Wednesday, 14 November 2012

Continued to Thursday, 15 November 2012 — Volume 685

Sitting date: 14 November 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Economic Growth and Unemployment—Statistics and Pure Advantage Green Growth Report

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is “the most rigorous form of measuring employment in the economy”; if so, what were the Survey’s results for unemployment for the last four quarters?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. The household labour force survey applies a very rigorous test for whether someone is unemployed. They are counted as unemployed if they are actively looking for as little as 1 hour’s work a week. In the last quarter, for example, that included 33,000 students who were looking for a job, most probably for a part-time job, alongside their study. To the second part of the member’s question, over the last four quarters the number of people unemployed has gone from 151,000 to 171,000, back to 156,000, and up to 170,000. So, as you can see, the numbers bounce around quite a bit. Over the same period the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit has actually dropped, from 56,000 to 50,000.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he now concede that his Government’s economic policies have failed to lower unemployment in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, in the way that it is couched by the member. Obviously, unemployment has risen, but that has to be seen in the context of the overall environment that we have been operating in. We cannot wish away a global financial crisis, but I would just say this. If we were theoretically to follow these policies—an emissions trading scheme that had a major impact on every New Zealand consumer and business, reversing the company tax cut that this Government brought in, putting a levy on every single New Zealand consumer to pay for Christchurch, and a capital gains tax on a quarter of the housing market but on every single business in New Zealand, and we came up with that novel idea of following Zimbabwe and Argentina in printing money—then that would really add to unemployment. By the way, they are the Green Party policies.

Dr Russel Norman: Why is unemployment growing at more than 1½ times faster in New Zealand than across the average of the OECD over the last 4 years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: At one level, unemployment is coming from a lower base in New Zealand than in a lot of those countries. If you actually go and look at the OECD, most of those countries are above New Zealand in terms of an unemployment rate, and some of them, like Spain, are at very high levels—25 percent unemployment overall and 50 percent for young people. So that is one issue that is there. Countries have different ways of measuring things. But all I would say is if you go back to the unemployment benefit numbers and ask the obvious question—what were they in 1999, when the household labour force survey was at 7.3 percent, and what are they today—the answer is that they were 150,000 back then, they are under 50,000 here, and they dropped by about 400 last week, half of which were in Auckland. I might also add that if you were to go and look at the Jobs Online monthly report, you would notice that they increased by 5.6 percent in October alone.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the fact that unemployment in New Zealand has grown at 1½ times the average in the OECD over the last 4 years, using the statistics in the household labour force survey, which the Prime Minister told us we should read; and is that not a sign that his economic policies have failed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To the last part of the question, no.

Hon David Parker: Is the Prime Minister insisting now on using benefit figures rather than the household labour force survey, which he previously described as the most rigorous form of measurement, because, just like Karl Rove on Fox News, he likes to misuse math to make himself feel better?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, for one thing, thank goodness David Parker is watching Fox News, because he might learn something, as opposed to that lefty stuff he seems to be embroiled in normally. Secondly, no, I am simply pointing out that the unemployment benefit is another way of looking at the economy, and I think that makes sense. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Dr Russel Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that according to the standardised statistics produced by the OECD, when he came to office New Zealand had the eighth-lowest unemployment in the OECD and it now has the fifteenth-lowest unemployment in the OECD, and that that is a record of failure for his economic policies, even in comparison with all those other countries that he tells us are doing so badly?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it is still in the bottom half of those. I would point out that if one was to go and look at the issues that New Zealand faces vis-à-vis other OECD countries, I would challenge the member to find other countries that would not take New Zealand’s position over theirs. If you look at our country, we have had a global financial crisis and the worst earthquake in a number of generations, and this Government will be back in surplus within a few years’ time. This is a—

Hon David Cunliffe: A few years—how many?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I still think we are on track for 2014-15, actually. So there are a—

Hon David Cunliffe: Oh, still? Make up your mind.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it is not changing my mind, David. You are changing your mind about whether you are challenging the leader or not, but I am certainly not changing my mind. Do not worry, Grant Robertson is supporting you, because he was in the paper yesterday saying he supports David.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think that is—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. [Interruption] Order! The Speaker is not involved in any of that, so we will not have any of that.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of the failure of the Government’s economic plan to lower unemployment, will he give renewed consideration to the green growth, green jobs proposals coming from the Pure Advantage group, which includes successful New Zealand business people such as Sir Stephen Tindall, Joan Withers, Jeremy Moon, and Justine Smyth?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One thing I will not be doing is ordering up a carbon-neutral printer like that member wants for his printing of money. No, if you go and look at the policies that that member is advocating, it is an emissions trading scheme that goes on every single business, it is reversing the company—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members are entitled to raise a point of order.

Dr Russel Norman: The question was not about the policies of the Green Party, even if the Minister failed to actually put them across properly.

Mr SPEAKER: Because of the time that has elapsed, I will let the member repeat his question so that members can hear it.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of the failure of the Government’s economic plan to lower unemployment, will he give renewed consideration to the green growth, green jobs proposals from the Pure Advantage group, which includes successful New Zealand business people such as Sir Stephen Tindall, Joan Withers, Jeremy Moon, and Justine Smyth?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the first report, no, but my understanding is that another report is coming that might have some recommendations of interest in it. The Government will look at those. But I go back to the first point: a failure of economic policy in this country would be to reverse the company tax cut that this Government put in, it would be to ban mining and all of the things that this Government is doing to ensure that there is job creation, it would be to put a levy on every single consumer to pay for Christchurch, it would be a capital gains tax on every business in New Zealand, it would be an emissions trading scheme that put every consumer in a worse situation, and it would be printing money so that every New Zealander—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think there has been sufficient answer there.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of the Government’s failure to reduce unemployment, will he seriously consider the business case for New Zealand to embrace green growth and green jobs as advocated by the Pure Advantage group, which includes successful New Zealand business people such as Rob Fyfe, Phillip Mills, Geoff Ross, and Sir George Fistonich?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in the answer to the last question, there is a second report coming out, as I understand it, from Pure Advantage, and there may be a number of aspects of that report that the Government is interested in looking at. The member will also be aware that the Government commissioned some work in this area, of which some of those recommendations we are following. I simply go back and say that the member lives in a world where he is advocating policies that would be very negative for the economy but comes into this House and pretends they would have no impact at all. If that is the case, then he needs to go back and read his economics books.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen statistics from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics that show that the greener the industry the higher the job growth over the last decade, and will he now reconsider his opposition to green growth strategies, which are jobs-rich and good for the environment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, in answer to the first part of the question. In answer to the second part of the question, there have been quite a number of things that this Government has done in relation to, effectively, green growth, and they would be including the very extensive insulation scheme that the Government had. It has also got an emissions trading scheme, which encourages people to plant trees. There have been a number of other things, but not the ones that that member is proposing.

Dr Russel Norman: Is Pure Advantage group not correct when it agues that mining the environmentally valuable Denniston Plateau for coal, as proposed by Bathhurst Resources, will have a detrimental effect on New Zealand’s economically valuable green brand; if so, why on earth is the Prime Minister championing a special cause, a special interest, like Bathhurst Resources?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not think the member is right. If I remember correctly, a few weeks ago that member was on television telling New Zealanders that it was a shocking thing that those who worked at the Solid Energy mine on the West Coast were losing their jobs at Spring Creek, and yet on the other side of the coin he is now telling those very same miners that he does not wan them to get a job down the road at Bathhurst Resources. Is he seriously saying that because we have a small amount of mining activity relative to the size of New Zealand, it somehow undermines our whole overall proposition as a good country to do business in and a good country to visit? I find that very hard to believe. If you look at Australia, where the mining activity is very substantial, it does not stop it from actually going out there and advertising extensively that Australia is a good place to do business, a good place to live, and a good place to holiday.

Unemployment—International Comparisons and Initiatives Targeting Young People

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he still think his Government is “on the right track”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Shearer: Is he satisfied that there are only five countries with a worse record in the rate of increase in unemployed numbers, and that they include Greece, Spain, and Ireland; if not, does he not think it is time to change track?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member will have heard in answer to question No. 1, no, I do not think it is time to change tack. Secondly, that is coming from a completely different base. But let us just understand whether the following would do anything in terms of economic growth, and that would be to ban sea-mining for minerals, oil, and gas; ban fracking; put a tax on aquaculture; ban all coalmining; and have a mineral export tax. That is a remit at the Labour Party conference this weekend.

David Shearer: Is he satisfied that under his Government there has been an 80 percent increase in the numbers of unemployed, more than twice the rate of Australia; if so, does he think it is time to change track?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Of course we are not satisfied when someone loses their job, but let us understand what is happening in Australia. In Western Australia, the last time I looked—it may have changed in the last few weeks—the growth rate was 14.5 percent. The growth rate in Northern Queensland, where mining is substantially active, was 9.5 percent. The fact is that there has been a recession on the East Coast of Australia for quite some time. So let us ask the following question: can you run a mining operation if you have a minerals export tax going through the roof, where you have a ban—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s job, and a Minister’s job, is to answer the question, not to start asking them in the middle of question time. I thought you would have stopped him when he said that. “Let’s ask ourselves a question”—well, that is our job at the moment, and his job is to get up there and, precisely and tersely, answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point is reasonably made, except in so far as the question did ask whether the Prime Minister believed that, given certain events, it was time to change track. The Prime Minister was identifying possibilities of changing track that he did not believe would work. But the member is correct. It should not be posed as a question, because Ministers are meant to answer questions. But I think the Prime Minister had finished, had he not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The parts of the Australian economy that are booming are the parts of the economy that are related to mining, and at the Labour Party conference they want to ban mining, and they want to join forces with the Green Party, which wants to ban mining. I will bet you Damien O’Connor does not go down there on the West Coast—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has no responsibility for Damien O’Connor.

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement “While unemployment remains high, it is absolutely critical that we provide young people with adequate development opportunities. If we don’t we risk diminishing the potential of an entire generation of New Zealanders, and I won’t accept that.”; if so, why has the number of Modern Apprenticeships dropped by 2,500 since he made that statement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I cannot accept the member’s number, because I do not know whether it is correct or not in the way it was measured. And the history of this House indicates that numbers that come from that side are not always accurate. But there are just under 7,500 fees-free Youth Guarantee places at tertiary institutions at the moment. There are 2,800 fees-free places in 43 trade services. There are over 10,000 fees-free places for 16 and 17-year-olds. A great deal of work has been done when it comes to young people—

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question directly asked about Modern Apprenticeships. If he has all the information about everything else except Modern Apprenticeships, that is a bit strange. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should know that actually he does not interject during a point of order, especially a point of order by his leader. The Leader of the Opposition is correct. His question asked specifically about Modern Apprenticeships. If the Prime Minister had that figure, it would be helpful, but I think he has indicated that he does not have it. Therefore that should be the end of the answer.

David Shearer: Is not Fran O’Sullivan right on the unemployment statistics when she says “For Key to simply shrug his shoulders on this score doesn’t cut it. … We owe it to the young people who are yet to even get on the employment ladder to be less ostrich-like as a nation.”; when will he change track to grow jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Three things. Firstly, when it comes to young people, the Government is engaged in a number of activities to support young people, and that includes things like the 90-day probation period and the youth minimum wage, which certainly help make them more attractive in the workforce. Secondly, making sure their educational skills are better is critically important, and we know that that was something that the Labour Government did not care about. Making sure that we have a number of programmes for them is critically important. We have been doing that, whether it is through the Youth Guarantee or whatever it might be. Thirdly, we know the Labour Party is not to be believed when it comes to youth unemployment, because in the weekend Megan Woods was out there telling people that a quarter of all young people were unemployed. That is factually incorrect. And the fourth thing I would say is that I do not know whether the member saw—because he wants to quote Fran O’Sullivan—The Standard yesterday afternoon, but on The Standard yesterday afternoon it said that if Fran O’Sullivan comes out and endorses David Shearer, it will be the kiss of death. Well, guess what was in the New Zealand Herald—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption] Order! I have called the Leader of the Opposition.

David Shearer: Is the Prime Minister aware that Modern Apprenticeships have gone down on his watch, and why is he not aware of that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because they have gone into a variety of other, different courses.

Economy—Return to Surplus, Government Borrowing, and Forecasts

3. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in getting back to surplus and reducing future borrowing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2012 showed an operating deficit, before gains and losses, of $9.2 billion. This compares with a deficit of $18.4 billion in the previous year, about half of which was due to Canterbury earthquakes. Excluding earthquake costs, the operating deficit for 2012 was $7.3 billion, compared with $9.3 billion the year before. It has been important to support New Zealanders in difficult times through borrowing money and spending it through income transfers and public services, but, of course, that cannot continue for ever. The Government has laid out a track to surplus in order to get on top of debt.

Maggie Barry: What are the benefits of returning to surplus and minimising debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think one of the benefits assumed is that if we got back to surplus we could then have a spend-up in the fashion that the previous Labour Government did. But that is not actually correct. When we get back to surplus in 2014-15 it will allow the Government to start repaying debt, resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and target more investment at priority public services. There is also another benefit to households, and that is when the Government does have a credible track back to surplus and good management of Government expenditure, all New Zealanders benefit from lower interest rates than would otherwise be the case.

Maggie Barry: Since 2008 how has the outlook for future Government debt and expenditure improved?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has improved quite significantly, despite the fact that we have had a recession and a slow recovery. Treasury forecasts showed in 2008 that New Zealand was on a track for never-ending deficits, and Government net debt would reach 50 percent of GDP by 2020. In this year’s Budget, Treasury forecast net debt in 2020 to be under 20 percent. So instead of being 50 percent of GDP, decisions the Government has made will reduce that to 20 percent. Also Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is forecast to fall from 35 percent of GDP in 2011 to 30 percent of GDP by 2016, allowing New Zealand households and businesses to make their own decisions with more of their own money.

Maggie Barry: What is the global outlook for growth, and how does this affect New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a very good question. The consensus for global growth forecasts for 2013 has been revised downwards in the last 8 months for virtually all of our trading partners, including Australia. For instance, the IMF revised its growth expectations for the world economy from 3.9 percent to 3.6 percent for next year, and in the euro area growth fell from 1.6 percent to 0.2 percent—a very significant reduction in the outlook for Europe. These kinds of reductions are likely to have some impact on the New Zealand economy.

Hon David Parker: In light of the highest level of unemployment in 13 years, will Treasury be revising its unemployment forecasts for the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update; if so, will it also have to update its growth forecasts and tax revenue forecasts downwards?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect that Treasury will take into account the current circumstances and how they might affect the future outlook. The world economic outlook is a bit weaker, as I have pointed out, and the New Zealand economic outlook has been a bit weaker in this second half of the year, but the member will have to wait and see, like I will, as to how that is reflected in the forecasts.

Welfare Reforms—Availability of Jobs

4. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her answers to oral question No. 9 yesterday?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Yes, I stand by my statements, but upon reflecting on them, I should have said more about how quickly the job market is moving, as some of those 300 jobs I mentioned yesterday at The Warehouse have already been filled. In fact, I have just heard that The Warehouse has filled around 1,200 jobs recently to get ahead of the coming busy Christmas period.

Jacinda Ardern: When she said that The Warehouse had jobs available between October and January, suggesting short-term Christmas contracts, was she also aware that the last time it advertised, there were 1,200 applications for 111 jobs; if so, does she still believe that people are unemployed because they are not looking hard enough?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I think I put it in my primary answer, we have also heard that there are 1,200 people whom it has recently taken on, but that is casual work as well as part-time and as well as full-time. It is quite recently, so I am certainly saying that some of that work is casual to take it over the Christmas period. But as you say, I think there are higher numbers of applications for some jobs than others. For example, I got an email this morning from a guy who said that in Taupō recently he advertised two positions and received six applications, three of which did not think they would pass the drug test, two of which did not think they could start work at 7.30, and one of which did not bother coming back with the paperwork. To receive so few applications with so many out of work or unable to get work just does not ring true. The persons he required were unskilled labourers.

Jacinda Ardern: When she listed—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to be able to hear the member, please. I want to be able to hear. [Interruption] Order! I want to be able to hear Jacinda Ardern.

Jacinda Ardern: When she listed Bunnings and New World as proof that there are jobs available, was she aware that neither of the stores in question is open yet and one has not even been built, and that the last time Bunnings advertised there were 800 applications for 70 positions, and for New World there were 2,700 applicants for 150 openings; if so, does she still believe there are people unemployed because they are not looking hard enough?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is a bit of a bouncy job market out there—a bit like me. You know, it is a bit like the economy is grumpy like him; the job market is bouncy like me. Look, the reality is that we have people getting jobs and we have people who then go off tomorrow.

Grant Robertson: He’s grumpy, you’re bouncy!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: He is grumpy, I am bouncy—that is about the load of it. Let me give you an example. Just today we have had 26 new jobs come into Work and Income. We have probably had about the same number that have come off because they have been filled. The member can make assertions that I have said there is a job for everyone. There is not. It is tough out there. But I do say that you need to be looking so you can get some of those jobs that are there.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member, I have just been accused of being bouncy and dopey in that last set of interjections. They could both be true, but, please, when members interject “you”, they are referring to the Speaker.

Jacinda Ardern: When she listed that Brightwater was looking for 40 engineers, was she aware that the same firm cut up to 40 jobs earlier in the year, and that Taylor Preston, which she also listed, is a seasonal meatworks operating in the same industry where there have been up to 300 job losses since September alone; if so, is the economy bouncy, grumpy, or just suffering from a lack of a plan from that Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member can get all uptight and angry, but the reality is that jobs come on and jobs come off. That is the point I was making yesterday. The member can pretend that there are no jobs whatsoever out there; in fact, we have had 1,000 new jobs come into Work and Income just about every week for the last 12 months. That is the reality. No one is pretending it is perfect, no one is saying it is ideal, but I also do not think that the member getting uptight and angry about what jobs might or might not be there is kind of helping anyone, either.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Jacinda Ardern. [Interruption] Order! I want to hear Jacinda Ardern.

Jacinda Ardern: Which of her contradictory statements yesterday does she stand by—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the question.

Jacinda Ardern: Which of her contradictory statements yesterday does she stand by: that benefit numbers have doubled on her watch because of “some of the toughest times worldwide”, or that her punitive welfare reforms are still justified because “there are jobs and people will get one only if they are looking.”?

Hon Member: Someone might get one in the weekend.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I do think there may be a new job going this weekend, and I wish the member luck with that. But look, at the end of the day there are jobs coming on, there are jobs coming off. It is tough. No one is saying that things are easy, at all. I know that the member struggles to understand that, but that is the reality. We have people coming on benefit; we have people coming off benefit. No one pretends that everyone who wants a job will get one today, but the member may be lucky and get one this weekend if she holds out long enough.

Visitor Visas—China Southern Airlines Frequent Flyer Scheme

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is he satisfied that Immigration New Zealand’s visitor visa processing system is robust and effective; if so, why?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration): Yes, but there is always room for improvement. One hundred and seventy thousand visitor visas are processed annually by Immigration New Zealand, and it has made substantial improvements from the mess that National inherited from the previous Government. To improve the system, the Government is implementing by 2015 the state of the art Immigration Global Management System, which will, amongst other things, improve visa processing and increase the use of biometric identity checks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has he compromised the integrity of New Zealand’s overseas visa system by doing secret deals with China Southern Airlines in a secret meeting he held with China Southern Airlines’ representatives on 20 April 2012?

Hon NATHAN GUY: There was no secret meeting with China Southern Airlines. I did have a meeting with China Southern Airlines. The representatives expressed to me some interest in increasing visitor flows into New Zealand, which is a tremendous thing, and, yes, there has been a deal struck with Immigration New Zealand and China Southern Airlines. That is going to allow high net worth individuals to come into New Zealand to ensure that we continue to grow our tourism benefits. In fact, there will be some checks, and, of course, that will mean that they still will need to get a visa, and they still will need to meet health and good-character checks. Considerations will be met in terms of deeming—[Interruption]; can I conclude—the evidence of funds and bona fides.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he read a memo to him from Immigration New Zealand dated 11 June 2012 concerning visa processing facilitation that states “[China Southern Airlines] has also advised that the most important feature for their clients was avoiding the necessity to answer questions relating to financial backing and employment history and to provide evidence of these.”; how can he make any statements that this is more robust, given that advice from that official?

Hon NATHAN GUY: As I mentioned in the answer to the previous question, we are indeed going to roll out this agreement with China Southern Airlines, and it is important that we are going to review—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking this Minister about questions and issues that have happened this year, not about what is being rolled out in the future, but what is happening right now, in respect of the 11 June memo that he got, and the meeting on 20 April. He is talking about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to repeat his question.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, I am aware of that, and that, indeed, is their opinion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware of concerns raised by an Immigration New Zealand official in an email dated 7 September 2012 that the risk of “imported criminality” from China is being “ignored in visa decision-making” in respect of a special arrangement being brokered with China Southern Airlines?

Hon NATHAN GUY: No, I am not aware of that, because the deal has not rolled out yet. I am looking forward to that deal rolling out and, as I said before, this will be reviewed on a monthly basis to ensure that it is robust and it is working as intended.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister concede that what is being alleged in these questions is happening right now, and is he aware that an Immigration New Zealand official has described the proposed special arrangement with China Southern Airlines as setting a “very dangerous precedent” and “defers risk assessment to uninformed expedience”?

Hon NATHAN GUY: No, I do not agree with those assertions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the public of this country have any confidence in the Minister responsible for Immigration New Zealand when such scandals—and this is one—are so numerous—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member must proceed with his question. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Big Ears is off again.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the public have any confidence in the Minister responsible for Immigration New Zealand when such scandals are so numerous, even to the extent of Immigration New Zealand’s intelligence, risk, and integrity division now raising concerns about what is happening about visa-checking processes or lack of them?

Hon NATHAN GUY: As a result of the recent Chinese student fraud, I have asked immigration officials to look at their systems. Indeed, they got PricewaterhouseCoopers in to look at their systems. That report concluded that their systems are pretty good but that there is room for improvement. They are working through those recommendations as we speak. My final comment is that this Government is focused on growing the economic returns for this country, and that means not putting at stake the $9 billion that we get in from tourists every year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a memo sent from the Department of Labour to the Minister of Immigration dated 11 June 2012 titled “China Southern Airline Travel Facilitation”, which contains a reference to a meeting between the Minister and the airline on 20 April and details of the proposed special visa processing arrangement, and a second document dated Friday, 7 September 2012, subject line “[China Southern Airlines] initiative”, which outlines the serious concerns of an Immigration New Zealand official.

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

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

White Paper for Vulnerable Children—Children’s Teams

6. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister for Social Development: What further announcements has she made on the Children’s Teams, part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Today we have announced that the second children’s team will be rolled out in Whangarei. We have chosen Whangarei for the second team because, like Rotorua, the community both needs it and is ready for it. Work will start straight away with the community of Whangarei to bring the children’s team together.

Mike Sabin: How will these children’s teams bring together those professionals working closely with vulnerable children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The children who are at risk of abuse or neglect need professionals who bring their expertise to the table and work in a coordinated manner, putting the child at the centre of all decision making. I have just had a public meeting at lunchtime today on the white paper and there was someone there from Strengthening Families. She said that collaboration is one of the hardest things you can do, but actually is one of the most effective for working with vulnerable children.

Mike Sabin: How will the children’s teams work to better protect children in each community?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said before, these teams take this to the next level of child protection. They are working closely with Child, Youth and Family, but most important, I think, they are also working with those children who are at most serious risk of maltreatment, and getting in early so that we do not see them getting hurt or being put in danger.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 7, the Hon David Cunliffe. Question No. 7, the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —Minister for Economic Development: is he satisfied that the policy—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the honourable member. I say to National Party members the noise is not reasonable. I cannot hear the question. Let that person who has not missed a call at some stage cast the first stone. We have all done it. I call the Hon David Cunliffe. [Interruption] Order! I want to hear this question.

Economic Growth and Unemployment Rate—Government Strategies

7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he satisfied that the policy initiatives undertaken by his Ministry are adequately tackling the problem of unemployment; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I think actually Mr Cunliffe was doing a bit of last-minute lobbying for the weekend. The Government—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think Ministers when answering primary questions should avoid that kind of unnecessary gratuitous comment.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I was just trying to—

Mr SPEAKER: No, order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: OK. Yes. The Government is undertaking a comprehensive Business Growth Agenda to help New Zealand businesses become more internationally competitive and have access to the six key ingredients they need to grow, create jobs, and be successful. To this end we are ensuring we are building better access to export markets, we are investing to encourage innovation, we are improving skills and safety within the workforce, we are building the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive, we are encouraging sustainable use of our national resources—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister should have noticed that the question asked “if not, why not?”, not “if so, why?”. The Minister had answered the question—[Interruption] Order! It was a primary question and it asked whether the Minister was satisfied. The Minister indicated that he was. Therefore, there is no further answer required, because the question goes on to say “if not, why not?”.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following does he consider to be the greater concern for the New Zealand economy: inflation at 0.8 percent, below the 1 to 3 percent target range, or unemployment at 7.3 percent, the highest in 13 years—in fact, since the last time Bill English was Minister of Finance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, I think the bigger challenge for the New Zealand economy is the lack of understanding from some people as to the importance of giving businesses the opportunity to invest and grow their businesses in New Zealand, not adding costs to those businesses, and actually giving opportunities in areas such as oil and gas, such as convention centres—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Casinos.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —absolutely, Mr Peters, absolutely—a range of things that we need to have to encourage businesses to grow. I think that is the biggest limitation, and it dominates the other side of the House.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which does the Minister consider is the more significant reason for the decline in New Zealand manufacturing from 26 percent of GDP in the 1970s to 14 percent in 2009 and 12 percent in 2011: could it be the high New Zealand dollar, or policy settings that deliberately reinforce the interests of agriculture and finance at the expense of manufacturing, innovation, and export-led growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is simply wrong in his analysis of what is happening in the New Zealand economy. In actual fact, since this Government has been in office we have seen the long-term decline in manufacturing that he refers to halt, and, actually, we have seen growth in the amount of exports from manufacturing—[Interruption]—it is true; members should go and read their numbers—and growth in manufacturing over time. The simple fact of the matter is that the member’s—I have to say—adolescent picking of industries that should be promoted ahead of other industries is actually one of the causes of problems in New Zealand. We spend way too much time focusing on which single industry will save us. We actually need to encourage positive investment opportunities across the country, and that is what we are doing.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen any reports of any special meetings to discuss jobs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have received the report of a special meeting last night to discuss one particular leadership job. Reports are that there was a meeting of about a dozen people to discuss jobs, it followed on from discussions with an expensive, New York - based consultant, and it was convened by one David Cunliffe MP.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon David Cunliffe. [Interruption] Order! Order! Order! The National benches will show a little discipline, please. I want to hear the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister’s mathematical abilities—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Come on now, the member is going to have further interjections if he carries on like that.

Hon David Cunliffe: What policies are in place to help New Zealanders aged between 18 and 34, whose real incomes have decreased by 8 percent since this Government has been in power, or who currently make up close to half of the unemployed and around 40 percent of those leaving for Australia; and if he really believes that the manufacturing decline has been reversed, why does he not say that to the people of Southland, or to the Minister of Finance or any Government MP who has stood up the debate on the future of the Tīwai Point smelter to be held in early December?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think there were about six legs to that question, but I will focus on the youth question, because it is a fair question to ask. Actually, the Government is very, very focused on creating opportunities for young people, and I just beg the House’s—

Hon Member: Not actually doing it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is doing a huge amount, actually. We have created a thing called the Youth Guarantee scheme, which supplies fees-free training for young people aged 16 and 17, and, in fact, there are now 7,500 places from nothing a couple of years ago. We have also created 2,800 fees-free places in 44 trades and service academies, and next year we are rolling out 5,500 fees-free levels 1 and 2 places for foundation learners of all ages. The good news is that if you look at 15 to 19 year olds, fully 78 percent of all of them are now in education, 12 percent of them are in employment, and 4 percent are unemployed and not in any form of education, with another 5 percent right outside the workforce. Those figures are actually a very significant improvement through the global financial crisis.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Outcomes

8. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Was he referring to the SkyCity Convention Centre, which is the subject of an inquiry by the Auditor-General, when he told the House, “in relation to the International Convention Centre, they have sought to stop, which is the reason right now for 1,000 less jobs in this country”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Absolutely. I was referring to the estimated 1,000 jobs involved in the construction of the proposed Auckland convention centre. That member knows as well as anybody else that her party has sought to stop the development of the convention centre at the cost of those jobs to the country. So the Greens have worked to block this initiative at exactly the same time they are calling for more jobs in New Zealand, and the reality is you cannot constantly say you cannot do things. The reality is that that is lost on the Greens, but it is actually not lost on everybody else.

Denise Roche: Is he aware that the additional pokies that form part of that convention centre deal are likely to lead to a net loss of jobs, as Australian research shows that because electronic gambling is capital-intensive and jobs-light, it sucks spending and jobs out of other, more job-intensive retail and tourism businesses?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, if the member is suggesting that there should be more gaming tables and fewer electronic machines, I am sure she could send me a note to that effect, and we will pass it on to the negotiators.

Denise Roche: I seek leave to table a study, Electronic Gaming Machines in Bendigo 2008—assessing their economic impact, prepared for the city of Bendigo, which concludes: “Any shift in spending towards [electronic gaming machines] will clearly lead to a fall in employment.”

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.

Denise Roche: Do any of the 1,000 jobs he says the convention centre would generate include additional police required to manage problem-gambling related crime and the prostitutes planned for a 10-storey brothel across the road, or additional mental health workers needed to mop up the consequences of additional pokies; and when did crime and misery become the cornerstone of the National Government’s job plan?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, a couple of points there. Firstly, they are the construction jobs for the convention centre—the 1,000 jobs that I was referring to. The second point is, I have to say, that is a bit rich coming from a party that supported the previous Government to do exactly the same arrangement to establish the first Skycity convention centre in Auckland in 2004, which the New York consultant whom we were talking about before proudly opened and proudly endorsed.

Denise Roche: Is he concerned that the expansion of the casino is likely to encourage more gambling from people like drug tycoon Tac Kin Voong, who gambled $11 million in 6 months at Skycity, making the casino $1.5 million in profits; if so, would he consider supporting Metiria Turei’s Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill, which would force the casino to return profits from the proceeds of crime?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In relation to the bill the member refers to, I should draw the member’s attention to two laws that were passed in 2009, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act and the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which already contain much of what that particular bill is, I understand, seeking to achieve. More broadly, the opportunity of having a major convention centre in Auckland and the tourism benefits and the convention benefits it brings to New Zealand are very, very significant. I appreciate that every time the Greens see an opportunity they want to stop it, but the rest of us actually have to be focused on all the opportunities we can have to grow investment and jobs in this country.

Teachers and Support Staff—Problems with Novopay Payment System

9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement “Yes I do have confidence in Novopay”?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education): As a payroll system, I do, yes. But I fully acknowledge the frustrations that staff, payroll administrators, principals, and many in the sector have had to put up with as the system has rolled out.

Chris Hipkins: Did he receive or review an implementation plan for Novopay before the new system was implemented; if so, when?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: No, there was not one single implementation plan with regard to Novopay.

Chris Hipkins: Who signed off on the implementation of the Novopay payroll system?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: The recommendations to go live with Novopay came from the Novopay board. It made recommendations to me. Included in those recommendations were assurances that there were no major difficulties, no tier 1 senior issues. I signed off and recommended that. It was implemented on the basis of that advice.

Chris Hipkins: Will employees who have incurred late-payment penalties or defaulted on any automatic payments—for example, mortgage repayments—as a result of payroll errors receive any compensation either from the payroll provider or from the Government as their employer; if not, why not?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: The Ministry of Education has already made it clear that individual staff in the education sector who have suffered some economic issue because of their pay being not paid, underpaid, or something like that are able to contact the ministry and/or their school officer, and they will be investigated and addressed.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question. He said they would be investigated. I asked specifically whether—

Mr SPEAKER: No, his final words were “and addressed”. His final words were “they will be investigated and addressed”. “Addressed”, one presumes, means something. The member can dig further on what “addressed” means, I imagine.

Chris Hipkins: All right. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will have another go.

Hon Paula Bennett: He thinks he’s so smart.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! You can see—can I call on the Attorney-General—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No, you can’t call on me for anything.

Mr SPEAKER: OK. You can see the disorder the House gets into sometimes with unhelpful interjections.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While you were dealing with that I had an opportunity to review the question that I had asked previously. I did not use the word “address”, at all; I asked whether there would be any compensation.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member asked whether they would be compensated, and the Minister’s answer was that the problems for an individual would be investigated and addressed. “Addressed” usually means doing something about it, but that can be explored further, I think.

Chris Hipkins: Will addressing the problem that has been identified by those employees who may have incurred late-payment penalties or fines etc. as a result of defaulting on payments include paying them financial compensation?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: No decisions about compensation have yet been made.

Chris Hipkins: Can he give employees reliant on Novopay an assurance that they will receive their correct holiday pay prior to Christmas; if not, what action is he taking to ensure that this happens?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have an assurance, and the Ministry of Education has issued a press release that assures that all those in the education sector will be paid as part of the normal end-of-year, start-of-year holiday pay, etc. It gives that assurance in the name of the Secretary for Education and the Ministry of Education.

Global Positioning System Monitoring—Use for Offenders on Extended Supervision Orders, Parole, or Work Release

10. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Corrections: What steps has the Government taken to protect communities from high-risk offenders?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): In August global positioning system (GPS) monitoring was introduced for high-risk child sex offenders on extended supervision orders and for offenders on parole with special conditions relating to their whereabouts. There are currently 25 high-risk offenders being monitored by GPS, and, dependent on judicial outcomes, nearly 50 offenders could be monitored by GPS by the end of the year. This technology provides real-time monitoring of these high-risk offenders, allowing the department to know immediately if one strays into an exclusion zone such as a park, a playground, or a school, so that quick action can be taken. The offenders are monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This technology is significantly improving the safety of the public and ensuring that offenders comply with the conditions of their sentence.

Jacqui Dean: How could GPS be used in the future to improve prisoner rehabilitation?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: From next month the Department of Corrections plans to start trialling the use of GPS to monitor prisoners on the Release to Work programme. To reduce reoffending by 25 percent we do need to have more prisoners engaged in that Release to Work programme, and GPS will allow the Department of Corrections to do this by providing a greater ability to monitor the prisoners whilst they are outside the prison.

Minimum Wage, 2013 Review—Consultation and Criteria

11. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Acting Minister of Labour: When will he begin the process of consulting on the minimum wage for 2013?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Labour): Next week.

Mr SPEAKER: I had not even called the Minister, but his answer is very prompt. Such efficiency.

Darien Fenton: Does the Government plan to change the consultation process and the criteria that are used for determining the minimum wage; if so, how?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government is looking at ways of streamlining consultation. Consultation is not a quantitative thing; it is a qualitative thing. The essence is to do the job properly, and I am, as an enthusiastic Acting Minister of Labour, looking at all options.

Darien Fenton: Will the principles of fairness, income distribution, worker protection, and work incentives be removed as criteria for determining the minimum wage for New Zealand’s lowest-paid workers?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I said, I am looking at improving the qualitative assessment, and at this stage, where there are matters going to Cabinet, I am not prepared to get into that level of detail.

Darien Fenton: If these criteria are cut back and submission processes also curtailed, will there not be fewer and lower minimum wage increases in the future?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, as I said, the member is dwelling in the realms of the hypothetical. I am looking at improving consultation—

Grant Robertson: Where does that member dwell?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I dwell in the land of high emotional intelligence. I am most grateful, too, to the New Zealand Herald for those kind comments. I am looking at all those issues. The aim is to do the job right.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, there you have it.

Passports—Online Renewal Service

12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: How many New Zealanders have applied for a passport online since the launch of the Online Passport Renewal Service?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): The Department of Internal Affairs has received 2,182 online renewals in the first 10 days of the service. Online renewals in the last week have made up around 16 percent of total adult renewals. Twenty-six thousand people have checked their eligibility to apply online, indicating that many people plan to apply in the near future. This is very encouraging at this early stage, and I am confident that the numbers will continue to grow.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What are the benefits to New Zealanders of applying online rather than with a paper-based form?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Passport fees have been lowered, and are lowest for an online renewal, to encourage people to use this online service. The costs have been reduced by almost 20 percent for an online application. The turn-round with online services is also faster, and, although it can take up to 10 days, it has averaged just 3 working days to date.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports has he received on New Zealanders’ satisfaction with the service?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I have received several reports, including a number of comments saying the online service was very easy to use and made ordering a passport cheaper and a lot more convenient. One customer wrote saying he applied on a Saturday evening and got an email at 10 a.m. the following Tuesday saying the passport had been sent. This is great feedback, and I am confident that New Zealanders are getting better public services from the Passports Office.

Questions to Members

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of her Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill): The purpose of the bill is to apply the civil forfeiture regime to casinos. Steven Joyce was wrong today to suggest that the legislation already applies. It does not. My bill will amend the definition of “unlawfully benefiting from significant criminal activity” to include casinos that knowingly and having regard to best international practice in detecting problem gambling and criminal activity derive a benefit from significant criminal activity.

Denise Roche: Why did she write the amendment bill?

METIRIA TUREI: Casinos are widely known to profit from money-laundering and theft caused by gambling addiction. Private individuals are not entitled to retain profits from criminal activity, and neither should casinos. This bill will encourage casinos to implement the best possible practices to protect against problem gambling and money-laundering, and better protect small businesses and individuals from gambling-driven crime.

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—Benefits

2. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill: How will her Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill benefit the victims of crime?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill): I have read many reports over a number of years of community organisations and small businesses, in particular, being driven to the wall by the theft of huge amounts of money by problem gamblers who lose it at a casino. By including casinos in the Act and imposing on them the same obligation that others have to return the proceeds of crime, these community groups and small businesses could look forward to having some of that stolen money returned to them.

Denise Roche: What groups are particularly vulnerable to gambling-related crime?

METIRIA TUREI: In 2008 the BDO Kendalls Not-for-profit Fraud Survey found that 53 percent of all the money stolen from charities was stolen to fund gambling activity—some $180,000 per person, and that is just for those cases that were known. The real rate of theft from charities is much higher, and many of those caught gambling with stolen—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has answered sufficiently. Really, the supplementary question was barely within the Standing Orders. The member has responsibility for only her bill, not for other matters. I could have ruled the question out. I have given the member a chance to answer it, but, really, it is not within the Standing Orders.

METIRIA TUREI: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is in relation to the bill and its relationship to the issues for victims—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Standing Orders provide for the member to be asked only details about her bill, not her opinion on other matters to do with crime or the proceeds of crime. It must relate to only the detail of her bill.

General Debate

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. For the record, note that there is no written speech. I am not reading any speech. This is a speech that is given from the heart.

I am very interested in history, and I am particularly interested in the history of the Labour Party. That was why a couple of years ago Chris Auchinvole and I went to Blackball to learn all about the Blackball strikes. Darien Fenton refused to speak to us, but one or two trade unionists were actually very pleasant. And that was why I was so interested to hear about the New Zealand Fabian Society seminar The Kirk Legacy, which, we are told in this pamphlet, was 3 years of courage and achievement. We have here dear old Norman as the centrepiece—I do not whether the photo was taken when he was shooting pigeons from the third floor of Parliament—we have a photo of Fred Dagg, and we have a lovely photo of Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan, a wonderful woman. It was my privilege to get to know her in recent years. She was treated appallingly badly by the Labour Party. Helen Clark treated her like dirt. Then we have a very nice photo of another person I really respected, Bill Rowling, a good man. He was a really very nice man also treated appallingly by his colleagues in the Labour Party.

When I read this pamphlet I initially thought it was out of Private Eye, but apparently there is an organisation called the Fabian Society. It is organised by some historian—or self-styled historian—guy in Auckland who runs a dairy in Mount Roskill, and I understand—

Hon Annette King: So what’s wrong with that, you snob?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —that it is mixture of myth-making and airbrushing people out of history. I would say this to “Her Honour”: just keep quite and listen.

The introduction was by this fellow called Gerard Hill. I was very surprised that Michael Bassett was not invited to speak. He wrote a very good book on the history of the Labour Party, and a very splendid book, I thought, called Working with David—was it working with David or against him—a history of the Lange Government. [Interruption] Oh, it was Cunliffe’s book. Then we had a contribution “Big Norm, Big Labour, and Big Ideas” by Colin James, who was an apologist for the luvvies then and is now. We had a contribution “Mururoa and Nuclear Power” from Kennedy “I charge you with ecocide” Graham, a lovely guy; it is just a shame he immatures with age. Then we had Bob Tizard, 90 and going strong. And then “The Future”—the future belongs to Jacinda Ardern, the Labour MP.

Like all Labour publications or Fabian Society publications, it is replete with falsehoods. For example, we are told that Labour established the Accident Compensation Corporation, when we all know that it was Jack Marshall’s Government in 1972 that started it up, when David Thomson was the Minister of Labour. I see that some of the third-grade apparatchiks on the other side look confused, because they do not know their party’s history. Then we are told that the Treaty of Waitangi process, which Norman Kirk promoted, has been an unqualified success. Well, we all know that the years 1999 to 2008 were a disgrace in Treaty settlement terms, because they achieved nothing, and we also know that Mat Rata walked out of the Labour Party. Norm Kirk established our international environmental reputation? Well, that is rubbish, because Jack Marshall appointed the first Minister for the Environment. “The establishment of a New Zealand national shipping line was also a statement of independence.”—and also economic lunacy! Then we have the “inspiring action” of Martyn Finlay—and they could not spell Martyn Finlay’s name properly. It is in the pamphlet as M-a-r-t-i-n F-i-n-l-e-y when anyone who knows anything knows that it is M-a-r-t-y-n F-i-n-l-a-y.

So what we actually have is a most amazing attempt to airbrush people out of history. As I say, where was Michael Bassett? Where was Roger Douglas, who was such a fine Postmaster-General in the time of Norman Kirk? These people were here, as Winston would know. These people could have made a contribution.

So what sort of seminar are they going to have when they look at the years of David Shearer, in years to come? This history of the Labour Party from 1972 to 1975 brings us to the history that will be occurring at this weekend’s Labour Party conference, because David Shearer and the leadership are history. Their future propagandists will not have to airbrush out Shearer’s loyal troops, because they will be moved to the sidelines, just as Labour moved Peter Fraser to the sidelines for many years.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): On “Planet Labour” I live in a country where we have got the highest unemployment in 20 years. It is the highest rate in 13 years, since Bill English was last Minister of Finance. I live in a country where, despite the National Party promise to stop people going to Australia, 180,000 people have gone, which is more than the population of Hamilton, of Napier and Hastings combined, or of Dunedin and Invercargill combined. I live in a country where the Government promised 170,000 new jobs, and the number of jobs is going in the wrong direction. I live in a country where youth unemployment is high, where Māori and Pacific youth unemployment is over 20 percent, and where the base level of unemployment amongst Māori and Pacific is 15 percent. I live in a country where we have the second-worst current account deficit in the world, after Greece, and next year it will be the worst in the world. And I live in a country where exports are down.

On the other side of the land, we have got the National Party saying it is all going well. Well, what do you have to call those members? What is that? Well, I think after Paula Bennett’s episode today, you would have to say that that is fantasyland. We heard Paula Bennett today rewriting the next episode, the next reissue of Disneyland. We have already had “Grumpy Growth English” saying grumpy—what the heck does “grumpy growth” mean? It is fantasyland. Then we had Paula Bennett saying that unemployment is bumpy.

Hon Members: Bouncy.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Bouncy. Sorry, bouncy. I cannot close my eyes when I say that. We heard her saying that the unemployment figures are bouncy when the quarterly employment survey has had filled jobs going down. The household labour force survey has been going in the wrong direction for three quarters in a row, and unemployment is terrible, after 180,000 people have gone to Australia.

So we have got “Grumpy” and we have “Bouncy”. Well, I thought: who is “Dopey”? Then I thought that Mr Speaker will not let me say that anyone is dopey, but I have to say that it was a dopey idea to improve educational outcomes by increasing class sizes. Unfortunately, there are two people with responsibility for that: Bill English and Hekia Parata. So I will not call anyone “Dopey”.

Then, of course, what is Mr Key? Well, he is either “Surprised” or “Forgetful”; I am not sure which. He was surprised that unemployment was going up—

Grant Robertson: “Sleepy”.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, “Sleepy”? No, I think it is “Surprised” or “Forgetful”. Business and Economic Research Ltd said unemployment was going up. ANZ National Bank said it was going to go up over 7 percent over time. “Forgetful”—well, we have got Dotcom. Remember the brain fade over that. He cannot even remember where he stood on the Springbok Tour—all those important years—or on the drinking age, or on anything else.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Who’s “Snow White”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I was asked by someone “Who’s ‘Snow White’?”. Who is “Snow White”? I had to think for a while, but—

Hon Member: Judith.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Exactly! It is Judith Collins, who is trying to reinvent herself. She was “Crusher Collins”; now she is soft. She is lining up for the future, competing against Steven Joyce for when John Key gives up, tired of his job. He does not like being surprised or being characterised as forgetful, and he is looking pretty disenchanted with the job.

We have got all these problems in the country and the Government will not do anything about the serious issues. It will not remove the tax bias in the economy. ASB just today said that the favourite investment class of New Zealand is, again, rental housing in Auckland. We need a capital gains tax to get money into the productive sector. We need universal KiwiSaver. We need a Government that is willing to help our exporters and the people who are employed in those industries by doing what the IMF and others are saying is necessary. If you are a small trading nation, you have to pay attention to your exchange rate, as well as to inflation. But National? No, it says it is on the right track. Who else thinks that?

On the other side of the House it is fantasyland, it is Disneyland, and it is time that those members acknowledged that this economy is not working for ordinary New Zealanders. They are leaving in their droves—1,000 in a month to Australia. There are declining rates of homeownership because people cannot afford their own house, in part because they are competing against residential landlords. It is time to change track.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education): I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question from Mr Hipkins.

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

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I inadvertently answered one of Mr Hipkins’ questions incorrectly. It was one about compensation for someone who may have suffered penalty because of their missed mortgage payment. I apologise to the House. I misheard the question. I interpreted it in a different way. In fact, the Ministry of Education has consistently made it clear that it would reimburse any staff member who has been financially disadvantaged by the transition to Novopay, such as incurring penalties on a missed payment. Thank you.

General Debate

Debate resumed.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): Only three sleeps to go until the Labour Party conference, and I do not know who is more excited—us, or the Labour Party caucus—because on that day we are going to find out what is really going to be the future for the Labour Party, and I predict it is going to be very, very dismal. But these people are like kids waiting for Christmas. David Cunliffe cannot wait to unwrap the Christmas presents, Grant Robertson is already nibbling on the cake in the fridge, and of course, once again, Clayton Cosgrove is not going to get the present he wants because he is the one person who is not being named in the leadership speculation. I do not think it is any surprise that their party is saying that they are going to have to get their caucus to swear an oath of allegiance during leadership competitions. But I do not think there is a single oath that could bind David Cunliffe, because he is to loyalty what Taito Phillip Field was to honesty. So, quite frankly, I think these guys are in massive trouble. It is going to be a very interesting weekend.

But another very interesting factor this weekend is going to be the debate around the policy remits that the Labour Party is putting forward. We have heard a lot from these people today about job creation and their great laments about what they think is going on in the economy, but when David Parker spoke, the only idea we heard was a capital gains tax. That is their prescription for getting the New Zealand economy back on track. So they are focusing all their efforts on tearing each other apart in a fruitless, thankless leadership competition.

The guy I feel sorry for, frankly, is David Shearer, because David Shearer is a decent man. He is too good for these guys, quite frankly. He is a person who is doing his level best, but these guys just, quite frankly, do not appreciate a quality leader when they see him.

Eleven of these people were meeting with David Cunliffe last night. They were wandering around the members and guests’ dining room, looking for a place to plot. They very rarely go up there, so they did not actually know where they could find a private room. There they all were, all the lefties. They were just there from the meeting with Helen Clark. Jacinda Ardern was there, Parekura Horomia was there, Clayton Cosgrove was not invited because he is not in the Cunliffe camp, Sue Moroney was there, Ruth Dyson was there, and they were doing the numbers. They were circling around, working out how they were going to install the man whom they cannot stand as the leader of the Labour Party.

If you want to know the reality of it, you want to read the New Zealand Herald editorial today, because it says that David Shearer is a very decent man and that he has actually got a personality that appeals to New Zealanders, unlike some of the other leadership contenders. So these guys are really in a cleft stick there, because they have got a leader whom they do not support, who is fundamentally a decent man and a decent bloke. The only alternative for them is a guy they cannot stand. And who are they going to put in?

The fact is I do not think anyone over there has got the guts to stand up and take the leadership when it is on offer. I predict what will happen is that David Shearer will ride this through and continue as the leader of the Labour Party, because none of those people are going to seize their chance. That is what you have got to do in politics. Grant is all talk, but it will not happen.

If you are really worried, you should be, because when you read this list of Labour Party remits it is all about banning stuff and stopping jobs. So here we go. What are they going to do? They are going to nationalise any partially sold assets. That is going to be up for debate, so it will be interesting to see how they go on that. They are going to ban seabed mining for minerals, oil, and gas. They want to ban fracking. They are going to ban all coalmining. These are the basic ideas from the Labour Party base.

But there are some good things here, according to their base. They want a SuperGold card for transport, for under-21s, and, at the same time, they are going to lower the voting age to 16 and make Te Reo compulsory for everyone under 15. They are also going to bring back so-called healthy food in schools. They are going to ban companies that do not pay a so-called living wage from winning Government contracts. Well, that is going to be something that Clayton Cosgrove is really going to struggle to understand. So when you look at what we have got here—oh, what else have they got? Direct KiwiRail as to who must win its tenders, and raise the age of superannuation to 67 for everyone, except Māori.

So if those are the ideas that are coming out of the Labour Party base—

Hon Member: No, they’re coming from your research unit.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —do you really think, when you mix that together with the Green prescription for printing money, that that is going to be a path for getting the New Zealand economy going? More important—

Hon Member: Show us the bit of paper you’re reading from, Jonathan. I bet it’s not a Labour Party document.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, that is not from the National Party research unit. These are your policy remits for debate and decision. There is not one idea in here for getting the economy going. If you look at the facts, National has got the economy going in the right direction—halve the deficit, back into surplus by 2014-15.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Taking political advice from “The Maestro” of Mt Albert is a bit like learning humour from Chris Finlayson. Chris Finlayson has so little to say about the National Party that he spent the whole of his speech talking about the Labour Party, and this member, the “Minister for Cigarettes”, the brain of Mt Albert, is content to bad-mouth Labour while Rome burns.

New Zealand is burning. Jobs are burning. Manufacturing is burning. Thousands of New Zealanders are leaving, and the ostrich economists on the other side pretend nothing is wrong. This is not about them or about us. This is about New Zealanders who cannot pay the bills, who cannot support their families, who cannot find a job. As Jacinda Ardern pointed out, they are the thousands upon thousands who have queued up for jobs at supermarkets and fast-food chains because that is all that they could find. And what does this Government say to those New Zealanders? “You are lazy. You are not trying hard enough.” Which one of the 2,700 Kiwis queuing for 100 supermarket jobs was lazy? The 2,600 who were back in the queue? Do not insult New Zealanders, members. Do not insult their hard work. Do not insult the belief of those who are still in New Zealand that there might be a future.

Unemployment is at 7.3 percent. That is the worst in 13 years. It is the worst since the last time Bill English was the Minister of Finance. It is up 74 percent since National took office. John Key promised 170,000 new jobs. What have we got? We have got 175,000 more unemployed—175,000 people looking for work. The jobless rate is up 65 percent. Underemployment, people who are just making do with part-time work, is up nearly 40 percent. The number of people on the dole is up—wait for it—116 percent.

Is it the rest of the world’s fault, as National has said? Well, it really cannot be, because the increase in New Zealand’s unemployment has been one and a half times that of the rest of the OECD. So it cannot be the rest of the world dragging us down; we are dragging them down.

Just this morning the retail trade figures showed again that grocery spending—the basics—is down 60 million bucks in a quarter, or nearly 8 percent. People cannot feed their families, and National is content to make bad jokes about members of this House. No wonder the public is losing confidence in the institution of Parliament, sadly, and certainly New Zealanders are increasingly disappointed in this Government.

So what is the bigger problem? Is it inflation that is below the target range, or is it unemployment that is through the roof? And, if it is inflation, why will those members not modernise a monetary policy framework that was written last century and flies in the face of the global financial crisis? Why are they happy to subsidise agriculture, like through irrigation subsidies, and wipe out the emissions trading scheme, giving farmers a free ride and pollution subsidies, while jobs burn, manufacturing closes, and thousands of New Zealanders are leaving?

We are here on this side of the House, we are here together as a team, because we are not prepared to draw down the curtain on New Zealand. We are not prepared to give up on our country. That is what brings us to work every day, and the difference between this Government’s “vision” and ours is stark. Its vision is a dumb economy vision of basic pastoral agriculture, open-cast mining, and fat cat bankers, while ordinary New Zealanders are fleeing from their country, cannot feed their families, and cannot find a job. New Zealand wants a smart, green economy with the jobs of the future that pay good wages and build smart products and services that people will pay the world for. We have got nothing against agriculture—it is our backbone—but it is not enough, and just milking a few more cows or mining a bit more coal is not going to change the fundamental decline of our economy.

These are serious issues for serious times. They are not a laughing matter. There are real people hurting, and it is the future of our country on the line.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Sometimes it is the little things that happen around here in Parliament that tell us about what is really going down here, and so it was last night when Government members grabbed a bite to eat in the members’ dining room. It was like watching the great Messiah gather with the disciples for that Last Supper.

It begins with David Cunliffe confidently strolling in at 6.30, smiling like the Cheshire cat, in search of his cabal of close colleagues. He realises he is in the wrong place but, as one to never admit the errors of mere mortals, makes quiet conversation and exits through the next door with conspiracy all over his face. Not a minute passes, and in come Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins in search of Mr Cunliffe. We politely give them directions and advise them that we are signed-up members of the “Nats for Shearer” club. They guiltily slink off through the door. Next scurry in Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford. They are much more sheepish in seeking out their messiah, but we, again, helpfully direct them to the correct room. Clare Curran, Ross Robertson, and Parekura Horomia are the next group of lost disciples, although going by their looks I would be a little bit worried that one of them is, indeed, the Judas.

So what are we to make of these goings on? The first is that Labour cannot even organise a proper coup without the help of National MPs. One would not trust those members to organise a booze-up in a brewery, let alone a change of leadership. How can Labour members pretend they are capable of running the country when they cannot even run themselves? The second is that the end is nigh for Mr Shearer. The question now is only a matter of when, not if. The third is that the battle for the soul of the Labour Party is between the “ABC” club—the old guard, like David Parker and Trevor Mallard—and the new, young disciples of David Cunliffe, like Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins. The fourth is this: this weekend’s Labour conference is going to be all about just one thing: leadership, or, rather, the lack of it. Why on earth would debating the constitutional changes over leadership be the key item on the agenda when your leader is languishing in the polls and hanging on by the end of his fingernails?

But Labour’s problems are actually much deeper than leadership. It is just not credible for Labour to say it is all for jobs and then to oppose every realistic initiative for job creation, whether it is The Hobbit, the International Convention Centre, aquaculture, mining, or irrigation projects. It is not credible for Labour to shed crocodile tears about housing affordability and then promote monetary policy changes that will only drive up interest rates and the cost of housing. Nor is it credible for Labour to wail about export growth and then propose new taxes and new charges that will sock our export sector between the eyes.

My advice to the disciples of both Mr Cunliffe and Mr Shearer is that before you pick your messiah, you have got to get your gospel sorted out. The real challenge is for the Opposition to put up a united, credible alternative plan. The problem for Labour members this weekend is that they are so focused on themselves and their internal squabbles that they have absolutely nothing to offer the people of New Zealand.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): With the next climate change conference less than 2 weeks away, in Doha, New Zealand has wilfully turned its back on the rest of the world. We have turned our back on our moral and political obligations. We are now guilty of our proportionate share in guaranteeing dangerous climate change. Under this Government, New Zealand has turned down the wrong road. We have entered weak targets that are unilateral, conditional, and informal, and have ignored the pleas from other countries to make a formal commitment.

We have turned away from the undertaking of the developed countries in the Framework Convention on Climate Change to take the lead with immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we are repudiating a legally binding second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, committing ourselves to voluntary pledges instead. We have weakened the emissions trading scheme to the point of oblivion, claiming it to be a “Rolls-Royce” model that can be revved up to suit the circumstances, but leaving it with no credible pathway ahead and piling up fiscal debt for future generations. We are missing a critical opportunity to move to a high tech, competitive economy that promotes green investment and green jobs.

We are guilty of our proportionate share in guaranteeing dangerous climate change. Dangerous climate change is a temperature rise of over 2 degrees, yet voluntary pledges to date under the convention commit us to 4.2 degrees. That takes us beyond danger territory into possibly catastrophic climate change. It invites tipping points to the ecosystem and the biosphere, of which we have stunningly little knowledge.

Most telling of all, our two national leaders in climate policy, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change Issues, are guilty of argumentation that can be seen only, I conclude, as intellectually dishonest. I acknowledge their personal integrity, so I call upon them to show us that this is not the case.

Let me elaborate. The convention of 1992 lays down a division between North and South, between the developed and the developing world. The North, in light of its largest share of historical and current global emissions, must take the lead with immediate action in reducing emissions, while the South is allowed to grow emissions to meet its development needs. This distinction still applies until the framework convention of 1992 is supplemented by a global legal agreement with binding obligations to reduce emissions by all countries. That will be in 2020.

For a transition period of 2013-19, the North/South distinction still remains. Yet this Government assures the public that it is “joining up with 85 percent of global emissions” in going the voluntary route with our “Asia-Pacific trading partners”. Well, of course we are, because most of the 85 percent are in the South, with no obligation to reduce as yet. The other 15 percent are the Kyoto group, of which we should be part, which are taking on binding commitments under the second commitment period. That includes Australia. The fact that the US, Canada, and Japan are not does not absolve us from our own obligation.

There is, it seems to me, a touch of intellectual dishonesty in the 85 percent argument. There is a risk here, no doubt unintentional, of misleading the public, because it offers a false reassurance that it is at odds with the 1992 legal framework. We should be ashamed, yet this Government is not.

The Minister’s highest skill level was displayed in the House yesterday, when he justified his climate policy by flourishing a photograph of some Romney sheep. He needs to understand that our sheep industry, although less emissions-intensive than elsewhere, emits more than it should, and more than it needs to. Welshing on Kyoto and weakening our emissions trading scheme loses the opportunity to incentivise agriculture to be more climate-friendly. Rather than attempt theatrics, the Minister should recall the Stern Review, which said that with 5 to 6 degrees warming, which is “a real possibility for the next century”, abrupt and large-scale climate change projects estimate an average 5 to 10 percent loss in global GDP. We have to be wilfully blind to allow ourselves to get into this indefensible position—indefensible before the court of international opinion, indefensible in the eyes of the New Zealand public.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I was intrigued by the talk this afternoon by David Parker about unemployment. I wanted to maybe flick the House a few observations of my own. One of those observations is particularly about Māori unemployment, which is not 20 percent, as Mr Parker said in this House. It is, unfortunately, 15 percent. One of the reasons why we do have, and always have had, a very, very large and shameful Māori unemployment rate is that we are actually very, very young. Our youth population is very, very large, and it is one of the reasons why we have such a high unemployment rate, and such other high rates of low educational standards.

But I want to say that when people have a go at us on this side of the House for our so-called appalling 7.3 percent unemployment rate, I want to reply by saying that Argentina, the UK, Sweden, the Philippines, Peru, Paraguay, Israel, Greenland, and Finland are all between 7 percent and 7.9 percent unemployment. I am not saying that it is great to have a 7 percent unemployment rate, but I am saying that what people need to do is actually look very seriously at the world economy and at what effect that has had on our country and others around the world. Spain has 25 percent unemployment, Greece has 25 percent unemployment, Portugal has 15 percent unemployment, and Ireland has 15 percent unemployment. Those figures show that the world economy did tank, and it has taken a while to get back on track.

New Zealand is no different from any other country in the world. We have our struggles. I know that there are other parties, and I respect what they say in terms of where they want to go, in terms of where they want to print money and do whatever. But at the end of the day, we are the Government, and we have to make some calls on what we do. I am absolutely glad that we do have a National Government in charge of the economy, because the National Government, the National Party, are the only ones that have shown in the past that when there are bad times out there, who do you call? Not ghostbusters, of course, but you call on the National Party, because it has experience in running the country and in running the country in bad times.

I want to also make this point quite clear. It is another, completely different issue. There are those of my culture who continue to shout at the top of their voices that we do not recognise the white man’s law, and in the same breath in court they use that excuse for their own criminality, such as the growing and the supplying of cannabis to our community. This is a growing concern of mine, that people—our people, Māori people—are standing up in court and saying: “I don’t recognise the Pākehā law. I don’t recognise the white man’s law.”, and it is because they are using their culture as an excuse for their own criminality. I am really, really concerned about those people. These are people who supposedly say they are leaders in our community. My message to those people, who are no more than just petty criminals—that is all they are—is to get off this bandwagon and stop using our culture, which is a beautiful culture, which is a magnificent culture, for your own criminality. Kia ora.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am glad that the speaker who just preceded me, Tau Henare, mentioned the quote “At the end of the day, we are the Government.”, and that is absolutely correct. Finally, a member on that side of the House is willing to stand up and take responsibility for what is the highest unemployment this century. We have asked questions in this House, and rightfully so, because it is a deadly serious matter. And what have we heard from members on that side of the House today? Chatter about who was having dinner with whom. It is an insult, an absolute insult, to New Zealanders who are struggling to find work that all that side of the House can do is make jokes at a time when people are suffering.

In fact, if the worst insult that the Minister for Social Development can level at me in the House today is that I am uptight and angry about unemployment, then that would be the most accurate thing she has said today. I am, and I would hope that the Minister for Social Development might be as well, but unfortunately not. Instead, when you ask the Minister for Social Development why it is that unemployment benefit numbers have doubled on her watch, what is her answer? Her answer is the economic recession—“The toughest times worldwide.” If you go on then to ask her whether or not it means that her punitive welfare reforms are justified and fair, given the economic situation we are in, she will respond with “There are jobs and people will get one only if they look.” This is a Minister who is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, it is not her fault that people are on the unemployment benefit because of the economy; on the other, she is completely justified in introducing punitive sanctions—57,000 sanctions used per annum. That is double what were being used under Labour when benefit rates were lower. The Minister cannot have it both ways, and yet she is.

There are 50,000 people on an unemployment benefit who are looking for work, and to have the Minister claim that they are not is an insult. There are 174,000 unemployed people looking for work who were just insulted by that Minister today. There are 142,000 who are underemployed, who are looking for more work but cannot find it, and, therefore, are probably struggling to put food on the table. But, apparently, according to that Minister, they are just not looking very hard either. This Minister, who tried to come down to this House and justify her rationale that there are jobs for those who are looking, decided to do so by giving us a few examples. The Warehouse, she told us, was looking for seasonal employment. Well, I used to be one of those seasonal workers at The Warehouse. I know that those jobs end. And in fact when they did advertise full-time jobs, there were 1,200 applications for 111 jobs. The next best example she could come up with was New World—not even built yet—in Paraparaumu. In fact, I understand the walls are not even up, but she was already crowing that that would bring about new jobs. Well, when New World advertised recently for 150 jobs, 2,700 New Zealanders lined up to try to get those jobs.

New Zealanders are desperate to find work and that Minister’s claim that they are just not looking hard enough is indicative of the kind of approach that this Government has been taking to an economic crisis and a crisis of jobs: the stand back and wait, the “She’ll be right.”, the market will fix it, hands-off approach. For 4 years that approach has failed New Zealanders, and it is only good and right that David Shearer called on that Government today to change track. When the facts are presented, the Government should change its mind about its plan, whatever that plan is, because clearly it is not working. But, instead, what have Government members done? Well, if they cannot improve the economy, all they can change is social security, and that is the injustice of all of this. To say that all the responsibility should go on the job seekers, who are fulfilling their end of the social contract and looking for work, while that side of the House throws their hands up when it comes to the economy, is an absolute outrage and it is just not right.

I know that this weekend Labour will continue to be talking to its values—that is, a fair and just society where people get a fair break. That is what New Zealanders need right now and that is why they are marching away from that Government in their droves.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): After that speech by Jacinda Ardern, I think that we are starting to see a new leadership contender emerge, because that was the most energetic speech I have heard all afternoon from the Labour Party. I have been waiting for about half an hour for David Shearer to take the stand and have a go in the general debate, as he usually does. I actually enjoyed watching the Labour Party last week, because it was the most sad, disappointed, heads-buried-in-their-desk performance from Labour MPs watching their leader that I have ever seen, and that is how you know that the Labour Party is looking for a leadership change.

During question time we had the three Davids on their feet. We had David Shearer trying his best, trying not to stutter 10 times throughout his questions and not quite succeeding, trying to hold on to his job. Then we had David Parker asking some questions, as well. David Parker is always the professor, the pointy-headed professor doing his best with the numbers, but he had to drop out last time. He had to drop out last time, and probably is doing so again this time round. And then we had David Cunliffe—David Cunliffe, the great messiah. He is growing a beard again. Have we all noticed that? What does that mean? What happened last time David Cunliffe grew a beard? It was leadership time; that is when he last grew a beard. David Cunliffe is growing a beard again, and I think David Shearer should be worried about that. But we had the three Davids on show, on performance, trying to show their colleagues what they are made of.

We have got the big conference this weekend coming up, as well. Do you know what is interesting about this conference? What is interesting about this conference is that that is when they start to adopt their new rules. These new leadership rules are when they start to have members having their say.

So what are members of the Labour Party saying about their leader? They are about to give Labour Party members a bit of a say in their leadership. Here we go, there is a great website called The Standard. It is full of Labour Party members spouting their views. Here is one: “David Shearer has simply shown time and again that he is not up for the job. He can’t handle the stress, he can’t think on his feet, and he doesn’t have a solid set of beliefs to give him a firm footing when he stands up on issues.” How about another one? “I should have listened to Brian Edwards and to that little voice inside that was telling me Shearer was unsalvageable as talent. … it is that hamfistedness that has finally been the deal breaker for me. I just can’t imagine how David Shearer could survive an election campaign …”. That is what Labour Party members are saying about their current leader. That is what Labour Party members are saying about their leader, whom they are about to have a say on.

And what about this Brian Edwards? What do we know of Brian Edwards, because David Shearer likes to say that it is just bloggers talking to bloggers. I do not think Mr Brian Edwards would consider himself a blogger. Brian Edwards happens to be the biographer for “Dear Leader”, for “Auntie Helen”—for Helen Clark. Brian Edwards was also the media manager, the person who did all the training. What does Brian Edwards say? He says: “… Shearer is harming rather than helping Labour’s cause and [so much so] that he cannot continue to lead the party.”

What else do we know about Brian Edwards and Helen Clark? Helen Clark is in the country at the moment. Those members want to deny it. They want to deny it, but I was there. I was in the dining room; I saw them walking through the dining room. I saw David Cunliffe come through, then Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern put their heads round the corner. They scuttled off again, but in came Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford. Darien Fenton is one we should watch. She is the union powerbroker at the moment. Darien Fenton is actually the union powerbroker. Andrew Little thinks it is him. Andrew Little thinks it is him, but it is actually Darien Fenton. So these are the members of the Labour Party who David Cunliffe had trotting along to the little meeting, and Helen Clark was in the country too. We know what texts from New York are all about—they are about when the leadership comes around.

Jacinda Ardern wants to say that we are joking too much. And yeah, we are having a bit of fun at those members’ expense, but they are about to change their leader. But I want to tell the House what is a real joke. Here are the Labour Party policy proposals for the weekend. This is scary stuff; this is no joke. These are the policy proposals that Labour is proposing on the weekend. A financial transactions tax. You know, if we cannot earn more money through revenue, let us just tax people more. That is a Hone Heke tax, as Hone Harawira would probably say. A universal child benefit, so millionaires can get paid for having kids. Well, I think that is something Kim Dotcom would quite like, too. There is 52 weeks’ paid parental leave. Not content with costing us half a billion dollars more in paid parental leave for 26 weeks, those members want to move it to 52 weeks. They want to ban fracking, they want to ban seabed mining, they want to ban certain foods in schools, and they want a mineral export tax. That is not a joke.

They want to hurt New Zealanders more, lose more jobs. We are for growing jobs, we are for growing the economy, and that is why New Zealanders love the John Key Government.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): So far the contribution from the Government, I would say, is insulting to New Zealanders listening. It lacks empathy and it lacks understanding of the reality of the situation that we now face. In fact, Government members have attempted to try to couch it in fairy tale terms, describing real problems as “grumpy” and “bouncy”. They are attempting to defer the problem elsewhere by saying that we were better off than other countries. The reality is that that Government needs to pull its head out of the fairy tale clouds and face the reality. We live in the here and now. We live in New Zealand. We do not live in any other country. It is New Zealand people who are experiencing difficulties.

As of last Thursday, the rate of unemployment is 7.3 percent. That is 175,000 people on the unemployment roll. If you combine that with the number of jobless people of almost 300,000, with over 113,000 people who are working part-time or casually but looking for more work, that is more than 400,000 people out of work or looking for more hours to work. That is the here and now. That is the reality. Those are real people and real families, struggling to make ends meet, who have children to support. That is what we are facing, and that side continues to treat it as if it is somehow some fairy tale—that it is not real. I suspect that many of them on that side will not know what poverty is like. Probably many of them—and I know of one or two on that side—have never worked in their life, because they have been in politics ever since they have been 18. So they will not know the reality of not having a job, of not having work.

I want to make reference to Mr Henare with reference to the Māori unemployment rate. He said that with the Māori population being generally younger, that was one of the reasons why there were more unemployed Māori. I think our populations, Mr Henare—Māori and Pacific Islanders—are predominantly younger. But that is not the reason why they are unemployed. They are unemployed because there are no jobs. They are unemployed because this Government is refusing to invest in their future. They are unemployed because everything this Government has done has not panned out to what it promised.

Let me tell you. Do people remember the Job Summit when those members came into Government? We have not heard any more from that Job Summit. Do people remember the 170,000 new jobs, which was the target the Government was going to set? Well, we did not get 170,000 jobs. Instead, we lost jobs, and now we have got 175,000 people unemployed. Do people remember the tax switch? We were told that by giving tax cuts to the top 10 percent of employers that somehow we were going to get more jobs. Do people remember the 90-day bill? If employers were able to fire people easily, we would get more jobs. Do people remember the youth rates? Somehow, by paying young people less—80 percent of the minimum wage—there would be more jobs created. There are no jobs created, and I know that the surge in unemployment means that this Government has not been able to keep any of its promises in respect of unemployment.

I want to make reference to this. Those members blamed it on the recession. Well, the recession officially ended in 2009, but they blamed it. They blamed it. Those are your reports. Those are the reports of the Government.

I want to make reference to the last time that we had such high unemployment numbers, which was 13 years ago, when Jenny Shipley of the National Government was the Prime Minister. In 1999, under that Government, Māori unemployment was 14.8 percent. It was the same for Pacific Islanders. It was the Labour Government—a Labour Government—from 1999 to 2008 that reduced Māori unemployment to 8.2 percent and to 7.3 percent for Pacific Islanders. Where are we now? Both Māori and Pacific Islanders are at 15 percent—15 percent. In so far as Māori and Pacific communities are concerned, whenever National is in power, unemployment for Pacific Islanders and Māori is always high.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Hoi nō hei tīmatangia i taku kōrero me mihi atu ki a koe Su’a e kōrerohia mai ngā kōrero mō te hunga kore mahi, me wā tātou nei whanaunga Māori, Pasifika anō hoki kore taea te whai mahi i te mea, horekau he mahi kei roto o Aotearoa. Nō reirā, mihi atu ki a koe e kōrero ana i tērā kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all in the House. So to begin my address I really acknowledge you, Su’a, for relating stories to us about those without work, and about our Māori relatives, and Pasifika relatives as well, who are unable to find employment because there are absolutely no jobs here in New Zealand. And so, I salute you for making that statement.]

Three months ago the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty released its report, in which it said: “Children living in poverty are those who experience deprivation of the material resources and income that is required for them to develop and thrive, leaving such children unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential and participate as full and equal members of New Zealand society.” It then went on to say that if we use the poverty measure adopted by other developed countries—i.e., of families earning less than 60 percent of median income after housing costs have been deducted—then fully 25 percent, or 270,000, of New Zealand children could, for all practical purposes, be said to be living in poverty, with many experiencing significant material deprivation. It said that poverty rates for Māori and Pacific Island children are twice as high as for Pākehā kids, that Māori and Pacific Island kids are twice as likely to be living in severe and persistent poverty, and that child poverty rates in New Zealand are twice as high as they were 30 years ago.

Although we may choose to argue, debate, or differ in the way in which we measure poverty, I think that if any one of us in this House was to sit back and give full and proper consideration to what the priorities of a good and decent society might be, surely the well-being of children would rank at the top, or very close to it. That is where I would like to think my Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill fits. What it is is simply a proposal to make sure that kids in our poorer schools get something to eat every day through the provision of fully funded nutritional breakfasts and lunches in all decile 1 and 2 schools in Aotearoa.

I hear that some social commentators like to talk about child poverty as if it was caused by poor parental choice, bad morals, or poor work ethics. But there is little hard evidence that poor people mismanage their income any more than those who are better off. In fact, research shows that the main causes of poverty lie elsewhere: the lack of jobs, low incomes, inadequate, over-crowded and high-cost housing, poorly targeted welfare, racism in the labour market, a lack of education, poor health, institutional racism in the New Zealand police force and the judicial system, etc., etc., etc.

What we do know is that local and international evidence confirms that food in schools programmes improve children’s educational outcomes, school attendance, and classroom behaviour. We know that in 2011, based on analysis of data and experiences of national and international food in schools initiatives, the Child Poverty Action Group recommended the introduction of healthy meals in all decile 1 and 2 schools in Aotearoa.

We know that in 2012, the Children’s Commissioner’s expert advisory group called on the Government to provide a national strategy for food in early childhood education centres and schools in low-decile neighbourhoods. We know that with regard to the high number of decile 1 and 2 schools providing food to students now, there is clear evidence of a pressing need for food to be made available on a sustained and secure basis and that food in schools programmes should not have to rely solely on charity and volunteers. Depending on charity, particularly in difficult economic times, is risky and uncertain, as the termination of the Red Cross programme shows.

I applaud the efforts of all those schools, businesses, charities, and health promotion agencies for their support. Food in schools is a positive, practical, and simple step to helping to eliminate poverty, and I am grateful for the broad support that I have received since putting the bill in the ballot back in August. I welcome the indications of support from other parties in the House for such an initiative. I thank Campbell Live for the excellent series it did on food in schools, and I look forward to working with my colleagues right across the House to make this bill a reality when it finally comes before Parliament. Kia ora tātou.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very happy to take a call in this general debate. I have had to listen today to the Opposition going on about how this Government, this party, is making fun of a serious situation. We are not actually making fun of anything. What I would say is this. For a Parliament to work well, it is generally recognised that you have to have a good, strong Opposition. We do not have a good, strong Opposition in this country.

I would like to refer to a letter that was received by a constituent of mine, and he has given me permission to use it in the House today. Not only is he someone who focuses on keeping the Government to account but also he wants to make sure that he is being serviced by a strong Opposition.

Hon Members: What does he say?

MARK MITCHELL: Well, I will tell you what it says, but before I do that, before I read this letter, I would just like to come back and mention something that Minister Coleman said earlier in his speech, and that is the fact that, actually, David Shearer is a good man. I think he is a good man. He has done some great things in his life. He could be an excellent leader for the Labour Party, but the fact of the matter is that it is hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys, and I think that is probably the situation that Mr Shearer finds himself in.

This is the sort of letter that Labour members send out in their leader’s name. This letter is to my constituent, explaining what they are planning to do, on 20 September 2012: “I can assure you …”—the start is not too bad, actually. “I can assure you that Labour MPs are concentrating on their portfolios.” Well, they always say to start a letter with a bit of comedy, and I guess that he got 10 out of 10 for that.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does it have stutters in it?

MARK MITCHELL: No, it does not. But then he went on to say: “We are working on a number of important things at the moment.” Well, the comedy has gone too far now. It has got to stop. I will not read you the rest of the letter—the whole letter—because it will probably put you to sleep, but I will get to the last part of the letter. It says: “Labour is developing bold new ideas to grow.”—bold new ideas to grow. I would say that a mauling by a white mouse would be more bold than some of the ideas we have seen being generated by the Opposition.

It continues: “We will be talking a lot more about our plan for the economy in the weeks and months ahead.” Well, this was written on 20 September 2012. In all fairness, I guess we can say that we are starting to see some policy being announced by the Opposition: turning contractors into employees, banning plastic bags in tuck shops, reversing employment law change—what does that mean? Picking on poor, defenceless hobbits? This is the sort of stuff that is being generated from the Opposition members, and that is why, if they feel that there has been some fun poked at them, they are leaving themselves wide open to it, because you are the Opposition—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!

MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, you are quite right. I would like to come back and just read a quote here from an ex - Labour candidate.

Chris Auchinvole: What’s it say?

MARK MITCHELL: This is what it says: “We’re waiting for David Shearer to give us the Labour narrative. … Where’s he headed? What is his direction?”. That is Josie Pagani in the New Zealand Herald. That is what the country is waiting for, and it is not getting it.

The other thing that I would like to do—and I know you are going to be shocked, but I would like to recognise David Cunliffe.

Scott Simpson: Why?

MARK MITCHELL: Well, I will tell you why. We talk about transparency in this Parliament, and I sat up there, you know, at the back of the House—if I was any further back, I would be in the car-park—but it gives me a pretty good look at what is going on in the House, and I have to give credit to Mr Cunliffe that he almost missed his question because he was so focused on lobbying Mr Cosgrove for the leadership. I think that to come into the House and start lobbying a colleague like that is something pretty special.

I am sure Opposition members would like to get up and talk about what is important to them, what they are achieving, and what they are doing, but they cannot—that is right—because there is not really much that they can get up and talk about. But I would say this. Today there is something going on in relation to Mr Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little—

Dr David Clark: Tell us a story about Borat—tell us a story about Borat. Come on, tell us a story about Borat.

MARK MITCHELL: I will tell you a story about—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member’s time has expired. The time for this debate has expired. Can I just remind members that when they are interjecting on each other across the House and they do not have the call, it is not permitted. You can interject on the speaker, by all means, but members interjecting on each other without having the floor—they do not have the floor—are not permitted to do so.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill

Second Reading

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a second time. The Waitaki District Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill considers three pieces of land in the Waitaki district, those being in the town of Ōāmaru. The purpose of this local bill is to revoke the reserve status of the Palmerston Showgrounds, to revoke the reserve status of land in Witham Street in Ōāmaru, and to clarify the status of land known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights.

The first two matters in the bill are straightforward. The bill revokes the reservation of the Palmerston Showgrounds land under the Reserves Act 1977 and vests ownership of the land in the Waitaki District Council. The council had thought it owned the land, and entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the current lessees. When the ownership is vested in the council with the passage of this bill, the council can then sell the property. This is an issue that might well make the junior whip across the House yawn with boredom, but I can assure that member that to those people who live at the Palmerston Showgrounds this is a matter that is actually quite important to them, and so to—

Grant Robertson: Senior whip.

JACQUI DEAN: Oh, I am sorry, it is the senior whip. Well, you would never know to look at him, would you?

The second item in this bill is the second parcel of land—which, again, the council thought it owned, so it was a mistake on the behalf of the local authority—in Witham Street, in about the centre of Ōāmaru, and not too far away from where we live, by the way. The council sold the land to the current occupants. The council wishes to put right this mistake and to be able to vest ownership of the property in the current proprietors. Again, when I meet those people, as I do occasionally when I am out buying bread, they ask how the bill is coming along, because it is something that they are a bit anxious about. They really would like to have the status of the land where their home is and where they live clarified. So those are the first two issues brought with the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill.

Thirdly, the council wishes to clarify the status of Lookout Point, which is also known as Forrester Heights. For those people who have been to Ōāmaru, Lookout Point is the beautiful piece of land to the south. You look down and you see Ōāmaru Harbour, Ōāmaru out to Pukeuri, out to the north, spread out before you. It is truly a beautiful part of Ōāmaru, and a very nice part of the town on a beautiful piece of land.

The land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu as part of the Kemp purchase. That parcel of land now known as Forrester Heights was included in the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru back in the 1900s. The land was set aside in 1885. Under a Gazette notice in 1885, it was “ ‘reserved for the purpose’ of an endowment in aid of the funds of the Oamaru Borough Council.” Although the junior whip for the Opposition may yawn at this point, this is actually quite pertinent to this bill, and it does matter to a lot of people—

Chris Auchinvole: Senior whip.

JACQUI DEAN: Oh, senior whip? Are you sure? He is? Oh, OK. The confusion has been whether the word “reserve” relates to whether the land has been designated a reserve under the Reserves Act, or whether “reserve” means set apart—

Chris Hipkins: How are Jemima and Big Ted?

JACQUI DEAN: —I know I am probably speaking too quickly for the whip, but, anyway, we will box on.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received extensive advice on this very point. Based on the evidence presented to us by submitters—and we received some quite extensive submissions on this point from a number of submitters, and I want to thank them for the work they did on this bill—and also the advice the committee received from officials, the committee concluded that Lookout Point is not a reserve, and confirmed it as being vested as an endowment in the council in aid of borough funds.

It is interesting to note that this issue was also canvassed by the Primary Production Committee as part of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, in clauses 18 to 20. In its select committee report, the committee noted that Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation, which both have an interest in this, had reviewed their records, and they were satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was—and I will quote from the report, because I think it adds weight to the decision of the committee—“a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word ‘reserve’.” So it has been the most terrible tangle, and it has certainly tied up the local community for a number of years.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received a number of submissions on the Forrester Heights part of the bill. There were around six or seven submissions in favour and 10 against this particular provision in the bill. There were no submissions against the first two provisions that I outlined, but there was certainly more controversy around this third provision.

Also, I want to take time to thank all those submitters who took the time to join us by teleconference, to travel to Wellington, or to write in with their submissions and very helpful photos and documentation in aid of their submission. I can assure them that the committee looked at each and every submission and argued—as committees do—over every point raised. I am happy with the conclusion that the committee came to. A number of those submitters focused on the status of Forrester Heights, on its status as reserve land or otherwise, and a number of submissions and submitters focused on the past, present, and future potential uses of the land known as Forrester Heights.

I want to cover now matters that were not considered as part of the bill. Any proposed use of the land is a matter for the Waitaki District Council and is out of the scope of this bill. I do not propose to tell the local authority what to do with the land. It is not the job of Parliament to do that, and it is out of the scope of this Waitaki bill. Whether the land has been used, perhaps wrongly or rightly, as a public reserve since the 1890s, whether the land has under-runners and is prone to movement or not, or whether the land should or should not be subdivided and sold is not the business of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and, indeed, is not the business of Parliament. I am firmly of the view that through this bill Parliament has been asked to clarify the status of the land, and it has been asked to do only that. It is for the local authority, together with the local community, to decide any use that the land might be put to in the future.

I am very happy to bring this bill to the House on behalf of the Waitaki District Council. This has been a difficult and longstanding issue for the Ōāmaru community. I was pleased to hear the Waitaki District Mayor, Alex Familton, tell the committee during his submission that whatever the outcome of this bill, whatever the status of the land, he would put any future use of that land back to the community. I applaud him for that. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): The Labour Party supported the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because we were interested in hearing the submissions and looking at the evidence that was to be provided in terms of three pieces of land that were being covered by this bill. The reason we wanted to look at it closely was that for the first two pieces of land that Jacqui Dean has mentioned—the Palmerston Showgrounds and another lot in Ōāmaru—there is little or no controversy at all, but the third piece of land, called Lookout Point, in Ōāmaru, has been controversial. So we wanted to go to the select committee, to hear the evidence, and to see whether this particular piece of land was land held in reserve or land that had been endowed to Ōāmaru Borough Council, and, therefore, could be used in the way that it wanted. We went along with an open mind, wanting to hear what would be said.

There were not a lot of submissions on this bill, but there were two significant submissions that I want to mention—one from Mr Warren Crawford and one from Mr Barry Monks. They had done a lot of work around this land at Lookout Point, because they were firmly of the view that this land had been made reserve land back in the 19th century. They believed that this land was not the council’s to be able to dispose of in any way at all, and that it needed to be kept in reserve for the people of Ōāmaru. So in many ways, this bill has been quite a difficult one. In fairness to the select committee and the members on it, we were seeking the confirmation that this land could be sold, could be subdivided, and could have done to it whatever Waitaki District Council wanted to do with it. I have to say that we made a genuine attempt to get all the information that we could. The bottom line is that I believe that what we were provided with, after long deliberation and a very extensive search by legal people, is that the council does have this land as endowment land; the land does not have a reserve over it.

I can see why it was confusing. Evidently, there was a bill that had been presented to this House that was to, in effect, make it reserve land, but it was never passed. On that basis, many of those who have been worried about this land were basing their evidence on a bill that was never passed in this Parliament. I do want to commend those two submitters, who set out to get as much information for the select committee as they could, particularly Mr Barry Monks. It was Barry Monks’ submission, in my view, where he presented a lot of evidence and lot of old documents that he had found himself, that made us go and ask the officials to go back and search the records again. It was Barry Monks’ submission that really made us have that rethink. I commend him for that, because he was able to provide documents we had not seen before.

In fact, if you look at the whole issue around the gathering of documents, I think it was rather unfortunate because there were documents that were missing. There were documents that they had found that they had got from libraries and so on, and when they went back to get further documents they found that they had been removed—in fact, even cut out of old records, which makes people very suspicious. What is going on when you cannot find documents, and when documents that were there have since been removed from the database? And so we went through, I think, very thoroughly, looking to see the status of this land. I think it would have been better for all the people of Ōāmaru if the council had consulted better, and we did raise this issue with it around its consultation. It was not good, and it has left people very suspicious of its motives.

It has also, I think, meant that people believed that the council was interested only in hocking off this bit of land so that it could have money to restore its opera house. And there was concern that because the local member, Jacqui Dean, had been very supportive of the opera house, somehow she was in league with the council and there was some sort of conspiracy around this.

Chris Auchinvole: No, surely not.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am not saying, Mr Auchinvole, that that is what we believe, but because of the poor consultation, because of the process, and because of missing documents and a lack of clarity, people were, rightly, left with that impression. That is why it was important that we did thorough work on establishing the legality of this land. Is it a reserve? Was it endowment land? I have to say on behalf of the Labour Party that we are satisfied that this is endowment land that the council can dispose of.

We then get to the point of what it wants to dispose of it for. Some of the submissions raised the point that this particular piece of land is pretty unstable. In fact, there have been slips up there. They gave us photographs showing that this land was not stable and asked how this could be used for a subdivision. That is something that the council has to work out, and it is not our job to decide whether land is stable or not, but that was an issue that was raised. I am pleased that a number of my colleagues took the time out to actually go to Lookout Point. I have got two of my colleagues who are sitting here very interested. In fact, Mr Twyford is going to speak on this bill. He made a special trip to go and look at the land itself and to meet with those who were concerned, and so did Damien O’Connor. As good Opposition members of Parliament—sorry, I forgot a third person. David Clark from Dunedin also showed great interest. So we had three Labour members of Parliament, which is probably more than the National Party. Jacqui Dean has no doubt been there, but I am not sure whether the rest of the National members even know about it. But I do know we were prepared to uncover every stone in search of what the appropriate designation is for this land. In my view, we have reached the point where we are satisfied.

There is one irony I do want to point out, though. If this land is subdivided and sold for the restoration of the opera house by the council, the irony is we have a bill before this Parliament, a local government amendment bill, amending the Local Government Act 2002, which says that the councils should be involved in only things that councils can be involved in. You would have to say: is the use of the money from this land appropriate for the restoration of an opera house under the Government’s definition of the purpose of local government? We would say yes. We believe that it is. If the community wants it, if it has consulted with the community, if it is a community decision, then that would be appropriate. However, under National’s Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, it would not be, because surely an opera house could be provided by the private sector. So there is this sort of—is it a schizophrenic approach? Maybe it is the hypocrisy approach to local government, wanting the money from this land to put into an opera house for a council that is being told that that is not really the sort of thing that it ought to be involved in.

We do support this bill in the second reading and will support it throughout its stages because I believe the hard work was done on this particular piece of land, Lookout Point. It was the controversial part of the bill, and I think the select committee, ably chaired by the member from Christchurch Central, resolved the issues satisfactorily.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to speak on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. The first thing I would like to do is acknowledge the excellent local member, Jacqui Dean, and the huge amount of work that she has done to ensure that this bill is taken through Parliament. She is a great local member. I did hear in some of the other speeches—and I want to just address this—that some members have gone to the beautiful place of Ōāmaru to do their own research. I think that is a great thing if a piece of legislation is going through the House. Not all other members on this side have been able to do that, but we have so much confidence in our local member, Jacqui Dean, and the work that she has done over several years, that we did not necessarily need to visit, and I do look forward to visiting in the near future.

I also would like to acknowledge the very competent chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, who has worked tirelessly as well with the local member, Jacqui Dean, on this bill.

As has already been mentioned, this bill deals with several provisions around land. One of them was more controversial, as has already been mentioned. The less controversial ones were the Palmerston Showgrounds and the lot 1 ones, which were more straightforward because they are a revocation of the land’s Reserves Act status. In the case of the Palmerston Showgrounds land, the bill will allow the Waitaki District Council to sell the land to the current lessees. In the case of the lot 1 section, the bill will allow the Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors, and will allow title to their property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act.

When we get to the key area that has been the subject of many of the submissions that we have received, Lookout Point, I think it is important to reiterate what has been mentioned by both the member Jacqui Dean and the Hon Annette King, and that is that in all of the submissions you can see the huge amount of work that many people have gone into to ensure that the research happened. If we just go back through the history here of Lookout Point, there was a very, very clear disagreement, or misunderstanding, or confusion, if you like, that needed to be resolved. The particular issue with regard to Lookout Point was that an administrative oversight in 1937 had mistakenly vested the land in what was then the Ōāmaru Borough Council as a reserve. Reserve status and endowment status are two completely separate concepts, and this was not fully appreciated in 1937.

We discussed this at length at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to pay tribute at the moment to the huge amount of work done as well—it was not just by local people in Ōāmaru—by Land Information New Zealand, Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. As to what came back, there is a very clear statement from our report, because I think it does resolve this longstanding issue, after lots of research by the community, and all Government agencies, and the local member for Waitaki. I want to read this key statement from the Primary Production Committee’s report on the Reserves and Other Land Disposal Bill: “Having reviewed their records, Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word ‘reserve’. While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as ‘reserves’ for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.”

For me, that statement summarises several years of work by people in the Ōāmaru community, by the local member, Jacqui Dean, by numerous Government departments, and by the Primary Production Committee. I want to address that, because I think it is important at this point as well not only to say that there has been research by the community, that our select committee has considered the bill at length—

Hon Member: The Labour members.

NIKKI KAYE: —and that the Labour members have gone down to Ōāmaru, I acknowledge that, and that the National members have put a lot of faith in Jacqui Dean, because we know what a great member she is—

Maggie Barry: And I’ve been there.

NIKKI KAYE: And Maggie Barry has personally been there, as well. As Annette King said, I think, we will leave no stone unturned, which is incredibly appropriate given that we are talking about Ōāmaru.

But can I come back to some more of the history, because I think members will be very interested in this. The Primary Production Committee heard submissions on 7 May 2009, and the council presented to the committee at the time. This was the key part of its report, which I think is aligned with our report, but it says, as reported back from the Primary Production Committee: “Clauses 18 to 20 relate to land in the Waitaki District known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights. The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether Lookout Point was mistakenly treated as reserve land under Reserves Act legislation, or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.” I think what is really important is that we come back again to that point—

Phil Twyford: Cut to the chase.

NIKKI KAYE: No, it is very important, given that so many people have worked on this issue, Mr Twyford, that we go through this history and understand that there has been a lot of research by Government agencies, the community, the Primary Production Committee, and the Local Government and Environment Committee. I know what it is like to have a local issue that is of controversy. What I am very confident of as I stand in this House is that we have left no stone unturned. We have had this issue go through several select committees in Parliament. There has been so much research on this issue.

But the key, important point that I want to make is that through several select committee processes we have ended up at this point where we can say we are confident in the approach we have taken with regard to Lookout Point. But what we have said in the select committee’s report on the bill is that the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is currently before Parliament, and we have made this point: “We know that clause 7 of this bill is the same as clause 20 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which is currently awaiting its second reading in the House.”, and what is important is that “There is nothing in Standing Orders that disallows two different bills from having identical clauses.” I think the conclusion is that in this circumstance “the identical clause can be removed from whichever bill is enacted second by an amendment at the committee of the whole House stage.” I wanted to raise that point because I think it is very important for this House to understand that so many members across the Chamber have cared so much about this issue that we have got two identical clauses in two bills. We know that it is important to the people of Ōāmaru to resolve this issue finally and once and for all. That does not mean that every person in the community will be happy, but what it means is that there has been a very, very thorough process with regard to this bill.

Again, I want to acknowledge the member for Waitaki, because I think she has dealt with this issue with incredible diligence. She has carried herself well throughout it. I want to acknowledge the people of Ōāmaru for the many submissions they put in. I want to acknowledge members across the House. I can see Eugenie Sage. I can see the Hon Annette King. I want to acknowledge Nicky Wagner, the brilliant chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and other members of the committee for the diligent approach we have taken on this issue. Finally, can I commend to the House this bill to resolve this issue once and for all, so that the people of Ōāmaru will know that we have left no stone unturned and they can sleep easier tonight. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Back when I was considerably younger—

Dr David Clark: Before that speech started.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Before the last speech started—actually, it was a lot longer than that. Over 5 years ago I was the Minister for Land Information. I was also the former member for Otago; Jacqui Dean knocked me off my perch. The local council came to see me and said it had a problem. It had a piece of land called Forrester Heights, and it was only a very small part of Lookout Point, which is an issue that vexes some locals in terms of the terminology we are using around this. But, anyway, the council came to see me and said: “We want to put it beyond doubt that this land is endowment land rather than reserve land.” If it was reserve land and it was properly set aside as a reserve, then it could not just be taken by the council and sold, with the money to be put into some other purpose. If it was an endowment, if it was endowment property, then it is treated as an asset that the council can do what it wants with, including selling it and using the money for some other purpose.

I was aware that there was controversy around this, because some of the members of my own labour organisation at the time, and the Labour Party, had a contrary view. As the Minister for Land Information it was my duty to find out whether the council was correct or whether the opponents to sale were correct. Despite the fact that it might have been politically advantageous for me to take a political line, I never did. I actually just sought the facts.

How do you do that? Well, if you are the Minister for Land Information the traditional view is that the ministry writes to the Department of Conservation and seeks its advice as to the proper status of the land. The Department of Conservation has got planners and it also has a duty to make sure that conservation interests, including those in respect of reserves, are properly dealt with. If, as a basis of that inquiry, it becomes clear that the status of the land is incorrectly recorded on the title to the land and it needs to be fixed, then the route through to doing that is generally through a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. There is a good tradition in this Parliament that the only things that go into a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill are things where it is clear that there is a mistake on the title and it is not contentious.

I looked into it and I had initial advice from the Department of Conservation, which advised Land Information, which advised me that this land was properly described as endowment land. Because of the criticisms and the correspondence and the personal representations I had had from the other side, I actually got the department, through my office, to go back and check. It did, and it found again that it was endowment land, not reserve land. So way back then, when I was considerably younger than I am now, we put it in a bill.

The sad thing about this is that the delay here has had quite serious financial consequences for the council. Since this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper and has been mucked around with for 4 years, property prices have gone back in Ōāmaru. The amount the council is going to get for these sections has decreased. A number of the contracts the council had to sell sections will have fallen over because they will have passed the date by which—

Jacqui Dean: It’s all gone.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is all gone. All of them have fallen over because they are beyond the point where they had to get their Resource Management Act consents and provide new titles to the lots being sold. I have to say to the National Party that I do not think that reflects very well on this House, because this has—

Jacqui Dean: No—it sat for 3 years on the Order Paper under Labour.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Jacqui Dean says it had 3 years on the Order Paper under Labour. That is not correct, because I was not the Minister for Land Information for 3 years, and it was actually me that put it in the original Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. What is correct is that at the end of the last Parliament it was in a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Ever since then it has been able to be passed within a week—within a week.

Hon Member: It wasn’t a priority.

Hon DAVID PARKER: But it was not a priority for the Government. The Government then decided it would start this process again, despite the fact that all these things were looked into by a prior Primary Production Committee looking at the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It thought it would do it again through a local bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill—sorry, not the Government, the local member. I think the local member was right to do that, and Jacqui Dean is to be congratulated on doing that, because there was no other way forward. The Government refused to bring this matter forward on the Order Paper.

There are a couple of things. The paper record of this is tortured. It is so tortured that the select committee that last looked at it was persuaded by a submission from Barry Monks, who had turned up an archive that no one else had turned up. Barry Monks is to be congratulated on finding a paper trail in this that none of the departments, as far as I am aware, had found. That paper trail appeared to say that this was a reserve, rather than a piece of endowment land. But there were bits of information that went both ways, and so the select committee said that the only way to sort this out was for the select committee to get some legal advice on the basis of all of this paper that had now been found, and the full history that was then available, in order to clarify whether at law it was endowment land or reserve land. Sadly for Barry Monks and the other people in Ōāmaru who feel very strongly that this is properly classified as a reserve, the proper advice is that on the balance of the evidence it is endowment land. So a decision has to be taken. The Local Government and Environment Committee members from both sides of the House reached the conclusion that it was properly endowment land and therefore it ought to be sold, which, of course, was the effect of the provision in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill as a consequence of the process we went through when I was considerably younger.

There is one further point. We hear this land described as Lookout Point. I know that one of the issues that vexes some of the local opponents to this is that they think this misdescribes this land. The land is locally known as Forrester Heights, which is part of Lookout Point. Lookout Point includes some very important reserves, and there is no doubt that a lot of the land on Lookout Point is a reserve. There are walking tracks on it. It is not part of the land adjacent to the road, which is the Forrester Heights subdivision. Lookout Point goes further than that. So I want to put on record for the satisfaction of those people who are interested in that issue that I agree with them—it is properly described as Forrester Heights rather than Lookout Point—but the legal description of the land, which is what matters in this bill, is correct.

It is a shame that the finances of the council are worse because there has been so much delay in passing the original piece of legislation, which still languishes on the Order Paper. You know, this Parliament could have passed the original bill and not just fixed this problem but fixed the about dozen other issues that are also fixed in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—which was going to fix similar problems in other parts of the country—in the same time that it has taken us to pass this bill. In fact, there would have been a lot less waste of select committee time doing again what has already been done. But, no, it has been chosen to proceed by way of a local bill, because the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, became frustrated that her Government would not pass the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which was of identical effect in respect of the Forrester Heights land. She found that to advance that, the member had to advance a local bill. It is a pity that this could not have been advanced as part of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

I am sad for the people who think that they were right in terms of their criticisms of the council. Could I also say that the confusion that reigned in this was not the fault of either the council or the people who thought from the paper record that this was properly reserve land. It was a truly confusing set of affairs. I am not criticising anyone on either side of the debate. Sadly, in the end, where there is a dispute as to what the correct state of affairs is, someone eventually has to make a decision. Otherwise these things would just go on until I am retired—even older. But the reality is that in the end, where there is a dispute, someone has to take a decision eventually. In this case, both sides of Parliament have looked at it responsibly and in a principled manner, have applied the law, which it is our duty to do, and have found that this is endowment land. Accordingly, the Labour Party will be voting for this bill.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak with pleasure to the Waitaki District Council Reserves—

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to inquire whether the member has, in fact, visited Forrester Heights, because there is a Standing Order called the “Maggie Barry principle”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member is being facetious. That is a debatable point, quite frankly. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have dealt with the issue.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to note that there is a continuing pattern of the point of order process being abused in this House, and that is a very good example.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I have dealt with the issue. This is a robust Parliament. There is always some leeway, and it is up to the Speaker to judge the situation. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry.

MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Holly Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just have a query regarding the speaking order. I believe that the next speaker on the list should be my colleague from the Green Party Eugenie Sage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Actually, to be quite truthful, you are absolutely right. But I am now in the awkward position that once I have called someone I have to accept the call. I did not see the member. My apologies. Unfortunately, I have called Maggie Barry, and she has to take the call. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry.

MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let the record stand true that Maggie Barry stands to speak to the second reading of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, after a couple of false starts, and mischievous ones at that. There is nothing uncommon there, though, particularly from the member who has come a long way from Devonport to Te Atatū, and apparently he has flip-flopped on his holidays down to Ōāmaru. How commendable.

My family landed in Ōāmaru back in the 1860s. It is an area we know particularly well. I am very happy to speak to this bill, and I commend Jacqui Dean as a local member for finally getting this up and running. There have been a number of submissions around this over a number of years. We heard recently from the shockingly aged David Parker—such is the toll that leadership has taken on him. He has certainly aged in front of our very eyes, has he not? The legislation languished under Labour for 3 years. There were submissions called for at that time, which never got anywhere.

I note the energy of Jacqui Dean, who had to put up with a lot of silly conspiracy theories, which the Hon Annette King said she did not share but still wanted to talk about again today. There have been a lot of mischievous comments made around this, and I noted that Barry Monks has been talked about a lot. He was a submitter who came up with some arcane and, as it turned out, totally unfounded and incorrect information, which held the Local Government and Environment Committee’s deliberations up for some period of time because it was wrong—completely wrong. That was the advice we had. Interestingly, though, Barry Monks has a long association with the area as the Labour Party candidate—the failed Labour Party candidate—for the area. Jacqui Dean holds the seat. I wonder why so many Labour Party people went down there to have a look. But let us put that to one side. We will give them the benefit of the doubt. It is not something that they usually do with us, but we have a lot more largesse than that.

I would like to talk about the issue at hand, which is the putting right of something that is actually not something we should be dwelling on for this length of time in Parliament. The status of the land needed to be defined. This bill does that. There were mistakes made by councils, dating back a very, very long way. Section 13 of the Public Reserves Act Amendment Act 1862 provides that whenever any land is set apart by the Governor as a public reserve, and by publication in the Gazette has been declared to have been set aside as a reserve, that land is not to be alienated by way of sale, mortgage, lease, or otherwise. There is no argument about that, but it is about how this land is described. There is no evidence to support the view that Lookout Point has been set apart as a public reserve under that amendment Act. We discussed all of this at length.

When you go back through the files—and I guess the Ōāmaru Borough Council in those days was commendable, in that it tried to keep as many records as it could; it was very careful about what it did with its paperwork, but it did slip through and this was a mistake—when the council searched through what was there, it was able to go through a very large paper trail indeed. I think a lot of our submitters are to be congratulated, because they spent a lot of time and a lot of effort going back through the history, going back through the paperwork, and trying to determine what, in fact, is the status of this much sought after and locally very important piece of land.

I do know Ōāmaru very well. I have been there many times in many incarnations, as it were. Its botanic garden is amongst the oldest in the country, and a very fine one it is too. It is visible from Forrester Heights, or Lookout Point. For those members of the Labour Party who did not go on the tiki-tour down there, we were given the pictures and we have had a look at it. To refresh our memories, this is a prime piece of land that also looks out over the blue penguin colony. What some members may not know—such was the exhaustive nature of some of the submissions that we all know it now—is that it is a remarkable piece of avifauna, rich reserves of dead bird fossils. It is very rare in the South Island. Bird bones, especially of the moa, are recorded findings in the limestone and have been preserved, which make the area unique. So there are very many reasons why a lookout of this kind will be preserved. It needs to be properly understood in terms of what its status is, so that it will be preserved in perpetuity.

We heard from Mayor Alex Familton, and the chief executive officer of the council, Michael Ross, as well, that when this is finally resolved and goes through, as I am sure it will, once the Committee deliberations have occurred and then it is back here in the House again for its third reading, they have undertaken to go back to the people of Ōāmaru and to ask them what it is that they would like. I think Forrester Heights and Lookout Point will be enshrined as a reserve and will keep that status. As Jacqui Dean has pointed out, she has been walking there many times. It is a favoured place in Ōāmaru to look out over the harbour and look out over what is an extremely attractive historic town.

There are a couple of issues that the council wanted resolved. It worked closely, incidentally, with Ngāi Tahu, which had also done a great deal of research on this matter and had found out that there was, in fact, no problem around the council’s view that the Waitaki District Council has a right to the freehold title to the land and that it is therefore not subject to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. This was something that was raised by a number of submitters. It is a legitimate concern, or it was felt to be. Once again, it was explored in detail. If anyone ever wondered about, I suppose, the robust nature and the rigorous nature of what goes on in select committees, this really is a case in point, this member’s bill. The level of detail that the submitters chose to come forward with was such that it then sent the very hard-working officials back to the books and back to the drawing board to double-check everything. I can assure you that the findings that we have come out with now are very much the accurate ones.

When this matter was discussed within the Primary Production Committee in relation to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, back in 2009, there were, I think, 37 written submissions, and there were a further 19 heard. That was that committee. But that was all put to one side, and the committee that I sat on, the Local Government and Environment Committee, considered 27 submissions, and they were very detailed as well. I have handed some on to my colleagues. Paul Goldsmith, who is chatting happily here, could perhaps hand them to me. Paul is handing over the submissions. Thank you—very good. He is paying close attention to his colleagues. There is a big stack of them. Suffice it to say that there were 27 submissions from interested parties, and we heard seven of them. The detail was enormous. There are kilos and kilos of material. There is some around there, as well. The other interested members of our party have also been looking at these. [Interruption] Yes, it is the visual part of the speech. I have the photographs, in fact, if the honourable member would like to see them. We could easily do that. This is a bill that we know far more about than we would ever have imagined possible, actually.

Land Information New Zealand has also taken a pivotal role in all this, and the Department of Conservation. They have looked at it exhaustively. They too are satisfied that treating Lookout Point land as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake back in the day. Their assessment of it—and it is one that I agree with—is that this mistake resulted from the various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. I guess with a country as young as New Zealand, sometimes the semantics have tripped us up where we have not had the traditional examinations at a local level. But these have, in fact, been corrected now. So although we very much appreciate the sentiment of the submitters and acknowledge that there is a contention in this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation, the belief very much of us on this side of the House and in the select committee is that the land was actually classified as a reserve for an endowment in aid of borough funds, rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.

The Otago Daily Times, not surprisingly—a very active local paper—has also taken a huge interest in this issue and has followed it. Again, as somebody who is relatively new to this House, I commend the local media for taking notice of, and paying close attention to, the detailed workings of cases that are reflected, from their local community, in the House. The Forrester Heights status is likely to change with something that the Otago Daily Times predicted earlier this year, and it is very much in favour of it as well, as are a number of the people who have written in and given letter contributions to the Otago Daily Times.

The Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens chair said that he was disappointed in the decision, because he was concerned that the land could be split up into residential developments, and this was something that was echoed by some of the submitters. I think it is that fear that motivated many people to come forward to our select committee. They were worried that if the status changed, then there would be other, less welcome changes that would be occurring, other than just tidying up the wording, the paperwork, and the semantics of it. But, as I said, the mayor came to the select committee and reassured us repeatedly that he would be checking with the people. It was an opportunity, really, to re-engage with the community on the use of land that was very dear to their hearts and the hearts of the community.

So it is with pleasure that I speak to the second reading. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I have been pleased to be a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which, as Nikki Kaye noted, has worked very diligently on this bill. I am grateful to Mr Parker for his explanation of the history of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill because it was very puzzling, as a new member, to see that there were two pieces of legislation that had gone through different select committees that dealt with the same piece of land.

The Green Party, like the select committee, has been diligent on the bill. Our co-leader Metiria Turei visited the site at Lookout Point—which, for members who have not been there, is this piece of land, Forrester Heights—and talked with the locals who were concerned about its future status; some of those people made submissions to the select committee. The Green Party’s position was to support this bill, at its first reading, to the select committee, and that is because it fixes historical clerical errors in relation to the legal status of two areas of land that continue to be uncontroversial. But based on public submissions to the select committee, strong community concerns about the proposed sale of Lookout Point by the council, and the inadequate consultation that the council did in relation to its proposed subdivision we will now be opposing the bill, unless there is support for Supplementary Order Paper 150 in my name. That Supplementary Order Paper seeks to delete clause 7, which is the substantive clause in relation to Lookout Point, and to make consequential changes to the bill.

The uncontroversial clauses in the bill are in relation to the reserve status of land with a former caretaker’s cottage on it, which is associated with the Palmerston Showgrounds in North Otago, and another small lot in Ōāmaru. Because the council sold these lots when it did not have the power to sell them, the bill regularises that by revoking the reserve status. It was those mistakes in the purported sale of properties that the council thought that it owned, but were actually Crown-owned reserve, that have obviously got implications for the current owners and occupiers of the land and obviously should be resolved. So we are supportive of those clauses that clear up those ownership issues for the current landholders.

But it is clause 7 that is problematic, because that is seeking to clarify the status of the Forrester Heights area of Lookout Point, and that is to be endowment land held by the Waitaki District Council. As endowment land it would be able to be sold by the council for this subdivision at Forrester Heights, and the council would use the funds, I understand, to promote the restoration of the Ōāmaru Opera House and the art gallery. Of course, that was the issue that attracted quite substantial submissions and, as Maggie Barry has noted, quite weighty submissions to the select committee because of community concern. Certainly, using the funds for the opera house and the art gallery is very worthy, but so is the retention in public ownership of land that the community values for recreation, for walking, and for the fact that it is the backdrop to the town and has got sweeping views from Cape Wanbrow out over the harbour and the town.

That is why we have changed our status on the bill and are not supportive of the land being endowment land for council purposes. That is largely because of the lack of consultation by the council. Submitters’ evidence was that the council had not consulted properly when it undertook the application for a subdivision, and that, in fact, it had granted itself a resource consent for the subdivision without that consent being publicly notified under the Resource Management Act and without appointing external commissioners to consider the application. So there was no opportunity for the public to get involved under the Resource Management Act processes and give their views to council on the potential impacts of the subdivision and on the value of that land to the public. I think that is partly why there has been such strong community concern, because there has not been a legitimate avenue for that to be expressed through the due legal process. Then, when the subdivision consent for Forrester Heights was due to lapse because it had not been implemented, the council extended the lapsing period again, without that being publicly notified.

As other members have noted, the land is significant because of its sweeping coastal views, because of its use for recreation, because the little blue penguin colony is at the base of the cliffs, and because of the limestone fossils and the use of the area by moas in the past. The community did not get a chance through the Resource Management Act process to highlight all of these values and to point out to the council that that would be affected by the subdivision.

As one submitter, Helen Stead, a former Waitaki District councillor, said, “WDC action by-passing formal local government planning process in favour of asking central government to make decisions over local land use without first giving local residents opportunity to comment is unacceptable. … Oamaru & Waitaki District residents & ratepayers have not been given the chance to submit on either the revoking of the Reserve status or the non-notified consent granting approval for development & sale of the land.” Certainly, we were given assurances by the mayor of the council that the subdivision signs would be removed, but I am not aware of the actual resource consent for subdivision having been withdrawn by the district council, so that means it continues to have the legal right to proceed with the subdivision if this bill goes through and if the land becomes endowment land, which the council can then onsell.

As other members of the House have noted, there has been quite considerable evidence, historical evidence, by submitters on the use of the land, and photographs like this one show the 1890 Arbor Day celebrations and the fact that the land has been treated as if it were a public reserve for more than a century. It was not only these Arbor Day celebrations and the fact that trees were planted there, but just the public use of the area as well. So there is strong public support for the land remaining in council ownership, and there was evidence provided by Mr Monks that the initial decision to vest the land as a reserve was not made in error. The evidence he gave was about the way the land had been treated by the Crown and local council since 1862, and, of course, it was recognised and designated as a reserve in the district plan until 2005, when the council changed that designation.

I certainly understand that the council may well choose to reconsider whether the subdivision development would proceed, but it still has the resource consent that would allow it to do that, and that is why the Green Party is opposing the bill unless Supplementary Order Paper 150 to delete clause 7 as it applies to Lookout Point is passed, because there has been an inadequate process and inadequate consultation by council with the community. The bill would essentially legitimise that and create another wrong by allowing the land to be sold. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First for the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, brought to the House by the local member, Jacqui Dean, and also I would commend Jacqui Dean for bringing this to the House in relation to this public land in the Waitaki district. New Zealand First also sent a representative down to Ōāmaru, our MP Denis O’Rourke, Christchurch New Zealand First list MP, to look at it. Denis, with a legal background and being a lawyer, was able to assess it and look at the various aspects of the properties in question and advise our caucus accordingly. We are in support of the land in terms of the Palmerston Showgrounds and also the northern piece of land in Ōāmaru, Lot 1, DP 345820, transferring across under this bill, because both of those parcels of land have been proven to be in the hands of current lessees, are no longer deemed to be reserves by the council, and are appropriate to be passed by this bill.

However, our investigations do not fully support the information that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee in relation to Forrester Heights. New Zealand First still has grave concerns about that particular block of land, and we still believe that there is sufficient community concern from many people within the community that that land, rightfully perhaps while it is in dispute, should continue to remain as a public reserve. There are questions over that endowment land status, and questions over it having been transferred to a reserve nearly 100 years ago and how that paperwork was all transferred and signed off by the Governor-General. In a sense, because that reserve has been a reserve for over 100 years, back into the 1800s, it is almost incumbent on this Parliament to ensure that the likes of it is preserved.

When a community has had land like that and has come to know land like that for such a long period of time as the backdrop to the town of Ōāmaru, and where so many people still associate it with being part of that extended connection of Lookout Point, and where so many people in the community do cherish it as reserve land, it is, in a sense, a shame that other members of the community would wish to take that away for all time and subdivide it into 5.8 hectares of subdivision and put “For Sale” signs up on sections for houses to overlook the Ōāmaru Harbour, and also create a housing backdrop for central Ōāmaru itself. We have concerns because the likes of the Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens association, the Friendly Bay Society, and many others in Ōāmaru say that it should not happen; therefore, we are not convinced that it should either.

I have been involved, over a number of years, in trying to acquire reserve land in many places and in going out on a huge limb to secure the likes of land at Long Bay on the North Shore, the likes of the Chelsea sugar refinery park land, and other land all around Auckland; also in helping the Auckland Regional Council to secure, was it Rakitū Island, out on the Hauraki Gulf, and in trying to secure more land under the Auckland Regional Council around the Auckland region; and, indeed, in supporting other councils around New Zealand to secure other reserves around New Zealand to have land in public reserve in perpetuity. So it also goes against the grain for me to see such a beautiful piece of reserve land, which is the backdrop to Ōāmaru, being put up for commercial sale, potentially, by its council, when so many other councils around New Zealand are trying to increase public reserve land for the use of our growing population. It does concern me that perhaps the priorities of the Waitaki District Council are not in accordance with a significant percentage of its population, and by going through with this particular bill we could, in fact, be reversing the tide of what is happening so often throughout New Zealand, with us trying to acquire greater green spaces for our population.

New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We are sad that we are not able to support the member. We commend the member for bringing the bill to the House, but at the same time when the information did come to the Local Government and Environment Committee from the likes of Barry Monks, Warren Crawford, and a number of others, there was still a certain level of doubt. Even though the officials have said that they believe it is correct, there is still a level of doubt, and I think that in these instances we should still err on the side of caution and we should always give land and reserves the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt in this case will result in the council taking something like $3 million profit from this land to go towards a $10 million refurbishment of the Ōāmaru Opera House, but money is money and once the money has gone, it is gone for ever. If the land is retained—if reserve land is retained and it is kept in that reserve status and situation—it will be there for ever. That is one of the things—$3 million will quickly come and go, but that reserve, once it is gone, will be gone for ever.

Some concern was also expressed by the community that—and I have not been up there myself, but it was mentioned to me—the views from up above and driving up to a particular lookout and other things would be affected by these houses being put there. Again, the impact on the community is that it takes away what have traditionally and for more than a century been various aspects and various lookouts over Ōāmaru. It would be a great shame if they were taken away.

Just in closing, can I say that New Zealand First will not be supporting this, and we hope that the district of Waitaki down there and the people of Waitaki can have another look at this. I think it was a great shame that “For sale” signs were put up a year or two ago for the land, before this was all determined, which caused huge consternation amongst many people in the community. That is not how it should have been. There was inadequate consultation. It did not go through a full, robust, transparent process, and, really, I think they should go back to the people of Ōāmaru and of the Waitaki district. The council should really ask the people of Ōāmaru and the Waitaki district whether they want it to go ahead with this, or whether the people want it to keep this reserve land for ever.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak in favour of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I do so with great pleasure. This is a local bill sponsored by the MP for Waitaki. My colleague Jacqui Dean, I think, has done an excellent job. Why I emphasised “for Waitaki”—

Paul Goldsmith: Where is Waitaki?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I have been there. I have been to Waitaki. I have been to Lookout Point. I have been to Ōāmaru.

Kris Faafoi: Where haven’t you been?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, when you get to my age, you have been to most places, really. So it is a bit like one of the other Davids—David Parker—said: there are pleasures in being of a certain age. But I was a little surprised. I had hoped to hear from Andrew Williams, who is no stranger to the needs of local government and certainly no stranger to the need for a council to control its own destiny—I would have thought that he would be keen to support the initiative, given the very careful work that has been done by the Local Government and Environment Committee, rather than him just saying that he does not really know whether councils should do this or not. This is a council-nominated purpose, and, basically, surely central government should take due diligence and great care, but treat that requirement with great respect. It is a locally focused bill, but not one beyond the comprehension of non-Waitaki people. Nor is it one that is trivial or not deserving of this Chamber’s time.

I would have to say that I am a little concerned at the rapidity with which the Green Party tends to vote against bills. I sometimes wonder whether the Green members do it in the comfortable knowledge that others will support it, whereas I think it would be probably more serious of them if they considered the consequences if theirs was the deciding vote, and what would happen, rather than saying “Well, everyone else is going to pass it—we’ll take a contrary view.” and relishing that.

Far from this not being an important bill, this bill is one that highlights just how important it is that this House does not forget the matters of community interest—that bills with a community focus are no less important than those with a national focus. It is a bill that helps to keep the current use of land viable while also addressing a historical error made, essentially, in relation to semantics. This happens. It happens particularly in land information memoranda. I am addressing these questions at the moment for people in the West Coast.

Bills like this are why we have electorate MPs representing their communities. It is a credit to Jacqui Dean that she has spoken for her region in such a fashion. I commend her for her effective advocacy as the member of Parliament for Waitaki. I would also like to take my hat off to Nicky Wagner, chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That was a great committee in the days when Phil and I were—

Phil Twyford: Oh, good times!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Phil Twyford and I were on that committee. It is a committee that can handle this sort of thing. It is a big committee. All parties are represented. It does a good job. It does a good job. And it has done a good job with this one.

Kris Faafoi: Let’s sing “Kumbaya”.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, I do not know—I think it is important that we do celebrate things when they are handled in a non-partisan manner to the benefit of a community. Kris Faafoi thinks it is funny. I do not think it is funny.

As the land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu in 1848—you want the details—as part of the Kemp purchase, the land was included in the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru. Ngāi Tahu have a significant place in this issue. As others have noted, they have taken considerable advice on the matter. They have confirmed to the council that their view is that the Waitaki District Council has a right to the freehold title of the land, and it is, therefore, not subject to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. That is significant.

It is a bill that has received support from its respective council, which has worked with and received support from Land Information New Zealand, the aforementioned Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It is not hard to see why this bill holds such diverse support.

The Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1, DP 345820 parts of the bill are straightforward revocations of the Reserves Act status. In the case of the Palmerston Showgrounds clauses, it will allow Waitaki District Council to sell the land to the current lessees. In the case of the lot 1 clauses, the bill will allow Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors, and allow the title of the property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act. This is as it should be. So, too, I would like to suggest for the critics, is the resolution to Forrester Heights, also known as Lookout Point. Glossed over, one could say, in the lamentations of Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Eugenie Sage, this issue has been raised before in Parliament. I would like to highlight again the support of Land Information New Zealand, which, as I say, is an organisation I have had some little amount to do with. It is a very, very considered group of people. It has systems that go back to the very first surveys in New Zealand, and it does not make decisions lightly.

The Department of Conservation, as discussed, provided its support in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill select committee stage in 2009. After receiving 37 submissions and hearing a further 19, the Primary Production Committee reported as follows: “The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether the Lookout Point land was mistakenly treated as reserve land under the Reserves Act legislation, or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.” We heard earlier from Labour members saying that this confusion concerned them. It concerned them. They went down and turned every stone—they turned every stone—and came away convinced. So this is not just a National conspiracy. It is a National-Labour conspiracy. To continue the quote, “Having reviewed their records, Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake, resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue, after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as “reserves” for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.” So it was a genuine mistake. On this side of the House—and I am glad we are standing shoulder to shoulder with Labour on this one—

Phil Twyford: Stop, stop, please.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —as many other groups clearly are, as well—we are of the opinion that progress and the best use of land should not be hindered by genuine mistakes.

This bill in intent and in action is local in nature but should not be only local in support. During my time as chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee I was proud to work on and progress bills such as these. They are very, very important, and you get a lot of satisfaction from it. Indeed, bills such as these are why we have the Local Government and Environment Committee, and why its tireless work and achievements under Nicky Wagner should be commended. I support this bill, and call on other members to do the same. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I just want to say that I am a little surprised that Maggie Barry took a call in this debate. There is a long-established principle—not really a Standing Order—known as the “Maggie Barry principle”. For example, if you do not have children, then you should not speak about a bill that relates to child rearing or children. It was very clear from Maggie Barry’s speech that she had never visited Forrester Heights. She showed us photographs and she told us stories about the old days when she visited the botanic gardens in Ōāmaru, but it was very clear that she had not visited Forrester Heights, and that is a clear breach of the “Maggie Barry principle”.

Labour is supporting this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. As colleagues have pointed out, no Ōāmaru stone has been left unturned as we have sought to solve the mystery that lies at the heart of this bill, and that is the controversy over whether or not this land that we are talking about at Forrester Heights was indeed endowment land, or whether it was land with reserve status. That confusion lies at the heart of the two debates, now, that we have had in the House on this and a lengthy select committee process.

A number of members of this House visited Ōāmaru and, in fact, visited Forrester Heights. I was one of those, and I want to thank Warren Crawford and Barry Monks, who have really done everything they could to try to ensure that the truth comes out in this issue. Barry Monks did significant historical research, working through—sifting through—what is an incomplete, confusing, and chaotic paper trail, the historical record about this block of land. I want to commend Barry Monks for the work that he did.

But it is clear—for members on the Labour benches, at least—that to the best of our knowledge, and to the best of our understanding and, I think, that of a majority on the Local Government and Environment Committee, it was in fact a genuine mistake, lost in the mists of time now, that this block of land known as Forrester Heights was regarded as reserve land whereas, in fact, it was endowment land.

I want to say to New Zealand First and Green colleagues in this debate that I believe that it is pretty clearly established that the question of what happens to this land—whether it is developed or not—is a matter for the Waitaki District Council to decide. It is not a matter for this House, through some back-door route—for instance, by denying a bill that seeks to rectify the legal status of the land. It is not a legitimate course of action for this House to interfere in the normal and legitimate workings of the democratically elected council of Waitaki District.

I can understand that the New Zealand First members take the view that they were not convinced by the discussion at the select committee. That is a matter of interpretation and reasoning. That is entirely their call to make, of course, and that is the basis of New Zealand First’s position. But I do question, really, the logic and coherence of the Green Party’s position in this debate. To vote against this bill on the basis that it does not believe that the quality of the consultation that the Waitaki District Council made in relation to seeking a resource consent for subdivision—the quality of public consultation—was good enough is not a legitimate or logical reason to vote against this bill. So that, I think, needs to be said.

Why were the people of Ōāmaru, or at least some of the community in Ōāmaru, so suspicious about this bill? I think there is a reason why the people of Ōāmaru were suspicious about what looked like, on the face of it, a kind of jack-up between property developers and local politicians to turn what they regarded as a piece of valuable public reserve land into a private housing subdivision, and the reason is that the National Party has form in this area. There is a reason why the public is suspicious of a party that never hesitates to try to sell off public resources and public assets into private ownership. That is the reason that the people of Ōāmaru are suspicious that the National Party would bring a bill to this House to try to flog off public reserve land. As it turns out, in this instance it is the right thing to do, we believe, based on the best reading of the historical record, to rectify the confusion and the ambiguity about the status of this block of land.

But there is a reason that people are suspicious of the National Party: because it has a track record of selling off assets that belong to the community, that belong to the public. The National Party believes ideologically that property and assets that belong to the people can best be shifted into private ownership and private control. It has a track record of constantly undermining our democratic institutions in local government. Within the next few days we are going to debate a bill in this House, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which does a gross disservice to communities and to local democracy in this country. So those are the reasons why people are suspicious of the National Party.

There is another member’s bill on the Order Paper currently. It is the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, which is another bill—

Hon Chester Borrows: A local bill.

PHIL TWYFORD: It is a local bill. I beg your pardon. Thank you to the member for correcting me. It is a local bill, but it is another bill that on the face of it looks like a deal that has been cooked up by local interests to shift a publicly owned water supply into private hands. People are suspicious of that, and they will be. The National Party gives them every reason to be suspicious about that. The members on the other side of the House do not like hearing a few home truths, but they should just listen, and, in fact, listen to the voices of the people of New Zealand who are utterly opposed to asset sales and privatisation.

I visited Ōāmaru as part of a trip around New Zealand talking to rural and provincial councils, and actually listening to them, about how this Government is squeezing the lifeblood out of local roads and local transport because of its misguided and mismanaged transport policies. I was in Ōāmaru and the local Federated Farmers and the local council were scathing about the failure of the local member to stand up for them on the question of local roads. There was not only the question of local roads and how this Government is cutting the funding for local roads and putting more and more pressure on the local ratepayer; they were terribly upset about what this Government is doing with the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill—taking the democratic rights of local communities away from them, and setting communities up all around rural and provincial New Zealand for forced amalgamations. That is what this Government’s agenda is in local government. That is why people have been so suspicious about this bill.

But, as it turns out, I believe that the member for Waitaki should be congratulated, as many colleagues have said, on bringing this bill to the House. It is a perfectly good and reasonable bill. The select committee has done its work. It has done its work, it has taken the advice of officials, it has investigated the historical record, and I believe that the best efforts have been made to actually determine what the appropriate status for this land is and whether it should be endowment land or reserve land. Labour is supporting this bill. Thank you very much.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I hesitate to stand up in front of my learned chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I would like to have my say on this important bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I was glad to hear from the previous speaker, Phil Twyford, his congratulations to the excellent member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, but I thought he was rather unkind in suggesting that there was some nervousness on the part of the local constituency about what the National Party’s intentions were. I mean, given the fact that this member has a 14,140 majority—

Hon Member: How much?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —14,140 over Barry Monks—indeed, this person who has been held up to be commended. That has been the number of people voting for Jacqui Dean, and I think that is a great testament to the popularity of that member in the local environment and a testament to the hard work and the support of the National Party.

There was a member who spoke earlier, Mr David Parker, who used to be a member in this area, I believe, some time ago. I understand that he tried to deal with the situation that we are dealing with in this bill, but failed to make any progress on what turned out to be a difficult and intractable issue.

Kris Faafoi: Shouldn’t you be talking about Epsom?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, well, funnily enough, that member did indeed come up to Epsom, and he failed to have much traction in that area, either. He spoke with a great deal of clarity on a number of issues in the Epsom electorate, but I do not think he gained a lot of sympathy with the locals. To be sure, the people of Epsom do tend to be focused on understanding the importance of enterprise in the development of this country and its economy, and I do not think Mr Parker’s messages around extra taxes and capital gains resonate very well with the locals up there, so he went on. I do think, nevertheless, that David Parker would make a fine leader of the Labour Party if he had an opportunity.

Fundamentally, this bill is about fixing an error that was made back in 1937, when this land was mistakenly vested in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve. We all make mistakes. Indeed, sometimes political parties make mistakes when they are choosing leaders and when they are deciding where the future of the party is going to be. I suppose we have to reap the consequences of our mistakes. There comes a time when you have to set them right, and it will be interesting to see whether over the next few days the Labour Party—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —rectifies what may have been a mistake. Sorry, do I need to shorten things? Oh, right.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Back to the bill.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Getting back to Waitaki, then, interestingly, this bill really harks back to history. When we look at this land, which was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu in 1848 as part of the Kemp purchase, it was then part of the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru. Then we go on to 1885, when the land was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the then Ōāmaru Borough Council. I heard another member, Chris Finlayson, in the general debate today talking about history. He was talking about the history of the Labour Party, which is going to be the subject of a seminar. It is interesting that they are focusing on the success of Norm Kirk.

Phil Twyford: It’s already been.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I would be very interested to hear some of the reports, because what you had here was celebrating the ability to take a 23-seat majority in 1992 and convert it into a 23-seat loss in 1975, and yet this is still held up as a great moment in history for the Labour Party. To go from a 23 majority to a 23 loss—I am sorry, that was 1972 to 1975. I am sorry about that. It is interesting. That was a remarkable period in our history, to go from such support in 1972 and then in 1975 being in a great deal of trouble.

Anyway, I am getting back to 1885, in that period when this land was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the Ōāmaru Borough Council. You cannot help but go back to 1885—

Brendan Horan: Is it actually going anywhere, this ramble?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —a very interesting time in New Zealand’s history, when this nation was being developed—somebody is trying to put me off—and when this nation was growing. When we look back at the seeds of that success in New Zealand in the 19th century, what do we see? We see the innovation that was so important to the farming communities around Ōāmaru, where it became a successful city and a prosperous part of New Zealand. We look at the export markets and the fact that New Zealand at the time had great access to the United Kingdom and was able to sell its produce around the world. Then we look at the skilled workforce that was ready and eager to work on the farms and to build with that Ōāmaru stone that beautiful city that we now visit and understand and love. Then we look at the development of infrastructure that was so important to the nation and to the development of this city, linking it with Timaru, linking it with Dunedin and with Christchurch. Then we think about the natural resources that the people who came from the other side of the world to Ōāmaru and set up their farms discovered, the gold up in the hills not far from Ōāmaru, and the fruit and vegetables and the grass from the land. Then we also think about the capital markets that they were able to draw upon, through sovereign funds from London, in order to grow and develop.

When we think about these, these are all the things that this Government is talking about in its Business Growth Agenda, which is the heart and soul of what this Government is trying to achieve here in this country. All those things that are so crucial now were indeed still crucial back in 1885, when this land that we are talking about here today was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the Ōāmaru Borough Council. I just wanted to reassert or underline the importance of all those elements of the Business Growth Agenda, which I think cannot be repeated enough in this House, because that is what this Government is focusing on and what it is all about.

I just want to draw back, if I may, in the last few minutes that we have available to us to some of the intricacies of this bill. When we reached 1935 and there was an administrative oversight that saw this piece of land mistakenly vested in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve, we found that as a result of this confusion and the result of the semantics, the reserved land was endowed. It should have been endowed instead of reserved, as was intended. We had a long period of time when there was some confusion over the exact status of this land. So the council has been working closely with Land Information New Zealand, with Ngāi Tahu, with the Department of Conservation, with the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and, indeed, with the member for Waitaki, the very fine Jacqui Dean. She worked tirelessly and meticulously to try to work her way through the complications of this situation to bring it to such a happy result as we have today. We have reached the second reading and we are not far off from resolving once and for all this issue, so that the local council can have the ability to have the flexibility of arrangements that it needs in order to continue to serve its community successfully, and in a way that does not unduly burden them with rates.

I was glad that the previous speaker, Phil Twyford, did mention the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which will be coming back to the House, because that is an excellent piece of legislation. Certainly, the thing that people around my neighbourhood are most concerned about is the cost of local government. This bill will deal with it in a particular way of great importance to the people of Ōāmaru. But the wider legislation that will be coming down the track before too long will start to deal with some of those four well-beings that have led to a massive growth in local government spending over the last decade, and will get local government focused back on its essentials, such as dealing with its reserve and endowment lands and moving the community forward.

Getting back on to Ngāi Tahu, which took considerable advice in the development of this legislation, they confirmed to the council that it was their view that the Waitaki District Council has—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. The next call is a split call, so I am calling Raymond Huo for 5 minutes.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): It is a great pleasure to take a call following that member who has just resumed his seat. I found Mr Paul Goldsmith’s speech on history very informing and entertaining. It is very regrettable that that member has not taught us about the history of the Epsom electorate.

But back to this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I would like to acknowledge Nicky Wagner—the good chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee—and also to acknowledge the member for Waitaki, Ms Jacqui Dean. She is doing a good job in bringing this bill to this House on behalf of her constituents, because they have waited for too long. Obviously, this bill is not her Government’s priority. The purpose of this bill is to—

Jacqui Dean: It’s a local bill.

RAYMOND HUO: Well, calm down. This is a very serious speech about a serious bill. The purpose of this bill is to revoke the reservation status of two pieces of land within the Waitaki District, and they are Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1, DP 345820—it sounds like this bill has taken me back to my commercial property lawyer days. This bill also seeks to clarify the status of a third piece of land, which is Lookout Point.

Labour supported this bill going to the select committee. As my colleagues the Hon Annette King, the Hon David Parker, and Phil Twyford have said in their previous speeches, Labour supported this bill but we did raise a concern about the land at Lookout Point. The first two pieces of land were uncontroversial, and the issue here was whether the third piece, namely the Lookout Point land, was endowment land—and so able to be sold—or reserve land, in which case it could not be sold. After extensive research it was found, and the committee was satisfied, that the status of the land at Lookout Point was endowment land. At the select committee we carefully considered the claims that the land had been set apart as a reserve in or about 1862. Based on extensive research and legal advice, we are satisfied that Lookout Point was never set apart as a public reserve under the Public Reserves Act Amendment Act 1862. I agreed with the opinion expressed at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the word “reserve” in this particular context, rather interestingly, means to set apart Crown land as endowments, and that it does not enable a public reserve to be endowed.

Having said that, we note that the chairman of the local group Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens, Warren Crawford, confirmed in January that his group continued to oppose the subdivision. It believed that the land should be retained as a reserve and planted in native trees, and suggested that children be involved in that on Arbor Days. The group’s biggest criticism was the lack of consultation, and, particularly, that a local member’s bill had not gone to a select committee, with the opportunity for public submissions. As a result, this bill did go to the select committee. That brings us to the four well-beings in the purpose section of the Local Government Act 2002. This National-ACT Government is about to ditch that section and replace it with a much narrower and restrictive purpose section. Also, this bill, although relatively uncontroversial, is a good example as to how important it is for us to remember that the four well-beings that are the purpose of local government—namely, the economic, social, cultural, and environmental well-beings—are what the “local” is all about.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will just make a point—I am sorry to interrupt. I take it the Greens were not taking the balance of their 5-minute call? It is a 10-minute call—Nicky Wagner.

NICKY WAGNER: It is my great pleasure to talk to this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, and I would like to thank Jacqui Dean for bringing it to the House. It has been a really interesting bill because it has become a bit of a historical whodunit. As we have heard from many of the speakers here tonight, the bill originally focused on three pieces of land—three pieces of property—in the Ōāmaru area. There was little debate about the first two pieces. There was very little debate about the Palmerston Showgrounds—that is Palmerston in Ōtāgo—or about Lot 1, DP 345820, which is actually in Ōāmaru. The reason there was no debate was that both Ngāi Tahu and the Department of Conservation agreed with the council and its proposed actions. There was no opposition and there were no submitters on that part of the bill. So those two pieces of land were very easily and quickly dealt with.

But the status of Lookout Point, which is also known as Forrester Heights, is a totally different matter. It is a particularly interesting piece of land, a beautiful piece of land, and a piece of land that the people of Ōāmaru have used for a long time and have regarded as a reserve. At first glance at the documentation, it seemed to have changed description several times over the years. Indeed, there have been many twists and turns in how the property has been recorded, hence the question over its final status. The people of Ōāmaru have been dealing with this issue for a long time. I thought it was interesting to note that it has come to the House before and it has been discussed, but we have never been able to get a solution. So we were very keen to be able to work our way through this process. It has been fascinating trying to untangle the various iterations. I would like to thank the submitters who came to us for their interest and for the documentation that they produced. There was a lot of detailed information, and it was very interesting to us.

The Local Government and Environment Committee was very conscious that we had to get this right. You do not want to carry on with another error and keep this going on and on. You want to make a final decision, so we were very sure that we had to get to the bottom of it and get it right. I think that regardless of the official status, this land has been considered by the people of Ōāmaru as a reserve, as a public place, for many years. It was interesting to see Eugenie Sage’s photographs of Arbor Day. The people of Ōāmaru have gone there and planted it over the years. I would like to compliment our advisers. They did an excellent and thorough job, researching the history of Lookout Point and establishing its status. It was originally put aside in 1885 by Order in Council as endowment land. It was reserved as endowment land to fund the Ōāmaru Borough Council. I think that is where the confusion has come about—the word “reserve”. It was reserved, it was put aside, as endowment land, but the word “reserve” has been used in a much wider sense and the people of Ōāmaru have seen it as a reserve.

We went back to our advisers, and we said that we needed to have a detailed background of that. So they went back to their books and they searched high and low, and although there have been many changes—they went through each of the changes as they were recorded—the status of the land has never formally been changed. Although there were many changes in how the status was recorded and the way it went through the process, it was never formally changed. Our advisers told us that, Land Information New Zealand agreed with that, the Department of Conservation agreed with that, and Ngāi Tahu agreed with that. But, understanding the level of controversy over the land in the community, the select committee checked again, and double-checked, and checked again. We are convinced that despite the recording errors, the status of the land is still as originally set aside—reserved—in 1885 by Order in Council, for the purpose of endowment to aid the funds of the Ōāmaru Borough Council, which now, of course, is the Waitaki District Council.

The committee tried to make this very clear in our report. So we were very disappointed to read the headline in the Otago Daily Times that said: “Forrester Heights status likely to change”—obviously, it had missed the whole point of the report and the nuances behind it—and it commented: “The reserve land status of land at Forrester Heights at Oamaru is almost certain to be revoked, after a parliamentary select committee report agreed that its status should be changed.” Well, I have to say to the Otago Daily Times that that is not right. The status of the land has never officially changed, which just goes to show that you cannot believe everything you read in the newspapers, so remember that. The issue is emotive and there has been a lot of confusion surrounding the land. You can see that the newspaper has mixed up the purpose of the bill, because what it has ended up doing is focusing on the public’s desire to use and enjoy the reserve land. That is not relevant to this bill.

We all understand that people like reserve land and that people like green space in their community. And I do have to agree with Phil Twyford that although people enjoy that, this is to do with local decision-making—nothing to do with the bill, at all. Unfortunately, I do not agree with all Mr Twyford says, but in this case I think he made a very valid point. Everybody does understand that local people want to enjoy the ongoing use of reserve land. Our job was not to decide whether this was reserve land or not; it was to clarify the status and the historical background, and that is what we did. What happens now to that land must be a local decision, and then people must talk to their council about that. It is nothing to do with us. Our job is to clarify the status. This is endowment land. There is absolutely no doubt about it. It is not a reserve. The confusion, I think, has been about the fact that it was reserved as endowment land. But I think we can be very clear, and the committee was sure.

I would like to thank Jacqui Dean for sponsoring this bill. I think she has done a really good job. It has been a difficult time and there has been a lot of controversy in the community. I would like to thank the advisers for their detailed, careful, and thorough research, and for checking, double-checking, and checking again. And I would like to thank the committee for its commitment to getting this right. We did not just skate over the top of it. We were sure that it was important that people had clarity, that they knew what the results were, and that we did not go on perpetrating something that was not true. Thank you. I support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 97

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 23

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 7 November.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Labour is supporting this Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill of Scott Simpson’s to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We are supporting it with a number of reservations. I want to make three points in the 5 minutes that I have tonight.

The first is that the Attorney-General has raised a number of concerns about the bill. Labour’s view is that unless we feel at the select committee that these concerns have been addressed satisfactorily, we will not be supporting the bill’s further progress. The Attorney-General has ruled that the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as it erodes the right to be presumed innocent. I want to quote the Attorney-General, who says: “the provisions of the Bill are too broad and are not in proportion to the objective. I have no evidence that the number of motorists who now escape responsibility for offending, but would be captured by the proposed amendment, is significant.” Well, that is a pretty serious objection. I would note that Scott Simpson, I think, has been quoted as saying that he does not know how many people would be captured by the closing of this loophole. In fact, I think he has speculated that it might be a handful of people. We would question whether, in fact, this is a good use of the House’s time to bring a bill like this to the House without that basic groundwork having been done, and without some data upon which to base the premise that this bill relies on.

The Attorney-General also found that the wording “for any reason” would mean that circumstances such as a health professional not being available, for example, to administer the blood test at the time would be a suitable reason, and that does not seem to be the intention of the bill. So that is our first point: the Attorney-General has raised some serious issues, both drafting issues and about the data upon which the premise of this bill is based in terms of the number of people who, supposedly, are evading the law. Those things need to be addressed.

I should probably have pointed out, for the benefit of people listening or watching who were not here for the first couple of speeches on the bill, that what this bill aims to do is to tackle the issue of people who are physically unable to give a blood test once they have been stopped for drink-driving who take a breath test and then nominate—as they are able to do under the law—to have a blood test. I think the law allows 10 minutes for the person to make that decision. Once that person nominates that they will have a blood test, the evidence of the breathalyser is inadmissible at that point. The problem that the member Scott Simpson is trying to solve with this bill is that there are some people—we do not know how many, but there are some—who, for whatever reason, are physically unable to give a blood sample. They are somehow gaming the system—this is the suggestion—by opting for a blood test, thereby making the breathalyser result inadmissible, but they are unable then to deliver a blood sample. That is the bill in a nutshell.

As I have said, the Attorney-General has some problems with that, and raised the possibility—I think, in fact, Mike Noon from the Automobile Association raised the possibility—that the police, for example, could say that they do not have medical staff present, and therefore that would render the evidence of the breathalyser inadmissible and the person would get off. So those are some concerns about it.

The other thing that has to be said in this debate is that there is irony in the fact that a National member would bring to the House this bill, which would close a loophole affecting—how many, we do not know—possibly a handful of people, when this National-led Government has consistently refused to raise the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05—

Michael Woodhouse: That is called a lowering.

PHIL TWYFORD: —lowering the limit; thank you to that member—in the face of overwhelming international evidence that 0.05 is the gold standard. That change alone would save up to 30 lives a year, but this Government will not do it, because of the optics, apparently. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I seek leave of the House to rise for the dinner break early.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I would like to start speaking on the first reading of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. I would like to begin by acknowledging the member Scott Simpson for introducing a bill with the very worthy aim of reducing drink-driving. I think we can all agree that this is an incredibly worthy objective. The Green Party would like nothing more than to see a reduction in the amount of dangerous drink-driving that does occur already in New Zealand.

However, having considered this bill as it has been introduced, I do think that it falls well short of the mark. It will do very little to reduce drink-driving, if anything at all. There are multiple ways that we could approach the problem of drink-driving. I think that it is a serious problem that the Green Party would like to see addressed, and we would be very happy to support members on the National side of the House, or any members in the House, or the Government, to this end of reducing drink-driving.

I think that the most obvious legislative change that the Government could make to reduce drink-driving would be to lower the legal limit for all drivers. I suppose I have a huge question in my mind: why is that sort of initiative not being taken? If this Government was actually serious about reducing drink-driving, surely it would be willing to take a step that so many other countries around the world have already taken: to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05. All the evidence shows it would make a dramatic difference in increasing safety on our roads, and increasing the safety and well-being of New Zealanders—whether they be in cars or not—if they are in the land transport environment in New Zealand. So it is with some regret that I note that this bill will actually do nothing at all to reduce the drink-driving that occurs in New Zealand.

Another very effective policy that the National Party, or members in the National Party, could take to reduce drink-driving and reduce onerous regulations, which I believe they are opposed to, would be to remove the requirements in district plans that currently force bars and pubs to provide massive off-street car-parks. On the one hand we have this policy, a public policy, that says “One shall not drink and then drive. One shall not drive under the influence of alcohol.”, yet on the other hand patrons of bars and of pubs cannot avoid spending the money for the large off-street car-parks that district councils are forcing bars and pubs to put in through their onerous district council regulations. I know personally that I have spoken with a lawyer whose client had a prominent, well-patronised bar in downtown Christchurch—this was prior to the earthquake—and that bar, because of the requirements in the Christchurch district plan, was required to put in 100 car-parks. That is 100 car-parks that they were forced to put in. It was a third of their overhead, so we are talking about a pretty substantial cost imposed on developers, which results in nothing if not people being more likely to drink and drive. It just seems to me that this is an easy policy win. It is a low-cost way of giving councils the signal that it is actually up to developers whether or not they are going to provide off-street car-parks. But particularly in the case of bars and pubs, I believe it would be extremely important for them not to be forced to provide off-street car-parks.

The question for the House is whether we really want to legislate to address what was only one problem in maybe one or two cases ever. That is what this bill does. It is for that reason that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill at the first reading. We simply do not believe that it passes the test of being necessary or being sufficient to address the problem of drink-driving in New Zealand. We are particularly concerned at the proposed wording in subsection (5), inserted by clause 4, which is very, very broad and very vague. What this says is that it is going to change the rules around the admissibility of breath tests for any reason at all, even though supposedly, purportedly, the bill is being introduced specifically for the case of when a blood specimen is not able—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Time has expired.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I am very, very pleased to talk in strong support of this Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. The principal reason is that I wrote it. As members know, only one bill can go into the ballot, and I do hope that my Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill does eventually get pulled out. In the meantime I pass this bill on to my very good friend and colleague Mr Simpson, who had the great good fortune to have this bill pulled from the ballot. I congratulate him on that good luck, but also on the very careful consideration in the process of bringing this to the House for its first reading. I congratulate him on the excellent work that he has done.

This bill actually had its genesis in a conversation I had with a senior constable in Dunedin who just happened to be my brother. It is actually quite advantageous coming from a very large family: one gets lots of policy advice on matters like aviation, defence, law and order, resource management, law, education, health, and so on. This was one of those conversations where he described an incident that had occurred to him in Dunedin, not dissimilar to the case that is described in Police v Childs, described by Scott Simpson in his contribution. Having pulled over a person suspected of drink-driving, an evidential breath test was taken where the fellow blew somewhere in the region of 660—clearly over the limit by that measure. He elected blood, but the blood was unable to be taken, because he was an intravenous drug user and his veins were not of sufficient quality to draw the necessary blood. Suspecting that the driver was also under the influence of illegal substances—interestingly enough, an impairment test was introduced under the drug-driving laws passed by this Government in 2009, when I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Being the new member on that committee I actually undertook the first impairment test, which was onerous. Nevertheless, this fellow—

Charles Chauvel: Did you pass?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I passed, yes, having been completely sober at 10.30 in the morning, which is the case, I reassure the House, usually. But, in fact, this fellow also passed, and therefore the doors were closed to any form of prosecution under the Land Transport Act as it exists right now. The judge addressed this issue, and, in fact, the police, I think, were quite optimistic in their attempts to charge this fellow with both refusing to permit a blood specimen or, in the alternative, driving with excess breath alcohol. Clearly, the latter is not allowed under this bill, and that is what the bill intends to remedy. But he certainly permitted them to have a go, and, in fact, he challenged them to have a go at getting blood out of this person’s veins. I want to quote the judgment; in fact, I think this quotes the counsel for the defence in the Childs case, where he said in his submission that “Had Parliament considered it appropriate to allow the prosecution to rely on the evidential breath test despite an election for blood taking place, it would have provided for such an occurrence, and that the appropriate place to review circumstances such as the inability to collect a blood sample despite compliance with procedure is Parliament.” That was in July 2012. Well, Parliament, through this member’s bill, had already addressed it, and this bill was in the ballot.

I want to come on to the question of the Attorney-General’s opinion in respect of whether or not this bill actually breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would respectfully suggest that the person writing the opinion on behalf of the Attorney-General is somewhat confused when he or she is describing that the effect of the bill “would therefore be that the results of some positive evidential breath tests, that would not otherwise be admissible in evidence, would then become admissible.” I think they are confusing the word “admissible” with the word “admitted”. The evidence is admissible, and, indeed, if blood is not elected, would be valid evidence before a judge. However, the law prevents it from being admitted into evidence, and I think that is a subtle but significant difference.

The other part of the opinion of the Attorney-General is that the presumption of innocence does not apply in this case, and I would again respectfully challenge that. The defendant, with whatever evidence is presented before the judge or jury, is presumed innocent in just the same way that, had blood not been elected, the breath evidence would be admissible, and the presumption of innocence would prevail. However, I do accept that this is an issue for the select committee to deal with when it comes before it, and I hope that it does. I am sure the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under David Bennett will look at the issue very, very closely. I strongly support this bill.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I think the previous speaker, Michael Woodhouse, made a proper concession just now that this bill, the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill, does need careful discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I hope, given that the two larger parties at least are supporting the bill to that stage, that it will get that careful scrutiny and discussion. I see that the chair of the select committee is here and is listening to the debate, so I think the House can have that confident expectation.

The bill, in the name of Scott Simpson—and I congratulate him on his good fortune in having it drawn from the ballot—aims to cure what I think he concedes is a very small number of cases where unusual events conspire to prevent a blood specimen being taken, and the example that I think has been used in a number of the speeches to date is the one where there was a person who was addicted to drugs and had compromised veins. The current situation is this. A breath result cannot be used as evidence once a blood test has been elected by the person who has been stopped at the side of the road, or at a checkpoint or what have you, for that purpose. The bill would provide that breath tests can be used if a blood specimen was not able to be taken from the defendant, and the words of the bill are “for any reason”.

I think the concern that I would want to put on the record is the breadth of the expression “for any reason”. I think people can see that it is a useful thing to try to plug a loophole, but I think that what we do need to do is make sure that we do not, as in the old clichéd proverb, use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What I would not want to see by passing the legislation, if that is the ultimate fate of the bill, is the legitimising of a failure by the police to take effective action to ensure that there was a blood taker available in circumstances where the legislation would set out that expectation. The problem that I have, just on my reading of the bill, is the breadth of the expression “for any reason”. It is very wide. It would include there being no blood taker on the roster that night. I know, and I know that other members in the House know, that police go to a heck of a lot of trouble at the moment to make sure that they can comply with the law. They do go to great lengths with their rosters to make sure that there is somebody who can take blood if that is the election that the driver on the scene makes.

Let us remember that these safeguards exist for good reason. The breath test is generally pretty reliable, but we know that there are cases where that has not proved to be the case. We should also remember that random stopping is an innovation in our law. It is an exception—and it was a controversial exception at the time it was introduced—to the principle that there ought to be reasonable cause for a seizure or search. We have seen the benefit of this innovation, because we have seen the road toll come down. So we all support it. But we want to make sure that the safeguards remain. We want to make sure that what we do not do is inadvertently give the police, who are pressured always for resources, some opportunity to cut corners by, for example, saying: “Well, we don’t need to have a taker of blood on the roster, because we’ve got this marvellous exception that Scott Simpson has given us, and it means that for any reason we can ignore that requirement.”

I just wanted to make that contribution in my speech. I think the policy of this bill makes a lot of sense, but we do not want to invalidate the entire regime that Parliament has carefully put in place over a number of years—breath test then blood test, but the blood test as a proper back-up in the case that it is needed—to protect liberty and to ensure that people going about their lawful business are not subject to penalties. So in order to support this legislation further, past the select committee, the Labour Party would need to see, at the very least, that matter considered and resolved appropriately.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I thank members for the many considered contributions to the debate from both the Labour and National sides of the House. First of all, I would like to commend the proponent of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill, Mr Scott Simpson. As a member from the Waikato region as well, I know Scott and he is a very, very loyal constituent member who has done a great job for his people, advocating for them time and time again and delivering results for his electorate. I think they are very lucky to have such a high-calibre member, and I think his exceptional degree of dedication and devotion to his electorate will shine through in future elections. So that is very, very good. I also commend Mike Woodhouse, our whip, who did a great job in putting this idea forward in an earlier stage, but—

Hon Simon Bridges: What about Phil Heatley?

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, I do not know about Phil Heatley, actually. But Mr Simon Bridges? Yes, that Minister is going to help us through this process. He is an excellent Minister, as well.

I think it is pretty obvious what the bill is trying to do, and members of the House have talked about it. I know that Phil might need it said again so that he can grasp it, but it is not that hard. There are some issues around how it will actually be done. That is the case with members’ bills. Often we put a bill forward, and the process of getting official advice and of letting members discuss the content of the bill through the parliamentary process in this House and through the select committee process is vital to make changes and get the bill right. I would like to thank the Labour Opposition for supporting this bill going forward so that we can go through that process and we can have a look at it.

Darien Fenton: Unlike that side. They don’t support our bills.

DAVID BENNETT: I see Darien Fenton over there. She is one of those very strong and very effective Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, along with Phil Twyford and Andrew Little. We look forward to their working constructively, as they normally do in the committee. It is a very good select committee, actually. We have very cordial relations in the committee. We have efficient and timely meetings, and we deal with issues of great importance.

Brendan Horan: What about the rail submissions? The Gisborne to Napier line?

DAVID BENNETT: Now we are getting New Zealand First. Those members always have to cause trouble. They cannot sit quietly in a debate like this. I guess there is a conspiracy theory about this bill, according to the New Zealand First mantra of politics. So what is the problem with it?

Brendan Horan: It’s actually the first sensible bill we’ve heard from that side for quite some time.

DAVID BENNETT: It is the first sensible bill. Are they voting for it? That is going to be the question. That will be the issue. Whether they can vote Yes will be another question.

I do want to congratulate members of the committee on the way they work together, and I think they will undertake to work in that way on this bill. Scott Simpson is actually a member of the committee, and a very fine member as well. I think he is going to have a lot of questions tomorrow at the committee meeting. I think his important role—

Kris Faafoi: He better read the bill, then.

DAVID BENNETT: —yes—on the committee as the proponent of the bill means he will take an active interest in how it passes through the political and legislative process.

I guess that, in the sense that we have always wanted to see the safest and strongest roading system that we can have, it is important that we make these changes where and if necessary to look after public safety. The No. 1 thing that members of this House are entrusted to do in regard to these kinds of bills is to make sure we look after our young people and our drivers and take the approach of trying to do the best we can so that we do not have issues where people try to game the system or take advantage of it, and so that there is a fair and equitable system out there that applies for all. Those are the words that New Zealand First members should listen to—“fair and equitable”. They are words that your leader holds dear, but to you as a party I say that we look forward to you supporting this bill, because it is fair and equitable. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member calling?

Denis O’Rourke: I am calling, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): That was probably because of the noise coming from the other side of the room. Anyway, I would like to say this in response to what I have just heard. In fact, yes, New Zealand First does support the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. We think it is a common-sense approach and, yes, we do think it is fair and equitable. It is fair to say that. We do think, in particular, that there is a defect in the Act as it is at present, where a positive evidential breath test is not admissible simply because the suspect person has elected a blood test but is in circumstances where no blood test is possible. That is a defect. It is a hole in the legislation and it does need to be fixed.

New Zealand First is very much in support of all practical means to make sure that such loopholes are closed and that people who are, in fact, guilty of drink-driving are caught. Provided that that is done with due process of law, then we think we should be as tight as possible in making sure that all such people are, in fact, prosecuted, and prosecuted successfully. It is just not good enough that somebody should be able to elect to take a blood test knowing, in fact, that a blood test is unlikely to be possible, and then to be in a position where their breath test is not admissible.

I would have to say, though, that I do not think that the drafting of this particular bill is very good at all. In fact, the provision—

Brendan Horan: Grammatically incorrect.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Well, that is true. My friend Mr Horan has said that it is grammatically incorrect, and it is poor grammar. It says in clause 4(2): “After section 77(4), insert: ‘(5) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply if a blood specimen was not able to be taken from the defendant for any reason.’ ” What kind of grammar is “was not able to be taken”? I do not know who wrote this, but they need to go back to school and learn some grammar. But, more particularly, we need good drafting of this bill. The bill should be amended so as to read, for example: “Subsection (3)(b) does not apply if it was not possible or practicable for a blood specimen to be taken …”. That is what I presume it means, and if that is what it is intended to mean, that is actually what it should say, not these poorly drafted words that we see before us.

When we see members’ bills coming forward in this way, people should at least take the trouble to draft them properly, so that not only is the English correct but also it actually says what it is intended to say. I think that the word “possible” or the word “practicable” is what is intended, so we want this to be amended. We want to see that it covers only situations where it is actually not possible to get a blood test or where it is not practicable to do so. So we would expect to see this amended accordingly.

Another thing that it should do is this. The last few words are “taken from the defendant for any reason.” That is not good enough, either. That is also poor drafting, because what we do not really mean is “any reason.”, and what we should do is tighten that a little bit as well. I think it should say, for example, “unavoidable reason.”, or words to that effect.

New Zealand First, if it going to continue to support this bill in the future, would like to see that it is properly drafted and amended accordingly. But I would like to go on and say this: drink-driving remains one of New Zealand’s most serious safety issues, and I do not think we are doing nearly as much in this country as we should about it. This is a very small measure. It is worthwhile, but we would expect of the Government that it takes a lot more action on controlling drink-driving.

The new amendments to the alcohol bill will take us a little bit further in respect of that, but we also need to take further actions in respect of who may drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege and there must be further restrictions on doing it, especially in relation to people who are affected not just by alcohol but also by any situation in which their driving ability is impaired.

So we would like to see much more comprehensive legislation than we see here. In particular, we need to address much more the behaviour of people who drink excessively. We need to be tougher with the penalties—much tougher than we are now—and we need to widen the scope of offences that already exist.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It gives me a huge pleasure to speak in favour of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. May I congratulate the initiator of this bill, Scott Simpson, the member for Coromandel. This is, indeed, a—

Hon Simon Bridges: It was Woodhouse who drafted it.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well, maybe it was. So there is another Government member to congratulate on this very good bill. I am also pleased to be standing to the right of the chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett. I know that he will very ably ensure that the bill goes through the select committee very expeditiously.

But I want to just go back in history a bit of time to when I was a young medico and the days even—believe it or not—before accurate breath testing. On the North Shore there was a very infamous doctor. What we used to do when the drivers were brought in was have them firstly undergo the “walk along the line straight” test. They were then asked a few questions, and if they failed both, they would have the choice either to have their blood taken for testing or to be put into the cell. The very infamous doctor was infamous because he was not good at getting blood. I vividly remember going in when I was a locum for him one day, and this guy had anticipated and said that he would go for the cell, thanks. But he was very relieved to see me and said: “Look, I feel a little bit embarrassed now that I’ve opted for a night in the cell. If I’d known you were on—you are pretty slick at taking blood—I would have opted for the blood test, and it would have saved me the night.” However, the relevance is this: today we do have pretty accurate breath testing. Of course, if someone opts against having an evidential blood test as well, then I think it is quite right and proper that the breath test is, indeed, taken.

There is the issue of those who have bad veins, and it is quite true that some number do have bad veins, whether they are those who take drugs all the time or, perhaps, someone on dialysis therapy. I can think of Joeli Vidiri, the great rugby player, who, sadly, is on dialysis treatment and has just about no vein in his body for a blood test other than the jugular. Quite clearly it would be inappropriate to take a blood test if that was relevant in that case.

So we see here a bill that is elegant in its simplicity and absolutely relevant in terms of the mechanism for the remedy to forgoing the blood test when someone opts not to have it. I can say that I am delighted to support it. I hope, indeed, that New Zealand First members, who sounded as though they were wavering a little bit a moment or two ago when I—

Brendan Horan: No, there was never a waver.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: They are not wavering? That is good. There is definitely support coming from New Zealand First, and Mr Horan can guarantee that his party will be supporting it. I am very glad to hear that. This is an excellent bill. Scott Simpson is to be congratulated. I certainly commend it to the House.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a great pleasure to be concluding this first reading debate on my Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. As various speakers in the debate have indicated, this is not a bill that is going to have an impact on a particularly large number of people, but the people it will have an impact on are currently able to literally evade the provisions made by this House in the principal Act regarding drink-driving, and they are literally able to get off scot-free.

I want to thank members for their considered debate, for their contributions to the debate so far. I am very much looking forward to participating in the select committee process, under the capable and very able chairmanship of David Bennett. I know that once we get it to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we will address some of the issues that have been raised in the debate so far. I was particularly pleased, early on in this exercise, to receive from Mike Noon of the Automobile Association support in principle from that organisation. It too understands that there has been a very significant attitudinal change towards drink-driving in this nation over the last generation or so, since Dr Hutchison was practising medicine as a young intern some years ago—

Dr Paul Hutchison: Just a few years ago.

SCOTT SIMPSON: —just a couple of years ago—and things have changed a little bit. Society’s attitude towards those who drive while under the influence has changed significantly, and for even a small number of people to be able to evade the intention of this House in bringing them to remedy for the consequences of their poor social behaviour—and, indeed, their illegal driving—I think is a matter that needs addressing.

I want to spend just a minute referring, for the sake of those members who did not hear it in the original speech, to the judgment relating to the case of Police v Childs heard in the Rotorua District Court just this year—in fact, in July of this year. Judge MacKenzie examined all the current case law and had to dismiss the case against Childs. He had blown a screening test—that is the one where you have got the little electronic device, where you have to give your name and address—and he proved positive on that. He then blew an evidential breath test, and then was given the option of a blood test, which he was perfectly entitled to take under the existing law. However, Mr Childs was an intravenous drug user of some long number of years and his veins—he knew, I suspect—were utterly unable to be tapped for the required sample of blood. So after 40 minutes—40 minutes—of attempting to draw a significant and appropriate blood sample, the medical officer was not able to do so. When the case came before Judge MacKenzie he had to throw it out because the situation of the facts presented meant that Childs was statute-barred from being prosecuted, because no blood sample was available to him.

I think that is wrong, and even if it is for a small number of people each year, it is still wrong, and for this House not to address what was actually an oversight in the original legislation—in the original 1998 legislation—I think is something that we need to turn our attention to now. Thus the measure of the bill.

I want to thank the originator of the bill, my colleague the senior Government whip, Michael Woodhouse, who did indeed draft the original bill. I am sure I can vouch for his grammar and the accuracy thereof. He has a good education.

The Attorney-General’s report is something that is worth a small consideration because the report does sit on the Table of this House. But like other speakers on this side, I respectfully reject the position that the Attorney-General has taken on this matter. It will still be the case of the police, as in any criminal matter in our criminal jurisdiction, to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. That is the measure of all criminal convictions in New Zealand, and nothing would change under my bill. The Automobile Association, in its support of the bill, has indicated that it too would like to consider narrowing the clause a wee bit, and that is a matter that will be rightly and properly addressed at the select committee. I am looking forward to participating in the process. I thank members for their consideration so far, and commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 105

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 15

Green Party 14; Mana 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Bills

Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill

First Reading

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. There are several populations of very attractive jewelled geckos on Banks Peninsula and also a population on the Otago Peninsula. They are attractive to us because they are the most wonderful creatures—green, with yellow and white markings. They are pretty unique as well, giving birth to live young and also being active during the day. These geckos, endemic to the South Island of New Zealand, are highly protected and it is illegal to disturb or capture them. Unfortunately, jewelled geckos are also attractive to wildlife smugglers, who, if they can get them past our borders, can make an extraordinary amount of money from them.

Smugglers come to New Zealand often posing as tourists. Some of them are acting as agents for overseas collectors, and have maps and global positioning system points provided by overseas syndicates, with the detailed locations of where to find our geckos. They might hire a campervan and they might visit, and then revisit, the same site on the Otago Peninsula or Banks Peninsula over a number of years, targeting our iconic species over and over again, and literally ripping off our heritage. The smugglers are driven by the big money that they can get at the huge trade fairs overseas, held in Europe. These trade fairs are where our native wildlife, such as jewelled skink, are openly sold, and if you go on the internet, which is easy enough to do these days, you can see pictures of them in plastic containers like Tupperware or GladWare containers, sitting there on perhaps a paper towel, and they are easily identifiable by way by their markings, which are pretty individual to them.

So they are openly sold, both on the internet and also at these large trade fairs, reaching prices often of more than $10,000 each and more if it happens to be a pregnant female. Just recently, a pregnant female was caught in the hands of a potential smuggler at our border in Christchurch. She was pregnant with two young inside her. I do not know the price of that female, but the loss to New Zealand and to the native population is a—

Scott Simpson: Priceless loss to New Zealand.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, it is a priceless loss to New Zealanders and is pretty keenly felt by those of us who are neighbourly with these skinks in Otago and, indeed, Canterbury. For the Otago population of jewelled gecko, poachers are now a larger threat than even cats and ferrets, and it is estimated that the population has been decimated by up to one-third over a period of 5 years, leaving a population of fewer than 5,000 in Otago.

The Wildlife Enforcement Group, which was set up by the Government, is doing wonderful work. It is based in the Customs Service, together with the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Department of Conservation. In 2010 a German gentleman, Manfred Bachmann, was caught in Christchurch by the Wildlife Enforcement Group with 16 jewelled gecko in a backpack on his person. He pleaded guilty to being in possession of absolutely protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act and was sentenced to 15 weeks in jail, and, in my view, that is not enough. The Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill does not only apply to the jewelled gecko, of course. Plenty of New Zealand’s precious and protected flora, fauna, and natural and historic resources are under threat. The new penalties proposed in the bill, relating to animals, will also cover the poaching and smuggling of tuatara and of parrots. Some penalties in the current legislation are far too low. Upon sentencing German national Manfred Bachmann, who was found guilty of smuggling jewelled gecko, Judge Farish, who was presiding, noted: “Given the value of these creatures, perhaps the penalty needs to be increased to deter you and other people from thinking it’s appropriate to come here and steal these valuable creatures from our country.” I could not agree more with those sentiments.

This bill proposes amendments to the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. Instead of a sentence of 15 weeks in jail for smuggling jewelled gecko, the likes of Mr Bachmann would face up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $200,000. Maybe that would send a strong message to him and his like in the international smuggling community, and they will know that they are not welcome here in New Zealand with their smuggling ways.

The bill not only increases penalties for offences but also provides a consistent approach across a number of Acts. Under the bill, fines for reserves and national parks will come into line with each other and will provide clarity across the main regulations administered by the Department of Conservation.

The message we want to send people through this legislation, should it be passed, is that New Zealand is not, should not, and will not be a soft touch for overseas smugglers coming to New Zealand to steal our natural heritage. So this bill sends a strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand wildlife and our natural areas very seriously. We New Zealanders pride ourselves on our clean, green image. It is imperative that we look after our natural environment, because it is our greatest asset. A consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation will ensure appropriate and effective penalties, punishment, and enforcement.

I want to finish my contribution tonight and my introduction to this bill by commending the commitment and the work of the Department of Conservation. I also want to commend the commitment and the work of the Customs Service and also those personnel in the Ministry for Primary Industries in their work with the Wildlife Enforcement Group, and I hope that this bill will give them more teeth. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat, Jacqui Dean, and say that her presentation of her Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill was spoken with some insight and passion, and I commend both. I am very pleased to say that Labour is supporting this bill.

Mrs Dean said she wanted to see better protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural and historic resources, and she talked about the jewelled gecko on Banks Peninsula and Otago Peninsula. As the member of Parliament who used to represent Banks Peninsula before it was stolen unkindly from me by the Hon Amy Adams and put into the Selwyn electorate, I was privileged to see those geckos on a number of occasions and I really enjoyed them. I know that a former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, was part of those experiences, as well, when he was not kayaking in Akaroa Harbour, waiting for a reserve to be put there. The reserve still is not there, Dr Smith, so get back in that job and let us get it progressed.

I remember not very long ago having a bill that made quite a small amendment to the Resource Management Act, but it was one that in my view was quite significant because it changed the part of the Resource Management Act that allowed for private enterprise to compulsorily acquire land in order to progress their projects. I thought it was something that really deserved cross-party support in the House. I remember the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution in that debate—

Grant Robertson: They’re always memorable.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Perhaps my colleague Grant Robertson is correct—they are always memorable. I certainly remember this one because he said that we should not do little bits of changes, even though the bill was a member’s bill. He said we should look at the whole issue—we should look at a comprehensive approach. He was talking about the Resource Management Act. So I am looking forward to Dr Smith’s speech tonight when he, with the same consistency of principle, refuses to support his colleague Jacqui Dean’s bill, on the basis that it is not even a tinkering. It is not worthy of even the description of tinkering. It is such a small amendment. But it is significant. It is very comparable to the Resource Management Act amendment I introduced, which Nick Smith railed against and then led the vote against. So whilst supporting this bill, I look forward to his contribution, because I will be giving him marks out of 10 for his consistency and I would like him to score highly on that point.

This bill ensures that not only are the penalties for, as the member described, trying to smuggle our precious gecko etc. out of the country, or releasing pests into natural reserves, which is another one of the penalties, increased but actually they are made more consistent, and I think that is a very good thing. At the moment, if someone released a stoat into a nature reserve, the highest penalty they could receive would be a $500 fine or 1 month’s imprisonment. That in itself is quite bizarre because $500 does not seem all that much actually but 1 month’s imprisonment seems like quite a lot. So I think there is some inconsistency within even the existing penalty regime. Under the National Parks Act, if part of a national park is carved off and converted to pasture, or to a stand of trees that then is milled, the highest penalty is $2,500 or 3 months’ imprisonment. So there is quite an inconsistency between those offences. But if those same offences happened in a conservation area such as the Kaimanawa Conservation Park, the maximum penalty for the same offences would be $10,000 or 12 months in prison. So, again, how did all of this come about? Well, it came about because we did not have an overview in the way that the member has provided for in this member’s bill. And we know that the areas that national parks protect are typically of higher value than conservation areas, so it is even more foolish.

So while Labour will be supporting this bill, and I certainly look forward to the debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee, if that is, indeed, where it is referred to after the vote, I have to say that out of all of the things that are happening in the conservation space, I would have thought that a member of the Government might have used the opportunity of a member’s bill to make sure that the fundamental role of the Department of Conservation was secured and perhaps even—it might be a bit dramatic for the National Party—enhanced, not just left as the status quo. The Hon Nick Smith’s eyes are lighting up, because I know that is what he would want to do with it; not just retain the status quo but strengthen the role of the Department of Conservation. What we have seen over the last 4 years is a real dumbing down of the department. I think that is a huge shame and it is something we will pay for over the longer term, quite significantly.

The National Party sees the environment and the economy as separate entities that need to be balanced, rather than seeing them as dependent on each other, or two sides of the one coin, which is the way Labour sees those issues. So the Department of Conservation has lost its place as a critical player in our public policy. We do not have the advocacy role. We certainly do not have in the Minister an advocate for conservation issues. We saw the Minister just stand back and watch Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce bowl over her views in terms of mining of schedule 4 land. It was not really until thousands of New Zealanders got on the street and protested against the possibility not of mining—the protest was not against mining—but of mining in our most special places, the pieces of land that are protected under schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Those pieces of land are there for a particular reason, and they should be protected. That is why they are put under schedule 4 of that legislation.

We know that the Department of Conservation has had massive staff cuts. During the submissions on the Game Animal Council Bill we heard a lot about the relationship the Department of Conservation has with local people in provincial areas in particular. In some parts of the country the Department of Conservation works alongside recreational hunters, works alongside iwi, works alongside community groups, works alongside schools, to make sure that those conservation values are seen as part of the ongoing resources and win the support of the community. But what we have seen in other areas is that, through the staff cuts that the National Government has imposed on the Department of Conservation, the staff have been centralised, they have been moved to other parts of the country, and those relationships are just not possible. There are not local people doing that job any more. We know that over the next 12 months we are going to see further staff cuts in the Department of Conservation.

One of the areas that are of most concern is the lack of scientific research that is now available as a core function of the Department of Conservation. If we want evidence-based research, if we want best practice, if we want to be really confident that the decisions made in regard to conservation are made on the basis of evidence and on the basis of good information, we need that scientific base. We have seen good scientists—some of the best scientists—leave the Department of Conservation because the work is not there for them. Even when there is some work available, they do not get the satisfaction any more of knowing that that work is going anywhere.

I hope that the Minister of Conservation, when it comes to the next big decision that she has to make, is able to get some courage, which she has not demonstrated in many recent decision-making processes. That decision is in regard to protection for Māui’s dolphins. The submissions have closed just this week, and thousands of New Zealanders put in submissions calling for protection of the most endangered dolphin, and a dolphin that is New Zealand’s dolphin. There are only 55 adult Māui’s dolphins left. I implore the Minister to use her power as Minister of Conservation and to not be pushed back by the people in her Cabinet who do not care nearly as much about our dolphin or our reputation internationally as they do about so-called economic benefits. There is a bottom line, and I think that the future of a species that we are responsible for protecting should be a big part of that bottom line. I want the Minister responsible for fisheries to put some money into sustainable fishing practices for New Zealand, so that instead of the fishing industry losing out in a decision to protect the Māui’s dolphins, we can get a win-win situation. But at the moment that is not happening. The Minister of Conservation is standing by and letting the Minister for Primary Industries run the place. I think that is a great shame.

The conservation values that we have in New Zealand are important to us. This bill will give us an opportunity to make better sense of our penalty regime, but also to give better protection to some—

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am very pleased to support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill in the name of Jacqui Dean. I would like to congratulate Jacqui Dean on having two bills in the House this afternoon. It is great work, and she is a hard-working member for Waitaki.

I think we are all concerned that New Zealand’s unique plants and animals are at risk, and we want to be able to protect them better. Our plants and animals are exceptional. They are totally unique, highly desirable, and greatly prized, and a real temptation to the collectors of the world, who are always looking for the unusual, the beautiful, and, particularly, the unobtainable. Unfortunately, there are many collectors globally who are happy to pay big money for these creatures. They will pay for the skinks, for the geckos, for our birds, and, really, for anything that is unique and different, and that comes from the other side of the world. We have also seen a dramatic increase in violence against creatures, as well as the poaching, the stealing, and the smuggling. New Zealanders all find these behaviours abhorrent, because we are proud of our country, we are proud of our plants, birds, and reptiles, and we want to make sure that they stay here. We want to protect our natural spaces and the birds and creatures who live in them.

This bill introduces bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or damage our protected natural habitats. We need to have a consistency across the 5 Acts amended by this bill. It was interesting that the Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned the lack of consistency. That is what this bill is driving at: consistency and penalties that deter unacceptable behaviour. We are serious about this. We are serious about deterring this type of crime. It is not just a crime against our flora and fauna; it is also a crime against the people of New Zealand. So we are introducing a maximum fine of $10,000 or a 2-year jail sentence for offences conducted in both reserves and national parks.

I was horrified to find out that collectors from Asia and from Europe are particularly interested in our unique reptiles, particularly creatures like the jewelled geckos that, as Jacqui Dean has mentioned, live in Banks Peninsula and Otago. These fetch enormous prices overseas, I have heard, of up to $25,000 each. They are actually relatively easy to catch in the remote parts of New Zealand, and they are quite easy to transport as well. Dozens of endangered lizards disappear from their native habitats every year. Many are in the hands of suspected organised criminal groups, who sell them on the internet. New Zealand geckos are particularly prized, because they give birth to their young live, so if you get a pregnant one, you actually get a whole lot of free geckos as well.

In the past 3 years seven people have been caught smuggling protected geckos and skinks out of the South Island. One group, including a German from Uganda who was sentenced to 15 weeks in jail, was caught with 16 jewelled geckos. They were packed in tubes; others put them down their pants or in their clothing. But these 16 geckos were valued at over $200,000, and at least nine of them were pregnant. The geckos usually end up on a German website, where traders claim that they have been bred in captivity. It is not true, and it is not right. I know that the Department of Conservation and Wildlife Enforcement Group are working very hard to protect these geckos and skinks. I support this bill, because it does show how seriously we are taking these issues and how much we value our birds and reptiles. I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. As other speakers have noted, there is a lot to be said positively about this bill in the sense that it takes seriously the issues that have been raised about smuggling and about protecting our flora and fauna, by increasing fines and trying to address some of the inconsistency within the various fines regimes that cover our conservation estate, and that cover the flora and fauna that, as the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, has said, we are all so proud of in New Zealand. It always strikes me when we look at legislation that is about fines and regimes for penalties that we find ourselves in the House continuously trying to update them like some kind of inflation index here within the House.

I do wonder at the wisdom sometimes of legislation that sets dollar figures and then expects time to stand still and those dollar figures to somehow mean something. As Ruth Dyson said earlier, when you have a situation where it is a $500 fine or 1 year in prison, that indicates that time has got away on the legislation. I do think that overall there is a question of whether it is wise to be setting in legislation particular dollar figure penalties when, in fact, what we are trying to do is express the will of Parliament about the seriousness of these offences—whether, actually, we are better off with some other kind of system that does not require us to come back as some form of inflation index every few years and make the changes that are being proposed tonight by Jacqui Dean. But that is obviously not in the scope of this particular bill, and the fines increases and penalty increases that are indicated in the bill seem to me to be reasonable. Certainly, from the Labour Party’s point of view, we are keen to see this bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee to discuss the wisdom of the penalties regimes as they stand.

But if we are talking about making things consistent, there is one thing that we can say that is absolutely consistent about this Government’s approach to conservation matters, and that is the fact that from the day its members entered office, they have undermined the operations of the Department of Conservation—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s rubbish!

GRANT ROBERTSON: Dr Smith says it is rubbish. Let us go through the record. The 2009 Budget cut $54 million out from the Department of Conservation—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Over how many years?

GRANT ROBERTSON: —with 400 job losses, Dr Smith. That was projected just in 2009. Dr Smith ask over how many years. It does not matter, Dr Smith. Taking $54 million out of the budget of the Department of Conservation undermines the work. It is all very well for National members to come to this House with bills that look like they care about the conservation estate and that improve the penalties regime, but sitting behind that is a cut of $54 million from the Department of Conservation.

In September last year they announced that they were cutting 96 members of staff at the Department of Conservation. That is staff from 12 conservancies right around the country. Members of this House will know as they travel around the country the impact of those cuts on those local conservancies. It is not like it was the great back-office cuts that we were told about. These are people in regional New Zealand who are charged with protecting our conservation estate whom this Government has cut. These people include the scientists. As Ruth Dyson said before, what the department needs is the ability to be able to provide the information for the evidence-based decisions that Dr Smith and others would tell us that they believe in. But it is those scientists who have lost their jobs under this Government.

The Government has systematically undermined the Department of Conservation, and what we are now left with is a situation where only 250 of 2,700 threatened species are actually under active management.

Louise Upston: Remind me the relevancy to the bill?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Louise Upston asks how this is relevant. What is the point of a penalties regime that involves the conservation estate if the Government undermines the very protection of that estate, and of the protection of the flora and fauna that this Government says it cares about? It puts the penalties regime up, but the department that is charged with looking after it is consistently undermined by this Government. Now we have a department reliant on private donations and groups to fill in the gaps. It is great to see corporations getting behind things like kiwi recovery, but in the end, if the BNZ decides it has got other priorities, there is nothing left inside this department. We support this bill to the select committee, but we do so knowing that this Government has a record of undermining conservation.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I congratulate Jacqui Dean on bringing this bill to the House, because it increases and implements a much more consistent approach to penalties for offences that are committed under the Conservation Act, the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Wild Animal Control Act. One of the areas where it does this obviously is by increasing the penalties for offences under this conservation legislation for the smuggling of native wildlife. That is why the Green Party will be supporting the bill, because the existing penalties have not increased for some time, and they are out of step with the prices that are being paid internationally for wildlife that is smuggled out of Aotearoa and then sold internationally. There has been a range of court cases where it is quite clear that the existing penalties of up to a $100,000 fine and 6 months in jail are not providing a deterrent. So we are pleased that the bill will increase the offending penalties where it has been done by individuals for commercial purposes, or by a company—and that is a higher penalty than for offending by an individual.

But I am also somewhat bemused by this bill, because it is a member’s bill, yet in September the Minister of Conservation said that the Government would be introducing the Wildlife (Smuggling Deterrence) Amendment Bill later this year, and the object of that bill was to increase the maximum penalties for smuggling wildlife such as tuatara, parrots, and geckos—

Hon Simon Bridges: Conspiracy—there’s something tricky going on here!

EUGENIE SAGE: So yes, Mr Bridges, what is going on here? Because the Minister, when she announced the intention to introduce that Government bill, said that the penalties would be increased to up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a $300,000 fine. So I would be interested in the comments from the member Jacqui Dean in reply about what happens when the Government does introduce the bill that has been promised. How does this bill improve on what the Government and Cabinet had already agreed, and is it potentially duplicating that? Nevertheless, we welcome the bill and we will be voting for it.

As other speakers on the Opposition benches have highlighted, this is a good bill, but the Government is not investing adequately in conservation. We have seen a $54 million cut to the Department of Conservation’s budget, and in the annual report of the department released in September, it showed that there were 114 fewer front-line staff in 2011-12 than in 2009-10, and a total of 181 fewer permanent staff. That reduction in front-line staff gives the lie to the Government’s promises and claims that its slashing of the public sector budgets is not reducing people on the front line.

Of course, it is the people on the front line—the Department of Conservation staff who are out maintaining tracks and huts, controlling wildings and willows, doing predator control, and providing advice to hunters, trampers, and international visitors—who are the front line against smuggling, because it is often those staff and members of the public who are alert to suspicious activities. People go to visit the quite compliant sites and habitats where species like the jewelled gecko are found and then alert the wildlife enforcement group and warranted officers, who can step in and take action. So I pay on behalf of the Green Party enormous tribute to those front-line Department of Conservation staff, particularly in area offices, who are being threatened by their substantial second round of restructuring, which means that they are all going to have to apply for their jobs.

It was a senior investigator in the wildlife enforcement group who described wildlife smugglers as “greedy people without any consideration for animals”. That is certainly true where these people are snatching species like the beautiful jewelled gecko from their habitats, stuffing them in small plastic containers, and taking them overseas. It is these lizard fauna, particularly distinctive species like the jewelled gecko, which have been targeted because of their bright green colouring and that very unusual diamond pattern. Of that species, there are only about 5,000 individuals left, and they now confined to small areas of Otago and Canterbury, particularly on the peninsulas. Habitat loss and predation have affected them, and poaching is a huge impact and has caused several of the populations to crash. So the Green Party supports this bill increasing the penalties for those individuals who are taking these geckos out of their habitat.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I think we are all pretty familiar with the very unique range of flora and fauna that exists only in these islands of New Zealand, and that makes us particularly vulnerable to those from overseas who would like to steal either our tuatara, our geckos, or the wide range of bird species that exist only in New Zealand. We have seen some high-profile prosecutions against people from various parts of the world who have tried to profit out of those pretty ugly crimes, and it is appropriate that this Parliament is considering a bill to up both the fines and the criminal sanctions against those people involved in those crimes. I want to join with others and commend Jacqui Dean, a member of Parliament for one of the most spectacular parts of the country, with both South Canterbury and North Otago in that Waitaki area. I think her practical passion for conservation is what typifies this Government’s blue-green approach of wanting to be pro jobs and pro the economy, and wanting to be a successful, innovative country, but at the same time wanting to ensure that we look after that which is precious.

I want to respond to a couple of the challenges that have come from members opposite on this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, firstly, from Green MP Eugenie Sage. She questioned the authenticity of this bill on the basis that the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, who is doing a great job, had said that this was an area that needed to be addressed. Somehow the Green MPs are concerned that a Government MP has taken the initiative and picked up on the work and the comments that have been made by Kate Wilkinson. Well, we are a team. Yes, we have Ministers doing some pretty good work in this space, but we also have strong and capable backbenchers who are complementing that work with this sort of bill. Equally so, we have had the tired, old rhetoric from a couple of Labour members saying “Hey, this is a great bill, but National’s not spending nearly enough on conservation.” Well, I say that is a bit tired. Do they not know that this Government faces huge economic challenges, and that there is no way that anybody could sensibly promote the ongoing increases in public spending?

I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning, and this morning we had the Secretary to the Treasury and Audit New Zealand noting that the huge increase in expenditure—a 50 percent increase in public expenditure—on core departments in the period from 2002 to 2008 was totally unsustainable. It is absolutely true that whether it is the Department of Conservation, or right across the board, this Government has had to pull in Government expenses. That is why it is so unfair and uncharitable of members opposite to give the Minister of Conservation a hard time for pulling her weight and doing her share to get this country’s books back in balance.

The challenge I have got for the next Labour member is this: if you really are serious about increasing the conservation budget, you need to say by how much and you need to say how you are going to fund it. These hollow words, where I have had spokespeople right across the Labour benches—I do not care whether it is on broadcasting, heritage, conservation, education, health, or foreign affairs—all say the Government is not spending enough. My simple challenge to members opposite, whether it be in conservation or any other area, is to show us the colour of your money, say it with conviction, and commit a future Labour Government to increase levels of spending, rather than these weasel words of “Oh, you’re not spending enough.”, but then not being prepared to commit to how much you would spend. It is not good enough for Labour members not to say how they would fund their increases in expenditure. This bill from my colleague Jacqui Dean is part of this Government’s sensible conservation agenda. She should be commended and this bill should be supported.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Charles Chauvel.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Well, it might be pronounced a bit differently, but it is nice to have the call. To try to make a response to the challenge laid down by the last speaker, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, this is a bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, that has rightly attracted support across the House. It is a sensible bill and I commend Jacqui Dean for her initiative in putting it forward.

The question of whether it is an appropriate member’s bill or whether it ought to be something that the Government advances as part of a technical review of penalties available in the conservation and related legislation, in order to make sure that those penalties work as part of a coherent regime, is another question. I have said before, as have other members, that the thing about members’ nights is that they are special. They are there for members who are not part of the executive to be able to advance matters that they feel passionately about, that cannot otherwise be part of the parliamentary agenda. I am not belittling the bill by saying that it would be the sort of measure that we would support if it was part of a Statutes Amendment Bill, rather than taking up the time of a members’ night. So I think that is the first point that I want to make.

The second point that I want to make is a direct response to Dr Smith. I want to say this: Dr Smith, it is not about splashing money around, actually; it is about commitment. Everybody knows that you have a commitment to the environment. I have never heard anybody in this House question your deep belief that the New Zealand natural environment is one of our treasures. I have heard people speculate about the extent to which your colleagues share that belief, and I think that is fair speculation.

I have also heard people say—and I think this is right—that we should look at the record. I am very proud of this party’s record on environmental and conservation matters. The fourth Labour Government, under Geoffrey Palmer, marked our first Minister for the Environment, who held a statutory warrant in that post, which was revolutionary in this regard. Yes, the Environment Act 1986 was Sir Geoffrey’s brainchild, as was the Conservation Act 1987. All the groundwork that was done to ensure that the Resource Management Act could be enacted was done under his leadership. And New Zealand’s first steps to respond to the challenge of climate change were taken under that administration, as well. That is an extremely proud record that every member on this side of the House wants to associate themselves with.

Technical reforms of this nature that bring penalty regimes into line with one another are all well and good, and of course we are going to support them. As I say, I am a little concerned that the Government is taking up the time of the House on a members’ night. We could be spending time on non-Government members’ passionately held beliefs that they seek to advance via the member’s bill process, but never mind. Every member has the privilege that Ms Dean is exercising tonight, and she has chosen to exercise it in this way.

But what has to be said, what has to be repeated, is what has been said by a number of Labour members and by Eugenie Sage, and that is this: if you want to talk about record, Dr Smith, then this Government’s record on conservation and the environment is poor. It is extremely poor. If we look at the cuts in spending in the Department of Conservation right through to the decision to abandon the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period so that there are no binding commitments to reduce emissions, and at all the public policy failures to bring about a change in our economy and in our society so that we really do start to act sustainably and renewably—that is the tragedy of this Government. That is the tragedy that we see in this minor measures bill, which is praiseworthy and will be sent to a select committee, and no doubt will pass through all its stages, but it is tinkering. It is tinkering around the margins of the issues that matter. As I say, if we want to talk about records and want to take up the challenge laid down by Dr Smith in the earlier contribution, that is the sad reality of life under National.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the bill brought before the House by the member Jacqui Dean, the Conservation (Natural Heritage) Protection Bill. Can I congratulate her on having two bills in the House on the one day. Should she pull another bill from the ballot today, I think she should be shouting us all, because it is exceptional to have two bills in the House in one day. We are all heading off to Christchurch in the morning—that is, the Local Government and Environment Committee, including Jacqui Dean as a member—and she might be shouting coffee in the morning, at the Wigram airbase, I hope.

But back to the bill. We in New Zealand First certainly do also support this bill. It is high time that the penalties were increased for those who offend in terms of our flora and fauna, our wildlife and nature, and that the penalties are made to such a significant level that, hopefully, it might deter some of the illegal activities that have been going on.

It is pleasing to see, in section 44, in clause 5, that the penalties will increase for individuals “to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years and to a fine not exceeding $100,000, and, where the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day on which the offence had continued;”. Where the offence was committed by an individual for commercial purposes the penalty is “imprisonment for term not exceeding 3 years and to fine not exceeding $200,000, and, when the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $20,000 for every day on which the offence has continued;”. Where the offence was committed by a corporation the penalty is “a fine not exceeding $200,000 and, where the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $20,000 for every day on which the offence has continued.” It is also pleasing to see in this bill that a sentence of community work can be imposed where someone has erred and where perhaps a financial fine is not appropriate. Again, we in New Zealand First support that.

We believe that the amendments in this bill to the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 are necessary to bring that in to line. However, there is a downside to all this, and although we are applauding the move to increase these penalties, we concur with some of the other members in this House that at times we are very lax with our conservation. As the conservation spokesman for New Zealand First I also have concerns, and our party has concerns, at aspects of conservation that are being let down in this country. We are so, so dependent on our natural environment for our tourism and for the image of New Zealand as “100% Pure New Zealand”.

Our conservation estate is extremely important, and it flows on into our agriculture, it flows on into our horticulture, and it flows on into other farming aspects in this country. So if we do not have a healthy natural environment, our commercial agricultural and horticultural environment can be affected as well. So it is very important that the two go hand in hand.

Likewise, this week I was somewhat disappointed when it was marked that the Māui’s dolphin, which are endangered, are nearing extinction, with only 55 Māui’s dolphin left, mainly off the North Island coast. I thought that perhaps the Government would also pick up that cudgel, as it has picked up this one, and move more swiftly on the issue of the Māui’s dolphin. I was one of the four MPs who went along to receive a print from artist Sheyne Tuffery, presented by Greenpeace. It was one of 55 prints to mark the 55 remaining Māui’s dolphin that are in existence.

It was a great shame that only four MPs were there, all from Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First, and that there was no representation at all from National. I thought that was a shame. Regardless of your politics and regardless of where you are, these 55 Māui’s dolphin cannot speak up for themselves, they cannot defend themselves, and they cannot protect themselves, and it would have been nice on this occasion for some Government members to at least show some sympathy for the whole thing.

Jacqui Dean: I don’t think we were invited.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Yes, you were invited. Every MP was invited—every MP was invited. So it would have been nice, because I think it is important, and I think we would all have a huge conscience to bear in years to come if we found that the Māui’s dolphin was indeed wiped out and that every one of us in this House, every single 121 of us in this House, had not done more to try to protect it.

But, anyway, in closing, this particular bill is a good move. We support the increase in penalties. New Zealand First always supports things of this nature where they are good policy, practical policy, and will have a result. Thank you.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It was interesting to have the reference from the previous speaker, Andrew Williams, about the National members not turning up. I certainly read about that in the Dominion Post this morning. It was saying that the National members had not responded to the invitation to be given something on the Māui’s dolphin. I went and dug around, and I found the letter, and there was no such invitation to me—that is for sure. There was a letter saying something was happening, but there was certainly no invitation. So you sometimes wonder with some of the messages coming from Greenpeace, whether they are quite accurate or not.

But I just wanted to commend my colleague Jacqui Dean for this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, her second bill this evening—a very hard-working, and implacably hard-working, member of Parliament is Jacqui Dean. It is a timely bill, because we all know New Zealand is unique in the world as the last significant uninhabited land mass in the world to be discovered by humans only a few hundred years ago. I have seen trees growing today that were around before humans arrived in these islands. I have seen trees on which moas have grazed, which are still living now, that were around before humans reached these islands. As a result of that, we were a wonderful, wonderful place in the world with all sorts of species that were unique and had evolved over a long period of time when New Zealand was splendidly isolated from the rest of the world and from humanity. All that changed a few hundred years ago when Māori arrived first and there was a wave of extinctions, and that has continued in recent years—and that is only a split second, of course, in geological time. We are in a time of rapid change, so it is important that we preserve what is precious.

This bill, which raises some of the maximum penalties in this area around precious species, is very useful. I have never met a spotted or jewelled gecko. I do not understand the logic of people who would seek to put these down their underpants, but from what I can understand, this thing goes on. This bill, if it helps nip it in the bud, I think will be very useful not just in New Zealand but to the global effort against smuggling of geckos and those sorts of things.

New Zealand makes a massive effort in conservation. It is often forgotten that about 33 percent of the land mass of New Zealand is in the conservation estate. That is not a mistake—33 percent. One third of the land mass of New Zealand is in the conservation estate. We spend colossal sums on conservation—$445 million in Vote Conservation this year—and I am astounded to hear from the other side of the House tales of great woe and calamity that somehow not enough resources have been put into this area. I mean, let us just cast our minds back only 10 years ago, when it was only $226 million that was being spent on conservation. So we have doubled the amount spent in the last 10 years, and that, of course, is not enough.

It is quite right, things have had to be pulled back a little bit in the last few years, but, if you take the longer stretch, there is a very substantial and increased investment in conservation. It all just goes to show, when you hear the likes of Mr Chauvel talking about the fact that we need to just keep pouring the money in, how this country got itself into such a pretty pass as we had in 2008, when this Government inherited a nation pregnant with years of financial deficits coming down the line, because the previous Government just did not have control over its spending. I get frustrated when hearing this great moral high ground taken from the other side of the House, as if those members care more about the environment than we do.

What we are saying here is that every Government has to make that balance between giving New Zealanders the benefit of a well-run economy that can produce the living standards that all families want and aspire to and also the very substantial contribution that continues to be made in conservation. I am very proud of this Government’s record, and I commend Jacqui Bill for this conservation bill, which will—

Hon Members: Jacqui Bill?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Jacqui Dean, I believe. I commend Jacqui Dean for her great effort with this bill. Thank you.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I will take just a short call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, in the name of Jacqui Dean. I think it is a fantastic bill, to see this increase in penalties around the stealing and the smuggling of native wildlife and plants. It has got particular meaning for me because, unlike Mr Goldsmith, who spoke previously, I am familiar with the jewelled gecko. I remember watching them—but not in my underpants—and seeing them in their natural habitat, at that point in the Nelson Lakes. We are not sure that they even exist in any numbers in the Nelson Lakes now, because the numbers have gone back so much. It is absolutely critical that we find measures to conserve them.

I had a strong interest in lizards, actually, when I was a kid, and they would still probably be my favourite animal. I remember going out to the Wairau Bar, out from Blenheim, and the coastline and other areas, looking for lizards and looking for katipō spiders and the like. I am so aware of the drop in their numbers when I go to show, in turn, my children or my partner what is actually out there. Out there now you could not find a katipō spider. You may still find some lizards, but they are not as prolific as they once were. It is absolutely critical that we use measures such as this bill and the services of the Department of Conservation to make sure that we preserve our natural heritage.

I also lived in the outer Marlborough Sounds and looked out at Stephens Island, which has probably the greatest population of tuatara in the world. The lighthouse would wink at our place, 300 metres up the side of Aorere, Mount Stokes, where we also had kākāriki—another target of those smugglers up there—a fantastic, beautiful little parrot, which not enough New Zealanders get to see.

What is also very concerning—and other members of the House have mentioned it tonight—is the fact that earlier we had Nick Smith using the economic woes as an excuse, in my words, to whack the Department of Conservation around the ear. The real economic value of not losing species is not being valued here. It is not being valued by the Government as it depletes the department’s resources more and more, year after year.

What does it look like when we lose Māui’s dolphins? What does it look like when we have less and less of our natural fauna? The people internationally who are interested in the different conventions are measuring them, and are seeing more and more species coming into different threatened and vulnerable categories. That is not good for our brand. It is not good for our selling of anything that comes out of New Zealand. It is not good for our tourism. The real value in the Department of Conservation is much higher than this Government seems to give it. We need a fresh and new green vision that actually values our natural heritage for not only its intrinsic values but also its economic value.

I remember some of my previous activities at meetings of NGOs. Every quarter, or thereabouts, we would have a meeting at the Department of Conservation in Manners Street. Different NGOs and interest groups would meet with the department. I can remember the staff there presenting the latest change in management approach—this new commercial management approach. Man, they were stoic. They were fantastic people, but they were standing there, presenting that as though it was the best thing since sliced bread, and some of them were going to lose their jobs. Department of Conservation staff are dedicated people wanting to make a difference and to manage our natural heritage. We need to really support them.

With the jobs gone and the drop in core work and funding, the Government is expecting the community to pick up the slack. The community was already working pretty much to capacity as it was, so it means only that we are going to have further losses to our natural heritage. Area offices are being totally done over, effectively, and staff are being forced into decisions around their close friends and colleagues—basically, having to choose which ones of their friends are going. I am looking forward to when a Government actually values the Department of Conservation in a better way, and supports things like this bill. This bill is a good move, but the Government also needs to support the department to do its job. Thank you very much.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): You know, it is easy enough, I guess, to stand in this House and lament budget cuts to the Department of Conservation and completely ignore the realities of the fiscal restraints that this Government is operating under. And it is easy to sit up in Opposition and say that we should be spending more money. Well, that is what they are doing in Greece. That is what they are doing in the European Union. This Government takes our responsibilities a little more seriously than that. I also want to pick up on the comment of the previous speaker, Steffan Browning, that the real economic value of not losing species is not realised by this Government. Well, actually, it is, because I am bringing this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, to the House, and this bill well and truly values our special creatures in New Zealand. It recognises absolutely the economic value that is brought to New Zealand, as well as all the other intrinsic values, by these special creatures. And it is this party, it is this Minister of Conservation, and it is me, with this member’s bill, who are putting effect to those words. The words from across the House are all very well, they are all very fine, but it is this party, and I am the member of that party who is putting up this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill for the consideration of Parliament and the Local Government and Environment Committee.

You know, bringing consistency into the legislation around our natural heritage, if nothing else, will send the clearest message to those who seek to profit from our most precious creatures. Interestingly, several members have said that they would not go near a jewelled gecko if they fell over one, and some people love them to death. They are little creatures, and if they sit still enough they sit on your hand. They really are the most beautiful little things. They are emerald green with yellow and white diamond markings—and each marking is unique, so that when they are photographed they can be traced if they have been smuggled. On the Otago Peninsula some populations of those jewelled gecko have been smuggled, recovered at the border, and returned to that habitat, but, sadly, that same smuggler has returned the next season and smuggled them again. How do we know that? Because we can identify their markings when they turn up in Europe at the large trade fairs for animals. Quite a bit is known about the smuggling of jewelled geckos, which are pretty remarkable creatures.

So the message through this bill—the clearest message for those who profit from our most precious creatures—is that we are on to you. And the message to the Department of Conservation and to those personnel in the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries who hold the line against this smuggling is that we back you. We value the work of the Wildlife Enforcement Group. We will give you the teeth when you, through your investigation, through your—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

JACQUI DEAN: Oh, I do beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker.

We will give them the teeth, when they, through their investigation, their observation, their connections, their intuition, and their sheer hard graft apprehend the lowlifes who seek to smuggle our precious creatures and ship them off to offshore markets.

To those Swiss, German, and Russian smugglers who come to New Zealand posing as tourists, well, just do not bother. We not only have the personnel watching you but also when our Department of Conservation, Customs Service, and Ministry for Primary Industries personnel catch you it just will not be worth it. It would not be days in jail—no, under this bill, should it be enacted by this Parliament, it will be up to 3 years. The penalties will be increased for a number of other offences where wildlife has been endangered or protected, where natural habitats have been damaged. So the penalty, for example, for releasing a noxious animal in a national park will increase, as will milling a stand of trees, or converting a portion of national park into pasture. So there are a number of aspects to this bill.

I want to thank members for the debate tonight. I think it has been extremely interesting. I look forward to the process that the Local Government and Environment Committee will go through. I want to thank members for their support of this bill. I would be surprised, given that we are all New Zealanders, if it were otherwise. Finally, I am very proud to be a member of National’s blue-green team, and proud to bring this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill

First Reading

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare. I move, That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider this bill, in time. Put simply, this bill makes casinos subject to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. That Act established a civil forfeiture regime where a person is in receipt of any profits derived from any crime. That person need not be responsible for, a party to, or convicted of that crime or any other crime to be subject to the forfeiture regime. That is, it applies regardless of the person’s guilt. Blame is not an issue under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, only whether or not a person has received goods that were acquired through significant criminal activity. This applies to all legal persons, all ordinary persons—humans—in this country, all ordinary New Zealanders, but casinos are not required under any legislation to return, either to the State or to the victim of a crime, any profits that they make from the gambling of stolen funds. Casinos are not subject to this law as ordinary New Zealanders are.

Sometimes those kinds of crimes in casinos are very high-profile. They involve millions and millions of dollars. Often it is money-laundering. Most often, though, the gambled money has been stolen from small businesses, from medium-sized New Zealand businesses, from community organisations, from friends, and from family. These businesses, organisations, and individuals suffer serious financial impacts, often bankruptcy, while the casinos get to keep the profits from the gambling of that stolen money. My bill will see an end to the keeping of that stolen money.

We know that gambling causes harm. Since the horse bolted and casinos were allowed to be established in the 1990s, Parliament has been grappling with all the different ways to stop them from causing more harm. In 2003 MPs passed the Gambling Act. The view then was that gambling was a profoundly bad thing, especially for the most vulnerable of people, and that casinos were seen as members of an industry that needed stringent laws to control, regulate, and contain them, and to stop them from causing more harm to people. The Gambling Act put a lid on the industry, preventing more casinos from opening, and banning any mechanism that allowed existing casinos to offer more opportunities to gamble. However, we know from recent wheeling and dealing that the intentions of this Act have been deliberately subverted.

My bill was developed in response to the dirty deal that the Prime Minister, John Key, and Minister Steven Joyce are doing to secure the “Skycity - John Key Casino Convention Centre” in Auckland. Skycity has done everything it can—

Charles Chauvel: The John Key memorial.

METIRIA TUREI: The “John Key Memorial Convention Centre”. That is right. Skycity has done everything it can to get around the Gambling Act in order to expand its operations. It has taken case after case to the courts, and relentlessly pursued the Gambling Commission in an effort to squeeze more opportunities to evade the Act. When legal avenues did not work, Skycity bosses wined and dined MPs and their staff, lobbied Government relentlessly, and made donations to politicians and to political parties, and eventually, it appears, that has paid off. John Key knew that the Ministry of Economic Development was investigating the feasibility of a convention centre in Auckland, so he offered Skycity a deal. He would allow it up to a third more pokie machines and other harmful gambling concessions if it built the convention centre in Auckland. This would involve changing the Gambling Act, but, of course, he is the Prime Minister, and, in the infamous words of a previous National Party Prime Minister, he would have said to himself, I am sure, that “there is a little room downstairs in which we fix problems like that.”

John Key has argued that he made the deal with Skycity because it is a good one, and because it will not cost the New Zealand public to build the convention centre. But, of course, he is wrong. Gambling-related harm costs the New Zealand public millions of dollars a year in bankruptcies, arrests, incarcerations, unemployment, divorce, poor physical and mental health, loss of educational opportunities, and suicide.

Denis O’Rourke: And no benefit.

METIRIA TUREI: No benefit. Increases in gambling equal increases in costs, and my bill will help to create accountability for, and reduce, some of those costs. John Key also argued that the convention centre would create a heap of jobs, but he was wrong about that too. He so massively inflated the job numbers that the author of the feasibility report came out in the media to correct him. He inflated the numbers by almost double—John Key inflated the job numbers by almost double, misleading the public and, in my view, misleading this Parliament. Making up job numbers to sell the casino convention centre deal to the public is extremely desperate. So is standing up in Parliament waving a study that actually shows pokie machines are more likely to cause problem gambling than the community-based ones, but telling MPs that it is the reverse—John Key did that as well. This is blatant hypocrisy. It has followed hard on the heels of Skycity chief executive officer, Nigel Morrison, trying to argue that Lotto was much worse than casinos, again in an attempt to distort the figures in order to sell this dirty deal to New Zealanders. The deal was so questionable that the Auditor-General agreed to investigate it. That investigation is ongoing, investigating the process for seeking and assessing proposals on the deal, the adequacy of the assessment of the likely costs and benefits, and any other matters that the Auditor-General thinks is necessary.

What has been missing in the discussions around this deal is that the change in law subverts the fundamental intent of the Gambling Act. My bill will help bring some integrity back to this legislation. This bill amends the definition in the principal Act of the term “ ‘unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity’ to specifically refer to casinos that knowingly, having regard to best international practice in detecting problem gambling and criminal activity, derive a benefit from significant criminal activity.”

We know that casinos attract significant criminal activity. The Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 describe casinos as specific typologies of the risk of crime. More provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 come into force in 2013, and those provisions place enhanced obligations on casinos to monitor and report suspicious activity, but they do not require casinos to return to those from whom the money was stolen the profits they make from illegal activity and the gambling of stolen funds. There is no justification as to why ordinary New Zealanders should be required to forfeit the profits from criminal activity when casinos, which are internationally recognised as drivers of crime and the receivers of stolen property, are not also subject to the law. It is just about making them subject to the same law that everybody else is, and finding a way to help restore just a tiny bit of the loss that New Zealanders suffer: New Zealand businesses, community organisations, charities—and we know that much of the money that is stolen from charities is gambled in casinos—families, and friends.

This bill is not about just the Skycity dirty deal. This is about making sure that casinos have a stronger level of regulation and pay back those families, those New Zealanders, who pay the cost of the operations. It is a fair bill. It places a reasonable obligation on casinos, and it helps to reduce the harm that is caused by gambling and gambling addition. I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): What an outrageous speech! For the member Metiria Turei to bring out some of those claims and comments is absolutely outrageous. We understand in this Parliament that nobody supports harm that comes from gambling. We understand these things, but I wonder where that member’s research comes from—research that says that casinos per se are major drivers of crime. That is what I say is outrageous. Some of those quotes and comments were outlandish.

Denis O’Rourke: What planet do you live on?

JONATHAN YOUNG: I live on a planet of reality, sir, and we on this side of the House are not supporting this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill, for some very good reasons.

We on this side of the House are committed to building a safer New Zealand. I think that New Zealanders out there in our country know that. We have seen crime and criminal activity reduce in this country because of the legislation we have put through this House. We have seen public confidence in our law-keeping forces rise and increase, when in past years under past administrations that confidence decreased. I think New Zealanders know that the National-led Government is working hard to build a safer New Zealand.

In fact, this bill that is being proposed is a bill that is a late starter in a race that has already been run and is over. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 already puts enhanced obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering, and already has enforcement mechanisms, and that legislation comes into force in July 2013—it comes into force in July 2013. We also know that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 already contains a civil forfeiture regime, and a profit forfeiture order may be made by a court if it is satisfied that a person has knowingly derived benefit from significant criminal activity.

So much of this member’s bill is nefarious—for example, the words “should have known”, and other wordings in the bill such as “derived or likely to be derived”. How is one to define “should have known”, and how is it to be defined that it is “likely to be derived”? So what we have here is, I think, very poor drafting in a bill.

Denis O’Rourke: It’s very good drafting.

JONATHAN YOUNG: There is no doubt some good intent, but its application and its working-out is fraught with great difficulty.

There are a number of good reasons why we do not support this bill. We understand that money-laundering involves transforming money from crime, and that it is called dirty money. If we are talking about anything that is dirty, that is where it comes from—it is money from crime. It has the appearance of coming from a legitimate source and it makes its criminal origin difficult to trace. It is therefore deemed as clean money—so that is where the laundering component, or understanding, comes from. We understand that effective money-laundering enables criminals to remove themselves from their criminal activities and makes it harder to prosecute them and confiscate their proceeds. We understand these difficulties. This is what Governments over the years have always grappled with, and we believe that we have instituted a law, which is going to take effect shortly, that is going to work very, very strongly to stop that.

This bill would amend the principal Act to apply the profit forfeiture regime to casinos that benefit from significant criminal activity and either knew that or should have known that. How does one determine “should have known”? How do you determine that they should have known that the benefit is derived or likely to be derived from criminal activity?

Key issues the bill tries to address are returning proceeds to people from whom they were acquired or stolen. I understand that there is good intent in wanting to see that happen, but I would say that a majority of people who have an item stolen, whether it be in cash or in property, would have that item insured, and most people would receive some benefit from an insurance policy. Yet they are going to receive, under this bill, the cash return, or the value return, if somehow the proceeds of those funds are deemed to be received by a casino. I am not quite sure how that would happen in fact. There are not many criminals out there who carry a receipt book and actually write down exactly where and when and how they have been able to arrive at their proceeds-of-crime amount, whether it is $1,000, $10,000, or $20,000, or whatever.

So somebody might take a stash of cash, a handful of money, into a casino and gamble it. And perhaps by international best practice, by observation and technology and technique, somebody or a system could discern that this person has peculiar activities that could profile them as a person who ought not to have such a large amount of money, or as someone who has come there time and again with a large amount of money, and could start to identify that person as a person who is suspect. How would you then determine that that person may have received that money through an act of crime? We are starting to delve into the area of guessing, double-guessing, and not being sure about these things, and I think that our laws need to be better constructed and stronger in regard to these issues. In terms of the assets recovered under the Act’s civil forfeiture regime, they are not returned to those persons from whom they have been stolen or acquired; they are returned to the Crown. That is simple. That is not complicated, and there are other mechanisms by which a person who has suffered loss can recover that loss.

Also, under the bill there are lowered thresholds of liability for casinos. There is no reason why a casino that knowingly profits from significant criminal activity cannot be the subject of a profit forfeiture order under the Act currently. The bill effectively imposes a lower threshold of liability on casinos by the statement “who should have known”, compared with other persons who knowingly derived a benefit. I think that this is an area that I feel very uncomfortable about, and I think that many people in this House would feel uncomfortable about it as well. There is no clear evidence that casinos currently are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity.

So this bill does not appear to achieve its aims of encouraging best practice or returning proceeds of crime to those from whom the proceeds were acquired or stolen. I believe that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 places enhanced obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering, and contains enforcement mechanisms that will achieve much of what this bill intends. As I said earlier, this bill is a late starter in a race that has already run and is over. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I would like to begin by commending the member who has sponsored this legislation, Metiria Turei. I think it is timely that the Parliament should look at the issues that are raised by the bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. As we heard from her careful introductory speech, the bill would amend section 7 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, which defines whether or not an entity has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. What her amendment would do is add one subclause to that definition. It would clarify that the principal Act does apply to a casino, and that a casino is, for the purpose of the definition in the legislation, “taken to have knowingly derived a benefit from significant criminal activity if it knew or should have known, having regard to best international practice in the detection of problem gambling and criminal activity, that the benefit is derived or likely to be derived from the proceeds of significant criminal activity.” The previous speaker, Jonathan Young, said: “Well, what is this concept of ‘should have known’? How can a casino be put in a position that it ought to have known that there was something dodgy about the money that it was receiving?” Well, the reality is that this concept of “ought to have known” is one that is very well known to the law, and the criminal law in particular.

Where an entity is put into a position of great privilege, as casinos have been in our society, by legislation, then a corollary of that great privilege is that we as a Parliament should watch them closely, and, if we are concerned that they might be causing social harm, or if we are concerned that they might be assisting the laundering of money in any way, then we ought to take that issue very, very seriously. That is really the nub of the reason why my Labour colleagues and I will be supporting this legislation to go to the Commerce Committee, and why I hope that National members and others will do so. If we do not, frankly, then the suspicion will arise, rightly or wrongly, that the casino and the gambling industries are exerting undue influence over us, and that is not—

Hon Anne Tolley: Oh!

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Well, there goes the Minister of Police, who starved the police of enforcement resources during her tenure, yet we had her colleague Mr Young tell us just before that all was well, that the police had enough resource to do their job, and that enforcement in respect of casinos and otherwise was all fine. If all that was true, then there would be no harm in sending this bill to a select committee to hear advice, to hear submissions from the public, and to consider whether or not it was a merited measure, or whether the previous speaker is right and there are existing provisions in the law that deal with this.

That is what the purpose of members’ day should be. Members do not have the access that the executive has to expert advice, to public servants, and to all the panoply of expertise that Ministers can draw on. We have to rely on our own resources in order to put forward measures that we think are sensible. There is no doubt that there is great concern in the community about the way in which casino gambling is operating, and, in particular, the interface with organised crime and the potential to launder money through organisations such as casinos. In light of that overwhelming public concern, it behoves us not to act simply as the lapdogs of the industry but to ask ourselves what is the responsible thing to do in this situation. It is absolutely clear to me and to my colleagues, as responsible, independent legislators who have a concern about ensuring, both for the sake of the public and for the industry, for that matter, that everything is seen to be conducted with probity and above board, that Metiria Turei’s bill should go to a select committee, be considered by members of Parliament in a deliberative fashion, and that they should hear advice from experts, and hear submissions from the public. If the National Party and its allies deny that opportunity to this Parliament, then, simply, the result will be that members’ day is brought further into disrepute.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Malo le soifua. I rise to take a call on this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. May I start off by saying that we on this side of the House do not support this bill. The main reason we do not support this bill is that it is, again, a sad reminder that the Opposition would rather create new problems by advancing needless legislation than fix a problem with our existing legislation. The purpose of the bill, as has already been outlined by the mover of the bill, Metiria Turei, is to encourage casinos to implement best practice in systems to detect and prohibit problem gamblers and money-launderers.

But what are the problems with the bill? I am going to support my colleague Mr Young and say that it does not appear to achieve its aims of encouraging this. There is no reason why, currently, a casino that knowingly profits from significant criminal activity cannot be the subject of a profit forfeiture order under the current legislation. The bill effectively imposes a lower threshold of liability on casinos that should have known, compared with other persons who knowingly commit these acts. That is imposing the lower test of constructive knowledge, as my learned colleague across the Chamber said, as opposed to that more rigorous test of actual knowledge. I do not, like my colleague, agree with that. There is no clear evidence that casinos currently are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. Certainly, Miss Turei has not presented any evidence tonight.

So you might want to ask what is in place currently to address this issue—you might want to. Currently, as my colleague stated, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 already puts in place obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering. It also has enforcement mechanisms that will achieve much of what this bill is trying to do. The Act will come into force in 2013, as my colleague said, and under the Act reporting entities, including casinos, must put in place a programme that consists of risk-based systems, processes, and controls to detect and deter money-laundering. For example, casinos must assess their money-laundering risks, and implement anti - money-laundering programmes that are proportionate to that risk assessment. Given the nature, the scale, and the complexities associated with casinos, obviously the expectations on them will be large. They also must undertake more robust customer due diligence measures, monitor large or unusual transactions, and keep a record of transactions that are larger than $6,000. They must also, and the Minister here will be happy with this, report suspicious transactions to the police.

That Act contains enforcement mechanisms that are more targeted and more effective than the proposed amendment. These include, of course, the provision that an entity that fails to comply with the Act’s requirements commits a civil liability act, and a supervisor may issue a formal warning or accept an enforceable undertaking. A court may enforce that undertaking, issue an injunction, or order an entity to pay a pecuniary penalty to the Crown of up to $2 million, on the civil standard of proof.

Mr Chauvel might ask why not send the bill to a select committee. I say to Mr Chauvel that if you read the legislation, read the Act, against this bill, you will realise that this bill is superfluous.

Denis O’Rourke: No, it’s not.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is.

The Act also has checks in place to ensure that it is working as it should do. Implementation of the regime will provide evidence of whether casinos are taking reasonable steps to detect money-laundering and clarify whether any amendments are required. Under casino licensing conditions, of course, we know that they specify that the Gambling Commission is required to review each casino’s Host Responsibility programmes every 2 years. They can also look at whether a casino’s policy is identifying problem gamblers. This may include describing a range of indicators for identifying potential problem gamblers, such as intensity and frequency of play, and frequency of ATM visits.

This is a poorly constructed bill that is simply superfluous. We on this side of the House oppose it. We believe in quality legislation for the people, families, and communities of our country. I oppose this bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I thought that Jonathan Young’s speech was utterly disgraceful. It was the epitome of National’s head in the sand approach to money-laundering in respect of casinos, and it shows National’s pro-casinos approach—you can bet on that. This bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill, has a very long title but a very simple purpose: to ensure that the proceeds of crime spent in and laundered through casinos are returned to those from whom the proceeds were originally obtained. That is what the principal Act, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, was intended to do, but does not clearly require. The purpose of the principal Act, in section 3(1), is: “The primary purpose of this Act is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of property—(a) that has been derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity; or (b) that represents the value of a person’s unlawfully derived income.”

So New Zealand First supports the bill to make the obligation on casinos to return the money obtained in these ways absolutely certain. It does this by amending section 7, which says: “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, a person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if the person has knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity).” The relevant part of the section, for the purposes of this debate, is the word “knowingly”. This means that a prosecutor would need to prove specific knowledge that a benefit has been derived, directly or indirectly, from significant criminal activity, and that is the problem with the current legislation, which the members opposite do not seem to understand. It would be difficult to do in the case of casinos, which can too easily claim no knowledge when a gambler uses stolen money in the casino, or when the gambler sets out on a mission to launder money obtained illegally by gambling in the casino.

Casinos attract criminals indulging in such activities, like flies around a carcass. It is just one more way that casinos damage New Zealand communities, in addition to the issues surrounding addictive gambling and encouraging excessive gambling. They also take money away from more wholesome and more beneficial activities. Casinos, because of the scope for harm, which they generally generate and inherently generate, have a special duty of care towards those whom they potentially harm and towards the whole community. So it is appropriate that section 7 be amended, so that, for the purposes of section 7(1) as it would become, a casino would be imputed with knowledge if it should have known that the money being used by a gambler came from significant criminal activity. For this purpose, the new section 7(2), which would be inserted by clause 5 of this bill, refers to international best practice in the detection of such activities, and that is as it should be. The onus must be on the casino to adopt best practice. Plenty of precedents exist for this overseas. Best practice would require such things as surveillance, recognition of gamblers’ behaviour, recognition of known gamblers and their associates, and so on. A very long list of things can be included in best practice for these purposes.

So I think this bill is extremely well drafted and it will be extremely effective, and I cannot understand why the Government would not enthusiastically support it—unless it is soft on crime, and maybe that is the answer. Perhaps we have got a National Government that is soft on crime. I think that is the answer, and I do not see any denials from those opposite. So here we have a National Government refusing to adopt this bill because it is soft on crime and because it supports casinos and all of the harm that they do. I am disgusted by the attitude of the Government on this bill. It should be enthusiastically embracing it, as New Zealand First does.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal. Thank you for this opportunity for me to speak on this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill, which we are opposing. The bill, introduced by the Green member Metiria Turei, seeks to encourage casinos towards implementing what the Green Party considers best practice and systems to detect and prevent problem gamblers and money-laundering. The basis of the bill is that a casino as a business poses a risk in attracting and benefiting from this significant criminal activity, and that casinos do not have a mechanism under which they can track and pay back money received under criminal proceeds. The Opposition believes that by passing this legislation it can ensure that the proceeds received will eventually be returned to the people from whom they have been stolen or acquired. Let me clarify this grey area. The assets, once recovered, are not returned back to the people; rather, these are returned to the Crown. Secondly, the current legislation ensures that any casino that seeks to knowingly profit from criminal activity in any shape or form can be subject to profit forfeiture. Moreover, the proposed legislation should be based on evidence, rather than individual thinking. Currently there is no clear evidence that casinos at present are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. By proposing this, the member wants to suggest lowering the threshold of liability on casinos to take reasonable measures and precautions to prevent criminal intent by persons who knowingly commit the crime.

The bill does not achieve anything. It aims high by encouraging best practice. However, it provides little or no framework. Rather, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, passed by the National Government, already contains a civil penalisation. Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 a profit forfeiture order may be made by a court in cases where the judge is satisfied by the evidence that a person has knowingly derived benefit from this significant criminal activity. Furthermore, New Zealand currently requires casinos to protect and minimise any harm to the community due to the issue of gambling. Towards that end, all the six casinos in New Zealand must have an approved Host Responsibility programme. Both the casino and the Host Responsibility programme are approved by the Gambling Commission, which is an independent statutory body. As part of the Host Responsibility programme casinos in New Zealand have a policy on identifying problem gamblers, which include indicators such as intensity and frequency of play, and frequent use of ATM machines on the premises.

Casinos, under the current legislation, are also obliged to detect money-laundering and criminal activity. The Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996 obligates casinos to keep transaction records and verify the identity of the people conducting occasional transactions over $10,000. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 will come into effect in July 2013. This Act further strengthens the robust regime New Zealand has in place to monitor, detect, and report suspicious activity.

In the consideration that New Zealand has comprehensive legislation in place to address the issues being discussed in this bill, I do not think we require another piece of legislation. Therefore, I do not support this bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I want to quote the member of Parliament who spoke earlier in this debate who started his speech in the way that I want to start mine, and say that I am outraged at the speech that the member has just delivered. It was gobsmacking. Having sat on a select committee with that member for some months now, I, frankly, have come to expect better of him. I thought that that member was able to think for himself, was able to stand up for principles, and was able to allow a robust debate on important issues, but he has let me down. He has let a lot of people down, actually, as have his colleagues Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Jonathan Young, who have both spoken earlier.

The member from New Zealand First who spoke during this debate, Denis O’Rourke, said that he suspected the reason that the National Party was opposing this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—clearly, National does not want it go to the Commerce Committee; they want to close down the debate fast—was that it was soft on crime. That may be a reason. That is certainly a possibility. I think, Mr O’Rourke, with respect, that you might need to just tune that a little more. I think National members are soft on some crime. They are soft on crime that goes on in casinos. They want to turn a blind eye to that. They want to allow people who have committed crimes to use the profit of that crime in the casino. They want the casino to benefit from the crime, and it wants to smile and wave and walk away.

Why would they want to do that? Let me give that a bit of thought. It may be because the Prime Minister and Steven Joyce are doing a shonky deal with the Auckland casino so that they can get around the current law, dramatically increase the number of pokie machines that it runs in the Auckland casino, and Auckland will have a convention centre. Good on Auckland for getting a convention centre. Actually, we would like one in Christchurch too, because ours is pretty wrecked—it is probably gone, actually, by now—but we do not want to sell our community’s health in order to get our convention centre. We would rather pay for it ourselves and protect our community from more harm, rather than encourage it in the way that John Key has done.

So I think that Denis O’Rourke is correct. I think that the National Party is soft on crime, and, particularly, it is soft on crime that goes on in casinos—otherwise it would be supporting this legislation, at least to go to a select committee. What is the National Party scared of? What does it have to hide? That is the only reason that the National Party members would all be putting up their hands and saying no to this legislation: that there was something that might come out at the select committee that might expose their shonky deal with the Auckland Skycity Casino, which is behind the scenes, getting around New Zealand law. That is exactly what the situation is—

Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening very carefully to the member’s contributions and comparing it with the Speakers’ rulings as set out in Speaker’s ruling 50/3. I fear that the last comment that the member has made, which I will not repeat, has certainly strayed into territory that is improper for a member of this House to make.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was actually thinking of Speaker’s ruling 51/5, myself. I would just caution the member to be careful in the way in which she couches the debate.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The reason why I think the National Party members do not want this bill to go to a select committee is that, during submissions looking at whether criminals should be able to spend the proceeds of their crime at a casino, and whether the casino, knowing that, should benefit from it, the issue of the deal may come up. I think that during those submissions the issue may be brought up of the deal that John Key and Steven Joyce are doing with the Skycity Casino in Auckland, so that that organisation can get around the law and dramatically increase the number of pokie machines it runs, which we know will do great harm in our community, and for which, in return, it has to have to provide a convention city, which they will make money from. That is why the National Party is afraid and does not want this bill to go to a select committee.

So Labour is supporting this. We want the debate. There might be, as there often is in a member’s bill, some matters to clean out. We do not have the resources of Government departments and agencies to write bills for us. Members rely on talented members within their own caucus. We are fortunate to have Charles Chauvel. I am not sure who the Green Party has in its caucus—any number of people might have written it—but Metiria Turei is responsible for this bill and I want to give her credit for bringing it to the House. It is an important area. It is one that this Parliament should not be afraid to debate.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. It is a timely attempt to rein in the rapacious activities of casinos that profit from the proceeds of crime. Casinos are the beneficiaries of theft, fraud, and money-laundering. They are not necessarily good corporate citizens, and Mr Joyce’s comments in the House during question time that the Greens were trying to stop Skycity in Auckland from building a convention centre were disingenuous, to say the least. He implies that we, the people of Auckland, should be grateful for the casino’s largesse, that Skycity Casino is a good and worthy business, and completely forgets that the cost that comes with this national convention centre deal is more crime, more problem gambling, and more social harm, and that this is what will come from the extra 300 to 500 pokie machines that the casino is demanding in exchange.

This bill is an attempt to reduce the crime level associated with casinos by ensuring that they can no longer help the criminals. Currently there are no disincentives for a casino to do that. There are only incentives. For example, in 2006 in a period of 6 months one member of a criminal drug ring gambled over $11 million—classic money-laundering—and from that exercise the casino kept $1.5 million in profit. In 2010 Herminia Lanuza was jailed for 4 years for theft. She withdrew $2.7 million from banks and ATMs around the Auckland Casino and lost the lot, and it is interesting that it is the bank that is being sued for passing her fraudulent cheques. Christopher Sue was jailed for 4 years in 2008. He had a turnover of $50 million at the casino over 6 years. How do you think the casino knew that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

DENISE ROCHE: Sorry, sir. How does one know that? The casino knew that because it tracked the money. Richard Watson stole $5.5 million from his employer over 10 years. These are just a few examples.

In 2008 the BDO Kendalls Not-for-profit Fraud Survey found that 53 percent of all the money stolen from charities was stolen to fund gambling activity. This survey, by the way, was of only those people who had been caught. It calculated that the average amount stolen from community organisations was $180,000 per person. That is a huge amount for a charity to lose, and they cannot afford to lose it, especially as they are, quite correctly, held to account for the public funds and donations that they receive and spend. Charities lose money to gambling. Small and medium sized businesses lose money to fuel gambling activity. These employers are good employers. They provide employment, and they pay tax.

Debate interrupted.

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

Wednesday, 14 November 2012

(continued on Thursday, 15 November 2012)

Bills

Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill

Third 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 third time. Tuatahi, tēnā koutou Ngāti Manuhiri, Mook, Laly Haddon, koutou katoa kua haramai, nau mai, whakapiri mai. Nau mai, mauria mai ō koutou tini mate kia hui tahi rātou i konei, kia mihia, kia tangihia. Tino roa rawa tēnei kerēme, nā reira, i tērā wā i matemate mai ētahi. Nā reirā tēnei au e tangi atu ki a rātou. Ngā mate katoa kua pā ki a koutou, kua mauria ki rō Whare kia tū honohono me ā mātou mate, haere, okioki pai mai. Ērangi ko te mea nui, kua tae mai te kaupapa e whakahuihuitia tātou. He kaupapa ātaahua nā reira, nau mai i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, whakapiri mai.

[Firstly, welcome, Ngāti Manuhiri, Mook, Laly Haddon, and all of you who have arrived here, welcome, come closer. Welcome, bring forth your many deaths so that they may gather here together to be acknowledged and mourned over. This claim has been going on over a very long period of time and some have passed away. This is why I mourn them. To all the deaths affecting you that you have brought inside the House to link up with ours, depart, rest there well. But the most important thing is that the matter that assembled us here has arrived. It is an attractive matter, so welcome on this day of great significance. To you collectively, welcome, salutations, come closer.]

From the shores of Whangaparāoa in the south, 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. Ko Tamahunga te maunga, ko ngā Poitō-o-te-kupenga-o-Toi-te-huatahi i te moana, ko Ngāti Manuhiri te hapū, ko Ōmaha te marae.

[Tamahunga is the mountain, Poitō-o-te-kupenga-o-Toi-te-huatahi stretch across the sea, Ngāti Manuhiri is the subtribe, and Ōmaha is the courtyard.]

From the house of Te Kiri to the New Zealand House of Representatives, he hōnore māku kia mihi atu ki a Ngāti Manuhiri kua tae mai i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou [it is an honour for me to pay tribute to Ngāti Manuhiri, who have arrived here today, so well done].

It is an exciting time, times like this, when you can look out from the steps of Parliament on the beautiful Wellington morning that we have here and see kuia, koroua, and mokopuna heading into these buildings. When you see wheelchairs, walkers, prams—whatever—being wheeled into these buildings, when you see the sight that greets you on these mornings, then you know that the journey that these people are on has taken generations, has taken sacrifice and grievance, to reach us today.

Their journey has seen many loved ones pass on. Their journey has seen unimaginable economic and social losses, carved into generations of families. Their journey has seen great courage and conviction shown by generations of families. But by the end of this day, their journey will finally see justice for the people of Ngāti Manuhiri.

Early contact with European settlers led to epidemic disease, or rewharewha, decimating the families of Ngāti Manuhiri. Around 1840 Ngāti Manuhiri held customary mana whenua rights over 250,000 acres. Fifty years later, 90 percent of their land was gone, lost for ever. Today Ngāti Manuhiri landholdings total—remember, before, it was 250,000 acres—1,300 acres. That land is fragmented and multiple-owned. In 2012 Ngāti Manuhiri are all but landless in their own homelands.

The Crown’s alienation of Ngāti Manuhiri lands began soon after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. The forced Mahurangi and Ōmaha purchase saw thousands of hectares lost. Crown policies saw those lands they were left with individualised, fragmented, and uneconomic. Laws were passed that overnight turned Ngāti Manuhiri descendants into trespassers on their own whenua. As dawn broke on 20 January 1896 police officers, artillery men, and Government officials landed on Te Hauturu-o-Toi Island and forcibly evicted the rangatira and the families of Ngāti Manuhiri.

The impacts arising from the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi have been carried over many years by generations of Ngāti Manuhiri people, tae noa ki te rōpū e huihui mai i te rā nei [including the group that is gathered here today].

Without the land and resources to take ownership of their own destiny, generations of Ngāti Manuhiri people’s rights, their right to determine their own economic and social well-being, were denied. This land loss, this landlessness, meant that the right of Ngāti Manuhiri to uphold their own mana motuhake, to exercise their own rangatiratanga, was denied.

As we stand together this morning, the Crown alongside Manuhiri, we look back through time and see this injustice, this suffering. All those things Ngāti Manuhiri families have lost, due to the actions of the Crown, can never be totally replaced. And yet the people of Ngāti Manuhiri are here today to settle their grievances with the Crown with mana and with honour. The people of Ngāti Manuhiri are looking ahead towards their future, and it is a bright one. It is a future that will focus on restoring the economic, environmental, social, and cultural health of ngā uri o Ngāti Manuhiri.

From this day on, Ngāti Manuhiri seek the right to take ownership of their destiny, their own destiny, to determine their own economic, social, and cultural well-being. With the support of the Crown, Ngāti Manuhiri seeks the right to uphold their own mana motuhake, to exercise their own rangatiratanga. To quote the Ngāti Manuhiri whakataukī that encapsulates their mana whenua mana moana bonds to their rohe: e whā tāwhara ki uta, he kiko tāmure ki tai. From the flowering kiekie on our lands, to the flesh of the snapper deep in our waters, our fortune, our future for ever.

Nā reira, tēnā koutou. He mihi whakamutunga māku ki a koutou i tēnei rā nui, kua tae ā-tinana mai koutou, harikoa te ngākau kia tū au ki te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou.

[So congratulations. A closing comment from me to you who have arrived here personally on this great day is to say how pleased I am to rise and welcome you here today. Greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to you and to us collectively.]

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E koutou, e Laly, Mook, ngā mea pakeke, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. E mihi kau ana ki tō kaunihera, Wayne, koutou katoa e whai kaha atu, e tae tahi i te rangi nei. E taukototia atu te mihimihi o tō tātou Minita Māori, te Hōnore Tākuta Pita Sharples ki a koutou. E mōhio atu tātou, te roaroa hoki me te mamae e mau ana a muri i a koutou, i te tae atu i te rangi nei.

He tino rangi hoki tēnei mō koutou o Ngāti Manuhiri. I tae kaha ake koutou ahakoa ngā piki, ngā heke mō te āhua o te moutere Hauturu, te ngahere, me te whakahoki o wētahi o ngā wāhi whenua ki a koutou. I te mea, i roto i a tātou katoa ngā kaimahi o te Whare Miere nei, e mōhio atu tātou te mamae o rātou kua rere atu, kua peka atu ki tērā taha. E mōhio atu tātou ahakoa nā wai, nō whea e tae atu katoa i tērā rere haere. E mihi kau ana ki a rātou.

Ēngari mō tātou kei te ora ana, ka nui te mihi. E mihi kau ana ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou mō tō kaha rawa i te tae ahakoa te kī i roto i a rātou o tauiwi mō te āhua o te piki me te heke. Ko tērā anō wētahi o ngā take e pā ana ki te ora o tātou a Ngāi Māori. Nā te kaha me te pai o te rangi nei i tae kaha ake koutou i roto i te hūmārie; pēnei tonu i te Whare nei, e whakaae atu kia oti pai mō koutou. Tēnā koutou.

[To you, the older ones, Laly and Mook, I salute you. I commend your counsel, Wayne, and all of you who worked hard to arrive here together today. I endorse the tributes to you by our Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. We all know as well how long it has taken, and the pain experienced by you afterwards right to this day.

This, indeed, is a momentous day for you, Ngāti Manuhiri. You have worked hard to get here despite the ups and downs relating to the situation over Little Barrier Island, the bush, and the return of some lands to you collectively. Because all of us have Beehive staff working amongst us, we know the hurt experienced by them when someone passes away or crosses over. We understand the situation, regardless of who it is or where they are from when they die. I really acknowledge them.

But as far as we, the living, are concerned, the respect is huge. I regard you highly. Congratulations to you on working so hard to get here despite the view within non-Māori about the ups and downs, as there are some extenuating circumstances that relate to our well-being within Māoridom. This day has been such a powerful and wonderful one, and you arrived here strongly in an affable frame of mind; I agree, like this House, that it ends well for you. Thank you.]

I would like to recognise the chief negotiator and kaumātua Laly Haddon and new negotiator Mook—Terence Hohneck. I have never known what Mook’s real name was, but it is Terence. Tēnā koe, Terence. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe, Terence. He tino mihi atu ki a koe, Terence, tēnā koe, ngā kaumātua katoa a Peri Watts, a koutou e tae tahi ake ki konei.

[Hi there, Terence. I admire you greatly, I really do. Thank you as well to the aged, all of you, Peri Watts, and everyone who arrived here together today.]

To a lot of those people who have gone on, the relevance of this claim, in my mind, is how short it has been. It is an example of an organised journey that other claimants could take sight of, really getting down to it in 2009. I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson, for his effort in this. He was a bit churlish yesterday, saying we had nothing in our time when he was reading his poetry off his list and badging us people. By crikey, I nearly stood up and took a point of order, but I want to recognise the Minister’s effort and recognise that period of time—short period of time, really—for Treaty settlements, from 2009 to now. I am not saying that there was not a heavy burden laid on the Manuhiri people by the actions of the Crown, the Native Land Court, and all other organisations that stripped them of physical assets and their physical being, but what I have never believed is that the Crown has taken any of our people’s mana away. That is always intact. That it gets recognised now in a framework of them making it understood that they are the mana whenua, they are the tangata whenua, is something that, certainly, Ngāti Manuhiri has done well, has espoused well, and has made certain that people understand who is there and who should not be and where they should be going.

I want to recognise Sir Douglas Graham, who is not here today, for the effort in the initial stages and some of his efforts on behalf of the Crown in trying to get this together. I think it should be mentioned: his effort for all of those groups—the Kaipara, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Hauraki, and Coromandel, including Ngāti Manuhiri—to enter into direct negotiations with the Crown to settle all their historical Treaty claims. Between July 2009 and March 2011 the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust engaged in negotiations with the Crown for the settlement of all Ngāti Manuhiri historical Treaty claims. The initial deed of settlement was ratified by members of Ngāti Manuhiri and signed in May 2011. I want to again reiterate that this has been a quite organised, orderly, and short journey, even though it was about long-term angst and the anxiety that Ngāti Manuhiri carry.

The Ngāti Manuhiri claims relate to the failure of the Crown to create adequate reserves for Ngāti Manuhiri during the purchase of Mahurangi and Ōmaha in 1841. I am always amazed at the size of the buildings and the wealth that pervades that land in Ōmaha now. Native land laws, an operation of the Native Land Court—I think history will tell us that the Native Land Court and the orders that were made at that time were some of the most spurious and scurrilous decisions made with those people. There was not recognition of who they were and what they were, and it just chose, like a consolidated bureaucracy, what should happen and what the edict should be for going forward.

The Crown’s acquisition of Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island—and this certainly has tested the waters, dare I mention it, in relation to this settlement. But I think it is a defined space and the agreement that the Crown has reached with Ngāti Manuhiri is something that can carry the future. There is allowance now, after the approach to the Māori Affairs Committee, about making sure that future generations can have some avenue or opportunity to continue to discuss the decision-making activities there. The Crown’s actions did leave Ngāti Manuhiri virtually landless. It had devastating and enduring effects on the spiritual, cultural, and economic well-being of Ngāti Manuhiri. The settlement package includes the Warkworth District Court and Pakiri School sites, which will be leased back to the Crown, which will generate consistent income to help Ngāti Manuhiri forge their pathway forward for those who are there. There is $2.49 million in cash plus interest payable on the $9 million since 2009, the South Mangawhai Crown forest licence lands and the accumulated rentals of around $1.2 million, and first right of refusal for 169 years over 82 Crown-owned properties specified in the deed of settlement.

This I wanted to labour a bit on through the Minister, excuse the pun. I think that a lot of these properties that are sitting there are getting graffitied, vandalised, or kicked around, and nobody seems to care. I cannot quite comprehend why we do not become more generous or more forthright, and it would take a visionary Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to push this along. It would certainly be supported from this side of the House. That is what is happening. Empty schools are pillaged. Empty halls are left to rot. Then we all get so high and mighty. I think some of the officials are saying “It is land bank, it is land bank.” It is like Fort Knox. What the hang does “land bank” mean? It means that property is stuck over there to rot, to get vandalised. I would strongly suggest through you, Mr Speaker, that this great, brave Minister should take something to Cabinet, and we would support that. That really does help the local whānau and the local iwi. They have generally been the centre of those schools, of those properties.

I want to mention the council and those people who have supported this claim. There are a whole lot of other cultural redresses investing. But when I read this about 82 Crown-owned properties and giving 169 years, well, I will tell you what will happen if those properties sit there for 169 years. They will get pirau, they will fall over. Why is it not such a great thing to give to the mana whenua, because we took a lot of that land away? So, Minister, in closing I would ask you to seriously consider that.

I want to commend the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, for receiving and listening to the hundred submissions that we had on this bill. People have taken it seriously. Many submissions raised concerns for a whole lot of issues, but let us remember that this is about those people who live there; it is not about politicians who have a role to make the decision on behalf of the Crown. But at the end of the day, it is Ngāti Manuhiri who live there. It is Ngāti Manuhiri who will be there for ever. They have not gone away. They will never go away. Our job as the Crown is to put something right that has been wrong for a long, long time. Kia ora.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I hope those in the gallery do not mind, but I want to respond immediately to what Mr Horomia said, because he is quite right. The land bank system is under pressure, and I promise him I am on to it. It is pointless handing over properties after about 5 or 6 years that are, as he says, rotting away or have asbestos problems or graffiti problems. It is totally unacceptable and I will have a chat to him in the very near future, because, having seen the experience most recently of, I think, Waverley High School, the situation is most unsatisfactory, but I promise him I am on to it.

Like other members, I too welcome representatives of Ngāti Manuhiri here for this third reading debate of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. I thank them for their tireless efforts. It is a great day for them and it is a great day for this Parliament, because what happens today is that Parliament gives effect to an agreement entered into between you, Ngāti Manuhiri, and the Crown for the settlement of historical claims. It has been a very long claim although, because of the good work, I think, on both sides, negotiations have gone very, very efficiently and effectively.

Ngāti Manuhiri and the Crown signed a deed of settlement on 20 May 2011 at Ōmaha Marae, near Leigh. As I recall, it was a beautiful Saturday morning, well attended by the Ngāti Manuhiri community, supported by representatives of Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Whātua, and other iwi, and a good representation of members from the Auckland Council, who are very keen to see this and other Treaty settlements in the Tāmaki area work well. Well, almost 18 months have passed since then, which may seem a long time to some people, but in the context of Treaty settlements, it is not that long at all, and we have now reached the stage where we are dealing with the third reading, the final reading of the bill.

As Mr Horomia has said, much of the credit goes to the Māori Affairs Committee. They have a wonderful chair in Tau Henare, one of my good parliamentary friends and colleagues, and he has really in the last couple of years taken the task of Treaty settlements under his wing and has done what I think is a superb job. As Mr Horomia said, he navigated—and the committee worked very hard on—the 100 or so submissions, and I really want to thank members for their work and for the consensus that was reached.

As other speakers have said, Ngāti Manuhiri are a people of the Mahurangi coast, a beautiful part of New Zealand. Actually, I was very lucky to be driving through it just last Saturday. Their area of interest extends along that coast and inland from Bream Tail in the north to Whangaparāoa in the south and includes Hauturu—Little Barrier Island. Today the Ngāti Manuhiri marae, Ōmaha, is the only tribal marae found on the east coast between the North Shore of Auckland and Whangarei Harbour, and, despite considerable pressures, not least being very high levels of land alienation, Ngāti Manuhiri have kept their fires burning. They are well known for their affiliation to the ocean-going iwi Ngāti Wai, and are indeed represented on the Ngāti Wai Trust Board. Being descendants of the tupuna Maki, Ngāti Manuhiri are also affiliated to the Te Kawerau peoples, and in particular they share descent with certain branches of Ngāti Whātua, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and others.

Ngāti Manuhiri were identified by Sir Douglas Graham as one of the groups the Crown should enter negotiations with, in his June 2009 proposal to get negotiations going again in Tāmaki and neighbouring areas. Negotiations between the Crown and Ngāti Manuhiri commenced shortly thereafter and an agreement in principle was signed at Christmas 2009. The deed of settlement was signed, as I said, just a couple of months ago in 2011. The Ngāti Manuhiri community voted to ratify the settlement at 99.4 percent in support, and, frankly, it is difficult to conceive of a higher level of support than that, and I think that common purpose bodes well for the future of the iwi.

With the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei deed and bill, which will also be read today for a third time, this settlement is the first of the negotiations started by Sir Douglas to be concluded. He is not here today, but I too wanted to acknowledge the very good work of Sir Douglas and of my chief Crown negotiator, Mike Dreaver, and the officials in the Office of Treaty Settlements. I too acknowledge the work and commitment of the Ngāti Manuhiri negotiators. I did not know that Mook’s name was Terence, but I am delighted he is here today. He is a wonderful negotiator. He and the other negotiators brought a high level of principle, pragmatism, and very good sense to the table. Peri Watts acted as both kaumātua and negotiator, and, as Mr Horomia has said, critically driving negotiations from the Ngāti Manuhiri side has been that rangatira Laly Haddon.

I am sure that Mr Horomia recently referred to Laly Haddon as an “old warrior”. I do not know about the adjective, but warrior is certainly right. He has lived all his life at Pakiri, the Ngāti Manuhiri heartland, and he has had a reputation on the rugby field—which I am sure will appeal to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, not bringing you into the debate, of course—and he has been awarded a QSM for services to conservation in addition to his membership of the Auckland Conservation Board and chairmanship of the Hauraki Gulf Forum. He was a founding member on the management committee of New Zealand’s first marine reserve, the Cape Rodney reserve otherwise known as Goat Island. Mr Haddon has been a fearless advocate for Ngāti Wai through the years with his involvement with the Ngāti Wai Trust Board.

Redress to Ngāti Manuhiri through this bill, including redress relating to Te Hauturu-o-Toi, or Little Barrier Island Nature Reserve, can be said to reflect Mr Haddon’s commitment to tribal advocacy, to the environment, and to the righting of historical wrongs. The deed of settlement sets out the historical account. As it describes, the Crown went to extraordinary lengths to secure title to Te Hauturu-o-Toi from Ngāti Manuhiri and its other traditional owners of Ngāti Wai descent. A special Act, in fact, was passed, the Little Barrier Island Purchase Act 1894, which compulsorily acquired the shares of those owners who refused to sell. Then in 1896 the remaining owners, who included Ngāti Manuhiri, were forcibly evicted from the island. In addition to the Crown acknowledgment of, and apology for, these wrongs, Ngāti Manuhiri will retain ownership of 1.2 hectares of the island. This was a key aspiration of Ngāti Manuhiri. That small parcel will provide the community with an important foothold on the island including the ability to erect an appropriate building. The bill also makes provision for the co-governance of the island, particularly in the development of a conservation plan.

I want to say something briefly about clause 96A of the bill. It sets out that other groups can become involved in these provisions if other enactments provide for that. Importantly, through negotiations and in the gift and gift-back arrangement, Ngāti Manuhiri acknowledge the significance of Te-Hauturu-o-Toi to all New Zealanders as a nature reserve, and I want to acknowledge the generosity of Ngāti Manuhiri.

A number of concerns were raised before the Māori Affairs Committee by members of Ngāti Wai. I dealt with those in my second reading speech, but I do emphasise in this speech that the bill settles only the historical grievances of Ngāti Manuhiri. The claims of Ngāti Wai are not settled, nor does the redress provided to Ngāti Manuhiri convey exclusive mana whenua over the island to them. When Ngāti Wai enter settlement negotiations with the Crown through an appropriately mandated body, Ngāti Wai aspirations will, and can, be discussed.

This has been very much a model negotiation with hard work on both sides, and it really is a tribute to everyone that an agreement in principle was signed just before Christmas in 2009, and a deed of settlement in June 2011, and that we are at this stage in November 2012. So I want to thank Ngāti Manuhiri for their hard work, and wish them all the very best for the future.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Ā, ki a koutou e rau rangatira mā o Ngāti Manuhiri, nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei mō tēnei rā whakahirahira. Āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, 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. Salutations to the House. To you, the leaders of a hundredfold of Ngāti Manuhiri, welcome to Parliament House in readiness here for this highly important day, welcome. Draw together, come together. They, the dead, draw together and we, the living, come together, greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to us all.]

I am delighted to be able to speak at this final reading of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. Labour members, as we have all along, wholeheartedly support this bill at this third reading. Genealogy is the key that unlocks the history of these iwi that come before our House and our Māori Affairs Committee. Today I reacknowledge my tupuna Maki of Taranaki and Kāwhia, Maki of Te Tai Hauāuru, who with his confederates travelled from Kāwhia through to the Hokianga and back down into the Waitakere and Tāmaki areas. As my ancestor chased his foe, a chief of the Kaipara made disparaging remarks about Maki. As was usual, word got back to Maki, and in the relentless and unforgiving nature of Māori warfare Maki was particularly harsh on the people of Kaipara.

But there was more to Māori warfare than out and out slaughter of the enemy. Sometimes a battle would not reach its conclusion because of the sudden withdrawal of support. More often than not a peace deal would be made and the politics of peace talks was begun. But these talks were more than just a way to stop bloodshed. It was an opportunity for chiefs to make political and strategic alliances. Often these pacts between chiefs and tribes were sealed with gifts of mere pounamu, waka, slaves, or, in Maki’s case, wives. It is a wise man who gives up his daughter to stop further bloodshed, as it was in those times. It will not go down well with the feminists of today, but this was the reality of our tūpuna. The reason was simple: give my daughter as wife to a victorious chief, and my grandchildren will be of the rangatira lines of both tribes, and so, therefore, it is less likely that old tribal feuds will be reignited.

But time marches on inexorably and without prejudice. The whānau and hapū groupings swelled in number to the point that by the time the Treaty of Waitangi came about in 1840 those small family groupings had turned into large iwi. So with each passing generation bros became cuzzies, and the degree of relationship diminished to the point where a new set of rules was applied by the participants. In 1840 Pākehā became a new formula in this equation. This man Maki—what a tupuna! Descendants can be found on the west coast of the North Island from as far south as Pātea to Kāwhia, through to Tāmaki and up to the Hokianga. His name can be found in the word “Tāmaki”—Tā-maki. The tribe Te Kawerau-a-Maki are his descendants, as are the people of Ngāti Manuhiri and some of Ngāti Wai.

This settlement bill has been a long time in the making. Many hui, over decades, have been held. Strong and vociferous kōrero have been put forward in establishing hapū and iwi authority. More sadly, people have passed on, and all of that stems from whakapapa. For me, Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier Island, is of particular significance. Concerns were raised by Ngāti Wai that Ngāti Manuhiri would receive the island back in some form or another. They too have whakapapa links to the island, and quite rightly made that clear in the many oral and written submissions made by the descendants of Ngāti Wai. After thorough investigation our committee has left an opportunity for Ngāti Wai to stake their claim to mana and a shared interest in Little Barrier Island.

Our committee was aware of concerns also over allegations of possible conflicts of interest with regard to certain people and organisations of Ngāti Wai and Ngāti Manuhiri. Both tribes sent the same legal teams and some people ended up on both representative boards, it was claimed. But that is not nepotism; that is whakapapa. The reason these kaumātua and kuia puta noa te motu, up and down the country, stand on one trust board and stand on another board is because of their genealogy. Our old people who lead the way for us younger ones do so from the safety and security of their whakapapa. Their families are likely to be of rangatira lines. It is like the way of our old people, because to be able to recite your relationship to the people you are about to do politics with is very advantageous—a great leverage when negotiating. The close links between Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai have been acknowledged. This committee has no reservations about conflicts of interest, and the dual roles have been made plain to the community concerned.

The cultural and financial redress in this bill is significant, but it is never enough—not just for Ngāti Manuhiri but for all hapū and iwi up and down the country. There will never be enough money for redress and there will never be enough land and buildings to be given back. Iwi have to make do with what is on offer. No doubt Ngāti Manuhiri’s post-settlement entity will look to invest well. They have a number of properties and reserves coming back into their ownership, old tūpuna names will be revived, and a new generation of Ngāti Manuhiri will start.

But can I make one point. I have noticed in my time on the Māori Affairs Committee this practice or trend of gifting back significant lakes, mountains, and islands with a clause that says it is for only a day or a week before the tribe magnanimously gifts it back to the nation. Minister Finlayson will be aware that 1840 to 2012 is 169 years. Why not give the island back to its iwi for 169 years, and then let the people and the Government of 2171 sort out their continuing Treaty relationship? I know, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, that you will think that is a totally ridiculous situation, with your high “EQ”—emotional intelligence. “It can never happen!”, I know, is what will be screaming in your head, but I tell you, Minister, that there is no real mana in holding your long-lost taonga tuku iho land for a day, or a few days, or a week, before being forced to give it back to the people of New Zealand.

That little mamae aside, I am proud to be a member of the formidable Māori Affairs Committee, which is more than ably chaired by my Ngāti Hine whanaunga, the Hon Tau Henare. His guiding hand from the chair over what has been a very robust grouping has been very, very Speaker-like, so I mihi to my whanaunga. But I also implore him not to make any offhand remarks about smoking on this day, because I guarantee you it will be those remarks about his smoking habit or something that is totally frivolous that will end up in the New Zealand Herald, or in the blogosphere and in the media, and not the very, very important hui that we have here today. So that is another kōrero I would like to pass on to the media. These are great days, these Treaty settlement days. These are highly significant, highly historic occasions, and they should be widely reported to all the people of New Zealand.

So just in conclusion, I would like to acknowledge all the many people from both sides who were involved in this settlement process. I would like to acknowledge the Minister and all of his officials, but, more important, I would like to mihi to all the whānau of Ngāti Manuhiri. It has been a very long journey, but this is a hugely significant occasion. So to all my distant relations, I wish you all the very best in the future. Kia ora anō tātou.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare. Te manuhiri tuārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira, ngā uri o Ngāti Manuhiri me Ngāti Wai, tēnā koutou katoa, nau mai, haere mai.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Salutations to you all, the House. Welcome to you, visitors from afar, elders, leaders, and descendants of Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai, acknowledgments and welcome to you all.]

The Green Party believes that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a positive force for social cohesion and for peace in Aotearoa New Zealand. Whether it has been expressed from family to whānau, whether it is in the use of te Tiriti for the retention of land or forestry—or perhaps, in the near future, State-owned assets—te Tiriti has been a force for good in this country, and can continue to be so. We agree that there must be resolution of, and restitution for, all of the outstanding historical and contemporary breaches of te Tiriti as they occur.

We also believe that the Crown and its representatives have breached, and continue to breach, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We believe that the settlement process operates as a continued breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi supports hapūtanga, and hapūtanga is undermined by this Treaty settlement process. None the less, Te Tiriti o Waitangi itself is a force for good. However, the full capacity for te Tiriti to be used as a force for social good, and to be used to bring our communities and our whānau together, cannot be reached until there is a genuine restitution for the wrongs that were committed by the State against hapū, and that requires genuine respect for rangatiratanga, it requires the restoration of decision-making authority, and it requires justice for the past and a commitment to justice in the future.

The difficulty that the Green Party has with the settlement process—and we have always had this problem with the settlement process—is that it was not designed by Māori for Māori. It was not designed according to the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū. It was designed according to the needs of the Crown, which was looking to find as cheap and quick a way as possible to manage increasing Māori claims in the Waitangi Tribunal. The “picking winners” process that the settlement process creates causes another form of harm against iwi and hapū.

In the past the Green Party has tended to support Treaty settlements, because we believe we need to acknowledge and respect the work that kaumātua and rangatira put into the settlements. But we have to treat each one on its merits. On this one, we have agreed to continue to abstain on this Treaty settlement. We do not believe that this settlement is just. We do think it creates a very disturbing precedent for the use of legislation to make pointless gestures. [Interruption] That has been noticed and identified by my colleagues. Yes, well, the Minister and others in the House might groan, but this is not a rubber-stamping process. We have to make sure that genuine justice is identified here, and it is not. There is not genuine justice in this settlement, in our view.

We believe that this settlement deliberately creates a split between Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai. This is an issue of great alarm, although it has happened in the past through Treaty settlements. I do want to acknowledge the harm that this settlement causes to many of the uri of Ngāti Wai, whichever position they come from on this settlement. There were serious issues of conflict of interest raised during our investigation in the Māori Affairs Committee of this settlement, and that has been touched on again this morning. We do not agree that those issues were satisfied. We have raised those issues at the select committee, and we have reported back to the House at the second reading on our view of those issues. I do not believe we need to traverse them again.

The settlement today, which we are discussing, says that Hauturu is to be returned to Ngāti Manuhiri for 7 days in fee simple title, and then returned to Crown ownership but for a small proportion that is set aside. We know that the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill has been amended to state that its provisions do not prevent future settlements from providing co-governance arrangements over Hauturu to other iwi in the future. But this change is not sufficient to alter our vote. The Crown being able to take a piece of land that was wrongfully taken in the first place, give it back under legislation for a couple of days, and then take it back again so that it can give it to somebody else and then take it back again, is not restoration of justice. It is not. That is why we are not supporting this bill.

The precedents that this legislation sets in this deal are unacceptable. It is a Clayton’s return. It does nothing to restore to Ngāti Manuhiri genuine justice for the wrongs that were committed against them. It might have been accepted as part of the settlement deal, because of the circumstances that the iwi find themselves in today, but the Green Party does not accept it as genuine justice. We take this decision to abstain very seriously. We will not rubber-stamp settlements. We do not believe that these settlements can possibly be considered full and final—and certainly not this one. We understand them as deals that are done today according to today’s constraints, and the issues will no doubt be revisited again in the future.

I do not doubt that the Minister will take some pride in this settlement, as he does in others, but he ought not to mistake respect from Māori for his position for acquiescence or even acceptance that this is a just process. The Crown has given nothing of itself in this settlement deal. It has not made restitution. It has not restored the wrongs it has committed. In fact, the Crown has, by picking some over others, created even further division and harm for Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai. In our view, the Crown has committed an additional breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Green Party believes that it is important that we stand and name these Crown breaches as they occur.

Finally, we do want to acknowledge all of the work and hardship of Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai that have led to this point in their struggle for genuine tino rangatiratanga, and we will continue to support them in that struggle. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi, anei taku mihimihi ki a koutou katoa, e aku rangatira, e aku tuākana. Nō reira, ngā mihi. He hōnore māku e tū ana au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire i mua i a koutou. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[In the first instance, here is my tribute to you all, my leaders and elder siblings. It is an honour for me to stand before you to endorse this bill. And so, salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations to you all.]

Can I start at the end, where Metiria Turei left off. I happen to agree with her that it is not a rubber-stamping issue. I do not think the Māori Affairs Committee takes it as such, as a rubber-stamping issue. We certainly, in every case, try to weed out the issues that are controversial and see whether we can assist on the way. I think that even in this settlement bill, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, we did that. We recommended that there be a change to take note of some of the concerns that submitters had. I am happy to say that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Ngāti Manuhiri found a way that they could reflect the committee’s desire to have one part of the bill changed. I think that was a good thing.

I have also got to say that we can stand here and say “Oh, one side was bullied; one side was coerced.”, but at the end of the day this is an agreement between the Crown and somebody else—an iwi. And at the end of the day it is their right to say yes and their right to say no. They could have easily said “Nah, I’m not going to buy into this. This is a horrible deal. Let’s wait for another 150 years. We might get another $9 million in 150 years.” It is that sort of issue. Either you—not you, Mr Speaker, but the generic use of the word “you”—wait or you deal with it now so you can get on with the business. I think that Māori have shown a hell of a lot of patience over the years with the process. I think what we are seeing now is people deciding “We are not going to wait any more; we are going to take what has been offered and we will try to make the best position for our people.” I congratulate Ngāti Manuhiri on that.

Earlier this morning in the Gaza Strip, the Israelis took the opportunity to clean out one of the military commanders of the Palestinian Hamas people. This is not the same as up in Ngāti Manuhiri, but what I am trying to say is that if we continue to harbour ill feeling for thousands of years, then we are not going to get anywhere, and the only thing we are going to get is death and destruction. So I say not only to Ngāti Manuhiri but to those to come and those who have been before that it is a good day when we are able to sit down, agree, and move on to the next step. I see these settlements as being not only the honourable thing to do but the next step on the country’s journey.

I think people will be pleasantly surprised by the Māori Affairs Committee’s report on the well-being of Māori children, because that is what we are looking at. We are looking at the future and what the future may hold for Māori children and for Māori as a part of this country. This is what the Treaty settlements are. They are a movement to the next level, to the next step.

Congratulations must go to the folk at home, to the Ministers, and to the team at the Office of Treaty Settlements, as a, I suppose, working model. I have said it in the House before. We should as a nation be very proud of the reconciliation process that we have come up with—very proud of it. In fact, we should export it to a number of other countries. I know that it might sound arrogant, but we do have a history of being able to sit down, without bashing each other on the head, to try to figure out a deal that is good for everybody.

Everybody who speaks in this House and who has spoken in this House has said that it is not the best deal ever. We are never ever going to get that. The acceptance that there is a stage that you move to, to the next level, for the benefit of your own people is, I think, paramount in all of these settlements. So, again, hats off to the negotiating team, and I must say hats off to the Māori Affairs Committee. It is one of the committees that I, personally, have enjoyed most being on while being here. We ask the hard questions, we do try to drill deep into some of these settlements, especially the “interesting” ones, and we do get results. I have to congratulate our committee on being a committee that does not hold back in terms of its questions and in terms of where it wants to go.

So, all in all, this is a very, very good day for Ngāti Manuhiri, and a very, very good day for the Government. Another Treaty settlement is done and dusted by our erstwhile Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He can clock it up. He can put another notch in his belt, and I think it is well deserved. I think that praise for this Government about, one, the number of Treaty settlements and, two, the speed with which these settlements have been settled and put to bed has been absolutely outstanding. I think it is a good day for Ngāti Manuhiri, a good day for the Government, and a good day for the nation. Kia ora.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): E ngā mātua, e ngā kāranga maha me ngā hoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the fathers, many callings, and colleagues, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.]

It is high time a discordant note was introduced into this debate. We have been through the introduction, first reading, and Committee stage and a full examination of the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. Some people’s reputations have been maligned and impugned, and I am here today to defend them. I recall when Ngāti Wai was under attack back in the 1970s from both the Crown and the Whangarei County Council. I want to know where some of these critics were back then when we needed help, when we turned things round.

You see, it is said that this bill is a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that certain so-called claimants’ claims are more meritorious than claims from those who have been around for a long time defending these issues. This is what these claimants took to the Waitangi Tribunal, you will recall, and they said that Ngāti Wai, if they dealt with the Crown that way, would be involved in significant irreversible prejudice. They said that Ngāti Wai were not consulted, that the chairperson of the Ngāti Wai Trust Board and the Ngāti Manuhiri negotiator and trustee of the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust were the same, that the chairperson of the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust and the Ngāti Manuhiri negotiator was a marae representative on the Ngāti Wai Trust Board and moved the motion for the board to support the Ngāti Manuhiri settlement, and that the legal adviser to the Ngāti Wai Trust Board was the same adviser to the Manuhiri Ōmaha Kaitiakitanga Ora Trust and the Ngāti Manuhiri negotiations. Those claims have been maintained on marae, at the Māori Affairs Committee, and on, regardless of the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal found no merit in them at all.

Here is the fact of the matter. The facts of the matter are that the Ngāti Wai Trust Board endorsed Manuhiri proceedings with their settlement as part of the Tāmaki Makaurau settlement of the Auckland isthmus. That is No. 1. And there is no integrity in coming before this House with ignorance, supporting certain groups whose reputations I remember. For example, look at my people up there. Let me ask you this: Hōrī Pārata—how much land does Hōrī Pārata keep at Pātaua? Not one inch. But I hear people telling the Green Party something else, and those members fall for it. It is a slight on Ngāti Wai, from the south to the north.

Here are the facts. The resolution referred to in Part 1, that is the resolution I am talking about. It is a resolution that says that the Ngāti Wai Trust Board does not support any settlement that extinguishes any iwi rights, interests, or redress to the islands within the Ngāti Wai rohe. That was the resolution and it still stands. So why would the Greens come here today, as they have in the past, and put up there all manner of people with no understanding at all of Ngāti Wai or our history, as though they know more than the people who have slaved away for decades to see this right? I do not come here with any joy, but I am not going to stand by while people get defamed and maligned. The settlement deed specifically states that settlement with Manuhiri does not impinge upon any claims the Ngāti Wai Trust Board has. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said that, so has the Waitangi Tribunal. But, no, those members came down to the House and spread malice aforethought—to use a legal term.

We know about the land that is in the exclusive control of Ngāti Manuhiri. It is 1.2 hectares. But in respect of the conflict of interest, I suggest that the Green Party considers the minute from the Waitangi Tribunal, which was asked to consider the conflict of interest issue. It went on to say this. This is the key finding from the Waitangi Tribunal: “Taken in conjunction with the Minister’s assurances that the door is open for further redress to be negotiated with Ngāti Wai I have come to the view”—this is Judge Milroy, on behalf of the Waitangi Tribunal—“that there is no significant and irreversible prejudice to the applicants. Ngāti Wai are recognised to some degree in the Deed. Redress that recognises shared manawhenua is still available to the applicants.”

Those are the facts. Do you want me to read it again? No, no, but this is to do with the law, not prejudice and bias or picking up the view of a few troublemakers who came before me and told me “We represent Ngāti Wai.” Well, that was a big surprise to me, because I have been around a long time, since we started the Ngāti Wai Land Retention Committee to take on the Crown and the Whangarei County Council. We had 16 years of court case after court case, and finally almost won the whole lot. I remember some of those ones, though. They did not pay me. I am still waiting for my legal fees. And to have people come to this House and defame my family or Laly Haddon and people of that standing—well, those are the things up with which we in New Zealand First will not put.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Don’t hold your breath for an apology.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I am asking for an apology. My brother has been the solicitor for the trust board for a long time, and the board was well aware of his involvement with Manuhiri and his assisting of them with their negotiations, although, in effect, his role was primarily involved in advising on structures around receiving the settlement assets, as opposed to deciding what the form of the settlement should be. However, I do not suppose the Greens want to have that story spoiled by facts. But an apology is deserved here.

The second thing is that people have served their area studiously and with barely any compensation—go and look at Ngāti Wai Trust Board’s record of remuneration to the people who have worked for it. It is a standout model of putting the iwi before self. Look at the record. We will not stand by while somebody who does not understand, or a political party that should know better but does not, comes down here and defames and maligns us, because whatever our record is in Ngāti Wai, to use that old quote—and I suppose it goes for my party as well as against that of some parties—not like the seagull tossing and turning its head at every wave, but like the rock steadfast against the surging sea. Thank you.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi rangatira Ngāti Manuhiri, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Nō Kotarangi aku tūpuna ēngari, i tipu ake ahau i Tāmaki-makau-rau. Kei te noho au ki Karapiro. Ko Maungatautari te maunga. Ko Waikato te awa. Ko Louise Upston ahau, te mema Pāremata mō Taupō.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to you, the House. Acknowledgments to you, the esteemed tribe of Ngāti Manuhiri. Salutations, greetings, and congratulations to you all. My ancestors are from Scotland but I grew up in Auckland. I live in Karapiro. The mountain is Maungatautari, the river is Waikato, and I am Louise Upston, member of Parliament for Taupō.]

Welcome, welcome, welcome, and congratulations on this momentous occasion. I echo the words of my colleagues bar one in the celebration that we have here for you today, so welcome to Parliament. This is a day that I know your people will remember for ever.

This is another day in this Parliament where, under the very wise and strong leadership of Minister Finlayson, we are able to conclude Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. For some, I know, when the purchase of the land was done in 1841, without any consideration or reference to you, that is where the hurt started, back in 1841. So we stand in this Parliament in the year 2012 to conclude, to correct, and to make amends for that.

I do want to just echo some of the comments that my colleagues have made around the people who have made this possible. I do want to acknowledge Sir Douglas Graham, because I think to have started a conversation in 2009 and to be here, what, some 3½ years later for the third reading of a bill, is definitely the shortest time frame I have witnessed. I think, more important, it also provides some confidence. It provides some guidance for those who are following in your footsteps who have yet to settle. I think that you, as the people of Ngāti Manuhiri, have really set a magnificent example, when two parties are willing and able, of how well, how efficiently, and how in a short time frame you can conclude an agreement, and it is that.

I do want to take just a very brief moment to say that I am sorry that this day is marred, and it will not be a unanimous vote in the House for support for this Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. I am deeply saddened by that. It is the first time I have seen it since my time in Parliament. I believe the two parties in this agreement have reached an agreement. We would not be here today otherwise, if you had not. I want to just put on record my frustration with the Green Party in marring this day for this House, and for you.

One of the things that is really important in the conclusion of Treaty settlements—of which we have now done 22—is the ability to put the past behind us. But, equally, I know that that past will never be forgotten. One of the things that has been very evident to me in my time as a member of Parliament is how some people have a poor understanding of the history that leads to these settlements. To use a phrase from one of my select committee colleagues, on a bill a couple of weeks ago, he spoke about “ignorant Pākehā”. At the time I was a bit offended, but, actually, I think on reflection it is quite accurate. There are a lot of Pākehā New Zealanders who do not understand your past, do not understand why we have these settlements, and do not understand the hurt that has been caused. I think, equally, it is every one of us in this House who has a responsibility to make sure that more New Zealanders understand how important the Treaty settlements are for all of us, and for you particularly today, but, actually, to all of us as New Zealanders.

I want to just also reflect on the select committee process, because there were a large number of submissions on this as a Treaty bill. I acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, for navigating that process as well as he did. It is also fair to say that there were opposing views, which is what happens when you have a submission process. The fact that there clearly was some tension is, I think, also to be acknowledged, because that has an impact on the community. In my own electorate of Taupō we have a settlement that is under way at the moment where there is, or there has been, a lot of friction in the community, and it is good to be able to say: “This is settled. There is agreement, and we can move forward together.”

I do not want to go through the details of the settlement, because they have been covered in some detail, but I want to come back to the comment I made about the fact that there is often a lack of understanding about what the settlement means. Some people fix on the financial redress alone. Although we have seen with the settlements in the 1990s just how beneficial that is, actually, it is often the cultural redress that is far more important to the people of the land.

I particularly want to acknowledge that I believe in your care. You have some of the most beautiful and spectacular coastlands in New Zealand. The role that you have played for many years in the Hauraki Gulf and in the protection of some very, very important parts of New Zealand also needs to be acknowledged. Often when we have these conversations, some people in the community think that when an island is part of a settlement, all of a sudden they will not get access. So of course with Little Barrier Island it is acknowledged that the access arrangements that are already in place will continue.

I do just want to say that this is a day we should be celebrating. This is a day that we all have a responsibility to share with our communities. This is another successful Treaty settlement, and we should be celebrating why it is important, and why it is important for each and every one of us. Congratulations. I am delighted that so many of you are here to share this day. I shall definitely share it with my family when I get home, because I think it is an important part of all of our history. Nō reira.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Kaihautū o te Whare. Ā kāti, kia tukua e ahau he mihi ki ēnei huanga ōku o roto i Te Tai Tokerau, ngā uri a te waka e meinga nei, ko Moekakara, e kiia ai ōku mātua he waka urutā. I tau mai ai ki roto i te whanga i Whangaparāoa, nā i whātorotoro haere ki roto i te awa e meinga nei ko Whangateau. Te take i huangia ai ko Whangateau, he kaha rawa nō te au e hari ana i ngā waka ki ngā tauranga, whakahoki mai ai ki uta, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i roto i tēnei kaupapa i whakahuihuinga ai tātou ki konei kia whakawhiwhingia ai he pānga whenua whakahokingia ai, ēngari kia whakapūmautia ai te ingoa me te mana tupuna o Ngāti Manuhiri, ngā uri a Tenetahi, ngā uri a Rāhui, ngā uri a Te Kiri, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker of the House. Well, then, allow me to acknowledge these relatives of mine from within Northland, descendants of the canoe referred to as Moekakara, which my parents said was a pest of a canoe. It landed in the Whangaparāoa harbour, and reconnoitred about this river called Whangateau. The reason it was given that name was because of a strong current that would take canoes out to the fishing grounds and bring them back to shore, so greetings and salutations to you collectively. Acknowledgments to you in respect of this matter that has assembled us here not only to receive land interests and returns but also to make permanent the name and ancestral powers of Ngāti Manuhiri descendants of Tenetahi, Rāhui, and Te Kiri. And so congratulations, good tidings, and well done to you all.]

I stand to give unfettered support to the passage of this bill, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge that in this particular area of Aotearoa, from Warkworth, Northumberland, one of the early Pākehā colonists, Brown, came out of Tasmania, he befriended the Ngāti Whātua hapū leader Te Hemara Tauhia, and alienation began. There was also a group of Māori living in this area under the leadership of Te Kiri, located in an area nowadays so populated by extraordinarily affluent Aucklanders that it has become the recreational playground of our Auckland fellow citizens. But know this: in that part of New Zealand, there was always a very strong group of Māori communities.

In the early colonial times, two names loom large from those communities. One was the ancestor Te Kiri and the other was the daughter Rāhui Te Kī, who became known as Rāhui Tenetahi. If my memory serves me correctly, Tenetahi was from Ngāti Taka, Ngāti Wai, and Ngāpuhi. They eventually went to Te Hauturu-o-Toi. They went there to defend that island. That island was the site of one of the most extraordinary Māori Land Court battles that took place in the north.

An initial grant was made to Te Hemara Tauhia, and those of us who understand colonial history between our chiefs and the Pākehā at the time would know of Tauhia. As a consequence of the strength of the formidable kuia Rāhui Te Kī, she refused to bow down to the Crown. She, unfortunately, struck the strength of the ornithological bird society of, if my memory serves me correctly, the Auckland Museum, which determined that the stitchbird on Te Hauturu-o-Toi deserved protection. To do that, forcibly from that island had to be removed Rāhui Te Kī. Her tāne, Tenetahi, had a schooner, so he was up and down the coast. Along with seven, eight, nine, or 10 kids, one of whom I recall being called Ngapeka, they sought to defend rights. Eventually the Māori Land Court found that Rahui and her tāne had ownership rights. They were forcibly moved to Narrow Neck, Devonport—a piece of land that is also somewhat controversial—with the promise that their stock and provisions would eventually be returned to them. They never were, until Tenetahi snuck back and took what he could, and that was the sad history of these people being forcibly taken off Te Hauturu-o-Toi.

Their marae commemorates the name of the tupuna Te Kiri, so for anyone in this House, whether they are from the Green Party or my party, to say that these people have no rights to that area or lack authority to have entered into a settlement is reflective of the growing level of ignorance, unfortunately fed by great rhetoric. These people are entitled to stand and receive a settlement. It may be wise or unwise that they receive this particular settlement, but that is their choice. That is the choice they make with the Crown. So we salute the decision that is made today. These are never easy decisions, but they are in an area where there is tremendous pressure from the expansion of Auckland. There is commercial pressure as a consequence of the recreational value of that part of the coastline, and they need as much support and endorsement from Māori members of Parliament as possible, certainly on this day.

It might be said that it is fair game to have a crack at Māori lawyers. Well, it is not. The Māori lawyer Wayne Peters is our member on the All Black board of governance, looking after Māori All Black interests. We have in the audience in the gallery today a former Māori All Black, Laly Haddon. Auē, if he were on the field last night, our Māori team might not have lost to the Irish. Auē, if only he had he been on the field last night.

We should acknowledge the presence of Laly Haddon, one of the direct descendants of those tūpuna, and join with Ngāti Manuhiri, despite the difficulties of shepherding through settlements in the broader Tāmaki-makau-rau area. They have decided to make a call and plunge their pouwhenua into that coastline, so that modern New Zealanders and future New Zealanders will know that this is not Pākehā land alone. This is customary, ancestral land, the uri of Te Kiri, the people of Ngāti Manuhiri, and with their broader whānau out of Ngāti Wai. That is the historical fact of the matter, irrespective of lazy rhetoric and chirping voices that have, unfortunately, blighted the latter end of this settlement day. Kia kaha ki a koutou. Ēhara tēnei i te mahi māmā.

[So get stuck in. This is not an easy task.]

I have no idea whether the stitchbird, otherwise known as the hihi, has prospered on Te Hauturu-o-Toi. I have no particular animosity to that feature of the green kingdom; others I do, but not the hihi, or stitchbird. Kia manawa nui, kia manawa roa. Ēhara tēnei i te rangi noa iho nei ki a koe kara Laly. Me tō mātou mōhio ahakoa tō mārō, pakari o tō tinana i a koe i te papa whutupōro, kua hīroki haere ai koe. Kia tau ngā manaakitanga ki runga i a koe.

[Be big-hearted and generous. This is not just an ordinary day for you, colleague Laly. We know that your body was tough and sturdy on the football field, but you have become emaciated. May kindness prevail over you.]

As I said, we realise that a man formerly known as the “Black Tracker”, who graced the fields of North Auckland rugby and in the early 1960s became a Māori All Black, leads your whānau, the marae, and that part of our community with pride. I saw the impact you had on my tuakana when he owned the Leigh Hotel—Teddy Jones. He has never been quite the same.

This should not be a day where we go back and rakuraku, and rake over what could have been. This is a day, a relatively simple day, when we, as Māori MPs, stand with you because you have made a difficult decision, but at the end of the day you came to a point with this very good Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Naturally, we hope that his good will become great when he meets the taniwhas of Ngāpuhi, but that is another matter.

Kia manawa nui, kia manawa roa.

[Be big-hearted and generous.]

I look forward to driving back up to Muriwhenua one day and seeing you restore the name of Warkworth to its proper Māori name. What that name might be is my question to you. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on this settlement bill, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, today. This bill marks the end of a long journey for the Ngāti Manuhiri people—grievances that have spanned over 170 years. This redress is certainly well overdue. I would like to acknowledge those who are here today and who have not made it here today, who have worked long and hard to get to this settlement today. I would also like to acknowledge those who are no longer with you, who have shown leadership, commitment, and dedication to ensure that we can settle today.

I would also like to acknowledge the Minister Chris Finlayson, who has been committed to ensuring that we get these settlements in a speedy process so we are not waiting years and years. I would also like to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare, who has been extremely committed in ensuring that these bills come back into the House as speedily as they possibly can. This bill had over 100 submitters, which is a pretty huge number of submitters on a Treaty bill, and he managed that process very professionally and in a very swift manner, which has seen this bill return very quickly back into the House for the third reading.

I wish we could turn back the clock—I really do. We cannot change what has happened, but we can move forward, and I think it is important that we understand that you have been very gracious in allowing us to settle the way we have today.

Whenever I do these Treaty bills, I always talk to my children the morning of the day of the settlement, and I tell them the story of the iwi and the people and your journey, and I tell them what has happened. And with this bill I spoke to them this morning about how the Government, the Crown, came and took land without consent and without acknowledgment, and I told them how we also changed legislation so it was very hard to get that land back. I put it into the here and the now for them, and I said: “How would you feel if the Crown came along now and said it wanted your land, and it didn’t even tell us about it or didn’t even offer us anything for it, and then we couldn’t get it back?”. They were totally appalled that that could even happen, but they were more appalled when I said that you have waited a long time for this. You have waited over 100 years. We have been on our land for 15 years. They could not believe that it could happen—with their connection to our land, where we live, where we have brought them up, where they have their roots, they could not believe that the Crown could do that to somebody.

I think it is important that we share these stories and we make them real in the here and the now. I look up in the gallery and I see one young youth who has his eyes shut for the time being, having a bit of a rest. But I think it is important that we bring youth to these settlements and we talk about them, because we are making stories and tales and history, and we need people to be able to go and talk about these in 80 years’ time. We need to say that this is what happened in the settlement process, these are what the issues were, and this is what the discussion was about. I think it is important that we share that with the next generation, because, to me, settlements are about the next generation, and I think the Crown does have to apologise for the grievances—and they were vast—against your people.

We do have to settle with commercial redress. That is really important. But settlements are about your future generations. It is about giving them aspiration and opportunities, and it is about understanding where we have gone. It is about being content and gracious about where we are at, and moving forward—moving forward for all our generations. New Zealand is a wonderful country and we have to move forward as one if we are going to have a prosperous country. I think today is a day to celebrate for everybody and I thank you for coming all the way to Wellington to listen to the third reading. I thank you for your commitment, your dedication, and your leadership for your cause. I wish you all the best for the future. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi ki ngā mana me ngā whānau o Ngāti Manuhiri, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the authorities and leaders of a hundredfold, salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings to you collectively. Congratulations to the powers and families of Ngāti Manuhiri, well done.]

To Matua Laly, Mook, and the people who have fought this battle for Ngāti Manuhiri since the Treaty was signed, tēnā koutou. For 23 years you have waited for this day. I want to acknowledge that on 24 October 1989 Laly Paraone Haddon and Hawe Brown submitted a Wai claim—Wai 122. In addition to Wai 122, there were further Manuhiri claims—Wai 244, Wai 532, Wai 1539, Wai 1811, Wai 280, Wai 487, and Wai 567. The reality is that you as a whānau have been battling for a long time for recognition as mana whenua, who deserve an apology from the Crown and who deserve your mana whenua status to be acknowledged by this House. So I mihi to you. I think in this House we mihi to each other too much, because the reality is we are here today only because of the mahi that you have done—your tīpuna, your ancestors, who have fought for this day. So this is Ngāti Manuhiri’s day, and when we look at what that day actually means, it means that from 1840 when you were colonised like the rest of us, there were 250,000 acres of Ngāti Manuhiri land. By 1890 you had approximately 10 percent—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

LOUISA WALL: Ngāti Manuhiri had 10 percent of that land, and now you retain 1,300 acres of that 250,000 acres that was Ngāti Manuhiri land. What does that actually mean? It means you have only 0.52 percent of your ancestral lands. So I want to acknowledge that generosity of Ngāti Manuhiri. In fact, for most of the settlements that come before this House, the settlements are a minuscule amount of what you should actually be getting back. But I do want to acknowledge that in this process it is the leadership of people like Mook, and it is the leadership of Laly and the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust to actually take the opportunity to get the pūtea, to get some capital back into your hands so that you can actually move forward. It is only because of the generosity of our hapū and iwi groups that we are able to do that.

I am a proud member of the Māori Affairs Committee. This Treaty grievance process, which is our country’s truth and reconciliation process, is, for me, incredibly important when we look back, even now when we look at the history of our country. I think what this will enable us to do is get past the Treaty grievance phase of the development of us as a nation. What we are moving toward is the rightful place of tangata whenua, of our hapū, and of our iwi when we look at the future of this country. So the implications for me about the Treaty settlement process are actually about our constitutional position and status of our hapū and iwi groups in the future and what new relationship you will have with us as Crown agents. So I am very proud to stand here as a member of this House of Parliament on this day to acknowledge you.

We did have 140 written submissions, there were 17 oral submissions, and 95 of the submissions did acknowledge that there were some issues about Te Hauturu-o-Toi. So I want to acknowledge again the generosity of Ngāti Manuhiri in altering their deed of settlement. It is a very rare thing for iwi to alter their settlements when they have negotiated a position with the Crown. So I want to acknowledge the fact that you did that, and you did that because you know you are part of Ngāti Wai. You cannot separate Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Wai. You did that because you acknowledge Ngāti Rehua, you acknowledge Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and you acknowledge Marutūahu and Ngāpuhi, who also have interests in Te Hauturu-o-Toi. So again I want to acknowledge the fact that you have provided leadership in that process for those future Treaty settlements that will happen. So I want to thank you for bringing the House together and for bringing us here today to be able to acknowledge and honour Ngāti Manuhiri.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise the House before I call the next speaker that the Green Party has given its 5-minute call to the honourable member Hone Harawira.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Huri rauna kia ora tātou katoa. He kōrero tuatahi, mihi atu ki a koe e te matua, Laly, kua tae ora mai i roto i a tātou i tēnei rā. Nō reira, tēnā koe, koutou anō rā e Ngāti Manuhiri. Kite au i a koutou, kite anōki au i ahau anō. Nō reira, tēnā koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā, me te mihi anōki ki ngā mahi kua mahingia nei i ngā tau tini kua pahure ake nei kia tae mai ai ki te kaupapa o te rā nei mō te whakatau i tētahi wāhanga iti mō Ngāti Manuhiri. Ēngari tāku ki a koutou, ki a tātou anō, kia kaua e whakaarohia kua mutu te hīkoi i tēnei rā. He tīmatanga noa iho mō ā tātou tamariki, mokopuna ā ngā rā kei te haere mai. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

[Greetings throughout to us all. The first point of comment is to acknowledge you, the father figure, Laly; you have arrived here safely amongst us today. Accordingly I greet you and you again collectively, Ngāti Manuhiri. To see you all there is to see myself again as well. So acknowledgments to you collectively who have arrived here today and a tribute as well for the work done over the many past years to arrive at the matter at hand today to settle a small part for Ngāti Manuhiri. But mine to you and us collectively once more, do not think that the journey has ended today. It is only a beginning for our children and grandchildren in the future. So good on you and us collectively.]

I do not have that much to say. I simply make the point that although we may have differences in this House, one thing I do know, and one thing I truly believe—and am quite sure you believe too, Mooks—is that the Treaty settlement process was never actually set up to ensure justice for us. The fact that most settlements struggle to rise above 3 percent of the value of the claim confirms that. So although there may not have been rousing applause for the comments made by my tuahine Metiria Turei, the principle she raised, which is that our future is determined by our willingness to work with one another to ensure a positive future not just for our children but for all of our children, is the only way to go.

Me mihi au ki a koutou i tēnei rā. He rā nui tēnei mō Ngāti Manuhiri, mō tātou katoa hoki o roto o Te Tai Tokerau, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri atu, huri noa, kia ora tātou katoa.

[I must salute you collectively today. This is a great day for Ngāti Manuhiri and for all of us in Northland, so congratulations and well done to you collectively throughout and around, and compliments to us all.]

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Me pēnei rawa te tīmatanga mai o taku kōrero i tēnei ata. Tēnei te ara kei runga. Ko te aro tēnei tipua, ko te aro tēnei Ariki, ko te ara o tēnei matua ā-iwi. Ko te ara o Ranginui e tū nei, o Papatūānuku e takoto nei. Kia rarau iho rā ngā tapuwae o Tāne, tēnei te pō, nau mai te ao. Koia rā e rongo whakairia ki runga, tūturu a whiti whakamaua kia tīna, tīna, hui e, tāiki e!

Me pēnei rawa te tīmatatanga mai o taku kōrero, kai aku rangatira kua hara mai i Te Tai Tokerau i te mea he rā hōu, he ao hōu tēnei i te rā nei. Kua puta, kua puta mai koutou i te pō ki te ao. Kua rongo nei koutou i te āhuatanga o tērā whakataukī kōrero. Haere mai, haere mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou me ngā mate kua heria mai ai e koutou i tawhiti kia eke mai ki roto i ngā pakitara o te Whare nei. Kai wareware i a tātau, ko te āhuatanga o wā tātau mate e tangihia nei e tātau i tēnei wā. Nā reira, waiho rātau kia moe. Kua tae mai koutou i te rā nei, haere mai, haere mai, hara mai, tae rā nō ki a koutou kua tatū mai anō hoki mō tēnei rā, nō koutou te rā.

Nā, ko te mate o te tangata whakamutunga ki te whakatakoto i tana kōrero, kua whānakohia e wētāhi te nuinga o ngā kōrero. I rongo ake i te kōrero a te mema o Te Tai Tokerau me tana kī mai, he kongakonga noa iho te moni kua tukuna atu ki a koutou. Ko tā te Pāti Māori, āe, tika tonu. Tērā, tērā.

Ka rua, kua rongo ake i te āhuatanga o te kōrero ahakoa āhua kawa nei wētahi o ngā kōrero, ki waku taringa, o te Rōpū Kākāriki me tā rātau kī, he mea whakawehewehe tēnei huarahi. Ko tāku, ko te kī atu, kai te tika tāna, tērā wāhanga o tana kōrero. He mea whakawehewehe tēnei huarahi i a tātau.

Kua rongo ake i te āhuatanga o te kōrero o te mema o Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, o te Hōnore Parekura Horomia me tana kī atu, kua noho pirau ētahi o ngā whare, kua whakatakotohia hei mea whakahoki ki a tātau. Ko tāku, ko te kī atu, kei te tika tāna.

Kua rongo ake i te āhuatanga o te kōrero o te Hōnore Shane Jones, tangata haere ki te Kura o Tīpene. Ko tāku ko te kī atu, ā, he painga anō rā o te kōrero o te Māori rā. He tika tonu tāna. Ko ia te mea mōhio ki tērā āhuatanga o te hītori o Te Tai Tokerau. Ko wai ahau hei whakahē i tērā kōrero?

Kua rongo ake i te kōrero o te Kākāriki me tana kī mai, ā, e pēnei ana, e pērā ana, e whakahē ana i te āhuatanga o tēnei kerēme. Ko tāku, ko te tautoko i tā Shane e kī nei, i tōna mutunga mai, ko tā te iwi e whakatau, koia tērā. Ko tā te iwi e kī nei, koia tērā. Ko wai au o Te Waiariki, me te pānga anō rā ki Te Tai Tokerau ēngari, o roto i a Te Arawa, ko wai a Te Arawa ki te whakahē i te kōrero a tētahi atu. Ē, kāre i te tika tērā āhuatanga. Nō reira, me mihi rā ki a koutou.

Kāre e nui ake ngā kōrero, kei hoki tuarua, tuatoru ki ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia ēngari, kei kī mai koutou, ē, kāre te Pāti Māori i te tautoko i te mea nei, ko tāku ki te kī atu ki a koutou, kai te tautoko, kai te tautoko, kai te tautoko.

Ā, he paku mihi anō hoki, hei whaiwhai haere i te wairua o ngā kōrero ki a koutou ngā mea i ārahi nei i tēnei kaupapa. Kai te rangatira Laly, tēnā koe. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te wā, pēnei i ēnei nā, ki te mea whutupōro. Anā, i a tātau e kōrero whutupōro ana, te tangata e noho mai rā i tō taha a Mook, tākaro a ia mō Ngongotaha i Rotorua. Ahakoa tōna whakapapa ki a koutou, ā, ko tētahi wāhanga o tōna ngākau kai a au, kai Ngongotaha, kai Rotorua, kai Te Arawa. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi ki a koe, Mook. Ko koe tērā i tū ki mua i te aroaro o te tangata, ki reira karo atu ai i ngā kōrero, ā, pei atu ai ngā uauatanga. He mea uaua tērā ki te tū ki mua i te aro o te marea, tō ake iwi ki te kī, anei, anei, anei, ka mutu, ka rongo koe i te whiu o te kupu, ka rongo koe i te mamae. Ko au tētahi e mōhio ana ki tērā āhuatanga.

Nō reira, kāti ake. E hoa mā, kua tae mai koutou ki tēnei rā nui, whakaharahara. Ko tā mātau, ko tā te Whare, hāunga wētahi, ēngari ko te nuinga o te Whare kai te kī atu, Ngāti Manuhiri, nō koutou tēnei rā. Kia kaha, kia toa rā, arā, ā ngā rā kai mua i te aroaro. Hai whakakōpani i taku kōrero, i te nuinga o te wā, ka tae mai te manuhiri Māori nei ki roto i tēnei Whare, ka hara mai, ka rongo i ngā kōrero ēngari i te mutunga mai, ka puta kāre he paku aha, kāre he kapu tī, ā, ēngari i tua atu o tērā, koia tērā. Nō reira, ko tāku i tēnei wā ko te kī atu—[Interruption]—ko te kī atu—[Interruption] Kia tau ngā manaakitanga.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all in the House. I will begin my address this morning with this incantation: Tēnei te ara kei runga. Ko te aro tēnei tipua, ko te ara o tēnei Ariki, ko te aro tēnei matua ā-iwi, ko te ara o Ranginui e tū nei, o Papatūānuku e takoto nei. Kia rarau iho rā ngā tapuwae o Tāne tēnei te pō, nau mai te ao. Koia rā e rongo whakairia ki runga, tūturu a whakawhiti, whakamaua kia tīna, tīna, hui e, tāiki e!

And so my address commences in this manner, my esteemed leaders who have come here from Northland, because it is a new day and today is a new world. You have emerged and come out of the world of darkness into the world of light. You have heard and felt the tenor of that incantation. Welcome, welcome, and welcome three times over. I acknowledge you and the deaths you have brought aboard from afar to be within the walls of this House. Let us not forget the circumstances of our deaths, which we grieve at this point in time. So allow them to rest there. You have arrived here today so welcome, welcome, and welcome three times over. I extend this welcome to those of you as well who have come back again just for this day. The day is yours.

There is a problem with being the final speaker in that much of what one would like to address has already been stolen by previous speakers. I heard the comment by the member for Te Tai Tokerau where he stated that money given to you is but a mere pittance. The Māori Party agrees totally. That is that one.

Secondly, I heard the tenor of what the Green Party was on about, even if parts of it were a bit sour to my ear when she said that this procedure is divisive. I say to her that that part of her statement is correct. This procedure divides us.

I note the tenor of the address by the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, the Hon Parekura Horomia, when he said that some houses being returned to us are already in a state of decay. I say to him that he is right.

I note the tenor of the speech by the Hon Shane Jones, one who attended St Stephen’s College. I say that there is merit indeed in what that Māori advocates. He is absolutely right. He is very much more aware of the part that relates to the history of Northland. Who am I to contradict that statement?

I note the sentiments of the Green Party member. She said this is how it is, that is how it is, and she opposes the circumstance of this claim. For me, I support what Shane is on about in that, at the end of it all, whatever the tribe determines, that would be it. Who am I of Te Waiariki from Te Arawa with connections as well in Northland to disagree with statements by someone else? That is not the right thing to do. And so I applaud them.

I have not much else to say in case I repeat what has already been stated a second or third time. Just in case you say that the Māori Party is not supporting this thing, let me say emphatically that we support it, we support it, and we support it.

A small tribute as well to you, the ones who have led this proposal. Laly, I really salute you. Like these ones, my thoughts go back to this thing rugby. Mention rugby and I think about that person, Mook, sitting beside you. He played for Ngongotaha in Rotorua and although he traces his genealogy to you, a part of his heart is with me, Ngongotaha, Rotorua, and Te Arawa. And so my regard for you, Mook, is right up there. It was you who faced up to people, who parried and fended off comments and difficulties. Standing before the public is a difficult thing to do, especially if they are your very own. Saying to them to do it this way and that way—eventually you become subjected to criticism and you experience hurt as well. I am one who is very much aware of that situation.

So leave it there. Friends, you have arrived here on this great and wonderful day. All that is left for us, the majority of the House, to do is to say to you, Ngāti Manuhiri, this day is yours. Be strong and courageous in the days ahead of you. To end my address, I want to refer to times when Māori visitors come into this House, most times anyway. They come in, listen to the speeches, and at the end of it leave without a murmur, a cup of tea and just leave. What I want to say at this stage—[Interruption]—is to say—[Interruption] Let kindness prevail.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kai te pai.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think I should suspend the House just for a minute.

Sitting temporarily suspended from 10.33 a.m. to 10.35 a.m. under Standing Order 48(1)(b).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The House is resumed.

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

Ayes 104

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.

Abstentions 14

Green Party 14.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill

Third 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 third time. Tuatahi, kia tukua atu ngā whakamoemiti ki te Runga Rawa. E te Atua Kaha Rawa, tēnei mātou ōu pononga e tiro atu ana ki a Koe i tēnei hāora kia tata mai ki a mātou e hui tahi nei i roto i tēnei Whare. Tūwherahia ō ringaringa ki a Grant, otirā, ki a mātou katoa e hui tahi nei, kia piki te ora, te kaha kei roto i a ia, kia tere te hoki mai ki waenganui i a mātou. Kāre au e pīrangi kia whakaroatia ngā karakia ki a koe e te Atua, hoi anō: “He ara matua, he ara tipua, he ara tawhiti ki a koe, e ū ē, haumi ē, hui ē, tāiki ē.”

Ka timu te tai, ka pari te tai ki Takaparawhau, e tū whakahī ana a Ōrākei. Tukuna rā tō karanga kia areare mai ngā taringa, kia hiki te wairua o Ōrākei. He tohu maumahara ki ngā whawhai o ō koutou kuia, koroua i tū pakari ai mō te iwi. Ka kore e warewaretia.

[Firstly, I offer up prayers to the Almighty above. We, your humble servants, oh Almighty above, look to You at this hour to be closer to us gathered together here in this House. Open up your arms to Grant, to all of us assembled here as well, and improve his well-being and strength, which will speed up his recovery to ensure him being back amongst us once more. I do not wish to prolong our prayers to you, the Almighty, and accordingly I close with this ancient incantation: “He ara matua, he ara tipua, he ara tawhiti ki a koe, e ū ē, haumi ē, hui ē, tāiki ē.”

The tide ebbs and flows against Takaparawhau, and Ōrākei stands there proudly. Issue your call so that it can be heard by listening ears and lift up the spirit of Ōrākei. It is a memorial symbol of the battles of your esteemed elderly men and womenfolk who stood staunch for the tribe. It will not be forgotten.]

As the waters ebb and flow against Takaparawhau I recall the kuia and koroua o Ōrākei. I recall their long, 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 Tumutumu Whenua i ngā moemoeā o āna uri. Tū tonu mai rā koe hei whakaruruhau mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna o Tuperiri, arā, ko Te Tāōū, ko Ngā Oho, ko Te Uringutu hoki, tīhei mauri ora!

Nā reira, Ngāti Whātua, tēnā koutou, kua haramai ā-tinana ki konei i tēnei rā, te rā whakahirahira, te rā whakamutunga, kia pānuihia tēnei kerēme. Nā reira, nau mai, haere mai koutou. Haramai koutou i te kaupapa whakahirahira e whakahui ai i a tātou i tēnei rā. Ka hoki aku mahara ki a rātou kāore i konei, rātou e mahi ana i tēnei kerēme i te wā i a rātou e ora ana. Ko Tā Hugh tētahi, me ērā atu kua ngaro. Nā reira ko te karanga, kia mauria mai ō koutou tini aituā ki rō Whare, kia mihia, kia poroporoakihia rātou. Nā reira, e ngā mate ō tātou katoa haere, haere. Haere ki te okioki. Nā reira, ko te kōrero, rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou.

Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei nau mai, whakapiri mai ki tēnei kaupapa. He wā tēnei māku ki te mihi atu ki a koutou. Whā tekau mā rima tau taku noho ki waenganui i a koutou i Tāmaki-makau-rau. Nā koutou nei ahau i manaaki, i tiaki i tērā wā. Nā reira, he hōnore tēnei māku ki te tīmata i tēnei kōrero i tēnei rā, ā, ki te mihi atu, ki te karanga atu ki a koutou ki te whakataunga o tēnei kerēme. Nā reira, Joe, tēnā koe kua hoki mai nei ki tō Whare. Kai te mihi au me koutou katoa e kawe mai nei i ngā kaupapa i roto i a Tāmaki-makau-rau kia tū pakari ai te āhua o te Māori i roto i tēnā tāone. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Tumutumu Whenua resounds as a consequence of the dreams of its descendants. Stand resolute there as a mentor for the children and grandchildren of Tuperiri, namely Te Tāōū, Ngā Oho, and Te Uringutu as well, behold the sneeze of life!

And so, salutations to you, Ngāti Whātua, who have arrived here in person on this momentous and final day for the last reading of this claim. Accordingly welcome, welcome. Welcome in respect of the highly important matter that has drawn us together here today. My thoughts go back to those who are no longer here, and who worked on this claim during their lifetime. Sir Hugh was one, as well as others who have since died. So I call on you to bring forth your many, many deaths to be acknowledged and farewelled. And so, to all our deaths, I bid you farewell and goodbye. Depart and rest. The saying is as follows: they to themselves and we to ourselves.

In respect of you, Ngāti Whātua of Ōrākei, welcome, draw closer to this matter. It is an opportunity as well for me to thank you. I have lived amongst you in Auckland for 45 years. In that time you nurtured and looked after me. Accordingly it is an honour for me to begin with this opening address and to welcome and summon you to the settlement of this claim. Therefore, Joe, I salute you on your return to your House. I acknowledge you and all of your entourage as well as the matters with you from Auckland that will strengthen the situation relating to Māoridom in that metropolis. Accordingly, accolades, acknowledgments, and congratulations to you collectively.]

I welcome the sons and daughters of Tuperiri to New Zealand’s House of Representatives. Through their manaakitanga, they, Ngāti Whātua, have enabled the creation and the growth of this nation’s biggest city.

Ē nā Ngāti Whātua i tuku whenua, i ārai hoariri kia tipu pai te tāone mō tauiwi e! Ākarana, Ākarana e!

[Ngāti Whātua gifted the land, and warded off enemies to ensure that the town for non-Māori would develop safely! Auckland, oh Auckland!]

They gifted the land. They protected the inhabitants. They grew the city of Auckland, so Māori and Pākehā could go forward together. Also, through their manaakitanga, they have welcomed the world to our lands, from last year’s Rugby World Cup to the arrival and the pōwhiri for the future King of England only last weekend. Through their eyes they have seen hundreds, thousands, and millions settle upon the lands of their tīpuna. I pay tribute to the ahi kā families of Takaparawhau.

The ink was barely dry on the Treaty of Waitangi when the Crown first failed to honour this covenant. These actions would be repeated through generations of families and across more than 170 years, rendering Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei virtually landless. By 1898 the Native Land Court had divided the bulk of Ōrākei Block into individual titles, and extinguished communal ownership. After 50 years of failed court battles and barely 5 years after their men had returned from fighting in World War II, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei were evicted from Ōkahu Bay. Their marae, their homes, and their buildings were pulled down and burnt to the ground.

Ā māminga te tāone ki Ngāti Whātua e! Ā panaia ki waho, auē tahuna ngā whare kāinga e! Whakatorotoro! Turakina! Auē! Pūrari paka e!

[The town has deceived Ngāti Whātua, alas! Banished them and burned their homes! Attacked! Torn down! Oh, the pain! Bloody buggers!]

They were left with a quarter of an acre of land—land for an urupā, a cemetery. Intense industrialisation soon saw pristine kai moana beds and streams polluted by years of raw sewage as Auckland’s population boomed. So the children of Ōrākei have grown up able only to look at the waters their grandparents used to swim in and live off.

By the mid-1970s, the ahi kā people of Ōrākei, the tangata whenua, held less than 1 hectare of whenua themselves. So when plans were unveiled for a high-end housing subdivision at Takaparawhau, the people of Ōrākei—elders, children, families, and supporters—returned to their whenua. Under the leadership of Grant Hawke and the Hawke family, the elders, and the young people of Ngāti Whātua, the tribe took a stand at Takaparawhau. Their message was simple. We are the tangata whenua. We are not trespassers. We will not leave.

On the morning of Thursday, 25 May 1978 Auckland woke to the sounds of an army convoy moving through the suburbs, past exclusive Tāmaki Drive homes, and on to Bastion Point. The Government had mobilised the largest peacetime force of police and army in recent history, and they were heading for Takaparawhau. That day, more than 600 army and police personnel forcibly removed protestors—elders, men, women, children, and families. More than 200 were arrested. Temporary buildings, gardens, and a meeting house were pulled to the ground.

The eviction of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei families was an appalling chapter in New Zealand history. However, the determination and conviction of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in the face of legislative and physical aggression, and in the face of incredible and longstanding injustice, was a proud moment in New Zealand history. All those things, due to the actions of the Crown, can never be totally replaced. Yet the people of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei wish to settle their grievances with the Crown with honour and with mana. When the great rangatira Te Kawau likened the coming of the Treaty of Waitangi to the great wind from the north that would bring change, his prophecy was only to be fulfilled, as we know.

As it did for the rest of Aotearoa, the world changed for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei after 1840. However, the aspirations of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei have never changed. Those aspirations were the same in 1840 when Te Kawau signed the Treaty, the same in 1977 when whānau bravely confirmed their mana whenua by reoccupying Takaparawhau, and the same in 1988 when they lodged one of the first historical claims heard by the Waitangi Tribunal. Those aspirations are the same as those held today by the people of Takaparawhau, who have come out today to see justice carried out in their name, in the name of their ancestors, and in the name of future generations.

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei take ownership of their own destiny to determine their own economic and social well-being. They continue to uphold their mana motuhake and exercise their own rangatiratanga. Their members have visualised a future for their children, a future where their people are healthy physically, economically, culturally, spiritually, and eternally. So these are good days to see our people—kuia, koroua, rangatahi—joining us in the House of Representatives. You know that behind these people walk their tīpuna, you know they walk in front of their future generations, and alongside these people today stands the Crown. Together the Crown and Ngāti Whātua will see justice come to pass for the descendants of Tuperiri. He hōnore māku kia tū i konei i tēnei rā.

[It is an honour for me to stand here today.]

Finally, congratulations to Ngāti Whātua on an international industrial award for the design of Te Waka Māori, which hosted the thousands during the Rugby World Cup. Shane, where are you, Shane?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe. Kia hiwa rā, kia hiwa rā. Kia hiwa rā ki tēnei take, kia hiwa rā ki tērā take. E ngā iwi, e ngā waha kōrero i runga o ngā marae, whakarongo. Whakarongo ki te tangi a te manu e karanga nei tui, tui, tuituia. Tuia i runga, tuia i raro, tuia i roto, tuia i te here tangata ka rongo te pō, ka rongo te pō. Tuia i te here tangata i takea mai i Hawaiki-nui, i Hawaiki-roa, i Hawaiki-pāmamao, tihei mauri ora!

E tautokotia atu ngā mihimihi o tō tātou Minita Māori i a koutou o Ngāti Whātua, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou mō tō kaha i te tae atu i konei mō te rangi nei, te rangi pai. Ahakoa he āhua itiiti atu te māuiui o te matua a Grant, e mihi kau ana. Kia kaha, kia māia. Tērā anō te āhua o te kerēme nei, mai rā nō. E tū te tangata, e hinga te tangata. Ēngari, nā te pakari, i mau kaha i roto i ngā uri, i te toto o koutou, i noho e whawhai tonu atu mō tō wahi i Ōrākei.

I whakaaro atu mō rātou e kore i konei, pērā i a Tā Hugh, pērā i ngā whaea, e whawhai atu e Danny. Mōhio atu koe ki ngā koroua, ngā kuia, rātou e kore i konei. Te pai hoki kua tae tahi ake koutou ki te manaaki.

Rongo atu ki te kōrero i roto i a rātou o Ngāti Manuhiri mō te tata noa iho o te pekanga atu ō rātou tipuna ki te wahi rā o Narrow Neck, ā, ka whai atu. Ēngari mō koutou, tēnā koutou. Mai i te tipuranga o te tangata e whakaaro atu ko koutou anake te tangata whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau. I nāianei, kua rongo atu ki te nui o ngā ingoa o ngā iwi. Ē, kāre he kōrero takahia tēnei ēngari, pērā ano te whakaaro i roto i a au. Nō reira, e mihi kau ana i a koutou te tangata whenua o Ōrākei. Te whakaaro o te puta ā-waha o te kōrero o tō tātou Minita Māori, mō te mahi koretake o ngā pirihimana. I reira kē au e kite atu te taumahatanga i roto i a rātou, e wero atu i a koutou. Nā te rekareka hoki mō te rangi nei, kua tae tata me te oti, kua tae tata me te oti.

Whakaae atu te nui o tātou ahakoa peka ana ki tera taha o te Rōpū Kākāriki; aua atu, mahia atu. E whakaae atu tātou mō tēnei. E tino kaha atu te koroua rā a Hugh mō tōna whakaaro. Haere atu mai runga i te tuhinga e wero atu ki tauiwi, e wero atu ki te Kāwana, me te kōrero i roto i a koutou. Nō reira, mihi atu ki a Grant, ki a koutou ngā whānau katoa i reira. He tika atu i runga i te tū nei ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou tangata a Hōhepa—a Joe—te tangata e mau matatau ki te āhua o te Whare nei. Mai rā nō tōna kaha i te whai atu mō tēnā.

Nō reira, ki a koutou, kia kaha, kia māia. He rangi pai tēnei. Kaha ake a Grant. He tangata tinanatia atu mō tēnei take. Nō reira, mā tō tātou Matua e manaaki atu te haerenga o koutou katoa, me tō tātou rangatira a Grant. Kia ora tātou.

[Thank you. Be wary, be watchful. Be wary of this matter, be watchful of that matter. To the tribes and representatives of courtyards, heed the call. Listen to the cry of the bird calling stitch it, stitch it, stitch it together. Stitch it upwards, stitch it downwards, stitch it inwards, stitch it like the genealogy of mankind so that the night hears, the void hears. Stitch it like the genealogy of mankind that originated from the great Hawaiki, the long Hawaiki, and the distant Hawaiki, behold the sneeze of life!

I endorse the congratulatory sentiments of our Minister of Māori Affairs to you of Ngāti Whātua, congratulations. Your efforts to get here for this day, and a wonderful one at that, are commended. Even though Grant’s condition is somewhat minor, I wish him well. Be strong and confident. That indeed is the nature of this claim, and it has been like that ever since. A person makes a stand and a person falls. However, because of the resilience of the descendants, and because it is in your blood, the battle for your place at Ōrākei goes on.

My thoughts go out to those who are no longer here, like Sir Hugh, like the matriarchs who continued the battle, Danny. You know those elderly men and womenfolk who are no longer here. How pleasing it is that you collectively have arrived together to support.

The comment by Ngāti Manuhiri about their close ancestral association with that place Narrow Neck, and how they are following it up, is noted. But for you especially, I salute you. From the time that Auckland became populated, it was always the view that you were the indigenous people. But now we hear of many tribal names being mentioned. I am not being disrespectful here but merely expressing the thoughts within me. Accordingly, I acknowledge you specifically as being the local tribe of Ōrākei. I am reminded of the words expressed by the Minister of Māori Affairs about the terrible action taken by the police. I was there and saw the heaviness in their approach in dealing with you. I am grateful for this day and that we are near the end and will soon conclude matters.

We are mostly in agreement except for the Green Party; never mind, it matters not. We are in agreement with this. That esteemed elder, Hugh, was strong-minded, his actions included writing and challenging non-Māori and Government as well as carrying out discussions among you. Thus I acknowledge Grant and all you families there. It is fitting indeed that I stand here to extol your man Hōhepa—Joe—a person who is very familiar with the nature of this House. He has been involved with the struggle for a long time now.

So I say to you all, be strong and confident. This is a great day. Grant will be that much stronger and groomed for this cause. Accordingly, our heavenly Father will protect you all on your journey and protect our esteemed leader, Grant. Thank you.]

In 1977 and 1978 there was some outrageous activity on behalf of the Crown, through the police force, that was just unnecessary. The great thing about Ngāti Whātua was that they decided, by themselves, for themselves, not one inch more, and they stood up. They stood up and they held their ground. Today, if you go to the marae, you can look over the pristine sights and understand why Auckland continuously boasts about being the City of Sails. It is the scenic view sought by people who wanted to remove the iwi, even going as far as burning the marae down the bottom and moving the houses. We can look over at Syria and Israel and think what a terrible thing they are doing. Those were days of shame for this country, both for the Government and for the police force. Today, that they have found their way here, through the Minister and other people, to put things right, is a great day.

The other interesting thing about Wai 1, Wai 9, and Wai 13 is that they were some of the initial claims made under the Treaty settlement process. It is important to recognise not just their stance with Joe Hawke and everybody else but also the way they have managed their affairs. I mean affairs of business, not other affairs. There seems to be a fair bit of talk of that in the United States at the moment. They got an allocation in 1993, and they built it into a sophisticated arm, a consolidated, recognised economic base that they utilise now. That is not easy—that is not easy. I see the summary of hand-backs, or properties made available, that they can purchase back, and I know they will use some of their own money to purchase some of that back. That takes a lot of gumption.

The thing about Ngāti Whātua, having known them over a period of years, is that their governance structures that they have formed are a great example for other iwi in the sense of moving through. They have had their ups and downs. They have had their pitfalls. But I want to say to the nation to take a lesson from Ngāti Whātua on how you can go forward. Sure, it might be a bit wobbly—a bit like some of these finance companies or some of these other ones that wobble at the moment—but it is stable enough to suggest that Māori do know how to govern and to create a platform by them, for them. Future governance structures will be important to our people. Do not buy the models foisted on you by the legal fraternity or everybody else, who want to say: “Guess what? I’ve got a framework for you. Copy this and you’ll survive.” Because there is a Māori-ness that we have to ensure, and I know that Ngāti Whātua, through their governance, are leading and will continue to do that. We must not be ashamed of trying to design structures or corporate—if there is such a word—that entails the employment of our people, that makes sure that the benefits are for our people. I see a lot of it around the country. Māoris are great for buying an expert. They do not know what they are expert in, but because they have been told it, they buy them. I know Ngāti Whātua have been through that. Trust yourself to do this. Future governance and those structures are really critical.

You know, internationally—and well done on winning for that Cloud thing, or whatever it was; that rugby thing. Seeing as you brought up rugby, if you want to sponsor the East Coast rugby team, I will be very keen for you to do that. I will discuss it right now.

Hon Tau Henare: Why would they want to do that? That’s just a waste of money.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: But that is being Māori, for Māori. We are the only regional team that has got their iwi brand on them. Ngāti Whātua, I want to say to you seriously that this is a brave, heroic stand that you have taken. It is an incredible journey that you have made, and to be here today to celebrate with you is something that we will remember for a long, long time. You have been there; you have done that. But please make sure, in the sense of your governance construct, or where you go to when purchasing assets, that you give our people the breaks, because you will find a lot of new friends when you start doing this.

I want to speak to the people of Narrow Neck, and I can understand the frustration, because one of the worst things in society is the fear of not knowing. When people do not know about something, they kick up a lot of humbug and ruckus. Those people in Narrow Neck will understand that Ngāti Whātua will be great neighbours, and they will not strip them of their land, they will not strip them of their houses, or run them into the sea, like they were. They will make sure that they fit into the society there. I want to tell the people over in that part of Auckland that they are damn lucky to get Ngāti Whātua to be there and not entered there through a Treaty settlement process—

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

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): It is always my unhappy duty to follow Mr Horomia when he has been speaking in the House. He takes liberty with great oratory, great insights, and I truly do respect him. My task is a little more formal; I have to this morning read into the formal record of the House, or Hansard, the details of the settlement. It is important that we record the settlement and how we got there, for all time.

On 5 November 2011 I attended the signing of the deed of settlement at Ōkahu Bay and in 1 year the bill has been introduced, it has been considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, and today it is now being read for a third time by Parliament. As I said on the Ngāti Manuhiri bill, I acknowledge the cross-party support, the good work of the select committee, and the commitment of Parliament to extend the sitting hours. These things have all ensured that these two Treaty bills have been accorded the priority that they deserve.

This bill settles the Treaty grievances of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. In the bill the Crown formally acknowledges its breaches of the Treaty, it offers an apology, and it provides cultural and commercial redress. Ngāti Whātua, in their own words, acknowledge that full restitution for their loss is not possible, but they have negotiated in good faith to get the best deal for future generations.

The longstanding historical grievances of this iwi are set out in the historical account in the deed. In March 1840 Ngāti Whātua chiefs signed the Treaty and from that time committed themselves to working closely with the new settler Government. In September 1840 Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei offered to transfer around 3,500 hectares to the Crown to provide a site for the proposed capital. As the historical account describes, Ngāti Whātua and the Crown entered the transaction with a view to a mutually beneficial and enduring relationship. However, the short story is that the relationship between Ngāti Whātua and the Crown failed to live up to its promise. Within two decades Ngāti Whātua were rendered virtually landless. With landlessness came poverty and marginalisation within the growing settler community in Tāmaki. It is historically significant that for the latter part of the 19th century and for much of the 20th century the marae and kāinga at Ōrākei was the only permanent Māori presence on the Tāmaki isthmus, and it is a testament to the resilience and determination of this great iwi that the community survived.

Another historically significant feature of Ngāti Whātua is its leadership. Nineteenth century rangatira stand tall as Māori who sought to bridge the divide between Māori and Pākehā, but their engagement with settlers did not mean assimilation. Between the late 1870s and 1880s a series of parliaments were held in the Kaipara and at Ōrākei, at which Ngāti Whātua leaders raised concerns about the effects of land alienation and requested a greater involvement in government.

This history of measured and principled protest carried into the 20th century. Mr Horomia and Dr Sharples have referred to the 506-day occupation of Bastion Point, which changed the face of race relations in New Zealand for ever. Hone Harawira was telling me last night about some of the protestors and where they are now: senior civil servants, leaders of their iwi, members of Parliament. At the Te Rawara settlement, Hone spoke about the importance of protest and he is absolutely right. My only request to him is: “Please don’t protest against me.”

The negotiations for the deed of settlement took about 13 years to complete. They began in 1999, and terms of negotiation were signed in May 2003. Three years later, in June 2006, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and the Crown signed an agreement in principle. However, negotiations were suspended for shared interests of the 12 other iwi in Tāmaki to be accommodated.

I certainly want to acknowledge Sir Douglas Graham, because he has worked very hard over a number of years with Michael Dreaver, my chief Crown negotiator, to work out a framework for how all iwi in the Tāmaki region may negotiate with the Crown for settlement of their grievances. That is how the Tāmaki Collective was established, and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei have played a significant role in that collective. Their deed of settlement, as I said, was signed on 5 November 2011, and contained in that deed are provisions for protocols by various Ministers, including the Minister of Conservation, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and numerous other Ministers. The financial and commercial redress consists of $18 million in financial redress less $2 million, which was provided in 1993 for the railway settlement, and various other commercial redress.

Others have mentioned the Defence Force site at Narrow Neck. When I was preparing this third reading speech I was wondering what to say about Narrow Neck and the meeting I attended one Saturday morning. There is, in fact, much I could say about Narrow Neck and those who opposed this aspect of the settlement. I have reflected long and hard on it, but have decided to adopt an approach of the less said, the best said, and simply endorse what Mr Horomia has said this morning. Today is a day for unity and optimism, not criticism and discord.

I acknowledge Joe Hawke, who is here in the Chamber today—and I will have something more to say about him shortly—the late Sir Hugh Kāwharu, all former board members, Grant, and so many others who have worked so very hard to reach this day. I also acknowledge David Williams of the law school at Auckland University, Graeme Horsley, and Tīwana Tibble for their long service and dedication to the vision that was set by Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

A significant portion of the redress focuses on Defence Force land and I certainly want to thank the former MP for North Shore and former Minister of Defence, Wayne Mapp, for his help in progressing this aspect of the settlement.

I had one conclusion prepared for my third reading speech, but the rules of Parliament are that the Minister in charge of the bill cannot be present in the House if another Minister is speaking first. So I was waiting in the lobby until Dr Sharples concluded, so that he could speak and then I would be able to come in. As it turned out, I decided to have a look at Hansard and I read Joe Hawke’s maiden speech. It had a fantastic conclusion that I am going to read into the record one more time. For those of you who are interested in such things, it is reported in Hansard, Volume 558, at page 186. I do not think he could say it better himself. He ended with a quotation from Pope John XXIII, which had been used to sum up the Ngāti Whātua case to the tribunal, and this is what the Pope said: “One thing is clear beyond dispute; any attempt to check the vitality and growth of racial minorities is a flagrant violation of justice; the more so if such exertions are aimed at their extinction.” And then Joe went on to say: “Indeed, the best interests of justice are served by those public authorities who do all they can to improve the human conditions of the members of minority groups, especially in what concerns their language, their culture, their ancient traditions, and their economic activity and enterprise.”

I could not say it better myself, because in a true bipartisan way, since Mat Rata set up the tribunal in 1975, Governments of all persuasions have been working to achieve that end, and I truly hope and pray that today we have reached such a conclusion for the great Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau, tihei mauri ora! Te Whare e tū nei, e te iwi e tū nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The muttonbird calls, the forest parrot calls, and I call as well, behold the breath of life! To the House and the people who stand before me I salute, acknowledge, and greet you all.]

It is truly a privilege to contribute to this third reading today of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. As an Auckland MP and our party’s spokesperson on Auckland issues, I want to put a few comments on the record. I want to add my welcome to those Ngāti Whātua who have travelled here today to be here for this very auspicious occasion. Tēnā koe, Joe. Tēnā koe, Danny, Grant, and others.

I was 15 when I listened on a transistor radio to news reports of the police and army moving on to Bastion Point to remove the occupation. I was shocked that this could happen in our country. Ten years later, I reported for the Auckland Star on the Waitangi Tribunal report on Ōrākei. The report shocked me. I think that all Aucklanders, if they read the Waitangi Tribunal report, would be shocked to know the story of Ōrākei and the fact that by the Crown’s actions Ngāti Whātua were virtually landless by 1885. To quote the tribunal, “the cumulative effect of the various breaches of the principles of the Treaty was to render Ngati Whatua of Orakei virtually landless and without standing in their own homeland.” Through political, legal, and bureaucratic means, efforts by Ngāti Whātua to hold on to their lands were frustrated decade after decade after decade. In 1911 an 8-foot high concrete pipe was built along the length of the Ōkahu Bay foreshore, pumping Auckland’s raw sewage on to the shellfish beds of Ngāti Whātua. Then in 1951 there was the compulsory acquisition and forced clearance off the marae at Ōkahu Bay. That was not our country’s proudest moment.

These kinds of things are not unique to Ngāti Whātua and Auckland. In many ways, they are the story of our country’s modern history. I believe that we are lucky as a nation that the patience and goodwill Ngāti Whātua have shown since British settlement are not unusual among hapū and iwi everywhere. We are lucky also that Ngāti Whātua, led by Joe Hawke, occupied that prime piece of Auckland real estate Takaparawhau, or Bastion Point, in 1977, and for 507 days appealed to the conscience of New Zealanders. The occupation drew support from all kinds of people, and, I am proud to say, had strong support from the unions and the political left. I say we are lucky because that occupation, as the Minister said, inspired change in this country. It opened the eyes of Pākehā New Zealand to the injustice of land loss and Treaty breach. I will always be haunted by the images in the late Meratā Mita’s film Bastion Point: Day 507 of New Zealand police officers carting kaumātua off the marae and a bulldozer demolishing the occupation’s buildings.

It was part of a wave of activism and protest that paved the way for a new era of reconciliation towards expanding the writ of the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty settlements. But it came at considerable cost to Ngāti Whātua. Joe Hawke’s generation, like those before, paid a personal price. During the occupation the Hawkes lost their little girl Joanna in a fire. I want to acknowledge her parents, Alec Hawke and Miro Cooper, who are in the gallery today.

It is remarkable to think about the transition from those days of protest in the 1970s to today, when Ngāti Whātua is a significant player politically, economically, and culturally in modern Auckland. It was Ngāti Whātua that led a protest by many thousands of Aucklanders who marched on Queen Street in 2009 demanding Māori seats and a more democratic Auckland super-city. That is leadership. Tēnā koe, Ngārimu. This settlement will formalise and boost what has been under way now for many years: the development by Ngāti Whātua of their economic base and their emergence as an economic force. Our city needs a strong Ngāti Whātua. We have so many challenges: building an economy that delivers the jobs our young people need, making a vibrant city that attracts our brightest and best, and protecting our stunning natural environment—the gulf and the maunga—for future generations. Perhaps the most important challenge is unleashing the creativity and the talents of the young generation of Māori and Pasifika, who are becoming such an important demographic in the new Auckland. Ngāti Whātua is uniquely placed to help the city meet that challenge, and this settlement sets the platform for that to happen.

I want to say to Ngāti Whātua on behalf of Labour that we support your exercise of self-determination as mana whenua to have a place to stand and the resources to sustain your people in the 21st century. The settlement will, without doubt, change Ngāti Whātua’s relationship with the Crown, and I understand that renewed energy and resource will go into economic advancement, jobs, education, housing, and cultural and business opportunities for the iwi. It is an exciting moment.

Today Bastion Point remains a sublime place. It is still an extraordinary piece of real estate. But, more than that, it is a permanent reminder of a people who resisted, who endured and never gave up, and who got an apology for past wrongs and a recognition of 170 years of injustice, and built from that an ambitious and optimistic future for their children and their city. I want to thank all of those who have worked to bring this settlement to fruition, including the Minister but also officials and politicians both in this Government and in the one before it. I especially want to pay tribute to all those Ngāti Whātua over the generations who worked tirelessly to keep alive the dream of a people and their land. This settlement vindicates their efforts and marks a new beginning. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kei te mihi nui ki a koutou ki te mana o Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei me ngā hapū katoa o Tāmaki-makau-rau, ngā rangatira mā, ngā kuia mā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge you greatly, the authority of Ngāti Whātua of Ōrākei, and all the subtribes of Auckland, the leaders and elderly womenfolk, salutations to you all.]

May I take a moment to express on behalf of the Greens our best wishes to the rangatira who became unwell this morning. That gentleman bears a name that has long been associated with strength and determination, and may those qualities assure a swift and complete recovery.

It is customary when standing to speak in this House to speak of one’s pleasure at contributing to the debate about this or that bill. It can be somewhat formulaic, but on this occasion for me personally it is a genuine pleasure to speak to this important bill, the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. It is a step in a long journey—a significant step in the beginning of a new journey.

Although my whakapapa goes to the north, particularly to Hokianga, nevertheless I have spent much of my life in Auckland. It is a place I hold very dear. I grew up there and continue to enjoy the time that I spend there. Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—is our largest, our most diverse, and our most complex city. It is arguably our most important city, though others will perhaps dispute that point. For New Zealand to do well, Auckland must do well. The acknowledgment today of Ngāti Whātua as mana whenua, the restoration of some of the commercial redress that is involved in this bill, and some of the other empowering provisions that enable Ngāti Whātua to better exercise that mana whenua—these things give Ngāti Whātua more capacity to contribute to a better and more prosperous future for both Māori and non-Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau, and, indeed, across New Zealand.

With this settlement acknowledging the wrongs done in the 19th and 20th centuries, there is the return of a token amount of material wealth. The point has been made that these settlements at best are only token in the sense of returning material wealth. We cannot hope to see a full restitution. It is to the great honour of all Māori that that partial restitution has been accepted in the spirit of ensuring a better future for all of us. All of this that is contained in this bill today is an important step towards Auckland, all Aucklanders, and all New Zealanders enjoying a better and a richer future. Ngāti Whātua have always been, and are, and will continue to be, a powerhouse in the development of Auckland socially, culturally, and economically, and long may that continue.

In an earlier speech I referred to the strategic plan of Ngāti Whātua, which is an extremely sophisticated document. I think it reflects, in part, on what Mr Horomia referred to earlier in terms of the particular governance model that has been established by Ngāti Whātua to respond to the situation of the 21st century. The basic structure of Māori society will not change: whānau, hapū, iwi, and the relationships within and between those structures. They will sustain us over time. That is not to say that cultures remain static. We are not locked in 1840 or 1780 or any other time. Cultures are dynamic, not least of all Māori. We will see the evolution of new ways of dealing with, and responding to, the demands of the 21st century, but always grounded in that commitment to, and acknowledgment of, our being part of a place, and that place is part of us.

I would like to make some brief reference to the text of the bill. One of the great benefits of these settlement bills is that they put on paper the stories, the record, of what happened. They are an incredibly rich resource for all New Zealanders, now and into the future, to remind us constantly of our history, and how we can resolve the bad that was done and seek to establish a better future for all of us. The acknowledgments of the bill recognise that Ngāti Whātua endeavoured to establish a positive and meaningful relationship with the Crown. They demonstrated extraordinarily good faith and trust in the Crown and sought to make that relationship work to everybody’s advantage. There is a line in the bill that says: “The Crown acknowledges that the benefits and protection that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei expected to flow from its relationship with the Crown were not always realised.” That is a magnificent understatement, but nevertheless we acknowledge that that commitment has been made. It has been made honestly and openly, and that is to our mutual benefit.

The Crown also acknowledges that the alienation of land has diminished the ability of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei to exercise mana whenua, and, again, the unique provisions of this bill acknowledge the mana whenua and better enable Ngāti Whātua to exercise that, and that is as it should be. There is reference made to the inadequate protections applied to pā and urupā, including Maungakiekie. Again, in an earlier speech I noted that the use of the correct names, the older names, the Māori names, for some of these key features of the Auckland landscape is becoming more commonplace. We are now referring without embarrassment to Maungakiekie and to the other significant sites around Auckland. That is a sign of the evolution of the understanding of non-Māori of the importance of the naming of places. These names embed stories. They refer to tūpuna and to events that created that place as it is today, and long may we continue to utilise and understand those names better. This is not to diminish or undermine the importance of some of the Pākehā names that have been assigned to these places, but to recognise that naming is an important part of place and an important part of the exercise of mana whenua.

There is a reference also in the apology of the Crown, and, again, the apologies are always such an important part of these settlement bills. The material redress, of course, is important. That provides the pūtea, the means to advance the aspirations of ngā iwi. But the apology is profoundly important, of course. It is an acknowledgment that wrong was done. From that point on, we can progress together. In the reference in the apology the Crown “regrets and is deeply sorry for its actions which left Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei virtually landless”, and notes that this landlessness led to consequences, including to their “social, economic and spiritual well-being”—a diminished well-being for these people and for all of us.

I do not believe that it is too long a bow to draw to suggest that the current deprivation, the fact that Māori appear at the wrong end of all of the social statistics and all of the social indices, is a reflection of the spiritual harm as much as the material harm. The harm to the spirit reflects very directly on the well-being of the emotions and the mental health of people. It is well known that Māori suffer significantly in terms of mental health. Our prisons across the country are full of Māori, and often that is a reflection of the lack of robust mental health. That is a disease of the spirit as much as of the mind. There is acknowledgment that the deprivation of the land affected the wairua of the people and led to the situation where we no longer have that strength in ourselves and in our purpose. These settlements are part of the restoration of that wairua, enabling our young ones to grow up knowing who they are, knowing their place, and knowing the mana of their people. That is an important part of the future for all of us.

This bill talks of healing and it talks of trust, and those are significant aspirations. May this bill represent a step towards the healing of Ngāti Whātua and of the relationship between Ngāti Whātua, the Crown, and non-Māori. Ngāti Whātua have long demonstrated that they are trustworthy. It is now incumbent on the Crown and all of us who represent the Crown to prove that we also are trustworthy and that this relationship that is established by this settlement bill will be honoured into the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): E aku rangatira me Ngāti Whātua i haere mai nei i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou. He wā potopoto tēnei mihimihi ki a koutou nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, my leaders, and Ngāti Whātua who came here today. This salutation is but a brief one to you collectively, so acknowledgments, congratulations, and well done to you all.]

As a boy born and bred in Ngāti Whātua land, born and bred in Ōtara, in my formative years—what that means is when I was young—a lot of my time was spent running around Boot Hill learning to be a protestor, hanging out with Joe and Rene. I mihi to Sharon, Lance, and Terry, who were some of my best mates. I remember a number of parties at Joe’s. In fact, that is where I met my wife for the first time, so thanks, Joe. Thank you, Rene.

Hone Harawira: Poor girl.

Hon TAU HENARE: You see, the problem is that when somebody interjects, they are going to get it when they speak.

I will not talk for very long, because this is a most happy day—a most happy day. My heart goes to Grant, because that is an indication of the occasion, of the work that has gone into getting here—not just getting on a plane or a bus, or in a car or whatever, to get here physically, but to get here over 150-odd years. The journey has been long; the journey has been hard. No one is saying that the journey is even going to be easy starting tomorrow. It is hard because of the things that my colleague Mr Clendon talks about, and that my colleague Mr Twyford talks about. It is hard to be Māori in your own country, and that is a sad indictment on this country. But what is a good indictment on this country is days like this.

What is good about days like this is that we can firmly focus on the future. Is leadership not a wonderful thing? From a carpenter, a chippy, a builder, to a person who leads the struggle up on the point, to becoming a member of Parliament, and now to see my old mate in the House as a kaumātua and as a former member of Parliament. I think that is quintessential New Zealand.

Hone Harawira: Ooh!

Hon TAU HENARE: Did you hear that? Mr Harawira is going to have to go and get himself a dictionary. It starts with “q”.

When we look at world history and we look at Wounded Knee and places like that, Takaparawhā will be amongst those stories of asking how could anybody treat a people like that. I suppose we have the benefit of growing up where we do not treat people like that any more—thank God. I can only say—as, I suppose, Ngāpuhi in terms of my genealogy—thank God they moved Parliament away from the north. We might have suffered the same sort of carry-on.

My heart is filled with emotion, and I suppose the one thing that I can say is: “Thank you, Ngāti Whātua, for letting me stay in Auckland.” It is not a glib sentiment. It goes to the heart of tangata whenua. It goes to the heart of mana whenua. You know, I was born and bred in Ōtara at 42 Harwood Crescent, and went to Bairds Primary School—or Bairds Mainfreight Primary School now—Bairds Intermediate School, and Hillary College. I have got to say that I learnt a lot of my lineage from my cousins who lived in Ōtara. I found out where I was from. I am very proud of my lineage. But I am very proud of the fact that I also know whose land I am on, whose whakapapa I borrow every day to go to work, to go to meetings, and to greet people. So I do thank Ngāti Whātua. Maybe we should be thinking about that sort of thing in the big scheme of things in a new New Zealand as we go forward, because this just adds to the big story that is New Zealand’s history—that is New Zealand’s new history.

I am also adamant that our examples and our history can be used overseas to help other people forge a new land and a new understanding in their own lands. You know, one of the things that is amazing is when we travel around the world and we go to conferences, and we are sitting there in a conference, and then some Māori at the back gets up, and then there are a whole lot of Māoris who get up and either sing a waiata or have their say. We on the international stage, as a people, should pat ourselves on the back, because we do have influence overseas and we do have influence here.

Briefly, on the select committee process, I was outraged at some of the comments by some of the people who were opposed not to the settlement but to a small piece of land—a small piece of land. Considering that there are 66 million acres of land in this country and—I was just going to say we own only 3 million, but that is “we” as in all of us Māoris. They had the cheek to quibble about 1.5, or whatever it was. How many acres?

Hon Member: 3.6

Hon TAU HENARE: It was 3.6 acres they wanted to quibble about because they did not want Māoris to have the opportunity to build a big whatever and then onsell it. It was a quibbling amount of land. It was a small piece of land in the big scheme of things. It was about moving Ngāti Whātua and New Zealand forward. All those people in Devonport who came to our select committee hearing—do you know what they moaned about to the media? That I called people “bro”, and that I called people “chief”. That is what they moaned about. For goodness’ sake, wake up, those sorts of people, because they are the ones who damage this country, not these people and not us. They are the ones who damage this country’s reputation around the world—not us, not the people who sit there and try to work out a deal over 150 years, and take the treatment that Ngāti Whātua have taken.

I was in the Wiri wool store working very hard as an 18-year-old in 1978 when the Point blew up, and they came in and used the army and the police. It was a sad, sad indictment on this country’s history, but I tell you what. That sort of action stiffens the back and the resolve of the people to fight for justice.

Hoi anō, anei ngā mihimihi nui ki a koutou katoa e aku hoa, e aku tuākana, e aku tēina rānei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Accordingly, here are some huge congratulatory tributes to you all, my colleagues, elder or younger siblings. Therefore, accolades and acknowledgments to you collectively and an appreciation to us all.]

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): He mihi tēnei ki a koutou i tēnei rā nui mō Te Tiriti o Waitangi me tō koutou iwi. Kei runga i a koutou e ngā rangatira, ngā moemoeā o ngā tūpuna, me ngā tūmanako o te rangatahi, kia kaha, kia toa.

[This is a tribute to you collectively today in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi and particularly for your people. Upon you leaders are the ancestors’ dreams and the aspirations of the young generation, be staunch, be bold.]

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this third and final reading of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill. But before I start, I would like to acknowledge the member of the media who is sitting up there today. I would just like to thank him for being there, because this is a momentous day and it is a momentous occasion. I know there are other media watching through closed circuit, but the stories of this tribe are so real, intense, spiritual, and brave that if we were in America, there would be movie moguls lined up outside, waiting to sign off movie rights. I hope that tonight the news is led by stories of this momentous occasion.

New Zealand First acknowledges the arduous journey undertaken by Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei to reach this final stage of settlement. We acknowledge the mighty warriors of days gone by and the strength, courage, and determination runs true in the bloodlines of this tribe. We have seen it through the years. We saw it when families were forcibly evicted from their homes, to see their homes razed to the ground. We saw it in 1977 when families stood arm in arm against injustice. I would say that we all here today represent the many people who cannot be here. Some have passed on. Some could not make it. But I feel very proud that the tangata whenua who gave us Auckland are finally being healed and acknowledged, and we in New Zealand First are proud, yet humbled, to bear witness.

We have heard of the angst caused recently by the sale of 3.2 hectares of land to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. In the Māori Affairs Committee, we witnessed some impassioned and at times acrimonious scenes. My comprehension was not that of rednecks at Narrow Neck, but I can understand the disbelief from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. After having 31,565 hectares lost, who in their right mind could possibly argue against 3.2 hectares being returned, or I should say, being bought back? But what I also saw was New Zealanders in Devonport connected to their land. They underwent an experience common to every Māori in this land, and that is having a connection to the land, having it promised to you by the Government—be it Crown, local, or national—and then having it cruelly taken away by the stroke of a pen, which brings to bear the old adage that there is no escaping the divisive and essential question: what is the purpose of the State and whom does it serve?

I saw a community who was outraged, who loved their land, and who stood up to be counted when it mattered. Thankfully, through kōrero and understanding, much of that angst has now dissipated, for there is a greater synergy borne through that experience that now entwines and binds the people of Devonport and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, and, indeed, the greater Auckland area. I would say to the people of New Zealand: take heed from this example, because we all love our land, our rivers, our lakes, and our maunga. Our rivers and lakes nurture the blood and bones of our ancestors and contain our wairua, the spirit of New Zealand. So let the experience of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei rumble from the mountains, through our lakes, rivers, oceans, and cities. A total of 31,565 hectares lost; 3.2 hectares returned. Remember this percentage next time we hear of that Government offering our land, our water, our wairua for sale to overseas buyers. Once taken, what is the chance of its return? What responsible guardian would ever sell that which is most dear to us, that which lies in our water and our lands—our wairua?

There are many people who deserve mention throughout this long process, from the rangatira who signed the Treaty in 1840 to people like Ruby Gray, Cyril Talbot, Sir Hugh Kāwharu, Mike Rāmeka, and Āri Pīhera, all past board members, now departed, who worked tirelessly not just for Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei but for all Māoridom. They are sadly missed but greatly appreciated, and New Zealand First would acknowledge leaders like the Hawke family, Tīwana Tibble, Puawai Rāmeka, and others who have stayed true to the cause in the guidance of this waka. There are so many who have given their hearts to this journey that I think the best we can say is thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who smiles when they think of today and the restoration and reclamation of mana for Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. And this reclamation is evidenced in the eyes of the children. Nō mua ka kite a muri. The things behind us enable us to see the way forward.

For some years now, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei have displayed upward mobility in leadership, business, and family, and we all wish them well in all spheres leading into the future. To that end, I will finish with a Tainui proverb, as there is again a synergy with Tainui and Ngāti Whātua. This proverb goes to the children of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. Kia hora te marino, kia whakapapa pounamu te moana, kia tere te kārohirohi i mua i tōu huarahi. May the calm be widespread, may the ocean glisten like greenstone, and may the shimmer of many summers dance across your pathway. Kia kaha, kia toa.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): E te Whare tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā uri o Ngāti Whātua, te mana whenua o Ōrākei, kei te mihi atu i runga i te aroha. He tino mihi ki te whānau Hawke.

[Salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings to you all, the House. A loving tribute to you, the descendants of Ngāti Whātua, who hold jurisdiction over the land at Ōrākei, and a special welcome to the Hawke family.]

Warm greetings to the descendants of Ngāti Whātua, who have traditional authority over the land at Ōrākei. Special greetings to the leadership of Grant, to Sharon, and to Joe, and to the wider Hawke family, and to Ngārimu Blair and Tīwana Tibble for their important roles. This has indeed been a very long time in coming, and I acknowledge those who have passed on. I tēnei wā whakahirahira, ka huri ngā whakaaro ki ngā tini tōtara kua hinga atu, a Tā Hugh Kāwharu, rātou ko Ruby Gray, ko Cyril Talbot mā. He mihi aroha ki a rātou mā i whawhai mō te kaupapa. Waiho rātou kia moe. At this important time our thoughts turn to the great tōtara who have fallen: Sir Hugh Kāwharu, Ruby Gray, Cyril Talbot, and others. Warm greetings to those who fought for the cause. Let them now rest.

I stand to support this bill, the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill—kei te tū ake ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. I join with others who have sent their prayers and best wishes to Grant Hawke. Even though he is exhausted and has fainted today, when I spoke to him he was, as ever, cheerful and thinking of others. We send our best wishes and prayers for his speedy recovery. It has been a very long and hard battle, and the people of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, although exhausted, have never wavered in their determination and in their resolve. Our congratulations go to them on this very special day, but they have paid a very high price for today’s historic settlement, and I acknowledge that.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the settlement of the deed entered into by the Crown and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. It is sponsored by the Hon Chris Finlayson, who continues, I think, to do a magnificent job of completing the work started by Sir Douglas Graham. If you judged the Hon Chris Finlayson by his achievements, I am certain that history will acknowledge that he is the most effective member and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations this country has ever seen.

I had the privilege of witnessing the Minister’s signature at the signing of the Tāmaki Collective a couple of months ago, at the museum. In the time I have been involved with this settlement I have welcomed the wisdom and the very balanced approach of the Minister and also of the Crown’s chief negotiator, Mike Dreaver, who has helped explain the detail of the settlement and helped the community on the North Shore to understand why the cultural and historical redress is so important and why it needed to happen.

Since we became the Government in 2008, National has signed 22 deeds of settlement, because we believe we need to resolve these historical issues. We need to do what is fair to right the wrongs of the past, so that we can leave the pain and the grievances behind us and move forward together as a nation. This John Key - led Government honours the partnership and the Treaty of Waitangi and, with tenacity and determination, has negotiated in good faith. This settlement focuses on the cultural and historical redresses and it forms the basis for the Crown’s apology to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

As the member of Parliament for the North Shore for almost 1 year next week, I can tell all of those who are gathered here in the House today for the third reading of this bill that this settlement has been contentious locally, particularly in Devonport, as others have said. But looking back at the history, to 1840, following Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s chiefs’ signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, some 32 acres of land was transferred to the Crown, much of which was then onsold for a vast profit. Although that land allowed European settlers, there were too few benefits and too few protections to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

As others have said, almost all of their land was lost, and the once-proud tribe was impoverished and suffered terribly. I commend Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei for your patience and your very generous spirit throughout the long and frustrating decades of inaction, and then through the robust negotiations over some 13 years now that have led to today’s historic settlement.

The financial and commercial redress recognises the economic loss suffered because of the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, as the Minister has said, will receive $18 million plus interest. Using this and their own funds, they now assume the right to purchase two properties, and to purchase and lease back six more. This includes the Narrow Neck property, which is currently used by the Defence Force. It will be leased back to the Navy for a minimum of 15 years and for a maximum of up to 150 years. Public access to the land at Narrow Neck will continue to be available in exactly the same way as it is today. In fact, it will be improved, because the public walkway is now enshrined in legislation and will be available in perpetuity to everyone.

I am very aware, as the member of Parliament for the North Shore, that some of the European settlers in Devonport have a very strong sense of connection to that land at Narrow Neck. It is an integral part of their traditions and of their community, and it is very special to them. Knowing how important that land is to so many, I invited all the concerned parties to kōrero with Minister Finlayson at the end of March. On that Saturday morning in March some 500 people attended the meeting. The depth of feeling was very apparent, and there was robust questioning and discussion.

As the MP, I encouraged all of those with concerns to participate in the process and to make submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee. That committee received and considered 99 written submissions on the bill and heard 23 oral submissions at the Ōrākei Marae. As a result of that consultation, there were three amendments, and ultimately the committee unanimously supported the bill in its final form.

With today’s final reading, this settlement passes into law. Although I acknowledge the depth of sentiment that some detractors have, I urge them to now put that aside and to draw a line in the sand and welcome Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei with open arms. I know from my meetings and my discussions with tribal members, and with members of the Hawke family in particular, that they are completely sincere in wanting to be active and constructive members of our community.

From today, when this bill is passed into legislation, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei will become the biggest single landowners in Devonport. They will be great neighbours, and we are indeed fortunate to have them as part of our community, and to have them amongst us. My hope, as the local MP, is that the unity and the harmony that is expressed here today will continue on in the North Shore and will be very evident there. We do welcome you with all our hearts, and thank you for your forbearance, your determination, and your tenacity.

This is a day I will never forget. This is an emotional time, made more poignant by Grant’s collapse—the man whom many call “Uncle”. He is a remarkable individual, and somebody who has touched many of our hearts. It is symbolic that on this day he was affected by what happened. It is particularly poignant that such a strong and dedicated leader should have been taken to hospital to recover. We understand that he is there under observation. As I said earlier, our thoughts and prayers are with him, his family, and his whānau. His resilience and determination and the wisdom and leadership he has shown I think set the tone to celebrate today’s settlement.

I congratulate all of you on being here today and on making the journey in the buses—a hīkoi of sorts. I know you stopped along the way. I thank you all for being here today and making this such a special occasion. Nō reira, ka mutu taku kōrero mō tēnei wā—I have finished speaking for the time being. Ka tuku aroha ki a koutou o Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei mō ngā nawe me te mamae e ngau ana kai roto, me tū kaha koutou kia oti pai ai.

[I empathise with you of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in respect of the imperfections and hurt that gnaw away inside. Stand staunch to ensure that you finish it well.]

I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi ngā whānau o Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. Kia ora, Matua Joe. Kia ora to Alec, to Grant, to Sharon, to the entire Hawke whānau, to Danny—anyone else, Pare?

Hon Parekura Horomia: No, that’s covered.

LOUISA WALL: That is about it—other than everybody who is here today and all the rangatahi, especially, who are here today. Today is a celebration. I am very proud to be in the House today.

I actually want to begin my kōrero with a quote from Grant Pakihana Hawke, who is the chair of the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Māori Trust Board. Before I say that, I do want to acknowledge previous trust board chairs Sir Hugh Kāwharu and Ruby Hinemoa Gray. To quote Matua Grant, from your strategic plan 2011-12: “Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are resilient yet humble people, with the unique advantage of having mana whenua in the largest city in Aotearoa. We have navigated our way through adversity, continually faced political challenges and yet we are still here, still claiming our stake in this world and forever striving to honour the moemoeā of our tupuna.” I am really proud to be here as the MP for Manurewa. I am on the Māori Affairs Committee, and I want to mihi to our chair, the Hon Tau Henare, and my fellow Māori Affairs Committee members. I want to mihi to the Minister of Māori Affairs. This is an area where there is consensus in the House. We are trying the hardest we can, as the Māori Affairs Committee, to resolve all our Treaty settlements. This is a very proud day, not only for Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. As Grant said this morning, this is your day, this your time, Ngāti Whātua.

I also want to acknowledge the hapū of Ngāti Whātua: Te Tāōū, Ngā Oho, and Te Uringutu. I particularly want to quote again from your strategic plan and “He moemoeā: te pai me te whai rawa o Tāmaki!”. This is from your strategic plan: “In the year 2030, 5000 descendants of Tuperiri live on the papakainga and contribute to tribal life … The papakainga is self-sufficient. We sell electricity back to the national grid due to all the solar panels and wind turbines in use. 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 … Our land is tax-free. Most of our whenua has regenerating ngahere on the reserve land and in between buildings. The bird-song is now louder than the traffic on Tamaki Drive! In between their bowls and dart competitions, our elders hold regular wānanga for the up and coming kai kōrero 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.” These are the dreams and aspirations of Ngāti Whātua, and this settlement is only part of the how.

I want to highlight the loss of land that Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei has had. In 1840, at the Treaty of Waitangi signing, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei tribal lands totalled 77,997 acres. In 1855, a mere 15 years post colonisation, 700 acres remained in Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei hands. That is 0.9 percent of your original tribal ancestral lands. By 1927 that had become 12.5 acres, which represents 0.016 percent of your tribal lands. To put the Devonport settlement into perspective, the 7.9 acres that you have paid for represent 0.01 percent of your original tribal lands. How incredibly generous of you to settle for that amount of land, so on behalf of all of us here I want to say thank you. And I want to reiterate the words of Maggie Barry that the people of Aotearoa, the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and the people of Devonport actually should look to you for leadership and look to you for a path forward. I want to acknowledge the generosity not only of spirit but of the leadership that you now have within Tāmaki-makau-rau as the mana whenua for where we are today. Kia ora and thank you very much.

I want to just quickly look at your history of protest. Right throughout the colonisation period you have fought and your tūpuna have fought for your rights. You have fought to get your lands back through the courts, through whatever mechanisms were available to you. Other people have spoken about what happened in 1951, and it is quite poignant, really, with Prince Charles being in Aotearoa, that in 1951 you were booted up Boot Hill, which is what I knew it to be when I first moved to Tāmaki-makau-rau. The fact that your houses were burnt down, that you lost your ability to live on your own lands, is actually a dark day in our history, but, again, it shows how resilient you are. In 1976, when the Crown attempted to sell the last 60 acres at Ōrākei, it was Joseph Parata Hawke and the whānau of Ngāti Whātua who stood strong for 506 days, with the collaboration of many other people. I think we should acknowledge that that protest also included Pākehā, it included union members, and it included anybody actually who believed in social justice. They stood side by side with you, because they acknowledged that as people of Aotearoa there was a great injustice being perpetuated on Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. I particularly want to acknowledge Alec and Miro, because they lost their daughter Joannee, and it does bring me to tears when I think about that fact, that actually blood has been spilt on Ngāti Whātua’s journey to where we are today. The memorial that is there on Takaparawhau for her is a wonderful thing, so I just want to acknowledge that.

I have been interested in what Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei have decided are their strategic priorities. What do you want to achieve now that you are going to get a little bit of pūtea? You are going to get a capital base so that you can look at meeting the needs of your whānau. I was really interested in your five strategic priorities. No. 1 is about whānau. It is about Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei ora, whatever that means for you. It means that you are ngā whā ngā mana nāu. You want to be healthy. You want to be educated. You want to be housed. I just want to note that you have a heat-pump scheme, which is pretty cool. You want to make sure that your whānau live in healthy, warm homes. The second principle is kotahitanga. The third principle is whenua. The fourth principle is whai māia. The fifth principle is whai rawa. So, for me, Ngāti Whātua are well and truly on a path for ensuring that you will provide the opportunities for your tamariki mokopuna in the future.

I just want to end and quote again from your submission. This is your day. In conclusion, I quote: “the settlement provides Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei with the ability to again have a rightful place in Tāmaki. The cultural redress is very important in this. The ability to purchase the land from the Crown gives us the opportunity over time to buy back some small part of our rohe and so enhance the economic … benefits, which will flow from that to all members of our hapu. We see the settlement as a strong statement by the wider community in Tamaki, that they acknowledge Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei belong here and are an integral part of the fabric of Tāmaki.” Kia ora.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We come now to two split calls. It will be National and Mana, then Mana and Labour.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Ki a koutou e te whānau o Ngāti Whātua kua tae mai mō tēnei rā whakanui i a tātou, nei rā taku mihi aroha nui ki a koutou katoa. Ko tēnei e tū ake nei, te mema Pāremata mō te Maungakiekie ēngari, he hononga anō mai i ngā waka i tae mai i Hawaiki. Nō reira, he hōnore māku ki te mihi atu ki a koutou, ki a tātou, me te tautoko mō ēnei whāinga. Tēnā koe, Joe.

[To you, the family of Ngāti Whātua who have arrived here for this day that will exalt us, here then is my welcome of great love to you all. I stand before you not only as a member of Parliament for Maungakiekie but also with connections to the canoes that arrived here from Hawaiki. And so, it is indeed an honour for me to extend a welcome to you and to us collectively, and to offer support for these objectives. Hello there, Joe.]

I want to acknowledge every child, every mother, every father, and every individual who has come down here to celebrate this special day. I also want to acknowledge those back home in Ngāti Whātua who could not be here today, but equally share the joy that we here in Parliament will celebrate on this momentous occasion. I also acknowledge those who have passed on, those who were not able to witness this day. I remember them, as we all do, and many have been named in this Chamber this morning. Also, I want to send a message out to Grant Hawke. We know you are a strong man and our prayers will continue to be with you as you come back.

It is a privilege that I speak as the member of Parliament for Maungakiekie, where many of the people of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei live, where many of them work, and where many of them play. Although I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, which heard submissions, I stand here to support both Ministers Sharples and Finlayson in this Government. It is a Government that is committed to recognising, addressing, and correcting the wrongs of the past, and especially to strengthening the bonds and relationships between the Crown, Māori, and others like myself who have come lately, into the future.

As I said, today is momentous because we move to resolve some of the historical issues that have been addressed here today, so that we can move forward as a country in Aotearoa New Zealand—iwi, hapū, and the Crown. We want to build a bolder, a brighter, and a better future for our kids and our grandkids. Much of the history of the grievance has already been laid out quite eloquently today, and I will not get into that given the time constraints. But the benefits and protection that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had anticipated from their initial engagement with the Crown following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi were not always realised, and we know that. Despite promises of a land base for the future, almost all their land was lost.

As a witness to the deed of settlement not only for the Tāmaki Collective earlier on this year but also for this particular deed, I am proud that it has come to this peaceful and joyous conclusion. This settlement focuses on the cultural, the historical, and, some would say—as my colleague Brendan Horan said—also the spiritual, and includes Crown acknowledgments that form the basis for a Crown apology to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei. My hope and prayer is that this settlement goes some way to address those grievances of the past. My prayer and my hopes are that the children and the grandchildren of those executing this settlement will prosper and gain from the settlement in a way that their ancestors were not able to do. My hope is that the settlement will enhance the efforts of Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei to improve education and learning outcomes, to promote healthy living, and to drive economic and business growth for the benefit of their whānau. My prayer is that they will continue to be the beacon up on that hill that was a place of such conflict and division in the past. As the local MP it is my wish and my petition that a tree also be returned to Maungakiekie as a sign of our peace and of unity and of love.

He rā whakahirahira tēnei kia whakatuwhera i ngā āhuatanga o ngā whakatipuranga e heke mai, kia puāwai ngā wawata o ngā tīpuna.

[This is a magnificent day that will open up opportunities for generations to come so that what the ancestors dreamed of will bear fruit.]

Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Hone Harawira—10 minutes.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Hoi anō e te mema Pāremata o Takaparawhā, ki a koe e Joe, tēnā koe. Ki a koe anō hoki e Grant—kei konei? Kāo! Hakoa kei hea koe e huna ana, e mōhio ana au e whakarongo mai ana, tēnā koe. E hoa, koutou anō rā e ōku tini whanaunga i haere tawhiti mai i Ōrākei i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Huri atu, huri noa, kia ora tātou katoa.

[And so to you there, Joe, member of Parliament for Takaparawhā, greetings. To you as well, Grant—is he here? No! Regardless where you might be hiding, I know that you are listening. Hello there. Oh shucks, you as well, my many, many relatives who came from far away Ōrākei today, acknowledgments and congratulations to you collectively. Thank you to us all throughout and all around.]

Today is a very special day for Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei. Today is your day. Although normally I am happy to speak off the cuff whenever I am out in public, today I refer to my notes because I want to enter into the parliamentary record just a few of the many special memories I will always have of Bastion Point. Joe said I had to start with the Ōrākei Māori Action Committee, which happened to have been led by Joe Hawke, Grant, Roger, Mike, and Colin, who ran the biggest-ever Māori land occupation in our history and had the truly unenviable task of trying to hold together the wildly divergent and often demented ravings of Albanian-aligned communists, Trotskyist socialists, Stalinist hard-liners, Mao Tse-tung fanatics, Christians and atheists, vegans and vegetarians, guys straight out of jail, kids straight out of school, housewives, farmers, and Māoris who had never done anything like this before, Pākehās who had never worked with Māoris before, all of our brothers and sisters of the Pacific, and Aboriginals and Native Americans, musicians and lawyers, singers and actors, and labourers and doctors—such was the ever-changing family of Bastion Point. So those are the guys at the front.

Behind the scenes, of course, Patu, Rene, and Rachel made sure the action committee did what they told it to do. Old man Eddie Hawke quietly made sure all the real work got done, while the chiefs were pontificating and the young bloods were preening; Auntie Piupiu, Auntie Haupī, and all the kuia who kept us safe; Sharon, Kataraina, Mei-Meri, Betty Sio, and Linda Tanoa’i, the girls from Auckland Girls’ Grammar School, who had come straight to the Point, still in their school uniforms; Joannee, and a life ended all too soon; John Denver coming up to jam with the locals, and all the other bands that gave us joy, getting blasted every night by Willie Wilson, the little man with the big voice. I was going to say big mouth, but he would probably hear about it and come and bash me. Willie Wilson, who was a hard-line communist back in the day, is now a preacher for the Lord.

While I am talking about preachers, there was Tom Hērangi, the pistol-packing preacher from Tainui, and of course Matt Tarawa, the singing Mormon who liked to belt out “My Way”, but his way. He was always dragging his poor kids up on the stage, to sing and help raise money for the occupation. I recall one of the women coming out of the toilets one night, and shining a spotlight on the cops who were trying to crawl into the camp, and screaming at them to “eff off”, and everyone watching these silly policemen scatter down the hill like rabbits, tripping over themselves in the dark, and being hounded by the raucous laughter from all the men, and dire predictions from all the women. That image of Ama Rauhihi up on the watchtower, with Rangitoto in the background; Aussie Bob and his pushbike generator; David Williams and his incredibly boring legal dissertations—kia ora, David—Diane Prince, winner of the Bastion Point porridge competition; Dilworth, Sam, Rex, and all the rest of the rat patrol for their hilarious night-time antics guarding the Point and teasing the cops; Tame Iti, Tītewhai Harawira, Syd Jackson, Betty Williams, Dun Mīhaka, Eva Rickard—teachers you could not help but learn from and teachers you did not dare disagree with.

And Tim Shadbolt—what a guy—the man with the million-dollar smile and a million different stories, gallantly defending his niece one dark night, and being handed a blade and challenged to fight for his life and her honour. Tim will be for ever grateful to Zena Tamanui for stepping in and slapping down her bloodthirsty relations from the north. There was Kīngi Tangirā from Kāretu, a true bender of reality, with so many stories about his life that if you added them all together, he would have had to have been 127 years old. And, of course, with Zena the rest of Whakahau, the effervescent, witty, and intelligent young Polynesians from Ōtara, quick with a smile and quicker with a song; Jimmy O’Dea, the stubborn Irishman from Kupe Street, with an accent and a commitment to justice that have never been bent over the years. Here is one—Sonny Waru, and his kōrero “The Tempestuous Winds of Circumstance”. It used to kill me whenever he got up to talk like that. Also, Meretā Mita and her Bastion Point Day 507 documentary, and Doc—I never really got to know what his real name was—and that little yap-yap of his, Bastion.

And I remember on the day of the arrest, Roger Fowler was up on the roof of the whare with his megaphone telling everyone to stay calm, and Bastion running around behind him the roof, yapping his head off. I remember marching into town for our court cases with Alec and having to tell everyone to get off the footpath, we march on the road. I remember listening to Ben Dalton blister the courtroom with a heavy, heavy kōrero in Māori and laughing at the judge demanding a translation from a shocked and shaken and red-faced translator—Vapi Kupenga it was, who simply could not bring herself to give the true translation and simply stammered: “Ah, ah, I think he is pleading not guilty, Your Honour.”

I remember Hone Kaa, for driving his congregation crazy when he used to let us come and stay at Tātai Hono while the court cases were on. I remember jamming up the courthouse with hundreds of defendants and hundreds more supporters, and driving the courts mad with our chanting and our singing and our hakas, and forcing them to throw most of the charges out. I remember standing on the picket line outside Mt Eden Prison to see our brother have to come out, because his snoring was driving the whole remand wing crazy.

Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā. You have done so much in such a very short time for so many and today you carry the hopes and dreams not only for your mokopuna but also for the tens of thousands of urban Māori who look to you for a lead in how to act in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

On behalf of those who are privileged to be there in support of your stand, on behalf of a generation who are seeking a place in this crazy world, on behalf of the 222 who got arrested on 25 May 1978, and those like Hilda and Sharon who got arrested again and again and again in support of our kaupapa, I say thank you. It was through your actions in occupying Bastion Point, the stand you took in reclaiming that place we later came to know as Takaparawhā and then Takaparawhau, the commitment you made to win back your land and the heavy, heavy losses that you sustained, and that nobody else will ever feel as deeply as those of you who call Ōrākei home—it is from all of that that we drew strength and energy and knowledge and courage to carry the fight for land rights to other places in Aotearoa and to other lands throughout the world. Bastion Point was the haven and the heart of Polynesia’s largest city and our classroom in Māori Politics 101. And who can forget Shadbolt and his wonderful poem: “Hey you, you who spend 5 minutes voting every 3 years and call it democracy. Have you got 5 minutes to spare to hear the story of our home? It’s called”—and Tim thought it was—“Arohanui.” Dismantled out at Wiri, trucked to the Point by staunch unionists, and rebuilt as a whare as real warmth and shelter with all the humble little dwellings around her, a marae that lived and breathed 24 hours a day and sometimes more—Arohanui saw the birth of some, sheltered the pain and joy of many, and provided a final resting place for Joannee.

And you, e te whānau o Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, you gave us a chance to learn and to teach, to challenge and to be challenged, to cop flak and to come back for more, to sing together and to cry together, and today you have come to this House, to reclaim a very, very small part of your history. Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, today in honour of those who have passed on, and those of you who are left to carry on the struggle, today we thank you, today we honour you, and today we wish you strength for the many years to come.

E tika ana te kōrero o te waiata.

[What the song is on about is correct.]

We are the people of the land, through troubled times we will stand, the sun will shine through cloudy skies, and brighten our pathway as we unite for our land. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Jones—5 minutes.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Only 5? Poto noa ake tēnei tū. Tautoko i ngā kupu kua puakina hei whakanui i tēnei rangi mō ngā uri a Tuperiri. He pēnei te kōrero. Tā Tuperiri, ko Tarahawaiki me tana kuia i roto o Waiōhua, a Mokorua, ka puta ko Apihai Te Kawau, koutou katoa ngā uri a Tuperiri, ngā maramara a Ngā Oho, Te Uringutu, Te Tāōū i roto i te karanga ā-iwi a Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[This stand is but a short one. I endorse the words that have been disclosed today about the relatives of Tuperiri. The talk goes like this. Tuperiri begat Tarahawaiki, who through his elderly woman from Waiōhua, Mokorua, gave birth to Apihai Te Kawau, and, as a consequence, all of you, the descendants of Tuperiri, the bits and pieces of Ngā Oho, Te Uringutu, Te Tāōū within the tribal calling of Ngāti Whātua at Ōrākei, came to be. Salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations to us all.]

It is 100 years since 1912, when this House was petitioned by Ōtene Paora to address the iniquity, the erosion and loss of land and mana of people of the three hapū I have referred to in Te Reo Māori: Te Tāōū, Te Uringutu, me Ngā Oho, otherwise known in modern Māori parlance as Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei.

That it is in this particular year that this Treaty event is taking place is a reminder of how long the road has been for this section of Te Ao Māori to address what originated from the visit of Te Kawau’s son to my area in Ngāpuhi with the suggestion that the Crown move to a more tranquil area other than the Bay of Islands, and into Waitematā. It was a grand gesture driven in itself by a prophecy, but, unfortunately, as the fangs of colonialism, etc., sank into Tāmaki-makau-rau, our relations have ended up with only a small part of their original estate.

I remember in 1977, after Hone Harawira had left St Stephen’s School and it was a far better place, going with some of the Hawke whānau and being received at Takaparawhā—Bastion Point. St Stephen’s School was a somewhat conservative place, judged by the quality of rugby and occasional oratory, and I think the name of the kaumātua with the long, grey hair might have been Eddie Hawke, nāna ngā kupu whakatau.

He was the one who welcomed us, and despite my very strong Croatian credentials, I was the orator for St Stephen’s School, to be told by Colin Clark: “You kids at that St Stephen’s School, you need to hang out with us more often. Then you’ll learn to be real Māoris.” Unfortunately, we went there one night and came back with a black eye, so it was not a place for the faint-hearted, but to all the whānau whom Hone has referred to, the pathway ahead is clear. The super-city is large and formidable. Leave the pouwhenua of indigeneity in every corner of the super-city’s existence.

Do not surrender to the growing power of ethnic diversity unless you are absolutely confident that our indigenous identity, our language, and our heritage are respected by all. Aotearoa is now definitely a matarau place, a place of many faces, but there is one Treaty, and our tūpuna, with the Crown, ensured that our Māori identity, culture, language, and legacy must not be wiped out. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.

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

[Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and the House. I extend this tribute to you collectively, leaders of a hundredfold, on this proposal. Congratulations to the leaders of Ngāti Whātua of Ōrākei, well done, well done, and congratulations to you all.]

I am immensely humble and proud to be the final speaker in this part of our history. The third reading of any Treaty bill really is a momentous occasion that each and every one of us as New Zealanders should celebrate. I stand here before you as the proud member of Parliament for the Taupō electorate, but I have spent more than half of my life in Auckland—as the Hon Tau Henare said, in Ngāti Whātua country. I cannot quite claim, as he did, that I was born in Ōtara, but I can claim that Rangitoto Island was the maunga that I looked to as my place of grounding as I grew up in Tāmaki-makau-rau. I am also a proud member of the Māori Affairs Committee. So I am very pleased to have been on this part of the very final part of the journey with you in reaching this settlement. I want to acknowledge Joe Hawke on the floor of the House, just as I want to offer my prayers and support for Grant Hawke, who was with us in this Whare earlier and is healing at the moment.

One of the things that I have to say is quite challenging as a Pākehā member of Parliament on the Māori Affairs Committee is getting a depth of understanding of the journey of the tangata whenua. So I am not going to stand before you and be trite and say that I have any ounce of understanding. But what I do commit to my colleagues in this House is that I will spend every moment that I can deepening my knowledge, learning the history, and sharing that with as many New Zealanders as I can.

I was only 7 when that battle took place at Bastion Point. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I was, as a young child, fascinated with politics, so I took probably a much stronger interest in what happened in those days than many of my age. I think the thing that stood out for me was that it was a collection of New Zealanders against another collection of New Zealanders. Yes, it was your iwi, it was your people leading that fight, but actually it became much broader than that. I think one of the things that really disturbed me at that age was the level of anger that two groups of what I, possibly naively, saw as New Zealanders could have against one another. I do have to say it left quite an impression on me, even at that age. Even just Monday last week I spoke at a meeting in my electorate, and you can probably imagine some of the conversations that come up from time to time in terms of “Why are we doing these Treaty settlements?”. I guess the thing that bothers me is the lack of understanding of your history, of the history of iwi up and down New Zealand. That is why I have made a point of trying to encourage people to learn more.

I said to the group of people whom I spoke to at that public meeting that every single bill in this House is available for people to watch on the internet. I challenge them to watch these speeches of the third readings today, because if you were ever to spend an hour and a half or 2 hours of your time doing that, you would get the best opportunity—absolutely the best opportunity—with the collection of speeches from every corner of this House, to at least have some better knowledge of what has gone on in the past that needs to be completed and acknowledged before we can move forward.

I am enormously proud of Ministers Sharples and Finlayson, but particularly Minister Finlayson. I have had some of the most memorable times as a member of Parliament with him, being witness to a Crown apology. And, again, I think it is just so important that as many members of the community as possible participate in some of these defining moments, because they are part of our history.

I read that in the 1950s your marae was burnt down. Mangakino is part of my electorate. The marae there was torched only 5 years ago. I got, admittedly, only a very small sense from Pouakani of just how gutting that is. You know, for some it is a building—big deal. But actually I know that to tangata whenua it is so much more than that. So I am really excited to be going to the reopening of the Pouakani Marae in Mangakino on Saturday, because I know for people in that community that they have not had a place to connect, to combine, and to be together as whānau.

There is an enormous amount of work that goes on to get to a day like today, and my colleagues have acknowledged many things. But one of the things that I do want to just reflect on is the select committee process. There have been some conversations about the views of others who opposed parts of the bill. That is why we have a select committee process. I actually think that the fact that people have an opposing view is the opportunity for people to learn more, and the public meeting that was referred to earlier, which Minister Finlayson led, I see that—so there is a misunderstanding; there is a conflict, but sort of discussion and the select committee process actually allows the ability for people to have a better knowledge than when they started. They might still not agree, they are entitled to their own views, and we will all have an opinion about what their views are. But then when we come together and as a select committee make agreements—and we are here today for the celebration of your signing—I think it is helpful that there are alternative views from time to time.

There are some Treaty bills that we do not have any submissions against, at all. This was not one of those, but I do not think that it takes away from the importance of this agreement because I think that through that conflict there is a willingness to reach a resolution, and through that resolution there is a better understanding.

So I just want to conclude by saying that it is fantastic to see a range of generations in the gallery today. I want to acknowledge that there have been generations of those past, and I know that they are also with us in spirit. But these settlements are about the generations to come—those who are not here yet—because I think that is the importance of days like today and the conclusion of yet another Treaty settlement. It is a day for generations of all New Zealanders to come together—reflecting on the words of the Minister—where we can go forward together with unity and optimism. Nō reira, kia ora.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.45 p.m. (Thursday)