Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): In accordance with discussions at the Business Committee, I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break following the third reading of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill and for the House to suspend until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 18 April following the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Cost of Living—Economic Policy and Reports

1. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to keep down the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has taken a number of steps and, assisted by general economic conditions, is helping to keep interest rates at 50-year lows and annual inflation at around 1 percent. The steps the Government has taken are to maintain a track to surplus, which will take the pressure off interest rates and reduce inflation pressures; responsible and orthodox monetary policy is helping keep inflation low; increased competition in the electricity industry has halved the 8 percent annual increase in electricity prices in the 9 years up to 2008; cutting red tape and increasing flexibility for businesses means better prices for customers; and investing in infrastructure and delivering better public services helps the economy become more competitive.

Maggie Barry: What recent reports has he received on the cost of living?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One measure of the cost of living is the Consumers Price Index. Statistics New Zealand today reports that consumer prices rose by 0.4 percent in the March quarter, and annual inflation—that is, the inflation for the year up to the end of March—was 0.9 percent. This means that annual inflation has now been running at 1 percent or less for four quarters. This is well down on inflation of more than 5 percent per annum, which was the rate when the Government took office in late 2008. The impact of low inflation on interest rates means that a family with a $200,000 mortgage is around $200 a week better off in interest payments compared with late 2008.

Maggie Barry: What reports has he received on recent food prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The food price index came out last week for March. Of course, food prices fluctuate, often for seasonal reasons as much as for cost and price inflation reasons. This report showed that food prices fell in the month of March. Food prices for the year to March, which encompasses the whole seasonal cycle, fell by 0.4 percent—that is, on average, food prices for the year to March went down.

Maggie Barry: How do these moderate cost of living increases compare with increases in real after-tax wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, these moderate increases and, of course, for some classes of expenditure such as food, reductions in the cost of living compare quite favourably with wage increases in the last 5 years. Since September 2008 gross wages have increased by 14 percent. After tax they have increased by 22 percent. Inflation has been 9 percent, which means that real after-tax wages have increased by 12 percent since September 2008. In the 9 years up to September 2008, after-tax wages increased by only 4 percent.

David Shearer: Is it correct that power prices went up by 5.2 percent to 31 March, which is nearly six times the rate of inflation? Can he confirm that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will take the member at his word. That price increase is included in the collective CPI, which went up by 0.9 percent for the year. So some households would have paid more for electricity and they paid less for food; on balance, their cost of living went up by 0.9 percent. But all households are grateful the Labour Government is no longer in charge—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is quite a sufficient answer, thank you.

Sue Moroney: Well, can he explain, then, how keeping ACC levies artificially high keeps down the cost of living for New Zealanders when the regulatory impact statement on this decision shows that the Government’s refusal to lower levies, as recommended by ACC and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, is costing workers and employers up to $2 billion more a year than what is needed to cover the cost of injuries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a bit rich coming from the party that expanded entitlement to ACC without increasing the levies, but I agree with the member. If we can continue to reduce ACC levies, it will reduce the cost of living. Two years ago we did decrease those levies by $600 million per year, and we are looking at every opportunity to decrease them further.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How does increasing fuel taxes by 9c a litre keep the cost of living down, especially given that transport officials advised the Government that an increase of that magnitude would raise nearly $20 billion more than what is required to carry out their road-building programme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I do not agree at all with the member’s last assertion. In fact, the fuel tax is calibrated to the roading investment programme in a highly transparent manner. That fuel tax increase is part of the collective measure of price increases, the CPI, which shows that over the last year the cost of living went up by 1 percent. I hope Labour keeps going on about this issue, because the more it complains about the rise in the cost of living, the lower it seems to be.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table two tables from a briefing received by the Minister of Transport from the ministry that indicate that fuel excise taxes of 9c a litre will generate nearly $20 billion more than required.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two tables. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.

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

Prime Minister—Statements on Power Prices and Government Communications Security Bureau

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “We’ve done as good a job as we can in the conditions we’ve got to try and help low-income New Zealanders.”; if so, does he think power bills going up by six times the rate of inflation will help low-income families?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I think it is worth recalling the track record of this Government, which has seen power prices go up by about 20 percent in our time in office, compared with the 72 percent increase under Labour. But I have no doubt that the little Labour elves will be trying to dream something up to back up their—

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He did answer the question when he said yes. I do not think he needed to go on.

Mr SPEAKER: He did, and I certainly agree with that, and on that basis we will call a supplementary question.

David Shearer: Given that he has been in power now for more than 4½ years, can he guarantee to consumers that electricity prices will not increase further as a result of the asset sales programme, given that power prices have gone up by six times more than inflation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe that the mixed-ownership model programme will have any influence on the prices that consumers pay. It is actually not true that State-owned enterprises offer cheaper prices than private companies. The most recent information I have shows that Contact Energy, the largest privately owned company, has the lowest national weighted average price for electricity of any retailer.

David Shearer: Given that electricity prices increased more rapidly than in our competitor countries over the last 4 years, at a time when electricity demand is flat, does he think the electricity market is working for the benefit of hard-working New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is certainly working a lot better than it was. Let us face facts. Prices went up by 72 percent under Labour. This Government has actually reformed the electricity sector with some very significant moves, including closing Whirinaki and including virtual swaps that have taken place. The truth is that on Monday, to get in the paper, David Shearer said he would keep power prices down. He has got no clue how to do that. The little Labour elves are trying to work out how to make that happen, and it will not.

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The only person without a clue, as we found out yesterday, is the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. It is not a point of order, but I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.

David Shearer: Has his Minister for Social Development told him that requests to Work and Income for grants to pay for electricity and for gas tripled in the 2-year period; if so, does he intend to take any action to bring down electricity prices for ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Government has taken action, and that is why the rate of power increases is going up slower under a National Government than under a Labour Government. Secondly, the Government, in very difficult economic times, has provided tremendous support for at-risk New Zealanders, and will continue to do so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Twenty-four hours after first being asked how many phone calls he made to Ian Fletcher prior to his appointment as the Government Communications Security Bureau head, what is his answer?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, as far as it relates to the primary question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The same answer I gave yesterday: I do not have that information with me. If the member wants to put it down in writing, my office will provide it to him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Any Prime Minister would realise after yesterday’s answer that that was never going to be satisfactory. Twenty-four hours later he turns up here and he does not know the answer to a very critically serious question. That is just a cover-up.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty with the situation here is that it was a very general primary question. Many Speakers have ruled that it is inappropriate to demand an exacting answer to a supplementary question that follows a very general primary question. The Prime Minister has given you what I think is a satisfactory course of action—for you to put down a more specific question at the next question time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The difference between one and two, which is the question here, I think—whether there was one phone call made to Mr Fletcher by the Prime Minister or two—is not really exacting. I mean, it is 100 percent different. Anyone would remember whether they made one or two phone calls.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the comment the member is making. It is for the Prime Minister to determine how he has decided to answer the question, and he has answered it in the way that he has. That has addressed the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister not treat this House seriously and get his staff to trawl through his phone records for the period prior to Mr Ian Fletcher’s appointment, and come to this House and answer frankly, openly, and properly, the way former Prime Ministers have done?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member has two options: put it down as a primary question, and I will give him the answer, or put it down in writing, and my office will give him the answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given his previous statements about intelligence matters, did the SIS tell him about the residency application of a man by the name of Kim Vestor when he met with them on 12 October 2010, one day before the SIS, strangely, blocked the man’s application?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an affidavit of Grant Kenneth Wormald for first defendant in relation to minutes, 28 September 2012, in the Kim Dotcom case.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that affidavit. Is there any objection? Is it a matter that has been before the courts and then been released by the courts, or does it breach any—

Grant Robertson: Released.

Mr SPEAKER: It has been released, I am assured. I therefore put the leave. Leave is sought to table that affidavit. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.

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

Resource Management Act—Business Investment and Proposed Reforms

3. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent reports has she seen on the impact of the Resource Management Act 1991 on business investment in New Zealand?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Earlier this week Statistics New Zealand published its 2012 Business Operations Survey. It shows that in the last 2 years hundreds of New Zealand businesses have cancelled projects worth potentially $800 million to our economy, due mostly not to the standards that they have to meet but to the uncertainty and the long time frames in the Act. It also shows that of the businesses that identified the Resource Management Act as a constraint, 87 percent of these were small and medium enterprises, showing that it is our mum and dad companies that bear the brunt of these problems. More than half of the cancelled projects were cancelled in the pre-application stage or well before even receiving a decision.

Aaron Gilmore: Why should we be concerned about the impact of the Resource Management Act on investment?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The uncertainty within the Resource Management Act means businesses and developers are reluctant to invest in projects to extend and expand their operations and are potentially scaling back projects that might otherwise have been more ambitious. The impacts of this are real. The delays and uncertainties mean new jobs are not being created, houses are more expensive, and communities have no idea what to expect in their neighbourhoods. Unnecessary costs are borne by every single New Zealander in one way or another.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Would the Minister agree with Whanganui iwi that “the voice of the environment is being overtaken by the economy” in her Resource Management Act reforms; if not, why not?

Hon AMY ADAMS: No, I do not agree with that statement. The greatest gains for business are very clearly those that come from creating more certainty and making the processes easier to comply with. It is not about lowering standards; it is about having clearer rules about what you can do and where you can do it. If this House is genuinely interested in creating jobs and creating opportunities, then I am hopeful that it will back me in making proposals that make it easier for new jobs to be created, for new opportunities to be created, and for New Zealanders to get ahead.

Aaron Gilmore: How will the Government’s proposed reforms to the Resource Management Act led by that Minister help to increase investment?

Hon AMY ADAMS: With a lack of certainty around outcomes and time frames being a key barrier to investment, we are proposing a number of reforms to the Resource Management Act to address these issues—for example, clearer national guidance, reducing time frames for processing consents, and collaborative planning to create more robust solutions. Providing that sort of greater certainty will lead to more jobs and more affordable housing for New Zealanders.

Wanganui Collegiate School—Integration

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement in relation to Cabinet’s decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate, that it was a very difficult decision, but he is sure it was the right thing to do; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is important to note that, at the end of the day, it was the Minister of Education’s decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate School, not Cabinet’s. But the Cabinet Manual is clear that significant statutory decisions must be discussed at Cabinet. This was a very difficult issue, as the Minister herself has acknowledged, and Ministers had a range of views on it. We discussed it at length, after which the Minister of Education decided to integrate the school. I do think that that was the right thing to do, because Wanganui Collegiate School has been a high performing school, it has a longstanding history, the community support for it is very high in Wanganui, and it plays an important role in the community.

Metiria Turei: In 2010 did the Prime Minister have any discussions, including dinners, with the proprietor, with members of Wanganui Collegiate School’s Board of Trustees, or with its lobbyist, Saunders Unsworth, about its intention to apply to integrate the school; if so, when and with whom?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details with me. I would have to ask my office. I will put it down in writing if you are prepared to as well.

Metiria Turei: What instructions or encouragement did the Prime Minister give to the education Minister to start negotiations with Wanganui Collegiate School, despite the advice of ministry officials not to because it would be a $3 million a year waste of money?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was a longstanding issue, so I cannot hope to document all the discussions that took place, but what I can say is that the situation was looked at on its merits. I could see the argument from both sides, but I believe the Minister made the right decision in integrating the school.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister seek an update on the proposal to integrate, as noted by the then education Minister Anne Tolley, on the front of an August 2010 briefing paper, where she wrote “Send copy of this to PM, please; he has asked for an update.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Joined-up Government! The member may well be aware that the school was in significant financial difficulty. For a long period of time, when Anne Tolley was the Minister of Education, there were instances where the Government had to make a rapid decision as to whether to provide some support to the school to bridge it while there was a view being taken of whether it could integrate it or not. Obviously, I was interested in what was going on there.

Metiria Turei: Did the Prime Minister similarly ask for or request individual updates on Ōuruhia Model School as it began discussions on closures last year, or perhaps Pōtaka School in Gisborne, which is still waiting for news on its future; if not, why did he single out Wanganui Collegiate School for his very special attention?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of broader schools, there are substantial discussions that take place between my office—and if you want to ask the current Minister of Education, you know, I have taken an active interest in what has been happening in terms of school closures in Christchurch and the impact on those committees. In relation to Wanganui Collegiate School, I go back to what I said earlier. The school was in significant financial difficulty. The Government was forced to make a decision at the last minute as to whether it would provide some support for the school. We did that on a number of occasions, and we did that until a decision could be made about whether the school would be integrated or not.

Metiria Turei: Did Cabinet defy the advice of the education Minister that integration would be a $3 million a year waste of money, and bail out Wanganui Collegiate School because the Prime Minister is prepared to bend the rules for elite schools for wealthy kids?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, we do listen to officials, and it is no secret that the Ministry of Education thought we should decline the application. The Minister has considered a wide range of issues, and in the end the Minister of Education made the decision to integrate the school.

Chris Hipkins: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no school closures or mergers in Wanganui, or citing excess capacity within the State school system; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is ultimately a matter for the Minister of Education, not for me.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a 25 August 2010 briefing from the ministry to the Minister that includes a handwritten note from Minister Anne Tolley, which says: “Send copy of this to PM, please; he has asked for an update.”

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that briefing. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a document dated 4 April 2011, a briefing from the ministry to the education Minister recommending decline of integration on the basis of increased State costs and risk of school closures in Wanganui.

Mr SPEAKER: That is quite a sufficient explanation. Leave is sought to table that briefing to the Minister dated 4 April 2011. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Hospitals—Catering Services and Meals on Wheels

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the Government’s initiative to provide “Better, Sooner, More Convenient” health care is meeting his expectations; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, but there is always room for improvement, and I dare say it is possible we could get an example of that in the next minute. It is important to understand that, despite tight times, this Government has invested an extra $2 billion into public health services, including achieving the third-highest percentage increase of developed nations in the OECD’s latest report.

Hon Annette King: What is the basis for the claim that he made that more than $10 million per year will be saved through changes to hospital food provision, when most district health boards have made it clear that, like the Prime Minister, they have no clue how the savings have been estimated, and the Audit Office yesterday reported that Health Benefits Ltd needs to improve its transparency of reported savings?

Hon TONY RYALL: That advice comes from the Health Benefits Ltd information that has been provided—information that makes it clear that the claim in the House last week that 50 hospital kitchens would close was untrue, and similarly the claim that 1,300 people would lose their jobs was also untrue.

Hon Annette King: Is he aware that Meals on Wheels are also included in the contract, and that the meals are to be plated, frozen, and stored at two production plants before being transported and stored at a regional distribution hub, then sent to a hospital kitchen to be reheated, before being delivered by volunteers to the clients, and how will this provision reduce costs and improve quality of food for those who receive it and pay for it?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the member is jumping to assumptions, like she did last week. What we know is that the proposal at the moment sees 65 percent of the food cooked on site, which is the complete opposite of what the member told the House only a week ago.

Hon Annette King: Why did he tell the public that the contract to provide hospital food from two production sites, as set out on page 33 of the Health Benefits Ltd document, was “in its early stages”, when Health Benefits Ltd has already shoulder-tapped the provider, which is already inspecting hospital kitchens, and staff have already heard from him last week that “Some people may lose their job,”?

Hon TONY RYALL: Because clearly it has not even moved to the formal business case process for consideration by district health boards. Let us be quite frank here: 50 hospital kitchens are not going to close, as Mrs King claims; 1,300 people are not going to lose their jobs, as Mrs King claimed; and all the food is not being cooked at two production centres, as Mrs King claimed. I think the biggest apology that needs to come from this Chamber today is for the fact that Mrs King told so many stories last week.

Hon Annette King: Talking of stories, when did Health Benefits Ltd advise him that the contract to provide hospital food from two production sites, which he denied last week, in a cook-chill style—airline provision of food, with food being able to be kept in the fridge for up to 7 days before being fed to patients—could “lead to negative publicity that could prove harmful for the Minister”, as set out on page 52 of the Health Benefits Ltd document, if you want a few facts?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have been kept regularly informed by Health Benefits Ltd of its activities. I would have to say this to New Zealanders. The No. 1 priority in all of this is to maintain and improve the quality of food nutrition in New Zealand. That is why Health Benefits Ltd has a group of expert nutritionists working with it in developing this proposal. The public of New Zealand were misled last week when Mrs King told them that 50 hospitals would close and 1,300 people would lose their jobs, and when she said that everything would be served to them frozen. What we know is that at least two-thirds will be cooked on site. That is quite a different story from what Mrs King misled them on last week. The No. 1 priority, though, is better nutrition for New Zealanders in hospitals.

Hon Annette King: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Hon Annette King and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table page 58 of the Health Benefits Ltd report, showing that all Meals on Wheels will be produced in a production plant, and that they will then go to regional distribution hubs. They will then go to hospital receiving kitchens—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That document has been sufficiently described to the House. Leave is sought to table page 58. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It will be tabled.

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

Heart Disease—Angiograms

6. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making on improving access to angiograms for patients with severe chest pain?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Waiting times for tests and hospital stays have been reduced for patients in the central North Island with severe chest pain. Eighteen months ago in the central North Island only a third of the people were receiving an angiogram at Waikato Hospital within 72 hours of presenting with serious chest pain—one of the lowest intervention rates in the country. As a result of a major project across the five district health boards, the number of patients regularly receiving an angiogram within the 3 days is now over 70 percent.

Scott Simpson: What measures are Midland district health boards taking to perform more angiograms?

Hon TONY RYALL: The improvement in angiograms and access to better heart care for patients in the Midland region is a result of a project of the National Cardiac Clinical Network and the five Midland district health boards. The Midland Acute Coronary Syndrome project assures that at least 70 percent of patients who have serious heart symptoms undergo their angiogram within 3 days. Previously, and for many years before then, many people would wait in regional hospitals for an extensive period of time before they were referred to Waikato Hospital. We have now got up to 70 percent getting those angiograms within 3 days. There have been a lot of very innovative changes in clinical practice—such as preparation for tests while awaiting hospital transfer and the establishment of a 10-bed facility at Waikato Hospital’s Hilda Ross House to accommodate stable heart patients—that have helped to free up beds and achieve faster, better care for patients in that region.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I seek leave to table page 33 of the Health Benefits Ltd report, which says that there will be two production plants for the production of food—something that the Minister denied last week.

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

New Zealand Defence Force—Potential Cuts and Staffing Issues

7. Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Defence: Will he rule out further cuts to personnel numbers in the New Zealand Defence Force and cuts to the inshore patrol vessel fleet; if not, what cuts are being considered?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): There are no plans to reduce the personnel numbers in the New Zealand Defence Force and no plans to reduce the number of inshore patrol vessels. Furthermore, no cuts to capability are being considered.

Hon Phil Goff: If there are no plans to cut the inshore patrol vessels, why did the Chief of Defence Force, Rhys Jones, say on Sunday that reducing the inshore patrol vessel fleet was an option; and was that because there will be further cost-cutting, or was it because he simply cannot put all the ships to sea because he does not have the trained personnel to staff them and the Aussies want their seconded sailors back?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There are a number of limbs to that question. The first thing is that the Chief of Defence Force’s remarks were taken out of context. He was talking about the long-term view out to 2035. As regards putting ships to sea, both frigates are at sea, and of the inshore patrol vessels three of the four are ready to deploy, and the two offshore patrol vessels are at sea. If that member thinks that there are too many inshore patrol vessels, I would remind him that he was the one who bought them.

Hon Phil Goff: Just so that we can get it clearly on the House’s record, will the Minister categorically rule out any further cuts in Defence Force numbers after the reduction that he made of more than a thousand in the Defence Force last year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Numbers go up and down, but the numbers where they are at the moment are about right. We are looking at a long-term regular Defence Force of 8,500 to 9,000, which is the range currently, and there are no plans to reduce that.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Minister was warned in the latest Defence Force Ongoing Attitude Survey, not yet made public, that “the combination of current levels of morale and organisational commitment poses potential risk to individual performance and attrition”, why does he continue to deny that these factors could have contributed to the catalogue of errors that led to the death of Private Michael Ross?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, we have talked about this previously, and I categorically deny that morale issues are anything to do with what was a very tragic accident. I would also go on to say that 77 percent of people across the Defence Force rate morale in the workplace as satisfactory or better, and 70 percent rate their own morale as satisfactory or better—a lot better than I would suggest you would find in the Labour caucus right now.

Hon Phil Goff: When there is so much emphasis on cost saving and cost cutting in the New Zealand Defence Force, why is the Defence Force continuing to pay Commodore Kevin Keat $225,000 a year when he was suspended months ago and it would take the Minister 10 minutes to find out whether he did fraudulently fill out the high-level security vetting form? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked a supplementary question. I certainly want to hear the answer, even if the member himself does not.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was responding to an interjection from the Minister of Justice, as you yourself heard, and your response was unbalanced.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There were too many interjections from around the House, including not only the member but other members of his caucus. Let us now hear the answer. I think that is a reasonable point Mr Goff has made.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your response again failed to note that Judith Collins set off those interjections.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not note that but where I noted the loudest interjection coming from was the member who has just raised the point of order. I am going to ask the member, the Hon Phil Goff, to ask his question, because we now have discontinuity.

Hon Phil Goff: When there is so much being said about cost cutting and cost saving in the New Zealand Defence Force, why is the New Zealand Defence Force continuing to pay Commodore Kevin Keat $225,000 a year when he was suspended months ago and it would take the Minister 10 minutes to find out whether or not he inaccurately and falsely filled out his high-level security vetting form?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That member seems to be calling for me to override a legal process. Mr Keat deserves the benefit of natural justice. There is a process to follow, there are legal issues, and that member knows very well that it has to follow the prescribed process. I would challenge him: if he wants to go outside the Chamber and say that Mr Keat is guilty and should be sacked, he should have the guts to do that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think if you analyse pretty simply that last remark, that was grossly out of order to accuse a member of not having guts. There are many, many precedents on that, and Speakers have thrown members out for that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I think that on balance that is an absolutely fair point of order, and I ask the Minister to rise and withdraw the last part of his answer.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise for that last part.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you were seeking to correct the offence, Mr Tau Henare decided to add to it by shouting out words that confirmed that he believed it was true. He should be asked to apologise, wash his mouth out, and leave the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If Mr Tau Henare said that, I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise as well.

Hon Tau Henare: I apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: And withdraw.

Hon Tau Henare: And I withdraw.

Budget 2013—Tourism New Zealand and Department of Conservation

8. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Tourism: Will any of the extra $158 million for tourism in Budget 2013 be spent on tourism marketing and promotion for the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign; if so, how much?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister of Tourism): A significant portion of the new funding will likely go to Tourism New Zealand. “100% Pure New Zealand” has been the core of its marketing campaign since 1999, and will likely continue to be so. The member will have to wait for the Budget announcements, though, for more details.

Eugenie Sage: When his Government cut Department of Conservation funding by $54 million in 2009 and by another $8.7 million this year and next year, was his plan to address the growing gap between our clean, green marketing image and the reality to spend more on advertising?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I mean, firstly, I think it is important to note that “100% Pure New Zealand” is not an environmental claim and never has been; it is a marketing slogan. Secondly, if I were to reflect on the information that we have from visitors in relation to their satisfaction, overall visitor satisfaction with the environment is ranked nine out of 10.

Eugenie Sage: Why is he supporting funding to promote “100% Pure New Zealand” and not also supporting more funding for the Department of Conservation to help give integrity to that brand and to help protect and maintain the assets on which the tourism industry depends and which draw visitors to New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I do not agree with the premise of the question. I mean, the Department of Conservation does have integrity and does do a very good job of supporting New Zealand for tourists who want to come and visit it from overseas.

Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister advocated for more funding for conservation to help make the New Zealand brand real, or is he happy to promote New Zealand as a destination to see more polluted rivers, oil slicks from risky oil drilling, and more big mines on conservation land, like this one in Victoria Conservation Park?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, I just do not agree with the statements that the member is making. If we just look at our 20-year plan in terms of rivers that may be unfit for swimming, we are going to spend nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer and ratepayer money cleaning up those rivers and lakes. What I might add is, that is five times more than was spent by the previous Government.

Power Prices—Increase

9. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: Has he seen any reports that New Zealand power prices have increased at twice the rate of most other countries?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I have seen a number of reports on power prices, including reports that New Zealand consumers are increasingly taking advantage of greater choice and competition, and are switching companies for a better deal, and that, under a National Government, consumers are far better off than the 72 percent, or 8 percent per annum, increase in power prices they endured under the previous Labour Government, which may well have been twice the rate of other countries.

Andrew Williams: What steps is the Government taking to address the widespread concern with rapidly escalating power prices, as is reported in the New Zealand Listener this week?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: As far as it is under my portfolio of consumer affairs, most of that is actually a question to the Minister of Energy and Resources. Under the Powerswitch programme, 70,000 New Zealanders have had the opportunity to switch power companies, power providers, over the last 2 years. That has been a very, very successful programme, as well as increasing after-tax incomes for all New Zealanders and those on fixed incomes to help them pay for their power and their cost of living.

Andrew Williams: Given that power companies are making record profits despite falling demand for electricity, why are power bills so high?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I thank the member for his support of the mixed-ownership model.

Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask anything about the mixed-ownership model. That did not answer my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to put the question again, please.

Andrew Williams: Given that power companies are making record profits despite falling demand, why are power bills so high?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: A large proportion of the New Zealand electricity industry is currently owned by the Crown, the State, and under that model it has seen very increased prices, particularly in the 9 years of the Labour Government and its 72 percent increase. That is one of the reasons.

Andrew Williams: Will the Government assure the public that future electricity prices will not increase at a faster rate than the CPI; if not, why not?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I note that the CPI today came out at 0.9 percent per annum and after-tax incomes are actually increasing under this National Government, to help people afford their cost of living.

Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a simple yes or no answer that we required. He did not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot demand a simple yes or no answer, but I accept the point that the question was not addressed adequately. Would the member please ask the question again.

Andrew Williams: Will the Government assure the public that future electricity prices will not increase at a faster rate than the CPI; if not, why not?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: That question should be addressed to the Minister of Energy and Resources, but I can assure him, on recent track record, that under the National Government power prices have increased by about half to a third of the rate under the previous Labour Government.

Veterinarians—Rural Veterinary Bonding Scheme

10. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on efforts made to increase veterinarians in rural New Zealand?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yesterday I welcomed 30 new vets into the 2013 intake of the rural veterinary bonding scheme. The scheme is now in its fifth year, and so far 136 new vets have joined, with an outstanding retention rate of 96 percent.

Ian McKelvie: Why is the Government investing in keeping vets in rural New Zealand?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Livestock farming is the engine room of New Zealand’s economy and a big part of rural communities. Tackling the shortage of rural vets is important for animal health and for realising the Government’s ambitious goal of doubling primary sector exports by 2025. For farmers it means a sustainable, cost-effective, and responsive rural veterinary workforce.

Human Rights, West Papua—Police Training Programme

11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will New Zealand journalists be able to visit and monitor the New Zealand Police training programme in West Papua when it recommences in September 2013 under an aid allocation of US $2 million; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): The member is ahead of herself. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has received no advice on the design, timing, and funding of the project. There will be an announcement when a decision on the proposed project is made. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade itself monitors aid projects in a stringent way. There is no project yet for journalists to consider visiting.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he support journalists and a parliamentary delegation to visit West Papua and monitor the effectiveness of the proposal announced yesterday of the New Zealand Police training programme, and if yes, how will he support that?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister has received no advice on the design, timing, and funding of the project. There will be an announcement when a decision on the proposed project is made. There is no project yet for journalists to consider visiting.

Catherine Delahunty: After the ambassador’s announcement yesterday that the project is starting in September 2013, will this project include New Zealand Police training the West Papuan police to stop violently assaulting people who are alleged to have committed political crime, such as raising the Morning Star flag?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The media reporting in the Jakarta Post, which I presume the member is referring to, is wrong. The Minister has received no advice on the design, timing, and funding of the project. There will be an announcement when a decision is made. There is no project yet for journalists to consider visiting. What could be simpler than that?

Catherine Delahunty: Keeping it simple, will he raise the issue of military and police violence against West Papuans at the Pacific parliamentarians’ conference in Wellington this week?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: New Zealand continues to raise the situation in partnership with the Indonesian Government bilaterally and in multilateral fora, including at the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review of Indonesia.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but my question was very specific: will he raise this issue at the conference in Wellington this week, the Pacific parliamentarians’ conference?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may like to add to that, but my interpretation was there is a multinational forum and they continue to raise the issue. But if the Minister wanted to add to that, it would be helpful.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I have said, the Minister continues to raise these issues in various multilateral fora. Whether it will be raised by the Minister at the conference to which the member refers, I cannot say.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister for that.

Government Communications Security Bureau—Legislative Reform and Legality of Activities

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on 24 September 2012 in relation to the work of the GCSB, “I think you can take confidence in the fact that to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never been informed or ever had reason to believe there’s ever been an error before”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Grant Robertson: Why did he not mention at his media conference on 24 September that there were unresolved issues about possible spying, as he was told in July 2012 by Ian Fletcher, the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the context of the statement I made was in the context of illegal spying. It was correct then, and it remains correct now.

Grant Robertson: Did he say to the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau, Ian Fletcher, in July 2012 that he regarded the possibility of unlawful spying as a serious situation and that it needed to be resolved, as he said on Radio New Zealand this week?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have said before, in July when the matter was raised with me by Ian Fletcher I did say to him it was a very serious matter and that he needed to get a resolution to that issue. I would make the point that at no point did the inspector-general actually raise the issue with me; neither did he suggest to the agencies they should cease operations.

Grant Robertson: If it was such a serious situation, why, when he was asked six times at the media conference on 24 September as to whether he had ever had any concerns about unlawful spying, did he not mention that this was flagged to him by the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in July 2012?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the reason I gave—that the press conference was in relation to illegal spying. What is true is that by that point we had identified that there had been illegal spying in the case of Mr Dotcom. Also correct are all of the other statements I made that there was no other illegal spying, nor are we currently aware of other illegal spying. It is very important to understand that the inspector-general is considering those matters at the moment. They are unresolved.

Louise Upston: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how the Government plans to strengthen oversight of our intelligence agencies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can. The Government is proposing to significantly strengthen the oversight of our intelligence agencies. Among the changes we intend to make are the following: increasing the resourcing and staffing of the inspector-general’s office, including creating a new role of Deputy Inspector-General; explicitly expanding the inspector-general’s programme of making the office work more transparent; removing the requirement that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should be a retired High Court judge—this will increase the pool of people who can do the job—and making the inspector-general’s office more proactive by increasing the requirements of the office and moving it a step forward from the existing review-focused work programme. These are all important changes that we need to make as we move towards rebuilding public confidence in the Government Communications Security Bureau. I would have thought they would be worth supporting by the Labour Party.

Grant Robertson: How is it, as he has said, “a prudent course of action” to ignore what he said was a serious situation of New Zealanders potentially being illegally spied upon, do nothing about that, and fail to mention it when asked direct questions?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is incorrect. For a start-off, these activities had been undertaken for a very long period of time. Secondly—[Interruption] Yes, potentially while Mr Robertson was in the Prime Minister’s office. Secondly, a flag was raised and work was being undertaken. I made it clear to the director that he needed to keep me informed of that. I go back to this fundamental point: at no point did the inspector-general, the person who was doing the thinking in this area, raise the issue with me; neither did he suggest to the agencies they should cease operations.

Louise Upston: Can the Prime Minister outline for the House why other agencies, like the Police, the SIS, and the New Zealand Defence Force, need assistance from the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can. The bureau has unique skills and capabilities that the other agencies do not have. Those agencies need to access these high-quality skills and capabilities for a variety of reasons, all of which are vital. At this time, assistance to the Police and the SIS in relation to New Zealanders remains halted. Some assistance to other agencies has resumed, and only where the Crown Law Office has advised it is lawful to do so. This includes assistance to the New Zealand Defence Force. Government Communications Security Bureau support may contribute to non-combative evacuation operations, humanitarian aid, disaster relief, and monitoring of illegal activities throughout New Zealand’s search and rescue areas. These activities are important examples of the role the bureau plays. I would have thought these would be the sorts of things that Labour would be interested in voting for.

Grant Robertson: Why did he not tell the truth in September about what he knew about potentially unlawful—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way that question has been framed has clearly led to disorder. Would the member just rephrase the question without reference to a Minister telling the truth.

Grant Robertson: Can he understand why New Zealanders do not believe him about the Government Communications Security Bureau saga when he did not tell the truth to them in September 2012?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and, given the forensic analysis that Mr Robertson goes through—they must be interesting, the conversations he has with Mr Shearer about his forgetfulness about his bank—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: In July 2012 did Ian Fletcher raise with him a flag about possible unlawful spying, and why, when asked about that by the media with almost those exact words in September 2012, did he not mention Mr Fletcher raising that with him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I feel that it is repetition, but, as I have said, the statement was made in September about the context of illegal spying. It was correct then, and it remains correct now. Those matters are unresolved. The inspector-general is looking at those issues, but no decision has been made.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today we have seen the Labour Party, eternally in Opposition, acting exactly like that—eternally in Opposition. Opportunities have been given to Labour to start to act like a Government, but, no, it fails on every single opportunity.

I want to talk today about something that should be of importance to all New Zealanders, and that is the cost of living. Let me begin by acknowledging first that we live in the best little country in the world, bar none—bar none. This has not come about by chance, and it certainly has not come about because of any Labour Government that has ever been in office.

What we should think about is that one of the best things that has happened as a result of our economic policies has been that interest rates are low. They are around half of what they were when Labour left office—when it was thrown out in 2008—when our economy was in recession, when home interest rates were around 11 percent, and when the cupboard not only was bare but had been mortgaged as well. Floating interest rates are now around half of that—around 5 to 6 percent; around half. For a family with a $200,000 mortgage—and lots of families around New Zealand have that—that means $10,000 after tax a year that they get to keep. That is a fantastic achievement, and well done. And what did we see under Labour? Electricity prices rising by 72 percent.

Hon Tony Ryall: How much?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: By 72 percent. But our economy is growing, benefit numbers are dropping, crime is down to the lowest level in 30 years, and we have got a lot of very strong policies to keep this going.

Actually, today is a very important day because today is, in fact, the funeral of Baroness Margaret Thatcher. I think everybody knows that I am a big fan of hers. She was, however, a person of her time. She was a person of her time. She was influenced by social norms of the day. Looking back, in hindsight, you think that maybe there are a couple of things she did that you would not do. But she was always dead right on the economy and she was always dead right on democracy. She was, as The Economist has noted this week, a freedom fighter—and she was.

One of the things she said—this is a really good quote from her, and I am sure that the Opposition wants to hear it—goes like this: “Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” Well, that was true then and it is true today. Of course, we are working within a budget, and we have to be very, very careful about what we do with other people’s money. But is it not great that we can today commemorate the passing of a fantastic woman, Baroness Margaret Thatcher?

I would like to celebrate all the other women in New Zealand who are doing so well. That is why I was so pleased to be able to appoint Dr Jackie Blue to the role of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner—very good, Jackie. Jackie Blue would have to be one of the least partisan MPs in this House—the least partisan. In fact, I have always said: “See, I have appointed a lefty.”, so there you go. Would it not be great in this Parliament if we could have all the women celebrating Jackie’s success in her appointment? Some of you have, and I would like to thank all the MPs—male and female—who have come to support Jackie and to offer her their sincere congratulations.

Jackie Blue is an outstanding New Zealander who has spent her life helping others, helping others in a Parliament that is normally very divisive, and actually trying to bring people together. She has been chair of three cross-party parliamentarian groups. All of them have been around disadvantaged people—women, in particular—and that actually makes Jackie Blue a fantastic appointment. I am really proud of that, and I have to say that the country’s gain is the National Party’s loss, Jackie. I am very pleased to have been able to do that.

I come back to my favourite topic—Baroness Margaret Thatcher. Let us think about a few more quotes for the Opposition members, because they are not very well read. Here is another one: “Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.”

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Jackie Blue, thank you for bringing Paul Quinn back and improving the intellectual capacity of the National Party. Up and down the country and around the rowdy halls and the lonely places formerly known as the Labour electorate committee of the National Party, they are happy that Paul Quinn is going back into that side of the House. But they are disappointed that the former spokesperson who is soon to disappear on to something else did not go to see Mrs Thatcher and her family and compare handbags. I could imagine Gerry Brownlee not actually going, and seeing Judith Collins going and actually celebrating the connection that she no doubt had with Baroness Thatcher—not intellect, not forcefulness, and not leadership, but accoutrements such as handbags.

I want to turn to the Prime Minister, who is not unlike “The Fisherman of Parliament”. Like “The Fisherman of Parliament” he does not focus. Most fishermen focus on whoppers, but when he tells one he pretends that it is a tiddler—a small lie, a small untruth. But, in actual fact, up and down the country, in families, marae, and businesses, they know that this person, this Prime Minister, can no longer be trusted. It is an arcane area when you talk about spies, police agencies, etc. But when you consistently stand up in this House and your body language gives it away, and your colleagues are starting to look down—even if it does cause my Radio Live colleague Judith Collins to look up, believing perhaps that she is the Baroness Thatcher of 2014. When you see that person looking down, fudging, cannot find the exact words, you know the poll results in their own data collection are going only one way. They are going the way—not only down but also, as Paul Quinn rises, their fortunes slip. It could be that that is the final feature they have to offer, given the poor performance.

It is not unreasonable that the Prime Minister should take a delegation and be patriotic in Asia to drum up business, but do not go there and declare war on North Korea. It is not unreasonable that the Prime Minister would want to shoulder-tap someone whom he may think is a reasonable applicant for a very important position, but do not come to this House and hide that. Do not come to this House and conceal that, and then get panicked into making a half-baked admission, and then go overseas and pretend that neither he nor Steven Joyce knew anything about the leaks. Those are not the hallmarks of a Prime Minister.

But, anyway, we have heard up and down the country the promise that the sale of these assets is going to improve the economy, that energy prices will become less of a burden, and that jobs will flow. I can tell you that up and down the country people loathe the idea of paying higher prices for power. People loathe the idea that foreigners are going to end up owning more of our assets as a direct consequence of that side of the House. Those members want only one thing. They want to hock off these assets, reward a narrow caste of their fellow travellers, and they do not give a hoot about the long-suffering, garden-variety Kiwis who cannot afford property in Auckland, cannot meet escalating medical-related costs, and cannot find jobs.

In the forestry sector 18,000 jobs are at stake—18,000 jobs are about to dwindle. This Minister for the Environment, for example, boasts that the Resource Management Act reforms are going to deliver new opportunity. For 4 years, as a small example, the forestry sector has been waiting for an environmental policy statement to simplify the functioning of the forestry sector. Not a dicky-bird. Mills and manufacturing plants up and down the country will applaud the announcement that energy costs are going to come down, because they are getting no leadership, no assistance—no assistance from this Government.

If people do not like those reforms, then they are going to have an opportunity to give their views. It is called an election. That is one reform where support will come massively our way, because there is not a single idea that is lessening the burden of daily life on Kiwis, and certainly not from this Prime Minister, who is a stranger to the truth.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koutou huri noa i tō tātou Whare. I am delighted to stand and speak on this Government’s record in terms of its contribution to lowering the cost of living. Under that previous administration electricity went up 8 percent in every year, and let us remember here that those were great years, when surpluses were being returned, and yet that same Government was raking off costs from ordinary New Zealanders, those whom the previous speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, and that administration pretended to support. This Government, however, understands how to both focus on keeping the costs of living down by keeping interests rates as low as possible, by working to get a competitive electricity market by ensuring that consumers have in their own hands the ability to switch between power companies, and on the other side of it focus on encouraging work and employment.

First of all, this side of the House understands that it is not Governments that create wealth; it is businesses, it is employers, and it is ordinary Kiwis who back themselves. The other side of the House specialises in slicing and dicing and redistributing other people’s money. Our side of the House specialises in asking how we support businesses to grow opportunity and grow employment. How do we ensure that more tax stays in the pockets of New Zealanders? Because we believe, actually, that they make better choices for themselves than Governments do.

On this side of the House we understand that we need to get the best value out of assets. I, as Minister of Education, am happily awaiting the possibilities that will flow from realising value out of our assets. This side of the House understands the distinction between ownership and shareholding. That side of the House does not. We want to grow the value of our assets. We want to reduce the cost on New Zealanders. We want to invest and entrust their ability to employ people, to grow the wealth, and to distribute it. That side of the House does not understand that equation. We understand that it requires a whole lot of levers. That is why we are having welfare reform, which, again, follows the principle and theme of investing in what people can do, not what they cannot do, and in perpetuating independence, not dependence—two significant differences between this side of the House and that side of the House.

We want to invest in education because it has the medium to long term ability to grow the economy and grow productivity, because we believe in New Zealanders who have skills. We believe that if they have skills and they can read and write, then they can get jobs, they can keep jobs, and they can grow in those possibilities. That side of the House wants people angry and aggrieved and dependent on it. We do not. We believe in New Zealanders. We believe in this country. It is the little country that can under this Government. Under that Government it is the little country that cannot.

That side of the House and all its friends believe that the answer is to borrow and pray. Our side of the House believes in the fact that we need to pay our debt, get it out of the way, and support our economy so that New Zealanders can make choices for themselves and afford to pay for them. We have done that in some of the toughest years this country has ever faced. Again, we understand, appreciate, and respect that wealth comes from businesses, from people working, and from releasing value from assets, which is something we share—picking up from my colleague’s earlier acknowledgments—with Baroness Thatcher. She came into a country in as parlous a state as we came into in this Government. She recognised that she had to break the hold of those Opposition members who wanted to keep the greatness of that country and that empire down. We here on the other side of the world empathise with that, and appreciate how important it is to do away with the constraints and the obstacles that otherwise would prohibit the flow of the creative and imaginative genes that New Zealanders have. That is why we are investing in science and innovation. That is why we are reducing compliance costs. That is why we have a Minister of Health who is investing in New Zealanders being strong, in good state, well, and able to look after themselves, not dependent, aggrieved, and operating on myth, rumour, and half-truths.

Our Government believes in strong New Zealanders, capable of looking after themselves, not dependent on a bunch of—I see I am being waved to sit down. But can I say that it is a delight to be on this side of the House with right-thinking New Zealanders who trust and believe in Kiwis—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): The Ministry for Primary Industries was informed last October that milk was contaminated with dicyandiamide. What did it do with that information? Did it inform all other milk processors immediately? No, it did not—no, it did not. Fonterra and the Ministry for Primary Industries sat on it. They sat on it right through for another 3 months into 2013 before they let the community know, before they let their trading partners know, and before they let the other processors, which were just as likely to be affected by contamination of milk by dicyandiamide, know. So what was this? This was basically a major cover-up, a damage control operation, by part of the industry, but not by all of those in the industry. They could not even participate, as they were not told.

The Official Information Act papers that the Green Party has obtained show that the team working on this issue was almost singularly focused on not letting the story get out. What was its concern? Well, it had quotes like that it was agreed that “until the meeting on 21 [January with Fonterra] the issue will stay between the two parties without involving other organisations.” and that “MPI need to be careful of the time frame between being made aware of the issue and communicating this to the public …”. This is a public that could buy something that may or may not have been contaminated. There are obviously a range of views on the risks to that public. The ministry had contingencies for when the balloon went up. It had words like the run-up to “D-Day”, and said: “Ideally we would like no media coverage.”

Our regulators should be concerned with food safety, producing high-quality products, and protecting our international reputation, which needs to be maintained. Clearly, that was part of that, but was that the right way to go about it? It certainly was not. Not keeping food contamination a secret, being open, and letting people know what was going on straight away would have been a good idea. I am sure there have been lessons learnt, but it was 3 months later before they made it public. Not only that, Fonterra has also got a lot to answer for, because it had the results from August 2012. The ministry decided to tell the world it was September, but it actually had them earlier. The results were coming through on 24 August, 27 August—it did know that back then.

But there was another issue in behind there. In the meantime, while this was all happening, the Fonterra share float happened. Of course, while that happened—and a number of people in here will have been at Darfield on 30 November, opening the big new factory, when the share float effectively happened—it went up by 20 percent in value in the first few minutes. But all that time it was sitting on the fact that it had something that it knew would affect markets and would affect the reaction of people to that share float. Exporters reported very, very quickly that sales fell through the floor after the news broke.

Is there an alternative? Of course there is an alternative. We do not need to be using theoretical silver bullets that will bite us in the butt, because they are a short-lived, unsustainable solution to an unsustainable farming system. There are good solutions. The solutions are in using sustainable farming systems—genuinely sustainable farming systems—that tick all the boxes. They ensure farm profitability, like organics can do, and does, when it is given the opportunity in this country and is not suppressed by the Government or by the principal people in the sector. Clean, safe food is possible in this country and, as I say, it is profitable, as well. The demand for organics, for example, has just gone up, by 28 percent in 2012—30 percent up in prices, as well.

I note that the ministry, when it has ever looked for dicyandiamide—even when it tested for itself further back, in 2010—did not even do it properly. It looked when there was a narrow window when it would not be found, and it was in areas where it would not be found. We can do better, and organics is part of it.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am sad to say that this is a sad day in this House. It is a sad day for a couple of reasons. The very first reason is that one of the first speakers from the Opposition, in 2013, when speaking about women politicians—fine women leaders in this House—reduced the conversation to being about handbags. Not one—not one—female member of the Opposition took umbrage at that neanderthal, sexist language that was displayed by that member. I have to say that I am sad to be in this House in 2013, with the soon to be starting Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Dr Jackie Blue, and have that kind of statement said in this House and accepted by those female Opposition members. I am sorry, and it is a sad day in this House when we tolerate that kind of sexist language, that neanderthal language, when we have strong, competent, fine women represented across this House.

It is particularly sad because of the timing of today—today, of course, being the funeral for Baroness Thatcher.

Hon Annette King: Trivial matters! Talk about the real issues.

LOUISE UPSTON: “Talk about the real issues.”, bellows one member from the other side of the House. Talk about the real issues? What did we cover today in question time? Yes, the real issues that matter for New Zealanders. The real issues that matter for New Zealanders are low interest rates, reducing crime, increasing early childhood education participation, increasing results in National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, decreasing numbers on benefits, and growing the economy. Those actually are the things that matter to New Zealanders.

I want to come back to this connection with Baroness Thatcher. She took office in very, very challenging times. She took office when the economy from the previous Government was in a shocking, shocking state. She was not liked by all, but she did an incredible job with difficult environments, and she got results. That is what this side of the House, that is what this Government, is doing in every area that I mentioned before. Those are the results, those are the things that matter to hard-working, taxpaying New Zealanders, not some of the personal, petty, sexist politics that we had today from a member of the Labour Party.

I am proud to be part of a caucus where we have fine female Ministers in Cabinet. We have had two today who have already spoken about the results that this side of the House is producing. The fact is that we have a very fine Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner in Dr Jackie Blue, effective from next month. I am proud of the results that our Government produces. I am proud of our woman MPs. I am not afraid to stand in this House and be proud of the results that we are producing, because they are the results that matter to New Zealanders.

I want to come back to the conversation about the cost of living. Price increases clearly make it difficult for households. So in the House today the Labour Opposition raised questions about power prices. How ironic is that! Under its 9 years, power prices went up 72 percent. Now it talks about how we must do something about power prices. Well, actually, this is a Government that gets stuff done. This is a Government that is actually doing things that matter for New Zealanders in terms of keeping prices manageable.

Looking at an increase in wages—that is another thing that I did not mention in my results, but New Zealanders have had gross wages increase by 14 percent. That is a significant number. I want to come back to the results in NCEA level 2, because we know that if we want our young people to leave school, get a qualification, and get a job, NCEA level 2 is the minimum that they need. Since we came into office—listen to this percentage—in 2008, there has been a 6.7 percent increase. That is 6.7 percent. You guys do not like facts and figures. You do not like hearing the facts about what we are achieving. You do not like the fact that we are in tune with what New Zealanders are interested in, because that side of the House focuses on petty issues—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apparently you do not like a lot of things, according to the speaker on her feet. She should be told, because she has been around for a little bit of time now, to follow the Standing Orders and refer to the House but not you.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s comment. The member is quite right, and the speaker Louise Upston should not bring the Speaker into the debate.

LOUISE UPSTON: That side of the House cannot cope with the fact that this Government is delivering results. The fact that we just had an interruption there means that the Opposition does not like the facts and figures, the results that this Government is producing for hard-working New Zealanders.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I would have a great deal more respect for that member who just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, and her views on the representation of women in this House if she was not standing by while her Government reduced the equal representation of women on State sector boards—that target—if she did not stand by while her Government voted against paid parental leave, and if she did not stand by while her Government reduced the training incentive allowance for sole parents. If she actually stood up for women in this House when it mattered, with her vote, I would have a great deal more confidence and respect for what she has to say about how women are represented in Parliament.

But let us move on to the real issues, not about Maggie Thatcher, at all, because those are not the real issues that New Zealanders are thinking about. What they are thinking about is the cost of living. What they know now as a result of this week in Parliament is that the Prime Minister, John Key, is clueless. They used to think that he was just gormless but now they know he is absolutely clueless, because he said so himself.

Today we learnt—if people did not know this before—that what Hekia Parata said before is completely wrong. Just 10 minutes ago in this House Hekia Parata stood up and said that the Government wants to keep money in people’s pockets because it thinks they know best. However, we know that the Government clearly has its hands in people’s pockets, because today we heard that the petrol tax is going up to the tune of $20 billion more than the Government needs for the roading that it has planned. That is $20 billion that is coming out of the pockets of New Zealand parents, New Zealand families, which they could be spending on other things, because that Government made a decision to put the tax up for no real reason at all.

I want to remind New Zealanders that from 1 April this year they are paying more in ACC levies than they ought to be paying. Even by the officials’ own estimates—the estimates from Treasury—this Government is taking up to $2 billion each year out of the pockets of hard-working employees and employers in New Zealand for no other reason than it can. That money cannot be spent on anything else but injuries and accidents, because it is an ACC levy. The officials have told us that the Government is taking more than $2 billion more than it needs to cover injuries and accidents. That will sit in surplus in an ACC account, not going anywhere, not doing anything productive, just simply sitting there creating a surplus in an attempt to make it look as though the Government’s whole Crown operating expenses are going into surplus. Well, it is a nonsense. It is a cruel trick being played by that Government on every worker and every employer, who are paying more in ACC levies than they need to to cover the costs of injuries and accidents.

The question needs to be asked: why is the Government doing this? It is doing this because it promised to bring the books back into surplus, and the only way it is able to do that—because it is not growing the economy, it is not getting jobs, and it is not actually bringing productivity into this country—was to unfairly go into the pockets of workers and employers and take more out in ACC levies than what it actually needs.

Today we learnt that that Government’s decision to actually reduce funding for pharmaceuticals and put prescription costs up has increased the cost of pharmaceuticals by 9.3 percent.

So that is what is driving the cost of living. It is not anything to do with a robust, burgeoning economy; it is to do with decisions made by that Government quite deliberately to take money in petrol taxes that it does not need, to take money in ACC levies that it does not need for accidents and injuries, and to actually make sure that New Zealanders are paying more for their prescription charges. Those are the things that are creating real stresses on New Zealand families, because they cannot afford to be propping up that Government’s commitments that it made in order to go into surplus. When the Government made that commitment, New Zealanders honestly believed that it was talking about actually getting the economy going. New Zealanders honestly believed that it was going to go into surplus by getting out of recession. But no. It is getting into that surplus surreptitiously by raising levies, raising taxes, and raising the cost of living for every New Zealander.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): It is great to be speaking today with the other women MPs for the National Party. The inspiration for this all-women debate is the funeral today of Baroness Margaret Thatcher because, love her or hate her—and there are many in both camps—she was a powerful and determined woman and she crashed through the glass ceiling of UK politics.

Internationally New Zealanders have been given credit for leading the empowerment of women, but even so, it has been a slow and imperfect process. In 1893 New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote and that was a fantastic achievement of Kate Sheppard from Christchurch and her supporters. But it took until 1919 for an Act to be passed to allow women to stand for Parliament, and until 1933 before the first woman MP, Elizabeth McCombs, was elected, and she was elected because her husband died in office.

It was the mid-1980s before the number of women MPs reached double figures, but with MMP we went from 20 to 30 percent of women members, but there has been little change ever since. In 1997 we got the first female Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley, and then a second one, and then a series of female appointments that included the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, and the Governor-General. At one stage all four senior appointments were held by women. Now there is only one. But thanks to those who have gone before, the door is open and that is the way it should be—not quotas, not pedantic balancing, but an absolutely open process for selecting the best person for the job.

If New Zealand wants to grow the economy, protect our environment, and increase our quality of life for the next generation, we need to make sure that the talents and skills of women are fully understood and used, and we need to appreciate more of what women can offer, not just the narrow skill set that is generally recognised and utilised. Margaret Thatcher may have been the first and only woman Prime Minister of the UK, but she got that position through stubborn aggressiveness and basically out-manning the men.

Often it is a crisis that provides opportunities for women. During the Second World War women ran our businesses, they ran our farms, and in many cases record results, bumper crops, and top returns were delivered. During the earthquakes in Christchurch, in the media we saw men in uniforms, in fluorescent vests and hard hats, and that was good, but everywhere women, less visibly, were also doing the hard yards, doing the invaluable work, long-term planning, organising, supporting, making things happen, creating new solutions, advocating for the community, and making sure that everyone was being looked after.

To hear their stories and recognise their achievements, I organised a series of meetings, called Bird’s Eye View, and it has been both fascinating and inspiring. We have heard from Mary Devine from Ballantynes, who was instrumental in the Re:START Mall; from Di Lucas about the Christchurch “black map”, which shows how it affected our geotechnical information; and from Karen Gilliland about how midwives kept delivering during the disaster and about how they have rebuilt a better and stronger headquarters. We have been fascinated by the work of Coralie Winn, Gap Filler, the Ministry of Awesome, and much, much more. And every week I see new recovery stories led by women that are worth telling.

So, as we rebuild in Christchurch and as our country strives for a brighter future, we must be smart enough, we must be bold enough, to appreciate and utilise the human capital of all our citizens—all our citizens—men and women.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I met Maggie Thatcher. She was beautiful, focused, intelligent, and she could seriously speak—and there the contrast ends.

This is where we are at with the electricity-generating sector in New Zealand. Under a system that National set up and Labour governed with, power companies are making record profits and the Government is extracting massive dividends from power companies, which is, seriously, an undeclared taxation system. We pay tax on petrol, alcohol, and cigarettes, and the tax is acknowledged. The Government takes hundreds of millions out of the electricity sector by way of dividends, and the tax is by stealth.

The entire electricity generation sector is a shambles. It is a phoney, fictional market. The so-called competition is a fantasy designed to hide what is actually happening. The model is hopelessly flawed and needs to be radically overhauled—and now. I seriously doubt there is any person in this country, even someone with a PhD in advanced electronics or economics, who could give a clear, coherent explanation of how the New Zealand electricity sister—the New Zealand electricity sector—actually functions.

Jacqui Dean: The “electricity sister”—ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know that woman over there could not—the woman who is laughing about it. Apparently, rocketing prices on the farms of her electorate and in the homes of her part of the country are of no matter, whatsoever. They are a laughing matter—what is her name?

Andrew Williams: Jacqui Dean.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Jacqui Dean does not give a tinker’s damn about a huge cost to New Zealand businesses, farms, and homes. Jacqui Dean needs to get out there and find out what is going on in her electorate.

If one sets out to design a system that would gouge the public with electricity price hikes, one would create the system we have ended up with now. It is a complete mishmash of half-baked economic theories, foisted on the country by National, and Jacqui Dean thinks it is a great idea. Jacqui Dean does not give a hoot for her electorate. She thinks this cost structure, which benefits the few—

Jacqui Dean: Where’s that member’s electorate?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is no use hysterically shouting like a fishwife. Answer the challenge: what on earth is going on? It is a mess. The public and businesses are paying through the nose for this mess.

Jacqui Dean: Say my name—say my name.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No strident, hysterical, anti-feminine call from there is going to change my mind. The Government ploughs blindly on with its State asset sales, and the cannon fodder that Jacqui Dean and her ilk represent just signs up every day. Something has to be done to earn the “Max Bradford market matters”—remember what he said? He said: “I’m going to plateau prices.” It was 1998. Well, under National, this is what electricity plateaus mean. It is a vertical line, straight up, straight through the roof, and Mr Key has the audacity to blame Labour for the system that he and his party set up.

What is the Government doing to reduce electricity prices? Nothing. Despite—

Hon Tau Henare: Turn the lights off—that’s New Zealand First policy, eh?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I see. The solution that Tau Henare and Jacqui Dean have got is that if you want to save electricity, turn the lights off. Turn the fridge off. Turn the heater off. In fact, why not just turn things off completely? That is their solution.

I know that there are people from the Pacific Islands here, and they will be shocked to think that this Parliament in the First World has got such puerile debate from one side of the House, namely the side of the House that is the Government. There, those ones—not over here. We have predictably been told by Dr Geoff Bertram from Victoria University that in comparison with the US, the UK, Japan, France, and South Korea, for example, our prices are much higher.

Hon Tau Henare: What are you going to do about it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What are we going to do about it? Here is the answer. This is what our policy is, and today I am announcing it. New Zealand First will restore the State-owned electricity generators now being sold back into public ownership and put them under a single generating entity. We will seriously investigate putting a cap on electricity pricing related to the CPI, and no more.

Mr Henare said, in a lucid moment: “What is your policy?”. He has heard it. It is definitive. And, if he concerns himself about his people up there in west Auckland, he should be cheering from the rafters that, finally, there was announced today a solution that will work. We are going to—

Hon Tau Henare: He’s going to nationalise it—that’s all he could come up with.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the volume of noise over there suggests that he should wind up—you are right, Mr Speaker. So today we have announced our policy, and tomorrow and in the next few months—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is ironic is, is it not, that Helen Kelly, Sue Moroney, and others are so ready to discriminate against the appointment to the role of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner of Dr Jackie Blue, just because she is a soon-to-be former member of Parliament and member of a political party. Should that disqualify her from being able to step aside from party politics and assume a neutral role? Do these same women hold that view about, maybe, H V Ross Robertson, who leaves his Opposition party bench to sit in the Speaker’s Chair and preside over Parliament? Well, he can do it, he can be neutral, but Jackie Blue cannot? Eric Roy can do it, he can be neutral, but Jackie Blue cannot? Lindsay Tisch can do it, he can be neutral, but Jackie Blue cannot? And what about Helen Clark? Under those same rules, is she, therefore, unable to hold a neutral position at the United Nations? Do these people even think these things through?

But it is quite different for them, of course, is it not, because when Labour was in power, there were many, many appointments of Labour luvvies. Does anyone remember Dianne Yates? Lovely woman—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No!

JACQUI DEAN: No, they said from the other side—no, they said from the other side. Not even her Labour mates remember her. Does anyone remember Dame Ann Hercus? Does anyone remember Mike Williams? Does anyone remember Helen Kelly?

How convenient for them now to discredit Jackie Blue’s years of cross-party work—those 8 years in Parliament of cross-party work on a number of issues, three or four I think, including her advocacy of women—her very, very clear advocacy of women—and her strong, unforgettable, and successful campaign for the funding of Herceptin. What a triumph that was for Jackie Blue—something to be so very proud of. And where were the Labour women, where were the Green women in 2005, and where were the New Zealand First women—were there any in 2005? There might have been. Where were they in 2005 when Jackie Blue was calling on the then Labour Government to help save the lives of breast cancer sufferers with the funding of Herceptin? Where were they? They were silent.

Hon Annette King: We funded Herceptin.

JACQUI DEAN: Oh, they are talking now. They are talking the talk now, but they were silent when it really mattered. In terms of making a contribution, Dr Jackie Blue has done more in this House than most. So, Helen Kelly, Sue Moroney, Metiria Turei—it is so easy, is it not, to pull someone down, to denigrate their work, and to doubt their motives, just because they do not come from your side of the political spectrum. Well, I say thank goodness for strong women at any time in history—RIP Maggie Thatcher—in any Parliament, whether it is in the United Kingdom, it might be in the Pacific parliaments, or here in New Zealand, who are prepared to have a view, who are prepared to stand up for what matters to them, and who, like Dr Jackie Blue, want to act in a role to provide equal opportunities for all of us.

This week we welcome parliamentarians from all around the Pacific to our Parliament. This is the first time such a significant number of Pacific MPs and political leaders have assembled together to discuss the key issues facing the Pacific region. The forum is a good opportunity for us to develop networks with our Pacific colleagues. Although many Pacific Island countries have a pool of well-educated women who are already leaders in their fields, women’s participation in these parliaments varies from a high of 44 percent—not so bad—to three countries who have no women parliamentarians. Would it not be great to encourage and assist women to conduct successful election campaigns and to become effective MPs? We need strong women in all of our parliaments, so let us celebrate and encourage and not try to pull each other down, just for the hell of it. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): When the Government set up the Auckland super-city many people said it would have very far-reaching consequences, and there is no doubt that right now Auckland is on the move. For the first time ever the city has a plan to deal with growth, it is dealing with the gridlock, Wynyard Quarter and Britomart Place have shown what high-quality urban renewal can do, and the place is really buzzing. There is a new sense of unity and pride in Auckland.

Unfortunately, there is one thing holding it back like a dead weight—Wellington. Although Auckland is moving fast to transform its regional economy to focus on innovation and exports, the National Government is a brake on progress. But when it comes to the big issues in Auckland, the Government has no plan of its own. All it knows how to say is no to Auckland, no to the popular city rail link that would have allowed trains to run every 5 minutes and that is supported by more than 60 percent of Aucklanders, and no to the Auckland Unitary Plan that would allow Auckland to grow a little bit up and a little bit out.

And what has the Government done? It has dispatched Laurel and Hardy—big Gerry Brownlee, the tsar of Christchurch, and Nick Smith, the MP for Nelson; Nick Smith, the “Minister for Sprawl”, and Gerry Brownlee, the “Minister for Gridlock”—to tell Aucklanders how to run their city. Well, I have got a word of warning for the National Government: Aucklanders are getting fed up with Laurel and Hardy coming to Auckland and telling them how to run their city. Aucklanders had the super-city forced on to them. They accepted it, they are making it work, but Wellington simply cannot let go, because their man John Banks did not win the mayoralty.

While Gerry Brownlee pours scorn on the city rail link and Nick Smith threatens to legislate to take powers away from the Auckland Council, the Prime Minister is all over the place. In recent weeks we have seen him misleading Aucklanders, misleading the public, on two key issues. He said that the Auckland Council wants the Government to enact the unitary plan straight away with no input and no opportunity for Aucklanders to have a say. Wrong. Right now thousands of Aucklanders are having their say, and, once the plan is notified in September, even if the Government gives it legal weight like the council has asked, the public can do it all again with the Government-appointed independent panel. How is that for having no input? Why is the Prime Minister misleading the public?

He was caught out again when he said on television that Auckland Council is saying it is going to intensify, it is pretty much going to go up within the urban metropolitan limits—just go straight up—and we are saying you need to go up and out. Nothing could be more misleading. The Auckland Plan says that up to 40 percent of new dwellings will be built on greenfields land over the next 30 years. For the benefit of Nick Smith, what that means is that land equivalent to six times the area of Nelson will be freed up outside the current urban boundaries.

It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not agree with Kim Campbell of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who said recently that the Government’s refusal to ratify Auckland’s plan before 2016-17 will load big costs on to Auckland’s ratepayers and hold back Auckland’s growth. It is a shame that he does not agree with John Roughan of the New Zealand Herald, who said that the Government is “on the wrong side of the city’s plan” and that no one else is putting up an alternative. It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not agree with Federated Farmers Chief Executive, Conor English, who says that Auckland needs to stop sprawling across the countryside and invest more in public transport. That sounds remarkably close to Len Brown’s Auckland Plan. So not only is the Government offside with Aucklanders but the National Party’s closest political allies in Auckland—the Employers and Manufacturers Association, Federated Farmers, and the chamber of commerce—have all deserted the National Party and are backing Len Brown’s vision for Auckland.

Labour’s policy is to back Aucklanders, not to fight them. We agree with the Auckland Council, we agree with its balanced approach to managing the city’s growth and the fact that our country’s biggest city has to incorporate a million extra people in the next 30 years, and we agree with the balanced approach to land supply and intensification. Labour will invest in the city rail link, because it will allow trains to run on our rail network every 5 minutes. The biggest roadblock to progress in Auckland is this Government, and New Zealanders deserve better.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): It is a pleasure to speak in this general debate, which is more than likely going to be my final general debate. I would like to begin by acknowledging the many, many MPs in the House who have wished me well in my new role as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, which I begin in early June. I want to acknowledge the contribution that the former Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor, has made in this role. Her work output has been extensive and her work extraordinary and outstanding. I have got huge, massive shoes to fill, I know, and I will certainly do my very best to do that. I am truly and sincerely humbled by the messages of support from throughout the House and also from well-wishers around the country.

On this day I would like to acknowledge all women MPs in every party in this House. It is not easy being a woman MP—it ain’t easy, that is for sure. At times it is brutal, it is personal, it is combative, and it is hostile. So well done, everyone—all women MPs in this House. And, with the exception of the Green Party, women MPs are in the minority in their respective parties. We make up 50 percent of the population, and it is unacceptable that we make up a little over 30 percent of the current Parliament. That, I know, by international standards is not bad. But New Zealand has been a leader in this area. We gave women suffrage in 1893; we can do it again. I lay down that challenge to all parties, with the exception of the Green Party, and that is also for future political parties that might be forming.

I would like to particularly acknowledge the cross-party groups that I have had the pleasure to work in over the last 7 years. They are the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, and that role has a focus on sexual reproductive health and rights of women in Pacific Island countries, domestic violence, and our aid budget; and the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group, which I co-chair with Louisa Wall, which has the focus of increasing the number of women MPs in Pacific parliaments. That is why we are so very excited about the Pacific forum tomorrow and the debate that it will have about gender. We are looking forward to that very much.

I have so much enjoyed working in the cross-party space, working collectively for an objective with like-minded people. Whether it is about sexual reproductive health and rights or increasing the number of women MPs in Pacific parliaments or whether it is lobbying for the Arms Trade Treaty, it has been a pure pleasure, it has been rewarding, and I have enjoyed it immensely.

The work, particularly in the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, has left me with the absolute and utter conviction and passion that in developing countries, by backing and empowering women and girls, economies, countries, and communities will go forward. But the same applies to the developed countries. As women progress, everyone progresses, and that is why I am so thrilled and excited about my new role.

Judith Collins told the House today that, with my appointment to Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, she has appointed a lefty to the position. She said that with mirth, but I will wear that as a badge of honour.

I am grateful that while I have had the opportunity to be a member of Parliament in this House, I have been given the opportunity to advocate in a number of areas, which I will just outline as time allows. But, first of all, I would like to wish Louisa Wall really well in the third reading of her Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

I have a bill in the ballot, which I hope a colleague will take up, and that is the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. That bill would mean that if young people of 16 or 17 wish to get married, they will need to go through the Family Court. Parental consent is out of the loop, though, obviously, when the Family Court judge hears an application, the family would be included. I believe sincerely that that would take possible coercion out as a factor with the marriages of young people. These marriages happen only about 100 times a year, so in the background of 20,000-plus marriages each year, we are talking about a small number. So I am hopeful that a colleague will take that up and that it will get drawn, be debated, and pass through the House.

I am particularly proud, and I will always be proud, of the fact that the Government took up the 12 months’ funding of Herceptin—absolutely. I know that has made—

Hon Member: Jackie, it was your work, too.

Dr JACKIE BLUE: Well, yes, it has made an enormous difference. Studies that have since come through have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that 12 months is the gold standard. I am so proud a National Government funded it immediately after becoming the Government in 2008.

I am also particularly pleased that I have had the opportunity to advocate for enrolled nurses, and I am pleased that the Minister of Health expanded that role into acute services, as well.

Mr Speaker, thank you for your leadership in the House. Thank you, everyone, each and all, thank you so much.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. I a au e tū nei me mihi rā ki tērā mema i tū ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ahiahi i a ia e kōrero ana mō ngā mea kua oti i a ia.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us all. As I stand here I must acknowledge that member who stood before the House of Parliament this afternoon while she was talking about the things she had done.]

So can I just add my congratulations to Jackie Blue and thank her for her contribution. I feel a bit of a killjoy after that speech, with all its positivity, in raising the issue that I want to put before the House. I wish you well, Jackie, in your career ahead of you.

In the time I have got, I want to talk about a topic that often provokes all sorts of severe reactions, as if it were the first time the words have ever been uttered. What I am talking about is the topic of institutional racism. Over 30 years ago it was identified that Māori experience disproportionate treatment in the New Zealand justice system. People do not see things such as overrepresentation of Māori in all of the worst statistics as a result of racism; on the contrary, they tend to think that it is a Māori problem that we often try to justify by claiming racism. I reject that. Those are ignorant and divisive thoughts, and they are preserved by our current systems, which are geared towards disadvantaging Māori in the police force, the courts, corrections, and, of course, the justice system.

One of the good things about being in Parliament is that you get clear statistics and information that might back the claim. Of course, in the past week or so, the organisation JustSpeak released a very clear overview that spoke about the chances of being prosecuted for a crime if you are a young Māori. It said that it was far more likely that you would be prosecuted if you were Māori than non-Māori. For the 3,495 theft apprehensions recorded as Caucasian there were 588 prosecutions, and for Māori, for the 5,660 apprehensions recorded, 1,173 resulted in prosecution—in other words, rates of 16.8 percent versus 20.7 percent. Even worse, there are 15 categories of offences, ranging from homicide to theft to property offences, with everything in between, and in 14 of those 15 categories Māori have a higher proportion of apprehensions leading to prosecutions. The category that is the exception is “miscellaneous offences”.

Such was our concern about this that we asked questions of the Minister of Police, who is in the House at present, about this matter. It is something that we do take seriously, and we will continue to advocate against this type of racism.

Most people would think that there is a simple reason—if you commit a crime, then you do the time. The thing is that following apprehension for a crime, the percentage of Māori who are then prosecuted is far higher than the percentage of Pākehā who are prosecuted. If a Māori teen and a Pākehā teen are apprehended for the same crime, the young Māori is more likely to be prosecuted, while the Pākehā youth is more likely to get off. Does this not raise questions of fairness and of discrimination in those people who would be sceptical of institutional racism? That is the question. Sadly, I would not expect so.

When the apprehension of a suspect occurs, there is often an element described as discretion. It can be used by the arresting officer as to whether to proceed or to not arrest. One might ask what is considered by that officer when they are using their notions of discretion. Are their decisions going to be informed by their own views about Māori people and about Pākehā people? Once in the system, of course, what are the options that are being offered to offenders that might enable them to plan for a future without being stigmatised by the slur of a criminal conviction? We know about diversion schemes and restorative justice programmes, but are those being offered fairly? Are they being offered to young people, in order that they might be able to avoid conviction and have a shot at growing up and learning from their experiences? The data that was presented by JustSpeak suggests not.

Ethnic bias within the police and criminal justice system is real. There have been numerous instances and reports in New Zealand that tell us that it is real. Kim Workman from the Rethinking Crime and Punishment group suggests that there are a number of avenues that need to be looked at, including traffic stop procedures, ethnic profiling, offender eligibility for diversion, and pre-charge warnings, to name a few. I have been interested in the whole notion of community law forums. So that is the concern, and the Māori Party will be raising a bill in the near future called the Elimination of Institutional Racism Bill, and we hope to introduce that into the members’ ballot very shortly.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

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

Third Reading

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) on behalf of Dr David Clark (Labour—Dunedin North): I move, That the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As many colleagues around the House will know, Dr David Clark is on an Eisenhower Fellowship in the United States of America. He has asked me to step in and do this third reading. I am very happy to do so because this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, was in the members’ ballot originally under my name—and there is no truth to the rumour that I ordered Dr Clark away from the building so I could do this. This bill is one that was also in Darien Fenton’s name for a period of time, and I am very pleased that the Labour caucus’ members who were involved in the original drafting of the bill will now have the opportunity to speak on it.

At the very outset I would like to thank the parties that have supported this bill right from its first reading—the Green Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, Mana, United Future, and Brendan Horan. The support of all of those parties and MPs is much appreciated. All of those parties have taken this bill as a point of principle, and I thank them very much for sticking to their principles on this issue.

The origins of the bill were in 2010 when both Anzac Day and Waitangi Day fell on weekends and there was no holiday on Monday for either of them. That year, New Zealanders got only nine of the 11 public holidays that they are entitled to under the Holidays Act. That is not fair, and this bill seeks to give hard-working New Zealanders a fair go—time to spend with their families and to continue to commemorate these important days in our calendar, 7 years out of 7.

We do need to recognise the value of holidays to working people and indeed to businesses. Holidays are about recharging. They are about spending time with families, about enjoying recreation and downtime. They are actually very important for productivity, for good morale in the workplace. That is what holidays are for. They are not things that should be begrudged by the Government; they are things that should be supported by the Government.

It is important to note that this bill does recognise the importance and significance of these 2 days to New Zealanders. Waitangi Day is our national day, and as David Shearer and others have stated, we need to continue to work to ensure that it is both a day of reflection on our past and present and a celebration of what we have and what we can become. Anzac Day assumes a greater significance every year in our country. It does note our coming of age as a nation on the battlefields of World War I, and the sacrifice of New Zealanders then and in other conflicts that have followed. It is a day of commemoration that we hold dear and that grows in importance every single year.

Next Thursday we will commemorate Anzac Day, and thousands and thousands of New Zealanders around the country will go out to do this at Dawn Services, at community services, right around the country. That is important. It will also be a holiday. It will not diminish the day at all, as it has not done in past years. The same will now be the case as a result of this bill when the day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday.

Let me be absolutely clear. The commemorations of Anzac Day and Waitangi Day will continue to be on 25 April and 6 February every year, as they should be, but there will be a holiday every 7 out of 7 years, not just 5 out of 7 years. This is already the way that things are done in most of the states of Australia—in Western Australia, Victoria, ACT, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory. All of them have—

Hon Annette King: Do they care about Anzac Day?

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. As my colleague says: “Do they care about Anzac Day?”. You bet they do. The reports from Australia, where the Mondayisation process is in place, indicate that the numbers of people attending Anzac Day services are increasing year on year. It is also what we do for Christmas Day and Boxing Day and New Year’s Day, and there is no confusion. If Christmas Day falls on a Saturday, the presents are opened, people attend church services, and the only change is that the day after Boxing Day we get a holiday for it. That is what will happen in this case.

So workers support this bill in large numbers, but so do many businesses. They recognise the value of holidays for their workers. They also know that the cost of this bill is not huge. It is already dealt with, and budgeted for, by businesses, 5 out of 7 years, and it is simply a matter of making that 7 out of 7 years. In previous calls I have noted the work that David Farrar, the National Party’s pollster, has done. He has said that this represents 0.12 percent of an annual wage bill. I want to actually congratulate Mr Farrar. It is a pity he was not able to influence the National Party with his support for this bill, but employers across the board have been coming forward and supporting this legislation. I particularly want to acknowledge the Tourism Industry Association, which has strongly supported this bill. In its submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it said that any costs associated with this bill will be outweighed by the overall economic benefit. That is a statement from the Tourism Industry Association that can be applied right across the board. Real economic benefits will occur as a result of this legislation.

Unfortunately, with all of the parties that I have mentioned, for whose support we are grateful, the National Party has yet to come around to supporting this bill. Well, it is not too late. It is not too late for the National Party to come on board, get on the right side of history, and get on the right side of the other parties in this Parliament. I have got no hope for John Banks, by the way. I am not asking for him to come on board with it, but there is a chance for the National Party to come on board today and say: “We support workers. We support workers having the ability to spend more time with their families.”

But the track record does not look good, in terms of bringing them across, because every time legislation that gives more holidays to workers comes up in this House, the National Party opposes it. When the 4 weeks’ annual leave came in, the sky did not fall in. Nothing happened that went wrong there. Business productivity and profits went up after the 4 weeks’ annual leave came in, but the National Party still opposed it. But it is not too late. National can come in and say that its commitment to supporting families actually has some reality, that it is prepared to back a piece of legislation that is going to make sure that people have more time with their families.

But the National Party’s criticisms of this bill have ranged. They have ranged from the fact that this is the end of civilisation as we know it, through to: “Why are you bothering? It doesn’t make any difference.” The National Party needs to get a consistent stance on that. But in the end, it has the chance today to get on to the right side of history and vote for this legislation. Many people have asked when this provision will next come into effect. The next time that this will happen is on 25 April 2015, when Anzac Day will fall on a Saturday, the following year Waitangi Day will fall on a Saturday, and then in 4 and 5-year gaps after that.

We on this side of the House are not pretending that this is the big issue in industrial relations. We are not saying that. What we are saying is here is an opportunity to do something. Here is an opportunity to give New Zealanders a fair go. Here is an opportunity to give New Zealanders some more time with their families. It is not the biggest thing in the world in industrial relations, but it is important. It represents an important principle—that people deserve to have holidays; that those holidays in the law, 11 public holidays, should be granted.

We know that there are bigger issues out there for workers—the loss of thousands of jobs, wages not keeping pace with the cost of living, precarious work, and the coming changes to employment law from this Government. These are all big issues and they are ones we need to be working on. This bill is not on that scale, but it can do a simple thing for workers. It can give them a fair go, it can give them time with their families, and it continues to ensure that we commemorate these important days in our calendar. This is a fine bill, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Since Mr Grant Robertson just gave the opening speech on this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, I think we all need to pay credit to Dr David Clark for the work he has done on it. This is actually his bill. I would not let Mr Robertson take credit for the bill.

Grant Robertson: It was mine.

DAVID BENNETT: He says it was his bill, but no, David Clark is the one who has promoted this bill. David Clark is the one who has done the work on this bill, and—

Hon Annette King: It was his bill first, David.

DAVID BENNETT: I know what you are saying, but Mr Clark is the one who actually should be promoted here today, not Mr Robertson. I think it is strange that the Labour Party members are now fighting amongst themselves over who is to take the credit for this bill. That is a very disappointing thing, but it just shows the contempt that Labour Party members hold for their own membership—the way that they treat their colleagues in this House. Today we are seeing a battle between two Labour front-benchers over who should actually take the credit for this bill when this is a serious bill.

I would like to pay tribute to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which actually looked at this bill and went through all the arguments in a very fair and reasonable way. It was very well led, I must admit, through the select committee consideration, and I think Mr Clark should take a lot of credit for the way he actually approached the bill, unlike other members of the Labour Party here today, who are trying to make mischief while one of their members is out of the country. It is a shame that they will do that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind the member that it is out of order to refer to someone being absent from the Chamber. All of us have to take time from the Chamber sometimes.

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, I understand that.

Hon Annette King: How long has he been here?

DAVID BENNETT: Mr Clark? He has been here for just his first term. I think it is disappointing that you do that to a first-term member and try to take the credit away from him—

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member cannot bring you into debate, and he just did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You are absolutely right. You cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.

DAVID BENNETT: Just to the people listening, I say that I think it is disappointing that we are talking about a serious bill here and the Labour Party, for the first couple of minutes of my speech, has been attacking the National Party around who is actually in control of that bill. I think that is very disappointing, coming from the Labour Party.

When we have a look at this bill, this is a bill where we understand the arguments on both sides. There are good arguments on both sides for this bill. Nobody denies the important role that holidays play in the working life of people, to give them the chance to spend time with their friends and family in the community.

We have very special days in New Zealand that are represented by holidays. Traditionally, you have the statutory holidays, the 11 basic public holidays, which are very important to our culture and our community. We also have the annual holidays that are available to New Zealanders, as well. If you look at New Zealand, you have 11 public holidays and 20 days’ minimum annual paid leave. If you go to another country like, for example, the United States, it has 10 public holidays and it has zero minimum annual paid leave. So New Zealand has a very generous system, and nobody would hold that against the New Zealand community or workers or anybody involved in the system. I think the holidays that we are talking about today, Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, are especially special days, because they represent very strong parts of our history and our country going forward, and I think nobody takes that away from those very special days.

So this is not an attack on workers, as the Labour Party will try to portray—it is far from that. It is not the situation, as Mr Robertson has tried to indicate, that the National Party does not support workers. That is not the case. This is a case where the National Party likes to take into account the full circumstances around this issue.

One of the big circumstances that I think people need to be aware of in this debate is the actual effect of this bill. In 2015 there will be 1 day that will be Mondayised, in 2016 there will be another day, and then there will be nothing until 2020. So the effect of this bill is very remote in the extreme. This is not a big bill that is going to deliver for New Zealand workers or for the New Zealand community. This is not a bill of the consequence that the Labour Party tries to portray, and it is a bit sad that it even has to fight over a bill that does not have that consequence either.

The next time this bill will be effective will be in 2015, and that will be with Anzac Day, and then in 2016 it will be with Waitangi Day. Then workers will have to wait until 2020 for the next Anzac Day.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, come on, move an amendment. We’ll give you leave.

DAVID BENNETT: So this bill does not have a lot of effect on New Zealand workers. What are you saying, Trevor?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Add three or four more—we’ll give leave.

DAVID BENNETT: So Mr Mallard wants to add more days. Well, this bill does not add more days. It indicates that these days—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That Government’s taking them away.

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, we are not taking them away. Mr Mallard is saying we are taking them away; that is just not the case. We have been through this before with Mr Mallard about getting the facts right. It is simply not the case that anything is being taken away.

In New Zealand we value the role that our public holidays have in our community and in our country. We understand the importance of them. The National Party, by not voting for this bill, is not attacking workers’ rights. It is merely that we represent that there are some other issues involved in this bill. For me, one of the big issues involved in this bill is that it has limited effect. Waiting until 2020 to see any effect is not a big thing. It is a bit like the Labour Party and its superannuation policy. That will not have any effect until 2025, will it? That was its last superannuation policy. It might be interesting to see how the new one actually pans out. But this bill does not have a large effect in the immediate future, and that is a shame for this House.

When we actually went through it in the select committee, there were a number of submissions in favour of this bill. I would like to thank those submitters for coming in and for the way that they did their submissions. I would like to thank the variety of submitters we had, as well.

Dr Cam Calder: How many did you have?

DAVID BENNETT: We had numerous submissions, and there were a lot of arguments made around different sorts of issues in the bill. One of the big issues is the actual cost of the potential holiday. That is something that there was some debate within the select committee around, that cost.

Dr Cam Calder: What was the cost?

DAVID BENNETT: Well, because the cost indicated—there is always a financial cost, if you are granting a holiday. But then there were arguments made that there is actually a financial gain too for the potential spending in such things as the tourism community and suchlike. Those are valid arguments that were put up. The select committee considered them at length and came to very good conclusions around them.

This bill is a good start by Mr Clark in his political career. It is a bill that he has portrayed and built through this House, and we commend him for that. Unfortunately, though, this bill has some issues with it. It does not have a large effect in the immediate future, and that is why it is a bit sad that the Labour Party is pinning its hopes on this bill. There are other ways that we can address these issues. I recommend to the House that this bill is something that we should consider, but, unfortunately, at this stage the National Party will not be voting for this bill.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is with great pleasure that I speak in the third reading of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. My only regret is that its sponsor, Dr David Clark, is not here to see it pass through this third reading. I want to send my congratulations to him in America, as I know, indeed, Grant Robertson and all of the Labour caucus do, on the great work he has done on this member’s bill. I am also acknowledging the role that Grant Robertson has played, but it has been a Labour effort, actually. We have all worked hard to see through a change that actually does change life for the better for working people.

It is not often that that happens, and it certainly never happens under a National Government, so this is a special day. This is a very special day, considering that we have had 5 years of attacks on workers’ rights. Those attacks have included a foolish dependence on being able to sack people within 90 days without reasonable justification as a job creation measure, a minimum wage that has increased by only $5.60 a week, or just 14c an hour in real terms, over the 5 years since National became the Government, and cuts to the wages of young people that come into effect on—guess which day? On 1 May—International Workers’ Day. There is a wonderful reward for young people, the hard-working young people of the country, on International Workers’ Day, 1 May!

There is more to come. We know the legislation is heading our way. The employment law changes are coming. And—you know what—the Government is even going to cut workers’ tea and meal breaks. It is even going to make cuts to the tea break, the smokers’ break—the smoko break. Hard-working New Zealanders have been forgotten by this Government. It cannot even bring itself to support what it knows in its heart of hearts is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

We have heard some interesting arguments through the passage of this bill, but one that has been canvassed at length by the National Party is that it undermines the special nature of Anzac Day. Anzac Day, on 25 April, has been a holiday since 1921. It was first gazetted as a half-day holiday in 1916. But back then a holiday meant a real holiday. It meant a real day off, like Sundays used to be when no shops were open—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Even Saturdays.

DARIEN FENTON: —even Saturdays, that is right—the pubs were shut, the local dairy was closed, and the buses did not run. That is what it used to be like.

A lot has changed through the last hundred years. There have been several amendments to the Holidays Act and there have been several amendments to the Anzac Day Act and the Waitangi Day Act. Annual leave and public holidays have been increased, without the vote of the National Party, of course—without its support. But also what has changed is that more workers are now expected to work on public holidays. So while the pubs and shops are still closed on Anzac Day morning—it is only until 1 o’clock, whereas once it was the whole day—on Waitangi Day it is a free-for-all, so everything is open. Meanwhile, despite the changes, support for Anzac Day as a day of commemoration has built over time, and people’s understanding of the importance of Waitangi Day has also increased. Nothing in this bill will change that.

Anzac Day will still be on 25 April. Dawn Services will still be held. Large crowds will still turn up to services and parades throughout the country. I will attend and remember my father and grandfather, who fought in World War I and World War II. Anzac Day will still be observed as a holiday on that day, regardless of which day of the week it is, and people who work on that day—and many do—will be paid time and a half, and they will get a different day off, with pay. Waitangi Day has a much more recent history, but its significance as a day of celebration and commemoration on 6 February will also remain the same in the same way Anzac Day will.

But to take the National Party’s argument to its logical extension, nobody in this country should be able to work on Anzac Day or Waitangi Day, because those days are just too sacred. But during this debate I have not heard one word of concern from the National Party for the thousands of workers who have to work on Anzac Day and Waitangi Day.

There has been not one word of recognition that many workers do not get a holiday at all and that for them Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are already on different days—not one word from the National Party. There has been not one word of ownership of the petty and distrustful extension of employer power that the National Government introduced in 2010, where employers can transfer Anzac Day and Waitangi Day to a different day without the consent of workers—not one word of concern from the National Party about this. Instead, there has been a whole lot of sanctimonious concern that somehow having a holiday, having these days Mondayised 1 year in 7—2 days out of every 7 years—is going to undermine the sanctity, the sacredness, of Anzac Day. The National Government brought in legislation in 2010 that allows employers to decide when Anzac Day falls or Waitangi Day falls and allows employers to decide when workers get the days off. Anzac Day for them can be any day other than 25 April. Waitangi Day for them can be any day other than 6 February.

So, let us face it, for thousands of workers in New Zealand there is no Anzac Day or Waitangi Day. It is meaningless, and for this Government to argue that this bill undermines those holidays is, quite frankly—a word that I am not allowed to use. The National Government has done away with Anzac Day and Waitangi Day for them, and now it has been crying crocodile tears. Simon O’Connor was the best—10 minutes of reading from the diary of a World War I soldier. Unbelievable. Yet it was the National Government’s legislation in 2010 that means that those 2 days just do not exist for many workers. They work on the days and they get other days off that the employer decides on. Anzac Day and Waitangi Day can be any days that the employer has decided on.

Andrew Little: It’s worse if they’re an independent contractor.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, of course—there are some people who get no holidays, like independent contractors, and that is another story.

Then we have had all the arguments around cost. David Bennett made a bit of a feeble attempt at it. I cannot accept that New Zealand is in such a bad state, that our businesses are so, so hard up that this will send businesses broke, as the Government has claimed, even to the extent of using its dodgy figures. It is far more honest to just accept and own up to the fact that it does not want workers to have more holidays. Employer organisations like the Employers and Manufacturers Association were very honest with us. When we asked the association whether it had ever supported more holidays, it at least owned up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said no, it has never supported 4 weeks, never supported extra holidays—just like the National Government.

Then, as support has gathered for this bill, John Key has tried to do this “What, me worry?” routine—“The world’s not going to end.” I think the Government is now embarrassed that it opposed this bill. It knows that it is on the wrong side of public opinion. It knows it cannot justify its opposition, because it has already changed the law to undermine the special nature of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. I believe that the Government knows in its heart of hearts that this bill is the right thing to do. It is a sensible bill. Kiwis know this is a fair deal. This is a great day for Kiwi workers. This is a great day for Dr David Clark. It is wonderful to see a Labour bill that will advance things for New Zealand workers in this House again. In 2014 there will be a lot more when we are the Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Mike Sabin. Tēnā koe.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Thank you. Kia ora. I appreciate the greeting. Can I firstly take an opportunity just to acknowledge David Clark, the member introducing this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, and—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The reverend doctor.

MIKE SABIN: That is the one. As I now understand, I can always rely on the Hon Trevor Mallard to correct me if I go astray—very helpful, very helpful. I do appreciate having a wing man with such integrity. Can I acknowledge Grant Robertson also, as the original author of this bill, and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am now a member of that select committee, but I was not involved in this process. It is worthy of acknowledging the fact that when any member sees legislation pass through this House, there has been a lot of hard work undertaken in that.

However, as members will be aware, the National Party will not be supporting this bill. For me it comes down to quite a fine balance. First and foremost for me, as a former naval officer and serviceman, the recognition of Anzac Day—the full recognition of Anzac Day—is not something that requires Mondayisation. Let us make it very clear that Anzac Day needs no form of recognition other than the fact that it is Anzac Day, a time at which this nation gathers together to remember the sacrifices and the lives that were lost in 1915 in Gallipoli, and all the other conflicts in which New Zealand servicemen have upheld the honour of this country and democracy. That is something that I do not believe needs a public holiday in order to be recognised.

Darien Fenton: It already is a public holiday.

MIKE SABIN: Well, it certainly does not need Mondayisation. I will come to that member’s points in due course.

For me, the special significance of that day runs the risk of being lost in the idea of a public holiday—a 3-day weekend being the reason for celebration. And as we say goodbye to the last of those most senior veterans, it falls upon the next generation and their children to pick up that baton and carry it as we remember those who survived those wars and have passed on. For me, that is something that certainly does not need the recognition of a bill such as this, which, really, in its title underpins, I think, exactly what it is about: the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. It somehow suggests that there is not adequate recognition of those days, and that by making it a long weekend we will somehow more fully recognise them. I believe that that is unnecessary.

As to the question of Waitangi Day, as a member of Parliament for Northland, again, it is a very, very special and significant day for the nation. It is a day that has seen some controversy. I remember as a policeman one or two battles of the bridge, as we used to call them up there, but I have to say that on the last Waitangi Day, this year in 2013, there was definitely a change of mood at that place where the Treaty was signed. None the less, it is a very, very significant day to this nation. It signifies the modern New Zealand that we know now. It was a starting point for that. And as a member of Parliament for that area, it is very important for me that that day is recognised for what it actually is.

Some have referred to it as New Zealand Day. In fact, members of the Labour Party in years gone by have done that. I want to read just a couple of quotes from Hansard that reflect the sentiment of the Labour Party of old. It may have some views as to what today’s Labour Party is about. I will leave that for the punters out there to speculate on.

Former Minister of Māori Affairs Matiu Rata said: “Like Anzac Day, New Zealand Day is not to be Mondayised. It is the significance of the occasion that is important rather than the fact that it is to be a paid public holiday. It should not be regarded as merely an extra paid holiday.” That is one of them.

We heard the member Darien Fenton, who spent most of her 10-minute speech talking about workers, holidays, and so on and so forth, and although everyone will accept that an honest, hard day’s work deserves recognition in terms of a break, again I come back to my original point about what these days are actually about, what they mean in the hearts and minds of New Zealanders, versus becoming some default setting as another holiday, another long weekend.

It goes on, because former Minister of Internal Affairs Mr May, also of the Labour Party, said: “The Government believes the Mondayising of New Zealand Day … would detract from the importance and significance of the event it commemorates.” Former MP Paraone Rēweti said that the committee considered that it was justified—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?

MIKE SABIN: Do you want me to write that down for you, Mr Mallard?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

MIKE SABIN: I will send it over in a note for you.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Where does he come from?

MIKE SABIN: I am sure you know. You must be a great author of the Labour Party history, I am sure. That member certainly carved his name well into it.

Grant Robertson: I think he was here.

MIKE SABIN: Yeah, well, that is good. Then the member should know, so there is no need to ask me. I am sure he can make a mental note for himself. Mr Rēweti said that the committee considered that it was justified in declaring that Waitangi Day should not be Mondayised, because the Labour Party had gone to the electors in 1972 on the policy that Waitangi Day would not be Mondayised. If the member Trevor Mallard was here, he probably remembers a lot of those speeches. He probably remembers what the old Labour Party, the working Labour Party of old, was all about.

But I come to my point, which the member Darien Fenton has raised, and it is about the consistent attack, as she puts it, by the New Zealand National Party on the workers. That is ironic given that the member who introduced this bill, David Clark, also introduced the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, which sought to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If we could just legislate the minimum wage without any consequence to the employer, who ultimately has to find the means to employ that person, then why stop at $15? Why not chuck $25, $50, or maybe $100 an hour? That member David Clark considers himself to be the best spokesman on economics in 50 years, and yet he has been a member who has single-handedly introduced two members’ bills to this House, both of which have a significant fiscal consequence to the employer.

Andrew Little: No, they don’t.

MIKE SABIN: They do. Of course they do.

Andrew Little: No, they don’t.

MIKE SABIN: Well, I am not going to listen to the union strongman over there bellowing his comments from across the floor, because at the end of the day—and that member would have to recognise this—at some point, employers need to find money to pay their employees. To do that they have to be actually making a profit, and there is a very fine line there. So the member who has introduced this bill, the so-called economic spokesperson, will actually be hurting small and medium sized businesses. That is what that is about.

Can I just close by saying that I acknowledge the work that David Clark has done. I respect the parliamentary process that has been followed here, and for me this has been about a fine balance. It has been a very fine balance.

Andrew Little: You know you want to vote for it. Come on, Mike.

MIKE SABIN: No, I certainly will not be. I certainly will not be. It has been a fine balance, and for me it falls on the side of those servicemen in particular. As we approach Anzac Day can I just acknowledge those fallen soldiers and servicemen from across New Zealand who have served this country so well in upholding our place in the world and doing our bit and far more, those veterans who have survived those wars, and the existing servicemen who are out there serving our country today.

On Anzac Day I will proudly be standing there to commemorate and to acknowledge those people. I wonder whether Mr Clark will be confronted with a little bit of flack as a result of this bill. Can I close by saying that Anzac Day is a very important day to all New Zealanders, and I look forward to this Anzac Day to celebrate, commemorate, and remember those who have fallen. Lest we forget.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe. I am pleased to take a short call on this Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill to affirm the Green Party’s support for this very good bill. Our compliments to whatever combination of Labour hearts and minds brought it into being. It is a very well-thought-out and quite simple piece of legislation. It simply affirms that every year New Zealanders will enjoy 11 public holidays rather than having them in only 5 years out of 7 years, and missing out in those other 2 years.

I am genuinely surprised that Government members have not come round to supporting this legislation. I have listened reasonably carefully to their speeches in various readings, and that is not always an enjoyable experience, listening to speeches from that side of the House, but it has been interesting to just try to unpick what their objections are.

My fellow Northlander Mike Sabin, who just resumed his seat, gave a very sincere speech reflecting on his commitment to Anzac Day. I would have to say that if I thought, or if any of my Green colleagues thought, that the passing of this legislation would in any way diminish or degrade the importance or the integrity of that celebration, we would probably not—well, in fact, I can say certainly I would not support it, and I suspect neither would my colleagues.

Anzac Day is critically important. I confess in my former life I was more or less committed to attending services on any given Anzac Day. As an MP I have also seen it as an absolute duty to turn up at local celebrations, and also a pleasure. It is an important day in our history and one we should continue to acknowledge.

The proposition that somehow Mondayising Anzac Day will lead to less commitment to it and a smaller turnout to honour that day is at odds with the evidence from Australia where Mondayisation has been in place for some time, and the numbers, if anything, are increasing for attendances at Anzac Day celebrations, as indeed they are here in New Zealand as younger people realise this is not about the glorification of war. It is about acknowledging sacrifice and also a commitment to doing everything we can to avoid wars in the future.

Some of the objection to this bill has been around the economic effect—the effect on business. Again I simply do not see that as being valid. We heard some extraordinary numbers in the first reading, about the tens of millions of dollars it would cost the country every year to have two more days off, 2 years out of 7 years. Those numbers simply do not add up. Some businesses will close, obviously, on days that otherwise they would not, but that is more than compensated for in the scheme of things around the larger economic picture by the fact that the Mondayisation will enable people to have extra time off. Long weekends will become feasible. There will be a knock-on effect in tourism and elsewhere. So we do not accept that there is any economic difficulty or issue involved in that.

It contributes to our work-life balance. New Zealanders actually work some of the longest hours of any developed country in the world. Unfortunately that does not flow through to productivity, which I will say a little more about in a moment, but we are just making sure that we do maximise the work-life balance opportunities for people in the workplace, and this bill does make a small but useful contribution towards that.

Mr Bennett seemed concerned that the bill did not go far enough, that somehow its effect was so little as to not warrant his support. I am somewhat tempted to dust off the Green Party’s April Fool’s Day spoof that suggested another eight holidays per year. We might find support for that from the MP from Hamilton. But it does seem an extraordinary proposition that because this is a relatively minor matter, albeit a positive matter, it cannot be supported for that reason.

I have mentioned Anzac Day, and Waitangi Day too is an important observation in our history. It is very important to us collectively, and personally it is an important day. I have both Māori and Pākehā tupuna who put their names to that document, put their signatures on it, so it has always been very much a part of my personal DNA. While living in the north—well, even before living in the north—I have been a regular attendee at Waitangi Day celebrations in Waitangi. It is noticeable that where Waitangi Day falls on a weekend you tend to find a different attendance than through the normal course of events. The day of the week on which it falls does affect the attendance at Waitangi, people’s travel arrangements, and so on. The situation where it falls on a Saturday or Sunday and people know that the Monday is also a holiday will, I think, enable more people to come to Waitangi and enjoy the celebration at that very key site.

It will do no harm for Northland tourism. As we know, Northland is one of the still relatively undiscovered gems in the tourism crown of New Zealand. There is a great deal to enjoy there. There is an increasing supply of tourism attractions and accommodation, and I would encourage people who are heading north to hang around a while and see just what a great deal there is to offer in the north.

I mentioned the issue of holidays—the fact that people seem to think that if we have one more holiday in each of those 2 years that somehow there will be an economic cost to that. As to the number of holidays New Zealanders have, be they large or small—you can argue about whether 11 is a lot or a few—our key economic issue around that is actually productivity. We do not have a productive economy. The reason for that is that the one significant, and probably the single most important, contributor to that low productivity is poor labour productivity. I believe firmly that the reason for that is that we have a very poor management culture in New Zealand. We have too many people in management positions who are actually not good at that task. We have this unfortunate habit of promoting people who might be good at a particular activity to a management role. This has been acknowledged by employer groups, by employee groups, by the finance sector, by bankers, and by a whole array of different sectors and different interests in the economy.

The issues are not about whether we have 11 days off a year, or only 9, or 10. The issue is that we do not invest enough in management and upskilling our managers in New Zealand. If we invest a little bit there we will get a great deal more productivity in our economy. People perhaps could stop working such extraordinarily long hours, with no economic cost, and in fact with significant economic benefit.

All in all, as I said, the Greens have been pleased to support this legislation from the beginning. We will continue to offer that support, and we look forward to in future years enjoying with the rest of New Zealand the time that it will allow for people to maintain work-life balance, to spend time with their families, and to enjoy this beautiful country of ours. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a great pleasure to take a call on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill.

I want to acknowledge the work of Dr David Clark, my colleague, who picked up this bill from Grant Robertson and also from Darien Fenton. I wanted to add that, because, as we know, success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. Although, of course, when I say success has many fathers, I might say in light of the debate yet to come that success has many parents, and for those who have just tuned in their radios and their TVs, when I say success has many parents, I am talking in relation to the Mondayisation bill. I am not promoting polygamy; I am just saying, as a saying, that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. My contribution to the Mondayisation bill, which we are debating now, is that Grant Robertson had a conversation with me as he was drafting it, so I feel that even my paw prints sit over this very important piece of legislation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m sure all of us talked to him while he was drafting it. Was it about this?

ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I am not saying he talked to me exclusively about it, but I feel as if—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But did he discuss the bill with you?

ANDREW LITTLE: He discussed the bill with me even before I arrived here.

I do not want to get into conspiracy theories about the old Labour Party and being driven by the unions, because that certainly was not the case. But, in response to my colleague Mike Sabin’s arguments about the old Labour Party versus the new, I want to say about the old National Party that when it comes to labour rights, it was the old National Party that actually introduced the first personal grievance law in this House, in 1970. That was a National Party that respected workers and workers’ organisations. That was a National Party that actually wanted workers to have a good relationship with their employer, to be respected, and to have fair processes. What a sea change we have in the National Party of today, and perhaps I will come back to that when I have a moment.

What I also want to say to Mike Sabin is that this bill is not about not observing Anzac Day and Waitangi Day on the days they fall. Of course we will continue to do that. These are important days. These are the days, and, indeed, the events that sit behind them, that define us as a nation. We will always observe them, and we will observe them with great emotion, great consideration, and great compassion towards those who have gone before us for the contribution they have made in the case of each of them. But what this does do, at least in relation to those years in which the days fall on a weekend day—actually observing the following Monday as a holiday enhances our observation of them, and the commemoration or the celebration of those particular days.

This bill fulfils the promise of the Holidays Act, which is to grant 11 days’ public holiday to every worker, every year. That is an important thing and an important achievement. It fulfils the promise of a modern and civilised society and an economy that not only recognises the contribution of working people but recognises important events in our history and allows us, as a community, to commemorate them and celebrate them as appropriate.

Let us not forget that in around about the last 15 years, there has been a 25 percent increase in productivity and value in this country, whereas real wages have increased barely 10 percent over the same period of time. There is no loss to business, not in any aggregate sense at least, anyway. There is no loss to business in the 2 years out of 7 years that this bill will allow extra days to be granted to workers in observation and commemoration of these very important days. As David Clendon said in his contribution, we are a nation that over the last 20 years has shown that we are working longer hours, on average, and we are not being paid commensurately for those additional hours. We are not getting the reward. This might be seen, for those who see some economic difficulty in it, to provide just some little extra reward for those extra hours worked and the extra productivity produced in our economy as a whole.

The truth is that this bill has widespread support across New Zealand, not only amongst working people but across many businesses, not the least of which is the Tourism Industry Association, which represents literally hundreds of businesses, big and small, in this economy. It has a very important role to play. In fact, the tourism industry is so important that this Government is about to grant an additional $158 million over 4 years to it. That is how much importance this Government sees the tourism industry having. Quite why it does not listen to it on issues like this, I do not understand, although I can explain it when I go back to the issues about the modern National Party and its attitude to workers and workers’ rights.

Responsible regulation in the labour market simply means ensuring fairness. This bill is an example of responsible regulation, and it is a bill that will ensure greater fairness for working people. This bill adds that. This bill—what it does; all it does—adds a maximum of 2 days’ leave in 2 years out of every 7 years—2 years out of every 7 years. This is not going to break the bank of New Zealand productivity, or the bank of New Zealand business. It is a fair recognition of something that, actually, our Holidays Act already promises but does not, so far, deliver. This will continue genuine observance of these important commemorative days when they would otherwise fall on a weekend.

Let us talk about Anzac Day, because we are on the eve of Anzac Day week. When we think about Anzac Day, we know that young New Zealanders, predominantly men—in fact, it was all men—were conscripted into the army to go and fight thousands of miles away. That is important to us, because actually one of the driving forces for the founding of the Labour Party was an opposition to conscription. Young men were conscripted to fight in a war many thousands of miles away. They accepted the argument that this was for Queen and country, it was for a lifestyle, and it was for a sense of freedom. It was not to work longer hours. It was not to lift their productivity by 25 percent and get nothing for it. That is not what young soldiers fought for in World War I. They fought for a set of values and for greater freedom, and this bill properly and truly recognises the sacrifice that was made, because it represents greater freedom—the freedom to spend time with one’s family and the freedom to express oneself how one wishes in one’s own time.

That is what this bill does, and we should respect it and support it for that reason. It is about putting work in balance with the rest of one’s life. That is the challenge of life in the modern world, and this bill will help us to achieve that. It is about good rights at work.

When we think about Waitangi Day, and we think about the historical origins of that day and about rights to citizenship, this bill is about conferring not only citizenship but “humanship”, if you like. It is about the humanity of each of us—the right to have time off to mark important historical events, to commemorate them within our communities, and to celebrate them where that is required. When we think about kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga, working longer hours and being deprived of the right to observe those important days is not what the Treaty of Waitangi stands for. It stands for people being people, and that, if anything, is what the Treaty of Waitangi is about—people.

So this bill is very important. This bill is very important, because it is a chance for us to express our nationhood and those 2 important days on a real day by having the world of commerce stop for a moment and take a step back in years in which it would otherwise not do so on these 2 important days, so that we can all observe them.

I started this contribution by talking about the new National Party. Look at everything it has done when it comes to work rights. Every time this Government comes to turn its attention to work rights, it is about taking away. It is about detracting from workers and their rights, whether it is the 90-day trial period, whether it is changing the test on personal grievances—a piece of law that actually originated from a progressive, liberal National Party, which we do not have today and we do not have any more. When we think about access rights at work, when we think about the rights of workers to have a say over when they take their holidays, every time this Government turns its attention to work rights, it takes something away from workers.

Well, thank goodness for the Labour Party. Thank goodness for the Labour Party, and at least in Opposition, with good members like Grant Robertson, Dr David Clark, and Darien Fenton, we have the ability to introduce laws like this and get them passed for the good of all New Zealand. That is why we are supporting this bill.

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

Ko tā mātau aronga nui mō tēnei o ngā pire ko tērā e pā ana ki ngā kaupapa e rua nei, ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi ka mutu, ko te rā o Tūmatauenga, arā, e kī ana te kōrero ko Anzac; kaua ko te aronga ki te moni ka kore e kitea e te pūkoro o ngā kaituku mahi; kaua ko te haerenga ki tātahi ki reira ruku kina ai, pāinaina rānei i te rā ēngari, ko te tino pūtake o tēnei o ngā whenua i ahu mai ai i roto i te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka tahi, nā wai, nā wai ko te rā o Anzac, arā, te rā o Tūmatauenga e iri nei i te pakitara ā-whare i tēnei wā.

Kei reira tonu kei te Wāhanga 4 o tēnei pire te pūtake o tēnei pire. Kia huri ki te reo Pākehā mō te wā poto. In clause 4 of this bill, the aim is “to amend the … [Holidays Act 2003] to provide for the transfer of the public holidays for Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day if they fall on a weekend.” Ko te tino pūtake o tēnei pire, me kī, te tikanga ia e hāngai tonu ana ki tēnei mea te kotahitanga o Aotearoa. E kī ana ētahi, he iwi kotahi tātau, e kī ana ētahi, ko te whakakotahitanga o Aotearoa, Pākehā mai, Māori mai. Ki a mātau, koinei kei te tino pūtake o tēnei pire.

Ka mutu tērā pea, ka kitea mai ai ko te hōhonutanga o tēnei kaupapa, mēnā i tiro, i kite tātau i te Pouaka Whakaata Māori i te tau kua hipa, arā, i te wā i whakanuia ai ko te rā o Anzac. I taua wā, i taua hōtaka, i kite mātau, tātau pea; ko Mātai Smith i te Kāreti o Te Aute tērā o ngā kura rongonui o Te Ao Māori. I te wā o nehe, ko Te Aute tētahi o ngā kura tino rongonui. Anā, ko ētahi o ngā tama i haere ki tāwāhi, otirā, i eke atu ki roto i te 28, arā, ko te 28th Māori Battalion. E ai ki tāku e mōhio nei, 250 ngā tama o tērā kura i haere i raro i te parirau o te 28 ki te Pakanga Tuarua o te Ao. Ko tētahi o rātau ko Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngārimu. Ko ia tērā i whiwhi nei i te Rīpeka o Wikitōria mō tōna māia i te mura o te ahi.

Nā, i a au otirā, i a tātau pea e mātakitaki ana i tērā; ka rongo koe i te ngākaunui o ngā tama Māori ki ngā āhuatanga o te hunga i tae atu ki tērā kura, o te hunga i haere anō hoki ki tāwāhi ki te mura o te ahi. I whakanuia ko te 28. Ki taku mōhio, koinei te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori, ahakoa pēhea te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te pakanga: ko te ngākau o Te Ao Māori tino kaha whai nei, whakanui nei i te 28. Nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i ngā kōrero i puta mai i te wā i a rātau e haere ana ki tāwāhi.

He pērā anō hoki ki Te Tai Tokerau, arā, ki Whangarei, ki tētahi kaupapa hōu nei kua tipu ake i ngā tau kua hipa, ko te Leadership Academy o Kamupene A; tētahi wāhanga o te 28. Ki taku mōhio, 18 ngā tama o roto o Whangarei e whai nei i ngā tapuwae o te 28—he tamariki, he āhua tamariki nei. Ko te tikanga o te haere ki tēnei kaupapa, tēnei akoranga, tēnei academy, ko te tika o te tū, ko te aronganui ki te tangata, ko te māia, ko te angitu ki te whai kaupapa ki tōna mutunga.

Ko ētahi o ngā tama i roto i tēnei kaupapa, arā, te leadership academy, ko rātau ngā uri o te hunga i haere ki tāwāhi. He māia te tū, āhua rite, me kī, ki a Tūmatauenga i tōna pūtake kia tika te kākahu, ka tirohia te āhuatanga o ngā moenga ka mutu, ko te pakari ā-tinana ēnei āhuatanga katoa. Koinei ngā kaupapa ka whaiwhai haeretia e tēnei hunga. Ko te aronganui kia tū Māori tonu ēnei tama, kia mōhio mai ai ko wai rātau, kia mōhio mai ai ko te waihotanga mai o te hunga kua ngaro i te tirohanga kanohi, kia mōhio rātau he uri nō tērā hunga, he uri nō ngā rangatira i haere ki tua o te pae ēngari, ko te hunga i haere ki te pakanga. Nā, mā ēnei akoranga ka mōhio mai ai he rā nui, whakaharahara te rā o Anzac. Ka mutu, ko ēnei uri e whai nei i tērā kaupapa i tēnei rā tonu nei, ahakoa, arā, kei te whakanui tātau i te hunga kua ngaro.

Kia hoki mai au ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ki taku mōhio, ka whakaiti tātau i te tino pūtake o tēnei pire mēnā ko tā tātau ko te nui o te utu ki runga i ngā tāngata tuku mahi ki tēnā, ki tēnā. Ka aroha hoki i te mea, kei te whakanui tātau i te hunga i mate mō te painga o Aotearoa. Kei reira te tino kaupapa nui. Kaua ko te pūtea i tōna kotahi, kaua ko te whakatā i tōna kotahi ēngari me hoki mai tātau ki te kotahitanga o tēnei whenua o Aotearoa. Ka pūtake mai tō tātau hītori i te āhuatanga o te nohotahi o tātau o Te Ao Pākehā me tātau o Te Ao Māori i raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nō reira, he kaupapa nui tēnei.

Me kī, 5 tau kua hipa ka puta te kōrero i a Carol Archie, he kaituhi tēnei wahine i Waitangi ia, ka mutu, i puta tētahi kōrero i a ia mō te āhuatanga o te kaupapa nei o Waitangi. Anei tana kōrero, ka huri ki te reo Pākehā. Carol Archie, about 5 years ago at Waitangi, said these words: “People in Māori/ Pākehā families say it’s not easy to either marry someone from another culture or to be the children of such a union. But most enjoy being able to walk between cultures with comfort and the chance to understand life from different perspectives. I feel excited about it because they’re doing the groundwork to help us understand who we’re becoming as a nation.” Taku mōhio me pērā wā tātau whakaaro mō te āhuatanga o tā tātau noho. Arā anō ngā Minita Māori e kōrerohia ake nei i pūtake mai ai i Ingarangi, arā, ko Dover Samuels tērā nō roto Ingarangi. Ko Sharples, nō te clan o Bolton i Ingarangi. Ko wā tātau mokopuna he kahurangi ngā karu. Ka moe te Pākehā i te Māori, te Māori i te Pākehā, kei reira tonu wā tātau whakapapa e whakakotahi nei i raro i te āhuatanga o te aroha o tētahi ki tētahi.

Ka mutu, kai hea ēnei kōrero e haere ana? Ko tāku, ko te tino painga o tēnei momo pire mō te kaupapa o Dr David Clark, ko tēnei private member’s bill kua whakatuwhera nei i te āhuatanga o te kōrero o te kotahitanga o Aotearoa. Koinā tētahi o ngā tino painga. Mā reira kua mōhio tātau ki ō tātau hītori, ka mutu, kei te tino ngako o tēnei pire, ko wā tātau nohotahitanga ka mutu, ko te kaupapa nui o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i wā tātau kōrero.

Ehara i te mea he nui ngā kōrero i tua atu o tērā. Nā mātau te kōrero ki te David Clark nei, te mema nei āe, ka tuku te Pāti Māori i ōna pōti e toru. Āhua uaua i ētahi wā nā te mea, kua puta ētahi o ngā Minita, kua hoki mai ētahi Minita ēngari, ko tāku ki te mema, ki a Mr Grant Robertson, i tēnei wā koirā te waha kōrero, te tangata i wāwāhi i ngā kōrero, kei te whakaae atu te Pāti Māori ki te tuku i te pōti tautoko i tēnei pire, me te mihi ki te mema nāna anō tēnei kaupapa i kōkiri ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. He mea pai tēnei. Ko tā te Pāti Māori he tautoko, he tautoko, he tautoko. Kia ora tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Huge salutations to you. When I rose for the first time to speak at the first reading of this bill last year, this is what I said: “As we debate this bill there are two concepts that we, the Māori Party, wish to present before Parliament. Firstly, there is the activist chant ‘honour the Treaty’, and, secondly, there is the legacy of Sir Apirana Ngata’s phrase ‘the price of citizenship’. Both are connected intimately in this bill.” That was in my address at the first reading of this bill.

Our main focus as far as this bill is concerned is on these two matters, the Treaty of Waitangi and the God of War day, otherwise referred to as Anzac Day. It is not about employers being out of pocket, going to the beach to dive for sea urchins, or basking in the sun, but rather because this country was founded on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—that is one—and eventually, over time, Anzac Day, God of War day, which adorn the walls of this chamber currently.

The essence of this bill is very much there in Part 4 of this bill. Let me turn to English for a short moment. In clause 4 of this bill, the aim is “to amend the … [Holidays Act 2003] to provide for the transfer of the public holidays for Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day if they fall on a weekend.” The real essence or meaning of this bill, shall we say, relates directly to the unity of New Zealand. According to some, we are one people; others say it is the oneness of New Zealand, Pākehā and Māori. To us, this is the real crux of this bill.

Furthermore, the depth of this matter would have been noted if we looked at and watched Māori Television last year when Anzac Day was being celebrated. At that time on that programme we—all of us, perhaps—saw that Mātai Smith was attending that famous school of Māoridom Te Aute College. Te Aute was one of the greatest schools in the past. Some of the boys went overseas, enlisted in the 28th Māori Battalion. My understanding was that 250 students of that school served under the wing of the 28th Battalion in the Second World War. One of them was Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngārimu. He was the one awarded the Victoria Cross for his valour at the battle-front.

When I was—indeed, all of us, perhaps, were—watching that programme, you experienced the commitment of those Māori boys who attended that school and the commitment of those as well who went overseas to the battle-front. It was the 28th Battalion that was honoured. My understanding is that this is the situation in Māoridom regardless of the nature of this thing about warfare: feelings among Māoridom for the 28th Battalion are very, very strong. The battalion is celebrated greatly as well. On what grounds? Because of the accounts that emerged at the time they were heading overseas.

It is like that as well up north in Whangarei in regards to one of these new initiatives, the Leadership Academy of A Company, a division of the 28th Battalion that has developed over the past years. I understand there are 18 boys from within Whangarei following in the footsteps of the 28th Battalion—mere children, youngish. The motive for going to this scheme, training, academy is to become disciplined, focused on people, bold, and successful in pursuing something to its conclusion.

Some of the lads in this leadership academy are descendants of those who served overseas. They stand with bearing just like one in the army, correctly dressed and where beds are inspected. Furthermore, there is physical training and all these sorts of things. These are matters that these young ones will address. The focus is that these sons be Māori in every way, know who they are, know the legacy left by those who are no longer alive, and know they are relatives of theirs and of the esteemed ones who have passed over the divide and went to the war. It is through these teachings that they will become aware of how important and extraordinary Anzac Day is. Furthermore, these are the relatives who continue to pursue that aspect today even though we are celebrating those who have gone.

Let me come back to the Treaty of Waitangi. To me, we will denigrate the real purpose of this bill if we focus on how much employers pay each worker. I empathise because we are commemorating those who died for the good of New Zealand. And that is where the real crux of the matter is. It is not about the money or the holiday on its own; we need to come back to the unity of this country, New Zealand. Our history evolved from how we of Pākehādom and Māoridom lived under the auspices of the Treaty of Waitangi. So this is an important matter.

Five years ago, shall we say, this woman Carol Archie, a writer, made a statement at Waitangi about the situation there. Here is what she said. I will relate it in English. Carol Archie, about 5 years ago at Waitangi, said these words: “People in Māori/ Pākehā families say it’s not easy to either marry someone from another culture or to be the children of such a union. But most enjoy being able to walk between cultures with comfort and the chance to understand life from different perspectives. I feel excited about it because they’re doing the groundwork to help us understand who we’re becoming as a nation.” What I make of the situation is that our thinking about how we live should be like that. There are other Māori Ministers referred to here, like Dover Samuels, whose name originated from England. The name Sharples is from the Bolton clan in England. Our grandchildren have blue eyes. When a Pākehā marries a Māori, and a Māori marries a Pākehā, our bloodlines are still there being combined under the love of one for the other.

So where are these comments heading to? For me particularly, the real benefit of this kind of bill belonging to Dr David Clark, this private member’s bill, is that it has opened up discussions on the oneness of New Zealand. That is one of its real benefits. Through that we will understand our history, the gist of this bill, our living together as one, and eventually the main theme of the Treaty of Waitangi in our comments.

There is not much more to add to the debate. We assured this David Clark, this member, that, yes, the Māori Party is going to cast its three votes. It is difficult sometimes because Ministers come and go, but I can assure the member Mr Grant Robertson, who at this stage is presiding over proceedings, that the Māori Party agrees to cast its vote in favour of this bill and congratulates the member who brought this bill before Parliament. This is a wonderful outcome. The Māori Party supports, approves, and endorses it. Congratulations to us collectively.]

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is very pleased that this bill has now reached its final stages. We would like to extend our congratulations to Dr David Clark on having achieved a real milestone with this bill. Very few Opposition MPs ever—ever—have one of their bills pass into law from this side of the House. It is a very rare event, so we are very pleased. We are pleased, too, that there is widespread support on this side of the House for the whole bill, and we are very happy to share in Dr Clark’s success. We are sure that there is some reluctant support across the other side of the House, as well, from the National members, and I know their speeches have not had any really valid reasons as to why this bill should not be supported.

Without a doubt, Dr Clark, or perhaps even Labour, will be on the minds of many Kiwis up and down the country on 25 April 2015, the very first year that is affected by this legislation. Many will not remember or will not even care, but they will be grateful for the Mondayisation of Anzac Day. Like the majority of New Zealanders, New Zealand First is really pleased to see this bill finally passing into law.

As it currently stands, we believe that Waitangi Day and Anzac Day have been given second-class status among our public holidays. It is simply not good enough. We have Mondayisation of Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, and there have been absolutely no problems whatsoever, so there should be no problems forthcoming with the Mondayisation of Anzac Day or Waitangi Day. These 2 days stand out amongst our annual holidays, in so far as they are applicable to all New Zealanders—each and every one of us. Irrespective of background or creed, whether you grew here or flew here, these are the 2 days that mark us all as New Zealanders. They are our 2 national days.

We have heard right throughout the progression of this bill how much demand there is for the full recognition of these days. Research shows that over 80 percent of New Zealanders and the majority of businesses have welcomed Dr Clark’s proposal in this bill. It makes sense, it provides a consistency, it is a good deal for workers and for businesses alike, and New Zealanders know this. The taxi driver who picked me up from the airport this week said that he cannot wait for this bill to pass into law. People are talking about it. They value the role that holidays have. We know it is realistic to say that New Zealanders do not work from 9 to 5 any more and this bill will help that work-life balance.

Both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day will not have their symbolism eroded or their special character taken away by these changes. On 6 February New Zealanders right throughout the country will mark the date of the signing of New Zealand’s founding document. We will reflect on past injustices. We will further reflect on the reconciliation process and look at how we might best move forward as a united country and a united people. Waitangi Day is something that sets New Zealand apart. It is a day of recognition of the past, of hope for the future, and of unity. The mere fact that thousands of New Zealanders and expats in London come together on Waitangi Day to commemorate the occasion shows that even Kiwis overseas have got a really strong affinity for this day. How could Mondayisation, having an extra day off if Waitangi Day falls on the weekend, really pose a problem?

The other important day that is affected by this legislation is Anzac Day—another one of our national days. It is a day on which we give thanks to those who paid the ultimate price for protecting the liberties of New Zealanders and others. Next Thursday we commemorate Anzac Day, and no doubt every single one of us in this House will attend an Anzac Day service. The Anzac experience brought about a really strong bond between New Zealand and Australia, recognising our common heritage, our geography, and our way of life. An increasing number of people, and young people in particular, are now attending Anzac Day dawn ceremonies. I know. I always attend my local Dawn Service in my town. They are eager to learn about the history and the symbolism, and to share in the sense of camaraderie on Anzac Day. Many of these young New Zealanders proudly wear their great-grandfathers’ medals on their chests, pinned to their chests—very proud.

It is very interesting to note that the same thing is happening in Australia. People young and old are actively engaged in commemorating their heroes. All of this is despite the fact that in Australia they have already Mondayised Anzac Day, with no detrimental effect whatsoever. Kiwis up and down the country knew that they were being robbed by a quirk of the system when they did not get their 11 days of public holidays, and we always accepted it as a part of life. This bill is going to remedy this anomaly and streamline how we treat public holidays. On 2 days in every 7 years there will be the extra holiday.

The tourism industry supports this bill. They can see only positive outcomes from this change, as people will travel to other centres around New Zealand that they previously have not travelled to, or never had the time to actually travel to. This bill has the support of workers, it has the support of businesses, it has the support of tourism, and it definitely has the support of New Zealand First. Thank you.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague Barbara Stewart, across the House—a very eloquent presentation. However, it has not been enough to get me to change my mind on this bill, despite the eloquence. I wish to acknowledge Grant Robertson and Dr David Clark, because it is always a pleasure to have a bill come before the House that one has crafted, in Grant’s case—before he handed it on to Dr David Clark. I am hoping to have my own bill come quite soon to this House, and I look forward to that. So I can empathise with the work done by Dr David Clark.

Despite the eloquence of previous speakers, I have a visceral distaste for this bill, and I was just searching back as to why this should be. I guess the reason comes from the huge respect I have—and I am not suggesting other people in the House do not have that—for members of our armed forces, men and women, who have served. Where does this stem from? I spoke in the House some weeks ago on this very bill. My grandfather served in the Boer War. So I grew up being aware of the sacrifices made by, actually, thousands of New Zealanders very early in our history—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: The Boer war? Crikey.

Dr CAM CALDER: In the Boer War—in the Boer War.

Hon Member: Which side?

Dr CAM CALDER: He was a member of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles. He had to take his own horse, as I recall. He used to entertain me as a young lad with stories upon his knee. As I was growing up—I lost my dad when I was 6—I was taught to shoot, and I built a pram dinghy with my neighbour Ron Carr, now deceased, whom I would like to pay tribute to in this House, who was a World War II veteran and who also served in the Korean War. I remember playing in the back garden with a Japanese jungle carbine that he had miraculously brought back from the campaign that he served in. I learnt how to handle weapons with him, going out shooting rabbits in the foothills of Mount Egmont, as we used to call it then, or Mount Taranaki. Both names pertained at that stage. Look, this background is just trying to shape my distaste for this bill, because I have always honoured this day. Anzac Day has stood alone—

Hon Members: We all have.

Dr CAM CALDER: I know you are saying across the House that it in no way detracts—personally, I believe it was raised above other days of significance by the fact that is was not always a holiday. I felt, and I have said it in this House before, that that was a way we could give credit and acknowledge the sacrifice made by generations who have gone before and who in many cases paid the ultimate price. For us to give up a holiday once in a blue moon is no sacrifice at all. So that is shaping my view.

I also did a territorial officer selection board as a young lad and became a member of “the blue berets”. As many of you know, “the blue berets” are the members of the Otago University Medical Company who went off to serve in Viet Nam. At the time when they were called—two officers went every year—I would have gone were it not for the fact that, fortunately for the Viet Namese, the peace process intervened. For a young lad from the Naki who was keen to go and serve in a medical corps, it was a huge disappointment for me personally, but a great joy for everybody else involved in that horrible, ugly conflict. We were going to patch people up, not to lay waste to them.

Todd McClay: You’re not a very good shot.

Dr CAM CALDER: As has been pointed out by my colleague Todd McClay, with one eye I probably wasn’t a very good shot, but that was not what we were going there for.

It is probably appropriate to mention the extremely hard work done by one of the legendary chairmen of select committees. I refer, of course, to David Bennett. David Bennett is a legendary chairman of select committees and it was his Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that saw the submissions and dealt with submissions. Were there many? There were not many. In fact, only 32 submissions on this bill were received: 18 submitters supported the bill and 12 submitters opposed the bill. The chairman has actually pointed out that there were some good arguments for and against this bill. There were arguments that came through in opposition to the bill. So what were some of these key themes?

Well, as we have heard, the bill would create additional costs. And what would some of these costs be? The cost to the employers estimated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is an estimated impact of $220 million to $280 million. That is not insignificant. The cost to the whole economy output estimated by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is $134 million to $186 million. These are not insignificant. So that was one of the thoughts. Some of the submitters thought that it might diminish the significance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. It could create further unfairness, it could create further confusion—these were some of the comments made—and it could encourage a change in shift and roster patterns. Those were themes coming out in opposition to the bill.

One of the submitters in opposition was Business New Zealand. If I can be a little bit more specific here, some of the points it made in its submissions are as follows. In its opposition to change it said there was little basis for change. I have to accept that. I mean, this is a meaty, beefy, big and bouncy, compact, and perky little member’s bill. I have already paid my respects to Grant Robertson, and to Dr David Clark as well.

Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are noted by the submitters, Business New Zealand, as being specific to New Zealand and as commemorative days. Business New Zealand makes the point that “This is in contrast to Christmas Day and New Year’s Day which are not”—and this is a surprising point, and it has a point here—“days of significance for every New Zealander.” It made that point in its submission.

Easter Monday is another example of another holiday contrasted with these days. In this case, Easter Monday was created to provide people with a holiday—[Interruption] Can we have a little bit of hush, please? It was created to provide people with a holiday as it was previously uncommon to work on Easter Sunday. The submitter considers the title of the bill to be “inapt”, as the original purpose of both days was to recognise their special nature. The submitter references the 1921 Anzac Day Amendment Bill and the 1960 Waitangi Day Act.

Business New Zealand did acknowledge, in its even-handed way, that the tourism industry would benefit, but it noted that other businesses are concerned about the potential costs, and we have talked about how much that would be. I notice that Business New Zealand’s submission is supported by the National Association of Retail Grocers and Supermarkets of New Zealand. So there is a very strong submission, and the overwhelming number of submissions were actually against this. In contrast, the tourism industry supports this bill, and it suggested that it may actually stimulate domestic tourism, and would be affordable for business while increasing the importance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day.

One of the things that people have raised in the House, and in closing I would just like to address this, is that somehow it was thought that New Zealand was out of step with the rest of the world in the number of public holidays. Well, in fact, we are not. The United States has 10, and no minimum annual paid leave. The United Kingdom has eight. Australia has eight, and 20 days’ annual paid leave—the same as New Zealand. So there are arguments for and agin this bill, but I remain implacably opposed thereto.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call. Five minutes, Carol Beaumont.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a real pleasure to rise and speak on a positive and necessary bill that will pass here today. We have had far too many negative bills in this House and we have had far too many pieces of legislation that are not, in fact, necessary, but are really about dog whistle politics, like bashing beneficiaries. But, anyway, I rise to speak on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge, of course, Dr David Clark and Grant Robertson, and also the Labour members of the select committee, who worked hard on this, as others have said—Darien Fenton, the senior member on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and my colleague and friend here Andrew Little—all of whom have contributed, I think, important points to this debate.

This bill came about as a result of a real problem. Something in Parliament that we are meant to be aware of is identifying things that need changing and addressing the need for change. This was a real problem. Many people felt that in 2011 they had had fewer holidays than they were entitled to, and, in fact, that was true. They had had 9 public holidays, rather than the 11 that they had expected.

The purpose of the bill is quite clear, and it is not all of the things that the National MPs have been trying to say it is. They have been trying to run a line that somehow this is going to undermine important days of national significance for us. I do not think they have been successful, and I am sure that those listening to and watching the House have not been convinced by their arguments, but I will come back to that. What this bill is actually about is addressing an issue that arises only in those years when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall on a weekend. It will amend the Holidays Act to provide for the transfer of the public holidays for Waitangi Day and Anzac Day if they fall on a weekend.

The celebration of those very critically important days, which are fundamental to our national identity, will still be, in the case of Waitangi Day, 6 February and, in the case of Anzac Day, 25 April, but there will also be a public holiday on the Monday that follows in those years when Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fall on a weekend. That is what it is really about. It is not about disrespecting those important days. Nobody here is of that mind, and that is not what the bill does. It will ensure that certainly most New Zealanders—full-time paid employees—will get 11 public holidays every year, rather than in only 5 out of every 7 years.

This change, as others have said, is well supported. It is well supported by the public, it is well supported by employees, and it is well supported by a number of employers—particularly, as others have said, in the tourism industry. But also one of the few pieces of quantitative research done on this has shown that 87 percent of over 1,000 small and medium enterprises that were surveyed actually supported it or were neutral on the question. So the argument that employers do not support this bill is nonsensical, and it makes sense really, because those employers also have families that they want to spend time with.

Most New Zealanders, and, I would imagine, every member of this House, recognise that holidays are important. Why are holidays important? Well, let me spell it out. Holidays are an opportunity for rest and recreation. Holidays help people balance paid working time with time off to spend with family and friends. Let us recognise that in the case of Anzac Day, those who fought for our country fought for our values, and that includes the importance of family and mateship. We all know that those were critically important to those Anzacs. So holidays are important, and they have become, arguably, more important as paid work has become more demanding for many. There are longer hours, flexibility that makes it harder to balance work and life, and fewer people in workplaces, which is intensifying work.

I want to acknowledge also, given that we are talking about paid work, the many, many New Zealanders who are without paid work at the moment—who are unemployed. I want to note again the Government’s failure to focus on jobs, while it is at the same time taking a punitive approach to beneficiaries. We have very high unemployment—we have jobless growth at the moment—but, on a rare occasion, we are in this House celebrating something positive for those in paid employment, and I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill on its third reading tonight, and we look forward to it passing into law. We are supporting this bill for lots of reasons, but primarily because we support a good work-life balance for New Zealanders and we believe that the economy is a tool to serve our planet and our people, and a good work-life balance is something that looks after us.

I would like to acknowledge Dr David Clark and Grant Robertson, my old boss, who was never able to give me that Monday off. I know he would have really loved to, because his party has produced this wonderful bill. The Greens would like to do a lot more to support a balanced society—one where every New Zealander could have a great life. Just imagine if we planned for our economy to help us all have balanced and fulfilling lives. Would that not be a beautiful thing?

This bill is actually just a really tiny thing, and to be opposing it just seems curmudgeonly to me, I have to say. We believe that this bill will enable workers and their families to enjoy the full entitlement of the Holidays Act—11 public holidays per year every year. Under the existing Holidays Act, in every 2 out of 7 years those 11 public holidays reduce to 9 days a year because Waitangi Day and Anzac Day are celebrated on specific days.

We have other days on which the holidays happen on the same day every year, they are marked, and people get a holiday on a different day: Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, and the day after New Year’s Day. When those days fall on weekends, the law allows for them to be transferred so that workers get the full entitlement from those days. We recognise the importance of doing that. The Greens maintain that the difference in treatment between Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, and Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, and the days after those 2 days is an anomaly.

We reject the notion put by some submitters and members across the House that it will undermine either of those important days to have a holiday on a separate day. We have not seen any evidence of this happening with Christmas Day, and I do not think it has any less meaning to us as a people because we have a holiday on another day. Australia already transfers Anzac Day to a Monday when it occurs on a weekend, and the day’s commemorations are still held on 25 April. Even with Mondayisation, Anzac Day events in Australia are really well attended, and I do not think that would change here.

The majority of small businesses—I think all of us on this side of the House really strongly support the interests of small businesses—are supporting this initiative. The tourism industry, as has been noted, has said that it sees this as an opportunity to increase domestic tourism and that the economic benefits outweigh the costs to small employers. That is, I think, a good thing. The costs of this are not at all outrageous. Employers already bear the costs of public holidays for their staff most years. Another 2 years is not going to break the bank.

I just want to talk a little bit about the fact that I think New Zealanders work really hard—too hard, actually. I am not saying this as a slacker. I am the product of a Protestant work ethic and a workaholic father. I have never achieved work-life balance in my life without feeling I was letting myself or my employer down, to be honest, but I recognise that to be disordered. I saw the really significant health costs on my father, who needed to be resuscitated by my mother after he had a heart attack in his 40s, due to not being able to achieve work-life balance, from being a workaholic. We have an ever-increasing pressure on workers in this country, and they need to be looked after a little better. This bill is a tiny step towards that.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. The previous member, Jan Logie, was talking about small elements. I think what is important is that she mentioned a few details but, of course, missed the wider context. People have been talking about Australia and holidays, and so on. Well, in Australia, just to look at a few facts, they have eight public holidays a year and 20 days off by right. In New Zealand, of course, we have 11 days off, not 8—we have 11. If this bill passes through, we will move to 12 or 13 public holidays along with 20 days off. The US has only nine public holidays, and no mandated leave. Canada—just across the border, of course, for those geographically challenged—has nine public holidays and only 10 mandated days of leave.

So New Zealand already has 11. We have more public holidays than all those other countries. We have more public holidays—a small detail for the Greens—than Australia. If we pass this bill, then we move to have even more public holidays. That can be right or wrong, but it is a context that does make New Zealand less competitive in a global environment. It is really important that we provide the full context. So, to the member who just resumed her seat, “curmudgeonly” can be an excellent word, I have to say. Personally, I feel that the word “Mondayisation” is a crime against the English language, and I feel terrible to even use it. But we need, obviously, to touch all the details. It is very important.

I do not really want to get on to the economic front as well, because those who have heard previous speeches of mine will know they have played more on the principle, but the other side of it, too, is that there are always costs to decisions that are made. So we have heard here in the House today, and it was from Grant Robertson in his initial speech, that—

Grant Robertson: A brilliant speech!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, it was a speech, I will give it that. He said we should be giving and encouraging more holidays. We hear also from Labour, the Greens, and other parties that there is more we have to do, we have to pay people more money, and there have to be more opportunities. Whether that is right or wrong is one question, but the other is always to admit there is a cost. Where there are more holidays, where there is more pay, someone has to pay that price.

Andrew Little: And there are also benefits.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Kiwis have to pay that price. Yes—I acknowledge the interjection from Andrew Little—there are benefits, too. But there are also costs, which need to be acknowledged.

I do not support this bill. The reason remains very simple, as I said from my first speech, and that is that Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are not excuses for holidays. I think it is important for everyone to understand. It has been iterated in the House a few times that, of course, Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are holidays. It is not as if they are not going to be or will be more so; they are holidays, be they on a Tuesday, a Thursday, a Saturday, or a Sunday, and that remains. We will be able to attend our services, and so on. But this has become a bill that wants to use those days of commemoration to be an excuse for a day off. When we listen to the Opposition, it does not take long at all before tourism, barbeques, and other commercial enterprise usages kick up. I invited the Opposition in my second reading speech—and this is an important point—to say to me: “Look, we want to have a discussion about more holidays.” Then let us have that discussion. Let us have that discussion. I said: “Let’s not use Anzac Day and Waitangi Day as an excuse, but if we want to talk about more holidays, come and have a chat with me.”

Sue Moroney: But they’re already holidays.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Here we are—and one of the Opposition members has yelled out that they are already holidays. Yes, that is right; they are already holidays. This bill is saying that we should use those existing holidays—those days of commemoration—as an excuse for more holidays. I reject that. I say: “Come up with better ideas.” They should come up with better ideas. But to date not one person from the Opposition—not one person from the Opposition—has come to talk about an opportunity to create new holidays. No, they are more than happy to use these days of commemoration in this way. And it will harm them. It does make changes to mindsets.

Principles are important. Consistency is important. That is lost on the Opposition members, too, when they are saying that these are just the same—these days are just the same as Christmas Day or Easter. They are not. They are not. Days like Christmas, Easter, and so on are days of festivities. One needs just to look at the etymology of where the words come from. They are days of celebration. But these days, Waitangi Day and particularly Anzac Day, are days of commemoration. We have the ability already in law, in statute, and by convention to undertake these days of commemoration. This bill uses this as an excuse to create more. The Opposition yells up and down that it might be only every so often, but that is not the point. If you are a person of principle, then you stick to principles and you stick to consistency. That is the key operating here.

In a few days’ time, many of us right across the House will, of course, be undertaking our Anzac Day obligations and duties with a heartfelt desire, and I am sure that goes right across the House. I am very much looking forward to joining the people of Tāmaki down in St Heliers Bay. We have a little war memorial there on the bay for a young man. I think it is for Guyon Brookfield, who used to be a Scout troop leader, who died in the First World War. A number of us right across Tāmaki, from all the different communities, will come together on the 25th to remember that day. I think it is important to acknowledge that the day does remain a day of commemoration. To be honest, I do not expect any of those people in my electorate, standing there at the memorial, to say: “Oh, Simon, you know, I wish we had an excuse for another day off.” It is not going to happen.

We do not need this piece of legislation. What we need, as I have offered and suggested before, is a free and frank conversation. If we want more holidays, then let us have that discussion. Do not use Anzac Day. Do not use Waitangi Day. Just remember, of course, what we began with. My colleague David Bennett, fine chairperson that he is, has noted that New Zealand already has an incredibly good deal on holidays in comparison with other countries in the world. We are a great country. We already have our systems well in place. I do not support the passage of this bill. I ask the members of the Opposition to stand with a lot of Kiwis who have written to me, and others, I am sure, to say leave Anzac Day as it is. Leave Waitangi Day as it is. Let them remain as days of commemoration. I am proud and happy to not support this bill, and, in doing so, support our veterans.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): What a privilege to be the last speaker before an exciting vote is about to take place on this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. The New Zealand public is about to get a taste of what it would be like to have a good, pragmatic Labour Government in place by seeing the sorts of pragmatic bills that would make a difference to hard-working families in New Zealand. They can watch this debate this afternoon and go “Yes, that’s what we’d get under Labour. That’s what we’d get under Labour.”, because very soon the Government is about to be defeated. The Government is about to be defeated in about, oh, 5 minutes’ time. I think I might take a short call, just to make sure it gets defeated a little bit earlier.

It is not before time that that Government gets defeated in its mean-spirited approach towards working families. That can be the only reason why the National Government is actually putting itself in the position of being defeated on a bill, because it so does not want to give families the opportunity every 7 years to have the statutory holidays that they get every other year. How mean-spirited is that?

I think this bill demonstrates absolutely for the New Zealand public the big difference in having a Labour Government in place, where Labour clearly backs working families, and clearly backs the idea that we want families to be able to spend more time together, that we want workers to be well supported, and that we are not mean-spirited enough to come up with a myriad of bizarre arguments about why every seventh year we would rob working families of 2 days off that they get every other year. There can be just no good argument for that. I think that National has demonstrated that again today, that there is in fact no good argument for it.

On Anzac Day and Waitangi Day New Zealanders will commemorate those days two times every 7 years in the same way that they do every other year. The fact that they are getting the right to have those 11 statutory holidays stay in place is not going to alter that. What it will do is it will mean that they will actually get an opportunity to have those 11 statutory holidays. We have already had that debate in New Zealand. The law has already been passed that says that we have 20 days of annual leave and we have 11 statutory holidays every year. It is only a quirk in the legislation that actually stops Anzac Day and Waitangi Day being celebrated in exactly the same way on those two times every 7 years. It is mean-spirited for the Government to argue and actually risk a defeat in the House over trying to rob working families of those two holidays. It just shows how out of touch it is with ordinary New Zealanders, and it is getting more and more out of touch every day.

I do feel a sense of connection to this bill because the day—

Hon Member: Oh, it’s your bill now? Oh, that’s right.

Darien Fenton: No, she’s a Labour MP.

SUE MORONEY: Yes, it is because I am a Labour MP, so I feel a very strong sense of connection. But the first reading of this bill happened to be on the same day as the first reading of the other bill that defeats the Government, and that is the bill to extend paid parental leave by 6 months. These two bills started out their journey together. This bill is coming to fruition an awful lot earlier than the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, but as long as we get paid parental leave extended to families as well, I do not mind the wait.

But I am really, really excited to congratulate two colleagues who have worked very, very hard on behalf of working families in New Zealand to make sure that this legislation gets through this House, and to make sure that that entitlement goes to those families. One is David Clark, whose name this bill is in. He has done a fantastic job. He has been up and down New Zealand, raising the debate, and making sure that he is advocating very strongly for working families, as you would expect any good Labour MP to do. Then there is our deputy leader, Grant Robertson, who actually drafted the bill initially. He relied on the good luck of David Clark, who obviously has got the luck of the Irish—

Grant Robertson: He’s blessed.

SUE MORONEY: —he is blessed; he is indeed blessed—and who was able to get that bill out of the ballot and get it on to the Order Paper. I was so impressed with his ability to do that that I have on several occasions asked Dr David Clark to come to the races with me on the weekend to see whether I could actually pick up on some of that luck, but he has not actually obliged with that yet. But I am picking that in the year 2016, when Anzac Day falls on a Saturday or when Waitangi Day falls on a Saturday, I might very well call him in on that, and we will go to the races on a Saturday and then we will have a holiday with other working families on the Monday, and it is all going to come together.

I am not going to take up any more of the House’s time on this, because I want to get to that really exciting vote that will show New Zealanders what New Zealand can look like under a Labour Government. Thank you.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with leave granted earlier in the day, the House’s afternoon business is completed, so the House will stand suspended until 7.30 p.m., when it will deal with members’ order of the day No. 2. I will resume the Chair at that point. Bon appetit.

Sitting suspended from 5.49 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. My observation in my time in the House has been that there are few occasions when the public gallery is full to overflowing. This bill has seen a full gallery at the first and second readings, and again tonight. My only other experience of that has been Treaty settlement legislation recording the agreement reached between Māori and the Crown. In both instances the parties affected are minority groups that have been marginalised. They have been dealt with unjustly under the law. Steps are being taken to right the wrongs they have suffered, and it shows me that this process matters. Having Parliament recognise and address injustice and unfairness matters to those affected by it. It is the start of the healing process.

This third reading is our road towards healing and including all citizens in our State institution of marriage, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Although our focus has been on Aotearoa, it is important to remember we are one country that is part of a global community discussing marriage equality. Twelve countries have already been through this process. The US President has declared his support unequivocally. The Queen has recently signed a Commonwealth charter that explicitly opposes all forms of discrimination, which she describes as emphasising inclusiveness. The UK, led by its Prime Minister, has introduced legislation.

But marriage equality is only one issue. There is still a lot of work to be done to address discrimination against our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex—or LGBTI—communities. Closer to home, many of our Pacific neighbours still criminalise homosexuality; so too do the countries of our new migrant communities. We need to understand these heritage identities and how they contribute to this debate. As the indigenous people of Aotearoa, we can acknowledge that takatāpui have always been part of our history and culture, and that is the case for many indigenous people around the world. Fa‘fafine, ‘akava‘ine, fakaleiti, and mahu vahine are words that go back in time to identify our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities. They are part of our Pacific heritage and need to be acknowledged.

And we need to learn from history. Marriage laws have continually been used as a tool of oppression. The Nuremberg laws in 1935 prohibited marriage between German nationals and Jews. The South African Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act prohibited marriage and sexual contact between races until they were repealed in 1985. Forty US states prohibited interracial marriage. Women lost all property rights and their identity upon marriage. Excluding a group in society from marriage is oppressive and unacceptable. There is no justification for the prohibitions of the past based on religion, race, or gender. Today we are embarrassed and appalled by these examples, and in every instance it was action by the State. This is not about Church teachings or philosophy. It never has been. It is about the State excluding people from the institution of marriage because of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and that is no different from the actions taken in these historical examples.

Principles of justice and equality are not served if the key civil institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only. In the landmark Ontario decision, Justice LaForme wrote: “Any ‘alternative status’ that nonetheless provides for the same financial benefits as marriage in and of itself amounts to segregation. This case is about access to a deeply meaningful [social] institution—it is about equal participation in the activity, expression, security, and integrity of marriage. Any ‘alternative’ to marriage, in my opinion simply offers the insult of formal equivalency without the … promise of substantive equality.” Ever since Brown v Board of Education in 1954, the “separate but equal” doctrine has been seen as segregation and contrary to achieving equality.

I want to emphasise again what this bill does not do. It does not legalise criminal offences. In fact, it is clear the definition proposed in this amendment is a union of two people only. It does not force any minister or celebrant to marry a couple against his or her wishes. Section 29 remains in force and has been strengthened by the Government Administration Committee amendment. It does not change adoption laws. Gay couples have adopted children for many years, but the law has not recognised that parenting reality. Children of same-sex relationships have not been allowed to have both parents’ names on their birth certificate. The injustice and pain of this was made clear by an email I received, and I am able to share it with the House.

It reads: “My partner and I had been together for 7 years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born, my partner’s name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother. When our daughter was 13, my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mum was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mum dying? Instead I applied for, and was granted, guardianship. When my daughter turned 18, the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship, despite me having been her parent all her life. We talked it over and I applied to adopt her. Fortunately, all this happened before she turned 20, because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mum no longer legally exists. This is just so ridiculous and so wrong. If your bill had been law when my partner was still alive, then we could have married and our daughter would have both her parents recorded as such.”

Under this bill both women could have been spouses and recorded on their daughter’s birth certificate. Without this bill that is a privilege limited to heterosexual married couples only.

In our society the meaning of marriage is universal. It is a declaration of love and commitment to a special person. Law that allows all people to enjoy that state is the right thing to do. Law that prohibits people from enjoying that state is just wrong. Those who celebrate religious or cultural marriage are absolutely unaffected by this bill. That has never been part of the State’s marriage law and it never should be.

There is another similarity between this bill and Treaty settlement legislation: the quality and tone of the debate within this House. I believe that is the result of our effective cross-party working group with Tau Henare and Kevin Hague. Conrad Reyners, national spokesperson for the Campaign for Marriage Equality, was also involved, and with Cameron, Jackie, Rawa, Tony, Natalie, Kurt, and Andrew, has kept the issue alive and relevant. I am also grateful to Megan Campbell, Shaun Wallis, and David Farrar for their support and work with MPs, and my executive assistant, Mereana Ruri, for helping coordinate this activity. I would also like to acknowledge the leadership across the House, from the Prime Minister, who expressed his support early on, as did the leader of the Labour Party, David Shearer, and we have seen leadership by John Banks, Peter Dunne, Hone Harawira, Pita Sharples, and Tariana Turia. I also acknowledge the Greens, who from the outset have taken a supportive position as a party. For them it was not a conscience vote but a manifesto commitment.

There are many individuals and groups within our communities and churches who have continually addressed the facts and made it real. I particularly thank the youth wings of all political parties and student unions around the country. The messages have remained positive. I am very proud to be a member of a community that has stood up to be counted with such dignity and reason. A personal thanks to everyone who has contacted me by email and through Facebook, particularly Craig Young and those in the community offering support and often just saying thanks.

Finally, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou te whānau, and, to my darling Prue, thank you for your work and for sharing this journey with me. Nothing can counteract the very real negative consequences of not passing this bill, but nothing could make me more proud to be a New Zealander than passing this bill. It is an honour to represent your country and the people of New Zealand. I am proud to be a member of this 50th Parliament, which will continue New Zealand’s proud human rights tradition. I thank my colleagues for simply doing what is fair, just, and right. Kia ora.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I am aware that a number of speakers have arranged to have split calls. I ask just that that be revealed to the Speaker as the call is taken initially.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I too will be taking a split call with my colleague Jami-Lee Ross. It is sort of the young and the vibrant versus the old and the boring.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Which one’s which?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Members of the House will be forced to choose which one is which.

I want to, first of all, congratulate Louisa Wall on this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and I want to say that the good news about spending years in this Parliament is that you learn to deflect all of the dreadful sort of fire and brimstone accusations that people say are going to happen. I have had a reverend in my local electorate call and say that the gay onslaught will start the day after this bill is passed. We are really struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We do not know whether it will come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops, or whether it will be a gas that flows in over the electorate and blocks us all in.

I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting, coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life.

Hon Amy Adams: Cel-i-bacy.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Cel-i-bacy—OK. We will go with celibacy, OK. I have not done it, so I do not know what it is about.

I also had a letter telling me that I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity, and that was a bad mistake because I have got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on, I assumed the furnace to be at 5,000 degrees Celsius, and I would last for just on 2.1 seconds. It is hardly eternity—what do you think?

I also heard some more disgusting claims about adoption. Well, I have got three fantastic adopted kids. I know how good adoption is, and I have found some of the claims just disgraceful.

I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school.

However, a huge amount of the opposition was from moderates, from people who were concerned—who were seriously worried—about what this bill might do to the fabric of our society. I respect their concern; I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might to do to their families, and so on. Let me repeat to them now: all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever. We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that, for neither love nor money—I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed.

I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine; we are all in that category. But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight, guaranteed promise. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back at you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in your bed. The world will just carry on. So do not make this into a big deal. This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

Finally, can I say that one of the messages I had was that this bill was the cause of our drought—this bill was the cause of our drought. Well, if any of you follow my Twitter account, you will have seen that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous, big, gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign—it has to be a sign. If you are a believer, it is certainly a sign.

Can I finish—for all those who are concerned about this—with a quote from the Bible. It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musical Cats, but never mind. The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29: “Be ye not afraid.”

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I thank my colleague Maurice Williamson for allowing me to share his time in the third reading debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Tonight I am voting for love, for equality, for opportunity, and, most of all, for freedom. I am voting tonight to give all New Zealanders the same opportunity that I had when I married my wife: the freedom to marry the person I love. It is a very simple concept, but one that has been denied to so many people for so long.

We are all fortunate that we sit in this House of Representatives and have a democracy that values individual freedoms and individual rights, a democracy that values New Zealanders having the ability to determine for themselves what they do with their own lives. Many arguments can be made both for and against same-sex marriage, but when I was considering how I should vote on this issue, the question was never why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry; the question was always why on earth they should not be allowed to marry, and that I cannot explain.

I cannot explain why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. It just seems daft to me that we could deny two people the right to marry simply because they love someone who is of the same gender. I have yet to hear anyone put forward a rational and a principled reason why it is necessary to deny two people the right to marry simply because of their sexual orientation. It is wrong.

Recently, on a local Botany Facebook website, a constituent made the wise observation that “Marriage is about love. Love between two men or two women is equal to the love of a man and a woman, and therefore they should have equal rights.”, and that is what it all boils down to. No one needs to be dismayed or disappointed because two loving people might soon be able to get married. No one needs to feel threatened or saddened because something that is different and something they are not used to might take place around them. The reality is that unless you are in a same-sex relationship and considering getting married, you are not affected by this bill in any way at all. Nobody gets hurt when gay couples say they are married, but gay couples who do want to get married are harmed when they are arbitrarily stopped by the State from doing so and from expressing their love in the way that they want to.

This also is not an issue that should be a referendum issue. I do not fear a referendum in any way; I simply do not believe that it is right to determine an issue that affects only minorities by way of a referendum. If that was the case, I doubt that New Zealand would have given women the right to vote when it did, that this country would have legalised abortion when it did, or that this country would have decriminalised sex between two consenting males when it did. Minority rights issues are not referendum issues.

I want to briefly talk also about the question of children, because it is a common theme that some opponents have been raising. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that every child must have a mother and a father. I know that it is a touchy subject, but as someone who actually grew up without a mother and without a father, I think I am somewhat qualified to speak on the issue. A child does need both male and female influences in their life, but those influences do not necessarily have to come from their biological parents. What is most important is that a child is raised in a loving and caring environment. What is most important is that the people who are raising that child give them a home that is safe, warm, educating, and nurturing. If that environment just so happens to be a same-sex marriage, then that child is just as fortunate as every other loved and cared-for child.

The time for this legislation has come. I believe that the author of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, Louisa Wall, and the Government Administration Committee have arrived at a sensible point—the sensible point where marriage equality will soon be extended to all New Zealanders in a way that in no way impacts on the rights and freedoms of anyone else. Tonight Parliament is doing absolutely the right thing, and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): In 1977 Harvey Milk was elected as the first openly gay city councillor in the United States. It was a landmark moment in the representation of minorities in politics. Tragically, Harvey Milk was assassinated by a fellow councillor just 11 months later. He was a strong advocate for the rights of gay people but also for all minorities. Before his death he spoke of the importance of his being elected, because it gave hope to young gay people that there was a better tomorrow for them compared with the discrimination and bullying that they were getting in their home towns. He noted that this hope was not just important if you were gay; it was important if you were poor, or black, or disabled, or old. As he put it: “I know that you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. And you … and you … and you … Gotta give em hope.” He told the story of the young gay man from Altoona, Pennsylvania, who rang him after he was elected, simply to say thanks for what he was doing.

Well, in New Zealand in 1986 there was a 14-year-old young man sitting in Dunedin who read the newspaper about the law to decriminalise homosexuality, and he cut out of the newspaper the names of those who voted for and those who voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. And that gave him—me—hope that maybe his life would be all right. There were 49 people in favour of the law that day. To Annette King, Phil Goff, Trevor Mallard, and Peter Dunne, who are still here today, thank you for giving me that hope. Interestingly, there were 44 votes against the bill that day, as well. The good news is that today there are a lot more MPs in Parliament than there were back then, and I want to thank MPs from all the parties who are voting in support of this legislation today. This is a true MMP conscience vote. It has made for some unlikely political bedfellows—note the word “political” in there. I want to pay tribute to Tau Henare and Jami-Lee Ross in particular. It is quite likely that is the only time I will ever say that sentence, so I will say it again. I want to particularly pay tribute to Tau Henare and Jami-Lee Ross in particular, and to all members of the cross-party working group. All members from around this House who are supporting this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill are doing the right thing. I also want to pay tribute to the Campaign for Marriage Equality, LegaliseLove, and the thousands of others who have got us to this point today.

As it was then in 1986 with homosexual law reform and again in 2003 with civil unions, it is a Labour MP who is moving this important social change. Today I congratulate Louisa Wall. There is no doubt that we can all see how it is that Louisa made it to the top on the sporting field—“straight up the guts” determination. One of the many, many emails that MPs got in the early stages of this bill was from a person bemoaning what would happen if the bill passed. After several paragraphs he reached his triumphant point: “And who will teach the children about rugby and netball?”. I think we might have that one covered, Lou, eh? I am proud that this bill is being promoted by a Labour MP and supported by the vast majority of our caucus, because fundamentally it is about Labour values: fairness, justice, and community.

At its heart this bill is about family and strengthening families. There are few parents who do not think about their children’s weddings. They are social occasions that mark a change in the relationship of parents and their children. They can make a dent in the bank balance, but they are pivotal moments. The importance of this bill to strengthening families was beautifully articulated in the submission made by Gus Hodgson to the Government Administration Committee, and I will quote him briefly: “This bill means that my parents can support all four of their sons if we marry the person we love and who loves us, not three out of four. My parents have four sons. They love us equally. Likewise this House should demonstrate an equal love for its public too.” Angus went on: “My mother once told me that she doesn’t have any criteria for the people her sons might fall in love with. She would welcome any person into her home if they love her son too. That was an incredibly powerful message for me to receive.” So when this bill passes, it will be a victory for families.

I want to briefly mention those people who brought us civil unions. They were an important step towards fairness and equality. They gave recognition to relationships, an alternative to the institution of marriage, and equal rights under almost every law. I am proud to have been part of that campaign, and I salute the hard work that went into it. I want to particularly recognise Lianne Dalziel, David Benson-Pope, Tim Barnett, Katherine Rich, and others for their work on that bill.

Today we take further steps towards equality. That value of equality is a fundamental value for me and for the Labour Party. We believe that we are all born equal, and that it is our job to ensure that equality exists in this world. It is the same value of equality that underlies this bill that also motivates me and Labour to fight every day for the 270,000 New Zealand children who live in poverty. It is the same value that says that allowing someone to be paid $13.75 an hour to look after our grandparents is morally wrong. It is the same value that says that every person, no matter who they are or where they were born, has a right to an education that will allow them to achieve their potential. Equality, a fair go for everyone, is at the heart of Labour values and the heart of this bill.

This bill is also about inclusion. Quite simply, we will not succeed as a country or a society if we continually find reasons to exclude people. The only place that takes us to is division and hatred. Why on earth would we want to stop a couple who love each other and who want to make a commitment to one and other from doing that? Why would we want to exclude some people from a cherished social institution? As David Do said in his moving and eloquent submission to the select committee, this is an issue for people of all ethnic backgrounds. This is what he said: “Speaking as an Asian New Zealander it might be easy to think that in this debate Europeans are the only ones who want marriage equality, and Asians and Pacific Islanders don’t. I just can’t accept that. I know it’s not true, and it goes against our history and the values we are proud of as New Zealanders.” David went on: “There are many Asian New Zealanders right now who feel trapped because of issues with their culture, religion, upbringing, or family circumstances, along with their sexual orientation. It can be an incredibly difficult situation to be in, but this Parliament can help change that.” Tonight we take further steps towards the inclusive society that New Zealand can and should be. This legislation makes us a better country. Many supporters of the bill have stressed that in the end this bill is about love, and that is not a topic that politicians get to talk about very often. Former Prime Minister Norman Kirk used to say that New Zealanders wanted a job, a place to live, someone to love, and something to hope for. Well, we cannot guarantee you someone to love, but I think we are putting the right incentives in place.

As we have seen with previous advances in the recognition of the rights of New Zealanders, there have been shrieks and howls about how society would end when women got the vote and when homosexuality was decriminalised, and, in the end, as Maurice Williamson has eloquently told us, the sky has not fallen in. I respect the right of people to hold different views on this legislation. People with religious beliefs have continued to have the freedom to exercise those. This should continue, and it will. Nothing about this legislation will affect anyone else’s marriage. Husbands will still call their wives their wife, and vice versa. I will let you all in on a secret: we have all been calling our partners husbands for years. Normally, it is when I am being told off.

I want to pay tribute to the thousands of New Zealanders who have worked to get support for this bill. It has energised and politicised many people. At an event in Auckland last weekend a straight Pākehā woman in her 30s said she made her first ever submission to Parliament in favour of this bill. Tonight is a victory for those people, their friends, and their families. But for all the victories that there are to celebrate when this bill passes—the victory for families, for fairness, for equality, for inclusion, for commitment, and for love—there is to my mind a greater win. If there is a 14-year-old young man in Dunedin who is watching this, like I did 27 years ago, and he is wondering how he will cope with being a bit different from his mates, and he is going to struggle a bit over the next few years, today goes some way to fulfilling Harvey Milk’s plea. This bill is not going to solve all his problems. It is not going to prevent him from being discriminated against. It is not going to prevent him from getting hurt. But it will do something of huge value, because what we will do in this House tonight is give him some hope. Because tonight hope has won.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First believes in the use of public referenda and we have for a long time. Some will recall that in 1997 we put a referendum to New Zealand voters on a savings regime similar to those of Australia or Singapore. Sadly, it was voted down, and 16 years later we are broke and in the clutches of foreign banks and foreign money. We could have just rammed a bill through Parliament, but we went and took it to the people, and those are our bona fides on the issue of a referendum.

We have spent the better part of a year debating Ms Wall’s bill, and, sadly, the public are not much the wiser for it. In fact, there has hardly been a debate. What we have had is a small yet vocal minority telling the rest of New Zealanders that this is a law change that everyone wants and that anyone who disagrees has got to be a bigot. Then on the other side of the so-called debate we have got those who would like to see the State police themselves police morality in the bedroom. The truth is that most New Zealanders sit somewhere in the middle. That might be tawdry and uncomfortable, but it is the way a society works.

Some support the change; others do not. But their reasons for supporting or opposing it are never as sensationalist or extreme as some on either side would have us believe. No one really knows what side the majority of the public opinion sits on. Some claim, as Ms Wall and her supporters have, that there is a huge groundswell for change. Well, is that true? If so, how do we know? As far as we are aware, the issue never came up at any of the meetings that we held in the 3 years out from the last election. Nobody lobbied us and no journalists called to ask where we sat on the issue. There were no words spoken on the campaign trail about same-sex marriage whatsoever.

It is not the issue—and Ms Wall has every right to draft a bill and present it to this House—but a lot of the bile in this issue would not be present had the process been different. It came upon us, this bill, out of the blue. The manner of this bill’s emergence, the process by which it got before Parliament, needs to be publicised. It is why many fair-minded Kiwis feel confused. They are confused because Ms Wall and her supporters have not told them how it happened. Why did they not go to the last election, in the campaign, and say up front: “We will introduce same-sex marriage.”, instead of using some woolly language like: “We will review relationship and property law.”? Who up in the gallery thinks that that is what they wanted? The only explanation has to be that they were afraid. They were afraid that their party supporters might not like it. We can make all the pretentious, glorious statements tonight, but, in the end, it is what the people think.

In fact, Ms Wall, sad to say, was not even up front with her own party. The normal process in the Labour Party—

Hon Member: Come on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I am coming on with the facts here—is for members’ bills to be taken to the Labour whips’ office for the Labour whip to lodge after the bill is approved by the Labour caucus. That is the process every party follows, and it has to be followed because the system will not operate without it. But Ms Wall did not follow it. It is a fact. They can make all the statements they like now, but the first the Labour leader’s office knew of it was seeing it on the list of bills lodged. That is a fact. So tell us why the Labour whips’ office and caucus were not told first, before the bill was lodged—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It did go to caucus.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am getting it from the best of authority that that is what happened. From—[Interruption] Yes, after the event. That is true—after the event.

Moana Mackey: We were there.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So you were in the whips’ office? No, you were not, and that is a fact. My evidence is that of somebody who was, and it suggests that the Labour Party was hijacked on this issue.

Ms Wall, what do the people of Manurewa think? What do the people out there in South Auckland, in Manurewa, think? Well, there is utter silence now, but this is about democracy and representation. That is why so many Labour supporters are telling us that they support our referendum stance—because they feel they have never been asked, that somehow they have been left out; even more think that somehow they have been cheated.

This is supposed to be a democracy. This is supposed to be a place where the people’s voice matters. This is supposed to be a Parliament where one would be proud to face up to their caucus and say: “I think this bill should come before Parliament.” Oh no, no, I am sorry; that is what they are saying now because they could not say anything else, in the same way that many National members over there are going to vote for this bill knowing full well that the so-called protection for religious dissidents, whether they are celebrants or otherwise, is not in this legislation. If a Church deems someone’s objection to be wrong, then that person could be punished. That is all they asked for. Is it too much for that to happen?

That is why we call this House the House of Representatives, representing not ourselves but the people. Here we are as a Parliament about to circumvent any expression of public opinion yet again. Why? Do they think that if the public is asked, they might lose? I do not know, but I am prepared to trust the public. I do not wish to hear from polls; I want to know exactly what the public think. On Campbell Live tonight, I think the poll that it had, strange as it was—and I do not think it is remotely scientific—had 78 percent saying no and 22 percent saying yes. What say it is wrong by 20 percent? The question is this: what do the public think? And why are there so many people in this Parliament prepared, when it suits them, to circumvent the public’s will, when all the bile and venom of this issue would not have been in Parliament had we asked New Zealanders: “Well, what do you think?”.

Shortly we go to Anzac Day. It is about democracy, and it is about an inclusive democracy that they were fighting for, not just one vote every 3 years, and that is my point. We are prepared to respect as a party, in New Zealand First, that we have many divergent views within the party. We respect that. That is why we are prepared to all compromise and say as one group: “Well, let’s ask New Zealanders, for, after all, they should be the final arbiters.” This is a rule not for us; it is a law for them.

We object to the people being taken for granted. We object to the view that because we are here and we have temporary hold of the reins, what Joe Public thinks is of no import whatsoever. For those who wish to ignore this message, then let me give this clear warning: there is a day of reckoning coming, electorally. The manner of this vote tonight—laugh now and cry later. The manner of this vote tonight is a game-shifter, and it will be reflected in the next election results. There are some issues that dissipate and there are some issues that stay around a long time. All around New Zealand tonight and in the next few days people will be saying: “Well, if that’s the way they think—that our view does not matter—then I will never ever vote for them again.” If one looks at the huge social and economic issues this country presently faces and the desperate need for better solutions to them, then some in this House have seriously sacrificed their colleagues and their party for a narrow, undemocratic—worthy or unworthy, I do not know—expression. When the political wilderness years come, do not say you were not warned.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I will be splitting my call with the Hon Nikki Kaye. I did have a speech prepared, but that speech from Winston Peters shot it to bits. Here are the bona fides on the New Zealand First referendum of the 1990s. The National Party said no to a bill. That is why we went to a referendum, and when we went to a referendum, 82 percent of the country said: “No, Winston. We don’t believe in you any more.” That is what it said. It never went through caucus. It never went through caucus. And that speech that I heard tonight was the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard—the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You heard what the member said. He must be looking in the mirror. But he must apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are you saying such an expression is parliamentary?

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are you saying that the expression he used is parliamentary?

Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not ruling it out as unparliamentary.

Hon TAU HENARE: So it is OK for New Zealand First to have bills in the ballot. That is democracy. But when Louisa Wall puts one in the ballot, that has to go to a referendum! How the hell is any country in the world supposed to operate in a system like that? Who decides whether or not there should be a referendum? Him? I hope not. I hope not, because we would still be in the 1880s.

I feel sad that I was a member and even a deputy leader under that man. I used to look up to him. But I tell you what: that speech tonight is nothing more than pandering to the 10 percent on either side of this argument. It is nothing more than pandering to those racist, rednecked people who just love to get on the email.

I want to say that I have been appalled with some of the behaviour of those for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and of those against it, because I for one do not think that those who are against the bill are homophobic just because they are voting against it. It is their right to vote against it, and I will back my colleagues who vote against it all the way; I just do not agree with them. And they are going to lose tonight.

However, to quickly run through what I was going to say, it is time. The sky did not, and will not, fall in. How does it affect me or anyone else in this House and in this country? It does not. It just does not. Think about it for a minute. If the institution of marriage is so sacrosanct, then why the hell are so many people getting a divorce? I do not say that in a facetious manner. If it does belong to the Church, as I have been told by so many people on the email, then why do we have legislation outlining who can and who cannot? If there was no legislation, I would back the Church 100 percent. But it is not the Church’s. It actually belongs to the Government. It actually belongs to this Parliament. It is a creature now of Parliament. It is not a creature any more of either the Bible or the Church.

Lastly, I want to say that it is actually about the equality of opportunity. All we are doing—we are not forcing anybody to do anything in any way, shape, or form. What we are doing is offering people the opportunity of equality, and either they take it or they do not. That is up to them. It is not up to me. It is not up to any one of us in this House.

I want to thank my cousin Kath, who unfortunately died some months ago. She would have been here yelling from the rooftops, and I seriously mean that she would have been yelling from the rooftops, because that is what she was like. I hope she is finally proud of her cousin, and I am sure she was in other ways.

Finally, a message to all LGBTI—and I finally got that out. My message to you all is welcome to the mainstream. Do well. Kia ora.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety): Tonight I hope that we pass this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, so that same-sex couples can finally marry in New Zealand. It is time that we passed this bill. It has been nearly 30 years since we passed the Homosexual Law Reform Act. Three decades later—20,000 submissions—121 MPs tonight have the power to finally vote to give all New Zealanders the freedom to marry the person they love. This change will be hugely positive for our country. There are so many stories that we have heard over the last 6 months of people desperate to marry, of young people taking their lives because they have never been accepted, and of people in relationships for 30 years desperate to have that properly recognised in law. This bill is not just about equality and freedom for people to choose whom they want to spend the rest of their life with. It is also fundamentally about human dignity, real acceptance, and good old-fashioned love. For people who are currently married, we have already heard that nothing will change. Weddings will still happen. They will still be expensive. There will still be honeymoons, cakes, and stag dos, dresses and rings, and the odd drunk uncle. But marriage is more than that. It is a huge commitment, and it is something so many young people want. Passing this bill actually means that young gay and lesbian New Zealanders can have the same dream that other young New Zealanders have.

I am proud to be the MP for Auckland Central. I represent Grey Lynn, Ponsonby, Rocky Bay—a huge gay and lesbian community. But do you know what? You may think that is why I am voting for this bill, but actually I support this bill because it is the right thing to do. I support this bill because it is absolutely the right thing for our country. I support those MPs in conservative electorates who have stood up and are voting for this bill because they also think it is the right thing for our country. I want to acknowledge Chris Auchinvole and Paul Hutchison. They have shown us in this debate the true power of conscience. When Paul said: “I … cannot construct a strong enough intellectual, moral, health, or … spiritual argument against it.”, he struck a chord with so many New Zealanders, because he showed us openness and he showed us compassion for people. Our Parliament can be very proud that this vote is actually less about political divides and more about religious and generational divides. We have a lot to be proud of in our country. We must acknowledge that the freedoms that we have are not the same freedoms that other countries have. As Louisa has said, there are 55 countries in the Commonwealth that still criminalise homosexuality. That must change. The world will be watching New Zealand tonight. Let us vote to show it that our country values freedom for all of our people.

Louisa, thank you for your commitment to the cause. You have worked across party lines. You have personally helped ensure that this debate has been more constructive and more positive than in the past. Thank you to you, Kevin, as well, for your contribution. Thank you to Tau and Jami-Lee Ross as well. I want to acknowledge the other liberal Nats who have walked before me for their contributions. Katherine Rich and Marilyn Waring, thank you as well. It is lovely to see you here tonight. Megan Campbell, Shaun Wallis, your tireless efforts will not be forgotten. Georgina Beyer and Tim Barnett, I acknowledge you as well here tonight.

This bill is about strengthening families. The difference to people’s lives will be real and positive. This is about the daughter who asked her mother yesterday: “Can I finally be the flower girl at Auntie Emma’s wedding?”. The answer is yes. This is about the young man who has not yet come out to his friends having the courage to do so. This is about the couple who have been together for 30 years finally getting the chance to say “I do.” This is about a large group of New Zealanders holding their heads a little higher when they walk down the street. Colleagues, it is time that we passed this bill. It is the right thing to do. Please vote for freedom. Please vote for this bill.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is time. In one of the many messages that I have received on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, one man said: “My partner and I have been together for 30 years. It would be great to celebrate our anniversary with a wedding.”

I mentioned in the first reading that I have been together with my partner, Ian—who is here tonight with my son, Thomas—for 28 years, now nearly 29 years. And I could not help but reflect on our journey during that time. When we got together, our relationship was against the law. The message sent by the law could not have been clearer. We were outsiders. We did not belong. The debate over Fran Wilde’s bill was extremely toxic. A lot of people said a lot of very unpleasant things about us and, of course, predicted that the bill would spell the end of New Zealand society. I will be eternally grateful to Fran and her colleagues, to George Gair, for standing up for what was right.

I remember travelling to Auckland’s North Shore to protest against one of our opponents, Pastor Richard Flinn, who called publicly for homosexuals like me to be put to death. Over the years I have campaigned hard for the right of our communities not to be outsiders any more and to assume a full place in New Zealand society. With every new reform, the same group uses the same strategy of raising fears of terrible consequences that always fail to materialise.

There would be few New Zealanders today who would support re-criminalising sex between men. The cost of being outsiders is enormous. The stigma associated with our “inferior” status is associated with substantially higher rates of suicide, depression, HIV risk, violence, and other risks to our health and well-being. One submitter called Vinnie wrote: “If there was greater acceptance when I grew up, I would not have tried to kill myself. I potentially would not have missed out on years of a quality relationship with my family. I would not have lost 95 percent of my friends when I told them I was gay.”

Another person called Robert said: “I have lived my life partly in private until the last decade or so when acceptance of gay people in our beautiful New Zealand has increased. I have no doubt that the bill will be passed and I am pleased for it to be happening in my lifetime. While I am not in my younger years, it will still allow me and my partner to marry and have equal rights. I have longed for this for a very, very long time. My only sadness is that both of my parents have now passed and it would have been such a huge joy to have them at my wedding.”

Opponents of this bill have been talking about two conflicting ideas of what marriage is about. The idea they have is the conjugal model, in which the point of marriage is to enable procreation. They say that we supporters have a partnership model, in which marriage is about celebrating and reinforcing the love two people have for each other. They are right. That is what we believe. Sure, children are important for some marriages, but more than anything else marriage is about affirming, reinforcing, and celebrating the love that two people have for each other. It is also about joining two families together and recognising the value of that commitment to our whole society.

That is why this bill is about so much more than achieving equality under the law, which is a basic human right that has been denied us until this day. It is about saying these lives matter. Our society is big enough for us all. With this bill our Parliament stretches out its arms to my communities and says: “Our society is big enough for you too. You belong unequivocally and without having to compromise who you are.”

When the debate started I thought that all of the people like Richard Flinn had, thankfully, gone. The early comments from opponents were refreshingly free of fire and brimstone. There is no doubt that New Zealand has grown up over the past 27 years, as we have become a more modern, vibrant, and pluralistic society. But as the debate has worn on, we have seen a re-emergence of a hard core whose opposition to this bill has lost its veneer of reasonableness. Their problem with this bill is that they believe that we gay and lesbian people are morally inferior. They do not want to include us as full participants in New Zealand society. They recognise correctly what full legal equality—this signal—means, and they do not like it.

That is why we have seen people with placards declaring that gay people are mentally ill and less than human. That is why we have seen Family First’s campaign, firstly, of fear and misinformation and, latterly, of standover tactics and blackmail. That is why we have seen the Catholic Action Group, just like Richard Flinn, writing to all MPs and telling us that homosexuals are worthy of death and then describing in great detail the eternal agony we should expect to experience in hell. They have tried to attract more people to their cause by scaring people with imaginary consequences—people will marry their pets, ministers will be thrown in prison, and people will not be able to call each other husband and wife any more. Just like every time before, those fears will not be realised.

The consequences of this bill will be that same-sex couples will marry. Transsexual people will no longer have to divorce. Prejudice and violence will be undermined. The world will be a better place for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender New Zealanders, and absolutely no one at all will be any worse off. As Brian Donnelly, a great New Zealand First member, said: “Your own candle will burn no dimmer if you help to light ours.” That is what has happened in every country—now 12 countries—that has legalised same sex-marriage before us.

Here are some words from Alicia, another young New Zealander: “Imagine you are me for a second, or any other queer teenager in New Zealand, or maybe you are a bit younger, 15 or so, just starting to come to grips with who you are. All around you, your family and religious community, perhaps even your friends, are buzzing with talk about a bill which affects you more than you dare to let on. What they say makes it clear that if they knew who you were, what you really are, they would not accept you. There is a reason so many of us have considered suicide an acceptable way out at some point, and this is it.” She then says: “What your support of this bill has meant is immeasurable. I watched the first reading live and I was in tears by the end of it. For me your support was overwhelming confirmation that I am no less of a person in the eyes of those who lead our country because of my sexuality, regardless of what my parents or my church want to say about it. Your support told me and many teenagers like me that no matter what those around us say, we will be equal under the law.”

History is a funny thing. When all those imaginary risks fail to materialise, they will be forgotten entirely. When that fog recedes, history will also forget all of the quibbles, like saying: “There ‘s a better way to achieve the same thing.”, which allow some MPs to vote against this bill whilst still saying they support fair and equal treatment.

There is no longer any room for nuance or middle ground. Instead, what history will record is whether you voted for inclusiveness, equality under the law, and pluralism, or against them. What it will record is whether you chose to stand with Vinnie, Robert, and Alicia, or instead chose to stand with the Catholic Action Group, extremism, threats, and blackmail. Please be brave tonight so that you can be proud of your vote later. Tonight, please stand with me, stand with us, and stand with justice, fairness, and love.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I love my job, but every now and then it really rocks. This is one of those moments that every now and then we have in this House, when I know in my very being that I am doing something good, something right, something life changing. Tonight is one of those moments.

I too would like to acknowledge the former MPs who are in the House tonight—Marilyn Waring, Katherine Rich, Georgina Beyer, and Tim Barnett—each of whom in their time in this House has supported the values that this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, represents. It is good to have you here, all of you, on this occasion, and I pay tribute to you.

In my inaugural speech to Parliament in 2005 I railed against our tendency as a nation to drive some people to the margins of our society and then despise them for being there. I talked of the lazy notion of political correctness and of how that label was used, dripping with sarcasm, to denigrate and destroy anything that was inclusive, compassionate, tolerant, or forward-looking. Tonight I am here to help include the marginalised, equalise the law for the outlaws, and put one more nail in the coffin of legal discrimination in New Zealand.

I want to thank my colleague Louisa Wall for the opportunity to do this. I pay tribute to her for her courage, her strength, and her leadership throughout this issue. She has been supported by a large team of enthusiastic supporters and helpers, both inside and outside this House, and I thank them all as well, from the bottom of my heart.

I come at this issue from a simple starting point. There are no grounds in this country on which discrimination under the law should occur on the basis of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. We all sit somewhere on the sexuality continuum: some closer to one end than the other, some in the middle, and still others at one point at one time in their lives and at quite another point at other times in their lives. I have seen examples of all of these, up close and personal.

The injustice of discriminating before the law against someone because of who they are—not because of what they do, but of who they are intrinsically—is wrong, and we are past it in 2013. Those famous words of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice come to mind: “Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?”. And I would add: “And if we are not equal before the law, are we not lesser beings?”. So I come at the issue of marriage equality simply on the basis of equality before the law.

I am gay, but I do not wish to get married. I have never wanted to get married. It does not mean that I do not cherish the relationship I have with as much ardour as any married person. But I do not want not to be able to marry because the law discriminates against me—that is the point for me.

This position has been driven home for me by working closely for years with a group of young people in Nelson called Q-Youth. This is an alliance of straight, gay, and transgender young people and adults, who began at Nayland College many years ago to build a safe and supportive environment for young people who were questioning, or wrestling with, their sexuality. It includes adults who are parents, teachers, counsellors, professional people—and me—who all want the same thing, which is for these young people to grow up in safety, free from discrimination, free from bullying, and free from violence and unsafe practices, so that they can be who they truly are. I want to acknowledge, in particular, Seb Stewart, who was a mentor to many of these people, and Tabby Besley and Joseph Habgood, who are in the gallery tonight, and who have offered much in the way of leadership, along with numerous other wonderful, clever, and brave Nelson young people.

Through that work I met many questioning young Nelson people, who had all suffered to a greater or lesser degree because of being made to feel like an outcast—an outlaw. Some had cut themselves. Some had punished themselves with drug and alcohol abuse. Some had become mentally unwell. Some had attempted suicide. Some were hugely supported by their parents; they were the lucky ones. Some were rejected by their parents; they were not so lucky.

Equality before the law is the start. If there is a benign legislative regime, there will be, over time, different behaviour and greater acceptance. Laws alter only behaviour, not attitudes, but attitudes come eventually, when people see that the sky has not fallen and that their own rights are not diminished by extending them to others. But when one is growing up, like these young people in Nelson, from whom I have learnt so much, one can sense discrimination and a lack of acceptance at 500 paces. It sits on your shoulder like a vulture, waiting for you to fall and to be pecked to death. Little by little, stroke by stroke, young people are diminished and reduced, unless they can find a safe place to be.

So this law is not really about me as a lesbian woman, at all. It is about creating a just and tolerant society, which is safe for our young people to grow up in. For those who have a different world view from mine, can I simply say that I would stick up for your rights to equality before the law, as well.

Finally, I return to my inaugural speech in this House. At the end of it I referred to my daughter and said that I hoped that whenever the time came to leave this place, I would leave our society improved in some measure for her sake. She was born to two mothers and two fathers. She has never lacked for love, support, guidance, and care. In fact, it is possible that she has had twice as much of it than most children in a two-parent family have. She has been, and remains, a great joy to all of us. She deserves a world where her family is as accepted as anyone else’s. She said to me, of course, as she was proofing my speech tonight, that her world would have been very different growing up if there had been social acceptance around our family. She does not regret it for herself, but she does wish it for other people—she is a good girl.

Our actions here must always be about the future. We leave this world to others, especially our young people. Let us make it a better, fairer, kinder place than we found it. Let us pass this bill.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I will split this call with Te Ururoa Flavell of the Māori Party.

The privilege we have to be in this House is counterbalanced by the need to stand up and be counted. I am one of a handful of members who was here in the very early days of these debates. After three decades and 10 Parliaments, I have had time to reflect—to reflect on what I said and to reflect on what I did. If I knew then what I have since learnt, I would have acted differently. I see this as a debate more about human rights, predicated on the basis that we are all entitled to live our lives to the fullest extent of human happiness, while respecting the rights and beliefs of others.

I believe that all New Zealanders should be free to pursue their own happiness. ACT’s principles of freedom and choice go to the heart of this particular issue. Freedom gives each individual the right to determine for themselves their happiness for their own lives. I want my political career and public service to recognise the value and potential of every New Zealander.

My gay friends know that my vote is not needed to pass this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, but they tell me that my support is important to them. I received a text from a friend who had heard that this bill had my support. The text said: “Thanks, Banksie. This bill won’t have any impact on your marriage, but it will mean a great deal to me and my relationship.” I think that sums up the argument very well.

I know many people are opponents with strong views on this issue. I respect that. I hope my comments tonight give an insight for my friends who do not support this bill and cannot understand why I have charted this course. I respect their right to hold their views, and uphold their right to practise their faith. In turn, I expect those people to let me hold my views and practise my own faith.

When making this decision, I had to ask myself whether New Zealanders have more freedoms as a result of this bill. Yes. Will freedom of religion be preserved? Yes. Will anyone’s freedoms be taken away by this bill? No. Would the God that I believe in think any less of me for voting for this bill? No. That is why I support this legislation.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Can I thank my Treaty partner “Hone” Banks for allowing me to have his final 5 minutes. In case there is any doubt, we are talking about the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. This is not the first time that Māori have encountered controversy around the concept of marriage. In 1888 the Supreme Court of New Zealand made a decision that has been described as “doubtful legally and deplorable socially”. That doubtful and deplorable decision was to reject the customary marriages that had existed mai rānō, and to assume that the marriage law of England took precedence. In fact, the colonial law from another land was considered of such importance that the children of Māori customary marriages were then described as “illegitimate”, yet so significant was the status of customary marriages amongst our people that they continued to be recognised for the purposes of succession to Māori land until 1951. So when opponents of this bill criticise a change to the definition of marriage as contravening our sacred traditions, I would have to say “Whose traditions are we talking about?”.

I want to bring a specific contribution to this House as a proud uri of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Te Arawa waka—yeah! In 1849 Wīremu Maihi Te Rangikāheke of Ngāti Rangiwewehi shared his knowledge of our Atua in a publication called Ngā Tama a Rangi. It is one of those stories I want to bring to the House with me today. You, sir, may well have heard the story about Hinemoa and Tūtānekai, a story of love glorified by Victorian settlers, with all the markings of romance. According to tribal law, Hinemoa swam to Mokoia in the middle of Rotorua to be with her true loved one—everybody say “Ah.”

Hon Members: Ah.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: But I am going to add an extra part to the story, and tell you instead about Tūtānekai and Tiki. Before Tūtānekai married Hinemoa, he had a close male companion, Tiki. In a manuscript by Te Rangikāheke, Tūtānekai says to his father: “Ka aroha atu a Tūtānekai ki a Tiki, ka mea atu ki a Whakaue: ‘Ka mate ahau i te aroha ki toku hoa, ki a Tiki.’” Translated: “Tūtānekai loved Tiki and said to Whakaue: ‘I am stricken with love for my friend, for Tiki.’” Later, Tūtānekai refers to Tiki as “tāku hoa takatāpui”. So, from the wisdom of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, a new word was coined: “takatāpui”, defined in the Dictionary of the Maori Language compiled by the missionary Herbert William Williams in 1844 as “an intimate companion of the same sex”. “Takatāpui” is now used universally to describe people who might otherwise describe themselves as gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, or intersexual.

This history is set out by a Māori academic—not of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, but nevertheless—Dr Clive Aspin in his analysis of Hōkakatanga—Māori sexualities. This research tracked fast forward to the early 2000s, with the Māori Sexuality Project undertaken at Auckland University. Many of the respondents to that research were able to recall examples of their kaumātua and kuia talking about people they knew who had same-sex attraction. These people held traditions of importance and status within their whānau and hapū. According to Dr Aspin, they were not rejected or marginalised, and were considered to be valuable members of their communities.

Talking about our history, our shared history in Aotearoa, is really important. We all know another painful history of discrimination, of prejudice, and of homophobia, expressed by other members in this House tonight—of young people in such agony about the way that they live their lives that suicide becomes the only option, of people living in fear and shame, scared of the harassment that they have all too often experienced. Some of the lobbying that every MP has endured over this last 9 months has shown us the ugliness of stigma that has been hurled at Louisa Wall. Ki taku tuahine, ka nui te mihi ki a koe.

[I acknowledge you greatly, my sister colleague.]

So I urge all of us to think deeply about the universal values of aroha, of commitment, of whakawhanaungatanga, of trust, of faith, and of hope—kaupapa tuku iho. As this third reading comes to an end, I think about tamariki and mokopuna who now know that they do not have to hide the fact that there are two mums in their household, about parents who want to know that their son can marry the man of his dreams and they can be all out and proud on their special day, and about all of our whānau takatāpui who celebrate tonight as a day on which history is made—

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

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): Thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this debate on the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I will be splitting my call with Jonathan Young, MP for New Plymouth. I want to say that today I was pleased to get a text from my good friend Gerard Langford, who texted me and said: “Mate, I know this is a big day and I know we see these things differently, but all the best for today.” I said: “Thanks, Gerard, you are the gay friend I cite most often.” The fact is that my good friendship with Gerard and his partner, Rangi, has led me along a line that has got me to change my view in respect of gay things. I believe that people who love one another should be with one another and should commit to one another publicly, because I believe that relationships between two people who love one another should be strong, should be publicly committed, and will enable our community to be stronger.

I also believe that the true discussion here is about the equality, the legal equality, of relationships, whether they be heterosexual or whether they be homosexual, whether they be marriage or whether they be civil union or whether they be de facto. I believe that they should be equal, and I think it is a shame that amongst many people who are within our community they are not. I think that that is really to our detriment. I would like to think that people would be able to look across relationships within our community and see that that is right, that people who love one another should be able to commit to one another. I am also of the opinion that those people who have come out and argued from a strident faith perspective that this is a wrong vote are wrong in themselves.

I also believe, though, that we should be having a debate tonight about what marriage is and what marriage is not. I will be voting against this bill because I think we should be having the larger debate, and that debate is about what marriage is and what marriage is not. I believe very strongly, for instance, that two people who are married, who are in a heterosexual relationship, should be allowed to be able to do that. I do not believe for one moment that two people who are of the same gender and who commit to one another in any way at all detracts from the 34-year marriage that my wife and I enjoy. I believe that this debate should be about what marriage is about. If that is about the equality of legal status of relationships within our society, then we should be having the courage or the balls or whatever it is to have exactly that debate.

I am concerned, too—and I have had discussions this week with members across the House and Louisa in particular—about, for instance, the status of those civil celebrants and those celebrants of organisations, such as the Anglican and the Methodist Churches, who have not taken a stand or a position in respect of this particular bill, or gay marriage in effect. They should be able to rest in the confidence that the Human Rights Commission has given them that they will be able to refuse the opportunity to wed gay couples who present themselves for marriage, on the basis of their own opinion and their own belief. It is important to state that now, although it may be very dry and unemotional to be able to do that, because in terms of statutory interpretation in times to come it will become important that this Parliament is resting on the advice it has had.

Having said that, I would like to just acknowledge this: I came to this House as a fairly ignorant person out of the provinces, in order to represent the constituents of Wanganui who elected me to Parliament. I am pleased to note that I have established a number of relationships and I have changed my mind in respect of those relationships. I am grateful for the privilege of having friendships and associations. I have the love and the friendship of a number of people who are in a range of relationships; whether they be homosexual or heterosexual means nothing. I believe that this debate—

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

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak in this debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It is not often that debates in this House and around this country engage the hearts and minds in the way that this debate has. I believe it is because it touches issues deep within the core of people’s being. It is to do with our most important relationship. It is to do with family. It is to do with children. It is to do with all the important things that we do everything else for.

Here we are in this powerful expression of the democratic process, with different views on an issue with so many emotions. I believe that in this debate it is not as clear as many people think. I think that there are views and issues that many people, New Zealanders in our communities, are struggling with, are wondering about, and they are looking to this House tonight. I believe that our society is probably more divided than this House is on this issue.

Everyone has a right to their view, a right to express it, a right to agree or to disagree, and, I hope, in a civil society, a right to be respected because of or despite their view. It is appropriate that diverse opinions be expressed in this House tonight. In this House disagreement is the air we breathe, but it is how we disagree that is important, and by and large this debate has been calmer than many other debates in this House.

Tonight I expect that this bill will pass despite my vote, which some will know has not supported its transition through the House thus far. For a long time now I have been very supportive of civil unions, for all the reasons that people are perhaps now applying to the marriage debate. I can empathise with how a couple may want to have the legal recognition, or some institutional formality or support for their relationship, to give them that sense of perhaps even permanence it may bring, or support. And on the occasion of that is a celebration that a wedding can bring. I believe that everybody wants to celebrate their relationships. Your relationship is your business, and I have been happy to support that.

I think I was happy when the Civil Union Bill came through because in a sense it was a new legal recognition that was a mirror of marriage but it also maintained the age-old institution of marriage. I do think that in societies, traditions are important and have a place. A tradition is a convention, a belief, or a behaviour that stands the test of time. A tradition is the institutional memory of a society. It is not to be cast off or cast away quickly or easily, because it is the touchstone of a value that perhaps younger minds may not fully understand, yet enter into because it is there. Traditions are what we use to guide people, I believe, into the things of life that have been proven to work. Those might be the very sentiments while we are debating this bill.

But what we are debating, I believe, is not necessarily about love, because love is not legislated. I loved that campaign; I thought it was pretty good, Grant. It was a great idea about legalising love, but I do not know whether you can do that. I know the angle you are taking, I know what you are talking about, but I think the human heart is too rampant and too romantic to be contained and boxed and denied. I believe that people will pursue that which brings them meaning and fulfilment in life. Essentially, the value of marriage, which this society upholds, is that you become my one and only, and we commit to the best of our ability to make this an exclusive and permanent relationship. That is the reason why I supported civil unions, because I believe that in that sense—and I know that perhaps many people say we need to move on—there is a sense of recognition, exclusivity, and permanence that comes to relationships. My view is that history and tradition have invested significant meaning into the term “marriage” and I believe that we need to retain its present definition. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is my intention to split this call with Mojo Mathers from the Green Party. Taloha ni. It is a privilege to take a call in the final stage of the debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. This is a historic moment not for just this Parliament or the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual community but also for our country.

I want to take this opportunity because there is more than one Pacific perspective in this House and in our country. To my fellow Pacific members of Parliament, I respect your choice. To those in the Pacific community who oppose this bill, I respect your beliefs. I hope that you respect and understand my choice and my strongly held beliefs. The belief driving my choice and my opinion is more prevalent among, but not restricted to, younger Pacific Islanders. It is in no way meant to be disrespectful or a challenge to our elders. In fact, in my mind, my strongly held views derive from the strong Pacific values that have been passed on to me by my parents and family.

I am proud to support this bill. To me, it speaks to the heart of the values of what being Pacific in New Zealand is. Those are values of family, love, inclusion, equality, respect, and having pride in who you are. Our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents came to New Zealand to give their families a better life. Vital in that was that they came to these shores and got a fair go, were treated equally, were not discriminated against, and were given the respect that every New Zealander deserved. As we know, that was not always the case. There were battles, battles were won, and the Pacific community is now proud and vibrant.

Our gay community is also proud and vibrant. They too have battled, and, like all other Kiwis, they deserve the full enjoyment of the values of family, love, inclusion, equality, and respect. I know there are strong religious veins in the Pacific community, and I respect that and the views that they have, but many young, gay Pacific Islanders have found this debate difficult. Many have grown up and maintain strong religious beliefs. They have told me one of the hardest things in the public debate has been hearing that the God that they worship seems to see them differently. My God does not.

I hope that our community can embrace that there are many in our families who on a daily basis struggle to be openly who they are. For cultures whose very survival relies on pride of identity, cultures and language, and being proud of who we are, we need to let out youngsters know that in every respect they should be proud of who they are and that we are proud of who they are.

Locally, can I thank all those who respectfully gave their opinions both for and against. In particular, can I thank Pastor Ken Roach from the Porirua Elim Christian Church. We both discussed, dissected, and disagreed, but it was always respectful. The Government Administration Committee, led by the Hon Ruth Dyson, strengthened this bill to address many issues that church leaders like Ken held. It made it clear no minister or religious celebrant is obliged to marry a couple if doing so would contravene the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of a religious body or organisation.

I would like to thank Louisa Wall, who worked from the outset to ensure respect for religious beliefs despite the fundamental differences of opinion. Before I conclude I would like to acknowledge Kāpiti Mayor Jenny Rowan and her partner Jools Joslin, who, I understand, are somewhere in the precincts of Parliament. They have been at the forefront of this long-running issue, because the courts denied them their right to marry. Well, Jools, when this bill was pulled out of the ballot I remember seeing you at Coastlands mall and you said “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Well, tonight, seeing is believing.

I am going to end, like Maryan Street, the way I ended my maiden speech, with a quote from William Penn that I hold dear. It reads: “I expect to pass through life but once. If, therefore, there be any kindness I can show or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now and not defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again.” Tonight this House will do that.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to start by expressing my heartfelt thanks to every member of the House who votes for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill tonight. Your vote will mean a great deal to me, to my family, and to thousands of other New Zealanders. My family has been fortunate to have a beautiful rainbow thread that has woven itself in and out of most of the generations on both sides, and it has created artists and teachers, dreamers and doctors, to name just a few. This wonderful rainbow thread has been continued in the youngest generation and is reflected in my beautiful, brave, loving daughter. Last year she went to her first formal with her girlfriend. They looked absolutely stunning in black and gold with gold make-up. It was with immense pride that I watched them walk into that formal hand in hand, openly declaring their love and affection for each other. They had a wonderful evening and we have many lovely photos to remember it by.

For me, one of the highlights of being a mother is when my daughter snuggles up to me on the sofa and shares with me her hopes, her dreams, her aspirations for her future. Like countless other young women, she hopes for love, marriage, children, a good job, and a house with a white picket fence. All of these options are available to her older sister. When this bill passes tonight, which I hope it does, it will give both of my daughters the equal opportunity to marry the person they love. No mother could be more proud of her daughters than I am, and to see them have equal rights before the law is very important to me. I know from the wonderful emails that I have received that there are many other parents around the country who want their children to have the same right to marry the person they love.

I also have loved ones from the wider rainbow community for whom this bill will make a real difference. It will make a difference for them whether or not they choose to marry because it will affirm that they have equal rights before the law regardless of their sexual orientation. When I was growing up, I witnessed bullying and taunting of young people suspected of being gay. It was a terrible experience and profoundly distressing. Since that time I have seen significant cultural change in attitudes towards gay people, and I have seen fear being replaced with love, bullying replaced with acceptance, rejection replaced with tolerance. I find it incredibly sad that opponents of marriage equality speak of this cultural change as if it is something to be afraid of. For me, it is something to be embraced with open arms, so I will be voting for this bill as an affirmation of the rights of rainbow youth and the hope that one day every young person in New Zealand will feel safe and confident about their sexuality, free from fear and bullying.

Every member in the House who votes for this bill tonight will be voting for love, tolerance, and acceptance. On behalf of my family and thousands of other New Zealanders, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): I planned to split my call with Chris Auchinvole. It is a great privilege to have the responsibility to exercise a conscience vote on this landmark Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I want to once again acknowledge all those who have submitted and written on this bill from both sides of the debate, and thank them for their passion, energy, efforts, and sincerity. Thank you, Louisa Wall, for your fortitude, and those whom I have heard from, young and old, from all walks of life, from all religions, in Hunua and around New Zealand. Thank you to so many parliamentary colleagues.

At one of my electorate meetings a highly intelligent, crusty, salt of the earth farmer urged me to vote against the bill, but he later joked that over the last few generations the sequence of events has gone like this: in the first instance, parents such as himself used to tell their daughters not to come home with someone from a different religion, then not to come home with someone from a different race, then definitely not to come home single and pregnant, and, today, then not to come home with someone from the same sex, let alone marry them. He encapsulates the fact that society has evolved enormously within a few generations, just as marriage has been evolving as a civil and religious institution throughout human history. In New Zealand we do not have such a clear separation between Church and State as some jurisdictions, and I agree with the argument that the best way to protect religious freedom is to ensure separation of Church and State when it comes to equality under the law. With this legislation, significant safeguards are in place to ensure that marriage celebrants, clergy in particular, remain free to choose according to their convictions.

As a former specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist, extremely poignant experiences for me were the rare occurrences where at the birth of a baby, when the parents instinctively asked: “Is it a boy or a girl?”, I had been literally unable to tell them. This has been because of ambiguous genitalia or a unique physical abnormality. It may take some weeks to fully assess a child, have genetic testing carried out, and assign a sex. Even that may be later changed. This illustrates the dramatic new knowledge available in the modern world to better understand the spectrum of physical, genetic, and social expression of gender and sexuality that was simply not possible in the past. I ask anyone, on either side of the debate, whether they would not hope that their newborn could be brought up in a society that is both tolerant and as caring about their child’s status and aspirations as any other child’s—a society that is inclusive, fair, and committed to respecting one another.

It is a sign of huge change that today 65 percent of marriage ceremonies in New Zealand are solemnised independently of the Church. When it comes to marriage, as Rev. Margaret Mayman puts it, the overriding message of Christian faith is that we are all called to practise justice and compassion and to welcome those who are marginalised and oppressed. The biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves provides the mandate for marriage equality. The ethical criterion of a marriage relationship is to do with the quality, not the orientation, of the partners. In the first reading of this bill I said that despite trying hard, I could not construct a strong enough intellectual, moral, health, or even spiritual reason to vote against it. I am now quite convinced that, at the end of the day, the strength of any human union is about love, tolerance, giving, forgiving, sharing, inclusiveness, commitment, and fairness irrespective of gender. These are universal qualities that have no boundaries.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): In the second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, I along with my fellow members of the Government Administration Committee discussed the submissions we received and how we approached the points raised. This is a process I believe in—a process of listening, considering, and reaching a conclusion based on persuasive argument rather than personal, reactive response. This process is over. Now it is time for us as a Parliament to cast our final votes on this bill and allow our part in this debate to come to an end. As politicians we are here to legislate, but it is only society that can determine how decisions made by this Parliament affect and are absorbed into our social mores. As the former Republican governor and current United States Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, wrote in an article outlining the conservative support for same-sex marriage: “Marriage is not an issue that people rationalise through the abstract lens of the law;”.

This debate that we have been engaged in has highlighted a divide in opinion amongst this nation between young and old, between secular and spiritual, and even between members of the same faith and the same family. This type of divide is not new, nor should it be something that we avoid or dismiss. We have faced many issues of conscience in our nation’s relatively short history. I think we have grown stronger by facing them together, not always as adversaries but as fellow members of a small and empathetic nation that often gives fine examples to the rest of the world. It is because of this shared history that I have the faith that we can seize this opportunity to have discussions around the issues raised by this bill in our homes, our churches, and everywhere honest, thoughtful debate is respected.

This bill is not a panacea, but it is an opportunity. If it is to pass—and we should pass this bill—that is just the beginning of a change process, and I think everyone will acknowledge that. It is just a beginning. As an older person I would ask that the younger generation—epitomised, of course, in my colleague Nikki Kaye—show some patience and consideration for those of my generation who will need time to adjust to a change that will be very, very new to us. By the same token, we cannot move forward as a nation if we older ones ignore or reject the heartfelt pleas for respect by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and the younger brigade. We need their acceptance, just as they are entitled to our acceptance.

These impassioned pleas come through loud and clear when you examine the submission process. There were stories of children too scared to talk to their parents about their sexuality for fear of punishment or, worse, for fear of total rejection. We may not always agree with our children’s decisions, and, as any parent will tell you, it is our job to worry, but to create an environment where your child cannot even talk to you about the issues affecting their life is unconscionable.

There are those on both sides of the bill who concentrated on their own point of view to the neglect of any consideration of other points of view. It is necessary, if this bill passes—and we should pass this bill—for groups to reconsider individual standpoints. I feel, particularly in respect of the Churches, that there is a need to pick up the somewhat tattered and torn banner. The banner of Christian love is somewhat tarnished, but if it is picked up with hands of every generation, of whatever ethnicity or gender identity that human bodies individually glory in, then their spirits can restitch, restore, and make the banner resplendent, and to God be the glory. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is my intention to split my call with Moana Mackey.

I am proud and privileged to speak in the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I want to see this bill passed into law tonight.

I want to acknowledge the thousands of people who submitted on the bill. We heard some very powerful stories at the Government Administration Committee. We heard stories from young gay and lesbian New Zealanders who felt so strongly that passing this bill would be a recognition and acceptance of them. For that reason alone I support this bill. I want to live in a society that is respectful and tolerant, where diversity is recognised and cherished, and where love and commitment are supported. This bill helps to achieve that aim.

The bill does three primary things. It allows same-sex couples to marry, it ensures that where a person has transitioned from one gender to another and remained married throughout that significant change, they can have their marriage recognised in the law, and it extends to same-sex married couples the current provision of allowing a single person to adopt a child.

The bill ensures that our religious freedoms for celebrants are maintained. We in the select committee applied a belt and braces approach to ensure that the law is beyond doubt in backing the rights of marriage celebrants to decline to marry a couple, should such a marriage not be in accordance with their beliefs. The Marriage Act has since 1955 said that celebrants can do that, presumably to protect celebrants from being forced to marry heterosexual couples of different religions or—heaven forbid—marry somebody who was divorced. We have maintained that protection for celebrants under the law.

This bill removes section 56 of the Marriage Act. Some people may not be as familiar with that section as I am, so let me share it with you. That section of the Act says that it is an “Offence to deny or impugn validity of lawful marriage”. We have taken that section out of our law. We are not proposing that more people denigrate other people’s marriages, but we just do not think that that section sits sensibly within a human rights framework.

The issues of religious freedoms, of celebrants being able to decline to marry a couple, and the view of someone in relation to another’s marriage have all been the subject of gross misrepresentations from opponents of the bill, and I resent those misrepresentations. They have been made by just a small group of opponents, but they have spread these lies about the bill widely, and they have upset people and made people anxious about things that are just not true. I think that lying in a debate about something as important as this is immoral. I want to pay tribute to the opponents of the bill who told the truth about their reasons for opposition. Sadly, that was not the case for all opponents. So, just to clarify, no celebrant will be obliged under the law to marry any couple—heterosexual or same sex.

The bill does not rewrite the marriage vows. Vows of marriage will be written by the couple getting married and the celebrant, as they currently are. It will not be illegal to call your husband your husband—phew—and it will not be illegal to call your wife your wife. You will still be able to have “bride and groom” on your marriage certificate, if that is what you want to have on it.

I spoke earlier about the gay and lesbian submitters on this bill. For many, presenting a submission—not just on any bill but on a bill about their right to marry, about their life—took huge courage, and I want to pay a massive tribute to all those who came along. Some of those submitters, particularly the older ones, told us of feeling rejected and different. They told of the fear of coming out to their family and friends, of denial of their own sexual orientation, and of living their life as a lie. They told of being bullied and feeling suicidal, of not being part of their own community. This law is not going to change our world overnight, we will not wake up tomorrow and find ourselves in a totally tolerant and inclusive society, but this will be a lawful recognition of the value of those loving relationships. It is a step forward in recognising the value of love in our law.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It is an honour and a privilege to be able to speak at the third reading of this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, tonight. I want to congratulate my friend Louisa Wall on her role in bringing this important bill to the House. I have had a lot of calls at home today from the media asking why I support this bill, and the answer is simple. I am voting in favour because I cannot find any compelling reason why law-abiding, taxpaying Kiwis in committed, loving relationships should not be able to access the legal and social benefits of marriage purely based on something they cannot change: their sexual orientation. I am voting for this bill because I believe that it will do a lot of good. Just as important, I am voting for this bill because I am utterly and completely convinced that it will do no harm to marriage, to society, or to anyone else, regardless of how they may feel about the issue.

I want to thank all those who took the time to submit, to write to us, to Facebook us, and to email us. I certainly respect the deep feelings held on both sides of the debate, and want to thank members of this House as well as members of the public for the largely respectful way in which the debate has been conducted, although the person who sent me an email today describing me as “an evil, God-hating reprobate” may want to re-evaluate the effectiveness of their engagement strategy.

I sat on the Government Administration Committee for the consideration of this bill, and I was also a member of the committee that considered the Civil Union Act back in 2003. I am encouraged by how dramatically the tenor of the debate has shifted. The vitriol that was evident back then has not occurred this time around. I also welcome the belated support for that legislation from those who now argue that civil unions are an appropriate recognition of same-sex relationships, that they provide adequate legal protection, and that they are not a second-rate option. But, as one submitter told the committee, civil unions are not a second-rate choice if they are your first choice. And although I respect the beliefs of those who oppose the bill on religious grounds, I strongly believe that although it is the role of the State to protect freedom of religious expression—and this bill reaffirms that—it is not the role of the State to uphold one group’s religious beliefs over another’s.

The bill is also in the best interests of the many children currently being raised by same-sex couples. I could not in good conscience vote against a bill that would ensure that all children in this country are able to benefit from the stability that marriage provides, simply because some may disagree with the relationship their parents are in, especially when concerns that have been raised that a same-sex family might impact negatively on children are not borne out by independent, peer-reviewed research.

This debate is not about special rights for some; it is, in fact, the very opposite. It is about acknowledging that something that used to be seen as so scary, immoral, and different that my mother felt compelled to be an active member of a group called HUG—Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays—is, in fact, completely normal. This is not about gay marriage; it is about marriage, and bringing marriage into the 21st century. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people will not be any better or worse at marriage than us straights. They will face the same challenges, the highs and lows, the successes, and the failures.

My late grandmother always had a wonderfully uncomplicated approach to life. At one point she became quite taken with Brendan, the partner of one of my best friends from high school, Peter. She told me that she would not be at all disappointed if Brendan were to become her grandson-in-law. I said to her “But, Grandma, he’s gay.”, to which she responded “Well, your grandfather wasn’t the easiest person to live with, but you make marriage work.” And she was bang on. If it is the right thing to do, then regardless of the difficulties or downsides, you make it work.

Unfortunately for her, I decided that marrying Brendan was not the right thing to do, but her point remains. Yes, marriage is a responsibility as well as a right. Yes, it may not always go to plan. Yes, there may be bumps along the way. But you make it work. And I know that thousands of Kiwis right across the country tonight are hoping that Parliament passes this legislation tonight so that they can be given that opportunity. I will be proud to cast my vote tonight for marriage equality. I am now going to sit down so that we can take the vote and pass this bill into law.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 77

Noes 44

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 9.43 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

(continued on Thursday, 18 April 2013)

Bills

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. He mihi tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāti Whātua kua tae mai i tēnei ata, nau mai, hara mai rā. Kāore anō kia tīmata nā reira, tēnā koutou, whakapiri mai. Ngā mate kua pā ki a koutou, waiho rātou kua mihia i runga i ngā marae maha o te motu. Ko te mea nui i tēnei wā, ko koutou kua tae a-tīnana mai i tēnei hui nui mō tātou. Nā reira, kai te rangatira, tēnā koe, koutou ngā kuia rangatira, tēnā koutou, whakapiri mai.

[This is an acknowledgment to you of Ngāti Whātua who have arrived here this morning. Welcome, welcome. It has not started yet, so greetings to you collectively, draw closer. As for the deaths that have affected you, leave them on the many courtyards of the nation so a tribute can be made to them. The most important thing at this point in time is that you are here collectively at this important gathering for you. Therefore I doff my hat to you, esteemed elder and venerable matriarchs. Welcome, draw closer.]

In moving that the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time, I begin with a quote: “You don’t run a Treaty settlement on your own.” I quote a very humble descendant of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. That was her response when the media congratulated her after she was honoured by the Governor-General for her work in negotiating the settlement of her people’s Treaty of Waitangi claims. She told the reporter that the more she delved into the injustices of her people’s past, the more she realised she was not venturing into new territories; she was merely following the well-trodden footsteps of those who had gone before her—generations of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara who spent entire lifetimes fighting for justice, her own family members who have not lived to see this day.

As only Treaty of Waitangi claimants can understand, she said that standing there receiving her award at Government House was an incredibly lonely act, and that there were so many other people who could equally share in that award. There were so many other people she would have dearly loved to be there to accept that award, and I quote: “You don’t run a Treaty settlement on your own.” Nā reira, tēnā koe Margaret Kāwharu mō ōu nei kupu. Tangi tonu mātou i tō pāpā.

[So thank you for your words, Margaret Kāwharu. We continue to mourn your dad.]

So in the spirit of those humble words I would like to pay tribute to those who have gone before, those sons and daughters of Haranui, Reweti, Kakanui, Araparera, and Puatahi marae. So many are not in the House today, but if not for them we would not be here considering a bill to resolve an injustice that began 169 years ago. Nā reira koutou, moe mai rā e ngā rangatira i te mōhio kua mau tonu koutou i a mātou ngākau i tēnei rangi, nā reira, okioki pai mai.

[And so to you, the esteemed elders, rest there in the knowledge that you are in our hearts today for ever. So rest well there.]

Ninety percent of the ancestral lands of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara were gone within a single generation. Could we imagine what it would be like to have 90 percent of our homes taken from us, from our children and grandchildren—90 percent taken by law? And the 10 percent of the lands left for Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, for their families, were fragmented, uneconomic, and hard to live off. Determined, unrelenting, and pervasive Government land buying and land fragmentation policies took not just hundreds but thousands of hectares of land off these families. By denying these families the lands and resources to take ownership of their own destiny, these policies sought to deny Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara the right to determine their own economic and social well-being.

But those policies failed miserably. The people of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara are here in this House today seeking justice and taking ownership of their own destiny. Some are here in spirit, their journey etched on the words in this bill. An injustice that began in 1844 with the Crown takeover of vast tracts of land in the upper Waitematā will soon be resolved by this Parliament and the people of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. In coming to this agreement to resolve past grievances we honour all of the ancestors, but, also, importantly, we honour our descendants and we plan for the future.

I stand to acknowledge Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, whose tenacity and leadership will soon see settlement for the hapū and marae of southern Kaipara. I commend the trustees of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Committee and the trustees of Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust for their passion and for their commitment. They have shown incredible leadership by working alongside other iwi and hapū of Kaipara—Tāmaki-makau-rau and Hauraki both. The support of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara people for the settlement negotiated on their behalf is clear. Two ratification processes held in August 2010 and August 2011 returned approval rates of 96 percent and 92 percent, respectively—a beautiful mandate. All those things the families of Haranui, Reweti, Kakanui, Araparera, and Puatahi have lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be totally restored, and yet today Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara seek to settle their grievances with the Crown.

The legislation before us is much more than a new law change. It is the history of a people and it is the future of a people. What has been taken from these families can never be totally replaced. Ninety percent of the ancestral lands can never be replaced, and yet here the people are to settle with the Crown. I acknowledge the sacrifice, the pain, and the injustice suffered by these people, those before them, and their whānau. I thank Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara for their leadership, generosity, and mana, without which we could not be here today. This bill provides for a strengthened relationship between the people of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and the Crown—a strengthened relationship as partners in the Treaty of Waitangi. I am proud to stand in support of this bill.

Whāia te kotahitanga o Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. Nā reira, tēnā koutou katoa e manaaki nei i ahau i te wā i tae mai au ki Tāmaki-makau-rau. Whakaae ana ki te whakatū i tētahi marae i Waipareira, tautoko ana. Tautoko ana tātou i a tātou i roto o Tāmaki. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Strive for the unity of Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara. Thank you all for looking after me when I arrived in Auckland. You allowed me to establish a courtyard at Waipareira and you supported it. We supported each other in Auckland, so acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively.]

I look forward to this bill proceeding to the Committee stage without delay. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E mihi kau ana ki te Minita Māori, te Minita e manaaki atu i te haere o ngā kerēme Tiriti. E mihi atu ki a rātou o Ngāti Whātua ki Kaipara nā te mea i roto i āku, he tino take hoki atu tēnei, ko te mahi o ngā hoia mau pū, te āhua o te Kāwana e takahi atu rātou katoa. I kite atu tātou i te tino ngarongaro o te whenua katoa i reira. Kāre e tae atu wētahi o ngā āhua i ngā kerēme pērā tonu. Nā te mea mō tēnei tae atu, e kite atu tātou te tautoko o te tino nui o ngā uri o Kaipara o Ngāti Whātua. Ahakoa e tū pakari atu rātou i Ākarana, i Tāmaki-makau-rau, kei te haere tere kaha atu rātou i Kaipara.

Nā te mea, e roaroa atu te mahi o te Kāwana ki a rātou, kāre e huri ki te whakatika, tere noa tōku mihi ki te Minita Chris rāua ko Pita, me tātou katoa ngā kanohi Māori, ngā rōpū i roto i te Whare nei. He nui atu ngā whakahoki mō te mahi o taua tau a muri rā engari, kei te rekareka haere tō tātou whakaaro i kite atu te whakatikatika a tātou ngā mema i te Whare Mīere nei. He tino hōnore tērā, kei te whakahoki atu te nui o ngā wāhi tapu, ngā wāhi tikanga, he tino tūrangatira ki a rātou.

He mōhio rātou i te wā e puta ā-waha te kōrero a Naida Glavish, “kia ora”. Riri atu te whenua katoa i te mau atu i tō tātou Reo Māori, riri rātou ēngari, i nāianei kei te haere a tauiwi, haere ngā Hainamana, kei te haere wētahi o ngā tangata o Aotearoa ki te rapu atu i te reka o tō tātou Reo. Kāre hoki te whenua nei he whenua mō tetahi reo anake Pākehā, he tū kaha atu tātau, nō reira e mihi atu mō rātou. Ahakoa te whakahuri, te whakatuku atu ki a ratou te nui o te compensation, e puta ana wētahi o ngā kaha ki te manaaki atu i te haere i roto i te āhua o te umanga, te pakihi. E mihi kau ana ki te kaiwhakahaere o tō tātou komiti a Tau, mō tōna kaha ki te tae atu ki te oti nei. Mihi atu ki a rātou katoa.

[I acknowledge the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I acknowledge them of Ngāti Whātua at Kaipara as well because I believe that this is a further issue of huge significance in terms of the militia taking up arms against them and Government abuse. We discovered that confiscation of all the land was a key loss there. Some of these circumstances did not occur in claims similar to this one. Because this occurred we note that support by relatives of Ngāti Whātua at Kaipara was significantly huge. While their presence in Auckland is strong, the number of them going to Kaipara is getting faster and stronger.

Because the Crown has been working with them for a very, very long time and has not sought to rectify the situation, I do commend the swift action by Ministers Chris and Pita, and all of us Māori members and all parties in this House. The responses in regard to what was done last year were quite significant, but on the other hand our thoughts are increasingly nice now after seeing the amendments made by us members of this Parliament. That is a real honour. A large number of places of sacred and cultural significance to them are being returned.

They are well aware what happened when Naida Glavish uttered the words “kia ora”. The whole country was angry at the use of our Māori language. The entire nation was furious but at this point in time mainstream, Chinese, and people of New Zealand are seeking out the sweetness of our language. This country is not one where only the English language is used. We have stood staunch against that and so it is a compliment to them. Although they are to receive much of the compensation, a great deal of effort will have to be spent looking after pursuits and business affairs. I acknowledge the chairman of our committee, Tau, for being resolute to ensure that this bill arrives here completed. I congratulate them all.]

We do support this bill, the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, in the Labour Party, and the sooner it is through, the better. There are a whole lot of people to thank, and, without over-naming people, I thank the trust, the negotiation team—all of those people have had a key role, rātou o te Waitaha Raupatu Trust. In particular I want to mention other people in Ngāti Whātua, Naida and co., and all of those people who have helped, because there are a lot who helped to balance it. As the Minister of Māori Affairs said, it is quite a balancing act coming to agreement with six other settlements around you. That they have been able to do that shows real strength. But certainly from us and the rest of the parties, as I understand, we support this bill at the second reading, and hopefully into the Committee stage. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Mea tuatahi, i a koutou e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou. Kei a koutou Ngāti Whātua, mana whenua o taku kāinga, nō reira, mihi kau atu au ki a koutou.

[Firstly, to you, my elders, welcome. To you of Ngāti Whātua, who have inherited status over the land of my residence, I acknowledge you greatly.]

As a—I was going to say “young person”—reasonably young person being brought up, born, and bred in Ōtara, in those times, and making friends with various people from Ngāti Whātua through the movement such as Sharon Hawke and the Hawke whānau, having a sort of baptism of fire through the Auckland movement was always good, and it continues today. When you think of a people who have—I would not use the word “lost”, but who have had 90 percent of their land taken in an urban area that is Auckland, which is now a million people strong and has every immigrant from every part of the globe, it is more of a struggle for the indigenous home people to survive. And we have seen it all around the world.

Not only do they have to battle the Crown—and here is something that we should think seriously upon, too. That is that Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara were friends of the Crown. It was not as if they were enemies of the Crown. They were friends of the Crown. So you would expect that part of the deal of being a friend of the Crown would be that they would be looked after. So that even adds to the suffering that I think that Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and the whole of the Auckland isthmus, had to live under.

I will not take too long. I commend the Māori Affairs Committee for its job. I commend the select committee for the questions that it sought answers to. And also I commend the select committee for visiting the heart of Kaipara to hear the submissions. I think that some of the amendments that come forth from the select committee are part and parcel of the process that we go through to refine the settlement deal between the Crown and iwi.

Lastly, can I say thank you to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara for their hospitality to our select committee, which really did enjoy the day that we spent there—a very special day. I am sure that when we retire and we look back on the days that we have spent in here those will be some of the highlights of our careers. Nō reira, kei a koutou, kei a koutou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Minita. Tēnā koutou e ngā mema o te Whare. Ki a koutou Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Āpiti hōno, tātai hōno rātou te hunga mate ki a rātou, āpiti hōno tātai hōno tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Salutations to you, Mr Speaker, Minister, and members of the House. To you collectively of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, welcome to Parliament House standing here in readiness—welcome. The lines are drawn, so allow the dead to remain there amongst their own while we, the living, remain here among the living world. Greetings and salutations to you all.]

I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill at this second reading. I am really enjoying my time on the Māori Affairs Committee and it was unfortunate that I was not able to participate in the select committee when it travelled up to hear this bill at Kaipara. But I am very pleased to awhi this bill at this second reading stage.

As always I like to take a bit of a different tack when I give my speeches on these Treaty bills. I would like to stand today and really acknowledge the great visionary chief Paora Tūhaere of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, because he was really remarkable and as we go into these bills the wonderful history and the great works of these great chiefs come through. If we look at Paora Tūhaere, it is surely one of the great enticements ever. He convinced the Queen’s representative to move the capital of the colony from the Bay of Islands to the upper Waitematā Harbour—what was to become Auckland City. Tūhaere was the chief of a Ngāti Whātua tribe of the southern Kaipara Harbour, and their rohe extended down to Muriwai and across to Helensville and back up to the Kaipara.

His invitation to Governor Hobson must surely have raised the ire of his more senior and famous uncles from Ngāpuhi, but the gift of a couple of hundred thousand acres was obviously worth it, in order to have the Pākehā settlers build a new city founded purely around commerce and the administration of the colony. The idea was simple: bring the Pākehā settlers to the Waitematā Harbour and benefit from the inevitable trade. Hongi Hika in the north and Te Rauparaha in the south had benefited from the Pākehā contact. So tribes who had contact with Pākehā always benefited from picking up new technologies and customs.

Paora Tūhaere was a chief with foresight, and for a couple of years Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara did benefit from being close to the Pākehā. This did not transpire for ever, unfortunately, but only for a while. What actually happened is one of the sadder stories in this current crop of settlement bills. As we have heard in previous speeches at the first reading and surely in what will come, some terrible things happened to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. After the good times ended and the commerce of Auckland really started to take off, as has been documented, the five hapū of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and the amount of land that was stolen from them—it was significant.

Personally this bill has thrown light, as I have mentioned at the start, on just what a true and loyal Māori and a true New Zealander Paora Tūhaere was. He seems to have been a person of real sound judgment and common sense. Pākehā coming from overseas—that was inevitable, and, as nephew to the paramount leader, Apihai Te Kawau of Ōrākei, Tūhaere and his people were in a good position to benefit. Paora was Christian, and learnt to read and write well before Auckland was founded. He was a capable administrator. He held several municipal positions.

In all huis and dealings with Pākehā in Auckland, he believed the best way forward for everyone to benefit was by following the Treaty. He soon came to understand that if Māori were to have an equal say in their own land, they should have political representation. Indeed, he was really at the beginning of Māori political awareness and consciousness. So he is the man, actually, whom I think all of us Māori electorate MPs should give thanks for, because it was through his efforts that there came the formation of the Māori electorates. So I give personal thanks for his efforts that I represent Te Tai Tonga today.

Later on I can elaborate further on the early huis at Kohimaramara and the dealings with Governor Gore Browne, and all of those early very significant hui, but I might hold those over for the third reading. But I do want to acknowledge Tūhaere for that wonderful saying that if there are to be 50 Pākehā seats in terms of the House of Representatives, let there be 50 Māori seats. So, again, I just acknowledge the tremendous foresight and contribution that that wonderful chief made to our constitution as a country. He knew the meaning of fair and equal, and when he found out that some of his more notable Pākehā acquaintances would never give Māori equal representation, he hosted his own Māori parliamentary movement at Ōrākei, and later joined forces with the Kotahitanga movement, of which he became a fervent supporter and follower.

So, as is documented in these bills, you know, Auckland really was based on a lot of thievery of land to establish it. Paora Tūhaere really was the genesis of the Māori seats that we have today, and it is interesting that some 160-plus years later we are doing a Māori option now that might determine whether we go from seven seats to maybe an eighth seat, which would be great. Yes, sometimes we have moved a long way and at other times it has been quite slow, but I think it is something for us to reflect on in terms of his contribution as the great chief of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. So I really just wanted to acknowledge his contribution, and I know that a lot of his early efforts and all of the subsequent work that has been conducted by Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara has led through to what we have here today, at the second reading of this bill.

We do support the bill. Obviously, it does not compensate for all the real hurt and mamae and grievance and losses, but it is an opportunity for Ngāti Whātua to recapitalise and reassert their tribal identity on their whenua and their connection and their permanence to Kaipara, and also their rohe takiwā. So I support this bill and I look forward to the Committee stage and also to finally bringing it to a conclusion at the third reading. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kei te mihi nui ki a koutou ki te mana o Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, ngā manuhiri ki tēnei Whare, te Whare Raruraru. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[A big welcome to you, the authority of Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara, and visitors to this House, the House of Perplexity. Welcome to you all.]

Could I begin to speak in support of this bill, the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, on behalf of the Green Party by just acknowledging the opening remarks of the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Sharples, to associate ourselves with those comments, and to acknowledge his considerable work on this settlement and, indeed, on many others over the years.

One of the mixed blessings of this job of being an MP is that we travel a great deal, and for me my journey from home heading south is always somehow, either by air or by road, passing over or by the Kaipara Harbour. Particularly when flying over the harbour, one recognises the extraordinary landscape that it really is. It is the largest harbour in New Zealand, a remarkable landscape, and historically an extraordinarily rich landscape for the people who live there. It is worth remembering and recalling that the collective of hapū and whānau who make up the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara have dwelt in that land, occupied that land, for some three centuries. The Ngāti Hine element of that grouping are relative latecomers, with only 200-odd years in occupation and as kaitiaki of that land. I think something we should dwell on is the fact that prior to Pākehā arrival, I have no doubt, it was very productive land and very fruitful land, and it has been degraded over time—over a relatively short time. I think we all share responsibility with the kaitiaki to ensure that over the next generations the quality of that land, of the moana, and of the whenua is restored, at the same time that the health and well-being of the people whose right to that land is recognised in this Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill is also restored.

I have said before and I will probably continue to say that these settlement bills not only are of great value in themselves, to the extent that they do acknowledge wrongs that were done and seek to offer some level of restitution to those who were wronged over time, but also are extraordinary historic documents. They are very accessible histories of what has occurred. For some people the documents generated by the tribunal process may be a bit daunting, a little bit too much at once, but anybody can read these bills and get a very good summary and get a real flavour of what has occurred historically around this remarkable land of ours that we all share. These bills do have the history written in very clear and concise language. Nevertheless it is language that cannot help but stir the emotions, as well as being quite objective statements of what has happened over time. I recommend anyone in New Zealand read these bills to understand what is at stake here, and to understand the value of the settlement process that this reading is part of.

The point has been made that Ngāti Whātua cooperated considerably with the Crown. They made the Crown and the new Pākehā settlers very welcome. They engaged and sought benefit, both for themselves and for the new settlers, out of the new relationship that was established, which makes it doubly unfortunate that their hospitality, their welcome, and their goodwill was not reciprocated. The point has been made in the bill, in fact, that by 1853, only 13 years after the signing of the Treaty, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara had lost access to their lands around the upper Waitematā. By 1900, 90 percent of their former landholdings had been alienated from them. Of that remaining 10 percent, 75 percent of it disappeared by 1990. So, clearly, it has been a long and unfortunate history of alienation and of a failure to honour the spirit or, indeed, the letter of the Treaty—by legal means and illegal means. It is good, and it is a genuine privilege, to be a small part of this process of restitution, of making right some of the wrongs that have been done historically.

I think it is useful to mention, as ever, that of course we recognise that what is given back in material terms is only a small part of what was taken historically. We know that if all the material value was restored to iwi and hapū throughout the country, the New Zealand economy as we know it would be destroyed, and that would be to nobody’s benefit. So, although the material return—the land and the money—that is involved is not a trivial matter by any means, I think what is central to these bills is the Crown’s acknowledgment of wrongs that have been done over time, and, critically, the apology—the unreserved apology—which I believe is as important as the material return, if not the most important aspect of these bills. I think it restores some of the mana of the Crown, and indeed of the Government, as it does recognise the mana whenua of this particular rohe, the south Kaipara district, which is at stake in this bill.

I simply want to conclude by affirming the Green Party’s support for this, and our pleasure at seeing a turn, shall we say, for the better. We do support and are willing to be part of the ongoing restoration of value to those who have waited for such a very long time to have that restitution made. Kia ora.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to acknowledge the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara representatives in the gallery. I am told that we can expect a much larger contingent when the third reading of this bill, the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, is debated, but it is great to have them here. On behalf of the Crown, I really enjoyed negotiating with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. We signed the agreement in principle, as I recall, at the very end of 2010. It was what almost could be called a “rocket docket” negotiation, because we really cut to the chase. The deed was then signed on the shores of the great Kaipara a year or so later, and now we have reached the legislative stage. I am so very pleased that we are at this stage, and I very much look forward to the third reading in June.

I want to acknowledge also the Māori Affairs Committee. It travelled to south Kaipara to hear public submissions, and the strong support of members of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara for the settlement was evident in the submissions and at the hearing. I want to say also that very useful and helpful submissions were received from the Auckland Council and also Te Kawerau-a-Maki, an iwi who has shared interests with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. The Auckland Council and the Rodney Local Board are a very important part of the post-settlement future for Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. One of the features of this settlement is a joint management body between the Auckland Council and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara to manage the Parakai Recreation Reserve. I really do want to thank the members of the Rodney District Council, which originally considered this proposal.

I particularly want to congratulate and thank the Māori Affairs Committee on its work. The bill had its first reading on 19 September 2012, and the committee reported it back to Parliament on 12 December, 1 week shy of 3 months, which is very impressive, but, when one thinks about it, not all that surprising, given the dedication and the skill of the chair and the hard work that members of the committee have shown on previous settlement bills. Their reward, I have to say, is going to be a lot more work, hopefully in June. There will be—and Mr Tirikatene and I know this—the final signing at the top of the South Island in Tākaka on Saturday, and then a 600-page bill will be introduced to the House, incorporating nine settlements, and that will be great. But today is Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara’s day. I do not want to detract from that, but I simply say to Mr Horomia and the other members of the Māori Affairs Committee team that more work is on its way.

The committee recommended amendments to the bill that clarify the intent of the deed of settlement, especially in respect of properties at Commercial Road and Rata Street. These properties are part of the historic 10-acre block that Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara gifted to the Crown. Parts of this block were transferred from the Crown to previous councils, despite protests from Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and this settlement will enable several properties that were retained in Crown ownership since that time to be returned.

That is all I want to say at this stage. It is a good settlement. I congratulate the negotiators and thank them for their hard work, because in the scheme of things it has been a very speedy negotiation. Once again, I reiterate my thanks to the select committee and its chair for the good work they did, and I very much look forward to the third reading.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora. Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko tēnei taku mihi nunui ki a koutou i tēnei wā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you and greetings to you all. This, indeed, is my huge salutation at this point in time to you collectively, so greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to you all.]

I am honoured to speak on the second reading of this bill, the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill. Before I address my notes I want to acknowledge two things personally with regard to this settlement. Firstly, when I was elected to the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Council, one of the first meetings I was invited to was a meeting run by Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara, where they brought together the Pākehā community of Helensville, Shelly Beach, and Parakai and said to them quite clearly: “Our argument is not with you; our argument is with the Crown. You are our neighbours, and you have nothing to fear from us and nothing to fear from this settlement.” That embodies the history of Ngāti Whātua and the way they have dealt with Pākehā. They have always held the basic belief that one must stay in touch, one must negotiate, one must work together to move forward. It is that that they bring with them to this negotiation. It is that that they bring to the table when they speak with the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Council about building a future for the people of this rohe. It is impressive. It has always been impressive.

The other issue I wish to acknowledge is the calibre of the people who sat at the table. One of the hardest things to do when we are negotiating is to stay at the table. When people say “No.”, or “I don’t agree.”, or “This is not correct.”, or “I don’t believe you.”, the hardest thing to do is to stay at the table and keep talking. That is exactly what Ngāti Whātua have done. They stayed at the table. They did not sway from their purpose, but they stayed at the table and in the discussions.

In the gallery today is a gentleman by the name of Haahi Walker from Te Araparera marae. On the grounds of Mahurangi College there is a whare, Te Whakawhitiwhiti. Haahi Walker helped raise that whare from the ground, so I acknowledge his presence here today.

I will now consult my notes. Before I address the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill directly, however, I do want to remind the House of New Zealand First’s commitment during the 2011 election—the commitment it made to this House to stand up for a fair go for all. That is a fair go for all New Zealanders—New Zealand Māori, New Zealand Pākehā/European, New Zealand Chinese, and New Zealanders from all ethnic backgrounds. A fair go for Māori is no different from a fair go needed by all New Zealanders. A fair go to gain First World wages so they can provide for their families; a fair go to gain jobs so that they can regain and retain their dignity—their mana—and gain warm housing and good health-care; and a fair go to have sound education and training systems that they can access, and that their young people aspire to be part of, and can see themselves attending, because they can reach them.

Great New Zealand leaders of the past, both Māori and non-Māori, knew their people. They worked hard to provide jobs, health-care, education, and housing for everyone. That is one of the strengths I have personally witnessed in my dealings with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. Unlike some other settlements, where New Zealand First has held concerns that only an elite few inside an iwi has benefited, or will benefit, from settlement funds and property, we see today a real and honest commitment by Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara negotiators to turn this hard-won settlement from grievance and grief over the past into excitement and real prospects for the future. It is this place that New Zealand First believes we as a nation need to reach.

We need to acknowledge our past, we need to stand in it and own it, but we need to walk into our future with our heads held high. I am proud to be a sixth-generation Pākehā New Zealander. My ancestors benefited from actions of the Crown such as those addressed in these settlements. But although I may not approve of their actions, I will not deny my ancestors. I refuse to be ashamed to be connected to this land through the bones buried in it, just as my Ngāti Kahungunu aunts, uncles, and cousins are. I am very proud to be associated in a small way with Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara.

I look forward to seeing this bill go through the House so that once it is given Royal assent the real work can begin. The establishment of the co-governance board over the Parakai Reserve, the pools, the campground, and the reserve itself—what an opportunity to bring back an asset that was a jewel in the 1950s, that people could be proud of, and that Aucklanders will flock to. What an opportunity. Imagine the potential for the young people not only of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara but also of the wider community of Helensville, Shelly Beach, Parakai, and even further afield.

We cannot wait to see the beginning of the papakāinga housing project, a joint venture between iwi, the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Council, the Beacon Trust, and Albany’s Unitec Institute of Technology. This pre-apprenticeship retrofit programme will provide a win-win for the people of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara through the training of young people, and by providing the more mature with access to papakāinga housing. These are just two of the many opportunities—the many opportunities—that this settlement will give this rohe.

We believe that Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara is in a position to grab with both hands and take this settlement and create a better future, and that is the point of the settlement. New Zealand First joins with negotiators from iwi in the deep hope that this settlement will set the future in a positive direction that will address the social deprivation of Māori in this area. New Zealand First supports this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill today. I would first like to start off by acknowledging the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Minister Finlayson, for the hard work he does in these settlement bills and the speed with which he gets them into this House. I would also like to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tau Henare. He has always got a focus on getting these bills back into the House as quickly as he possibly can from the select committee, and he fast tracks them and prioritises them within the select committee. Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge those who have worked tirelessly on this bill from Ngāti Whātua, those in the gallery today—thank you for coming down here—and also those who have not been able to make it here today to see the second reading and the Committee stage in this House.

I am embarrassed to say I had never been to Kaipara before this settlement process, and when the select committee went up there to listen to the submissions, I had no idea that it is such a beautiful place—it absolutely is. In fact, I nearly did not make it, as many other select committee members did not, because the GPS cuts out up there, and it is quite a hard place to find. I drove up and down the road about five times before I saw this little sign that said “Go this way.”, so we got there in the end.

There is nothing richer than hearing the stories when you are there—hearing the stories about the vision they had for their future, where that vision is, and why they have not got there. The stories that we heard were about how they were a very generous iwi, and how they had a future gifting land to the council, actually. One of the stories was about gifting land to the council. In that gifting of land to the council, the iwi gave up that land for settlement. But the council never settled on that land, actually, and it used it as a reserve. We also heard how the iwi sold land to the Crown so we could go and settle in that land, and they could grow their area and prosper. But they sold the land at a very low price, and the Crown took advantage of that. So they were a very generous iwi and they had a vision for the future for the area, but, unfortunately, that was not realised. In that process, they lost most of their land and became virtually landless by the 1940s.

So to me this process is about acknowledging the wrongs of the past by the Crown and offering recompense. That is really important, because to me settlements are not only about acknowledging the past and apologising for it but also about the future and the future generations. If we can offer commercial redress to give you some opportunities in the future for economic provisions for the future generations, that is a good thing. Part of this settlement is about $22 million in redress, and part of that is also the transfer of land. So I look forward to debating this further in the House today, and thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on the second reading.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei ata me ngā mahi i oti i roto i ngā rangi pahure ake nei: te whakatūturutanga o te nohonga tahitanga o te hunga takatāpui, te tangihanga me ngā karakia i whakaritea mō Baroness Thatcher i tērā pito o te ao.

Ēngari, kāti ēnei kōrero mō ngā baronesses o rāwāhi me huri atu ki te kōrero ki te tangata whenua o Aotearoa. Nā reira, e ōku tuākana, e ōku mātua tēnā koutou katoa kua tau mai ki Te Upoko o Te Ika ki te mātakitaki i a mātou, ngā kanohi o te ao tōrangapū, e tū kotahi ana ki te whakatūturu i tēnei pire e whiwhi pānga ai ngā whānau o roto o Ngāti Whātua ki te Kaipara, ki ngā taonga tuku iho mai i ō tātou wheinga i tērā pito o Te Tai Tokerau. Nā reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to us all in our House this morning in regards to the business completed over the past days: the passing of the bill that will enable those of the same gender to marry each other, and the State funeral and service for Baroness Thatcher on the other side of the world.

But enough of these talks about baronesses from overseas. Let us turn to address the indigenous people of New Zealand. And so to my senior siblings and all my elders, acknowledgments to you all who have arrived here in Wellington to observe us, the faces of the political world, standing as one here to pass this bill, which will enable families of Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara to have a share in the treasures inherited from our very old people from that extremity of the north. So salutations to you all.]

I rise to support the passage of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, along with my colleagues. It has become the custom that all of the speakers, with the exception of a few irritating dissenters from time to time, support pieces of legislation promoted by the Government to address our historic Treaty grievances. Ngāti Whātua represents an interesting case as to how the Treaty grievances in this part of Māoridom have been dealt with.

Can I just cast my thoughts back briefly to a former stalwart of the Māori Battalion, a senior member in his day of the National Party, and chief of Tai Tokerau, Eruera Patuawa Nathan, otherwise known as Ned Nathan. He took a lead in the Te Rōroa portion of the Ngāti Whātua estate. A number of us felt that it would have been better, in all honesty, for Ngāti Whātua not to have disaggregated, but I quickly learnt to my cost as the chair of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission that those matters are best left to iwi. If the descendants of an iwi find that it was not the best thing to do, then they can sort that out with their mātua and their whāea, not the occasional Dalmatian Māori politician.

So that was the first attempt, and, of course, that attempt was marred by the antics of Allan Titford and his neighbour Mr Harrison, who in the areas of Whāngaiariki and Manuwhētai lodged a host of very destructive acts against a small group of Ngāti Whātua, all of whom have gone now: Lovey Te Rore, Raiha Pāniora, matua Ned Nathan, and a host of others. Then we turned our attention to what is commonly known as Bastion Point, or Ōrākei, and that was a portion. Then we also—prior to a number of us coming into politics—watched the Te Uri o Hau settlement. And now we come and today support the descendants of Paora Tūhaere and a variety of other tūpuna around this area of the Kaipara.

I think a couple of things need to be pointed out: that there is a range of assets tied up in this settlement, but there are also first rights of refusal. I have to single out the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and congratulate him and his team on getting together the multiple interests that comprise the Tāmaki-makau-rau Māori ancestral community—I think they are the iwi collective—because it has not been easy. Indeed, the High Court, exasperated I am sure, had to poke its nose into the affairs of Ngāi Tai. One wonders whether, once a group gets so small that it is almost sort of an appellation problem, they should not have joined forces with the Ngāi Tai further down the countryside, but, then again, that is not for an MP to say. But things can be observed in the House without being sued for such observations. It might change when we get on the marae. But the Minister, and no doubt the Minister of Māori Affairs, shepherded forward these groups.

I raise it only in the context that this hapū, this group, has interests in the area around Whenuapai, Hobsonville, and a large block of Crown land formerly dedicated to a military purpose—I believe it was in our time—through the Public Works Act, or words to that effect, which came back into serving another Crown purpose, called “housing”. Recently I went to this development when I popped in to visit Māoridom’s most famous accountant, called Rob McLeod, currently the Chief Executive Officer of Ernst and Young in Australia—no doubt a contributor to the other side of the House, but that will soon be redressed. I looked at that Hobsonville development, and I send a signal to my relations up here: guard jealously the first rights of refusal, because the goodwill evinced through this Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and a variety of other politicians does not necessarily go forward to the next generation of politicians.

In the future you will have to look at the first rights of refusal and establish whether they are a kosher example of the Crown still needing use of such property and such resources. We can all agree in that part of Tāmaki-makau-rau that when it was used for the military it was beyond cavil. But when it moves into a kind of housing development—and I am not being partisan, because we on our side of the House initiated it—and I look at those developments, I have no doubt in my mind that very few people from that part of the Kaipara, from Ōtakanini, Haranui, and other such places, are going to find a home on land that was originally Crown land and has since been dedicated to serve a Crown housing purpose. But that is more of an issue that belongs in social policy, rather than a signal to the visitors here today to guard jealously the first rights of refusal, and ensure that when the Crown makes a call not only is it to your interests but also no one is exploiting it to your disadvantage.

It may actually have the capacity to sully the day that we raise commercial matters of this nature when there is a great deal of symbolism and history to be commemorated in this part of the bill’s journey, but, at the end of the day, all our fine rhetoric has to turn into an economic reality. There is a good opportunity here in the forestry asset. It is also valuable real estate, which over time will grow in value, and it may come to pass that pine trees are not the best thing to do with the Woodhill Forest, but the value is that it will be your decision, subject to the various nooks and crannies of the contract that lies upon that land. The Kaipara Harbour does need a great deal of remedial action. The fact that there are statutory acknowledgments and a willingness to take on the cultural leadership only bodes well for the future management and stewardship of the Kaipara. In days gone by that was the huarahi—that was the waterway.

Kia manawa nui, kia manawa roa, kia kaha koutou ki a koutou. Ka hoki ngā whakaaro ki tō koutou matua nā mātou i karanga, ko Happy Dynamite ēngari, ko Hapi Pīhema. Nāna mātou i mau ki Ōtakanini, mātou i ahu mai i roto i Muriwhenua. Ka haere ki konā ki te mātakitaki i ngā mahi whakatere kūmara, whakatupu kau, whakatupu kararehe. Kua pau katoa rātou ēngari, ēnei kaupapa i nāianei e amohia ana e koutou. Hoinō tā mātou ngā kanohi Māori, ahakoa ko Tau, ahakoa ko Pita, ko mātou, he tautoko i a koutou me tā mātou kī, i te tūpono he raruraru, karawhiua mai ki a mātou pēnā e oti i a mātou tētahi rongoā kia kore rawa atu ēnā momo raru e māturuturu tonu ki roto i a tātou tamariki, mokopuna. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Be big-hearted, be long-hearted, find strength in each other. My thoughts go back to your elder whom we called Happy Dynamite, but who was really Hapi Pīhema. He was the one who took us to Ōtakanini, those of us who were from Muriwhenua. We went to observe operations involved in launching kūmara, breeding cattle and animals. They are all gone now apart from these proposals that you bear now. All we, the Māori members, can do, whether it is Tau, Pita or us, is to support and say to you that should a problem arise, fire it in our direction for us to find a remedy so that those kinds of problems do not filter down to our children and grandchildren. And so, greetings and salutations to you and to us all.]

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It is a privilege to be part of the Māori Affairs Committee and to play a very small part in this historic settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Whātua. Today is a special day in Parliament, because everyone in this House supports this settlement, and it does not happen very often that we get unanimous support out of the House. Everyone supports this settlement for a good reason: settlements enhance the mana of iwi, unlock their economic potential, and help New Zealand become a more culturally rich and more economically productive country.

I come from Ōtautahi/Christchurch, and I happened to be in Wellington at the time of the Ngāi Tahu settlement so many years ago—1996. Although I had no knowledge of the Treaty process at that time—and, actually, not many people did, because it was very early days—I shared in the celebration, and I have seen the enormous benefits, culturally, socially, and economically, that that settlement with Ngāi Tahu has delivered. Those benefits have been not just for the people of Ngāi Tahu, they have been for the people of Ōtautahi and the people of the South Island. There is a stronger, better relationship between both peoples since that settlement occurred.

Ngāti Whātua have a very strong vision for their future, and we in the House all support that and believe that this settlement is a step towards it. Being the original inhabitants of that Auckland area, a most beautiful part of our country and now a magnet for so many new inhabitants, life has not always been easy for this iwi. Their original friendship, generosity, and hospitality were not always returned in kind. This settlement focuses on cultural and historic redress and includes an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments, which form the basis of a Crown apology to Ngāti Whātua, and that is a very good thing.

I am excited about the potential of this settlement, and I would like to wish Ngāti Whātua all the very best for their future and for future generations to come. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Metiria Turei: Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a split call?

Metiria Turei: No, Mr Speaker. It is not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I call Metiria Turei.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Kia ora koutou katoa. He mihi aroha ki a koutou. To those of you in the gallery today who are here to witness the second reading and Committee stage of the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill, tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to take just a very small call to acknowledge and to pay my respects to the iwi who have completed this process, in as far as it has gotten so far. We are very close to the conclusion of this legislation and this settlement.

As has often been repeated in this House by me and by other colleagues, we have always had real concerns about making sure that the process for settlements is fair and that those who have been the victims of the State’s unlawful behaviour in the past are able to have—not mana restored, because their mana has never been lost; it is the Crown’s mana that has been lost in the process, not the mana of the iwi—their rights restored to at least some extent through these deals, and to have the chance to make some future decisions with land and resources that otherwise would not have been returned. Although we would rather that there was more returned to the iwi, that they were fully restored and compensated for the losses that they have suffered, we are pleased that there is at least some restoration of those resources.

So I just wanted to acknowledge that history and these issues, but also perhaps to identify one concern I have about this legislation, and that is a message to the Auckland Council, not to the iwi themselves. There is a description in the bill of the iwi having gifted land for various purposes that has been gifted away in terms of the council, and the Auckland Council was very concerned about the return of that land to the iwi because it is being used as a reserve—not for the purposes for which it was gifted, I would say, but for other purposes, and those purposes are public land as a reserve. The council is very concerned to try to retain that use of that land.

But this is the point: when we return resources that either were wrongfully taken or were taken under an agreement that was not honoured, it is not up to the State, the Crown, or Crown agents like the council to put conditions on the use of that land. It is our obligation and the obligation of all of the agents of the State to return that land, and it should be for the iwi to make decisions as to what happens to it. I notice that there are still some issues around that with this particular land that is being returned to the iwi. There are zoning issues with that land, in that the council will still have to make some decisions to enable the iwi to be able to use the land as they see fit, as is right. So I urge the Auckland Council and those members of Parliament who are involved in Auckland or are from Auckland to make sure that they step out of the way and enable the iwi to be able to have full use and decision-making over this land. It is theirs and they are entitled to do that within the bounds of the law. Trying to retain some control over the use of that land in order to meet other purposes is just not right.

So I hope that the Auckland Council is able to respect the fact that this land now belongs to the iwi and make sure that every possible legal encumbrance is removed from that land, to make it possible for them to use it as they best see fit. I look forward to the Committee stage. I understand that we will be voting on not only the second reading of this bill but also the amendments to this legislation. Therefore, I look forward to the third reading, in time, when this deal will be completed and the iwi will be able to take these resources and do with them as they see fit. Tēnā koutou katoa.

AARON GILMORE (National): I first of all want to pay greetings to the people from Ngāti Whātua who have come here from so far for the debate on the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill. I feel a bit embarrassed because I am a recent arrival back to Parliament. I got here on 19 February and I have not been part of the select committee process. But during my sabbatical out of Parliament I did actually visit the beautiful part of the Kaipara Harbour and I found it a very stunning place. I enjoyed camping, actually, in the campground that I think you are going to take ownership of in a very short period of months.

For me, I think Treaty settlements are always a beautiful thing, and they give, as my grandmother said, karaka seeds to make great orchards from in the future. I believe that this Government that we are a part of and Minister Finlayson have a great focus to get more of these settlements done as soon as possible.

I did not know about the history of Ngāti Whātua until recently, and I was reading about it as part of a speech this morning. Ngāti Whātua had a major battle with Ngāpuhi in 1822 and it led to a major loss of life, which actually led to the signing on a sale of land with Governor Hobson in 1840. That actually led to the situation we find ourselves in today.

My ancestors were involved in the Ngāi Tahu settlement in 1996. I was too young to be involved in that process. I think many people thought at that time that it was not enough, and people wanted more redress, but Ngāi Tahu have gone on to show that even with small karaka seeds you can go on to create massive wealth. I look forward to Ngāti Whātua doing the same in time. I want to thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who did all the work on this bill. I give you the guidance of the gods to go forward and multiply, and I look forward to talking further in later stages of the bill. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

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

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

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Could I just give a brief overview of the Supplementary Order Paper 217 to the bill, because it makes changes to four clauses and one schedule. These changes are very technical amendments and what they do is ensure that certain cultural redress properties are able to be vested as intended by the deed of settlement. In most cases these amendments are to ensure that what is being recorded on computer freehold registers is, in fact, accurate.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. The Waitaha story is significant in the history of our country. The Waitaha story is that of an iwi who never ceded sovereignty to the Crown. The story of Waitaha is that of an iwi who sought to uphold its mana. The story of Waitaha is that of an iwi who have been devastated by the cumulative effects of the Crown’s acts, omissions, and breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles during the 19th and 20th centuries. The story of Waitaha and its relationship with the Crown is one that almost saw the iwi itself disappear.

The purpose of this settlement is to recognise and settle past wrongs of the Crown in relation to Waitaha. Although this settlement will see the Crown provide Waitaha with cultural, financial, and commercial redress, as with all Treaty settlements, full reparation for the losses suffered by Waitaha is not possible. This is something the Crown has to live with.

I wish to acknowledge the work that Waitaha has done to reach this day. It has not been an easy journey, and I am humbled to stand in the Parliament today to say that through this settlement the mokopuna can look forward to sharing a prosperous future together.

Waitaha descend from Hei and his son Waitaha, who arrived on the waka Te Arawa. Over time the uri of Hei settled along the coast extending from Katikati to Ōtamarākau and to the island of Tuhua. Waitaha has close whakapapa links with Tauranga, Waikato, Ngāi Tahu, Ngati Porou, Ngāti Kahungungu, and Te Arawa. By the 1840s Waitaha primarily occupied the land between Tauranga Harbour in the west and Waiari River in the east, as well as staying inland. Waitaha never agreed to cede their mana to the Crown. Most Waitaha rangatira did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. Only Te Kou o Rehua of Ngāti Te Puku o Hākoma signed the Treaty when it was brought to Tauranga.

The Crown acknowledges that it breached the Treaty of Waitangi in its relationship with Waitaha. The Crown acknowledges that the acts, omissions, and breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles that it committed during the 19th and 20th centuries had the most devastating consequences for Waitaha, which almost led to the extinction of that iwi. Waitaha brought their Treaty claims to tell their story and their fate of their tīpuna. Their tipuna Hakaraia is central to that story. Waitaha regard this settlement as a tribute to Hakaraia and his efforts to prevent the alienation of Waitaha land. So in the journey through the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry process, continued through this settlement with the Crown, the mana and reputation of Hakaraia has been restored.

Hakaraia was a prophet and a rangatira. He was a man of peace. He sought to engage peacefully with Pākehā. However, the Crown brought war to the province in the 1860s. In an attempt to subdue the influence of the Kīngitanga, Hakaraia and Waitaha were subsumed by this conflict and its consequences. Hakaraia did not surrender and was considered by the Crown to be an unsurrendered rebel. The Crown punished Waitaha severely. The Tauranga raupatu effectively and efficiently undermined the economic well-being of Waitaha. After the death of Hakaraia, the Crown inflicted further punishment by withholding a large amount of Waitaha land. If this was not enough, the impact of the Native Land Court served to extinguish what little Waitaha land title was left. Such was the impact of this alienation, it almost led to the disappearance of Waitaha.

I am confident that through this settlement the burden that has been carried by the whānau of Hakaraia and of all Waitaha will be lifted. At this time I acknowledge those who carried the burden of wrongs suffered by Waitaha who have passed away without seeing this day. Me mihi anō au ki a rātou. Moe mai ngā rangatira, mau tonu koutou i ngā ngākau nei o ngā uri whakatipu.

[I must pay tribute to them once again. Slumber there, esteemed elders, you will remain in the hearts of successive generations for ever.]

What I have summarised only briefly touches on the mamae, the pain, that Waitaha has had to endure and carry. When things like this happen it is not just about land, territory, it is about the decimation of a social structure, a tribal structure, and their whole value system becomes decayed underneath a monetary economy and new laws. So the pain and what they have had to endure has been almost complete. Waitaha and the Crown began this process by signing terms of negotiation and agreement in principle in 2008. This led to the deed of settlement being signed on 20 September 2011 at Hei Marae in Te Puke.

In summary, the settlement will provide Waitaha with a cultural, financial, and commercial redress package. Cultural redress for Waitaha includes the $3 million education endowment fund in the name of Hakaraia Mahika. The Crown will vest in Waitaha two urban cultural sites, a scenic reserve based on the Maunga Ōtara, Maungaruahine Pā Historic Reserve, and the land at Papamoa, including important parts of those. An overlay classification, known as Te Whakairinga Kōrero, will be provided for in this bill. This is a Crown acknowledgment of Waitaha values and an agreement on protection principles applying to two important mountain sites.

The bill will also provide for a deed of recognition of special association of Waitaha with five areas of conservation land along the ancestral mountains within the Waitaha rohe. The Crown will provide statutory acknowledgment of Waitaha statements of their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association within 15 statutory areas, including the peak of Maunga Tipuna Ōtānewainuku, the beds of several watercourses including the Kaituna River, and the coastal area between Mauao and Maketū. I acknowledge that $1.3 million has already been provided to Waitaha to prepare full historical accounts of Waitaha and Hakaraia, and as a contribution to the restoration of Hei Marae, and for other cultural support purposes.

The Crown will provide letters to Ministers, to its own Ministers, encouraging support for Maranga Waitaha—a link to Government initiatives to assist the social, economic, and cultural needs of Waitaha. The Crown will also provide letters of introduction to local authorities, and the Crown will institute three ministerial protocols relating to taonga tūturu, conservation, and Crown minerals. Financial redress for Waitaha includes the payment of $7.5 million plus interest from an agreement in principle signed in March 2008. Commercial redress for Waitaha includes a right to purchase three land bank properties on settlement, a right to purchase five sites on sale and leaseback properties, and a right to purchase other land bank properties. I wish to thank Waitaha, ahakoa kāre rātou i konei i tēnei rā [even though they are not here today], for the way in which they have resolved issues with neighbouring iwi, both with Tauranga Moana to the west and Te Arawa to the east.

I acknowledge that by choosing to enter into full and final settlement with the Crown, Waitaha has agreed to forgo full reparation for the mamae suffered. For their generosity I really thank them and acknowledge them. This is also an opportunity for the Crown to restore its own tarnished honour and I hope that this settlement will mark the beginning of a stronger relationship with Waitaha, a relationship based on trust, cooperation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to this bill proceeding to the Committee stage without delay. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Kaiwhakahaere, tēnā koe. I roto i āku te nui o ngā whakaaro mō tēnei tino kerēme. Mai i ōku tau e 40 pea, hīkoi kaha atu au mai i te motu, kite atu i ngā marae, ngā iwi, ngā hapū, ngā piki, ngā heke e mōhio atu tātou te nui o te Māori ngā mea taumaha nā te tiamana. Ēngari, nā te mea i roto i āku tēnei anō wētahi o ngā tino iwi e mau kaha rawa atu te iwi Māori. Ahakoa te takahia o ngā hōia, te Kāwana, te tangata whenua, kei reira kē rātou e mau ana te māhore i roto i tō rātou āhua. Te mea hoki, kāre rātou e whakahoki riri ki te Kāwana nā tō rātou whanaunga tata ahakoa ngā piki, ngā heke i reira kē. Pērā i a te nui o tātou, kite atu tātou i te tangohia o te katoa o ngā whenua ō rātou. Takariri atu tō rātou mahi ki te takahia te tupuna a Hakaraia, wētahi o ngā tino rangatira o wērā atu hoki. Mōhio atu tātou mai i te 1865 he raruraru te mahi o te Kāwana ki a rātou.

Te pai hoki mō te rangi nei ka ora anō ngā kanohi Māori. Te Pāremata nei e whakatikatika tērā raru kia ora rawa atu. Nō reira, mihi kau ana ki tō tātou Minita a Chris Finlayson mō tana kaha ki te whakatikatika. Tēnā koe e tō tātou Minita me tō tātou kaiwhakahaere o tō tātou komiti, me te mahi o Tākuta Pita. Tika atu ki te mihi atu ki ōku hoa o muri, a Michael Cullen, a Mita e mahi atu a muri i te take nei. Ahakoa kāre i konei wētahi o rātou, e mōhio atu tātou kei te tinanatia atu tō rātou whakaaro mō te oti pai o tēnei kerēme.

Tukuna atu he tino mihi ki a Tame rāua ko Punohu wētahi o ngā tino koroua, kuia e oti atu i tēnei take. E kite atu rātou te rere haere o te nui o ngā pakeke i reira, ahakoa i konei kē wētahi e ora ana, a Maru Tapsell, a Whareoteriri Rāhiri pērā i a Mike Nahu, Āreta Gray, Shane Ashby me Rāhera Ōhia. Kāre e tika i te mau ingoa, ka waihotia atu wētahi ki waho. Ēngari, i roto i tō rātou kaha e whakahurihuri mō te oti pai o wētahi o ngā kerēme pērā i a Mauao. Kore atu e whakahoki rātou o tēnei wā, kāre e oti atu, kāre e taea te tōti pērā i ngā kerēme tata ana ki a rātou. Haere tonu atu rātou, haere tonu atu rātou, e whakaae atu rātou. [Interruption] Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. That is most probably them, ringing up in traffic. But e tika atu ki te mihi atu ki a rātou mō tō rātou kaha.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have many thoughts about this claim. From the time I was in my 40s I travelled the country with much vigour, visited courtyards, tribes, and subtribes, and witnessed the trials and tribulations alluded to by the chairman that we are aware of and that many Māori experience. But there is a feeling in me that this is one of the most persistent tribes of all in Māoridom. Regardless of the fact they were trampled upon by the militia, Government, and locals, they remained there bemused. The thing also is that they also did not seek revenge against Government, because of their close relationship, and despite the ups and downs. It was not like that with the majority of us. The consequence was that we saw all their lands taken from them. The abuse inflicted upon the ancestor Hakaraia and upon the real big chiefs of others as well caused anger. We know that from 1865 the Government caused much trouble for Waitaha.

What a wonderful day this is, as Māoridom will become revitalised once again. This Parliament will rectify that problem for ever. And so I commend our Minister Chris Finlayson, who worked hard to put this right. I doff my hat to you. As well, I acknowledge our chairman of the select committee and what Dr Pita has contributed. It is apt indeed for me to acknowledge my former colleagues Michael Cullen and Mita, who worked behind the scenes. Although some of them are no longer here, we know for a fact that their thoughts are being implemented in terms of this claim being completed well.

A special tribute is extended to Tame and Punoho, two of the key elders of a number of them who worked to bring this matter to fruition. They have witnessed the passing of many elders that were there in their day, but some are still alive and present here today, like Maru Tapsell, Whareoteriri Rāhiri, Mike Nahu, Āreta Gray, Shane Ashby, and Rāhera Ōhia. Mentioning names is not really the proper thing to do, in case someone is overlooked. But through their efforts to turn things round, some claims have been completed, like the Mauao one. Some will not be returned to them at this time; it will not be completed. They cannot dodge them like the closest ones to them. They will continue to move forward until they reach an agreement. [Interruption] Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. That is most probably them, ringing up in traffic. But it is right that their efforts be acknowledged.]

I suppose the majority of this legislation, the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill, talks about the land compensation. Well, I think that the package is good and that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and his officials have done well. The Crown’s actions, which left Waitaha virtually landless, are some of the most shocking in this country, not just because of the size but because of the type of people they were. As I said, having moved amongst the iwi over several years—I know a lot of the Māori faces in here—these are some of the most humble people I have known, even though they tell me “Oh, no, we’re rough with each other.” That happens.

The iwi have had spread affiliation and they have a shared split difference with Ngāti Mākino. This settlement package certainly has a historical account, an acknowledgment, and an apology, and the transfer of eight sites of cultural and spiritual significance. As my colleague Shane Jones said, protect the first right of refusal, or any right of refusal, and make sure that the public land is available—that they get to use it if they need it.

There are a number of statutory acknowledgments, which has always been an issue for them. The biggest one, I suppose, is the re-recognising of Hakaraia, their tupuna. It has the same travelling pattern as Hone Heke and Te Rauparaha. It is quite a fascinating read and study. It depends on whose world view is cast and set on it. This is a great settlement—it really is. That people try to fade it into memory loss is a bit of a joke subject, because it is easy to understand. It is no different to what happened to the Welsh and the Irish, and the Scots and the Irish too, I imagine. I know that they get upset when I tell them that they are all British, but we are all Māori, as first tangata whenua, and we are New Zealanders, and we cherish both of those. That is the strength of Waitaha. They really respected that. It is a unique cultural revitalisation and recognition package. With the marae, the Hei Marae, I wish them all the luck, because despite where they could have gone, what they have done, they have just preserved their building. And it needs more than repair. It needs a lot of support, but people are genuine enough to do that.

The biggest thing for me, with my friend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, is the relationship instruments to assist in enhancing Waitaha’s relationships with a number of Crown ministries. Those ministries, and regional and local authorities, you know, have this paepae development, where the ministries are here, the settlements are here, but within a year they disappear. Well, I know with this Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that he has put the heat on.

The rest is there. It is a given. During our Māori Affairs Committee consideration of the bill we received and considered 20 written submissions. Our chair, Tau Henare, visited them, and we have done well as a select committee to play our part. Of course, the Labour Party supports this Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill to the Committee stage. We are very proud to be here today with other members and parties to show that if we have a common interest, we can synchronise for the better of Māori and this nation.

Nō reira, tēnā anō te mea i roto i a au, whai kaha muri i a rātou o Waitaha. Mihi kau ana ki a rātou ahakoa, kāre i konei ngā kanohi e mōhiotia atu e tātou. Kei te mau whakaaro, kei te mau mahana atu rātou tinana mō te oti pai o tēnei. Tēnā tātou.

[And so, that is also the thing inside me: get behind them of Waitaha strongly. I commend them indeed, even though the faces we recognise are not here. We give due thought and warmth to them for this to be completed well. Salutations to us collectively.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Can I begin by thanking Mr Horomia for that speech, which displays his customary generosity of spirit. This is a very important settlement, as he observed, because it settles longstanding grievances between Waitaha and the Crown. As he observed, it very importantly recognises the importance of Waitaha leader Hakaraia and the identity of Waitaha. Once upon a time this was a powerful iwi, but, because of the loss of land, they became fragmented and have never been able to unite again. This settlement allows for Waitaha to reassert their tribal identity and to re-establish their tribal base.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. It has submitted its commentary to the House, and once again I want to thank Mr Henare and his team for the work they have done on this bill. They have dealt with it very quickly but very carefully, and I acknowledge that. I want to also thank other Ministers and departments who have worked on the bill.

The select committee hearings raised a number of difficult issues for Waitaha. They had to make a number of concessions so that their bill could be progressed. One particularly difficult issue has been the Crown’s decision to vest the Waiari Stream conservation area in Tāpuika, which is a neighbouring iwi. During the select committee consideration, a number of members of Waitaha raised concerns about the vesting of that particular site in Tāpuika. I certainly want to say that throughout the settlement Waitaha have shown great patience and perseverance in the resolution of their overlapping claims. Their leaders have been principled, they have been courageous in their discussions with their neighbours, and they have at numerous times agreed to what could only be described as innovative solutions to enable the settlement to progress on to a second reading.

The ngā pae maunga redress, which is the vesting of the peaks of Ōtara and Ōtānewainuku in six iwi that have cultural associations with these peaks, is a positive result of overlapping claims discussions between the iwi. This is a part of the world, as Mr Horomia would know, where overlapping claims are intense, and they can result in very lengthy and difficult discussions, but we have achieved a very positive result here. I want to commend the effort of the chief Crown negotiator, Patsy Reddy, and the iwi themselves for reaching a result that all iwi could support, and I am very happy with that. As a result of the amendments agreed to at the select committee, the legislation will provide for the ngā pae maunga redress, which will be implemented through an Order in Council once the final iwi reaches a settlement. I am very pleased and grateful to the select committee for the tremendous work it has done.

I just want to emphasise the point that this is not a deal. If there is a term that irritates me, it is the idea that it is sort of some kind of mere commercial deal. It is much more important than that. The Green co-leader sometimes comes down to the House to give us a lecture on social justice and talks about deals—resplendent in her Adrienne Winkelmann jackets—and really I think that she lets the side down when she talks like this, because these are very important matters for the Crown and iwi. There is a commercial element, and the first two speakers have both referred to that, but it is much more than that. It is a very sacred compact between the Crown and Māori that has to be observed.

The other thing that I would observe is that this is not the end. This is the end of the beginning. The post-settlement relationships are indeed very important, which why we have set up an office, following on from discussions I had with Mr Horomia last year, to make sure that after the settlement and with the new relationship having been recognised—there is an office that we have set up; I believe it is going to be a very important one—there is a whole-of-Crown responsibility to ensure that what we say we are going to do in deeds of settlement we actually do, not just while I am the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations but for years to come.

I am very happy that we have reached this stage and look forward to the Committee stage so that we can have this very important settlement enacted.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. I must be honest, by the name Waitaha I initially thought that it related to Waitaha in the South Island, because Waitaha is the original iwi of the south. Then there was Ngāti Māmoe to follow, and then Ngāi Tahu, but we are all connected.

I was really pleased to learn the history of Waitaha nō Te Arawa when this bill came before the Māori Affairs Committee, because it is about reasserting identity for their iwi. This bill definitely makes some really good steps in achieving that, as the Minister has said. This is the start, and we witnessed some wonderful accomplishments that the iwi are doing already in terms of their settlements. For instance, there was the restoration of their marae, Hei Marae. When we were up in Te Puke we saw newsletters in Pāuanui of how proud they were of their new marae and of learning their waiata, their whakapapa, and their tikanga. There is also work going on about the historical account documenting the history, the story, of Waitaha, and also their great chief, Hakaraia. That flows through to education endowments as well, which form part of the settlement. Those are very satisfying and rewarding aspects to see—to meet the people, to see them on their home patch, and to see that they are getting on with things and thriving in their own kāinga. So I was really thrilled to have taken part in the select committee when we went up to Te Puke.

As I like to say, Māori history is all about whakapapa and connections, and there are a lot of connections that Waitaha have that go back many, many, many generations. It was also quite enlightening to hear—as we know—that every other iwi and hapū have their own histories as well, so we heard a range of views. I noted with interest the submissions around the shared interests of Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāi Te Rangi, Tāpuika, and Waitaha. It is great to see within the bill that there is that joint acknowledgment of their shared interests in the peaks of Ōtānewainuku and Pūwhenua.

The story of Waitaha is very unfortunate. As we know, their chief, Hakaraia, made the decision and they sided with the Crown during the wars. Kei te pai tēnā. But in spite of their loyalty and their loyal duties, unfortunately, they were not rewarded—well, they were actually punished quite severely. That was reflected through the loss of land, particularly at Te Puke. There is a long list of bad decisions that led the Waitaha people to become virtually landless. Obviously, with the loss of land there came a loss of identity, and they nearly became an extinct iwi. That is why I am very proud to be part of the Māori Affairs Committee and that we can reassert the mana of Waitaha through these settlement bills. I commend the officials and the Minister for all the work that they are doing, and, in particular, the negotiating team for Waitaha for their graciousness and their perseverance in dealing with some very tricky issues around balancing the shared and interwoven interests that they have with their other whanaunga—relations—as well.

I am pleased to see that some very good solutions have been found, particularly around the shared acknowledgments, and these are all reflected in the bill as it has come back. We do support this bill. I congratulate Waitaha, and I am looking forward to the third reading, when I am sure that they will be here in the House, and we will be here to tautoko them. Kia ora.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou ngā manuhiri katoa o te motu me te Whare. He mihi nui ki a Waitaha whānau, hapū, iwi in the second reading of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and salutations to all the visitors of the nation and the House. A special acknowledgment to the family, subtribe, and tribe of Waitaha in the second reading of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill.]

It is our privilege to debate the second reading with no opposition to the redress proposed. Last night tears of joy and loud exclamation filled this House. Today a quieter but as deeply felt sense of justice permeates the kōrero. This process is so fundamental to our nation that I do wish the gallery was as full as it was last night. Every part of the whenua—ngā maunga, ngā moana, ngā awa—of Aotearoa is part of the rangatiratanga of the tangata whenua, and this negotiation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi is lifelong for all of us. The form of the dialogue may change, but it will always continue.

The Green Party wants to acknowledge ngā tūpuna o Waitaha and the iwi, hapū, and whānau today who have worked so hard to get to this point. They have some key objectives in their negotiations, which are to restore the mana and identity of Waitaha and of their tupuna Hakaraia, correct the history of Waitaha, and provide a foundation for the ongoing development of Waitaha through cultural revitalisation, social enhancement, and economic and political participation—and the Green Party says tautoko to that. Those key objectives need to be met as fully as they can be.

Clearly, along the road the Māori Affairs Committee did some really good work, as did Waitaha and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, in negotiating the overlapping claims around the maunga. It is obviously a very challenging issue, but some major progress was made around joint cultural redress in the vesting of the peaks of Ōtānewainuku and Pūwhenua to the iwi of Tauranga Moana, Te Arawa, and Waitaha. That is an important change that has happened during this process, and it does express great generosity when an iwi is prepared to go through that process. It is not new, it has always been like this in Aotearoa, but it is worth noting and acknowledging.

It is also important to acknowledge the Waitaha people whom I have met personally on the issue around the attempt by Newmont Waihī Gold and Glass Earth Gold to mine Muir’s Peak. I met then with some Waitaha people, who laid out very clearly their passion for their maunga down to the ocean, and their passion for preserving their waterways and protecting the area from mining. It was very humbling to have met those people, and I want to acknowledge them.

It is important to acknowledge that Waitaha bore the brunt of the colonisation in their rohe, and that the story of Hakaraia Mahika needs to be widely told and widely understood. A number of other MPs in this House have called for a parallel education process alongside these settlements, so that Pākehā and tauiwi katoa in a rohe such as the Waitaha can be educated and can reassess the place where they live. The degree of ignorance amongst some of us cannot be overestimated. For the renaissance of Waitaha to thrive, we need to pass this bill, but that is only one part of the job. We—and I am speaking as a Pākehā—need to move with tangata whenua so that we cease to be a barrier to the aspirations and rights and dreams of ngā uri o Hakaraia Mahika. The cultural aspects of the settlement are important, but so is the wero that it is time for all of us to learn the truth of history.

I have been a Te Tiriti educator for nearly 20 years and I am still a learner of the basics and a learner of the fundamental stories. Looking at our education, many of us were taught nothing at all about raupatu. We were taught migration myths; we learnt so-called stick games and waiata without context. Nowadays, supposedly, there is a better education, but at the same time there is still ignorance and a tendency for the presentation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be part of a history class for the few at senior secondary level who choose to study history. It is not history; it is both history and now. And the tendency is for teachers to avoid the controversial issues—the truth of raupatu, the truth of racism, the truth of privilege and colonisation—because it is painful. Of course it is painful. We all understand that. It is very, very painful, but it is actually very, very empowering when we come to grips with it and can move forward as allies in that process.

So that is why education needs to be parallel with Treaty settlement. If the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill is to meet its potential and the meaning of Te Tiriti of Waitangi is to live in full, it is about the present relationships based on all the cultures embracing the colonisation history, and, through understanding the pain and loss and how some of us have benefited, Pākehā can be those allies and supporters. That is vital. We believe that is nowhere more important than in the rohe of Waitaha, where the history and the story is virtually invisible, and maybe through this process will become visible to more people. That would be a great benefit—if it was visible and understood.

Finally, I want to address the reason why, much to the annoyance of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Green Party talks about Treaty settlements in relation to deals. It is not to disrespect any of the processes or, in fact, the fantastic journey that people take; it is to acknowledge that we are not able to provide full redress through Parliament. If somebody stole my car and then offered to give it back to me but I first had to prove that the hub-cap, which is all I was getting back, even though it was dented, was really my hub-cap, or whether it was my friend’s hub-cap down the road, I actually think I might feel that that was slightly unfair and that it might be considered to be a form of a deal. There is no disgrace in acknowledging the limitations that are possible. There is no disgrace for any of us in acknowledging that we cannot return to where we were in this country in the 1800s, but there is disgrace in pretending—and I do not think anyone is in this House—that it is over, that it is settled, that it is done. We will not have settlement in the deeper sense—settlement inside our hearts and our minds—until we have learnt the true history of this country and when all parties respect the journey of Waitaha—all parties. The Crown and Māori cannot do it by themselves. It has to be the public of Aotearoa who come on board. There is a role for the Crown in education as well as in negotiating these arrangements.

So, with those words, I would like to acknowledge the positive achievement of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. We look forward to supporting the third reading.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I want to start by reciting recital 2 in the preamble to the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill: “Waitaha are an ancient iwi who descend from Hei and his son Waitaha who arrived on the waka Te Arawa. Their area of interest extends from Waimapu to Mauao along the coastline to Maketu, and inland to Ōtanewainuku. By the 1840s, Waitaha primarily occupied the land between Tauranga harbour and Te Puke. During the 1840s and 1850s, the Waitaha leader and prophet, Hakaraia, preached peaceful engagement with Pākehā.” I want to now go to recital 12 of the preamble: “By the end of the 19th century Waitaha were virtually landless and had insufficient resources to sustain themselves. According to Waitaha, this forced some members of the iwi to follow other tribal affiliations. Waitaha express this impact in the whakataukī, ‘Kō Waitaha te iwi, he tangata ngākaurua’: Waitaha was once a powerful tribe, but because of the loss of land they became fragmented and have never been able to unite again:”.

Through a natural process iwi morph into other identities as time goes by. If left to happen naturally, it is a wonderful thing. I think there would be maybe only two or three people in this House who know of the big iwi Ngare-raumati. It does not exist any more as we know it. It morphed into another entity. What I am saying is that there is a natural move over time into other identities and entities, such as Ngāpuhi, such as other tribes. So when I saw this settlement, I thought: “Oh, Waitaha down in the South Island is getting a settlement. I think that’s really cool.”, but when I read further and further and further into it, I did not realise that there was a Waitaha based in the Bay of Plenty. This is not one of those entities that takes a natural progression into something else. This happened because of its relationship with the Crown. When we look at it now, it is beyond decimation. Their members whakapapa to other tribal districts and other tribes. They are very proud of their whakapapa, their genealogy. But you are left with—and I hazard to use this term—genocide, in a way. Do not freak out about the use of the word “genocide”. It happened.

Hon Dr Pita Sharples: It’s just genocide.

Hon TAU HENARE: You know, it is just genocide. We should accept that that is actually what happened.

But more to the point, how do we resolve their hurt, their decimation? It is through these things that we begin to, I suppose, start again. I think it is a wonderful thing that iwi Māori do remember where they come from. I am sure that there are people who do not realise that Awanuiārangi is a tipuna of the north. Kahungunu was born in the north. All these sorts of famous people being born in the north—[Interruption] Oh, sorry, bro. It is part of the history of our land, and this is just part of that story. I am pleased that our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and Uncle Pita have actually worked fastidiously trying to bring together a deal that is acceptable to the Government, is acceptable to iwi, and is acceptable to the members of this House.

I just want to mention Catherine Delahunty’s speech. We could have some real fun looking at ways of how to pay—truly pay—for the recompense. We could take the tax off the tobacco industry. There are all sorts of nice little ways we could do it, but we have decided that this is the way to do it. I think everybody understands that it is not enough, but it is a hell of a start on the road to recovery for a people like Waitaha. I will not take any more time, other than to say congratulations to the Ministers, congratulations to this House, and also congratulations to Waitaha on opening another door that may lead to them getting back to where they once were a while back. Kia ora.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora. Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko tēnei taku mihi nunui ki a koutou i tēnei wā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you and greetings to you all. This, indeed, is my huge salutation at this point in time to you collectively, so greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to you all.]

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. As I was not, and I am not, a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I will rise to take a very short call on the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. There is a very well-known Māori saying “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata”. What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. What we know to be true, because history has shown us this, is that words on a page are only as good as the people who either abide by them or implement them. A settlement, a contract, a treaty is only as good, as wise, as effective as the parties who place their signatures on the final page and those who are then delegated to make it work. There are many people throughout the world who know that to be true, and so it is with these settlements.

New Zealand First notes that this settlement has, among other things, a deed of recognition agreed over five areas of conservation land among the ancestral maunga—a deed of recognition that must be referenced by the Department of Conservation. There is also recognition of areas of significance for Waitaha that are significant to other iwi as well. Many of these settlements will be only as good as those who work on delivering the futures possible through them. The futures that can be created from the settling of these pasts have to be delivered by committed individuals working for the common good of all in those hapū and iwi. So in the end it will be the people who will be the most important of all.

Our history could, however, give us cause to be concerned that this may also be our weakest link. So now I refer to another well-known saying “When we know better, we do better”. It is our hope that as a nation we, after 172 years, do know better how to respect a contract, how to respect each other, how to respect our differences and recognise our similarities, and how to work together for the benefit of all. Please do not misunderstand my words. When I say “we”, I include both signatories to these documents. There must be mutual respect, or there will be mutual failure of these agreements.

Before I close, education is very close to my heart, and it is recognised by New Zealand First as one of the pillars of a strong and vibrant future. So we wish to make special mention of the $3 million educational endowment fund in the name of the tupuna Hakaraia. As I am also a believer in the power of knowing your ancestry, no matter from what ethnic mix, and a strong believer that this knowledge provides an inner strength with which to walk into one’s future, New Zealand First also wishes to acknowledge the $1.3 million being provided for a full historical account of both Waitaha and Hakaraia. This will be an asset, not only to Waitaha but to the nation. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou, tēna koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure today to stand in support of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. I would like to pass my congratulations to not only the fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee but also our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. He is a tireless worker on behalf of not only the Government but also the Māori people of Aotearoa, and since November 2008 he has seen eight deeds of settlement per year signed, which is a significant number. It expresses our commitment to progress, because, as a number of speakers have said, settlements are very, very important, not just in the detail of the contract but in the spirit and the heart of what they represent to the peoples of New Zealand. So it is a very good occasion today that we can stand in support of this bill before this House.

We know that Waitaha is an ancient iwi that descends from the waka Te Arawa in the region of the Tauranga Harbour in the west across to Maketū, an area where I lived for a number of years. It is one of the more beautiful parts of our nation. I guess every one of us who comes from a different part of this beautiful land appreciates where we come from, but you would have to say that this is indeed one of the pristine and beautiful areas of New Zealand.

So you can understand, in terms of the iwi who became disenfranchised from their land, the grief that it was to them, and what that does to a people who have lost their connection and lost, in a sense, their root of where they live and belong. These matters are of utmost importance. They give people identity. They give them their sense of where they belong and their history that goes back many, many generations. So when we work hard as a Government to restore these places to people and all the various elements of this, it is not just, as I have said, to do with contracts, to do with settlements, and to do with deeds but also to do with the mana, the spirit, and the intent of what we hope to achieve.

We know that this is a great occasion, seeing this bill progress here in its second reading. I am very pleased to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I think it is one of the most rewarding committees in Parliament. It is a committee that has great cross-party support and collegiality as we work together to build this nation in a better way, to see the restorations take place and the redresses take place so that people here in Aotearoa New Zealand can feel that together we are going forward. This is a great occasion. I am very happy to stand in support and speak in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā tātou katoa. Tū tautoko kia kotahi te whiu o te wai i roto i tēnei Whare mō tēnei iwi mōrehu e kīia nei ko Waitaha. Tō rātou tupuna ko Hei. He matua nō Tamatekapua. Nāna te kī i te taenga mai o te waka o Te Arawa ki Aotearoa, ka pahure rātou i te wahapū i Tauranga Moana. Nāna te kī, “Te papa e takoto nei, ko te takapū o taku tamaiti a Waitaha-a-Hei.” Nō reira, i pūtake ai te ingoa o tēnei iwi. Tātou e mōhio nei ko te tupuna nei a Hei tōna tikanga, ko ōna kōiwi kei te tihi o Moehau. He maunga e pōki ana e te kohu ki roto i te rohe o Tīkapa Moana Hauraki tae noa ki Whitianga. Nā reira, tautoko i ngā mihi puta i tō tātou Minita ki a rātou.

Tō rātou tupuna ko Takakōpiri. Tokorua wāna tama, ko Kūmaramaoa me te Iwikorokē. Ngā uri o Kūmaramaoa, ka mōtia ki waenga tonu i te whare tātai o Ngāti Ranginui me ētahi kē atu, otirā, ko ngā uri a te Iwikorokē ka mau tonu ki tō rātou ingoa ā-tangata, ā-whakapapa, ā-iwi, ko Waitaha.

Nā ka heke iho ki te wā i whakaeke mai a tauiwi ki waenga tonu i a tātou ki tēnā rohe o Te Ao Māori, ka tupu te raruraru, ka mura te riri. Tō rātou tūpuna Hakaraia he mea huanga ngā mihinare ki tēnā ingoa, ka tū ki te taha o te Karauna—pēnei tonu i te tū o tō mātou tupuna a Tāmati Waka Nene ki roto o Ngāpuhi. Te take i tū pēraka ai rātou, horekau e kitea ana i roto i te aroha ki te Karauna ēngari, he rapu huarahi, me pēhea rānei ngā mate o mua e ngakia ai. Koiā tō mātou tupuna a Waka Nene i tū ai i te korenga ōna i pai kia toa ai te hīkaka nei a Hone Pokaia Heke nā te mea, ko te wahine a Heke he kōtiro nā Hongi Hika. I te takoto tonu, i te mamaha tonu ngā nawe i ēra tūpuna, take tēnā o rātou i tū ai me te Karauna.

Nā reira, tautoko i te āhuatanga o ngā mahi i oti me te huarahi rōroa atu kei te aroaro o tēnei wāhi iwi a Waitaha, kia tino whakapūmautia ai ēnei pānga o te whakawhiwhia ki a rātou. Ahakoa itiiti noa iho ō rātou marae i te mutunga, ki te whakapūmautia tō rātou ingoa i roto i tēnei pire, eke rawa ki te wā ka tū wā rātou tamariki, wā rātou uri ki te parepare, ki te kaupare atu i ngā whakawhiunga mai i te Karauna, mai i ngā kaunihera, mai te ao umanga, mai te aha? E whai pānga ana tō rātou reo, ō rātou wawata ki te mata o te ture. E kore rawa atu e taea te kī, māmā noa iho kia kauparengia ai tō rātou tū, me tō rātou rangatiratanga. Nā reira, koia tāku e tautoko ake nei.

[Greetings to us all. I rise and urge this House that the drive of support for this remnant tribe called Waitaha should be one. Their ancestor was Hei, an uncle of Tamatekapua. It was he who stated that when the Te Arawa canoe arrived in New Zealand it sailed past the Tauranga harbour. He proclaimed: “The land lying before us is indeed the abdomen of my son Waitaha-a-Hei.” So that is where the name of this tribe originated from. For those of us who are aware, the bones of this ancestor Hei, according to tradition, are resting on the summit of Moehau. It is a mountain shrouded in mist in the region from the Hauraki Gulf all the way to Whitianga. Therefore, I endorse the accolades extended to them by our Minister.

Takakōpiri is their ancestor. He had two sons, Kūmaramaoa and Iwikorokē. The descendants of Kūmaramaoa were placed directly in between the genealogical house of Ngāti Ranginui and others but, at the same time, the descendants of Iwikorokē hung on to Waitaha as a name to identify them as a person, a tribe, and for genealogical purposes.

And so we come down to the period when non-Māori came aboard right plumb in the middle of those of us in that area of Māoridom. Trouble brewed up and anger flared. Their ancestor Hakaraia was given that name by the missionaries, sided with the Crown—very much like the stance that our ancestor Tāmati Waka Nene took in Ngāpuhi. The reason why they took that stance was not because it would be seen that they were in sympathy with the Crown, but rather to seek a way instead to avenge the deaths of pre-European times. That is why our ancestor Waka Nene sided with the Crown: he did not want the brash Hone Pokaia Heke to win, because Heke’s wife was a daughter of Hongi Hika and there were still faults steaming between those two ancestors. And that is the reason why they sided with the Crown.

And so, I support the way everything has been completed despite the very lengthy process ahead of Waitaha, this remnant tribe, and I support that these shares of what is to be awarded to them will be enacted properly. Regardless of the fact they have only a few courtyards, once their name is confirmed in this bill there will eventually come a time when their children and descendants will be able to ward off, avert any chastisements from the Crown, councils, the business sector, and from where else? Their voices and aspirations will have relevance to countenance of the law. It cannot be stated emphatically enough that their stance and chiefly autonomy will be easily averted. Therefore, I absolutely support it.]

A few brief remarks. I support what the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations have said, although I will probably not be as charitable to the Minister of Māori Affairs on matters related to Māori land, but more on that another time.

As is the case, Treaty settlements provide an opportunity for little iwi like the one I come from, Ngāi Takoto, the small dogfish of Rangaunu. It is not the size of the dog in the fight; it is the size of the fight in the dog, and that is definitely going to apply to the people of Waitaha. We know the history of Tauranga Moana. We know the connection with the Crown assaults at Gate Pā, etc. What we do not realise is that there are some smaller tribes from around this area, and far be it from me to use too-casual language, but everyone deserves their day in the sun. Their name goes right back to the arrival of the Arawa canoe, and they have shown a great deal of pragmatism to actually accommodate decisions that the Crown has made to suit neighbouring iwi.

I do not want to recite things that have been offered by MP Delahunty, because that would move from boredom to despair, but no one should take anything other than a staunch, supportive role, and I have no truck whatsoever with the emissions we occasionally hear, unfortunately, from MP Metiria Turei on how things could have been better, would be better, if only she were in charge. These matters need broad support. All of us have our imperfections—even if it does go to the types of hats we wear occasionally—but let us not allow the debate to suffer such a level of pettiness.

So we stand and support this particular bill, the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. We note that there are always going to be grizzles, but this is a small iwi with a very big task. Number one: the resources they have are not capable of meeting all of their ambitions in the short term. But the most important thing that this generation of parliamentarians is doing is embedding their name, their aspirations, and their rights in the face and the body of the law. It is a key Diceyan dimension of our law that unless things are reflected overtly and clearly in the law, it is difficult for courts to import them into judicial decision-making. Although the resources may not be significant, who knows? In time, just because these people now have status—they had status of a customary nature and an ancestral nature, but the custom has now been imported into the law, and we should never overlook that.

If I think back to the 1970s and the 1980s and the contortions that the Planning Tribunal and judges of the High Court went through in order to import the Treaty—and I think the term was “an intrinsic device” or “extrinsic”, or words to that effect—those days are gone now. At least in matters of statutory environmental management and landscape management, these people’s interests and rights cannot be parried aside. So, although they are small in number and the history may have been regarded as very burdensome right up to today, but they are in the east, so the sun is going to rise i roto i Te Tai Rāwhiti [on the East Coast].

I acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. By and large, they are a happy group of fellow travellers, though not quite as flexible as the members of the auspicious Primary Production Committee. I have no doubt that they heard submissions about how difficult it was at the margin to get a balance between Waitaha’s interests and the interests of other neighbouring Tauranga Moana iwi. That is a committee that is dedicated to passing these bills through quality stewardship when people make their submissions. There are occasional egregious lapses, not the least of which was Tau Henare’s speech last night, attacking our matua Winitana gratuitously. But these things have a way of fixing themselves. I dare say that Winston will be here post-2014, and Tau will be working for the kōhanga reo. Ēngari, he take anō tērā. Tautoko i te pire nei, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[But that is another matter. I endorse this bill. Congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak on the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill. Every step towards a settlement is something to be celebrated. It is a good day in the House as we debate the second reading of the settlement signed by the Crown and Waitaha; it is especially good because it is supported by everyone across this Parliament—unanimous support.

We get unanimous support because settlements close one door and open a new and better one. Settlements close the door that leaves behind long-endured pain, wrongs, and grievances, and opens a door to new understanding, collaboration, apology from the Crown, enhanced mana of iwi, and financial settlement. That is very positive for both Waitaha and the Crown.

Because I come from Ōtautahi/Christchurch, I have spoken earlier in the House about the huge benefits of the Ngāi Tahu settlement, which was completed back in 1996. We have seen positive outcomes socially, culturally, and economically for Ngāi Tahu but also for everybody else in the South Island. We have seen the development of important and strong personal relationships between all people.

The value of those relationships that have been built has been particularly evident as Ngāi Tahu, the Crown, and local government have worked together in the rebuilding and the restoration of Canterbury after the earthquakes. We do not expect earthquakes to come along, but after a settlement we have more tools and more ability to deal with them. I am sure that similar benefits will accrue to Waitaha and to the people of their rohe.

It is enormously important that this settlement recognises the mana and reputation of the prophet and rangatira Hakaraia, a man of peace who lived in violent times. He deserves to be recognised today. It is particularly appropriate that an education fund will be created in honour of Hakaraia and that that fund will bear his name.

I would just like to thank everybody involved in getting the settlement to the House today: the people of Waitaha; the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson; the Māori Affairs Committee; and all members of Parliament who support this bill today. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa e Waitaha, who are either here in the Chamber or listening to this debate. I am very pleased to stand in support of my colleagues and, particularly, of the iwi, supporting this legislation, the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill, and the Supplementary Order Papers that will follow during the Committee stage. I just want to take a short call.

I would just mention first that it is a shame that both Chris Finlayson and Shane Jones chose to use this debate to make personal attacks. The Green Party has a very clear position of support for settlement bills, and we are also prepared to speak truths to the concerns and constraints that are contained in the process. The whole point of these debates is to be able to tell the full story, not just that which the Government prefers—and its supporters, potentially, prefer—to hear. One of the examples of that, I guess, is in this bill. One of our concerns has always been that, because of the nature of these deals, they are negotiations. They are not about the genuine and full recompense and compensation for loss that was suffered. They are negotiations, they are deals that are done, and therefore there have to be compromises. Most of the compromises are made by the iwi, because much of the process and the constraints around the restoration, whether it is financial recompense or cultural recompense, are already determined by the Crown when they enter into these discussions. That is described, albeit briefly, in this legislation as well, with the concern over the Waiari Stream Conservation Area.

I do just want to acknowledge for Waitaha that this deal does not meet all of their needs, and that they are concerned about some of the provisions in this deal. They did not agree with the way that the Crown approached the issue of the Waiari Stream Conservation Area and they did not want this particular part of the proposal to be included in the legislation. There is nothing outrageous about that. There is nothing to attack other parts of the Government or the State over that. It is a fact, and it is an important fact to note, because this is the reality for the iwi—who do not have a voice in this Parliament. They are not here to tell this Parliament what they think about this deal. They are the receivers of it.

So it is important for these stories to be told—this being one example of it—that iwi have to make compromises to get these settlement deals through. Those compromises come at a real cost to them—either a real cost to them culturally in terms of their stories or a real cost to them financially in terms of whether or not they can use these settlements for genuine financial stability in the future. It is very difficult often, especially with smaller settlements, to make sure that the financial recompense is able to be used in a real way long term. Often it is too small. That is another reality that iwi have to face. Chris Finlayson may want to attack the Greens for saying this, but these are the realities of settlements.

I agree with Catherine Delahunty on these issues, but also I would note that one other way that the State can make recompense, as she described, is having a commitment to telling these stories as a Pākehā organisation to Pākehā in the local communities. I have been doing settlement bills for a very long time now, and there is a constant concern from local people about the return of particular kinds of land. There is constant concern about whether it is conservation land, reserve land, or land that may be held by the council. What is happening? Why is it the case that this land is being returned? They do not know. They do not have access to the information, and there is no agency in this country that is responsible for making sure that they do.

If we are to have a settlement of the particular issues raised by the iwi or, through the tribunal, the claims, that is one aspect of it. The other aspect is that at the end of the day the iwi have to go back and live and work in these areas with their local community under these new circumstances. They should not be responsible for talking to Pākehā communities about these deals. It is not for them to explain what the Crown did wrong and how the Crown is trying to right that. It is the Crown’s job to do that. But there is no explicit process for doing that. There is no commitment. That alone would go a long way towards making sure that when iwi return to their communities to have to deal with the future consequences of these deals, they are doing so in an environment of understanding and acceptance, and not one, often, of fear and concern. That alone will help to make sure that these settlement deals do have long-term benefits for the iwi and for the community as a whole.

Whether other parties choose to attack the Greens for talking about these issues is up to them. It is disappointing, but it is also revealing. I did not quite realise that Chris Finlayson had such an interest in women’s fashion, and if he would like, I am quite happy to send to him the contact details for Adrienne Winkelmann if he would like a fitting at any time in the future. But I am most concerned to make sure that the iwi are having at least some of their concerns expressed, as they are set out in this legislation.

I welcome the bill. I welcome this settlement for them. I welcome the attempt to restore some mana to the Crown for the loss and for the harm that the Crown has caused to that iwi. In particular I want to acknowledge Tau Henare and his comment that genocide is a word that is reasonable to use in this Treaty settlement context, and that we should not shy away from the fact that much of the Crown’s attitude to Māori in the past was a genocidal one and that iwi have suffered from that as a result. Again, these are just the truths of our history, which, once dealt with openly, can then be moved on from—for Pākehā communities, as much as for iwi themselves. Tēnā koutou katoa.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill this morning. I just want to pick up on a point that the previous speaker from the Greens, Metiria Turei, talked about. She used the word “deals” over and over and over again in her speech. I do not believe this is a deal. I actually believe this is a settlement, and to keep on calling this settlement a deal devalues what this is and the work that has been put into it.

As we know, settlement bills take a lot of hard work. They take a commitment from Waitaha. They take a commitment from the Minister. They take a commitment from the select committee. All of them are working together to ensure that we are here in this House today debating the second reading and the Committee stage of these bills. A lot of work has gone into this settlement bill. Because of that, I think we have got a good, enduring settlement, moving forward.

Much of the claims around this bill relate to the outbreak of the Tauranga war and the impact of the Tauranga confiscation, the operation and impact of the native land laws, and the further losses in the 20th century around the land. I do not think the Crown really ever understood the spiritual and holistic relationship that Waitaha had with their land. I know many speakers before me today have spoken about the loss of this land, which led to the loss of the identity of the people, which then nearly led to a lost iwi. I do not think we have really appreciated up to now, up to this settlement process, how significant that has been for the iwi.

One thing that I like about these settlement bills is the history that gets put in our Hansard for ever—the history of these iwi and how we have got to this point now, and the grievances that have been in place. So these settlement bills are not just about financial redress and not just about the deal. They are also, actually, about the cultural redress, and that is just as important as, if not more important than, the financial redress. But I also think settlement bills are about the future and are for future generations. Part of the money that is going towards education in this redress is, I think, very, very important. I look forward to speaking to this bill further in the Committee stage and third reading. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

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

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

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I should give just a brief overview of Supplementary Order Paper 216 in my name. The changes contained in the Supplementary Order Paper are all technical amendments. What they do is ensure that certain redress can be provided to the governance entity intended by the deed of settlement, and they ensure clarity and consistency of language throughout the settlement, and replace references to the Ministry of Economic Development with references to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 216 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 11.20 a.m. (Thursday)