Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Tabling of Documents—Editorial

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document. To describe and put it into context, it is an editorial published by Alistair Thompson, a member of the press gallery of some 20 years’ standing. Although it is available to members, I suggest that some ideas are so important that they should be available—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If it is a recent editorial, it is available to members. They can search for it for themselves.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Cost of Living—Consumers Price Index and Wage Growth

1. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on trends in the cost of living for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand recently issued the Consumers Price Index for the June quarter. It showed consumer prices increased 0.2 percent in the 3 months to 30 June, following a 0.4 percent rise in the March quarter. In the year to June consumer prices rose by 0.7 percent, the lowest annual increase in the cost of living for nearly 14 years, and a fourth annual increase below 1 percent. The output for inflation remains subdued. The pressure on families from inflation and interest rates is likely to be moderate rather than significant, with interest rates sitting near 50-year lows. Many households are still dealing with the challenges and the aftermath of the recession, including the need to reduce their household debt.

Shane Ardern: What were some of the factors contributing to the low rate of consumer price inflation in the June quarter?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In any given quarter, there are prices going up and prices going down. Petrol prices in that quarter fell 2.5 percent; since then they have increased. Fruit prices fell 4.5 percent, while both new and second-hand car prices fell by 1.9 percent and 1 percent respectively. On the other hand, vegetable prices rose 7 percent in the June quarter. However, overall consumer inflation remains low by historical standards. It is certainly better than late 2008 when the Government took office, when annual inflation was running at 5 percent. It is now currently running at 0.7 percent.

Shane Ardern: What contribution did electricity prices make to the latest consumer price data, and how does this compare with the trend in electricity prices in previous years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Statistics New Zealand reported that electricity prices increased by 3.4 percent for the year, although it is worth noting that prices are normally revised in the June quarter. This reflects, in part, increased transmission prices to pay for the long-overdue upgrade of the national grid, an upgrade initiated by the previous Government. The increase in electricity prices should be seen in the context of low overall inflation—that is, when the basket of goods and services purchased by the household is taken into account, including electricity, inflation was 0.7 percent for the year. Market expectations are for wholesale electricity prices to fall in the next few years—that is, the wholesale prices. For example, using the CPI measure, electricity prices jumped more than 60 percent in the 9 years the Labour Party was in office—over 7 percent per year, year on year, for 9 years. Now we are meant to believe it knows how to lower prices.

Hon David Parker: Does the Consumers Price Index show the rapid increase in second-hand house prices, where in Auckland we have double-digit—

Hon Steven Joyce: What’s a second-hand house, you clown?

Hon David Parker: A second-hand house is not a new one, you clown. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member please continue. If he wishes to start his question, he is welcome to do so.

Hon David Parker: Thank you. Is the Minister aware that the Consumers Price Index does not include the price of second-hand houses, which are increasing in Auckland at a rate of more than 10 percent per annum?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware of that. I am also aware that for a number of reasons, including the Government’s management of its own finances, interest rates have been at 40-year lows, which has enabled families to get their debt down and, in some cases, to trade up in their houses. We also know that the single biggest influence on reducing the rate of increase of house prices in Auckland and everywhere else is to increase the supply of new houses to the market. We look forward to the support of the Labour Party for the legislation that is going to allow us to do that coming through this House in the next few weeks.

Shane Ardern: What do the latest statistics show about the growth in wages compared with changes in the cost of living?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The quarterly employment survey from Statistics New Zealand shows that the average full-time weekly wage rose 2.5 percent in the year to March, compared with inflation of 0.9 percent in the year to March. Over the last 2 years the average wage rose 5.9 percent, compared with inflation of 2.4 percent. Every family, of course, has its own particular circumstances, but it is clear that on average wages have been rising significantly faster than the cost of living.

Immigration Policy—Parent Category Visa Applications

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration, when he said on 28 March 2013 that “parent numbers from China have halved.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, in the context that he made it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in that statement when, in fact, all that the Minister of Immigration has done is stockpile over 5,500 parent applications from China in an effort to conceal real parent reunion numbers from China?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I would reject the proposition that the Minister is trying to conceal anything.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would the Prime Minister reject the statement about the Minister attempting to conceal the true numbers of applications when, in fact, from Statistics New Zealand and Immigration New Zealand there is all the evidence that there is a stockpile now of 5,500, enabling the Minister to say that the application numbers are halved? How can he, in other words, express confidence in a Minister overseeing a department that engages in such duplicitous behaviour?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I would have to see all of the data and the specifics the member is referring to. If he wants a specific question answered, he really should put it down for the Minister directly himself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister not like answering for a Minister when he has full confidence that he is telling Parliament the truth? In fact, when the Minister looks at this chart I am holding, showing the Chinese outstanding stockpiled numbers, he will know—

Hon Member: A bit hard to see, Winston.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Beg your pardon?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He will know that the figures being given are not correct, and when did he learn about that, if not just 5 minutes ago?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member, if he has a specific beef with the particular numbers that a Minister has produced relative to other data, is really better to either put that down in the primary question, in which case I can answer that for him, or give it to the Minister in question, who will have that there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether he had confidence in his Minister of Immigration. He said he did, and now he is not wanting to answer the questions on this issue. I assume that his confidence was based on some fact, rather than just to make it up as you go along.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As a way forward I would like the member to re-ask his last supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did he, as Prime Minister, learn that the Minister of Immigration was overseeing a department deliberately stockpiling parent category numbers from China, as these charts show, and—

Hon Steven Joyce: Another one of your accusations without any facts.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —“Big Ears”—is the answer “5 minutes ago”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is making a claim that I cannot be sure is accurate, and on that basis I am not prepared to answer it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table from the Parliamentary Library the June 2011 figures by nationality, the June 2012 figures by nationality, the June 2013 figures by nationality, and then the pending application chart, also prepared by the Parliamentary Library.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those particular charts produced by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.

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

GCSB, Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Authorisation for Release of Data

3. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “when my Chief of Staff speaks to someone, they speak for me”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Shearer: Did his chief of staff ask Parliamentary Service for information on, or records of, phone calls from the parliamentary precinct, as part of the Henry review?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is important, for the record, just to relay what my chief of staff did. So effectively there are two things. Mr Eagleson emailed the offices of the Ministers who had received the report to inform them that on my wishes they should comply with the inquiry, and, secondly, on 9 May he emailed Geoff Thorn at Parliamentary Service to confirm that I wished him to make available the inquiry records in relation to Ministers and their staff. At no point did he ask for information about journalists. That would not have been appropriate or right. He did not do so, and nor did the inquiry want that information.

David Shearer: Under what authority was Wayne Eagleson operating when he contacted Parliamentary Service asking for phone and email records to be released?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In two areas. The first was that I had issued terms of reference for the inquiry, which were put into the public domain, and, secondly, on the basis that he had written to those individual Ministers requiring and telling them and their staff to comply with my wishes. He was making sure that Parliamentary Service understood that.

David Shearer: Why was it not the function of the Henry inquiry to do that, which he himself had set up?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Henry inquiry followed the broad parameters that were established by me, but my chief of staff made sure that all of my Ministers and their staff understood that it was our expectation that they would comply.

David Shearer: Who asked Parliamentary Service for a log of Andrea Vance’s phone calls to Ministers from her parliamentary extension to be released to the Henry inquiry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Nobody. So—[Interruption]—nobody. And the paper trail—

Hon Member: He’s lying.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, actually, funnily enough, buggerlugs, I am not, but anyway. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will continue with the answer, please.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am more than happy to show the email traffic that supports the view of the Government. What is clear is that the administrator of the inquiry emailed the Parliamentary Service and said in the email: “We are interested in any contact between the Ministers’ personal landlines and these numbers.” They were the numbers in relation to the journalists. What then came back were two reports. The first of those reports was, in fact, the phone numbers made to the journalist or sent back the other way. There was nothing in that report. A second report was also sent, which was the phone records of the journalist. I quote from the inquiry administrator when he received that information: “Many thanks for this. Let’s be clear, we did not request the second report you’ve attached here, i.e., the one showing all calls to and from the numbers of interest. We are not interested in looking at that.” They received it, they never looked at it, they never in any way accessed it, and they rejected the fact that it should have been sent to them.

David Shearer: Just to clarify, in the light of what he just read out, does “contact between” not mean both parties in terms of the contact between both Andrea Vance and the Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What it means is not the journalist’s records. It means the phone contact between the Minister and the journalist.

David Shearer: What role did the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) play in the Henry inquiry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the inquiry reported to the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the director of the GCSB because it was in relation to the leaking of the Kitteridge report. To the best of my knowledge, that is the only role that it played.

David Shearer: Given that the Henry report said that the bureau played “a substantial role, particularly in the gathering of records”, as the Minister responsible, can he tell the public exactly what that role was?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have absolutely no clue what the member is quoting from or in relation to, but he is probably mixing up things, as he often does—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The reality is, as a summary, that the terms of the inquiry were set up by me. The person who conducted the inquiry was Mr Henry, with an assistant. To the best of my knowledge he carried out all of the work to look at that and ultimately wrote the report that went to those two individuals who had, effectively, commissioned it.

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister doubted what I was saying and where I was quoting it from. I was actually quoting it from appendix 3, the processes used—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is seeking leave to table a document, that may—

David Shearer: Could I seek leave to table this report that actually indicates that.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to the tabling of that particular document? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

David Shearer: Is any information, including phone records and emails obtained in the course of the Henry inquiry, being held by the GCSB or any other intelligence agency?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, not to the best of my recall.

David Shearer: Will the questions about the involvement of the bureau in this particular issue, plus the allegations of the journalist Jon Stephenson, plus the multiple objections by submitters on the GCSB bill make the Prime Minister reconsider passing the bill and instead have an independent inquiry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The GCSB, for the purpose of clarity, did not play a role in gathering information or storing information. What the bureau made clear, and why it is in that report, is who, on the bureau side, received the report.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in reading from the email earlier, was quoting an official document. I would ask that he table it.

Mr SPEAKER: Was the Prime Minister reading from an official document?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I was.

Mr SPEAKER: Then will the Prime Minister so table it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will. I seek leave to table the document.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no need for leave.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

GCSB, Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak and Prime Ministerial Responsibility

4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he take responsibility for the actions of the David Henry inquiry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The inquiry reported to the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau. I had no involvement in it while it was under way, which is entirely appropriate. However, I did ask for the inquiry to be set up, and agreed the terms of reference, so I do take responsibility for the inquiry.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister, then, take responsibility for the fact that his inquiry, acting under his mandate, asked for and received Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance’s building access records?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think we have made it quite clear that in no way was the inquiry set up on a basis to access the records of a journalist.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether he takes responsibility for it. I think that is a pretty straightforward question.

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please repeat the question, for the benefit of the Prime Minister.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the fact that his inquiry, acting under his mandate, asked for and received Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance’s building access records?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and the reason for that is that the inquiry at no point asked for a journalist’s records, either access records or phone records.

Grant Robertson: Yes, they did.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, it did not. And what has been made quite clear is not only did it not ask for it—because those terms of reference were in the public domain, so every member of this House, every journalist, and every member of the public had the right to see and did see, if they chose to, what those terms of reference were—but when inappropriate information was sent to the inquiry, what ultimately happened, of course, was that the inquiry itself fully understood its mandate, and never accessed that emailed information; in fact, it attempted to reject it.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the answer he just gave he said that the Henry inquiry did not access Andrea Vance’s building access records, and does he wish to correct that answer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not right. What I am saying is that that was not part of the mandate, and when I was made aware of that I made it quite clear how strongly I felt in opposition to that.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that it was his inquiry, established under his authority—and regardless of how he may view the actions of Mr Henry, none the less it was under his authority—and that under that inquiry this journalist had her activities monitored, her movements around the building monitored, will he apologise to Andrea Vance?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it quite clear that I find the actions that took place with regard to this totally inappropriate. I made that clear quite some weeks ago. But I also make it quite clear that at no point did the terms of reference indicate that a journalist’s activities were part of this, and if they were, then the member himself would have said something about it and members of the media would have said something about it. Nobody understood it to include journalists; neither did the inquiry itself, because when inappropriate information was sent to it, it said “We did not request the second report you attached here, i.e., the one showing all calls from the numbers of interest. We are not interested in looking at it.” I am advised that the administrator who got that information never accessed it, so it was never accessed by anybody.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The nub of my question—which I do not believe the Prime Minister addressed—was whether he would apologise for the fact that the Henry inquiry accessed the journalist’s building access records. That is the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point that the member is raising in that the Prime Minister did not directly address whether he would apologise, but he gave a very substantial answer as to why he felt, because the building access was not part of the terms of reference, that he did not have to. I think the member’s question has been adequately addressed.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of the email that the Prime Minister has read to us earlier today, which described the request from the Henry inquiry, which was of a form that it was requesting the telephone records that showed the contact between Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne, does he therefore take responsibility for the fact that Henry ended up with Vance’s phone logs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I made it quite clear that there is no way that those phone records should have been sent. Our office was not aware that they had been sent until we saw the information on Friday. In relation to the logs of people moving around the buildings, if you go back to looking at the terms of the inquiry, it says it “will include reviewing communications and copying equipment and records, log books and any other material considered relevant of the persons” or their offices who were likely to have access to the compliance review report. That was read by Mr Henry as likely to be Andrea Vance, and so, on that basis, he did request that. I have made it clear that I think that that is wrong. I do not think he should have asked for that information.

David Shearer: Does he take responsibility for the email that he has just tabled?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I take responsibility for establishing the inquiry. I think it was quite important that we got to the bottom of the information. I think it was clear to the inquiry, through setting up the mandate, of what was part of the rules and what was not. What I do not take responsibility for is that someone in Parliamentary Service decided to send information to the administrator, because the administrator of the inquiry never asked for that information. When it was received, they did not want to receive it. They made it quite clear. The email proves that quite specifically.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister accept—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can start his question.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister accept that for a reasonable person receiving the email that he has just tabled and described to us—and accepting his word as an accurate description of that email—and requesting, basically, information on the contact between Vance and Dunne, a reasonable response would be that what the inquiry was after were the phone logs on both sides?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. What I accept is that this was looking at Ministers, or their staff, and the contact between those numbers. That is not the point at issue. What was released was that log, and that log was completely empty. What was also released, and should not have been released, to the inquiry was all of the contact made by Andrea Vance’s phone records. That was never requested, and should not have been requested.

Dr Russel Norman: So will the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for what has been a significant snafu, in anyone’s vocabulary, and that part of the reason this happened was because the terms of reference that he wrote up were interpreted, according to him, by Henry as giving Henry the authority to go after Vance, both in terms of her building access records—he went after Vance—and then a contractor at Parliamentary Service received an email from the Henry inquiry that they misinterpreted, according to the Prime Minister, as asking for both sets of logs? That inquiry was established by the Prime Minister—is the Prime Minister not responsible for those actions?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Notwithstanding that that was a speech not a question, let me give this answer. No; and the reason for that is quite clear. I think the terms of reference are clear. They are about the activities of Ministers who received the report and their staff. That is quite clear. There is absolutely no question from this email log that it shows that not only did we understand that but the people undertaking the inquiry understood that, because they rejected that information. Thirdly, if it was so ambiguous, if it was so unclear, well, the member rates himself as the so-called unofficial Leader of the Opposition, so why did he not pick it up? If it was so unclear, why did every journalist in the building who saw the terms of reference not pick it up? The answer is that it was clear to everyone what we were looking at—Ministers and their staff—and that would be the expectation of any good inquiry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister share with the country when exactly he had this glorious though belated epiphany of conscience that suggests that MPs’ and journalists’ phone records have a certain sanctity of privacy, as was not the case in September 2007 when he and Mr Dunne demanded I give all of my telephone records over to their jacked-up inquiry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You know, I do not remember demanding that, but I do remember being interested in getting the answers, and, from memory, we are still waiting.

David Shearer: Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that contact between Ministers and Andrea Vance includes the Ministers’ calls but not Andrea Vance’s calls?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The email says: “We are interested”—this is actually from the inquiry administrator—“in any contact between the Ministers’ personal landlines and these numbers.” There is nothing in those areas there. That log, as it quite clearly shows, is empty. The point at question is all the other phone calls that were made.

Housing, Affordable—Productivity Commission Report and Response

5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Housing: How many findings and recommendations did the Productivity Commission make after its 12 month inquiry into housing affordability and what conclusions did it draw?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The Productivity Commission made 44 findings and 33 recommendations in its in-depth study of housing costs in New Zealand. The recommendations conclude that the major issues for improving housing affordability are land supply, materials costs, infrastructure costs, building sector productivity, and compliance costs, and the Government is advancing reforms in all five areas. In fact, over half of the Productivity Commission’s recommendations were specifically about the issue of land supply and building regulations. The Productivity Commission considered but rejected a capital gains tax, any foreign buyer controls, or a massive State house building programme, saying that none of them would make any difference to the affordability of houses for Kiwi families.

Melissa Lee: How many submissions did the Productivity Commission receive on its issues paper and its draft report, and did any of the substantive submissions raise concerns about the impact of foreign buyers on housing affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Productivity Commission’s issues paper specifically inquired into whether offshore investment had any impact on the New Zealand housing market. The issues paper resulted in 60 submissions from people around New Zealand and not one of those submissions raised the issue of overseas purchasers contributing to price increases, nor in the 90 submissions that it received on the draft report was any issue raised. The report concluded that there was no evidence of foreign buyers having any impact on house prices. It did find an identifiable impact of returning New Zealanders on house prices in some markets, but the last thing that members on this side of the House would want to do is stop successful Kiwis coming home.

Melissa Lee: What specific actions is the Government taking to address the No. 1 concern of the Productivity Commission that planning policies like Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit is significantly impacting on house prices, and what support does the Government have for these actions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am delighted that today the Social Services Committee has reported back the Government’s Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, which will enable before the end of this year significant new housing areas beyond Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit to be opened up for housing. I am disappointed that Opposition parties are not supporting the bill, when all the evidence shows that this is one of the most essential steps that we must take, if we are going to improve access for ordinary Kiwi families to being able to afford a home.

Housing, Affordable—Impact of Overseas Buyers and Alternative Policies

6. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement on restricting non-residents from buying residential homes “I think the policy is a gimmick, I don’t think it will work”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): Yes, I do. It is a gimmick. The first problem with the policy is that there is no evidence that overseas buyers are having any impact on house prices. The second problem is that any such policy would be notoriously difficult to implement. Forty percent of Aucklanders were not born in New Zealand, and we are not going to have a situation where you have to show your passport before you are going to be able to buy a property. The third contradiction in the policy is exempting Australia. It is a great principle where you say that you are not going to have non-residents buying houses in New Zealand except for Australians, who happen to be the largest group of overseas people buying houses in New Zealand!

Phil Twyford: Does he think it would be a gimmick to promise 39,000 houses in Auckland with no guarantee that even one of them will be affordable and no guarantee that most of them will not be snapped up by speculators?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It would be if it was not backed up by a substantive accord with the Auckland Council and an agreement in work by officials in both Government and councils to implement it, and if it was not backed up with a substantive bill before this Parliament that will free up land supply and enable new subdivisions to occur at a fast rate. In fact, what you are seeing from this Government with both the social housing bill and the housing accords bill is more action on housing affordability in more than a decade.

Phil Twyford: If he believes that increasing the supply of houses will increase affordability, why does he refuse to accept that reducing demand by restricting offshore speculators and taxing their profits will also increase affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If it was such a great policy, why is it that the price of housing in Sydney, where they have that policy, is over NZ$800,000 per house? Why is it that in Melbourne, where they have that policy, housing affordability is a lot worse than in New Zealand? It was also interesting to note last week, when I was in Australia meeting with housing Ministers and officials, that they noted to me that their overseas policy was inherently difficult to implement and that they did not think it was having any effect, either.

Phil Twyford: Why did the Government give the Reserve Bank the power to implement loan-to-value ratios without exempting first-home buyers, thus putting the interests of overseas speculators ahead of young New Zealanders, when some overseas speculators can borrow 100 percent at 1 percent interest?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: On this side of the House we respect the independence of the Reserve Bank, but I also find it really interesting—

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was why did the Government give the Reserve Bank the power to implement—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister heard the question, I heard the question, and now I would like the Minister to have the opportunity to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He asked about the Reserve Bank’s actions. The point I wanted to make is that this side of the House respects the independence of the Reserve Bank, although the first mention I heard of alternative instruments—to putting up interest rates like loan-to-value ratios—was from David Parker on the Opposition benches, who suggests the idea, and then when the Reserve Bank Governor suggests we use it, he opposes it. That just shows everything about the hypocrisy of members—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a legitimate opportunity for the Hon Trevor Mallard to raise a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, I did not rise immediately because I was sure that you would have intervened on the use of a word by that Minister that has been absolutely ruled out and that should be withdrawn and apologised for.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not rise immediately because I was expecting the Hon Trevor Mallard to do it more quickly. [Interruption] Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Any time you want me to sit there, Mr Speaker, I am happy to.

Mr SPEAKER: There are many, many occasions when I would be very happy if the member would spend more time sitting than standing.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Bill English that private sector builders like Fletcher’s and Stonewood Homes, which will build Labour’s 100,000 affordable starter homes, build houses that “look like the back-end of Moscow”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not take too seriously Labour’s policy of building 100,000 homes at $300,000 each when the average price of a section in Auckland today is $325,000. So if we are going to make affordable houses—

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister. We have a point of order from Phil Twyford.

Phil Twyford: Mr Speaker, I asked for a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: And I am giving the member a point of order.

Phil Twyford: I do not understand why you are apologising for my point of order when you have not heard it.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not apologising to the member; I am apologising to the Minister because his answer was interrupted. Now, if the member has a point of order, I will hear it. [Interruption] Order! It is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

Phil Twyford: I specifically asked the Minister whether he agreed with the statement by Bill English. I did not ask for a dissertation on Labour’s KiwiBuild policy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I do not need any assistance. What I would appreciate from the member—I think he is raising a good point on this occasion—is that we could give Ministers the opportunity to address the question. The Minister had not been long addressing the question, but he certainly had not addressed the question adequately at the time the member raised the point.

Phil Twyford: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I am on my feet. If we get a continual process where before the Minister has an adequate opportunity to address the question, we get an interruption from anybody questioning it, then we are not going to get there. On this occasion the best way forward is for the member to repeat his question, and I will be looking for the Minister to then address the question satisfactorily.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Bill English that private sector builders like Fletcher’s and Stonewood Homes, which will be building Labour’s 100,000 affordable starter homes, build homes that “look like the back-end of Moscow”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have no confidence that those builders will be able to build each of those houses for the $300,000 that Labour claims when the average section price in Auckland is currently $325,000, so I do not care who the builder is. The policy is a nonsense. We must address the issue of land supply, which is exactly what this Government is doing with the bill before the House, and I cannot believe that Labour members opposite are opposing it.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise with you an issue with regard to your most recent ruling that Ministers should be given an opportunity to address a question before a point of order is raised interrupting—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Chris Hipkins: —and that is a very legitimate point. However, when a Minister stands up and immediately launches into an attack on the Opposition, rather than even suggesting that they might eventually get to answer the question, I think it is legitimate for a member to interrupt them. Repeatedly, we have had a situation where Dr Smith has launched immediately into attacking the questioner or the Opposition, without actually giving any indication that he is eventually going to get to answer the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s answer was perfectly adequate, given that Mr Twyford had stated that the Labour Party appears to know already that Fletcher Construction and Stonewood Homes are going to be able to build—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The point that Chris Hipkins raises is worthy of consideration. There will be occasions when the Minister is clearly not even attempting to address the question, and on that occasion I do not have any objection with the questioner raising it immediately. But I think we need to be careful that we are not premature on many occasions and interrupt when I perceive that a Minister is attempting to address the question. Often it takes a bit of an introduction before the Minister gets to the stage of adequately addressing the question, but I accept the point that the member is making.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

Hon Member: Here’s the “Comb-over Kid”.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What was that, “blunderbuss”?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table Government announcements where foreign purchasers at the initial float of Mighty River Power shares were restricted to 30 percent total purchase, which the Government has never described as xenophobic.

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

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

Welfare Reforms—Impact

7. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What changes has the Government made to the welfare system?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): National campaigned on welfare reform and we are delivering on those promises to New Zealanders. Our comprehensive reforms are now in place, with new expectations, greater obligations, a much stronger work focus, and an investment approach, which will provide even greater flexibility in how we work with people on benefits to make a real difference for them and their families.

Alfred Ngaro: What impact has National’s welfare reforms had to date?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The latest June quarter figures show that there are currently 309,782 people on benefits in New Zealand, a reduction of more than 10,000 on welfare over the past 12 months. The largest reduction in number was those receiving the DPB at that time, down more than 1,500 in the quarter, and down by more than 7,600 over the year. We would expect to get greater results for New Zealanders and their families. Our welfare reform changes include new supports for sole parents, including one-to-one support for those at risk of long-term dependence, and a new work bonus for those who choose to move into work earlier than required.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēna koe. Kia ora tātou. Aside from those measures already outlined, what other measures have been taken to ensure that our most vulnerable whānau are not disadvantaged by the changes that have been made to the welfare system?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I know this was of concern to the Māori Party. They certainly raised it with me many times while we were working on this policy. As a consequence what we made sure was that anyone with a child would not be sanctioned by more than 50 percent. We also made sure that they could re-comply really simply and really easily so that we did not see people in hardship and living for a long time on what is a very small part of their benefit.

Alfred Ngaro: What results has she seen from the Government’s extensive investment in teen parents?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: When we came into Government, New Zealand had some of the highest statistics when it came to teen pregnancy, yet resources for them were limited and sporadic at best. We were determined to support these young parents, and have invested a significant amount over the last five Budgets, such as introducing teen parent intensive case workers, supported teen housing, parenting support for young fathers as well as young mothers, and our new youth services. Although it is early days, we have seen the teen birth rates fall for the last 3 years. At this stage we are putting it down to a more comprehensive use of the long-term-acting reversible contraception, and also girls staying in school longer. The rates are the lowest they have been since 1962.

Question No. 3 to Minister

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have had the opportunity to review the email that the Prime Minister had to table earlier in question time, and it is quite clearly part of an email string, rather than the whole email string. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would table the whole email string so that we can actually see the context of it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Look, as it has been presented to me, that is the whole string, but what has been redacted is private information. So my understanding is that that is the sequence of order, but it is redacted in terms of information.

Maternity Services—Performance

8. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement: “We are concerned about the fact that mothers are being rushed out of hospital in a hurry after they have had their baby. This must change.”; if so, has the length of time mothers stay at a birthing unit increased or decreased since he made that statement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I certainly stand by that statement. Can I congratulate the Minister of Health on getting $9 million extra to ensure that new mothers who needed extra support could get it. It was estimated that that would be for a specific group of about 10 to 20 percent of mothers. I can say that it has been shown that of the 20 district health boards, 11 have actually increased the amount of time that mothers spend.

Hon Annette King: When he fronted a photo opportunity with this baby—my colleague is holding the picture—to announce his policy for longer stays for new mothers in birthing units, what was the average length of stay at that time, which he announced, and what is it now?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that exact information with me, but what I can say is obviously that baby could see David Shearer over my shoulder—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —and he is crying like the rest of the caucus is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not helpful at all. [Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: When he put out his newsletter No. 49 in 2009 headed “Boosting support for new mums” and said many new mums feel “pressured into leaving hospital with their babies before they are ready.”, did he expect that 4 years and $38 million of taxpayers’ funding later the average length of stay for mothers in a birthing unit to have decreased from 2.9 days under Labour to 2.4 days under his watch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not accept the proposition put by the member. What is clear is the Government has put in $9 million extra. What is clear is that we were targeting those mums who needed that extra support, particularly around breast feeding. That was estimated to be 10 to 20 percent. I believe that those mothers are getting an extra stay, and I believe that is why 11 of the 20 district health boards show there has been an increase in the length of stay in post-natal care.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a policy document from 2008, “Background: Maternity Care”, stating “New mothers pressured to leave hospital before they are ready” and stating the average length of stay for mothers in 2008 under Labour was 2.9 days. I seek leave to table that National Party policy.

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

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

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table information from the district health boards showing the average now is 2.4 days, not what the Prime Minister said—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that document, which is apparently from the district health boards. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Annette King: If there have been improvements for new mothers, as he claims, why are members of Parliament receiving emails from midwives like the one I received 2 days ago saying: “We saw no changes in policy on the shop floor. There is no financial transparency. The district health board maternity services are under-resourced and underfunded.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot speak of that particular email, but what I can say is that I remember back to the days when that member was the Minister of Health, and I remember clearly seeing a number of things. One was significant numbers of stories in the newspapers about mothers being kicked out earlier—significant numbers. Secondly, what I would say is that there have been 2,000 extra nurses added since we became the Government, 80 of whom are midwives. What I do not remember and cannot recall in recent times are emails, but what I can recall is mums getting shoved $100 Pak ’N Save vouchers to clear off out of the hospital, under a Labour Government.

Hon Annette King: Now they get nothing. They get shoved out. I seek leave to table the email from a midwife who is at the front, on the shop floor—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table an email from a midwife. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.

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

Foreign Charter Fishing Vessels—Requirement to Reflag Vessels

9. STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he still support the key feature of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that required all foreign-owned vessels operating in New Zealand waters to carry the New Zealand flag from 1 May 2016, and operate under full New Zealand legal jurisdiction; if not, why not?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: Yes.

Steffan Browning: Has he or any of his colleagues had any discussions or contact with National Party president Peter Goodfellow regarding extending the date for some operators of foreign charter vessels beyond 2016, given Mr Goodfellow is also the director of a company that stands to benefit from this exemption?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I can speak only for myself, since you asked about colleagues—no.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is not clear from that answer was whether the “myself” referred to was Minister Goodhew or the Minister for Primary Industries. I think it was the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, no, I think I can interpret it very clearly. Because the Minister was answering on behalf of another Minister, she was not prepared to categorically say whether the Minister himself had spoken to Mr Goodfellow.

Hon Trevor Mallard: She said “on behalf of myself”.

Mr SPEAKER: And she was stating quite clearly that she could not speak on behalf of her colleague, but that she could speak on behalf of herself, and that she had not spoken to the gentleman.

Steffan Browning: Has he seen and does he support the submission from Sanford, a company that National Party president Goodfellow has a substantial interest in, which seeks an exemption to allow the continued use of foreign charter vessels, and does he or his colleagues personally support such an exemption?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The Primary Production Committee, of which the member himself is a member, heard many submissions from many affected members of the public and companies. Last week the select committee reported back to the House on the bill. The committee made a range of amendments, including those exemptions. I have publicly stated that I have some concerns with the amendments that the select committee made, and I am seeking further advice from officials before making any decisions on potential changes.

Steffan Browning: Has he seen reports that our continued use of foreign charter vessels may damage our international reputation with the United States; if so, why is his Government risking our international reputation in regards to the continued use of these slave ships?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I have seen reports and this bill, in fact, seeks to address those issues. It is now back from the select committee, and, as I have already said, I am seeking further advice on the amendments.

Steffan Browning: Will he commit, with that advice, to ensuring that no foreign charter vessels will be operating in New Zealand waters past 2016, and that there will be no dodgy exceptions for some vested interests to the original date for ending slavery on our seas?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I will repeat what I have already asserted, and that is that the Minister has some concerns with the amendments and is seeking further advice from officials before making any decisions.

Schools, Partnership—Teacher Qualifications and Registration

10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement with regard to the teaching profession that “being unregistered is not the same as being unqualified”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes. There are already around 1,200 unregistered, hard-working teachers in the education system, adding value. All schools can already employ staff who are not fully registered with the New Zealand Teachers Council, but who are qualified in their particular area of expertise. Either the member has not done his homework and does not know that, or he does know and dismisses the significant contribution that these unregistered yet qualified teachers make.

Chris Hipkins: What is the purpose of teacher registration?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is to codify the requirements for teachers.

Chris Hipkins: What criteria does someone need to meet in order to become a registered teacher, other than hold a teaching qualification?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The New Zealand Teachers Council holds the registered teachers’ criteria.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That did not in any way address the question—what criteria does someone need to meet in order to become a registered teacher?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the member repeat the question to the Minister.

Chris Hipkins: What criteria does someone need to meet in order to become a registered teacher, other than hold a teaching qualification?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I would have to get the detail for the member, but the New Zealand Teachers Council—[Interruption] There are 12 elements to the registered teachers’ criteria. I am unable to list them here, but I am happy if the member would like me to table them. [Interruption]

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept we are probably not going to get very far with this, because the Minister does not have the information with her, but I do want to raise with you an issue about what is reasonable to expect when a very specific question is asked. The Minister, in her answer yesterday, drew a distinction between unregistered and unqualified teachers. My question today was specific about that. It therefore is not unreasonable for me to expect that she would come to the House prepared to answer questions about teacher registration.

Mr SPEAKER: At the end of the day, the member can formulate his supplementary questions as the questioning proceeds, and the member has done that, and has done it well. It is then over to the Minister to stand and answer, and it is quite legitimate for any Minister in this House, in answer to a supplementary question, to say they do not have that information with them. That is a satisfactory answer. It is a far better answer for any Minister to give than to attempt to guess the situation and end up giving an incorrect answer to this House.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your answer and I will not raise this any further—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?

Chris Hipkins: What I do want to do is ask you to reflect on the extent to which, when a very specific question is asked, a Minister should be expected to be prepared to answer specific supplementary questions on that.

Mr SPEAKER: I have already made that point to the member. The specificity of a primary question is important, and I will do everything I can to ensure that a Minister addresses a primary question. A subsequent supplementary question may be very closely related, but if the Minister feels that he or she does not have that information at hand to competently answer the question, it is quite legitimate for that Minister to say: “I don’t have that information with me.”

Chris Hipkins: Which of the criteria for teacher registration does she think are not applicable in the case of those teachers who will be working in charter schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: In respect of partnership schools kura hourua we are still going through the process, as the member knows because he sat on the select committee and the detail was fully available to him. Sponsors may propose that a proportion of the teaching staff not be registered as teachers but that they hold qualifications, and until we complete that process I will not be able to give specifics about each case.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not asking about any specific case at all. What I asked her was which of the criteria for teacher registration does she think are not applicable in the case of charter schools.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister said they are working on those criteria, and until those criteria are finalised she is not prepared to be specific.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One criterion for registration is that child abusers are not allowed—people who have child abuse convictions—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the point of order, please.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The question is that surely a Minister who is half-competent would rule that out.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not a satisfactory point of order.

Major Events Development Fund—Cricket World Cup 2015 and Other Investments

11. NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Economic Development: What support is the Government giving to attract major events to New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Through the Major Events Development Fund the Government is making a significant investment to attract a number of world-class events. Yesterday, for example, the schedule for the Cricket World Cup 2015 was announced in Wellington and Melbourne, attended by Prime Minister John Key in Wellington and Kevin Rudd in Melbourne. Fourteen host cities were announced, split evenly between New Zealand and Australia, with matches across New Zealand in Napier, Hamilton, Dunedin, Nelson, pool matches and a quarter final in Wellington, a semi-final and an Australia - New Zealand pool match in Auckland, and the opening match of the tournament scheduled for Christchurch. The Government is investing $5 million in the tournament from the Major Events Development Fund. The 1992 Cricket World Cup was successful on and off the pitch for New Zealand, and we look forward to once again welcoming the world here, to show off our hospitality.

Nicky Wagner: What are the benefits of this and other major events to New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, of course, this particular event will bring many benefits, not least the ability of New Zealanders to see their fine team coming up against the best in the world. As we have seen from the success of hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011, the sorts of visitors who come to these events tend to stay on longer than the tournament itself and they spend significant amounts on travel and accommodation while they are here. Today I released the findings of an economic analysis of the Government’s investment in major events. Eighteen events funded between February 2010 and April 2012 were evaluated, with the Government’s investment of $7 million collectively generating around $32 million of net benefit for this country. The evaluation shows that the Government’s investment in major events is generating substantial economic benefits—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’re boring people.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —for you, Mr Peters, growing businesses, Mr Peters, and delivering more and higher-paying jobs for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely that answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet. Point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Surely that answer was far too long, unless his objective was to put Mogadon out of business.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a helpful point of order, either.

Fisheries—Impact of Rena Grounding and Recreational Fishing

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): What scientific studies, if any, were considered by his ministry about the effect of the Rena disaster on the spawning, reproductive and growth cycles of snapper in the coastal waters of Tauranga Moana and the eastern Bay of Plenty prior to the release of his MPI Discussion Paper 2013/31 Review of sustainability and other management controls for snapper?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: There have been no recent studies on the spawning—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a question is written down, it is required to be repeated or read precisely.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was a very long question. The member forgot to put the word “1” at the end. I find that acceptable on this occasion.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, no. There was no “1” at the end or “(SNA1)?”. He did not just forget one thing; he forgot five of them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member takes delight in wasting the time of this House, I will ask Brendan Horan to repeat the question as written.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Thank you. For the grumpy pensioner, I will.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just get on and ask the question.

BRENDAN HORAN: Listen closely. To the Minister for—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise now to Mr Horan. The Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Although it was not quite as bad as the comment earlier, that reflection on a member in this House is one that I do find objectionable.

Mr SPEAKER: If it was a reflection on the member himself, he can ask for the comment to be withdrawn, but I did not hear any interjection that I found objectionable.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There was a most objectionable comment made about a senior member of this House by Mr Horan as a preface to his question. I think it is probably not wise to repeat it, but it was certainly unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER: My difficulty is that I did not actually hear what Mr—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am loath to give you advice. I think—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: I know that it is Wednesday—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, it might delay you giving me the job.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The point that I am trying to make is that the process probably should be that you ask the member whether he made an objectionable comment, and, if he did, to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I have now ascertained through a lengthy point of order that the member you are talking about who made a comment is Mr Horan.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is right.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Horan, if you made a comment that was unparliamentary, would you please stand, withdraw, and apologise.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Now would the member proceed to read his question as it is on the Order Paper.

12. BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What scientific studies, if any, were considered by his ministry about the effect of the Rena disaster on the spawning, reproductive and growth cycles of snapper in the coastal waters of Tauranga Moana and the eastern Bay of Plenty prior to the release of his MPI Discussion Paper 2013/31 Review of sustainability and other management controls for snapper 1 (SNA1)?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: There have been no recent studies on the spawning or reproductive cycles of snapper in the coastal waters of Tauranga Moana and the Eastern Bay of Plenty. However, growth data is collected routinely from the commercial fishery in this area. There is no indication that the Rena grounding had any effect on snapper biology overall. The snapper 1 stock covers a substantial area while the effects of oil spills from the Rena were relatively localised.

Brendan Horan: Why is the Minister unwilling to cut the commercial catch of large fishing companies such as Sanford, which, incidentally, is largely owned by interests associated with the National Party president—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will give the member one more opportunity to ask a satisfactory supplementary question without such additions to the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you be specific about what was unsatisfactory with that? There was a fact in there—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now starting to waste the time of this House. For supplementary questions, you only have to look at Standing Order 377. They must be clear and concise, without imputation and epithets. Would the member please ask his supplementary question. [Interruption] Order!

Brendan Horan: Why is the Minister unwilling to cut the commercial catch of large fishing companies such as Sanford?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The member is jumping the gun. The Ministry for Primary Industries is currently undergoing consultation on a range of options. It is not targeting recreational fishers. There is a range of options, which includes cutting the catch limit for commercial fishers. The member might well be served to know that tonight there is a public information meeting in Parnell, which he or others interested could attend, and a public information evening in Tauranga at the coastguard building at Sulphur Point between 6 and 8.30 tomorrow, 1 August, if anyone wants to, in fact, have the facts before they put in a submission on the process before 23 August, rather than jump to the conclusions that this member has.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What steps has the Minister’s ministry been taking to ensure that the kai moana resource in Tauranga Moana will not be adversely affected in the long term by the Rena disaster, and what has the Government done to protect mana whenua rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi in relation to the environment in the wake of the Rena disaster?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The Ministry for Primary Industries is actively and always monitoring this fishery. If any adverse effects as a result of the Rena are actually picked up, then the appropriate action will be taken at that time.

Brendan Horan: Given the options in the Ministry for Primary Industries discussion paper, and given that the Minister for Primary Industries has downplayed the economic value of the New Zealand recreational fishing sector in his analysis, is this not a case of the fish rotting from the head first?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Once again, the member is taking this consultation process completely out of context. The member would be well advised, if he is so interested in it, to put in a submission. There have been no predeterminations of the outcome, and the options are many.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I seek leave to table the New Zealand Teachers Council registered teachers’ criteria.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that criteria. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and, of course, there is nothing as desperate as the Labour Party in free fall. We had the Labour Party this weekend come out and decide that it is now going to compete for the 5 percent that New Zealand First has got—a party that has actually shown itself to be far more mature and better behaved in Parliament and elsewhere than David Shearer’s Labour Party, led by Trevor Mallard.

What have we heard from the Labour Party this week? We heard this whole new term today, the new term of “second-hand houses”. What is that? Actually, it is a house. It is a house, Mr Parker, it is a house—a second-hand house. It is what we live in, actually. As soon as we do, we live in it.

What we are trying to address here is, in fact, an issue of not enough houses in Auckland, in particular—that is, not enough houses being built. We need 12,000 new houses or apartments in Auckland, and at the moment we are getting only a third of that.

The Labour Party policy at one stage was to build 100,000 houses. I am not quite sure where it thought it was going to get the builders to do that or where it would have the land, because the Labour Party has opposed every reform to the Resource Management Act that we have put forward to free up land. Every single time, those members are against it; you can ever be guaranteed only of that. What has their answer been? They had David Shearer on television this weekend. Well, that was a strange event, because normally they send Sue Moroney to go and represent the Labour Party policies, and I cannot understand why they did not do that this time. It must be because she is a woman. It could not be for anything else.

What does Labour’s policy actually mean? Well, apart from the fact that it said that if you are a foreigner, except for Australians—because we had to have the “Russel Norman clause”, just to make sure that it kept Russel in the loop. If you are a foreigner but you are not Russel Norman or an Australian, then, of course, you will have to turn up with your passport to prove that you should have a look through the homes, these second-hand homes, that you are looking at. The other bit of the policy, which came out on Monday, was how this was going to happen. Lawyers are going to guarantee that these purchasers of second-hand homes are going to live in them. Well, that is going to be interesting. I mean, they only had—

Hon Tony Ryall: Who called them second-hand homes?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, actually, David Parker said it was a second-hand home. I live in a second-hand home, Mr Ryall lives in a second-hand home, and Ms Parata lives in a second-hand home. We in this party live in second-hand homes. But if Labour members are that worried about second-hand homes, why does Mr Shearer not give them some of his second-hand homes? He has got more than one—he has got several. In fact, he is one of the people who would not be able to do what he does now. And what about poor Helen Clark? She has got five second-hand homes, and she would have to sell them up, too.

This policy achieves absolutely nothing other than it does this: it scratches an itch, and that itch is all about xenophobia. That is all it does. One-quarter of all Aucklanders were born in some place other than New Zealand. What that party over there did—that party that once used to be a Government—was descend down to the 5 percent lot. That is what it did. For Rajen Prasad, the former Race Relations Commissioner, to still be in that party is an utter disgrace. Then we have Raymond Huo, who said he has got five houses—extra, rental ones. Why does he not sell them? Of course, I do not know whether he was actually born in New Zealand. Does that make him a foreigner? No. It is disgraceful, what that party did to a quarter of all Aucklanders.

The thing is: would it actually even work? Would it even work? The answer is no. What we need is freeing up the land supply. We also need people to be able to access capital. That party over there has now become the party of protectionism, the party that does not want foreign capital. It does not want anybody with foreign money coming in. I heard on the radio or the television that, apparently, some foreign banks are lending to foreigners. Well, it is a shame that most of our banks happen to be Australian. It is a good thing Russel is still able to stay in. But that is what we are dealing with. It is utter rubbish.

We have got to free up the land supply, we are reviewing the development contribution compliance cost, and we have brought in a 6-month consenting limit. We have brought in all of these measures to free up the land supply, not like that lot, who are just xenophobes.

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): You always know you have hit the jackpot when Government members have a go at your policy. I can tell you, Mrs Collins, that if you go out there and talk to New Zealanders about overseas speculators they will have a very different opinion from the one that that you just came up with. They do not believe that this Government is putting New Zealanders first. The Government is putting overseas speculators in front of Kiwis. A Labour-led policy will look at building 100,000 homes, a capital gains tax on speculators, and stopping overseas speculators as well. It comes as part of a package, and it is more than no package from the other side.

But I want to talk today about the issues of the day and about our intelligence agencies. I am sick and tired of having to stand here, as other Opposition members do, and as the media do, trying to drag the truth from this Prime Minister—drag the truth. He did not know about Dotcom. He did not know about the US interests in Dotcom. He did not know anything about his department organising the raid on Dotcom. He did not know about illegal spying on Dotcom. He knew, actually, about the spying in July but did not make it public—until pressure was put on—until September last year. Then—

David Bennett: Tell us about your bank account.

DAVID SHEARER: Certainly. Then, at the beginning of this year, there was the appointment of his friend Mr Fletcher. How many days did it take to drag that information out of this Prime Minister? His first instinct is to say: “What can I get away with here?”. It is not to come clean, not to give us the honest truth, but to say: “What can I get away with?”. What has happened as a result is that public confidence in our intelligence agencies is at an all-time low—at an all-time low.

Nobody believes that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) is functioning as it should. Nobody believes that this Government has the balance right between the security of New Zealand on one hand and the protection of our privacy on the other. What they are seeing is what they believe is an erosion of their privacy and their rights. That was brought out in submissions on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill by the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, and the New Zealand Law Society. All of those submitters believe and understand that this Government is undermining the privacy and rights of New Zealanders. Tomorrow we will have the second reading of that bill. We will have the second reading of that bill in light of what has gone on today, which is about the GCSB assisting the inquiry into the leaking of the Henry report.

We know that Parliamentary Service turned down two requests for information—two requests for information from the Henry inquiry—until Mr Eagleson, the chief of staff of the Prime Minister, got on the case and pulled that information in. That letter that the Prime Minister put on the Table today is just one of the pieces of information that need to come forward. It is the same old story, which is that we are trying to pull information out of this Prime Minister bit by bit, rather than him coming clean. He will not come clean. He keeps on saying that he gives the answer, and then we find there is another answer behind that one, and there is something else, and something else.

The public have lost confidence in our intelligence agencies, which the Prime Minister heads, solely because of the way he has behaved. Tomorrow we are going to have an ad hoc piece of legislation coming through to Parliament, but it should have been introduced following an independent inquiry, which everybody in this country wants. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am not going to dwell on that sorry excuse for a speech, but to hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about the Prime Minister not coming clean, and about him saying “What can I get away with?”—well, that is rich, from a guy who will not tell us how much money he has got in Chase Bank accounts. “Rich” is the right word for it, actually, because I suspect that the reason the member will not tell us is that he is rich, and that does not fit the narrative that he wants to leave this House with in his short time remaining as leader.

But, actually, I want to start this speech today by congratulating Shane Jones. There has been a huge amount that Shane Jones has said recently in relation to resource development that I wholeheartedly agree with. He has talked about mining creating job openings for low-income Māori families, and how he is tired of the “hostile rhetoric from the Greenies”. He has talked about how his visit to Taranaki provided the opportunity to reinforce the importance of the mining industry, and the need for the future Labour-led Government to assuage whatever anxieties might be there in the minds of employers or future investors. He has talked about offshore oil and gas drilling being an essential feature of domestic and export growth, and said that businesses enabling that would get full Government support. He goes on and on.

But the small problem is that just as Shane Jones does not talk about his movie tastes with his colleagues, neither has he sought their views on resources, let alone asked the real policy drivers in the Labour-Greens coalition—the Green Party MPs—what they think. How else can you explain what his colleagues have said and done? Annette King and Grant Robertson, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, put out a pamphlet last year asking to stop south coast oil drilling. They then sought donations to campaign against oil drilling. Moana Mackey, the member who is—many of you watching on your box sets may not know this—the spokesperson for the Opposition on these matters, has put out a press release: “Exploration not such a golden opportunity”. She has talked about drilling and mining development being a flawed economic development strategy. “This is not where New Zealand’s economic future lies.”, she says. [Interruption] You are right to ask, Ms Tolley. Are these people in the same party as Mr Shane Jones? Let alone what the Greens have said. Catherine Delahunty said on mining: “It’s unforgivable devastation.” On the Crown minerals legislation: “It is a declaration of war.” Gareth Hughes said it is a “dirty, old-fashioned 19th century economic agenda”, and “It is not an economic strategy for this country.” He says that oil and gas is not the answer, and it is time to “stand up to foreign oil industries.” Well, what an insult to the 14,000 to 15,000 people and growing in this country who work in that industry.

But here is the kicker: the rank—actually, disaster porn—scaremongering from the Green Party, which presumably Moana Mackey and Grant Robertson support. After the Wellington earthquakes, Green members were on social media all over the show with their anti-science, anti-evidence rhetoric, linking the two. Clearly the Age of Reason, the Age of Enlightenment, and all science has passed that party by, because without a skerrick of evidence and without any basis, it is linking oil and gas to the earthquakes. Well, the 19th century had a word for that, I say to the Green Party. They called it “quackery”.

Hon Phil Heatley: What’s that?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Quackery. I am not talking, Mr Heatley, about Trevor Mallard; it is actually much worse than that. It is the false and fraudulent promotion of fraudulent science. This House, actually, in 1908, you would be interested to know, passed the Quackery Prevention Act. I am not suggesting that we use it on the Green Party, but maybe New Zealanders should simply know that Shane Jones is out on his own in the Labour-Greens coalition—that coalition of quacks—when he talks about the support for the 15,000 hard-working New Zealanders in that industry, and the billions of dollars, the $4 billion, it brings to this country. So I say to New Zealanders who want to back resources and jobs to vote National at the next election.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): This has been a very important period in defending the basic democratic values that underpin our country. We have had a Government that has engaged in attack after attack on some of the fundamental freedoms that we as New Zealanders have taken for granted. We have had the Government Communications Security Bureau, a spy agency that has been illegally spying on over 80 New Zealanders. In spite of its legislation, which makes it very clear that the bureau is not to spy on New Zealand citizens and residents, that is exactly what the bureau did when it purposely and immorally broke the law that governed its own organisation. This comes in spite of the fact that when this law went through this Parliament, Tony Ryall and many others from the National Party said expressly in this House that the bureau was forbidden from spying on New Zealanders. Then the bureau went ahead and did it anyway.

Secondly, we have seen that the New Zealand Defence Force has decided that journalists are subversives and, hence, they are the target of covert surveillance. People might not know this, but under the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act, the SIS is responsible for protecting the security of New Zealand and, under the Act, that means protecting the security against subversives. When the New Zealand Defence Force describes journalists as subversives, it is providing a lawful basis for the SIS to engage in covert surveillance of journalists, so it is no surprise that when this Defence Force manual came to light as a result of the great work done by Nicky Hager, the Government had to back-pedal pretty quickly to step away from this manual. And it is, of course, a source of great disgrace that this manual predates the current Government, even though it is probably the current Government that was engaged in spying on Jon Stephenson. It is a pretty sad state of affairs that the New Zealand Defence Force sees it like that.

Then, of course, we have had the Prime Minister’s office using his power to put pressure on the Parliamentary Service to release information about members of Parliament and journalists. We know that the Prime Minister’s office leaned on the Parliamentary Service to release Peter Dunne’s parliamentary emails without Peter Dunne’s consent. Peter Dunne gave no consent. Wayne Eagleson, the Prime Minister’s right-hand man—his right hand, effectively—said to the Parliamentary Service: “You must release those emails of Peter Dunne.” Even though Peter Dunne never gave consent for those emails to be released, they were released anyway.

Then we have Andrea Vance. Andrea Vance is a journalist. She works in the press gallery. She works for Fairfax. Her movement records—so, the swipe card access of her movements around the parliamentary complex—were winkled by the Henry inquiry, by the Prime Minister’s office. The Prime Minister’s office went to the Parliamentary Service and said: “Hand over the movement records, the swipe-card records, of a journalist.” That is what the Prime Minister of New Zealand did and what his office did, just recently. In 2013 we have the Prime Minister, the highest officer in the Government, demanding and getting the records—the movement records—of a journalist.

Then, on top of that, there is the dispute about whether the Henry inquiry was also after Andrea Vance’s phone log. We know that it went after Peter Dunne’s phone log; the question is whether it went after Andrea Vance’s phone log. Certainly, it had Andrea Vance’s phone log and, according to Peter Dunne, the Henry inquiry—David Henry—told him that it intended to compare Peter Dunne’s phone log with Andrea Vance’s phone log, which would make sense, therefore, only if it had Andrea Vance’s phone log. We know that it had it, but it tells us: “Yes, we had it, but we sent it back without looking at it.”, or “without using it”, which were the actual words.

So now we have a situation where the Prime Minister’s office is going after the email and movement records of MPs in this House—in this Parliament—and journalists. This is a fundamental breach of our constitution. The constitution has a separation of powers between the executive, headed up by the Prime Minister, and the Parliament, and it has a further separation between the Government and the fourth estate. We need the fourth estate, or the media, to be free from this kind of surveillance and intrusion and bullying and menacing by the Prime Minister’s office. We need Parliament itself to be free of the kind of intrusion that the Prime Minister has been perpetrating against Parliament to access our email accounts and our movement records. It seems to me that, following all the Green Party’s written questions, we have finally unearthed what is going on here—

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Now that the Labour Party is reaching the dizzying heights of 28 percent in the polls, I think it is worth contemplating what a Green-led Government might look like. We know that the Greens are putting out policy proposals on a fortnightly basis, which the Labour Party members are picking up here, there, and everywhere. They are not doing any particular thinking about them, but they believe that because the Greens are set to overtake Labour in the polls, it is well worth picking up their policy choices—for example, the capital gains tax. The Labour Party says that it is a tax that will not affect the family home. I am not sure about what Labour calls second-hand homes and whether they would be affected, but we know that that capital gains tax will also be applied to every business owner, every shareholder, every farm owner, and those whose assets increase. It could be anything to do with anything they own. I do warn listeners that should you get a Greens-led Government, it might be worth looking at any asset that increases in capital value, because it could be subject to that tax. I myself am saying to my son: “Hide your stamp collection. Hide your stamp collection because there could be a capital gain and that might be taxed.” Anyway, the fact of the matter is that we are looking at a poll result where the Greens could be in charge of New Zealand in a Greens-led coalition.

I would like to correct Judith Collins. She did say that when Labour members do not want to appear on TV, they send Sue Moroney. That is not actually true. Statistically, they send a spokesman from the Green Party. We see Russel Norman, Metiria Turei, and other Green Party members speaking out on Government policy a lot more than we do David Shearer. As I say, we do know that the Green Party is eyeing up Cabinet positions. Russel Norman wants to be finance Minister. That ambassador for the printing press, Russel Norman, wants to make sure he is finance Minister. He wants a third of Cabinet Ministers to be Green Party members. You can understand why that is, because, essentially, the Labour Party caucus, as we know, is so small now that it can fit in a corporate box. So it is going to actually have to draw on Cabinet Ministers from the Green Party.

I took the time to read Green Party policy and a little bit about the Green Party members of Parliament. This is on the current Green Party website. It talks about that potential Cabinet Minister Catherine Delahunty. In her words, she says this: “Left-wing Wellington in the 70s was full of schisms and isms and frankly it made more sense to me to become a hippie. We had aspirations”, said Catherine Delahunty, “that we could completely drop out, and we lived in a fairly fractious state of collective confusion but we grew great vegetables!”. That is from Catherine Delahunty, a future Cabinet Minister. “I met my partner on a toxic tour of the country”, she says, “and I’ve been passionate about toxics ever since.”

David Clendon, a future Cabinet Minister under a Greens-led Government, is also on the Green Party website. It says: “Before entering Parliament, David worked at the coalface of eco-enterprise”, which I thought was an unfortunate turn of events for a party against mining—for him to be working at the coalface. He goes on to say: “My only real fear [of being a parliamentarian] is that I won’t take sufficient advantage of this opportunity but ultimately there’s such a lot to learn and I need to figure out the place before I can play the game.” David, you certainly do need to, if you are going to be around Cabinet.

And it says of Gareth Hughes on the Green Party website: “The 31 year-old admits to being ‘a bit of a munter who was into cars and girls’ in his younger days. However, his outlook on life underwent a major overhaul ... ‘The world opened up when I went to Victoria University,’ he says. ‘I started out intending to study commerce, but after stuffing up my enrolment I decided to drop any papers that sounded boring.’ ” Good on you, Gareth Hughes, future Cabinet Minister with the Labour Party and Greens. He says: “No doubt people will call me young and inexperienced but I would rather be judged on my merits, not my age. I don’t have parliamentary experience … but I have ... energy”. We all do, Mr Hughes.

So there we have it: a little line-up of what the Labour-Greens coalition would look like.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I am sure we are all grateful for the lessons from Mr Heatley on being in Cabinet. He knows a lot about being in Cabinet, and a lot about being out of Cabinet, as well.

There is a saying that many of us would have been told by our parents: “What a tangled web you weave, when at first you set out to deceive”. What we have seen from this Prime Minister, John Key, in this Government is what we call the web of deceit. This is it here, for the benefit of my colleagues, on this placard—the web of deceit. Members of the House will notice that at the centre of the web of deceit is John Key, because he has been at the centre of every single cover-up, every single mistruth, and every single lie by omission that has happened in this House around the security and intelligence agencies.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s donkey deep.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Donkey deep, he is indeed. That started right from the beginning of this term of Parliament when it comes to John Banks, the member who could not remember visiting this gentleman, Kim Dotcom, and his giraffe. I would remember visiting Kim Dotcom and his giraffe in a helicopter if that had happened to me, but this member, John Banks, could not remember that.

Right beside him in our web of deceit is Ian Fletcher. Let us be absolutely clear. It took 10 days for the Prime Minister to acknowledge his role in appointing Ian Fletcher to the job of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Then, beside him in our web of deceit, is Peter Dunne. He is at the centre of what is one of the most serious things that I have heard in this Parliament—that is, the spying and intrusion upon a journalist who works in this building.

The material that was tabled in the House today is very instructive. It is very instructive. What that material says is that what was being sought were calls to and from not only Andrea Vance’s parliamentary extension but also her mobile phone and her landline—her mobile phone, her parliamentary extension, and her landline. The Prime Minister stood up here in this House today and said that everybody would have expected the terms of reference of this inquiry to be understood. Well, what Mr Key has to answer is how it is that his inquiry—the Henry inquiry—was asking for Andrea Vance’s mobile phone and personal landline calls as well as calls from her parliamentary extension, as if that was not bad enough.

But it is the role of the Prime Minister and the role of his chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson, that is clearly part of the web of deceit that has been woven by this Prime Minister. Wayne Eagleson is the person who intervened to make sure that phone records, swipe-card records, and emails were released. The Parliamentary Service said no when the Henry inquiry asked for that—twice. It was Wayne Eagleson’s intervention, as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. We are told that if we are talking to Wayne Eagleson, we are talking to John Key. He is the person who intervened and said that those records should be released. It is John Key who is responsible for this inquiry. It is John Key who is responsible for a massive breach of trust with the press gallery in this building and with parliamentarians. John Key has no right to be ordering that emails, phone records, or mobile phone records of journalists or parliamentarians be released, but that is what he has done.

This is just a continuation of this Government’s record of riding roughshod over the democratic process. Be it through the teapot tapes and bringing the police into the media outlets and the journalists; whether it is the casino bill, which rode roughshod over good process, and where the Prime Minister intervened; whether it is the protest-at-sea law, where the Government says that you cannot protest within 500 metres of a boat; or whether it is the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, which plainly extends the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau to go well beyond where they are now to infringe on the privacy of New Zealanders, this Government has no respect for democracy.

This Government is not acting in the way that New Zealanders would expect or that New Zealanders would want—that is, a Government that looks after its citizens. John Key needs to hear the lesson. This country is not some company that he gets to play and trade around with; it is a democratic country, where the rights and the rule of law count. This Prime Minister does not respect those—he should go.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Continuing on a theme of justice, I suppose, for this afternoon, I wanted to draw some consideration to two key statements around the administration of justice. Most of us in the House would know, or would have heard of, the statement that is often quoted: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”, which has become code for injustice. In effect, it means that if justice is not carried out right away, then even if it is carried out late, it is not really justice, because there has been a period of time when there has been a lack of justice. The second words of wisdom come from the black human rights champion Martin Luther King. He said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

One might think that these statements are statements of intent for how various arms of the justice system should operate, so I want to raise three particular cases to have a look at. I am talking about the situation for the Nēpata brothers and their treatment by the defence forces; I want to talk about Operation Eight with particular reference to the New Zealand Police; and, thirdly, the experience of Teina Pora through sentencing in the courts and his subsequent incarceration. As a starting point, most of us here would say that everyone is equal before the law, and, in perhaps another, bigger context, that we should take recognition of the recommendations from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and its report to decrease racial discrimination within New Zealand.

So let me start with the Nēpata brothers. I know this family. I know these two gentlemen. Damien Nēpata was serving as a lance corporal in the New Zealand Army when he suffered extensive burns from an accident that occurred while he was driving a tank at the army camp at Waiōuru in 1994. He suffered burns to 40 percent of his body. His brother George Nēpata was serving as a private in the army when he was seriously injured in a training accident in Singapore in 1989. He now lives as a tetraplegic. The Nēpata brothers have presented petitions to this House on two previous occasions, in 1999 and in 2003, for compensation up to the level of entitlement that they would have received had they enlisted after 1992. The downside is that both petitions were rejected by the Government. The Māori Party could neither tolerate nor accept the lack of action for this whānau, so we wrote to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, the Minister of Defence, and the Prime Minister to request adequate compensation for the injuries suffered while under the duty of care of the army. We also referred the case to the Māori Affairs Committee, and we are delighted that the committee gave the issue urgent priority. Just to cut to the chase, these injuries and injustices date back two decades.

Moving on, then, to Operation Eight. If ever there was an incident of institutional discrimination, that was it. I have spoken at length in this House about the need for justice and fairness for the whānau, the hapū, and the iwi of Tūhoe Pōtiki, and, in particular, the people of the Ruātoki valley in Tāneatua. The Māori Party will not rest until the police recognise and acknowledge their failings, and take steps to rebuild the broken relationship. It is not good enough that the findings of the Independent Police Conduct Authority report have not been an immediate trigger for the police to re-engage with affected whānau and look to repair the grievous harm that has occurred. One immediate step could be to amend the police policy manual for encountering children and vulnerable people while executing search warrants. Another could be the mechanism to undertake community impact assessments for operations in any future situations. Although one would hope that we would all learn from the appalling circumstances of that time around the raids and the subsequent delays, there is still work to be done.

Finally, I raise the case of the situation of Teina Pora, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994 and who has been waiting for a staggering 20 years for the criminal justice system to come up with real evidence. The lack of accountability from the State over this time has meant that Teina and his whānau continue to dwell in an unjustified nightmare. The Māori Party has supported a royal prerogative of mercy from the Governor-General, which provides for a special avenue for criminal cases to be reopened where a person may have been wrongly convicted and sentenced. It is a constitutional safeguard in our criminal justice system when new evidence raises serious doubt about a conviction. However, if the whānau of Teina Pora wishes to go to the Privy Council to have their views heard, we will also back them 100 percent.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Labour’s policy of putting the brakes on foreign speculators pushing up Kiwi house prices is a good idea; it just is not its idea. New Zealand First announced the housing policy in November last year. Back then we proposed to “introduce restrictions on non-residents/non-citizens entering the New Zealand domestic housing market.” On Sunday, David Shearer said: “Labour will restrict the ability of non-residents to purchase New Zealand houses,”. In any other walk of life that is called plagiarism, but it is good to see Labour adopt New Zealand First policy. An important difference is that we would not allow exemptions based on nationality. Labour says it will exempt Australians, but Australians happen to be the single-largest group of investors in New Zealand houses. So how is Labour trying to achieve anything by exempting the Aussies?

New Zealand First would apply this policy fairly across the board. There will not be any exemptions based on nationality or race or any other form of discrimination. We will stop all non-residents from buying both existing houses and sections for houses. We would allow special cases to be approved only upon application, where extraordinary circumstances such as humanitarian factors and similar genuine needs could be proved.

Our two largest trading partners already have similar policies in place. Australia restricts foreign investment in residential property to the creation of new housing stock, and China bans the sale of land to foreigners altogether. There are many other countries where foreign ownership is restricted or prohibited, but it is important that no race, nationality, or other category be singled out.

The justification for tough restrictions is clear. We know that some foreign investors can get very cheap loans not available to Kiwis and that these people can, therefore, outbid Kiwis in the house property market. But to make matters worse, the Government allows parent reunion category immigrants under tier 1 to have fast-tracked entry to New Zealand if they bring in at least half a million dollars with them. They often invest this, of course, in a house. So National’s witless immigration policy also makes the Auckland housing problem worse.

New Zealand must regulate the foreign ownership of residential property if it is to fully address the Auckland housing crisis. It is in the national interest to do so. To that end we are pleased that our policy is gaining cross-party support, except, of course, for the National-led Government, because National does not really care about the impact that foreign buyers are having on the Auckland housing market. It pretends that there are so few foreign buyers that there is no problem, but New Zealand First is getting many contacts from Aucklanders who say just the opposite. Even if they are only 10 percent of the market in Auckland, that is still significant. But we have good grounds, based on information from Auckland real estate agents and others, that the proportion is, in fact, much higher than this.

So why is the Government doing nothing about it, when the Aussies have already taken action, and so have many other countries? The answer is that National puts business first, not ordinary Kiwis, and especially not first-home seekers. Our philosophy has always been to put New Zealanders first. The Government must stop the practice of foreign investors buying up residential property and taking the rental profit or capital gains offshore. This practice inflates house prices and effectively shuts Kiwis out of the market. That is especially the case in Auckland.

Offshore property speculation is a full-fledged assault on the Kiwi dream of homeownership. Thousands of New Zealanders are being forced to live in substandard houses and to give up the dream of homeownership, while people stepping off a plane can obtain any number of properties for purely financial gain. We in New Zealand First believe that access to quality housing is a fundamental right for all New Zealanders to enjoy.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): Rather than respond to that last call, I thought I might talk about the likely face of a new Government if there were to be a change. If there were to be a change, what would it look like? What would it look like if we were to have an election and there were to be a change of Government? It would potentially be a Green-Labour coalition, based on—

Tim Macindoe: Who else would be that?

SHANE ARDERN: Well, who else is there? That is exactly right—very good question. What is it that the Greens and Labour would do? What is it that they have said that they would do?

Well, let us touch on the areas that the Green Party in particular spent a lot of time campaigning on: environmental issues. Let us have a look at what some of its rhetoric in that area, compared with what it actually does itself, has been like. For example, just recently there was an environmental award handed out to the Taranaki Regional Council for the fact that it has planted 90 percent of the stream banks in the Taranaki region, which, incidentally, add up to more kilometres than the whole coastline of New Zealand—the whole coastline of New Zealand—in riparian margin planting, in consultation and in collaboration with other organisations, including, of course, the farmers, who were the main leaders.

What did the Greens say when the council won that prize? What did they say? They said that it was “an undeserving winner of that prize.” In fact, what Dr Russel Norman said was there was an academic scientist from Massey University—I am not going to name the gentleman because I do not want to malign the gentleman—who would have been a far better recipient of the prize. That pretty much sums it up. What the Greens do talk about what they would like to see done, but they do not actually acknowledge those who do it—they do not acknowledge those who would do it.

So let us have a look at some economic facts around some of what they have talked about. We know that the world population is growing. We know that New Zealand is a low-carbon producer of food. We know that there is going to be a growing demand for food. We know that currently there are 2.5 million children a year who starve to death. We know that there are 850 million people who are living below the poverty line around the world. The Greens are going to impose a suite of policies on New Zealand agriculture that could lead to only one thing, and that is a decline in the production of healthy, wholesome, sustainable food. Where does that fit in with their philosophy of being a caring, compassionate group? Where does it fit in with Labour’s policies?

Well, if you look at what Labour has said it would do, in conjunction with its Green coalition partners, is it would introduce a capital gains tax. It would introduce and immediately bring into effect an emissions trading tax on animal emissions. It would introduce higher income tax. It would introduce higher company tax. It would put a limit on livestock numbers in our agricultural industries. It would limit the use of water. In fact, when you talk about the greatest potential for increasing food production and economic well-being not only for “New Zealand Incorporated” but for the feeding of the world as the population grows, Labour would introduce limits on water use, the No. 1 driver of production.

It would also introduce a limit on nitrogen use on the basis that somehow or other this is going to stop environmental damage. I have here two photographs, which I will table at the end of my speech. One of them is a dairy farm in Taranaki with a river running through it with the riparian margin planted. The other one is Zealandia reserve here in Wellington. I invite members to take a look at these photographs and tell me which one they would prefer to drink or swim in. Both of them are waterways within New Zealand. One is in the middle of an urban area; the other is in the middle of a dairy farm in Taranaki. Yet if you listen to the Greens, this one in Zealandia is apparently pristine, unpolluted, and without problem. But that is nitrate. That is pure nitrate. That is what that algae is growing on—pure nitrate. And that one is in the middle—

Hon Trevor Mallard: And why?

SHANE ARDERN: Not because of agriculture. And why, and why? Well, there you go. Father Time over there, who has been in the Parliament for 35 years, says: “And why?”. Well, I will tell the member why. It is because it has high nitrate running into that reservoir—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Your time has expired.

SHANE ARDERN: I seek leave the leave of the House to table two photographs demonstrating—

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

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): The quote was so good that I have got to repeat it again. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!”. That was said over 200 years ago by Walter Scott, but how appropriate that quote is today to describe the mire and the muck that the National Government has got itself into.

What we have seen is one cover-up followed by another cover-up followed by another. We have had a daily dose now of exposé as we uncover the deceit that has been going on. You know, it is a bit like watching the dance of the seven veils. Slowly each cover-up and deceit is being exposed, yet to find another one. So the veil of secrecy is being lifted. But it is not being lifted by an open and a transparent and an honest Government—no. It is being opened by the work of investigative journalists, by Opposition politicians, by commentators, by the media, and by the public. It is like drawing blood from a stone to get the answers out of this Government of what it has been up to.

The whole spying issue of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), and of who was spying on whom, who knew, and who did not know, reads like a whole series of John le Carré novels. It could be the one that is called A Delicate Truth, or maybe it is the one called A Most Wanted Man, or what about Our Kind of Traitor? Or then there is the one called A Perfect Spy, or there is The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. And if you have ever read those books you will know that the intelligence service has the code name of the Circus. Well, what a great name for what has been going on in the National Government over the GCSB bill and all the goings on of their spies and counter-spies. In fact, it would make Maxwell Smart look like he was smart, the behaviour that is going on.

Of course, the head of the service in those books is called Control, and the “Control” of this whole debacle is the head of the web of deceit: John Key. John Key is at the head. He is at the centre of this web of deceit that they have spun around themselves, and he is responsible for much of what we are seeing going on now because he is the master at covering and hiding what is happening within our spy services. He is the one who refuses to let us have an independent review of those services. He has resisted. All he wants is one vote—just one bought vote—the bought vote of Peter Dunne. That is all he wanted to get it over the line, to get his bill passed.

And sitting on his shoulder is his puppet. Sitting on his shoulder is Wayne Eagleson, the person who is the mouthpiece of the Prime Minister—when you are talking to him, you are talking to the Prime Minister. I find it absolutely outrageous that Wayne Eagleson was seeking the telephone records of journalists from within Parliament here. That is what the person on the shoulder of the Prime Minister, in the name of the Prime Minister, was doing.

So how did this all start? It all started with John Banks having a cup of tea with the Prime Minister to stitch up a deal to get him back into Parliament, and we got the teapot tapes. Then, what happened? We had Kim Dotcom raided by the police, who rings up his best friend John Banks, to whom he had given $50,000 in a donation, plus a brown paper bag of money from Skycity, and who would not give him any help. Then John Key denies all knowledge of the person who is living in the mansion in his electorate. In fact, there you have in the web the electorate office, because the electorate office rings the Prime Minister and says: “Hey, there is a German living in the electorate. We do not know anything about him, but he is a big German living in the electorate.” The Prime Minister says that he knows nothing about it.

So what do we have? We have the GCSB illegally spying on 88 New Zealanders. We have the Defence Force spying on journalists, calling them subversive, and thinking it is legal that it can spy and look at their telephone records and their metadata. We have the Prime Minister, through Eagleson, asking for the phone records of not just their parliamentary phone line but their home phone line and their cellphone—the home phone line, the parliamentary line, and the cellphone of Andrea Vance. That is the Prime Minister.

Then we have Peter Dunne. He is here. He leaks a story to a journalist about a report into spying, and then he is being spied on.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am afraid, members, that I do not have a visual exhibit to display today. Unlike the front bench of the Opposition, I did not have much time on my hands to sit around engaging in a little bit of graphic design. But I have got some firm facts and figures here that clearly demonstrate that any potential coalition between the Opposition parties would be as the Minister Simon Bridges—[Interruption] I will take that picture. Thank you. It belongs in the rubbish. Thank you. As the Hon Simon Bridges, the Minister of Energy and Resources, said, we are staring down the possibility of a Government made up of the coalition of quackery or, as I call it, the cock-up coalition. I will tell you why it is the cock-up coalition. It has actually been a pretty dark week in New Zealand politics thanks to an announcement from the Labour Party. I was quite surprised, having worked for this country overseas for 9, nearly 10, years to promote New Zealand as a destination that is sensible, that is welcoming, that is open to foreign investment, to see a pretty dark policy announced by the Opposition. In fact, “policy” might be a generous term, when, in fact, it is just a slogan and there is no research underpinning it, there is no basis, and it certainly is something that will not work.

Let me tell you, the BNZ survey on housing affordability and, in fact, on house sales to foreign buyers showed that only 3 to 4 percent of purchasers of homes were foreigners. Barfoot and Thompson has also put the number of foreign buyers at 4 percent. So I think it is pretty clear, and anyone with any common sense would see, that the policy that the Opposition is proposing will be completely ineffectual at taking the heat out of the Auckland housing market. But there is a dark side to it. There is a hint of xenophobia to this policy. We could see that, in fact, when the Leader of the Opposition appeared on radio. He actually did not use the terms “foreigners” or “non - New Zealand citizens”. Twice in an interview on radio the Leader of the Opposition specifically referred to Asian buyers. How do you think that makes members of the Asian community feel?

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

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: How do members think that that makes members of the Asian community feel—those hard-working New Zealand citizens who happen to be of Asian origin, who pay their taxes and contribute to this country, employ people, and are generally obeying the law and being good citizens in this country?

We know that the policy is planning to exempt Australians, which, again, I have no problem with. I like our Australian cousins and brothers, so I am delighted that it is exempting Australians. But what about Cook Islanders? What about Niueans, Tongans, Samoans, Irish, Scots, English, Canadians? I am pretty appalled by this policy, but it is reasonably reassuring to know that there is very little chance that a policy like this will be implemented, given the likelihood of the coalition of quackery, the cock-up coalition, being formed after the next election. That said, there is that sinister element. Despite the inefficacy, I would have to say that perhaps it is not so much the Leader of the Opposition being the New Zealand Enoch Powell but more a case of “Eunuch Powell”.

There are several other policies we could talk about, but I think the housing policy is another case of borrowing from the Greens and New Zealand First. According to the Greens, it was unfortunate that the man ban was reversed. Metiria Turei was highly critical of the move to reverse that ban. So I am just wondering how long it might take others on the liberal left to actually convince the Labour Party that a xenophobic policy, a policy that is discriminatory, a racist policy, is bad for the Labour Party. It is bad for New Zealand. It certainly impacts on our look overseas, and it has consequences in terms of our free-trade agreements that we have signed up to with some of the economies. We know, and academic experts have discussed this point, that with the free-trade agreement with China we actually have to be equal in setting restrictions, so we cannot exempt Australians. It is an unworkable element of the policy, and I think it is something that the Labour Party will drop when, inevitably, I am sure, it drops this policy in its entirety after the next election—after the coalition of quackery is defeated and after the cock-up coalition is out.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that bags, suitcases, or other man arrangements were not allowed to be brought into the House. I notice that Tau Henare appears to be carrying a handbag. My understanding is that those things are not allowed in here, even if they are brought in by boys.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Speaking to the point of order—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind members that when there is a point of order on the floor, it is to be heard in silence. It is to be short, succinct, and to the point. All members are honourable.

Hon TAU HENARE: If it is good enough for a female member of the House to bring a bag into the Chamber—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s wrong too.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Maggie Barry.

Hon TAU HENARE: I will not say anything more, because there are too many interruptions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I was going to say that one offence does not make it any better, if it is related. But the member is leaving the House anyway, so thank you.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): We saw some photos before of a couple of streams, and one of them showed a very dirty, murky stream. I want to talk about some other murky waters, and they are around fisheries and around foreign charter vessels and the exemptions that have been put through that have some, let us say, perceptions of cronyism. We will make it “perceptions” in case some think that joining certain dots of ownership of companies that get the benefits of the exemptions that are put into the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill somehow might be litigious or something. There is certainly a perception of some very, very murky waters.

One exemption, the one for tuna fisheries, really looks after just one sole company. That company is the New Zealand Japan Tuna Company, which has just a couple of directors. One is Charles Hufflett, and the other is Eric Barratt, the managing director of Sanford. The New Zealand Japan Tuna Company is 53.2 percent owned by Solander, fishers of bluefin tuna, and 46.7 percent owned by Sanford. We all know that the president of the National Party is, essentially, the dominant feature of the ownership and certainly a director of Sanford. I am assured by some in National that he has integrity in his dealings regarding policy within National. However, that tuna exemption is totally unnecessary and totally goes against the intent of the bill, which is to reduce slavery, to improve conditions in terms of both the type of boats and quality of boats and the quality of the workspace, and to address a number of other issues regarding fishing in the exclusive economic zone. The tuna exemption is not needed. An exemption is not needed. Any exemption goes against the intent of the bill. And when it so clearly advantages so very, very few, and, in fact, disadvantages other New Zealand fishers, we have to ask these questions.

We were shown in the Primary Production Committee that the level of New Zealand domestic fishers who were not relying on foreign charter vessels was increasing year on year. If we rule out any exemptions, it is clear that we will see from New Zealand fishers fishing New Zealand waters an improvement for the New Zealand economy, and, ideally, doing it in a sustainable way. This exemption smells fishy, it is fishy, and it is in very murky waters.

The other exemption that is a bit murky is the one around settlements and the annual catch entitlements that go there. That was dropped into the select committee. It is going to be in front of this House. It is totally patchy and murky. It needs kicking out as well. There are some issues around iwi and their justified access to quota and how they might manage that, but, again, if you look into those annual catch entitlements and see who is fishing them, Sanford pops up again. That is the nature of how that exemption has been drafted. It needs a total rehash. In fact, ideally, it needs kicking out.

We need no exemptions to this legislation that is coming through, which has actually got a fantastic intent—exemplary intent. It also has very good points around increasing observers under the legislation. But these exemptions threaten the viability of this bill. They threaten the actual advantages that the bill intends. Up to one-third of the foreign chartered vessels can theoretically operate, it seems, under these exemptions—

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 30 July on the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill.

Vote Social Development (continued)

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): To pick up from where I was last night on this particular bill—

Simon O’Connor: Are your people allowed to buy a house here?

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: No, not from the people whom you are buying them from. The welfare reforms now expect all people previously categorised as sickness beneficiaries, sole parents, and widows with no children under 14 to look for full-time employment as well. That includes the grandparents who are up to 65 years old, and, if Peter Dunne has it his way, it will be 67.

I agree that we have to be firm against those who consciously and continuously take advantage of our welfare system, but I also acknowledge that things are not always black and white. This is the biggest shake-up of the welfare State since 1938, and such dramatic streamlining of the system may cause many people in genuine need to fall through the cracks. To truly progress social development, it would be useful to refocus on poverty, education, crime, family values, community structure, and other core issues impeding our growth as a society. It is obvious that these reforms are the Government’s way of saving a quick buck here and there without focusing on bigger problems like job creation. Indeed, what is the use of forcing job seekers and the unemployed into work when we do not have enough jobs or reasonable wages?

The paradox of our time under the National Government is spend more but have less. Have more but enjoy less. There are more medicines but less wellness. The Government claims to have more experts, yet there are more problems. National has multiplied its possessions but reduced its values, and it has no principles at all. It talks too much and listens too little.

The Government seems unhappy—well, should I rephrase that? The Government seems happy to push people into low-paid, low-security jobs, instead of encouraging decent employment and education. This means that those on welfare, who are typically the most vulnerable in our society, are not likely to improve their situation amid the bureaucratic harassment and social stigmatisation that now comes with it.

The Government is focusing on moving people off welfare, rather than on providing adequate and secure incomes for families. Other advocacy groups have raised concerns about the detrimental effects on grandparents raising their grandchildren when they are being told to find work, despite their age and ignoring the valuable work that they are doing for society in saving children from broken homes and relationships.

MELISSA LEE (National): Ahn nyung ha se yo. I would like to start my contribution by saying that the National Party campaigned on these welfare reforms. We actually made a promise to the New Zealand people that we were going to make welfare reforms. We are making sure we keep to the promise we made to the people of New Zealand. The new benefit categories and welfare changes in our reforms that came into effect on July 15 now apply to all beneficiaries. This includes rules around drug testing and outstanding arrest warrants and new social obligations for parents. These are important issues. The obligations are clear and they place a greater focus on moving people off welfare and into work.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Paula Bennett, on the changes that have been made already. We are now seeing the results of these changes, with 309,782 people currently on benefits in New Zealand. This is a reduction from some number over 310,000 in the previous quarter, and down from 320,000 in the year prior to that. That is a reduction of more than 10,000 people on welfare over the last 12 months, and that has to be a great result. Work and Income will be actively working with around 41 percent of beneficiaries, and it expects the number of people on benefits to fall between 28,000 and 44,000 by 2017, resulting in estimated savings of between $992 million and $1.6 billion. When we, as a nation, are recovering from a global economic crisis, that has to be a great thing.

The domestic purposes benefit, the unemployment benefit, and the sickness benefit are now gone, and three main benefits have replaced the seven categories that formed the previous benefit types. The three new main benefit categories are jobseeker support, sole parent support, and supported living payment. This is in addition to the young parent payment and youth payment we implemented last year, in 2012. These changes are part of our efforts to simplify benefit categories and put a greater focus on work and new work preparation activities, along with reinforcing social obligations. Job seekers will have work expectations set depending on their capacity, whether it is full time, part time, or to be temporarily exempt in certain cases. For example, when they have short-term illnesses, they may be exempt from these work obligations.

I would like to now move on to the Children’s Action Plan, which comes from the Government’s white paper and includes more than 40 initiatives to better protect vulnerable children. I think everyone around this House actually agrees that children need to be protected from those who abuse and hurt them. This action plan is a key priority for this Government over the next year. We are driving extensive programme reforms to reduce abuse and neglect, and we are already making progress, with Children’s Teams active in Whangarei and Rotorua. These Children’s Teams support communities to better protect their children, and this Government has set aside $13.7 million in operating funding over 4 years towards the cost of implementing this plan.

In this country, about 12,000 Kiwi children are being cared for by wider family members because of either the death of a parent or family breakdown. Without these carers, more children would be under State care, so an extra $35 million has been set aside in the Budget this year to support these extended family members. This initiative is also part of the Children’s Action Plan in response to the White Paper for Vulnerable Children, and that has to be celebrated.

The welfare system will always be there to help people in need. We have always said that. We will ensure that those people who genuinely need help will get the help. But we also believe that long-term welfare dependency can become a trap, and we know that the dependency trap leads to limited choices and limited outcomes. We also believe that anyone who can work should be in employment or in training or at least looking for a job. Our changes have fundamentally altered the welfare system.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana, Mr Chair. The New Zealand Centre for Political Research and its commentators have said that the welfare reforms that have been introduced by this Government are some of the most significant since the Social Security Act of 1938—the most significant since 1938. Yet, despite that, what has actually happened is that these reforms have been welcomed and they have been embraced—they have been welcomed and they have been embraced. So what is the point of difference, one may ask, when listening to these speeches? What is the point of difference about these reforms that is truly making a difference? I want to share this. In 2007 the Rt Hon John Key, in a state of the nation address, said: “These are tough problems ….”—what we are facing; these welfare reforms—“But I have no intention of being a Prime Minister who tackles only the easy … But I can tell you that dealing with the problems of our growing underclass”—and our vulnerable families and children—“is a priority for [the] National [Government]”. He has kept that promise, and these are the things that are making a difference.

So here is the point of difference that is making a difference. On Friday I was out there, visiting one of my constituents, a Mr David Bruce. He has got cerebral palsy, and I went to visit him at 54 Pah Road in Epsom. He is in the hospital there. As I sat there with him, the first thing he said to me was this—he pointed to his watch and he said I was 1 minute late for my appointment. I apologised for being 1 minute late. He could not speak well, but then he motioned to me to come and sit down while he was there in his wheelchair. He began to speak to me and communicate with me—here are the things that are really important. In having a lifetime of disability, he talked about the vulnerability and the protection of vulnerable adults. He talked about the potential of a member’s bill. What he started to say to me—and here is the point of difference that adds to this debate around social development—and what he was communicating to me was that he was not a problem to be solved, but a potential to be realised. I knew at that point in time, at that meeting with him—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Take his cash to Skycity.

ALFRED NGARO: This is what he was saying, Mr Mallard. He was communicating this to me: “We are an investment. We are a potential to be realised.” The intent of this welfare policy is about an investment for the future for our children.

But here is where it gets really ugly for the Opposition, because as political commentators for the New Zealand Centre for Political Research have gone out—[Interruption] That is right. They do not want to listen to this, but here it is. An online New Zealand Herald poll of 13,450 voters showed that 58 percent of respondents believed that the reforms were—here it goes—sensible and about time. Only 13 percent thought they were totally unjustified. A Stuff poll of 8,300 voters found that 52 percent thought that the reforms were needed, and, interestingly enough, 21 percent thought they were not going far enough. What are these reforms telling us and telling the rest of New Zealand? We do not have people marching in the streets. We do not have people protesting. Instead, what do we have? We have people who are saying that they welcome these reforms, they are needed, and they are positive because they are investing in the future of the young people and the families of our communities and of our nation.

Here are some of the investments we are making. I have had constituents come to see me in my electorate office. One of the challenging issues is housing, but there are also issues around budgeting. The extra funding and support of budgeting services of $1.5 million will help, and it is on top of the $8.9 million, so that we can ensure that budgeting services are meeting the needs. But that is not all. There is microfinancing support for people on low incomes. I sat down with a family with five children. They are struggling with their own finances. They owe money to five different finance companies. As we sat there together, working through these issues, we realised that the policies and the direction of the reforms will meet these very needs. We got the family to go to the Ōtara Budgeting Service. We got them to be able to talk about these issues. In the long run, these reforms will truly make a difference as well.

The other thing we are doing is getting a better deal on the procurement of whiteware, to make sure we do not have second-hand, shoddy whiteware. We are going to have the opportunity for them to have whiteware, which will make a difference for them. There is an extra $35 million for extended family members raising children. I have been meeting with grandparents, with kin carers, who have been working and looking after their grandchildren. This is much-needed relief. Often, at times, when there has been a breakup in the family and they have had some difficult times—

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am happy to pick up from where my colleague Alfred Ngaro has left off in the social development area. I want to talk about three important areas of significant change—in fact, the biggest change in a generation by far. Those are the work around vulnerable children, the focus on youth, and the change in the benefit categories and the introduction of social obligations, which should, one would assume, be a mainstay of the welfare system, but we have had a welfare system that has got out of control over the years. Arguably, although it will always be needed, it does not serve the interests of those who need it most, when it gets out of control. The bill is around $22 million per week for the taxpayer for some 320,000 New Zealanders, but the lost potential in those individuals is capital that we can never really put a price on.

The changes around youth, which we dealt with as a Social Services Committee last year, deal with the 14,000-odd teenagers who are in that gap between education and training and employment. They have fallen into that gap. What we know for those individuals is that if we do not do something about them, the chance of them finding their way on to an adult benefit and staying there for a significant period of time is very, very high. It is an unacceptable situation. The wraparound supports, the payment card system, the mentoring system, the interventions that have been put in place there, are about upfront investment in those young people who have often had a very challenging upbringing, and ensuring that we do as much as possible to make sure that they are in employment, in education, or in training and that they are ready, willing, and able to take up the opportunities when they appear—and, of course, they do.

One of the things that we cannot legislate for is attitude. One of the difficulties that we see with young people today is that a lot of them, unfortunately, do not share the attitude that their parents and grandparents have, in that there is some expectation that society, the community, owes them something. I just want to share a little anecdote concerning my own family. My partner’s daughter left school late last year and is now doing a level 3 course in the sports and recreation area, with the hope to go on and do a diploma and degree in that area. She was a 16-year-old girl at the time she left school. She has made her way. She found some accommodation, she was boarding, and within months had a part-time job to help cover the costs of her new life. She has now found her way into a promotion in that job as a waitress because her front-of-shop attitude, her willingness to want to excel and do well, needed rewarding. The employer is rewarding her. I can assure members that she is earning well above the minimum wage—considerably above what many others would expect.

There is one reason for that, and one reason alone. It is because she has got off her backside and has shown the attitude and the determination that says: “If I want something out of life, I have got to go and grab it.” When they do, employers jump up and say: “Yes, I welcome you.” This is particularly relevant in my electorate of Northland, where, unfortunately, we are dogged with a lot of people who think that the world owes them something and they do not have to meet it in the middle.

We are doing a lot of work on that focus on youth. The benefit category changes introduce social obligations. Well, there are social obligations in every walk of life—in sports clubs, in the workplace, and in the family. There is no reason why those social obligations should not exist for those who are dependent on the State for welfare because they are not in work. That is why they should be receiving welfare—because they are not in work, not because they cannot find a job, necessarily. They are not in work. What we need to do is to ensure that the settings are right for them to be in work, and often drug use is a barrier to that, so introducing drug testing is a positive in that. Ensuring that children are enrolled in early childhood education, enrolled with a primary health organisation, and, of course, getting their well child checks is a social obligation that means everything to those children. Of course, we will not be letting those who are on a warrant run around at the taxpayers’ expense, to evade justice and to evade the police.

But, finally, in terms of the Children’s Action Plan, here is a Government that is doing something. Since 1999 and the inquiry into James Whakaruru, the Labour Party has sat there and done nothing for year upon year. The Children’s Action Plan is a demonstration of doing, not talking.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Defence

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that Vote Defence stand part of the schedules.

Hon Phil Goff: It’s the Ministry of Defence, Mr Chairman, is it not?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, it has just got “Defence” here. There is Vote Defence Force coming up, though, Mr Goff—there is Vote Defence and Vote Defence Force. The question therefore is that Vote Defence stand part of the schedules.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Defence Force

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Every day in this Chamber as we look around the walls and at the plaques that are displayed there, we can feel and take pride in the courage and the achievements of the New Zealand Defence Force. It is therefore with enormous sorrow that I witnessed at the estimates hearing on defence the enormous damage that has been inflicted on the New Zealand Defence Force by this National Government—by actions contrary to promises made at the 2008 election. I remember the campaign, where the National Party was saying that it would strengthen the New Zealand Defence Force. It has done exactly the opposite. It has cut its funding, it has weakened it, it has demoralised it, and people have left in droves. That is a real shame.

What we have found—actually in one of the Minister of Defence’s answers to a written question, although he denied it—is that the real operating expenditure on New Zealand defence has been cut this year. The Government has cut the operating expenditure for defence. The army and the navy have had $100 million taken out. That is not chicken feed; it is $100 million from the army and the navy. There was a $63 million cut in salary payments. Do you know how it got the salary payment cuts? It got them by cutting the New Zealand Defence Force by 1,269 personnel since it became the Government. It never promised that at the 2008 election. It has cut the Defence Force and it has reduced the capacity of the Defence Force to act on our behalf. The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Defence, denied that last year, and he denied it again this year, but I have the actual transcript from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee hearing. This is what the Chief of Defence Force said: “We’re accepting that that loss of people does degrade capability”. That is what Rhys Jones said. He has fronted up and admitted what the Minister would not—that the cuts have degraded the capability of the New Zealand Defence Force.

It is not even just across the board. Anyone who has served in the military here knows that the vital ranks in the military are at the NCO level. The first lieutenant always depends on the sergeant. It goes back a long time in history. It is the warrant officers. Do you know, Minister, that at the warrant officer level the attrition has increased fivefold since your party became the Government—fivefold attrition at a warrant officer level? It takes 15 years for somebody to get to that level and develop the skill and the experience they need. That is what this Government has done.

In 1 year the Government increased the attrition of the New Zealand Defence Force from 8 percent to 21 percent. Between one in four and one in five in that year alone left the New Zealand Defence Force—a level of attrition never seen before. To misquote Churchill, never in the history of the New Zealand Defence Force have so many people left in such a short period of time. That has damaged our Defence Force.

Forget the party politics; let us have a look at what the Auditor-General says about that, because she put out a report in the last year. She said that the Government has damaged the bonds of camaraderie, integrity, and commitment that are part of the New Zealand Defence Force—damaged those bonds. She said that the Government has chosen “a course that led to a drop in morale and an increase in attrition resulting in reduced capability.” The Chief of Defence Force says there is reduced capability, the Auditor-General says there is reduced capability, and the Minister says no, it has not affected what the Defence Force can do. Who do you believe? Do you believe the Chief of Defence Force or do you believe the Minister of Defence, who is making excuses for his Government’s own inadequacy?

The Auditor-General said that civilianisation had been a disaster. She said that, actually, people were treated in a way that was almost a calculated insult. Do you know that the people who were being made redundant got letters? Those letters—I will not take up time, but I have got them here, and I can table them if you want to read them—told people who were being dumped from the Defence Force to save money that they were being dumped because they lacked commitment, they did not have potential, and they were not as good as their peers. That is what it said in blunt terms. The Defence Force hung its head in shame and said: “Yes, we told good people they were bad.” So, Minister, you have made hundreds of people redundant, and you have told them through the Defence Force that it was their own fault because they lacked commitment and they lacked potential. Come down to the RSA and talk to some of the people who have served for 10 or 20 years who have been made redundant. Your Defence Force leadership, Minister, said that they were being made redundant because they lacked commitment. These are people who have given their lives to New Zealand, and that was the loyalty that was reciprocated to them.

I want to say that when you put the Defence Force under pressure, that puts lives at risk and well-being at risk. I want to draw on the court of inquiry report into the death of Corporal Douglas Hughes. Do you know what that court of inquiry report told us? You will know this only because I am telling you. The Government will not release the court of inquiry report. The Hughes family wants it released, but the Government will not release it. Do you know what it said? It said that it cut the pre-deployment training going into Afghanistan from 5 to 3 weeks. Outcomes were not achieved. The Defence Force rushed through things like stress management and stress identification. The report said that the commanding officer and the warrant officer were not confident that people were adequately trained, but they had no choice but to deploy them. It said that the deployment went on for 2 months longer than it should have and that people were exhausted at the end. It said that the forward operating base at Romero did not have enough defibrillators, so if there were mass casualties, they would not have been able to cope. And the Minister will not admit to those things.

Do you know what they did at the select committee? It was really interesting. They got poor Lieutenant Colonel Brett Wellington, who was the commanding officer of that crib, up to the table to try to rebut what I was saying. But I have got the transcript in my hand of what he said. Here it is. Lieutenant Colonel Wellington said: “I believe the pre-deployment training was reduced, and it did put pressure on us in respect to achieving the competencies that we would ordinarily achieve before deploying overseas.” I asked him whether he was misquoted in the court of inquiry report. He said no. We had Gerry Brownlee in this House speaking on behalf of the Minister, and he said I was wrong. Here is the commander of the crib at the select committee saying exactly what he thought. I asked him about the risk of the longer deployment and he said: “Yes. Me and my commanders had to manage that risk, and we did that in several ways.” I asked him whether the court of inquiry was right about the Romero operating base, and he said: “Absolutely. We would have been challenged if we had mass casualties.” Is that good enough, Minister? Is it good enough, when we put the lives of our people serving our country at risk in Afghanistan, that you cut corners and they cut corners? That court of inquiry said it, and that is why the Government continues to suppress it.

I want to go on to another aspect of another court of inquiry and the impact of low morale and high attrition, because that does create greater potential for mistakes, mishaps, and things not being done well. Private Michael Ross died in the lake near Waiōuru last year. The court of inquiry report in this case was released. It said it was not a freak accident. It was not even an accident caused by a couple of errors. It was an accident that was absolutely avoidable. It listed the things that the Defence Force was not doing well that led to his death. There were 12 different things, Minister, 12 different causes. You have a life jacket where the canister is empty and it does not inflate when you are carrying a minimi machine-gun, and it drags you to the bottom. The life jackets were not fit for purpose. They had never been trained in the use of the life jackets. The life jacket was not inflated properly, and that caused the accident. The safety boat was not alongside it, and when it turned up it had one person, not three people. There were 12 major errors. That is a sign, Minister, of a Defence Force that is dysfunctional. It is dysfunctional because of the pressure that this Government has put on it, and that is a disgrace.

I am really proud of the men and women who serve in our Defence Force, but they are not being treated well. Their loyalty to New Zealand is not being reciprocated by the Government’s loyalty to its men and women in uniform, and that simply is not good enough.

I want to finish on this point. It came out over the weekend that the defence operating manual said that someone was subversive if they brought the Government into disrepute. I guess I have just been subversive. Worse still, it said that journalists were subversive because they did that. How did the Minister of Defence respond? First of all, he would not front up, and when he did front up—and I heard him on Checkpoint—he wanted to know who had leaked the document. He did not express outrage that this document, which has been around for a number of years, had that clause in it; he wanted to know who leaked it.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): I feel very lucky that I have come down to the Chamber and happen to be here, because that was a speech that needs knocking back. It was a speech that quoted many things out of context. It was a sad speech, actually, from a once-good Minister and a once-good member of Parliament who has, frankly, seen much better days. Frankly, it was a shabby—

Hon Phil Goff: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but since he has questioned my integrity and what I quoted, I seek leave to table the entire transcript of the estimates hearing before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee a couple of weeks ago.

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

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

Hon Phil Goff: Secondly, I seek leave to table the document from the Auditor-General that makes the points about the drop in morale and increase in attrition, resulting in reduced capability.

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

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It was a sad speech because that member continued to quote selectively from the select committee transcript, and he made many points that, actually, were refuted at the select committee itself.

Hon Phil Goff: The Minister said I was correct. It’s in the transcript.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think what this man is doing is continuing to undermine the morale of our troops.

Hon Phil Goff: No, no, this Government has done that.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The fact that now he will not let me speak and he is determined to try to shout me down actually proves the point. Phil Goff is no longer a member who deals in facts, and that is very sad. What he said there was that the Government has cut funding in defence. That is actually incorrect. We had this debate at the select committee. It is absolutely true. If anyone goes away and reads it, they will find that Phil Goff was taking figures out of context and he was twisting them. In actual fact, there was not a cut.

When we talk about the numbers in the Defence Force, Phil Goff knows full well that there was a defence white paper in 2010 and that it looked at the priorities that the Government set for defence and it looked at the force configuration that is needed. The number of 8,500 people across the three services that we have full time is actually the number that is needed to act on the Government’s priorities, so for him to continue to make out that there have been deliberate cuts in numbers to save money is plain wrong.

The other thing that he continues to state is that there are issues around the training of troops in Afghanistan. He mentioned specifically Lieutenant Colonel Brett Wellington, who took the stand and said that our people were well trained in Afghanistan on that crib mission when he took command. It is a bit sad, really, that Phil Goff is out there trying to stir up trouble, exploiting the deaths of soldiers like Private Ross and Corporal Hughes to make political points, because he knows that many of the facts he is quoting—or so-called facts—are absolutely incorrect.

He was talking there about the Defence Force order that listed journalists alongside extremist groups and foreign intelligence services, but what he forgets to tell you is that for the whole time he was Minister of Defence that order was there, and that that order was signed by the Labour Government. So anything you hear from Phil Goff, you have to know that he is a sad, disillusioned member who, frankly, at his time of life and at his trajectory in his career should be leaving. What I will tell you here—

Darien Fenton: Now he’s started being nasty. Here he comes, “Mr Nasty”.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Darien Fenton calls me “Mr Nasty”. Well, that is an interesting one. What I will tell you is, look, all defence forces internationally have faced challenges across the Western World. We have been operating within fixed baselines. We have a plan that has actually moved resources from the back of the office to the front line. We have been funding troops and we have been funding capabilities—just like Tony Ryall has been doing in health—and it has actually been incredibly successful.

What are we doing? We are bringing new capabilities to the front line: new helicopters, we are opening a new SAS training base—

Hon Phil Goff: Oh, come on. Come on, I ordered and paid for those.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —we are funding the operation of those. Oh, it is all Phil Goff again. Here he goes. Phil Goff says he paid for them; it was not the taxpayer. These are the rantings of a sad has-been. He knows it has all gone. He knows he will never be a Minister again. It has all disappeared. But I think it is time that Phil Goff started to back our people, because there are two versions of the truth: there is Phil Goff’s version and there is what actually goes on at the front line with our defence people. If you talk to defence people, they will tell you that it has been a period of change but they are very focused on the future.

It is sad, really, because there was once a time when Labour took a bipartisan approach with National on defence and security matters, but now it seems that Labour members are so electorally desperate that they will grasp any opportunity to try to make political hay. I am especially disappointed in Phil Goff. When you see the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation, Phil Goff knows that that is legislation the Government actually needs to push through for the security of New Zealanders. He has been a Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and he has been a defence Minister, yet he weakly sits back and chooses to play politics. He plays politics with everything.

If you look at the Corporal Hughes case that he quotes, which was a very sad case in Afghanistan and which is subject to a suppression order, Phil Goff tells Parliament that the Government has suppressed the court of inquiry. I would love to release in public the full text of that court of inquiry, but, as Phil Goff knows—

Hon Phil Goff: Invite me to, and I will.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I invite you to release it, but you will be breaking the suppression order, Phil. You will be breaking the law, and I very much hope that Phil Goff will be held answerable.

Hon Phil Goff: I see, but you’d love to release it.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would love to release it, because it would show what really went on. The problem with Phil Goff is that he continues to dance on the graves of our dead soldiers, and that is a disgrace.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For the Minister of Defence to accuse me of dancing on the graves of dead soldiers, more particularly since I have lost a member of my family in Afghanistan, is disgraceful and despicable. I take offence. I ask you to ask him to withdraw that comment and apologise for making it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Phil Goff. I understand the situation, and I would ask the Minister to withdraw that comment.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise. But this is very much the point. Phil Goff can stand there calling me a liar and a person of low integrity. I am happy to accept that from him, because this is a robust parliamentary environment. But once you start telling the truth about Phil Goff, he gets very upset. He gets very, very upset; he cannot handle it. He talks about attrition in the Defence Force. I can tell you that attrition in the Defence Force is lower than it was at its peak under Labour, when Phil Goff was defence Minister. Morale in the Defence Force is higher than it was at its worst when Phil Goff was defence Minister.

I would be very happy to work with Phil Goff, because Phil Goff is actually not a bad guy. You saw him up in Honiara last week. We had a good discussion. To be honest, we have robust debates in here, but I just wish he would be a bit more bipartisan. I wish he would back our people in Afghanistan. I wish he would not be totally trying to undermine people all the time, and undermining the Defence Force. Frankly, in the end it does not reflect well on Phil Goff. We know—and Phil Goff secretly will agree—that both of our parties want what is best for the Defence Force. We know that our people do an excellent job. I wish our Labour colleagues would actually get behind our people in the Defence Force, because personnel tell me that they are sick of hearing of Phil Goff’s rubbish.

It has been a time of change in the Defence Force, but the Defence Force is going forward. It does not need politicians constantly trying to undermine the very good work our people have done in the Solomon Islands, in East Timor, in Afghanistan, in the Sinai, in Korea, in South Sudan. We need the Labour Party to actually back the National Government in defence policy and to take a constructive approach looking forward. So, Phil Goff, my message to you is do not distort the facts and do not quote selectively from that select committee report. Just tell us what your Government would do differently, because I know that, actually, your Government would not respond to these challenges any differently. The fact is that morale now is a lot higher in the Royal New Zealand Air Force than when you cut the Skyhawks and the Strike Wing back in 2000.

Hon Phil Goff: Remember you promised to bring them back. Have you?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have never made any such promise.

I can tell you that we have an excellent Defence Force. We have great people. The Labour Opposition needs to shut up and listen during these debates, and get up and make some positive contributions when we are talking about defence, because we have got very good people there. The future is good for defence. The Government totally backs the New Zealand Defence Force. The feedback I am getting is that our people in defence are looking to the future and looking to make a very strong, worthwhile contribution to New Zealand’s future.

Vote agreed to.

Vote State Services agreed to.

Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade agreed to.

Vote Official Development Assistance agreed to.

Vote Sport and Recreation agreed to.

Vote Corrections

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava malo le soifua. In the 2012-13 Budget for corrections, the National Government declared that it would invest $1.5 billion in corrections. This time around, the 2013-14 Budget spending on law and order is a deal-breaker for a majority of voters, and the Department of Corrections and the Minister in charge are trying to give false assurances to the voting public that criminals will not get just a simple slap on the wrist.

Remember the 43 criminal offenders who managed to destroy monitoring services and escape security surveillance by the Department of Corrections in the span of 1 year? I hope members do. These offenders make our security system seem like a joke, with reports nearly every week of someone escaping from custody or destroying a monitoring device. We need to send a clear message to these offenders that our prison security devices and surveillance systems are not a joke, nor should they be compromised. More important, when it becomes potentially dangerous for our local communities, the department needs to be made accountable for ensuring public safety. We need to enhance security so that offenders do not escape prison or community service sentences. We should enforce tougher penalties, where any offender found to have destroyed a security device is sentenced to a minimum prison sentence and is denied the softer option of home detention.

Let us reflect on the recent case of a man who was sentenced to 9 months’ home detention and made to serve 300 community hours for importing class B drugs through our ports. How is this sending out a message that we are going to get tough on criminal behaviour? How are we going to deter criminal behaviour if we are sentencing men like Manuel Sadler to 9 months’ home detention instead of imposing the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment? Let me also mention that this man is a repeat offender. More needs to be done to ensure that criminals like this are caught and serve jail time. We cannot afford to give these criminals a slap on the wrist and send them home. What kind of a message is that sending to our community? This sort of behaviour has the potential to destroy lives and encourage further criminal activity.

In order to combat criminal activity, the Government needs to ensure that it sticks to its promises and makes our police more visible. I find it unacceptable that police numbers have fallen from 8,940 in June 2012 to 8,721 in February 2013. I wonder what is going on here. Has the Government been cutting back on spending in order to balance its books, and put a halt on recruiting new cops? I know that this is about corrections, but the people whom the police actually deal with end up in our corrections system. In 2008 the Government committed $18.5 million to recruiting, training, and employing extra police staff. As police numbers have been falling, where has this money been diverted to or hidden?

I actually have some grave concerns about the way our corrections system has been managed. I believe that it needs more resources and better funding, and we also need to know which areas of corrections the funding is going to be spent in. If the Minister of Corrections wants to ensure that serious domestic violence offenders are monitored 24/7, then we cannot afford to have lower police numbers and to diminish their visibility in our community, nor ignore the need for our corrections staff to get better training and sufficient resources. If this is going to work, we need to strengthen front-line staff and police numbers instead of weakening their visibility and effectiveness.

Crime rates may have fallen, but that does not mean that all crimes have been reported or recorded. Criminal activity is not a seasonal thing. It is constant and can occur at any time. In fact, the number of sexual assaults has risen. Moreover, no one can truly give an exact estimate of the number of domestic violence disputes that occur nationwide. Unreported domestic violence is estimated to be very high, which indicates a need to monitor serious domestic violence offenders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in order to save more lives, especially for battered women—and for some men—who are not reporting these assaults. We need to be firm but fair.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Police

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa. The report of the Law and Order Committee took me by surprise from the opening statements of the Minister of Police. Minister Tolley, talking about the aspect of visible policing, had this to say: “public confidence has never been higher. So public confidence and trust in the police is the best it’s been.” Unfortunately for Minister Tolley, someone in the department forgot to point out to her the recent research released on the New Zealand Police website, published just 2 months ago, in May 2013. The study in question, Building Diversity, was undertaken to explore factors that influence Māori to apply for and join the New Zealand Police. The researchers, Nan Wehipeihana, Elizabeth Fisher, Kellie Spee, and Kataraina Pīpī, put forth evidence that utterly challenges the basis of Minister Tolley’s hope for public confidence.

Let me share some of the comments in the study that reveal poor perceptions of the police within Māori communities and a lack of trust and confidence in the police, in policing, and, therefore, in having a job with the police. People who were going to be recruited and iwi liaison officers at the time both talked in particular around the Tūhoe operations. One recruit said this: “You’d want to have Māori Police officers on the ground right in there, but then I wonder if we could influence the way things were done. Not sure we could have a say or be heard. Think we might just get swept away beneath Police procedure?”. That was one recruit. An iwi liaison officer had this to say: “The perception of Police by our people was not helped by Operation 8—the Tuhoe incident. This cast a negative light on Police”. Another iwi liaison officer said this: “There’s a lack of trust and confidence in what is essentially a Pakeha organisation”. So it is no surprise that the Māori Party comes to this debate extremely keen to see how the ongoing issues of a lack of Māori confidence in police are dealt with in the context of this estimates bill.

Just to remind those who may well have forgotten, last month the Independent Police Conduct Authority report found that in some areas police acted “unlawfully, unjustifiably and unreasonably” during the raids of 2007. The Independent Police Conduct Authority judge, David Carruthers, said in the report that the detention of the occupants at five properties of 41 properties raided was “unlawful and unreasonable”. Police were also criticised for the unnecessary stopping and searching of vehicles and taking 66 photos of drivers and passengers, including children. It left some people feeling “degraded and intimidated”. Just a month ago I raised these issues in the House, speaking about the trauma of many people who were raided, which had still not actually been heard. I then went to the Māori Affairs Committee and asked its members to consider the opportunity to listen to the voices of those affected by Operation Eight, to commission an inquiry into the impact that Operation Eight had on Ruātoki and Tāneatua residents—no cigar, no cigar. Neither National nor Labour would agree.

So now here we have an opportunity to expose the New Zealand Police to the scrutiny of the public, to see how they are dealing with the longstanding issues of injustice and inequality. So what does the Law and Order Committee report tell us? Three things. Firstly, it describes the Australian Police recruiting New Zealand officers in 2012-13. Secondly, it reports with great excitement about the use of iPhones for collecting and communicating information. Thirdly, the committee asked questions of Deputy Commissioner of Police Mike Bush regarding his comments at a former police officer’s funeral. Just wait on a minute. This is all supposed to be breaking news in response to the issues of injustice and inequity, of unlawful and unreasonable actions by police in respect of Operation Eight, which is meant to restore the faith and confidence in police, and we are talking about cellphones.

In case there is any doubt about whether the police have a very real issue around public confidence and faith, then we need to look at the advice of the United Nations and, in particular, the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That committee, not just this year but back in 2005 as well, has condemned this country for the disproportionately high rates of incarceration and overrepresentation of members of the Māori and Pasifika communities at every stage of the criminal justice system. Just putting that into the context of the police, Māori now comprise more than 40 percent of all police apprehensions, despite being only 15 percent of the population. Is anybody actually worried about that? Well, it seems that iwi Māori are.

Six months ago a plan drawn up by Te Arawa, Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whātua, and Tainui, and strongly endorsed by iwi leaders around the country, was released to the world. For the education of the Committee, that plan was called Turning the Tide, and I want to share some of the thoughts—perhaps better phrased as the frustrations—of iwi in getting this strategy even off the ground in the first place. One of the members of the Māori Focus Forum is Dr Apirana Mahuika. He said that in 1996 he laid down a challenge to the police on behalf of iwi. He said: “E tū ki te kei o te waka kia pākia koe e ngā ngaru o te wā.”

Stand at the stern of the waka and feel the spray of the future biting at your face. What he was referring to in those words was that most Māori who are victims or who are directly involved in crime are under the age of 25 years. In the words, again, of Dr Mahuika: “With our population of young people growing, if we do nothing, then even more Maori will end up in hospitals, police cells, courts and prisons.” He closed by saying: “We can’t let that happen.” I share these words with our leaders in the Chamber today because this is very, very important. This is about shaping our future. It is about setting the directions for tomorrow. Should we not be interested in that? Surely.

What we know is that iwi around the country are serious about working with the police to make a long-term change. What we know also is that the United Nations committee urges New Zealand to intensify its efforts to address the overall representation of members of the Māori and Pasifika communities at every stage of the criminal justice system. The committee even suggested that this can be done best by addressing the existing structural discrimination. So what do the police appropriations estimates say on this critical issue? Well, it talks about iPhones.

I want to remind the Committee that Operation Eight showed the ingrained, system-based racial discrimination within the police force. Justice has not been served in the eyes of the Māori Party, nor, indeed, in the eyes of the frightened children and whānau, the hapū, and people of Ruātoki, Tūhoe, and Tāneatua. The police need to recognise and acknowledge their failings and to take steps to rebuild that broken relationship. The Māori Party wants to see a system where Māori do not have to fight for justice, where institutional racism is confronted and addressed.

For those members and, indeed, the public listening to this broadcast this afternoon I say that I recently read a book called The Prophet and the Policeman, which talks very much about Rua Kēnana, Te Kooti, and a person by the name of Cullen, a policeman who was the first New Zealand police commissioner in this country. It is a very good read, and would set the scene for, I suppose, understanding why it would be that the people of the Tūhoe nation and, indeed, Māori feel a little bit disgruntled that there is no admission and no moving forward by the police in respect of what happened in Operation Eight, to at least acknowledge that they did not get it right and that they could have done things better. Under those conditions, it is a good read about history, but it is almost like history repeating itself if you read it today. I hope members of the Committee will be able to take that opportunity. The book is called The Prophet and the Policeman. It is out of the Parliamentary Library. I would recommend it as a very good read. Kia ora tātou.

JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): The Minister in the chair, Jonathan Coleman, was right in his earlier intervention when he noted that it was a strong focus of this Government to move resources out of the back room and on to the front line. It is true in terms of the New Zealand Defence Force, but it is also true in terms of the New Zealand Police.

The Prevention First strategy is working extremely well in New Zealand. Crime is down. One of the most important features of the Prevention First strategy is that policing is now different. Gone are the days when the police constable sat behind a desk in a small suburban or small rural watch-house waiting for business to come to them, using their own cellphones in latter years to take calls, if they did happen to be out in the squad car, and responding, normally, after an event had occurred—after a citizen had phoned because they were feeling a bit insecure in their home and then waiting, waiting, waiting for the police to take a note of it, or having to go into the police station and wait for some response after the event.

I want to give a couple of examples of how Prevention First is working for New Zealanders. One of them is the example of a lady who came to see me in my electorate office—an older lady. She was cooking her dinner at 6.30 in the evening. It is dark these days and there was a knock on her door. She looked through the curtain to see who was out there and she saw one man there—a large man. She asked him to identify himself. She was not happy with the response he gave, so she declined to open the door and told him to go away. She was very upset and worried about this and so she rang her neighbours, and, yes, this man had knocked on their doors as well. She was then advised to ring the police. She did that, she noted her concerns that she felt unsafe for herself and her neighbours, and she hung up the phone. She went into her sewing room, got one of those wooden rulers that older folk will remember, and started fitting it into her ranchslider to make her house more secure. She looked up and there was a constable looking in through the ranchslider at her. He had got the call from the station. He had come directly around to her place, and he had got himself in and said “Right, let’s have a look at your security in your home.” He did that, he visited the neighbours, she felt more secure, her neighbours felt more secure—that is Prevention First at work.

The second example I want to talk about is the use of technologies. There has been a major roll-out of iPads, tablets, and iPhones. So the constable from the Geraldine Police Station—another part of my area—no longer sits at his desk waiting for the phone to ring and for business to come to him. He puts his iPad under one arm, he puts his iPod in his top pocket, he starts walking down the streets of Geraldine, and he talks to people. People come up to him, pass the time of day, pass comment, and, you know, share their concerns with him. He is out there doing what a good policeman should do, and that is Prevention First. It is getting in front of the crime in New Zealand, which is why crime numbers are dropping significantly in New Zealand.

This change in policing that is having such a good effect on crime in New Zealand and making people feel safer in their homes—which, in my view, is very important—seems to have escaped some members of the Law and Order Committee who seem to still be of the view that neighbourhood police stations, which are visited by a member of the public once or even twice a day, or even less, should continue to be manned. Let us have a choice here. Should we have neighbourhood police stations, which are hardly ever used, with the police constable sitting in there waiting for the customer to come to them? Or should we have proactive members of the police out and about, armed with the technologies they need to do their work, so that they can not only respond immediately as people need them out in the community—they can be visible out in the community—but also do their work out in the community? To me, it is a complete nonsense to hang your hat on the number—

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call today. I would like to talk about police leadership and then I would also like to talk about technology and how that has made our police force, as the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, said, a different police force, a more modern police service. But, firstly, in relation to the leadership, as a new member of Parliament sitting on the Law and Order Committee, when we had the Minister of Police in front of us, Police Commissioner Peter Marshall, and his two deputies, Viv Rickard and Mike Bush, I was extremely disappointed and, to be honest with you, shocked to see the treatment that was dished out to Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush by a Labour Party member, Trevor Mallard.

I would just like to read a little bit about Deputy Police Commissioner Bush and the service he has provided to New Zealand over a career that began in 1978: “Mike Bush has risen through the ranks after graduating from police college in 1978. He was in Thailand as NZ police liaison officer ... at the time of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. ... He’s brought down international drug rings, led a desperate race to find a kidnapped five-year-old and solved every murder case he’s ever been assigned. ... After 33 years in the force, there isn’t much Bush hasn’t seen—from a $100 million methamphetamine drug bust right through to solving grisly homicides. Beginning his career in Kaitaia, he went on to take charge of Interpol in Wellington and headed North Shore CIB and was later crime manager of the Bay of Plenty district. Before becoming district commander for Counties-Manukau in 2008, he was crime services manager for Waitemata district. He solved every murder he’s investigated—including the mystery of what happened to 49-year-old electrician Stavros Stavrianos, murdered in his Auckland flat in 1999. The case was solved even though all the detectives had to go on was a tiny piece of his skull, found in the plumbing of his Green Bay home. ... As an operation commander in 2008, he saw the safe return of Xin Xin Ma to her relieved family. The little girl was snatched outside her Albany home. Ninety-nine hours later, officers swooped on a property and found her hungry, dehydrated and tied up in a wardrobe. Bush was awarded a prestigious silver merit award for the rescue. But he’s bashful about his role, praising ‘the commitment of the whole team.’ ” He said that they had 45 staff. “ ‘You’ve never seen a more committed group of people to try and find a little girl and track down a lead.’ … It wasn’t the first time his calm, measured approach was called on. Between 2003 and 2007 he was New Zealand’s police liaison officer in Bangkok. Within hours of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami he was in Phuket—the first Kiwi cop on the scene. Amid devastation and chaos he took control, reassuring anxious families, reuniting them with their loved ones or helping identify the dead. Five New Zealanders were lost, and when the scale of the disaster became apparent, Bush led Disaster Victim Identification teams for nine nations. When it was over, he was honoured by the Queen for his role.”

Tim Macindoe: Well deserved.

MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely. He is a man who has provided extraordinary service and has been willing to risk his own safety for this country. Yet on Wednesday 12 June, I sat on a select committee and watched a politician not only criticise and attack him but also threaten his job. I have to say that I was ashamed and disgusted by that behaviour. I am sure that Mr Mallard would like people to recognise the service that he has provided to this country, and I can tell you now that what Mr Bush was being accused of was making a eulogy, for the family, at a dead colleague’s funeral—someone who had served this country for many, many years. He was not being accused of punching or assaulting another member of Parliament. He was not being accused of scalping tickets. He was accused of making a eulogy. So I would like everyone just to reflect and think about that for a moment.

I would also like to talk about the use of technology. Technology is a huge part of what the police service is embracing and using—

Vote agreed to.

Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.

Vote Conservation

NICKY WAGNER (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The Department of Conservation manages 8.5 million hectares of conservation land on behalf of all of us, 4.4 million New Zealanders. It also welcomes over a million and a half visitors to its 24 visitors centres, 970 huts, 1,400 kilometres of walking tracks, and 1,750 toilets. It manages 13,000 square kilometres of marine reserves, with huge new subantarctic island marine reserves, five new West Coast marine reserves, and one at Akaroa in the pipeline.

The department undertakes some fantastic environmental initiatives and supports over 550 community conservation projects, including some that do pest control, biodiversity projects, the restoration of historic sites, and the promotion of New Zealand’s wonderful great outdoors. That is the promotion of walking, tramping, climbing, hunting, and in more recent times the promotion of New Zealand’s nine Great Walks on an international scale, in partnership with Air New Zealand. It does all this on a budget of just over $444 million, and even then it manages to generate $17.5 million of Crown revenue.

There have been considerable changes and improvements to the department over the past year. I would really like to start by acknowledging the work of the Director-General, Al Morrison, who has worked with the department for 11 years, and for 7 of those years he has been the Director-General. He resigned in April to take up a job with the State Services Commission, and we really want to thank him for the work he has done and for his total commitment to the department in that time, and we wish him well in his new position.

The department has also completed an extended period of reorganisation to prepare it for the challenges of the future. What it has done is divide the department into two distinct operational groups. One is focused on traditional conservation field work. That is work that the department is particularly good at. It is important work and greatly appreciated by New Zealanders. Despite staffing changes, the numbers of the front-line staff will increase in this area from 866 to 915. The other group is working on developing new conservation initiatives in partnership with other organisations. These are exciting new projects that are being developed, and they are projects like ones that we know, such as the project between Air New Zealand and the Department of Conservation, which is a collaboration to support the survival of endangered species. Often, species have to be transported from one environment to another if they are going to survive, and Air New Zealand is working in partnership with the department to provide the means of that transport, transporting threatened birds or wildlife around the country and even sometimes back again for reintroduction.

There is another interesting project collaboration with the Dulux paint company. This is a partnership to work with the department and volunteer groups to repair and repaint huts throughout the conservation estate, and that has really caught the imagination. It was on Breakfast. People are out there having a good time, doing some working bees, and getting these huts improved. We have got the BNZ kiwi protection programme and we have got the Rio Tinto kākāpō recovery projects. All these projects have a double benefit. They increase the amount of conservation projects that are out there in the environment, but they also engage businesses and their staff in supporting our clean, green image.

Over the past few years the engagement between the department and volunteers has increased dramatically. New Zealanders really do enjoy working with the department, and in the last year they donated over 32,000 volunteer days. Again, it is a win-win situation. New Zealanders get out there in the outdoors and they get involved with the environment and conservation projects. The Department of Conservation has also been working on upgrading and redeveloping many of the department’s camping areas and huts—

Vote agreed to.

Vote Housing

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I think the National Government’s housing policy is a mess, and housing in New Zealand is in deep crisis. There are severe housing shortages, especially in Auckland and Christchurch, and homebuyers, especially first-home buyers, cannot afford to buy a house. In a home-owning democracy, which New Zealand has always been, this is a national disgrace. In Auckland there is a need for at least 10,000 new houses per year, probably 12,000. There is already a housing deficit there of well over 30,000 houses, and growing, and under the Government’s plans there is a probability of no more than 10,000 new houses per year. So on that basis the Government’s plan will never catch up. The Government’s plan is obviously a failure, but the worst is that young people seeking a first home will not be assisted by this Government to get a home of their own under its “too little, too late” policies.

To make matters worse, it is highly likely that the Reserve Bank will shortly limit the quantum of high loan-to-value ratio mortgages that the trading banks can make. High loan-to-value ratio loans will typically cover 80 percent or more of the total property value. The Reserve Bank seems to be arguing that the purpose of this is to improve overall financial stability. The higher borrowers are leveraged, the greater the risk that a property downturn could trigger a major economic meltdown, echoing the subprime mortgage crisis that generated the global financial crisis. So the Reserve Bank wants to restrict high loan-to-value ratio mortgages to avert the dangers of risky lending, but I think this is a flawed policy.

Firstly, it is a second-best strategy. Normally, the Reserve Bank would raise interest rates, but it cannot do that without raising an already overvalued dollar and inflicting all sorts of damage on the economy. Secondly, it will not actually work in practice, because people can resort to all sorts of subterfuge to circumvent this restriction by shuffling money around. This has all, of course, happened before. Thirdly, the Reserve Bank’s housing policy is Auckland-centric. Christchurch and elsewhere in New Zealand face different issues, and the results are therefore likely to be patchy and inappropriate for much of New Zealand. Fourthly, it will do nothing to deter property investors and speculators who have been buying up Auckland property and who also have ample equity. Fifthly, it does nothing about the migrant flows, which have been concentrated in Auckland. It does nothing to tighten immigration policy in areas such as parental reunion, which have added significantly to housing demand in Auckland by, we think, something like 10 percent. That is a significant portion. Lastly, and most important, its impact will fall most directly on first-home buyers. It is not the first-home buyers who are driving this bubble, but they will be the sector most heavily penalised by limits on loan-to-value ratio lending. Perversely, the policy may encourage them to seek the extra equity they will now need from potentially risky sources, such as finance companies, and this would, of course, add even more financial risk to the system.

We in New Zealand First think the Government’s policies are overall to blame. The Government has acted far too late. Over the last 4 years the Government has allowed a housing price bubble to emerge in Auckland by its inept immigration and housing policies. Only a comprehensive housing strategy designed to address both demand and supply factors, as advocated by New Zealand First, will make housing affordable for first-home buyers. New Zealand First supports a broadly based housing policy that will make homeownership a reality again rather than a dream for working New Zealanders.

New Zealand First’s policy to assist first-home seekers is to establish a new State agency to acquire land to create a land bank in areas where demand clearly exceeds supply, and those, of course, are currently Auckland and Christchurch. The agency would sell residential sections of a modest size on the basis of long-term agreements for sale and purchase of up to 25 years to first-home buyers. This reduces the upfront capital cost of a new home by, we think, something like a third. Interest rates would be highly concessionary at 2 percent for an initial period of at least 3 years. Purchasers would build their own homes using normal bank financing, and would have title to the section transferred to them, with the amount owing to the agency secured by way of a second priority land charge. The Government’s special housing areas are not enough—

HOLLY WALKER (Green): Well, there can be no doubt that we are experiencing a housing crisis in New Zealand at the moment. In my contribution I would like to start with some statistics that illustrate the scale of this crisis, particularly in Auckland and Christchurch. In May the average house price in Auckland was $735,000. It now takes 70 percent of the average income to service the mortgage on a lower quartile - priced house in Auckland, and that is in a context in which unaffordability is understood to be when you have to spend more than 30 percent of your income on housing.

We know that there is a major shortage of affordable housing in Auckland, with an estimated 13,000 new homes needed each year and only 3,000 to 4,000 being built, hardly any of which fall into the affordable category. In Christchurch the situation is just as pronounced, although more concentrated in the private rental market. TradeMe statistics show that the average rent in Christchurch was up 26 percent in the May to June period compared with the same time last year, and demand for rental properties was up 47 percent.

According to the Tenants Protection Association survey, 70 percent of respondents had had a rent increase post the earthquake, and 88 percent reported paying more than 25 percent of their income on rent. Christchurch homes, we know, are cold and mouldy, with 48 percent reporting mould in their homes. Nationwide, we know that 70 percent of the children who live in poverty in New Zealand are living in private rental homes, and very few of these are insulated. Although these problems are most pronounced in Auckland and Christchurch, housing affordability and quality are major challenges all over the country.

So what did the Government propose to do about it in Budget 2013? Well, we got the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—reported back to the House today—and the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. The former is an unimaginative and ideological attempt to increase land supply and fast track new housing developments by running roughshod over local democracy and the Resource Management Act. The latter is the beginning of the dismantling of Housing New Zealand as a social agency.

There is no guarantee under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill that any new affordable houses will actually be built as a result, and the one positive element of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—the extension of the income-related rent subsidy to community housing providers—is undermined by the lack of adequate funding for the Social Housing Fund and the lack of Government support for capacity-building in that sector.

Meanwhile, you will hear the Minister of Housing crow about how Housing New Zealand is building more homes than ever—2,000 new homes a year for the next 2 years, if we are to believe the Prime Minister. But what he will not tell you is that Housing New Zealand is busy demolishing and selling houses as fast as it can build them. So those 2,000 new houses will not result in any net increase in its stock of affordable housing, and that is if it can even build them, because it managed to build only 154 houses in the last financial year. We have got a long way to go before we start building 1,000 a year in the next 2 years.

I want to talk about what a smart Green solution to this housing crisis would look like. First of all, we would start by building affordable houses as a matter of urgent priority, both social and community houses, and homes that are available for families to rent to buy as part of a progressive ownership proposal. This would see the Government building affordable homes for families with children to move into immediately. They could start paying a basic weekly rent to cover the cost of the investment while anything they paid in addition to that would go towards purchasing equity in that home. It is a way to help families into homeownership without the need for a conventional bank mortgage or deposit, and it directly addresses the lack of supply of affordable housing.

Secondly, we would introduce a warrant of fitness for all rental properties—not only for State houses but also for the private rental market, in which 70 percent of the children living in poverty are currently housed. This would have to include minimum insulation standards as well as other standards of liveability and weathertightness. We would help landlords to meet these standards by extending the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes insulation scheme and better targeting it towards landlords with low-income tenants.

Thirdly, we would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure more secure rental tenure for tenants, in order to stop the social, economic, and health damage that is done when frequent evictions require families to move, sometimes dozens of times a year.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Housing has definitely become a political headache for the Government, but it is a nightmare for most New Zealanders, who, all around the country, are saying: “Why don’t we have a Government that actually does something? Why doesn’t the Government that was elected in 2011 actually roll up its sleeves and build some affordable houses? Why doesn’t it actually protect the interests of New Zealand citizens?”. People are wondering why that is happening. We have, after 4½ years of inaction by this National Government, some of the most unaffordable housing in the world. Generation X and Y are locked out of homeownership. The most vulnerable people in this country are about to be booted off State house tenancies by this Government as a deliberate matter of policy. In Christchurch, by the Government’s own reckoning, up to 7,500 people are officially homeless because this Government has taken a hands-off, do-nothing approach to the post-quake housing crisis in Christchurch.

What is National’s response to the housing crisis? What is its response? It has set a target of 39,000 consents in Auckland, and it has set up a mechanism to fast track new greenfields land in Auckland. Every single credible submitter who came to the Social Services Committee on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill said to the select committee that this bill would not result in any more affordable housing being built. What a failure. What an absolute loss of credibility.

National’s response, such that it is, is based on a trickle-down theory of housing. It thinks that if it simply encourages the building of more housing, no matter what price those houses are, somehow that will make housing more affordable. Well, it is a pipedream. We do not buy it. All of the Opposition parties do not buy it. The Government’s approach to housing, its philosophy to this housing crisis, is basically to blame councils and trust the market. Well, I think people see through that. People can see that that is simply not a credible response to a crisis on which New Zealanders are desperately wanting some bold and decisive action.

It just does not have to be this way. It does not have to be the case that we have the most unaffordable housing in the world. It does not have to be the case that in Christchurch people are facing another winter of whole families sleeping in uninsulated sleepouts or paying hundreds of dollars a week to rent a caravan in someone’s backyard. It does not have to be that way. We have choices. We have a choice between a do-nothing Government that wants to trust a failed housing market or an alternative Government that will actually roll up its sleeves and build affordable houses, a Government that will change the economic settings that got us into this crazy housing mess that we are in now. The National Government refuses to contemplate adjusting the very economic settings that it has presided over for the last 4½ years. It refuses to tax speculators, through a capital gains tax, in a way that would take much of the speculative heat out of the housing market.

We have an alternative. With our KiwiBuild policy we will build 100,000 affordable starter homes over 10 years with fine New Zealand building companies like Fletcher Building, like Stonewood Homes, and I could rattle off half a dozen others. We will build homes that people will be proud to live in for generations to come, not, as Bill English said yesterday in the House, slandering the work of some of our construction companies, describing their houses as being like the back end of Moscow.

Labour in Government will tax the speculators. A capital gains tax that excludes the family home will go a long way to channelling investment into more productive economic development and away from overheating the housing market. We will restrict offshore speculators, and stop them driving up the prices of New Zealand homes and outbidding New Zealand’s first-home buyers at auction. We will put a stop to it because unlike this National Government, which stands on the side of speculators, we stand for ordinary Kiwi home buyers, and especially first-home buyers. We are determined to do something about the declining rates of homeownership in this country, because we believe that homeownership is a good thing. We will adopt policies and we will change the economic settings that will make a difference and get Kiwi first-home buyers into their first homes. Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, and Switzerland have all recently adopted policies that restrict the activities of offshore speculators, and Australia has had the very same policy in place since 1987. It is a good policy, and it puts the interests of New Zealanders first.

The Government has got itself into a terrible mess with the housing crisis. The controversy around loan-to-value ratio limits on home mortgage lending is a perfect illustration of this. John Key negotiated only a few months ago a memorandum of understanding with the Reserve Bank that gave the Reserve Bank the power to implement these limits on home mortgage lending. He gave the Reserve Bank those powers, and now he stands there and cries crocodile tears for first-home buyers, pretending to be surprised that the Reserve Bank actually wants to do something about the overheating of the Auckland housing market, which is a risk to the macro economy.

That is because this Government has refused to do anything about the forces that are overheating the Auckland housing market. The Reserve Bank quite correctly says that they are a threat to financial stability. It does not want homeowners to lose their shirts when the housing bubble bursts, so of course it is going to use these loan-to-value ratio limits. If the Government was actually willing to do something serious about the housing crisis, then these so-called loan-to-value ratio limits would not have such a huge impact on first-home buyers. That is why Labour is calling for a temporary exemption for first-home buyers while the capital gains tax kicks in and while KiwiBuild delivers the affordable homes that will ease the supply crisis.

National has mismanaged and run down Housing New Zealand—it has. Its restructuring of Housing New Zealand has been a fiasco. It has closed 24 offices. It has sacked 121 full-time workers. It changed the eligibility criteria so, at the stroke of a pen, thousands and thousands of the poorest New Zealanders suddenly became ineligible for a State house. In places like Gisborne on the East Coast and in Napier there are dozens and dozens of perfectly good Housing New Zealand houses lying vacant—lying vacant—while people who would have been eligible for a State house have been forced into the private rental market, into overcrowded and substandard accommodation. That is a disaster. Housing New Zealand, under this Government’s watch, has botched the redevelopment in Maraenui, Pōmare, and northern Glen Innes. The Government has been running Housing New Zealand into the ground.

Today at the Social Services Committee the internationally acclaimed team of researchers from Otago University’s health and housing research programme came along and told the select committee that the Government’s plan to impose reviewable tenancies on all 69,000 Housing New Zealand tenants will create a public health risk. They have the data to prove it, unlike this Government, which has no evidence base for its policy of imposing reviewable tenancies on Housing New Zealand tenants.

The Otago University academics made that point. Dr Michael Baker made an excellent submission, showing the data and saying that Housing New Zealand tenants are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They have very high health needs. State housing and social housing have a demonstrated positive impact on those people. They reduce hospitalisation rates. The children of families who live in Housing New Zealand houses are healthier and safer and better off than kids in families who are not in Housing New Zealand houses. Their research clearly shows that. By creating insecurity for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, National is creating a public health risk. It will lead to increased hospitalisation. It will undoubtedly cause unnecessary deaths. This thoughtless, negligent policy by National, forcing reviewable tenancies on Housing New Zealand tenants, will create social harm and social damage. It is forcing people out of State houses into the private rental market in the middle of the worst housing shortage in a generation.

Otago University academics came along to the select committee today and they said that they could not see any evidence base for the Government’s Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. Actually, those very academics came along and presented an evidence base for the opposite of the Government’s policy of making Housing New Zealand tenants even more vulnerable and more insecure. I think that was a huge wake-up call and an indictment of this Government’s housing policy.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to contribute in this estimates debate. I would like to begin by saying that it is very rich for that member Phil Twyford to actually comment about this Government’s housing policy. When National came into Government back in 2008, the previous 9 years of Labour Government were known as the slum landlords’ years for the condition of the houses that people were living in. They were run down, they were in the wrong place, they were cold, and people were getting sick. We know that good housing is important for the health and well-being of families. We know that, and we had to put money into it—$347 million was spent on home insulation because those homes were run down. Labour mismanaged.

The National Government is legislating right now to build more houses, because we know for a fact that the single biggest influence on housing affordability is the lack of supply of new houses. Local councils actually play a big role in freeing up available land for housing across New Zealand. I think earlier some member talked about how we are legislating to consent 39,000 new homes. They thought that was a bad thing, and they were actually opposing it. Currently, we consent only about 3,600 homes. I would have thought that making more new houses available in order to reduce the cost was a good thing for new-home buyers—that having more available would actually create a situation where they might possibly pay less. The Labour Party, in the meantime, came out with that notion that cashed-up foreign buyers coming to New Zealand to buy our properties are bumping up prices. How very original—let us blame the foreigners! This is the kind of divisive politics where Labour really shows that it is, in fact, desperate. How pathetic and how offensive. I do really find that offensive, because I often get mistaken for a foreigner because of the way I look. I think it is awful that Labour is playing these politics.

There is very little evidence that shows that foreign buyers are the cause of house prices being bid higher. History has shown that we are pretty good at doing that ourselves, actually. A BNZ survey shows that only around 3 or 4 percent of house sales are to foreign buyers. Unlike what Mr Phil Twyford tried to say, overseas buyers could also get round Labour’s policy simply by finding someone else to buy the house for them and hold it in trust. It is absolutely ridiculous to blame foreign buyers, when the biggest chunk of overseas buyers are actually Australians—but, wait, hang on, they are exempt from the Labour policy. That is right. I could go on and on, but I will stop by saying that Labour’s policy would also possibly clash with a number of free-trade agreements. Considering that Labour actually supports free-trade agreements, I think that is ridiculous.

The National Government is focusing on making a real difference to house prices. Take a look at Auckland, for example. I know that Phil Twyford talked about KiwiBuild—“Phil Twyford Build”—saying that it can provide 100,000 homes under $300,000. I mean, that is ridiculous, considering that the average land price in Auckland is more than $350,000. If you look at Auckland, for example, the housing market needs about 300 percent more new houses than we currently have, which means that over 12,000 new homes a year need to be built. The new Auckland Housing Accord will see 39,000 new homes, and that will go a long way in addressing that lack of housing supply.

We are streamlining the Resource Management Act to reduce the red tape around building new homes, introducing a 6-month consenting limit for medium projects, and we have launched an inquiry into building material costs, which often go towards the higher cost of building and higher price of homes. We want to keep interest rates low, making savings for Kiwi families, especially those moving into their first home. At the moment, this Government has made sure that our interest rates are very, very low. Comparing the rate that I currently pay, which is the average price now, with the rate that I paid when I first bought a house, going back quite a long time ago—

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): The last group of people who should be lecturing this Parliament on housing affordability is the Labour Party, because in the 9 years that Labour was in Government, house prices increased around the country by 100 percent. In the time that this Government has been in office, house prices have increased by 12 percent. If anyone knows about housing affordability, it is members of the Labour Party.

I want to take the opportunity to stand up for the 28,000 people living in my electorate of Botany who were born outside of New Zealand, because 28,000 people in my electorate—49 percent of my electorate—are the type of people whom the Labour members opposite are saying are not welcome to buy houses in New Zealand. The Labour Party has taken a xenophobic attitude to housing. It is saying that foreigners who wish to move to this country, invest in this country, bring skills, bring investment, and, by the way, purchase a house are not welcome. I find that view—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Before the dinner break, I was telling the Committee why the Labour Party has absolutely no credibility when it comes to housing—no credibility. When Labour was in Government, it saw house prices increase by 100 percent, whereas they have gone up by only 2 percent in the time we have been in Government. Labour has got no credibility. Its xenophobic approach to housing offends the 28,000 people in my electorate who were born overseas.

Dr Rajen Prasad: That’s a lie.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: It should offend Rajen Prasad, and it should offend the 49 percent of my electorate who were born overseas. But, actually, we know that experts in this area do not agree that Labour’s approach would do anything. They know that it would be poor policy that would achieve nothing. Economists know it will achieve nothing. Real estate leaders know it will achieve nothing. People out there who are trying to buy houses know it would achieve nothing.

But I thought the most interesting comment heard in the last 24 hours on this topic actually came from Len Brown, someone whom David Shearer tries to say is a Labour mayor and one of theirs. I was on Back Benches recently with David Shearer, and he was claiming Len Brown as one of their own. Actually, Len Brown was on Radio Live today rubbishing the policy, and telling Duncan Garner that the policy would do very little, because Len Brown—the Labour mayor, as Labour likes to call him—agrees with us. He agrees with us that it is about ensuring that land supply is increased, because the problem in Auckland is a supply and demand issue. It is not an issue of foreigners coming into the country and trying to buy land.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Yes, it is.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: The number of people wanting to do that is very small. Asenati Lole-Taylor was allowed to buy land. Why should not other people who are coming into the country be allowed to buy land? It is about ensuring more land is made available. The Labour Party wants to talk about another policy it has, which is to get 100,000 houses built over 10 years at a cost of $300,000 a section.

Hon Members: How much?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: At a cost of $300,000 a section. Guess what, though? The average cost of land in Auckland is $325,000 a section. So unless Labour is going to all of a sudden reduce the price of land, it will not work. Unless it is going to absolutely subsidise the cost of these housing areas with taxpayers’ money, it is simply not going to work. Here is another point: the Labour Party policy of 100,000 houses over 10 years equates to 10,000 houses a year—30,000 houses over 3 years. This Government has promised 39,000 houses over 3 years—9,000 more than Labour has promised. Labour reckons it has all the big solutions. We have already got 39,000 houses about to be built in Auckland. That is in Auckland alone, and there will be even more across the rest of the country.

The Labour Party has no credibility. House prices soared when it was in office. The Labour Party has a xenophobic policy that offends many, many people out there in New Zealand who have come to this country, brought skills, brought investment, and want to reside here and make this place their home. The Labour Party’s promise to build more houses actually pales in comparison with what this Government is already talking about. David Shearer wants to say that this Government does not walk the walk. Actually, this Government does. We are increasing land supply, we have got agreements with councils, and we are working intensively to ensure that more housing will be made available in Auckland and around New Zealand. The Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown, agrees with us that Labour is wrong.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): One question for Jami-Lee Ross: how many of those 39,000 houses are going to be affordable? Not one. Not a single house—not a single house. National’s policy is to build 39,000 “McMansions” that no one will be able to get into. First-home owners will be locked out of that market. That is National’s approach to affordable housing—affordable mansions for people who can buy them without any other support, apart from maybe their families, who can put their houses up as collateral. That is not a solution.

Everything the National members have mentioned in this housing debate has failed spectacularly overseas. But the reality is that they do not care. They do not care that first-home owners are struggling to get into their first house in New Zealand. They do not care, and that is why they have no intention of doing anything about it. Well, Labour will. I say to Mr Ross: keep repeating the Labour Party policies over and over again like he did in that speech, because New Zealanders love them. New Zealanders want to see a Government that is going to take housing affordability seriously, and Labour will. There will be 10,000 affordable homes a year—that is 10,000 young couples and young families getting on to the housing ladder, the homeownership ladder, in this country. That is a massive step forward for young families who are currently struggling and who are shut out of the housing market, particularly in areas like Auckland, where housing inaffordability is on a par with cities like New York. That is a policy that is actually going to make a difference, unlike the rhetoric from over there, which was a panicked reaction.

When Labour released an actual housing policy, the National Government suddenly thought: “Well, we’d better put something out that shows that we’re even thinking about it.” But what it has put out will not work, and it certainly will not deliver for those young homeowners who want to get on the housing ladder who currently cannot do that.

It has been interesting sitting through this debate, being lectured about housing by the National Government. I want to talk about social housing as well, and about the role of State housing in this country. When we came into Government in 1999 we inherited a decimated Housing New Zealand stock. The National Government had hocked off nearly 14,000 State homes to its developer mates. It had completely thrown those tenants out on to the streets. It carried out no maintenance whatsoever during its entire time in Government. It was a Labour Government under Helen Clark, the last Labour Government, that, despite one of the biggest housing booms we had seen in New Zealand’s history, managed to rebuild 8,000 of those 14,000 homes that had been hocked off. We started renovating and doing the maintenance that had not been done during the 1990s. Did we finish it? No, because it was such an incredibly huge job at a time when it was difficult to get a builder for love or money. But, still, we managed to rebuild 8,000 State houses. We started a maintenance programme.

The National Government likes to brag about the home insulation scheme. That was actually started under Labour, with the Green Party. It was the Green Party that called for that scheme in State homes, not National. So it is very well that it tries to take credit for it now, but let us not rewrite history here. So what have we had since National has come into Government? What have we seen from the National Government? Well, again, it is kicking tenants out of State homes. We thought that this Budget, the last Budget, was going to be about getting families into homes; apparently, it is more about kicking families out of homes. That was a reality of this year’s Budget for Housing New Zealand tenants and those in social housing. From our perspective as the Labour Party, we are dealing with these people every day in our offices—people who cannot find somewhere to live and who can no longer access State housing because National has said: “I’m sorry, those category C and D tenants who are in provincial New Zealand did used to be housed by Housing New Zealand”—nearly 80 percent of the waiting list in Gisborne was category C and D. These are not wealthy people at all.

The reality is, though, that in the provinces rental accommodation is very, very scarce. It is often unaffordable. Housing New Zealand is one of the largest landlords not only in the country but particularly in provincial New Zealand. Well, we have families living in garages and living in their cars on the East Coast at the moment—we saw this during the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election—while 68 State houses sit vacant in Gisborne, being readied for sale. It is the same thing in Hawke’s Bay, the same thing in Wairarapa, the same thing in the Hutt Valley, and it will be the same thing across the country.

How can this Government sit there with State houses empty? And Todd McClay, who is in the chair, should know this, because he is from Kawerau, another part of the country where we have people living in appallingly overcrowded conditions where there is a real need for State housing. We have State houses sitting empty because the Government wants to sell them—the Government wants to sell them. Well, that is appalling. It is not only appalling, it is actually cruel. I think if you asked any New Zealander what we should do with those empty State houses that are sitting there being vandalised because there is no one living in them, and sitting there falling into ruin because there is no one living in them, the answer would be to tenant those houses.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to pick up where Moana Mackey left off and talk a little bit about some State houses in my electorate. This National Government came into office and it completely destroyed the community at Pōmare. It came into office and it decided that there was antisocial behaviour at Pōmare, so it threw everyone out. It then closed up those houses. It boarded them all up. Then, once they had been boarded up, of course they got vandalised, because they were left empty. Once they had been vandalised, what did National do? Well, it demolished them. Did it then rebuild any new houses on that empty land? No, it did not. It said: “Oh, we haven’t got any money to build any new houses on this land. We were quite happy to demolish the houses that were there.” So it went ahead and demolished the houses. The land now sits empty, and now National is trying to hock it off—now it is trying to hock it off.

I am watching that repeating now, all throughout the Hutt Valley, because all throughout the Hutt Valley we have boarded-up State houses. The Government has used the excuse of earthquake risk to board up a whole lot of State houses, in many cases where the risk is only a very minor one. It might be that they have a chimney that needs to be rebuilt or some minor piece of capital work that needs to be done in order to make the house tenantable. What they have done instead is board up the whole thing. Of course those houses will be vandalised, because if you leave a whole lot of empty houses boarded up they will be vandalised, and then the Government will turn round and say: “Oh gosh, these houses are now no longer habitable. We’re going to demolish them.” And then it will turn round and say: “We’ve got this empty land but we haven’t got any money to build any new houses on it, so we’d better hock that off as well.”

Then, of course, we are going to find ourselves in the position that we were in at the end of the 1990s, when the National Government had been in power for 6 years and suddenly the number of State houses we had in New Zealand dramatically declined. National is quite happy to board them up, to demolish them, and to hock off the land, but it is not prepared to invest in building more State houses, which is what we actually need in New Zealand.

I am very, very proud of the moves that the Labour Party has been making, under the leadership of David Shearer, to actually deal with many of the big housing challenges that we have in this country. We have a major problem with housing affordability. People desperately want to get on to the homeownership ladder, and they cannot. David Shearer and the Labour Party absolutely recognise that, and we are absolutely committed to doing something about it. We will build 10,000 affordable houses every year, over 10 years. That is going to make an enormous difference for all of those New Zealand families who will get into homeownership, mostly for the first time. That will be huge. It means that the dream of homeownership is not just for those who come from means or who have high-paying jobs. It is for everyday New Zealanders who go out there, work hard, and want to be able to buy their first home. We think that is a dream that every New Zealander should be able to realise, so we will build 100,000 new, affordable houses over 10 years to make sure that New Zealanders can achieve that dream.

David Shearer announced over the weekend that we will also restrict the purchase of existing New Zealand houses by overseas speculators. There has been this hysteria that we have heard from the National Government about this—from the same National Government that of course brought us the legislation about boat people and all of the other Draconian things that it has been doing in the immigration area. Suddenly it is hugely concerned about overseas speculators being able to buy New Zealand houses. Overseas speculators are not the people who want to move here and buy a house and create a life here. They are not going to be covered by that policy, because if they are coming to New Zealand, they have got to be resident in New Zealand and they will be able to buy a house in New Zealand. No one is saying that they will not be able to. What we are saying is that people living overseas who have no interest in living here, no interest in contributing to the New Zealand economy and New Zealand society, should not be able to make massive profits by buying up the available houses, pushing them out of reach of New Zealand families who want to buy them, charging them rent, and then expatriating the profits from doing so offshore. That is fundamentally wrong.

What we are saying is we acknowledge that, so we are going to place some sensible restrictions on who can buy existing houses. If people overseas want to invest in the property market in New Zealand, they can build more houses—they can build more houses—and that will leave New Zealand better off because it will increase the number of houses that we have. We have a housing shortage in New Zealand. That is something that this Government is not willing to acknowledge. In my electorate in the Hutt Valley area we have waiting lists of people trying to get into State housing. We have so many families jammed into houses because they cannot afford to buy their own house. We have a housing supply problem in New Zealand, but the National Government keeps turning away from it. National is quite happy to pick holes in every solution that is being offered by the Labour Party—every solution that is being offered by the Labour Party—and it cannot come up with any solutions itself.

It is going to commission another report.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Communications agreed to.

Vote Environment

NICKY WAGNER (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The Ministry for the Environment administers Vote Environment, and the Minister for Climate Change Issues and the Minister for the Environment are responsible for that vote. The 2013-14 Vote Environment appropriation is $326.5 million, and the Minister for the Environment is responsible for approximately 40 percent of that vote and the Minister for Climate Change Issues is responsible for the other 60 percent. Funding for Vote Environment tends to fluctuate from year to year, depending on the work streams or the roles of the ministry. In 2013-14 the appropriation is approximately double that of 2010-11 and slightly less than the 2012-13 appropriation.

The priorities for the Ministry for the Environment for 2013-14 are reforms in freshwater management and resource management, and also a new focus on environmental reporting. Ten percent of the vote, a total of $33.7 million, is for policy work and projects to improve water quality, and that is to follow up on the work done by the Land and Water Forum, and also the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2011, and for clean-ups of historically contaminated water bodies. The work streams in 2013-14 will focus on collaborative planning processes for water. They will also establish a national objectives framework. The idea of that framework is to set freshwater quality objectives and limits, and find ways to manage and allocate water within quality and quantity limits.

Almost $14 million is targeted to clean up waterways. It is great to see restoration projects in places like Lake Te Waihora, which is Lake Ellesmere in Canterbury, and also the Manawatū River, the Wairarapa Moana, the Wainoni Lagoon in South Canterbury, and the Waituna Lagoon.

The Minister for the Environment has also prioritised resource management reform. We need to maintain the quality of our resource management decisions, but we need to streamline the process so that we can be more consistent and more predictable, and we can reduce costs and get more timely decisions. We are already making progress on this. We passed the streamlining and simplification legislation, and we have had some very pleasing results from everybody who has been using that, and there is more legislation on the way.

Funding has increased under the appropriation for the Community Environment Fund. This time it is $6.4 million, and that is up from the $2.4 million that was spent in 2012-13. That appropriation is made to strengthen partnerships, to raise environmental awareness, and to encourage participation in environmental initiatives. There has also been an increase in funding for the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund, and that increases to $5.4 million, which is over $5 million more than was spent in 2012-13. I think it is really important to see the Tūī Mine site. That was one of the worst-contaminated sites in New Zealand, and it has been successfully remediated. With the success of the work there and the increased funding, I think that will encourage other clean-ups in contaminated sites across the country.

New Zealanders are very aware that we want, and we need, to keep our environment clean and green. We really look forward to the results of this work being done on fresh water and the work that is also being done on resource management and on environmental clean-ups, and particularly there is an increasing interest with state of the nation environmental reporting.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): In this brief call on the estimates for Vote Environment, I would like to continue from the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, and talk about state of the environment reporting. This National Government has failed to implement its election promise to put in place independent state of the environment reporting. That was promised by the previous Minister for the Environment in about 2011, or before that in the manifesto. The current Minister told the Local Government and Environment Committee that she preferred indicative reporting in the meantime, rather than consolidated reporting. That means we get the information only in dribs and drabs.

But this week we got two quite significant indicator reports: the suitability for swimming indicator and the river condition indicator from the Ministry for the Environment. Certainly, the Government and Federated Farmers are spinning these Ministry for the Environment reports to try to hide the seriousness of our water crisis. The first of the reports, on swimming suitability, shows that 61 percent of the monitored sites on rivers are unsafe for swimming. In the House yesterday the Minister tried to argue that it was safe to swim in rivers that were graded “fair”. The Minister might want to swim there. I certainly would not, because in relation to those sites with a “fair” grading, her ministry notes “the presence of significant sources of faecal contamination,” and the ministry encourages people to avoid swimming there during or after rain or when the water is discoloured. For anyone who has swum in a waterway that is contaminated with faeces, whether human or bovine, it is a very unpleasant experience to get sick. I certainly would not want to swim there, even if the Minister does.

Within a generation we are losing the right to be able to swim in our local river or stream without the fear of getting sick. We have a freshwater crisis on our hands, and what the National Government is doing is going to make that worse. That is because it is opposed to smart regulation, it is gutting the Resource Management Act of its environmental principles, it is not putting a resource rental on the commercial use of water, and it is subsidising irrigation.

The Minister can talk—and the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, did as well—about how much the Government is spending on cleaning up waterways. Of course, that is continuing programmes by the previous Labour Government in relation to the Rotorua lakes and Lake Taupō. Certainly, the Ministry for the Environment is proposing to spend about $9 million on the Rotorua lakes this year, but at the same time as that money is going for clean-up, the Minister’s colleagues, by subsidising irrigation to the tune of $80 million in this Budget and, potentially, another $400 million from the proceeds of asset sales, are making the problem worse. That is because irrigation leads to land-use intensification. The science is very clear. The more animals and the more fertiliser you put on land, the more water pollution you get.

Although the Minister and Federated Farmers President Bruce Wills might want to deny the seriousness of our water crisis and might want to put the focus on urban streams, again, that is spin. Urban streams, although they might have the highest concentrations of nutrients and bacteria, comprise only 1 percent of the total length of waterways in New Zealand. It is the 99 percent of rivers in our rural hinterland that we should be most concerned with.

We need to heed the warning in the Ministry for the Environment’s river condition report about the increase in nitrate levels at a quarter of the sites that were monitored in the 10 years to 2010. How do we get nitrate in our waterways? It is because of animal urine. The soil bacteria break down the ammonia in the urine and convert it to nitrate. What happens when we get nitrate? We have, for example, the medical officer of health in Canterbury issuing warnings about the increasing levels of nitrate in Canterbury aquifers and talking about that putting newborn babies at risk of blue baby syndrome. The effect that nitrate has is in compromising uptake of oxygen.

The Green Party wants to protect Kiwis’ right to swim in our local rivers. We would refocus the Ministry for the Environment back on sustainability. We would ensure that crucial environmental laws, like the Resource Management Act and like the exclusive economic zone legislation, really promoted sustainable management, had a precautionary principle at their hearts, and looked more closely at cumulative effects. We would focus on sustainability, rather than the exploitation of nature. The Green Party would keep our energy companies.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): We are looking at the proud record in terms of the environment, some of which my colleague Nicky Wagner alluded to earlier, and I will pick up on that in a moment. But first I will look at the environment appropriation itself. It is interesting when you look at the breakdown, because when we look at the environmental side, we spend about $130 million, or 40 percent, of Vote Environment on the environment, and climate change takes up about 60 percent, which is $195 million. So when you look at the way it is spread across and you look at the reforms that we are bringing in, the Resource Management Act is certainly very much central to our initiatives and our policies around protecting the environment and growing the economy at the same time.

The Resource Management Act is certainly very important. Once this debate on the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill is finished, of course, the Resource Management Reform Bill will be going into the Committee stage; it is progressing at a great rate. We have already introduced a couple of pieces of legislation around it, and there is going to be another, bigger tranche coming through later this year.

But let us look at the key components of the bill that we are dealing with at the moment, because I think that when you look at what this Government is trying to do with protecting and enhancing our environment, the key does remain within the Resource Management Act reforms. We are looking to further improve the resource consent regime. For those of us who have electorates and have people coming to see us, it has been a source of great complaint—the delays, the costs, the unnecessary nonsense, and, you know, just the impossibility of getting a job done. So we are continuing on with those reforms.

We are also streamlining the delivery of Auckland’s first combined plan. Within the Auckland Unitary Plan there are a number of complexities, and they are being carefully and slowly worked through with the cooperation of Auckland City and the various agencies there. We are improving the quality of local decision-making and also improving the workability of the Resource Management Act through some minor and technical amendments.

So those are the four main components of the bill that we are looking at. As I said, there are going to be even larger-scale Resource Management Act reforms, which will include substantive improvements for freshwater management and planning systems more generally, and they will be coming in a little bit later in the year. Water management and the protection of our waterways are what my colleague, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, alluded to earlier and went into some detail on, so I will not traverse that again.

When we look at what we are doing with direct referral, we see that these are the kinds of changes where the rubber really does hit the road and where people will notice a difference in their day-to-day lives—the DIY people and the people who actually want to get a fairly small project done. Decisions being made through the Environment Court, rather than through relevant councils, are going to improve and streamline that.

Six-month consenting is an excellent thing. We are going to allow medium-sized projects to get going without the red tape. Around about 1,600 medium-sized projects are processed each year, and that includes new subdivisions, supermarkets, industrial developments, and infrastructure projects. Those are the kinds of things where putting a time limit of around 6 months focuses people’s attention and gets the job done. The sorts of delays that we saw in my area, the North Shore and Albany, where a supermarket was held up for an inordinate length of time by an appeal process that was driven by a commercial competitor, are the kind of stuff we want to do away with.

The select committee process, as you will gather from the discussions that have gone on around the Resource Management Act, has been robust. People have come to us with submissions—genuinely felt, genuinely held submissions—and they have been debated at length and with some passion, rigour, and conviction within the committee itself, and we have made some changes. We have introduced a new approach, as a result of the select committee recommendations, to express time frames. The time frames were considered overly complex. We listened to that and made adjustments accordingly.

The Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, has done what very few Ministers have done—that is, she has called all parties of the select committee together in her office and gone through in some detail their concerns in an effort to address them and in an effort to come up with a level of sensible consensus that we can all work with. I think that is the measure of the Minister and the reason why these Resource Management Act reforms are going through in the way that they are. They are big reforms. They need that level of consultation, they need the submissions that we have had, and then it is discussed and moved on. But it must be moved on. We are not going to follow the old Labour way of paralysis by analysis, where nothing much ever happens because there is no political willingness to make it happen. We make it happen, and we make it happen in ways that really do work for the public as well.

The subject of trees has been very contentious. There is not really enough time in the call I have now to go into the detail of that and to do it justice, but we have made significant amendments to the blanket protection of trees in urban areas, which was a pretty lazy way of doing it. Individual homeowners and landowners have the right to know and to plan with what they have.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): It has been interesting to listen to Nicky Wagner and Maggie Barry in their analysis of Vote Environment. Of course, we do not dispute the statistics: 40 percent or so on the environment itself and 60 percent or so on climate change, which works out, in the case of climate change, to something like $195 million. But let us analyse that and ask ourselves what that money, that $195 million, is spent on. The short answer is that most of it has been spent on the allocation of New Zealand Units, which amounts to little more than generational theft—generational theft. The emissions trading scheme as it is currently fashioned by this Government amounts to a fiscal time bomb that will explode on the next generation, and not us. That is quite shameful. That needs to be scrutinised with greater transparency, greater honesty, and greater candour, and this Government needs to respond with greater creativity to get this right.

The deforestation that we are anticipating in the next 5 to 10 years is phenomenal. We have got through the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol by the skin of our teeth, not because we brought down gross emissions—they went up—but by the fact that our forestry went up through plantings 15 years ago, in the early 1990s and the mid-1990s, for tax policy reasons totally unrelated to climate change. Then we have completely messed up our climate change policy in the last 5 years, such that we are facing a massive amount of deforestation over the next 10 years. There is zero money under these estimates for the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, but $171 million to the allocation of units to polluters.

Let me ask the Minister in the chair a number of questions about our emissions trading scheme policy. Just to pick up on the question that my colleague Eugenie Sage asked him earlier about how he will enjoy swimming with his children through faecal-contaminated rivers, my questions pertaining to climate change are the following. With regard to the UN target—if the Government can remember back that far, to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report—the prescription for annex 1 countries to keep within the 2 degrees Celsius and to play our share in reducing global emissions from 49 to 44 gigatonnes is a reduction off 1990, from gross to net, of 25 to 40 percent. This Government, in the form of Treasury and Cabinet papers, says it does not follow that New Zealand has to be within that range. Question No. 1 to the Minister: which countries does he wish to nominate from the annex 1 countries to make up the shortfall when we are not doing our share?

My second question follows. The Government has, in its ineffable wisdom, turned away from the second Kyoto commitment period, because that is a legally binding obligation. It says it will “elect to take its commitment under the framework convention”. Why? Well, especially because it cannot afford a legal obligation because of the wall of wood coming down the track, but particularly because it insists on looking forward and alluding to the 87 percent of emissions that are coming out of the developing countries. This Government, like those of other annex 1 Kyoto countries, is obliged to acknowledge the 77 percent of historical responsibility, acknowledge the continuing relevance of the common but differentiated responsibilities, acknowledge the difference that still obtains in per capita emissions, and acknowledge that it has a responsibility to be in Kyoto II. That is the second question.

The third question follows. The Government, in the form of Treasury, still bases its policy on the notion of global least cost. Does the Minister wish to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a global price or a global market on the carbon economy yet, and that there will not be for probably at least 10 years? There is a chaotic regional market coming out of Europe, from which, incidentally, Australia and the European Union protect themselves. But not this country. In its overzealous approach to an open global economy based on neo-liberal principles, it allows itself vulnerability to that.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Primary Industries

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we examine the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill. Vote Primary Industries is a crucial appropriation. The primary sector underpins the entire economy, and in areas such as fisheries it overlaps into our very way of life. Going fishing is synonymous with the development of New Zealand society and the New Zealand nation itself. From our first-nation’s peoples and their canoes to the earliest European discoverers, from the sealers and the whalers to the surveyors and the settlers and the colonists, anybody and everybody who came to these islands since time immemorial has had the ability, indeed the right, to throw a line over the side and catch a fish. For many, if not most, of them, fishing was a matter of pure survival. The ocean provided dependable sustenance where the bounty of the land was a far more frugal affair.

Today that reality remains for literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. Ordinary people up and down the length and breadth of this country enjoy nothing more than the opportunity to take to the sea and bring home a feed for themselves, their family, and their friends. It is a birthright, the stamp of egalitarianism that set us apart from the feudal restrictions of class and ownership that so many of our forebears experienced in the older countries of a previous world. New Zealanders cherish that birthright. Everyone is equal in our society, and everyone is equal where the baited hook hits the water—the doctor, the lawyer, the accountant, the farmer, the labourer, and the truck driver. Anyone and everyone can throw a line in the water, and anyone and everyone can catch a fish. The rules are the same for everybody. Or are they? I ask because many people could be forgiven for thinking that under this Government some have become more equal than others.

Every New Zealander who fishes in the sea knows the importance of the fisheries resource, everyone knows that this resource is finite, and everyone knows that it must be harvested sustainably and that all other users must be treated with mutual respect. The nation charges the Government with the responsibility of managing that harvest, managing the sustainability of that harvest, and setting the rules that will ensure that mutual respect and the preservation of everyone’s rights are upheld. We put in place a system of rules and laws, of quota and catch limits, for the purpose of ensuring that there will always be fish in the sea—fish that our egalitarian people can catch to feed their families, sustainable populations of fish that will still be there in years to come, so that the children of our egalitarian people and their children and grandchildren will still be able to go down to the sea and fish, to catch the food that is their birthright and their inheritance.

We task the Ministry for Primary Industries with the responsibility of administering those rules, and we fund its activities through Vote Primary Industries. We hope and trust that the ministry will get things more or less right, and we hope and trust that the Government will fund it adequately and give it the direction and the tools that it needs in order to ensure that the fisheries resource is properly and sustainably managed and that the right of all New Zealanders to go down to the sea and fish is preserved. We hope and trust that they will get it right. When they get it wrong, we are given cause to question in whose interests they are working.

The old saying goes: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” But teach a man to fish and then cut his daily catch limit in the snapper 1 fishery from nine fish down to three, and, I have to ask, what will he do then? Will he be able to justify putting petrol in his boat, let alone paying for his gear, if the number of fish he is permitted to bring home is worth less than the cost of going to get them? Why, I ask, is the bag limit for ordinary recreational fishers being cut in this arbitrary and pointless fashion? If the fishery is under pressure, if the fish stocks are being mined unsustainably, and if the populations need time to recover, then why are the ministry and the Government not looking to reduce commercial catch limits, when it is the overfishing and the unsustainable practices of some in the commercial sector that have been the cause of decline in our fish stocks in the first place? Why should the recreational fisher be forced to bear the cost of a problem that is not his fault?

And how much will it cost? How much of Vote Primary Industries will be spent on hiring fisheries officers and equipping them with vehicles, boats, pepper spray, handcuffs, and whatever other tools they are going to be given to allow them to focus on chasing ordinary citizens for the crime of catching more than three fish from their little tin boats, when the trawler operating right alongside them is allowed to carry on business as usual, with no reduced limits, adding insult to injury by dumping tonnes of fish made useless as they are crushed in a trawl net? It is an unspeakable injustice and a pointlessly wasteful mismanagement of a precious and finite resource.

New Zealand First, when in a position of influence over the Government, will reverse this focus. We will give priority to the needs of ordinary people, and permit the commercial harvest of only that portion of the fishery that is surplus to those needs. We will prioritise Vote Primary Industries accordingly, and manage its appropriation properly and responsibly, unlike this dreadful administration, whose dreadful Appropriation (Estimates 2013/14) Bill we unequivocally oppose. Thank you.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Vote Primary Industries includes what was until 2 years ago the stand-alone Ministry of Fisheries. This vote includes appropriations of over $86 million for fisheries policy advice and operational advice on sustainability, fisheries management, and enforcement and monitoring—$86 million. It is interesting because if we spent only $20 million a year on buying back commercial quota from the large operators, such as, say, Sanford, then within 3 years the 15 percent improvement target would be reached, and it would all be very, very simple. But I must say that that was not in the options that were in the discussion paper that the Minister alluded to today, when I was questioning the Minister.

What is the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, doing instead? Well, he is snatching snapper off the plates of New Zealanders. It is not just a few recreational fishers who are affected, because everyone is affected. The Minister’s answers to my questions today were entirely unsatisfactory. I wonder how that member could have got it so wrong. How can it be that this Government has not considered the possibility that the biggest maritime environmental disaster to ever hit New Zealand—and that is the Rena—would not warrant a scientific investigation into its effect on the reproductive and growth cycles of our most valuable and dominant coastal fish, the snapper?

Today I was also told that I should get along to one of the Ministry for Primary Industries’ meetings. In Parnell tonight approximately 300 people listened and they went along to the Quality Hotel—and there is some irony here because there was absolutely no quality in that meeting. What was there tonight was absolutely embarrassing, but a fair indication of that Government. What was there was a handful of Ministry for Primary Industries representatives with posters, and they were speaking to the different small groups that came along. There was no microphone, there was no measured debate, and there was no intellectual discussion. The people of Parnell went there hoping for intellectual discussion, but there was none of that. Actually, it is interesting because the Quality Hotel is on Gladstone Road, and that is just down the road from where the Prime Minister lives. They would have snared a big fish if the Prime Minister had been there, but, alas, that did not happen either.

So I ask, where is the science in this report? Where is the cost-benefit analysis of recreational fishing to New Zealand? The petrol taxes, the diesel taxes, bait, tackle, motors, boats, books, videos, food, drink—the list goes on. Did you know that one-third of all kayaks sold in New Zealand are fishing kayaks? Where is the cost-benefit analysis of recreational and charter fishing, with tourism and accommodation and other benefits? It is simply not in here. This is a devious document. It is a dishonest document. I ask where the basic thought is of seagrass areas, snapper habitats, and the most basic of options—that is, the possibility of growing and seeding baby snapper into certain areas.

Where in this document is the effect that the explosion of snapper would have on the mussel industry, the mussel farms, if there is a reduction in the recreational fishers’ catch? More snapper means more mussel spat being eaten on the mussel lines. That is probably $100,000 a line. Can the mussel industry sustain the extra loss that would undoubtedly follow? At the moment, snapper costs around about $39 to $40 a kilo for fillets. What would happen to that price—which is already beyond many Kiwis’ budgets—if this Government is successful in its effort to cut the catch limit to two or three snapper and thereby create a scarcity in the market? Well, if you do the maths, and you cut the catch from nine to three, then we are looking at snapper going from $39 a kilo for fillets to $120 a kilo. Who will benefit from that? The big players—the big players, just like Sanford. [Bell rung] This bill will destroy—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Your time has expired.

Brendan Horan: Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Sorry?

Brendan Horan: I’m trying for another call. Nobody else is calling. Surely—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Just wait until I check the schedule. The member has only one call, by the schedule.

Brendan Horan: Yes, but I was taking a call from all those other people who haven’t called.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No. The member has only one call.

Brendan Horan: Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Thank you.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Commerce agreed to.

Vote Consumer Affairs agreed to.

Vote Internal Affairs agreed to.

Vote Energy

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): New Zealanders are paying too much for their power bills. The next Labour-led Government will do something about this very serious issue, which the current National Government is refusing to acknowledge even exists. What we have seen since the global financial crisis hit is that in every other developed country, power prices have dropped as demand has flattened and as protections for consumers have kicked in. New Zealand is one of the few countries in the developed world where power prices have continued to increase at twice the rate of inflation, despite flattening demand, a surplus of generation, and a collapsed carbon price.

In 1 year we have seen an increase of 10,000 in disconnections—in 1 year. That is 10,000 households that no longer have power because they cannot afford to pay the power bills. We have flattening demand in this country. We have an oversupply of generation. If power prices are not going down now, then they are never going to go down. It shows what the Labour Party has been saying, which is that the Bradford reforms have failed. We do not have the kind of competition in our retail market that would ensure that retail margins and prices are driven down in times of low demand. A Labour-led Government will do something about it.

We have a Minister of Energy and Resources who says that New Zealanders are not paying too much for their power prices. But he does not know what too much would be. So I think that is a zero credibility fail for the Minister of Energy and Resources. You cannot say that New Zealanders are not paying too much if you do not know what too much is, and the Minister of Energy and Resources does not know. I suspect that too much would be when the Minister of Energy and Resources cannot afford to pay his power bills on his ministerial salary. Then power prices will be too high. But until then the rest of New Zealand can suffer with power prices continuing to increase at twice the rate of inflation, and the Government refusing to do anything about it.

We have the second-biggest gap in the OECD between residential and industrial tariffs. So when the Minister stands up and says that the market is working really well, what he is saying is that it is working well for the big end of town. That is being offset by residential consumers, who are paying far more for their electricity than they should be, given the fact that New Zealand is blessed with an abundance of cheap, renewable energy. More than 60 percent of our electricity comes from hydro generation—from assets that were built by the taxpayers of New Zealand, which have been paid for time and time again—from a free public resource: water. We should have some of the cheapest energy in the world, and yet we do not because of the way we price electricity in this country.

I would like to see the next National Government speaker, Mr Jonathan Young, actually explain why hydro producers should be being paid the marginal price set by gas, when they have not done anything—when they have not done anything—to deserve that windfall and profit from assets that were built by generations of New Zealanders and taxpayers. A Labour Government will change the way we price electricity, because we do not have competition in our retail market.

I recently went to the launch of a new retailer in Dunedin called Payless Energy. The National Government rhetoric was: “Here’s another retailer. That means we must have competition.” Well, the reality is that there are 10 retailers now in Dunedin, and yet the market is still overwhelmingly dominated by the four big generator-retailers. They are happy to let those small companies pop up and have a handful of installation control points, but the minute they come to scale that is when they will no longer be tolerated. Just because you have a number of different companies does not mean you have competition in pricing, Mr Young. It does not mean you have competition in pricing.

So the first thing the National Government did was try to blame transmission charges and lines companies for the increases in power prices since the Bradford reforms. Let us be clear about the cost of the Transpower upgrade. Yes, it had to go ahead. Yes, it is billions of dollars. Yes, both Labour and National have agreed that the upgrade should go ahead. Here is the difference. A Labour Government said to Transpower: “You do not have to pay us a dividend, so you can pay for that transmission upgrade out of what you would have been paying to Government, and then there will be no pass-on cost to the consumer through the retailers because that’s how you can pay for it.” When National came in, not only did it say to Transpower: “We want that dividend back right now, by the way.”, but it said: “Can you backdate it.” And now we have a Government that claims to care about the rising cost of electricity on businesses and households saying to Transpower: “Actually, you need to charge consumers for what Government was paying for when Labour started that transmission upgrade work.”

So, Mr Young, why is your Government requiring Transpower to now supply a dividend and to backdate the payment of that dividend, when all it is going to do is impact on those transmission charges, which will now be passed on to consumers through the retailers? I have been going around visiting lines companies and they have been very frustrated. In fact, in the case of one lines company, which is publicly owned as most lines companies are, it wanted to pay a dividend back to its consumers. It wanted to pay a dividend back to its consumers, so it had to pass that through the retailers, because that is the way that it charges. None of that dividend was passed through to the end consumers. So here we have a lines company, which National likes to blame for putting up increases on households—[Interruption] Jonathan Young says: “True, lines companies are doing that.” Here we have a lines company that was actually trying to give some money back and the retailer refused to pass it on. It pocketed it, Mr Young. How is that a system that is good for consumers?

Let us have a look at what has happened up in Auckland, because what I think Mr Young does not understand is that actually lines companies are incredibly tightly regulated—thanks to the last Labour Government, which regulated lines companies. They are very tightly regulated as to what they can charge their consumers. They have a pricing path that is set by the Commerce Commission. They have to provide a certain return. They are not able to go out there and just charge whatever they want, like the retailers can with a retail margin. They have to provide a return that is based on their actual costs and then a fair return as well. So that is what they charge. The Commerce Commission did a reset last year, which came into force in April this year, where it actually said that Vector, which is our biggest lines company, based in Auckland, needed to drop its prices. So Vector did that and only two of the 11 retailers in Auckland have passed that cost saving on to consumers—only two.

The lines companies, which actually have no control over what they charge because they are so tightly regulated, which charge based on their actual costs, and which have tried to give money back to consumers but have not had that money passed through in some cases by the retailers, are apparently causing all the problems, according to the National Government. Well, that is not true. None of the research backs it up. The increase in prices since the Bradford reforms has been in the wholesale electricity market, the retail margin. It has not been in transmission charges, it has not been in the lines charges. It is utterly dishonest for National to claim that that is the case when it is not.

What the National Government likes to point to is the What’s My Number campaign and to the fact that that has been so successful, which it says shows that we have competition. Well, actually, there is no research that has been done as to why people change power companies. The UK had a similar campaign. It has actually researched why people change power companies. One-third of the people who changed, changed to a tariff that was cheaper; one-third of the people who changed, changed to a tariff that was exactly the same; and one third of the people who changed, changed to a tariff that was more expensive. What that shows is that there is a range of reasons why people change electricity retailer, and price is only one of them. One of the questions we have been asking the Government is how many of those people who have gone on the What’s My Number website were people who have shifted house, people who had just moved. They were not looking for competition; they had just simply shifted and wanted to find out who was out there. Well, the Government is not collecting those kinds of statistics either.

The reality is that when you look at that gap in price that is offered on the What’s My Number campaign, often the difference is an early payment discount. That is the difference in the power prices that are being offered. Well, if you cannot afford to pay the power bill in the first place, then an early payment discount is completely hopeless. The reality is that for the poorest families they are lucky if they can find one power company to pick them up. This kind of fantasy idea that the National Government has in this “La-La Land” that it lives in, that the poorest people out there actually have a choice of retailer when they are lucky if they can find one to pick them up and keep them on, shows just out of touch it is. We spent 9 years in Government trying to make the system work and it does not. The system is broken.

Mr Bridges said that the Bradford reforms just need time to bed in. They do not. They have utterly and completely failed. Fifteen years—it is time to actually do something about the fact that despite having some of the cheapest electricity being generated—

Hon Tau Henare: Tell me why we’re 51 percent in the polls tonight. How do you work that one out?

MOANA MACKEY: I wish we could hook Mr Henare up to the national grid. All our power problems would be solved if we could hook his mouth up to the national grid. That is one big energy source over there. The reality is that tinkering is not going to make a difference. If we want genuine—genuine—competition in the retail market, and that is what we want, we need to change the way we price electricity. That is what the New Zealand power policy does. We are not regulating the retail market or the generation market. We are simply ensuring that retailers who want to come into the market are able to compete with the four big generation-retailers who up until now have been able to squash any real competition that comes into play.

New Zealanders know that they are paying too much for power prices. The model that we have selected is one that is commonly used overseas. It is not something that New Zealanders need to be scared about. What they need to be scared about is what is in that next power bill when it lands in their letterbox and when they have to open it wondering whether they are going to be able to keep the lights on for the next month. That is what New Zealanders are scared of, and a Labour-led Government is—

JONATHAN YOUNG (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): I am very pleased to speak after the last speaker, Moana Mackey, and just answer some of the questions that she has put forward. Moana Mackey contended that the line charges are not to do with the increase in power, that it is all to do with retailers. For her information, and for her betterment, I have researched the last 10 years of power charges in New Plymouth. If she will look over this way, she will see on this graph that the rate of increase for line rates has increased over the last decade and the rate of increase for retail is actually trending downwards.

I have gone through Ministry of Economic Development spreadsheets for every quarter of the last 10 years, looked at every—

Moana Mackey: It’s dishonest.

JONATHAN YOUNG: It is not dishonest. That is the truth. These are facts—these are facts. I can show them to you if you would care to have a look.

The Labour Party and the Green Party, of course, are presenting to New Zealand the concept of a single-buyer market, and a person whom they are quoting is Professor Frank Wolak. They used his comments a number of years ago—4 to 5 years ago—to claim that generators have been taking super-profits out of the New Zealand electricity market of something around about $4.3 billion. Well, he was in Wellington this week and let me quote from Energy News. It says: “ ‘Moving to a single-buyer market for power generation would do nothing to improve competition, while a cost-based approach to pricing output also runs the risk of undervaluing water resources.’, a visiting US academic says. Stanford University’s Professor Frank Wolak says he can’t see why New Zealand would want to turn its back on the electricity market structure it has now.” That is what their expert has said this week in Wellington.

We do need to understand what has affected the increase in the prices of power. A number of these increases have happened through regulation increase in terms of the emissions trading system charge, which has increased the cost of electricity by around about 4 to 5 percent, and, secondly, the emissions trading scheme increase, as well. If you take out those two regulatory increases that have happened, if you look at the increase that has happened over the last number of years, you will see that the increase in electricity cost for New Zealand consumers is around about the rate of inflation, maybe a fraction above, certainly within the rate that the Reserve Bank has to monitor, and we can be very confident about that.

We also know that Transpower has been upgrading the national grid. Over this decade, starting in 2012, it is going to be expending around about $5 billion. In June 2008 Transpower commissioned an independent review of its maintenance practices and spending. This report by the Auditor-General, which came to the Commerce Committee, said: “Discussions with staff from both Transpower and the contractors revealed a workforce that has an innovative approach to solving problems. This has been driven mainly by a need to keep operational an aged asset base as little asset replacement has been undertaken on a broad basis in the last decade.” So under Labour’s watch the national grid became aged with very little replacement of that infrastructure. Some 39 percent of the switchgear assets are of the old technology, with an average age of around 37 years.

The Auditor-General in a report, Transpower New Zealand Limited: Managing risks to transmission assets, states: “We found that Transpower knew that the grid was becoming less reliable and performing worse. While it was still building staff capability, Transpower could not focus on both grid reliability and capacity, so it made the strategic decision in 2003 and 2004 to focus on addressing the grid’s capacity issues. The issues of age and necessary replacing and refurbishing of grid assets were given a lower priority.”

Who was the Minister of Energy at that particular point in time who signed that off? Because we are right now spending $5 billion catch-up money to ensure that our national grid is robust and gives security of supply to New Zealanders in their households and in their industries. We know in New Zealand what happened when the Māui Gas pipeline sprung a leak.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In this Vote Energy debate I would like to talk as part of the estimates report around the issues contained in this report, which is the National Government’s power price rises and the National Government’s fossil fuel extraction agenda. I guess you can summarise the Government’s agenda as being more power price rises, more excuses, more blame game across the Chamber, more fossil fuels being dug up, more drilling, more mining, and more fracking Aotearoa. What we have heard in this debate is a whole bunch of excuses. We have heard a whole bunch of blame between the two successive Governments. What we have not heard a lot of is a lot of vision, a lot of plans, or a lot of going forward. We have heard a lot of going backward.

So what I want to talk about is what my vision is for energy in New Zealand: cheaper, cleaner, smarter energy. It is a strategy that focuses on New Zealand’s advantages, our strengths, it goes forward, it builds the economy, it grows jobs, it is about putting the power and the profits back to the people of New Zealand; it is not this blame and excuses we hear from the two old parties. So the Government’s dirty old agenda, which we have heard over and over again in this debate, is all about subsidising polluters by over a billion dollars a year in emissions trading scheme credits. It is about handing out $46 million a year in tax breaks to deep-sea oil drillers—already one of the largest and most profitable industries in the world—and it is about telling Kiwis this winter, as they open up the envelope with their power bill in it and see their power prices rise, that all they have to do is wait for Max Bradford’s reforms to finally bed in.

What we see from the National Party in its vision—or lack of vision—and in its agenda is an age of 19th century fossil fuel and crony capitalist inspiration. That is where it is looking, whereas the Greens are looking to the future. So what I want to talk about is three things: cheaper, cleaner, smarter energy. The first is New Zealand power. What we have seen since the Bradford reforms is that New Zealand power prices have increased 72 percent in real terms, while across the OECD they have seen a 6 percent reduction on average. We have now had the fifth-highest power price rises in the entire developed world, and under National what we have seen is our bills going up 400 bucks a year for Kiwi families. So the so-called market clearly is not working for New Zealand consumers, and the long-run marginal pricing model for electricity sees cheap hydro, paid for decades ago, being charged at the most expensive unit. It is at $700 million a year in excessive profits being taken out of Kiwi businesses, being taken out of Kiwi consumers’ wallets, which is a serious drag on our economy.

It has got real world impacts, too, because what we know is that a quarter of our New Zealand families are in energy poverty, spending more than 12 percent of their weekly income just to stay warm. We know Kiwis, elderly and renters, are going without power, they are going without food to get power, they are getting cold, they are getting sick, and it is a serious drag on the New Zealand economy. So that is why we propose New Zealand Power as a smart, cost-effective, efficacious solution to sit between the generators and the retailers. Like Pharmac, New Zealand Power will drive down the price of electricity, encourage competition, and encourage energy efficiency.

So I guess what I tell people around the country is that at this election they are going to get a real choice when it comes to energy, because Labour is on the same card as the Greens. What we are going to get is a real choice. Under National what we are going to get is more excuses, more power price rises, and more of our assets being sold off. Under the Greens what Kiwis are going to see is 300 bucks a year in savings for the average family.

The second thing I want to talk about is clean energy because in New Zealand we have got a wealth of clean energy options, but you would not know about it by listening to the Government benches. In fact, you would not know about it looking at the statistics, because we are not on track to meet the 90 percent renewables by 2025 target. In fact, we are doing worse than we have ever done before. We have got a lower percentage of renewables as a total percentage than we had in 1980. We have got a lower percentage than we had in 1990. So while all the Government’s attention is being lavished on foreign oil drilling companies, we are missing out. The smart money internationally is looking at clean energy. In 2011 net international capital investment in renewables was larger than all the fossil fuels, all the nuclear energy combined. That is where the smart money is going, yet National is spending all its time talking to major foreign oil-drilling companies.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report says there is a $22 billion economic opportunity in clean energy for New Zealand. The Pure Advantage group of successful business people said there is a $6 trillion clean energy, green-tech sector our country should be getting a slice of. It is a business opportunity that is staring us in the face, yet the Prime Minister is going round opening up fossil fuel power peaking stations and getting international media attention for wanting to drill Middle Earth.

I want to give the Government a bit of credit where it is due. It is doing something about solar power. The problem is that the only thing it is doing about solar power is in Tokelau and Tonga, and it is putting up all these barriers for New Zealanders who want to be able to produce their own power and export it.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Vote Energy. This Government, under the able leadership of Prime Minister John Key, has taken many pragmatic steps to ensure that New Zealanders remain healthy while the cost that they pay remains low. All the previous speakers from the Opposition speaking on this vote did not touch on that area which is of concern to many people. I would like to touch on the area of keeping people warmer and healthier in their homes. The Government is investing in a new 3-year insulation programme that will deliver warmer, drier, and healthier homes to the communities in most need. I am based in an electorate that has people of low socio-economic means living in great numbers.

Budget 2013 allocates $100 million of operating funds over 3 years to the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme, targeting low-income households for home insulation, particularly those families with children and high health needs. It is expected to insulate around 46,000 additional homes over the period of 3 years. The Government is investing this money, which will be matched by private funders and trusts, to make sure that people live in insulated homes, which makes them healthier. The project is budgeted at $93 million for the upcoming financial year. Sixty percent of the funding will be provided by the Government through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and 40 percent will be provided by the third party groups, such as iwi trusts, who will determine who will receive funding.

Warmer, drier homes provide real benefits to New Zealanders. New Zealand is a developed country, yet we still have rheumatic fever in our society. As well as the energy efficiency gains, insulating homes reduces health risks such as respiratory illnesses and serious diseases like rheumatic fever. Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes will help boost the health and well-being of New Zealanders living in poor households, and it is part of the Government’s response to child poverty. The new programme will follow the success of the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme, which has seen around 215,000 homes insulated since 2009. The final $11 million of this programme is sought in this Budget. Funding expires at the end of the 2013-14 financial year, which will mean that by the end of September 230,000 homes will have been insulated and will benefit people.

Over the past 4 years, the National-led Government has changed the thinking in relation to home insulation in New Zealand. Now when people buy or rent homes they normally ask whether a house is insulated or not. That means that people are aware that insulation makes them healthier and it saves on power bills. With these words I support Vote Energy.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Labour

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): The estimates debate on Vote Labour provides a really good opportunity to do a performance review of the work in the labour portfolio and the work of the Minister of Labour, who is now 6 months into the job. He may be new, and he has certainly learnt his lines extremely well, but there is something deeply antiquated about the Minister’s approach to labour relations and the labour portfolio. In 6 months he has delivered a 25c an hour increase in the minimum wage—a miserable 25c an hour. He has also cut young workers’ pay and brought back youth rates for the first time since last century. He has revived a stupid piece of legislation that has languished on the Order Paper for 3 years because it was so hopeless and is so mean that it will cut basic rights to meal and rest breaks. And now he has sent to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the nastiest piece of proposed labour law that we have seen since Jim Bolger was the Prime Minister.

This is going to be a very testing time for employment relations in New Zealand. It is going to be a testing time for the Minister as opposition to his employment law ramps up, and as everyday Kiwi workers begin to understand exactly what the agenda of this National Government is about. It is hard enough to get a job, let alone one that pays the bills, but employment law changes that are being proposed by Simon Bridges and this National Government will have a knock-on effect to every wage and salary earner in New Zealand, and they will entrench Kiwis in a low-wage economy. By taking away workers’ rights to fair wage bargaining and standard setting, Kiwi workers across the board are going to see their wages fall.

What did we see this week? We saw an Australian company that is bringing a call centre to New Zealand. Do you know why it is coming here? Because wages here are 30 percent cheaper. Kiwi workers are 30 percent cheaper. Australian companies are bringing jobs here—

Hon Tau Henare: How many jobs will there be?

DARIEN FENTON: —and at what price? So does Tau Henare think Kiwi workers are not worth as much as Australian workers? We have the maddest situation at the moment where New Zealanders are going to Australia to get better pay, and Australian employers are coming to New Zealand to get lower pay. That is a crazy situation.

Every change that this Government is proposing—from allowing employers to walk away from negotiations into why people have been sacked to taking away the right to a tea break—is taking us backwards to those ideas that we saw last century that were tried and miserably failed. We should not be feeling proud, and Tau Henare should not be feeling proud, that we are attracting Australian business on the basis of being a cheap economy, on the basis of being a low-wage destination. That is shameful—that is shameful. It is interesting to me that we never ever hear any mention now of closing the wage gap with Australia. That goal has gone. That has disappeared. The Government has given up on it. Instead, it is actually increasing the wage gap with Australia. That is the way Steven Joyce thinks we create job opportunities.

But back to the Minister of Labour’s performance. I am very generous, so I am going to give him a five out of 10 for health and safety. He has got a bill in front of the select committee now and there is going to be another one coming. But his department has badly botched the change process from moving the old Department of Labour to the new agency—it is a change process called Lifting Our Game, and the health and safety inspectors are so disillusioned with it that they call it “Shifting the Blame”—and in the process the department has lost numerous experienced health and safety experts. We cannot afford to do that with our health and safety record.

The Minister, too, I have to say kindly, has exhibited some stubbornness and a tendency to think he has all the answers, especially in forestry, where the death toll this year is now at six. It is now at six. The families who have lost those loved ones are desperate. They are calling on the Minister and they are calling on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for an independent inquiry. In fact, even the forestry owners are now asking for help. But, of course, this Minister says he has all the answers.

I give him a four out of 10 for responding to concerns—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has run out of calls. I call the honourable—

DARIEN FENTON: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. No, we have not.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You have not?

DARIEN FENTON: No, I think we have got one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): OK. I have got a record here that says 26 calls.

DARIEN FENTON: I thought we had 27. We get 27.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, we need to get this sorted, because if the member has another call, I am happy to give her the call. I need to find out what is right. I am sorry, but the information that the Clerk’s Office has is 26.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The allocation that we were given by the Government whips’ office shows that this being an 8-hour debate—I can run through the numbers for you if you wish to be assured—the Labour Party gets 28.09 percent of the calls, which in raw minutes is 134.83 raw minutes and when rounded to number of minutes is 134 raw minutes. Therefore, that equates to 27 calls.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, all members are honourable, and the member’s word will be accepted. I call the honourable member Darien Fenton.

DARIEN FENTON: As I was saying, I was about to give the Minister four out of 10 for his response to concerns about the exploitation of migrant workers. Yes, he is making the right noises, along with the Minister of Immigration, Michael Woodhouse, but he has still failed to explain how he is going to deal with the increasing exploitation of migrant workers, where they are being employed on sub-minimum wages, with just 35 labour inspectors throughout the whole country. The Minister of Labour told us during the estimates process that the way he will do that is to free up inspector time by not enforcing Easter shop trading legislation. That would free up just three inspectors, when inspectors are actually spending 54 percent of their time on migrant worker exploitation. So that is not going to cut it.

Also, I do have to ask the Committee why we pass laws. The Easter shop trading legislation has been subject to conscience votes. Seven times, I think, since I have been in Parliament, members have used their conscience to pass a law to say that there should not be shop trading on Easter Sunday. And this is a law that I have supported because I do not want to see workers forced to work on Easter Sunday. Why have a law if the Minister can then just decide that he has got the right to ignore it?

I do have to get to the bottom end when I am talking about scoring the Minister. It is a two out of 10 for the employment law changes. I know he is doing the bidding of his political masters, I know he is the puppet or the king of the rebirth of the right-wing branch of the National Party, but he does have to watch it. This Minister is getting a reputation for being a little bit economical with the truth. First of all, there was the thing about the ILO, where he said he was going off to the ILO to ask it about his law. When he got there he bottled it and refused to meet with the Secretary-General of the ILO.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Really?

DARIEN FENTON: Yes. Then there was the story about the forestry workers, where he claimed that the forestry workers were completely on side with his revised code of practice, when, in fact, Helen Kelly was there and was able to say that that was not true. The bottom line is that the Minister has been warned and warned again about the severity of his changes to employment law. He has been warned by his officials, by the ILO, and by numerous organisations that they will result in workers’ wages being cut, that collective bargaining will be undermined and diminished as a result, that litigation will increase over the petty changes to partial strikes and notice periods, and that vulnerable workers such as the cleaners who work in this Parliament and clean his office will be exposed once again to being the meat in the sandwich between voracious tendering processes where the cost of labour is the only competition. He has been warned that these changes will expose New Zealand—

Hon Tau Henare: By who? Oh, that’s right, by you.

DARIEN FENTON: —in Cabinet papers, by his officials, and by the ILO—to international embarrassment through a complaint of breaches to ILO Conventions 87 and 98. This is a Government that is trying to secure a place on the United Nations Security Council—we are supporting that—but it has to do it on the grounds of being a good international citizen. You cannot stand up in international fora and say that you support something, and then break the laws at home. Interestingly, in the free-trade agreement signed with Taiwan just a couple of weeks ago, right in the body of the document, it talks about complying with ILO Conventions 87 and 98 as a core part of our commitment to that free-trade agreement. But here we are planning to breach those very conventions in our own country.

I think the financial year 2013-14 will be very interesting. It will be an interesting year for Vote Labour and for the Minister. It will become pretty rocky. Can I assure you that we in Labour will be taking the message out to workers and their families up and down the country that Labour is standing up for them. We will do everything we can to defeat these backward-looking changes that the Minister and this Government are proposing. They are backward-looking changes because they will do nothing to grow our economy. They will do nothing to create jobs. They will take us back to a low wage. They will increase the low wages in this country. They are tried and failed policies.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): “They will do nothing to grow the economy.” Well, I have got some good news for that member, Darien Fenton, because the economy is growing at more than 3 percent. In fact the New Zealand economy is growing at a greater rate than the Australian economy, and they are all coming back, Darien. They are all coming back, Darien.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!

MIKE SABIN: Sorry, Mr Chair. They are all coming back, so that is why we do not hear too much about the people leaving for Australia, because that is right, they have all worked out that they should be coming back here, and so they are.

The Government’s priorities, in particular around growing the economy, have centred on managing the Government’s finances and building a more productive and competitive economy. If we look at “New Zealand Inc.”, what we know as a nation is that we have so much to offer, but we need to offer it to the world in a competitive manner, and in a way that people want to get hold of our products, and so that we are the go-to country. That actually is something that has been heralded by many around the world, including Obama’s previous financial adviser, who said that the New Zealand economy is the one economy in the world in these challenging environments that is getting it right, paying down debt and investing for infrastructure, and investing for growth.

What we know about business is that ultimately New Zealand is made up, largely, of a multitude of small businesses. What we know from a macro perspective is that getting the Government’s finances in order and managing the country in a manner that grows a competitive and more productive economy is something that will flow through to the small businesses out there, which will then take the risk to invest and grow their businesses. When they grow their businesses, they employ people. They will employ people when the settings are right.

The secret ingredient to growing a business and to growing the economy—something that the Labour Party is not too up to spec on, and certainly members from the Green Party have got absolutely no idea about it—is to be able to produce a product that either no one else is producing, is a better product than someone else’s, is at a more competitive price than someone else’s, or is provided in a way that is better than someone else’s out there in the market. It is about being able to do that for less than what it costs to procure that product or deliver that service.

When we get those settings right, the companies make profits and the ability exists for them to then invest, take a risk, and grow. That is the quintessential nature of business, whether it be in a micro perspective of the economy, from a small business employing two, three, or four people, or right through to what we are trying to do as a nation. Those settings are right. As much as this country has been through some enormous challenges in recent times, the economy is growing because the settings are right in the labour market for employers to invest and employ. That is the crux of the matter.

What are we doing around that? In this vote we talk about the 90-day trial period. Well, there have been 13,000 jobs come into the market as a result of that. We see the starting out wage for the 16 to 19-year-olds. One thing we know is that many employers will want to employ youngsters, but when they are lined up in a situation where you have got someone very low-skilled, or possibly someone with even no skills and has never been in the workforce, versus someone who has been in the workforce for many years and has experience, and the employer has to make a decision about whom they will employ for the given dollar, unfortunately a lot of those youths will miss out. We have to make sure that the settings are right to employ those young people. That will bring about 2,000 jobs over the next 2 years. Actually, I believe it will do a lot more than that, because this economy is starting to move, and employees out there are starting to realise that they need to hop on. They need to get out there and get working because otherwise they will be left behind. That is exactly what they are doing.

We are unravelling the red tape of the Employment Relations Act. We are doing a lot, and we will be completely reforming the health and safety side of the workplace. In short, what we are doing is “we are doing”. There are three sorts of people in this world: there are the “never do’s”, there are the “gonna do’s”, and there are the “do’s”. My question to the members on the Opposition benches is what are they doing? They talk about “gonna do” something from time to time, but mostly it is just to criticise what we are doing and to offer no alternative vision.

Vote agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Honourable members, the time for this debate has expired. Given that 8 hours were allowed, there are still a number of votes that I will have to put the question on, but, of course, there is no debate on them.

The question was put that Vote Food Safety, Vote Courts, Vote Customs, Vote Lands, Vote Statistics, Vote Senior Citizens, Vote Women’s Affairs, Vote Immigration, Vote Veterans’ Affairs - Social Development, Vote Revenue, and Vote Māori Affairs stand part of the schedules, and that the preamble, clauses 1 to 12, and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the votes, the preamble, clauses 1 to 12, and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.

Noes 57

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

Votes, preamble, clauses 1 to 12, and schedules 1 to 7 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64, Noes 57.

Bills

Resource Management Reform Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Resource Management Act 1991

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This debate is on clauses 3 to 121 and schedules 1 and 2.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Resource Management Reform Bill, taking note of the parts and the clauses that the Chairperson has identified for us to refer to. This bill is the start, as we know, of the Government’s assault on the legal protections of our environment. This is actually the second time a resource management reform bill has been presented to the House—it is clearly the midway point for the Government’s reforms—and we would like to register our strong opposition to the general direction that the Government is taking in resource management, while acknowledging that this particular bill in front of us, the Resource Management Reform Bill, is not the worst of its efforts. Certainly, we will be seeing more of its efforts as the year goes on.

The Minister for the Environment has already signalled that she intends before the end of the year to bring in the next stage of the Resource Management Act reforms that this Government is undertaking. It is with some trepidation that we anticipate that bill coming forward.

The purpose of this amendment bill is to try to make some of the provisions of the Resource Management Act more efficient. To that extent, we have never had a problem on this side of the House with moves in that direction. Anything that makes it more efficient is to be welcomed on all sides. But, unfortunately, this goes somewhere quite different.

I am concerned about a number of parts of the bill. I wish to traverse those over a period of time in this, the Committee stage. But let us just back up a little bit and go back to the purpose of the bill, which is to amend the Resource Management Act, to make a number of changes to its processes. It will also impose a 6-month consent time frame for medium-sized projects. As I have said, this is phase two of a series of Government reforms, with even bigger ones coming. But one of the things that this bill does in particular is to fast track the Auckland Unitary Plan. It also includes new regulation-making powers that enable the Environmental Protection Authority to have cost recovery powers and require local bodies to carry out specific environmental monitoring.

This bill is, again, another power-grab, as we see it, of the Government, because one of its most significant component parts is its ability to override local government and local communities in terms of making, through their elected officials, decisions about their own immediate environment. Although there must always be national standards—and the Government has much work to do in the establishment of national environment standards and policy standards—it is also important that there is sufficient balance in the proposals so that local authorities are not disenfranchised or are not ignored or overridden. In this respect, there are a number of points that we will make in the course of the Committee stage that relate to Auckland in particular.

One of the things that I wish to address in the first instance are the provisions in Part 1 of the bill that relate to tree protection. In fact, the Environmental Defence Society today put out a statement saying that it urged regional and district councils to urgently consider the implications of this bill on their indigenous biodiversity and protective functions. The most obvious of these are the issues around the protection of trees.

The opinion of the Environmental Defence Society and, indeed, the opinion of the Labour Party is that this bill is not sufficiently protective of trees that require protection. It is improved from the bill as it came to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I wish to acknowledge the Minister in that respect. She listened to and consulted the select committee around this issue in particular. So the bill is a little improved as a result of that, and I commend her for that. However, it is marginally improved in that when it first appeared before this House it required, as I think I have said before in the context of this bill, every tree virtually to have a name and a birth date and a christening ceremony in order to end up being a protected tree. What we have now is a provision that allows for clusters of trees, groups of trees, and lines of trees to be recognised for protective purposes, but they are still required to be identified section by section, address by address.

If a local authority has not geared itself up to make this kind of protection plain, then it will be very difficult for trees to be protected where they are seen to be in the public domain, where they might be lines of trees up the east coast of Auckland or vast tracts of native bush in the west of Auckland—which, fortunately, are already protected by thoughtful legislation that the previous Labour Government brought in. But it will be more difficult to register trees as protected, and that is a real concern to us. Here we have a movement towards the rights of owners of properties to cut down trees if they are not designated as protected trees, regardless of their environmental contribution. So if a tree actually holds together a hillside and prevents moisture runoff in a way that protects downhill properties, then that tree affects not only the owners of the property but the owners of properties beneath it. There are communal responsibilities in this respect, and, in our view, this bill does not do sufficient to allow local authorities to declare that whole regions, areas of planted trees, are protected for environmental purposes and for community amenity purposes.

This is the start of our concerns around this bill. We will not be supporting it, because we do not believe that in this case it gets the right balance between individual property rights, community amenity values, and environmental protection, and it also does not get the balance right in terms of the Government’s powers to reach in over the top of local authorities and reverse or prevent things that they are doing in the name of development. This is only the first stage of where the Government is going this year with Resource Management Act reform.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, can I inform the Committee that for the voting in the estimates just recently, the Māori Party was recorded as three; it should have been two. So the vote has been corrected. The Ayes are 63 and the Noes are 57.

Bills

Resource Management Reform Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Resource Management Act 1991 (continued)

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): This bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, is part of the Government’s two-phase programme of reform of the resource management system. Phase one involved the simplification and streamlining of the Resource Management Act legislation, which has improved the processing and has been well received by everybody who is using the Act. This second-phase bill deals with the more complex issues. And there will be a further bill later this year.

This bill has three parts. Part 1 amends the Resource Management Act, Part 2 amends the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act, and Part 3 makes minor and technical changes to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. In Part 1, we deal with a series of issues concerning Resource Management Act legislation, and the two most debated changes were those to section 32 reports and the tree protection rules. I want to start by talking about the section 32 amendments. Everybody agrees that it is important to have high-quality analysis underpinning local authority decision-making when it comes to section 32 reports, and that is because section 32 reports are the basis of good environmental decision-making. Everybody agrees also that the quality of reports is inconsistent across the country. There are plenty of examples of good reports, but there are even more examples of poor-quality reports. This new legislation will provide greater guidance and greater specificity for councils around what councils require in section 32 reports.

The main debate focused on how influential the economic impacts of any proposal should be. Those who supported the change saw benefits in providing more rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and those who opposed the change felt that it moved the balance of decision making away from environmental, social, and cultural effects and put too much emphasis on economics. There was also concern that the new requirements could increase costs, and this may be the case for councils that are not usually involved in doing comprehensive economic analysis. But we have attempted to mitigate this issue by requiring a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and the significance of the effects. This was widely supported by submitters. We have also made amendments to require the reports to consider both the positive and the negative effects of economic growth.

Another issue that was very robustly debated was that of the tree protection rules. The intent of these amendments concerning trees was to reduce the high numbers of resource consents and therefore the high cost to homeowners under the blanket tree protection rules in urban environments. However, the bill does provide for councils to identify notable trees for protection in a schedule to the district plan, either as individuals or as a group of trees. This issue was particularly controversial in Auckland, but this is the type of protection that is used in most cities across New Zealand, and it works successfully in those cities. I have to give a good example of Christchurch, which does not have blanket tree protection—it is known as the Garden City and is very green and very leafy—and this works well. However, because of the concern expressed by Auckland citizens, we have made some amendments to make the identification of trees easier. We have clarified that bush areas can be protected and that the definition of a group of trees may include trees within the bush areas, and also that trees on a single block can be identified together, even if they are not officially a cluster or a grove. The key for tree protection is that protected trees must be identified by street address, and there is a good reason for that. It means that the trees and their identification will be noted on the land information memorandum, so it is absolutely transparent, everybody knows which trees are protected, and everybody understands the status of those trees going forward. The Local Government and Environment Committee and the officials have worked very hard to try to get a process that would be easily understood and effective, and we believe that the bill is better for this attention to detail.

Other issues that came up in Part 1 are the new processing time frames and the direct referral process. The new processing time frames are to do with resource consent applications that are either notified or limited notification. These are the consents that include public participation. The bill does not change the tests that determine whether a consent is notified or not. It merely introduces a revised time frame around the ongoing decision-making process, giving more certainty to applicants and to the people involved. These time frames are 130 working days, approximately 6 months, for a notified consent, and 100 working days, approximately 4.5 months, for limited notified consents. The new process requires completeness of information before an application can be formally received, in order to improve the quality of decision making and avoid subsequent delays. There will now be only one opportunity for councils to suspend processing for further information requests. Submitters generally supported the intent of these amendments, and they suggested a variety of improvements to the process, many of which have been incorporated and adopted into the bill.

The direct referral process in the bill allows for a direct referral for certain major projects above an investment threshold set out in regulations. Some councils were concerned that this would reduce their decision-making roles and responsibilities, and there was uncertainty about the general regulation-making powers. To increase certainty, we have introduced a criterion that the Minister for the Environment must have regard to when establishing that investment threshold.

The last issue I want to discuss is the collection of environmental monitoring data. The Government is keen to improve the state of the nation environmental reporting. Currently, local authorities collect a lot of useful environmental information, but that information needs to be standardised and consistent across the country to be useful. This bill proposes regulations to specify what needs to be collected and how. Although councils are very aware and they want consistency of data, they were concerned that the regulations may increase costs for them. But this is not the intention, and we have amended the bill to make it clear that any regulations will be developed only in consultation with councils, and the aim is to collect information as efficiently and as effectively as possible. You can manage only what you measure, so we are keen to get really good information so that we can manage the environment more effectively. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is my pleasure to be here as a representative of west Auckland, the electorate of New Lynn, which encompasses the wooded areas of Titirangi, Woodlands Park, Laingholm, and up into the Waitakere Ranges.

Jacinda Ardern: It’s an electorate of trees.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is, as my good colleagues are saying, an electorate of trees. My good colleague Phil Twyford there, of course, in his electorate, looks up at those trees and, you know, wishes that Te Atatū went further up in the hills so he could say this—but, hey, he is going to be speaking very soon.

The Resource Management Reform Bill is a really important bill from a number of points of view. It continues a trend, which is now starkly evident to the New Zealand public, that this Government cares not a jot for community decision-making and participation. Instead of working with communities, it has decided to do things to communities, and this bill is one way that that is being foisted upon a fairly unsuspecting public. Of course, we know that the agenda is not limited to this bill. It is all about ramming casinos down the throats of people who cannot afford to play in them. It is about ramming mass surveillance down the throats of New Zealanders who do not want to be spied on. The agenda goes on and on. But, for now, we are limiting ourselves to this Resource Management Act amendment bill.

My constituents are, by and large, incensed by this legislation. They are incensed by it because they have worked hard through the democratic process, both locally and nationally, to make clear time and time again, through the ballot box, that they want the Waitakere Ranges to stay green. They do not want the death by a thousand cuts of the incremental effects of subdivision up in the Waitakere Ranges. They do not want blanket chainsaw massacre tree-felling being available without a proper resource consent.

The previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, who has resumed her seat, said that this bill was all about lightening the compliance burden and making sure that people could reasonably trim trees without having to get consents. The rules currently are that any person in that area can trim 20 percent of the volume of their tree, down to a level of 2 metres above the ground, without a consent—without a consent—under the law as it currently stands. What the National Party wants is for those trees to be “trimmed off at ground level” with a bulldozer or a chainsaw.

Colin King: A bit rich. The chainsaw massacre happened under Labour.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is the chainsaw massacre—thank you, Mr King, a man known for “shearing” his wisdom around the country. We appreciate that. Let us analyse the Government’s claim that it has somehow fixed the problem and thereby saved Paula Bennett’s chances of re-election. It is a spurious claim. The draft bill as received by the House and the Local Government and Environment Committee says in amended section 76(4C) in clause 12: “to avoid doubt, each of the following descriptions of a group of trees does not satisfy the identification requirements … (a) all trees of 1 or more named species in a defined area or zone of the plan … (b) all trees in a class with defined characteristics in a defined area … (for example, all exotic trees over 5 metres high … [in a certain area] …): (c) all trees in a named ecosystem”.

The law is specific that none of these types of classifications can stand. Why is it ruling out the classification of groups of trees? It is quite simple. Because the Auckland Council went to the Environment Court and got a decision from Judge Jackson, which said that group classification was legal under the Resource Management Act. It was that decision that spurred the Draconian amendments brought forward in this bill, which required each individual tree, if you please, to be individually and specifically notified and scheduled under the Act. How can that be a move to reduce compliance costs? Goodness me! There would have been more trees felled to provide for the paperwork of scheduling every tree in the Waitakere Ranges individually. I have never heard of such a nonsense. Westies are incensed. They passed the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill through this Parliament to make clear to all that they wanted the ranges protected. In light of that, what has the Government now done? It has said: “Never mind, folks. We know we’re overriding local democracy. We know we are becoming a property developer’s dream. We know we’re facilitating the bulldozers. But, wait, there’s good news. We’re not going to do it on the basis of scheduling each individual tree. We’re now going to allow clumps of trees, provided they are done for each individual property.”

What is the problem with that? The answer is very simple. The property definition here is under 4 hectares, so there are lots and lots and lots of properties. The compliance burden is still enormous, and the bill still changes the effect of presumption, away from the fact that trees across the Waitakeres would be subject to certain levels of protection, unless otherwise exempted, to one that says that nobody is protected unless each individual property writes it up. That is the problem with this bill. That is what has got west Aucklanders talking over their teacups and their water coolers at the workplace and across their breakfast tables. Mothers are reassuring their children that it is still safe to walk to school, because the National Party has not bulldozed the shade just yet, but it is on its way.

The amendment introduced in the select committee is simply insufficient. I join with my colleague Maryan Street in acknowledging that the Minister for the Environment has made an attempt. But we are not fooled. We know that this is not a genuine Lazarus—sorry, not Lazarus; that is probably true of this National Government—a Damascus moment where it has seen the green light. This is not a Damascus moment. This is a Paula Bennett moment. Paula Bennett has gone to Amy Adams and said: “Look, I’ve done some polling. It’s 70:30 against your stupid bill. We need an amendment. We need a fig leaf. Otherwise, I’m a goner. I’m sitting on a majority of only 20 votes.” Twenty votes—that is less than Phil Twyford canvasses before morning tea on a Saturday morning. That is why Paula Bennett is a “gone-burger”. Paula Bennett is a “gone-burger”. She will not be in this Parliament as an electorate member after the next election because of this—[Interruption] Oh, why does the member for Central Otago not stick to wilding pines? It is fine to fell wilding pines in Wakatipu. It is not fine to fell kauri trees in Titirangi. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you very much.

Hon David Cunliffe: I thought that was Jackie Blue.

JACQUI DEAN: No, not Jackie Blue

Hon David Cunliffe: Are you sure?

JACQUI DEAN: Yes, Jacqui Dean, who rises enthusiastically to speak in the Committee stage of this Resource Management Reform Bill. I have several reasons for being enthusiastic about this. [Interruption] What do we mean by 29? Oh, 29 percent in the Roy Morgan Research poll. Oh, really—29 percent in the Roy Morgan Research poll? Can that be true? Is that a reason why the Opposition is being a little bit subdued tonight—29 percent?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member might like to speak to the bill.

JACQUI DEAN: Is it 29 percent? That is extraordinary, is it not? Gosh, they must be feeling stink, really, to be—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

JACQUI DEAN: Part 1 of the Resource Management Reform Bill—there are several reasons to be wildly enthusiastic about this, and one of them is the section 32 amendments, inserted by clause 69. I just need to reflect on some council plans that have been announced in the course of the past couple of years, and, in particular, the Otago Regional Council water plan changes, which, as presented—[Interruption] You see, they yawn. The junior whip of Labour—sitting on 29 percent in the polls—just yawned because he does not understand—

Hon Tony Ryall: Did you say they were below 30 percent?

JACQUI DEAN: I think it is below 30 percent. It is actually 29 percent, for the first time—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Relevancy—the member has been warned once about relevancy.

JACQUI DEAN: This is the first time since the election—below 30 percent. Who knew? So the Labour junior whip just yawned when I mentioned the Otago Regional Council water plan, which really just highlights that the basic problem within Labour is that it does not like farmers. Labour has shown time and time again, and we have heard it tonight, that Labour does not like or support farmers. Of course, we will hear very soon from Eugenie Sage, the failed Environment Canterbury councillor, on behalf of the Green Party, who will repeat that litany of anti-farming sentiment, which, regrettably, is a very small proportion of the argument we hear these days in this Parliament.

However, on this side of the Chamber, the introduction of the changes in the section 32 amendments are great news for the farmers and the developers in my community, and in farming and agricultural communities—every community—throughout New Zealand. What it means is that now the section 32 reporting will be required to do some really good, robust analysis to underpin that decision making. Why is that important? Labour clearly does not know. Clearly, its junior whip, Chris Hipkins, does not understand why that is important, but I will tell you why that is important. It is because it impacts on people’s livelihoods. So for that reason alone the amendments to section 32 in Part 1 of the Resource Management Reform Bill make good reading. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. The Resource Management Act has always been about how we resolve conflicts in our increasingly overpopulated world between short-term economic gain, whether it is from a new subdivision or a new goldmine, and the long-term health of our environment, which supports our lives and our economy. The Resource Management Act is supposed to be about people having a say in what happens in their neighbourhoods, the places where they live and work, and the places and landscapes they care about. It is supposed to be about local democracy, about local plans, about local councils developing plans with their communities, and about the councillors being accountable through the ballot box every 3 years for the decisions they make on those plans.

Under this Government and the previous Government there have certainly been shortcomings in the way the Act has been implemented. There has been a failure to provide enough national leadership through national policy statements that are effective, and national standards. We have not had consistency around New Zealand. Regional councils have been far too slow in controlling the land uses that lead to water pollution—yes, Jacqui Dean, the intensive farming that leads to water pollution. The Resource Management Act is about providing a place and a process where we can have sensible debates about how we use nature to ensure that there are sensible controls and to ensure that we look to the needs of future generations. But this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, tramples across quite a lot of those provisions, and in my first call I would like to make some general points about why the Green Party is opposing the bill.

We are opposing it because it is promoting very speedy decisions, rather than sound decisions. It is doing that because of the much tighter and more complex deadlines that the bill is imposing—the 6-month deadline for medium-sized projects yet to be defined. It is using legislation to try to define good practice, rather than to provide guidance to councils through things like the Quality Planning website, into which the Ministry for the Environment has not invested very much in the last few years. We are also opposing the bill because it puts private property rights ahead of community benefits. It is going to reduce the amenities in our cities and towns with its attack on urban trees and by giving landowners virtually free rights to fell or severely prune trees on their land, unless the council has gone to considerable trouble and expense to identify and schedule in the plan individual trees and give them a legal description.

We are also opposing the bill because it is anti-regulation. Those are the changes in clause 69, which are the changes to the section 32 cost-benefit analysis. We think that the Government and councils need to be able to put in place strong, smart regulation to safeguard nature. But these changes to section 32, the new criteria, which look at economic growth anticipated to cease and employment anticipated to be provided or reduced, will mitigate against good rules, because the councils will be focused in their plan making on looking at the economic cost of that. That means that when we get a desire to have strong rules or strong national environmental standards, the much more easily quantifiable economic cost will mitigate against those rules being put in place.

We are also opposing the bill because of the way in which it cuts across the decision making of local authorities and reduces their roles and their responsibilities. Councils are elected to represent the wisdom of their communities, yet the changes in the bill mean that councils are far less likely to be the decision makers on important infrastructure projects. That is because of the changes around medium-sized consents and the ability for those to be called in by the Minister for the Environment. So it is not just proposals of national significance that will now be able to be called in but medium-sized proposals too. We do not even know how those are going to be defined. They will be defined by an investment threshold that is to be set in regulation. It is not in the bill. That will mean that we will have more boards of inquiry appointed by the Minister, rather than councils, making these decisions. That is a major step, yet another one, in the centralisation of power that we are seeing under this Government, rather than getting a nanny State, which National is so critical of. At least a nanny State cares. Here we are getting a command-and-control State, which is taking away the powers from local councils, overriding local democracy, and taking those powers for itself.

One of the other aspects in Part 1 that is so noxious is the attack on urban trees. Members of the Opposition know that urban trees contribute very much to the liveability of our cities and towns. They help create a sense of place and identity, they provide habitats for indigenous and introduced species, and they help reduce the heat island effect, and yet because this Government puts individual property rights ahead of community benefits, it is going to make it much harder for councils to protect our trees in our cities and towns. Indeed, it benefits the developers and the Property Council. How does it do this? It means that a council can have plan rules to protect trees—by requiring a resource consent if a landowner wants to fell them or trim them—only if it goes through and puts a schedule in the plan that individually identifies and legally describes those trees. That means that we cannot have plan rules that identify a class of trees, like coastal pōhutukawa, and have those protected. Councils like the Upper Hutt City Council have estimated that preparing the schedule would cost over $100,000 if they were to include rules in their plans to protect urban trees.

We have seen the Government introduce these changes in response to the Environment Court decision by Judge Jackson in 2009, which took a broad view of the previous changes by the Government to the Act in the simplifying and streamlining amendment, where it tried to attack urban trees as well. The Environment Court said that you could have these broad plan provisions, so what does the Government do? With this bill, it is cutting right across that. These changes once again impact on local democracy. Quite a lot of the submitters said that it should be local councils that make the decisions about which urban trees are to be protected; it should not be central government interfering and telling councils that they cannot have rules in their plans to protect urban trees unless there is a whole lot of detail attached to those provisions. This is yet another example of the Government imposing quite significant costs on local authorities. Those costs mean that these plan schedules are unlikely to be exhaustive. It means that a lot of trees will be missed out, which means that those trees will be vulnerable to being pruned or felled with impunity by landowners.

Supplementary Order Paper 282 in my name “would enable councils to use more cost effective tools to prepare plan schedules by allowing trees to be identified by a notation on an aerial photograph, GIS map layer or similar.” We would prefer not to have the provisions amending section 76 in clause 12, but the Supplementary Order Paper is an attempt at compromise, and we would like the Minister for the Environment to seriously consider it. If you have notations on an aerial photograph, the trees are still able to be accurately identified. It would be clear to both landholders and the public, but it would be potentially much less costly to councils than having to go through the scheduling process, using legal descriptions of every single tree or small group of trees.

The other thing that Supplementary Order Paper 282 does is make clear what the provisions should be around Conservation Act and Reserves Act reserves. The status of bush protection zones on Crown land is unclear in the bill, and the status of continuous vegetation, which is identified as significant in terms of section 6(c) of the Resource Management Act, is also unclear. This Supplementary Order Paper makes it clear that councils can continue to use general rules to control the clearance of significant natural areas that councils have identified where the vegetation is continuous.

We ask that the Minister seriously consider this Supplementary Order Paper, which is a compromise and which would reduce the cost to councils of preparing the schedules, otherwise councils will be burdened by quite considerable costs, and doing these schedules will be much more complex. The Government says it is all about reducing complexity, when it is not. The Supplementary Order Paper would actually help ensure that more of our urban trees are recognised and protected.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Government says that its legislation on this series of Resource Management Act reforms is designed to make the Resource Management Act easier to use, increase its certainty and predictability, and reduce unnecessary duplication and cost. At the same time, the Government claims that these proposals are designed to deliver natural environmental outcomes New Zealanders want. But that is simply not true. The underlying thrust of the Government’s approach is for greater central government intervention in planning and consent processes. This, we think, will generate a shift from an effects-based management approach to an activity-directed approach inconsistent with the central provisions of the principal Act. That is not what New Zealanders want. The Government’s whole approach is both unnecessary and retrograde.

The evidence is also quite clear to me, concerning the length of time within which consent applications must be processed, that only a tiny number of resource consent applications are declined overall. Even the Government’s own advice acknowledges that 90 percent of significant infrastructure projects successfully progress through the Resource Management Act now. The overall success rate of infrastructure projects seeking approval shows that they have a very good chance of obtaining consent.

Last year 95 percent of consent applications were processed on time. Only 1 percent were appealed to the Environment Court. Virtually all of those cases were settled without the need for an Environment Court hearing. So why are the measures such as the 6-month consenting period for small and medium-sized projects being proposed at all? The need for the 6-month limit for small and medium applications is not justified, and may mean applications will not be dealt with properly, thus defeating the purpose of the principal Act.

These changes are unlikely to deliver the Government’s stated objectives of making the system easier to use, increasing its certainty and predictability, and reducing unnecessary duplication and cost. New Zealand First would support sensible, practical measures to make administration of the Resource Management Act processes more efficient, but we cannot see how most of the Government’s proposals will do that. I wish to comment especially on the provisions enabling some projects above a threshold not so far known to go straight to the Environment Court, without an initial hearing by a local panel, which therefore limits the discretion of local authorities. It is a mistake to make it too easy for applicants to go straight to the Environment Court, for at least two good reasons. One reason is the avoidance of local submissions and input. People need a friendly and accommodating hearings process in which they can freely participate without lawyers being necessary.

The second reason is that it is not good for the applicant either. Without an initial hearing before a panel to sort out the issues and to isolate the areas where the applicant may need to do further work, the application will have less chance of success and less chance of a good final decision. This is especially so for large projects, which are difficult to consent. Many applicants in their quest for a speedy and cheap process fail to grasp that submitters in opposition can, in fact, come up with insights and ideas for conditions of consent and for dealing with issues that the applicant has not properly considered, despite all the experts they may have. I speak from long experience, having had a leading role in two major projects. One was the Kate Valley landfill project in Canterbury, which was inherently difficult to site and consent, and the second was the Central Plains Water scheme in Canterbury, which was also difficult to site and consent.

In both cases there was extraordinary public interest and concern. Both took well over 10 years and $10 million to consent. In both cases the outcome was enhanced—from the point of view both of local submitters and the promoters of the projects themselves—through a very comprehensive local hearings process. The final consents were largely negotiated through this process, rather than simply being adjudicated on by the Environment Court. In the end the court needed only to accept and confirm what the negotiations had produced.

That sort of process is good for the purposes of the Resource Management Act, which has the protection of New Zealand’s environment as the paramount consideration. Economic advantages are also important but are not paramount. As Bill Clinton said, what is good for the environment is good for business, but the reverse, of course, is not always true. So the underlying thrust of this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, is bad, which is reflected in many of its provisions. New Zealand First cannot support it, but we will support Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Papers 281, 282, and 283, which are consistent with the way the principal Act is intended to operate, and are sensible and worthwhile amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am just trying to be fair, gentlemen. I call the Hon Phil Heatley.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Tens of thousands of people in Whangarei would agree with you there with that choice. I thank you for asking me to rise and to talk about this Resource Management Reform Bill. The provisions clearly are to further improve the resource consent regime. There is a Government Supplementary Order Paper 284, as members should be aware, to split the bill into three: the Resource Management Amendment Bill, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2), and, of course, the third, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. We support this wholeheartedly.

You will be aware that during the last election campaign—which resulted in the Labour Party reaching those dizzying heights of 29 percent, which I believe it has reached again today after some time out, so I congratulate the Labour Party—we talked much about the Resource Management Act process and how we wanted to see that process work better for everyone. We wanted to see that there would be timely decisions—not necessarily a yes and not necessarily a no, but a decision made in a reasonable time frame—and that decisions were proper, followed a reasonable process, and were final. We wanted to essentially set aside the idea or concept that particularly Green Party advocates and others—because that is how they work—would consider a significant delay as the next best thing to a win. We do not think that it is right that extreme green advocacy groups such as the Green Party should decide: “If we cannot stop it, let’s delay it for 10 years.” We think that is essentially inappropriate.

This bill works with our 2009 phase one reforms, and looks forward to our phase two reforms. The bill will reduce the costs, uncertainty, and delays that have dogged the Resource Management Act for decades. Members will recall the Waterview Connection project, which, under the current Act, was a project of national significance and had a 9-month consenting time frame. That worked very, very well for that nationally significant project, and there are other opportunities as well. What this bill introduces is a 6-month consenting process for what we are calling medium-sized projects. That is actually a turn of phrase, “medium-sized projects”—I cannot recall; I know I was involved—that was developed with a considerable amount of thought and consultation with the Minister for the Environment. There are about 1,600 medium-sized projects each year, and they include all of these types of projects, all of which I think the Green Party members are opposed to.

We will just check them. Subdivisions—I believe that the Green Party wants more housing but is generally, at a local level, opposed to subdivisions. Supermarkets—I believe that the Green Party members do eat, but they are opposed to large supermarket developments, along with industrial developments and also any infrastructure projects. If they have anything to do with infrastructure, oil and gas exploration, mining, aquaculture, irrigation, supermarkets, or subdivisions, all of which the Green Party oppose, it is possible they will be medium-sized projects, which will attract the 6-month consenting process. The 6-month statutory time limit for local authorities is that time they will have to reach consent decisions, and to reduce costs, uncertainties, and delays.

At this point I would like to correct the member Eugenie Sage when she said that the Minister had the power under this legislation for medium-sized projects, subject to 6-month consenting, to call in those consents—

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to make some comments about one element in this bill, and I am talking about the provisions in the Resource Management Reform Bill that relate to the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is a large part of this bill.

Hon Amy Adams: No, that’s Part 2.

PHIL TWYFORD: Are we not allowed to talk about Part 2?

Hon Amy Adams: We’re not on Part 2. We’re on Part 1.

PHIL TWYFORD: Ah—we are on Part 1. OK, I am going to talk about trees. I am going to talk about the tree provisions in this bill, and I want to pick up where my west Auckland colleague David Cunliffe left off. He made the case very clearly that trees are very, very important to the people of west Auckland. The Waitakere Ranges are often referred to as the lungs of Auckland, and it seems that about every 18 months or so this National Government brings legislation to the House that puts the Waitakere Ranges at threat. There have been a number of examples. In fact, currently, there are two bits of legislation before this Parliament that pose a threat to the Waitakere Ranges. One of these is the Resource Management Reform Bill, which is just the latest salvo in a long-running battle between the National Government and the Environment Court and the people of Auckland. National is doing its best to take away the ability of local territorial authorities in Auckland to use tree protection measures to protect Auckland’s urban forest.

The other bill that is currently before the House is the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, which, interestingly, overrides the provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, which currently in law is supreme, and all other local and district plans have to be subject to that Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. Well, unfortunately, the way the housing accords legislation has been drafted, special housing areas have to only “take into account” enactments like the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. It is a shame that this Government does not place more value on Auckland’s urban forest. This bill is really the latest attempt to wrap up the territorial authorities in so much red tape, so much extra expense, that they simply cannot effectively protect the urban forest of Auckland.

It is not only the Waitakere Ranges out in west Auckland. Actually, the pōhutukawa-fringed coastal suburbs of the North Shore and east Auckland are affected by this measure as well. There are many sections around those coastal fringes where developers have come in over the last couple of years and bowled pōhutukawa trees—just cleared them in order to provide a better view or to make more empty space on the section. That is the outcome that the National members would like to see, because they value individual property rights over every other thing of value. Actually, that is probably the underlying ethos of this bill. It is about swinging the pendulum in favour of development, away from protecting the environment—

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Appropriations (2013/14 Estimates) Bill without amendment and progress on the Resource Management Reform Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

(continued on Thursday, 1 August 2013)

Bills

Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau is the collective name taken by 13 iwi and hapū of Tāmaki, or Auckland, a body often referred to as the Tāmaki Collective. Representatives of the collective signed a deed with the Crown on 8 September 2012 for collective redress for their shared interests in Tāmaki-makau-rau. This bill gives effect to the deed.

The deed and this bill are the product of almost 4 years of very intensive negotiation between the Crown and the iwi and hapū of Auckland. In early 2009 I approached Sir Douglas Graham to advise the Crown on Treaty settlement negotiations in the Tāmaki, Kaipara, and Hauraki regions. These were areas where, for good reason, negotiations had, effectively, stalled. In 2007 the Waitangi Tribunal described the Auckland area as having highly complex interrelationships between groups, with customary interests that are multiple and multilayered. The tribunal set a challenge for iwi and the Crown to find a way that recognised the legitimate interests of individual iwi while also recognising those layers of interest. Sir Douglas Graham proposed that the Crown deliver redress collectively, such as the volcanic cones—the maunga—of Tāmaki, where many iwi and hapū held customary interests. Cabinet agreed, and in July 2009 Sir Douglas presented the proposal to the various iwi and hapū of Tāmaki.

The subsequent agreement by the iwi and hapū to the concept of collective redress was a very significant breakthrough for negotiations. First, it allowed iwi to work together to secure the transfer of 14 of Auckland’s iconic volcanic cones to the Tāmaki Collective. The adage “strength in numbers” certainly applies here. These maunga will be held as reserves for the common benefit of the Tāmaki Collective and the people of Auckland. Public access and third-party interests over them will be protected. In this, the iwi and hapū of the Tāmaki Collective have recognised not only their customary interests but the interests of all people living in Auckland. The maunga were formerly fortified pā and villages, with their occupants having command over most of the Tāmaki isthmus. Today they are regularly used as places to visit and play on, to have picnics, and even for getting married. For Māori and non-Māori alike, they will remain a defining part of the Auckland landscape.

Second, the collective has given both the Crown and Auckland Council a representative body of tribal interests to engage with. At the heart of the settlement is the establishment of a co-governance body called the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority, or Maunga Authority. This authority is made up equally of representatives of the Tāmaki Collective and Auckland Council. Although Auckland Council will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the volcanic cones, the authority will oversee their governance. In effect, a partnership is going to be formed between Māori and the council in an arrangement that will enhance the future management and protection of these very, very important landmarks. The collective will also have a relationship agreement with the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General of Conservation on issues across the Auckland Conservancy. Three seats on the Auckland Conservation Board are reserved for the collective.

Other collective redress includes the vesting of four motu, islands, to the Tāmaki Collective: Rangitoto, Motutapu, Motuihe, and Tiritiri Mātangi. This is for a 1-month period, after which they will be vested back to the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Three areas on Rangitoto, including the summit and sites at Islington Bay, will remain in the ownership of the collective as scenic reserves. The Department of Conservation will continue to manage the summit of Rangitoto. The collective will also be involved with the Department of Conservation in the development of a management plan for the islands.

Very significantly, this bill does not settle any historical claims or provide financial redress. Rather, members of the collective will individually reach their own deeds of settlement with the Crown. The deed and bill nevertheless provide the members of the Tāmaki Collective with a right of first refusal for 172 years over Crown-owned land and certain Crown entity - owned lands that become surplus in that period. This is a very important shared benefit and is likely to provide significant long-term benefits.

I am very pleased to say that the legislation for two iwi, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, has been passed recently by this House. I am confident that settlements are within sight for other collective members, including Marutūāhu iwi, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and Ngāti Tamaoho. We are also committed to reaching settlements with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Te Ata, and Te Akitai.

The negotiations that led to this deed were far-reaching and robust. First, and most important, I want to acknowledge all the leaders of the 13 iwi and hapū of the collective. Their vision and their willingness to work together and with the Crown have enabled this ambitious redress package to proceed. In particular, I acknowledge the astute leadership and vision of the chairperson of the collective, Paul Majurey. This settlement would not have been possible without agreement and active cooperation from Auckland Council, and I want to acknowledge the vision of His Worship Auckland Mayor Len Brown and other councillors who have worked very, very hard in support of this proposal. I think this bill delivers an innovative structure through which Auckland Council can engage with the iwi and hapū of Tāmaki. It is an exciting time for Auckland.

I must also pay tribute to the city leaders who preceded the Auckland Council: again, Mr Brown for Manukau; John Banks for Auckland City; Andrew Williams for North Shore; and, of course, Sir Bob Harvey in Waitakere. I also want to thank my fellow Ministers whose departments have been involved in negotiations—in particular, the previous Minister of Conservation, the Hon Kate Wilkinson. I also acknowledge the hard-working officials in the Office of Treaty Settlements and the chief Crown negotiator Michael Dreaver—ever-optimistic, ever-energetic.

To conclude, this bill gives effect to an innovative and groundbreaking deed of redress. The package is a robust one and will serve well not only the iwi and hapū of Auckland but also the public of Auckland and the Auckland Council. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, kia ora anō tātou. Ka tahi, me mihi atu au ki a tātou i roto i te kaupapa i karangahia ai tātou kia hui mai ki konei i tēnei rā ki te āwhina atu i te whakaterenga o tēnei waka, hou mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata. Te waka e kōrero nei ahau, ā, ko te pire. Ko āna kaihoe te hia noa atu hapū e whai pānga ana ki Tāmaki-makau-rau. Nā reira, kei te mihi atu ki te hunga kua tatū mai i roto i ngā whare tātai o Tāmaki-makau-rau, tēnā koutou. Mihi nōki ki te Minita, ki a tātou katoa e hui tahi nei i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[So, greetings to us all once again. First of all, my acknowledgments to us in regards to the matter that has beckoned us to gather here today to assist the launching of this conveyance into Parliament House. The conveyance that I am referring to, of course, is the bill. Its paddlers are the vast number of subtribes that have an interest in Auckland. So I extend a welcome to those from the genealogical houses of Auckland that have arrived here. Salutations to you, collectively. I also acknowledge the Minister and all of us gathered here today. Salutations to you, greetings to us, and compliments to us all.]

We will be supporting this Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. We look forward to the inevitable submissions that come—will come, should I say—to the Māori Affairs Committee. The reason that we support it is because it is something that has been agreed to by the civic leaders of the Auckland super-city council and it is something that comes with the blessings of those who hold mandate from the large number of hapū and iwi in and around Tāmaki-makau-rau.

I also want to acknowledge the efforts of civic leaders of the past: obviously the current koromatua—the mayor—and the officials, because, although inordinate sums of money are not involved in any transfer terms within this bill, it is quite a tricky proposal. It takes some of the most iconic features of the Tāmaki-makau-rau landscape and commits them to a co-governance regime. The regime, on one hand, has to deal with the needs and uses of utility companies, not the least of which is Watercare Services, the leader of which is Mr Mark Ford, who probably spends precious time there now, given he is on a quest to resuscitate Solid Energy.

But on the Māori side it has been an arduous and long struggle. In fact, one of the most celebrated cases of the Māori Land Court to do with competing hapū and iwi interests took place in and around Tāmaki-makau-rau. I refer here to the longstanding case that pertained to the islands in the outer Hauraki Gulf, where you had applicants from Ngāti Whātua and applicants associated with Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Ngāti Wai. The Māori Land Court decisions, not unlike they do today, see-sawed. Hopefully we will not see a repetition of that.

This bill has some innovative features and some omissions. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I just intimated to him that during the select committee process we will find out the Māori names for Mount Roskill and other mountains, because no tangata whenua can want to be a steward of a maunga if they do not know the Māori name for it. That is not in this bill, so that is not good enough for me. A simple check with the Anglican Church would establish whether or not these maungas have Māori names, and, indeed, the amateur ethnographer George Graham has got an exhaustive list of all the main maunga and sites of significance that were published in the Journal of the Polynesian Society many, many years ago. Given that we are having a struggle at the moment as to whether or not our brethren in the South Island like the name Te Wai Pounamu and whether or not North Islanders like the name Te Ika-a-Māui, let us get the names right in this bill. That is something that the Māori members of the committee will endeavour to do. But that is a small matter.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s the member’s view?

Hon SHANE JONES: I will resist the temptation to find a suitable name for that member from the South Island. Rest assured it will not be “greenstone”. It may pertain to something green, but it will not be greenstone. But for fear of raising the ire of the Minister shepherding this bill through the House, I will not trivialise these matters by any further references to Nick Smith.

What I hope the select committee will focus on is what I think is an innovative set of arrangements for co-governance, in the sense that a plan needs to be drawn up, and some of the provisions in that plan have to take account of or make way for agreeable cultural activities. I say “agreeable” in the sense that I presume both sides of the governance group have to sign off on them. The bill, very wisely, identifies what some of those activities might be. It is not only, I think, some potential cultivations—there is a reference there to tangihanga. The notion of a tangihanga being on Mount Eden is, I suppose, better than all the Māoris being in Mt Eden, but that lies in the future.

The reason we will also support this bill is that where it is not possible for Māori exclusive rights to be recognised, it is only fair, I think, given the current mix of New Zealand society—and nowhere is that mix more colourful than in Tāmaki-makau-rau—that the two sides come together: i.e., the proxy for the Crown and the representatives for the tangata whenua. Presumably the tangata whenua process will run smoothly, to the extent that it can. We will test that out in the select committee as well. But a lot of these positions are actually volunteer positions, virtually, so we do not want to make them so onerous that the system breaks down because people are either not fully resourced or the level of obligation grows to the extent that it is beyond the wits or the ability of anyone operating in a largely voluntary manner. The notion that both sides should come together is, I think, a way for the future.

There will be some areas, as, indeed, there were in Ngāi Tahu, where the property rights for the pounamu were vested exclusively in the iwi, presumably with special interests for the hapū of the West Coast. Whether it is in law, that is probably what they feel. The point that needs to be made is that this is a very good model for other iwi areas, and I commend the Minister for the work that he has done there recently.

I had occasion to talk about this bill when I went to the tangihanga for Laly Paraone Haddon. Despite the negative media treatment of the former Minister Doug Graham, it was good to see him there in tow with the evergreen-looking Michael Dreaver. They came to pay their respects to the hapū for the loss of our matua, Laly Haddon. I say that only because these settlements take a great deal of time. They burn out personalities, and entire generations can pass away before you see the fruition.

The notion that these maunga will now be regarded as something where the Māori footprint is as equally important as the other stakes reflected by local government is a very happy, worthwhile day, and it deserves to be celebrated. I will tell you what—it is a heck of a lot more lively and it is a heck of a lot more positive than the words on the obelisk. The words on the monument at Maungakiekie, One Tree Hill, are from a time when it was being contemplated and looked at that our tūpuna, the mātuas of that area, were about to put their heads on the pillow and disappear for ever.

If anything, small though the numbers of some of these hapū may be, large is the opportunity for them to now influence a co-governance type of arrangement that gives good outcomes for Māori heritage and protects the interests of other stakeholders, but puts the pou whenua of identity on to the political, social, and ecological landscape of Tāmaki-makau-rau. And as the place becomes more multicultural and as the place becomes more pluralistic, this is a way of ensuring that the elements of Tainui, Ngāti Whātua, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and Manuhiri—who, to the best of my recollection, have some connections, actually, with Taranaki—have the opportunity to reflect their history and to show their fellow neighbours in Tāmaki-makau-rau that “We’re not just a bunch of Māoris. We are the kaitiaki, we are the tangata whenua, we are the descendants of the tūpuna who committed to the Treaty of Waitangi.”

This is a way of giving it a very visible and a very positive expression today. So we support the bill and look forward to it appearing in our select committee, where we will test what has happened to these Māori names. Kia ora tātou.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki, nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. E ngā rangatira huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēna koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To the local people of Tāmaki, welcome to Parliament House in readiness here, welcome. To the leading figures throughout the House, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.]

I am pleased to rise and take a call in the first reading of this bill, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. I support this bill, following on from my colleague the Hon Shane Jones. This bill represents the many hapū and iwi of the wider Tāmaki-makau-rau, each of whom have historical claims against the Crown. Because of the scale of the area under claim and the many hapū and iwi involved, it was thought best to deal with those things that all claimants had a common interest in.

In this instance, a deed has been entered into. This bill gives effect to that deed that the Crown would vest ownership in 14 iconic maunga back to the collective, and there will be a co-governance arrangement with Auckland Council and the Department of Conservation. The new body is called the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority. The Crown is going to contribute some pūtea to help with the set-up costs of this co-governance group, and the council will have day-to-day management of the long-dormant cones on behalf of Aucklanders and New Zealanders. As well, there are certain sites that are exempt, which will continue to be managed under the Department of Conservation.

Four islands are included in the redress—namely, Rangitoto, Motutapu, Motuihe, and Tiritiri Mātangi. The titles of these islands will be vested in the collective, which will then very graciously gift them back to the Crown. The summit of Rangitoto and two small waka landings will be retained by the collective. The deed of settlement also gives the collective the right of first refusal over certain right of first refusal land for the next 171 years. Basically, this means any land in Tāmaki deemed as sited on right of first refusal land must be offered back to the collective for the right of first refusal.

The best place to take in the sight of all that land is the viewing platform of the Sky Tower. You could take that up another level, because actually the best place to view the Auckland isthmus would be at the restaurant atop the Sky Tower. It is this rotating wharekai in the sky that takes in the truly wonderful beauty of the Auckland isthmus, known today as Tāmaki-makau-rau. One can imagine, if one thinks back to the day, the many villages built upon the long-dormant volcanoes, bush full of birds, and harbours and swamps full of fish and fowl. It was a utopian scene worthy of a renaissance painting. I encourage my friends across the House to visit the Sky Tower during the day, because you will be able to see what I mean. Going at night will serve no purpose, because all you will see are pretty lights. But that is basically the beauty of the Auckland isthmus.

I would like to take time now to acknowledge, as I like to try to do in all of my speeches, my own connection to my Ngati Rārua ancestor Tūpāhau and his confederate and relation Maki, who stopped by Maungakiekie, or One Tree Hill, for a while. Hine-te-Ao, who was from Maungakiekie and the Waiohua people, gave birth to Tūpāhau’s son, Korokino. His umbilical cord was buried with a sprig of a tōtara, which became the tōtara that was cut down and later replaced with a California pine atop One Tree Hill. Korokino was the father of Toa-Rangatira. Tūpāhau would return to south of Kāwhia, and there at Kiritehere he had another family with a woman of Ngāti Haumia, namely Rārua. This whakapapa links me to the very old Ngāti Awa of the far north.

It is no wonder people wanted to get to know the chief Maki. I am definitely no gun speaker of Te Reo Māori like my colleague Shane, but I would like to give my translation of Tāmaki-makau-rau: “Tāmaki”, belonging to Maki, and “makau-rau”, desired by many. So the land that belonged to Maki was desired by many. And who would not have been desirous? Picture the scene of a young Māori warrior on a brief trip to the much-heard-about Tāmaki-makau-rau. How could a visiting warrior from down in Pōneke not be impressed as he foiled his twin-hulled waka into Kohimārama, Rangitoto in silhouette, with the sun rising over the horizon? It is what we call a “melting Māori moment”.

I guarantee you that Māori boy from Pōneke would be looking for the highest chief in the pā with the most beautiful and yet tempestuous daughter. In years to come there would be some whanaunga from down around the pā back in Pōneke who would ask: “Hey, whatever happened to Tama boy?”. And the reply would be: “Didn’t you hear? He went up to Tāmaki a few years back and cracked it—got a beautiful missus, a whare with plenty of land, two fishing boats, and her old man has got a box at Eden Park.” There are plenty of stories like that within the history of the isthmus, such was the desirability of Tāmaki-makau-rau to all our Māori warriors of old.

For many people since that time of Maki, and probably before his time as well, Auckland’s desirable location, fertile soils, its birds and fish, and its picture postcard - beauty made visitors envious. That is the problem of Auckland. Even today, it is too desirous. It has $800,000 houses. No one can afford to live there. All the land is still in council hands—lands, dare I remind this House, that once were under the mana of these 13 iwi and hapū who make up this collective.

So I would like to acknowledge all of the work of the Tāmaki Collective and the officials, who have worked over many years to bring this portion of the settlement to a conclusion. I look forward to contributing within the Māori Affairs Committee and as we tautoko the passage of this bill through the House. I commend this bill. Kia ora tātou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa. Kai aku rangatira kua tae mai i Tāmaki-makau-rau, nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Pāremata. Ko tāku, he whaiwhai haere i ngā kōrero o ētahi o ngā mema, tae atu ki te Minita. Ki a koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā, haere mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou.

Hara mai me ngā mate o te wā kāinga kua tatū mai ai ki roto i ngā pakitara o te Whare nei, kia honoa ā-wairua rātau, tētahi ki tētahi, a tātau mate i te rā nei i te mea, kāre e kore pēnei i ētahi o ngā whakataunga kerēme, ko ētahi kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi, ko te hunga nā rātau anō rā tēnei kaupapa i āki i te wā i a rātau, ā, tae rā anō ki tēnei wā. Nō reira, koinei au e tū ake ki te kī atu, haere mai me ngā mate o te wā, kia tangihia e tātau i te rā nei. Waiho rātau kia moe, anei koutou kua tae mai ngā uri o rātau mā, Tāmaki nui, Tāmaki herenga waka, Tāmaki-makau-rau te pai, me te whai rawa o Tāmaki-makau-rau, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Otirā, wā tātau mema Pāremata i te rā nei, me mihi anō rā ki te Minita nā runga i te mea, ko ia tērā e āki nei i ngā kerēme kia eke ki te taumata e tika ana. Kai te Hōnore Minita, tēnā koe, mōrena.

Kāti, ki a koutou ngā uri kua tae mai i tēnei rā, koinei te tū ake o te Pāti Māori ki te tuku i ngā mihi ki a koutou ngā uri o rātau mā ngā tai ki Tāmaki-makau-rau—Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, te taha ki a au ki a Waikato anō hoki, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Te Akitai o Waiōhua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Te Patukirikiri, tae rā anō ki Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, haere mai.

Me te kī anō hoki, kāre te Minita i konei i tēnei rā, kua raruraru te Minita ēngari, i kī mai ki a au: “Te Ururoa, me tuku i ngā mihi ki te hunga ka tae mai ki te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei.” Koinei te tuku atu i tērā mihi, e Tame, ki a koutou katoa.

Ki taku mōhio i hui koutou, me kī, ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki te tihi o Pūkawa i te Mahuru o te tau kua hipa ake nei. I reira koutou i whakaaetia atu ai kia whakakao mai i ngā take Tiriti katoa i raro i te marumaru o te mea kotahi. E hoa mā, he mea nui tērā ki te whakakao mai i ngā momo hiahia o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi, ki raro i te korowai o te mea kotahi. Arā anō tēnā me ōna hiahia, arā anō tērā me ōna wawata ki te whakakao mai, ki te whakakotahi mai, kia tae mai ki te tēpu o te Minita, he mea nui tērā, ka mihi rā ki a koutou katoa mō tērā āhuatanga. He tauira tērā mō te motu. He tauira nui tērā mō te motu i te mea, ko te nuinga o ētahi kerēme kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, kua puta mai me ngā raruraru nui, ngā tohe nui, ngā pakanga nui i ngā tau i mua noa atu. Kāre au i te mōhio mēnā i pērā rawa ki a koutou ēngari, i tōna mutunga mai kua whakakotahi mai i te rā nei. He mea nui tērā ki a au.

Ki taku mōhio, ko tētahi kaupapa nui i roto i tēnei pire, me kī, ko te whakahokinga mai o te mana o ngā wāhi tapu, o ngā wāhi o roto i te tāone nui o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki raro i te mana i tōna mutunga mai, i tōna tīmatanga mai, me kī, o roto i a tātau o Te Ao Māori. He mea nui tērā ngā ingoa o ō tātau tūpuna, o ō tātau mātua. I te wā i a rātau, e ai ki ngā kōrero, ka puta mai ngā ingoa nā runga i te āhuatanga o te taiao—a nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā aituā, te whānautanga mai, te reka rānei o te rongo i tētahi kakara, te hōhonu rānei o te wai, tētahi aituā i pā mai, tētahi tohe pea, tētahi pakanga nui pea. Koinei te āhuatanga o ngā ingoa katoa o te motu. He tohu tērā mō te āhuatanga o ā tātau noho ki te mata o te whenua. Nō reira, e tautoko ana i tērā āhuatanga katoa i whaiwhaitia haeretia e koutou kia hoki rā anō ki ngā ingoa o ngā tūpuna, ki ngā ingoa taketake o roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau hei tauira mō te motu. Mēnā ka taea ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau, ka taea i te mata o te whenua. Nō reira, ka mihi ki tērā āhuatanga. Tērā, tērā.

E ai ki tāku e mōhio nei i te mea, i haere au ki tētahi whare wānanga pai i ētahi wā, ko te Whare Wānanga o Tāmaki-makau-rau. He tauira pai ahau i roto i tērā whare wānanga, Ko tētahi o aku whāinga ko te anthropology me taku kore mōhio he aha tēnei mea ko te anthropology i te wā i a au i te whare wānanga. Ka tae atu ki mua i te aroaro o ngā tohunga ki tērā āhuatanga, ki ngā mea pēnei i a Roger Green. Koia aku mōhio ki tērā momo tangata, ā, ko tāna mahi he heri haere i ngā tauira ki te kite atu, ki te kite mai i te āhuatanga o te noho o te Māori i ngā rā o nehe. I tētahi haerenga i haere atu au ki runga o Motutapu, me te kī atu, kātahi te wāhi nei. Ko te tangata tēnei o roto o Rotorua, kāre i paku puta i te tāone rā, ā, kātahi ka tae ki Motutapu, me tana heri haere i a mātau ngā tauira ki ngā wāhi ka kite atu. Koinei te nohonga o ngā mātua tūpuna i tērā wā, me te ohorere, ā, i pērā rawa te āhuatanga o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna. Nō reira, ki taku mōhio, i ngā rā o nehe tīmata mai ai i Motutapu, ā, kei te mōhio tonu koutou ko te āhuatanga o Motutapu i hū mai, ā, ka puta ko Rangitoto. Ā, ki reira i whai wāhi ai a Te Arawa ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o Tāmaki-makau-rau, i whai wāhi a Te Arawa nā runga i te āhuatanga o te rangi i tōngia a Tamatekapua. Ko taku tipuna tērā ki te taha o tōku whāea. Kāre i te mōhio mēnā i waihotia ake tētahi pānga whenua ki a Te Arawa, kāre rānei ēngari, kai reira tonu te ingoa. He mea nui tērā i roto i ngā kōrero o ngā mātua o ngā tūpuna. Nō reira, tēnei te uri o Te Arawa e mihi atu ana ki a koutou kua tatū mai. Ki taku mōhio i tae atu te waka o Te Arawa ki Te Ika-a-Māui, ā, ka whaiwhai haere i te takutai kia eke atu rā, mai i Whangaparaoa i te tai rāwhiti, ā, tae rā anō ki Waitematā. I a rātau e haere ana, i reira te tohunga nei a Ngātoroirangi, anā ka riro māna e taunahanaha haere ngā wāhi whenua, mai i te Whangaparaoa, ā, tae rā anō ki tērā taha ki Waitematā. I a rātau e haere ana, ka pā atu ki ētahi wāhi i runga i tērā huarahi, ka whakatata atu ai ki ētahi huarahi.

Ā, kai te mōhio pea koutou i tētahi wā i eke atu te waka o Te Arawa, Tamatekapua te tangata, ka kite atu i a Hoturoa o te waka o Tainui, ka tipu ake te raruraru. Nā te aha? Nā ngā mahi pūremu pea a Tamatekapua, ngā mahi tinihanga a Tamatekapua ki ngā wāhine. He tohunga tērā tangata ki te āhuatanga o te whaiwhai haere i ngā wāhine. Ka mutu i tohe, i pakanga a Tamatekapua rāua ko Hoturoa, ā, nā wai rā, nā wai rā, ka puta te ingoa Rangitoto. Nō reira, e ai ki ngā kōrero ko te rangi i tōtōngia a Tamatekapua, arā, koinei te āhuatanga o te hononga, te pānga atu ki tērā o ngā whenua. E 67 tau i ngā rā ō mua i te tau 1946, i konei i te Whare Pāremata nei, a Eruera Tirikātene, te koroua o tēnei nā, he mema Pāremata mō Te Tai Tonga. I roto ia i tēnei Whare. Ko ia te tangata i whakatau ai kia hangai tēnei rōpū te New Zealand Geographic Board. I roto i tērā ture ka whakatau mai a ia kia whakaritea he rōpū whakatikatika i ngā ingoa o te whenua nei. Hei whakapākehā atu ki a koe—

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to us all, the House. Welcome to my esteemed elders who have arrived here from Auckland, welcome to Parliament House. My part is merely to follow up the sentiments expressed by some members as well as those by the Minister. Welcome to those of you who have arrived here on this day, welcome, greetings.

Bring forth your deaths from back home inside the walls of this House, so they can be connected spiritually again today, all of our deceased, because as with other settlements some of them no doubt are no longer seen and have passed away. In their time they drove this matter forward right up to this moment. Hence the reason for standing before you and saying come forth with your deaths of the moment for us to mourn today. Let them rest. You, their relatives of Tāmaki the great, Tāmaki, the resting place of many canoes, Tāmaki of 100 fine spouses, and much wealth has arrived here, so greetings, salutations and acknowledgments to you all.

I acknowledge our members of Parliament today, too, especially the Minister, as he is the one urging the claims along to get the desired outcome. Honourable Minister, thank you and good morning. And so to you the descendants who have arrived here today, I rise on behalf of the Māori Party to extend greetings to you relatives of those connected to Tāmaki-makau-rau—namely, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, my connection and to Waikato, as well, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua of Ōrākei, Te Akitai of Waiōhua, Te Kawerau of Maki, Te Patukirikiri, and eventually to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, welcome.

I should add that the Minister was unable to be here today but he said to me: “Te Ururoa, give my regards to the ones who arrive at Parliament House today.” And so I express that sentiment to you, Tame, and to you all.

I understand that you, let us say, the local tribes of Tāmaki-makau-rau, met at the summit of Pūkawa in September last year. At that meeting you agreed to gather all Treaty matters together and put them under the one umbrella. Friends, gathering up all kinds of aspirations from each tribe and putting them all under the cloak of a single entity is a huge undertaking. Each tribe would have needs and aspirations of their own but then these would have to be gathered and together when it arrives on the Minister’s table. That is a huge undertaking. All of you are to be applauded for that. It is an example for the country. It is a great model for the country because from the majority of some claims that have arrived in Parliament have emerged huge problems, disputes, and battles from years that go back to a very long time. I do not know whether it was like that with you, but ultimately it has come together as one today. That is a significant thing for me.

I understand that a major feature in this bill is the return of total control over burial places and places within Auckland City to us of Māoridom. The names of our ancestors and forefathers are important. In their time, according to what has been stated, names emerged due to the circumstances of an event that occurred around them—tragedies, births, pleasant experiences, water depth misjudged, an accident, a dispute, a major battle perhaps. This is the situation that relates to all place names across the nation. It signifies the way we live our lives. So I totally support that intent of yours to go back to the original place names of Auckland as a model for the whole country. If it is possible in Auckland, then it can be done throughout the country. So I commend that initiative. That is that matter.

I have an idea of what is disclosed here, having attended a very good university most of the time, and that was the University of Auckland. I was a good student at that university. One of my pursuits while I was at university was anthropology without knowing what this anthropology thing was about. I came before experts in that field like Roger Green. That is how I got to know a person of that ilk, whose job it was to take students to visit and view sites that showed how Māori lived in ancient times. On one of these trips, I climbed Motutapu and it was an amazing place. This was a person from Rotorua who had never ventured out of that town and had finally made it to Motutapu, and who was being taken with other students beside him to sites that I could see before me. So these are the sites that ancestral forefathers occupied in that period. The way the forefathers and ancestors lived then surprised me.

So my understanding of those ancient times begins at Motutapu and you are totally aware that Motutapu erupted and Rangitoto resulted and Te Arawa became involved in the history of Auckland due to the day that Tamatekapua’s nose was bloodied. That person is an ancestor of mine on my mother’s side. It is not known whether an interest of land was actually handed down to Te Arawa or not at all, but, that aside, the name is still there. In terms of historical records relating to forefathers and ancestors, that has significance. Therefore, this descendant of Te Arawa is recognising you who have arrived here. I understand the Te Arawa canoe got to the North Island, followed the coastline to Whangaparāoa, on the east, and went across as far as Waitematā, to the west. As they were travelling, this priest Ngātoroirangi was present and so it was left to him to claim sections of land as they went from Whangaparāoa through to Waitematā, by naming them. As they were travelling along, they came into contact with some places on that route and closed in on some routes.

You might be aware of a time when the Te Arawa skippered by Tamatekapua came to shore and he spotted Hoturoa of the Tainui canoe and a problem brewed up. Why? Perhaps it was because of Tamatekapua’s adulterous actions or because he seduced and cheated women. Tamatekapua had a reputation for chasing after women. Eventually there was an exchange of words and a fight between the two broke out and it was during this exchange of blows that the name of Rangitoto emerged. So according to accounts it was the day when Tamatekapua was bloodied. That is my connection and contact to that one of the lands. It was 67 years ago, in 1946, that Eruera Tirikātene, grandfather to that one there, was here in this Parliament as a member for Southern Māori. He was here in this House. He legislated the creation of the entity the New Zealand Geographic Board. His recommendation in that legislation was to have a panel to amend the place names of this country. I will address you in English.]

In Sir Eruera Tirikatene’s kōrero in this House he pleaded to his fellow parliamentarians that correcting Māori place names would restore some of the historic background in the original names and would enable the younger generation to understand something of the Māori names. Koinei au e mihi nei ki a rātau katoa mō tērā āhuatanga kei roto i tēnei pire. Hei whakakōpani, me mihi rā ki a koutou o roto i te rōpū o Ngāti Whātua, pēnei i ngā mea o roto o Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, o Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, o Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. Ko koutou te hunga i āta wetewete nei i ngā take. Ka mihi ki a koutou o Ngāti Marutūahu. Tēnā koutou katoa i whai pānga anō rā ki roto i tēnei whiriwhiringa. Waiōhua, ka mihi rā anō hoki ki koutou katoa tae rā anō ki ngā mihi ki te Kīngi Māori, me te Kauhanganui. I whai wāhi anō hoki rātau ki roto i ngā whiriwhiringa, ka mutu, e ai ki taku mōhio, ka hoki te mana kōrero o ngā maunga tekau mā whā ki roto i ngā ringaringa o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki a koutou. He mea nui tērā ki roto i tēnei pire, me te mihi anō rā i te mea, ko ēnei āhuatanga he tauira mo te motu.

Kāre he mea i tua atu o tērā. Ko tāku, he mihi kau atu ki a koutou, me te mōhio anō hoki, ā, e rua, e toru pea ngā wāhanga kei mua i te aroaro kia tatū noa, kia whakakōhatutia ki roto i te ture. Ko tāku noa ake, he wāhi i te kōrero mō te taha ki a mātau o te Pāti Māori. Kai aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau e te Whare.

[This is why I am commending them all for having that aspect in this bill. In conclusion I must congratulate those of you of the Ngāti Whātua collective, like these ones of Ngāti Whātua of Ōrākei, of Ngāti Whātua of Kaipara, of the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. You are the ones who actually scrutinised matters. I acknowledge those of you of Ngāti Marutūahu. Well done to all of you who have participated once again in this negotiation process, and to all of you Waiōhua, too, including the Māori King and the Governing Council. They participated in the negotiations, and, as I understand it, ownership of the 14 mountains, which is currently in Auckland hands, is being returned to you. That is a thing of huge significance in this bill, and I congratulate you once again because these are examples for the nation.

There is nothing more beyond that. My part is simply to applaud you knowing full well, too, that there are just two and three parts perhaps ahead when it is settled and passed into law. My contribution has merely been to open the dialogue on behalf of the Māori Party. To my elders, greeting, salutations, and congratulations to you, and my appreciation to us all, the House.]

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kei te mihi nui ki a koutou. I am pleased to stand for the Greens to make a brief call to speak in support of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. When I first read the bill my thoughts went to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I was not sure whether to envy its members the work they have ahead of them or to feel sorry for them for the work they have ahead of them. This bill is unique, in my experience, and I suspect it is unique in many ways. It does break new grounds. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations referred to it as being an ambitious piece of legislation, and it is ambitious in a good way. I think that the challenge for the select committee members will be to navigate their way through the submissions, through the many, many interests that will be expressed, and the many parties who will take an interest in this legislation, and to get an outcome that is satisfactory for everyone. I certainly, in a sense, envy them because it will be, I think, a fascinating process to hear the submissions, to hear from the various interest groups. But also, because of its complexity and because it is novel, I think there is the potential for things to go horribly wrong, but I am sure the committee will guide the process and get a satisfactory outcome for everyone. We certainly will be supportive of that outcome anyway.

I think that the reason why this bill will attract a great deal of attention is the level of attachment to the various landscape features. The maunga, the motu, the land, and the waterways around Auckland, around Tāmaki-makau-rau, carry a considerable burden of attachment not only for Māori but for Pākehā New Zealanders, Pākehā Aucklanders, and all of the other extraordinarily diverse and interesting cultural mix that now makes up Auckland’s population. For that reason I think the level of attachment to the maunga and to the various other landscape features does make this somewhat fraught, as I have said. That level of attachment could easily roll over into distrust, suspicion, and a concern that the outcomes will not be ideal, and that is something the select committee will need to deal with.

One of the great strengths of this legislation is that it talks about co-governance, so that all the people around the table—all the members of this collective, Māori, Auckland Council, and the Crown representatives—are working at a strategic level. They will be making the key decisions about the future of this landscape and of these places. It is not just co-management. Not to decry the value and different contexts of a co-management model, but this is a co-governance model that is being talked about. All of the various parties—the 13 rōpū who make up the collective from the Māori side, the council, the Crown through the Department of Conservation, and other agencies—are the governors of this land. That will carry a considerable burden of responsibility, but also provide an opportunity to make it better, to reveal the richness and the complexity of that landscape, and the interactions that human beings have had with it over time. That is going to be something that will be an extraordinarily interesting set of developments, both for the participants at the legal level, at the legislative level, and indeed for the people of Auckland, as we progress through.

There is considerable scope within the legislation and within this model of co-governance for having this collective act with authority and with responsibility for the maunga in particular. We only have to look at Maungauika or North Head as an example of what can be done in terms of bringing alive both the ancient and the modern history of a place—the work that the Department of Conservation has done in revealing and interpreting the Māori history, the pre-European history, and then, of course, the extraordinarily interesting military history of North Head, with the restoration of the old fort bringing people on to that mountain, and opening their eyes to both its historic and contemporary significance. There is considerable opportunity under this model for the richness of the other sites identified in it to be revealed over time, to be brought to Aucklanders, and to open people’s eyes to what has happened there. I think that will make Auckland a better place, a more interesting place, and it potentially will even enhance that attachment that Aucklanders feel to this extraordinary landscape and everything within it.

In terms of the islands, there is Rangitoto, of course. If there is a single iconic symbol of Auckland it would have to be that mountain, that island. Put aside the Sky Tower and the harbour bridge; all of those things will come and go. But Rangitoto is probably the single identifying motif for the Auckland area, for Tāmaki-makau-rau, to the extent that the management, the governance, of that island will be affected by this bill. I think there will be a level of concern about that, and we hope that the select committee and the people will inform themselves about the positive potential. Similarly with Tiritiri Mātangi Island there has been an extraordinary investment of people’s time, money, and energy, and considerable emotional investment in converting that island from a basically degraded pastureland with a few ramshackle buildings to what would have to be one of the jewels in the crown of the conservation estate, restoring the vegetation and the natural ecosystems on that. I was privileged to be on Tiritiri Mātangi Island on the day that the tuatara were returned a number of years ago. Tuatara were brought back to that island as a secure place for them to breed and to continue.

So there is this history of engagement, of involvement, and of emotional attachment to many of the sites that are dealt with in this bill. It will be a major challenge for this governance authority, for this collective group, to make sure that the people of Auckland do feel engaged with the future development and use of these sites, which are important to all of us. It will be a complex task. I do not think we should underestimate how complex it will be. There are historic and existing relationships between the members, the Māori rōpū who make up this collective; there is the council interest of course, which seeks to represent now something like a million people; there will be the Crown interest—and all of these multiple layers of relationships will not be easy to navigate. I think it will be a major challenge and an opportunity for the collective to ensure that we do get the preferred outcomes.

Essentially, one of the key ingredients to getting good outcomes will be time—simply allowing decisions to be made at a pace and in a way that does not scare the horses, that does not give people concern that their Auckland is being taken away from them. I come back to the point that I believe that with the potential within this legislation and the governance body that will come out of it, there is an opportunity to really enrich people’s experience, both people who live in Auckland and those who are fortunate enough to visit it.

That is probably as much as I need to say. This is an ambitious piece of legislation, and I add my congratulations to the people who conceived it and to those who have done the work to bring it to this point. I wish the select committee well in its deliberations. They will be difficult but this will be an extraordinarily interesting piece of work it has before it. I wish it well in getting a good outcome for that. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi, kei a koutou e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou. Ā, tēnā koutou i a koutou haere mai nei i tēnei rā mō tō koutou pire hou, mō tō koutou raruraru i a mātou te Karauna. Nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

[The first thing, my leaders, is acknowledgments to you, collectively. Greetings to you who have come here in respect of your new bill and the problem you have caused us, the Crown. So, huge greetings to you all.]

Where to start? First of all, as a long-time resident of Auckland, again I say thank you to Ngāti Whātua for allowing me to stay both in Ōtara and in Te Atatū peninsula.

Like my colleague from the Greens, David Clendon, has said, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill is quite a unique piece of legislation in the fact that it allows for co-governance. We see more and more, when we are doing Treaty bills, that there is a move to co-governance and co-management. I think that is a good thing. I think that is a world-beater. It is one of the reasons why I think this country can hold its head up high in terms of the work it does in trying to work with indigenous people. We have not got it completely right, but I think we do lead the way in our thought process on indigenous issues.

There are a couple of funny things about this bill. In 2006 it was signed off. An agreement was signed in principle between Ngāti Whātua o Ōrakei and the Crown. Then, as is most probably typical in Māoridom, a few iwi got their noses out of joint.

Hon Shane Jones: Who were they? Who were they? The Māori Party. The Māori Party.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, I am not going to say who they were. But I think that actually led to a better agreement than the 2006 one-off. So now we have 13 iwi who have put their hands up and wanted to be part of a collective co-governance regime over maunga and motu.

Let me say to the House and also to the folk in the gallery that there is one maunga that I have a particular interest in, and it is not Mount Eden. It is Maungarei in Mount Wellington and my involvement, and I am sure many people’s involvement, in the Kōkiri training centre in Maungarei. To all of those people who have been involved in the Kōkiri training centre at Maungarei, my hat goes off to them, right from the first day until the last day. My hat is certainly doffed to all of those people involved in the centre for their work.

I cannot wait to get on the road with my colleagues from the Māori Affairs Committee and to come and listen to the submissions. I think it is important that the home folk of this bill—the 13 iwi—make sure that they make submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee. Wherever you go, and when you talk to taxi drivers and you talk to people on the street about this issue, they will say: “Those blinking Māoris are going to get the mountains. Those blinking Māoris are going to get the islands in the Hauraki Gulf.” It is up to us and it is up to you to start educating the rest of Tāmaki and the rest of the country in terms of what is actually involved here. If you talk about co-governance and you talk about the way things are going to pan out, people actually start to take ownership of it and quite like the idea that there is co-governance, that there is co-management, and that there is basically joint ownership of the taonga that they see every day and every night.

Lastly, can I say about Tāmaki that my vision when you look at Tāmaki is Rangitoto. It is not the Sky Tower; it is Rangitoto. I want to say to the home folk that we must always have Rangitoto in our minds when we are looking at Tāmaki. It is the most beautiful sight in the world, and we have got it right here in Tāmaki. Again, I cannot wait to get on the road with my colleagues on our select committee to listen to some of the stories, some of the reasons, behind this settlement. I suppose it is just another tick in the box of our Government and our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in terms of, I think, our determination to settle as many of these grievances as possible in the shortest possible space of time. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am pleased to be able to take a brief call in the first reading of this bill, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. I want to mihi to all the iwi who have been identified as members of this collective redress, and I want to, more specifically, go to some of the detail of the bill, which I will be raising in the select committee, because at the end of the day our role as the Māori Affairs Committee will be to put under some scrutiny the ambitions of the deed and the aspects of how the legislation relates to that.

Firstly, I do want to question officials further around the issues of how the co-governance model operates and what the relationship of that body will be with regard to the Auckland Council, or the super-city council. One would consider that if all the volcanic cones, all the maunga, are managed in a collective way to be able to reflect in part the relationship of those iwi with those maunga but for the greater purposes of public use, then you would want to know that there is a deliberate connect with Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development, for example, in Auckland, because it is there to promote Auckland as a super-city, and it is there to ensure that tourism based on the natural features and those aspects can be achieved in a very comprehensive way. I just want to ask whether there is a formal relationship of the co-governance group with the way in which Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development develops its plans and its aspirations for improving tourism in the isthmus.

Secondly, and more specifically, is in relation to Part 4 and schedule 5 of the bill, which are all the provisions around the rights of first refusal. There is a level of detail around the time frames in which rights of first refusal provisions can take place—a 40-day period, roughly—and if hindsight is anything to go by, this whole mechanism is still a bit clunky. I can say that from, certainly, our iwi’s perspective, which is that the rights of first refusal mechanism does not operate as smoothly as it could and that it should be reviewed as a matter of course. So I want to pursue in more detail how these provisions apply, whether they will actually achieve what they are intended to achieve, and whether the time frames are realistic in terms of enabling a transfer.

Also, there are a number of Crown lands identified that can be transferred at some point or another to respective iwi or to some authorities. I would like to pursue whether or not it is an “all in” or a “some in” type of approach towards the Crown assets. I am sure that the officials will be able to help, certainly, my thinking and clarity in that respect.

I am aware that certainly iwi with Waikato connections are pursuing their individual and specific claims, and I want to in some part commend Michael Dreaver for starting with where people can agree, and realising the huge task before him, which will be going to the more specific. I need only point out the Waikato iwi who are included here: Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Ngāti Te Ata, and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. These will all have very distinct interests within the isthmus. Boundary issues will be a challenge—to work that out. More specifically, because it is the Auckland isthmus, there will be a fusing, I think, of some historical claims with some contemporary claims.

So how the approach to that will take place going forward, although it is not under the direct purview of this particular bill, is of some interest, I would expect, to members of the Māori Affairs Committee as to how there will be scope for those individual iwi to be able to achieve their specific claims. We should pursue this with a level of vigour that enables a good, healthy opportunity for specific claims to be able to leverage off what is in here—for example, the transfer of rights of first refusal lands to more specific, identified iwi I think might be one area where there is crossover.

I have grown up for some of my life in Auckland. I was born there and lived there until I was about 5. I got towed around by my parents to all sorts of places. We spent a lot of time in Māngere, by Māngere Mountain at the place of old Bob Kerr, who used to then be at the university where my father was studying. We learnt a lot about the history in that part of Auckland and certainly in Ngāti Te Ata’s footprints around Matukutureia, around the stonefields there: Te Akitai, Pūkaki, and around the airport. So I have some affinity with the need to ensure that the boundary issues are relatively well sorted out here.

As a young child growing up and having the honour of listening to some of the old people whom I can recollect from that time, I say that they were very clear about whose interests were within Tāmaki, now that it has been kind of fused together. But naming is an important thing and I want to pick up on the point raised by Rino, Te Ururoa, and Shane: if we have nothing else as Māori to stake our claim, naming becomes very important. And who can whakapapa to the names in the rohe will often tell you who has mana whenua status. Without throwing all the balls in the air here on this issue, I thought it was interesting too that some of the maunga did not have the Māori names set out. Again this will be a question for the officials and perhaps it may be clarified in the submissions as to why this did not take place, but it is of certain note that this type of omission has taken place.

Another point to raise is really to paraphrase again what the Minister said: this bill does not address all the historical claims in the isthmus and it does not provide the level of redress that this House has been used to when debating Treaty settlements. However, it does provide scope, and it provides scope for a collective of iwi and their significance in the biggest city of New Zealand to find a way of working together around some common interests, and for that I commend the Office of Treaty Settlements, I commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and I commend Michael Dreaver and his team for bringing this bill to the House.

I was at the signing for the bill and I heard all the side stories. But what I was more interested in was that people had the fortitude and the foresight to be able to identify the things that they can agree on. In this day and age, certainly in Auckland, and certainly with regard to the way in which Treaty settlements are quickly evolving, I think this will provide a good lot of scope, certainly in the area of tourism and certainly in the area of preservation of natural features within the Tāmaki isthmus to be protected, to be utilised, to be enhanced, and also to leverage what Auckland City has to offer to many people who are visiting and living in the city.

So again I am looking forward to the bill coming to the select committee. I am looking forward to the submissions, and I hope we have a robust number of submissions that can clarify some of the questions that are swirling around and have been presented to the House today. When it comes to the second reading speech, perhaps I will be in a position where I can answer some of the questions that I have brought to the House today. Tēnā koutou.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is a privilege to speak on this, the first reading of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. It is a bill that will give effect to the deed of settlement that was signed by the Crown and the Tāmaki Collective. The Tāmaki-makau-rau region represents around one-quarter of all remaining settlements, and it is an area of complex and overlapping claims with many shared interests. I think Ms Mahuta expressed quite clearly what are some of the issues that are pertaining to this bill. Certainly, I am proud as the MP for Maungakiekie to represent a number of peoples within the Tāmaki-makau-rau area, particularly in the isthmus. But I must say I do depart from my colleagues in terms of the iconic feature in Tāmaki-makau-rau. In my view, it is clearly Maungakiekie. It is through no interest or bias in representing the area, but it is certainly one of those iconic pieces of landscape that is recognisable to all New Zealanders.

The collective approach recognises that iwi and hapū intersecting their interests would not be possible under any other approach. A number of iwi and hapū have settled their individual claims. We saw that last November with the legislation to recognise Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei, who are my local iwi, as well as Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. This bill, as has already been stated, provides for the collective redress shared by these groups over the maunga and motu. As such, it forms part of the comprehensive redress, which comprises individual claimant group’s particular settlements. The vesting of those 14 maunga in the Tāmaki Collective is on the condition that they are held in trust for the common benefit of iwi, hapū, the Tāmaki Collective, and the people of Auckland. That will be vested as a reserve and have public access—that is a critical point—and third-party interests will be protected. That is something the local people in Maungakiekie are keen to maintain, and this bill certainly supports that. The bill establishes, as has already been stated, a co-governance regime between the Tāmaki Collective and Auckland Council, with representatives from both and a temporary Crown representative for the initial establishment period.

This is a bill that certainly has wide support across this House. It is a bill to be commended. I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Office of Treaty Settlements for the hard work they have put in to bring this to bear. One of the consequences of this bill, I think, is we will see replanting on Maungakiekie, which is another point, I think, that people—certainly in the area of Maungakiekie—look forward to. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill.

There is a well-known saying associated with these hapū: Ka tuwhera a Maungaharuru, ka kati a Tangitū. Ka tuwhera a Tangitū, ka kati a Maungaharuru. When the season of Maungaharuru opens, the season of Tangitū closes. When the season of Tangitū opens, the season of Maungaharuru closes. It is a proverb that describes the enduring relationship between these hapū and their rohe and their status as tangata whenua and kaitiaki of the natural resources of their area. This bill is the culmination of several years’ work on the part of the hapū involved and represented in the gallery today. It is intended to settle all remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū. The negotiations, as one would expect, have been hard fought, and have included some tough conversations at times, but resolution has been reached, the deed of settlement signed, and the hapū, I am sure, can look forward to a better future.

I want to begin by acknowledging the hard work, the commitment, and the perseverance on the part of the hapū negotiators, especially Bevan Taylor and Tania Hopmans, and the support provided to Bevan and Tania by Heitia Hīha and Fred Reti, and many others at Tāngoio Marae. I acknowledge those who have passed on without having seen the fruits of their labours, as sadly so often happens in Treaty settlement negotiations. Most important, I acknowledge the Waitangi Tribunal claimants who have carried the claims of their tīpuna and those who have suffered because of actions or omissions of the Crown.

The claims of the hapū relate primarily to war, raupatu, and Crown land-purchasing methods that left the hapū virtually landless by 1930. The Crown purchased large areas of land from the hapū in the 1850s and 1860s without ensuring that the hapū would always retain adequate reserves in their rohe. In October 1866, the Crown’s military forces unjustly attacked Māori at Ōmarunui and Pētane, and began to treat the hapū as rebels. Some hapū individuals were detained without trial for nearly 2 years on the Chatham Islands, and after they escaped they became embroiled in a war with the Crown, during which Crown forces summarily executed some prisoners at Ngātapa in 1869.

The Crown confiscated hapū land at Tāngoio North and awarded their land at Kaiwaka to one of its allies, who was not a member of the hapū. The Crown’s confiscation process led to the extinguishment of the hapū’s customary titles to nearly all of their other land. The Crown did agree in 1870 to grant this other land to individual members of the hapū and also agreed that this land would be inalienable. However, between 1911 and 1930 the Crown unfairly and oppressively purchased nearly all of this land and, as I said, left the hapū virtually landless.

Since the 1880s, deforestation and development of pastoral farming has significantly increased erosion and pollution in the takiwā. The health of Lake Tūtira has dramatically deteriorated, and the hapū have lost significant fisheries both here and along the coastline. Over the years many hapū family lines died out due to infectious diseases and diseases of poverty, such as typhoid and tuberculosis. Although living conditions and Crown health services have improved since 1945, there continues to be a substantial disparity between the health of hapū members and other New Zealanders.

The Crown failed actively to protect the hapū from the degradations of war, the alienation of their land, and the effect of native land laws. The hapū were not able to retain their land, maintain it economically, or prevent its deterioration. Their health has suffered from the effects of poverty and disease. So today we begin to address the grievances of the past and move with these hapū into the future. I want to acknowledge the newly established governance entity, and I certainly wish the trustees well in their representation of the iwi now and in the post-settlement era. I am sure they are going to take up their new challenge with great enthusiasm.

This settlement is the basis of a new relationship between the people of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū and the Crown, based on mutual trust, cooperation, and respect for the principles of the Treaty. I am very much looking forward to Mr Henare and his team at the Māori Affairs Committee dealing with this bill and returning it to the House. There are three bills being debated today, and he has the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill as well to deal with, so it is a very busy committee. They are fine members of Parliament who work together well for the benefit of all iwi, and I am sure that in his customary, exemplary manner, Mr Henare will ensure that this bill is progressed through the select committee and returned to the House very quickly.

I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Shane Jones: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Shane Jones. Tēnā koe.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Technically, you are Mr Assistant Speaker, but, with the augustness of the position, I thoroughly enjoy regarding you as Mr Speaker. Given that you have more than a passing level of interest in what has happened in Tāmaki-makau-rau, we now move to another part of Aotearoa.

Ēngari, i te tuatahi me mihi atu ahau ki te whānau i roto i tēnā pito o Aotearoa kua tae mai ki waenga tonu i a mātou ngā kaitōrangapū, ēngari rawa mātou ngā kanohi Māori, ā, tēnā koutou. E kara, e Bevan, tēnei anō te mihi atu ki a koe. Ka mahara atu au i ō koutou mātua te wā i a Wī, i a padre Huata, i a Mackie, i a Scott, i ēnā kaumātua katoa kua riro ki te pō. Kua riro ko koutou hei pīkau, hei whakatutuki i ēnei mahi i waiho mai e rātou hei ‘hakatutuki mā tēnei rēanga.

[But first I must extend a greeting to the family from that particular end of New Zealand who have arrived here amongst us politicians and representatives of Māoridom, so salutations to you all. Greetings to you as well, Bevan, the friend. I recall your elders of the era of Padre Wī Huata, Mackie, and Scott, all of those elders who have passed on. You are the ones now to bear this and complete the tasks that they left behind for this generation to fulfil.]

This piece of legislation, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill—I want to read it out. It follows a fairly important format, which is that it uses our Māori language, and it also identifies the deed of settlement. Let us not overlook how difficult and often unrewarding it is for hapū leaders to take on these roles where there are lots of reasons to doubt whether or not it is the right thing to do. There are always problems—whether or not this is the best strategy to pursue—because, no doubt, within the Kahungunu broader tribal community there would have been a debate as to whether you stick as one large entity like Ngāi Tahu or move into smaller groupings. But that is a decision that was made by the people from that iwi, and long may they be good stewards of it.

I want to recall the names in this bill. I want to recall the names in this bill because, having suffered a few misfortunes, such as having been formerly the chairman of the Fisheries Commission, I know that your good works do not go unpunished. So I want to acknowledge Bevan Maihi Taylor, a man who is very well known to a host of us Māori MPs as having been around in the world of Māori politics and resource management issues. In fact, I took Geoffrey Palmer in 1988 to a hui about water in Kahungunu, and Bevan Taylor was one of the people who, on a busy weekend, for reasons best known to himself, came to the hui. He is still representing his people. Tānia Mārama Petrus—oh, te rangatira o tēnā ingoa Petrus—Hopmans; Tamehana Pekapeka Manaena, no stranger to me, a very able accountant and someone who was the financial steward of the Poutama Māori Business Trust; Charmaine Dawn Kui Butler; Kerri Donna Nuku; Justin Owen Ian Puna; Frederick Roy Maadi Reti; and Elaine Rangituai Taylor.

They are the trustees of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust. The reason I want to recite their names to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is that these people deserve to be acknowledged for what has been, no doubt, an arduous task. Politics in Māoridom being what it is, things move very quickly. What you thought took a long time can be forgotten in a flash. To these whānau and to these people, I salute you today on behalf of my colleagues for taking an issue that does not have the media notoriety of something—dare I say it—like my own tribe, Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, or Ngāi Tahu or Tainui. It is in an area of Aotearoa, not unlike Ngāti Pāhauwera, that does not capture a lot of national media attention. Let the record show that. I am sure that when we get to the Māori Affairs Committee, people will arrive with their submissions—some troublesome, but largely positive.

Let us talk about why this is an important settlement. It is an important settlement because not only is there land and forest involved but there are protocols involved. Talking about the protocols, I want to isolate the importance of the fisheries protocol. In doing that, I want to acknowledge Meka Whaitiri, the successful contender of the recent election in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who, unfortunately, has yet to give her maiden speech. As I said on the Māori news, there are illustrious parliamentarians who have come from this part of Māoridom. There is a photo that was delivered here in 1998 by the trustees and various whānau of Kahungunu from the Ōmaha Marae for Tāreha, the first parliamentarian from this part of the motu. He was replaced by Karaitiana. After Karaitiana came a very notable matua of Kahungunu stock, Hēnare Tomoana. After him came the redoubtable Wī Pere, who left the famous land trust in the East Coast called the Wī Pere Trust. Wī Pere fell to Sir Apirana Ngata’s mentor, who was Sir James Carroll, otherwise known as Timi Kara, who held both a Pākehā seat and a Māori seat. Then Wī Pere came back, and then he was defeated by the greatest of all Māori parliamentarians, Sir Apirana Ngata. But no one lasts for ever. He was defeated by Tiaki Ōmana, otherwise known as Jack Ormond. When Jack Ormond completed his stint, there was Tipene Wātene, who was a famous figure of New Zealand Rugby League, who died in Matangireia, our former Māori Affairs Committee room, in the late 1960s. After him came Brown Rēweti of Ngāi Te Rangi. After Brown Rēweti came Dr Peter Tapsell, and if there was ever a man who joined the wrong party, it was probably him, but such is life. Things in a similar vein have been said about Shane Jones, but that is another matter. I could not possibly work with Hone Harawira—I could not possibly work with Hone Harawira. After Dr Tapsell there was a short burst, along with my tuakana over there, Tau Henare, of Mr Delamere. After Mr Delamere was Parekura Horomia, and after Parekura Horomia is the person waiting for her maiden speech. Tēnā koe, e te tuahine.

We no doubt look forward to receiving submissions on the bill, because we want to make sure not only that the bill captures everything that the whānau believe they have agreed to with the Minister but that the structure enables efficient decision-making, because it is very difficult to turn a surplus out of assets that are in neglected parts of New Zealand. I say “neglected” in this sense: it is not a major hive of economic activity like Tāmaki-makau-rau. Tāmaki-makau-rau has its own dynamic. When you look at Tauranga, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Hamilton, that is what the economists call the golden triangle. Well, there is the golden north, but that is something else, and there is gold to be had in other parts of Aotearoa. When we support settlements located in the provinces, we want to ensure that the structures lead to efficient decision-making, so that not too much pūtea is wasted on running the organisation but rather is dedicated to building the surplus and to supporting the efforts, which will be extensive in terms of making a profit out of the Ōpouahi, I believe it is called, and part of the forest estate that is being put back there.

The protocols, not unlike the Maunga Authority talked about in relation to Tāmaki-makau-rau, are very important. Why are they important? Because the reality is that all the property rights that we seek through settlements cannot be secured exclusively to tangata whenua. We are now in a situation where, yes, it is important that we reflect the tangata whenua interests through the settlements, but it cannot, unfortunately, be done to the total exclusion of other stakeholders. That is just the political nature of the process that we are involved in. That is why I, along with my colleagues, think these protocols are a significant evolution. They did not exist in the late 1980s, when we did the Resource Management Act. In 1990, in Simon Upton’s time, there was, I think, a reference by Winston Peters and Māori parliamentarians of the time for kaitiakitanga. That, then, sent the Planning Tribunal, the Environment Tribunal, on a great quest as to what “kaitiakitanga” meant. One or three lawyers and a few Māori consultants may have grown mildly rich trying to define it. No doubt the developers complained that they were meeting the costs of that. Such is politically common in Aotearoa. I would not complain too much about it.

The regional council is referred to in this bill. Who knows whether there actually will be a regional council in this particular part of Aotearoa. We know that the regional council is busily sponsoring an irrigation scheme. I only hope that settlements of this nature provide a new platform for the Kahungunu representatives to put forward all the necessary interests to ensure that such irrigation schemes, if they do happen to take place, whether in this rohe, the South Island, or any rohe, do not take place neglecting tangata whenua interests, etc. In my experience, regional councils up and down New Zealand do a patchy job when it gets to Māori matters. If the law specifically requires them to go the extra mile, they will. If the law is vague, they will do very little. That is just the nature of the types of politicians, and often the types of managers, that are attracted to regional councils. It is when the law forces them to do something that it happens. This will be the passage of law that will require statutory resource management decisions in that area—hopefully, in time, throughout the entirety—of Kahungunu to take account of the interests and the right to participate of Kahungunu.

The forest that is referred to here is an important forest because it provides jobs, but those jobs can grow into more valuable propositions with, I believe, the provision of more Māori land for forestry or the involvement of our Māori people in the actual administration of the forest. With all these things—capital transfer, asset transfer, and relationships—we salute the people and support the Minister and look forward to the bill going through the select committee. Kia ora tātou.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kāti, tiheiwa mauri ora ki te whaiao, ki Te Ao Mārama. E ngā hapū o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, tēnā koutou. Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāi Tātara, Marangatūhetaua, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio me ērā atu hapū, nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Hara mai nunui mā, teitei mā. Nau mai, piki mai ki te Whare Pāremata. Nō koutou tēnei rā. Ko tēnei ko te rā whakahirahira ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata ō rātou mā. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, ko te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, āpiti hono; tātai hono, ko te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well then, to the World of Light and Enlightenment, behold the breath of life. Salutations to you, collectively, the subtribes of Maungaharuru. To Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāi Tātara, Marangatūhetaua, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio and others, welcome and come hither to Parliament House, standing here in readiness. Welcome to the great and the illustrious. Welcome and come aboard Parliament House. This is your day. It is, indeed, a great one to fulfil the aspirations of those who have departed. The lines are drawn together; allow the dead to assemble with themselves and the living to the living. Greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you and to us all collectively.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak at this first reading in support of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. The hapū of this area had an area of influence around the Central Hawke’s Bay, that is to say, from the outskirts of north of Napier towards Tāngoio and then east towards the Maungaharuru Ranges. Many people will know this area when they drive from Napier to Taupō. It is that area that takes in the beautiful Esk Valley, with its nicely appointed old church in amongst neat and tidy rows of grapes.

The Crown acknowledges the length of time it took to negotiate with the hapū of Maungaharuru-Tangitū. When the Crown bought the Ahuriri block, it failed to consult the hapū of Maungaharuru-Tangitū. The Crown once again—once again—managed to hoodwink the tangata whenua into accepting unfair prices for land, knowing full well that Māori had no final option but to alienate their land. And that is the sorry story that is recounted through practically every settlement bill that goes through this House.

The whānau at Tāngoio and Mōhaka were led to believe that they would benefit from Pākehā settlements. Unfortunately for those whānau and hapū, Pākehā settlements were confined to Napier. So those places and people were unable to benefit. This led them into economic depression and they were forced, like so many hapū throughout New Zealand, to alienate their land, to help pay off debts incurred due to Crown promises of benefits from Pākehā settlements not being kept.

Part of the history of these hapū also lies with the story of Te Kooti and his followers. Some members of this collective suffered the atrocity of the summary execution of innocent Māori, labelled rebels, which occurred at Ngātapa and became known as the Ngātapa incident. It always makes me feel uncomfortable, the way history minimises in some ways the early colonial atrocities by calling them mere incidents. It is like the way the British called their war with the Catholics in Northern Ireland the Troubles. It is like nothing more than your car running out of petrol and so it puts you in a spot of trouble—you know, like it was not a big deal.

But we know that these incidents are more than just that. We are covering the Te Tau Ihu settlement legislation. There was more than an incident at Wairau, just like there was more than an incident at Ngātapa, and just like the wars over in Northern Ireland were more than just the Troubles. Real people were killed, slaughtered, and murdered. It is these parts of our history that have caused so much suffering to the collective of Maungaharuru-Tangitū. The Crown will take responsibility and apologise to the iwi and hapū of this settlement and acknowledge it failed in its duty to uphold the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Much of the area lost to these people is today rich, fertile land that grows the fruit and grapes that every year bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the Hawke’s Bay region. That is the sort of economic legacy these hapū have missed out on. Every day the descendants of the original claimants drive past the expensive wineries and orchards north of Napier and see what may have been, had they not been alienated from their land.

I am sure somewhere amongst the smoking embers of the Anglo-Māori relationships in Hawke’s Bay of the 1860s we will find the torch of Sir Donald McLean, this country’s first Minister of Native Affairs and inventor of that taniwha at that time, the Native Land Court. McLean’s legacy in Napier was at the expense of these hapū and iwi, who lost so much through land alienation and the actions of the Native Land Court.

The Crown will apologise for the attacks against the people of Pētane and Ōmaranui in 1866. And, as you might recall, since I have been doing these calls on settlement bills, I like to use a constant saying that “to understand whakapapa is to understand Māori history”. Unfortunately, some of the whānau’s genetic code was completely erased from the whakapapa of these tribes. Such depredations were catastrophic to the well-being of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and, for this, the Crown will also apologise.

As my colleague Shane Jones has mentioned in speeches before, there are certain elements of commercial redress, protocols, and cultural redress that have been incorporated into these bills, as they are in most settlements, and we are here to tautoko all of those measures. I do acknowledge the work and the negotiating team that were instrumental in getting us to this point. I too would like to acknowledge Bevan Taylor and Tania Hopmans, a name that is familiar to me. I used to look up to her as a corporate lawyer, back in the day. She was a few years ahead of me, but she led the way. Likewise, there are many other familiar names that I see in the negotiating team—Tom Manaena is another name. We did a bit of work together back in the day with Māori businesses. So I would just like to acknowledge them all.

I would like to acknowledge all the kaumātua and kuia who have come down—bussed probably. They rose early this morning to make it here on the trip down, and I would like to thank them all for coming, because this is a special day for this hapū and this whānau group here. I too have special memories of Tāngoio Marae, growing up. I acknowledge the Reti whānau—āpotoro Joe Reti and Hinei. I spent a few trips going through there, having whakamoemiti, playing in the reo brass brand, and fellowshipping with the whānau there at Tāngoio. I would like to acknowledge all the mōrehu there—so I am not outdone by my Mihingare, the offsider there in Shane. I would like to acknowledge the Reti whānau as well, and Fred, who is now following in his dad’s footsteps as āpotoro, for all his sterling work behind the scenes as well.

So, yes, it is very important, I guess, that we acknowledge the work that has gone on, and also those who have passed on, and also how significant these bills are in terms of documenting the history of these hapū and making sure that we are taking a step in the right direction, charting a new future for them. I am looking forward to working in the Māori Affairs Committee under my whanaunga there, Tau, and our sterling crew in the committee as we awhi and hear submissions on this bill. I would just like to acknowledge once again the whānau who have travelled here today. I really tautoko this bill and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātau katoa e te Whare. Tēnā koutou kai aku rangatira kua tae mai i tēnei rā. Haere mai rā. Kei te tautoko ake i ngā mihi ki a koutou mai i te Minita tae rā anō ki ngā hōnore mema o te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei ki a koutou kua tatū mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

I mua o tā koutou taenga mai, nāku anō rā ngā mate o Tāmaki-makau-rau, te rōpū, te whānau i mua i a koutou, ka pērā anō hoki taku kōrero ki a koutou. Haere mai me ngā mate o te wā. Ko koutou tērā i tuku i te roimata ki te wā kāinga, ā, ka mutu, ko ahau anō tēnei te uri o Te Arawa ēngari, ko te āhuatanga o te hononga ki Tākitimu, ā, ko tātau anō tātau. Ēngari, ka mihi rā ki ngā mate huhua o te wā, haere mai me ngā mate o te wā, tēnā koutou kai aku rangatira. Kai ngā uri o Tātaramoa, kai ngā uri o Tūkapua te Tuatahi, kei ngā uri o Whakaari, kei ngā uri o Tauira rāua ko Mateāwha, kai ngā uri o Te Ruruku, ā, te heketanga mai i a Hēmi Puna rāua ko Tāraipene Tūaitū, tae rā anō ki Tahumatua, tēnā koutou. Haere mai, haere mai, haere mai.

E hoa mā, ko tētahi o ngā tohutohu o ōku pāpā i te wā kāinga i roto i a Te Arawa ko tā rātau kī mai: mēnā kua rongo ngā taringa i te kōrero a tētahi atu waiho ērā kia moe. Ko tāku, ko te kī atu kai te tautoko ake i ngā kōrero katoa o ēnei kua tū ki mua i a au. E kore au e whakatuarua, tuatoru i ngā kōrero i tēnei rā. Heoi anō, ko ēnei āhuatanga o te whakataunga kerēme he take nui, tērā ka ngau ki te mamae o te ngākau, ka ngau ki te wairua o te tangata. Nō reira, me tū ake hei waha kōrero mō te Pāti Māori, me te kī atu haere mai me ngā taumahatanga kua utaina ki runga i a koutou, ngā tamariki, ngā mokopuna o te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi.

Me pēhea e taea ai e te Whare Pāremata te whakatikatika i ngā raruraru katoa kua pā mai ki a koutou? E kore—e kore, e kore, e taea. Hoi anō, ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, tērā pea he huarahi tēnei hei whāinga mō ngā tau kai mua i te aroaro. Koirā. Kāre i kō atu, kāre i kō mai. Nō reira, haere mai me ēnei āhuatanga katoa.

Nā, i a au e āta titiro ana ki ngā hītori o te takiwā nanā, e kī ana te pepeha o tō koutou kāinga—ko Maungaharuru te maunga, ko Mōhaka te awa, ko Tangitū te moana, ko Tākitimu te waka, ko Tangōio te marae. Ka tuwhera a Maungaharuru, ka kati a Tangitū. Ka tuwhera a Tangitū, ka kati a Maungaharuru. Nō reira, mēnā ko koutou tērā, ā, ka pai. Kua eke mai koutou ki te Whare Pāremata. E ai ki taku mōhio, e hoa mā, i ngā tau kua hipa ake, ko ā tātau tūpuna i noho ā-hapū, i noho ā-whānau. Ki taku mōhio, ko ngā ngahere o Maungaharuru, koinei te pātaka kai o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna. Ā, ka mutu, i huri atu rā ki Tangitū, ki te takutai moana, ā, ko te āhuatanga o te kai, he whāngai i te tini, i te mano. Ā, kia tere taku haere ki te āhuatanga o te ekenga mai o te Kāwanatanga, o te Karauna ki waenganui i a koutou, i a tātau i ngā tau 1850s, tērā wā, i eke mai te Kāwanatanga kātahi, ka tīmata ngā mamae kua pā mai nā runga i te āhuatanga o te noho o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna i raro i te āhuatanga o te Kāwanatanga, o te Karauna. I reira, ka rerekē noa atu te āhuatanga o te noho. Kāore e kore i te wā o ngā tūpuna, he paku tohe i tū, he pakanga i tū. Hoi anō, i te ekenga mai o te Kāwanatanga, he rerekē te pakanga. Ko te pakanga kē, ko te ture. Ko te ture i eke mai, me kī, i kākahutia tātau e te āhuatanga o te ture, ā, i tīmata mai ai i roto i tēnei Whare. Nō reira, kua hoki mai koutou ki te tīmatanga mai o te raruraru.

Me pērā rawa te kōrero? Nā runga i te āhuatanga o te noho o te Kāwanatanga ki konei, i puta mai a raupatu, i puta mai a muru whenua, i puta mai a kōhuru. Ko tērā kōhuru, ā, i tū i te takiwa, i te tau 1866. I tuhia ki roto i te pire nei. Ko ētahi o ngā mōrehu o tērā pakanga, o tērā kōhuru, i heria ki taku mōhio ki Wharekauri, ki reira mauheretia ai. Ko ētahi, ā, i kōhurutia kia mate. Koinei te tangi o te ngākau. Ko te nuinga o te motu, kāre i te tino mōhio ki ēnei āhuatanga. I mate te tangata i roto i ngā uauatanga i pā mai ki a tātau.

Māmā noa iho te noho mai ki konei kōrero ai ēngari, kei wareware te Whare Pāremata, kaua ko koutou. Kei te mōhio koutou ki te hītori ēngari, kua tuhia katoatia ngā kōrero e te iwi nei. Kua tuhia ki roto i ngā pukapuka o te Whare Pāremata nei, kia mōhio mai ngā whakatipuranga ā ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro, i mate, i mate, i mate ngā mātua tūpuna nā runga i ngā mahi tinihanga a te Kāwanatanga. I ngaro te whenua, i ūkuia katoatia te mana o te whenua. E ai ki taku mōhio, ko tā koutou roto a Tūtira, te wai ū o ngā tūpuna, ā, kua paru, kua kino, kua pirau. Ēnei āhuatanga katoa i tau mai ki runga i a koutou. Hoi anō, waiho tērā ki reira. Kua tuhia ki roto i te pire, i te Whare Pāremata. Ēngari, kai reira tonu te kōrero, he pai kē me huri ki te reo Pākehā mō te wā poto i te mea, kia tuhia atu ki roto i te pukapuka nei me te kī atu, kei konei te pūtake o tā koutou nawe.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us the House. Greetings to my esteemed elders who have arrived here on this day. Welcome, indeed. I support the acknowledgments to you by the Minister, including those made by the honourable members of Parliament on this day to you who have arrived here collectively before Parliament. Greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you and to us all.

Prior to your arrival I paid tribute to the deaths of the group and family collective from Auckland, and so I express the same sentiments to you. Welcome in respect to the deaths of the moment. You were the ones who shed the tears back home and here I am, this descendant of Te Arawa, but because of the connection to Tākitimu, we are all one. However, the many deaths of the time are acknowledged, so come hither with those deaths upon you. Salutations to you, my esteemed elders. To the descendants of Tātaramoa, Tūkapua the First, Whakaari, Tauira, and Mateāwha, Te Ruruku, a descendant of Hēmi Puna, and Tāraipene Tūaitū, as well as Tahumatua, greetings to you all. Welcome, welcome, welcome.

Friends, an instruction from one of my fatherly figures back home in Te Arawa to me was this: if one’s ears hear statements made by someone else, leave those words there to rest. My take on that is that I totally endorse the statements by those who have spoken before me. I will not be repeating the statements a second or third time on this day. However, matters that bite into the feelings and spirit of a person are aspects of settling a claim that bring about huge issues. Therefore, I stand as a spokesperson for the Māori Party by welcoming you with the burdens that have been placed upon you collectively as the children and grandchildren of those who have now passed on and are no longer seen.

How will Parliament remedy all the breaches that have affected you totally? It will not be able to—absolutely not. So then, all we can say is that this may be a path to pursue as a way of going forward into the future ahead of us. It is that. No more, no less. So come forth with all these attributes.

While I was making a careful historical research of the particular area there where you are, I noted an aphorism about your settlement—Maungaharuru is the mountain, Mōhaka is the river, Tangitū is the ocean, Tākitimu is the canoe, and Tangōio is the courtyard. When the season of Maungaharuru opens, the season of Tangitū closes. When the season of Tangitū opens, the season of Maungaharuru closes. So if that describes you, all is well. You have reached Parliament House. According to what I know, friends, in years past, our ancestors lived subtribe and family like. My understanding is that the forests of Maungaharuru were, indeed, food storehouses of our elders and ancestors.

Furthermore, they turned to Tangitū, to the foreshore and ocean, where in terms of food, it fed the very many and the thousands. Let me hasten along to the period when the Government and the Crown arrived among you and us in that period of the 1850s. The arrival of the Government was the beginning of the pain that affected elders and ancestors, because of the living circumstances imposed upon them by the Government and Crown. At this point the style of living changed. There is no doubt that in the days of our ancestors there were minor disagreements, and skirmishes occurred. But when the Government arrived, the battle took a different turn. The battle instead became one against the law. Let us say that the law had arrived and we were adorned by the circumstances of law that emanated from this very House. So you have returned to where all the trouble began.

How else can I put it? Because of the Government’s situation here, confiscation emerged, land was taken, and murder took place. Such a one occurred in the district in 1866. It was recorded in this bill. Some of those who survived that battle, that murder, as I understand it, were taken to the Chatham Islands and imprisoned there. Some were murdered and died there. The heart laments over this. The majority of the country was not even aware of these circumstances. People died as an outcome of difficulties that overcame us.

It is easy enough to sit here and speak about it, but although the House of Parliament might forget, you will not. You know the history. But all of this has been recorded by this crowd here. It has been written into the records of this Parliament so that future generations become aware of the facts that ancestral forefathers died repeatedly because of acts of trickery by the Government. Land was lost. Authority over land was completely extinguished. As far as I am aware, your lake, Lake Tūtira, the nourishing waters of the ancestors, is polluted, contaminated, and foul. All of these situations are now yours. Enough for now; put that to the side. It has been recorded in this bill in the House of Parliament. But the talk about it is still there and it might be better if we turned briefly to the English language so that the source of your grievance can be written into this record.]

I have given a brief overview of some of the history I know, but I did want to take one quote from the Crown’s apology to the people who have arrived here today. I think it is important because it is quite a big acknowledgment if you put it in the context of the history that they have been through. So let me just turn to English for a short while and read from the bill, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. Clause 8, “Text of Crown acknowledgements”, states: “(14) The Crown acknowledges that its failure to protect the Hapū from being left with insufficient land for their present and future needs by the 1930s—(a) had a devastating effect on their economic, social, and cultural well-being and on their development and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; and (b) contributed to significant population losses suffered by the Hapū before 1930, and that for too long Hapū members have endured poverty, poor health, poor housing, and low educational standards.”

Kua tuhia tērā ki roto i ngā tuhinga o te Whare Pāremata, kei aku rangatira, mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna. He wā tōna pea ka hoki mai rātau ki te āta titiro ki ngā pukapuka kua tuhia ki reira, kua tuhia ki roto i te ture, kei reira tonu mō ake ake tonu atu. Nō reira, haramai me ēnei āhuatanga katoa, me te mōhio anō hoki, ehara i te mea kotahi anake te wā i kōkirihia ai koutou i ngā nawe ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Ki taku mōhio i te tau 1901, i tae mai te rangatira nei a Te Teira Te Paea. I haramai ki te kooti teitei rawa atu o Aotearoa, ka whakatakotohia i tana nawe ki mua i te aroaro o te kooti ēngari, auare ake. Kāore i eke, i whiua reretia tana nawe ki ngā hau o Tāwhirimātea. Koinei te tangi. Nō reira, anei tēnei wā tahi rau, tekau tau, ā, kua eke ki tēnei taumata i muri mai o te mahi a Te Teira, ka mutu, ka whiwhi i a koutou te pūtea, ko te pūtea anō te pūtea, ko te mana anō te mana.

Me mihi rā ki a koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā. Whai atu i ngā painga o te moni ēngari, he oranga ngākau kua kī mai koutou me whakatikatika i ngā ingoa o te takiwā, o tō koutou kāinga. He mea pai tērā i te mea, o roto i ngā ingoa o ngā hītori, o ngā kōrero o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna, kei reira te whānuitanga o ngā kōrero.

Nō reira, kāti ake kei aku rangatira. Kua tae mai koutou kaua ki te whakarongo ki a au ēngari, kia tere haere tēnei kaupapa i runga i tōna haere. Ko tāku noa ake ki te kī atu, kei te tautoko te Pāti Māori i tēnei huarahi, me te mihi ki a koutou i haere mai i tēnei rā. E aroha atu ana ki tā koutou mema ki a Meka, e noho wahangū nei i tēnei rā ēngari, taihoa ake nei, ā te wiki tū mai nei, kua tū ake ia ki te tuku tana kōrero.

Ko te tikanga ia, kua tū ake ia te mema o tērā takiwā ki te tuku kōrero. Ēngari, nā runga i ngā herehere o te Whare Pāremata e kore e taea. Nō reira, me mihi rā ki a ia, ka mihi ki a koutou. Haere mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kia kaha, kia toa i ngā rā kei mua i te aroaro.

[That has been written into the records of Parliament, my esteemed elders, for children and grandchildren. There will come a time when they will examine publications and law where they have been written to ensure that they are still there. So welcome in respect of all these situations, knowing full well once again, too, that it is not the first time that you have taken up grievances before the House of Parliament. I understand that in 1901, the respected leader Te Teira Te Paea came here. He came to the highest court of New Zealand to place his grievance before it, but to no avail. It did not make it. His grievance was tossed out to fly with the winds of the God of Winds. This causes grief. So after reaching a period of 110 years after Te Teira’s action and furthermore, you are receiving funding, but funding is about funding, and integrity is about integrity.

I really need to salute you who have arrived here on this day. Pursue the benefits that money offers, but I am put at ease by the fact that you have sought to have the district names and those of your settlements corrected. That is a good thing because in the names of historical accounts about elders and ancestors is the full extent of the conversation.

So enough from me, my esteemed elders. You have come here not to listen to me but rather to hurry this bill along on its journey. My part is simply to say that the Māori Party supports this procedure and congratulates you who came here this day. I feel sorry for your member Meka who has to remain silent on this day, but her time will come soon enough when she delivers her speech next week.

Procedure-wise, the member of the electorate involved in the bill being debated will take a call. However, because of the constraints of Parliament, this is not possible. So as well as acknowledging her, I acknowledge you, too. So welcome, greetings, and salutations to you collectively. Be strong and resolute in the days.]

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Ki ngā iwi rā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you, collectively, the House, and to you, all the tribes there.]

I acknowledge the people in the gallery today, the people of Ngāti Marangatūhetaua, the people of Ngāti Kurumōkihi, the people of Ngāi Te Ruruku, and the people of Ngāi Tauira. I rise to take a call for the Greens on this, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, and I maintain that it is a privilege to do so. When a Treaty settlement bill comes to the House, we are mindful that it represents decades of work spanning generations, and I pay tribute to those who have bravely fought for justice and worked to bring this bill to the House. I acknowledge the struggle that it has taken to have some of these wrongs righted and to receive an apology from the Crown.

I think one of the most important aspects of this bill is that together with the deed of settlement, it records the historical nature of the grievances that this bill seeks to address. For the hapū of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, these grievances go back to 1851, when the Crown first unfairly acquired the Ahuriri and Mōhaka blocks, and it includes the 1867 compulsory confiscation of land, including 9,000 acres at the Tāngoio North Block that in 1870 the Crown refused to return to the hapū for more than 40 years. In 1870 the Crown also allocated 30,000 acres at Kaiwaka to reward a Crown ally and refused to investigate the hapū rights. In the 19th century the Crown, through the Native Land Court, also awarded ownership of significant lands to individual Māori and essentially embarked on a programme of alienating hapū from their lands, so that by 1930 the hapū in the area did not have enough resources to support themselves either then or into the future.

The history of the hapū in this settlement bill is frequently harrowing to read. For those in the gallery today who have shepherded this settlement to the House, it must be far more harrowing for your tīpuna to have lived through these times, and for them to have known this history themselves for so long and to not have these injustices acknowledged. This settlement bill puts into legislation that acknowledgment—that the Crown, through its military forces, killed more than 20 people at Ōmarunui and Pētane in 1866. The bill acknowledges that this was a huge injustice, and it also acknowledges that it was unjust that the Crown detained without trial 13 members of the hapū on the Chatham Islands for nearly 2 years, and that their summary executions in 1869 were wrong. All these actions—the loss of life, the confiscation of land, the misuse of the Crown’s powers to acquire land, and the alienation of hapū from their land through the Crown’s actions—were all breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This bill also acknowledges that this meant that the loss of the hapū resources and economic base has contributed to a reduced population, to some families dying out, and to hapū members living in poverty with poor health, poor housing, and low educational standards.

I think it is worth reiterating that the bill also has the Crown—this Government—acknowledging the lack of care subsequent owners of the land showed. It acknowledges the deforestation of the land and how pastoral farming has helped cause significant erosion and environmental damage. The bill specifically refers to the pollution of Lake Tūtira, one of the most polluted lakes in the country, and to the pollution of the coastline and the subsequent severe flooding of the marae and the community at Tāngoio. When we look at the apology that the Crown has offered, and we look at the damage that has been done to ngā tāngata, to te whenua, to mahinga kai, and to the wai, I am astounded by the generosity of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū. Although we acknowledge the journey it has taken to get this bill to the House, the Greens also maintain that this bill does not represent a full and final settlement. The actions of the Crown cannot be settled. It makes it sound as if the issue is done with, and it is not. This bill represents a deal. It represents the best deal the hapū can negotiate at this time, but it is still a deal. The ramifications of the Crown’s actions are not final, so this cannot be a final settlement, because generations to come will still be affected.

The commercial redress amounts to around about $23 million—some property, including receiving rental proceeds from Crown forestry licences and some forestry land, as well as the right of refusal of other Crown property. I am frequently amazed at how many New Zealanders resent the compensation negotiated by the Crown with iwi over Treaty breaches. I guess it is because a lot of New Zealanders do not know the history of Aotearoa New Zealand, and tend not to see things in context. If we compare this commercial redress to other things the Government spends its money on, the amount becomes less significant. The Prime Minister, for example, has allocated $34 million to promoting conventions, and presumably convention centres, in New Zealand, which is more than these hapū will receive. We should not forget that there was a bailout of the South Canterbury Finance company—about $12 billion—when it went broke, and those investors did not lose their land or their birthright when that happened.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the generosity of the hapū in negotiating the deal. The cultural redress restores the hapū’s standing with various Government departments and local authorities with deeds of recognition. It allows for the vestment of several easements and reserves, and also outlines several instances where the land can be vested in the hapū and then gifted back to the Crown within days—a very generous act. This settlement lists the statutory acknowledgment of the hapū and their relationship with various lands, streams, and rivers, and allows for geographical name changes that reflect the history and the customary practice of the hapū.

These are the final paragraphs of the apology, which I think are worth repeating: “The Crown acknowledges that many family lines have died out and cannot be brought back. It profoundly regrets the poverty and poor health which have long afflicted your people. It deeply regrets its acts and omissions which have affected your capacity for social and economic development and your physical, cultural and spiritual wellbeing. Through this settlement the Crown is seeking to atone for its past wrongs towards the Hapū, to restore its tarnished honour, and to begin the process of healing. The Crown hopes that this apology will mark the beginning of a new relationship between the Crown and the Hapū based on respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” I acknowledge that this is a day for celebration and that these hapū wish to move into the future with hope and with their pride restored. I acknowledge the huge generosity of those hapū who are part of the settlement bill, because it benefits us all here in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is my sincere hope that as a country we will abide by the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and this bill is a step towards that. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tīhei mauri orā. Whakataka te hau ki te uru. Whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mā taratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura. He tio, he huka, he hauhunga, ā, tēnā koutou. Ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā hapū, ngā tangata o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā rangatira o ngā hapū, tēnā koutou. Ki a koe Bevan, tēnā koe. Ki a koutou ngā hapū, ngā tangata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata.

[Greetings to you. Behold the breath of life. Cease the winds from the west; cease the winds from the south. Let the breezes blow over the land; let the breezes blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air, a touch of frost, and a promise of a glorious day. Greetings to you collectively. To the House standing before me, subtribes, people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, and leaders of the subtribes, greetings to you collectively. Greetings to you, Bevan. Acknowledgments, salutations, and tributes to you the subtribes and the people, and to us all collectively. Welcome to Parliament House.]

Can I welcome everybody to the House today. Can I also commence my speech by acknowledging Meka Whaitiri in what is my first opportunity to welcome you to the House, Meka, and to wish you well in your term in Parliament.

Most important, today we are here to acknowledge this Treaty settlement with Maungaharuru-Tangitū, which is a collective of hapū from the beautiful Hawke’s Bay and from an area I represent—the Napier area. This rohe sits, as Rino described it, between the Esk Valley, which is a place where I actually live, Rino, in that particular part of the area—my home is in the Esk Valley.

The area is actually more than that. The Napier-Taupō road is actually the start of this area of the rohe. It goes up the Tangitū coastline, which includes the Tāngoio, Taits Beach, Waipātiki, Aropaoanui, all the way up to the Waikare River mouth. The rohe is north of the Waikare River, then goes inland to Maungaharuru, which is a mountain range to the west, and then down to the commencement of the old Ahuriri lagoon.

It is interesting that Maungaharuru—“maunga” meaning mountain, “haruru” meaning roar—actually speaks to much of the history of that particular area. Many seabirds—petrels—used to live in that range of mountains. The roar of the seabirds flying up in the dawn was a memory from those days. That is actually something that I know that the hapū are trying to reconstitute, working with the likes of Julian Robertson, who is an overseas investor but who has put a million dollars into actually restoring the birdlife in that particular area. So that gives you a sense of the area. In the middle is Lake Tūtira. It is one of the most beautiful parts of this country. That coastline by Waipātiki Beach is just a stunning part of New Zealand. It is no wonder that you would want to look after that part of the country and to defend your rights there.

Can I acknowledge the different hapū that are here today—Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tāngoio, and Ngāi Tahu, which form the collective of hapū within the Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū collective there.

I have talked about the area so that everyone is clear about what we are talking about here, and about its richness, because, indeed, that is the case. I want to also acknowledge the grievance that we hear. Many members have talked in the House today about that, and we have talked about the apology that the Crown has given. No one is trying to defend what happened. It is a situation that occurred with the land where there was some raupatu and where the hapū were left in a situation of economic, social, and cultural deprivation, which we have had to acknowledge and seek some form of redress for.

I acknowledge the member from the Green Party, Denise Roche, in talking about the level of compensation that is paid in these situations. It will never totally fulfil what has been lost, but we do need to take steps towards this. I think the Green Party does need to acknowledge that it is part of the Crown making this settlement and part of this process. So, yes, although we can criticise former Governments for what went on, this is a way forward for all of us, and I think that is the important thing, particularly if I reflect on my mihi at the start of this speech. It talks about a new dawn and a new beginning, and I think that is very much the perspective we need to put around this.

Today I want to particularly acknowledge the people who have been part of this settlement, who have driven this, and who have shown leadership over years—not months, but years—particularly Bevan Taylor, whom I acknowledged in my opening mihi, and also Tania Hopmans. When we sat at the Tāngoio Marae and listened to Bevan giving a mihi about Tania’s work, you got a sense of the efforts that she has put in to bring the different hapū together, to make sure that this settlement got momentum and then got to signing—so can I acknowledge you. Can I also acknowledge the other members of the settlement team. I think you have done an outstanding job to get to this position, which is superb.

This settlement is a way forward. It does have economic, social, and cultural redress. Obviously, the $23 million is part of that economic redress going forward. There is some forestry redress in there, but also, really important, some key reserves that are returned—part of the Ōpouahi Station, and the Ōpouahi Scenic Reserve. Ōpouahi is just a stunning part of the country, up behind Lake Tūtira. Ōpouahi now has a kiwi recovery programme within it. The boundary stream that is behind it is Department of Conservation land and has some stunning bird life in there now. It is just a magic part of the country.

My encouragement is to use this settlement wisely. I know that we have got very esteemed people within the collective there who will use this investment wisely and take the hapū forward into the future. It was actually exciting to sit there at the signing of the Treaty settlement and to talk to people such as Bevan, and to say—even though he found the process difficult, I acknowledge that—that this was actually a way forward for everybody in terms of addressing some of the wrongs that had happened historically. So I personally am excited about the future. I think it is a step forward and a way forward for all of us. I ask that you think about the mihi I used at the start: whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura. He tio, he huka, he hauhunga.

[Cease the winds from the west; cease the winds from the south. Let the breeze blow over the land; let the breeze blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air, a touch of frost, and a promise of a glorious day.]

It does talk about a new beginning, a new dawn, and a new way forward.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnei e tāpiri atu i āku mihi ki a koutou kua tae mai ki te whakarongo ki tēnei wāhanga o tā koutou pire mō te tutukitanga o ā koutou kerēme. Nō reira, ki te rōpū kāhui o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, nei te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I add my acknowledgments, extended to you who have arrived here collectively to listen to this part of your bill about the settlement of your claims. To you, therefore, the collective of Maungaharuru-Tangitū subtribe, an affectionate tribute to you all.]

It is a great privilege to be able to join other speakers and acknowledge Meka Whaitiri, the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, on this first reading of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I will be brief because we have two other readings to go. I am pleased that this bill will come to the Māori Affairs Committee, that we will have a robust round of hearing the submissions, and that we will give this bill the scrutiny that it deserves to ensure that the deed of settlement aligns with the legislation that has been prepared for you in order to give effect to the agreements that your negotiators have come up with. It is an important part of the process. Even though people see it as pro forma, it is important for the select committee to scrutinise that what was intended in the deed of settlement is reflected adequately in the legislation. We, as members of that select committee, can ask the officials and those who have been involved what the specific elements in your bill have been, to ensure that everything you intend to have happen can happen.

The proof of the pudding, as you know, though, is in the eating. So the hard work of getting to this point of reaching a settlement, and your legislation, seems so much more, I guess, of a step towards an even harder task of implementing and giving effect to every part of what you want to see happen in the future. So my humble comments here—although I have, I guess, no inherent knowledge of the rohe and the people, I have some understanding of the dynamics of what is happening in the settlement space.

As I understand it, for Ngāti Kahungunu as a whole iwi, it covers a big area, so what they have managed to do, I think, is provide a bit of a model for other iwi to perhaps think about. It is always a very difficult space about how you manage the dynamics between your collective iwi interests and also your hapū interests. As I understand it, having had a conversation on the campaign trail with Meka—and we were actually driving past Lake Tūtira when she was explaining this to me—she said: “You know, Nanaia, the way that Ngāti Kahungunu have approached it is that we have kept the fisheries settlement as a collective asset for the whole iwi.” So that is managed under the Ngāti Kahungunu iwi umbrella.

However, for hapū, with the land claims, they were able to ensure or keep the door open so that each hapū or cluster of hapū can negotiate their own outcomes. There is some wisdom in that. There are six large, natural groupings throughout the district of Ngāti Kahungunu. We have already had, as members will recall, Ngāti Pahāuwera come here with their particular claims in their rohe. Now we have Maungaharuru and Tangitū hapū.

The wisdom of it is to ensure that, yes, the rangatiratanga and the mana of hapū collectives are under a larger grouping, but they can be maintained in a very practical way. So I was quite fascinated with this as Meka was explaining it to me on our drive from Hastings down to Wellington. I said to her: “Do you mean to say that it is OK for the iwi to allow this type of arrangement to happen?”, and the response was simply: “Yes, because the relationship is really important.” Although we recognise that at the iwi level some things can be done collectively, it is more important that some things must be done at the hapū level.

We have had lots of debates in this House about models of settlements where the tensions between the iwi aspiration and the hapū aspiration have not been well aligned, and here, now, we have a model that is starting to set, I guess, the type of footprint or template—whatever you would like to call it—as a way of doing things. So I guess that in some respects people are going to say that something we have learnt by observing other settlements is what they do not want to do and how they want to do things better, and we can only applaud that level of wisdom coming into the settlement space.

There are many aspects of this settlement, as I said previously, that will deserve the good scrutiny of the Māori Affairs Committee. There are statutory acknowledgments, which I think are significant. I think that the issues around the naming and rectifying the naming are going to be, again, another model that many settlements will follow to ensure that place names are adequately and correctly referenced, and also there are issues around relationship agreements. Again, it is in these types of agreements that the proof of the pudding will be in the implementation. Although iwi certainly maintain a level of consistency in leadership and institutional knowledge, there is ongoing change within Government departments, within ministries, and with officials.

Retaining the same level of institutional commitment to the implementation of settlements is a point that I raised yesterday in the House, and it requires leadership. That will require leadership not just from the Government of the day but from the other parties in the House that are committed to ensuring that the Treaty settlement process is an enduring one, a lasting one, and one that will achieve the highest aspirations of iwi within their rohe.

Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa mō tenēi wāhanga o te pire, iti tēnei kōrero. Ko te tino hiahia ka whakahokia mai te pire ki mua i te aroaro o ngā kaitōrangapū ki te whakamārama, nā te hōhonutanga o ā koutou tutukitanga i roto i te pire nei.

[Therefore, this address to you all is a brief one. My greatest wish is for the bill to come back before the politicians to explain the extent of what your settlements are in this bill.]

So I just wanted to take that brief opportunity to add my support to this process for Maungaharuru-Tangitū in the first reading of their bill. When the bill comes back for its second reading, I hope to ensure that we can have a great level of detail arising from the submissions and add to the rich kōrero around ways in which this settlement will help these people, this hapū, reach their opportunity to do things for themselves and forge a way forward in the future. Kia ora koutou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangoio, Ngāi Tahu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments, salutations, greetings, and tributes to you all, Maungaharuru-Tangitū subtribe, Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāi Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangoio, and Ngāi Tahu.]

The claim of the hapū relate primarily to war, raupatu, and Crown land-purchasing methods. The only land left in the possession of the hapū is in a flood-prone zone, which is the location of their marae, Tāngoio, and their kōhanga reo. I would like to précis the summary of settlement redress, not because I want to show or to talk about the assets that are involved here but to highlight the generosity of the hapū and the pragmatism of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in dealing with this very real issue and coming to some resolution in order to move forward.

The redress includes a summary of the agreed historical accounts, and Crown acknowledgments and apology. The cultural redress package includes—and I am going to précis here—the vesting of part of Ōpouahi Station; the vesting of Te Pōhue Domain Recreation Reserve; the vesting of lake beds of Lake Tūtira, Lake Ōrākai, and Lake Waikōpiro; the vesting of the administration of the stratum above the lake beds and the hapū; and the vesting and gifting back of four significant cultural properties, including Boundary Stream Scenic Reserve, Bellbird Bush Scenic Reserve, the balance of Opouahi Scenic Reserve, and Whakaari Landing Place Reserve.

It includes a tātai tūāpapa over nine sites of significance to the hapū, the establishment of a fund for the purpose of soil conservation in the Tāngoio area, and the formation of a relationship between the hapū and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. It includes te kawenata, a partnership agreement, with the Minister and Department of Conservation, a relationship agreement with the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ngāti Kahungunu iwi, statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition, the appointment of an advisory committee, the assignment and alteration of geographic names, and the transfer of commercial properties.

That is just a summary of what will be returned and gifted back and given to these hapū. It is in no way a replacement of what they have lost previously, but I want to take this time to acknowledge the Government, and, particularly, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for the pragmatic manner in which he has set about these settlements. The concept of partnership inherent in the Treaty has been worked through so that overall there are 66 Treaty settlements and the Crown is now over halfway towards completing the historical Treaty settlement process. We need to resolve these historical issues so that we can move forward together as a nation and leave behind these grievances.

These settlements will provide an economic base for these iwi, including these hapū, to invest in the regions of their rohe. It is good for Māori and it is good for the hapū and it is good for Aotearoa New Zealand. Other iwi such as Tainui and Ngāi Tahu have grown into important drivers of regional growth through settlement of Treaty of Waitangi grievances. This Government has successfully increased the speed at which outstanding negotiations are conducted and concluded through leadership and better resourcing and strategy.

So Maungaharuru Tangitū hapū, I acknowledge you and thank you for your generosity. Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruki ki Tangoio me Ngāi Tahu, mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. I commend the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Permission has been granted for a waiata, if you wish to have a waiata.

Waiata

Bills

Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill.

First and foremost, a heartfelt welcome to the manuhiri here today to represent Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika and witness the first reading of their settlement bill. The iwi of Ngā Punawai o te Tokotoru have not, it must be said, had a particularly smooth or speedy passage through the tribunal and Treaty settlement negotiations. Nevertheless, the iwi have, to their great credit, emerged with their grievances and their distinctive identities acknowledged and their mana enhanced. I want to acknowledge those iwi members who have contributed so very much to the realisation of these settlements. These include the very able lead negotiators: Te Rangikāheke Bidois for Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Pia Callaghan for Tapuika, and Donna Hall for Ngāti Rangiteaorere. I also want to acknowledge the chairs of the mandated bodies: Te Rangikāheke Bidois for Te Maru o Te Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Carol Biel for Tapuika, and Tai Eru and Kereama Pene for Ngāti Rangiteaorere. Without their vision, their support, and their leadership, these settlements would not have occurred.

It is important to acknowledge all those who are no longer with us who carried the injustices the Crown inflicted on these three iwi, those who lodged the claims with the tribunal, and every person who has contributed to this settlement. Without these people, this settlement would not have been possible. I want to acknowledge those who have worked to find a way to ease the burdens of the grievances carried by the three iwi here today. This involves timeless efforts from many individuals. That is not a formulaic statement. I do actually say it in the first reading of most settlement legislation because it is a simple fact that these grievances are carried down through the generations and the negotiations can take a very long time and require a great deal of effort from quite a number of people. As I have said before, so often it is the case that the grand nieces or the grandsons of the original claimants are the ones who are signing the deeds of settlement.

I have spoken about the grievances of each iwi in detail when the deeds of settlement were signed. There will be another opportunity to traverse that material at the third reading. Today I simply want to say something about the magnitude of those grievances. First, I refer to Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Its Treaty grievances relate to the Crown’s initiation of hostilities in Waikato in 1863 and Tauranga in 1864, and the subsequent loss of life for Ngāti Rangiwewehi. The Crown also compulsorily extinguished Ngāti Rangiwewehi customary interests through the Tauranga raupatu of the 1860s and contributed to the erosion of traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Rangiwewehi as a result of native land laws. The Crown failed to provide the iwi with an effective form of corporate title prior to 1894. The native land laws promoted by the Crown facilitated the alienation of lands and resources cherished by Ngāti Rangiwewehi, including a site of very great significance at Hamurana Springs. The Crown also played a part in the iwi losing the Pekehāua Puna reserve, another of the iwi’s most sacred sites.

Ngāti Rangiwewehi signed a deed of settlement with the Crown on 16 December 2012. The deed provides for a range of redress, including the historical account, the Crown acknowledgments, the Crown apology, and financial and commercial redress of $6 million, comprised of an on-account payment paid in 2008, a cash amount, and commercial properties. It provides for the return of 37 hectares at Hamurana Springs, including Puna-a-Hangarua, in recognition of the iwi’s special relationship with this place, and I am sure Mr Flavell will mention that in greater detail in his speech. It provides for the vesting of Te Riu o Ngata, an 18.41 hectare site, in Ngāti Rangiwewehi, subject to a conservation covenant for biodiversity values and with a provision for the cultural harvest of flora. This will enable the iwi to share their history and culture and to educate and train people about conservation and harvesting. There is the vesting of 6 hectares of the Taumata Scenic Reserve to enable Ngāti Rangiwewehi to establish a native plant nursery on the site, and there are statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition over Crown-owned lands across the rohe.

I now turn to Tapuika. Tapuika’s Treaty grievances relate to the Crown’s responsibility for initiating hostilities in Tauranga in 1864 and subsequent loss of life for Tapuika. The Crown also compulsorily extinguished Tapuika customary interests through the Tauranga raupatu of the 1860s and destroyed their settlements in 1867 using scorched earth tactics. The erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Tapuika resulted from native land laws and the Crown’s 1875 determination of customary interests within the rohe of Tapuika and the exclusion of Tapuika from the titles to around 40,000 acres of ancestral coastal lands. The Crown also unlawfully took a Tapuika urupā in 1971. The iwi are aggrieved also by the degradation—the continued degradation—of the Kaituna River.

Tapuika signed a deed of settlement with the Crown on 16 December 2012—a great day—alongside Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Redress in the deed of settlement includes, as with Ngāti Rangiwewehi, the agreed historical account; the Crown acknowledgments; a Crown apology; and the financial redress of $6 million, less the on-account payment of $2.5 million provided in December 2008 and the value of 17 commercial redress properties. There are also rights of first refusal in relation to 11 Crown-owned properties for a period of 171 years, 12 sites of special significance to Tapuika across their rohe totalling approximately 209 hectares, and three additional sites jointly with other iwi, including Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Very important, the deed also sets out a framework for governance of the Kaituna River, Te Awanui o Tapuika, that will acknowledge—[Bell rung]—in a meaningful and practical way the great significance of the river to Tapuika and help protect the ecological and cultural values of the Kaituna. Was that the 8-minute bell, or did you just inadvertently press a button?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, it was the 8-minute bell.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Ah. Well, very well.

Then there are also the grievances of Ngāti Rangiteaorere. I am dealing with three iwi, so maybe I could crave an indulgence. Their grievances relate to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures as a result of native land laws and the Crown’s failure to provide the iwi with an effective form of tribal title prior to 1894. Through native land laws, the actions of Crown purchase agents, and the extension of the Lake Ōkataina Scenic Reserve, the Crown facilitated the estrangement of this iwi from some of the most cherished parts of their rohe. The redress is set out in the deed of settlement and includes the historical account, the Crown acknowledgments and commercial redress, numerous statutory acknowledgments, and the return of 321 hectares of Whakapougnākau, reuniting Rangiteaorere with their maunga.

So my thanks to the iwi for coming to this House today to hear the first reading of what is an omnibus bill containing three settlements, which is why, in the space of 10 minutes, I have to say so much. But I look forward to saying more about each individual iwi when the bills come back to the House. I want to thank all of them for coming today. Finally, I give my very special thanks to my chief Crown negotiator, Patsy Reddy, and the team at the Office of Treaty Settlements for all their good work on these three settlements. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ko tā tātou e kōrero i tēnei wā, ko te pire e meinga nei, Te Pire Whakataunga i ngā Kerēme a Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru. Ko te hunga nō roto i Te Ao Māori nā rātou tēnei pire i popoi, ā, tutuki noa ki tēnei hāora, ki tēnei wā, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou ka ahu mai i roto i ēnā pānga kāinga o Te Ao Māori ki tēnā rohe, ngā pūmanawa, tēnā koutou, ā, tutuki noa ki roto i Te Moana-a-Toi. Ahakoa ko te pānuitanga tuatahi tēnei o te pire neki, he haringa ngākau nā mātou te kite i a koutou. I te tuatahi ko te whānau mai i Tāmaki-makau-rau; tuarua, ko te whānau i ahu mai i roto o Kahungunu; nā, kua riro ko koutou hei manuhiri tuatoru, hei mihinga mā mātou, hei mātakitaki noki mā koutou i a mātou e whiriwhiri nei, e rūnanga nei, me pēhea tēneki pire e whakahōhonungia ai tana whakatutukitanga i waenga tonu i a mātou. Nā reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[We are now debating the bill called the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. To those of you from within Māoridom who nurtured this bill along to its completion at this hour and moment, I congratulate you. Congratulations and well done to you the talented ones who came from within those home connections in that region of Māoridom that extends right the way out to the Bay of Plenty. Even though this bill is at its first reading, we are absolutely delighted to see you. First of all, it was the family collective from Auckland; secondly, it was the one from Kahungunu; and now you have become the third visitors for us to welcome here, and for you to observe us considering and debating how the settlement of this bill can be extended greatly amongst us politicians here. So welcome, indeed, to you all.]

Once again I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to acknowledge that not only has the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations brought forward another bill that we will be agreeing to but there are elements within this bill, the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill, that the Māori Affairs Committee will pay particular attention to. The select committee, by and large, when dealing with Treaty matters, is not interested in the inevitable tension that comes from time to time within the hapū or iwi. We have got enough of our own tension to match without indulging in the tensions of hapū and iwi. From time to time neighbouring iwis do come to the select committee and raise contentious issues, and I look forward to those being sent where they belong—back to the marae and to the whānau. We look at whether or not the law that we are passing will be durable and whether it actually captures in words what the Treaty partners—in this case, the elements from around Te Arawa—have actually agreed to or were mandated to agree to.

The select committee process will, for example, pay attention to the proposal to come up with a better scheme for addressing Māori interests and better resource management outcomes—which I suppose is an accurate expression—in the Kaituna River, given that the Kaituna River claim was one of the earlier well-known Waitangi Tribunal cases. In the heyday of Judge Eddie Durie, prior to him and the chair of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust—the name of whom escapes me at the moment. Unfortunately, they seem to be locked in some sort of battle there at the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, just when it gets to one of our tribes of the north, Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu. It is saying it is running out of money. Maybe it is time to change the chair of the trust if that is the best it can do for that part of Māoridom. It is a tribe, I would tell the Minister, that 155,000 members of the Māori people give as their tribe—Ngāpuhi. I may have done it once or twice and been reminded: “Oh, no, you’re from ‘Te Ao Pōuri’ on the coast of Yugoslavia, not Ngāpuhi.” But that is another matter.

Naturally, we will support this bill, but we want to be absolutely confident, as members of the select committee, that when it comes to us the processes we put in place are not overly bureaucratic, and they not only actually enable all the stakeholders who have an interest in such key assets as rivers to play a role but also do not end up stymying the full range of uses that such an asset or a resource represents—a river. It is still a work in progress in respect of what outcomes—not so much processes—for the Waikato River are coming as a consequence of the model that was originally put in place by our colleague Parekura Horomia, recently departed, and Dr Cullen, and then refined by the current Minister. This is a significant improvement, actually, because when the Resource Management Act was passed, it was just not possible to introduce such notions and concepts.

As I said earlier, the closest we got was a vague reference to the ethic of stewardship, which in itself fell out of the Manukau Harbour report championed by the now Dame Sian Elias, and her clients were Carmen Kirkwood and Ngāneko Minhinnick. As I recall, the kaumātua was Rua Cooper, a man who came and visited us many times at St Stephen’s School, along with Hēnare Tūwhāngai—those taniwhas of the Waikato tribe in their time. That is one element we will pay particular attention to, and this is an area where there are a lot of overlapping iwi interests. What is being tried here is an attempt to bring them all together, and then work with four or five local government entities—I mean local government as in regional government as well. It will be a challenge, in the sense that it is hard enough to get local government itself to work together before we get a range of Māori entities to do so, but it is worth a try. Naturally, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the representatives from the iwi feel that it will be successful.

There have been interesting comments on the process of Treaty settlements. Ngāti Rangiteaorere had a settlement on account—I think that is the technical term—of the Te Ngāe Mission Farm. It has wandered along and wandered along, and now it is here with us today. It is not a large sum of money that is at stake here, but it does actually increase the visibility of Ngāti Rangiteaorere within the scope of the interaction both within Te Arawa and with Te Arawa and statutory authorities. There is a rather bleak account of what happened to Ngāti Rangiwewehi. All I can say is that the bleakness of their asset loss has not been mirrored in their kapa haka performance. I only hope that their asset management mirrors their kapa haka abilities, and they will do very well in asset management.

This does bring to the fore an opportunity to try to recover what was lost, not just in assets but in mana whenua, in visibility, and in influence. At the end of the day, the influence will grow if it sits upon trust and goodwill. That is a challenge to us as MPs and our proxies in local government. If there were ever a case of local government failing the test in terms of resource management and local government’s responsibilities, too often it is the case of how they deal with their local whānau Māori in areas such as resource management of rivers and the treatment of geothermal resources. I see the bill goes out of its way to explicitly note any protocol entered into to do with Crown minerals and the administration of Crown minerals from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—elements of which I hope to move out of Wellington in the not-too-distant future. [Bell rung] Mr Assistant Speaker, I could not possibly apply that to you—moving you out of Wellington.

The bill is quite explicit. This does not give property rights or any ownership interests to the iwi and hapū elements that comprise Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru. All it does is it puts in place a process for interaction. That might be disappointing, because there is a body of thought, both politically and economically, that Māori rights to geothermal resources should be spelt out more explicitly. The only route that exists through there is by dint of being a landowner. There is no severable right that has been recognised, other than a small reference in the Resource Management Act to the Minister for the people of Te Arawa, such that when the council of the late 1980s and early 1990s drew up its geothermal plans, it was to treat as of right the ability of that whānau to use geothermal energy for communal purposes—non-commercial purposes. Presumably, that platform can be expanded.

We will support this bill, but we do look forward to giving it a very significant airing at the select committee. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Mea tuatahi ki a koutou āku rangatira, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou Te Arawa, Mātaatua, te motu. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The first thing is to you, collectively, my leaders, acknowledgments. Salutations to you, collectively, Te Arawa, Mātaatua, and the country. So greetings to you all.]

I am reminded of my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who when he got up earlier this morning linked himself to Ngāti Whātua. I am sure there is a link there for me; it is just not as good as his. But I can say that my children have a link to Te Arawa through their mother’s side—so there.

When this Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill and the speech notes came across my table, I had a quick glance at them, as I normally do when we get information from the honourable Minister, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. It is the first thing in my in-tray and the first thing in my out tray. I noticed “Te Tokotoru”, and I thought “What? Are we settling something at Rātana?”.

I want to go a bit deeper than normal. We have an opportunity. Let me digress first. The Crown is getting away with murder. Let me make that quite clear. We are getting away with quite a lot. That does not set aside what we are trying to do collegially, and it does not set aside what we are trying to do in a partnership. What we have is the opportunity, and what we have, through the 40-odd deeds of settlement that we have signed in the term of this Government and also in the term of the Labour Government—the past Government—is our own, I suppose, reconciliation process. It may not be the same as others around the world. It may not be as good as others around the world. In fact, I think we do a better job than most people around the world.

But the thing is, as my colleague and my uncle, Shane Jones, says, things progress—things progress. Things grow up. In his time he was one of the many architects of the Resource Management Act. Things grow and things progress. We can do now what we could not do even 5 years ago, and certainly not 10 and 20 years ago. We have the opportunity to put in place a new set of rules, a new regime. Who knows, in 5 years’ time and in 10 years’ time, the three entities that we are talking about today may very well grow into more powerful, better-run entities than they are today. So I have no doubt that what we are trying to achieve here is not only for today but essentially for tomorrow’s children and the children who have not even been born yet.

I will not take too much longer. I do not like to correct my colleague and my uncle, Shane Jones, but he did mention something about 130,000-odd Ngāpuhi. It is funny that out of that 130,000 there are supposedly—and I could be corrected if I am wrong—75,000 Ngāti Hine. So I want to put on record now and use this opportunity, if you do not mind—

Hone Harawira: He wai. [A song]

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh no! What is coming from Ngāti Hine, I can assure you, is the idea of their own piece of settlement legislation. We might laugh and we might think “Oh yeah, that’s very big of them.”, but it is a development on what we are doing today. It is a development on what we were doing 20 years ago. If people thought that in 1840 we sat there and we would never progress, then they are mistaken. They are absolutely mistaken. If this country was not colonised, I would bet my bottom dollar that we would have progressed a hell of a lot further than people think we would have. We would not have stayed in the Stone Age, so to speak.

So I am pleased that I am part of a Parliament that actually looks at these things and is very well equipped and skilled to look at all of the issues that come before us. I am pleased that I am the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, which I think on the whole looks at all the issues in front of it in a bipartisan way. We have gone from Tāmaki this morning through to Kahungunu and have now ended up in Te Arawa territory. I look forward to taking our select committee to Te Arawa and listening to the stories that make this settlement, along with all the other settlements that we have done, just a part of our attempt at reconciliation. Kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E rau rangatira mā huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou. Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa. E tū ake au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you, collectively, the many leaders throughout the House. Welcome to you Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika. Welcome to Parliament House in deliberation mode here, and so acknowledgments, greetings, and congratulations to you and you, collectively, as well as all of us. I rise to support this bill.]

I am pleased to stand in support of this bill, the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. It is not the Tokotoru Tapu that Tau was referring to, but three illustrious tribes from Te Arawa: Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Very illustrious.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Indeed. Try as I might, I have not been able to connect my whakapapa link to this particular bill, but the history and the whakapapa continues with my kōrero. This time we are focusing in on Te Arawa - Bay of Plenty, where these tribes made their home. The land wars of Waikato had finally overflowed into neighbouring areas of Tauranga Moana at Te Ranga and Pukehina, and the main players, the antagonists, who have featured so far in the Waikato Land Wars raise their heads in this bill as well. I am talking about people like Grey, Cameron, Whitmore, and Mair. But this time they faced the people of Te Arawa, and I know that the hapū of the Rotorua lakes district share a common eastern border also with Raukawa and have over many centuries forged close bonds and become kin.

It was because of the kinship with Raukawa that some of Te Arawa fought with their Raukawa relations against the colonial forces of General Cameron and Colonel Whitmore. Those who fought against the Crown paid a high price. Although the people of Ngāti Rangiteaorere did not sign the Treaty, they did have a relationship with the Crown.

So let us remind the House exactly where we are at when we talk about these great tribes. Rotorua is the tourist capital of New Zealand, a geothermal wonderland, and it has been since Europeans discovered that the area is a fantastic attraction and experience for many, many people. The Crown actively encouraged the sale of desirable land. So with that taniwha that was created, which I mentioned in my previous speeches, the Māori Land Court, the Governments of the day along with land speculators managed to alienate the people of these three iwi from their ancestral lands. No surprises there. That was the modus operandi of the day. We know today that the Māori Land Court was not set up to help keep Māori title in those days; it was set up to do the exact opposite.

The Rotorua lakes district had the potential to attract international tourists. Even as long ago as the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s there was a tourism industry, so securing title to important lands to ensure Pākēha control over strategic assets was very important in those times. So I want to indulge the House, and let us stop and think about Rotorua for a minute, because I am sure all of the members of this House have been to Rotorua at least once. The drive is spectacular as you make your way in there. You can see all the geothermal wonders, and the flight there is even more spectacular. You can see the volcanic nature of the land from high above. It is also easy to see how truly significant Rotorua is in the cultural history of Aotearoa and also to the economy of our nation.

It was stolen, legally and by trickery, until the people had nothing but steep hills and mud pools. All the nice land was bought by Pākehā at mortgagee sales for a pittance, and, as always—this is the classic modus operandi—Māori were forced to pay survey costs or other debts by selling their land. It should have been these tribes here today that formed our first Tourism Industry Association and opened up the chain of hotels. Iwi Māori should have been the managers, not just the guides. The souvenir business, the ice cream vendor—everything should have been run by these three tribes that we speak of today and other hāpu of the Te Arawa confederation.

So the next time you fly into Rotorua, have a look at the land that these people lost and the economic opportunities that were lost, such as tourism and geothermal energy. It is plain to see from the sky. All that steam and beautiful scenery used to be under the mana of the local body authorities of Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapauika. So this claims settlement bill is divided into three parts, one for each of the respective iwi. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee. We certainly have a busy work programme ahead, but it is very enjoyable work, awhi-ing and hearing submissions on these very significant pieces of legislation.

I would like to acknowledge the whānau and all the representatives from the wonderful iwi up in Te Arawa who have come through today. It is always a significant occasion to be able to speak on these bills, and although the tone of my speeches can sometimes be a bit heavy, I think it is very important that we acknowledge the significance and the history for each iwi, because each iwi has its own mana and its own story. I look forward to further tautoko for this bill in later stages and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. He mihi nui ki te tangata whenua o Te Arawa, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi me Tapuika, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and a huge acknowledgment to the locals of Te Arawa, namely Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika. Salutations to you collectively.]

It is a humble moment to be able to speak in the presence of the people for whom this bill, the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill, is so important. I would also like to acknowledge the co-leader of the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell, his connection to this bill, his connection to the rohe, and, therefore, his particular contribution to our House as a proud member of Te Arawa. I would like to also acknowledge our new member, Meka Whaitiri, of Ngāti Kahungunu. Tēnā koe. It is great to have you on board.

This bill is an omnibus measure that covers aspects of three Te Arawa iwi claims and it gives effect to the deeds of settlement that the Crown has negotiated. This negotiation includes some very significant issues that others have touched upon. My own personal connection to this is that my grandfather bought land on the lakeside of Rotorua in the 1930s. I have to say, to the shame of my family, that nobody in my family at the time or since, until recent years, would have any concept of what had happened to the land and the whenua, to the area, to the rohe, and to the iwi of the area. Nobody, in their enjoyment of the magical wonderland and playground that is Rotorua, had any concept of whose toes had been stamped on or whose fingernails, perhaps, had been ripped out in the colonisation of the area.

These are places such as Tikitere and Hamurana Springs that are iconic and magical, which many of us enjoyed in our childhoods as manuhiri, exquisite lakes such as Ōkataina, and those that were exquisite but are now deeply polluted by years of bad farming practice, sewerage disposal, pentachlorophenol contamination from the Waipā lakes and Waipā sawmill, and erosion. All of those things have been a heavy weight upon tangata whenua, but many others have come and gone and ignored or been unaware of those very important rights and relationships that have been trampled on. So it is an important day—a beginning, at least, towards healing some of those issues. The three iwi from the eastern side of the lakes and out to the coast have waited a very long time for redress.

The Crown apologies are a really important part of this bill. The apology is for the effect of warfare and land theft, which the iwi did not seek, and the loss of tribe authority, life, land, resources, social structures, etc., and, very important, the ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities. As others have said, the native land laws in particular were—and, I believe, still are—devastating in their ability to alienate. It is appropriate that the Crown acknowledges and apologises for the effects of these laws on hapū and whānau. Let us make sure that the Native Land Court, now allegedly reformed, and other instruments do not continue. That is why the Green Party does not believe in full and final settlement. Because we do not think that the rest of the legislative framework of this country supports justice yet, we believe that tangata whenua must always have the right to claim and to speak out on these issues. All of these words do not adequately convey the multilayered nightmare of colonisation.

I just want to speak about one aspect of the loss—the loss of access to customary rights and responsibilities. The lakes, rivers, and hot springs of the rohe are legendary and magnificent taonga, and, although contaminated in many instances, once must have been the most productive source of kai, of energy, and of mana. The loss is not only of the physical access to these resources, it is also the history of contamination, which I know these iwi have fought for in a very steadfast manner. Kaituna, for example, under the Tapuika settlement, is a legendary name for the wrong reasons as well as for the right reasons. “Kai-tuna”—I can only imagine the abundance of kai, the abundance of tuna, that were once in that river. What has been done to that river is inexcusable and unforgettable. Let us hope that some of the mechanisms of this bill will start to restore it.

For Ngāti Rangiteaorere there is specific cultural address in terms of Waiohewa stream, which is vested in the trustees. There is commercial redress. It is an advancement of agreements that were set out in 1993, and I hope, for those who have worked so hard since 1993, that this feels like a really big milestone and major progress for them.

Ngāti Rangiwewehi, equally, were marginalised totally through the war and the raupatu in the Tauranga area. The bill does clarify issues around their settlement in relation to fisheries protocol and creates joint management structures for some sites, as well as very strong conservation-related rights, which are important. Cultural harvest is an integral part of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and was never ever given up by many people.

I want to talk briefly about co-governance in relation to Tapuika, because they established Te Maru o Kaituna, the Kaituna River Authority, as a permanent joint committee for the restoration, protection, and enhancement of that awa. This involves a number of iwi, including the Tapuika Iwi Authority and the local authorities, and it will be vital for this group to work, and vital for the kaupapa of restoring the Kaituna River and providing for the well-being of the communities with their deep whakapapa and kaitiaki connections to this long-abused and much-treasured waterway.

It must always be acknowledged that co-governance is not article 2. It is not tino rangatiratanga. It is a response to the current reality, and it is generously agreed upon by mana whenua in the spirit of relationship-building. My honourable colleague Tau Henare talked about co-governance in a previous speech this morning as a kind of unique mechanism in Aotearoa. It is actually a global model, and it has mixed success. Co-governance is not the sovereignty of tangata whenua, but it is what is possible in the current situation, and therefore should be welcomed and celebrated.

But if you look at Sami, if you look at the Arctic, if you look at Australia and the indigenous people there, there are real challenges in co-governance in terms of two very different world views sitting at the table and doing what they need to do, which is negotiate, and there are real issues of power. If you talk to any of the Aboriginal people from Central Australia and you talk to some of the Arctic indigenous people, the challenges are very important but they are also very profound. So we cannot romanticise co-governance, much as we celebrate it. We have to recognise that it is always about power. It is always about power, and it is very important that we recognise the challenges within it, because we need to be at the table, but that is not article 2. That is just the reality that we need to deal with, and it is a good reality.

This omnibus bill has a number of technical provisions to clarify the unfinished business for these iwi who have come together to progress justice with the Crown—and well done for that. Like all such legislation, it includes some recognition of rights to very sacred places and lost resources. It provides some opportunities for forest and fisheries ownership and some shared governance over bodies of important rivers and sites. But reading these bills always gives a sense, for me as a Pākehā and for many of mine, of how little we really know about the original price that was paid and how hard the journey has been to this point. I think it is very important that, with humility, those of us who do not come from Te Arawa and who have enjoyed that rohe recognise what we do not know, what we have not experienced, and what is still unseen through the process.

As always, the Green Party is cognisant of the silent side, whereby other citizens who have enjoyed this magic are not participating and barely know how important this day is in terms of these three iwi. The depressing emails I receive claiming that the “Treaty gravy train” provides Māori with so many privileges just show the depth of ignorance and the gaps, so I welcome any settlement bill that will provide historical background. One of the most beneficial things about the bill is the stories told. But we need to get those stories out again to the people who think that Rotorua is a tourist mecca, rather than the rohe of the important Te Arawa tribes.

I still receive so much in my in-box that should not be there, and I do hope that through this process and this very important bill, and the other bills that we are happy to support today, that there will be more information, more education, and more positive challenges to people who still do not understand what really goes on. Obviously these iwi are legendary for their extraordinary hospitality, their extraordinary generosity, and their extraordinary culture. People come to enjoy that culture and pay for that privilege from all around the world. But it is here in Aotearoa that the challenge must go out to my own culture and tauiwi katoa. We need to learn the history. We need to own the past. We need to recognise our present privilege, and we need to stand up for a continuing dialogue on the Treaty of Waitangi so that these settlements will have the full meaning that they should have. Kia ora tātou.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): I did not realise during my last kōrero that Rūaumoko sat up to listen to me and started to vibrate a little bit there. I took that as a tohu—he tohu pai, actually—and I felt that Rūaumoko was rumbling again. So another tohu pai, I think—he tohu pai. The Crown and Te Tāhuhu o Tawakeheimoa Trust signed a deed of settlement with the Crown on behalf of Ngāti Rangiwewehi on 16 December last year. Ki te iwi o Ngāti Rangiwewehi, mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[To you the people of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, I acknowledge you all.]

The Crown and the Tapuika Iwi Authority Trust signed a deed of settlement with the Crown on behalf of Tapuika on 16 December last year. Ki te iwi o Tapuika, mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[To the people of Tapuika, I salute you all.]

The Crown and the Ngāti Rangiteaorere Koromatua Council signed a deed of settlement on 14 June this year. Mihi atu ki a koutou katoa ki te whakatō i tō hīkaka o Ngāti Rangiwewehi i tōna ake mana.

[I commend you all collectively to introduce your eagerness of Ngāti Rangiwewehi against its very own authority.]

Each settlement provides an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments, and an apology to iwi. There is cultural redress to Ngāti Rangiwewehi, the vesting of Te Riu o Kererū in Ngāti Rangiwewehi, the vesting of part of Hamurana Springs as recreation reserve, and the second part as historical reserve, the vesting of Ngā Tini Roimata a Rangiwewehi and Te Riu o Kererū B as scenic reserves, the vesting of Te Riu o Ngata subject to a conservation covenant, the statutory acknowledgments over a number of culturally significant sites to Ngāti Rangiwewehi, protocols with the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and letters of introduction to local government authorities in a number of non-core Crown agencies.

In respect of commercial and financial redress, Ngāti Rangiwewehi will receive financial and commercial redress of $6 million, comprised of a mix of cash and commercial properties. Ngāti Rangiwewehi will also have the option to purchase further Crown-owned property, following settlement date. Ngāti Rangiwewehi have a right of first refusal over 1.3364 hectares of land held by the Ministry of Education. This right continues for 171 years from the settlement date. Ngāti Rangiwewehi, we thank you for your generosity. Tapuika, mai i ngā pae maunga ki Te Toro Puke e tū kau mai rā ki te awa e rere mai ana, waiho te whenua ko te takapū o taku tamaiti a Tapuika.

[Tapuika, let the land from the mountain range to the hill standing over there before us to the flowing river be the abdomen of my child Tapuika.]

In terms of cultural redress the settlement establishes a framework for co-governance of the Kaituna River. The Lower Kaituna Wildlife Management Reserve will be vested jointly in Tapuika and Ngāti Whakauē who will in turn, and after a specified period of time, give the reserve back to the Crown. The Crown will provide $500,000 to assist Tapuika to enhance their cultural presence within Te Puke. Twelve sites of special significance to Tapuika, totalling approximately 209 hectares, will be vested in Tapuika, including three sites from within Kaharoa conservation forest, two sites from within Te Mātai conservation forest, Otāhu Pā, and Ōtūkawa. The settlement provides a whenua rāhui over Ōpoutihi. One additional site, Te Taitā, will be vested jointly in Tapuika and Ngāti Rangiwewehi. The settlement provides for statutory acknowledgments over a number of sites and waterways of significance to Tapuika and protocols within the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

In terms of financial and commercial redress, Tapuika will receive financial redress of $6 million comprising a mix of cash and properties. Tapuika will also have a right of first refusal in relation to 11 Crown-owned properties for a period of 171 years. Tapuika, we thank you for your generosity. Ngāti Rangiteaorere, kāore e hangaia te kupenga hei hapu hao ika i āna kai ēngari, i hangaia kia oioi i roto i te nekeneke o te tai.

[Ngāti Rangiteaorere, the net was not fashioned to catch fish as its food but rather to move continuously through the tidal flow.]

The settlement provides for the vesting of the fee simple of the Te Ngae/Rangiteaorere site to be known as Waiōhewa and the vesting of Te Ngae Junction Recreation Reserve to be known as Rangiteaorere, subject to recreation reserve status. The Crown vests the Lake Ōkataina Scenic Reserve, to be known as Whakapoungakau, subject to scenic reserve status. The deed of settlement will provide for protocols to facilitate good working relationships between the iwi and the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will write letters of introduction to a number of non-core Crown agencies.

In respect of financial and commercial redress, the financial redress amount to be paid under this settlement is $750,000. Ngāti Rangiteaorere will also have a right of first refusal over an area of land held by the New Zealand Transport Agency between State Highway 33 and State Highway 30. Ngāti Rangiteaorere, we thank you for your generosity.

Again, we see that these settlements are part of our future, moving forward together in partnership under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as a partnership between the Crown and iwi. And for that, again, I thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson. To that end, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. Tāpiri atu aku mihi ki a koutou kua tae mai mō tēnei wāhanga o tō koutou pire, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, and acknowledgments to you all. I add my salutations accorded to you collectively who have arrived here for this part of your bill: Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika. I greet you all.]

Unlike previous contributions on other settlement bills I am quite optimistic about the opportunity that is happening here. I am assured and affirmed from some relationships that I have in the Te Arawa area that much will be done with what is contained here in this particular bill, the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. It provides not a new chance but it confirms relationships that are already well established within the Te Arawa area for these hapū in terms of what they want to do going forward.

The very mechanical part of this stage in the House is that the bill comes here for the first reading, and it is referred to the select committee where we will hear submissions. We are going to make sure that we give full hearings to everybody who has something to say on the bill. It is important because a lot of people feel that maybe they have not had the opportunity to be heard in public or to go through some of their whakaaro around whether or not they agree with the settlement, and the select committee can give attention to those types of whakaaro.

But at the end of the day, what has been agreed to with the Minister, with your negotiators, and with Crown officials is something that must bind all members of this House towards assuring the members of hapū who are present that they can go forward with some commitment. That has really been the tenor of the contribution I have made in the House today—that Treaty settlements go beyond the Government and must endure when all members of the House commit to supporting them, because Governments come and go but iwi stay and you need that type of assurance to make sure that the implementation and expectations in terms of what is wanted to be achieved in settlements will stand the test of time.

For my part I really did not want to take up too much time in the House, because members before me have given book, line, and verse about the terms of the settlement, the history, and the like. However, there are two things I would like to say. Firstly, we have impending local body elections, and it is my strong view that not enough local government politicians get themselves well, kind of, immersed in the Treaty settlement process so that they understand at a local level the importance of the relationship and perhaps some of the cross-cutting aspects of Treaty settlements that dovetail into local government politics.

To those people who may be listening and watching the debate, aspiring local body politicians for Environment Bay of Plenty and for the Rotorua District Council, my plea would be to give some urgency to getting to know what the terms and conditions of Treaty settlements are in your area and getting to know those people who really want to make things happen.

The second point I would like to raise is really in relation to the technical aspects of implementing Treaty settlements. Every iwi and every hapū who have gone through this process are prepared for it but do not really realise the time taken to try to work through many of the more technical aspects and how time-exhaustive it can be. For that part of the process, my strong plea again is really to the Office of Treaty Settlements officials: do not walk away from the process once the settlement has been achieved, because there are expectations that dovetail into responsibilities of other Government departments that the Office of Treaty Settlements should, by some measure, ensure that everyone is always coming up to the plate, bringing their best game, and being as committed as the office has been to achieving the settlement and to implementing the technical aspects and undertakings in the legislation.

So with that said, I am looking forward to this bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. I am very optimistic. This is not a start from nothing situation for the hapū involved, in terms of having capacity and having a track record, I guess you could say, in terms of doing things for their people. Unlike some other settlements, where people kind of use their settlement as a push to create something, I think this will be another cog in a wheel that has been turning for a while and that will just gain momentum and go faster. So in the second reading—it remains to be seen—there may not be too much change coming back to the House. I look forward to the speedy passage of this legislation, so that people can get on the road and do their thing. Kia ora koutou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa. E kī ana te kōrero, ko Tiheia te maunga, ko Te Mimi-ō-Pekehāua te wai tupu kiri o ngā mātua tūpuna, ka puta ki Te Rotorua-nui-a-Kahumatamamoe, ko Tarimano te papa tapu. Ko Tawakeheimoa ka moe a Te Aongahoro ka puta ki waho ko Rangiwewehi, ē, tēnei te tatū mai i te rā nei. Ehara i te mea māku rātou e mihi, ko tōku iwi tēnei kua tatū mai. Nō reira, kāore au i te mihi ki a rātou, i tua atu o te kī, kai taku rahi, koinei taku kāinga rua. Hara mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata me te mihi anō rā ki te āhuatanga ki ngā uri o Te Waha, o Ngā, o Ātareta anei te kāinga tuarua kei ngā karanga rua. Nā reira, kōrua ko Rātena te taha ki a au ki a Mohi Terae; ka mutu ki taku rahi, he mea nui tēnei kua tatū mai koutou i tēnei rā. Kua roa au e tatari ana mō tēnei rangi, pēnei i a koutou, pēnei i a tātou.

E aroha atu ana, kotahi anake te kanohi e kite nei au o roto o Rangiteaorere. E tangi atu ana ki te āhuatanga ki a Tapuika, ko tō tātou rahi o tērā taha ēngari, kai te pai. Kei konei koutou hei kanohi mō rātou. I a au e noho nei, e tū nei, ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hunga nā rātou tēnei take i kōkiri ki tōna orokohanga, ki a Haami mā, koira tērā o ngā pāpā. Ki taku mōhio, kotahi anake tana kaupapa. Ko te wai, ko te wai, ko te wai. Anā, e tohengia ana i roto i te Whare Pāremata i tēnei wā. Ki a Te Meihana, ka kite atu i wana uri i te rā nei. Te Rangikāheke tēnā koe, te urī o Te Meihana. Kite atu i te whakaahua o te Dennis, he uri o roto i a tātou o Rangiwewehi, tae rā anō ki a Rangiteaorere, tērā i hinga i ngā tau tata kua hipa ake. Me te aroha anō hoki ki a Huka. Ko ia tērā i tū i te marae o Tarimano i te ekenga o te Minita ki mua i a tātou e te rahi, ā, koia tērā e tohutohu nei i a mātou, i a tātou rā, i te taha tō tātou kuia, a Ella kia pēnei mai, kia pērā mai. Ko ia tērā i kawe nei i te āhuatanga o te waiata i runga i tō tātou marae o Tarimano. Nō reira, e aroha atu ana ki a rātou katoa kua ngaro i te tirohanga kanohi. E kore e tāea te pēhea, anā, ko koutou, ko tātau tēnei e tīmata nei i tēnei huarahi.

Kei te kōrero ahau he tīmatanga tēnei i te mea, e whā ngā wāhanga o tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Āe, kua ea tētahi wāhanga. Ko te tohetohe kei waenganui i a tātou, ko te ekenga ki te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rangi, ko te pānuitanga tuatahi. Nō reira, kia eke ki konei he nui ngā mahi ka oti nei i a tātau. Ka titiro atu ki a koe te kanohi pakeke, Te Tāuri, te uri o rātou mā, ko koe te pakeke i ārahi nei i tō tātou rahi ki runga i tēnei huarahi. Tōku ngākau kei te kī, me whakarahi ake te pūtea, tōku ngākau tērā. Ko tōku ngākau kei te kī, hā, iti noa iho te whenua kua hoki mai ēngari, kāore au i te whakahē i tō mahi. Ko koe te kanohi, ko koe te reo i kawe nei i ngā tūmanako o te iwi, me mihi rā ki a koe, oti rā, te hunga ko Hārata, ko Te Rangikāheke, mā i kōkiri i te take nei. Āe, ko au tētahi e noho kawa nei ki ētahi o ngā āhuatanga o te kāinga ēngari ērā kōrero mō Tarimano tērā. Kāore au i te whakatakoto i ēnā kōrero ki mua i te aroaro o te hunga nei. Nō reira tērā, tērā. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te āhuatanga o tō tātou haerenga ki runga i te marae o Makahae i roto o Tapuika. I tērā wā, ē, he rōpū pakupaku nei i haere ki reira nā runga i te hiahia kei te whakatutuki i te kaupapa. Ā, i reira ko Huka anō hoki. Ka eke i te marae, i kōrerohia te take, i kai tahi, ka puta te kōrero, ā kāti, me noho tahi. Ā tērā, tērā.

Ē, ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā kōrero i puta mō te haerenga o Rangiwewehi ki runga o Rangiteaorere. He whakakōhatu i te āhuatanga o te ara whanaunga, ko tētahi ki tētahi, ā, nā wai, nā wai, tutuki pai tērā taha. Koinei te take ki taku mōhio, i puta te kōrero ko Te Tokotoru, kaua ko Te Tokotoru Tapu e kōrerohia ake nei ēngari, ko Te Tokotoru o ngā Puna Wai. He aha i puna wai ai? Nā te āhuatanga ki a Waiōhewa, nā te āhuatanga ki te awa o Te Kaituna, te āhuatanga ki tō tātou awa, ki Te Mimi-ō-Pekehāua. Koirā te hononga mai, ko te āhuatanga o te wai. I whakaritea mai ai, i kōrerohia mai ai e tō tātou pāpā i a Haami i te wā i a ia e takatū ana i te mata o te whenua. E tangi atu ana i te mea, kāore au i te kite i wana tamariki i konei i te rā nei, me mihi ki a ia, me tana hoa rangatira. Ā tērā, tērā.

Me mihi anō hoki ki te hunga e noho nei hei kaitakawaenga mō ngā iwi nei. I kite au i a Patsy Moore kua puta pea ēngari, me mihi ki a ia. Ko ia tērā i te mea, he nui ngā kōrero kua puta mō tāua wahine Pākehā rā mō tana noho ki waenganui i a tātau. Me mihi rā ki a ia, otirā, ki te Minita e noho nei, ā, ko ia tērā i āta titiro nei ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero, ka mihi ki a koe e te Minita. Ē, he tangata pai koe ki te tuku i ngā rawa ēngari me whakamōmona ake te nui o te moni mō taku rahi a Tapuika, ki a Rangiteaorere, mēnā i pai tērā, ā, ka pai, ka tino tautoko i a koe. Kai wareware i a tātau, ko te āhuatanga o te kuia nei o Donna Hall. Ko ētahi, ā, āhua noho kawa nei ki tērā kuia ēngari, nānā tonu ngā iwi e toru i whakakao mai. Nō reira, ahakoa ērā ka noho kino nei ētahi ki a ia, ko au tēnei kei te kī, he painga anō rā pēnei tā te Mita Hikairo Mohi e kī ana, he painga anō rā i roto i te kino. Ko te kino, ko ngā whiunga kōrero ki a ia, i ētahi wā ko te pai kua puta te kaupapa nei ki te whaiao, ki Te Ao Mārama.

Kāti, ka rongo ake i ngā kōrero nei o te tangata nei o Te Wai Pounamu me tana kī mai mō te āhuatanga o Rotorua. E hoa, e Rino, kāore koe i te mōhio ki te āhuatanga o taku iwi. I kōrero koe mō te hītori me ngā tūruhi. Ko taku iwi e noho nei ki Awahou, te wai tupu kiri o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna, kai te kōrero koe mō ētahi atu iwi. Arā anō ngā iwi o roto o Te Arawa ēngari ko Rangiwewehi, he iwi humārie, iwi noho nei te whakaiti, kāore ki te whakanui i a ia, nō reira, waiho ake waku kōrero ki taku iwi. Mō te Māori o te Nōta nei kei muri i a au. Taku iwi, kāore he paku pānga o tērā Māori ki tō tātou whenua. Nō Te Tai Tokerau te Māori nei. Nō reira, ēnei kōrero katoa e mihi ana ki a ia me tērā tono. Mēnā ka whai pānga a Te Ururoa ki te whenua o Te Tai Tokerau, ā, haramai ki a au ēngari tērā kōrero, tērā.

Kāti hei kupu whakamutunga kai taku rahi, ko ahau te mea whakakōpani i te āhuatanga o te kōrero me te mōhio anō hoki, ā muri ake nei ka waiata tātou i tētahi waiata o te wā kāinga. He ara tāpokopoko kua whaiwhai haeretia e tātou i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Ko au tētahi e noho kawa nei ki ētahi o ngā āhuatanga. He wā tōna pea ka noho nei tātou ki roto i tō tātou Whare ki reira tuitui anō rā i te āhuatanga o te ara whanaunga, koinei te tūmanako. Ko te riri kai roto i a au i tēnei wā mō ētahi āhuatanga, e kore e mutu. Tērā pea kei waenganui i a tātau, e pērā anō te āhua. Mēnā ka noho au i te riri mō te wā ka tukuna au ki te kōpū o Papatūānuku, ki Puhirua. Ka takoto riri au ki roto i tērā o ngā wāhi. Nō reira, i te mea kua tae tuatahi mai koutou ki tēnei Whare, koinei te īnoi atu, he wā tōna kia whai wāhi tātou ki te whakatakoto i te āhuatanga o te ara whanaunga o tētahi ki tētahi, kia kore ai tērā riri e tūkino nei i te tangata, ā, mate nei. Koia te āhuatanga o te kerēme, me puta tātou ki te whaiao ki Te Ao Mārama, ēngari mā te kōrero. E kī ana te kōrero: ko te kai o te rangatira he kōrero, kāti, he rangatira tātau, me kōrero. Nā runga i tērā kōrero e taku rahi, ka nui te tangi ki a tātau i tēnei rā. Kua tae mai koutou i te rā nei, tēnā koutou, haere mai. Tō tātou Whare, ngā mema Pāremata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kai a koutou te wai.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us all collectively. An aphorism states that Tiheia is the mountain, Te Mimi-ō-Pekehāua is the bathing waters of the ancestral forefathers. Out to Te Rotorua-nui-a-Kahumatamamoe, Tarimano is the sacred bed. Tawakeheimoa married Te Aongahoro, and lo this Rangiwewehi who has arrived here today was born. But it is definitely not appropriate for me to welcome them. This is my tribe that has arrived here. So I am not welcoming them specifically other than to say to my multitude that this is my second home; welcome to this House of Parliament. I acknowledge the circumstances once again that relate to the descendants of Te Waha, Ngā, Ātareta. The second home is here at your disposal, cousins. So you and Rātena is the side of me to Mohi Terae; furthermore, my multitude, this arrival of yours here today is a momentous occasion. Like you and us, I have been waiting a long time for this day.

I am saddened that I see only one face from within Ngāti Rangiteaorere. I lament the situation relating to Tapuika, the bulk of us on that side, but that is fine. You are here as a representative for them. As I sit and stand here, my thoughts go back to the ones who really championed this cause at its beginnings, to Haami and others. He was one of the uncles. To my knowledge, he only had one purpose. It was water, water, water. Today, Parliament is debating it. I see his relatives today and Te Meihana comes to mind. Greetings Te Rangikāheke, relative of Te Meihana. I see the photo of Dennis, a relative within us of Ngāti Rangiwewehi and Ngāti Rangiteaorere too. He passed away in recent years. My sympathy once again to Huka. She was the one who stood at the courtyard of Tarimano when the Minister arrived before us the multitude. She was there advising us—everyone, in fact, alongside our female elder Ella—do it like this, like that. When it came to chants she was the one who led those on our Tarimano courtyard. Therefore, I extend my sympathies to all of them who have passed on and whose faces are no longer seen. Nothing could be done to avoid the inevitable, so you and we lot started this procedure.

I said that this is a commencement because there are four stages to this matter. Yes, a stage of it has been satisfied, the debate amongst ourselves about contentious matters, the arrival at Parliament House on this day and the first reading. So we had to do a lot of work to get here. So I look in your direction, Te Tāuri, elder face and descendant of those who have departed. You are the elder of our multitude on this path. My inner self is saying go for a greater financial return. That is my thinking inside of me. But then I ponder, gosh, only a small amount of land has been returned. But I am not going against what you are doing. You are the representative and voice with the aspirations of our people upon you. I acknowledge you for that and the input by those like Hārata, Te Rangikāheke, and others who have been dealing with this matter. Yes, I was one who found some of the things going on back home distasteful, but that is for Tarimano to sort out. I certainly will not be raising those issues here in front of these ones gathered here. So, that is that. My thoughts go back to the reasons why we went to Makahae, Tapuika’s courtyard. At that time, just a small group went because we wanted to complete the matter. Huka was there as well. We went on to the courtyard, discussed the matter, ate together, and then it was proposed that we should remain united. So, that was that.

My thoughts go back rather hesitantly to the talk that emerged about Ngāti Rangiwewehi going over the top Ngāti Rangiteaorere. The purpose was to solidify the line of kinship, one with the other, and, after a period of time mulling it over, that side was completed well. This is the reason as I understand why The Threesome emerged, and not The Sacred Threesome as such but The Water Sources of the Threesome. Why the water sources? Because of the reference to Waiōhewa, the Kaituna River, and to our river Te Mimi-ō-Pekehāua. That was the connection, the reference to the water. It was considered and explained to us by our fatherly figure Haami when he was up and about on the face of the earth. I grieve because I do not see any of his children here today. We need to acknowledge him and his wife. And that is that one.

I need to acknowledge those that become facilitators for these people. I saw Patsy Moore earlier, and she may have gone out but we must applaud her. She is the one because much has been said about this European woman and the time she has spent amongst us. Accolades to her and, indeed, to the Minister present here, the one who examined the presentations. Thank you, Minister. You are a good man at distributing resources, but do untie the purse strings a little for my multitude Tapuika and Rangiteaorere—if that is possible, well and good, I will support you more. We must not forget the situation relating to this elder motherly figure Donna Hall. Some have adverse feelings towards her, but the fact remains she gathered the three together. Therefore, in spite of these things, some people remain adverse towards her, but I say that a benefit is just like what Mita Hikairo Mohi advocates—there is always a benefit from a bad situation. The bad side is the disparaging remarks cast at her, and the benefit at times is that this proposal gets out to the World of Light and Enlightenment.

Well, I listened to these sentiments by this person of the South Island about Rotorua. Colleague Rino, you do not know anything about my people. You made references to the history and tourism. My tribe that lives at Awahou, at the traditional water source of the forefathers and ancestors, Rangiwewehi, cannot be who you were talking about. You must have been referring to some other tribe. There are many other tribes in the Te Arawa region. Ngāti Rangiwewehi is genial, humble, and tends to adopt a low profile rather then putting itself to the fore, so let us leave my references about my people there. As for that Māori member behind me from the North, I say to my people, that indigenous person has no shares in our lands. This Māori is from Northland. So, this banter aside, I salute him and that request. If Te Ururoa has any interests in Northland land, come and see me. But that is another story.

Well, then, as a final word, my multitude, I am the closing speaker and know all too well that we will sing one of our songs from home at the end of this address. The path we have been following over the past years has been a boggy one. I am one who has remained sour over some experiences. There will come a time when we will need to sit down in our House to stitch together a protocol of common relationship—this is the expectation. The anger within me at this point in time about some aspects has no ending. Perhaps there are others amongst us who share the same feeling of sheer anger. If that was to remain with me forever, I will end up being buried in the bosom of Mother Earth at Puhirua and lie hostile there in that place. Therefore, because this is your first time to this House, my plea is that we will need to set aside time to discuss aspects of our genealogical lineage that will link everyone to each other, so that this hostility does not wear us all down and die. The outcome of the claim should be for us to emerge into the World of Light and Enlightenment. There is a saying that states: the food of a chief is talk. Well, then, we are chiefs, so we need to engage in discussion. On that, my multitude, my grief for us this day is much. You have arrived here today, so salutations and welcome. To you all our House and members of Parliament, greetings, acknowledgements, and salutations. You have the song, my multitude.]

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.21 p.m. (Thursday)