care.

Mike Sabin: How will the partnership support vulnerable families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This partnership will support a number of joint initiatives as together we take responsibility for this group of vulnerable children. This includes earlier intervention, particularly with vulnerable Ngāpuhi whānau, more open discussions, joint decision-making for care placements, and greater information-sharing.

Mike Sabin: How does this agreement work better to support vulnerable children in need of care and protection?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: A part of the purpose of this agreement that I am particularly proud of is something that we are working on with iwi across the country to achieve. It is pre-approved iwi caregivers, where iwi play a role in identifying safe whānau and families, and if we have to remove a child, particularly in an emergency situation, they are immediately placed with extended whānau. They have been through Child, Youth and Family checks, we know where they are, and they can then play a vital part in where that placement in the future might be.

Health Care—Women and Children

8. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied that New Zealand women and children are receiving better, sooner and more convenient health care?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Certainly, yes, overall, in no small part due to the extra $2 billion of funding that this Government has invested into public health services. Just one example is the Government increasing funding for maternity services by over $114 million over 4 years, and in the last Budget it invested $14 million in section 88 fee increases for lead maternity carers.

Hon Maryan Street: In light of that answer, is he aware that in 2010 more than one-third of all pregnant Pasifika women, just over one-sixth of pregnant Asian women, and nearly one-sixth of pregnant Māori women were not seen by a community-based lead maternity carer at all during their pregnancy; if so, how do the numbers that he has just cited to us aim to improve those rates of midwifery care?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is doing quite a lot to make sure that we can improve maternity care. What we know is that a large number of women in some parts of the country have their midwifery care provided by the midwives who work in the public hospitals, and that is a model that in some areas of the country the district health boards are trying to move towards greater community provision. But the Government certainly is working to support good-quality maternity services. We are working very actively with the profession in our maternity quality and safety programme, which is achieving a lot for the profession and for New Zealand women and babies.

Hon Maryan Street: Is he aware that 5,000 extra children have been admitted to hospital in the last 3 years for preventable conditions such as skin infections and respiratory illnesses; if he is, to what does he attribute this increase in avoidable hospitalisations, and what is his strategy to address it?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is acting in a whole lot of areas in order to improve child health. For example, the Government has announced a quite significant increase in the amount of funding made available for the free children’s after-hours programme. What we know is that for free doctors’ visits for children under 6 in the last year of the previous Government, $3 million was spent, and for free doctors’ visits for children under 6 today it is seven times higher, at $21 million.

Moana Mackey: If things are so great and he is doing so much, then why are Māori babies still five times more likely to die from sudden unexplained death in infancy than European babies, why are Māori and Pasifika mothers still more likely to have stillbirths and neonatal deaths than European mothers, and why are preterm birth rates significantly higher for Māori and Pasifika babies, and what is he doing to address these issues?

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, I would have to say that that is not a new circumstance that the member can blame on any one party in this House. We are working very closely with the district health boards and the midwifery profession to improve those outcomes. And the Government is taking action across a whole lot of preventative health areas that can help support that—for example, our dramatic action to reduce the level of smoking, which does have a dramatic impact on maternity outcomes.

Sue Moroney: Has he had any submissions or official representations on the issue of Pasifika, Asian, and Māori women’s access to community-based lead maternity carers from the Minister of Women’s Affairs; if so, has he acted on that advice?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have got to say that the Minister of Women’s Affairs and I are discussing matters on a very regular basis. In fact, as recently as yesterday afternoon the Minister of Women’s Affairs and I were discussing a whole range of health issues in respect of women.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific. I asked whether there were any submissions or official representations from the Minister of Women’s Affairs. The Minister spoke about some talks he had with her, but I am not sure of the answer to my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the Minister did say that he had representations from the Minister and that he has discussions with her. Verbal representations are no different from written representations, so I believe that he did answer the member’s question.

Vehicle Licensing Reform Project—Discussion Document

9. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements have been made by the Government in relation to New Zealand’s vehicle licensing system?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Transport): Today I launched at Parliament the Vehicle Licensing Reform discussion document. The reform project, jointly led by the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency, is looking at ways to improve the warrant of fitness, certificate of fitness, annual licensing, and transport services licensing systems. The key question for this Government is whether we can make these systems simpler and better in order to save Kiwis time and money while still maintaining safety on our roads. I invite the public and interested stakeholders to make a submission and have their say on systems that affect the vast majority of New Zealanders.

Scott Simpson: Given that the Government is seeking ways to make these systems simpler and better in order to save Kiwis time and money, what are some of the options presented in the discussion document?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: In relation to warrants of fitness, there are several options in the paper.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Simon says.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, New Zealanders do care about this, Mr Peters. One option is looking at changing the frequency of inspections—for example, yearly inspections for vehicles up to 12 years old, and 6 monthly thereafter, or inspections only at change of ownership. These are not preferred options, and there may be others. What we know is that New Zealand’s inspection frequency in this area is higher than that of most other OECD countries.

Prime Minister—Statements

10. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “I do not know so much about ‘Planet Key’, but my expectations are it would be a lovely place to live, it would be beautifully governed, golf courses would be plentiful, people would have plenty of holidays to enjoy their time, and what a wonderful place it would be”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. But I feel that I was remiss in not adding that the only place you would find the greens would be on the golf courses. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei’s supplementary question. [Interruption] Order! On this occasion it is the National members who are being unreasonably loud.

Metiria Turei: On “Planet Key”, his idea of nirvana, are 270,000 children living in poverty while their mums earn $13.50 an hour cleaning the toilets on his plentiful golf courses?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. We would not have toilets on “Planet Key”. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Someone will be going if they are not silent while I am on my feet. [Interruption] Look, the House will come to order, and that includes braying like a jackass when I am on my feet. That is not acceptable.

Metiria Turei: On “Planet Key”, his version of nirvana, would women receive equal pay for equal work, and pay equity for equivalent work, so that women, too, can enjoy plenty of holidays with their families?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. People would not be working; they would be having a great time with leisure.

Metiria Turei: Back in the real world, where 150,000 children—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has every right to ask her question, and I want to hear it.

Metiria Turei: Back in the real world, where 150,000 New Zealand children in beneficiary households live in severe poverty, why does he consistently refuse any solution to bring them out of that poverty, including a targeted child payment, which would help these children to be fed as they deserve to be?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Here in New Zealand—if that is what the member is referring to—in fact, this Government has done a great deal to try to help at-risk young children. That includes, in the worst of times, maintaining large recycling of payments through the likes of Working for Families. We have set a target to make sure that 98 percent of youngsters get into early childhood education. We have been increasing the numbers of youngsters who are going into early childhood education. We have set a target of having 95 percent infant immunisation rates. In fact, again we have been seeing immunisation rates go up. We have set a target to reduce rheumatic fever by two-thirds, and, again, we are starting to see that reduction. We are undertaking significant welfare reform, because we know that about 220,000 children are growing up in welfare-based homes, and we know the fastest way out of poverty is to get into paid employment.

Metiria Turei: Why should 150,000 poor, hungry children have to wait for him to deliver the 87,000 jobs that their parents would need to get off the benefit before he will step up and do something for them? Why do they not deserve to live in a wonderful place too?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think it is really important to understand that businesses deliver jobs, so what the Government is focused on doing is making sure that we have the environment that encourages people to create jobs. We have seen 50,000 new jobs created in the last couple of years. We have also seen that member resist every measure that this Government has taken to deliver an environment that would be more conducive to job growth. If the member wants to follow her policy prescription, she had actually better get used to signing up to a whole lot more kids not having parents who are working.

Jacinda Ardern: When he said that he would not support Labour’s Child Poverty Bill because “it needed a range of measures of poverty”, had he actually read it, given it includes four measures of poverty, or is it in the same reading pile as John Banks’ police file?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It certainly deserves to be, but, no, I have actually, funnily enough, read a little bit of it. What the member, I think, actually goes on to say is that there should be social obligations in it—something she was bagging National for when it was doing it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister show these kids that he cares about them and support my bill for a child payment for the 150,000 New Zealand children who, unlike his mates on “Planet Key”, do not get a holiday from poverty?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I really take offence when the member says that we do not care about these young New Zealanders. This Government spends a huge amount of time, money, and energy focused on those young New Zealanders and on trying to give them help. If the member thinks that that will be resolved without giving them a decent education—because she does not support all the measures that this Government has taken to lift education standards—then she is dreaming. If the member thinks that that can be achieved by a universal payment, as I said to the member some time ago, she comes into this House and she bags this Government because she argues that we have people who are well off, and then she wants to give the same millionaires yet more money to raise their kids. She is barking mad if that is what she thinks.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that last statement. That is totally unfair. The Prime Minister should withdraw and apologise for that last statement.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw and apologise.

Employment, 90-day Trial Period and Changes to Minimum Wage—Effect on Women

11. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: How have employment law changes relating to the minimum wage and 90-day trial implemented by the Government improved the working lives of New Zealand women?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): This Government is focused on creating labour market and economic conditions that help create more jobs and higher wages for all New Zealanders, including women. The member should really be aware, however, that we have not made any changes to the minimum wage legislation. However, we have increased the minimum wage each year at a sustainable and responsible rate to ensure that purchasing power is retained without throwing jobs on the scrap heap. In terms of the 90-day trials, research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has previously told us that 90-day trials led to 13,000 new jobs in small and medium sized businesses. Many of these 13,000 will, of course, be filled by women. New data now confirms that extending 90-day trials to all businesses has been a great success, and is especially beneficial for young people and the long-term unemployed, including women.

Darien Fenton: If, as she claims, her 90-day trial period has been so successful, why are there now 26,000 more women unemployed than when the policy began, and why cannot she find any real women to talk about it and support it?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I know of a lot of real women who can actually sing the praises of the 90-day trial period. But can I just correct the member. There were actually 3,000 more women in employment in the June 2012 quarter than in the previous quarter. That is more women, not fewer.

Darien Fenton: Does she agree that the working lives of the 60 percent of working women who rely on the minimum wage will be improved with a $15 minimum wage, or is she determined to keep women in their place in low-paying jobs in the service sector?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I do not think anybody is suggesting that life on the minimum wage is that easy, and these are difficult economic times. But actually, on official figures in our advice, if we immediately jumped to Labour’s $15-per-hour policy, that would see up to 3,350 women lose their jobs—thrown out of a job, on the dole. That is not a good look on Suffrage Day.

Darien Fenton: How will her plans to make it harder to settle collective agreements and to allow employers to pay new workers less than the collective agreement on a job improve the working lives of women, or is the plan really about driving wages even lower?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: In answer to the second part of that question, to be succinct, no.

Retirement Savings—Trans-Tasman Portability

12. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Revenue: What progress has the Government made towards making retirement savings portable between New Zealand and Australia?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): There has been very good progress towards implementing a trans-Tasman retirement savings portability scheme, which strongly reflects our aim of achieving a seamless trans-Tasman economic environment. New Zealand passed legislation implementing savings portability in 2010, and yesterday the Australian Government released its draft legislation for savings portability, which would mark the near completion of the necessary legislative steps so that portability can go live in 2013. Under that scheme New Zealanders will be able to transfer savings between approved Australian superannuation funds and their KiwiSaver accounts. That will be particularly good news for KiwiSavers because it makes it easier for Kiwis returning home from Australia to bring their retirement savings with them.

Todd McClay: What benefits will retirement savings portability bring to KiwiSavers?

Hon PETER DUNNE: As I said, it is important as part of helping the free movement of people between Australia and New Zealand. It removes a barrier to New Zealanders returning home. It enables them to consolidate their financial affairs in New Zealand, and that in turn will bring down the cost of managing a number of the retirement funds and so increase the amount they have got available to draw upon in their retirement. The Australian Taxation Office has noted that the amount of lost accounts in the Australian superannuation system is presently about $16.6 billion. Much of that money could belong to New Zealanders who have returned home, and the new portability rules will enable those funds to be recovered, brought back to New Zealand, and consolidated into people’s own KiwiSaver accounts here.

Todd McClay: How will retirement savings portability strengthen economic ties between Australia and New Zealand?

Hon PETER DUNNE: It is part of the range of moves towards establishing a single economic market between Australia and New Zealand. What this will do is improve labour market mobility between both countries, because it will give people some security about the nature of their retirement savings. It is interesting to note that the productivity commissions on both sides of the Tasman supported the scheme because they saw it as a key part of strengthening our trans-Tasman economic relationship.

Questions to Members

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill—Report-back Date and Submissions Received

1. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: When will the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be reported back to the House and approximately how many written submissions have been received on the Bill?

NICKY WAGNER (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The bill is due to be reported to the House on 5 November 2012. The deadline for submissions was 26 July 2012, and the committee has received 667 written submissions on the bill. That figure includes supplementary submissions.

Andrew Williams: What has been the general consensus—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was an unfortunate comment from, I think, the chair, or, certainly, through the chair’s mike, which was that you should know because you are on the committee. Mr Speaker, that is clearly not the case.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not helping the good order of the House. I did not hear. The member gave, I think, a comprehensive answer to the question asked, and I think we should proceed.

Andrew Williams: What has been the general consensus of most submissions by local authorities and Local Government New Zealand?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now asking about the nature of submissions. That is a matter for the committee. The member may now go on to question No. 2.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Purpose

2. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill): The intention of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill is to amend section 8 of the principal Act to give the Reserve Bank a broader ambit when implementing monetary policy. The bill would mean that the Reserve Bank would have to consider a much wider range of counter-inflationary measures, which about 50 other economies are doing, I might add, as well as supplementary tools for managing the exchange rate.

Andrew Williams: What additional tools could the Reserve Bank use?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is an excellent question. Such tools would include tightening capital controls, which would reduce the inflow of so-called “hot” money and lead to a depreciation of the exchange rate. Another option is the introduction of a cap on the New Zealand dollar, which would require the Reserve Bank to sell New Zealand dollars and purchase foreign assets when the dollar reaches a certain threshold, which it is now well past and is damaging the New Zealand export sector.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Effect on Policy

3. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: How will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill help the Reserve Bank pursue a balanced macro-economic policy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill): Another very pertinent question. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—[Interruption] Well, if I represented the rural parts of this country, I would take notice about this, because it is certainly damaging them right now. The bill would require the Reserve Bank to incorporate into its monetary policy the goal of achieving a stable and competitive exchange rate. The effect of a stable and competitive exchange rate would be a more productive export sector, which would increase national income and get more New Zealanders into real work.

Andrew Williams: What is the outlook for New Zealand without a balanced macroeconomic policy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a great question. The answer is more of the same—more of the same—only worse: hundreds of manufacturing jobs being lost each week; more manufacturing closures; cutbacks and relocations offshore; more farmers sliding into economic difficulty, where one in five is currently now; well over 50,000 New Zealanders going now, every year, to Australia; a worsening balance of payments crisis, as evidenced today, as evidenced this very day by the current account deficit reaching 4.9 percent and heading towards 7 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I think the answer has been of sufficient length.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I move that the House burst into spontaneous applause for this bill, which will save our—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not assisting with the good order of the House.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Timing

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): My question is to the former Treasurer, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Andrew Williams, question No. 4.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: To the former Treasurer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has to be to the promoter of the bill.

4. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: Why is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill needed now?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill): New Zealand’s dollar is heading for parity with the US dollar. Our current account deficit is forecast to reach almost 7 percent in the next 2 years. As we know, an average of 100 manufacturing jobs are being lost each week and the high dollar is estimated to be costing exporters well over $2 billion a year. We need to have a serious public debate about the future of monetary policy, and, in particular, the historically high dollar.

Andrew Williams: What is the international context of the bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a superb question, because this House has heard that we cannot take measures—except, around the world, Governments and central banks are placing greater emphasis on their exchange rate. The United States right now, for example, recently began its third round of qualitative easing. So has the United Kingdom. The European Central Bank has cut interest rates. Singapore, Japan, and Switzerland are actively trading against their respective currencies. Other countries such as Brazil and Canada are operating capital controls, whilst we resemble Spain.

Urgent Debates Declined

Government Financial Position—June 2012 Balance of Payments and International Investment Position

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Statistics New Zealand media release today entitled Balance of Payments and International Investment Position: June 2012 Quarter. The Government Statistician has sole responsibility for deciding the extent, form, and timing of the publications of statistics that Statistics New Zealand produces. The member in his application refers to the increasing current account deficit. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance to warrant a debate being held. Neither a continuing problem nor an accumulation of information meets that test. The application is therefore declined.

General Debate

General Debate

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I want to take a bit of time in the general debate this afternoon to talk about the closure of one of the two Norske Skog mills—confirmed in Kawerau—thereby halving the production of that particular mill. At its peak that mill had 2,000 workers employed every day. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could we just stop our clock to allow those who are moving out just to vacate the premises?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member—and if the member would not mind resuming his seat for a moment—makes a perfectly fair point. I would ask members who are moving out of the Chamber to please to do it quietly. [Interruption] Order! That is just discourteous to the member with the call.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is appreciated. As I was saying, the mill at its peak, a few years ago, had 2,000 employees, and now it employs 290 workers, and it is estimated that, with the closure of one of these mills, there will be about 120 jobs lost. That follows in the wake of 120 redundancies at Solid Energy’s Huntly mine. I was up there about a week ago, and 400 jobs are under threat at Spring Creek Mine, and another 100 jobs are on the line at Tīwai Point aluminium smelter. So these are tough times, especially for the smaller towns that have already been through more than their fair share of difficulties over the years. Kawerau is no different. But the difference in Kawerau is that it means a hell of a lot more, and it is not just about the loss of jobs.

Many will remember the large lay-offs in the 1990s. What we know from the time is that the Government needed to give support and respond appropriately in order to alleviate the burden on that particular community. My plea is that we have nothing less than that for the township of Kawerau. In Kawerau the mill is the major employer, and as with every sort of major recession small towns with one major employer are hugely impacted upon. It creates huge issues for the community. The local community is heavily reliant on the mill, and the losses are going to have a massive effect on Kawerau. We need definitely to protect local jobs and keep our people at home, not just joining the flight of people heading overseas to Australia, and we need a high-wage economy. The Government needs to take a more active role, I believe, to build on the assets in the town.

The predominance of Māori in these types of small towns is very typical—Kawerau, the likes of Murupara, and so on—and it happens for two reasons. The first one is cheaper and more affordable housing, and, in this case, an ability for people to own their own homes. Secondly, people are able to live in their own tribal rohe and their own tribal boundaries. Without a major employer to support the very fabric of the community, these small towns become pretty much a waiting time bomb when recession and other economic effects start to bite. They eat at the very heart of the community, and it is pretty much a straight recipe for disaster.

With now over 19,000 Māori unemployed nationally, of whom over a quarter are Māori youth, we have to think about Kawerau as both a crisis—yes, absolutely—and our greatest opportunity to do something. It is pretty good to hear the Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce, talk about creating new opportunities through the concept of a Primary Growth Partnership. We can either think about the downstream effects, such as the heightened sense of poverty, more welfare dependency, and the lack of opportunities, or, on the other hand, we can provide opportunities and some solutions within that community, and that is why the Māori Party has been very much looking at the development of a marae central business district as a way forward.

I will not deliver too much about that, but the general focus is to aim to support marae to support their whānau, hapū, and iwi to undertake their aspirations with a particular focus on employment and education, and possibly into housing. It is about conceiving of developmental opportunities that are based around marae as focal points for their communities. We want to see pathways to employment be the focus of the agenda of every marae and every board meeting, right up through to the Cabinet table. But Māori need to take a leadership role in looking at finding our own solutions to employment, along with, obviously, other stakeholders.

The role of Government could be to facilitate and to enable joint ventures to focus on increasing employment opportunities with Māori collectives, incorporations, and other enterprises, and we hope that that will happen. We also know that the knock-on effect of job losses and the announcements flow into other industries that support Norse Skog in the wider Eastern Bay of Plenty region. That is going to be huge, and we need to consider that. For example, the demand for pulp from Carter Holt Harvey will force a reduction in revenue and, ultimately, jobs with them as well. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): It is always a pleasure to follow the member Te Ururoa Flavell, who has just resumed his seat. He is always a thoughtful member, and, although we do not always agree on things, he is a gentleman and, I think, a valued member of this House.

I acknowledge that today is Women’s Suffrage Day and I am going to indulge myself by actually mentioning a few stunning women in New Zealand. Obviously, I acknowledge our head of State, the Queen, and her 60 years of service. I would like to acknowledge all women members of Parliament across the House for their contributions. I would specifically like to mention two women leaders in the House, and that is the Hon Tariana Turia and Metiria Turei, who is very keen on “Planet Key”—and who can blame her? I also acknowledge the women members of Cabinet: the Hon Hekia Parata, Paula Bennett, Anne Tolley, Kate Wilkinson, Amy Adams, as well as Jo Goodhew, our Minister of Women’s Affairs, who does a sterling job. I also acknowledge in the judiciary the heads of bench: the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias; the Chief High Court Judge, Helen Winkelmann; and the Chief District Court Judge, Jan-Marie Doogue—all appointments by a National-led Government. And can I acknowledge all the hard-working mothers and grandmothers who help make all things possible.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the very first woman Prime Minister New Zealand has ever had, the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley. I must say that Jenny Shipley is a woman of strength and vision—a woman I am proud to call a friend. I would like to acknowledge Jenny for the contribution she has made to this House and for what she has done since.

Unfortunately, today we have had the Labour Party mired in muck all the way through question time. Were those members talking about the things people want to talk about? Were they talking about the work that Te Ururoa Flavell talked about? Did they care about the people of Kawerau? No, not one bit. What they cared about was wallowing down in the muck. Actually, whatever happened to David Shearer leading a Labour Party that supposedly does not want to talk about “gotcha politics”? Whatever happened to that? Whatever happened to the “Mr Clean” Shearer? Well, he has gone. The entire Opposition should resign. In fact, what those members should do is put the Greens in there, because they are far more competent than the Labour Party, even though they have half the number of members. Frankly, even Winston Peters is starting to look pretty good after the Labour Party, and that is saying something.

What I can say is what this Government is doing. We are just getting on with the business—we are getting on with the business. We have a 30-year low in crime, which is down to 1982 levels. We have tougher sentences for criminals and for crimes against children, and we have brought in legislation to help save the community from our worst recidivist violent offenders. We have done all of those sorts of things.

We have got the health system working. The health system is working. We have put $2 billion extra into it since we have been in Government and we have got the health system working.

Mr Flavell made a very good point about the economy. This is the Government that kept the Hobbits in New Zealand. We kept them away from the Hobbit haters on the other side of the House—the people who wanted to destroy our film industry in New Zealand by scaring away the little hobbits. Well, they will be the first people on the red carpet, turning up to the premiere, trying to get their photo with Peter Jackson, will they not? Gosh, I hope he cannot be bothered with them, because, quite frankly, that is what they are.

One of the other points that I heard today in the House was about inflation and what has happened to inflation. Let us have a look at this: we have the lowest inflation rate since 1999—yes—and the lowest interest rates in 40 years. What does that mean for ordinary New Zealanders? It means that if they have got a $200,000 mortgage, which for most New Zealanders is actually pretty standard, they are actually now paying $200 a week less on their mortgage than they were when Labour was in Government.

I have heard the people on the other side suggesting that we drop the exchange rate and that we do all these sorts of things as though it would actually be effective. Well, I will tell them what it would do: interest rates would go up, the cost of living would go up, transport would go up, and oil would go up. Everything would go up, and that party over there, represented by Mr Peters, would be turning round and saying “Well, why aren’t you doing something about it?”. That is, in fact, the answer.

This Government is getting on to the business. The other side is talking and whingeing and moaning. We are doing the job, and that is what New Zealanders want us to do.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Well, 119 years ago today New Zealand women won the right to vote, and we were the first in the world to win the right to vote, so I think it is timely to ask what Kate Sheppard would think. What would she think of question time today, with John Key slipping and sliding all over the place in order to defend John Banks? He is a Prime Minister who cannot even be bothered to read a police report. What would Kate Sheppard think of a Prime Minister running this country who is pretending now that he cannot even read? He cannot even read about what his Ministers have been up to, and he is not taking any responsibility. I do not think that that is what Kate Sheppard had in mind when she cycled all around Canterbury, getting signatures on that petition to uphold our democracy. I think she would be ashamed of the performance from the Prime Minister today.

I also think she would be ashamed of that Government, the National Government, blocking the extension to paid parental leave. I do not think that is what she had in mind either when she did all of that work, led those women and very good men, to ensure that women had the right to vote in New Zealand. I am pretty sure that she would be ashamed that a Minister of Women’s Affairs in the year 2012 spoke against and voted against extending paid parental leave to 6 months, and that this Government thinks it is OK that women, for financial reasons, have to leave their 14-week-old babies behind while they go back into the paid workforce. I do not think that is the vision that Kate Sheppard had for this country.

I also think that she would be ashamed, as the United Nations was, actually, about this Government’s record in closing down the pay and employment equity unit. National had barely taken charge of the Treasury benches when one of its first acts was to close down that opportunity for pay and employment equity to be addressed in this country. As a report of the Government Administration Committee recently noted, the only work now being undertaken by that Government to address the gender pay gap of 12 percent in this country is to say: “Well, women just have to go off and get men’s jobs.”

That is the only answer that the Government has, and this is what the multiparty select committee had to say about it in its report 2010/11 financial review of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs: “We are concerned that the ministry has ceased work on pay equity in those occupations and professions dominated by women. We were informed that the ministry’s only strategy for closing the gender pay gap is to encourage women into male-dominated occupations and professions.” Well, that just lacks the sort of vision that Kate Sheppard and her contemporaries had 119 years ago—that the only way forward for women in terms of closing the gender pay gap in this country would be to go and do men’s jobs.

Then there is the rate of female unemployment. This year it reached 7.2 percent under that Government. That is the highest rate since the last time we had a National Government in place. It is the highest rate of female unemployment since 1998. The other thing that the Government did was reduce its ambition for having women on boards. Under Labour we had a target of having 50 percent women membership on State sector boards by 2012. But this lazy Government would not go down that path, and has reduced it to 45 percent by 2014.

Then there is the issue of how the Government treats education. The Government got the class sizes issue wrong because it does not understand how strongly women feel about education for their children—not only having an education and access to it but the quality of the education for their children. The Government also does not understand the importance to New Zealand women of early childhood education and the priority that that should be. Again, that was one of the first areas that this Government cut into. In Budget 2010 the Government cut $400 million out of the early childhood education budget. The Government not only cut it out of the early childhood education budget but it did it in a way that would affect women’s employment, because it cut the funding for gaining 100 percent qualified staff in early childhood education.

Hon Anne Tolley: This member never gets it right.

SUE MORONEY: That Minister did it when she was in charge. Being a qualified teacher in early childhood education is a great career pathway for women, and it was specifically the funding that underpinned it that the Government cut.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs): Over the last several days I have been disappointed in the Labour Party, even by my own exceptionally low standards for that party—even by my own low standards. I will tell you, they had David Shearer stutter his way through Q+A on Sunday. Do you know what the real tragedy in that was? In a country where we should have a viable democracy, we would hope to have a Leader of the Opposition who could at least front up and give us an alternative viewpoint on the issues, on the big issues that New Zealanders want to know about and want a straight answer from the Opposition on. They are not getting it from David Shearer.

There is water. Not everyone may agree with our solution on water and what we say and what the position is, but at least we have got a position. David Shearer equivocated his way through several minutes of interview on that issue, and the people of New Zealand expect and demand an answer from the Opposition. We saw the same on the issue of jobs, and so on—no answers to the issues that this country has.

In Parliament over the last couple of days there has been a growing issue about decorum in the way things go in this Parliament. We have seen a party on the other side where the only things that excite its members are the salacious, the trivial, the petty, and the rude. They come to this House like performing seals, wanting to perform for Kim Dotcom, who seems to be in town. They come here, and that is the best they can do. Those are the issues that excite Trevor Mallard, Chris Hipkins, and Kris Faafoi, rather than the real issues that this country has. There are real issues—we accept that—and this party has answers to those real issues. On the real issues, even the solutions that they claim to have are an embarrassment.

Dr David Clark: What are they?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: David Clark asks: “What are they?”. Well, I will give David Clark his dues. At least he has got a member’s bill—at least he has got a member’s bill. But let us look at that member’s bill—$15 minimum wage. Well, look at our record. We have incrementally put the minimum wage up, but to put the minimum wage up to $15 at this time would mean up to 5,500 jobs down the toilet, Dr Clark. I have talked to cafe owners in my electorate of Tauranga in Greerton. They have told me that they will be laying people off if the minimum wage goes up to $15. So he thinks that he has a solution, but it is a sham and a shameful solution to that problem.

And then we come to New Zealand First, where we saw today at question time what I thought was a competition between a couple of gentlemen for the deputy leadership of that party. My money is on Prosser—my money is on Prosser, actually. He did not get a question. He is the silent, thoughtful one in that party. Again, to give them their dues, the Rt Hon Winston Peters got a member’s bill in today on a very real issue: the exchange rate. But will it work? Will it work? Quantitative easing—he refers to America and what they are doing over there, where they are putting $50 billion of new money into the economy, I think, every month. Is that going to work? It is a bit like drugs, or in Grant Robertson’s case a sugar rush. You have got to keep on feeding the habit, otherwise there is the comedown. It is at best only a temporary solution.

Yet even if we said that it does work—even if we said that it does work—could this country of 4.5 million compete with a big country putting in $50 billion a month? Could we compete? Could we have any effect on the exchange rate? No, we could not. It is snake oil economics from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I ask him to expand on and answer those points that I have raised.

But on this side there is a Government focused on the real issues, on balancing the finances in 2014-15, on doing that over time, and on absolutely working on a more productive and competitive economy. And that is why today I put out a discussion document on vehicle licensing reform. Actually—they laugh, they laugh—hundreds of millions of dollars potentially could be saved for ordinary Kiwis. Let me tell you that that is what ordinary Kiwis care about, not Kim Dotcom coming to town and the performing seals on that side of the House, who want to wallow in the mud and the salacious issues. This is a Government focused on the real issues, and that is why we will still be the Government in another few years.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Today, Women’s Suffrage Day, was a chance for the Government to put up some strong women speakers to praise the women of New Zealand, and to congratulate them on 119 years since we received the vote and the work that women have done in this country. But what did we get from the National Party? We got “Crusher” Collins, who stood up and insulted everybody, and then we got the member for Tauranga, Simon Bridges, whose only role in this House is to have patsy questions asked about issues that no one has any interest in—lots of insults, yelling, ranting, and raving.

Well, I want to say that some of us are celebrating women’s suffrage today. I started with a celebratory breakfast in good company and lively discussion, because 119 years since New Zealand women got the vote is worth celebrating. We were the first country in the world to give women the vote, and it is something that we as a nation have been particularly proud of. You only need to look at a country like Switzerland, which did not give women the vote until 1971, to know that New Zealand has been a leader in social and economic reforms throughout our history. You only need to go back to the first Labour Government of 1935, which put in place our health system, our social security system, and our education system, much of which has survived today, even though we have had periodic attacks by right-wing Governments in the past. We have been international leaders in many issues—nuclear-free New Zealand, smoke-free legislation, and human rights legislation. For a small country, we continue to show leadership in many fields, driven by committed, compassionate, and determined Kiwis.

But it is not good enough to wallow in the past, or to rest on our achievements built up by others who have been prepared to make the right decisions. It is time to look to the future for New Zealand women, to look forward, say, 50 years, when a 15-year-old young girl today would be going into retirement. I know that some politicians in this House like to live in 3-year election cycles and to find out if they can get themselves back into power, but we should start looking at the growing signs that we have of future problems that are appearing right now that are going to affect young women in the future.

One of them has to be the cost and the availability of housing for single women. There has been a rise in the homelessness of women. Women are sleeping rough in the streets not just in the big cities of Auckland and Wellington but in places like Nelson. The warning signals are being sent out by those social agencies right now. They are the people who are on the street and who are seeing what is happening day by day. For decades we have had homelessness amongst men. We have accommodated them in night shelters. But now we have a new problem emerging: homelessness amongst single women of all ages. In fact, the problem has got so big in Nelson that the Salvation Army is undertaking a major piece of work to focus on why single women are becoming homeless and what plans it could have for housing in the future. It has found increasing numbers of single women are sleeping in cars, are couch surfing, or are in short-term hostels.

One of the reasons it has found is housing affordability. It is getting worse. There are fewer low-income homes available. Here in Wellington there is a growing number of homeless women, and it is being put down once again to the cost of housing, a housing shortage, and a lack of jobs. Contrary to the popular belief, many of these people are well-educated women. They are not the stereotypical dropouts or checkouts of society that some people may think.

Look forward 50 years, and we are looking at women living to almost 89 years of age. Women will retire on less superannuation than men. Women will still have student loans outstanding when they retire, and many of them will not own their own home at retirement age. Combine that with the growing crisis of a lack of affordable housing, and the picture is one of poverty in older New Zealanders, particularly for women, in the not too distant future. Is that a legacy we want to leave to the women of New Zealand?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): I am very happy to rise and take a call in this general debate, on what is the 119th celebration of New Zealand women becoming the first in the world to have the right to vote. I want to acknowledge the hard work of our suffragette forebears—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Suffragist.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —suffragist, thank you—and, actually, also to acknowledge the role of members of this House who at the time worked with those women to ensure the legislation was passed through the House, including Sir John Hall, whom I have referenced previously. I think it is important, actually, and timely on Women’s Suffrage Day to look back to where we have come from, but also to look forward to where we are going.

We have said often from this side of the House that what we are focused on is making a real difference on the things that Kiwis care about, and I tell you, in my view, that is jobs, incomes, and opportunities. The difference between this side of the House and our opponents is that we understand that to create those things, you have to get the conditions right for businesses to create those jobs, because at the end of the day there is no getting away from the fact that Governments do not create jobs; businesses do. If we are going to be serious about creating jobs, creating more opportunities, and creating a better future for our New Zealanders, we have to play our part in setting those conditions right.

Time and time again we hear shrieking, volume, and derisive put-downs from the Opposition. It is masking a complete lack of policies and ideas. Thos members are quite happy to sit there and shriek “Where are the jobs?”, but they block every single opportunity to come up with more jobs in this country. They block the advancement of agriculture. They block the advancement of our mineral exploration industry. They block our manufacturing issues. They block Minister Wilkinson’s labour market reforms. They want to stop everything that will create jobs. So when they stand in this House and say they want jobs, I would say to them that if they are serious about wanting jobs, they need to get serious about supporting the policies of this Government that will create the conditions for businesses to create jobs.

We are focused on the things that businesses need for them to be successful. We are focused on export markets, recognising that New Zealand will only ever be successful if it trades with the world. We make our living by trading with the world. We are not going to become prosperous from looking entirely inwardly, and so we are developing strong export markets, led very ably by Minister Tim Groser. We are working on a capital markets reform and ensuring that businesses have the access to capital that they need. We are developing the strong, resilient infrastructure that is needed, including the fantastic work that is going into the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative. We are focusing on making sure that our workplaces have access to skilled labour and that they operate in safe environments. We have a strong focus on innovation and we have an active work programme on how we can develop and use our natural resources better.

One of the things we have to do is manage the Government finances far better. Minister English is driving an excellent programme to ensure that Government debt remains below 30 percent. If we do not do that, we risk losing the ability to trade efficiently in the world, to access capital, and to provide businesses with the stable framework that they need. This Government understands that to get to that point and to maintain our trajectory—to remain under 30 percent—we have to make some tough decisions, and we are prepared to front them. What we are not prepared to do is preside over a borrow-and-spend regime that we have seen too often from the opposite side.

It is working. We have seen more jobs created as a consequence of the reforms that we have made to date. We have seen an efficient tax structure put in place. We know wages are up 20 percent since we have taken office. We have inflation and interest at their lowest rates for some time. These are the conditions that create jobs. This is the work of a productive National Government. This is why we are seeing jobs created. This is why New Zealand is in a far stronger position than its international compatriots. We are not saying it is easy. These are tough times internationally. But if you look around the world at the countries we benchmark ourselves against, New Zealand is in a much stronger position. We have a strong position. We are attractive to other entities, and that is because of the sensible reforms of this Government.

New Zealanders know they need to work harder, they need to be productive, we need to play to our strengths, and we have to earn the money before we can spend it. It is very easy to stand up in this House with a myriad of policies that involve putting it on the credit card, keeping on spending the money, throwing it around, and making sure the voters turn up with the promise of everything you are going to give them in the lolly scramble. We are not going to do that. We are going to make sure we run a robust, resilient economy, and we are going to continue to do that because we know that at the end of the day that is what matters to New Zealand—more jobs and more opportunities. That is what this National Government is delivering.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): There sits a member, Amy Adams, who is totally oblivious to the explosion in the current account deficit that was announced today. Is there a person in this House who does not believe that the dollar is seriously overvalued in this country? No. Is there a serious economic commentator who does not believe that the dollar is seriously overvalued? No. Yet the Government has its arms firmly folded and is resisting all attempts to reform and update the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. The Government is locked into an outdated economic orthodoxy. The fixation is that inflation is public enemy No. 1, and every other economic policy has to be subordinated to that cause. That thinking is from another era.

Right now, inflation is not the No. 1 problem. The main economic issue we are facing is a chronically overvalued exchange rate. That overvalued exchange rate is crippling our international competitiveness and undermining our economic prospects. That overvalued dollar is massively damaging in the area of competitive devaluations, as countries around the world strive to protect their export sectors in the wake of the global economic crisis. With a backdrop of global economic uncertainty and weakness, countries that rely on exports, as we do, are exploring every chance and opportunity and mechanism to stay competitive. That is why we seek to amend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—to have an Act that meets the needs of current conditions and removes a brake on our economy. This bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill, will mean the Reserve Bank can pursue a balanced macroeconomic policy, in which price stability, although important, is no longer the overriding policy objective.

In the face of the damage being done by an overvalued exchange rate, the Government has its head firmly in the sand. The Government asserts that there is nothing to be done and it cannot take any action. It is sticking to its conventional wisdom that the exchange rate is beyond its power to influence, and it is demonstrably wrong, as over 50 countries around the world are proving now every day. Meanwhile, international competitiveness deteriorates. We are falling behind in our efforts to pay our way in the world, and for New Zealand there is a debt time bomb ticking. We need to start the task of defusing that bomb with urgency, because the latest figures show that at the end of June—the figures announced today, which the member completely forgot about—the deficit is 72 percent of GDP. How is that? Net international debt stood at $148 billion. That is up $12 billion in 1 year—massive figures.

But how are we going to pay this massive debt while we are eroding our export capacity? From Tīwai Point to Tauranga, to Auckland and all points north and south, businesses are closing monthly because they can no longer compete internationally. The means we have of eventually paying off the debt are being sacrificed on an altar of economic theory. The export businesses that are closing are not coming back. No magic wand will bring them back now. Instead of tinkering with deckchairs, such as the reorganisation of Government agencies, the Government should have as its priority creating the conditions in which our exporters can grow.

This legislation will give the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act the flexibility it needs to promote growth, employment, and our export base. Is the bill perfect? No. Can it be improved in the light of debate and scrutiny? Of course it can. The bill does not purport to have every last detail of monetary policy settled. What we seek to do is provide progress towards an exchange rate that reflects New Zealand’s economic fundamentals. It provides for positive action and a way forward, and a rational Government would admit that the current Reserve Bank is not working and that change is definitely needed. There will be a change of views on how that change is best achieved.

But I want to say this to those who have doubts over there today: remember the famous words of Oliver Cromwell when he said “consider you may be wrong.” Consider you may be wrong. We will go to US90c before too long, we will go further down the OECD, and very soon we are going to be in a trough, from which this Government will never take us out. That is when it is going out of power, far sooner than it thinks, because around New Zealand, provincial New Zealanders—country voters—are beginning to wake up to the fact that the party they voted for through all these years, and in which they placed their trust, does not give a damn about them and cares only for the paper shufflers and the paper movers of Queen Street and of foreign boardrooms.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): Being from the heartland, rural New Zealand, it is always interesting to follow on from a speaker like the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and it is also interesting for someone who is actually in the export industry and in the agricultural sector, as well. Clearly there are some inflationary pressures on that export sector, but what is the answer? That is the question. What is the answer? Tinkering at the edges in the way suggested by those who have just entered into the debate clearly is not the answer. When you look at what is being achieved, what is tangible, and what can be measured; when you talk about after-tax wages being up by 20 percent since 2008; when you talk about the lowest inflation since 1999; and when you talk about the lowest interest rates in 45 years, these are measurable, tangible actions taken by our Government. It is not a lot of hot air and puffery from those who have had their chance, who have had their day in the sun, and who have achieved nothing in their time.

I see a major threat on the horizon, if you like, to the growth of the New Zealand economy. I see a major threat. It is the misinformation, the lack of understanding, and the inability to want to read and understand some of the concerns that are facing our major export industries, like some of the things that we have read and seen in recent times. One such thing is a submission by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for example, during the recent select committee process on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, suggesting that agriculture should be included in an emissions trading tax. That is based on an assumption that approximately 50 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas comes from that sector. Mr Speaker, I know that you would know, with your education, probably better than anyone in this House that that is demonstrably challengeable. It is absolutely challengeable. In fact, the science around that is substantially flawed.

To continue repeating the lie that was generated by the previous Government and continued ever since that up to 50 percent of our greenhouse gases come from the agricultural sector, when over the time since that was first commented on—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The only reason for making this point of order is to underline and make clear what has just been said, and to say that pursuant to the discussions that occurred in and out of the House yesterday, I am pleased that the new standards are being applied.

Mr SPEAKER: The member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He called us liars.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! He did not accuse any member—particular member—of lying. The member should not—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Collectively—the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER: He referred to an issue as being a lie; that is a totally different context. The members should not interrupt the 5-minute speech.

SHANE ARDERN: The member knows no better, and has consistently—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not to break up the speech, but I just ask you to ask the member, once you have ruled, not to comment on your ruling, as he just did.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is breaking up his speech. It does not help the good order of the House.

SHANE ARDERN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will refrain from commenting in response to that. Here is a member who was in the House yesterday crying crocodile tears over the closure of schools in Christchurch, when he closed more schools in Taranaki with one stroke of a pen than any other member in this House, and there was no justification for that. So that member knows no different. He has always been the same. That is about where I will leave that.

Going back to the issue of climate change and the environmental effects brought about by our primary sector, it would be so helpful to this debate and so helpful to the economy of New Zealand if, at some stage, a few facts were introduced into the discussion. So far, there has been a range of events in this discussion that have not been able to substantiate those facts.

If we do accept—and I do not—that 50 percent of the greenhouse gas from New Zealand comes from agriculture—and it certainly is challengeable in science—then what would introducing a tax on that achieve in terms of climate change? What would it achieve? What it would do is drive production from one of the most efficient production systems offshore. Therefore, you would have those levels of production being produced in countries that have higher greenhouse gas emissions from their production systems, and less production in New Zealand. Explain to me how that would help the New Zealand economy, given the dependence of the New Zealand economy on agricultural exports.

It is without the slightest bit of rationale or logic that we would introduce a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from our agricultural sector. Those who promote that clearly have no interest in watching “New Zealand Inc.” improve or grow, and have no interest in improving the standard of living of New Zealanders.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): Women’s Suffrage Day celebrates women’s right to vote. As we have heard a number of speakers say, New Zealand was the first country in the world to allow that to occur. This is a day that we should be able to celebrate. This is a day where we should all be able to join together and celebrate the wonderfulness of having been that first country that acknowledged the role of women in our country’s democracy.

I think the other place that we should be really thinking of today is Christchurch, because, of course, Christchurch was home to Kate Sheppard and those other suffragists who really led the way. We memorialised them in a wonderful memorial in Christchurch, which, unfortunately, is not in a location that we can access, due to the earthquakes.

But not everyone in Christchurch is actually feeling like celebrating today, because democracy is something that has been challenged. People are feeling demoralised. People are feeling powerless to act in the face of what they see as an erosion of democracy. When we look at what has happened in Christchurch—our city, our schools, and our environment—all of the democratic institutions around those three fundamentals of where I come from have all been challenged. The democratic voice of the people has been stilled by the Government.

I want to remind the House that democracy is more than the right to vote. It means a lot more than that. Sure, we have the expression of democracy—representative democracy—when we cast our vote, and we come to this place to represent those who send us here. But it is about guaranteeing basic human rights. It is about the separation of powers, it is about freedom of expression, and it is about good governance. That is what a democratic country looks like.

I am afraid that every single one of those features of a democracy that I have spoken of has been threatened in Christchurch today. These were all things that the suffragists actually stood for when they petitioned Parliament for the right to vote. I want to remind the House that nearly a quarter of all adult voting-age women in this country signed that petition at that time. It was extraordinary. Over 30,000 women signed the petition for the right to vote. What we are challenging the Government to do today is to trust the people. Go back those 119 years to when this Parliament trusted the people. It trusted every single one of its citizens of voting age with the right to vote. Let us see that we can trust the people today as we, hopefully, restore democracy to Environment Canterbury, restore democracy to the Christchurch City Council, and restore democracy to our schools.

At 5.30 p.m. tonight at the Bridge of Remembrance in Christchurch there will be a gathering where there will be a new rebuilding suffrage petition launched. That petition is designed to restore democracy to our city, to our schools, and to our environment. The purpose of the petition is to renew the great democratic legacy of Christchurch for our children. That is whom the petition aims to support. Vote Canterbury Kids speaks to our proud history of universal suffrage in New Zealand, it speaks to the loss of democracy that we have suffered in Christchurch today, and it speaks to the future for our children. That is what the petition is all about.

It is wonderful that Christchurch sees the launch of this modern suffrage petition, with its call for democracy. I want the Government to listen to the people. Many Christchurch residents are hurting. They are bewildered. They are struck by bombshell announcements around their land, their homes, the Earthquake Commission, insurance, and, now, school closures. Nobody is saying that these are not hard decisions, but they are impacting on people through the way they are being presented to them as final decisions, with the people not being empowered to have a say about their future.

At the school meeting I attended the other night one person said that the announcement had done what 10,000 aftershocks had not done. If that school closes, his family leaves. I do not want anyone to leave Christchurch because they have not had a say in rebuilding its future.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in this general debate. I join my female colleagues across the House in congratulating all women and celebrating the 119th Women’s Suffrage Day. I remember the centenary celebrations in Auckland. That was probably the first time I had actually heard about the suffragettes, because, as a migrant, I had heard that New Zealand had in fact given the vote to women first around the world, but I had not actually heard the stories about Kate Sheppard. So I feel very proud to be a New Zealander. But, having said that, I would like to comment on a couple of things that were actually said before by Sue Moroney.

Miss Moroney talked about how Kate Sheppard would be ashamed of our stance on the extended paid parental leave that Labour proposed. I have to say that in my view Kate Sheppard would be ashamed of Miss Moroney. She stood for ambition. She stood for equality. I do not know, but back in those days, I would have thought that the suffragettes would have actually carried their babies, fighting for equal rights, on their backs or on their fronts. They would not have actually sat there and said that they wanted 6 months’ paid parental leave. I have to say, as a mum who actually went back to work, who actually took responsibility for my own child, I actually went back to work and I should not be made to feel embarrassed or ashamed that I went to work and that I was not a good mother, which is what the Opposition tries to make us feel.

We are proud parents. We are proud mothers. We are women. Do not say in this House that Kate Sheppard would be ashamed of us. I think she would be ashamed of Sue Moroney for saying that women should cower and say “We are women. We should have more. We actually deserve more than this.” I do not think so. Kate Sheppard stood for equality. She stood for ambition and aspiration for women. That is not what she actually asked for.

Annette King was talking about homelessness and single women. Of course, none of us celebrate that. We all want to make sure that all New Zealanders, including women, have better opportunities and do not have issues with homelessness. But I have to say I am surprised that she commented on that, because the Labour Opposition has opposed every single initiative that this Government has proposed to improve the lot for New Zealanders, including things like more mining for oil and gas exploration. What about making welfare work? The Opposition opposed a 90-day probation period for new employees. It actually opposed that. Thirteen thousand new jobs were created as a result of that particular policy, and 60 percent of the employers would not have gone out there and given that new person a job had it not been for that particular policy. Thirteen thousand new jobs is a lot of new jobs.

Foreign investment is another initiative the Opposition actually opposed. What about foreign investment? Let us talk about Mr Cameron, the Canadian film maker. James Cameron moved and bought a farm, a big, big, big farm, in the Wairarapa. He invested millions and millions of dollars in the Wairarapa. The Opposition opposes foreign ownership. Let me say, Mr Cameron just announced, I think, that he is going to be making a sequel to Avatar, which will create 1,500 new jobs. Hobbit haters, Avatar haters, I say let us actually celebrate these kinds of investments. They provide investment in New Zealand, and they provide more opportunities and more jobs for New Zealanders.

What about the public sector reform? What about the health service? I have to say that I love the fact that we have more doctors, we have more nurses, and we have more midwives remaining in New Zealand instead of going overseas, because we have created an opportunity for them to stay here. The bonding scheme has meant that we have, in total, 1,800 more nurses—1,800—263 more doctors, 218 more midwives, and 13 more radiation therapists who have stayed in New Zealand since that scheme was introduced in 2009. I remember back in—

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I join my colleagues in rising to speak to Women’s Suffrage Day and the status of women in our country at the moment, 119 years on from achieving universal suffrage in this country. Just a quick note: I am surprised that none of the men have spoken in this debate on the benefits of having our voices in Parliament.

Grant Robertson: I wanted to.

JAN LOGIE: Thank you, Grant. I join my Labour colleagues, very strangely, in wondering what Kate Sheppard and Meri Mangakahia would be thinking of our democracy and our society today. I do not need to have a séance to know that they would be expecting more from this country and more from this Government, because I expect more, and I do not think even I am as radical as they were back in their day. They were some pretty fierce women. They were obviously fans of democracy and women’s involvement in decision making. To quote Kate Sheppard, one of her goals was that “All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome.” In particular, she was concerned about establishing legal and economic independence of women from men. She was not wholly occupied with advancing women’s rights, however, but also found time to promote political reforms such as proportional representation and the wider movement for democracy.

Meri requested not only that Māori women be given the vote back at that time, but that they be eligible to sit in the Māori Parliament, thus going a step further even than her Pākehā contemporaries of the European suffrage movement. Although I do not believe that it is my place to comment on the processes of tino rangatiratanga, I would like to point out that whom the Crown chooses to consult with and how it consults makes a difference. I really doubt that Meri Mangakahia would approve of the proposed process of consultation around asset sales. This is not consultation; it is tokenism. That is not too dissimilar from the reality of the time when she was speaking out, when women could speak but they could not be heard. I also think she would be pretty angry that over 120 years after she spoke out to affirm Māori women’s leadership, Māori women’s leadership has been eroded by systematic issues such as violence and gendered poverty.

To speak more to Kate’s issues, I note again, with my colleague Lianne Dalziel, that Kate was a proud Cantabrian and a fighter for wider democracy. So today to see that loss of democracy in her place of birth and her site of struggle is a particularly sad thing, and not a reason for celebration. As we see the closure of schools and mergers that threaten to take away the heart of so many communities, we know what she would be saying. When we see the powers of the city council being taken over by the unelected Government body of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, with no plan in sight for how this power will be returned, we know she would not be happy. We may not all have always agreed with the council in Christchurch, but to rebuild Christchurch without democracy threatens to rebuild structures but not communities, and Kate would not approve.

Today I went to the Women’s Suffrage Day breakfast and heard the Minister of Women’s Affairs speaking about the status of women. She noted that New Zealand continues to be well regarded internationally for our gender equality. Well, that may be true, except for, you know, the 50-plus points that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women suggested that our State needed to work on. The Minister did acknowledge that we still need to work towards greater economic independence, improved safety from violence, and increased representation in all levels and types of leadership for our women, but thinks the Government has committed to doing its part.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is probably a bad start on Women’s Suffrage Day that I have interrupted one of my female colleagues, Jan Logie, in her speech, but there is process. Can I acknowledge 119 years since women received the vote in this country. I think it is important to begin, joining with my colleague Judith Collins, who spoke at the start, by acknowledging important New Zealand women and their contribution, and in doing so to acknowledge our head of State, the Queen of New Zealand, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, for her 60 years of service, all of those women who sit on the executive—my colleagues who are in Cabinet—those across the House who sit here in Parliament from all parties, those women who lead in the judiciary, those who are in the Civil Service, and, of course, those women who are our mothers, our friends, and so forth, and the contribution they bring. When it comes to women’s voting, my mother has always proudly voted, and certainly now with me in Parliament she is never shy of an opinion to be shared, and she never hesitates there.

I want to turn to some of those who have spoken in the House about what Kate Sheppard and others would think. I always think it is an injustice to their voices to add our presumption to them. I just want to repeat that for the sake of those listening: when we try to add our voices presumptuously to what Kate Sheppard and others did, we do them an injustice. We do not know what Kate Sheppard would think about what we do today, and I think there is a certain arrogance in doing that.

But as we turn to the modern day, I think it is really great as a Kiwi and as a Kiwi bloke to stand here to acknowledge all that women are doing in our society. I think it is the women, certainly within the National caucus and the body as a whole, who are getting on with the business of getting things done. We need only look this week at some of the great announcements that have been put forward, including within welfare and within education. We have had some also within the conservation area, and so forth. Some really great initiatives are being led by women in this National caucus.

We are busy with getting on with the job. We are busy as a National caucus and a National Government with getting on with the job. I found in recent days sitting on the Education and Science Committee that we have been looking at the element of digital literacy. How do we encourage young girls and boys to learn to be the future of this country? We have had some amazing examples of men and women who are working to enhance the digital understanding of our young people, and I mention this because there is a great initiative happening within the electorate of Tāmaki known as the Manaiakalani project, led by Russell Burt and the great team at Pt England Primary School. They are getting on with the job, and they are getting on with the job on their own initiative but also with that wider support of a Government that understands that you empower individuals to be the best that they can be. And I may be presumptuous, therefore, to suggest that that was the spirit of the suffragettes—to empower people to be the best that they can be, operating within this New Zealand democracy.

I want to acknowledge too people such as Desley Simpson, Kit Parkinson, Colin Davis, and Mark Thomas of the local board in Ōrākei, also within my electorate of Tāmaki. They are getting on with the job, be it our local sports fields so that boys and girls, men and women, can get out and about, or making sure places like Tāmaki Drive are open and accessible for all New Zealanders to enjoy and to celebrate. These are Kiwis working hard. They are men and women in our community working hard and getting on with the job. And it is the National Government that is standing there in support, as well, so that the job gets done for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

I turn finally towards our business. I have been meeting with the business association managers across my electorate: Sally in Ellerslie, Wendy in St Heliers, and Gary down in Glen Innes. Again, these are people supporting Kiwi businesses to get on with the job, as new businesses are opening and there are opportunities. It has been the National Government that stood behind them in many ways. We have talked about the 90-day trial period that we have put out, creating more than 13,000 jobs. We reduced the business tax to 28c in the dollar, absolutely supporting Kiwis to get on with the job. We reduced ACC levies. In fact, that was Minister Judith Collins, one of the fine women of this House. New Zealanders are getting on with the job. We have had great opportunities, and if I draw it, certainly, from the people of Tāmaki, and those whom I have mentioned, they are getting on with the job. They are getting on with the job with the support of this Government, which is absolutely committed.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill

Third Reading

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill be now read a third time. Very early in this debate I am feeling a little bit of confusion, because the run sheet I have says that the Minister speaks here. I just wanted to know whether or not there has been an event, an invitation from Mr Key, or an election, or what the story is, but I will assume, in fact, that the member in charge of the bill should appropriately speak now.

This is a bill that is a relatively simple little bill, one from the Hutt City Council, one that is the brainchild of Ray Wallace, the Mayor of Hutt City. He is a very good mayor of the independent city.

Grant Robertson: That’s right—republic.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I would not say we were a republic, but it is an area that is proud of its independence. Ray Wallace, when running for mayor, made graffiti an important issue as part of his campaign, and as part of that exercise we went through some of the things that could be done to reduce graffiti in Hutt City. It is fair to say there has been a considerable amount of progress. I think Dave O’Sullivan’s team—anyone who has any knowledge of rugby league history in New Zealand will know former Detective Sergeant O’Sullivan, who is a pretty mean second rower. I think he was part of the Wainuiōmata champions team in the early 1990s. He has taken charge of the contracting for removing graffiti, and he and his team work very, very well. They work quickly. The Hutt City works on the basis that when this rubbish is up, it is better to get it down as soon as possible. It is taken down from places that can be viewed from public places, especially from roads, where it is on council land. There is an arrangement with Telecom, the New Zealand Railways Corporation, the power companies, and a number of others to get rid of the stuff immediately, and, as a result of that, the place looks a lot better.

They also do private property. The council works on the basis that if it has an expert team and it is going around the city every day anyway, it is better to use that team and its expertise with paint and matching to paint private property with the consent of the property owners. The vast majority of property owners are rapt. Some people tell me that they did not even know that they had graffiti on the fence, and they get a knock on the door from the contractors from the council offering to paint it out. I think that it is a damn good service, and it is something that we are proud of in the Hutt.

But, unfortunately, there are a few people who come, really, into two categories. First, there are the owners of abandoned buildings. These are people who are often offshore, have not got tenants in the buildings, or, very occasionally, have dubious people who are in those buildings. It is hard to get a response as to whether or not the graffiti should be painted out; to date it is always done with consent.

The effect of this bill is to give the council rights so that after an appropriate period of notice in writing has been issued—about 10 working days’ notice; it is a couple of weeks, effectively, although these people do work more than 5 days a week—if there has not been a negative response from the landowner, it means that the council or its contractors will be able to go on to the property and get rid of the graffiti. That seems like a logical thing to do.

There is a doubt about the period. I think that these days there is email and other electronic contacts, and that is the way that most contact occurs. Out in the Hutt now, most people pay their rates—

Grant Robertson: You’ve got email in the Hutt?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We have got lots of wonderful males in the Hutt, including email, Mr Robertson. There is a question with an email delivery method of whether in fact that might be better and the period might be shorter, but the view was that because this law is new, and steps into an area that previously councils around New Zealand have not, it was better to be a bit conservative in bringing it in as to notice periods. But I do want to make the point that there is a point of balance, because the effect of that is that you do leave graffiti up for longer than would otherwise be the case, which slightly defeats the purpose.

There is quite a strong view in the Hutt that the presence of graffiti, or tagging, signals a lack of social cohesion. It does sometimes give a perception, generally an unfair perception, of danger, and there is no doubt that it has an effect on property values for the properties that are around the abandoned properties. Therefore, our view is that it has a detrimental effect on our city, on the image, and on the well-being—the feeling of well-being—of people. That is why we want to get rid of it.

The Summary Offences Act does provide legal grounds to deter offenders and to do some graffiti control. However, often the people who do this are, frankly, sneaky little bastards who—sorry? Well, they quite often are, Mr Speaker. They are people who sneak in, do the graffiti, and sneak away, and too often they are not caught in a way that they can be prosecuted. What is also not available under the Act is the ability, as I have indicated, to go on to private property or other property that is visible from a public place and clean it off without consent.

The package of measures—I want to say that some of them are negative. The painting out, the decision to prosecute people when caught defacing public property—those are negative. But there is a lot of positive stuff that goes on with youth in the Hutt. There is an attempt to divert. People like Councillor Ken Laban are doing a wonderful job in the sports area, because there is a view that the kid in sport is not in court. That sort of activity is very positive. Although the form of art is not one that I naturally warm to, it is often the case that many of these young people are, in fact, talented artists. If they can be channelled towards murals and other things, then very positive things can happen.

I think anyone who has visited what we call the old village, what people call Homedale, in Wainuiōmata, the village on the way down to the Rimutaka Forest Park—it is a beautiful park; people should visit it—going through that village, will know there is a wonderful mural of Tana Umaga and Piri Weepu. I think that has been up now for maybe 5, 6, or 7 years. I tell you what, that does not get vandalised. No one—no one—touches that mural, because there is community ownership. In fact, some of the people who painted it, and who might properly have been described as the little bastards of the time, have now grown up and they are quite big. I think any suggestion that that mural would be attacked—in fact, it would not happen.

I want to congratulate the Mayor of Hutt City, Ray Wallace, on his war on graffiti. I want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the very good work that it did on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I think the changes it made were an improvement to the bill. I want to thank the chair of the select committee for the way that she chaired it—in a way that I am sure a number of her colleagues could have lessons from to improve their abilities. I commend the bill to the House.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am absolutely delighted to support this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill at its third reading. I was interested that Trevor Mallard said that it is a simple bill, and he is absolutely right. It is simple, it is good, it is sensible, and it is straightforward. I think it is a credit to the Hutt City Council for bringing it to Parliament. We did not have to do much work on it at all, just a few slight amendments and a few tweaks.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked well on the bill. It was actually interesting because a lot of these issues of graffiti are things that we come across in our own cities. Really, what this bill is all about, as Trevor Mallard has explained, is giving the Hutt City Council the ability to enter private land to remove graffiti from buildings that are in the public view—not around the back, but in the public view—where it does have a bad influence on the community.

I am also interested in picking up on the discussions about how people feel about graffiti in their community. The first thought about that—and I have had graffiti on my house, because I live in the centre of Christchurch; the house is now knocked down, but before it was knocked down—is that it absolutely impinges on you. You wonder why these people are painting nasty things all over your wall.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s invasive.

NICKY WAGNER: It is an invasion of your privacy. It is an invasion of something that you care about, something that you have worked hard to look after, and something that you have spent good money on too.

Graffiti is a major problem in the urban areas, and I have to say that the Hutt Valley has been particularly hard hit with this. It is that damage to property that upsets people. It gives a symbol of neglect and it is something that the community really does want to get rid of. The Hutt City Council does have good processes to deal with the problem. It has actually invested significant amounts of money to remove graffiti. It has a rapid removal process, and I believe that it has very good contractors who are very experienced in this area, but it is not cheap. The council spends over $300,000 doing that work. We support it because it is doing it for the good of the community.

The problem that we are trying to address with this bill is the fact that some landlords—not all, but some landlords, particularly absentee landlords—do not respond to the council when it requests the access to clean up their properties, and so the council is stuck. It does not know how to deal with that. This bill will solve that problem.

We did get seven submissions on the bill, and the majority supported the bill, but there were a few issues raised. One of the issues that we dealt with, and we were really quite careful about, was how we can clarify the difference between graffiti and art. This is quite an interesting case, because how do you decide? Actually, in the end we chose a definition that was consistent with section 11A of the Summary Offences Act 1981. What this does is it identifies graffiti as something that damages and defaces. It actually lists numerous methods you could use to do that, but the crucial issue is that it was done without the lawful authority or the consent of the occupier and owner, because sometimes it is actually quite hard to tell the difference. There have been some delightful stories of magnificent graffiti art that has been in galleries around the world, and suddenly the cleaners have come in and cleaned it away. I think we have seen that people even in our own cities, young people who have been doing tagging and who have been involved in this sort of process, are actually quite creative and have some good ideas about art. We have been able to use them and get them out there painting over things.

The funny thing is that if a graffiti artist actually puts a lot of effort into designing a painting to go over an area that has been tagged, the chances are it will not be tagged again, because if they have got the mana that they are actually creating such a good work, nobody wants to destroy it. In actual fact, in our city, in Christchurch, we have got several places where they could never control the graffiti, so the neighbourhood got out and painted them beautifully. One of them is in the Shirley area, where the rugby—no, not rugby, but the other one. What is it called?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): League.

NICKY WAGNER: League. That is right, the league club. They had this great big huge wall that was always being tagged, so in the end they got out there. They got out the paint, the whole club painted it, and it has never looked better ever since.

There was one other tweak that we looked at in this bill. We were concerned that the council be transparent about the authority it had to access private property to remove graffiti, and we also wanted to make sure that those contractors were easily identified by the public. So we actually made some changes to the bill to make that happen.

The final concern was about the council and its liability, or its duty of care towards those landlords when it is removing graffiti. We did not want to exempt it from taking reasonable care. We did not think it was right, because contractors across the country have to take reasonable care otherwise they are liable, and we thought that even though this is being done for the public good, they still need to do the job properly. Actually, I think in this case it was probably unnecessary to put it into the bill, because the contractor that the council has at present is very skilled and does an excellent job. He matches the paint; he looks after the properties. But you never know what is going to happen in the long term, and I think it was really important to cover that.

In conclusion, this bill was well drafted, and the select committee, with the help of advisers, managed to get it into shape quickly and efficiently. It was an interesting bill to work on, and I think we gave a good outcome to the Hutt City Council. As we have heard, the Hutt City Council does have a really advanced graffiti eradication programme. That has had a positive effect on its community, and we hope that this bill will help support that work. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): It has been a pleasure to work on this local bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, brought to this House by my friend and colleague Trevor Mallard, who worked incredibly hard on this bill along with the Mayor of Lower Hutt City, Ray Wallace. In fact, Mayor Wallace campaigned for this bill before he was elected as mayor. He, at that time, declared war on graffiti and used it very much as part of his mayoral campaign, and he was determined to deliver on the promises that he made. I think it is true to say that this campaign struck a chord with many of the ratepayers out in the Hutt Valley.

You see, we are not talking about graffiti art. There is a difference between graffiti and graffiti art, and I have to say I learnt a little bit about this from my friend and former colleague Stevie Chadwick. You see, Stevie Chadwick’s nephew is Otis Frizzell, and Otis Frizzell is now a famous graffiti artist. In fact, I read some of the stuff that he has written about it and he says that graffiti art is basically the visual representation of hip hop. Well, I do not claim to understand either graffiti art or hip hop, but I do know it is a genre that is admired and sought after in the art world. So we are not talking about some of the amazing murals that have been painted around Wellington by young people in a graffiti art style. No, we are talking in this bill about unwanted, ugly scrawl painted by unthinking, uncaring, selfish louts who have no hesitation in defacing people’s property for no reason.

I have to say that I do not know whether it has occurred on your property, Mr Speaker, but it drives people mad. They become incredibly angry when they get up in the morning and they go out and find that their beautifully painted garage door has now got something that is incomprehensible scrawled all over it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sometimes it’s comprehensible.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, yes, sometimes it is comprehensible and cannot be repeated in this House. This happened, just as you heard from the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, on my garage not very long ago. The annoying thing is that you have got to go out and buy a pot of paint if you have not had your garage painted for a while. You have got to take time to clean it up. It is an intrusion and it is an invasion of your personal space. It is unsightly, and I have to say I can find no redeeming features of this sort of graffiti. People actually hate it.

People particularly hate graffiti that remains in the same place and is not removed in a timely fashion. If you are driving around to the airport and you get opposite Kilbirnie Park and see a building on the corner there, have a look at the graffiti. It will be cleaned off, then graffiti will go up. If it is not removed within a few days, it has numerous tags all over it. It is unsightly and makes the people in that area of my electorate feel very unsafe. It does attract other graffiti, which is why councils, in particular, want to clean it up as fast as possible. They do not want it remaining. Of course, the graffiti writer wants as many people as possible to see it. The opposite is true for those who have had their property covered in graffiti and for councils.

So this bill is about empowering Hutt City Council to remove graffiti that is on private property where the owner cannot be found or identified in order to give consent, or, for that matter, to decline consent. It is not about forcing this on owners; actually, if an owner declines, it will not be removed. But it does give the council the opportunity using an established process to remove graffiti on private property. It is easy for a council to go along and remove graffiti from public property, and they do that incredibly well. We heard from people from Hutt City that they feel that they have faced a lot of tagging in their area. They believe that they are probably one of the most tagged places in New Zealand and so they want to see it removed as fast as possible. They want it removed off public property, but they also want it removed off private property. So what Trevor Mallard’s bill does is set out a process for doing this.

As you heard from the chair of our Local Government and Environment Committee, we had a very small number of submissions. In fact, there were only seven submissions on this bill, but they were very useful submissions, indeed. From them came some useful suggestions, including clarifying the purpose statement to make it clear that it is about the removal of graffiti that is on private property and it must be visible from a public place. So if there is graffiti that is at the back of a property, inside a porch, or whatever, and cannot be seen, that is not what they are talking about. They are talking about graffiti that is visible in a public place.

The second amendment was about requiring the council to state on its graffiti removal notice the source of the power it was relying upon. Of course, the source of the power they are relying on is this bill when it is passed. It also requires council workers when cleaning up graffiti to be easily identified as to who they are and what they are doing, because people do get very worried if they see people wandering on to their property with a paintbrush and a can of paint. They probably think that they are facing another round of graffiti, so council workers need to ensure that they are easily identified when they are cleaning up graffiti.

The minor amendments that the committee made have, I think, improved this bill and we end up with a bill that I now know that quite a number of councils around New Zealand are very interested in emulating. They would like to have this tool in their tool box for the cleaning up of graffiti on private property. I notice that the Mayor of Wellington only a week or so ago said how much she would like to have a similar bill. It was interesting that her officials then went on to say: “Oh, yes, but we’d have to estimate the cost.” Well, that is true, we must always know the cost of things, but if we do not clean up graffiti in a timely manner, there is a cost to that community. There is a cost to the feeling of security within that community, and there is a cost to the look of that community, and to the individual and their personal property in the devaluing of that property. So, yes, we need to be mindful of cost, but we also need to ensure that we can do whatever is possible to make the environment that people live in pleasant and safe. We all know that graffiti can ensure people feel unsafe within their communities.

I want to commend Trevor Mallard and the Hutt City Council, in particular Ray Wallace, for bringing this bill to the House. Is it not lovely that we are discussing this bill in an adult manner on Women’s Suffrage Day? Would it not be nice if many more of our debates could be so civilised rather than some of the ranting and raving that we heard from people like Simon Bridges and Judith Collins today? It is nice to be able to say that here is an agreed piece of legislation that we want to see go through the House. I certainly, along with the Labour Party, support this bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Good on Ray Wallace, the Mayor of Hutt City, for campaigning on this issue of graffiti in his community. Good on him for taking a stand, for putting his head above the parapet and actually standing for something, and then, when he became the Mayor of Hutt City, following through on it, with the help of the local member. So good on him, because at the start of a good community is good leadership. Clearly, the Hutt City Council has got good leadership at local government level.

A number of members in the House this afternoon have talked about the impact of graffiti on an individual. Of course, it is terrible to have your fence or your garage graffitied, particularly if it is one of those roller doors that have corrugated iron. What a pain to have to organise to get it fixed because somebody without a care in the world has come along and decorated it on your behalf. And actually that—

Chris Hipkins: It’s the cedar ones that are a problem.

JACQUI DEAN: Sorry?

Chris Hipkins: It’s the cedar ones that are a problem, because you can’t clean them.

JACQUI DEAN: The cedar ones, yes, yes. The member from over the other side is absolutely right: the cedar ones are much, much worse. I do not know whether the local authority—and the member might be able to help me out—would fix that. Is the Hutt City Council going to come along and strip down a cedar garage door, oil it, varnish it, and return it?

Chris Hipkins: That’s a good point.

JACQUI DEAN: The member raises an interesting point, and I look forward to his contribution. It sounds like an expensive solution to me.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, they won’t damage it.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, I think we will just stick to the roller door example, because that, I suspect, is more typical of the type of surface that is being graffitied.

It is irritating to the extreme to an individual to have their private property defaced in this way. But I think also we need to be mindful of the impact on the wider community. It is absolutely true to say that a public place that has been graffitied and left sends the message that it is not a safe place for the community, that it is not a place that is cared for by the community. Indeed, it sends the message that the community does not particularly care about its public places. So I come back and again congratulate Mayor Wallace and his council on, obviously, supporting the passage of this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill to deal to these issues.

I suspect I have said this to the House but I am going to say it again. I recall when the Local Government and Environment Committee visited Counties Manukau. We had a look at a little corner village, which comprised a number of shops and a number of flats. It was a meeting-place for the community. with residential areas all around it. That area was terrible. Apart from the graffiti there was long grass, there was rubbish, and it was clearly untidy and unkempt. The graffiti was terrible. A lot of it was indecipherable and some of it was obscene. Clearly, it was not a good signal to any of the local community. As part of the select committee visit, we heard about how the local police and the community, including the council, were getting together and dealing to that graffiti and dealing to that little corner community. Now it not only is perceived to be a safer place but is, in fact, a safer place for people of all ages to go and do their shopping, or go and meet, or do whatever they do—go to the local park. So as well as the individual impact of graffiti there is that wider message to the community.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked in a very collegial way on this bill. It made a couple of minor amendments, which have been rehearsed already in the House today. With those words I want to congratulate once again Ray Wallace. Good local leadership is really a significant thing for a community. In doing that, I commend the bill to the House.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the third reading of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I was not the Green Party member who was lucky enough to follow this bill through the select committee process. That was my colleague Holly Walker, who previously congratulated the Hutt City Council on its efforts to swiftly deal with vandalism but also—and this is important—to channel the creativity of young people into street art and positive graffiti art projects.

I think that a major concern of the Green Party, when we first looked at this bill, was the potential for the bill to dissuade more positive, artistic graffiti, of which there is plenty. It can certainly enhance the character of towns and cities to have artistic graffiti—street art—like in the many laneways of Melbourne and the work of Banksy in London and around the world. So it is really, really critical that we do not lump all forms of graffiti into the same basket and say that it is necessarily a bad thing. I think it was a significant contribution that my colleague Holly Walker made on the Local Government and Environment Committee to ensure that there was a satisfactory definition of “graffiti” in this bill. It makes clear that art with the consent of the property owner is not graffiti for the purposes of this bill. The select committee also removed the clause that would have exempted the council and its contractors from civil liability, if they caused damage while removing the graffiti. There were a number of positive amendments made to the bill during the select committee process and as it went through the House. Those changes allowed us to fully support this bill today.

As previous speakers have noted, tagging can be quite a negative element within society, and it can lead to something that is known as the broken windows effect. We have noted that in urban areas where broken windows are not repaired in sufficient time, or there are ugly scrawls on pieces of property—and clearly they are not street art—it contributes to a negative feeling in the area. It tends to undermine a sense of community cohesion, and can in fact lead to spiralling social problems, whether they be further vandalism or other sorts of crime and violence.

Basically, we want our towns and cities to be places where everybody feels welcome. Obviously, tagging is not a form of street art, it is not something that makes people feel welcome. If it cannot be cleaned up quickly, then it can lead to a sense that this place is not looked after and it is not a place where people are welcome. That can lead to further antisocial behaviour.

As I understand it, tagging is a particular problem in the Hutt, and the area has some of the highest rates within the country. Tagging tends to proliferate swiftly if it is not removed. But the Hutt City Council has been very proactive in removing tagging. It has a dedicated team and a programme, which we have heard has been working very well. We congratulate the council on this.

Now that the council will have the legal right that this bill creates, it will be able to take its capacity and willingness to remove unwelcome graffiti or tagging to private property as well. This will be a very positive development for the community. The intent is not that the council would enter private property and remove graffiti if the owner wants the graffiti, as I previously mentioned. That was a very positive amendment that was made to the bill. Also, owners can respond within 10 working days, which may not seem particularly important, but it is an amendment from just 10 days. It allows greater time for owners to take this option, to say: “Thanks, but no thanks.” I think it is important that the council respect the property owner’s right to have that response.

I have heard some of the speakers here today describe taggers as being quite selfish—people who go out and vandalise private property. That may be one way to characterise them, but I think that it is worth thinking a little bit about why it is that some young people, or some people generally, do not feel like they are part of the community, and whether there are better ways to deal with the sources of the problem, rather than the symptom. Ultimately, tagging is just a symptom of a group of people who do not feel like they are part of society, do not feel that they have any particular reason to respect the rights of others. Within their own peer group and social group it is considered a sign of daring or bravery to go out and flout the law and to put their tag on a building or a piece of private property.

I think that there is incredible scope for community building projects—which the Green Party would support—that would enable young people, people who feel disenfranchised and feel like they are not part of society, to have activities that do not result in this destructive vandalism of private property, and also cause the ongoing ensuing social impacts that I mentioned before. I think there is great potential there, and I think it would be sad if we wrote off people who are currently tagging as people who could not become constructive members of society and channel their passion, their bravery, and their willingness to flout the law into something more successful. [Interruption] I was not suggesting that the Hon Trevor Mallard said that, but I did hear other people say that today in the House. Other members characterised the people who are currently tagging as louts. I thought that was just a bit unfortunate.

I think it is really important that we consider that the society we have now does not give equal opportunity to everyone to participate, and I think it is worth us reflecting on the fact that if we understand better the causes of why people behave in antisocial ways, we might be able to deal with that behaviour in a more constructive way that does not result in continually having to paint over tags. It is not really a very sustainable response if we constantly have to go back and paint over tags, which are going to continue happening as long as people feel like that is the only way they can go out and assert their mana.

When Parliament last considered graffiti removal legislation—and that was the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill—the Green Party opposed it because it contained all manner of Draconian provisions, including restricting young people from purchasing spray cans. We were in favour of provisions like the ones in this bill that allow removal from private property, provided that the civil liability clause was changed. So although we are very happy to support this bill, I do not think it can be assumed that we would support similar legislation for other councils around the country. I think it is really important that we take them on a case by case basis and make sure that the provisions that are made for councils to deal with unwelcome tagging on private property are proportionate to the particular problems they are facing in each community.

In summary, I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. I congratulate the member on bringing it before us. We congratulate the Hutt City Council on its proactive approach to ensure that negative tagging is not causing continuing spirals of antisocial behaviour in the Hutt, and also on having proactive programmes in place to try to channel the art and the creativity of young people in the streets. The Hutt may be a long way from the laneways of Melbourne, but there is always the potential to channel that creative energy into some pretty outstanding street art, even in the Hutt. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Malo e lelei, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. On a day when we celebrate women getting the vote here in New Zealand, and when we have had many tributes to women who have contributed to New Zealand, I would like to begin by celebrating, or paying tribute to, two men, the first one being—[Interruption] Not you, Trevor. You will come second; you are not first. The first one is the Hutt City Mayor, Ray Wallace, who obviously has been in touch with his community and spoken to his ratepayers and business owners and has recognised the enormous concern, anger, and frustration that his constituents have with the problem of graffiti. As another member pointed out earlier in this debate, he has gone out and campaigned on that issue during the local body elections. He has won the mayoralty and turned his campaign promise and words into action, partnered with the second individual I would like to pay tribute to, the Hon Trevor Mallard, the MP for Hutt South, who has brought this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, to the House. That is enough. I will continue now.

I am absolutely amazed about where some of these taggers can do their tagging. If anyone has driven south on State Highway 1 in Wellington and seen the rail bridge across Ngauranga Gorge, some of these people—the louts, or “the sneaky little bastards” as Trevor Mallard has termed them—some of these youngsters, have actually gone on to that bridge and tagged it. We really have to wonder about the common sense of going up on to some of those public places and tagging. If it were a council staff person who had to go and clean that up, or maybe KiwiRail, you would have to do a pretty serious health and safety assessment before you went up there. Some of our youngsters who are out there doing some of this stuff are putting themselves at serious risk of harm when they are doing this tagging on public and private property.

This is a bill that, as I said in my second reading speech, should after time, if it works, be extended to other jurisdictions. I know that certainly in my electorate at the moment the Mayor of Porirua, Nick Leggett, is hoping that this does work on the ground and that we can crack down on the prevalence of graffiti. In my case, the Porirua City Council is doing quite a good, proactive job of making sure that when graffiti does go up, whether it be on public land or whether it be on private land, it is doing a pretty good job of making sure that it liaises with the property owners or the homeowners to make sure that it comes down pretty quick smart.

As Trevor Mallard said, there is a sense that there is a serious lack of cohesion within a community, and a perception of things not being as safe as they should be, when there is a lot of graffiti in a public area, and certainly around our shops. There is certainly one property in the Porirua area where it has been an issue. The owner of the building has not been proactive in making sure that the considerable graffiti that has been on that building has been taken down quick smart. The community has sent a message pretty loud and clear that it is not happy with the visuals—or the optics, I should say—of that extensive graffiti in their neighbourhood because it is bringing down their sense of community. They do not feel good about that graffiti being there. And, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, there is the issue of house prices that they certainly want to take into account. If one were to be selling a house and across the road there was a building with extensive tagging that had not come down in some time, then you would be pretty frustrated about the visual pollution that was across the road.

So what this bill does is allow the council to apply to a private property owner where there is graffiti that is visible from a public place and that property owner has 10 days to get back to it to ensure that it has the ability to go on to that private property, which it does not have at the moment, and get rid of that graffiti. I think that is a very pragmatic approach, and that is why I think there will be other councils around the country that will be watching these measures very closely and congratulating the Hutt City Council and Trevor Mallard on taking this action. They will see this and hope that it works in Hutt City. I am sure that Trevor Mallard, Ray Wallace—and Chris Hipkins, who is in the Hutt as well—

Hon Parekura Horomia: And me.

KRIS FAAFOI: Of course—and Parekura Horomia. They hope that this measure works—

Hon Member: And Rino Tirikatene.

KRIS FAAFOI: —and Rino Tirikatene, and I think most MPs—

Hon Member: Charles Chauvel.

KRIS FAAFOI: —and Charles Chauvel. I think most councils around the country will be looking at this experience and hoping that it works for them and that it can be extended out to their situation, as well.

I think I speak on behalf of most members of Parliament when I say that we are all probably victims of graffiti, whether it be on our electorate offices or every 3 years when we put up our hoardings and the carnival of the campaign begins. I think it would be very rare that there was any member of this House or any candidate at any election who has not been a victim of graffiti. I had one case where I put a hoarding on my house and 45 minutes later, less than an hour later, one of these—and I will not refer to them how Trevor Mallard referred to them—youngsters, I am assuming, was there—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sneaky little bastards.

KRIS FAAFOI: —I will not use that term—and had obviously seen that I had put up this hoarding at the front of my house, and within the hour had shown his artistic abilities on one of my hoardings. I managed to rub it out, using nail polish remover, but the very next day he was back again—

Hon Chris Tremain: Out of your back pocket.

KRIS FAAFOI: Do not ask me where I got the nail polish remover from. The very next day the very same person had been back obviously, because I recognised the tag that was on the hoarding. On behalf of all members of Parliament and candidates for office, we all share in the pain of those people who have been victims of graffiti. No doubt in a couple of years’ time, when we go back to that phase of democracy, we will be back out there trying to repair some of the damage that has been done to our hoardings.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to some of the local heroes in the Porirua area who have been working for many, many years to make sure that they eradicate graffiti from around the city. Most of them are from a programme run by the Porirua City Council, and I would just like to mention Charlie Devenish and Miranda Pittaway, who was formerly from Housing New Zealand Corporation. They did great work in making sure that they identified public places and put up tag-resistant murals in those areas. I am thinking of the mural in Hampshire Street, which I had the pleasure of helping to paint, and also on Mungavin Avenue, close to Holy Family School. It is those kinds of projects, as Julie Anne Genter said, that we should be focusing on. We should be beautifying those areas where taggers target, making sure we see the positive in this, and turning them into areas that we celebrate and make sure that they are visually stimulating. Then, I think, it sends the message out to those who might want to tag it that they should stay right away from it or suffer the consequences.

I pay tribute to the former graffiti management coordinator from the Porirua City Council, Trevor Mason, who worked very hard and has now retired from that role. He did very, very good work in terms of eradicating graffiti. I also pay tribute to the group known as WAG, the Waitangirua Action Group, which is a bunch of very hard-working mothers who go out and paint out a lot of the graffiti very quickly, as soon as it is put up in the Porirua East area. I also need to mention Liana Leiataua and Lepeti Tea, who have worked as coordinators as well, to make sure graffiti is stamped out in the Porirua area, and John Poppleton, who used to be with Keep Porirua Beautiful, and who has also worked hard to keep Porirua looking as beautiful as can be.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to follow Kris Faafoi, except I felt it was an unfortunate start to his speech when I saw Mr Mallard sitting forward in anticipation and expectation when Kris said that he was going to congratulate a number of people, and he turned and said “But not you, Trevor.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not yet.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Not yet. But I have never seen such a look of disappointment and a feeling of rejection. So I would like to begin, and have it on record, that I congratulate the Hon Trevor Mallard on bringing this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, and shepherding it through the House, because it is a wonderful achievement and he should be pleased with the success that he has had.

I would like to perhaps introduce a slightly lighter look to graffiti, because everyone so far has been dealing with the heavy and very serious aspects of it. I do not wish to take that away, but I do remember—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Kilroy was here.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: My opening phrase—“Kilroy was here”—because I knew—

Hon Trevor Mallard: We remember.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I knew there would be someone who would remember. “Stop the war. Yanks go home.”—in my childhood that was about it, although on the West Coast there are some old graffiti signs saying “Cantabrians, don’t get your whitebait over here.”, and that sort of thing. But for the most part graffiti was always very occasional. It was not a feature when I was being brought up. But then I remember, when we moved to Christchurch, there was a garage door in Fendalton that had a new sign on it every week—quite nicely painted and quite nicely done, but it was a pithy sort of statement like “If the world isn’t flat, why do we keep trying to blow it up?”. It was quite the talk of the community. We wondered what the phrase was going to be the next week. And then there was a group of people in the flat who clearly had feminist views. It was mostly anti-men, but, again, it was amusing, it was witty. Then there was a long period of absence when either they had a tenant who did not want to write anything, or they did not have a tenant at all. The following week when you went past it was empty, and by the end of the week someone else had written on it “Say something”, because people were used to seeing that as they drove past.

But for the most part tagging is a negative experience, and I have heard of incidences today of how communities have been really working hard—hit it hard, as soon as it occurs—to get rid of it as soon as it occurs. Those people too are to be congratulated. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I will take a third call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. Can I just say that in looking at the background to Hutt City, it is very interesting to study this wonderful—relatively small by international standards, but a lovely size by New Zealand standards—city. It is interesting that on Women’s Suffrage Day, where the women have had the vote for 119 years, a bill affecting a small city in New Zealand would be getting its third and final reading through the House and showing what local democracy is all about in this country. At times I am sure many New Zealanders do ask what is happening with local democracy in this country, when you look—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Certainly after what’s happened in Christchurch.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: —exactly—at what has happened in Canterbury, when you look at the steamroller that went through Auckland, when you look at the third, fourth, and fifth-largest cities in New Zealand being put out of existence in Auckland, with virtually no public consultation and, certainly, no referendum, and where you still have a city like Hutt City, which is able to still function fully with full democracy, full local democracy, and getting on with the job, as we heard before, but getting on with the job, in this case, of bringing a good thing to its people and to its community.

When I look at Hutt City and I see that it prides itself on the fact that it has something like 25 parks, 50 playgrounds, six swimming pools, eight public libraries, two museums, and the best beaches in the Wellington region, then, obviously, it is great to see that it is bringing forward a bill to reduce graffiti. It has so many public places, and it has so many areas where it does not want to be seeing, from recreational and public places, what is basically very antisocial graffiti on the walls of private properties adjoining public spaces. It also mentions that Hutt City has 10 secondary schools, 50 primary schools, and 40 early childhood centres. They have a lot of young people in Hutt City. They have a lot of young people who are very greatly influenced by their surroundings and their urban environment. If they grow up in an urban environment that is cluttered with graffiti and nasty, antisocial scrawlings on many of the faces of the walls and buildings around Hutt City, what sort of environment is that for them to grow up in? So it is a great thing that the Hutt City Council, with the Hon Trevor Mallard championing it, has brought this bill to this Chamber and to this House to have it put through. A proud city that evolved from the Hutt County Council from 1877, and in 1941 became Hutt City Council—1941; that is quite a long time ago—it now has something like 102,000 residents and is in the top 10 largest cities of this country. So it is very good.

I was certainly on the Local Government and Environment Committee and was very supportive of this initiative that it had to try to remove unwanted graffiti from private properties where it could not have that done, where, perhaps, landlords were absentee landlords overseas, or uncaring landlords, or people who simply took no interest in maintaining the properties—we went through stringent requirements with the select committee to ensure that they would still be given adequate notice, several weeks’ notice, to remove the graffiti and go through all the usual legalities of serving correct notice on the property owners—so that, at the end of the day, if the council wants to step in and remove some of that nasty graffiti from some of the structures around its city, which it has great pride in, it could do so.

So, also, I would like to recognise Mayor Ray Wallace and his city councillors, and the executive and staff of Hutt City Council, who have worked this through. I am sure there will be many other city councils and other local authorities in New Zealand that will wish to do the same. Indeed, I can see that Wellington City Council itself would like to do the same. Hutt City is the second-largest city in the Wellington region. I have no doubt that others like Wellington City, Porirua, and others, will want to follow suit in due course, particularly when they see the significant difference that this can make in the region.

I have mentioned in the House before that when I was Mayor of North Shore, we had a problem for many years, and we got on top of it. It was costing us in the order of $600,000-odd a year for graffiti and vandalism, but we put in place a team to get on top of the problem—former policemen, incidentally, who came to work for the council; retired policemen—who started to profile the taggers, started to work out who they were, and started to keep a very comprehensive database of the regular taggers. When the taggers were apprehended by the Waitematā District Police and we could put two and two together and identify who the culprits were in each instance, it had significant effects on having them desist and cease their activities, but also on getting some restitution from those offenders. Where restitution was not possible, they certainly were put through the mill and had to undertake community work. In many cases the community work included removing not only many of their own tags but also other people’s tags to give them a good lesson in having some respect for other people’s property.

In respect of this, however, we in New Zealand First are somewhat concerned that perhaps this is, in a sense, the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, in that this is fixing the graffiti at the end of the day once it is there, rather than, perhaps, preventing it before it even gets there. And that comes back to the education of our young people—good schooling, good upbringing, and, you know, good tuition from their teachers and from the parental guidance that they get, which is most important in this country. But also it comes back to resources within our police and our authorities to be able to ensure that people can get on top of this and the police can actually provide a presence in many of these communities so that this does not occur. Because, at the end of the day, if there is not much of a police presence in our communities, you can end up with antisocial behaviour, and often the antisocial behaviour goes hand in hand with the likes of graffiti, tagging, and vandalism, and often that in turn leads to much more serious crime. At the end of the day, if we can knock it on the head before it even gets to that stage, with greater police resources, so much the better.

In that regard I was very pleased that a number of years ago New Zealand First was the party that helped push through this House—this is a number of years ago under a Labour Government—a measure to get another thousand police on the beat around New Zealand. A thousand more police on the beat, under the Labour Government, supported by the initiative from New Zealand First to do that, negotiated by Rt Hon Winston Peters, to get a thousand more police out there in our communities. These are the sorts of resources that are needed around our country to ensure that this happens.

On another note we also need to have safeguards, and one of the safeguards with graffiti and vandalism is ensuring that the source of the materials used is also restricted. In that respect restricting access to aerosol cans and keeping them in DIY stores, in dairies, and in other places in locked cabinets so that nobody can just walk in and grab one off the shelf, or steal it, or try to get away with it as a young minor—these are the sorts of things that we do have to do to ensure that we restrict the access. Obviously, they have to use something to deface a fence, a wall, a house, a building, or whatever, and often it is aerosol paints that are used. So restricting access to those is very, very important.

In closing, can I just again commend all those who are involved with this. This is a good initiative. This is local government doing what local government is good at. It is bringing the concerns of its people, of its citizens, and of its communities to this Parliament, and it is getting things done. This is allowing local government to speak on behalf of its people. This is ensuring that on the 119th anniversary of women’s suffrage and giving women the vote, a local voice is heard, in the Hutt City Council and in this Parliament from the Hutt City Council. We certainly want to ensure that this sort of local democracy, local government, continues through all the communities of New Zealand and is not steamrolled out of existence by a National Government that really has very, very little interest in supporting the second tier of government in this country, a most important tier of government in this country, which, basically, is the glue for our communities to operate. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Sometimes in this House there are some things that are really hard to say. I am going to attempt one right now: Good on Trevor Mallard for bringing this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, into the House. I hope I do not have to say that too often in my time here. This is a good little piece of legislation that Trevor Mallard has helped to shepherd through for the Hutt City Council. Congratulations also to the Hutt City Council on proposing it, and to the mayor, Ray Wallace.

I will just be very brief here, because it is a simple bill and one that seems to have a lot of support around the House. Graffiti is a scourge on the local communities. It is something that locals dislike a lot. When it comes to graffiti on private property, it can be difficult for councils to clean it up, and for those who have their property graffitied on a regular basis, it can be time-consuming, and it can be costly for them to clean it up. So enabling the local authority to have the power to go in, after giving the property owner notice to go and clean it up, is a good thing, indeed. My only regret is that this is not actually a nationwide piece of legislation, because I think it would be quite good as a nationwide one.

Chris Hipkins: We’ve got a lazy Government.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Perhaps if we have some decent member’s bill ideas coming forward from the other side of the House—they could consider that for their members’ bills, rather than some of the things that are going to actually cost people jobs, and cost employers their ability to employ people. This bill is a good one. I support it and hope that it gets through unanimously.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): That was a very insightful call from Jami-Lee Ross. It is not often that we get National members standing up in the House and delivering such honest appraisals of their own Government’s performance, as we just saw from Jami-Lee Ross, who was condemning his own Government for not picking up the principle behind this piece of legislation, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, and making it a national bill. That was effectively what he just did. He took only 30 seconds to do it, and it was a very accurate appraisal of the Government’s performance on this issue.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: They need the Opposition on this bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right. It needs the Opposition to do it. I do take great pleasure in rising to speak in favour of this particular piece of legislation in the name of my colleague Trevor Mallard. I know that he has put a huge amount of work into this piece of legislation, and I only hope that in about 25 years’ time, after I have also been in Parliament for the equivalent length of time as Mr Mallard, I too may have a bill such as the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill passed through the House in my name.

But, perhaps on a more serious note, I do want to acknowledge the Hutt City Council, although I have a problem with that in one respect. I grew up in Lower Hutt. I do not know where this place Hutt City is. Actually, if you go to the New Zealand Geographic Board, it does not know where Hutt City is, either. There is Lower Hutt, and there is Upper Hutt, and in the not too distant past some empire-building mayor in Lower Hutt decided that he was going to rename Lower Hutt as Hutt City. There is actually no such place as Hutt City. And I can say that because I was born there and I grew up there. I do not know where this place Hutt City actually is. It is Lower Hutt, it has always been Lower Hutt, and it is still Lower Hutt. So that is just a little bit of my pet peeve for the day, which I just wanted to get off my chest. Now that I have done that, I want to turn a little bit more to the substance of the bill.

Graffiti has been a problem in the Hutt Valley, not just in Lower Hutt but in Upper Hutt as well, and this piece of legislation will allow the Lower Hutt council, or the Hutt City Council as it prefers to call itself, to remove graffiti from private property in certain circumstances. I just want to put into context what we are talking about here. We are not necessarily talking about garage doors, because in the case of a garage door on somebody’s house, it is not that difficult for the council to go and knock on their door and say “Hey, you’ve got graffiti there. Can we remove it?”. That is generally not where the problem begins. The problem begins in buildings that are not currently occupied. I will give an example of an old, empty factory that might back on to the riverbank, for example. In that case it can take a long time to actually figure out who owns it, to get hold of the owner if there is no tenant at the moment, and say “Actually, do you mind if we remove the graffiti?”. Of course, in 99 percent of the cases they say “Well, we don’t really care. Do whatever you like.”, but at the moment it is taking the council a long time to track down who those owners are and get their permission. What this bill says is just go ahead and do it. I think that is quite a reasonable thing for the council to be doing.

There are buildings in the Hutt Valley where it could take some time to track down the owners. I know of a building in Upper Hutt that will not be covered by this legislation, where the owner is based offshore. The building is no longer occupied, it is vandalised on a regular basis, and the owner actually just does not care. The owner does not live in New Zealand, does not have to drive past this particular property every day, and just does not care. If that property was in Lower Hutt, under this piece of legislation the council would be able to do something about that.

I think it is a welcome initiative. Graffiti is something that simply drives people mad. It is pointless. It is destructive. It is the destruction of people’s private properties. I really feel for some of the residents in my neighbourhood, actually, in Trentham, who I see out there painting their fences or waterblasting their fences on a fairly regular basis. It must be infuriating for them to have to get out there and repaint their fences after these little toe-rags basically get out there and—

Kris Faafoi: Toe-rags?

CHRIS HIPKINS: —that is right—vandalise their fences. But, actually, where I think there is another problem area, which I do not think this bill necessarily addresses and which we are seeing increasingly throughout the Hutt Valley, is etching. Etching of glass windows costs a heck of a lot more for local businesses than painting. Painting can be removed with a bit of turps. Etching is very, very expensive, and that is something that I think we need to find some solutions to as well. I know that it is costing our local businesses—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a brief call to reaffirm the Greens support for this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. At the risk of further offending Mr Hipkins’ sensibilities, I will refer to the Hutt City Council, given that it is the entity in whose name this bill is. It does deserve congratulations, particularly to the mayor, who I understand has provided some real leadership on this to get the solution to this point where the bill is being passed into law.

I do not pretend to know either Upper Hutt or Lower Hutt well. Certainly, I have no particular close experience of them. But having up until quite recently lived much of my life in Auckland City, I am no stranger to graffiti or to the significant cost that is imposed visually, socially, and, not least of all, economically. I think there would be a very strong case to encourage other councils to pick up a similar piece of legislation, and for this House to create some sort of general law that would enable other councils to resolve the issue of entering on to private land to remove this unsightly blot on the landscape, which graffiti is and always will be.

As I said, I do not know the Hutt particularly well, but I am interested to note that in the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee comparison was made with the Auckland rail corridor. I do know a thing or two about the scale of the problem in that context. I know that KiwiRail, supported by some very able and willing volunteer groups, has been working incredibly hard to try to clean up the Auckland rail corridor. So if Hutt City is experiencing the problem on the same scale as that, then it most certainly does have a problem. Indeed, KiwiRail in Auckland ran up against the same issue of private buildings bordering its rail corridor. It needed to seek permission to go and actually remove the graffiti there, for the simple reason that it had no absolute right to deal with that. A bill of this nature, I suspect, would have facilitated that process for it considerably, and for that reason the bill is to be supported.

The point has been made that the Greens did oppose a previous attempt to manage graffiti, which was the Manukau solution as it was possessed at the time. We saw that that was not the path to go down, to effectively criminalise young people for simply carrying marker pens. It was a highly complicated and somewhat punitive approach. This is a much cleaner, simpler approach. It simply puts the solution in the hands of the local authority in the community, not without considerable cost, and I acknowledge that, but over time hopefully we will uncover and apply some longer-term solutions.

Like Mr Auchinvole, I am actually old enough to recall when graffiti really was not particularly a problem in our cities, towns, and elsewhere. It is unfortunate to see that it has become so ubiquitous, so costly, and so negative in our communities. In fact, I recall in the late 1970s, just as a hobby, I did some photographic courses and did a little bit of a photographic essay of some of the graffiti that was around Auckland. Almost without exception it was social and political commentary. Some of it was very clever, some of it was very witty, and some of it was very apt to the political context of the day. That is not to excuse it or suggest that it is acceptable, but I literally had to go looking for examples of graffiti, and that was not that long ago. Nowadays, of course, one is hard-pressed in many areas or in many communities to find a wall that has not been defaced at some point. We have certainly got to a serious situation with this graffiti.

I think the definition of graffiti in the bill is good. I think it is a very useful and positive addition to the bill—to the legislation—that we are defining very clearly what it is we are talking about, to avoid the unfortunate incidents where murals—“graffiti art”, as it is referred to, will be protected. Again, I am not particularly a fan of graffiti art, but I acknowledge that there are many who do admire it and appreciate it, and it has proven to be a very effective mechanism for preventing the tagging, the defacing, that we are seeing far too much of.

As I have said, we need to continue to investigate the root causes: youth alienation and the fact that particularly youth who perform the tagging clearly have no empathy, no sense of the impact and the negative costs they are imposing, the social costs, and making people feel vulnerable if their homes or properties are damaged by graffiti. That is a much more difficult task. It will take a great deal of work by local government, community, and other authorities. I commend this bill and the Hutt City Council for this very useful measure. Kia ora.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): This is a very brief call—the last one from the National Party benches—that certainly commends the work of the Hon Trevor Mallard for a very sensible bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, and also the Local Government and Environment Committee and the approach it has taken on it.

Just very briefly, Rudi Giuliani, a former Mayor of New York, coined the phrase “broken windows”. That was born out of his approach to addressing petty crime at the bottom to bring the murder rate down. What he established through that was that if the city got on top of graffiti and those jumping the turnstiles to skip a dollar, it actually drove the homicide rate down and the serious crime rate down. That was something that was introduced in New Zealand in many police forces across the country. That approach is very much reflected in this bill. It will not only take care of the unsightly nature of graffiti and the impact that it has in terms of a community’s sense of pride, safety, and so forth, but it will actually, I am sure, have an impact on bringing down other crime related to it. I have no problem in commending this bill and the sponsoring member to the House. Thank you very much.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee that considered this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, I am very happy to take a call and congratulate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on shepherding this piece of legislation through the House. He worked very hard in the select committee, as the conduit between our committee and the Hutt City Council, to ensure that the changes that we were considering were deemed to be both acceptable and effective by the Hutt City Council. I think we have ended up with a piece of legislation that is not only workable but will be very effective in the Hutt City Council’s fight to eradicate graffiti in its area.

The issue of graffiti and tagging has been a major issue in Lower Hutt, going back many, many, many years. This is not a new issue. This is not something the council has only just decided to try to address—although I do note that Mayor Ray Wallace did make a plank of his election campaign a war on graffiti. Unfortunately, Lower Hutt is one of the worst areas in the country for tagging and for graffiti, and given that it is actually such a lovely part of the Wellington district, anything that serves to better the image of that community—throughout the rest of Wellington and the country—is indeed welcome.

Before I came into Parliament, I was a member of the Pētone Community Board in Lower Hutt. Graffiti was one of the main issues that people brought to us as a community board. Along with the protection of heritage buildings, one of the biggest issues that our community faced was the issue of tagging and graffiti. People would come to our community board meetings when, for example, there was a public building or a private residence that was significantly damaged, significantly graffitied, and say that they could not understand why nothing was being done about it. When they came to us, we would liaise with council officers.

What we often found were the very problems that have led to this piece of legislation, which are that often the people who owned the buildings were absentees; they were not there. Often they had not been paying rates, so it was clear that they had basically just departed from the district, and really had no more interest in the upkeep of that building. In the case of private buildings, sometimes they were dealing with tenants, who were not able to either fix it themselves—did not have the financial means—or felt that under the law, under residential tenancy legislation, it should be the landlord’s responsibility to do that work.

Whereas the council could often get the approval of the tenants, getting the approval of the landlords who actually owned the property was sometimes very, very difficult to do. We often ended up in the situation of having to say to them that we did not have the right to just walk on to someone’s property and make alterations; we could not find the people who own the building, we could not find the people who lease the building, and, therefore, our hands were really tied. That, obviously, does not go down particularly well with the members of the community who pay rates and who feel very proud of their community, and who get very disturbed and upset when they see buildings being defaced in the way that, unfortunately, they have been throughout Lower Hutt, and, in fact, throughout the country.

I think the comment that this is perhaps something that could be picked up by other councils is very pertinent. But as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has an enormous amount of legislation before it, we would probably rather see one Government bill than 60 different local government bills coming to our committee on this issue. So maybe it is something that the Government could pick up, to see whether or not there is a need and a demand for it throughout the rest of the country. As I said, our committee has done the work on it. Trevor Mallard has done the work on it. Certainly, the Hutt City Council and the issues, historically, that it has been facing with tagging and graffiti provided a very good basis for developing this legislation. I think it will be very easy to pick it up and roll it out throughout the rest of the country.

There are many reasons why this is an important issue. It might not seem like a big issue to some people, but serious issues of tagging and graffiti do affect property values for those people who live in the community around them. If someone sees an area where there is an enormous amount of tagging, where there may be a row of buildings owned by someone who is not present in the district and is not contactable, it can send a message out about that community that is very negative, which may affect the property values of other people around them, even if, in fact, that negative perception is not true. And so, in terms of the rights of other property owners in that area, this is a very important piece of legislation for them.

But I think one of the biggest reasons why this is important is that the quick removal of tagging, in particular, but graffiti in general, provides a strong disincentive against doing it again. What we know is that the longer it is left there, the longer the taggers—the people who are doing the graffiti—can get the satisfaction of seeing it, and the more likely they are to try to do it again or get the message that if they do it, it is something that is going to be there long term; that no one is going to do anything about it, and they can brag about it. The quicker you get rid of it and make it clear that as soon as it goes up it is coming down, then the quicker they will lose interest in going to those buildings and carrying out this particular destructive activity.

I want to note that the Hutt City Council has been dealing with this for a long time. It has a graffiti eradication officer. The council has been spending up to half a million dollars a year on graffiti removal in its community. The council, through its graffiti eradication officer, has been working with the community. So this is not simply just an approach of “This is the only thing we are going to do, and the minute it goes up, we are going to take it down.” The council has been engaging with the community and trying to address the underlying issues in those communities that lead to this antisocial behaviour, that lead to this destructive behaviour. That is a very important part of the equation, because times are very tough.

Unfortunately, when times get really tough, often we see an increase in these levels of antisocial behaviour. I would hate to see this bill not being seen in the context of the very difficult economic times in which we find ourselves. Putting it back on the Government members, a number of whom have made very positive comments about this piece of legislation, we certainly welcome their support for it, but I just say to them to not ever forget that the Government has a role in ensuring that we can have the kind of economy and the kind of community that does not lead to vast increases in antisocial behaviour because of economic hardship. Certainly, I know that around the country we have seen increases in antisocial behaviour. Do not take it out of context. Do not think that this bill is fixing it. This is actually a much, much bigger problem.

Sometimes I think we can get ourselves into this little bubble of this piece of legislation and lose sight of the big picture, which is that we need to deal with the core causes of antisocial behaviour, of this kind of destructive behaviour, by young people who feel so disconnected from their community that they can just go out and deface it. That is a worrying trend that you see. It is easy to just write them off and call them names, and do this, and that, and the other thing. But let us not be that glib about it, is all that I would say.

I think you have only to look around the world at some of the antisocial behaviour that is coming out of communities and, in particular, by young people, to see that there is something there that needs to be addressed. You never excuse the behaviour, but it is important to try to understand it and see if there is something far more serious lying at the base of it.

The select committee made a number of important changes to the legislation. One was actually to include a definition of “graffiti”. I think, again, it is important to put that in context. The Hutt City Council made it quite clear to us that there was not a lot of grey area in terms of the buildings that it was talking about. There were concerns, and I think we addressed them at the select committee, around the definition of graffiti, about where you get that line between graffiti and art.

What the council said to us was that it was not dealing with any cases where it thought anyone would seriously think that it was art; it was dealing with cases where it was clearly tagging, where it was clearly meant to offend, it was clearly meant to damage, and it was pretty cut and dried. But, yes, having a definition in the bill would mean that if it ever did come up with a case, from time to time, where there might be that line, then it had no problem with that safety net, if you like, being put in the legislation.

I think in terms of what the Hutt City Council are dealing with, and for people who might be listening to this debate and worrying that we are going to be starting to get into that area where the lines are blurred, we are not. What they are trying to deal with in the Hutt City is clearly graffiti. It is clearly meant to offend. This legislation will give the council the ability to deal with that.

We also made it very clear that this is graffiti in public sight. In terms of extending the powers of the council to go on to private property, it is where the graffiti is visible from a public point of view. So if it is right around the back of a house, the council would not have the right to go around there. There were some people who thought the council should have the right to go all the way around and remove graffiti if it was offensive and if it was meant just to deface. But we were very clear. This is where it is viewed from a public viewpoint. We were very clear that this is not about graffiti art, even though the council was telling us that that is absolutely not a problem.

I want to commend the Hutt City Council. It has done an awful lot of work. It has done an awful lot of work with utility providers, because power poles and power boxes are a target for taggers. I just want to acknowledge the huge amount of work that the council has put in to try to address the problem, without having to come to Parliament to ask for legislation. It has done amazing work. We find ourselves, along with the council, saying that it just needs this bit of legislation for us to get it over the line, so that we really can declare the war on graffiti that Mayor Wallace said that he was going to do when he was elected.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, this debate is concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, of the contrary opinion will say No. The Ayes have it.

Brendan Horan: Party vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You can ask for a party vote only if you are voting against it. Are you voting against it?

Brendan Horan: Oh, sorry.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You ask for a party vote only if you are disputing the call that I gave. I said that the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Minimum Wage Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 29 August.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I am very pleased to take a call on the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. In starting, I want to acknowledge the difficulties for those living on low incomes and on the minimum wage. The goal is indeed to increase the minimum wage. Indeed, this Government has done so every year since it came to office, as well as reducing the lower tax rates, including the first marginal tax rate to 10.5 percent and to 17.5 percent for those earning over $14,001, and we have maintained Working for Families.

I think that is really where any agreement or empathy I have with the sponsor of this bill ends, because, as I have said in this House in the past, Dr Clark has become very good at telling half a story very well. One of them is that this will not have an effect on businesses, on people on more than the minimum wage, or on unemployment. I want to take him to a place where he has never been, and that is into the smoko room of a small business. Let us say it is a plumbing firm in Dunedin North. He is sitting in a smoko room, and the story goes something like this: “Hey, guess what, Scott?”.

Scott Simpson: Tell me what.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: “I was on $13.50 an hour. The Government changed the law, and now I’m on $15 an hour.” Jami-Lee sits beside him in the smoko room and he says “Hang on. I was on $15 an hour. I was ahead of you by 11 percent. I’m going to go to my employer and say that I want an 11 percent increase in that wage.” So he gets to $16.67 an hour. Then another person in the plumbing firm—her name might be Louise—is sitting there going “Hang on, I was on $16.67 an hour. I want an 11 percent increase.” So that person goes to $18.52. And so on and so on. It is simply not acceptable—in fact, it is deceitful—to say that this would not have a knock-on effect on the thousands and thousands of small businesses in this country.

Let us remember that the other side talk about big business. They talk a lot about big business, do they not? But we know that nearly 60 percent of employees in this country are employed by businesses of fewer than—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the member’s speech, but I have a small business, and none of that happens in my small business.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sit down. That is not a point of order. Points of order are about process, not about content. The member has a chance to make a contribution to this debate later on if he wishes.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I was saying that this is a country of small businesses. Nearly 60 percent of employees in this country are employed by businesses employing fewer than 19 staff. If one takes it up to 50 staff, it is nearly 90 percent of all of those people.

Official advice on this bill has it that 5,500 people would lose their jobs. On this day, which is Women’s Suffrage Day, the same official advice says that 3,350 of those people would be women. Dr Clark blogs about the fact that this would not have any effect, and refers to unemployment rates in the 1990s. He says that Labour increased the minimum wage significantly and that unemployment went down. If you follow that logic, why do we not make the minimum wage $30, and unemployment would disappear? It is voodoo economics, and it does not make sense.

The last thing he has been blogging about is the Prime Minister’s cleaner. The Prime Minister’s cleaner, according to Dr Clark, is earning something like $14-something an hour. That is above the minimum wage but still not enough to live on, particularly given the many dependent children in her care—by some counts, it could be eight. That is a challenge. I accept that. But this is another example of the member telling half a story very well. Thanks to Working for Families and accommodation supplements, somebody in that situation, even on the minimum wage, with that many children in their care, would be getting the grossed-up equivalent of a $70,000 salary. I accept that that is an appropriate thing to do. In fact, anybody in that situation—

Dr David Clark: She’s a grandmother.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that does not mean that those children are not in her care.

Darien Fenton: They are not in her care.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So this is the point: telling half—

Dr David Clark: They’re not.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is right. Well, let us say that maybe only four children are in her care, so probably $60,000. The point is tell the whole story, Dr Clark, because it does this case no good. At least when Holly Walker talked about Working for Families in this debate she compared that with a subsidy to employers. I simply do not agree with that. If you call that a subsidy and then take it away from those people who have family members who need to be cared for and give it to people who do not, that does not make sense, nor does this bill.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. First we have to congratulate David Clark on his good fortune to have his bill actually drawn from the ballot. New Zealand First supports a minimum wage of $15 an hour. It was a policy that we actually campaigned on during the election, and it is great to see the support on this side of the House for this bill and this very important issue.

In New Zealand First we actually want Kiwis to be able to earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and at the moment too many people—young people, in particular—are struggling to make ends meet. Since GST went up in 2010 the minimum wage has increased only slightly, to $13.50 an hour. We have got 300,000 workers earning the minimum wage, and we see it in lots of businesses right around the country. I know of service stations where the workers are paid only the minimum wage, when they are the sole person who is actually on site. In Australia the minimum wage is the equivalent of NZ$20. I know that this Government has stated on many occasions that it is committed to closing the gaps. This is one way that it could close the gap with our neighbours. We can really make a start on this issue. As it currently stands, we have got an exodus of young people moving to Australia for jobs and for better wages, and they are going en masse. Many of them know that they can actually get a far better deal over the Ditch than what they get here.

For months we have seen reports of families struggling to live on the minimum wage, and we have got one report here, Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand, from the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty. We see reports of children working after school in jobs in order to pay for their school uniforms, because mum and dad cannot earn enough to actually buy it for them. I have got one such report here from August 2012 from Stuff, which says that a 16-year-old Auckland schoolboy “already works 25 hours a week to help keep his siblings in school … The teenager’s earnings helped pay for school fees, stationery and uniforms for him and his siblings but couldn’t cover school trips which they always missed out on.” This is indicative of people not having a reasonable living income. We know that children are going to school hungry. We have heard it often, right here in this Parliament, and, of course, that affects their learning. I know, having come from a school classroom.

Change has to begin with the low-income earners, with the battlers. It is these people who are the glue that keeps our society together. And we can see why people are packing their bags and heading over the Ditch. The high wages are a magnet that New Zealand just cannot compete with—yet we should. Wages have not even kept up with the cost of living. Everything we can think of—petrol, rates, rent, electricity, milk, even prescription charges—has gone up far faster than wages, yet we have a Government that has taken few steps to alleviate the pressure on hard-working Kiwis. I must say that I was delighted to hear Minister Bridges say in question time this afternoon that he was reconsidering the registration and the warrant of fitness fees. Anything will help these working people. What we have got here is the fact that we are left to some of the free-market ideologues in this Parliament and, quite frankly, with them there would be no minimum wage. We know that inequality has grown, and it continues to grow. But we in New Zealand First understand the dignity in doing an honest day’s work, and we recognise too that an honest day’s work requires an honest day’s pay. It is time for the House to act. We need to vote this bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so that businesses and the people of New Zealand can actually have their say.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I seek leave to table a photocopy of an article by the Bay Report, dated 20 December 2007. The Bay Report is a—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is a newspaper, is it not? It is readily available.

BRENDAN HORAN: Well, it is actually a newspaper in Whangarei, one of the most beautiful—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is a newspaper and it is readily available to any member.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table a submission document from Anglican Care Canterbury/Westland social justice division from February 2011, which states that increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Brendan Horan: Shocking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Can I just remind the member that the House decides whether or not a document is tabled. When that announcement has been made, and someone says that they do object to it, that is the end of the matter, and we cannot comment about that result. Does the member have another point of order?

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): Thank you. I am so sorry about that. It is just that I am so passionate about the people of New Zealand getting fair pay. But I seek leave to table a document from Statistics New Zealand that shows that 53,200 departed for Australia last year—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): To the member again, this is information that is readily available to all members. Members can access that sort of information, so we do not table documents that are readily available. When you want to table a document, it has to be something that cannot be accessed; it is not in the public domain. That is what tabling a document is about.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table a document from the New Zealand Human Rights Commission entitled Low pay and the minimum wage. This shows—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are trifling with the Chair. I have ruled very clearly that anything that can be accessed by members by whatever means is in the public domain, and we do not table that sort of document. I want the member to just reflect on what he is trying to do, because that is actually trifling with the decisions that I have made.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The Minimum Wage Amendment Bill in the name of David Clark is, I am sure, a sincerely well-intentioned bill, but it is flawed in its philosophy and its thrust and its focus. The way to create wealth for all New Zealanders is to have strong, vibrant, growing businesses that can afford to pay people well.

National does not support this bill. We do support the hard-working people of New Zealand, but not this bill. I do not want to endorse this bill, at all. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a real privilege and a pleasure to speak on the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate my colleague David Clark on his good work in bringing this bill to the House and his good fortune. In fact, he has been so lucky with the members’ draw that I have invited him to come with me to the races the next time I go. He has not actually taken that offer up yet, but I will forgive him, because he has brought forward such a good, solid Labour Party bill into this House to reflect our policy of increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That is in contrast to the platitudes that we get from the other side of the House. National members want to say that they support hard-working, low-income people but will not do anything to help them in their plight. Unlike that Government, the Labour Party is prepared to take the practical steps that will make a real difference for people in their day-to-day lives. That is the difference between National and Labour.

I think it is really appropriate that we are debating this bill on Women’s Suffrage Day, because, again, this is a really practical approach that we can take to support the working women of this country. Sadly, what we do know, and this is according to the Department of Labour itself, is that 57.1 percent of females are on the minimum wage—57.1 percent of women who are in paid employment are, in fact, on the minimum wage. So, if nothing else, this should tell us that if the Government is at all serious—at all serious—about closing the gender pay gap, clearly increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour would make a significant step in closing the gender pay gap in this country.

Women are far and away the largest demographic group who are on the minimum wage in New Zealand. They actually outstrip 18 to 24-year-olds on the minimum wage. There are 56.5 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds who are employed on the minimum wage. But I want to pause and think about that just for a minute. What is it that the Government feels comfortable with that women, no matter what age, end up staying on the minimum wage in greater proportions than young people entering the employment market for the first time? What is it about that that the Government feels comfortable with? Certainly on this side of the House we think that is wrong, and our view is shared by Judy McGregor in her role as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. Earlier this year she went undercover and did one of those minimum wage, low-paid jobs in rest homes. She was horrified. In fact, she called it modern-day slavery. She found that that very difficult work—physically challenging, intellectually challenging, and mentally exhausting work—was largely being paid for on the minimum wage. And, yes, it was almost all being delivered by women.

I want to challenge the Minister of Women’s Affairs about doing something about that situation, because the only work that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is doing on closing the gender pay gap is to say that all those rest home workers should go out and get men’s jobs. That is the only work the ministry is doing to close the gender pay gap. Apparently this would all be fixed if only these women would go out and be plumbers, if only these women would go out and be electricians, if only these women would go into those fields, because then we could solve the gender pay gap. Well, I want to know who will be looking after us in our old age, in rest homes. Who will be doing that work? I do not want them doing it on the minimum wage.

One of the reasons why the Government has tried to pretend that it will not support working families in this way, by increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, is that it says that will drive more unemployment. I challenge those members to go and talk to the miners in Huntly and tell them that that is the reason why they are losing their jobs. Those miners are not on the minimum wage, yet 120 of them in that small Waikato town are losing their jobs because of that Government’s policies. That Government is selling State-owned enterprises in that town, and that is making a huge difference to unemployment—it is increasing it significantly in the Waikato town of Huntly. So the crocodile tears, the lack of policy, the lack of understanding, and the lack of compassion from the National Government with regard to this bill do not make sense, and every New Zealander knows it. I am very proud to recommend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I just want to acknowledge that this bill, the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, is about the minimum wage, and I think it is probably important to give a minimum time for my speech. I think one thing we need to look at in this is that changing the minimum wage in this fashion is arbitrary, but one other aspect to consider is that when we talk about redistribution, we normally do that, generally, through such things as welfare, taxes, and so forth. What we have here is placing a large burden on a group of taxpayers, being small businesses. It is not the right way to do it. We cannot support this bill.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The Minimum Wage Amendment Bill is a chance to make a much-needed step towards addressing child poverty in New Zealand. The Children’s Commissioner’s report on child poverty makes for some distressing reading. Far too many of our children are growing up in households that cannot make ends meet, let alone give them the best start in life.

I want to just comment briefly on some of the hogwash that has been spoken from the other side of the House through this debate. There has been a lot of talk about employment effects of raising the minimum wage by this small amount. That is absolute rubbish—absolute rubbish. Research from the Department of Labour, the Government’s own officials, has suggested that the minimum wage rises that this Government has put in have had no measurable effect on unemployment. That is very similar to the evidence that comes through from Australia and from the United Kingdom. It is absolutely true that there is very little effect on employment, if any at all. Treasury says that on the balance of probability, this will not have any effect on unemployment. As we know, during the 1990s, when National put up the minimum wage—

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

Dr DAVID CLARK: When I was so rudely interrupted by the dinner break, I was just making the very point that when National put up the minimum wage just 70c in the 9 years that it was in power in the 1990s, unemployment hovered up between 6 percent and 11 percent. It never saw those levels again under the Labour Government, when the Labour Government put up the minimum wage by a whole $5 over its 9 years. There was more that needed to be done, but you cannot doubt that the minimum wage went up, and what happened? Unemployment went down, down to the lowest levels in the Western World, so those who would argue that raising the minimum wage would cause unemployment know themselves, deep down, that they are wrong. They know they are wrong.

What we also know is that even the mean-spirited people opposite, those people who would put a view like the one that Michael Woodhouse put, who have this mean view of human nature that says that people do not want to get out and work, and you have to pay them a whole lot of money to get them out and work, should understand that increasing the minimum wage—even those who put that mean-spirited view—would be a good incentive to get people in work. But the reason people want work and want to get out there and work is that they care about their families. The jobs are not there, and there are economic consequences to underpaying those people. There is the underachievement of those young people who do not have full stomachs when they go to school. They do not reach their potential. They do not become the future taxpaying citizens whom we would wish them to become, because they have not reached their potential. They get preventable illnesses through living in cold, damp, and overcrowded conditions, from parents who do not have enough money to look after them as they would want to. Then there are the costs of antisocial behaviour.

We know very well that the economic case for opposing the minimum wage rise does not stack up. The money that is paid in additional wages goes to stimulate the economy. It also is true that small and medium enterprises largely already pay above the minimum wage—certainly at a higher rate than other enterprises—and it actually levels the playing field when their competitors are forced to raise the minimum wage also. So that party opposite, I would say, is the enemy of small business. That party opposite hates small business. It hates the fact that small business already pays decent wages and is undercut by other operations that are on the lowest common denominator. We need to pay a decent wage. We need to pay people the money that they need to live, to live good lives, to reach their potential, and to contribute towards our economy. This Government has the worst economic record in 50 years. There are nearly 50,000 more people in unemployment, and we know that 50,000 people a year are leaving this country permanently to go to Australia. The reason they are going to Australia is that wages are higher there. Wages are higher there. Nearly NZ$20 is the very lowest wage that gets paid there. There is a huge gap between New Zealand and Australia in wages, and if we continue to underpay, underpay, and underpay, we will see our children and grandchildren disappearing off to Australia, where they can get paid better.

This bill is a chance to take a much-needed step towards addressing child poverty in New Zealand. It is simple. It puts $60 a week more in the wage packet of a 40-hour-a-week worker so that they can put the necessities—the milk and cereal—out for the kids. It is not a cure-all for child poverty, but it is a very good start. I want to say in closing that the Prime Minister has admitted that he could not live on the minimum wage. Why does he think anyone else can? It is disgraceful and shameful for the Government to oppose this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 59

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; 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.

Personal Explanations

Speakers and Presiding Officers—Member’s Apology for Seeking Leave to Table Documents Already Available

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): Earlier I was most remiss, and my leader has suggested that I stand here. I would like to apologise not only to you, Mr Speaker, but also to my colleagues from the Greens, and also to United Future and to ACT, and also—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I understand what the member is wanting to do, but he should seek leave to do that by way of a personal statement. So are you seeking leave?

BRENDAN HORAN: Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. The member may proceed.

BRENDAN HORAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I would just like to apologise for trifling with the Chair earlier.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Apology accepted.

Bills

Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā nō tātou katoa. I move, That the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that this bill go to the Government Administration Committee to enjoy consideration. This is a particularly important piece of the machinery of our constitution and our Government, which has been starved as a consequence of a very parsimonious approach taken by the current Government to adequately resourcing the Office of the Ombudsmen. The Office of the Ombudsmen has a bark that can have an effect not unlike a set of teeth marks on recalcitrant bureaucrats. At all times we need to ensure that this office is suitably and adequately resourced.

Unlike other members of the House, the officers of that office are not prone to florid, extravagant language. It falls to me to be a moderate and sober representative for them and their concerns, which were reflected in the select committee report that considered the report of that office where no one on that side of the House stepped up to alleviate the concerns, or certainly adequately alleviate the concerns, of such figures as David McGee QC and Dame Beverley Wakem, the two senior office holders in that institution at the moment. They said that the workload is such that they are struggling to maintain the quality of work and the quantity of output that has defined their work to date.

It is evident that their staff are experiencing an enormous amount of work and their staff are stretched. We, as members of Parliament, ought at all times to ensure that they are suitably resourced, because when their work is carried out on a consistent basis it has the effect of ensuring that the bureaucracy operates to a high standard of quality. I have only to think, in the spirit of openness, about the Zaoui debacle where Mel Smith, the Ombudsman of that time, was able to delve into the innards of the immigration department, and indeed found that an individual—I recall the name being Ian Smith—had not only failed to provide the necessary information but also failed in his duties. It ended up costing the reputation of that department and, indeed, unnecessary amounts of money. This is an example of why the office ought to be adequately funded.

Let me talk about what this bill, pithy in size, but deep, deep, deep in reach, seeks to do. What this bill seeks to do is to establish a regime where recalcitrant, uninterested, indifferent bureaucrats have their department face a financial cost should they not be efficient and respond with alacrity to the constitutional concerns of the Office of the Ombudsmen.

I need to say it may be said that by enabling the Office of the Ombudsmen to pass on a charge as a consequence of the sluggish behaviour of these bureaucrats, it could give rise to a difficulty with a conflict of interest perception. That is not—that is not—the case in terms of the thinking behind this bill and neither is it the case in the words used in this bill. It is an opportunity for us to incentivise the Government departments so that they realise that where their actions do not measure up to the expectations of the Office of the Ombudsmen, then they do not get a free pass. But it is measuring the sense of crisis—and I use that word because I am borrowing the language that was in the actual report that quoted Dame Beverley as describing the paucity of resources reaching a crisis level.

It may suit that side of the House to diminish the status of these officers of the House. Indeed, they are about to do it to the environmental ombudsman. But on this side we stand to ensure that such steps cannot be taken in a furtive way. They will be publicised at all relevant points in this constitutional journey.

Why are we required to bring this bill, when there is an opportunity on that side of the House to simply increase the appropriation? It might be said National is not doing that because of the general scarcity of resources. But I go back to the central principle, which Dame Beverley herself has pointed out. When her office is adequately resourced, that actually enables it to resolve a whole host of difficulties behind the scenes and ensure that Government departments do not act in a fashion that worsens either the reputation of the bureaucracy or further frustrates the legitimate interests and concerns of New Zealanders when they seek out information.

All electors require a watchdog. This institution is a constitutionally mandated watchdog, and the provenance of it goes back a little bit before my time. There could be certain members of the House who remember Sir Guy Powles back in the 1960s—slightly before my time—but that gives an indication of how deeply embedded this institution is in our machinery of government. And for what I would say is the miserly sum of $700,000, which is the difference between the $300,000 gesture—which came from the frugal, parsimonious, flinty Mr English, who seems to be diminishing the status and the role of this organisation all for $700,000—and the additional million dollars the office needs to get rid of the backlog. We should be doing that. Why? Because it is not reasonable for citizens to wait incessantly because this institution, the Office of the Ombudsmen, lacks the resources.

We have been told that nigh on 80 percent of the complaints actually come from individuals. There has been a host of colourful complaints. Obviously, I think here not only of the Zaoui case but of the work, for example, that happened in the complaint that was made in relation to the photos that the police had concerning the French rugby player who got into a spot of bother. The Office of the Ombudsmen was available to assist the media. Although that does not strike at the heart of the Government, it enables the media—which from time to time can be rather irritating, but they have a role to play as well; the fourth estate—to ensure that they get quality information.

Kris Faafoi: Be nice to them.

Hon SHANE JONES: Should I be nice to the media? Ninety-five percent, but unfortunately words are inversely related to reality when you deal with the fourth estate. That is another matter, and I wish them well in trying to ascertain what is really happening with my Māori relations and their water hui and the Government.

But to come back, in terms of the Ombudsmen, I think it is important to bear in mind that the office has jurisdiction over local government. It has jurisdiction over local government, so its workload has grown, and it has probably grown on the back of the global financial crisis, as people feel that as the current Government is rationing resources, their concerns are not being adequately aired, they are not being adequately considered, or, indeed, new grievances are growing. So why not ensure that the watchdog, which is a force for good in relation to the electors, is adequately funded?

We realise that the refined voices of Dame Beverley and Dave McGee will not take on an acidic tone like those members of the House—they will remain refined. But I have only to quote the words of Dame Beverley where she said that they are in crisis. So it falls to us as parliamentarians to highlight that sense of crisis, to warn both ourselves and electors that if it is left to wend its way unattended, mischief could be afoot.

Thirdly, we as parliamentarians ought to ensure that the institutions that report to Parliament are held in the highest public esteem. They are not asking for a great deal; they are asking to be treated respectfully. I have got no doubt that the next report they send in our direction will repeat the concerns that they suffer as a consequence of the miserly level of the paucity of resources that they currently have access to. So this is a legitimate piece of legislation—proposed legislation. I look forward to it being—perhaps forlornly—supported by all sentient members of the House and I would like to put on record that, after the vote, they may prove to be a very diminished number. Thank you very much.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Just to make sure that someone does not get away with any false arguments, I seek leave to table a letter from the Auckland Council charging an exorbitant fee for official information, as an example of the injustice of the present legislation, which is seeking to be remedied. This letter is dated 13 April 2012 and happens to be addressed to me—seeking information off them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you seeking to table that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I am.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

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

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak on the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill put forward by the Hon Shane Jones. This bill would enable the Ombudsmen to recover the cost of their investigations from the agencies being investigated. This is the plan of the bill, but, frankly, it would not be the only outcome and it would not, I do not think, be as effective as is suggested. This bill lacks the thumbprint of work done by that member normally.

When I think back to the times I have worked with the Hon Shane Jones, I think of the Resource Management Act, and the emissions trading scheme—all sort of major legislation that has involved him over the last few years. Clearly he is a powerhouse within the ranks of Labour, a towering intellect, and a powerful debater, yet this is what we get. To put it flatly, this is a premature bill that will satisfy neither the needs of the Office of the Ombudsmen nor the needs of the taxpayers of New Zealand. It is a bill that seems to have been put together by someone simply wanting to fill the members’ bill bucket. [Interruption] It is premature.

The Government acknowledges and appreciates the importance of the oversight the Ombudsmen provide and their contribution to a just and fair society. However, the Government also acknowledges something the member across the Chamber has yet to and that has been the unintended fiscal consequences that could arrive without proper investigation of shifting the costs from Government agencies to the Ombudsmen’s budget. It is a peculiar suggestion and I really wonder how involved Shane has been with putting this bill together, because suddenly you are allowing people, you could say, to write their own cheques.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The promoter of this bill is the Hon Shane Jones. He is not “Shane”. He is the Hon Shane Jones and even if you have got new backbenchers over there we must not let our standards drop in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I shall rule on that. I think the member who was speaking is aware of that and I think it was perhaps a blemish in his utterances. I just ask him to be cognisant of the fact that he should use the appropriate nomenclature.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I acknowledge a little bit of a lapse there in the normal—

Hon Shane Jones: Egregious!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: An egregious lapse? I do not think it was an egregious lapse, and I am grateful to the Rt Hon Winston Peters for just reminding me of that fact.

However, let us go back to the bill. Robert K Merton, then of Harvard University, stated this in his article “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action”. It was published in the American Sociological Review. He quotes: “The most obvious limitation to a correct anticipation of consequences of action is provided by the existing state of knowledge.”

In this bill you are looking at half an equation. What you are saying is: “Gosh! They’re a bit short of money. Let’s give them the capacity to charge more.” I wonder what sort of a political tool that could be in the hands of an imaginative Opposition member. It could be very, very useful. There is no conflict of interest, we are assured. Where does this assurance come from? It is from the Hon Shane Jones, who is putting the bill into Parliament. He has given us his verbal assurance that there is no conflict of interest. Do we need to take it further? I think not, because he is an honourable man. Do you know, I am honestly left wondering how much he really understands the bill. It is quite common, when we stand to speak on a bill, for members on the other side to say: “Do you understand what you’re talking about?”; “Do you really know this bill?”. Well, we can reverse the charge in this case, and even though the member used his wonderful vocabulary, his entertaining tongue, his—

David Bennett: Oh, that’s immaterial.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh, no, no, he does, and let us be fair about this. He blends the benefits of Welsh culture, Māori culture, and Yugoslav determination. That was his own description of himself, as he gloried in the genetic mix. Although we have all done the same, and we did enjoy listening to him, we will not, on this side of the House, be supporting the passage of this bill. Thank you.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I would like to seek leave to table a document from the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom. It outlines a model of cost recovery that is similar to the one this bill proposes. It is intended primarily as a general guide for businesses—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we have got the picture. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

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

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to take a call on this Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow Mr Auchinvole, as it always is. He is a member whom I could be charitable about and say that he usually has good judgment, but in this case he has misjudged the importance of this bill and the impact that it will have. He has misjudged it. He has talked about the other legislation that the Hon Shane Jones has shepherded through this House and the enormity of it. He has said that this piece of legislation might be rats and mice—rats and mice—in comparison with that legislation. But that shows a complete lack of judgment from Mr Auchinvole about the enormity and the importance of this bill.

The Office of the Ombudsmen does have a very important constitutional function to make sure that all our Government agencies are acting as to the laws that are passed in this House, and their own internal standards and processes. So to ensure that the Office of the Ombudsmen is correctly resourced is a very important constitutional function of this Government. To make sure that it is funded properly is also a very important function of this Parliament and of the Government.

The Hon Shane Jones, the sponsor of this bill, said that the 2011 financial review of the Office of the Ombudsmen said that the office was “in crisis”—in crisis—due to its high caseload and its inability to meet its demands. So this bill has travelled to this stage, as a member’s bill, in order to try to rectify the issue that was highlighted in that 2011 financial review, where it said the office was in crisis, and to make sure that the office is properly resourced so it can carry out its very important constitutional functions.

Those Government departments, those bureaucrats that the Hon Shane Jones was alluding to earlier on in his speech, have to be investigated properly when members of the public, or maybe the media—the fourth estate—feel that they have not had due process followed. I know that as a former member of the fourth estate, when you got an Official Information Act request declined and you did not feel that it had been processed in a fair manner, then it was off to the Office of the Ombudsmen to try to make sure that that information—which you thought you were rightfully trying to get your hands on—was investigated as to whether the agency was acting in its correct capacity, according to the legislation and its own internal processes. And I will be honest: some of the Official Information Act requests, speaking as a former journalist, asking for responses from a Minister’s office were requests of this party. But still, it is a very important constitutional role that the Office of the Ombudsmen has to make sure that those Government agencies and Ministers’ offices have followed the proper procedure as is prescribed in law, and also in their own internal processes.

Just last week I had a constituent contact me who had come to the end of their tether with a Government agency. They had spent a couple of years dealing with this agency. They had felt they had come to the end of the process that they could with that agency, which I will not name. The advice that I gave to that constituent was that the Office of the Ombudsmen was the only fair and reasonable place left for them to go. But I did caution them that if they did decide to go down that road, it could be some considerable time before they got a response. I say that out of experience. On this side of the House we know that we have put forward requests under the Official Information Act, and there have been attempts to—I think I will use a word that John Banks has used—gerrymander the process in order to delay the release of that information, or to not release that information at all.

I think we need to make sure that the Office of the Ombudsmen is resourced properly. That is what this bill tries to do in order for them to recover some costs from some of these agencies, so that very important constitutional role of the Office of the Ombudsmen can be carried out in order for the average Joe Citizen, for members of Parliament, for agencies dealing with Government agencies, and, of course, for the fourth estate to try to make sure that those legislative roles are adhered to.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Given the shortness of this bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, I am going to give a speech of appropriate length—a very short one indeed. I know that the Hon Shane Jones has put a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of research into this vast piece of legislation. A colleague, Mr Auchinvole, has outlined the National Party’s reasons for why we will be voting against this bill. We think it is premature, and we think it will have unintended fiscal consequences.

But I do want to pick up on one point that the member was talking about.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How about doing a bit of work over there?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I heard about the work that was being undertaken at the Green Parrot at 3 a.m. last night. I heard about it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not having that young pup get up and make an allegation like that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member responded to an interjection that may or may not have been appropriate. I did not see that it was creating disorder in the House. I ask the member to continue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not asking you to see whether you can agree with me; I am asking you to listen to my complaint. He made an allegation that is totally false and baseless. I have got thousands of—well, not thousands; I have got at least seven or eight—hotel witnesses who can back up what I am saying, where I stayed, and where I am accommodated, I might add. That allegation he made about somebody being out at 3 a.m. is totally false, and he should apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He did not name any individual, at all; he just made a broad statement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, go and look at the Hansard. He pointed over here and mentioned “that member”. That is an indication and a sign that would be adequate in a court of law. I suggest that it would be adequate for you to now find that he is responsible for bringing the House into disrepute and for being unruly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am overruling the point of order. Jami-Lee Ross—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on this, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, you cannot make an allegation like that, refer to a member and point to him in a way that in a court of law would be regarded as being satisfactory for identification, make an allegation that someone was out at 3 a.m. when he was demonstrably not, and then think I am going to take that. I am entitled to have that man apologise, and I am asking that you rule properly and fairly in this case, as I would back up any other member who, being wrongly indicated or described in that way, is entitled to have his record clear.

Hon Chester Borrows: My recollection was that the member who is the subject of this point of order said that he had heard something. That can be uncontested. He either did or he did not, and he made the assertion only that he had heard some news, not that he was an eyewitness.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I respond to that. With respect, if you make an allegation that you heard something, that is you repeating it. If it was a crime, then you are equally as guilty of spreading or introducing the defamation or the slander. As a former policeman, that member should know that. You cannot say “I was misinformed that somebody is a paedophile.”, for example. You cannot get away with that. He knows that. So I do not think that that statement, by way of explanation, was in any way meritorious at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have heard enough, thank you. I was listening very carefully to the member, and I have a very clear recollection that he said “I heard about the work being done at the Green Parrot.” That is all he said. I am not upholding the point of order.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I have been informed by my whips that I should now hurry up, so I shall just make the final point I was going to make: that I reject the assertions that this Government has been underfunding the Office of the Ombudsmen. In fact, we have put an increased $1.3 million into its budget—an increase of 16 percent. When we have zero budgets being looked at across the board, that is quite a significant increase. I think that is admirable and should be respected by the Opposition.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I would like to table a document called Paying for the Executioner’s Bullet. This document is not readily available in the public domain—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, what is the source?

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): It has been provided by a formidable legal firm going by the name of Simpson Grierson, which is a firm of great distinction—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think members are aware. [Interruption] Order!

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): If I could briefly elaborate—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member does not need to. I will put the leave.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I seek the leave of the House to table it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I will put the leave. Leave is sought for the tabling of that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

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

HOLLY WALKER (Green): I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. Unlike many of the speakers so far in this debate, with the exception of Mr Auchinvole, I was part of the Government Administration Committee that conducted the financial review into the Office of the Ombudsmen that prompted the need for this legislation. I am pleased to say that there can be no doubt that that office is in crisis and that intervention is required. I thought it would be helpful, first of all, to reflect upon the importance of the Office of the Ombudsmen in the vital—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect I just saw something that is thoroughly untoward in a democracy, particularly on a very important matter, and that is the whip of a party going to tell other members not to take their call. That is serious.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That has got nothing to do with the order of the House.

HOLLY WALKER: I was reflecting on the vital role of the Ombudsmen and the democratic and constitutional purpose that they play. The Ombudsmen provide an independent, impartial check on the quality, fairness, and integrity of the administration and decision making in the wider State sector. That includes investigating complaints about the administrative conduct of central and local government agencies, and complaints about the decisions of Ministers of the Crown; providing information and guidance to employees wishing to report serious wrongdoing in their workplace, including whistleblowing; and examining and monitoring the treatment of persons detained in prisons, premises approved and agreed under the Immigration Act, health and disability places of detention, and youth justice residences. We often think of the Ombudsmen in relation only to the Official Information Act and complaints placed about that, but, in fact, they have a far wider role that also includes protecting and monitoring the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. All of those functions are very critical to both our constitution and our democracy, and to the public’s right to honesty, integrity, and transparency in those processes. So it is a very important role indeed, and it is very important that it is an office that is adequately resourced.

What we heard at the select committee during the financial review that has prompted this legislation is that the office is in crisis. For example, the office’s budget is established for a workload of 800 to 1,000 cases at any given time, but it now routinely deals with between 1,600 to 1,800 cases at any one time with no corresponding increase in funding. At the time of the review the office had 1,854 live cases, and of those over 300 were unassigned to an investigator. They were sitting unassigned because all the investigators were at their maximum tolerable workload—“tolerable” being a very important word there. These are people who are under a great deal of stress in this office. That meant that the office was consistently failing to meet deadlines and it was predicted that it would continue to do so because of the lack of resources. The effect on staff well-being in the office, we heard at the committee, was very serious indeed. Because it was currently understaffed by four investigators, and there had been no movement in staff salaries since 2007, it had a very high staff turnover, and it also had issues of staff sickness and stress leave because of high rates of serious illness and the stresses placed on staff working under the conditions that we have described, with the growing complexity and volume of cases and the lack of funding to deal with them. So it is not a pretty picture to be a staff member in the Office of the Ombudsmen at the moment. This bill from the Hon Shane Jones helps, I think, to partially resolve these issues by allowing the Ombudsmen the ability to recover costs, as well as promoting greater compliance from the Government departments and agencies being investigated.

If I may at this point give a personal example, I have a complaint with the Ombudsman that has now been sitting undealt with for almost a year. I do not hold any animus to the Office of the Ombudsmen for that state of affairs, but it is an important case where the police, a Government agency, cited a legal opinion in the media to say that they had decided to stop having sniffer dogs doing drug tests in schools because they had had a legal opinion telling them that they should no longer do that. We requested that legal opinion under the Official Information Act. It was not forthcoming, so we made a complaint to the Ombudsman. It transpired that no such legal opinion actually existed, yet the agency—the police—had gone on record publicly claiming that this opinion was the reason for no longer doing something. In fact, it did not exist. The Ombudsmen should be able to give a remedy in this case, and because they are under-resourced they are not able to do so. That is one example of why we need this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I will take a short call, first of all to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones, a fellow Northlander and someone I have a great deal of respect for. I do, however, feel that it might have been something of a member’s bill hospital pass for the Hon Shane Jones, but I will not dwell on that.

I would like to acknowledge the important role of the Office of the Ombudsmen. One of the stated purposes in this bill is greater compliance with legislative requirements, which is, of course, a very noble and very worthy goal. The importance of the Official Information Act cannot be understated. As a former police officer I can certainly vouch for that. It is a very important part of the constitution of this country. However, there is a very real risk, in my view, of unintended consequences with this bill as it is set out that members could liken to crushing a walnut with a sledgehammer. Although the speech made by the Hon Shane Jones is one that will, I am sure, be going straight to the pool room, this member cannot support this bill beyond this reading. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table, in rebuttal of course, a complaint by a Christchurch citizen in respect of the Office of the Ombudsmen. He says that the whole office is currently underfunded, backing up this bill’s contention.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that paper. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

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

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I would like to begin by congratulating Shane Jones on bringing this bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, to the House, because it is a common-sense bill. People out there in the community know common sense when they see it. Obviously, that does not include members on the other side of the House, but it does include the vast majority of New Zealanders. They will see it as a common-sense bill because it has three major advantages. First of all, it adds a new income stream to the Office of the Ombudsmen to help meet demand, and we all know that that demand is not being met currently. Why would anyone wish to stop that? You would have to have no common sense at all. Some of those members over there, of course, fall into that category. The bill will suppress demand, when Government agencies realise that they need to avoid the Ombudsman, because, with this legislation, there would be associated costs. So it will help to suppress demand, and that is something that common sense also dictates. Thirdly, it will mean that agencies are more willing to satisfy applicants for official information without having to go to the Ombudsman, and that is the way it should be too. That is a third common-sense reason that the members on the other side of the House will not be able to grasp, but the people out there in the community will.

Like many other members here I have some personal experience in dealing with Government agencies and city councils and trying to get basic information out of them. The fact that there is legislation that says they must actually do this in practice is not enough. I would like to give you this example. After my 15 years with the city council, where I did a lot of work to assist the development of recycling, I, with some others, set up a company that would do commercial and industrial recycling—something that had never been done properly in New Zealand before. In order to do that I needed the cooperation of the Christchurch City Council. I particularly needed some information from it. The council’s obstruction was absolutely disgraceful. You would have thought that a city council would fall over backwards to help people who were trying to promote commercial and industrial recycling in this country, but, no, the council’s imperatives were that it wanted to protect its own operations, so it would not give that information. Replies to requests that were designed to avoid giving important parts of the information were what I got. There were spurious reasons for not supplying the information. There was a legalistic approach by that particular agency to defer further applications, using legal gobbledegook that meant nothing but created delay. There was obvious obfuscation. There was a need for repeated applications to get basic information that should have been volunteered in the first place. The release of self-serving versions of information with the use of large sections of blanking out of documents was also employed by that city council, and is commonly employed by other agencies and councils as well.

In addition to that there were, and are, often deliberate delays beyond statutory limits, because councils and agencies know they can get away with it, and they should not. Mostly, the expectation that failing to assist people with valid applications for information will result only in an appeal to the Ombudsman, with no cost or other serious ramifications, is what we see on a daily basis with applications for official information in this country. This bill will help to change that. It will provide guidelines regarding the amount of the costs and guidelines about the circumstances—so there you have the safeguards.

The bill does extend to local government, and so it should. When you look at the behaviour of the Christchurch City Council, which I am now deeply ashamed of, you will see that this bill is absolutely necessary to create some balance in the situation. Councils and agencies can charge for information. Here we get something back in the other direction—some balance in the situation—where they will be charged if they do not do what they should have done in the first place.

So for all those reasons—for all those reasons—this bill deserves the support of this House, and the House should do so with enthusiasm. I am deeply disappointed that the National members obviously do not care about the seriousness of this problem. Their lack of common sense—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has expired.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I seek the leave of the House to table a document.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I need a bit more information. The source?

Hon SHANE JONES: The document is historical. It is a copy of the investigation undertaken by Mel Smith into the egregious behaviour of the Immigration Service.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. Leave is granted.

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

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is always a pleasure to hear the almost poetic assemblage of words gathered together by the Hon Shane Jones when defending or promoting his various bills—of course, today, this one, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill.

But what always concerns me is the unrequited reflex action demonstrated by both the Labour Party and the Greens, but perhaps not the New Zealand First Party, to spend, spend, spend without a good and rational reason to do so.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order. The use of the word “unrequited” suggests a love-in with me and the Greens. That is wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is a debating point. It is not a point of order.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed once again the Hon Shane Jones had mentioned three or four words, and as we know, they hang on to those words. His microphone was not on, once again, and this is happening too often—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Of course his microphone is not on. The call is over here. Paul Hutchison continues.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: One of the things I did notice was his estimation of the costs of this bill being about $700,000, but I do know that there has been no detailed work into how this bill would actually—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, my colleague raised a point of order, and the point of order was that when some other colleague was seeking to make a point of order, at no time was the sound system turned on. To get up and gruffly say that of course it was not on, and the thing was over there, is utter bunkum. The point of order required it to go there because he had a legitimate point of order to make. Could we have some—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I hear the point of order now. I thought he was referring to an interjection. I am sorry about that.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: The great concern is the fact that the Law Commission has indeed done some work on this. The Government’s response is yes, to wait, and when this afternoon I asked my PA to ring Shane Jones’ PA to ask for information and detail on this bill, she said there was none—she said there was none. We will be voting against this bill.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on a bill from the Hon Shane Jones. The Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill is about an organisation that probably is one of the most respected organisations in the State system in New Zealand, so I want to acknowledge the work of the Ombudsmen, all of them, and their staff. I have been involved with them, I have seen them operate from the many different positions I have held, and I certainly want to acknowledge their diligence and the timeliness of the work they do. It is one of the most trusted organisations and certainly one whose assistance is often called for when a citizen is at the end of their tether, whoever that citizen may be. So I want to acknowledge that.

The second point I want to make is that, really, there is a wonderful elegance in the primary proposal in this bill. It actually will force a discipline amongst Government departments, particularly those against whom complaints are made regularly.

Denis O’Rourke: And councils.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Indeed—I agree with the member. I must admit that I said to Mr Jones that I had never thought of this, but it does actually require all Government departments, if this bill passes, to not only internalise their discipline about timely response but also not subject themselves to complaints that can be upheld. There are many, many examples of that. Because there is the ability in Government departments, with all of the might of these huge departments and all of the resources they produce, to prevaricate, to take their time, and to really disable citizens from accessing their primary right to information, citizens need redress from what is the ultimate public servant, which is the Ombudsman. That is what the Ombudsman is—the ultimate public servant; a servant of the public. They have internalised that.

So, here, what this bill is saying is that if a complaint is made against you and charges are involved—and, of course, the bill also says the Office of the Ombudsmen will set guidelines as to how this is to operate—then be warned that the costs incurred will fall on you. They will fall on the department; never on you, Mr Speaker. I would never impugn you like that, at all. But that will breed a discipline.

I would have expected members opposite to understand this, because in all of the social development, social welfare, and benefit reform work that they have been doing, they have wanted to put incentives in. They are actually disincentives, but, you know, they have put in the ability to punish those who do not carry on. But why is it that members opposite have not applied their minds to the elegant simplicity of this bill—

Hon Shane Jones: Elegance.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Absolutely. It does do that. At the same time, I say to the member from the north, it actually also addresses a problem. Remember, the Office of the Ombudsmen is an Officer of Parliament. This is one of the officers of this place we are talking about. That office often has had to come to Parliament, cap in hand, asking for small amounts of money to get its work on its complaints done, and it has done that quite regularly. So it does address that problem. It addresses the issue of breeding discipline amongst Government departments. So it ticks off both those things.

Finally, what it does is it actually enables—and there is a list of complaints one could go through and examples of misuse, often by Ministers and Government departments, etc., where they prevaricate. A piece of information is asked for and it is not provided, and the spin machine actually works overtime. Of course, this Government uses that strategy a lot. Maybe that is why it is so touchy about this particular issue.

So it is a good bill. It is an elegant bill. It addresses a number of questions, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): If I can get the sound system on, I seek leave of the House to table a letter dated 12 September 2012 from a constituent who said, amongst other things, that the bill will stop abuse of the Ombudsman’s agency by less than upfront entities, and who generally supports the legislation—dated 12 September.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that is a letter to you?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: A letter to my colleague.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A letter to your colleague?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

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

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): This bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, is one in the name of Shane Jones. I think that we all recognise the importance of the Ombudsmen and the work that is being done, and are very much aware and supportive of that work. But we are also aware of the costs that this would impose, and as a Government that looks at what is the best for New Zealand going forward in our economic conditions, we cannot support it at this time.

I would just like to say that this is probably one of the better bills that we are going to debate tonight, though. The next bill is a very good one, in Darien Fenton’s name, but following that, I think, the night will descend into a state of fictional challenges.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. His being new and naive is no excuse to go outside the Standing Orders, which says that when you are debating this legislation you cannot refer to a bill coming up two steps away from this. It is simply not allowed. You have got to come back to the debate on the subject before the House, which is the Hon Shane Jones’ magnificent bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is correct. I will uphold the point of order. The member should debate the bill currently before us.

DAVID BENNETT: Well, unfortunately, the bill cannot be supported, because it would mean an extra cost into the New Zealand system, which is not needed at this time. It is not really the kind of thing you would expect Shane Jones to promote, being somebody who is known in the Labour Party as a good advocate for financial management. So it is a bit disappointing that it comes in his name, but we do look forward to future bills tonight.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I seek leave to table a letter. It is from a constituent in support of the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. It is addressed to me, and it is dated 19 September 2012.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

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

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I understand that 5 illustrious minutes remain available to ensure that all the concerns associated with this bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, will be amplified. You may recall that I said that the gauge of sentience will be informed by the quality and the quantity of the votes. I have a fear that sentience ebbs as it goes to that side of the House, based on some of the sort of indiscriminate rhetoric thrown around in the House this evening.

I just want to remind the House that one no less illustrious than David McGee, who I understand is standing down from the role, is the current senior steward, along with Dame Beverley Wakem, of this Office of the Ombudsmen, and, let me say, constitutional institution.

It might be said that the funding of such an institution is not just a matter for the Labour members. It is a matter for members of the House. But the reality, as we have seen in the course of this debate, is that the majority of the members of the House, certainly those occupying that side, are obviously screwing the scrum. They are not interested in dealing with these genuine concerns about the adequacy of the resource base. They might think that this is a way of better conserving resources, but you cannot run the institutions that report to Parliament as some sorts of narrow, commercial, partly privatised entities. They are organs of democracy, and their costs cannot be measured purely in a day-to-day, year-to-year monetary form. Their costs should be associated with the value that the institution generates by improving people’s confidence in the behaviour of the executive.

So I want to remind that side of the House—just to show I am willing to talk about mistakes that happened in an earlier administration—that a former Ombudsman, Mr Belgrave, looked into what was perhaps one of the nastiest incidents that I watched befall a family as a consequence of lapses of professionalism and diligence from the bureaucracy. I am thinking here of the young 17-year-old Liam Ashley, who suffered the worst possible fate. It took the Ombudsmen to intrude and to investigate that. Those are the sorts of cases we should not shy away from funding. I then go on to an example that I might describe as an unwanted intrusion, where the Ombudsmen decided to have a go at quantifying, or getting our side of the House, when we held the benches of Treasury, to quantify the costs of that brilliant policy otherwise known as interest-free loans.

Both sides of the House from time to time will govern. Both sides of the House realise that the advisers they trust in the recesses of the bureaucracy do not always deliver goods that enable us to shine in the best fashion in the House. They should be held accountable for their actions, and that is why the Office of the Ombudsmen ought to be adequately funded. This is a device that enables them—not unlike Crown Law, not unlike the Audit Office, which I unfortunately know a bit about at the moment, but that is another matter. Both of those have the ability to recover costs, and what I am promoting in this bill is a modest contribution that will enable this august institution to cause the bureaucracy—where it is evident it has been sluggish, and it has not complied with the law, or it has been, as Mel Smith said, so circuitous that it appears to have broken the law.

That is why I am promoting this particular bill. It is not designed to create a problem with conflict of interest perceptions. It is an avenue to improve the financial robustness of the office, and I am very disappointed to hear from that side of the House that they have taken such a short-term, superficial, very shallow sort of an approach. But such shallowness, I accept, on this particular day has extended into this very well-thought-out and well-conceived piece of legislation, because it is shallowness that has characterised question time today. But I will continue, as is my duty as a parliamentarian, to promote this bill to the House.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I seek leave to table a report by one Adam Bennett, dated 15 February 2012, which states that the Ombudsman is under considerable pressure due to lack of funding.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 59

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; 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

Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I move, That the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. New Zealand has one of the most advanced systems of freedom of information in the world. We pride ourselves on our transparency and we regularly rate in the front of the pack in international comparisons. We do not have the same level of corruption as other countries, but we should never be complacent about this. Since 1982—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, but it is the habit of the House to indicate at the commencement of the speech which select committee the bill will be referred to.

DARIEN FENTON: I apologise, but that was not the indication I had from the Clerk, actually.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, if the member could do that.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, OK. At the appropriate time I intend to nominate that this bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Since 1982 our Official Information Act has progressively increased the availability of information to New Zealanders, so that they are able to more effectively participate in making and administering laws and policies, and to promote the accountability of Ministers and officials. There have been many other legislative reforms that have built on the principles and practice established by the Official Information Act, which includes the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. That Act applies a similar regime to the local government sector.

Section 5 of the Official Information Act sets out the basic presumption of openness or the principle of availability. The theory behind the Official Information Act is that the public owns the information that is held by the Government and publicly owned entities. Every citizen has the right to access information held by public authorities. We are entitled to see it on request, unless there is good reason to withhold it, and that is not just any old reason.

But there is a gap in the accountability and transparency of our locally owned ports. Every single one of New Zealand’s 13 commercial seaports are either wholly or majority publicly owned. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of public money tied up in them, yet those who own them—in other words, the public—are unable to access official information. When these ports were originally built in the 19th century they were seen as providers of essential infrastructure to support other local and economic activities, and to promote local economic development and employment. In the 1980s and 1990s, as part of the neo-liberal attack on our economy and public assets—similar to the one we are seeing at the moment—the Government passed legislation to reform the port sector. The attempts—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A Labour Government?

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, and a National Government. The attempts to sell off these locally owned assets resulted in different legislation for ports companies, in which the principal objective of ports companies is to operate as successful businesses. The ports companies were removed from the Local Government Act, in relation to the requirement to be open to Official Information Act and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act requirements, and the requirement to be a good employer and have environmental and social responsibilities.

Although there was clearly an agenda to sell off our publicly owned ports during that time, that has not happened. Local authorities, supported by the real owners of the assets, the people, have resisted the privatisation of their ports. But the exclusion of ports and the requirements in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act has placed distance between those who actually own these assets and the accountability and openness of those appointed to run them.

So this bill is about shining a light in dark places. My bill will bring publicly owned port companies back under the reach of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, and provide access to official information requests for those who seek information. This will mean that normal public accountabilities will be applied to ports companies. In addition, it will add the requirement for ports companies to act as good employers and to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which they operate. It is a simple and common-sense bill, and any political party that prides itself on openness and transparency around publicly owned entities should have no problem supporting this.

If National opposes this bill, I am going to be very interested in its justification, because there is none. How can anyone oppose openness and transparency in publicly owned assets? If it is opposition, maybe it is just another instance of the National Party hiding its mates from public scrutiny, just like John Banks. This Government is about helping its mates hide their dirty laundry from the public. I am also wondering whether it is a clumsy attempt to cover up the incompetence of the board of the Ports of Auckland in the attempts to contract out its workforce and privatise the ports. Secret plans to contract out the workforce, personal information of a worker leaked to a blogger, spies down at the port, and 1950s industrial relations management—I could go on.

This dispute has cost the citizens of Auckland tens of millions of dollars in lost business, in legal costs, in public relations costs, in redundancy payments for workers who had been dumped but who have now been re-hired on fixed-term contracts, on consultants, on a posse of bargaining agents, and on a possible compensation paid to contracting companies that were prematurely awarded the contracts but were unable to proceed. But no one is willing to come clean and quantify the actual cost, because the board of the Ports of Auckland hides behind its exclusion from the Official Information Act requirements. Without this legislation, we will never know for sure what this has cost Aucklanders.

There are legitimate concerns about the actions of the Ports of Auckland board and management that have arisen during the dispute with the Maritime Union. We need to ensure that these publicly owned businesses are open to the same scrutiny every other public institution faces. We have to wonder whether the real agenda of the Government—and Rodney Hide, of course—is to set up the Ports of Auckland for privatisation—

Hon Member: And Rob Campbell.

DARIEN FENTON: —and Rob Campbell—supported by the Government’s Productivity Commission, which came out earlier this year urging the Government to privatise New Zealand’s ports.

It would not be the first time our ports have been up for grabs, and if this Government has its way it will not be the last. So let me be very clear. This is not just about an industrial dispute at the Ports of Auckland, even though there has been one and it has been awful. Accountability and transparency are fundamental aspects of democracy, and the public has a right to know how its money is being spent. It has a right to know about the Ports of Auckland and other ports throughout New Zealand—other publicly owned ports—just as it has the right to obtain information about libraries, schools, airport authorities, and numerous other entities.

But I fear that this is a Government that is setting out to destroy democracy, local decision-making, and accountability. Its Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill has councils up in arms across the country. It is a disgrace.

This is a Government that is pursuing an asset sales agenda, despite it becoming more untenable every day. This is a Government that removed Official Information Act requirements from its sale of State assets bill recently, so if a sale succeeds, the 51 percent shares owned on behalf of the New Zealand people will not be subject to openness and transparency. This is a Government that has denied democracy to the people of Canterbury by shelving elections until 2016 for their regional council. This is a Government that shelters its mates in big business. It has no care for the environmental, social, employment, and decent work consequences of their actions. It is all about a plan to dumb down our economy, to sell New Zealand off to the cheapest bidder, and to make New Zealanders pay through the loss of good jobs, decent work, and fair pay.

I am hoping that the National Government will prove me wrong tonight. I am hoping that Nick Smith, who may be the next speaker, will stand up and say: “We agree with the Labour Party. Openness and transparency are needed for our ports, our publicly owned ports throughout the country.” There is no problem with citizens being able to ask for information and receive that information, which they have a right to do, and which they will have a right to do if this bill is supported. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Ports are vitally important for a small, ocean-bound trading nation like New Zealand. The essential question that is raised by the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill is do we want our ports run as efficient businesses, or as bureaucratic council committees? Do we want our port companies’ decisions over governance being made on sound commercial grounds, or do we want the decisions made on political grounds? I am dumbfounded that we are even having this debate in 2012. Never has there been such a time for our nation when we need to grow our exports, when we need to improve our competitiveness, when we need to grow our productivity, and yet this bill would undermine every one of those objectives. In fact, this bill aptly illustrates the differences between the Government and the Opposition.

Firstly, the Government is focused on the future; the Opposition wants to take New Zealand backwards. It actually pines—and we heard it in Darien Fenton’s speech—for the days of industrial chaos and feather-bedding in our ports that have actually been such a sad part of New Zealand’s port history. You see, it is not so long ago, in the 1980s, that whether you were a truck driver, or a crane driver, or a loader driver—and as a student in the 1980s, did some of those jobs in the port—if you did those jobs in the port you got paid two or three times what you would if you did those jobs anywhere else. That was how inefficient our ports had become, because they were able to hold the nation to ransom, because they hold that crucial, fulcrum position in the export and import of goods in New Zealand. Actually, Labour members opposite like Annette King should be proud of the work they did in the 1980s to reform our ports. That was complemented by reforms that were put in place by National, such that we saw, in the 1990s, the fastest improvements in productivity in the New Zealand ports of anywhere in the world, of which we should be proud. That helped us grow exports and grow the strength of the economy during that decade. I am truly gobsmacked that Labour today wants to take us backwards, but not completely—not completely.

This is as much about not the national interest, but Labour’s narrow interest of serving their wharfie union mates. That is what this bill is really all about. You see, it wants to use this bill as the tool to drag our ports back to the inefficiencies that typified the history of the port industry in New Zealand. Why that should worry New Zealanders is that every single export, every import that we pay for as consumers, risks going up in price if we allow the ports to return to their inefficiencies of the past.

Hon Annette King: Nothing to do with it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, absolutely it has to do with it, Ms King. This bill was tabled immediately in the months after the port dispute, and Darien Fenton made absolutely plain that this bill was all about the Auckland port dispute.

But I have this question to ask members opposite: who wrote the Local Government Act 2002? Labour. Why did it, in 2002, exempt port companies from those very provisions? It was because it knew then that it wanted to have ports run on a proper, businesslike basis. But it is even more important if we look at that provision. Why was it that it exempted port companies from these provisions in the bill? What about the electricity companies? What about all the other entities that were listed in Labour’s bill in 2002? The simple answer is because this is simply about Labour doing the bidding of its wharfie union mates. This bill is blatantly about special interests, and lacks logic. Why is it, for instance, that members opposite think that Local Government New Zealand—a 100 percent public entity—is not included? Why not the insurance company? This bill is not about principles, it is about politics. Labour simply wants to repoliticise the management of New Zealand’s ports, and that is the very last thing this export-growth Government wants to occur. This bill is a nonsense. It shows how left Labour has become in its time in Opposition, how out of touch it is with what we need to do to improve New Zealand productivity. Any member who wants to strengthen the New Zealand economy must vote against this bill.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): You know, there are some doctors who make you well, and there are some doctors who make you sick. I have to say that Dr Hutchison is one who makes you well. We have just heard from Dr Nick Smith, the master of myths, the master of shonky figures and egregious examples, who has just given us a lofty speech about vital infrastructure in New Zealand, and New Zealand going forward. Then he harked back to the 1980s and the Cold War to give us examples of what has happened in the New Zealand ports. Once again, he used his list of egregious examples.

I have to tell you, Dr Smith, that this is 2012. It is not the 1980s. The way he was describing the operation on the wharves is not the way the wharves and ports are run today. He evoked class war, he evoked union bashing, and there was plenty of emphasis that if we vote for this bill, the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, it will be the end of exports and a growing economy.

Well, what a load of hogwash. It had absolutely nothing to do with the bill at all, and he never once mentioned that ratepayers’ money, which goes into that port, should be open to transparency and to accountability—transparency and accountability. Where was that in his speech? Where was his emphasis on why in an open economy like New Zealand, where we pride ourselves in being No. 1 or No. 2 in Transparency International ratings, we would not, with what this bill does, enable there to be some transparency and openness around the Ports of Auckland?

You see, there are good local government bills and there are bad local government bills. We have just experienced two bad local government bills, one of them at the hands of Dr Smith. He is being done over all around New Zealand on his Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. Almost any submission of substance has absolutely poured a bucket on his bill. The submitters have told him that it is based on myth. They have said that he has got his facts wrong, and that he does not know what he is talking about. The Government is going to end up looking a fool if it passes that bill. That is a bad bill.

Then there is a second bad bill, brought in by the new Minister of Local Government, who is way out of his league. They are still laughing about his appearance at the Local Government New Zealand Conference. He spoke for 5 minutes, he did not have a clue what he was talking about, and they said: “How did he get this job? What have we done to deserve this man?”. So there was a second bad local government bill. What is that one about? It is an anti-democratic bill that takes away the right of Cantabrians to vote for people to make decisions in a local area until 2016—2016. The hidden agenda is, of course, that the Government is going to amalgamate the councils down there, and it just needs time to be able to do it. So there are two bad local government bills.

But we have also had two good local government bills. One just happens to be one of my own. It was a bill that I thought would be very helpful—very helpful—when it came to the salary of Mr Doug McKay, Chief Executive of Auckland Council. He is on a salary of $800,000-plus. It might have been a good idea to have an independent group, like the State Services Commission, or an independent person look at that salary. Of course, the National Party voted against that sort of openness and transparency.

Now we have this Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill from Darien Fenton. Well done, Darien Fenton, on bringing forward this bill. All it is asking for is some openness and accountability, and to provide to the people of Auckland some information about what happens within a port company. You know, even a private sector company would provide more information than the Ports of Auckland does. You see, it has got a culture of cover-up and covert decision-making. The lack of confidence in Auckland that has come out of that is something that should worry the Government. Has the Government done anything about it? Is it prepared to look at this issue and say: “Come on, be more honest with the people in your area.”? No, it is not. It put up the straw man, Nick Smith, to make a stupid speech about the lofty ideals of exports in New Zealand—nothing to do with what happens in the ports today, and nothing to do with openness and transparency. I say to this House that this is a great opportunity to support a bill that could make a difference. But will we get support from the party opposite? No, we will not. It will be more cover-up and more covert decision-making.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I seek leave to table a document. It is the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 No 52 of New South Wales. It is an example of international best practice, which this bill seeks to follow.

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

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): This Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill is designed to bring port companies and their subsidiaries under the definition of a “council-controlled organisation” in the Local Government Act. New Zealand is a very small country, a long way away from major markets, so it is absolutely vital that our transport infrastructure is as efficient and as effective as possible. But, actually, because our country is so dependent on its ports, it needs to be even more than that. We need our port companies to be innovative and to be sharply competitive, so that they can keep the costs down for our exporters. The health, the wealth, and the well-being of our country are absolutely predicated on us selling our produce overseas. So any legislation that adds barriers or makes it difficult for exporters to compete internationally cheats—yes, cheats—everyone in our community. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will only add more costs and reduce the efficiency of our ports. Every exporter and every importer will suffer, and society as a whole will pay the price of less funds coming into our country and increased prices in our stores.

Port companies are not local government bodies. They are commercial entities and part of the essential infrastructure that underpins the well-being of our country. There is no sense in this bill. It just increases the costs for all of us, for absolutely no benefit.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I think I would like to start my speech in support of this bill, the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, by paying tribute to the fact that today is Women’s Suffrage Day. I want to acknowledge the tūpuna kuia, the women who went before us, from whose work all the women in this House are entitled to be here and to be able to participate fully in our democracy—people like Kate Sheppard.

So it is fitting, from my point of view, that this bill should be in the House today, because it is about improving our democracy. It is a welcome attempt at creating accountability and transparency for organisations that are publicly owned—our ports. It is quite a straightforward and sensible bill. If you look at the explanation at the front of the bill, it says that it applies the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to ports that are owned by councils, that there is a requirement for ports to act as a good employer, and that there is a requirement for ports to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which they operate. It makes sense. If we expect accountability for how public money is spent, then we should expect some accountability from these ports, which are profit-making businesses of our councils, for how that money is earned. We are not talking about anything earth-shattering or anything different from normal practice. The bill simply says that the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act apply. Ports can still have commercially sensitive discussions, table commercially sensitive documents, and do it in committee, as long as they have a good reason to do that.

It is a darn shame that we need to do this at all, but we may as well acknowledge that this is the result of ports acting disagreeably. The most disagreeable of all was the Ports of Auckland dispute, which happened earlier this year. There were nine strikes, there were two lockouts in the dispute with the Maritime Union, the company breached the good-faith bargaining provisions of the Employment Relations Act, it threatened to contract the jobs, it advertised those jobs elsewhere, it released private details, te mea, te mea, te mea. Darien Fenton has already listed a lot of them. Clearly, these were not the actions of a good or even a reasonable employer, and during this time the council that owns the port through its holding company, Auckland Council Investments Ltd, was unable to intervene, and it was dependent on information that was filtered through the company—information that was, frankly, being withheld.

Just last week in the Auckland Council, the councillors—who, by the way, were democratically elected by the people of Auckland—were still struggling to get answers from the council-controlled organisation about how much the Ports of Auckland dispute had cost. We can make some good guesses about that, but it has never been confirmed. My former colleague Councillor Cathy Casey got her hands on one of the emails that came from the chief executive officer of Auckland Council Investments Ltd, which said that the last thing it wants is political interference. The email said that if politicians sense that Auckland Council Investments Ltd is not on top of what is happening, they might interfere and the decision might not go the way it wants. It is outrageous that a council-controlled organisation chief can so clearly dismiss democratically elected people who are charged with the governance of Auckland, and that includes the governance of infrastructure like our ports. I am a ratepayer and I still do not know what that dispute in Auckland cost me.

It is not just about Auckland; Lyttelton would be advantaged by this as well. In Lyttelton they have no idea what is happening with the expansion plans there. They have been overruled by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in terms of being rushed through an expansion of, I think, about 10 hectares of reclamation using demolition material. They do not know where their ferries will be. They do not know what the transport links will be. They do not know whether the container trucks will be off their roads or going through their towns. They do not know what public space amenity there will be for them. This is of major concern to the communities in Lyttelton. My colleagues tell me that this bill will help people who live near ports everywhere.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a document containing a list of council-controlled organisations in Tauranga that will be subject to the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, including Tauranga City Investments Ltd, Tauranga City Aquatics Ltd, Tauranga City Venues, the Western Bay of Plenty Tourism and Visitors Trust, the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and deliverables specific to the trust, and two more: Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services and Bay Broadband Ltd, in case people do not know the ambit of this legislation.

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

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I seek leave to table a Ports of Auckland document, a labour strategy memo that has been leaked to us, which is a document that would be obtainable through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act if changes proposed by Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill were to be enacted.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If there is going to be objection to our tabling documents, could they at least say it loud enough so that we will know. The process usually requires you to say “Is there objection?”, and they need to voice it out loudly rather than just whisper over there. They think—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not really a point of order, but the member did make a point on the first rejection.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The point of order on the floor is to be heard in silence.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: I seek leave of the House to table a statement of intent from the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency as an example of an official document that should be subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act but is presently not.

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

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill is arrant nonsense and I do not support it. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is someone nodding his head sufficient indication that he objects? Does he not have to say so?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member actually did say that he objected.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, we can’t hear it here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That may well be a problem with the microphones, but I certainly heard it. So if the technician could check the microphones, please.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Is it not revealing that this National Government plays its endless tune to the populace of New Zealand about openness, about transparency, and about accountable government? And is it not interesting that this House has been subject to a disgraceful example—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have a member on my left and a member on my right who are interjecting when they do not have the floor. If they want to make a speech, they can do so next time.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: This House has been subject to an example of disgraceful contempt for democracy in this country tonight. People who are out there listening to this should wake up and watch what is happening under a National Government in this country, when there is a genuine attempt here to get openness, transparency, and accountability of one of the biggest sections of our economy, the ports of this country, back into the public domain.

Currently, there are 27 ports in this country, many of which are controlled by councils under council-controlled organisations, where basically those major organisations can operate literally under the radar with smoke and mirrors and have very little accountability, apart from back to their parent body through confidential documentation. So much of the business and so much of our export and import livelihoods are dependent on these ports, but the very companies that use these ports, the very operators through the ports, and the industries across New Zealand that are dependent on the ports have very little knowledge as to what is actually happening within those ports.

It is understandable that this National Government would want this, because it is now building up a long history of this anti-democratic situation in New Zealand. It is very much a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde situation. In this case—

Phil Twyford: Dr Smith and Mr Hide.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: It a “Dr Jekyll Smith”—I was about to say that—“and Mr Rodney Hide” situation here, because between the two of them they helped orchestrate this, with the assistance of the puppeteer Mr John Key. Of course, that puppeteer back in 2005-06, when he was an Opposition MP, a backbench MP in this House, was probably sitting up in the backbenches there. He had a member’s bill in the House—he was Mr John Key MP in those days—to create a super-city in Auckland, to create one super-city. But he thought he might not get away with the one super-city all in one, so he put up two options in his member’s bill. The other option was for there to be three cities: a north city, a central city, and a south city. That was an option, but he was hoping for one super-city.

However, that member’s bill, unlike Darien Fenton’s bill, the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, which we are debating tonight, did not get pulled from the ballot in 2005-06, much to his dismay. So he had to think about how else he could get control of Auckland, how else he could get control of the ports, and how else he could get control of the water, the sewerage, the transport, the waterfront, much of the facilities, and the buildings.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Find a fall guy.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Yes, find a fall guy. So he found Mr Rodney Hide, the guy in the yellow jacket. He sent him out on a mission. Mr Hide came to see all the mayors of Auckland and said that he did not actually know what he was doing. He sat in a mayoral meeting with six or seven mayors and said to us “I don’t really know what I’m doing. I’m relying on you, the mayors, to tell me what I’m doing in Auckland. But we are going to put this together into one city. Please cooperate with me. We are working our way through it. We are finding things out as we go, and we are going to create this.” So they created the one city, and part of that one city was to put some of the entities of the city—not some of them; the majority of the entities—under council-controlled operations, one of which is the Ports of Auckland. As a result, that entity can operate, basically, without public scrutiny.

The councils of Auckland—the seven entities before plus the Auckland Regional Council—were accountable. We had open transparency. We had to give out the information. The information was subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and was constantly sought by the public, constantly sought by the media, and constantly sought by all sorts of stakeholders, and it was provided. It was provided in most cases, unless the information was so sensitive that it would perhaps compromise a commercial deal going through. But most times the information was provided. However, under this situation, basically, most of the business of the port is kept behind closed doors and is not obtainable. That is not acceptable. That does not provide well for a competitive economy. It does not ensure that it is, in fact, as efficient as it should be.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, because we are after open, accountable governance, not smoke and mirrors.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): That was by far her best speech, as well. I seek leave—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have already said once tonight that when there is a point of order on the floor, it is to be terse and to the point, and it is to be heard in silence. Courtesy is contagious.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave to table a list of documents obtained from the Gisborne District Council that would be subject to the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, including BOPLASS Ltd; Gisborne Holdings Ltd, with two annual reports and four statements of intent; and Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd, or TFL, with three annual reports as part of that disclosure.

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

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to dedicate this speech to the memory of Kate Sheppard, a great New Zealander who was instrumental in bringing the vote to New Zealand women 119 years ago today. I feel sure that if Kate Sheppard were in this House tonight as a member of this House of Representatives, she would be voting for Darien Fenton’s Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill. She would stand up for principles of accountability, good governance, transparency, and public control of public institutions.

So let us see. This bill that Darien Fenton has brought to the House is based on the principles of good governance, openness, transparency, and democratic control of public institutions. It is no wonder that the National Party is not supporting it. Why are we surprised? Why are we surprised? Because that would go against every bone in the National Party’s body to actually open up public institutions to scrutiny, transparency, and openness. After all, transparency and accountability are the key principles of functioning markets. If this National Party was true to its liberal tradition, the members in the House tonight from the National Party would be voting for Darien Fenton’s bill. These are not left-wing ideas—openness and transparency. They are not the sole preserve of the left of politics. A National Party that actually cared a jot about its own liberal tradition would surely support this bill.

The point has been made already that this bill is not just about the Ports of Auckland dispute that has racked the Auckland waterfront for most of the last 12 months. It is a bill that would extend openness and transparency, principles of environmental and social responsibility, and accountability to the community. It would extend those obligations to publicly owned ports all around this country. But there is no denying that the Ports of Auckland dispute has shone a light on the issue that Darien Fenton is seeking to solve with this bill. What did we see in the Ports of Auckland? We saw a company that is owned by the ratepayers, by the citizens, of Auckland developing a strategy to sack the wharfies on that port and contract out their jobs. It was a strategy that was found by the Employment Court to be illegal. The employer was told in an embarrassing back-down to go back to the negotiating table and actually treat its workers with respect and to negotiate an agreement. We saw the most despicable behaviour that we have seen in a while from employers in an industrial dispute. We saw the Ports of Auckland leaking personal information on its own employees to the right-wing blogger Cameron Slater. Well, what an outrage. That dispute, which should be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the board and the management of the Ports of Auckland, has not only cost the Auckland ratepayer millions of dollars but also cost the Auckland business community millions of dollars because the ports were shut down for so long. It damaged the asset that is the Ports of Auckland, which is owned by the people of Auckland. Yet, in spite of all those things, the management and the board of the Ports of Auckland were not required to come clean and tell Auckland Council and the democratically elected representatives of Aucklanders how much that dispute cost them.

As if we need any more evidence that this National Party is a party of crony capitalism, of dirty deals done behind closed doors, and that transparency is the last thing that this National Party wants. This is the party that corporatised 75 percent of local government in Auckland when it set up the Auckland super-city, shifting billions of dollars in assets and thousands of staff into commercial entities governed by hand-picked corporate boards, picked by Rodney Hide and Mark Ford.

Even though there are special rules that govern council-controlled organisations like the one that owns the Ports of Auckland, all of these so-called council-controlled organisations do a great deal of their business behind closed doors, and that is the way this National Party likes it. We saw it in the corporatisation of Auckland. We saw it in the sacking of Environment Canterbury. We saw it in the refusal to vote for Annette King’s bill, the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill, which would have instilled some transparency and independence in the setting of executive salaries, and now these people are voting against this very good bill of Darien Fenton.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table a report from the Christchurch City Council detailing organisations under the control of the council that are not currently subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. It is a list including Christchurch City Holdings, the Selwyn Plantation Board, Christchurch City Networks, Christchurch International Airport Ltd, City Care—I am trying to read it as fast as I can—Civic Buildings Ltd, the Central Plains Water Trust, the Lyttelton Port Co. Ltd, Orion New Zealand Ltd, the Riccarton Bush Trust, Red Bus Ltd, the Selwyn Plantation Board again, Transwaste Canterbury Ltd—almost finished—Tuam Ltd, and Vbase Ltd. And that is the complete list.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? [Interruption] Sorry?

Michael Woodhouse: What is the source of the document?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member like to tell the House what the source of the document is, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes. It is general and technical information from the Christchurch City Council, which I assume is 2012—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): From the Christchurch City Council. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the last few weeks I have been referring to Mr Speaker in respect of the process and speeches that are accompanying the tabling of documents, and I would draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 147/4-6 in this regard. The House has considered this, and the senior Opposition whip did raise the point that the document itself had to be specified with some degree of particularity—I think his words were—which is correct. But what we have emerging is a long dissertation about what the document says, which I would suggest is starting to come into the realms of a speech. This evening I am struggling to identify the source of the document, which is the purpose of the description, but I get a very long dissertation about what is in the document. I wonder whether you would reflect on whether or not those tabling requests are within Speakers’ rulings.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The fact of the matter is that the Christchurch City Council is a substantial body and has a significant number of holdings. The minimum thing that I am required to do is to identify the holdings about which I speak from its official document to us to explain the ambit of the bill’s effect upon them, and I have given it from the point of view of the general and technical information that was required. I could not put it any briefer than that, and I did not make a long speech, at all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I—[Interruption] No, no. Can I just say that the impression I took from the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ seeking to table the documents was that he actually referred to only the actual organisations. He did not speak, and I was quite happy to accept that.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to challenge your perception of how the document was described, except to say that the point of tabling documents is so that members can see and read them. If the description is so thorough that they then go in Hansard, there is very little point in tabling documents.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): In fact, the Rt Hon Winston Peters did not do that. He described each of the documents. If the concern of the senior whip from the National Party was that the list of documents was too long, then that would have been a different point order, but the Rt Hon Winston Peters did not over-describe the documents. Can I refer you, Mr Assistant Speaker, in particular to Speaker’s ruling 147/5, which was one of the Speakers’ rulings to which the senior whip from the National Party referred. It says: “The strategy of giving a long explanation and then saying, ‘I table it’, is not appropriate. When members are tabling documents they should seek leave, give the purpose for the leave, and then identify the document they wish to table so that other members can make an informed judgment on whether they should accept that.” Indeed, even after his initial explanation, a member from the other side said “What is the source of the documents?”. They were, effectively, asserting that Mr Peters’ explanation had been too brief rather than too long. So I would invite you to rule that the tabling of the documents was in order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I had already done that.

Hon Members: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The tabling of documents is in order. I have made a decision on that.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could seek your clarification about whether the member was tabling one document or several, because the Hon David Parker referred to them as several documents. My understanding of the process of tabling documents is that they should be done one at a time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, that is what the member was doing. He actually tabled them one at a time. That was the way I understood it. The member wishes to speak to that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): In the interests of settling my colleagues concerned over there for the accuracy of the way it was presented, the Christchurch City Council listed on a separate page each enterprise about which they speak. I happened to get a stapler and staple them together, but they are all separate documents.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I think the issue is finalised now. It has been settled.

Chris Hipkins: I just want to raise one final point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): One final point.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that the Speakers’ rulings referred to in this discussion, and I think it has been a useful discussion, pre-date the change to the Standing Orders with regard to what can be tabled in the House. Further Speaker’s rulings from Speaker Smith were then, I guess, formalised in the change to the Standing Orders in the last Parliament. If we rewind the clock back several Parliaments, it was the practice of members at the end of a question, for example, to seek leave to table large numbers of media clippings. They would go through them one at a time and it would take up a lot of time. One of the trade-offs with removing the ability to do that was that the much smaller number of documents that was permissible to be tabled had to be described in greater detail to establish whether or not, in fact, they did meet that criterion. It is important that the House take note of that. Some of these Speakers’ rulings pre-date the current practice of the House, which has greatly reduced the number of documents that can be tabled.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take an unexpected—

Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a relatively new member of this House, can I just ask for clarification. I heard the chief whip from the National Party specifically ask for the documents to be tabled so that National could ascertain what the documents were. He wanted clarification as to what they were. This was provided, and then National declined to allow them to be tabled. Does he want it one way or the other? He asked for clarification of what was being tabled, he sought the information, and then he declined to have them tabled. Which way does he want it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All right. I will ask the member. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

Michael Woodhouse: Is leave being—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The leave is being re-sought. No objection.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Encouraged by that, I seek leave of the House to table a report from the Marlborough District Council detailing the organisations under the control of the council, which, similarly, are not under the ambit of this legislation. The two listed are MDC Holdings Ltd and the Marlborough Housing for the Elderly Trust.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. No objection.

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

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am very happy to take a call on this—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from a constituent in support of this bill. It is dated 13/9/2012, to my colleague Mr Williams MP.

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

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

CHRIS HIPKINS: Very good. I think they are done for now. That is good. I am very happy to take a call on the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, and can I say it is not a great day for openness and transparency in the House of Parliament today. There have been two bills in a row put forward by the Opposition designed to increase transparency and to increase the flow of information to the public about the activities that they have an interest in as taxpayers, and both have been voted down by the Government.

First, there were the changes to the Ombudsmen Act, which would have allowed the Ombudsmen to charge for investigations. Of course, we know that the majority of investigations we would be talking about under that would be Official Information Act investigations—potentially even some of the investigations that they could be conducting under this bill, if it were passed, because the Ombudsmen could end up investigating some of these things if this bill were passed. So there is a great irony there.

Government members are voting against more transparency and democracy twice in the House tonight, and I think that is very, very disappointing. Why? I have not heard anyone from the Government. I accept that there was no autocue earlier on, so Maggie Barry’s one-sentence speech could easily be explained by the absence of an autocue—

Hon Member: It was the best speech.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —and, yes, it was actually the best speech she has given in the time she has been in Parliament. But I do want to say I am disappointed that no National member has actually stood up and given a reasonable explanation for why ports should not be subject to the Official Information Act. It is actually quite a simple issue. Why should it be that the Official Information Act can apply to schools and to any range of Government entities but not ports, which are council-controlled organisations fully owned by the council? Why would it not apply to them? I cannot actually understand this. There is no justifiable reason for that. What we are talking about here is openness and transparency around ports, and I do not think it is unreasonable for the Government to at least send this bill to a select committee to give some explanation of why it is voting against it.

I turn to the purpose of the bill for a moment. The explanatory note of the bill states: “This Bill reverses the exclusion of port companies and their subsidiaries from the definition of council-controlled organisations in the Local Government Act 2002. This will have the effect of applying normal public accountabilities to port companies, including the application of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the requirement to act as a good employer”—and I will come back to those in a moment—“and the requirement to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which they operate.”

Again, I come back to the point: who could possibly argue—who could possibly argue—that a port should not be required to do those things? A port should act as a good employer, and we as a Parliament have defined what a good employer is. There are requirements in the legislation for what a good employer needs to do, so why is it that the Government would object to passing a law that would require ports to act in that way? It extends to them the requirement “to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility”, so let us talk about those things for a moment.

A port is quite a large employer, so the social responsibility element comes in quite significantly. There are huge environmental issues with the operations of ports. It is not unreasonable for us to expect that ports would operate with some sense of environmental responsibility. And, as I said, they must have “regard to the interests of the community in which they operate”. Again, these are large entities owned by the local authorities, and of course they should have regard to the interests of the communities in which they operate.

This is actually a very sensible bill, and I am absolutely staggered that not only are the Government members not voting in favour of it but they are not willing to articulate their reasons for not voting in favour of it. That suggests a level of contempt for the concepts of openness and transparency in this House that I think the New Zealand public should rightly find incredibly disappointing.

There have been two strikes today against a more open Government. The first was the voting down of more powers for the Ombudsmen to allow them to clear the huge backlog of investigations that have accumulated under this National Government. Of course, we know the reason for that—it has shut down the flow of information. Government members are not willing to stand up and be accountable for the decisions that they are making. They are not willing to release information—that is disgraceful—and now they are voting against this as well, and that is disgraceful too.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a list of council-controlled organisations from the Whangarei District Council that would be subject—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Are there any objections to that course of action being taken? There are none.

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

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I seek leave to table a statement of intent from the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency, as an example of an official document that should be subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. I call the honourable member Darien Fenton to sum up.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): First of all, I want to thank the Greens, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and Mana for supporting this bill, the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill. It is good to know that on this side of the House political parties believe in openness and transparency. Because what—[Interruption]—and actually they are prepared to debate the issues, unlike the other side, apart from Nick Smith and he does not actually count when it comes to debate. What madness was that from Nick Smith—1950s, you know, Cold War warrior rhetoric. It was unbelievable. But I also want to thank the supporters, friends, and others who have helped me with this bill. I want to make it really clear that this has come about through a genuine concern about a lack of accountability and transparency for the ports that we own throughout New Zealand, that ratepayers own, either wholly or partially. They have no access to official information, because of an exclusion in the Local Government Act.

There has been a lot of talk today about democracy, as it should be, because it is the 119th anniversary of Suffrage Day. People have referred to Kate Sheppard and asked what she would think about this. It is the day that women won the right to vote, and so it is something to be celebrated. But just as important as the right to vote is the accountability of those who are elected to office and those who are put in charge of assets and services that the people of New Zealand own and have built up over many years. It has been very disappointing to hear the weasel words—the few of them—that we have had from the National Party. As my colleague Chris Hipkins has pointed out, it has been a bad day for democracy in this Parliament. We have voted down two bills that would have brought openness and transparency. It has been a bad couple of weeks for democracy, as well. We had the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, under which there will be no elections until 2016 for the people of Christchurch. We also had a whole range of other attacks on democracy. It is not a good look for this Government. It should be ashamed of itself.

New Zealand ratepayers have the right to know what is going on with the port assets they own, yet this Government has just voted down this right. This National Government, United Future, and the ACT Party—John Banks, that pillar of accountability, democracy, and transparency—will vote down the right of the people of New Zealand to ask questions about the way their publicly owned ports are being run. We have seen such goings-on in Auckland. There is no doubt about it; the Ports of Auckland dispute was a catalyst for this bill, but the people have since been in contact with me and said that they have issues about their port too, that they own them, and they cannot get information. But even elected Auckland councillors cannot get answers about what has been going on with the Ports of Auckland—owned by the ratepayers of Auckland. They asked questions last week, and the ports company and Auckland Council Investments Ltd—the council-controlled organisation—are able to hide behind a veil of secrecy and unaccountability.

What was really interesting in the debate last week at the Auckland Council was that it was told that Gary Swift, the head of the council-controlled organisation—Auckland Council Investments Ltd—had told the democratically elected councillors that his board was the port owner and not the council, and not the people of Auckland. Just to demonstrate how arrogant that is, he sent an email, which was tabled at the council. It was sent to the ports management and said, in part: “The last thing we need is political interference. If they sense that ACIL is not on top of what’s happening”—and he is talking about the industrial dispute—“they may interfere and it may not go the way we want (the vote 12 to 9 was not a strong endorsement of our position).” That is atrocious. What we have with the Ports of Auckland and other ports is public money, publicly owned ports with no accountability. Under my bill, people could have asked for that information. What is wrong with that? This Government does not believe in openness and transparency.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Before people rush to vote, could I just say that there is more sad news. This is in respect of documents I want to table about organisations belonging to the Waitaki District Council. They are Ōmarama Airfield Ltd, the Waitaki Development Board Ltd, Waitaki District Health Services Ltd, Whitestone Contracting Ltd, and Alps 2 Ocean Cycle Trail.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I wish to table also—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —in respect of the Far North District Council—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): He has not finished. [Interruption]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Drop your knees, quickly!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Could I ask the member to just be seated. I had the understanding that the member had finished. The member over here wished to comment on that, and I called him.

Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Assistant Speaker, my shaking of the head was not to say I oppose leave; it was to say I do not understand what the documents are that are being tabled.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, in that case, can I ask the member—

Michael Woodhouse: From what I understand, what we have had are two types of documents. One is a list of companies and the other is statements of intent. We have been not declining leave for the lists but declining leave for the statements of intent. I would be interested to know what we just had tabled.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to explain.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I would be delighted to, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Briefly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This comes from section 03, “Council Controlled Organisations”: “A Council controlled organisation is an entity in which a Council (or Councils) has a controlling stake. This is defined in Section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Waitaki District Council has four subsidiaries that fall in to this definition. They are:”—and they are listed by the council in its long-term plan for 2012 to 2022.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. No objection.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): The document is from Ports of Auckland—I will say it very slowly for the chief whip’s benefit—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! No. The member may raise a point of order but it is to be terse and to the point, and it is not to be used to score political points, or I will sit the member down.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, and this is a genuine point of order, there was a member who expressed the fact that he either did not hear or did not understand what documents were being tabled. The member Andrew Williams quite courteously said that he would go through it slowly so that all of us could get a handle on it and we could then determine whether we object or not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members make disparaging remarks about each other in this Chamber all the time. It is a personal reflection that is out of order. I call the honourable member Andrew Williams. [Interruption] We have a point of order? Another point of order?

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table both the final and the draft versions of the Auckland regional events and economic development plan—another provided by a council-controlled organisation.

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

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

ANDREW WILLIAMS: I seek leave to table a labour strategy memo from Ports of Auckland as an example of a document that would be obtainable under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act if the changes proposed by this bill are enacted.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a document from the Far North District Council setting out a holding it has that, in respect of this legislation, would be affected. The company operation owned by the Far North District Council is the Far North—[Interruption] What did you say, a pig farm? No, it is not. It is Far North Holdings Ltd—this document here.

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

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I seek leave to table a document from Auckland Transport regarding the transport-oriented development in my electorate of New Lynn. It is a further example of a council-controlled organisation document that has not entered the public view—

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

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

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I seek leave to table an email from Gary Swift, the Chief Executive of Auckland Council Investments Ltd, entitled “Ports of Auckland Media Release: Mediation unsatisfactory; strikes to proceed”.

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

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

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I seek leave to table a letter from Auckland Council Investments Ltd to the Maritime Union of New Zealand. It says that it has no accountability to anyone other than the Auckland Council, and it will not be involved in releasing information to what it describes as third parties.

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

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the point of order process and the attempt to table stuff at the moment is a delaying motion so that we do not get to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill here tonight.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can’t say that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can understand why the member does not want to progress it, but I want to let him know that we are very eager that he should deliver that speech tonight.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last time I checked, Standing Order 374(1) and (2) read: “(1) A member may table a document by leave of the House or a committee of the whole House. (2) If leave has been given for a document to be tabled, the document must be tabled within a reasonable period, as determined by the Speaker.” I do not know what the Leader of the House—apart from scoring political points—is attempting to do, but it is the right, under the Standing Orders, of any member of this House to seek leave to table as many documents as they like, and the House or your good self, Mr Assistant Speaker, determines whether they are not within the Standing Orders, rather than the Leader of the House standing up and in his usual bamboozled way making spurious points of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member was doing OK.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I am helping out your cause. You do not want to get to this bill tonight. I am helping out your cause. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Look, can I just—[Interruption] Order! Can I just remind members that when there is a point of order on the floor, it is to be terse and to the point, and there is to be no interjection from anybody.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The point that Mr Cosgrove makes is a correct one. People can seek leave to table documents. But it does have its constraints. The member will remember, as I am sure you will, Mr Assistant Speaker, the occasion when under the previous Government there was an attempt to systematically table every Standing Order from the Standing Orders document. That was ruled to be trifling with the House. I think we are in that situation here. I am desperately keen to hear what Mr Peters has to say about the bill that he clearly does not want to talk about tonight.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The Leader of the House cannot make that statement—twice. Mr Assistant Speaker, he was counselled against it by you the first time, but he gets up and says it again in the same way. Then when Darien Fenton was trying to table a document, he shouts out “Yeah, get on with it.” That is really a challenge to your conducting the affairs of the House in a proper way. It is no reflection on you; it is a reflection on his bad manners. It is reflection of his behaviour when he gets down to the House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is one-all at the moment.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Given that Mr Brownlee addressed my point of order, I want to address his. You will also recall, and I suspect you may have been in the Chair, when we were on opposite sides to now, and National was in Opposition, and what was ruled as spurious in terms of tabling documents—and I remember the debate quite clearly—was Mr Brownlee’s attempting to table every page of the Standing Orders, Speakers’ Rulings, and I think the McGee volume, as well. What was never ruled—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member knows, and I have said it twice now, that when there is a point of order on the floor it must be heard in silence.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: So as I was saying, my recollection, to deal with Mr Brownlee’s point, where he is, is that what was ruled as a spurious abuse of the process was when he attempted when he was in Opposition to table every page of the Standing Orders, every page of Speakers’ Rulings, individually I might add, and I think every page of McGee, volumes 1 and 2. What was never ruled by any Speaker, to my knowledge, as an abuse is where a variety of members tonight have attempted, quite rightly, to exercise their rights and table individual and different documents. As I understand it, it is either for you to rule that they are publicly available, etc., and therefore the leave cannot be sought, or for the House to determine whether it will grant leave—not spurious points of order by somebody who may have sort of imbibed tonight.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I mention another reason why the process of, at times, slightly delaying the process of this House by way of point of order is in order. You can see how the Government, if it wants to get a piece of legislation off the agenda of this House, can take very short calls, as we have seen on this very bill. Repeated short calls are being used by the Government to try to manipulate the process of this House in order to meet its procedural purpose. If it is OK for the Government to use the processes and the Standing Orders of this House in order to manipulate things in that way, it must be in order for the Opposition members to use the point of order process, within reason, to slow down the processes of this House a little bit so that the Government does not have its way by its attempt to misuse the processes of this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just remind members that I remember the last time this happened. The Hon Margaret Wilson was in the Chair, and I came in and I took over the Chair, and there had been some agreement made between all the parties that the issue cease. At the moment, under Standing Order 374, members are perfectly entitled to seek leave to table documents. If it ended up at the stage where it was becoming unreasonable, then I could understand people getting upset. However, I am guided by “Documents tabled by leave”, which is Standing Order 374.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw the House’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 146/5, which says: “A member is entitled at any time to seek the leave of the House to table a document. There is no debate about whether the document should be tabled.” Further, Speaker’s ruling 148/3 says: “Members do not have a right to table a document, they always have to seek leave, and it is entirely up to members whether or not they object. It takes only one member to object and leave is not granted.” That makes very clear that it is a member’s entitlement to seek leave, and that members opposite have two options—to either grant leave or not grant leave. Any way you look at it, the Leader of the House is out of order for having raised an objection, not by way of denying leave but by way of imputing motives to members of the Opposition, and that is out of order. I would ask that you ask the Leader of the House to stand and apologise, and withdraw the imputation that he has made on the ethics of members on this side of the House. It is completely contrary to Speaker’s ruling 146/5 and, frankly, quite offensive.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member seeking to speak on the point of order? The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Assistant Speaker, in your very helpful judgment at one point you referred to the reasonable tabling of documents. I think that that leaves us in some slight doubt. I was wondering whether you could perhaps describe for us or expand for us what you would deem reasonable tabling of documents to be in this case.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I can only go back to what happened when this occurred in the previous Parliament. It went on for some time, and in the end, when there was a changeover of Speaker, the House came to its senses, as I recall, and it decided to move on with the debate. As a result, the debate continued and members appeared—or were—reasonable in allowing that to happen.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to pick up a point that my colleague opposite, Michael Woodhouse, raised earlier, which I do not think we have necessarily resolved yet, and that is to do with the tabling of multiple documents at the same time. In fact, I have taken some time now to read through the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and almost all of them seem to envisage the tabling of a document rather than of multiple documents. Therefore, each is a separate question, because the House may agree to the tabling of one but not others, and so on. So I want you to, perhaps, give us some guidance on whether, in fact, it is a legitimate practice for a member to stand up and read out a list of documents that they want to table, or whether, in fact, each document should be put as a separate question—described and put as a separate question—because, potentially, I think Mr Peters was describing a list of documents before that he wanted to table, when, actually, the correct process could well have been for the House to consider each of those individually. I am sure Mr Peters, ironically, was trying to save time by reading out the whole list of documents at the same time, but, in fact, that may have been where we got into some of the difficulty. Actually, it may have been more sensible for him to go through the documents one at a time, and for you then to test the will of the House with regard to each of those documents, rather than doing so as a job lot, if you like.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): So that no one is left in any doubt, I want to table those companies that are under the control of local bodies from the following cities of this country. They are—those ones hitherto unreferred to—the Wellington City Council, the Hamilton City Council, both the Napier and Hastings city councils, the Dunedin City Council, the Palmerston North City Council, the Nelson City Council, the Rotorua City Council, the New Plymouth City Council, and, of course, the Whanganui City Council—with an “h” now—and the Invercargill City Council, to make sure that we have not left anyone out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Leave is being sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [Interruption] Well, I want to find out whether there is any objection to that course of action being taken. There is none. There is no objection.

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the House may be in some degree of difficulty here, because we were, in fact, as I understood it from my colleague’s previous point of order—which sought clarification from the Speaker as to whether the proper process was for the member to table individually the documents that he is now collectively referring to—seeking guidance from the Speaker on the propriety of that practice. In fact, the opposite has now occurred. The member has sought to speed things up by not only tabling a collective group of documents but, in fact, not even naming the documents and tabling them as a genus. We would welcome your guidance, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The point of order of my colleague is entirely right. I was just trying to save this House time, but to do it properly, the correct way to do it, is for me to table them city by city, one at a time. That is what I now wish to do, and seek leave to do just that. But I seek leave first of all that the associated company documents and holderships of the city of Christchurch be the first set of documents that I table.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The member’s present action now does not satisfy the point, because rather than tabling a group of council-controlled organisation documents from different jurisdictions, he is still tabling a group of documents from each one. The House does not have knowledge of the nature of the individual documents, and, therefore, members in good conscience are unable to ascertain whether they should grant or withhold leave on a document by document basis. So I would like, through you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to invite the member to be more specific in the description of the documents, which is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to members that where a member has a number of documents, Speakers in the past have allowed them to be tabled together. It is a matter for the Speaker.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] Somebody groaned—I was just wondering whether they were in pain. Is it a—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re shocked.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Somebody has let the billows out again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Could I ask you, is it a matter—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s the only way he feels good about himself.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: McDonald’s is still open. Is it a matter for you to decide, not challenging—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I know that it is getting late. Can I ask the members to show some courtesy to each other. It is not impossible, you know. When there is a point of order on the floor—as there is at the moment, being taken by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—I expect all other members to show some restraint.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Thank you. I will start again. The point I was making, and I am not challenging your ruling, was that you said—I think the word you used was that it was a “decision” for you as Speaker as to whether a list of documents is tabled as a list or individually. Could I ask you to consider that, because I thought that was in the hands of the member, unless the member sought to table a list of documents in one hit. I may be wrong. I do not know whether it is a matter for you to determine whether Mr Peters has to table the list in toto, or whether he can do it individually, or whether it is a decision for the member Mr Peters to make. He sought to table—I do not know what the document is—a Christchurch document. That was not in the list, because I took some notes of the previous list that he put forward. I take it it is a new document. What my colleague David Cunliffe is simply seeking is that given that we have had a hell of a lot of documents tabled tonight and there has been some confusion—in fairness to the chief Government whip and others—as to the content and nature of those documents, we would hope that Mr Peters could determine whether he tables the list or whether he tables them individually, and that he is allowed, and required, actually, to give a fulsome description of what the documents are. We on this side may choose to object. Mr Brownlee’s side may choose to object. But I come back to the main point I was making—that is, is it a decision for you as to whether a member tables a list or tables them individually, or is it a decision that is up to the discretion of the member, unless he requests that he table the documents collectively, and requests that of you?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, can I just say to the member and advise the House that where a member has a number of documents, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters did, Speakers have allowed them to be tabled together. Where the practice is unclear, the Speaker rules. The member sought leave to table a number of documents together. That is what he sought leave for. So I am going to put that the leave be granted. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? It is already done? There was no objection.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to take the following course of action immediately upon the vote being taken on members’ order of the day No. 3, the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill: for the House to then immediately vote on the third reading of members’ order of the day No. 4, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before I continue, you recall very well that three times I have tried to have a bill discussed in this House with urgency, and it is the bill that waits in my name on the Order Paper, and, on every occasion, guess who declined me? Mr Brownlee and his colleagues over there. So let us—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no, no. Order! Order! The member is using a point of order to get involved in a debate, and that is not what we are here for. The debate is concluded. I am going to put the question now. The question is that the motion be agreed to. This is Darien Fenton’s member’s bill. I am going to put the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I haven’t finished tabling the documents yet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The documents have been agreed to be tabled. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 tomorrow morning for the extended sitting. Ka kite anō. Good evening.

Debate interrupted.

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

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

(continued on Thursday, 20 September 2012)

Bills

Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whānau Ora) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 20 December 2012, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during the evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 188, 190(a), and 191(1)(b) and (c).

One of the w’akataukī of Waitaha expresses the full impact of the story behind this legislation: Kō Waitaha te iwi, he tangata ngākaurua. Waitaha was once a powerful tribe, but because of the loss of land they became fragmented and have never been able to unite again. This morning in this House we greet a new dawn for the people of Waitaha, and with it the hope of a future in which they are truly able to enjoy the restoration of their mana, in every sense of the word. So today we welcome all those who come to share the aspirations and the legacy that descend from their tūpuna, Hei and his son Waitaha. We acknowledge the breadth and depth of the rohe in which Waitaha are located, from Waimapu to Mauao, along the coastline to Maketū, and inland to Ōtānewainuku.

Waitaha kuia Hunehunga McCausland has called Waitaha the lost iwi, referring to their loss of mana and the tendency for some to follow alternative tribal affiliations. In those words, one glimpses the harrowing grief of a people dispossessed of almost all of their traditional lands, to the point where the iwi nearly ceased to exist. That sense of aching loss is overlaid by a history of confiscation—raupatu—within Tauranga, an action that the tupuna Hakaraia Mahika opposed. The Crown could not—would not—tolerate the challenge. It labelled Hakaraia a rebel and systematically initiated a process of punishment of the people from whom he was known to have come. So 145 years ago, in January 1867, the Crown destroyed the houses, crops, and livestock of the people of Waitaha, and, ultimately, took the life of Hakaraia. Using scorched earth tactics, the Crown pursued Hakaraia to his death in 1870. Even then, the punishment did not cease. The Crown withheld a large amount of land from Waitaha, confiscating a massive 214,000 acres of land around Tauranga, including land in which Waitaha had customary interests. Although the Crown eventually accepted the ancestral claims of Waitaha to approximately 25,000 acres in the confiscation district, even then it withheld much of this in payment for the sin of Hakaraia.

One of the great tragedies of this period of our national history is to realise that during the 1840s and 1850s Hakaraia, a leader and prophet of his people, preached peaceful engagement with Pākehā. The stigma of rebellion has been a heavy burden weighing over all of his descendants and, indeed, Waitaha. It is a stigma that this legislation suggests has diminished the mana of Waitaha and forced deep divisions among their own and between their neighbours.

Out of that history, then, the Crown and Waitaha signed terms of negotiation and an agreement in principle in 2008. Exactly a year ago to the day, the Crown and Waitaha signed a deed of settlement at Hei Marae. Now the story opens a new chapter, a new beginning, in which the Crown seeks to restore its own tarnished honour to mark the start of a stronger relationship with Waitaha.

The story of Waitaha became even further complicated by the involvement of the Native Land Court, which gradually but comprehensively converted customary title into individualised and permanent titles derived from the Crown. So by the end of the 19th century, Waitaha had insufficient land and resources to sustain their tribe, burdened by the systematic and merciless alienation of their own w’enua. It is an appalling history.

In this settlement the Crown seeks to recognise the extent of the harm done by offering a formal apology and initiating redress, both cultural and financial. One of the most important aspects of the action is the establishment of a $3 million education endowment fund in the name of Hakaraia Mahika, a genuine effort to restore and redeem the legacy and the mana of a poropiti and rangatira of central importance to Waitaha.

The bill recognises the process of vesting in Waitaha two urban cultural sites: a scenic reserve based on the maunga Ōtara, Maungaruahine Pā Historic Reserve, and land at Papamoa, including important pā sites. Alongside this, the settlement introduces an overlay classification, Te Whakairinga Kōrero, providing for Crown acknowledgment of Waitaha values and agreement on protection principles applying to two important mountain sites. A deed of recognition of special association of Waitaha has been agreed with five areas of conservation land among the ancestral mountains within the Waitaha rohe. There will be a statutory acknowledgment of the cultural, historical, spiritual, and traditional association of Waitaha with 15 statutory areas, including the peak of the maunga tupuna Ōtānewainuku, beds of several watercourses, including the Kaituna River, and the coastal area between Mauao and Maketū.

Letters to Ministers are included to encourage support for Maranga Waitaha to assist the social, economic, and cultural needs of Waitaha, as well as letters of introduction to local authorities. Three ministerial protocols have been agreed relating to taonga tūturu, conservation, and Crown minerals. There is commercial redress as rights over property and $7.5 million - plus interest from agreement in principle to settlement.

In the course of time this settlement will be known as a landmark for the future prosperity of these people. But the final aspect I want to focus on is the $1.3 million that is being provided for a full historical account of Waitaha and Hakaraia. In the course of preparing for this significant day, I came across a thesis that was written by a Pākehā researcher, Alistair Reese, entitled Are You Listening? The Voice of Waitaha, a Forgotten People. The thesis was predicated on the belief that most Pākehā who now inhabit the rohe of Waitaha are completely ignorant of the identity of the tangata w’enua. His view was that the impact of colonisation upon Māori was minimised by many Pākehā through a convenience of distance. Reese makes a very strong plea to all New Zealand to learn our history, to share our stories, and to reach out to understand the context that might otherwise keep us apart.

To mediate this distance I want to share one of the messages of hope in this thesis that I believe the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill is a perfect opportunity to address. It can be seen as both a challenge and a cry: a challenge to listen and a cry to understand something of their story told through their history and their voice. Hopefully, from the microcosm of Waitaha it is imagined that those who have the ears to hear will be able to extrapolate beyond to understand some of the aspirations of other Māori who not only seek redress for the past but also grapple to define a future based upon the dignity of restored identity as tangata w’enua, the first people of the land. These aspirations require not only a renaissance of Māori vision but also an affirmation and the cooperation of all peoples. It is this affirmation that would possibly go some way to bringing healing and reconciliation to a country that is still displaying the wounds of the past and present division.

Finally, I want to recognise the key players in this legislation who have reached out to tell this story: the negotiation team of Waitaha Raupatu Trust; the governance entity, Te Kapu o Waitaha; Tame McCausland, who lodged the claims with the Waitangi Tribunal; and all those who have developed the claim and negotiated with the Crown and who have protected their waiata, reserved their memories, and treasured all that it is to be Waitaha. I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his drive and for ensuring these stories be told.

The people of Waitaha no longer wish to be known as the forgotten or the lost people. They have risen in the spirit of resilience and reconciliation to demand a better future. We now have the opportunity to listen and to learn. I commend the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill to this House. Tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. E mihi kau ana ki a rātou e kore i konei, ngā mea pakeke e rere atu pērā i a Jacqui Te Kani rātou mā, e tangi hoki te ngākau mō rātou. Nō reira, tēnā koe mō te rangi nui tēnei mō ngā tāngata i tae tahi ake ki konei ki te manaaki atu i ngā kerēme nei. Nō reira, tēnā tātou. E Tame ki a koutou katoa me ngā uri o te kāinga, e mihi kau ana. Tēnā koutou mō tō koutou kaha ki te tae ake ki konei.

Tautokotia atu ngā kōrero a te wahine rangatira a Tariana mō te āhua o tō kerēme. Tēnā koe mō tō kaha. Mai i te tīmata e tū atu tō koutou hoa, whanaunga a Te Ariki mā i tō taha e whai atu mō tō kerēme, i te wā nei e haere tahi atu koutou ēngari, e tae ake koutou i roto i tō koutou ake mana. Ngā uri o Hakaraia, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. Ngā mea pakeke e kore i konei, e kāre e taea i te mau whatu o te āhua o te kerēme nei, e mihi kau ana. Nō reira, i a koutou e Tame, me tō hoa rangatira mō tō kaha i te poipoi atu te nui o tō iwi mō te tae pēnei tonu, e mihi kau ana. Kia ora koutou.

Nā te mea, i roto i a koe tautokotia atu ngā kōrero o te whaea a Tariana mō te āhua o ngā uri o Hakaraia. Mai i te tīmata o te tae o ngā hōia o te kāwanatanga, ngā tāngata pēnei tātou he Minita, e mahi porotehe atu ki a rātou. E tuku atu rātou i tō rātou whakaaro mō te wehewehe whakaaro, me te pōrangi noa iho o Hakaraia. Ahakoa e mōhio atu rātou o te hau kāinga, e kāre hoki tō rātou tangata pērā tonu, e whai atu, e mahi atu te mahi kino i tērā tangata. Tērā anō wētahi o ngā tino pou i roto i te kerēme nei hei whakatikatika atu i a rātou, hei pīrangi atu i ngā uri o Hakaraia, o Waitaha hei whakatikatika nā te mea, e kite atu koe i te tarai ki te nui o rātou. Kāre e ōrite ki wētahi i Te Tai Rāwhiti. He iwi humāria, i kite atu i roto i te kanohi o Tame, e whai atu. Ahakoa ngā piki, ngā heke o te taumaha e tuku atu te kāwanatanga ki a rātou, he tino kerēme kē tēnei mō te whakatikatika. Nō reira, e mihi kau ana ki a rātou mō tō rātou kaha. Mai i tō rātou tae atu, tō rātou tū o te mana o Waitaha, o te waka o Te Arawa, e whai atu rātou ia tau, ia tau hei whakatika atu i te taumaha e tuku atu te kāwanatanga ki a rātou.

E mihi kau ana ki te iwi o Ngāti Mākino, mai i te tīmata o te kerēme nei, e haere tahi atu rātou tata ana ki tō rātou whanaunga. Ēngari, nā tō rātou haere i runga i te huarahi, e whakaaro atu e haere pērā tonu a Ngāti Mākino, e haere pērā tonu a Waitaha. Tērā anō te mea i roto i a rātou pērā i a Rāhera Ōhio, a Āreta Gray, a Shane Ashby, Mike Nahu, me wētahi o rātou. Te mate o te mau ingoa e waiho atu wētahi i waho rā, mō rātou katoa e kore i konei, ngā pakeke e tīmata atu i tēnei kerēme. Nō reira, ki a tātou e whai kaha hei oti pai tēnei, tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge those, indeed, who are no longer with us; the elder ones who have passed on like Jacqui Te Kani and them. I really grieve for them. Thank you, therefore, for this great day and for the many people who have arrived here together to support these claims. Well done, therefore, to us. To you, Tame, and all the kinfolk from back home, I truly applaud you collectively, and acknowledge your efforts to get here. Thank you for your efforts to make it here.

I endorse the sentiments by the Hon Tariana in respect of the nature of the claim. I commend the efforts of the honourable member. At the beginning, your friend and relative Te Ariki, and them, worked at your side on your claim, and at this stage you are all still progressing your claim along, but you have arrived here under your own steam. I applaud you, the kinfolk of Hakaraia. As for the elder ones who are no longer here and able to witness the form of this claim, I salute you all. Therefore to you, Tame, and your good wife, in terms of your efforts to nurture the majority of your people along to reach this point in the condition they are in, I doff my hat to you both. Thank you collectively.

Because of your inner belief, you endorsed the sentiments expressed by Auntie Tāriana about the relatives of Hakaraia and their circumstances. From the very first time that Government troops arrived, as well as people whom we thought were Ministers, they protested, let them know what was on their minds, had divisive thoughts, and thought Hakaraia was crazy. As a follow-up, the ones back home thought their man was not like that at all, or was a person with evil intent. There were other pillars of real substance in this claim who kept the process on track, and who wanted Hakaraia’s kin and those of Waitaha involved where amendments were needed, because of their numbers. They were quite unlike some on the East Coast. They are affable by nature, and you can see it in Tame’s face. Despite the ups and downs of the burden that the Government will place upon them, this is a gem of a claim to amend. And so I truly acknowledge them on their efforts from the outset; their stance in respect of the autonomy of Waitaha and the Te Arawa canoe. They were involved in the amendments to the burden placed upon them by the Government, and followed this up each year.

I truly acknowledge the people of Ngāti Mākino. From the very outset of this claim they worked closely with their kin. And so when they took their campaign on the road, Ngāti Mākino and Waitaha followed suit. The ones involved from within them were pillars like Rāhera Ōhio, Āreta Gray, Shane Ashby, Mike Nahu, and others. The problem when names are mentioned is that some grown-ups who started this claim process but are no longer here are left out, because one cannot recall them. But I do include them in this acknowledgment. And so to us who worked hard to complete this process, I salute you.]

Waitaha descend from the waka Te Arawa. Their area of interest extends from Waimapu to Mauao, along the coastline to Maketū, and inland to Ōtānewainuku—wainuku. They are great people in relation to the water that is important to them there. E mihi atu i a rātou mō tō rātou whai atu mō te ora o ngā puna i reira, mai rā nō.

[I acknowledge them on their efforts to follow it up, and on keeping the springs over there in good condition from the outset.]

Waitaha and neighbouring Ngāti Mākino commenced joint negotiations with the Crown in early 2008. Waitaha and Ngāti Mākino signed agreements in principle in 2008. Over the course of negotiation to deed of settlement, Waitaha, Ngāti Mākino, and the Crown agreed to separate negotiations. That needs to be understood as we go through the day.

There have been key figures in the negotiations, Tame and Punohu McCausland, and other people who are not here now, are people who have tramped the roads from there to here, around their rohe, to try to ensure that people understood—which is the case in my mind, having listened to them—that one of their principal concerns was the Crown’s bastardisation of the entity of Hakaraia and his rangatiratanga, and how the Crown craftily engendered that he was a rebel, he was no good, and he was worthless. It is important that we do remind ourselves about that. I want to commend the Minister for the effort that he has put into correcting that, and to thank him for that, like I always do, because he does put the effort in.

An initial deed of settlement was ratified by members of Waitaha and signed in September 2011. The Waitaha claims relate to the Crown acquisition of the Te Puke and Ōtawa-Waitaha 1 Blocks and failure to provide adequate reserves. This is one of the alarming things in the Waitaha claim: that the reserves were created, with no replacement, and not more so than in general, but it was quite blatantly ensuring that the replacement reserves were not marked; nor were Waitaha given basic governance or recognition that the reserves were taken from them. It was more than a confiscation; it was an obliteration of their rangatiratanga and their right to those reserves. That the Crown is putting that right is certainly an effort that needs to be recognised.

Native land laws and the operation of the Native Land Court—in the sense of the Native Land court history, as there are always tests with the deeds of the agents of the Crown—the Waitaha land files will tell you that Waitaha were treated in some of the worst fashion, more so than most of those who are here claiming settlements today. So that needs to be recognised and understood. This is not a claim that is just coming up because of now or because the Crown has enacted, through the Treaty settlement process, an opportunity to correct things. It is about putting right that thing that was really wrong and that has not been recognised or understood by Pākehās or a majority of Māori around this country about what was done to them.

Crown purchasing methods and the failure to ensure Waitaha received sufficient land for their future needs: apart from forced sell-offs there were also co-management plans that were sort of set up, but at the time, the main partner, the owner, was removed from it. As to the treatment of the Waitaha during the Tauranga bush campaign and the impact of the Tauranga confiscation, including the treatment of the Waitaha chief, Hakaraia, the Tauranga bush campaign was one of the most dastardly, outrageous set-tos on the tangata whenua and indigenous people in this land, and that happened in Waitaha. That it was so couched, and the way that Waitaha managed their way out of it, is all to their due credit. The Crown’s actions actually left Waitaha landless, and as part of the settlement package, as Minister Turia mentioned earlier on, there are a whole lot of issues in there. But the cultural redress and telling the story of Hakaraia is one of the base points in this settlement. There are a whole lot of points of cultural redress, but there is the restoration of the Hei Marae, and, if you have been there, it used to look like an antiquated old place, but you can see the essence of the strength of the people in it, because they have maintained it and kept it true to the shape and form as it was when it was first built.

I would like to congratulate the Waitaha negotiators and the trustees of Te Kapu o Waitaha on their patience in getting to this point. The protocols and letters of introduction to facilitate and strengthen relationships between Waitaha and the Crown and local government are important. Again, Minister Finlayson, those Government agencies—you watch them, and make sure that they come together seriously to help these people. Of course, there is more than giving them some money and there is more than giving them land or some rights—there is more than all of that. It is about correcting one of the real misdemeanours in the settlement process by the colonisers in this country.

People shudder when we suggest it, but if we do not talk about it in this House so that it is recorded and recognised that we are trying to put some of those dastardly deeds right—and again I commend the Minister and the Crown for doing that—then the story of Hakaraia will never be really readily accepted. We can inscribe it in history. We can do all of those things, but today is a great day in the sense of getting to where they need to get to, and I want to commend the people of Waitaha in relation to being here today to see the beginning of the end of this claim. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Can I begin by thanking all members of the House for their cooperation so that we can have these extended hours today to deal with four very important settlement bills. I think it is a tremendous innovation that the Standing Orders Committee came up with at the end of last year. It has worked very well this year. What it means is that large amounts of legislation are able to receive expedited readings, and the important purpose behind it all is so that people can enjoy the fruits of their settlements much quicker than they otherwise would, because to sign a deed of settlement and then wait 2 or 3 years for the legislation to go through the House, giving effect to that settlement, is simply unacceptable.

I join with Mrs Turia and Mr Horomia in welcoming those who have travelled from the Bay of Plenty, and thank them for doing so. I thank the negotiators for their tremendous work over a number of years to reach this stage. As Mrs Turia and Mr Horomia have said, what we are doing through this settlement is addressing the historical grievances of Waitaha, which arise from wrongs and injustices suffered by that iwi at the hands of the Crown. The Crown, through the deed and the settlement legislation, acknowledges it breached the Treaty in its relationship with Waitaha.

Endeavouring to suppress the Kīngitanga, the Crown did bring war to the Western Bay of Plenty in the 1860s. This split Waitaha internally, compelling individuals and hapū to align themselves with different sides in the conflict and causing discord and enmity within the iwi, and in relationships that Waitaha had with other iwi and with the Crown.

Mrs Turia is so right that central to this claim is the prophet and rangatira Hakaraia Mahika. Hakaraia was a supporter of the Kīngitanga. He initially preached peaceful engagement between Māori and Pākehā but became involved in the conflict during the 1860s, and was the spiritual leader of the forces arrayed against the Crown at Gate Pā in 1864. Following the pacification hui of August 1864 with Tauranga Māori, Hakaraia did not surrender and thereafter was considered by the Crown to be a rebel.

The confiscations in Tauranga were unjust. Hakaraia opposed them, and in seeking to punish him the Crown destroyed Waitaha settlements and ultimately took his life in 1870. The Crown inflicted further punishment even after his death by unfairly withholding a large amount of Waitaha land. The Crown failed to protect Waitaha from the effects of the native land laws, failed to protect the interests of Waitaha in land they wished to retain, and failed to ensure that Waitaha retained sufficient land for their present and their future needs. As a result, by 1900 this iwi held approximately 2.5 percent of its former rohe. Further losses throughout the 20th century—for example, through the Public Works Act—compounded the misery.

After a period of negotiations, the detail of which other speakers have referred to, on 20 September 2011 the Crown signed a deed of settlement with Waitaha. The history that is set out in that deed of settlement, as Mrs Turia said, is very, very important, and, as with all settlements, needs to be referred to, and needs to be understood by the wider public.

I am not, in this first reading speech, going to go into the detail of the settlement redress. Mrs Turia has covered the detail admirably and there is very little that I can add to it. But I do want to say this. As with all Treaty settlements, full reparation is simply not possible. By entering into a full and final settlement, the people of Waitaha have agreed to forgo full compensation, thereby contributing to the future development of our land, and I thank them for this act of generosity.

Legislation is the last step before settlement day in addressing these historical claims. The iwi and those representing them can be proud of what they have achieved through this settlement. It creates a foundation for a new relationship between Waitaha and the Crown. At times, Mr Horomia sounds like a broken record when he—

Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh, come on!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —no, no, just listen—tells me to pay attention to local government and also to Government departments, but he is absolutely correct. These settlements are ones where fine sentiments are expressed on the day of settlement, fine sentiments are expressed in the House, the legislation is passed, and then too often people actually forget. One of the problems with the Crown is that its institutional memory is not what it should be. I repeat to him today what I have said on other occasions, that I am working very closely as Associate Minister of Māori Affairs in looking at this issue of ensuring that we do have robust and effective post-settlement arrangements that do hold the Crown to account, not this year, not next year, but in 15 years’ time. The point he makes is an extremely powerful one.

So my thanks to all those who have been involved in getting us to this stage. Now we entrust the bill to the Māori Affairs Committee. I can say this in the sure and certain knowledge that under the excellent chairmanship of my friend Mr Henare it is going to be dealt with efficiently and effectively, and I hope it will be back here very, very soon for its remaining stages.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā Minita, tēnā koutou. Ngā mema Pāremata, tēnā koutou. Waitaha iwi, nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei, tēnā koutou. Āpiti hono, tātai hono rātou te hunga mate ki a rātou, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings and acknowledgments to you, the Ministers and members of Parliament. Welcome to you, the people of Waitaha, to the House of Parliament, standing here ready, welcome and salutations to you collectively. Let them, the dead, remain united there in the spiritual world, and we, the living, remain here amongst ourselves. So salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings to us all.]

I am very proud and very pleased to be standing and making my contribution at this first reading of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. The Waitaha deed of settlement is the final settlement of all historical Treaty claims of Waitaha, resulting from the acts and omissions of the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. It is made up of a package that includes an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments that form the basis of the apology to Waitaha—cultural redress, financial redress, and commercial redress. But throughout the package and the central part of the settlement is the recognition of telling the story of, and the restoration of mana for, the Waitaha tupuna Hakaraia Mahika. No private land was affected in the redress; it is Crown land only, and the benefits will be available to all Waitaha descendants.

Waitaha are an ancient iwi that descends from the Te Arawa waka. Their area of interest and influence is from Waimapu to Mauao, along the coastland to Maketū and inland to Ōtānewainuku. By the 1840s Waitaha occupied land between Tauranga and Te Puke, and in the 1840s and 1850s Waitaha chief Hakaraia preached peaceful engagement with Pākehā. When Crown forces invaded the Waikato in July of 1863, a number of Waitaha men fought for the Kīngitanga, while some fought for the Crown. Others remained neutral. These internal divisions created some acrimony and discord within Waitaha and also the neighbouring iwi.

When war broke out in Tauranga in 1864, Hakaraia was a spiritual leader for the Māori forces that defeated the Crown troops at Pukehinahina in Gate Pā. When the Crown troops finally managed to win a fight at Te Ranga, Waitaha men were among the casualties. In 1865 that led to the Crown actions of the Tauranga confiscations, where 214 acres of land around Tauranga were confiscated. Hakaraia rose to prominence as a leader of the resistance to the survey of confiscated land. In 1867 Crown forces assaulted Waitaha settlements in Te Puke, destroying houses and crops and livestock as a special punishment for Hakaraia. Using these scorched earth policies the Crown pursued Hakaraia to his ultimate death in 1870.

The Crown opened negotiations with Waitaha for Te Puke in 1873 before the Native Land Court had determined the block’s ownership. Waitaha did not want to sell Te Puke. However, in 1873 there were rival claims over the land, which motivated Waitaha to sell part of the block. The Crown pressured Waitaha into selling more land and told Waitaha that the block would be mortgaged to the Government if they did not sell, on account of a debt owed by another claimant in Te Puke. This was the classic modus operandi of the Crown back in those days, and every time I read about an iwi or a hapū who lost land in this way I feel a real sense of shame and embarrassment in my mind that those things indeed happened.

In just about every settlement claims bill that comes before this House, I have read of Māori having to alienate land because of an accrued debt of survey lands. It seems that Crown theft and broken promises were the main weapons to alienate Māori from their land, but if that did not work, the Crown could rely on its old hoary trick of indebting Māori and then forcing them to sell to pay off the debt. By 1874 Waitaha was suffering extreme economic hardship and wanted the Crown to pay the balance of the purchase money without waiting for the title to be determined by the court. And when the Crown refused, Waitaha tried to withdraw from the sale to sell to a private party, but the Crown would not relinquish its purchase and barred private parties from attempting to acquire the land, and so the Native Land Court finally awarded title to Waitaha and the Crown purchased the rest of Te Puke over the next 8 years.

The people of Waitaha took part in many Native Land Court hearings in the 1880s and the 1890s, where, largely, the land was sold during that period. By the end of the 19th century Waitaha had insufficient lands and resources to sustain the tribe. According to Waitaha this forced some tribal members to follow other iwi affiliations. Waitaha expressed this impact in the pepeha “Kō Waitaha te iwi, he tangata ngākaurua”—Waitaha is the iwi; they are a people with divided hearts.

Waitaha was once a powerful tribe, but through the loss of land because of Crown actions, they have been unable to unite again until now, and we are seeing this through the passage of this bill and these Treaty settlements.

I just want to turn to some particular aspects in this bill, which have been touched on by the Minister as well. I am particularly impressed with the cultural revitalisation package and the recognition for Hakaraia that is contained in this bill. The funding of a $3 million education endowment fund in the name of Hakaraia and the funding of $300,000 for an accurate historical account fully documenting the history of Waitaha and their great chief Hakaraia, as well as the other contributions that are being made for the restoration of Hei Marae and the cultural revitalisation of its people—these are the aspects that are really, I believe, fundamentally important to all the iwi who come through with these Treaty settlements. It is that establishment of connection to their whenua, the restoration of mana for their tūpuna, and correcting and putting the story straight in terms of the Crown’s acknowledgments and apologies, and then all the other redress packages that accrue to the iwi as a result of these settlements.

The theme of my recent kōrero on settlement readings—and we have been putting quite a few through this House, which has been very, very enjoyable, actually, being part of this—has been this: to understand Māori whakapapa is to understand Māori history, and Hakaraia and Waitaha may never have been drawn into the wars of the 1860s had it not been for whakapapa. Some of the Waitaha were related through intermarriage to Waikato-Tainui families who had been drawn into the Kīngitanga struggle against the Crown and that formidable General Cameron, and some members of Waitaha were on the side of the Crown and so fought their relations in the field. Some Waitaha remained neutral.

This situation was not unique to just Waitaha. It was right across the Bay of Plenty and anywhere in New Zealand where the Crown forces were at war with Māori—Port Nicholson, Whanganui, Taranaki, Waikato, and in the north. In all these engagements, Māori, for one reason or another, either fought on either side or remained neutral, but Māori all across the land were being divided within their family units by the Pākehā duplicity. Once again, it is whakapapa that links these stories of different iwi, and that is why it is very historic that we are able to usher the passage of these settlement bills through the House at this time.

In conclusion, I would like to make a few acknowledgments to the negotiating team for Waitaha—in particular, Papa Tame McCausland and his lovely dear wife, Punohu, and also the other members of the team, who have made a long contribution over many years to come to this particular point. It is a historic day, so I am very proud to be speaking at this first reading of this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and all the Crown officials who have also been part of the process. I am looking forward to making my contribution as part of the Māori Affairs Committee, under the great leadership of my whanaunga Tau Henare over there. I am looking forward to awhi and tautoko the passage of this bill through the House. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He mihi nui ki te Waitaha iwi katoa. Tēnā koutou. I rise with great humility to speak on something so painful, so historic, and so important to the rohe from which these people come. Just to explain to them, perhaps, the reason that I as a Pākehā stand here, it is that as te Tiriti spokesperson from a Pākehā perspective what I heard this morning and what I have heard continually is that it is not just about Māori; it is about the Treaty. In Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the biggest responsibility, the Greens believe, is on the Kāwanatanga, which covers Pākehā. If we are to stand with honour and justice in this country, we have to acknowledge our part not only in history but also in any future settlements. How well this is done affects us, our honour as a people, as well. So I am very pleased to acknowledge this ancient iwi from a beautiful rohe.

Not long ago, 3 days ago, I was in that area, with those mountains to the sea, which is a critical kōrero in that area. It is a beautiful area. It is hugely developed because it is fertile, because it is rich, and because there are wonderful streams running out of the beautiful forested hills, and that is why in the past all of this took place. It was not just dastardly deeds without a context; it was dastardly deeds because they wanted the land. They wanted the land, and Waitaha were in the way. I think it is really important to acknowledge that the tangata whenua did not go through this process, this scorched earth destruction of their culture, both through the law and through the gun because there were just bad individuals who were greedy. It was about a systemic colonisation that has taken away the very mana and rangatiratanga of those people of those times, which now we are trying to rebuild in some form. I would just like to acknowledge that the people who drive this are the people of Waitaha. We as a country have reason to be grateful to them, because if we can learn their story, then we are going to be better able to live up to our responsibilities under te Tiriti.

I read with great interest—I would have loved to be on the Māori Affairs Committee—some of the historical stories of this area and of what took place. It is really, really important that we all acknowledge Hakaraia Mahika, and acknowledge that even today freedom fighters are called insurgents, as he was called, and that he and the people who fought with him were defined as rebels for standing up for their fundamental right to defend their rohe and their fundamental right to their self-determination and to fight for their very survival at a time when the Crown was hell-bent on getting this rich and fertile land and handing it over to the settlers. What we saw was a series of events, leading to a massive raupatu in Tauranga. As the Minister said, none of it can ever be put together as it was. If you look at that area, you will see that it is incredibly developed now on the plains, but the hills and the rivers are still there. As someone from Waitaha said to me recently, it is about a renaissance of a people from the rivers, from the mountains, down to the sea. So, irrespective of everything that has taken place, this is a great day to begin a renaissance for those people.

As others have said, the story of Hakaraia Mahika needs to be told, and it is really great to see the resources being applied to that through the deed of settlement and the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. Obviously, this story needs to be understood by everyone, and particularly, I would say, by my culture in the Bay of Plenty, because we have not been renowned in that area for a recognition of tangata whenua, let alone a recognition of our Treaty responsibilities. So we have a duty to learn that story, and I think this resource will help everybody realise the mana of Hakaraia Mahika and others involved in standing up for what is right, for being not those ethnically cleansed insurgents, in modern parlance—for being not rebels but the people of the place with a right to stand. It was very powerful to read that Hakaraia died at Waiōeka wrapped in the Kīngitanga flag that was gifted to him by Tāwhiao, and that he was standing with Te Kooti, who had also been vilified, and his descendants were also vilified. His descendants, again through some of the Treaty settlements, have asserted their mana and the rangatiratanga of their tupuna. So there is another name that must be known by all, and that is where this settlement makes a very useful contribution to that.

It is also interesting to note the role—as well as the role of the gun, which was liberally used against the people—of the Native Land Court, as others have said. It was the icing on the cake and it was, again, not some kind of random accident of law whereby the Crown thought it was doing the right thing but made a few mistakes. The Native Land Court was a deliberate strategy to create individualised title, because in the face of the strength of the collective cultures of tangata whenua there had to be a way to get that land and to break those collectives. If you read some of the dialogue of the day, they talk about Māori as communists—this dreadful collectivity that had to be broken. The real driving force again was: “How do we get the land? If these people stand together collectively in their ownership and refuse to sell it, and if we cannot kill them all, then we are going to have to find another mechanism.” So that mechanism was the Māori Land Court. That land court in this area was very successful at individualising title, which is the beginning of the destruction of unity, alongside all the violence that was used. It is really important to see in this bill the apology, and also the resources committed to places like Hei Marae. Hei Marae is a very significant tupuna in the area, and a very significant part of the Waitaha story. Also there is the recognition of the awa, because those beautiful streams that come out of those mountains are vital to the well-being of the communities. In fact, the peoples in the area, Pākehā and Māori, rely on those streams for water and the integrity of those streams. It is very important that the tangata whenua, who have mana and acknowledgment, have acknowledgment of their statutory responsibility and rights over those streams so that they are not further polluted in any way.

It is great to see that the conservation authorities will have to have recognition of the values of Waitaha. It was described to me by somebody from there as a framework for renaissance, and an assertion of the vision of integrity, cultural and environmental, from the mountains to the sea. So let us hope that everybody who is in authority in local government and national government recognises that that framework of values will benefit all of us. It is a framework of values that not only will uphold the future of the descendants of Hakaraia but also will uphold the well-being and environmental integrity and the cultural richness of the Bay of Plenty. So there is much in this not only for the people but also for the rest of us to acknowledge. I mean, it saddens me that the land is gone—so much of the land—and there is so little to give back, but at the same time the cultural redress is very significant. The educational endowment is very positive. The historical research will be excellent.

I also note interesting issues around the protocols, which I agree must never be forgotten, around taonga tūturu, and around things like minerals. I recently met some Waitaha people at a meeting around Muir’s Reef, where they are proposing to mine, and where the Waitaha people asserted very strongly that they have a critical relationship in this area and that anyone wanting to mine needs to talk to them and acknowledge that they have another vision of the integrity of their place, the integrity of water, and that relationship between the mountains and the sea.

So I commend the Waitaha people for their work, recognising this is a stepping stone and a renaissance, and hearing from people in the area that they acknowledge both Michael Cullen and Chris Finlayson for their sustained work on this issue, because this huge loss can be partially restored only if we all remember and if we all learn those stories. I commend Alistair Reese’s thesis talking about Pākehā ignorance, because if we do not admit it, we cannot learn. We have to admit what we do not know. We have to take on these challenges. This settlement, with its resources committing to cultural redress, must be adopted and embraced by us so that forgetting, which is a Pākehā cultural habit—forgetting—will not be allowed in this rohe. Waitaha tūturu, I wish them all the best in their process of this bill through the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi, anei taku mihi ki a koutou e aku rangatira, e aku tuākana rānei, nō reira, nui atu te mihi ki a koutou katoa. I tū whakaiti au i mua i a koutou e aku rangatira, e ōku nei tuākana, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[First thing: here is my acknowledgment to you, my esteemed, or should I say, my elder siblings. I admire you all greatly. I am humbled to stand before you, my revered ones, my elder siblings, and so salutations, greetings, and thank you all.]

I was about to read the preamble to the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill, until my colleague and whanaunga Rino stole my thunder. I think it is important that the historical context is actually read in the House, and so I thank my colleague for doing that.

I wanted to start off by saying that maybe we should call what we are doing here today—I know that it is called extended hours—“Treaty Settlement Day”, because, invariably, we have used the extended hours to go through Treaty settlements, and I think it is a good thing. The unfortunate thing is that there is no media in the gallery today. I want to say and put on record that it may be OK at 2 o’clock in the afternoon to run down here and see question time, but, quite frankly, you should all run down here and listen to what is going on in extended hours, especially when there are Treaty settlements going through the House.

I also want to concur with my colleagues who have pronounced their favour for the Education Endowment Fund and for funding a full account of Hakaraia. But I also want to mention a few words that keep coming up throughout history, and they are words like “scorched earth policy”. It did not happen just in the 1860s. Theft did not happen just in the 1860s. I am glad my colleague from the Green Party Catherine Delahunty talked about the individualisation of ownership of Māori land, because that there is the basis of colonisation, the basis of how to get something legally—legally in the eyes of the settlers, and legally in the eyes of the Government of the day. Given that there is an issue floating around Māoridom today, where a thousand people turned up to a hui last week, I suppose it is incumbent on us to remember that for Māori and in Māori eyes the struggle continues on a daily basis, on a monthly basis, and on a yearly basis just to try to get back some semblance of their own rangatiratanga.

I do want to use the word “genocide”, not to freak anybody out but to try to have a look at it from the other people’s point of view, rather than what we think is genocide. We think genocide is what happened in Rwanda, in Serbia, and around the world. But when we look at it, it happened here. I do not think we should today feel guilty for the sins of our fathers and mothers and our forefathers and ancestors, but we have an inherent duty to make amends. That is why I say that when we do these extended hours, mainly for Treaty settlements, we should call it “Treaty Settlement Day”, because it is about moving forward. It is about saying sorry. It is about fronting up and offering something to those people, and the Government—and we are part of the Government—and the Crown fronting up to what we did, or what our ancestors did, to these good people. It is not only about Hakaraia. It is about how they chased him to his death, but it is also about the power of the Crown and breaking up a people, breaking up a community, and breaking up a family, a whānau, an iwi, and a hapū. When you look at that in its context of what you are breaking up, then one must consider the use of the word “genocide”. I do not think that it is a word that we should freak out about. I do not think that it is a word that we should, because of its connotations, sweep under the carpet.

You will hear throughout the day various stories from various iwi, but they all really have one thing in common, and that is the break-up of a society that was working quite well. I know the romantic in me—and, yes, there is a romantic in me somewhere—says “Wouldn’t it be lovely to go back to those days?”. But then the realist in me says “No, I don’t want to go back to those days.” But what I do want to do is to be part of a Parliament that, one, says sorry to Waitaha and that we will try to make amends, and, two, says that what we offer as a settlement is a tiny, tiny little bit of what you truly deserve. It is a minuscule amount of recompense for what the settler Government did.

We have heard about the chasing of Hakaraia. We have heard, in the past, stories in this House about Te Kooti. And it goes on and on and on. I suppose, you know, when people talk about mana, in my mind complete mana is to the people who have accepted the deal, knowing full well that it is a tiny, tiny recompense in terms of whether they were compensated truly to the full worth of what went on.

I look forward to travelling to Waitaha. I look forward to travelling to listen to the stories from the people’s mouths and to why we should settle with Waitaha. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to the hospitality and the lunch that we are about to receive. Nō reira, anō te mihi, anō te aroha ki a koutou katoa ngā mōrehu o ngā aituā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[I salute and sympathise with you all, once again, the survivors of tragedies, and so salutations and greetings to you collectively. My appreciation to us all.]

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): Ko Pirongia te maunga, ko Waipā te awa, ko Ngāti Hikairo te hapū, ko Pūrekereke te marae. Tēnā koutou ngā rangatira nō Waitaha. Ngā mihi tonu ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa nui o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Pirongia is the mountain, Waipā is the river, Ngāti Hikairo is the subtribe, and Pūrekereke is the courtyard. Greetings to you, the esteemed ones from Waitaha. I particularly acknowledge you collectively on this great matter of the day. Acknowledgments to you and to us all.]

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the first reading of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. Waitaha, as we have heard, are an ancient tribe with an amazing lineage of love, knowledge, and spirituality. However, their more recent history from the 1860s, although unique, also shares similarities with other iwi throughout New Zealand who have been dispossessed of their mana through the unlawful confiscation of their lands, and I must say what rich and fertile land that is. If we just look at the total amount of exports from kiwifruit in Te Puke, it was 41 percent of New Zealand’s crop for 2011. From Te Puke alone that equated to $430 million. So you see that this is obviously not about justice, but it is about providing a future. I want to say hello to the friends I have in the gallery, those of you there from Maketū, those of you there from Te Puke. There are a couple of rogues up there I have to wake up really early to beat to my whitebait possie on the Kaituna, but never mind.

But it is not easy to get here. It has been a very long journey, and there are hardships in getting here. Everybody here pays their own way, so I would like to acknowledge everybody in the gallery. Kia ora. I would also give mention to two men, and, you know, they will be embarrassed by this because there are others in their team. But I would like to mention Tame McCausland and Maru Tapsell. These gentlemen were also there assisting Ngāti Mākino to their settlement with their claim. That has also helped expedite the process here with Waitaha.

As I said earlier, this claim is not about justice but about, now, a future. One of the key ingredients, I think, of Māori is that Māori know our past. Because we know our past, when we look to the future, it is not next year, it is not the year after that, but we can set long-term, short-term, and mid-term goals. Let us look 200 years to the future, to future generations. I would like to thank Waitaha for their generosity of spirit in their settlement.

I would reiterate what the Hon Tau Henare said in that New Zealand needs to see this. These claims are an opportunity for New Zealand to come together to understand Māori’s special connection with water, with our wairua, and with our land, but also that within each tribe’s history is an amazing story. There is a tapestry—betrayal, hardship, great courage, and a great journey. I have mentioned before that if this was happening in the United States of America, there would be TV crews everywhere. They would be outside there. Movie moguls would be lined up outside the door waiting to sign up rights for the movies—of course, that can still happen. But I would set a challenge out to the media of New Zealand and to those watching on their computers and on television at the moment to learn these histories, because it is part of us. It is what makes us unique as New Zealanders. It is what binds us, that synergy, and it makes us special. We need to celebrate our history.

I would like to say to those watching, because I have received lots of letters—you know, you get the redneck letters that say Māori are getting this and Māori are getting that. Well, let me tell you that Māori are not getting billions of dollars.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

BRENDAN HORAN: Sorry. The Hon Mr Finlayson would be able to give us the figure, but I believe that the total amount of all claims, to date, in New Zealand’s history is only just touching $1 billion. That pales in significance with the South Canterbury Finance bailout, the sale of assets, and so and so forth.

But, as I said, we look forward to the future of Waitaha. We look forward to the growth and renaissance. There are still a few issues to be settled, and they will be seen in the select committee process. I refer to the several hapū who were included in the beginning in the agreement in principle, but are not in the final bill. I know that we would like to see those several hapū included, and that can be done through the select committee process. So I wish Waitaha luck through the next stages—only a small way to go. On behalf of New Zealand First and my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, we will do our best to expedite the rest of this journey. Kia ora. Thank you.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has to call.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member, Hone Harawira.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Hoi nō he tū poto tēnei kia mihi atu ki a koutou o Waitaha, i haere tawhiti mai i roto i a mātou i tēnei rā, hei whai oranga mō ā tātou nei tamariki, mokopuna mō ngā rā kei te haere mai. Nō reira, e tika ana kia mōhio hara tēnei i te mutunga, he tīmatanga noa iho. No reira, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koe e te rangatira e kawe mai i tērā whakaahua o tō tātou tupuna, koutou anō rā e tōku iwi, ngā mihi atu ki a koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all in the House. Just a short call to acknowledge those of Waitaha who travelled some distance to be with us this day in pursuit of the future well-being of our children and grandchildren. Therefore it is right that we be aware that this is not the ending but merely the beginning. So I congratulate you all. Thank you to the revered one who brought along that photo of our ancestor, and congratulations once again to you, my tribal kin.]

Thank you very much for allowing your boy Rāwiri Wīhapi to come up to Ngāti Kurī to be our tumuaki—to help our kids. Thank you very much for allowing me to come down to Te Puke, in my bad days of riding around with the Filthy Few. Hari ana kia kite atu i a koutou i tae ora mai i roto i a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[I am so glad to see that you have all arrived here safely to be amongst us, so acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively and to us all.]

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tū atu au ki te mihi ki te iwi o Waitaha kua tae pai mai i tēnei rāngi, nā reira tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou katoa kua tae ki tēnei Whare Pāremata ki te whakatau i tēnei kaupapa, arā, tā koutou kerēme. Tino roa rawa te hīkoi ki tēnei rā. Kua matemate mai ētahi ō koutou mai i te tīmatatanga, tae noa ki tēnei rā. Nā reira, e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a rātou kua ngaro atu, tae noa ki ngā mate o tēnei wiki mutunga, tēnei wiki, ko Jacqui Te Kani mā, ko Ben Tawhiti, ko Lesley Nathan, ko Bill Maxwell, rātou kua tukuna atu i tēnei wiki ki te kōpū o te whaea. Nā reira, ngā mate kei a koutou, ā, kei a tātou, haere, okioki pai noa.

Ērangi, ko te mea nui kua tae mai. Ehara māku e kōrero mō te whakaparahakonga i ā koutou tikanga, ō koutou iwi me te takahanga o ō koutou tīpuna o taua wā engari, tū atu au ki te mihi ki a koutou kua tae ki tēnei rā. Kua oti kē tēnā kōrero e ōku hoa nei i te Whare Pāremata engari, ko taku korero ki a koutou, kei te mōhio mātou ki te mamae kei roto i a koutou i tēnei wā. Ko te mea nui ki a au kua puta mai i ā koutou kōrero e pā ana ki a Hakaraia me rātou kua hinga mai i ngā pakanga. Tēnā te mea nui ki ahau, kia kite ai ā koutou tamariki, mokopuna, ko wai rātou. Ko wai rātou. Ka kite rātou i tā koutou hītori.

I tēnei wā, he tika tāu, e Tau, kāre he kairīpoata i konei, ahakoa he rā nui tēnei mō tātou. Kāhore rātou i hara mai ki te whakarongo. Ka haere ki te kura, ka akongia tātou i ngā hītori o Ingarangi, Amerika me ērā atu ēngari, kāre rātou e mōhio ana, ko wai a Te Whatuiāpiti me ō tātou tīpuna ko Hakaraia. Kūare tonu rātou i tō tātou hīkoi mai i te wā i tae mai tātou ki Aotearoa, e tipu ngātahi me te whenua nei. Nā reira, koinā tāku i tēnei wā, kia tū atu ki te mihi ki a koutou kua hara mai nei i tēnei rangi, kia whakatau pai tēnei kaupapa, ā, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, hara mai rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to greet the people of Waitaha who have arrived here safely today, and so greetings to you all. Welcome to you all who have arrived here in this House of Parliament to settle this matter relating to your claim. It has been an extremely long journey to this day. Since the beginning of it to now, some of you have passed away. Therefore it is only right that we acknowledge those ones who have died, including the deaths this weekend and this week, like Jacqui Te Kani, Ben Tawhiti, Lesley Nathan, Bill Maxwell, and them. They were the ones buried this week and departed to the designated void. So depart, the deaths, yours and ours, rest well.

The main thing is that you, Waitaha, have arrived here. It is not for me to rubbish your customs and people and to walk all over your ancestors of that time, but rather to stand and welcome you who have arrived here on this day. My colleagues here in Parliament House have covered those disparaging remarks, but I can assure you that we are aware of the hurt inside you right now. What is most important for me is that that hurt has come out in your stories about Hakaraia and the ones who died in the battles, and for your children and grandchildren to see who they are. They will see it in your history.

At this stage, Tau is right. There are no reporters here, even though this is a significant day for us. They will not come and listen. We go to school and learn about the history of England, America, and places like that, but will not really know who Te Whatuiāpiti and Hakaraia, our ancestors, are. They will remain ignorant about your journey, from the time we arrived here in New Zealand and flourished together with this land. So my contribution then, right now, is to stand and welcome you who have arrived here on this day to settle this matter well. And so, salutations and greetings, welcome aboard.]

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand that permission has been granted for a waiata.

Waiata

Bills

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. From the sands of Papakānui and Muriwai in the west to the waters of upper Waitematā in the east, to the sons and daughters of Haranui, Reweti, Kakanui, Araparera, and Puatahi marae, the descendants of Ngāti Whātua, Te Tāōū, Ngāti Rongo, and Ngāti Hine, nau mai, haere mai koutou. Whaia te kotahitanga o Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. Seek to unite the people of Kaipara. These simple yet profound words were a constant theme for the impressive claims negotiators at the helm of a journey that today brings Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara to the New Zealand House of Representatives. I stand to pay tribute to those who began this journey but who now live on in the memories and lives of their children—they live on in those memories—and their descendants. Importantly, in coming months these visionaries will also live on. They will live on in the laws of this nation.

Moe mai rā koutou e ngā rangatira, moe mai rā. Nā reira, e tautoko ana ngā mihi ki a koutou, nau mai hara mai ki tēnei Whare kia whakatau pai tēnei kerēme. Pērā i a rātou, tino roroa rawa te hīkoi ēngari, kua tae mai ki tēnei rangi i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[You the esteemed ones, rest and sleep there. And so I endorse the tributes to you, the ones who have arrived here at this House to settle this claim well; welcome, welcome. Like your forebears, your journey has been a very long one, but this day has arrived, so congratulations to you all.]

The Crown’s alienation of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara lands began 168 years ago, and has been carried by generations of families. It began in 1844 with the Crown’s takeover of large tracts of land bordering on the upper Waitematā. The Government’s persuasive and unrelenting land-buying policies meant that by 1868 the mana whenua of southern Kaipara had lost 281,000 acres of land. The Native Land Court fragmented and alienated lands further by awarding title to individuals rather than to iwi and hapū. Tēnei tētahi hē nui tae noa ki tēnei rangi, kāhore rātou e mōhio ana ko wai tātou, ā tātou tikanga kia mahi tahi ai.

[This is one huge fault right down to this day. They do not know who we are and our custom to work as one.]

By 1900 and within a single generation Ngāti Whātua had lost 90 percent of their lands in southern Kaipara. This unprecedented loss of land has for ever shaped the lives of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara people. Without the land and the resources to take ownership of their own destiny, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara’s right to determine their own economic and social well-being was denied. This land loss also meant that the right of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara to uphold their own mana motuhake and to exercise their own rangatiratanga was denied. So I stand to acknowledge Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, whose tenacity and leadership will soon see settlement for the hapū and marae of southern Kaipara.

I commend the trustees of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Committee and the Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust for their passion and commitment. They have shown incredible leadership by working alongside other iwi and hapū of Kaipara, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Hauraki. I was honoured to participate in the ceremony of mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau a few weeks back alongside Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara representatives. The spirit of whanaungatanga and rangatiratanga demonstrated by Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara has enabled the resolution of claims across the Tāmaki-makau-rau region.

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and the Crown negotiated an agreement in principle, which was signed on 22 December 2009. A deed of settlement was initialled in June 2011 and ratified by the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara community with a signing on 9 September 2011. What a great day that was. A post-settlement governance entity to receive and manage settlement assets was launched in April 2011. From that time the mandate to negotiate the claims of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara passed from the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Committee to the trustees of Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust.

The support of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara people for the settlement negotiated on their behalf is clear. Two ratification processes, held in August 2010 and August 2011, returned approval rates of 96 percent and 92 percent, respectively. That is marvellous—a terrific mandate. As part of this acknowledgment, nine reserves and conservation sites of significance will be transferred to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara as cultural redress. These sites include Atuanui Scenic Reserve, Mairetahi Landing, Mauiniu Island, Moturemu Island, Tīpare, Makarau, Makarau Bridge Reserve, Parakai, and Ten Acre Block Recreation Reserve. Although the bill does not provide cultural redress in respect of Kaipara Harbour, it does not prevent Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara from negotiating redress with the Crown in the future.

This bill provides for statutory acknowledgments of areas, which will enhance the ability of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara to participate in specified Resource Management Act processes, including Papakānui Conservation Area, Papakānui Spit Wildlife Refuge, Rototoa Conservation Area, Lake Rototoa Scenic Reserve, Motutara Settlement Scenic Reserve, Goldie Bush Scenic Reserve, and a coastal statutory acknowledgment area. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara will receive financial and commercial redress valued at $22.1 million plus interest. This includes the transfer of Woodhill Forest and the right to purchase part of Riverhead Forest.

All those things the families of Haranui, Reweti, Kakanui, Araparera, and Puatahi have lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be totally replaced—nowhere near it—and yet today Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara seek to settle their grievances with the Crown. Today we remember, we acknowledge, and we seek to resolve historical grievances. It is an important day for Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and an important day for the Crown.

Although this House, this deed of settlement, and this claims settlement bill can never change this history of a people, this House can help shape the future of a people. This bill provides for a strengthened relationship between the people of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and the Crown—a strengthened relationship as partners in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Whāia te kotahitanga o Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.

[Seek to unite the people of Kaipara.]

I consider that the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill should therefore proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. I a koutou o Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara e mihi kau ana, nau mai, hara mai ki te wāhi nei. Mauria mai te kaha rawa o te wai mārino, o ngā wai e patapata atu i reira, e mau kaha atu i te tuku o ngā tupuna ki a koutou, hei whai kaha i konei, hei oti pai atu tēnei tino taumahatanga. Nō reira, i a koutou katoa e te whaea, e mihi kau ana, e Tame koutou katoa. Ka nui te mihi i te kite atu i te pakaritanga i roto i a koutou i tae ake ki konei, ahakoa, te roaroa atu ki te tae ki te Whare Miere nei. Kei te tae atu koutou, nō reira, tēnā tātou. E tautokotia atu ngā whakaaro e puta ā-waha a te Minita Māori a Pita, tēnā koe. E tino rekareka atu hei rongo ki te kōrero mō ngā tau ākuni e hipa atu, e whakahoki atu rātou hei kōrero, he wāhi wai o Kaipara mō rātou mai i te nohotahi i te Karauna. Nō reira, tēnā koe mō tērā. He tino take atu tērā, kāre i konei te āhua o te tikanga te cultural redress ēngari, ākuni ka puta ana mō ngā tau e tae atu. Nō reira, tēnā koe mō wērā whakaaro.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To you of Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara, welcome indeed to this place, welcome, welcome. Bring forth the great strength of the calming droplets of the water from over there that retained the powers that the ancestors firmly handed down to you. It will give you the strength in this place to overcome this great burden well. So to all of you, and the mother figure and Tame, I truly acknowledge you all. When I see how you have grown in stature to make it here, even though it has taken a very long time to get to this Beehive, I am full of admiration. Nevertheless you have done it—wonderful. I endorse the sentiments expressed verbally by you, the Minister of Māori Affairs. Thank you, Pita. It was really pleasing to hear what would happen in the future and where they would input their own views. Also, by developing a relationship with the Crown, it would enable water areas to be set up for them in the Kaipara Harbour. So thank you for your part in that. Another issue of great concern is the lack of provision here for cultural redress, but we might get to that in the years to come. So thank you as a consequence for those considerations.]

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara is the collective name for the hapū and whānau of the five marae of south Kaipara. I want to mention those marae and other reserves and marae that are there: Reweti, Haranui, Kakanui, Araparera, and Puatahi. Interestingly, Puatahi is a marae that is in several of our regions close to the sea, so I want to mihi to the marae of Puatahi. I am not too sure I have been there. It has been chosen to distinguish between this group and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and Ngāti Whātua in south Kaipara.

Kite atu koutou e Sharon, koutou i reira, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. Tēnā koe.

[You as a collective will see, and Sharon, you are the ones there, and I truly commend you. Thank you.]

Key figures in the negotiation—Takutai Moana is not here—Margaret and Naida, who is away somewhere, mihi atu ki a rātou, and everybody. This is an issue about naming people as you leave people out. But there has been a lot of effort put in by Ngāti Whātua people. I see Jason is up there, and those who have slogged along the road to get to this place to try to finish this sooner than later.

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and the Crown signed an agreement in principle in December 2009. An initial deed of settlement was ratified by members of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and signed in September 2011. The Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara claims relate to native land laws and the operation of the Native Land Court, and there are some really interesting deals that were done, or were not done, in relation to the Kaipara. Crown purchasing methods failed to ensure that Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara retained sufficient land for their future needs. This is one of the principal underpinning factors in relation to the quantum that is sized up by Minister Finlayson, and they need to be congratulated on that. They may increase it by the time the end date comes, but kia ora, Minister.

I refer now to the administration and the alienation of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara lands in the 20th century and the failure to protect Ngāti Whātua’s interests in purchase investigations. There were some incredible purchases in Kaipara, offset, quite interestingly, by not being taken just from Māori to Pākehā but shuffled amongst themselves—with other people. The Crown’s action left Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara virtually landless, and had devastating and enduring effects on the spiritual, cultural, and economic well-being of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. I do want to commend the Minister of Māori Affairs, Tā Pita Sharples, for making the note that future redress can be negotiated with the Crown in relation to the cultural significance and aspects. I saw your head shoot up very quickly then, Minister Finlayson, so I mihi to you for that effort, and I thank Mr Sharples for making us aware of that. So kia ora, Minister—and that is important to say here. Like the bureaucracy—and I will not wax lyrical over it again—it is all very well for those Government agencies to put it down on paper, but unless we do it—maumau time. So it is great to hear the commitment from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations this morning in making sure he is going to keep an eye on those agencies, and it is also great to hear the Minister’s point about future redress. That is indeed heartening, without too much shuffling around.

In the settlement package, in addition to the Crown apology and acknowledgments, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara will receive financial redress to the value of $22.1 million plus interest, which includes the Crown’s Woodhill Forest licensed lands, including accumulated rentals of around $23 million, and six school sites, which will be leased back to the Crown. That is always an interesting thing, and I hope the lease rates are reasonable and on par with other leases. It includes three properties on Old Woodcocks Road, Kaipara Flats. There is the opportunity to purchase up to $6.4 million worth of the Crown’s Riverhead Forest licensed lands and Pāremoremo housing block, following notification from the Crown. There is the right of first refusal for 169 years over a number of Crown properties specified in the deed of settlement, which will be offered to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara for purchase should they become surplus to the Crown’s requirements in the next 169 years. This is one of those “Yeah, right!” clauses, I think. It was really interesting, and in some of the submissions that people have talked to me about, they said that it would be great if shorter time lines could be set, or some action enabling the redress issue, Minister, could be discussed. It would be wonderful if there was more seriousness given to a shorter and sooner delivery on some of that. But, to be fair, at least it is there for 169 years. I do not think I will be around to see it, but, just in case, we need to make sure it is there.

There is a non-exclusive right of refusal for 170 years over Pāremoremo prison. I hope they do not ever get it. I hope it is pulled down, and the Māoris go back and live in Kaipara, and they are paid to do that. Cultural redress includes the vesting of the Ten Acre Block Recreation Reserve, the vesting of eight other sites, a number of statutory acknowledgments, six place name changes, and the naming of nine unnamed sites.

I think names are one of the real, critical issues in a lot of these settlements, which have not been adhered to or had effort put into, and it is something that the negotiators need to really be commended on. I get hōhā when going to places where I know it is really Te Wāhi o Karaka and somebody calls it Perfume Point, or they go down to Clydesdale Street and we know that it is really Te Ure Street, and all of those things. So it is important that these names that are relevant to them are put up on all those signposts. We should get some Māoris to work in the AA, Minister Finlayson, because it is a big issue. It is a real, big issue that the naming of these places was outright photocopying of where they came from in England. They have no relevance—none whatsoever. It is about some important councillor on the local body. So I want to give real support about these place name changes and the naming of nine unnamed sites. Minister, for crikey’s sake, do not let any excited bureaucrat name it “Parliament Road” or “Parliament House” or something like that. This is an important thing for Māori, because in the sense of Māori’s mana, whether it is over water or over wāhi tapu or wherever, it is important to have the correct naming of those places. I want to really take notice of that and suggest that we should do more and give them more leeway to do that. I find it amazing that they have got to get permission to rename places that they already might hold in their kōrero and whakapapa anyway. So it is a very, very important part. It might not necessarily be understood by the bureaucracy or the negotiators from the Crown, but I think it is very important.

I would like to congratulate the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara negotiators for getting to this point. The journey from the Waitangi Tribunal hearings, which began in 1999 and were completed and accepted in 2001, to now has not been easy. It has been a long time since 1999. They went back, they came forward, and they went back again. Today they are here in numbers to really reconfirm the effort that they put into this. It is a wonderful place, Kaipara. I think the deal is relevant. It is exciting and encouraging that there are further opportunities in relation to the redress conditions. But those issues like the naming of the properties and that, and the accumulated rentals in making sure the right interest rate is there, all harbour to bring about a great settlement and to allow them the freedom that they should have to do the things that they should have been able to do a long time ago. Nō reira ki a koutou katoa o te Kaipara. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I just want to begin by endorsing what my friend Mr Henare said a little while ago, that we should not really call these hours “extended hours”; we should call them “Treaty settlement days”, because today is a great day for Treaty settlements. We have the first reading of this bill, the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, and I welcome the representatives of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara to Parliament. Then, a little later on, we are going to have the second reading of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill, and then the second reading of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. That follows closely on the heels of the Tāmaki collective deed signing just a few weeks ago in Tāmaki. So September 2012 has actually been a big month for Ngāti Whātua iwi, who are working very hard and getting very close to finalising comprehensive settlements across their region.

As others have said, the iwi’s core area of interest encompasses the entirety of the southern Kaipara, from South Head to Muriwai on the west coast, and from near Wellsford to the upper Waitematā Harbour to the east. Of course, as we all know, the Kaipara Harbour is at the heart of this area and of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and, as Dr Sharples said, is one area where the negotiations are still to come. I have promised Naida Glavish that I am keen to commence these negotiations as soon as possible, and I am sure Mr Horomia would endorse the fact that empty promises do not go down all that well with Naida Glavish.

From the signing of the Treaty in 1840, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara has remained steadfast in its support of the Crown, and although the relationship in the first few decades of the colony may have been acceptable and the iwi flourished, the sad reality is that as time passed the Crown’s actions fell well short of the grand promises made in the Treaty. By the end of the 19th century, the iwi had been rendered virtually landless, with the inevitable and terrible social and economic consequences.

I have to say that as negotiations go, and they are never as fast as one would like—and I will not look up to the gallery, because the negotiators are probably all nodding in unison—the reality of the matter is that this has been a comparatively rapid conclusion to negotiations. We signed an agreement in principle late in the year on 22 December 2009, and with the help of the officials and the negotiators we managed to reach the signing of a deed of settlement on a beautiful Friday in September last year.

However, these dates belie a very long period where Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara has sought recognition of the failings and the injustices that they have suffered. In 1987 their leaders provided evidence during the lands case. The tribunal heard the claims of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara between 1999 and 2001, and reported on them in 2006, but, really, from 2002 they have been trying to get on with negotiations, and, as Dr Sharples said, they finally began in 2009. It should not be assumed that these negotiations were straightforward. They had their challenges; all negotiations do. But it is the wish, I believe, of this entire House that what the settlement will do is provide Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara with a solid platform for its ongoing partnership with the Crown and with other agencies, such as the Auckland Council.

We all know it is not possible fully to compensate Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara for the loss their people have suffered, but, hopefully, the financial and the commercial redress will contribute to the iwi’s future development while the cultural redress in this bill seeks to recognise Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara’s longstanding and deep cultural and significant association with this area of interest.

So I do not intend to say any more than that. My comments in the third reading will be lengthier, but for the present time I think that will suffice. All I want to say is that the bill should proceed to the Māori Affairs Committee without delay and that, under the great leadership of Mr Henare and ably assisted by the other members of that committee, I am sure they will look at the bill and the committee will consider the bill and it will, hopefully, be back here very soon.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. E aku rangatira i roto i te Whare, tēnā koutou. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, nau mai, hara mai. Hara mai i raro i te tuanui o te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, kia ora anō tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To my esteemed ones in the House, greetings. Welcome to you, Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara, welcome. Welcome under the roof of Parliament House, standing ready here. Salutations, acknowledgments to you collectively, and thank you to us all once again.]

I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution at this first reading of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, on this Treaty settlement day, as has been announced through my whanaunga Tau. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, as my tuakana Parekura has pointed out, is the name chosen by the hapū and whānau of the five marae of south Kaipara: Reweti, Haranui, Kakanui, Araparera, and Puatahi. The name is not a traditional one but has been used to save confusion with Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, and also I understand there is Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua to the north. So Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara are right there in the middle.

I understand, looking at the notes—because I like to draw on history and whakapapa and those sorts of things—that there is a Ngāti Hine connection to those marae as well. So on my Ngāti Hine side I have a little toenail interest there, so kia ora to them.

Hon Tau Henare: A toenail? No, not a toenail.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Not a toenail; OK, maybe a big waewae. So, yes, with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara I would like to go through the historical background, because this is a very significant and important occasion.

Ngāti Whātua signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Manukau on 20 March 1840, beginning a long tradition of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara commitment to, and support for, the Crown. In 1844 and 1845 the Crown gave up its right of pre-emption and allowed Māori to deal directly with the settlers for transactions on land. A large part of upper Waitematā was alienated at this time. Regulations that were put in place were not properly applied and later investigations did not always protect Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara’s interests. In the end the Crown retained what was a surplus of 24,000 acres.

From 1848 to 1868 the Crown embarked on a land purchasing programme from the Ngāti Whātua in the south Kaipara, acquiring around 281,000 acres. Although land agents stressed that the low price offered per acre would be offset by the benefits of colonisation, the Crown failed to reserve lands for them, and the promised roads, hospitals, and schools were slow to arrive and in some cases were never ever realised.

From 1864 the Native Land Court began hearings in the south Kaipara and, as we know now, the forerunner of our Māori Land Court was set up to fragment iwi and hapū by awarding individual title. The mana of the rangatira of the whānau and hapū was lost and so the south Kaipara began to become alienated from Māori ownership. Once again, they had the burden of fighting debt. By 1880 they were fighting more debt and they were no longer selling land as a strategic move to promote development or as a much-needed source of income, but to repay debt. So that is the very sorry tale of the historical land transactions that took place, very much to the detriment of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.

I would like just take some time, if I may, and acknowledge the part that Ngāti Whātua chief Paora Tūhaere has played in the history of this House. It was Paora Tūhaere and other chiefs of his hapū who first promoted the idea of representative Māori seats in this House of Parliament. After much debate—and I would say that would have been just Pākehā debate—it was decided that four seats would be offered for Māori representation. Tūhaere was indignant at such an obvious act of bias and replied succinctly “If there are 50 Pākehā let there be 50 Māori.” It seems that Tūhaere was the most intelligent man in Auckland - Tāmaki-makau-rau at that time. What a unique idea: equal representation, a 50-50 deal, just like the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed them in 1840. It is a pity that the opportunity was not taken at that very early stage for Pākehā to take up Tūhaere’s suggestion.

Today we have seven turu Māori and I have the great honour of representing Te Tai Tonga there in the south. So there is an improvement of only three seats in less than 150 years of Māori political representation. I am sure Tūhaere would be even less impressed, and I am sure he would definitely not appreciate or even conceptualise what a list MP is. You see, Tūhaere was like all of our rangatira of old—they were first-past-the-post people. So I just want to give acknowledgment to that great Ngāti Whātua chief for the foresight he had and for the fight that he took up all those years ago. I am very proud to be continuing as a mema Pāremata for our Māori turu, along with Tau Henare and his tūpuna. I look on the other side of the House and I see Hekia and her tupuna, Tame Pārata, who was a representative down in the south and my own tupuna as well. Hopefully, we can get a few more in after some more electoral kōrero, with the Māori options that are coming up next year.

The Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara deed of settlement is the final settlement of all historical claims. As my colleagues have mentioned, there are what have turned out to be quite standard elements to every claim, but, most important, it is the acknowledgment of the historical background and the apologies from the Crown, which also sets up the redress for the Crown’s actions or omissions

Just turning to the settlement package for Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, I see that a large part of the settlement package is the redress in relation to Crown forest licensed lands. It is good to see that there will be significant redress in terms of the accumulated rentals for the Woodhill Crown forest licensed lands that will be returned to Ngāti Whātua when they exercise their rights there. There is also return of some other significant sites—some school sites and other properties.

I want to also pick up on what Mr Horomia mentioned in regard to the naming of the sites. This is a unique element of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, in that it allows for the naming of nine unnamed sites. That is a new addition to the Treaty settlements that are flowing through this House, and I really commend that. It is important that Ngāti Whātua stamps its mark on its mana whenua and its places of importance by being able to name those historic sites, which are so important and have such a strong connection to them.

Just to conclude, I would like to acknowledge all those good people who have worked so long and hard over the years to bring this settlement up to this particular point, where we have a first reading in the House—in particular, the key figures in the negotiations: Takutai Moana Wikiriwhi, or, as I affectionately know him, Uncle Doc Wikiriwhi or Āpōtoro Doc Wikiriwhi. I have fond memories of playing in the reo, following him around when he was doing duties there in Auckland City. I acknowledge Margaret Kāwharu and Rangimarie, or, as we affectionately know her, Naida Glavish. I mihi to all of those key figures and also to the whānau who travelled quite a distance to come here today. I see up there Tommy Te Rangi, whanaunga—kia ora—and also my good friend Jason Fox, who now is steering the tari of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.

I mihi to all of the whānau who have come here today. With every speech I give, I am laying all these platitudes on Tau, and he is becoming very Speaker-like—very Speaker-like—in terms of his chairmanship of the Māori Affairs Committee. I am really looking forward to travelling with the select committee and awhi-ing this bill through the House. I commend it. Kia ora tātou.

Catherine Delahunty: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, I call her Catherine Delahunty.

Catherine Delahunty: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Ah, I am sorry. It is early in the morning. Catherine Delahunty.

Catherine Delahunty: I am honoured to be called Eugenie Sage, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Catherine Delahunty.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. He mihi nui ki a Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, nō reira, tēnā koutou. It is a privilege to speak on the first reading of this very important bill, the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, and this is a very important day. Reading any of the background and knowing any of the people, this has been a long journey. It has been a journey that takes us to the heart of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They are all unique settlements, but this one strikes the Green Party as having a particularly deep relationship with the actual te Tiriti signing itself—and what price loyalty to the Crown and what price loyalty, too, to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In fact, with colonisation we would say that you are damned if you do and damned if you do not, because Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara iwi did not fight the Crown, did not oppose te Tiriti, and they lost everything. So it is a very interesting historical account that we need to take into our minds when thinking about what is acceptable redress. People lost everything, even though they gave everything.

We have heard settlements in this House that have been about direct raupatu, about warfare, and about confiscations in many ways, but this particular place and these particular stories remind us that in 1840 these people stood alongside their Pākehā visitors, manuhiri, if you like, and said “We will be generous and we will negotiate a relationship in our whenua, in the Kaipara.” And in exchange what they got was the complete loss of their lands, their well-being, and their resources.

I think it is important to go back to the historical account, because it is part of the unique story of how Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been breached in a very literal way. Promises have very literally been broken. I am quoting from the deed: “A meeting was held at Manukau, where concerns were raised by Māori as to the Crown’s intentions.”—we are having these meetings today, as well; nothing has really changed in some ways—“Symonds sought to dispel these doubts and, at a second meeting on 20 March 1840, the Ngāti Whātua paramount chief, Apihai Te Kawau, with Te Tinana and Te Reweti, signed a copy of the Māori text of the Treaty.” They did not sign no Pākehā text, and they did not sign no text that said “forests, fisheries only”; they signed the text that guaranteed in article 2 tino rangatiratanga.

It continues: “Symonds reported that among the chiefs who signed, he found ‘the best disposition displayed towards Her Majesty’s Government, but at the same time that their expectations are raised very high as to the immediate benefits which they are to derive from its establishment in their country’.” And what happened next? How well were their expectations met? Clearly, this settlement process shows that they were failed on every count.

I want to quote from another part of this deed of settlement, because I think it also typifies the failure to meet those agreements and expectations: “Ngāti Whātua provided resources and protection for the development of the new colony.” Every time a racist writes to me and says: “Those Māoris would only be in grass skirts if it wasn’t for us and our brilliant technology.”, it would be great if they could recall that some of the people in the Kaipara were going to starve to death if it had not been for the people of the Kaipara literally giving them kai and teaching them how to land a boat in that fabulous harbour. So it is very important to recognise that resources and protection for the development of the new colony were provided. “In September 1840, Crown officials made arrangements with Ngāti Whātua for the transfer of approximately 3,000 acres of land at Tāmaki. One of the principal chiefs expressed fears that the Queen of England would take all their land from them, and that they would have none to live on.”

Hone Harawira: They were right.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: They were right. That fear was realised in full, maybe not the next day, but after the next day, and the next day. “Crown officials reassured him,”—as we do, Crown officials—“ ‘that the Governor was come to see that neither Pakeha nor Mauris … were wronged …’ ”. That is a shameful statement in the context of what has happened. “Ngāti Whātua [again] consider that the transaction was a tuku, a customary gifting, carried out with the intention of cementing their relationship with the Crown, and underpinned by broader concepts of reciprocity and ongoing mutual obligation.”

I think those phrases respect the spirit in which these tūpuna signed the Treaty. It was a broader concept of reciprocity, an ongoing mutual obligation, not: “We will provide for you. We will allow the development of the new colony in the Kaipara Tāmaki rohe and then you are going to rip us off.”, and then a hundred and something years later they are still going to have to wait for 169 years for the possibility of the first right of purchase of some other parts of their own whenua.

The ironies in this settlement are multiple. The progress is good, and we are supporting the settlement, but we cannot ignore that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the critical foundation of our nation, and these stories of the abuse of promises made are very important. They are so important today so that we do not repeat them—so that there is no more double-speak raupatu and manipulation when the Crown has an engagement with tangata whenua. That is why these settlements are important not only in their own terms but also in the context of the debates that we are having in this Whare and around the motu right now about resources and indigenous peoples’ rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because loyalty to the Crown was repaid by an enormous loss of resources, and the expectations of health, wealth, and education were not fulfilled.

The ironies of the stories of Te Awaroa where 10 acres was gifted for Helensville and there was going to be an acre set aside, and there was such mean-spirited greed whereby everything was taken. Anything that was reserved was eaten into. It is just embarrassing and shameful to read how their generosity and respect for the Treaty was repaid by the ancestors of some of us Pākehā, and how little the people who come from Auckland know about the true history of what went down. It shows how important it is that we actually address the multiplicity of issues.

This is a big settlement in terms of work. You can see how much work has gone into it, and I would like to acknowledge all the negotiators from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and the leadership of many, many people, including Margaret Kāwharu and others, who have shown intergenerational consistency, generosity, and willingness to negotiate, as did their tūpuna.

The duty on the Kāwana and all of us represented by the Kāwana is to do our best to make amends, and there are some settlement elements that are very positive in this unique story of betrayal. However, we do have to remember that the Native Land Court was first established in the Kaipara. In the place where there was the most generosity and the most willingness to work with the Crown, the Native Land Court, the instrument of individualisation and land loss, was established in the Kaipara. I think in acknowledging that, the settlement must be generous. It is great to see things like Parakai, to see Ātuanui maunga acknowledged, and to see some of the reserves and wāhi tapu, and I would agree with others in the House that the naming of names is critical. We must name the truth here and honour the history, and do the right thing by Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. Tēnā koutou.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora. Me tīmata i te tihi o Te Atua Nui. Ko te maunga whakahī tēnei o Te Manawanui, te marae o Puatahi. Ā, ka huri ki te tonga ka kite au i te tihi o Taranaki, te maunga whakahī tēnei o te pā o Te Aroha, kei Arapareira. Tū atu i tēnei, ko te toka kāmaka ō Tuhirangi e tū mai ana i te mānia o Kākānui, o Paneira. Ko te marae tēnei o te Kiora. Waho atu i tēnā ka kite au i a Tauwhare, te maunga whakahī tēnei o Whititerā, te marae o Rēweti. Nā, ka huri te titiro ki te uru, ka kite au i te maunga Tarawera, te maunga whakahī tēnei o ngā tai i tūria ki te Marowhara, te marae tēnei o Haranui. Ko ngā maunga whakahī ēnei o ngā marae o Kaipara moana. Ka huri au ki a koutou e aku rangatira, e aku tuākana nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou mō ō koutou tautoko, ō koutou tautoko ki ngā tamariki, mokopuna o Aotearoa, o Ngāti Whātua rānei. Nō reira, ngā mihi, ngā mihi, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

[Hello there. Let me begin at the summit of Te Atua Nui. This is the proud mountain of Te Manawanui, the courtyard of Puatahi. I turn to the south and see the summit of Taranaki, this proud mountain of the village of Te Aroha at Arapareira. Standing beside this one is the solid rock of Tuhirangi, on the open plain of Kākānui and of Paneira. This particular courtyard is that of Kiora. Further out and beyond I see Tauwhare, this proud mountain of Whitireia and Rēweti’s courtyard. Now from here I look westward and spy Tarawera, this proud mountain of the tides that stop at Marowhara, this courtyard of Haranui. These are the proud mountains of the courtyards at Kaipara Harbour. And so I turn to you now, my esteemed ones and elder kinfolk, with the greatest of welcomes to you collectively. I have huge raps for you collectively, in respect of your support towards the children and grandchildren of New Zealand at large, or of Ngāti Whātua. And so, much appreciation, regards, and big ups to you all.]

As an urban Māori, as a person who was born and bred in Ōtara who—[Interruption] My first involvement in politics was I met this gentleman back in the 1970s in the library of Ōtara. He is sitting in this House today, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Throughout my career I have spent time doing little bits and pieces of youth work, community work, so on and so forth—

Hon Member: Union work.

Hon TAU HENARE: —and union work, and parties, and all sorts of things. Throughout that I have had an enormous respect not only for the people up at Boot Hill, up at Ngāti Whātua—

Hone Harawira: What, what?

Hon TAU HENARE: —no, you did not hear me say that—but also for the people up in the Kaipara region who have continually tried to put their best foot forward in terms of their own people, without too much help from the Government, without too much help from the Crown. I remember people such as Tuck Nathan from Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust, who did an enormous amount of work not only in Henderson and in and around west Auckland but also up in the Kaipara region. So I suppose today, for me personally, it is a day of congratulations to not only Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara but also the Crown, the Minister, and the Office of Treaty Settlements officials on getting this on. Can I say this, that although we might remonstrate—

Hone Harawira: What?

Hon TAU HENARE: Remonstrate—have a read of it; it is a really good word. Although we might remonstrate with the settler Government of the past, I would suggest that we try to look at it from its point of view at that time. It is really easy for us, in terms of our ability to look at things historically, to make a judgment. Do not be too hard on the settler Government. The settler Government was looking for land. The settler Government was looking for a new way of life, and the settler Government—

Hone Harawira: Come on. You’ve already got our vote—Mr Speaker.

Hon TAU HENARE: This might not be for you. The settler Government was actually trying to look for a new start. Unfortunately, the way it went about it was to kick the indigenous people around. Unfortunately, the way it went about it was to steal land, and make up laws to make it easier for it to acquire land. So the story sort of rolls out over time. I think that what we need to accept and congratulate Ngāti Whātua on is that they had one of two options. First, they could have said: “No, we’re waiting for a bigger settlement. We will wait until we get what we want.” Or, second, they could say: “OK, we’ll settle, and we’ll make the best of our situation that is in front of us now.” I think that iwi Māori have to be congratulated on taking the second option. That is not cutting and running, but actually seeing that you have an opportunity to go forward, instead of waiting for some lotto draw to happen, because, essentially, that is what it would have been. I think that I will use today’s proceedings to congratulate iwi Māori, and in particular Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, on taking that option of seeing the opportunities in front of them and knowing full well that it is a minuscule amount, knowing that it is a small settlement in the larger game of settlements. But they have taken the opportunity.

I know, and have known, some of Ngāti Whātua personally and for a long time. Sharon Hawke is sitting up there. I have had an enormous respect for her work and an enormous respect for our friendship over the years. Right back in 1981 we were on a youth march. We actually came to Wellington, and we were invited to the Prime Minister’s office—Muldoon’s office. I tell you what, he gave us a pretty good hearing, and so did Bill Birch. So I just want to recognise Sharon and her kaha in all that she has done for Ngāti Whātua and on behalf of Ngāti Whātua.

There is the Ngāti Hine connection, as my whanaunga across the way says, and it is not the toenail. It is the heart of Ngāti Whātua—no, I was just joking. Apparently the Ngāti Hine connection is through the battle at Te Ika-a-Ranginui in 1825. There was a swap, a gift, between the two. I am sure that there are also other connections. There is one lady whom I must mention in the House. She has been a stalwart forever. She was the one who started off the kia ora campaign from Ngāti Whātua, Naida Glavish. I want to pay my respects to her for being he tino wahine toa mō ngā reo, mō te reo Māori, mō ērā mea katoa. Nō reira, nui atu taku mihi ki a ia, anei rā.

[She is a real champion in terms of languages, the Māori language, and all things like that. So I regard her greatly, and here it is.]

This is a Treaty settlement day, and, like the Minister of Māori Affairs said, these days are really, really important for us to know our past, to know where we might go as a nation and get behind the people who are here today, settling with the Crown a part of their history. Know your past, know your present, so we can all know our future as a nation—a nation of different peoples, but a nation none the less. Kia ora.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): Tēnā koutou ngā rangatira nō Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. Ngā mihi tonu ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa nui o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the revered from Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara. I particularly acknowledge you on this great matter of the day. Acknowledgments and commendations to you collectively and to us all.]

I would like to acknowledge the men and women in the gallery, and it was nice to see the children from the ET rugby team as well. I would like to thank you for coming, and New Zealand First acknowledges the difficulties that you have overcome to be here today. I see Haahi Walker up there, and I would like to acknowledge his presence as well.

While I am in acknowledgments, I would like to thank the other members for their contributions today. My speech will not be so long, because they have mentioned much of the history, but I would say that the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara is unique in that it was referenced in the lands case, which was a landmark case in giving rise to Treaty settlements. I congratulate Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara on gaining Woodhill Forest, because it is precious taonga, with urupā and wāhi tapu sites strewn throughout it.

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara comprises a cluster of five marae around the harbour. This claim has brought them together under a new governance entity that is going to help collaborate the futures of the five marae. With five marae represented, it was always a big claims committee, with one representative each and a couple of support people, but this led to robust discussion. It has actually brought this unit together as a real cohesive unit. That was evidenced when they came here to Wellington and saw the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Minister Finlayson, and said that they were not going home without ownership of their sacred maunga. So I would congratulate them on that, because they would not settle without it—and why should they?

There is also unique redress within this claim, and I refer to the Parakai hot pools, but there is also a hook in here, because there is co-governance and co-management with the Auckland Council. I would say to make sure that the Auckland Council understands that that means co-responsibility, because the last thing that we want to see you saddled with there is hot pools that are in need of repair and the costs that come with that. My New Zealand First colleague Tracey Martin is with the Rodney Local Board, and she will also be able to keep an eye there.

This claim has been facilitated by the good relationship that the iwi have had, beginning with the Rodney District Council, and now the Rodney Local Board, but, most important, with the community. Given how big Woodhill Forest is, I would just say that Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara will be the largest landowner in their rohe, and that is massive. That is about 13,000 hectares of land. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara’s generosity in allowing appropriate continued use of the forest by the community, as well as many of the reserves. That, interestingly enough, is in line with their historical generosity.

I would sum up by saying that, along with my colleagues in the Māori Affairs Committee, we will look forward to meeting with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and we will try to get through this claim as expeditiously as possible. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Tēnā koe. I was not going to speak on the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, but I got a text earlier this morning from somebody in Phuket, up in Thailand. It says: “Get along to the House, and tell Tame: ‘Don’t blow it while I’m away.’ I’ll be back for the third reading. I hope it is all still in our hands, signed Naida Glavish.” Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. From the shores of Whangaparāoa in the south to the cliffs of Paepae o Tū in the north, from the western tides of Kōritotī, Ōtakamaitū through the currents of te awa o Hōteo flowing on to Kīkītangiao, Hauhanganui to the pā of Te Ārai o Tāhuhu. The children of Manuhiri, the people of Moekaraka waka, nau mai, haere mai. Ko Tamahunga te maunga, ko Ngā Poitoa o Te Kupenga o Toi Te Huatahi te moana, ko Ngāti Manuhiri te hapū, ko Ōmaha te marae.

[Tamahunga is the mountain, Ngā Poitoa o Te Kupenga o Toi Te Huatahi is the ocean, Ngāti Manuhiri is the subtribe, and Ōmaha is the courtyard.]

It was at Ōmaha Marae that the peoples of Ngāti Manuhiri gathered with the Crown in May last year to sign a deed to settle their Treaty of Waitangi grievances with the Crown. The agreement was the first settlement deed signed in the Tāmaki-makau-rau region. Those actions bring us all here today to consider the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill.

A key part of this settlement bill will be the official recognition of tipuna Māori names throughout the homelands of Ngāti Manuhiri. In recent weeks in Auckland, some have been asking what is in a name. The Hon Tau Henare spoke to this before in reference to Māori names. But my response is that a name is a history, a name is a whakapapa, a heritage—a name is everything. The Hon Parekura Horomia also supported this view. Over the years Māori heritage was gradually removed from the official identity of this and many other regions. Māori identity was renamed and replaced. However, bills such as this one we are debating today seek to restore that identity throughout our country.

Little Barrier Island was named because the explorer Captain James Cook decided that it looked like a little barrier. Bream Tail was named because Cook’s crew caught a lot of bream fish, or snapper, while they were anchored nearby. No one really knows why Goat Island got its name, as no one can ever remember goats living on it. These are names we have grown accustomed to, sometimes attached to, but they are only one side of the story of Aotearoa. It is Little Barrier Island in English, but what in Te Reo Māori? It is Te Hauturu-o-Toi. The resting place of the winds—Te Hauturu-o-Toi. It is the centre pole of the great net of Taramainuku. The descendants of Taramainuku lived at Bream Tail, or, as they knew it, Paepae o Tū. It is Goat Island in English, but in Te Reo Māori it is Te Hāwere-a-Maki, taking us back to the warrior chieftain Maki, the father of Manuhiri, from whom all Ngāti Manuhiri descend.

The television programme Who Do You Think You Are? sees celebrities rediscovering their whakapapa, their family tree. For New Zealanders, the settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims is our own version of Who Do You Think You Are?. How else can we know who we are if we do not know our own names? How can we know where we are heading if we do not know where we have been? In a region like Auckland, as mentioned earlier, with few modern Māori landmarks, it makes it even more important to ensure our ancestral Māori landmarks carry the names and heritage of the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau. If we are to share a nation together, then New Zealanders must also embrace our shared history and our shared place names.

Based at Ōmaha Marae, Ngāti Manuhiri describe their ancestral interests as extending along the eastern seaboard from Whangaparāoa in the south to Paepae o Tū in the north. In the west, those interests extend to the coastal range from Kōritotī and Ōtakamaitū near Araparera, to the Hōteo River and on to Kīkītangiao and Hauhanganui, which is Wellsford. They then run north-east from Patumakariri near Wellsford to the east coast of Te Ārai o Tāhuhu, which is Te Ārai Point, and Paepae o Tū.

Around 1840 Ngāti Manuhiri held customary interests over 250,000 acres. By the 1890s, they had lost 90 percent of their traditional lands. Today, in 2012, with only 1,300 acres or so in small multiple-owned holdings, Ngāti Manuhiri are effectively landless in their own homelands. The Crown’s alienation of Ngāti Manuhiri lands began less than a year after Te Tiriti o Waitangi was first signed in 1840. It began with the forced Mahurangi and Ōmaha purchase. It continued with the Crown’s individualisation and fragmentation of Ngāti Manuhiri lands. It was consolidated by the painful and forced eviction of Ngāti Manuhiri rangatira and families from Te Hauturu-o-Toi island.

The Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi have been carried over many years by generations of Ngāti Manuhiri people. Without the land and resources to take ownership of their own destiny, for generations of Ngāti Manuhiri people their right to determine their own economic and social well-being was denied. This landlessness meant that the right of Ngāti Manuhiri to uphold their own mana motuhake, to exercise their own rangatiratanga, was denied.

All those things lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be totally replaced. Yet the people of Ngāti Manuhiri wish to settle their grievances with the Crown with mana and with honour. Over the years and across generations the Ngāti Manuhiri people have led a long journey that has brought them to New Zealand’s House of Representatives today. Through perseverance, through conviction, and through leadership they have reached a strong settlement for their people. I look forward to this bill proceeding to the Committee stage without delay. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E mihi kau ana i a koe te Minita Māori mō tō tuku kōrero mō te āhua nei o Ngāti Manuhiri, i a koutou ngā mea pakeke, ngā uri o Ngāti Manuhiri e whai kaha atu ki te tae mai ki konei ki te whakatikatika atu i tēnei nawe. Te roaroa hoki o te tū nei, te hoki atu ki te kooti, te whakahoki atu i te kōrero, me te tīmata i roto i a koutou e mahi atu ngā mahi mō te whakatikatika, nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[I acknowledge you, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and your sentiments about this situation relating to Ngāti Manuhiri, and you as well, the elder ones and descendants of Ngāti Manuhiri, who worked hard to get here to rectify this grievance. It has remained unaddressed for a very long period of time. It has gone before the court, it has been returned for further consultation, and now your efforts to begin rectifying the situation are at hand, so congratulations to us.]

This is an interesting settlement—very interesting. Of course, it is based in the area called Ōmaha, where some politicians have some big houses. Ngāti Manuhiri are based at Ōmaha Marae, Pakiri, north of Auckland. Ngāti Mauhiri descend from the tipuna Manuhiri. They are part of the Kawerau-a-Maki confederation, and also have close ties to Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Wai.

I think one of the principal issues that is very relevant in this settlement is that they have had a stressful time with the Crown. They did not agree in the beginning, and they went away and they came back. I do want to recognise that great supporting soldier—who is an uri of Captain Cook—Sir Douglas Graham for the effort that he put in to whakawhitiwhiti and help get the conglomerate to get their organisation to move forward.

Alongside that there are key figures. It is always difficult in naming people, because you leave people out, and a lot of them are here now. I see Clint and I see Mooks up there. I never knew what Mooks’ real name was till I had a look at the paper here. E mihi atu i a koe matua, me koutou katoa e noho atu i konei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou e Tame.

[I commend you, uncle, and all of you seated about here. So congratulations to you, Tame, and everyone.]

And there is Laly Haddon, who is an old warrior. One of the great things about Māori leaders is, you know—there is nothing like it—you see how great they are by counting the knives in their back! I want to recognise Laly Haddon—[Interruption] For whatever reason. I have watched this tall, sterling character with ailing health stand true all the time. That is what I have got out of Treaty settlements. It is recognising and seeing some of these characters, who have stood steadfast against all odds—against all odds.

I do not think people in Parliament and some of our colleagues ever appreciate that tension. It is a lot different, in the sense of the pressures that they have to take just to get here. On one side they have to try to be relevant and agree with the Crown, even though it is putting right what was wrong. On the other side they have tried to appease some of the differences amongst their people. I got hōhā when I was listening to the radio this morning and it was talking about Ngāti Manuhiri, that, you know, they have got to come to a general agreement. Well, I have actually seen it in the churches and the “cossie clubs” around this country where the factions do not agree. They still go there, because they all drink the same ale, but they have different opinions, you know? There are a whole lot of people who praise God—bless their souls—yet they do it in different churches, in different ways. Yet it is OK. So it is OK to have a difference, but it is better and bigger still that we get here, as the Crown—and I want to mihi to Minister Finlayson; he is the supporter—in relation to getting to this day for the people of Ngāti Manuhiri.

They have had a real go. They did not accept in the first instance what was put on the table. They went away and they came back. The negotiations and the negotiators on both sides need to be recognised and commended for that. It has not been an easy settlement. We saw and heard that at the rugby league—or rugby club. I had better be careful. I am not sure what sort of club it was, but it was one of those up there.

Hone Harawira: Rugby league.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Rugby league. The Warriors should be sacked!

I want to recognise Laly Haddon, Peri Watts, and everybody else. These negotiations did arise out of Sir Douglas Graham’s efforts, in June 2009, for all groups in Kaipara, Mahurangi, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Hauraki, and Coromandel, including Ngāti Manuhiri, to enter into direct negotiations with the Crown to settle all the historical Treaty claims. These days, as the Minister said earlier, should be labelled as Treaty settlement days, because that is what they are. They are not days of urgency. This urgency has been a long time coming. It has been so urgent it has taken 150 years to get here! So on these Treaty settlement days like today, it is great that we can come together to ratify and consolidate the initialling of the deed of settlement.

The Ngāti Manuhiri claim relates to the failure of the Crown to create adequate reserves for Ngāti Manuhiri during the purchase of Mahurangi and Ōmaha in 1841—native land laws and the operation of the Native Land Court in the Crown’s acquisition of Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island. We have certainly heard—under the stewardship of that great leader of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare—100-odd submissions in relation to the tensions and people’s world view of that. So it is appreciated that there are differences there, but it should be said that at the end of the day it is not going to disappear, and it is something they could work together to manage for the benefit of having it under their guidance.

The Crown’s actions left Ngāti Manuhiri virtually landless. It had devastating and enduring effects on the spiritual, cultural, and economic well-being of Ngāti Manuhiri. You know, I drove up along this well-funded highway north of Auckland to this holiday camp place. I saw these incredibly sized houses, and I asked: “Who owns that house there?”. No, no, it was not the locals. It was not the locals. Whose is that house over there? It was Glen Osmond’s. Somebody was talking about a planet the other day—he had one there. I do not want to sound jealous about the wealth that is there, and whatever else, so I think, Minister, one thing is that some of those houses should be returned to Ngāti Manuhiri, even at this late stage!

As part of the settlement package, in addition to the Crown apology and acknowledgments, Ngāti Manuhiri will receive financial and commercial redress to the value of $9 million, which includes $2.498 million cash, and the Warkworth District Court and Pakiri School sites, which will be leased back to the Crown. I am really encouraged about this Warkworth District Court, because they really could have a look at the skyrocketing rates, which the people of Ngāti Manuhiri tell me are hurting them. This is a serious issue, because where some of them live it has always been valued as their hau kāinga, where their tipuna might have been or their families have been for generations. All of a sudden, because of this prosperity of other people from other planets who have built there, their rates and values skyrocket—not because of them. I would strongly suggest that it is considered as we go along towards finalising this settlement. Cultural redress, which includes Hauturu, is recognition of Te Hauturu-o-Toi to Ngāti Manuhiri. There is the vesting and gift back to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand within 7 days of the Hauturu-o-Toi nature reserve in the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust. I am always fascinated by the returns.

I just want to quickly go to some interesting points in the bill. There is one here about the statutory acknowledgments in clause 36, “Application to river or stream”. It provides that “If any part of the statutory acknowledgement applies to a harbour, that part of the acknowledgement also applies to the bed of the harbour and everything above the bed.”—everything above the bed, which is water. That is a really good pointer for where we may be going in the water discussion. I am pleased that it is in this document—I am pleased that it is in this document. It is no good ducking and diving, so well done, the negotiators. The flowing of the fresh water—oh, it applies only to flowing water, fresh water. Well, it is all water anyway, so that is great.

In clause 52, “Actions by Director-General”, it says “The Director-General must take action in relation to the protection principles that relate to a whenua rāhui site, including the specified actions.” I think that is great. What it means is that recognition or understanding is being given to the mana of Māori. Māori have mana over water. Māori have mana over all of those issues, and this is one way of giving it relevance. Fix it in here. It is already done—well done, Minister. You need to travel this past those people on the roadshow.

In the general provisions, clause 68(2) says that “Subsection (3) applies if a cultural redress property vests subject to an interest that is not an interest in land,” and clause 68(3) says that “The interest applies in respect of the cultural redress property …”—blah, blah, blah. It goes on to say there are qualifications, modifications in the status of the land and “despite any change in status of the land in the property.” So those are the three important parts—

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

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its very good work. This bill, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, raised a number of issues in the select committee, and I think the committee navigated its way through the 100-odd submissions extremely well. There were two issues that arose, and I want to touch on both of them very briefly.

The first issue, averted to by Mr Horomia, concerns the co-governance of Te Hauturu-o-Toi. Every Treaty settlement is important. Every stage of its implementation is a major milestone. But at the select committee a number of submissions were received relating to the island. Most of the submitters who opposed the bill are, in fact, affiliated to Ngāti Wai, and they were very worried that settling first Ngāti Manuhiri would settle Ngāti Wai grievances. There is no dispute that hapū and whānau of Ngāti Wai who do not affiliate to Ngāti Manuhiri do have longstanding customary interests in Te Hauturu-o-Toi. Those interests are recognised by Ngāti Manuhiri today, and are referred to, actually, a number of times in the Ngāti Manuhiri deed of settlement, including in the agreed historical account. There is no doubt that Ngāti Wai historical grievances other than those of Ngāti Manuhiri are not being settled through this bill. This settlement is for the descendants of the tupuna Manuhiri, and no other.

What became obvious during the select committee hearings was that the drafting relating to co-governance arrangements with the Department of Conservation over the island was very prescriptive. As written, the bill did not adequately consider the possibility of other groups becoming involved in those governance arrangements. That was very significant as it had not been the intention through this settlement to freeze out other groups. So the recommendation came back from the select committee for a new clause, clause 96A. It is very important as it makes it clear beyond doubt that the bill would not prevent other iwi from becoming involved in the co-governance arrangements if other enactments provide for that, and I am very much looking forward to commencing negotiations with Ngāti Wai very soon. This amendment has been agreed to by Ngāti Manuhiri, and their deed of settlement has been amended to ensure that the recommended change is consistent with the deed.

The second issue concerned the gift and gift back of the island. There was a concern that that arrangement conveyed exclusive mana whenua to Ngāti Manuhiri. Gift-back arrangements are used in situations where the land has a high conservation or other value and the Crown wants to retain ownership, but where significant historical grievances need to be addressed. This was a very important part of the Ngāti Manuhiri negotiation. But let me make it clear: there was no intention by the Crown or Ngāti Manuhiri for the gift back to convey exclusive mana whenua to Ngāti Manuhiri or otherwise alter customary interests in the island. The select committee heard the various submissions on this topic, and then Ngāti Manuhiri and I agreed that further assurance should be provided, so we have amended the deed of settlement to include a clause stating that for the avoidance of doubt, the gift back is not intended to convey exclusive mana whenua over Te Hauturu-o-Toi. I have to say that these statements of clarification do not belong in legislation, but I bring it to the attention of the House as a further and positive outcome from the very good work of the Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Mr Henare.

With those comments I will leave it there. I will be more fulsome in my third reading speech, but I thought it was important to emphasise the fact that the select committee dealt with this matter extremely well. Those two issues were extremely sensitive. They gave rise to quite a number of submissions, and I hope that we have, as it were, solved things so that Ngāti Wai interests will not feel anxious any longer.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā rā koutou e aku rangatira i roto i te Whare nei, a Ngāti Manuhiri, nau mai, hara mai. Hara mai i raro i te tuanui o te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Salutations indeed to you, my esteemed ones in this House, and welcome to you, Ngāti Manuhiri, welcome. Welcome under the roof of this House, standing here ready. Salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings to you and to us all.]

I rise to speak at the second reading of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, on Treaty settlement day. I too am pleased to have been participating in the Māori Affairs Committee, which heard many submissions on the bill. As Minister Finlayson has just pointed out, there were a couple of key aspects where I am very pleased at the way they have ended up in terms of clarification on those two particular points.

I want to just start my speech, and I have sort of had a theme on my Treaty settlement speeches. I like to go over the importance of understanding Māori history and whakapapa, or genealogy—the family tree, so to speak. My whakataukī Pākehā has been that to understand whakapapa is to understand Māori history. The rich tapestry—to pinch a phrase from my whanaunga there, Tau—of the history of Aotearoa is woven like an elegant but sturdy whāriki, made to sit upon and hold weight, with each strip of flax crossing back and forth and connecting to another strip going the other way. Soon those strips of lovingly prepared harakeke run out and make up the borders of the whāriki. But that whāriki represents the whānau, hapū, and iwi, and each strand is a source of information and a font of tribal knowledge.

May I acknowledge my own part in the weaving of this mat, known as the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, for I too am a descendant of Maki, the eponymous ancestor of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Our shared history tells of a chief of Ngāti Awa-o-Runga-o-Te Rangi, also known as Koro Ātiawa, named Maki, who had as a wife the daughter of Mutunga, a wahine by the name of Hinepueru, and whose area of influence stretched between Taranaki and Kāwhia. My ancestors of Ngāti Rārua and Ngāti Toa, who back then were known as Ngāti Māngō, and who were his relations, went north to Kaipara and on to Hokianga in support of Maki’s take. He eventually returned to the Kaipara to settle the land with those inhabitants, who never opposed him.

That group of journeying warriors and family became the original Te Kawerau-a-Maki, who intermarried and settled the Kaipara, and came down into the Waitakere and other parts of Tāmaki. Indeed, my ancestor Tūpāhau was part of Maki’s journeys, and so settled on Maungakiekie with a beautiful wahine of Waiohua named Hineteao. Years later, another take took Tūpāhau back to Kāwhia and Marokopa to assist more relations in his original homelands of the west coast, between Taranaki and Kāwhia. That is my connection to Ngāti Manuhiri: Maki-nui of Ngāti Awa-o-Runga-o-Te Rangi nō te Tai Hauāuru.

Every taonga has a name, and the name of this whāriki that I have been explaining is “kōrero ōnamata”—of history. Its name suggests an association to history and genealogy and to the spoken word. These three things are woven into the whāriki that lie before Ngāti Manuhiri today.

So, to repeat, to understand whakapapa is to understand Māori history. My other colleagues in this House will talk about the background to elements of the bill, but there is a common theme that has been running through these readings, and that is the equivalence of mana and whenua, of authority and land, in the equation that makes up Māori life.

May I take the time now to talk about Te Hauturu-o-Toi, as that was the big issue that we confronted as a select committee, which is Little Barrier Island. This culturally important little island has played a significant role in the history of Ngāti Manuhiri and, indeed, all Māori. In our kōrero onamata, Hauturu is a float on the net of Toi-Te-Huatahi, regarded by Māori as a founding father of this nation. So with the use of toponomy and whenua, the naming of the land, Toi used certain points from Hauraki to Whangarei as markers of his mana motuhake, that authority. From those very early times of Toi, through to the middle ages of the 1500s and the 1600s, the mana of Hauturu changed several times, until the arrival of the tupuna Maki of Ngāti Awa-o-Runga-o-Te Rangi nō te Tai Hauāuru, the great-grandson of Haumia of the Poutama region of North Taranaki.

So my own tribal kōrero recalls Maki pursuing a foe all the way to the Hokianga, where he captured his enemy, but in that unique Māori way he let his captor go. Maki then returned to the Kaipara and, with those original inhabitants and his original followers, invested in the Waitakere and Waitematā regions, eventually ending with his descendants, Ngāti Manuhiri, a hapū of Ngāti Wai, having mana over the region we have spoken of today, including Hauturu.

So this kōrero onamata is tika, but today it is acknowledged by the Crown that Ngāti Manuhiri will receive Te Hauturu-o-Toi back for a period of 7 days, before gifting it back to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. We did include some clarification, in recognition of the submissions that we received that it was not recognition of the mana to the exclusion of other iwi. So that has been reflected in the bill, which we have reported back.

There is a rich history in terms of these Treaty settlement bills, and I have been able to outline my own connection. People must think “Gee, that guy’s connected everywhere!”, but, literally, there are a lot of connections and that makes up who we are in our unique history as Māori in Aotearoa.

I would just like to mihi to Ngāti Manuhiri, all of the negotiating team, and all of the great rangatira who were involved in the progression of this claim, which is now through to this bill stage. We are nearly there. We are just up to the second reading and we are on the home stretch. I would just like to mihi to you all. The beauty is that by doing this mahi it is sort of opening up to me and revealing a whole lot of connections and a whole lot of the history that makes up, as Tau said, the rich tapestry that we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand as tangata whenua. So I would just like to mihi to them all and I commend this bill through to the next stages of the House. Kia ora anō tātou.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ki ngā tangata o Ngāti Manuhiri te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Green Party and, particularly, on behalf of our co-leader Metiria Turei, who is a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has been hearing the progress of this bill.

The Green Party has in the past supported Treaty settlement bills, because we believe that the work of the kuia and kaumātua in bringing the settlements to this stage should be respected. Sometimes we have been able to negotiate changes to the settlements in favour of iwi and hapū. Most of the time the Crown refuses to entertain any notion of genuine change to address iwi and hapū concerns. It is, therefore, really, an easy vote to cast, as we have some serious objections to the settlement process, particularly as it has descended more and more into deals, rather than genuine restitution from the Crown to Māori for the losses that you have suffered.

We do not believe that these settlements are full and final. We think they are deals done today according to today’s constraints, and that the issues will be revisited again in the future. We are seeing this more and more, and we just have to look at the issues around why, as an example. We acknowledge the huge losses Ngāti Manuhiri have suffered at the hands of the Crown, and we do not detract from that, but we must always state the failings of the Crown in our contributions to these debates. We must remind the Crown that if it continues to exercise undue power of the process to the detriment of iwi and hapū, we refuse to simply rubber-stamp these bills.

Earlier in the year the Greens abstained on the first reading of this bill, for the first time in our history. Our vote will not change, despite the work of the select committee. I acknowledge the chair, Mr Henare, I acknowledge the members of the select committee and the Minister, who have worked very hard on this, and I acknowledge also all the submitters and all their work.

During the select committee hearings, we heard very concerning reports about mandate, conflicts of interest, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, some disregard for the Minister of the issues of Ngāti Wai over this settlement. A major argument of the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust—the mandated negotiating body—in support of this settlement was that Ngāti Wai had supported it. They relied heavily on the decisions of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board. However, there were serious conflict of interest issues that were not resolved to our satisfaction.

Two issues of concern involved the people involved in the two bodies. One very serious issue was the mandate of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board to support the bill. One person held the position of chair of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board and of the Manuhiri Omaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust. In addition, Wayne Peters was the legal adviser to both the trust board and the trust. We specifically asked during the hearings whether the conflict of interest issues were advised to the members, recorded, or otherwise managed in any way. We were told no. We were told there were no conflict issues, even where these had been raised by some Ngāti Wai.

During the process of the select committee, a properly held special general meeting of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board was called. At that special general meeting the members overwhelmingly voted to oppose this settlement bill. The trust board considered that decision, but as it was not required under its trust deed to adhere to that decision it retained its previous position of support for the bill. It appears that this was lawful, but in our view it remains ethically questionable because of the serious conflict of interest issues that arose from having two people playing key roles in both organisations.

As a result of both the actions of the trust board in response to the special general meeting and the failure to properly sort the conflict issues, we do not believe that there is significant support in Ngāti Wai for the bill. We concede that the trust board supports it, but not the people who are most affected by the provisions of the bill. Therefore, we cannot rely on the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust assertions that it has Ngāti Wai support for this settlement.

We acknowledge that the bill has been amended to state that the provisions do not prevent future settlements from providing co-governance arrangements for other iwi in the future. This change is not sufficient to alter our vote. We remain very sceptical of the Crown’s intentions with this legislation to hand over Hauturu to Ngāti Manuhiri ownership for 7 days before it is returned to Crown ownership minus 1.2 hectares set aside for Ngāti Manuhiri use. We think this is an example of giving with one hand and taking with another, and we can see that this type of mechanism might well be used by the Minister in future settlements concerning Hauturu.

Ultimately, the box is ticked but the substance of the deal remains with the Crown. The Crown gives up practically nothing. This is not restitution. We consider this type of gift to be a Crown insult to those whose land was taken without their consent, those who were forcibly removed from their land. We believe that the Crown dishonours itself with this deal. We understand that Ngāti Manuhiri people have pursued this settlement as best as possible in the current circumstances—we acknowledge that. We wish them well. We wish them all the best in their pursuit of their rangatiratanga at this time.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I will not take too much of the House’s time, and I will leave the majority of my comments to the Committee stage and the third reading. Can I say, though, that, in response to the last speech, although I am not going to bag it or anything like that, the question is this: are we saying it is a good settlement or are we saying it is a bad settlement? At the end of the day, Ngāti Manuhiri has signed the deal, not us. They said they want to sign the deal. Like I said earlier in the day, it is easy for us to sit here and make speeches, but they are the ones who have got to live the life. They are the ones who have to get on with whatever they want to get on with. It is not for us to say “You should take it.” or “You should leave it.” At the end of the day, that side will decide whether they should take it or leave it. So they have decided in their wisdom to take the deal that is on the table.

We all know that it is a minuscule settlement. It is a—I was going to use some of my South Auckland slang, but I thought I had better not—

Hone Harawira: Not if you want to be Speaker.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is right. At the end of the day, Ngāti Manuhiri have decided. I hear what the member from the Green Party said about Ngāti Wai, and there are some issues around that. But put yourself in this position. In a small Māori community, obviously sometimes there is going to be a perceived conflict of interest because the lawyer is working for two people or two organisations.

Hon Member: Get two lawyers.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, you know, I mean, it is not as if Ngāti Manuhiri people are so overflowing with gold and riches that they can afford to go to Kensington Swan or whoever.

Hon Simon Bridges: I used to work for Kensington Swan.

Hon TAU HENARE: And one of my colleagues did work for Kensington Swan until he got asked to give the toilet key back.

I do not think that this settlement hinges on whether Ngāti Wai agree or not, and one of the things about doing a Treaty settlement is that it is very hard to actually get a change in the bill. I think our select committee did a wonderful job by actually getting the change—I think the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations mentioned clause 96A, which clarifies the co-governance agreements with our Department of Conservation over Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island, and they are not exclusive. What that amendment says is that it is not exclusive only to Ngāti Manuhiri. So it does not wipe out any claim Ngāti Wai may bring at a later date.

So I hear what the member said, but I also think that the select committee did its job and did a pretty good job in trying to convince the Minister to put a change or a definition that would say to Ngāti Wai: “Look, this doesn’t count you out.” In fact, it does not count out anybody who thinks they have a relationship with Hauturu. I might leave it there because I know that my brother over there wants to get to lunch.

The last thing I will say is that in a process where the select committee asks the Minister to change something in the bill, the Crown has to agree and so do the home folk. So it is not just a change because the select committee asks for it; they have actually got to get agreement from the home people if there is to be a change. I commend both the Minister and also Ngāti Manuhiri for agreeing to that change to make sure that it is clear that there is no exclusivity. I will leave it at that.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā whānau o Ngāti Manuhiri, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. It is my pleasure to speak on the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to tautoko what our chair, the Hon Tau Henare, has just said, and I want to share a little bit about what happened in the select committee. We appreciate the fact that he hosted us when we came to him to hear from his whānau. We had 140 written submissions and we heard 17 oral submissions on the bill. The key issue, as has been outlined by the Greens, and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations alluded to it, was the opposition to the inclusion of Te Hauturu-o-Toi. In fact, 95 of those submissions were against the inclusion.

What I want to say about this process, what I think we need to realise about this process of Treaty settlements, is that, for me, I think it is our country’s truth and reconciliation process. It is recognition that we, as indigenous peoples of Aotearoa, have been colonised and we have had our lands and our resources taken from us. It is with the generosity of our hapū and iwi that we can actually move on. I mean, these settlement processes are about moving beyond grievance, and actually giving resources back to hapū and iwi so that we can construct positive lives for our mokopuna and our tamariki.

What we need to acknowledge in this process is that, in fact, we are in a process. Ngāti Manuhiri were ready to go. Why should we hold them back? Ngāti Wai is on the schedule to negotiate next year. In addition to Ngāti Wai, we have Ngāti Rehua, we have Te Kawerau-a-Maki, we have Marutūahu, and we have Ngāpuhi, who also have interests in Te Hauturu-o-Toi. What we have done as a select committee is to recognise that there are mana whenua interests over this piece of land. A very rare thing happened through the select committee process. It was not just tokenistic rubber-stamping of the process. We as a select committee actually implemented and inserted clause 96A. That clause is titled “Involvement of other iwi” and it reads: “This subpart does not exclude representatives of other iwi from being involved with the Hauturu plan, if other enactments provide for that.” So, with the gracious consent of Ngāti Manuhiri, we inserted that. I want to acknowledge the whānau who are here for the rangatira that you have shown, for the fact that you were ready to go but you have preserved the ability for the other whānau to be involved in what will be, I believe, co-management—and more than that, because you have your own whenua, on which you will build a marae, or do whatever you want to do with it. But the fact is you will get some of that whenua back.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee and my fellow colleagues on the committee. It was a process where we did listen, and it made a difference, and we are here today at the second reading. I am happy to be part of a Parliament that wants to get on with this reconciliation process, to give the resources back to hapū and iwi, and to let you do with it what you choose. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, huri rauna tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Koutou e noho mai nā, e ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Wai, o Ngāti Manuhiri koutou, tātou rā wēnā. E tika ana kia kaua e whakaarohia mēnā kei roto koe i tērā hapū, ehara koe kei roto i tēnei hapū. He whānau kotahi tātou o roto o tērā o wā tātou moana, ōna motu, ōna whenua katoa, nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou.

E Mooks, tēnā koe. I think Parekura Horomia still does not know what your real name is. I told him that I actually thought it was Mooks. But me mihi atu ki a koe i haere mai nei.

E tika ana kia mōhio ai koe i taku rongona atu ki ngā kōrero o te Rōpū Kākāriki, e tautoko ana i tō rātou kōrero i te mea, koia te wairua kua rongo nei au i roto i ngā kōrero i te kāinga, te kōrero kua rongo nei hau i roto i tā mātou noho kōrero i Ōmaha tae noa ki tēnei wā. Kei reira tonu tērā whakaaro, me te mea anō hoki, hara tō rātou kōrero hei takahia i te mana o Ngāti Manuhiri ēngari, kia tohutohu atu ki te kāwanatanga, kia kaua e whakakāhoretia i te mana o tēnā, o tēnā, o tēnā. Nō reira, me mihi atu ki te Rōpū Kākāriki e tū kaha ana ki roto i tō rātou ake kaupapa i te rā nei. Ēngari, mōkū i tēnei wā kia kaua tātou e w’akatakoto i wēnā raruraru ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Miere ēngari, kia whakahokia wēnā kōrero ki te kāinga mā mātou anō hei korero, mā mātou anō rā hei w’akatau.

Heoi anō mō tēnei wā, kua tae mātou ki tēnei wā whakatau, nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou i haere mai nei i tēnei rā, tātou anō rā e nohonoho nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri atu, huri noa, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and salutations to us all in the House. To those of you seated there, my relatives of Ngāti Wai and Ngāti Manuhiri, you lot, you are indeed us. It is right that you do not consider whether you are in that subtribe or this subtribe, as we are one family of that part of our harbour, its mountains, and all its lands, and so I acknowledge you collectively.

Hello there, Mooks. I think Parekura Horomia still does not know what your real name is. I told him that I actually thought it was Mooks. But I need to single you out for coming here.

It is right that you should know that, when I heard the sentiments expressed by the Green Party, I supported what they said, because that indeed was the spirit I felt in the talks back home and heard firsthand in our discussions at Ōmaha, right up to this moment. That talk is still there. It seems as well, too, that the Greens are not going on about bashing Ngāti Manuhiri’s autonomy, but rather pointing out to the Government not to extinguish the autonomy of that one, that one, and that one. So I must congratulate the Green Party for standing staunch on what it believes in today. For me, personally, at this point in time we should not be raising those problems before Parliament, but should be taking it back home for us to discuss and deal with there.

Therefore I need to acknowledge you who came here today. To those of us once again seated about here, salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively, throughout and about. Thank you to us all.]

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. It has been very interesting with this bill. There is no need for me to go over what has already been said this morning, but Ngāti Manuhiri’s work with Ngāti Wai means that this settlement has created momentum for settlements throughout the upper North Island, this being the first of the Ngāti Wai settlements, so it lays that foundation. I would say that the select committee process is robust, and we certainly had a robust meeting with robust discussion when we were at Leigh.

It was also a little bit sad, because one of the Māori Affairs Committee members did not do her work, and incited some young people who were there. So the day ended up with a lot of recriminations and allegations. It was disappointing that it came about like that, but the end result, again, is that there is great healing to be done. I would like to acknowledge the work and the strong leadership of Laly Haddon and his team—so kia ora and good luck. New Zealand First supports this bill, and we look forward to the third reading. Kia ora.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.

Abstentions 14

Green Party 14.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. Ka mihi anō ki a tātou, tēnā koutou kua heke iho mai ki Te Ūpoko o te Ika i tēnei rā mō tēnei kerēme. Ka timu te tai, ka pari te tai ki Takaparawhau, e tū whakahī ana. Ōrākei! Tukuna rā tō karanga kia areare mai ngā taringa, kia hiki i te wairua. Ōrākei! He tohu maumahara ki ngā whawhai o ō koutou nā kuia, koroua i tū pakari ai mō te iwi. Ka kore e warewaretia.

[I acknowledge us once again. Greetings to you collectively who have come down here to Wellington for this claim. The tide recedes and comes in at Takaparawhau. Ōrākei, let your call go out to command attention and to lift up the spirit. Ōrākei! It is a token of remembrance to the battles of your elder women and menfolk who stood staunch for the tribe. It will never be forgotten.]

As the waters ebb and flow against Takaparawhau, I recall the kuia and koroua of Ōrākei. I recall their long and heartbreaking battles for their people. Today their determination, conviction, and mana bring their children to New Zealand’s House of Representatives. Haruru mai ana a Tumutumuwhenua i ngā moemoeā o āna uri. Tū tonu mai rā koe hei whakaruruhau mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna a Tūperiri, arā, ko Te Tāōū, ko Ngāoho, ko Te Uringutu.

[Tumutumuwhenua rumbles from the dreams of its progeny. You remain standing there before us as a shield for the children and grandchildren of Tūperiri, and of Te Tāōū, Ngā Oho, and Te Uringutu.]

I am pleased to see that the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill is back before the House for consideration and is ready to progress through another key parliamentary stage. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei have demonstrated great patience and leadership since the agreement in principle was signed with the Crown in June 2006. Negotiations were suspended after a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry found other mana whenua interests in the Tāmaki-makau-rau rohe. Subsequently, the Crown sought to settle these claims collectively, simultaneously offering redress to all mana whenua iwi and ensuring transparency of commercial redress value. I was honoured to participate in a ceremony for the collective settlement deed for ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau a few weeks back, alongside Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei rangatira. Their spirit of whanaungatanga and rangatiratanga has guided us all. Their perseverance and patience enabled the resolution of claims across Tāmaki-makau-rau.

It is worthwhile addressing the case of 3.2 hectares of land at Narrow Neck on the North Shore included as commercial redress in this bill. This land will be leased back to the New Zealand Defence Force for 15 years, with a right of renewal for up to 150 years. The thing is that in spite of the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Māori Trust Board guaranteeing permanent public access to these 3.2 hectares, some residents remained uncompromising and, in my view, totally unreasonable. I am very disappointed, Mr Darby, in you and your crew. Here is my response. My response is one of simple mathematics: 3.2 hectares of land returned; 31,565 hectares of land lost. I would like to repeat those numbers. I will repeat those numbers: 31,565 hectares of land lost from Ngāti Whātua—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I’m good at maths. I’m good at maths. I know one’s bigger than the other.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: —3.2 hectares of land returned to Ngāti Whātua.

Hone Harawira: And we want it back, Maurice.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Which one’s the biggest?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: There is a little deal going on on the side here. Pay attention. This unimaginable loss of land and economic well-being has been etched upon generations of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and defined the lives of their families. All those things lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be totally replaced, and yet the people of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei wish to settle their grievances with the Crown.

Today’s bill includes commercial redress comprising a quantum of $18 million plus interest, less on-account payment for $2 million received through the railways settlement in 1993. It includes the return of Poroua Creek, the last remaining piece of undeveloped Crown-owned land, which was once part of the 700-acre Ōrākei block.

When the great rangatira Te Kawau likened the coming of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a great wind from the north, his prophecy of massive change was, as we know, fulfilled. As with the rest of Aotearoa, the world changed for Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei after 1840. However, the aspirations of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei have never changed. Those aspirations were the same in 1840 when Te Kawau signed the Treaty. Those aspirations were the same in 1977 when whānau bravely confirmed their mana whenua by reoccupying Takaparawhau in what would become a defining moment in the history of Aotearoa. These aspirations were the same in 1987 when they lodged one of the first historical claims to be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal. Those aspirations are the same as those held today. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei seek the right to take ownership of their own destiny to determine their own economic and social well-being. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei seek the right to uphold their mana motuhake and to exercise their own rangatiratanga.

Yesterday marked 6 years to the day since the passing of Ōrākei rangatira, academic, and iconic New Zealander Sir Hugh Kāwharu. Part of Sir Hugh’s incredible legacy to us all lies in the bill that is before us today. In an interview before his passing away he said, and I quote now from the late Sir Hugh Kāwharu: “We have a beautiful city, a dynamic history and a shared future. Once we have moved from the Agreement in Principle and hopefully to the Deed of Settlement we can put the grievances of the past behind us and all look positively forward.” He continued: “I do urge people to read the Agreed Historical Account as knowledge of the past adds richness to our lives.” He ended by saying: “I also want our people to understand more about our history, our customs and our language as we are tangata whenua and will be for all generations to come.” That is the end of the quote from the late Sir Hugh Kāwharu.

With those wise words I fully support the second reading of this bill, as amended by the Māori Affairs Committee, and its quick progression to enactment. I look forward to this bill proceeding to the Committee stage without delay. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe. I a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou mō tō koutou kaha ki tae ake ki konei, Sharon, koutou ngā mea pakeke. E tautokotia atu te tū kaha o tō tūpuna, o tō pāpā mō te take nei. E whakaaro atu mō te tuku kōrero a tō tātou Minita Māori mō ngā puta ā-waha a Tā Hugh. E tika atu wērā whakaaro. Mai rā anō i kī atu te koroua rā, ahakoa te wehewehe whai tahi atu tātou hei whakatikatika te huarahi, e haere tonu atu. Pērā anō tana whakaaro. He tino kōrero rangatira tērā, mai i te wā e mōhio atu wētahi o tātou, te tino mahi maka, te tino mahi nati o te Karauna ki a koutou o Ōrākei. Nō reira mō tērā, tēnā koutou. Mō rātou e rere atu, ngā mea pakeke e kore i konei, e mihi kau ana. Mihi kau ana ki te matua a Grant, me tō tangata o te Whare Miere nei, a Joe mō tōna kaha. Mihi atu ki a Joe, ahakoa e kore i konei mai i te tīmata o te pakanga, ki te wā i tae ake ki konei ki tōna whakaturetanga.

[Thank you. To the descendants of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, I truly acknowledge and congratulate you collectively. I salute your endeavours to make it here, Sharon, you and the elders. I endorse the stance that your elder and father took on this matter. He was staunch. I take into account the sentiments expressed by the Minister of Māori Affairs, and those by Sir Hugh. How right those views were. Right from the beginning, that elder said that, whatever the differences, we must work together to clear a way as we go forward. That was what he had in mind. Great words, those. We have known for a long time just how the Crown really treated you of Ōrākei—like a mug, as well as throttling the life out of you. And because of that, I have got to hand it to you. As for those who have passed on, the elders who cannot be here, my utmost respects to them collectively. My regards to Uncle Grant and your man from this Beehive, Joe, for his efforts. I salute him, even though he was not here at the start of the battle, to its arrival here for enactment.]

I want to follow and support what the Minister of Māori Affairs has said—that, in my mind, everyone can lay claim to having a special place in this country’s history. But the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei settlement is something that is etched in this country’s history, for their ability to say no when the Crown in modern times, only 40-odd years ago, tried to confiscate the land. That they maintained the expansive views of their water and their harbour, amongst all the expansiveness that is built in pastel confines in the houses of wealthier people who have benefited from the confiscation, is certainly something that we need to remember.

I think it is important that we talk about it. You know, in this country’s history of recent times these people stood in front of the police and said no. The police, under the Crown’s orders, tried to continue to take the land. It was so rough in parts of their history. The Crown and the people associated burnt their marae down, and people forget to say that. You have the Hammerheads Restaurant and all. Go under the water and look at the place—I forget what it is; “whale watch underground”—and all of that stuff that has been built. They are great economic assets to the city of Auckland.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Kelly Tarlton’s.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Telecom, communication, as Maurice knows. Mr Williamson knows about all of this; he knows about it. I am proud of him for the effort that he is going to put in to put this right, because this is quite a light list here of this correction. It is only one part.

I want to commend the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, who is starting to grow both in vigour and in ability every time he stands up and makes a speech. He led the select committee well—he led the select committee well—against a whole lot of tensions. The Narrow Neck situation was fuelled by people who played redneck ideals. It was fuelled by mistrust and misunderstanding. If you read the settlement, there is a lot of goodwill from a people who stood in front of the police and said no in relation to sharing it with everybody.

The debate about why they should have commercial nuances tied to this settlement makes the mind boggle. As I said, all the development below them, where the whare was burnt, all the property that was taken off them, does one thing. It creates incredible revenue for a whole lot of people, to ensure that their families have a solid economic base. It is marginal in this, in relation to doing that, and that is why this settlement is really critical to this nation.

It is like the emperor with no clothes. It is no good us standing here and making believe that it never happened. It happened in modern history. We dared to do that. We dared to talk, as Crown agents, to suggest that we could take it off them again. Have they managed it wisely, the assets that they have got—whether it is the railways and travel stations? Yes, they have. Minister Sharples and Minister Williamson know that. They know that full well. They have got to harden up on doing a better deal to add to this. Tēnā koe, Minister. This is not about constituency issues. This is about a nation’s nawe and a nation’s hakihaki. It is a scab that has festered.

The settlement package is all of that. You know, the interesting thing about Narrow Neck, I worked out, is that Pākehā, Māori, and Asian people were not allowed to walk down the side of it when it was in the armed forces’ hands, I think. Ngāti Whātua are quite open for people to traverse it, as long as they respect and understand who is there. I want to commend the effort both of those people who came before the select committee to say that it should not happen, and of those who came there and wanted to support the settlement. There were Pākehā who came into that room and supported this settlement. I take my hat off to them.

There were people—including some Māori—who did not want it to happen. So I want to commend the negotiators and the Ministers for getting this bill to this end: the vesting of the Pourewa Creek conservation area; the redress over the volcanic cones on the Tāmaki isthmus and the Hauraki Gulf islands, throughout there, that recognises their mana and their rangatiratanga; and protocols and letters of introduction to facilitate and strengthen relationships between Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and the Crown, museums, and the Auckland Council.

The consideration of the Māori Affairs Committee took that all into account, and we came back with these recommendations. These protocols are settled on nearly every claim. This is one of the most important sets of protocols that has to be enacted. Minister Williamson, the Minister of Labour over there, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and any other one over there who is trying to pretend they are a real Minister—make sure that these things happen. The worst thing with these protocols is that we say “Yes, Te Puni Kōkiri, yes, the Ministry of Social Development, yes, the Ministry of Economic Development, and yes, the Department of Conservation.”, and they say “We signed, be happy, give us some hākari, Ōrākei.”, and then they disappear.

These are serious protocols, especially with this group. They need to be recognised, they need to be enacted, and they need to be monitored. They are not. I know Minister Williamson knows a lot about monitoring, because he is the communications person who has been saying that broadband is going everywhere. It is important that the monitoring is done. In terms of the relationship with the museums and the Auckland Council, well, there is a lot to be done there with the Auckland Council. I am not too sure how central government enacts and imbues within the writings of the legislation of the local authority that it must do what it is told. I want to mihi to Mayor Len Brown, and hope he is taking time out over a cup of tea, watching this. I suggest that we need to be serious about correcting that.

This is an important settlement for my time in here. It does not just recognise the deal that has been struck for now on these few areas. It puts right, in part, hopefully, what was a dastardly deed enacted by us. We have done it in good faith, and it is in good faith that I close, and suggest that there is due recognition given and that these protocols are managed seriously. Kia ora tātou.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau; tihe-ī mauri-orā. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. E te iwi e tū nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

[The sooty shearwater call, the native parrot call, and I call as well; behold the sneeze of life. The House that stands before me, greetings to you. The people who stand before me, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.]

The Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill is a step further in a long process for Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei to see their proper position in Tāmaki receive tangible recognition. This bill allows Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei people to have a tūrangawaewae that will remain in the people for eternity. The journey to the conclusion of this settlement has been long and arduous, dating back as far as 1846. Many current Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei people and MPs here today will remember the Bastion Point occupation, which started in January 1977, but is now more than 35 years ago. Even recent negotiations have taken 13 years to complete. I acknowledge Ruby Hinemoa Gray, who was the chairperson of the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Māori Trust Board in 1993, her incredibly wonderful successor, Sir Hugh Kāwharu, and his nephew Cyril Talbot, all of whom have passed away while these negotiations have continued.

Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei have always worked hard to build and strengthen their relationship with the Crown, beginning in 1840, when they welcomed Governor Hobson to Tāmaki-makau-rau and made land available for the new capital of Auckland—oh, how a number of us wish it was still there. Today we see Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei again working hard to build and preserve their relationship with the Crown. They have accepted this settlement in good faith and have recognised that full restitution for all their losses is simply not possible. The Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei settlement has been delayed while overlapping claims were addressed across Tāmaki-makau-rau, and I wish to acknowledge the patience of the people of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei during this time.

As with Ngāti Manuhiri, the second reading of the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei bill is a significant milestone. It was heartening to read the number of submissions in support of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill, and I am really delighted to have done so. The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 8 March 2012, and the committee reported it back to the House on 25 July this year. The committee has examined the bill and unanimously supports it. The committee has proposed no major amendments. It recommended it be passed with three technical amendments only.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their excellent work on this bill, and for considering it in such a prompt manner. The committee received and considered 99 written submissions on the bill, and heard 23 oral submissions at the Ōrākei Marae on 23 April.

Nearly all submissions related to the 3.2 hectares of land at Narrow Neck on the North Shore. Many people supported the bill and this settlement, but they opposed the inclusion of the land at Narrow Neck. So let me say again that this land is an integral part of this settlement with Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. It is not open space, and it is currently used by the Defence Force for operational purposes. It is Crown land, and will be leased back to the navy for a minimum period of 15 years, with an option to extend for up to 150 years. There is very little suitable Crown land in the Tāmaki region for settlement, and there are 12 other claimant groups negotiating with the Crown in this area. The site has been available for public use only with permission from the Defence Force, and will continue to be available for public use under those same exact conditions. I encourage members of the Devonport community who have reservations about the settlement to work towards a positive relationship with Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

I acknowledge the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei people, who suffered the many grievances as a result of Crown breaches of the Treaty, and I have waited a long time to see those grievances settled. As a member for Auckland, I have followed this closely. The second reading is one more step in the settlement process to provide redress for historical breaches, and for breaches of the Treaty, and we can celebrate it as another milestone achieved for the Crown and the people of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā rā koutou e te Whare. Ki a koutou, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, nau mai, hara mai. Hara mai ki raro i te tuanui o tēnei o tō tātou Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings, indeed, to you the House. To you collectively Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, welcome, welcome. Welcome under the roof of this our Parliament House. Salutations, acknowledgments collectively to you throughout, and to us all.]

I am pleased to make a small contribution to the second reading of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. This has been a really momentous Treaty settlement day that we have had today, so I would like to mihi to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and to all the other contributors who have been speaking to these bills today.

As Ms Delahunty mentioned earlier on, all of this Treaty settlement process goes back to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I like to go through history, but we do know that the Ngāti Whātua chiefs signed the Māori text of te Tiriti on 20 March 1840, after which a delegation of chiefs invited Captain Hobson to make his capital at Waitematā, which he did in July of that year. In September 1840 the Crown had negotiated 3,500 acres of land that is where Auckland Central stands today. The chiefs of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei invited Hobson to the isthmus in the hope of benefiting from living in close proximity to Pākehā—so as to benefit through trade and commerce. Over the next 2 years the Crown purchased another 29,000 acres for £650 so as to facilitate land for housing of the new town of Auckland. However, it was not long before breaches of the Treaty started to appear, and the anticipated working in partnership with Pākehā was never realised. Between 1884-85 the Crown gave up its right of pre-emption in order to allow direct dealing of land between the Māori and the settlers, and provided regulations to protect the Māori in these transactions. So very soon Ngāti Whātua had become virtually landless through lack of Government action, and, in some cases, some very dubious actions on behalf of the Crown. As I said before, the expected benefits that Ngāti Whātua would attain through their relationship with the Crown and the new town of Auckland never eventuated. This is the same modus operandi as has been covered in some of the earlier bills that have gone through this House, and it is regrettable. In 1846 more land was taken to form west Auckland, and by 1855, just 15 years after the signing of te Tiriti, Ngāti Whātua had barely 700 acres left in their estate. But later even those reserve lands were lost.

I am pleased that we are reporting back on this bill. This bill contains a comprehensive series of acknowledgments by the Crown where the Treaty was breached in the Crown’s dealings with Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. The Crown will apologise for acts and omissions that left Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei landless. That landlessness led to the breakdown of the social, cultural, economic, spiritual, and physical structures within Ngāti Whātua, which left them in poverty. The apology also records that the Crown intends to improve and strengthen its historical close relationship based on Treaty principles with Ngāti Whātua so as to lay a solid foundation for the future, and I do commend that.

On the select committee, as we have heard, we heard a number of submissions at Ōrākei Marae, and they were all in relation to the Narrow Neck property. I will make a few remarks on that. The House will be aware that we heard all those many submissions, but it was there, when we were listening to those submissions, that we saw what is really the ignorance and mean-spiritedness of some elements of Pākehā New Zealand in relation to the Narrow Neck property. Submissions were made as to why Ngāti Whātua should not get Narrow Neck back and arguments were put forward by the Devonport residents that they had somehow become an iwi of their own, and that somehow the principles of the Treaty should apply to them as well—[Interruption] These were from the many submissions that we heard from Devonport. But all of that talk was really a cheek. It was a real cheek to hear. They threw the book at us in terms of every conceivable argument or scenario that they could paint. But it was absolutely regrettable.

It is regrettable that we got an insight into the window of the attitude held by some Pākehā with regard to the Treaty and to the claims process in general. Some just do not want to see settlements proceed. The Devonport Māori population is significant. It is a significant Māori population when all of the navy ships are in port. When those ships are in port, the numbers dramatically rise, and we get a town full of Māoris. The navy, and the Defence Force in general, is a fine employer of Māori—around 22 percent of the navy. I am not too sure if Devonport has a kōhanga and kura kaupapa in that leafy seaside suburb, but when Ngāti Whātua comes into town I hope that is the case.

The select committee was under the very capable, excellent leadership of Tau Henare, very Speaker-like in his control of our committee—very Speaker-like. We considered all these submissions, but, notwithstanding all of those submissions and all of the concerns that were raised, I am very pleased to say that no recommendations were made to amend any of the provisions around the purchase of the land of Narrow Neck, and I am very pleased that we held firm as a committee in the face of all of those many, many, totally off-mark submissions to ensure that this was preserved and can continue through this House.

So I would just like to mihi to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei again. Ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa. We are on the home stretch and I am looking forward to ushering this bill through its final stages. I mihi to you all and also to the members of this House. Happy “Treaty Settlement Day”. Kia ora anō tātou.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou, ki te mana o Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei me ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Whātua, tēnā koutou katoa. I am pleased to take a call in support of this bill, the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill, which we are debating this morning. I would like to begin by sharing a dream—he moemoeā. It is not my dream, not my vision, but one that certainly does resonate with me. I am sure it will resonate with many people in this House, and, indeed, outside of this House. He moemoeā: in the year 2030, 5,000 descendants of Tuperiri live on the papakāinga and contribute to tribal life, hosting manuhiri, participating in political debate, and going to tangi, birthdays, weddings, attending puna, kura, and wānanga, working the whenua or taking tourists out for fishing and waka ama on the Waitematā. The papakāinga is self-sufficient. We sell electricity back to the national grid. We collect and use rainwater. We produce very little waste, as the resource recovery depot allows whānau to trade their compost for worms for their own gardens. Many whānau have built their own whare, while others are happy to rent off the tribe. Most of our whenua is regenerating ngahiri on the reserve land and in between buildings. The birdsong is now louder than the traffic on Tāmaki Drive. Our elders hold regular wānanga for the up and coming kaikōrero and leaders. They go en masse to tangi and important hui in Kaipara, Tauranga, Waikato, Rarotonga, Tahiti, and Hawaii to represent the hapū and maintain our economic and spiritual ties. Many whānau are employed by tribal and whānau businesses. On the papakāinga they work in the nursery, the whare tukutuku, the arts and crafts and taonga centre, the cafes and restaurants, the ecological research and learning centre, all looking out over the Waitematā.

This vision, this dream, is expressed in the strategic plan of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, their document planning ahead to 2020 and beyond. I think it is a testament to the determination and, indeed, the courage of the hapū who have come back virtually from the brink over the last few decades, and it is an inspiring and empowering dream and a vision. I do commend it to people to read through to get a sense that it is not an idle dream; it is a dream that, as we speak, is being built on the ground. And the land, of course, on which it is being built, predominantly is whenua rangatira—the land that the dystopian dream of the mid-1970s would have seen carved up, subdivided, buried under expensive houses for the elite of the Auckland suburbs. Instead, of course, we have this extraordinary asset, both for Ngāti Whātua and, indeed, for all of Auckland. It will be retained, and it will build and will become a central hub. It will become one of the hearts of Auckland—one of the centres of it.

Had that dystopian dream of the 1970s gone ahead, it would have effectively completed the alienation of the land that was held by Ngāti Whātua historically. It would have effectively removed the last toehold that Ngāti Whātua retained, through a process of alienation that began in the 1850s and continued right through to the middle of the 20th century.

As I said, the fulfilment of that dream is under way as we speak. I am one of many here, I am sure, who has had the privilege of going on to the marae at Ōrākei and participating in the planting days on the whenua there. It is coming back. I think the planting of the trees is symbolic of the determination not only to restore that land but also to restore the community, to restore the mana of the people, to create a future for their own people, and to see it go ahead.

My colleague Catherine Delahunty earlier in the day mentioned the importance of naming. I note with pleasure that this bill does include reference to giving Ngāti Whātua rights to name some of the places within the settlement. In a broader sense, having lived in Auckland up until recently, it is becoming much more commonplace now for Aucklanders, Māori and non-Māori of all descent, to reference Maungakiekie and to talk about Maungawhau and Ōwairaka. Pākehā names were given to those places over the top of those earlier names, which are now being used more commonly and without embarrassment, or without in any way being patronising. I think that is indicative of the work that has occurred and the fact that there is a willingness to acknowledge that Ngāti Whātua are re-emerging as players, as a significant part of Tāmaki-makau-rau, as indeed they have always been.

As ever, this settlement has not been without its tensions and its disputes. As a former Devonport resident and a person who to this day has a great deal of regard for that suburb, that area, I acknowledge the concerns—in many cases the heart-felt concerns—of the residents of Devonport who were significantly concerned and disturbed by the small 3.2 hectares of land at Narrow Neck, which this bill allows Ngāti Whātua to purchase. It is not to be gifted to them. The bill gives them the option to purchase as part of the commercial redress within this. I support that entirely. When the issue broke, when it became apparent that there was an issue there, it was slightly disturbing, because I knew that we had Green Party members and supporters on both sides of that argument. I recall contacting at the time the leadership of our Green branch on the North Shore, and asking what their view was on that dispute, and I was really pleased and relieved to hear their response. They intended, and I believe they did do it, to go and stand on that land and sing waiata to acknowledge that it is, was, and will continue to be Māori land if that is the choice of Ngāti Whātua.

I think that the Māori Affairs Committee captured quite well the future for that small but clearly contested piece of property. In the commentary on the bill the select committee said that it encourages members of the Devonport community to work towards a positive relationship with Ngāti Whātua, considering that effective communication between affected parties, especially as they could be neighbours in the future, would improve understanding of differences and avoid mistrust. There is time for that healing to take place. In terms of the leasehold, as was referenced earlier, the land will be leased back in all likelihood to the navy for at least another 15 years and, potentially, for a century. There is time. Nothing dramatic is going to happen on that land. Access will not be denied. It is a beautiful place. I used to take students to that area routinely to look at the remnants of Fort Takapuna, to talk about the modern history where, indeed, that whole area at one point was again in danger of being privatised and sold off for housing, and the fact that it is a reserve. That it will continue to be open space for the foreseeable future is a good thing, and I do hope that people of goodwill will undertake that admittedly difficult work of restoring trust and communication so that there need not be any bitterness about that.

We know that Ngāti Whātua are already significant economic players in the Auckland scene. The settlement under this bill, and the return of land and other resource that will accompany it, will increase that presence. Ngāti Whātua have significant proven ability to affect Auckland socially as well, and to better reflect Auckland as a city of the Pacific, as a Māori city, as a Pasifika city in a Pasifika nation. We look forward with pleasure to seeing this bill proceed swiftly through the House, and we will continue to support it. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): This settlement bill before us, the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill, I think was the most interesting bill that the Māori Affairs Committee has had before it. No one actually came to the hearings who was against the settlement bill, save for in relation to one little piece of land over the Shore in Narrow Neck. This created such a furore that I would have thought it was the “Conscription Bill”, conscripting young men to go off to war at the age of 18.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What colour were the necks?

Hon TAU HENARE: I would not put a colour on anything. I think putting people in boxes and giving them colours is a bad thing. As our committee normally does, we like to go out into the public and hear submissions on the territory of those people who are settling with the Crown. So we went to what I colloquially call Boot Hill—I am from Auckland; I have lived in Auckland all my life—and we got a wonderful welcome.

Hone Harawira: Ōtara.

Hon TAU HENARE: Ōtara—“O-town”, Mr 274, actually. We got a wonderful welcome from the home folk. It did get out of hand a wee bit, and I take responsibility for that as chairperson. Unfortunately, there was an issue about somebody being asked to leave because somebody did not agree with somebody else. But what amazed me about the little part of the bill that these people had all come to talk about was the fact that these Māoris may be able to, in future, purchase a piece of land. They were not given it. It was not a gift. The settlement does not gift this little block of land to the claimants. It says in the bill that they have the right to purchase this piece of land, and, lo and behold, you would have thought that the whole of Devonport had been given back to Ngāti Whātua.

I make light of it and I make fun of it because that is exactly what I think is the seriousness we should put on it. I know there are people on the Shore who think that doing away with that block of land for either commercial purposes or whatever purposes is a bad thing. I hear what they say, but I wish people would put it into context. Here is a people for whom only 60-odd years ago the Government came in, burned their places down, and bulldozed these people off their land—and this was in the heart of Auckland. You see this sort of thing happening overseas. You see this sort of thing happening in the documentaries on Māori Television. That is the only television station that shows good documentaries any more. You see this sort of thing happening elsewhere, but 60 years ago these people were forcibly removed from their own territory, from their own land, and from their own houses.

If ever there was a bill that I support 1,000 percent, it is this one. So my message to the people over in Narrow Neck—it is a funny name, actually, Narrow Neck—is to get in behind the settlement for the whole of Auckland, for the whole of the country—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What does Maggie say about this?

Hon TAU HENARE: Maggie Barry? She said some wonderful things about it.

Scott Simpson: A very fine member.

Hon TAU HENARE: She is a very fine member of Parliament, and she will hold that seat for quite some time.

There is one historical thing that I want to say about Narrow Neck. Back in the First World War, when there was conscription and members of Tainui were conscripted to go off to war—to the First World War—those who said no were taken and incarcerated over in Narrow Neck. They were incarcerated not because they did not want to go and fight for their country but because there had been no settlement between the Crown and Tainui. So the bill has a particular significance not only to Ngāti Whātua but to the people of Tainui, with Tainui and Ngāti Whātua having a particular connection.

I look forward to the Committee stage. I look forward to the third reading, where I will certainly expand on my thoughts about the good folk of Devonport, the good folk of Narrow Neck, and the good folk of Ngāti Whātua.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. Tēnā koutou ngā rangatira nō Ngāti Whātua o Orākei. Ngā mihi tonu ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa nui o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the revered from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. I particularly acknowledge you on this great matter of the day. Acknowledgments and commendations to you collectively and to us all.]

I would like to mention some men and women—driving forces—within Ngāti Whātua, that being Grant Hawke, Puawai Rāmeka, Sir Hugh Kāwharu, Tīwana Tibble, and men and women like them who have worked for so long. This has been an intergenerational process, shall we say. We have heard much of it discussed today about Narrow Neck over in Devonport. It is interesting how we can have different viewpoints on it, because I loved it. I loved it because what we had were people in Devonport who were actually New Zealanders—not necessarily Māori, but everybody—developing a connection to the land. That is again what makes us unique as New Zealanders.

It was great hearing wild accusations flowing and wild opinions, because, again, that is what makes us special as New Zealanders. We can have a different opinion, we can voice those opinions, and then we can come together and we can solve differences. Through the select committee process, where we were there on Ōrākei Marae—and what a beautiful marae it is, too—the submissions we had were, I thought, magnificent submissions, because they were all about people being connected to the land. Through that process we have now pretty much general agreement that Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei are going to be great landlords. Their generosity is well known. So I think the process was great and I welcome that process.

Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei are one of the leading lights in Māoridom, in turning their asset base from, shall we say, humble beginnings to them being now one of the main players and one of the wealthiest iwi. That was through smart planning and careful investment. Their generosity has given rise to the Tāmaki collective that was able to be established, comprising of 13 mana whenua groups—that deed of settlement was signed a couple of weeks ago—and, moving forward, the ongoing relationship between the Auckland Council and mana whenua is very, very important.

As I said earlier, there is no need for me to go over the history, because my colleagues have already mentioned much of that history. But I will say that after speaking with people from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, the greatest joy they would say—and it is visible, too, because you know as I drove up to that Māori Affairs Committee meeting, meandering up Kitemoana Street there, and then arriving at this most beautiful destination, Ōrākei Marae, it was neat to see the young people who were there doing what young people should be doing on a marae, helping—

Hone Harawira: Causing trouble.

BRENDAN HORAN: “Causing trouble”, says Hone over there. Well, we know that you cause lots of trouble up there up north. What was neat has actually been the reclamation of mana through this whole process, and it has been heard and captured by the tamariki and mokopuna of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. That is the greatest gift that anybody can receive and that anybody can give, because we now have long-term planning and the intergenerational legacy continues, and long may it continue. Kia ora.

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 mihi to the people from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. It is a real privilege to stand here today to speak in support of this second reading of your Treaty claims settlement bill, the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. Following the previous speaker, Brendan Horan, I think that I am the newest member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the select committee meetings regarding this bill, but I heard that they were very forthright and colourful.

I think that, as Mr Horan has said, it is great to see New Zealanders, no matter where you come from and no matter what your background, being able to participate in the formation of our future together. I think that today this is what we are celebrating here: the formation of our future together, recognising and acknowledging the past—the grievance and hurt of the past—and seeking to bring some redress and forward momentum. That is very important for each and every one of us, not only here in this House but also in Aotearoa New Zealand. I am not sure whether you know this, but when this House is full people from every persuasion and from many nationalities are here, representing the people of our nation, coming here to speak and to bring their thoughts and contributions to the decisions that affect us in the future. So of course it is so fitting that it is here in this place that these settlement bills are debated, presented, and supported for that future.

I would just like to acknowledge somebody who has had some history around all of this, and that is Sir Douglas Graham, whom I met a number of years ago. I met him only once, but I was very impressed with his determination and passion for the Treaty settlement process to advance, for the sake of tangata whenua. I want to acknowledge him here today in this House.

Having heard my colleague David Clendon from the Green Party talking about the future vision of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, I think it is great to hear those stories. You are here not just because of the past but because of the future, and because of what you see as the possibility and the potential for your tamariki and for your hapū and people, where you can go, and what this will do to unlock the dreams that you carry and the potential that you see is possible for you. My hope and my prayer is that everything that you see in your heart, you will touch with your hands, and you will see it come to pass. I want to say that it is great to be here today. Welcome, and thank you for being here. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi ki ngā whānau o Ngāti Whātua. I want to acknowledge Grant Hawke in his absence, also Joe Hawke, and I mihi to you, Sharon. Actually, I mihi to the resilience of Ngāti Whātua. It has been interesting. The Minister of Māori Affairs talked about how many hectares you have lost—31,565. What I want to note is that 15 years post Treaty settlement you had less than 1 percent of your lands back. The progression to where we are now, if we look at the history, really did start in 1977 with Bastion Point, so I want to mihi to the whānau who were strong enough to stand up to the Crown. From that we got the 1991 Orakei Act. In fact, the fight for your rights has begun and has been happening for nearly 40 years.

What I want to say about the Narrow Neck issue, the 3.2 hectares, is that it actually represents 0.01 percent of the land that you used to have. I think we have to acknowledge the generosity that Ngāti Whātua has for the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau—in fact, for all of Aotearoa. It is this generosity that we see again and again from our iwi and hapū groups, enabling us to settle our Treaty grievances and to move on. I cannot thank you enough, actually, as a member of Parliament. I want to thank you—[Interruption] Yes, Parekura has just said thank you on behalf of all of us, and I think we should thank you on behalf of the entire House, because it is only through your acts of leadership that we as a country will move to a place where we will have full recognition of our indigeneity and of our mana whenua. So I want to mihi to all of you for coming and for enabling us to be a part of your journey. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)