Tuesday, 22 October 2013

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Tax System Changes—Impact

1. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: What impact have the Government’s across the board tax cuts, and other tax changes in 2010, had on income tax paid by higher and lower income households?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Estimates of net income tax paid by household income indicate that the tax system has become more progressive since the Government’s tax changes in 2010. Households earning less than $60,000 a year are expected to pay less, in percentage terms, towards net tax this year than they were paying in 2008-09. Households earning more than $150,000 a year are generally expected to pay more of the total net income tax this year than they did 5 years ago. Only 6 percent of taxpayers earn over $100,000 a year. They pay around 37 percent of total income tax. Three years ago they paid around 29 percent of total income tax. That is why calls to increase the top tax rate are misguided, because by dropping the top tax rate and closing the loopholes, higher-income earners are paying proportionately more tax.

Maggie Barry: What changes has the Government made to income tax rates and other taxes to help families get ahead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package in 2010 reduced tax on work and savings, and increased taxes on consumption and property speculation. In particular, it reduced the top tax rate from 39c to 33c and closed the loopholes that had been left wide open by the gap between the top tax rate and the company tax rate, which allowed high-income earners to avoid paying 39c in the dollar. Now that we have cut the top tax rate to 33c, higher-income earners are paying proportionately more tax than they did when the rate was higher.

Maggie Barry: How significantly do the income tax and income support systems redistribute incomes for New Zealand households?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax and income support systems provide a significant amount of income redistribution—in fact, a bit more redistribution now than 4 or 5 years ago. Households earning over $150,000—that is, the top 12 percent of households by income—will pay 46 percent of income tax. When benefit payments, Working for Families, paid parental leave, and accommodation support are taken into account, households earning over $150,000 will pay 76 percent of the net income tax. Households earning under $60,000 a year—half of all households—are expected to pay around 11 percent of income tax. So households earning over $150,000 pay 76 percent of net income tax and households earning under $60,000 pay 11 percent of income tax.

Maggie Barry: What broader measures has the Government taken to support families most in need, particularly to ensure that the tax and income support systems are fairer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has, despite a recession and large deficits, maintained the large-scale income support measures for low and middle income families. But, of course, measures of gross income are not the only measure of the welfare of a family. Over the last two Budgets the Government has invested more than $470 million in helping more New Zealanders out of welfare dependency and into work, because even though that is not a cash transfer to the individuals concerned, it greatly improves their prospects and improves equality if people move from welfare dependency into work.

Dr David Clark: No matter how much he tortures the statistics, do not the figures actually show—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to assist the order of the House by phrasing his question more correctly and starting with a question. Otherwise it leads to the sort of disorder that I then have to deal with. If the member could attempt to do so, I would appreciate that. In the meantime, the front bench on my right-hand side will stay quiet while the question is asked.

Dr David Clark: Do not the figures actually show that his 2010 tax changes are a measure that has cemented a gap between rich and poor, which is higher under this Government than it ever was under the previous Government and made worse by unemployment still being higher than it was during the global financial crisis and by wage growth being at its lowest in over a decade?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, no, and no. The recent Ministry of Social Development social report shows inequality in New Zealand reducing. It shows it reducing from a peak of inequality under the Labour Government. It does not matter how often Labour members want to say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, they are wrong. Inequality is reducing.

Prime Minister—Statements on KiwiFund and Support Partners

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he make a misleading statement on TVNZ’s Breakfast yesterday, which I quote: “I know that these guys are on this track at the moment … to … nationalise building, nationalise our management funds, they’ll be nationalising supermarkets and petrol stations and everything else soon.”, when New Zealand First has never suggested nationalising the existing KiwiSaver scheme?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is true, and I was just using the opportunity to make a policy announcement for New Zealand First in case it does not get enough air time to do it itself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he say the “KiwiFund” policy would take out competition when New Zealanders will still have the choice of which provider to belong to, or does he think that the interests of high-charging KiwiSaver providers are more important than KiwiSavers themselves?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Notwithstanding that the member was typically, extremely vague in his speech, what I will say is that what he seemed to be saying in his speech is that under New Zealand First the Government-run KiwiSaver provider would Government-guarantee the returns—in other words, there would be no losses—there would be, assumedly, no fees, and on that basis, how could anybody compete with that?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What undertakings has the National Party made to the members of the Financial Services Council, apart from providing the chairperson?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot recall making any, but what we are keen to do is promote competition. There is $16 billion in KiwiSaver at the moment. That $16 billion is well serviced by 20 providers. They provide different strategies in different risk profiles. As the New Zealand Herald editorial pointed out this morning, having one provider would not be a good thing. I think the member should do this: I think he should stop worrying about mucking around with KiwiSaver, which is operating well, and start worrying about Colin Craig. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Because of the noise, I couldn’t hear the end of that answer. Could I hear it again?

Mr SPEAKER: The member is lucky. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I could not hear you either when you gave the ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister finished his question by saying something around how he might be better if a man called Colin Craig got more air time, that sort of thing. [Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he maintain that private providers are the best managers of pension funds, bearing in mind a company called Merrill Lynch lost $53.5 billion in pension funds in 2001, as he was bailing out from the company?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I might point out that when I was with Merrill Lynch, it was good. The difference between me and that member is that Merrill Lynch wanted me to work for it; it never wanted Winston Peters, from what I can recall.

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

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a projected cumulative investment management fees chart that arises from the Parliamentary Library, taking into account projections by Treasury and Infometrics; the second is a Nina Montagu-Smith 4 June 2002 report of a massive loss the previous year by pension funds manager Merrill Lynch, Mr Key’s firm, of course; another article by Montagu-Smith as well; and, just to make sure he does not duck out of it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just give us the information.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —the Wikipedia record of this man’s performance and work history, the Prime Minister of this country.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! For the sake of clarity, we will put all of the leave together. Leave is sought to table about four documents. Is there any objection to it?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We would have to object to the lot, because some of it’s publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Objection is made.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have put the leave.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did not say no; he said we would have to check the lot, which assumes that he wants to see them.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no. He said he was objecting when leave was put. That is what the member said.

Metiria Turei: Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that there is no reason why John Banks should not vote on the Skycity bill, given his previous attacks on Labour for using Taito Phillip Field’s vote while that former Minister was also facing a criminal charge?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and the interesting thing will be to see whether Labour votes for the Skycity bill now.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister remember making this statement in relation to the then Prime Minister Helen Clark: she “was prepared to cynically cling to power by continuing to exercise Mr Field’s vote, no matter what. She would have used any excuse to not act against him to maintain her slim one-vote majority.”, and will he stick to his own high principles and refuse to exercise Mr Banks’ vote, at least on the Skycity deal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member seems to be forgetting something, either conveniently or otherwise. Taito Phillip Field was a member of the Labour Party, and the Labour Party exercised their vote. Mr Banks is a member of the ACT Party, and he decides whether he votes or not—[Interruption] Look, the question is whether you guys are going to vote for it, because we all know what you are saying around Auckland.

Government—Relationship with Support Partners

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why did he accept the resignation of the Hon John Banks as a Minister on 16 October 2013?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Because I agreed with the Hon John Banks that the court case would be a distraction for the Government if he was to continue as a Minister.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement that “to make a contribution, you have to have integrity, and to have integrity there has to be a directness and fullness in your answers.”; if so, how did John Banks meet that test?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Prime Minister refuse to even read the police report, when Mr Banks had taken a helicopter ride to the most expensive mansion in his own electorate to meet with a nearly 7-foot-tall German—whose wife he described as the most beautiful woman in the world—and from whom he solicited donations, which he then said he had mysteriously forgotten?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is worth recalling the situation. The police looked at it and decided there was no case to answer. I accepted the member at his word, and I continue to accept him at his word.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will he now tell New Zealand the reasons for Richard Worth’s resignation, which he has hitherto refused to give?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will he reinstate the Hon John Banks as a Minister in his Government if he is cleared of the charges he is currently facing in court?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will he reinstate the Hon Peter Dunne as a Minister in his Government if he is cleared by the Privileges Committee inquiry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite possibly.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Prime Minister received any advice on the viability of his Government’s proposed Resource Management Act reforms, should the Māori Party and Peter Dunne not support them?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I am sorry—looking at that question, it is not in any way related to the original primary question. I will allow the member another question.

Hon David Cunliffe: I will amend it slightly. Has the Prime Minister received any advice on the viability of the Government’s proposed Resource Management Act reforms, should the Hon John Banks not be available to vote for it and the Māori Party and Peter Dunne not support it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, Mr Banks is quite able to vote, as he will be voting on other things that we have been indicating. Secondly, we are a minority Government and like any minority Government, we need to work to build a majority as we go along. We are in discussions with our partners about whether we can get support for the Resource Management Act legislation. We might possibly be able to do that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister now face “the prospect of being held to ransom by potentially unreliable political allies, as each attempts to extract their pound of flesh from the new dynamic.”, which is a quote from his good self?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, we are a minority Government, and so when we go to—

Grant Robertson: And getting more minority by the day.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it is actually not changing, funnily enough. We are a minority Government, and as we go about our desire to pass legislation, we have to build a parliamentary majority. But if anyone is going to be held to ransom, it could easily be David Cunliffe by the Greens, who are clearly opposed to the Skycity deal, even if Labour is now not opposed to the Skycity deal.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he received written advice from John Banks while John Banks was still a Minister of his Government concerning a conflict of interest over the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and the fact that the Skycity Chief Executive Officer, Nigel Morrison, was to give evidence affecting him in court; if not, does he believe that a conflict of interest exists?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check that, but conflicts of interest are generally managed by the Cabinet Office, so I would need to check whether it has anything.

Apprenticeships and Trades Training—Reboot Scheme and Other Initiatives

4. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How many new apprentices have signed up under the Government’s Apprenticeship Reboot scheme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): The Government announced in January this year that it would provide a $1,000 payment to the first 10,000 new apprentices and their employer towards the cost of tools and training, or $2,000 each for the priority trades. I am pleased to advise the House that the reboot scheme has already signed up 8,000 new apprentices in only 7 months. This compares with the normal sign-up rate of 7,000 for a full year. The reboot has resulted in a 67 percent increase in the number of people starting apprenticeships compared with the same period last year, and two-thirds of all of those signed up—

Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —have been in the designated priority trades such as construction, engineering, infrastructure, and electrotechnology. And to be helpful to that member over there, to have an apprenticeship you actually do have to have a job.

Colin King: What other steps is the Government taking to improve industry training systems?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, we inherited a mess in industry training from the previous Government. Even though funding trebled, there were up to 100,000 phantom trainees in industry training who had achieved no credits. We have sorted out a lot of that mess and introduced a suite of measures to improve the opportunities for in-work training for all Kiwis. For example, we have established New Zealand Apprenticeships, which provides the same level of support and the same level of subsidy for all apprentices, regardless of their age. We have also boosted the educational content of apprenticeships and increased the funding. With the reboot and these other changes, we have estimated that around 14,000 extra new apprentices will start training over the next 5 years, over and above the normal numbers. We are now running ahead of that target.

Colin King: What steps is the Government taking to expand trades training in Canterbury?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As well as the apprenticeship reboot, the Government has now invested some $65 million in specific skills for Canterbury training initiatives over the last couple of years. In addition, I have recently announced a further capital injection of $18.9 million for the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, to enable it to further expand its trades training capacity as part of its campus rebuild following the earthquakes. That capital injection means that Christchurch Polytechnic will be able to further expand its Sullivan Avenue facilities, taking on an additional 400 equivalent full-time students, or up to 1,000 additional places a year, through until 2018. That is on top of the 1,000 it has already added. This further increase in trades training is very important to the Canterbury rebuild and to the wider Canterbury economy. The Government is delighted to support it.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table statistics from the Tertiary Education Commission that show in the first 3 years of National’s period in Government the number of apprentices—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to clarify that the Tertiary Education Commission report is not a published—

Grant Robertson: Those statistics are very hard to get.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that they are hard to get, I will allow the leave to be put. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! There was objection. It will not be tabled.

Regional Economies—Employment

5. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding the employees of the Tachikawa sawmill that the “opportunity for those workers will be better than it has been at any time in the last six or seven years”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, because we are seeing encouraging signs of higher business confidence, better investment, and hiring intentions. I could draw to the member’s attention that in every 3 months between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs in the New Zealand economy disappear and a slightly greater number of jobs are created, with the effect that there are now 65,000 more jobs in the economy than 2 years ago. But there are always jobs disappearing in the economy. That is why it is so important that they are replaced by businesses that are confident enough to invest.

Hon David Parker: Given that the level of Māori unemployment is now at 12.8 percent, double what it was 6 years ago, and that the majority of the Rotorua sawmill workers are Māori, how is opportunity for those workers or the workers at the Shannon fellmongery better than it has been at any time in the last 6 or 7 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, first of all, we do not think that being Māori destines you to unemployment. I know that that is what Labour thinks—that because these workers are Māori they do not have much chance of getting another job, but, actually, that is wrong.

Jami-Lee Ross: What policies would damage the prospects of the Tachikawa Forest Products workers and other job seekers in regional New Zealand for finding new jobs?

Mr SPEAKER: In as far as that is his ministerial responsibility, I call the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New jobs are created when businesses have the confidence to invest another dollar and hire another person, so anything that undermines that confidence makes it less likely that workers who lose their jobs will find another one. For instance, the abolition of the 90-day trial period would make it more difficult for people who have lost their jobs to get another one. Imposing an emissions trading scheme tax at twice the level it currently is would have the same effect, and those are Labour’s and the Greens’ policies.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the very end of that answer the Minister of Finance introduced material that he is not responsible for and that was not relevant to the question that he was asked. I ask that you ask him not to do that, and rule that out.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I will just make a ruling on Grant Robertson’s point because I think it is a reasonable point. It certainly is not reasonable to use question time as a means of attacking an Opposition. The question was asked about policies, and although the Minister, in my opinion, is quite legitimately able to outline those policies, to then deviate to an attack on another political party is an unnecessary situation and will lead to disorder in the House.

Hon David Parker: Is the level of Māori unemployment now 12.8 percent, and is that double what it was 6 years ago?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot verify that number, except to say that 6 years ago was prior to the global financial crisis and the recession, but it was at a time when the New Zealand export economy had gone into recession because of excessive Government spending and very poor economic policy on the part of the Labour Government. So 6 years ago Māori unemployment would have been rising.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr English, remarkably, could not answer a very direct question and then went on to include a lot of irrelevant material.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I as Speaker will determine when the answer is long enough.

Rt Hon John Key: Has the Minister seen any reports that the labour markets are actually very fluid and that in any given 3-month period there are 100,000 to 200,000 jobs lost or created, and that that has been true for a very long period of time, and has he seen any particular reports about job losses in the regions in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the case that there is a continual process of some jobs being lost and new jobs being created. For instance, for a sample, in the second half of 2008, three Feltex plants were closed—170 jobs lost. There were 430 jobs lost at Fisher and Paykel Appliances, and 466 jobs were lost at the Ōringi freezing works. I think that is in the regions. There were 249 jobs lost at Silver Fern Farms. That is in the regions. There were 323 jobs lost at Sealord. That is in the regions. There were 145 jobs lost at Cadbury and 316 jobs lost at Carter Holt Harvey. And those are just the ones I found in about 10 minutes of looking.

Hon David Parker: Given his knowledge of these statistics, can he tell the House what is the total number of job losses in the timber processing industry since he took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I cannot.

Hon David Parker: Why did he suggest that workers losing their jobs at the Rotorua sawmill should find construction jobs in Auckland and Christchurch, and does not this demonstrate the complete lack of vision this Government has for the regions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, and, as the member will know if he sees a transcript of the interview, I specifically rebutted the idea the interviewer had that that was what had to happen. But I did point out that the growth of construction in Christchurch, and in Auckland now that we are getting on top of the planning law, will create jobs across the whole country, and that there is hope for those people who have lost jobs. We do not share Labour’s view that because those people are Māori they cannot get jobs.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What recourse does a member have when, in the face of doubling Māori unemployment, we are accused of being uncaring?

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what the point of order is that the member is raising, I am sorry. If the member wants to—I think we will move on to question No. 6.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Compensation Provisions

6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Economic Development: Has he received any advice that a future Government could dismantle the SkyCity convention centre deal without paying compensation; if so, what was that advice?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, and I have to say to the member that this is not new news. As the member may be aware from her Law 101 classes, in New Zealand’s constitution Parliament is sovereign and can pass any law it likes. I do not think that this is news today or any other day. Whether it is a good idea for one Parliament to start ripping up contracts with outside organisations entered into by a previous Parliament is entirely another question, as any number of contracts extend past the life of just one Parliament. However, that does not change the fact that Parliament is always sovereign.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister warned Skycity to the possibility that a future Government could legislate to protect the public from the deal that he has worked out with Skycity, and that Skycity would not receive compensation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, that was discussed in the public arena before the agreement was signed, and it is not news. I do not know why the member thinks that this is some great revelation. This is just reality. How strange.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him whether he had alerted Skycity to the possibility. He has not answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that between that answer and the previous answer, he did. He just said that it is common knowledge that a Government has sovereign right. If a Government of the future wants to change anything, it can do so. So he has not specifically notified Skycity of that possibility.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do believe that that was a reasonably direct question from the member, asking whether or not the Minister had alerted Skycity. You put two answers together. That is very difficult for the Opposition in terms of what is on the record of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I am quite comfortable with my ruling. The Minister attempted to address the question satisfactorily. It may not be to the member’s satisfaction; that is happening relatively frequently in this place. [Interruption] Order! My job is to see that the question has been addressed, and to my satisfaction it has been.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister both accept and agree that future Governments have every right to legislate to overturn a deal that, effectively, sells our laws to the highest bidder and causes harm to the wider community?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I disagree completely with the premise of that member’s question. The arrangement, if she cared to look at it, is an exchange of some regulatory concessions in return for the building of a $400 million convention centre for Auckland and New Zealand. So, yes, a subsequent Parliament could rip that up and jeopardise the thousand jobs in construction of, and the 800 jobs in operating, that particular convention centre. It could do that, but I think that it would be marked by the public as irresponsible. I think it would be marked by the public as, frankly, scurrilous in terms of the approach it took, and I think that it should be very careful before it did that.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister think that a Government that sells the gambling laws to a casino in exchange for building a convention centre is a morally compromised Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not agree with the member. If she thinks that, she should really look in the mirror, because the Green Party was absolutely silent when a similar arrangement was struck by the Labour Government back in 2001. When that deal was done, the Minister of Tourism of the day lauded the deal, the Prime Minister lauded the deal, and the Greens were as quiet as church mice.

Hon Shane Jones: Why were officials from Treasury, the Ministry of Health, and the Department of Internal Affairs muzzled and forbidden from providing advice about gambling harm to the select committee dealing with the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the workings of the select committee are over to the select committee. I have no responsibility for them.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking a question to the Minister responsible for the stewardship and the sponsorship of a bill.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister responded that he had no responsibility for that. That is the Minister’s answer. That is for the Minister to determine. He quite emphatically said: “Well, that’s not my responsibility.”

Metiria Turei: Would the current compensation provisions in the deal be triggered if Skycity was required to use pre-commitment and player-tracking technology across all its electronic gambling machines in a way that reduced its pokie machine revenue—would the compensation provisions apply?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a hypothetical question. But in relation to the legislation as drafted, Parliament has the right to regulate gambling and to deal with problem gambling in the way it sees fit, and that would not trigger compensation in that regard. So I think the member is raising a hypothetical issue in terms of the measures she talks about. But Parliament does have the right to regulate gambling and to regulate problem gaming in a way that it sees fit, and that is not changed by this legislation.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister release the Crown Law Office advice sought by the officials advising the Commerce Committee, as those officials referred to and paraphrased that advice in the departmental report, said they had attached that advice to the departmental report, and then subsequently advised that that was a big mistake?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the tradition is that the Crown holds its legal advice, so if it needs it at any stage, it is able to act on it.

Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Completion and New Programme

7. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What update can he give on the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart is now drawing to its planned completion and has broken all targets set for the home insulation scheme. Originally we had a target of 188,500 insulations by 2013, revised to 230,000. In fact, the programme will see in excess of 235,000 homes insulated. A strong insulation industry has been built as a result of the programme, and the benefits of home insulation are now well known. I want to thank third-party funders, the insulation service providers, and local authorities, who have worked together with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to help make Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart such a success.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How is the new programme Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes progressing?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The new programme announced in this year’s Budget will offer free ceiling and underfloor insulation for low-income households, particularly families with children and high health needs. It is expected that the programme will insulate at least 46,000 homes over 3 years. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has already announced the first round of projects with generous third-party funding support spanning Northland to Southland.

Screen Production Industry—Performance and Challenges

8. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the statement he made on behalf of the Minister of Finance, that “New Zealand has a vibrant screen industry, which directly supports more than 2,700 businesses”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): In the context of The Hobbit movies, which was the topic of the question in the House to which that statement relates, yes, which is why on this side of the House we worked so hard to keep The Hobbit movies in New Zealand while members opposite tried to scuttle the deal and drive the film offshore.

Jacinda Ardern: Is he aware that the screen industry is experiencing a massive downturn, especially in Auckland, where up to 70 percent of production is based, as a direct result of issues like a high Kiwi dollar essentially cancelling out the incentive regime and decimating the industry; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I am aware of concerns in the Auckland industry and have been working with the industry on that. Some companies are finding it difficult because of the size of the dollar at the moment. Those who own their intellectual property are doing fairly well, but those who are effectively like toll producers, if you like, are struggling. It is important to point out that we have spent something like $411 million on incentives for the film industry since 2008-09—$411 million. So we are just working through those issues with the industry.

Jacinda Ardern: Why are venues like Studio Auckland, which was 100 percent full until a few years ago, now the quietest it has ever been, and why is Studio West, which was fully tenanted for much of the past 12 years, now getting one booking query a month, with the owner stating that this is the worst he has seen the local industry in 20 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I say, I acknowledge that some companies are finding it a little bit difficult. I understand, though, in relation to one of the venues the member raises, that one of the particular issues is that it is associated with a railway line nearby, and, of course, Auckland Transport has increased the frequency of trains hugely so it is not as popular as it once was. But I have to say it is a little ironic to be questioned by that party on the health of the screen industry when it was that party that wanted—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That answer was sufficient.

Jacinda Ardern: If he is aware that skilled workers, one of the draw cards his Government uses to promote New Zealand as a film destination, are leaving the industry and the country, with companies like Film Effects experiencing the biggest downturn in 10 years, and that many on the payroll with a UK passport have already gone, what is he doing about this loss of skills—or is that the trains’ fault as well?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The reality is that New Zealand’s value proposition to attract screen businesses is not just about the size of its incentive, and that is one of the challenges. We have to be able to offer more than that, and we do. We offer a great place to do business, a skilled and capable workforce, flexible employment law, proven expertise in post-production, natural scenery, and competitive labour costs. But that does not mean that you win every production, and this industry is one that does go through ebbs and flows depending on large productions that are sometimes available and sometimes not.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with the statement of the Hon Chris Finlayson that this is the golden age for the arts in New Zealand; if so, why does it seem like the film industry is going into an ice age as the majority of screen production dies under the weight of an apathetic Government that is doing absolutely nothing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member might be auditioning for a role in some sort of production—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —with that form of amazing hyperbole. The reality is that New Zealand is going through a very strong period with the arts. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is doing a fantastic job in investing in infrastructure and maintaining the Government assets in the arts and culture space, despite the toughest financial times since the Great Depression. He is doing a tremendous job in that regard, and I think the member would do well to acknowledge it.

Health Services—Access and National Patient Survey

9. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making on using patient feedback to improve the quality of health care?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yesterday the Government announced that a new national patient survey will be rolled out to all New Zealand public hospitals from the middle of next year. Patient feedback is a vital indicator of how well health services are working for patients and their families, and the new national patient survey will provide invaluable information for the district health boards about what they are doing well and what areas can improve. This will add to the widely reported health target information published quarterly by district health boards, which have already played an important part in lifting health services for patients, such as the big improvement seen in emergency department waiting times.

Shane Ardern: What are the main areas of health services that the survey will be focused on?

Hon TONY RYALL: The survey questions will be modelled on international best practice and will look at four key areas. These will involve, firstly, communication, partnership, coordination, and, finally, physical and emotional needs. For example, questions could include “When you had important questions to ask your doctor or nurse, did you get answers that you could understand?” or “Did doctors or nurses talk in front of you as if you weren’t there?”. This information will help district health boards to make improvements to patient care on direct feedback. This initiative builds on our Open for Better Care campaign, which challenges health professionals to be open to feedback in order to continually improve. The survey will be piloted in two district health boards later this year.

Hon Annette King: What progress has he made on the feedback he received from the president of Grey Power Hastings and Districts, who wrote to him 1 month ago to “plead” for an elderly man to get surgery at Hawke’s Bay Hospital, and who concluded the letter by saying: “The health goals of National must change to stop discrimination against the elderly.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: I do not have the response to that gentleman with me, but I am sure we would want to point out to him that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has received an extra $73 million under this National Government, and this Government is providing more elective surgery to more older New Zealanders than ever before.

Kevin Hague: In the patient feedback that the Minister has described, what steps specifically is he taking to include the views of those patients who do not get through the door to access the health services they need, such as some of the poorest New Zealanders who are now missing out on accessing Very Low Cost Access primary care?

Hon TONY RYALL: This survey will be specifically aimed at this stage at those patients who have attended public hospitals. But in respect of Very Low Cost Access, there are more patients getting access to Very Low Cost Access practices than at any time previously. We have put record amounts of funding into that. What is even more exciting is that this Government has funded free after-hours primary care for under-sixes—something that was not done even during the best of economic times.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was some interesting detail that the Minister gave, but he did not address the fundamental question of those patients who are missing out on accessing the health services they need. He simply said that the survey was restricted to district health board consumers. He could have given an answer that related to patients who needed services provided by district health boards and did not get them.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I accept that the Minister could have, but he chose to address the member’s question about a collection of feedback information from patients. You asked about what feedback information would be for patients who did not get into hospitals, etc. He said that that is not the design of the system. He has addressed the question, maybe not to the member’s satisfaction, but it has certainly been addressed.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the letter from Grey Power Hastings and Districts. I received it, as did the Minister. I have a plea for an elderly gentleman to receive surgery, and as far as I know, he has not received it yet.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The letter has been described adequately. Leave is sought to table this particular letter written by Grey Power. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

Regional Economies—Employment

10. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Finance: Does he recall his statement that “Anyone who can take a business away has a community over a barrel and has its workforce over a barrel”; and will the Government take steps to intervene in Rotorua and Shannon, to help protect jobs like it did in Southland with the threatened closure of the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do recall the statement and, in answer to the second part of the question, no. The Government obviously is not going to step in to support businesses in every case of a job loss. On the other hand, it is not satisfactory to ignore every single episode of jobs losses. In the case of the Tīwai aluminium smelter, the Government at the time outlined the specific reasons why it intervened there in a situation it regarded as one of national interest.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he recall his statement on the same day, 8 August, that “this is a Government which is pretty pragmatic”, noting that the Government had also offered assistance to other sectors, such as the kiwifruit sector, after the Psa virus; on that basis, does he agree it would be pragmatic to support hundreds of whānau members in Rotorua and Shannon who are looking at the prospects of a very bleak Christmas unless the Government puts a recovery plan in place?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Without looking into every detail of those particular businesses, it is simply not feasible for the Government to put a recovery plan in place. If you just take, for instance, the fellmongery in Shannon, there have been significant changes in meat industry processing that are necessitated by the fact that the national sheep flock has been shrinking, while the national dairy herd has been growing. We have felt the impact of that in my electorate, where over 300 people lost their jobs at the Mataura freezing works in the last couple of years. The best thing we can do is to ensure that we have an environment where businesses are investing in other industries that are growing. The indications are that this economy is pretty positive, jobs are being created, and there will be opportunities for those who are losing their jobs.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Will the Government consider forming partnerships with iwi Māori organisations to save or maintain businesses such as Tachikawa Forest Products (NZ) in Rotorua, where over 120 workers will lose their jobs and also a plant will become redundant, to ensure that unemployment lines do not get any longer, especially for Māori?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As a general point, unemployment lines are tending to get shorter as the number of new jobs in the economy continues to grow. The Government is happy to work with anyone who can assist in creating an environment where businesses will invest and employ. However, the use of the term “partnerships” does not explain much about what is proposed. The Government is very unlikely, for instance, to invest in particular businesses when they are loss-making businesses, because that would be frittering away the hard-earned taxes of others who are working hard and paying their taxes every day. We are happy to have the discussion, but those discussions have to be substantive and responsible. It is very unlikely that, in these cases, the Government would intervene in what is a pretty normal process of businesses under pressure going under, jobs being lost, and other jobs being created.

Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust—Financial Management

11. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Associate Minister of Education: When did he first receive any advice regarding inappropriate spending associated with the National Te Kōhanga Reo Trust?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education): I first received advice regarding the alleged inappropriate spending associated with the National Te Kōhanga Reo Trust on Monday, 14 December 2013. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon Pita Sharples like to repeat that. I think that he may have transposed a date that may be significant. I ask the Minister just to answer the question again.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am sorry—14 October. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When did he or his office first become aware that Māori Television was planning to publish a story on inappropriate spending and financial mismanagement at the trust and its subsidiary Te Pātaka Ōhanga?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: My answer is still the same. It was on 14 October. I was in Auckland and I was contacted from here when the airport was closed, so I did not come down, and that is the first time I heard of such allegations of inappropriate spending.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When did he first discuss issues of financial mismanagement and inappropriate spending at the trust and its subsidiaries with the Minister of Education?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: It was the following day. I heard about it on 14 October, and on 15 October Minister Parata and I convened a meeting with the trust and we discussed it that very next day. It was on that occasion that we decided that we needed an in-depth look at the matter.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does he think that it is acceptable for Te Pātaka Ōhanga to provide internal loans to its trustees, and why did the reporting and monitoring system not identify this as a risk earlier?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Te Pātaka Ōhanga is a private company. It is not administered or funded from the ministry. That is part of the terms of reference of the inquiry so we should find out about that.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the scope of the independent review that the Minister referred to for the National Te Kōhanga Reo Trust extend retrospectively to all spending at Te Pātaka Ōhanga by the trustees and staff for the period for which allegations of financial mismanagement have occurred; if not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The inquiry will concern all matters concerned with Government funding to the National Te Kōhanga Reo Trust. It will also look at the matters raised with Te Pātaka Ōhanga.

Television, Switch-over to Digital—Progress

12. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting): There is just 1 month to go until all of New Zealand has digital TV. The upper North Island will be the final region to make the switch to digital on 1 December. The digital switch-over is one of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda objectives to help develop innovation infrastructure. Although awareness to go digital in the upper North Island is at around 95 percent, more than 60,000 homes in that region are still not ready and will be unable to view television unless those people make the necessary changes.

Mark Mitchell: How can people find out more information on whether they need to go digital? [Interruption]

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Listen carefully, members. The Going Digital team will be boosting its presence across Auckland over the coming weeks to provide more information as to how to go digital. I would encourage people who have already gone digital to check on their family, friends, and neighbours to make sure that they have done the same. Anyone—I say to members opposite—needing more information can visit the Going Digital website or call 0800 838 800.

Bills

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 17 October.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Kia ora tātou, nō reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. When we last considered the bill we were debating clauses 1 and 2. The honourable member Ian McKelvie had the call, and has 3 minutes 53 seconds remaining, if he so wishes to take the call. I call the honourable member Clare Curran.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for doing this. You might not have seen the member; he is behind a member. He is standing up. He is there.

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

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): We come to the part of this bill, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, that gets down to the real nuts and bolts of what the serious problems are with this piece of legislation. We have had a long-running debate in this Committee—well, certainly on this side of the Chamber, right across this side of the Chamber; that side of the Chamber has barely contributed to the debate on this extremely important piece of legislation. But now we get to the part of the bill, the title and commencement clauses, where we really consider what the serious issues are with this piece of legislation.

Labour has two amendments to this part of the bill. One of those amendments concerns the rights of New Zealanders and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting process for legislation, which, Labour contends with regard particularly to this bill, has been very flawed and very cursory. I do ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Police, and also the relevant Minister associated with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting process to pay particular interest to this part of the discussion on this bill. I want to return us to the Human Rights Commission and what the commission said around both the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation and the “TICS” bill, as it is called in this House, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, which we are discussing today.

The commission said in its extraordinary report to the Prime Minister that it considered that what was proposed by both the GCSB legislation and this bill was “too wide-reaching. It does not provide adequate oversight, and makes inadequate provision for ensuring appropriate transparency and accountability of those who administer the legislation. It does not provide for a legal regime containing sufficient safeguards against abuse of power and to facilitate a proportional approach.” The commission said that it “recognises that some level of surveillance is inevitable and can be justified in contemporary democratic society.”

Labour would agree with that statement, absolutely. There is no doubt—and there has never been any contention during the debate on this bill—that there is a need for legislation for oversight in surveillance in a democratic society. But it is a question of balance, and it is a question of tipping the balance, which is what this legislation does and what the Human Rights Commission—which that Minister should be taking account of—has warned of in a very serious warning to the Prime Minister and to this Parliament about the implications of that. We should all be taking account of that.

The commission went on to say that there was “nothing to suggest that surveillance in a democratic society such as New Zealand cannot be subject to human rights principles, and consistent with an approach that protects human rights, by limiting rights in a manner which is proportionate and justified, in accordance with law.” This legislation before us today does not do that. InternetNZ’s submission called for this bill to undergo a thorough test against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Law Society in its submission on the GCSB legislation called for the same—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is supposed to be a very tight debate on the schedules and title, etc. That speech is certainly straying very wide of that. I appreciate that the Chair is the only judge of relevance, but it does not prevent—does not prevent—anywhere in the Standing Orders any member raising the issue of relevance with the Chair.

CLARE CURRAN: Speaking to the point of order, if that member had been listening to the debate, he would have known that I was referring to one of the amendments that Labour has put up on this part of the bill, the title and commencement clauses, that is about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I cannot find it now, but can I just remind members that there was a review of the Standing Orders in, I think, 2008 or 2011. What actually happened was that we said that debate on these particular clauses would be wide ranging. I cannot find it, but I know that it is there.

CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will continue where I left off, and perhaps the member could pay more attention.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I’m going to leave the House.

Hon Phil Goff: There won’t be any loss by the House.

CLARE CURRAN: There will not be any loss. As the submissions by InternetNZ, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Human Rights Commission have all said, these bills fail to provide adequate safeguards for people’s privacy and to balance the intrusive power of the State to collect the private information of New Zealanders. We also contend that the issue, particularly with this bill, is the curtailing of the rights of private companies and their ability to protect their information because of the lack of adequate checks and balances. So we reiterate that this bill did not receive more than a cursory vetting—a once-over-lightly—in its examination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe that that was taken seriously.

Secondly, we believe that the bill as amended has been substantially changed, in many cases, in ways that are untested and where the impact of those changes on the rights to privacy of New Zealand citizens and businesses is under question. Therefore, we have put in an amendment, on this part of the bill, being that this bill may only be submitted for Royal assent if a select committee has reconsidered it and reported that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Rubbish.

CLARE CURRAN: If the member over there actually has an issue with this, then I invite him to get to his feet and take a call and tell this Parliament why there should not be another vetting under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and whether or not there has been a thorough vetting of the original bill in the first place. That would be a useful contribution for the Attorney-General to make to this House. We have seen a consistent pattern of rubber-stamping of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and not only on this bill. At the beginning of the previous term of this Parliament, there was an indication by the Attorney-General that he would take that process seriously, which is an extremely important part of our democratic process. For a few bills it seemed that this was the case, but now that has all gone out the window. It is all cursory vetting, rubber-stamping, and, unfortunately, not taking account of what august organisations such as the Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Law Society, and InternetNZ have said in the Law and Order Committee on this process—and they have certainly said it publicly.

We contend that there should be a rights-based approach whenever there is a piece of legislation that deals with surveillance and curtailing rights. There should be a corresponding rights-based approach. It certainly does appear that there is a gap in our law around the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses in the digital environment. We think that that is worth taking seriously. The Human Rights Commission certainly believes that it is worth taking seriously. It says: “In the case of the TICS Bill, the rights of concern in relation to the proposed legislation were the right to freedom of expression, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the right to natural justice … The analysis”—the cursory analysis—“concluded that all could be justified. The Commission does not agree with this conclusion.”, and neither does the Labour Party agree with that conclusion.

We believe that there should be a rights-based approach, and that there should be—as I have repeated a number of times during the debate on this bill—along with surveillance, a rights-based approach to New Zealand’s privacy. This is absolutely critical to a functioning and healthy democracy. This should include the freedom of expression of thought; freedom of conscience; freedom of religion; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; freedom to determine whom a person shares information with and to terminate involvement with a provider; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, where everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, whether of the person, property or correspondence, for example, emails; the right to privacy based on the principles of the Privacy Act, a comprehensive—

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): As you indicated yourself in your ruling earlier on, Mr Chair, this title and commencement debate is an opportunity for members of the Committee to bring together some of the threads of the discussion. I am deeply disappointed that Mr McKelvie—who had made a great start the other evening, when we were debating this bill, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill—did not share his wisdom with us any further on the question of why he supports—

Ian McKelvie: The speeches are the ones that are not given, Grant.

GRANT ROBERTSON: In this case of Mr McKelvie, that is definitely true, because they often are not given, but he did not share with us why he actually does support this legislation. We have not really heard anything about that from the Government members, about why they actually support this legislation. They have not answered the questions that have been raised on this side of the Chamber—legitimate questions around the extent of the powers granted under this bill, around the additional costs that are being placed on business, and around the potential stifling of innovation that will be caused by this legislation. None of that has merited a response from the National Party’s side of the Chamber.

To entertain Mr Finlayson, I will speak on both the title and the commencement clauses of the bill, and it is interesting—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Entertain away.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I am here for your benefit, Mr Finlayson. It is interesting, when we do look at the title of the bill, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, that the addition in terms of the legislation that is repealed by this bill is the addition of the word “security”. So we have had legislation called the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act before.

What the Government is doing here is introducing the notion of security. As has been stated several times during this debate, there is a balance to be had between the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders—in this case, to communicate with one another via a variety of technologies—and the security of New Zealand.

Nobody on this side of the Chamber is denying the fact that we need legislation that upholds that balance, but the problem we have is that this bill, alongside the other piece of security legislation that goes with it, the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act, unbalances that equation. The fact is that the fundamental rights and freedoms that New Zealanders expect to have have been undermined, and the introduction here—and the word “security” is there in the title—is designed to make New Zealanders feel that the Government has brought forward legislation that will enhance their lives, and it will ensure that they will be safer. But in reality that is not what this legislation will do, or certainly the case for that has not been made out.

That is what then leads me to the amendment to clause 2 proposed by Clare Curran on Supplementary Order Paper 370. The first subclause of that amendment relates directly to the fact that this is now not only about the ability to intercept communications and why that might be required but that it is now fundamentally part of New Zealand’s security framework—a security framework that is governed and controlled in New Zealand by legislation that we on this side of the Chamber believe to be wrong—and also by agencies that are in turmoil. That is the effect of the amendment to clause 2 that Clare Curran is proposing. The effect is that this bill comes into force only once there has been an independent review of New Zealand’s security agencies and the recommendations from that review have been incorporated into any bill that is put forward for a third reading in this House.

This needs to happen because the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), which plays a critical role in this legislation, is the agency that is responsible for large tracts of the implementation of this legislation. It is an agency whose name has been muddied over the last couple of years and in which New Zealanders have quite simply lost confidence. The independent review that is being called for here will enable New Zealanders to understand the role the GCSB can play in a changing world, and there is no doubt that in a changing world, cyber-security is important. So it is not a denial that that is a role that the GCSB should have, but given the state of play with the GCSB—the fact that it has been discredited and the fact that there has been so much of a lack of clarity around the law that governs its work—this amendment from Clare Curran is undoubtedly justified, because unless we can rebuild New Zealanders’ confidence in the GCSB, its role in implementing this legislation, I believe, cannot be upheld.

Dr David Clark: Who’s the Minister?

GRANT ROBERTSON: The Minister responsible for the GCSB? Yes, well, that would be the Prime Minister, John Key. When he stood in this House during the debate on the GCSB bill and told New Zealanders that we just had to trust him on how aspects of the bill would be implemented—

Dr David Clark: 26 percent do.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —that is right, and 26 percent of New Zealanders, somehow or other, still trust him—and we just had to trust him on the way in which he would issue warrants, that was the moment when New Zealanders must have known that the role the GCSB plays had to be reviewed. It has to be reviewed alongside all other security agencies and it has to be reviewed in light of the wider responsibilities that they are being asked to undertake under this piece of legislation, and that is why Clare Curran has proposed the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 370.

The other amendment to clause 2 that Clare Curran has proposed is the question around whether or not this bill should be reconsidered under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It would be useful if the Attorney-General might choose to take a call and justify to this Committee whether he believes that the vetting of this bill in terms of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been sufficient, because many other people do not believe that.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Very well done.

GRANT ROBERTSON: The Attorney-General, who is very reluctant to praise himself, says that this was very well done. Well, the reality is that many other agencies do not believe that and, secondly, a lot has happened to this legislation as it has progressed through the select committee. A substantive, but not particularly relevant, Supplementary Order Paper has come forward from the Government. That has not been tested under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And it is worthy of note that the Human Rights Commission exercised its statutory power to directly report to the Prime Minister on this piece of legislation and its companion legislation, the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill. That is a power it has rarely exercised in its existence—less than half a dozen times, I think—so that indicates the level of importance the Human Rights Commission puts on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. The commission noted in its submission on the bill that it is particularly concerned about the ability—and we discussed this in one of the earlier parts—of those who end up being caught up in the Act to be able to be in court when matters involving them are heard, or at least to be represented in court. The commission is concerned that this breaches the right to natural justice in section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

There is a specific concern for the Attorney-General to respond to, as to whether or not this bill has had adequate vetting. The Human Rights Commission believes that the right to natural justice is compromised by the clauses in this bill that do not automatically allow defendants to be present when matters pertaining to them are in front of the court. I am not a lawyer—Mr Finlayson will be glad to hear that, I am sure—but what I know about the law is that you have a right to be present when matters pertaining to you are heard before a court, and you have a right to be represented. That—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Don’t say “you”.

GRANT ROBERTSON: One has a right to be present when matters pertaining to that person are heard before the court, and that is a right to natural justice. That has not been upheld. That means that Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of Clare Curran, which says that this bill can be submitted for Royal assent only if it has been reconsidered under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, is totally justified, in my view, because the overall question around surveillance and human rights is one that is very much in the minds of New Zealanders and people around the world.

Just today in France the French Government is calling in United States officials to ask them what has been going on in terms of mass surveillance. The question of surveillance and human rights is one of the most current questions of our time, and on this side of the Chamber we do not say that because we do not believe that the State has the right to undertake these kinds of operations; it is actually because we want to protect the fact that the State may need to do that from time to time and to balance that with the rights of New Zealanders to go about their business.

Under this Government that balance has been lost. Trust in the agencies that undertake that work has been lost. That lies directly at the feet of the Prime Minister, who has evaded answering questions—direct questions—about the role of the GCSB under his watch. The GCSB gets extended powers under this bill, and New Zealanders have a right to know that that has been thoroughly checked against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that their basic rights and freedoms are being protected. Not once in this debate have members of the Government got on their feet and said to this House: “We believe the balance is right.”, because it is not.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill, looking at the title and the commencement date. When this bill was introduced I criticised the title quite a bit, I note. I thought it ought to really be the “TELCO Spying on Kiwis Bill” or the “TELCO Let’s Get Hacked Bill”. I do not actually move away from that too much, particularly this aspect of hacking.

This bill sets up the mechanism to allow spying agencies, but also others, to gain access to communications and networks in New Zealand. Just today we heard mention of France calling in US officials because of further revelations of what the National Security Agency has done in conjunction with New Zealand and some other countries. The National Security Agency does not do it only on its own; it does it in conjunction with New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), through the “Five Eyes” Waihopai system. So when we look at the timing of this, we also look at the timing of what is actually happening out in the globe regarding this very issue.

I mentioned last week the fact that the Brazilians are setting up a new system that is totally different from a lot of the normal providers, to ensure that they do not get hacked any more by us and the National Security Agency. Mexico is another country in the news today that is saying it has had a gutsful of what is happening with spying from the National Security Agency and those PRISM systems.

This bill is a sham. This bill may allow that access for when we need it for some legitimate surveillance, but it is a sham as well because of the surveillance that is going on besides. I do not think that the media, and certainly a number of the members on the other side in this House, sometimes actually get it. They just do not get that we are setting up to add even more—or maybe they do. Maybe they do not mind that we are setting up to look after American foreign policy and some others of the big mega corporates in the world by allowing the route into New Zealand’s electronic data communications through this system.

Right back when the original version of this bill was formed, we, the Green Party, with Keith Locke, produced stuff with regard to some of the hacking that was happening, coming back through those conduits of spying. We also realised that this bill is not complete in terms of scrutiny—redacting, as they call it, a lovely word that seems to have been introduced in recent times, of the amount of information that has been withheld. How could this be given serious scrutiny, especially on the basis that we have never had a proper, independent investigation into the whole issue of security services in New Zealand? There is so much missing from the regulatory impact statement that it does not allow it. So what do we do? We get information from overseas, from people who have been courageous enough to go out and leak the material that they see that they are so offended by ethically, in realising that this stuff should not be kept secret any more. It needs to be opened to the world to let the world know what is going on. Unfortunately, we are very much a part of that.

When this bill got introduced, the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, its mate, got introduced as well. I pointed out at the time, in my first reading speech on it, that on that very day we were having the five-nations meeting of Attorneys-General. There was also a meeting of the heads of the different police forces from the “Five Eyes” fraternity—all meeting in New Zealand on that very same day. It was a gift from the Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for the GCSB, who also chose the director of the GCSB. He made that appointment. He flouted, it seems, the systems of appointment to get his man, his schoolmate, in.

We know—it has been proven—that there is spying going on and that it is not something New Zealanders agree with. There was no investigation to see what they wanted, and, overall, New Zealanders disagree with the concept of it. There is the issue of privacy, but there is also the question of what we are doing with our sovereignty. But the Prime Minister has the ultimate power. What the Mexicans, for example, are worried about right at this moment is the fact that the National Security Agency spied on the former President when he was still in Opposition, and on other Opposition members. The agency was looking at their emails and looking at their text messages, and the same systems, the same conduits, that we are setting up here will allow the same thing.

So I wonder what we in the Opposition here should really be thinking of when we have a Prime Minister we are having a little bit of difficulty with in terms of the integrity of his appointments process and getting his mates in, and in terms of giving him the conduits so he can do it even more easily. We have had the internal stuff, we have had the issue around the Henry inquiry, and we have had the illegal spying that was carried on, as well. So we have a major question. We insist that we have a totally independent investigation into these processes. We take cognisance of the Human Rights Commission and the issues around appeals without proper, real representation—the persons themselves not being there. There is a bundle of issues that affect human rights, privacy, and our level of what we are prepared to trade off around the issues of security. These things all need thorough investigation.

We need to extract ourselves from the “Five Eyes” mechanism and have stuff that is actually relevant to our communities here. Any security and surveillance should be relevant in a way that the community agrees with. We need to separate ourselves from the international stuff that brings us into international wars and conflicts that we do not choose as a community. This conduit needs to be looked at far more thoroughly, and it has to be done in a holistic sense with the Human Rights Act, with the GCSB legislation, and with the Search and Surveillance Act, to look at the whole thing completely. So, clearly, we will carry on opposing this. We look forward to the opportunity to initiate a full, independent inquiry and investigation of those services. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): You know, it is interesting that for a bill that has such fundamental implications for the privacy of New Zealanders and the right of private companies to be protected from intrusive powers by the State, the National Government members, even those on the Law and Order Committee, only take a call that the motion be now put. They do not want this legislation, with all its inadequacies, exposed to the public of New Zealand.

I want to talk to clause 2, “Commencement”, of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. This bill is not ready to come into force. It is not ready to be implemented. It has been rushed. It has been subjected to inadequate consultation. It is technically error-ridden—technically error-ridden to the extent that as late as the second reading of this bill the Minister brought in Supplementary Order Paper 366, which is on the Table of this House and says that a major clause should be struck from the bill.

That major clause, clause 39, which is about the Government being able to stop telecommunications companies working in New Zealand if they do not have interception capability, was defended to the death by Jacqui Dean and the other members of the select committee. They supported that clause all the way through, only to have the rug pulled out from under their feet by the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, who finally recognised that yet another central aspect of her bill was technically and in terms of principle inappropriate and unworkable. That is an example of why this bill should not come into force.

I support Supplementary Order Paper 370, moved by my colleague Clare Curran, which makes the point that Royal assent should be given only to a bill that has been subject to a full and independent public inquiry. That point, and the need for a full and independent public inquiry, was recognised in Australian legislation dealing with Australia’s security services. It was recognised by a member of the Prime Minister’s staff, who came to talk to me about this bill. The Australians did it the right way. They did an independent inquiry, they found out what powers were justified, they found out what safeguards were needed to prevent the abuse of those powers, and then they passed the legislation. This Government has not had the conviction or the intestinal fortitude to actually do that.

This bill is a companion piece to the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act. It facilitates technically the implementation of that. But the first thing that you would ask about legislation that gives enormously intrusive powers to a Government is whether there is a justification for those powers. Jacqui Dean, in a rare call, asked why the Labour Party is opposing this bill when we passed the original Act in 2003. It is for the reason that in that original Act, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) was not allowed to spy on New Zealanders—not allowed to spy on New Zealanders. It intercepted foreign intelligence dealing with foreign persons.

Now we have a bill that gives enormously intrusive powers, and it has not been justified. It has not been justified, to the extent that when we on the select committee and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee asked for the police, the Security Intelligence Service, and the GCSB to come before the committee to justify why there should be these powers—we did that with an open mind—the Government refused to allow those agencies to give evidence to the select committee. It refused to allow them to give it in public, in private, or even in secret. We have an outrage in that we have a bill that gives enormously intrusive powers and that will be utilised in secret and without accountability, and no justification was given, or even attempted to be given, to the select committee as to why those powers should exist.

The second concern we have is that if you are going to give those sorts of powers to agencies, you want to be sure that there are adequate safeguards in place to stop those agencies abusing the powers. Why is this in this GCSB legislation before this Parliament? Because of the very fact that the GCSB did abuse its powers, in relation to Kim Dotcom, and the fact that the Kitteridge report found that it potentially did that on 88 different occasions. So we have new legislation, when we have had abuse of powers—

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to give the honourable member David Clark a call.

Hon Phil Goff: What!

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I welcome the support from my colleagues. The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill seeks to protect individual rights and freedoms. Some of the principles outlined in this bill are ones that we could support on this side of the Chamber, but as soon as we get into the detail we find that it fails to strike the appropriate balance between privacy and security, as far we can tell. It is a permissive, sloppy piece of legislation that will see New Zealanders able to be spied on in their homes, without the checks and balances one would expect of this kind of major legislation going through the House. It is the partner bill to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation, but it adds the powers that make this bill able to be carried out in a fuller way. The bill does not meet the needs of ordinary New Zealanders. It has not passed the test of legislation that should be in this House. It gives Ministers extraordinary powers, and it should not pass.

It is not clear, in many aspects of the bill, what is actually meant by the bill. The definitions are poor. We are told that “national security” has been added. “Security” has been added to the title of the bill. We find the word “security” there, and yet “national security” is not defined in the bill, other than to say that it relates to economic interest. When it comes to economic interest, we are not told how that is defined, and, indeed, debates on matters of economic interest were not allowed to happen in the Law and Order Committee. So we can see that the intention of the Government is to shut down the debate, to not define the terms, to grant extra powers to the Government to spy on New Zealanders in their homes, and to fail to provide the checks and balances that would bring this in in a way that is acceptable for New Zealanders.

New Zealanders do value their security. Do not get me wrong—New Zealanders do value their security, but they value their privacy also. Ordinary New Zealanders want checks and balances in the system so that they can know that when they conduct their activities online, when they conduct their activities on the telephone, and when they go about their ordinary business relating to their families and relating to their business contacts they are not being spied on unnecessarily and in a way that they cannot respond to nor defend themselves against.

This is a terrible piece of legislation. We find that the Ministers receiving Draconian powers are referred to in clause 13. They are the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service—Mr Key, whom we have found to perhaps be a little untrustworthy in this legislation’s arena—the Minister responsible for the GCSB, and the Minister of Police. Any one of these Ministers, without any real check or balance, can enact this legislation to spy on just about anyone.

We have heard in the broader debate the questions raised about what constitutes a network provision, and who can be spied on and who cannot. That is poorly defined in the legislation. It seems that any school network, any classroom network, can be spied upon at the whim of a Minister, without any recourse to those involved defending themselves or raising legitimate questions before an independent panel.

We have already seen with the GCSB legislation a range of activities take place that were just beyond the pale for ordinary New Zealanders. The spying on Kim Dotcom was legalised by this Government. The appointment process around the head of the GCSB contained a number of anomalies that have not made for comfortable exchanges in this House, and the person overseeing all of these and the many memory lapses is the Prime Minister, John Key, who is responsible for the GCSB and the intelligence services.

We know in this Committee that these powers that we are enacting here ought to come with accountability. This Parliament here has the responsibility of enacting legislation that has appropriate accountabilities in it. We carry that burden. Members on this side of the Chamber have made the argument over and over and over again that this legislation needs to be tidied up so that it can be passed in a way that looks out for the security interests of New Zealanders, without crossing that bridge into being an unnecessary breach of their right to privacy in their own homes.

We cannot support this legislation in its current form. We cannot see that this Government is doing due diligence, nor that it is actually caring about the concerns of ordinary New Zealanders. It is typical of a Government that is increasingly out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. We saw Government members today in the House trying to say that things were getting better for ordinary New Zealanders, at the same time as they were saying that tax had gone down for the very wealthiest Zealanders, whilst overall the tax take was going down.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I would like to start with, in particular, in Supplementary Order Paper 370, in the name of Clare Curran, the amendment to clause 2 of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. The amendment is relatively simple and has two parts. I am pleased that the Attorney-General is present, although he is uncharacteristically mute at the moment, because there is a new subclause (4), which indicates that the bill may be submitted for Royal assent only if a select committee has considered it and reported that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The problem that we have is that there have been massive changes introduced to this bill since the time that it was at the Law and Order Committee, but there has not been a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration of those changes.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Read section 7.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, he mutters on. He mutters from his seat. He mumbles—

Clare Curran: Has he read it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh, I am sure that he has read it, and probably in the Greek, but that will not get him on to his hind legs. It will not get him on to his hind legs in order to make a contribution to this.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Read section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member can prattle on for all he likes about section 10 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but in the end, if there is substantial change, any Attorney-General with a sense of ethics would have a look and get another vet. Did this one do it? No, he did not. No, he did not, because he knows that the rights to privacy of New Zealanders are being taken away under this bill with some sort of argument around security that, frankly, does not hold any water at all.

I want to say to the member on my right, as she generally is, that that particular subclause that she is suggesting is actually not very radical, at all. It is a relatively minor, very reasonable approach, and if there was any sort of ethical sense on the side of the Government, it would say yes.

I now want to go to the subclause that she suggested before that, and that is the insertion of subclause (3), after clause 2(2). It indicates that “This Bill may only be submitted for Royal assent if an independent review of New Zealand’s security agencies has been conducted and the recommendations incorporated into this Bill prior to the third reading of the Bill.”

I do not think I am breaching any confidences, because I think the Prime Minister has referred to this in the past. I was, along with at least one and probably two of my colleagues, one of the members consulted by the Prime Minister’s department around a proposed review of the SIS—in fact, the beginnings of a review of the SIS—from memory, relatively early last year. I think that at the time, the Prime Minister and his department had it more or less right that the SIS was a good place to start, but the interrelationship between the SIS and the other agencies—the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in particular, and the New Zealand Police—would be on the edge of that review and could be taken into account.

What happened then was quite a lot of publicity around Kim Dotcom and what I think is a relatively unhealthy rush to get some very narrow, specific legislation there for the GCSB. But then what happened was that that narrow legislation got widened out to something that is quite unreasonable and unacceptable to many, many members of Parliament. In fact, I would say it is unacceptable to every member of Parliament who has read it and understood it. I just want to say that from the contributions opposite, I am not convinced that there is a member on the other side of the Chamber who has read and understood properly the legislation that we are currently considering.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that the honourable member Clare Curran’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 be agreed to. I am sorry to advise the honourable member that it is out of order as it does not fall within the definition of a preliminary clause.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Report adopted.

Bills

Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I move, That the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill be now read a second time. This bill improves the law relating to elected members’ remuneration and entitlements to services. It was referred to the Government Administration Committee in March 2012. The committee completed its examination of the bill in June 2013, unanimously recommending that it be passed as amended.

The bill deserves nothing less than careful and detailed consideration by the Government Administration Committee and the House for it establishes a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. With modifications it implements many of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s Review of the Civil List Act 1979 — Members of Parliament and Ministers. The bill repeals the Civil List Act, and modernises and modifies the law relating to the salaries and the allowances of members of Parliament; support services provided for members of Parliament, Ministers, and certain electoral candidates; annuities and other benefits and privileges for former Prime Ministers; and benefits and privileges for former members of Parliament, and I see you are very interested in that part of it, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson.

In relation to Part 3 of the bill, concerning services to members of Parliament, the Remuneration Authority is responsible for determining accommodation services for MPs and Ministers, and also travel services for family members of MPs. The Speaker is responsible for setting directions on travel and communication services for MPs and party and member support funding, and the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is responsible for determining any additional travel services for Ministers over and above those set by the Speaker for members of Parliament.

Some submissions to the Government Administration Committee expressed concern for the Remuneration Authority setting travel services for MPs and Ministers as was proposed under the original bill. It was considered that the proposed reforms did not reflect the principle that the House has the exclusive privilege to control its own operations. The select committee acknowledged that domestic travel by MPs is critical to the effective functioning of the House. The committee considered that concerns for a non-parliamentary body setting travel entitlements for MPs can be addressed by amending the bill to provide that the Speaker continues to determine travel services for members of Parliament. This should allay concerns about the authority making a determination limiting the ability of MPs to travel, and, therefore, limiting their ability to do their job.

There are some intersecting interests here. One is having entitlements determined independently from those who receive them, and the other is the democratic interest and the proper operation of the House, and the ability of members to carry out their functions. The democratic interest is of fundamental importance and is worthy of being protected from any risk of decision making that could undermine that interest. Under this bill travel by spouses and family members would remain within the exclusive purview of the Remuneration Authority as that travel cannot be said to directly carry the risk of limiting the ability of members of Parliament to carry out their roles.

The Remuneration Authority would continue to determine accommodation services for MPs and Ministers. Although accommodation entitlements are important in supporting MPs to carry out their roles, on balance travel is seen as more significant. The reality is that MPs need to be accommodated while attending to their duties such as in this House. Any additional travel services, excluding international travel and accommodation for Ministers would be determined by the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services.

The bill, as reported back from the select committee, introduces a number of other reforms additional to Part 3. It updates the legislative framework for the setting of salaries and allowances for MPs and Ministers. This will allow members who start mid-term following the vacancy of a seat previously held by a list member of Parliament to be paid lawfully. The bill validates that commencement of salaries paid to mid-term list MPs since 1996 without further costs to the Crown.

The financial penalty for members who are absent from the House without permission is substantially increased, with deductions starting after 3 days’ absence. The amount deducted reflects the member’s actual salary rather than the salary of an ordinary member. The financial penalty for absent members used to be based on an ordinary MP’s salary; now in the bill it is based on the actual salary of the member, and it commences after 3 days of absence rather than the 9 days in the original bill.

A new financial penalty for members who are suspended from the House will apply. This reflects the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee. A legislative obligation on the Remuneration Authority is imposed to include in any determination of salaries and allowances a statement setting out how it has taken into account the personal benefit or potential personal benefit of any other entitlement when determining those salaries and allowances. Additionally, entitlements to services are to be determined in a way that takes into account the particular requirements of members with physical or sensory impairments.

The bill codifies moves made in recent years to improve transparency around costs to the House. It imposes a statutory obligation on the General Manager of Parliamentary Service and on the Department of Internal Affairs to publish quarterly reports on travel and accommodation costs for MPs and Ministers. It also imposes a statutory obligation on the Clerk of the House to publish quarterly reports on MPs’ and parties’ use of the inter-parliamentary relations programme. The operation of the scheme providing certain former members with entitlements is addressed. As recommended by the Law Commission the bill legislates for the former-member travel entitlements of MPs elected before 1999, making those entitlements transparent and changeable only through legislative amendment.

A new statutory regime will set out how travel entitlements can be lost, including for various offences. A statutory obligation is imposed on Parliamentary Service to publish the travel expenses of former members of Parliament annually. And the bill tightens up the law around the making of superannuation contributions by MPs. It also includes a statutory review clause, meaning that the Act’s operations must be reviewed after two full determination cycles. This will allow the House to assess how well the changes contained in this bill are meeting its aims and purposes.

These are not radical or modest changes to the regime for setting entitlements for MPs and members of the executive. These are sensible but significant changes that will ensure that this House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I rise to support the Attorney-General in so far as this bill, the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill, is concerned. I am not quite as enthusiastic as to the results as he is. In fact, it might now be seen as a bit of a muddling bill, a bill that has fallen halfway between the Law Commission and the current situation. I will get back to that. But what it does do, and I agree with the Attorney-General, is that it makes the law with regard to the payment of salaries and matters relating to the business expenses of members of Parliament, including members of the executive, clearer and more workable. There is, I think, quite a lot of public apprehension around the setting of members’ salaries and allowances, and the repayment of their expenses. I think that many members of the public think we in this House decide the level. Frankly, the constant expression of opinion by the Prime Minister as to what the changes should be does not help very much. I think the public tend to think that the Remuneration Authority is not independent, and that there is some sort of obligation for it to listen to the Prime Minister when he makes those comments.

There are a number of changes here. I want to say that new clause 17(1)(ab) provides for the arrangements for services to take into account particular requirements of members who have physical or sensory impairments. I think it is important that we get that specifically into the legislation in a way that is clear but flexible, because there will be a wide variety of needs of members with impairments, but it makes it clear that there are obligations in place. I think there will be a number of members of the House who will be somewhat surprised by the fact that up until now there has been no provision to pay members of Parliament who come in from the list in the middle of a term. We have had a number of people for whom that has occurred, and on a couple of occasions for some of those individuals, and up until now there has been no provision to pay them. They have, of course, been paid. They would have complained if they had not been. What this bill does is make sure that in the future anyone who is in that situation is able to get paid, and retrospectively. I think it is an OK use of retrospective legislation. It retrospectively validates the payments that have previously been made, although there are one or two of them where I would say that it might have been better if we had not.

There are provisions with regard to the deduction of members’ salaries. The Government Administration Committee took some time to harden up the legislation in this particular area in two ways. We did take into account a number of members who I think might be described as sort of lackadaisical in their attendance to the parliamentary part of their duties as members of Parliament. What we, the committee, have suggested, and I think the House will agree, is that unlike the 9 days of absence that the Prime Minister had previously suggested, deductions should occur after 3 days. We are also looking at the salary level of the particular member, rather than the salary level of a backbench member, for those deductions.

There will also be a pay deduction when a member is suspended from the House. I want to say that I have been around for a while and I have worked on the assumption—

Hon Anne Tolley: And been suspended a few times.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have never been suspended. Is that not amazing? I had always thought that a financial penalty applied to people. I thought that if they were out for a day, they lost a day; if they were out for a week, they lost a week; and if they were out till the end of the year, they lost the rest of their pay—not that that has happened in the time I have been here. I think the maximum that I have known of is someone who has been out for just a day. But this bill makes it clear that if you get suspended, you lose a day’s pay. I think that is what the public would expect, and I think that is fine.

There has also been what I would describe as a bit of a rort, where other members, I understand, have been working with these rules that are to do with members’ superannuation. Most of us, when we join a superannuation scheme, using the arrangements as part of our remuneration, and, remembering that the contributions come, effectively, from our gross remuneration, as determined by the Remuneration Authority, put the money in out of our fortnightly pay by way of deductions. There have been some members who have made a decision to do it considerably later, accumulate the interest on that or other investments, top it up right at the end of a period, and thereby get an advantage that was not otherwise considered. We do not think that is right, and this bill will mean that the subsidy will not be payable to members. It will not be able to be backdated for more than 12 months. I think that is fair enough.

The one proviso I will say is that I do not have total confidence in Parliamentary Service to get it right. I myself have had experience with superannuation deductions that it unilaterally stopped. We then had to sort it out. In fact—

Grant Robertson: They thought you’d gone.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What?

Grant Robertson: They thought you’d gone.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, Parliamentary Service might have thought I had gone. In fact, I have got quite a lack of confidence, even in the current day, with Parliamentary Service and its handling of reimbursement arrangements for members. Parliamentary Service sent my bank account details to Vodafone recently. It sent the slip that we get with the reimbursement of our travel arrangements, along with my bank account numbers, off to Vodafone. I was quite surprised when I found that out. I was not happy.

I do want to say that there is a bit of a muddle in this arrangement now, and I want to give the example of when a Minister—say, the Prime Minister—was in Wellington, travelled to Christchurch, and stayed overnight before going on an overseas trip. The arrangements for the flight from Wellington to Christchurch or Auckland to Christchurch would be determined by, and be the responsibility of, the Speaker. The overnight accommodation in Christchurch, while waiting for the early flight to go out the next morning, would be the responsibility of the Remuneration Authority. The overseas travel the next morning would be the responsibility of Ministerial Services. I think it is fair to say that is a bit of a muddle, and it will, in the end, lead to confusion.

My last comment I want to make is to the Greens. I want to make it in particular to the co-leader Metiria Turei, and say to her that she voted in the select committee for every clause and every amendment that was made. She voted for it. I say to her that to come to the House now, having not given a peep in opposition—not a peep in opposition, so she was a lamb in the committee—

Hon Tau Henare: Not a word, not a whisper.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not a word, not a whisper—not a whisper. To come to this House now with a set of amendments attempting to reverse that is an indication of someone who is either not properly on top of their job or is a political grandstander. I say to her that if you have got the courage of your convictions, vote in the select committee. If the member believes in something, vote that way in the select committee. Be consistent. Do not come to the House and change your mind.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education): I seek leave to make a personal explanation for the purposes of correcting an answer I made during question time.

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

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I was asked today when I, or my office, first became aware that Māori Television was planning to publish a story on inappropriate spending and financial mismanagement at the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust and its subsidiary Te Pātaka Ōhanga. In my statement this afternoon I said it was 14 October. I wish to correct this. My office received an email on 24 September 2013 seeking comment on alleged irregularities in expenditure. It was 14 October when I first received advice, as I answered correctly to the primary question. Thank you.

Bills

Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to stand and to speak on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill debate notes and to follow on from—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Debate notes! Ha, ha!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I beg your pardon—with debate notes. It is a pleasure to follow on from such a well-prepared speech as was given by the Attorney-General and the perhaps more spontaneous speech given by Mr Mallard, who might have been a little assisted had he had some notes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Debate notes.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: He could have had debate notes, yes. It could have been useful. None the less, I do actually concur with the point that he made that the work done by the Government Administration Committee should not be taken lightly and, indeed, should not be diluted by subsequent decisions to bring forth amendments to make changes. There was ample opportunity at the committee level to get things into order.

Mr Mallard did say in his speech that he felt that the bill was betwixt and between, rather than a definite thing. Well, to my mind, I think this is a significant step in the Government’s commitment to having Ministers’ and MPs’ entitlements determined in a transparent, independent, non-partisan manner.

Hon Trevor Mallard: More a tiptoe than a step.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Pardon me?

Hon Trevor Mallard: More a tiptoe.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, yes, you know—a bit between where it needs to be. If we look at where it could be, there is a public perception, which was certainly voiced to members of the committee and came through fairly clearly. The public perception probably varies between thinking that we decide it all ourselves, for our own benefit—and perhaps that might be considered to have been the case in the past—but also there is another perception that thinks that all MP pay and conditions should be subordinated to a higher authority and not left to any discretion of anyone in this particular organisation. That is when we come to the point about Parliament being sovereign in the management of its own affairs and being the master of its own destiny. Really, if you think it through, that is a very significant part of New Zealand’s history and development.

This bill, drawn from the Law Commission report, called for reforms, and these were addressed by the select committee. The select committee, to me, is one of the best bits, I think, of the process that we have in this Parliament. It is a very significant process and a very important part. It interfaces with the public and also it is through having the select committee process that we can have a single House structure of Parliament, because we do have that recourse to consideration of views. We received the submissions. The committee concentrates on consulting and considering, fairly widely, from official reports and from expressed views that come to it. I think that was particularly the case with this bill. So it would be unreasonable for any potential critic to say that the bill was changed. Well, that is what the bill is actually considered for, so that there are not unforeseen circumstances, so that it will have the effect that it was designed to give, and so that it will not be a misfit with practice.

The Government Administration Committee, I must say, is a balanced committee. No one particular party has—

Grant Robertson: Well chaired.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is well chaired, actually, particularly on this bill. It was well discussed. I will go further. It was well chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson, who was not always there, of course. Some of us had to fill in.

Hon Trevor Mallard: She was there for the bits that we got right.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Indeed. It also, though, was a bill that caused a lot of consideration and a very concentrated amount of examination. I would like to just pay tribute to the level of advice we received and the level of consideration that was given to the pertinent parts of this bill. I think, as a member of that committee, that we can honestly say that the work was earnestly done, that it was very well considered, and, in fact, that it will be a very satisfactory bill. But like all bills of this nature, it is part of a developing journey, as the requirements of members of Parliament, in fulfilling their function and meeting the requirements of Parliament, will change. They change with technology, they change with communications systems, and they change with the state that the country is in at any particular time.

It is interesting to read the history of Parliament. It is a rich history. Of course, MPs used to travel here by train and stay here for a number of months. The conditions do have to change.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sailing ships.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, indeed. I think what we have is a very good process. There is a large amount of independence in setting the salaries. It is not at the behest of parliamentarians any more. Travel has been considered. It is something that needs to be with the Speaker, and the committee recommended that change to the bill. The Clerk made the recommendation because travel by MPs is critical to the effective functioning of the House and is of fundamental democratic importance. Those of us from large electorates—and I can claim to live in one of the largest, I think, and I notice that the costs of travel are reflected by my colleagues in other parties who come from the same area. It is just a matter of fact that it is expensive to travel within an electorate, as well as from it to here.

I leave the select committee stage at this second reading very comfortable that full consideration has been given to the aspects of this bill that were controversial, and that the outcome will be satisfactory. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to be speaking on the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and I want to acknowledge all the members of the Government Administration Committee for their consideration of this bill. We had Chris Auchinvole, Eric Roy, Kanwaljit Bakshi, Trevor Mallard, and Metiria Turei. The membership changes sometimes on the committee, depending on the bill. There was unanimous agreement reached on the bill and that is not unusual for that committee, but it is unusual given the complexity of issues in this.

I want to just echo the words of my colleague Trevor Mallard and say that I am surprised, when we had reached unanimity on issues like this and worked actually very hard to get unanimity, that we now have a Supplementary Order Paper. That unanimity was because we heard from a lot of submitters who were experts in this area, we heard different views, and we talked about it a lot. There was no rushing of this. We wanted to try to get it right, in the interests of transparency and workability of these provisions. We got an extension of time for the report back of the bill in order to do that, so I am surprised that we now have a Supplementary Order Paper, which alters the bill fundamentally, presented by Metiria Turei, a member of the committee, which unanimously agreed to the provisions of this bill. It is unusual and I just want to put on the record my concern about that as being slightly out of the usual process when we are thinking about this bill.

A lot of people get very excited when Parliament is debating remuneration for its own members of Parliament, and I understand that. We do earn very high salaries compared with people who work as hard and often for as long hours as we do, so I am not surprised that members of the public are interested in this. I have heard some media reports this week that during this debate we would be determining our salary rate, and that is not true. Thank goodness Parliament no longer determines the salary of members of Parliament and Ministers. That so-called right has long ago gone. It is the job of the Remuneration Authority and it should never come back to this Parliament. People in this position of power should have the responsibility of exercising that power carefully. Determining your own salary does not have a role in that regime as far as I am concerned, so I am delighted that the Remuneration Authority has that responsibility.

What this bill does is, actually, many things, but one of the critical aspects of this bill is who determines the support services and travel allowances, and other business expenses that members of Parliament incur. Whose job is that? Is that a job for the Speaker, is that a job for the Minister responsible, or is it the job of the Remuneration Authority? That question is in relation to accommodation services, in relation to travel services—not just to members of Parliament but also to our families—resolution of issues about those services, and ongoing travel entitlements, as they are known, to former members of Parliament. In that package this bill has transferred to the Remuneration Authority those determinations that are currently with the Speaker or the Minister.

There was one area that was not contentious within the members on the committee so much as that the members were being offered very good information and advice from different submitters and they conflicted. So we had to say out of these two different views, both of which had a lot of merit, which one we would choose. We chose to amend the bill that had been referred to us in this one regard, and that was in relation to the travel services provided to members of Parliament.

It is our view that travel services are a fundamental part of a member of Parliament being able to operate properly, and being able to do their job, and, therefore, that the determination of those travel services should rest with the Speaker, whose job it is to make sure that every member of Parliament has the resources available to them to do their job properly. It is clearly not a perk. I was going to say nobody would say that travelling from their home to the capital was a perk. Perhaps the member of Parliament for Wellington Central, in whose electorate this fine building resides, considers that it is a big privilege for members from throughout the rest of the country to travel to Wellington, but, seriously, travel is a fundamental part of our job.

All of us, whether constituency members or list members of Parliament, are elected to represent that voice in Parliament and in order to do that, for about 32 weeks of the year we spend 3 days a week in the capital. Of course, both for Ministers and for members of Parliament there are other responsibilities that we have, as well as coming to Parliament, that involve travel. I remember that when I was the Minister for Senior Citizens I made a pledge to Grey Power that should they invite me to any branch of Grey Power throughout the country I would go to their meeting. They warmly welcomed that offer. I did not realise at the time that there were 77 branches of Grey Power throughout the country and over my time as Minister for Senior Citizens I visited over 55 of those 77 branches. I am making up for the remaining 20 in my time as Opposition spokesperson on senior citizens. But I did not consider that as anything other than a legitimate part of my job. It was a responsibility that I had taken up in that position and that is why I do think it is appropriate for that determination to be part of the legitimate role of a member of Parliament. But that does not extend to family members, so, in that regard, the select committee agreed that the determination of travel services for family members should properly sit with the Remuneration Authority.

We have done a few other things in this bill. One of the ones that I think the committee was most proud of—if that is the right term—was to ensure that it was very clear in the law that the support for members of Parliament with physical or sensory impairments is properly the responsibility of the House and not of the political party that that person happens to be representing. I hope that this sends a very strong and clear message to the disabled members of our communities who may have been put off seeking membership of this Parliament as an elected member and who were concerned that they might have to bear the responsibility for support services themselves.

This very same select committee that looked at this bill also has an inquiry into the accessibility of Parliament as a whole. This message from the committee will help in that consideration because it is a very clear stance in terms of members of Parliament, but our inquiry is looking even more broadly than that, at what access to information and services from members of Parliament can disabled members of our community expect.

My colleague Trevor Mallard mentioned the fact that it did not seem to be clear in the law that list members of Parliament who came in as a result of another list MP leaving and came in part-way through the term were entitled to be paid. We had a bit of a debate about that but we decided that we would include that coverage for every list member who came in part-way through the term. Obviously that has been the practice anyway, so, as the Attorney-General said, it was not an additional incurrence of any expenditure to the Crown—they had been getting paid.

There were also some opportunities, in the most negative sense of that word, for potential double-dipping and we wanted to use this opportunity to make sure that double-dipping did not occur. We do not think it has in the past; it was certainly not reported to us as having been the case, and we did ask. But we wanted to close down any opportunity for that in relation to members of Parliament who might get the 3-months’ post-retirement payment but then come in quite soon after that as a list MP. We did not want that sort of opportunity to be exploited. It is clearly not the intention of this Parliament that any member of Parliament deserves two bites at the cherry.

We have tried to make the rules very clear, very transparent, and workable. As I said earlier on, I was really impressed with the effort and energy that all members of the select committee put into dealing with some quite complex issues and I thank them all for that.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I was able to participate in the Government Administration Committee, which considered the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill, and I want to thank the select committee and Ruth Dyson for her chairing of that committee. The committee took a very practical approach to the issues, which have—over a number of years—been very, very hotly debated within committees, in various forms, and in the public. The public has a real interest in transparency—in their confidence that MPs will not be the deciders of the perks that we might have, and in there being real transparency in the process for how it is decided, and some real independence. So, it was good to be part of that discussion.

It is also true that we worked very hard. The Greens put up some real arguments about the changes to the bill that we did not agree to. We did not agree with the submission from the Clerk of the House, which was to change the bill so that the decision making for travel services for members of Parliament would be retained by the Speaker of the House. We do not agree with that position. We put that position to the select committee. We spent some weeks discussing whether that was the right or wrong thing to do.

What I was really pleased about, as a member of the committee in those discussions, is that—regardless of the fact that I lost the debate on that particular issue—there has no doubt been a shift in the way that MPs’ allowances, and those that might affect their families, have been decided. They are being decided more independently as a result of this legislation. That is a good thing. It is good to support progress when we do make progress because, Lord knows—anybody who has been watching this debate over the last 5, 6, or 10 years now—there can be a lot of heat and very, very little light when it comes to the issue of MPs’ expenses and allowances.

I would also just say that the Green Party has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 369 on this legislation. I think all members understand that select committees are not the arbiters of the final form of legislation—in fact, Parliament is. Parliament agreed at the first reading that this bill ought to include the provision for the Remuneration Authority to decide on the travel services for MPs. We are quite prepared, and we think it is our responsibility, to put that proposition back to Parliament as a whole, even though the Government Administration Committee decided in the end, for understandable reasons, to take it out. So we have a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Unanimously.

METIRIA TUREI: —and that is what we are going to do. Absolutely.

Hon Tau Henare: Does that answer Mr Mallard’s question?

METIRIA TUREI: Yes, it does answer Mr Mallard’s question. So the Greens have been champions for transparency for well over 10 years now. It was started by Rod Donald, our lovely co-leader. The call for transparency and reform in MPs’ pay and allowances—our campaign on these issues has led to real change. I think that has been really significant. We now have MPs’ travel and accommodation disclosed publicly every quarter. That followed the Greens’ campaign in 2009, where we made our own commitment to that disclosure. I do want to just recognise Speaker Lockwood Smith, who took the model that the Green Party was using, and had proposed, and applied that across the board to all MPs. So now we do have that disclosure.

At the time of that debate about whether it should apply to everybody, there was enormous resistance from MPs. There was a great deal of fear that if this information was disclosed, MPs would suffer, month after month, attacks—public attacks and attacks in the media—about the money that was being spent. What we have seen over time is that it is of interest to some people, and some people may comment, but the fact of having transparency has given the public some confidence, at least, that we are prepared to tell them what it is that we are doing. So all of the heat that was initially in that debate and all of the fear that MPs expressed over that disclosure were ultimately shown to be untrue.

Part of the difficulty we have around the decision that the select committee made to keep the decisions around travel allowances with the Speaker is that the argument for that, too, was an argument around fear and mistrust—that the Remuneration Authority would not understand the travel requirements of MPs and might make changes to those allowances that would not give MPs the ability to be able to come to Parliament to do their work here or to be able to travel to other places to do their work there. There was a great sense, I think, of mistrust in that debate. That mistrust is just not justified. I think that in all of the work we have done to try to reform our allowances and remuneration systems, it has been proven time and time again that the public want to know, but they also understand that we do an important job and need the resources to do it. The Remuneration Authority does take these issues seriously and will not make unnecessary reform. There is no justification for that fear or mistrust. That is one other reason why we are bringing back to Parliament the ability to decide to move the travel allowances to the Remuneration Authority, rather than keeping it with the Speaker.

We are also very pleased with the bill to the extent that it is a step towards putting in practice, I guess, a motion that I had put to the Parliamentary Service Commission some time before. I put a motion to the Parliamentary Service Commission that we advise the Speaker to establish an independent body to review MPs’ expenses and allowances, including travel allowances, with a view to the separation of what is personal and what is genuinely parliamentary, and that a further independent body be established or identified, whose role would be to set MPs allowances and expenses, including travel.

So to the extent that this bill was actually part of that debate and that there was an open opportunity for the public to have a say about independence and the separation between personal and parliamentary, we were able to hear very directly the views of the Clerk of the House, who keeps her views to herself most of the time. She too had an open opportunity to express what she thought about these changes. We went some way towards genuinely having an open debate about it. We were very pleased to see that that process happened, because at the Parliamentary Service Commission, of course, my motion to have those two things happen was declined by the MPs who were there. So we are seeing slow but continual change. That is why we will support the bill.

I would note that the Law Commission also supports our position of having the travel allowances moved out of the decision making of the Speaker to the Remuneration Authority, and that it expressed some disappointment that the bill that has come back does not do that. Again, I think what we are seeing here is an evolutionary process of change. We are trying as best as possible to take as many people, as many MPs, actually, as we can—the whole parliamentary system—with us on the debate to genuine transformation and independence. That will take some time, and is taking quite a bit of time. It has been 4 years since the 2009 debate on transparency. So it is good to see progress, albeit that it is slow.

We too are very pleased to see that the bill recognises the need to have independent funding for those who have impairments, to make sure that an MP who has an impairment is in no way prejudiced in their ability to engage in their duties simply because of that impairment. As Ruth Dyson quite rightly said, this is about making sure all New Zealanders—and there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders with all sorts of, different kinds of, impairments that may lead them to feel that they have no role or place in Parliament, that they have no role in the decision making at this highest level. Every step we take to make it clear to our community that they deserve to be genuinely represented—to be represented by members of their own community in this place—and to have their own voices heard in this place is critically important. So we are very pleased to see that we could make a change in this bill that expressly provided for MPs with impairments.

We are seeing that in other parts of the reform around Parliamentary Service too as more and more MPs, and as the system itself, become more aware of the need to be open to accessibility issues. Again, this is an evolutionary process. We are seeing this change happen slowly, but we are very pleased that it is happening. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute during the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. This legislation provides a new framework under which members of Parliament and members of the executive earn their entitlements. The current legislation is at times considered to be lacking in clarity, transparency, and independence. Based on recommendations, the National Government has provided a bill that establishes the system for determining services to be provided to members of Parliament.

Members of Parliament and the executive need to have proper support, and people need to have confidence in Parliament. By introducing this legislation, we hope to clarify any grey areas around travel and accommodation services, which have, to date, caused most public concerns. By introducing this bill, we will be improving the independence of the determination of those services.

This bill represents a significant improvement in the law under which elected members earn their remuneration and entitlements to services. We in the National Party want to ensure that our entitlements are set independently and are transparent. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): The entitlements of MPs and Ministers in this Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill will be transparent, independent, and non-partisan. That gives a level of confidence and trust for the public to have in a regime that has been—not picked on over the past few years, but I think it has needed that sort of trust put back into the community.

There is more power than ever before in the hands of an independent decision maker. I think that goes a long way to instilling some trust and some confidence on the part of the community in their elected representatives. The bill not only improves what has taken place before but enhances those measures taken by the Prime Minister and by a number of other people.

I will not take too long in the House, but I do want to say, and echo the comments that have been made, that this bill has—so far—travelled through its stages in a non-partisan manner. Now we are faced with many amendments that were never ever raised in the Government Administration Committee. I have heard Metiria Turei comment on the reasons why. I think that in the spirit of bipartisan work she should have raised those issues in the select committee. I think that those issues should have been ironed out in the select committee. What it looks like now is a bit of grandstanding. Having said all that, I do commend the bill to the House, and hope that there will be more bipartisan work across the House.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. Obviously, a number of people have referred to the work of the Government Administration Committee on this bill and to the way that the select committee members worked together. I too would like to acknowledge the chair of that select committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson, who I think is well known as an extremely good chair. The Government Administration Committee received and considered 18 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and heard seven submissions. The bill we are now debating is of course strengthened by the submissions and contributions of those people.

This bill seeks to establish a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament. It is a bill that has four main parts to it, and considers a range of elements. Part 1 is just the preliminary provisions. We then go through from there to salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. Just to be crystal clear, this is not about what members of Parliament are getting; this is about the how—how these matters are set. Part 3 is around services, and Part 4 is around the entitlements of former members, and miscellaneous matters.

I think one of the important factors to note is that this bill, in seeking to set up that new framework, is implementing, subject to some modifications, most of the recommendations of the Law Commission’s report Review of the Civil List Act 1979—Members of Parliament and Ministers. Essentially, the bill is recommending that the Remuneration Authority should determine accommodation services to members, travel services to members’ families, and resolution of issues about these services, and the ongoing travel entitlements of former members. Those are currently determined by the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services.

The important point here is that moving those things to the Remuneration Authority is really part of a process of increasing transparency and clarity, and also, I guess, of managing the competing interests of ensuring that members of Parliament are properly supported in carrying out their functions, but also maintaining confidence in the integrity of Parliament. That balance is really important. All of us in this Chamber will know that members of Parliament are not universally well regarded by the public, and that many people consider that we have many flaws and that we are probably overpaid for not doing a job well.

We know that members of Parliament generally—and, I would say, across the House—enter this place for the right reasons. They want to make a difference, want to represent New Zealanders, and want to help change things and scrutinise things in the right manner. Clearly, members of Parliament need to be adequately resourced to do that job and have the services that they need to be able to do that work. As the Hon Ruth Dyson outlined when she was talking about travel provisions, the fact of that matter is that it is not just about coming from your home town to this place, in Wellington, and being here in the debating chamber and then going back. Doing the job properly requires members of Parliament to have the ability to travel where New Zealanders are and to fulfil their responsibilities in terms of portfolio responsibilities. For example, the Hon Ruth Dyson was talking about her commitment to—I think it was—Grey Power, and then finding out how many locations around New Zealand that they were in. Likewise—and I am sure that others could identify examples—the ability to do the job is the ability to talk to relevant people wherever they are in New Zealand. In my own case, I have been talking to budget services up and down New Zealand about what they are seeing New Zealanders experiencing, the difficulties that they are having, and the level of debt that they are carrying. It is important to look at that from the point of view of different places within this country. So, it is a part of doing the job to be able to do that. It is certainly not a perk. I just want to emphasise again, though, that this bill is about how these matters are sorted and set, rather than the what.

I do want to comment on two things in particular. As I have said, the bill is about increasing the transparency and clarity of the requirements for reporting members’ and former members’ entitlements to travel and accommodation services, and of the provision of members’ superannuation. We must be transparent. We must be clear about what those things are and willing and able to confidently assert those to the public, and for the public to see that they have been set in a reasonable and independent manner, independent from ourselves.

The other matter that I particularly wanted to identify was the support for members with physical or sensory impairments. I think this is a really positive step forward for this Parliament. In doing this we are providing for entitlements to services to be determined in a way that takes into account the particular requirements of members with physical or sensory impairments. At this point I want to acknowledge the Green MP Mojo Mathers for her role in ensuring that these matters have really come to be seen as important and that they require dealing with. This bill is part of that. We need to ensure that this House is truly representative and that any member of Parliament who is here has the right support and the ability to do their job of representing New Zealanders, and I think that it is a very positive thing indeed that the provisions have been made within this bill.

I would also just note that I think this was done in a reasonably cross-party manner, as well. This is separate from this bill, but I just comment that recently work was done around the needs of members of Parliament with family responsibilities, and I recently saw an article about Holly Walker and her baby. I guess that while I am talking about Holly, I will congratulate her on that. I acknowledge that she is getting leave to look after her new baby, which I think is a very positive thing, indeed. We want to ensure—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The baby frequents the Pētone cafes.

CAROL BEAUMONT: The baby frequents cafes? At such a young age, too. But it is positive that we can ensure that this place is truly representative, and the fact that people can come into Parliament and, you know, have their families and still do their job is a positive thing and one that should be acknowledged. As I have said, members of Parliament with physical or sensory impairments, as is provided for in this bill, are also able to come to this House and do their job.

I think that we sought—and the select committee worked hard on this, I understand—to ensure that the bill does achieve that appropriate balance between the interests of ensuring that members do get properly supported in carrying out their roles and functions, and maintaining the confidence of Parliament, on the other hand. Moving many of the matters to the Remuneration Authority, which is independent from members of Parliament, rather than having matters be determined primarily by the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services has, I believe, improved that. With that, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to take a very brief call on the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. It is important that the public has confidence in the regime for setting the entitlements of members of Parliament and Ministers. This bill puts more power in the hands of independent decision makers. The Government is committed to having MPs’ and Ministers’ entitlements determined in a transparent, independent, and non-partisan manner, and the Government has already taken action to improve transparency, including the regular disclosure of travel and documentation costs.

This action is being taken a step further by making disclosure a requirement in this bill. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is my fault that the member has had to hurry back to his seat—we were conversing. This is down for a 5-minute call, so I am calling Grant Robertson. I do not know whether the Green Party is taking a split call on this bill. Is it?

Gareth Hughes: We are.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): OK. So it is 5-minute call to Grant Robertson.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and my apologies to the House for having to sort out some matters of logistics there with the Assistant Speaker.

Hon Paula Bennett: Good to see you run.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. My only exercise for the day, Ms Bennett—I will do my best. The important points I wanted to get across about this bill, the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill, are the extent to which this is actually about the how of remuneration, not the what. I think that an important consideration for members of the public who are watching this debate is that what is being debated today is the way in which the salaries of members of Parliament, the allowances for members of Parliament, and other matters are dealt with, rather than the exact amount that members of Parliament are paid or the exact amount of travel entitlements—or travel privileges, rather—that we may have.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Travel expenses.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Business expenses, in fact, as my colleague Trevor Mallard says, and he is very right in that regard. Something that I think members of the public perhaps sometimes find difficult to understand about the way in which parliamentarians are serviced and resourced and how they are paid is around that question of travel.

Obviously, what the bill does is make some changes to the arrangements, whereby the Remuneration Authority will be responsible for accommodation, the travel of family members, and the travel privileges for former members while the Speaker retains the responsibility for MPs’ travel. The reason from the Government Administration Committee for that, as I understand it, is that MPs’ travel is essentially a business expense—it is a business role. The reason for travel by MPs is to undertake our duties.

I have often thought that one of the issues here is that when most people go on an aeroplane or travel, they are going on holiday, and that is what they associate the act of travelling on an aeroplane with. Not me, as the MP for Wellington Central—there are no flights from Wilton down to Parliament—but most of the members of Parliament who are here get on an aeroplane to go to work, and for MPs the 1-hour commute from Auckland to Wellington is like driving on the motorway in Auckland. I know, and I can understand and appreciate, why members of the public, who generally find themselves on flights when they are lucky enough to be able to go on holiday, might associate air travel in a way that is somehow or other to do with holidays. It is not, in this particular instance; it is to do with our role as parliamentarians.

I further understand that part of the justification given by the select committee for not moving MPs’ travel to the Remuneration Authority is that the potential end result of doing that could be that a member of Parliament was unable to fulfil their duty as a parliamentarian. They would effectively breach privilege and not be here as a parliamentarian, potentially, as the result of a decision by the Remuneration Authority, and that is what distinguishes travel by MPs from the other privileges that are now being handed over to the Remuneration Authority.

I have to say that from a personal point of view I find this whole thing unsatisfactory. Labour will be voting for this bill because it is the consensus that was come to by parties at the select committee, and it is important on issues like this that we work on the basis of a consensus and a unanimous approach, but I personally believe that the whole issue requires further work.

There were other proposals provided that I personally think could merit consideration. I have heard proposals that the salaries of MPs are set at the start of the 3-year term and it is left as that for that whole 3-year term, and everybody has the same expectations about what those salaries would be. They would be set by the previous Parliament, potentially, and then be carried on by a new Parliament. Another idea is the one that you could index the payments to inflation. I think there are a lot of other ways.

For me, this is a very awkward piece of legislation. It tries to fix some problems, which I think it does quite well, particularly around MPs with physical and sensory impairments. It deals with the question of the absences of MPs and the deduction of salaries in a much better way, which actually acknowledges the fact that if people are absent without the authorised leave, they should suffer a proper penalty for that. I think the bill has dealt well with those matters. What I am less comfortable about is that we have got a bit of a muddle of arrangements around the privileges and travel, and I do believe that we will probably end up revisiting this. However, this is the consensus and we are prepared to support it on that basis.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak in support of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I do not think there is anything that probably excites the talkback callers and gives the newspaper cartoonists more creative ideas than MPs’ remuneration and so-called perks. If we are going to have a public that have confidence in our Parliament and our elected representatives, it is critical that we get this right. The Green Party believes we are making a step in the right direction with this bill, and that is why we will be supporting it.

Obviously, it is something that we have talked about for an awfully long time in this Parliament. For 10 years or more the Greens have been the ones championing having a transparent regime when it comes to expenses, when it comes to travel, and when it comes to pay because not only is it the right thing and the reason that the public could have more confidence in us but it is also the way that we can make the right decisions in our daily lives. We have seen it on the front pages of the papers in New Zealand and around the world, particularly in the UK. It is critical that we get this right. Transparency and sunlight are an important part of it. Ultimately, it comes down to your principles, and the Green Party’s core principle is appropriate decision-making.

When you see the cartoons of the pigs with their heads in the trough, it is obviously not appropriate to have those who are benefiting from the decisions being the ones making them. That is why for a long time we have called for an independent body to set our pay, our travel, and our accommodation entitlements so that we can do our work.

I would like to say that the Greens can quite proudly take a bit of credit for some of the movement we have seen in New Zealand. At the time of the superannuation scandals that we saw in this Parliament, it was the Greens who voluntarily decided in 2009 to release publicly our expense accounts. Now Parliament has followed suit, which is a very positive step. Metiria Turei, back in around 2009, I think it was, put a motion to the Parliamentary Service Commission, which is part of the reason that we are here today. It was great to see the Law Commission’s report in 2009.

What we see in this bill are some steps in the right direction. We see the so-called Chris Carter clause—the $10 maximum penalty per day for MPs absent without leave—finally being increased to a meaningful amount. We see the voluntary disclosure regime for MPs’ travel and accommodation become statutory. And, quite rightly, we celebrate with other parties in Parliament new clause 17(1)(ab), where entitlements to services should be determined in a way that has regard to the particular requirements of any members in Parliament with physical or sensory impairments.

It was a bit of a battle behind the scenes to get the appropriate services so that Mojo Mathers could do her job as New Zealand’s first profoundly deaf MP. It is unfortunate that we had to push and we had to struggle to get there, but I am glad that our Parliament has got there, and now we are doing the right thing in terms of this legislation. I am sure that we will deal with that in the Standing Orders review as well. We are doing the right thing, because any MP with an impairment, be it physical or sensory, should be able to represent their community, their electors, in this Parliament. What this Parliament should not be doing is sending the message to those Kiwis with those sensory or physical impairments that it is going to be harder for your party or your colleagues if you are in the House. That is why we think it is important that a strong message is sent. Their voices are valued in this House of Representatives, and it is great to see that in this legislation.

Where we had difficulty with this legislation was in the original proposal both by the Law Commission and in the original, first reading copy of the bill, and that was to have the travel and accommodation entitlements dealt with by the Remuneration Authority. We still believe that that is the appropriate venue for this. We do not think it is appropriate to put that back on the Speaker’s shoulders. Obviously, I think that transparency and appropriate decision-making are critical. That is why Metiria Turei has Supplementary Order Paper 369 in front of this House to try to ameliorate this.

I think the arguments around MPs’ travel to and from Wellington are spurious. Obviously, MPs have to do it. But the core of the matter is who makes the decisions, who sets the rates. Instead of the Speaker of Parliament setting them, it should be an independent authority. It is critically important that Parliament sorts out these issues so that the public can have confidence in us and so we can have appropriate decision-making. That is why I think we obviously need to have an independent body to set our travel and accommodation entitlements.

I think it is high time that this Parliament and members of this House got rid of their voluntary personal travel perk. It is a perk. I voluntarily renounced it when I entered this Parliament in 2009. What we need to do is make Parliamentary Service travel expenses able to be requested under the Official Information Act, and, obviously, we need to do a lot more to clean up the system. Kia ora.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I move, That the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill be now read a second time. I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair, David Bennett, for dealing with this important bill so swiftly and efficiently, and for reporting it back to the House earlier than scheduled. I would also like to thank those who made submissions on the bill. The select committee has recommended that the bill proceed, with a number of amendments, and I agree with the amendments proposed.

This bill is the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy by the end of this year. The first part of the bill establishes the stand-alone agency WorkSafe New Zealand. In relation to the board of WorkSafe, submitters were unclear as to whom the phrase “workplace participants” referred. Some were concerned that knowledge and experience of the workers’ perspectives were not clearly stated in the skill set for the board. This clause has been amended to refer to perspectives of workers and perspectives of employers, to provide clarity. The objective of WorkSafe has also been amended to align with the Australian Model Work Health and Safety Act, which will be the basis for new legislation that will replace the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, as was announced in August. WorkSafe’s main objective will be to promote and contribute to securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces. This sends a strong signal of WorkSafe’s intent in the health and safety system, from the outset.

Part 2 of the bill provides the necessary statutory support for the new mining regulations. The issue that attracted the most attention from submitters, both in response to the Safe mines: safe workers consultation document and in response to the bill, was whether quarries should be included in the new regulatory regime. There are about 1,000 quarries in New Zealand, and by far the majority of them are small operations with just a handful of employees. The Government supports the conclusion that quarries and alluvial mining operations do not entail the same level of hazard as other mining operations, and should be removed from the definition of a mining operation. However, the quarry industry recognises that it needs to raise health and safety standards, and it is commencing work with officials to develop, in the first instance, a set of guidelines for health and safety. The intention is that these will form the basis for quarry-specific regulations in the future.

Several key changes have also been made to the functions and powers of site health and safety representatives. Many submitters argued that the bill should explicitly set out all the functions and powers necessary for site health and safety representatives to do an effective job. Accordingly, two new functions have been added. These are a general function to represent mine workers in matters relating to health and safety, and a function carried over from the current health and safety framework to promote the interests of mine workers who are harmed at work. To exercise the powers relating to inspection and stopping work, site health and safety representatives are required to meet certain prescribed competency standards. This has not changed. What has changed is that site representatives will not have to hold these competencies before they put themselves up for election. It was felt that this would unnecessarily limit candidates for the role. Instead, the representatives will not be able to exercise these particular powers until they have received the necessary training. To address concerns relating to information that health and safety representatives will have access to as they carry out their functions, as raised by some industry submitters, a confidentiality provision has been added.

Other changes include adding an immunity from liability provision for health and safety representatives, adding a positive duty on mine operators to ensure that site representatives have sufficient time and access to facilities to enable them to carry out their functions and exercise their powers, and permitting mine workers to elect a temporary health and safety representative while an appeal against the removal of a representative is under way.

The committee heard a range of views from submitters on the issue of the scope of industry health and safety representatives, otherwise known as check inspectors. We agree with the committee that they are appointed only for the underground coalmining sector, as was recommended by the Pike River royal commission. Although all the mining operations that are proposed to be covered by the new regime have principal hazards, there is a substantial additional risk in the underground coal sector that relates to the presence of methane. The vast majority of multiple fatality incidents in the mining industry in the past 100 years has occurred in this sector. The Government considers that this is where the resource of industry health and safety representatives—the extra set of eyes and ears, the extra line of defence—that the royal commission spoke of is best targeted. The final part of the bill ensures that the legislation that supports the mine’s rescue service is fit for purpose, and minor amendments have been recommended by the committee.

The changes recommended by the committee reflect a balanced and careful consideration of the wide range of comments made by submitters. They clarify the provisions establishing WorkSafe New Zealand, they reflect a sensible conclusion on which sectors of the mining industry should be included in the scope of the legislation, and they further strengthen the worker participation arrangements at mining operations.

I would like to take this opportunity to signal the intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. The proposed changes will support the proposed inter-agency protocol for responding to major underground mining emergencies, in particular by recognising the functions of the incident controller, who will take the lead in determining how the emergency response proceeds. This protocol has been developed in response to a recommendation of the royal commission. These issues were not able to be included in the bill as introduced, as the protocol was still in development and had yet to be tested, which occurred earlier this month. The Supplementary Order Paper will also include an amendment that will enable any surplus levy collected to cover the costs of the mine’s rescue service, to be used, when necessary, to build up and maintain the trust’s reserve fund for dealing with mining emergencies.

Once again, I would like to thank the select committee and all those involved in expediting the progress of this important bill. We owe this to the workers who lost their lives at Pike River, to their families, and to all current and future workers in the mining industry. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and to acknowledge that although this bill has been motivated and activated by the tragic and disastrous events of Pike River, the issues underpinning it actually predate that dreadful event.

I refer to a paper prepared by the Department of Labour in September 2008, in which it analysed the problems with the current framework for health and safety. One of the problems it identified was what it described as “a lack of procedural guidance on employee participation”, which “leaves underground mining potentially open to commercial pressures and day-to-day worksite management decisions”. So it is right to look at this bill, it having now been through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, against the problem that was identified even 2 years before the Pike River tragedy.

Although there are many aspects of this bill that we find favour with—and on that basis we will be supporting it—there are nevertheless some concerns that we continue to have. It is good that the bill legislates for an independent, stand-alone health and safety agency. It is something that for some time had been called for. That is in place in the form of WorkSafe New Zealand.

The disappointing aspect of the bill at present is the governance of WorkSafe New Zealand, and not just the governance but the power to establish advisory groups in it. In putting the board of WorkSafe New Zealand together, the relevant Minister is required to “have regard to the need to ensure” that the body has certain people amongst its membership. There is no requirement to have any specific category of person, or a person from a relevant organisation; it is simply that the Minister has regard to the need.

And then there are the particular classes of skill or competency described in clause 7 of the bill. After it talks about public sector governance and central government processes—we need people experienced in those—it goes on to describe people who have “perspectives of workers:” and people who have “perspectives of employers:”. We are now so diluting exactly what we are trying to get to here. This was modelled on the British Health and Safety Executive. When that was established in 1974, it was absolutely clear that they were people who came out of employers’ organisations, people who came out of unions and workers’ organisations, and people who were there to represent the Government. That is what we should have. That was, in the 1974 British legislation, about setting up a genuinely tripartite process.

This bill in its current wording does not do that. It does not speak to tripartism. It speaks to the old neo-liberal public management theory, which we have had for the last 30 years. In my submission, it is inadequate, and if it progresses in this current form and, indeed, this is the basis on which WorkSafe New Zealand is established, it will be found to be inadequate.

The bill goes on to say under clause 8 that the governing board of WorkSafe New Zealand can establish advisory groups. They are described as providing “a forum for dialogue … between the Government, employers, and workers”. So that is the level of tripartism. It is not about genuinely sharing decision making; it is about providing a forum for dialogue. So we think that the bill does not go far enough in providing a genuinely tripartite process and a shared decision-making process for employers and for workers through their unions.

The next aspect that I want to draw attention to relates to the scope of the bill, particularly in relation to the new workplace health and safety procedures—the establishment of what are now described as “site health and safety representatives” and “industry health and safety representatives”. When it comes to site health and safety representatives, it is interesting that that part of it, and, indeed, the entire bill, now excludes quarrying, which originally was included in the bill.

Quarries are still unsafe places, or at least are hazardous places. There are plenty of hazards in quarries, no matter how big or small an employer the quarry owner might be. I have to say we take no comfort from the representations of the member Michael Woodhouse, who just spoke on behalf of the Minister of Labour and seems to draw a distinction between the big employer and the small employer. When you are a worker, the size of the workforce does not matter; it is the work that you do that is hazardous or dangerous, not the size of your employer. So drawing these artificial distinctions is not helpful.

We take no comfort from the fact that quarrying and, indeed, gold mining and other alluvial mining are to be excluded from this legislation. It is encouraging to see that tunnelling is still included, at least in so far as site health and safety representatives are included. We should bear in mind that it is only a matter of a few weeks ago that we saw the aftermath of probably one of the worst tunnelling accidents we have had in this country, where gas that had accumulated in a tunnel in an urban area ignited and blew up. It killed one person, it blew the legs off another, and it endangered and injured many others. So we should not see that tunnelling is any safer than, indeed, underground coalmining. It is still capable of being unsafe because of the build-up of gases, whether they are natural, piped, or whatever.

The unfortunate thing is that although tunnelling is covered by the site health and safety representative provisions of this bill, the industry health and safety representative provisions do not include tunnelling. They are confined solely to underground coalmining. There is no question that the piece of legislation, animated and inspired by the tragic events of Pike River, is, of course, going to cover underground coalmining. But, as the royal commission takes pains to point out in its report, the reality is that although it is talking about an incident, an event, a tragedy that arose in the underground coalmining industry—Pike River—many of its findings have a wider application. So it is disappointing that when it comes to a very innovative provision—at least, innovative for New Zealand; not innovative for other parts of the world—it has been confined to that very small part of the industry, underground coalmining.

Nevertheless, it is good to see that where workers and their unions are of a mind to do so, they can appoint an industry health and safety representative. That will have some real power and ability to make some real difference and do some real things. If I can go back, it is encouraging, actually, to see that the site health and safety representative will have some real power as well—some power to intervene and to stop work where necessary, subject to requirements of good faith and subject to the obligation to communicate clearly and effectively with the employer. A site health and safety representative, elected by workers, will have the power to go directly to inspectors—go outside the business—and also to directly take steps to stop work where it is regarded as unsafe and unhealthy. I think that is a welcome provision.

It is going to be interesting to see how well-supported that is, particularly by WorkSafe New Zealand and its staff—its inspectors. If there was one thing that was consistent in the flavour of many of the submissions by employers that went to the select committee, it was “Oh, yes, we think we need to do a lot more about health and safety, but we don’t want anybody having these sorts of powers.” Employers, particularly those that do not have unions or union representatives in the workplace, appear to be, in their submissions, concerned about this possibility. They should not be concerned. If anything, it is the workforces in those places that should feel encouraged and, at least now, have a greater sense of safety and a greater sense of confidence that they can go about their work, knowing that somebody working shoulder to shoulder with them knows what is going on and has the power now to make meaningful steps to ensure health and safety in the workplace. So we welcome those things. We will have some slight changes to make in the Committee stage of this bill to improve, I think, these aspects.

Just one final point on the mines rescue provisions of the bill is that it is disappointing to see that no provision has been made to confirm that the Mines Rescue trust controls a future incident.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to follow on from the first two speeches on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill in its second reading. I thought that we had two very good speeches, from the Minister and also from Andrew Little. I would just like to thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the way that they have engaged in working through this bill. Mike Sabin did a great job as deputy chairperson. Other members of the committee travelled throughout the country. We went to Westport to hear firsthand from the community and families down there. I just want to acknowledge Damien O’Connor, who was there with us that day, and pay respect to the community and to the families involved.

That tragedy has led to this bill, effectively, coming before the House. There are three main strands in the bill. The first area is the creation of WorkSafe New Zealand. This is a new workplace health and safety agency, a Crown entity, that I think all parties in this Parliament will see a lot of benefit from. There may be some debate around how it is comprised and some of its effectiveness in the sense of the rules around how it applies to certain situations. It is a huge initiative in the health and safety area, and I think all parties here will acknowledge that it is a major change in health and safety in New Zealand, a change that we all support, and we look forward to its implementation over time. It will also necessarily evolve and will take different forms as it goes through its different functions, but we have a very strong starting point at this time.

The second part of the bill amends the provisions of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 to support new initiatives around the management of hazards in the mining industry. The major change here, since the select committee hearing, has been in regard to the differentiation between coal and other forms of mining. The guts of it is that in a coalmine there is the potential for methane gas to build up. That then creates the potential for an explosion, which then creates the potential for loss of life and injury. In the situation of a coalmine, it is reflected in the higher standard of rules that are required, from other types of mining where there is not such a perceived risk because there is not the build-up of methane. So, essentially, that is the Australian approach, and it is the one that has been adopted in this bill. It is something that is practical, but it also serves the purpose of dealing with the issue of methane build-up in coalmines. Part 3 of the bill creates a new Mines Rescue Act 2013, replacing the Mines Rescue Trust Act of 1992. As has been noted by other speakers, that involves a number of procedural issues around making the role and functions of the Mines Rescue Trust better reflect the current environment.

So, overall, this is very solid bill. I would once again like to thank all members of this House and the parties for the way that they have conducted the inquiry, and also looking at the rules to make sure that we get the best result for our communities and also for our industries that are involved. This is a successful bill that reflects that. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I would like to firstly say that whether by good design or divine intervention—whatever—it is appropriate that the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill comes into the House today, after we have seen for a day or so down on the West Coast an operation that starts the process of re-entering the mine to try to, firstly, recover any of the bodies of the 29 men who may be in the drift, and, secondly, find out more information that may contribute to understanding what happened almost 3 years ago down at Pike River. I think the families, who will be closely monitoring what is happening on the coast and may be monitoring what is happening in the House here, should be comforted in some small way by the fact that that terrible tragedy has led to this legislation, and it has taught each and every one of us in Parliament some lessons, and, hopefully, I guess, the whole of New Zealand some lessons. One thing that the families have come to accept for some time is that all the wonderful words that come from Parliament mean nothing and all the best legislation means nothing unless it is implemented with some sound mind, with some practical implementation, and with a proper level of resourcing.

The bill is, as has been said by previous speakers, in three parts. It is a good piece of progressive legislation. It is not the answer to all health and safety in New Zealand. Indeed, we are going to have to do a lot from Parliament all the way down through the system, including resourcing, to ensure that we have better health and safety in this country across all industries, not just in mining. The reality is that we have an abysmal record. There are too many families—not just 29 from Pike River, but in fact tens and tens of families across this country—every year who lose their loved ones through workplace health and safety accidents. We each have a responsibility in Parliament here to do whatever we can to stop that.

In 1992 there was a naive piece of legislation passed, one that effectively relied on the market and on industry to implement the highest standards of health and safety that we expected—well, that we should expect in a First World country. All the testing and teasing and prodding of that legislation, the Health and Safety in Employment Act, over a number of years really did not give rise to any major change. I received a response from the Minister in 2010, prior to the terrible tragedy at Pike River, and I will quote it because it does reflect the attitude that prevailed from 1992 until 2010: “The legislation reflects the fact that employers”—whom I am talking about—“are in a good position to understand the hazards arising in the workplace and are best placed to take steps to control them.” Well, there is probably a lot of truth in that statement. The question was when they did not control them, what then? Unfortunately, that is what happened at Pike River. The risks were known to so many. The day-to-day deficiencies were known to the company, but action was not taken. So what this piece of legislation is doing in part is starting to bring back in a regulatory regime that will place clear impositions and responsibilities on employers, and employees too, to make sure that action is taken where risks are identified. The sad response that I got, which I read from time to time, is, hopefully, a response that no one should ever see from a Government Minister again.

We have had a number of inquiries—the royal commission—and we have had a long and agonising process for the families, and we have had some sound wisdom, lessons, and recommendations come from that process. As I say, the families should be comforted in some small way that their loss has not meant inaction. Their loss has not been wasted in any way on the collective wisdom that should be brought to Parliament. I acknowledge the Government for getting on with the job of changing legislation. But if you go to the proposals for reform coming from the summary document here, one of the things that was said is that “The Pike River tragedy was preventable but administrative and regulatory reforms are urgently needed to reduce the likelihood of further tragedies.” We are almost 3 years on. I would not call it urgent. It has taken some time. I acknowledge that the bill is here and that there is some other stuff to come before Parliament, but we have been told these things before, and it is the responsibility of any Government—at this point it is the National Government—to get on and do things in a more timely manner.

Dare I say, there are some lessons around forestry that we are hearing on a regular basis, and we have yet to see action in that area. This legislation will help but, actually, we will need more acute focus on forestry to prevent people being killed in that industry on a very regular basis. So the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy must be applied across the board. Urgent action is required. I do not want to have to, as a parliamentarian, face any more families with comfort, with my sympathy, and with all the support I can offer but not with the replacement of their loved person who has been killed in a workplace accident.

The recommendations are sound and I am hoping that the Government keeps to them. The next proposal, which refers to the need for administrative reforms, says: “Oversight of health and safety planning should start early in the life cycle of a mining project.” There are mining projects proposed, in fact off Kaikōura, for example, deep-sea drilling, and we have got Bathurst Resources on the West Coast, and I need to be reassured that health and safety is right up alongside capital raising and basic environmental planning, because it is worthy of that first-line consideration. Unfortunately, what we saw was that everything else was planned for, and the lessons of Pike River are clear, but health and safety was just an add-on. It cannot be like that. Just as we have incorporated environmental planning into the first part of any mining project, any building project, and any economic project in this country, health and safety must be part of that as well.

I hope that the legislation, in the setting up of WorkSafe New Zealand, sets up an agency that is well resourced, that can check on every proposed project, and that can ensure that health and safety is part of the planning alongside capital and alongside environmental management. I hope that the Government follows through with the resourcing to ensure that happens.

The other two parts incorporated into the legislation to amend the 1992 Act take into account the unique aspects of mining and all underground operations and quarrying. I think that is essential and that has been widely acknowledged. Can I say that in Part 3 the setting up of Mines Rescue, or giving it more authority and more autonomy, and the need for more resources, is just as urgent. Some of the problems that occurred at Pike River at the time of the accident were because of uncertain authority through Mines Rescue. That cannot ever happen again. The people with the wisdom and the knowledge who are on the ground should be the ones making the decisions, not some person sitting on their chuff in Wellington, as happened with the Pike River tragedy. It would never have brought back the lives of those 29 men, but it is imperative upon each and every one of us that we support this legislation to make sure that prevention occurs at every step of the workplace operations, and that whenever an accident occurs, we have the right systems in place to deal with it.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Can I begin by expressing my gratitude for the hard work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee officials and officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who supported the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in our work. I thank all those who made submissions. I thank David Bennett, the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I thank other committee members, especially for the trip the committee made to Greymouth to hear submissions. It was an arduous trip because of the circumstances on the day but it was one that I know my community particularly appreciated.

The Green Party will be supporting the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill at its second reading, but we are doing so disturbed by the failure of the Government to grasp in a wholehearted way the opportunity that existed to meet this challenge. As members know, I live close to the site of the Pike River mine, and I have been closely involved in the aftermath of the tragedy. I have had three main objectives: firstly, to recover the bodies of the 29 men who were killed in the disaster, if that is at all possible; secondly, to investigate and get to the bottom of what occurred or what caused that tragedy; and, thirdly, to improve the systems that we use in order that such tragedies can be avoided in the future, in so far as we are able to do that.

As Damien O’Connor said, as we sit here in the House today debating this bill a helicopter clatters over the mine site on the coast, doing the preparatory work to begin a recovery operation, finally, 3 long agonising years after the disaster occurred. We hope that it may be possible to recover at least some of the men. We hope also that it may be possible to recover some evidence to fill some of the gaps that still exist in our understanding of what exactly happened, what went wrong, and how that might be prevented in the future. I call on the House to consider what we owe those men and their families, and to live up to those responsibilities.

The royal commission of inquiry met its responsibilities, and it can be well satisfied with a truly excellent job. But what of us in this House? With the honourable exception of the brief period when the Hon Chris Finlayson acted as the Minister of Labour, the Government has dragged the chain, and, I believe, shamed the House at every point.

First of all, John Key tried to defend the Government’s performance on mine safety, saying that our standards were no less than those in Australia, and that our safety record was very good. All of the subsequent facts that have emerged have illustrated just how contemptibly wide of the mark those claims were, but typical of a Government whose first reaction to anything that goes wrong is the Bart Simpson - like “It wasn’t me. It’s not my fault. You can’t prove a thing.” Then, to restore the mines inspectorate to more than a pathetic capacity with a High Hazards Unit took literally months and months of determined pressure on the former Minister of Labour, even though that was a measure that had near unanimous endorsement from everyone except the Government.

The Government’s next stall was on the review of legislation and regulation, something else that should have been an absolute no-brainer. But to give Kate Wilkinson some credit, she did set up a genuine process and she did seek to inform and involve Opposition parties. I wonder now whether that is the reason for her demotion by John Key. She was too open to a genuine review of legislation and regulations in this area. I was certainly astonished when the Prime Minister, in response to my questions in the House, indicated that contrary to the conclusions of the royal commission and the Hon Chris Finlayson, he did not accept that deregulation had played a crucial role in creating the environment where the Pike River disaster could occur. In fact, the Prime Minister demonstrates his adherence to the same discredited neo-liberal agenda that caused the problem in the first place.

Experienced miners and mine safety experts warned—they were extremely clear at the time—that the Bill Birch and Max Bradford theory that the State should just leave private companies to get on with health and safety would lead to deaths in mine disasters, and they were right. The problem that the Government now has is that with 29 men lying dead in Pike River mine, it is hard for it to wriggle out of implementing the recommendations of either the royal commission or the health and safety task force, so instead we hear grand words about honour, but implementation falls short of what is really needed.

This is a Government that is still committed to the neo-liberal agenda. It is viscerally opposed to greater State control over the operation of private businesses, and it despises the idea of greater regulation or greater say for unions on behalf of working people. Working people are supposed to be just a labour input into the firm. That is what lies at the heart of the shortcomings of this bill. It does many good things but falls well short of what is required, and I have addressed some of the main points in my minority view in the select committee report.

For example, officials struggled to explain why a representative tripartite structure was not adopted for the board of WorkSafe New Zealand. I do not recall a single submission opposing it, and there were certainly plenty strongly endorsing it, from both unions and business leaders. It was recommended very strongly by the task force. Actually, the reason it is not in this bill has nothing to do with rational analysis of the submissions and everything to do with a Government that is strongly opposed to tripartism, with its implications of shared power and shared accountability with business and especially with working people.

This central flaw is compounded by giving the board powers that fall short of those recommended by the task force and fall short of giving WorkSafe adequate teeth to deal with employers who are not persuaded to meet their legal health and safety duties. Indeed, as I said in my minority view, the functions in this bill are a pretty good description of the way the Department of Labour mines inspectors went about their job at the time of the Pike River disaster, which resulted, of course, in catastrophic failure to detect and correct the many and glaring faults in the systems of Pike River Coal Ltd.

I am also deeply disturbed that the Government has caved in response to pressure from quarrying companies and narrowed the scope of operations covered by the reinstatement of the triangle of safety set out in Part 2 of the bill. For anyone who sat through the evidence heard by the royal commission or who has read the royal commission’s report, one of the clearest conclusions was that the disaster was not the result of a single risk factor; rather, the disaster occurred because multiple failings lined up on the day. Defences against harm in legislation, regulation, enforcement, company policy, company operating procedures, training, worker behaviour, equipment, and many other areas all contain the potential for error, and the disaster was the result of some combination of these. So to now take one single risk factor, the risk of explosion, and say that where this risk exists we will bolster safety systems with check inspectors, but in other analogous situations where that particular risk does not exist we are going to do nothing is a total failure to understand even the most basic conclusion from the royal commission.

In my first reading speech I quoted Bill Brazil, a mining safety expert, who said in 1995: “Furthermore the [Health and Safety in Employment] Act is being used as a manipulative device to eliminate management structures and many historically formed mining codes of practice that were firmly established in the heart of previous legislation, much of which has proved successful over 100 years. Should this situation be allowed to continue without intervention the end result can only be the escalation of potential for further disaster.” I would say that in the failures by this Government to wholeheartedly implement the recommendations of the royal commission and the task force, the Government instead aligns itself with those responsible for that fatal manipulation of health and safety law in the first place. The 29 men deserve better.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I just want to acknowledge the contributions of Damien O’Connor and Mr Little on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. Both are people with knowledge and experience in this area, and I appreciate the contributions they made to the House. I would just point out, though, that Mr O’Connor mentioned the 3 years that have passed since the Pike River disaster. It is a valid comment, but it would not have been sensible or, in fact, proper to put legislation in place before the royal commission of inquiry came out in October of last year. I think the Government certainly has moved to take heed of that inquiry. Indeed, we will still find out in the months and years to come what has come about as a result of the terrible Pike River disaster.

I also want to comment on what Mr O’Connor said, and as has been alluded to by others, that there was no one failing in this. The legacy of that disaster is threaded through this legislation, but, actually, in any workplace tragedy, looking back rearward, as we must do, it is important to identify a number of factors. Of course, a lot of those factors are human. A lot of those factors are outside control. Some of the factors are inside control. What I think this bill actually looks to do is put in place some of those hard lessons learnt, and not only honour those who lost their lives in that tragedy but also make sure that as many of those controllables as possible can be lined up and responded to. But I must stress that with this or any other matter, when it comes to the workplace, it will always be a collection of a number of factors that contribute to things going badly wrong. This bill is one part of a solution—an enduring part of a solution, I hope—but there are many others. I am happy to commend it to the House.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. We welcome the changes that this will make to our mining sector. We know that it is the start of change, and we look forward to further change throughout. Health and safety in a workplace is absolutely paramount. Every worker has the right to return home at the end of their working day, and to return home unharmed. We firmly believe that. In New Zealand First we agree, like every other party in the House, with much of the royal commission report on the Pike River tragedy, and we are happy to now see that many of the recommendations have been heard and are to be implemented. We must commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done on this bill. We welcome the changes that have been suggested, and we look forward to the Committee stage, where the Minister of Labour has indicated that there will be further changes. Labour has also indicated that it has got some changes to suggest. We will look forward to reading those and considering those.

However, as I said in my first reading speech on this bill, we are very sad that it took such a devastating tragedy and 29 deaths to make the necessary changes to improve the health and safety regulations in the mining sector. We extend our thoughts and our sympathies again to the friends and families of those involved in the Pike River tragedy, and we look forward to this legislation, which will help to make improvements in order to minimise the occurrence of any such tragedy in the future. Of course, we realise that a bill can never, ever eliminate a tragedy of this nature from occurring again, but the focus on health and safety will be increased, and this will help with what is currently happening. The current position is totally unacceptable. We need to give workers a greater sense of safety in their own workplaces.

The WorkSafe New Zealand agency, which is going to be established under this bill, is a good step forward. We like how it has been absolutely listed in this particular bill how the board is to be made up—at least five members, and no more than nine—and the list of the criteria that the members of the board must have has been clearly outlined in the legislation. We do need to ensure that these people on the board are not party political and that it does follow these guidelines so that whenever there is a change of Government, there is not a total change of the WorkSafe board. So we were happy with that. We did have some concerns about the agency, but we are pleased that the recommendations have been clearly set out. We particularly support the recommendation to change the wording around WorkSafe’s main objectives in clause 9(1): “WorkSafe New Zealand’s main objective is to promote and contribute to securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” We believe that this is a step forward from the wording originally in this Bill. This means that this agency will take a stronger role in protecting the safety of workers, and that is absolutely essential. A sole Government agency of this nature ought to have centralised responsibility for ensuring responsible health and safety practices are undertaken, and these amendments actually underline that necessity.

The bill also provides amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act of 1992. The change will see clear, new mining regulations, such as processes for better managing hazards, increasing the minimum standards, requirements for health and safety standards, and strengthened training and competency requirements. I am very passionate about that latter requirement. The Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy focus on this was principally on underground mines. However, the changes in this bill will make it focus more on all of the mine operations, due to the particular hazards that they present. The royal commission saw a number of contributing factors to the Pike River mine disaster, and we have heard how there was a coming together of many different factors that resulted in this disaster.

The amendments of the committee have reduced the coverage of Part 2 of the bill, in line with the suggestion from the royal commission that this should be expanded rather than narrowed. We are also aware that unions have voiced their concerns around this issue. In New Zealand First we have always supported an increase in health and safety regulations for our workers, including broad coverage. Having read through the royal commission report, New Zealand First is inclined to agree that there were quite a number of safety issues that went unaddressed. Failures across a number of Government departments and sections of Pike River management contributed to this tragedy. To this end, New Zealand First believes that it would be counter-productive to identify any factor that resulted in the Pike River tragedy. We have welcomed the royal commission’s findings and now this bill, and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee amendments, which, on the whole, greatly improve the bill.

Again, New Zealand First extends our utmost sympathies to the family and friends of the deceased. We will be supporting this bill to make a much-needed improvement to the mining sector, and we believe that it is a great step forward towards protecting the health and safety of our workers here in New Zealand.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a great honour to speak on the second reading of this particular bill, the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill, coinciding, as it does, with the commencement yesterday of drift re-entry at Pike River. This omnibus bill enacts recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. It establishes WorkSafe New Zealand, a new workplace health and safety agency; it amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992; and it creates a new Mines Rescue Act 2013.

There are many physical memorials to those who lost their lives at Pike River. These memorials each express dignity, grief, remorse, and loss. I like to think that the effects of this bill, which incorporates the recommendations of the royal commission, will be as enduring as granite and as lasting as a carbon memorial. The implementation of this bill will bring us closer to ensuring that mining—risky, adventurous, profitable occupation that it is—will continue to be one of New Zealand’s economic building blocks, and not the stumbling block that some have perceived it to be. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I am joining with the others in speaking on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill in its second reading, and saying that of course Labour supports this bill, but we do so with some reservations. As my colleague Andrew Little has said, in the Committee stage we will be looking at a number of Supplementary Order Papers. Obviously, the purpose of this bill is absolutely to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, and, to a large extent, that is what is happening. That is appropriate and important. The main elements are the setting up of the new workplace health and safety agency, WorkSafe New Zealand; amending the Health and Safety in Employment Act to better manage hazards in the mining industry; and creating a new Mines Rescue Act, which will update the regime for how mine rescues are carried out.

I want to start by acknowledging the extent of the tragedy of 19 November 2010, when 29 workers lost their lives, and the ongoing suffering of their families. But also, as colleagues from the West Coast have noted, we are debating this bill at a time when work is now going on to try to re-enter the mine and to retrieve the bodies of those workers. I am sure that we all hope that that is a successful operation. This tragedy was huge, It was one of the worst health and safety tragedies we have had in this country. It is worth noting, as we debate this bill, that when people go to work, they should expect to return home safely and their families should expect that they will return home safely, even if they are working in dangerous industries like mining or quarrying. Legislation like this is important. Particularly in the legislation, the focus around worker participation in ensuring health and safety is absolutely fundamental. To that extent, it is really pleasing to see the emphasis on that, because in many ways, this tragedy was the result of deregulation, of failing to ensure that workers had strong voices around health and safety, and of failing to ensure that people who were contractors or subcontractors were involved in health and safety decisions.

By way of preliminary comments, I want to say that we should acknowledge those who have fought so hard to stand up for workers’ health and safety rights, and there are many people. Two I want to acknowledge in this contribution have both been presidents of the Council of Trade Unions: former president Ross Wilson, who devoted much of his working life to trying to progress health and safety rights, and the current president, Helen Kelly, who, I think, is doing an amazing job in drawing to this country’s attention the tragedy of what is going on in the forestry industry and how unsafe that industry is.

I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which considered this bill, but in reading the report from the select committee, I think I was particularly interested in the comments around the contributions that the Pike River families made to the select committee. They expressed to the committee the inexperience and lack of training of the workers operating and monitoring sophisticated machinery, the use of unproven technology—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (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.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Before the dinner break, I was acknowledging the work of the select committee and talking particularly about how its members spoke in Greymouth with the Pike River families. I was noting that the key concerns expressed to the select committee by the families included the inexperience and lack of training of workers operating and monitoring sophisticated machinery, the use of unproven technology, a lack of communication and coordination, high staff turnover, and the adverse incentives and pressures engendered by remuneration arrangements in which bonuses featured predominantly.

I have to say that I think that is a very important part of the report, because, actually, health and safety happen in a context. They happen in a context of how work is organised. They happen in a context of whether or not there are workers who feel empowered to have their say. They happen in a context of the arrangements around people’s working time. I thought that that was a very important comment made by the Pike River families, and I want to acknowledge them for contributing that to the report. We can only hope that, in particular, the part of this bill that amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act and provides for greater worker participation will assist with some of the matters referred to by the Pike River families. I also would like to thank all of the people who submitted to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this very important piece of legislation. There were 41 submissions made and there was oral evidence from 11, as well as, as I have just mentioned, from the representatives of the families of the 29 men who died in the Pike River disaster.

Essentially, we do support the bill, as I have said, which does implement some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, but we do have some reservations. This bill is a good start, but it also represents a missed opportunity to create a world-class health and safety regime for the most hazardous of work. In particular, we were concerned about the provisions in Part 1 of the bill that talk about setting up the board of WorkSafe New Zealand, in that the board does not necessarily capture the empowered tripartite arrangements that we would have liked to see, and that is actually what world-class health and safety requires. It does require people who represent the voice of Government and Government agencies, of employees, and of employers.

As it stands at the moment, the board is selected by the Minister of Labour, and clause 7 talks about selecting people with the “(d) perspectives of workers:” and “(da) perspectives of employers:”, but we are concerned that there is a weakness there. With health and safety, the change of culture that is required is fundamentally important, and in many ways—and I think even members opposite would acknowledge this—this requires a strong voice for the workers in any workplace to, first, get their buy-in, but, secondly, have their say on how the work is organised, on the things that put pressure on them, and on the things that would make a difference to their working lives and their ability to focus on health and safety issues. The functions of WorkSafe New Zealand are set out in clause 10 and are similar to, but are not, the recommended functions from the royal commission. There does not seem to be any good reason for departing from those recommendations, so we also just raise that as one of our concerns.

Part 2 of the bill is a very important part around worker representation, and what we are concerned about is why there has been a narrowing of this part. Why is it that instead of all of the original industries that were covered, it has been narrowed specifically to underground mining? We are concerned about that. It seems inappropriate and misses the point about what happened at Pike River, and we certainly do not think that that should have been narrowed in that way. But there are good things in this part of the legislation. Providing for both the workplace health and safety representatives and also the industry health and safety representatives, or the check inspectors, is important, and we are glad about that. One of the specific features in this part is that where there is not an agreed process around health and safety representatives, there is a default process that is to be determined. So at the moment that is unknown, and we are certainly concerned that that is a useful and meaningful process.

There has been a sense that this has not happened quickly enough and that there was a real urgency to fast tracking the implementation of the commission. Finally, can I say again that we support this bill with reservations, and we will look at Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage. Thank you.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I rise to speak on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill, and I want to acknowledge the contributions made by all parties on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of David Bennett. This is a poignant moment, as preliminary work is taking place in the area to enable safe entry into the drift.

This is an omnibus bill that, as we have heard, enacts the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. It establishes WorkSafe New Zealand, a new workplace health and safety agency; it amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992; and it creates a new Mines Rescue Act. In a strange way—and this was eloquently alluded to by my colleague Mr Chris Auchinvole—this legislation will be an enduring reminder of the disaster and, indirectly, a memorial to those whose lives were so tragically lost.

We are committed to improving workplace safety, so we have set a firm target of a 25 percent reduction in the rate of workplace fatalities and serious injuries by 2020. This is a significant step in the Government’s workplace health and safety reform programme. and I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. I call Darien Fenton—5 minutes.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading debate on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill, and in my 5 minutes I want to address the three issues that the Labour Party continues to have concerns about. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and, in particular, the families of Pike River, and I observe, of course, what is happening at Pike River at the moment.

We continue to be disappointed about the make-up of WorkSafe New Zealand’s board. Remember that this agency, WorkSafe, is not just for Pike River mines, or mining generally. WorkSafe will become the agency that is responsible for all health and safety throughout New Zealand. So there is more legislation to come in the future—apparently it is going to be introduced by the end of the year, and will cover health and safety for all workers. So WorkSafe is a completely new agency that will have responsibility for every worker’s health and safety, not just the health and safety of those who work in underground mines.

The issue about the board members was canvassed at length in the select committee, and what I found very interesting was that the National Party members could not seem to get their head around what “tripartite” means. In fact, it is the recommendation of WorkSafe New Zealand that the board be tripartite. “Tripartite” means that it is made up of representatives of employers, representatives of unions, and representatives of the Government—that is what it means.

National members could not get their heads around that. They were enormously suspicious. Although I acknowledge that there have been some changes to the wording in the make-up of the WorkSafe board—in clause 7(2)(d), it has gone from “perspectives of workplace participants”, which no one knew the meaning of, to “perspectives of workers”—it simply does not cut the mustard in terms of recommendations of the Pike River mine commission of inquiry. In fact, the health and safety task force has also recommended that WorkSafe be a tripartite board.

So we do not understand why the Government is ignoring the task force’s recommendation—it is not a good place to start. As I have said, WorkSafe is an agency that will set health and safety in place not only for underground mines and highly dangerous industries but for all workers. It is a completely new agency. It is the beginning of a new start for health and safety in New Zealand, which is entirely necessary given our awful record of health and safety. So it is a bad start, actually. It is a real shame, and I understand that my colleague Andrew Little will put forward an amendment during the Committee stage. Let us see whether we can get it right, for goodness’ sake. We all know that this has to be done. Let us do it right, and let us not be ideological about opposing the idea that we could actually have representatives of unions, employers, and the Government on a board.

The second issue is about the powers and functions of WorkSafe New Zealand. Again, although they are similar to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry and the task force, they are not the same. There are real issues about that. We do not understand why we went to the trouble of having a royal commission of inquiry and a health and safety task force if we are going to ignore the recommendations and all the work that went into that.

Finally, our other concern is the scope of this legislation—the fact that it started out having a wide application, including quarrying and some types of tunnelling. We believe that was appropriate, but along the way the scope has been narrowed so now it applies only to underground mines. That is significant. I think that has significantly undermined this legislation. Again, we will be putting forward some amendments during the Committee stage. As I said before about all of these things, let us get it right. Let us do this properly. We are all committed to it. We all believe that this has to be done. Let us get this right. Let us fix this up. Let us follow the task force’s recommendations.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the call for the Greens on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. It is timely that this bill is in the House today, given that yesterday we saw the first stage of the recovery process to attempt to recover the bodies of the 29 men who were left in the Pike River mine after the dreadful explosion in 2010. The Greens took up the call for a commission of inquiry into the factors that led up to that dreadful explosion and that tragedy and this is where this legislation picks up. We note that this legislation, as it was introduced to the House, and, further, as it comes back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee today, does not pick up all the recommendations that came from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. Although we support this bill, we think that this bill could be strengthened and that those recommendations could certainly be picked up so that we have better health and safety in mines across Aotearoa New Zealand.

There are three particular areas that we are concerned about. One is the scope of the legislation. The bill as it has been reported back actually reduces the scope of the legislation, restricting how the legislation can be applied to various parts of the industry so that it applies only to underground mines. The justification for that, I believe, is that it is underground mines that carry a greater risk of explosions. But our view is that Part 2 of the bill should cover a wider sector of the industry. We do support, of course, the creation of the stand-alone agency WorkSafe New Zealand. We fully endorse that. However, we do have some concerns about the way its functions have been watered down. The legislation does not pick up on all the recommendations from the commission of inquiry about the functions. In fact, the functions of the agency as set out in the legislation, as it has been reported back, look scarily a lot like what those of the Department of Labour looked like, with the mine inspectorate there, before the Pike River tragedy. The legislation says, for example, that mine inspectors will work alongside mine operators and encourage good health and safety practices, but we know from what happened at Pike River that that was not enough to stop the mine operator cutting corners. Encouraging mine operators is all very well, but you need very strong regulation and enforcement of regulation in order to improve health and safety in the workforce when there are strong financial imperatives to cut corners.

This takes me to the third point, which is the make-up of the board of WorkSafe New Zealand. In Australia and other countries with good health and safety records a tripartite situation or a tripartite conversation is what is needed in order to provide best practice and a trusting relationship for health and safety regulations. That was the recommendation from the royal commission of inquiry as well. It suggested that the Government, employers, and workers—in this case, union representatives—appoint their own representatives to work together to develop good health and safety practices. The legislation, as it comes back to the House, says only that the Minister will make the appointments and that they will have regard to those areas. That does not necessarily build a trusting environment in which to create really good health and safety practices. So it is the Green Party’s view that we should follow the task force’s recommendation that we need our workers to have a voice around this, because they are the ones with their eyes on the job. They are the ones who need to be able to speak up.

This legislation, although it is very well intentioned, needs to be, I believe, beefed up. We should certainly not be introducing the amendments in the Employment Relations Act, which are going to mean that workers have less of a voice in the workplace. We will be supporting the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to speak briefly to the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill here on its second reading. I want to acknowledge, as I think others in the House have, the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think all of us were very aware of the context in which this bill has come about and the hard work that has resulted in this bill as it progresses to bring about the recommendations of the royal commission. One of my National Party colleagues said earlier that this bill is in some ways an indirect memorial, so I do not intend to say any more than to acknowledge, of course, the passing of those 29 men, and ask that this bill pass in their honour too.

Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Veterans’ Support Bill

First Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I move, That the Veterans’ Support Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the committee report back to the House on or before 27 March 2014. New Zealand has a proud history of service in defence of our country and of freedom and democracy around the world—from the Second Boer War, when New Zealand decided to help fight for the empire, making that war New Zealand’s first overseas military campaign; to the Great War and the Gallipoli campaign, where forces fought for the first time as a New Zealand contingent; to Passchendaele, where New Zealand suffered the most grievous losses in our nation’s history; and to so many other theatres and conflicts thereafter. That freedom and the legacy of service to our country does, however, come at a significant cost. Many lives have been lost in defence of that freedom, and even more injured.

We members of Parliament sit in this House every day surrounded by the names of those theatres of war and campaigns—the Somme, Le Quesnoy, the Battle of River Plate, Cassino, the Battle of Britain, Viet Nam, Malaya, and a host of others. These are names that act as a constant reminder of the burden of any decision we make to send our young men and women into harm’s way. In July this year this House dedicated three more plaques commemorating service in Afghanistan, East Timor, and in missions in support of peace. It was a poignant reminder that more than 20,000 modern Defence Force personnel are now veterans, and of the need to have a legislative framework that supports all our veterans, including our recent and our future veterans.

In 2007 the War Pensions Act 1954 was referred to the Law Commission for review. The foreword to the Law Commission’s finding stated that the review was commissioned in realisation of the fact that the 1954 Act was outdated, unwieldy, and no longer fitted the needs of the veterans it was intended to serve. It was designed to deal with the physical risks associated with deployments, but did not cover the psychological and environmental risks that veterans face. It also focused on compensation for disability, but was silent on the provision of rehabilitation. Lastly, the 1954 Act had not been adequately amended to take into account that although some veterans qualify only for entitlements under the war pensions scheme, others qualify for entitlements under both the war pensions scheme and ACC.

The Law Commission reported in 2010 with 170 recommendations. The Government adopted 132 of those recommendations in full or in part as part of a $60 million package of changes, of which this bill forms the material part. Most of the recommendations not taken up related to administrative structures not related to veterans’ entitlements. The process of rewriting a 59-year-old Act and implementing all 132 recommendations has been a long one, but I make no apology for this. I was much more interested in getting it right than in getting it done early. I want to thank officials from Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, the New Zealand Defence Force, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their diligent hard work in preparing the bill—under, I must say, considerable pressure from the Minister.

The Veterans’ Support Bill will replace the 1954 Act and the associated subordinate legislation. Although there are significant changes to some entitlements, the key foundations remain the same. The key principle of benevolence, including relaxed evidential provisions, will continue in this new bill, as will the service eligibility criteria. Furthermore, all deployments currently covered under the 1954 Act will retain coverage under the new Act, and medical treatment will continue to be funded for all service-related impairments.

The new legislation contains two schemes, which I would now like to focus on in a bit more detail. Scheme one will cover veterans who served from the Second World War through to and including the Viet Nam War. Until 1 July 2015, it will cover all veterans as a transitional measure. After that time, scheme one will cover veterans with service prior to 1 April 1974. The scheme is based on the entitlements available under the 1954 Act, and it covers approximately 10,000 veterans and 5,500 surviving spouses and partners of deceased veterans. Veterans will continue to receive periodic disablement pension payments for impairments of 5 percent or greater. Veterans who are under the age of retirement and unable to work will have the option of receiving weekly income compensation, which will be paid at a rate of 80 percent of the average weekly wage. This is significantly higher than the current entitlement they receive. However, entitlements for spouses or partners and children will remain the same. Scheme two will cover veterans who have served since 1 April 1974. This includes deployments such as Cambodia, East Timor, and Afghanistan. The entitlements available under this scheme will be based on entitlements available through ACC, with a top-up that is additional to ACC entitlements and that recognises the special nature of military service.

Veterans who are of working age and who are unable to work due to service-related impairment will be eligible for weekly compensation. This will be payable at 100 percent of their pre-injury earnings for the first year of their incapacity, and 85 percent for the period thereafter. It is higher than the 80 percent compensation paid by ACC to other New Zealanders and retains the benevolence shown in the current Act. Scheme two will provide impairment compensation to veterans in the form of lump-sum payments. The lump-sum rates will be set at the equivalent rate payable by ACC, plus an additional 20 percent. In addition, the scale will be broader than the ACC’s scale and will provide for compensation of 5 percent to 100 percent of whole person impairment, to match the rates of impairment compensation provided for in a 1954 Act payment. Compensation for the spouse or partner and children of eligible deceased veterans will also be based on ACC entitlements. A one-off survivor’s grant will be payable in the form of a lump sum, as well as ongoing weekly compensation. The spouse or partner will receive 60 percent of the veteran’s earnings prior to death, and the children will share 20 percent. This is a slightly higher rate than that paid by ACC.

There will also be a number of common provisions available to veterans of both schemes. Veterans covered under either scheme will have access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions. The veteran’s pension for over-65s will be retained from the 1954 Act. This is an equivalent of New Zealand superannuation, with some additional entitlements. Other common provisions include access to support services, such as home help and lawnmowing for service-related conditions, and the provision of funeral grants for veterans with a service-related death. The Veterans’ Support Bill also includes a new provision for a code of veterans’ and other claimants’ rights. It also establishes a specialist medical advisory panel, the functions of which will include providing advice on specified matters relating to service, veterans’ health, and entitlements under this Act.

The Government recognises the significant sacrifice and contribution our veterans have made in serving our country over the years. The replacement of the War Pensions Act with the introduction of the updated and modern Veterans’ Support Bill demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to those who have given service to our country. Our veterans deserve no less. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): On behalf of the Labour Party, I want to support the Veterans’ Support Bill, and I thank the Minister for giving me an early draft copy of it. I too join with the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs as I stand in this Chamber and look at the memorial plaques around the Chamber, to remember those who sacrificed their lives and those who served this country in a way that no current member of this House has been required to do. I look across and I see Messines, and we have a plaque for Passchendaele.

On 12 October I joined the Minister to lay a wreath at the Auckland War Memorial hall to commemorate the appalling tragedy of Passchendaele, where 2,400 New Zealand men were casualties in the first 4 hours of the battle—2,400. We stand on the shoulders of those men who made that sacrifice and of those men and women who served our country in that war and subsequent wars. I am also conscious that just a matter of months ago we had new plaques put on the wall, commemorating Timor and Afghanistan. The 14 years that our troops served in Timor, and the more than 10 years in Afghanistan and in the Solomons—and originally, in Timor, at battalion strength—means that there will be a need for the provisions of this legislation for many years to come.

It is right to say that this bill has indeed been a long time coming. The fact is that by far the largest group of veterans entitled to its provisions is still that group that served in the Second World War, and the ranks of those veterans thin with each day that passes. There is no World War II veteran younger than their late 80s now. Most, like my father, are in their 90s. Regrettably, by the time we pass this legislation and it comes into effect in 2014-15, many more hundreds, if not thousands, of those veterans will have passed away.

I, as the Minister of Defence, was involved in the initial discussions and the decision to review the War Pensions Act 1954. We were aware that the Act was at that stage more than 50 years old. It was outdated, it was inaccessible, and it was badly in need of change. We believed that we should, first of all, be providing better support for our veterans—those who served in the Second World War, in J-force, in Korea, in Malaya, and in Viet Nam—and we also believed that we needed new and updated provisions for a younger generation of veterans.

The natural cut-off point to distinguish between those two groups was the passage, under the third Labour Government, of the Accident Compensation Act in 1974. ACC makes good provision for injured people, but we believed, as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs has said, that in respect of those who are injured in the course of service to their country there needed to be a margin over and above the payments that were made to other New Zealanders who are injured in the course of their work or their leisure, or at home.

We believed that it was not enough simply to make payments—we needed a modern, 21st century approach to rehabilitation in order to, wherever possible, enable people to get back into work, and to have early intervention to provide recovery. We looked around the world. We looked at Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada in particular, and in each of those countries there were new models of support that we believed would be good models for New Zealand to follow. As a result of that we requested that the Law Commission independently review the provisions of the War Pensions Act 1954, and we included that in the memorandum of understanding with both the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association.

That was not the only important thing that we did in that memorandum. It was an interesting gathering as we negotiated that memorandum. On one side were those in the Government of my generation who had been anti-war protesters at the time of the Viet Nam War, and on the other side were the men who had actually fought there. But there was no rancour, and there was a full agreement from our side, under the Labour Government, that whereas we did not agree with the war in Viet Nam, it was not the veterans who made the decision to go there; it was the Government that sent them there. But, tragically, the flack—for want of a better term—that followed a war that became deeply unpopular, as it was seen as ineffectual and unjust, fell on the veterans themselves.

We determined out of that memorandum of understanding Tribute 08, where, for the first time, those veterans were given the honour and the respect that they deserved for the honourable discharge of their duties and the courage they showed. The one outstanding factor that was left was the question of a review of the War Pensions Act, and it is important that we now make every progress to try to advance that.

In late 2008 Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who then headed the Law Commission, came up with a 280-page document. It was a very substantial piece of work—[Interruption]—a discussion paper; yes, there was a lot to discuss—and then there was a very good consultative process. The Law Commission went around the military bases of New Zealand, it went around the RSAs, it talked to veterans, and it talked to current service personnel. It finally reported in May 2010, by which time there had been a change of Government, and the report came to the new National Government.

The commission had done the bulk of the work. It had a quite detailed blueprint for what it believed needed to replace the War Pensions Act, but it had not done the costings and it had not put it in draft legislative form, so there was still work to do. But I regret that it has taken 3 years and 5 months from the time that that document was given to the Government to the introduction of the bill in this House. As I say, the tragedy of that is, and will be, that in the next maybe 12 to 18 months many more servicemen and servicewomen will die without them or their families getting the benefit of the more generous provisions that will come through this legislation.

I say to the Minister that at the Social Services Committee we will be seeking an explanation for the changes that were made, where what the Government has put into legislation differs from what the Law Commission proposed. I am conscious of the fact that the proposals in this bill are much, much cheaper than what the Law Commission recommended. I want to go into that with an open mind. There may be some good reasons why not every recommendation of the Law Commission was followed. But what I do want to say is that we will be determined to find out whether those cuts can be justified, or whether they are, unfairly, to the detriment of our veterans.

With so many veterans now dying, I think it is time to err on the side of generosity for those who are still surviving. Men of that generation spent years of their lives out of this country, away from their families. Many who returned suffered from physical injury and, just as important, from psychological injury, and nothing was done in those days to address the latter form of injury. So we owe these veterans, and we owe it to them, Minister, to be as generous as we possibly can be. This bill, and the Act that follows it, needs to be about honouring those veterans and their families, and, frankly, it would be hypocrisy for us to sell them short.

To be fair, the Government has announced some additional funding, as the Minister has said. There is some $60 million to be spent over the next 5 years in addition to those payments. That means about another extra $12 million a year. I welcome the increase in the war disablement pension and the surviving spouse pension rates of 5 percent. I think that is a step in the right direction. I welcome the increased eligibility for services such as home care and lawnmowing, and so on. For the younger veterans who are unable to work, I welcome the fact that if they are still under the retirement age they will be paid an income of 80 percent of the average wage. It will help only a small number, but it will be worthwhile for those who are beneficiaries of it.

Veterans post 1974 will get all of the relevant ACC assistance and also, as the Minister explained, a margin on top of that, and I think that that is justified by their service and by their sacrifice for our country. We support this bill and at the select committee we will ensure that it delivers what is needed and what was promised.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): In late February 2011 I attended the funeral of Private Kirifi Mila in South Auckland. He was a member of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. Like me, he was born in Samoa, and, like me, he came to New Zealand for a better life. But, unlike me, he will not see a long life in this country, because Private Mila gave his life for his country in the service of our people here in Aotearoa New Zealand, like thousands of others who have given service to this country.

This bill is a recognition of the great debt that we owe to our veterans across this country. This National-led Government is committed to honouring the service of not just those who have passed away in the service of our country but also those who survived in the service of our country. The Veterans’ Support Bill enables the Government to better meet the needs both of older veterans who require assistance, as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and the Hon Phil Goff have pointed out, to remain in their homes and veterans of modern-day deployments. This is a $60 million package to support new legislation. It is part of a package that increases war disablement pensions and surviving spouse pensions by 5 percent this year, on top of inflation.

We have got a proud history, and both of those speakers have alluded to the recognition of not just our fallen servicemen and servicewomen but also those who have survived those events in our history that are rather tragic but also ones that we are proud of. We recognise them through our museums. We recognise them through our RSAs, which many of us are members of. We recognise them through my gym, which is a war memorial gym. On Anzac Day we all celebrate those very touching moments, the reflections of the history and the tradition of this country. Again, I say that we owe a great deal, a debt, to our veterans.

So, as the Minister has already pointed out, this bill was referred to the Law Commission for a review. The findings of that review stated quite clearly that the War Pension Act 1954 was outdated. It was unwieldy. It no longer fitted the times or the needs of veterans whom it was intended to serve. So this bill aims to reform some of the measures that were taken many decades ago. It is all-encompassing. It covers two schemes, which Minister Woodhouse has articulated in his speech, in terms of access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions.

I want to acknowledge Margaret Burke, a woman who has tirelessly fought for this bill in my electorate of Maungakiekie. I want to acknowledge the presidents of my RSAs—Tom Kerr in Onehunga as well as Leon Matthews in Panmure and Mount Wellington. They have talked to me, as I have been an MP, about the need to reform this area. For those who are listening and watching out there, I salute you and all the other returned servicemen and servicewomen who have advocated for this bill.

It contains many of the same provisions of the current Act; the service eligibility criteria will remain the same. All veterans currently covered under the current Act will have coverage under this new legislation. We are talking about more than 20,000 modern Defence Force personnel who are now veterans, and all of them need that support as veterans.

The Prime Minister, Phil Goff, and I were also at the opening of the Ranfurly units. Again, that is another example of how we salute and recognise those who have returned from service overseas. That development, I think, is a shining example of what we can do not just through legislation but also in our communities when the resources are put to looking after those returned servicemen and servicewomen.

I am proud of this comprehensive package. I, like the Minister, look forward to the Social Services Committee deliberations because it does honour a group in our society—and their families, I might add—who have given much sacrifice and commitment to those of us who can enjoy the freedoms and liberties of our current State. I commend this bill to the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is impossible when discussing in this Chamber anything to do with the defence force or veterans not to recognise the plaques around the building and the past conflicts. There are well-known names like Alamein, Crete, the River Plate, Gallipoli is just up here to my right, and over the far side there is Monte Cassino. They are names that evoke strong emotions in the New Zealand psyche. They are places where, in many ways, the national identity has been forged. Increasingly in this century, New Zealanders are turning to Anzac Day, in particular, and other commemorations of those events as days to look towards one another as a community to reflect on what it is to be New Zealanders, and to reflect on our nation. Also look at other names like Korea, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan, which, perhaps, sometimes for some people evoke a slightly different response—questioning the Government’s decisions to participate in those conflicts, questioning what the reasoning was for being part of them, and questioning the reason why there was an action occurring in those places in the first place. To those people, who may or may not be listening this evening, I say that what we are talking about are veterans.

A veteran is a veteran. It does not matter what conflict they were involved in. A veteran is a person who, at the request of their Government, went to a foreign land and fought on our behalf, in the belief that it was in our nation’s interests that they do so. Whether it be in the defence of our freedom, whether it be in the defence of our democracy, or whether it be to advance our principles of peace and freedom, that is why every single veteran who has served our nation has served. That is why it is important that we pass this Veterans’ Support Bill and that we address the situation that has been allowed to develop—that the support system for veterans in New Zealand has become outdated and outmoded.

Looking down to the far corner to my left we see Viet Nam, Timor-Leste, Afghanistan, and recognition of the peacekeeping duties. That is an appropriate corner to glance at while we are discussing this because Viet Nam was the final conflict before the ACC laws and the ACC scheme were introduced in New Zealand. Following that we have the other conflicts that we have been involved in. In a way, we have two sets of veterans who deserve to be treated in an equitable fashion, but in order to do so we require two different schemes that recognise the two different situations that those veterans face. That is what is established here in this legislation. This legislation will do a number of things to improve the support systems for veterans, but right at the heart of it is the establishment of two schemes. One is for veterans who served before ACC came into place and another is for veterans who are covered by the provisions of ACC.

As the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs mentioned, the current law is getting close to 60 years old. That is why, as far back as 2006, the Labour Government and, in particular, Labour Ministers like Phil Goff and Rick Barker looked at what needed to change in order to bring the support mechanisms for veterans into the 21st century. It was after that initiation that the matter was referred to the Law Commission. It began its work under Sir Geoffrey Palmer in 2007, and an issues paper was developed for discussion and brought to the House in 2008. There was then a long period. That was the appropriate time that was needed to be taken in order to get the recommendations right. The Law Commission embarked on a lengthy period of consultation with various veterans groups, not least the RSA, with the families of veterans, with veterans themselves, with veterans of conflicts from long ago, with veterans of more recent conflicts, and with the New Zealand Defence Force to talk about the future needs of veterans.

After that lengthy period of consultation, and an election and change of Government, the Law Commission reported back on 1 June 2010. That was a 2-year period to get this right, and that was appropriate. I hear what the Minister said—that we needed to make sure we got this right. I suppose that was his explanation for the length of time that it has taken. I guess that on this side of the House we say that a long period of time was taken to get the recommendations right. They were reported back to this House 3½ years ago, and those 3½ years have, frankly, been too long for this legislation to be introduced to Parliament. For a period of time I was the veterans’ affairs spokesperson for the Labour Party. It was a role that I enjoyed because it gave me the opportunity to visit RSAs up and down the country. That is not a bad way to spend your time, actually. In every single RSA that I visited, the first topic for discussion was around what was happening with the Veterans’ Support Bill: “What is happening with the Law Commission report? When is that going to come before Parliament? When is it going to be progressed? When are we going to see the change that we have been promised for so very long?”.

I know that veterans up and down the country will be very pleased that we have finally got to this stage this evening. I have got no doubt that many of them will come to the select committee to offer their views and opinions. They will, as my colleague Phil Goff pointed out, probably want to raise some questions about the difference between this draft legislation and the original recommendations in the Law Commission report. I imagine that there will be a robust and collaborative discussion at the select committee. I hope that the select committee has the opportunity to make amendments that will strengthen the legislation and that we will come back to the Chamber with a much better piece of legislation, because it is not something that we need to play party politics over at all. It is something that I am sure will have broad support around the Chamber. It will be an opportunity for members of Parliament from all parties to work constructively towards putting in place the best possible legislation to underpin the best possible system to ensure that the needs of veterans, both of conflicts long passed and of conflicts in which we may need to engage in the future, are treated in an equitable fashion. We certainly support, as I said earlier, the establishment of two separate schemes to recognise the difference between veterans who are covered and those who are not covered, by ACC. We support the other extensions of coverage and the other improvements to entitlements and provisions that are held within this legislation.

With that, I have some final words to say. Labour wholeheartedly supports the efforts—getting on to over a couple of decades now—of the various veterans’ groups to ensure that this legislative change has happened, congratulates them on ensuring that we have got to this point, and encourages everybody who has an interest in this legislation to participate in it and to come to the select committee to make sure that we get this right for our veterans and future defence force personnel.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I also rise to offer the Green Party’s support for the Veterans’ Support Bill to go to the Social Services Committee. I must admit that I have not had the opportunity yet to read the full 247-page Law Commission report, which has prompted this 259-page bill, which I also have not quite managed to get through yet. Call me a slacker, but that is how it is. I am not quite there yet, but I am pretty sure, from what I have read, that we can offer our support for it to go to the select committee. In the select committee we will be looking to the principles, the delivery on the Law Commission’s recommendations, and, of course, most important, the views of those affected or likely to be affected by this bill.

But I cannot speak responsibly as a Green Party MP on anything to do with war without making a clear statement. As the Green Party, we have four core charter principles, and one of those is non-violence. So for us, whenever we are talking about war, it is necessary to make a statement that we dream of, and are working towards, a world where there is no need for war—a world where armed conflict is not necessary, because Governments are upholding human rights and disputes are settled peacefully. We wish to see the support of this country going towards creating that world. Priority, for us, must always be given to non-violent means of resolving conflict between countries. If armed force is necessary to protect New Zealand citizens and public resources or to help other countries protect their citizens, then for us the use of force must be sanctioned by the people of this country and by international law.

But although I make that statement, it has nothing against this bill. I am making that statement because that is the context that this bill works within, and that is who we are, as my colleagues have said. But in some ways, that strengthens our commitment to veterans, particularly of the wars where there has not necessarily been that national agreement or the valuing or the protection of human rights at the heart of the conflict. Those soldiers who were forced to go to those wars possibly deserve our protection and support even more so, in terms of their rehabilitation as they deal with the results of those wars.

This bill replaces the War Pensions Act 1954 and has arisen from the Law Commission’s recommendations and report. The original Act primarily dealt with physical injuries that occur in a war environment. Now the introduction of this bill will extend that to also recognising the psychological and environmental risks of war, which is incredibly important, as I will talk about a little bit more later, because so much of our learning from Viet Nam was, I think, around the lifelong, generational consequences of the environmental toxic poisoning that happened to the soldiers in that war.

The 1954 Act was not updated with the introduction of the ACC scheme in 1974. The ACC scheme applies to serving and former members of the New Zealand Defence Force. A key objective of this bill is to bring a rehabilitation focus as well as providing monetary and other forms of support. That, I guess, is just updating our approach to fit with this modern world and the understanding that we can actually help, with the right systems, people to rehabilitate and be able to increase their mobility, or whatever participation.

As per the Law Commission’s recommendation, this bill introduces two schemes for support. Scheme one will cover veterans in service prior to 1 April 1974, so it is including Viet Nam War veterans. It continues the original Act’s practice of paying a periodic pension to veterans with service-related impairments, and provides compensation to spouses, children, and dependants.

I would just like to remind the House of some of the consequences that we saw from Viet Nam. There was a report that was released just this year by Otago University that found that New Zealand Viet Nam veterans deployed in a “toxic war environment” were exposed to a significantly higher risk of leukaemia, and that “most veterans deployed in the Nui Dat area of Phuoc Tuy province, experienced a ‘toxic environment’ because of the widespread use of 2, 4, 5-T and 2,4-D as defoliant herbicides. This mixture is more commonly known to most of us in the world as agent orange and was contaminated with a carcinogen, a dioxin. The research from the Otago University study examined from 1998 to 2008 the health records of 2,752 of the nearly 3,400 New Zealand military personnel who served in Viet Nam, and it was the first cohort study done in New Zealand of Viet Nam veterans to assess the long-term health effects of serving in that kind of combat zone. It found “a doubling of the risk of mortality from cancers of the head and neck, as well as an increase in oral cancers of the pharynx and larynx. Lung cancer contributed the greatest burden of deaths in both New Zealand and Australian veterans.”

I mention this because I think it brings to life—for me, at least—some of the real horror of those wars and the ongoing consequences. And here we are with research in 2013, nearly 40 years later, that is just starting to understand the consequences of that war. Those are the veterans with whom my colleague Catherine Delahunty was out protesting for a very long time to get access to treatment and recognition by the State of that toxicity and the harm created by it. That is just a tragic situation, and I really do hope that with this bill and that recognition of the psychological and environmental impacts of war, no veteran will ever have to fight so hard for an acknowledgment of such harm.

Scheme two within this bill covers veterans after the date of the introduction of ACC, and it will focus on that provision of medical, psychosocial, and vocational rehabilitation. It describes rehabilitation as “the gateway to other assistance such as income compensation and lump sum” payments. The Minister went into quite a bit of detail around some of the provisions in that, and it sounded very good to me on the first hearing of it. I do recognise that he did say that some of the recommendations of the Law Commission are primarily administrative ones and have not been implemented in this bill, and I certainly will be looking at those closely. We know that this sits within the Ministry of Social Development, and some of the processes for appeal within that system are definitely proving problematic at the moment. We would not want to see those problems replicated for our veterans, and neither would we want to see some of the struggle to have access to ACC replicated for veterans. Our hope would be that if this is a generous scheme, as mentioned by the Minister, that hopefully that will have a bleed-out effect into the Ministry of Social Development and ACC in return, so that all New Zealanders can get the assistance they need to be able to participate fully in our country.

But, ultimately, I will finish this speech again with my hope that one day in the future there will be no more need for anyone else to access the entitlements in this bill, and that we have peaceful ways of resolving conflicts. I am not so naive to believe that that is going to happen quickly, but we will keep working towards it.

MELISSA LEE (National): I am wholeheartedly and respectfully in total support of the Veterans’ Support Bill, and I congratulate the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Michael Woodhouse, on bringing this bill to this House for its first reading. Earlier this year in July I had the great pleasure of returning to my birth country with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Michael Woodhouse, to attend the 60th commemoration of the Korean War. You see, New Zealand has a proud history of service in defence of our country, and of freedom and democracy around the world. I am one of those beneficiaries.

In 1950, 63 years ago, on 25 June at dawn, at around 5 o’clock, North Korea invaded South Korea. I do get a little bit emotional about this because it does affect my family. I recall my mother talking about not having enough food in the family, and yet they took in 10 other refugees so that they had a roof over their heads. They all had to return down south to Pusan, the only city that North Korea never invaded. My grandfather was shot dead by the North Koreans because he was educated at university. There were a lot of atrocities that actually happened. I am grateful for the advancement of South Korea, because without the veterans who went to the call of the UN, who actually asked for the veterans to come from around the world, I may not be standing here proudly as a member of Parliament in this great country of ours in New Zealand. I apologise for my emotional state, but New Zealand owes a great debt to our veterans. I personally owe a great debt to the Korean veterans, the Korea Veterans Association, the K-force that actually went to the call of Korea.

A total of 3,974 soldiers went to the call in Korea in 1950. New Zealand was one of the first countries that went to Korea. There were 1,300 navy servicemen who went to Korea, as well. A total of 33 New Zealanders died in that war. Although the numbers were not as large as other contingents from around the world, we were a proud fighting force that actually fought very, very bravely in one of the bloodiest wars we have seen in recent times. When Jim Newman, the president of the Korea Veterans Association, and all of the veterans whom I lovingly refer to as my dads talk about this bill, they talk about the hardship that they actually faced. They gave up their youth to fight for something that they did not even have anything to do with in a foreign country. They were all aged 18, 19, 20—early in their years. They forsook their education to go and serve in a country that they had nothing to do with. They fought in—and some of them even recall—the coldest winter they had ever known. New Zealand has never seen a winter like that. They talk about their boots and their clothes, and that they were not prepared for the kind of cold they had. When their boots actually touched the ground in Kapyong, they simply broke apart and they split. The veterans did not actually understand the harshness of the conditions they were fighting in.

Yet the veterans, when they returned to this country, still remembered the country that they served in, and they are very proud of the developments in the last 60 years of the Korea that has become a leading nation in the world. It has become an economic power around the world. Everybody uses Samsung. Everybody knows about GoldStar. Everybody knows about Kia and Hyundai. That growth was made possible by the sacrifices of our very own veterans. I totally, totally support this bill, because it benefits our veterans who made it possible for me to stand in this House. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, as the veterans’ affairs spokesperson, to support the Veterans’ Support Bill. This bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken 3 years to finally get to this Chamber and to Parliament, but it is better late than never. Unfortunately, it is too late for many veterans who would have liked to see this a long time ago. The 1954 War Pensions Act was designed to meet the needs of Second World War veterans, and it is time for it to be replaced with this bill to bring it into the more modern era in terms of legislation.

What this bill does is acknowledge community responsibility for injury, illness, or death of veterans as a result of being placed in harm’s way in the service of New Zealand. It also ensures there is a provision for veterans with fair entitlement. It promotes equal treatment of equal claims, and it promotes a benevolent approach to claims.

It is split into two schemes, because ACC was introduced in 1974. So, as a result, the entitlements pre-1974 apply under scheme one in this bill, and post-1974, in the ACC era, under scheme two. It ensures that Viet Nam veterans and those before them are still fully covered under the original Act and are not in any way disadvantaged because of the post-1974 ACC situation. This also ensures that spouse and partner entitlement will be approved through this bill, and that is a very good thing. In many areas the spouses and partners of veterans have great difficulty and extreme hardship, and this bill goes a long way to addressing that. Veterans from both schemes will have access to medical treatment and rehabilitation for accepted conditions. They will have access to home help and lawnmowing for service-related conditions. There will also be funeral grants for service-related deaths.

Two boards are being established under this bill. The War Pensions Advisory Board is replaced by the Veterans’ Advisory Board, and a Specialist Medical Advisory Panel will be established. This panel will assume responsibility for making grants and awards. It is good that a specialist medical panel will be involved with this, because for so many of the veterans it is very much in a medical area that they are seeking assistance, where they need to be identified for the impacts that they have suffered as a result of going to service for this country and where they do require medical support and medical attention. We are increasingly seeing that situation as a result of those who served in Viet Nam with agent orange, those who were in the Pacific with nuclear contamination, and those who have been in other areas of war around the world where there has been contamination or where they have been subjected to conditions that have resulted in their having very poor health in later life.

New Zealand First has always been a strong advocate for our veterans. New Zealand First places great value and recognition on the service given by our veterans. Our nation has a special obligation to them, particularly to those who have suffered as a result of their service. In this respect New Zealand First has a number of principles that we put forward and stand by. We will ensure that veterans’ pensions maintain relativity plus an additional 10 percent in recognition of their sacrifice. We will implement the recommendation of the Law Commission’s review of the War Pensions Act absolutely, 100 percent, because we believe the work that the Law Commission did was very thorough, very worthy, and should not have taken this amount of time to be implemented. We will work with the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association towards providing veterans with a sustainable health-care package.

New Zealand First, when we were in cooperation with the Labour Government, negotiated $1 million for RSA social, support, and health services, and we are committed to ensuring the ongoing financial support for that, which is in the order of $250,000 a year. This Government has reduced that to $150,000 per year. We are committed to putting that back up to the full extent of that $250,000 per year to support veterans with health and social services, which are most important. That includes helping veterans get to hospitals, helping volunteers to be supported to take veterans for medical attention, and that sort of thing. That $100,000 difference that the Government has cut out of that fund per year is a huge amount because that directly impacts on many, many volunteers and people who support the veterans in their time of need.

New Zealand First will also increase the radiation-related health conditions listed on the veterans’ affairs presumptive list to include all cancers, because we believe that this country and this Government should be covering those veterans for all cancers involved, whether from agent orange or from nuclear radiation, and for whatever cancers have been formed as a result of being in the theatre of war. We will support claims by veterans and their children who have been affected by agent orange and any other such issues. We are also fully committed to supporting all areas of the RSA, including the likes of the National War Memorial park in Wellington, to recognise the service and sacrifices of the veterans to this country.

This bill is an important bill. It affects so many people throughout New Zealand. We are constantly hearing very sad stories about the conditions and the lives of veterans who have gone to war, who have gone to serve this country, and who are now struggling, and also of their families, their children, and their loved ones who are suffering. And many of them are having to take care of those veterans during their later years.

I think it is a sad indictment that it has taken so long for this bill to come to the House. It is a very lengthy document. I am looking forward to it coming through to the Social Services Committee so that when it is fully considered, when the submissions come in—and I am sure that there will be many hundreds of them from all over New Zealand—this Parliament will give huge weight to this document, will pass it, and in fact will increase the provisions that are shown in this document to the full extent that is possible.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the first reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill, and, as my colleagues have said, we will support the bill to the Social Services Committee, with the aim of ensuring that all the recommendations from the Law Commission’s report are fulfilled. There is no doubt about it; the 1954 Act is outdated. That is why, when we were in Government, we commissioned the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of the War Pensions Act 1954, which is the basis of this bill. Also, as some of my colleagues have observed, since 2006, when this process began, a number of veterans have sadly passed away, and we need to ensure that this bill is proceeded with quickly so that more veterans and their families do not miss out on what they deserve and what we owe them. The bill is long overdue, and it is something that Labour was striving to deliver when we were in Government. That is because veterans hold a special place in New Zealand society, and rightly so.

Recently, I visited Flanders with some other parliamentary colleagues, and went to Messines and to the battlefields of Passchendaele, where 2,400 of our young men died in one day. I also stood at the Mennen Gate while the “Last Post” was blown. My colleague Tau Henare placed a wreath on behalf of the New Zealand Parliament. We also went to visit the Messines memorial, and there is the most heartbreaking quote on that memorial, about the New Zealand soldiers who came to Messines and died, “from the uttermost ends of the Earth”. How heartbreaking is that? Last year I also visited Messines with Mr Speaker and my colleague Melissa Lee. She will remember this, because when we were in Messines, a soldier from the First World War had been found and identified as a New Zealand soldier, almost 100 years after the Battle of Messines. They managed to narrow it down to six families, but because there are no descendants of those families, they have not been able to do a DNA test, so that soldier is still unidentified. But Melissa Lee might like to know that when I was in Messines this time, we visited a cemetery where that soldier has now been buried. They had a special ceremony for him and a proper recognition of his contribution. But the sad, sad thing on his sad epitaph is “Known only unto God.”

No one can visit Flanders and the battlefields of World War I, or, for that matter, World War II, and not be moved and at the same time horrified. In World War I there were 100,444 deployments from New Zealand, of whom 2,688 were Māori, with 16,697 killed in action and 41,317 wounded. That is a 58 percent casualty rate for New Zealand at that time. We had only 1 million people in New Zealand, so it is no wonder that these things touch us. But what I want to mention—because it is worth knowing, as we are coming up to the anniversary of the First World War and there will be a lot happening in the next 4 years, and certainly they are preparing for that in Flanders—is that this inspired me to go and look at my own history, as many of us do. I have family who fought in both the First World War and the Second World War. It is worth letting people know that all of the records from the First World War are now on the database of the Auckland War Memorial Museum cenotaph. So you can look that up on the internet.

I found some missing relatives. It was really sad to see a photo of a great-uncle of mine, whom I never met, obviously. He was a legend in our family. He was called Uncle Dan, and everyone used to talk about how lovely he was. He went to war. He fought in Gallipoli, was wounded and sent home, and then died of the Spanish flu not long after that. When I looked it up on the database, there was a photo of Uncle Dan. I had never seen his photo before. It brought him to life. He was a young man. He was just 20 years old. I want to encourage families and members to make use of that wonderful resource that has been developed and is under way now with the Auckland War Memorial Museum, the cenotaph database, because it is our history. That is why this bill is so important, and this is why I say that veterans hold a special place in New Zealand, and rightly so.

Of course, it is our responsibility to protect the servicemen and women who have been put in harm’s way. They have been sent to defend our country and to meet our international obligations, and they deserve both our respect and our gratitude but also our lasting memories. I think that in the next few years the centenary anniversary recognition will be a very, very moving time for many New Zealanders. The other thing we did when we were in Messines was we went to visit the grave site of some of the Māori Battalion. The Hon Tau Henare, who was with us, actually recognised some whānau. It is unbelievable stuff. So I understand Melissa Lee’s passion and emotion about that, because the blood in the soil of Messines, of Flanders, is our blood, and you cannot help but recognise what an awful thing that war was, what an unnecessary war it was, how many people suffered, and how many veterans came home and lived without the support of this type of legislation.

As others have said, the Veterans’ Support Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report, which recommends a new support scheme for veterans of military service to replace the War Pensions Act 1954. As noted by many, the 1954 Act has not changed significantly since its enactment, and it does need to be replaced with modern legislation designed to deal with not only the physical risks associated with deployments but also the psychological and environmental risks that veterans face. I think that is a new understanding that has grown from more recent conflicts, because I certainly know from most World War I veterans that the psychological impacts and the effect it had on their lives were never recognised. It was covered up in many instances. I think that is a very, very important part of this bill. It also obviously updates accident compensation in accordance with the accident compensation scheme, and continues the principles and decision-making presumptions of the 1954 Act, which are in common with veterans support legislation in other countries.

I wanted to just mention, though, that Sam Lotu-Iiga talked about the Ranfurly War Veterans Home opening recently. This is another important thing that I do not want to let go by in this debate. The Ranfurly War Veterans Home was established for veterans in 1904, and was run for years and years and years by the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board and then the Ranfurly War Veterans Trust, and it has just recently been sold to a developer. We have seen some stories in the news about the dissatisfaction of the veterans who are in that particular home. I do not want to comment particularly on that, because I am not qualified to comment on that, but what I do know is that the carers in that home had to fight to keep their pay when the home changed hands. I would want to put in a plea, while we are talking about looking after our veterans, that those who actually care for them in homes like Ranfurly are paid a living wage, so that we recognise and honour our veterans by actually paying the carers properly. I know that the people who live in the Ranfurly War Veterans Home actually came out to support those workers.

I support this bill. We look forward to the select committee, but I end with that plea about a living wage. Thank you.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): As colleagues have said, New Zealand has got a proud history of service in defence of our country and of freedom across the globe and other democracies. Other members here have outlined family members whom they have had who have fought for our country and the countries of others. I do not have immediate family members who have been through that, but I do acknowledge the families of all those across the House who have given so much to our country. In 2007 it was a good idea that the War Pensions Act 1954 was referred to the Law Commission for review. This Veterans’ Support Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2010 report, recommending a new support scheme for veterans in military service.

We owe a great deal, a great debt, to our veterans. The National-led Government is committing to honouring their service, and this bill, in part, delivers on our election promises. The Government has committed $60 million for a package to support the new legislation. As part of this package we also increased the war disablement and surviving spouse pensions by 5 percent this year on top of inflation. That is why I support this bill. I look forward to hearing select committee submissions to the Social Services Committee, and making sure that the mood of this House is reflected in the final legislation.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. In 1915 the Hon Māui Pōmare was commissioned as the member for Western Māori but also as the Minister responsible for the Cook Islands and other Pacific Islands. He went out through to the Pacific and to the Cook Islands and Niue, where he managed to get 150 Niuean soldiers and also 45 from the Cook Islands, who came over to New Zealand. They were there also to be deployed to Gallipoli to strengthen the Pioneer Battalion in 1917. They actually came down here to Parliament and paraded in front of Parliament before they went up to Narrow Neck up in Auckland, where they trained and then were sent over to the Western Front at that time. I mention that because in the last 2 years I have been to the commemorative services for the Niuean community, and I suppose there are a number of people to whom this bill, the Veterans’ Support Bill, becomes important. A number of New Zealanders right across the country have family members who have been part of the veterans community. I commend this bill to the House. This is a good bill. This new Veterans’ Support Bill aligns with the importance of all-encompassing medical treatment and rehabilitation. I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare e tu nei. It is a great honour to take a short call on this very important bill, the Veterans’ Support Bill. Can I say that there is nothing more humbling or that creates a sense of pride than remembering our veterans who have served our great nation, not just on Anzac Day but at times like this when we are supporting an important bill like this.

My dad was 8 years old when World War II broke out and 14 when World War II ended. Unlike his older brother and his uncle, who joined the 28th Māori Battalion, my dad had to wait for the Korean War. I just want to stand on my feet and acknowledge the member Melissa Lee. I acknowledge you for your moving speech, Melissa, and for your recognition of our veterans who served in Korea. My dad served there, so I take your word and say kia ora, sister. It is a serious issue that we have in front of us.

I was sharing the personal stories of finding myself in Rome in 2010. My whole intent of travelling there was to do two things. One was to track down the carver of the Pānia of the Reef statue in Carrara city, and the other was to visit my dad’s brother and uncle in their grave sites. It is amazing to me that I needed to go to the grave sites, so I journeyed up to the mid-eastern side of Italy, not knowing that both my uncle and grand-uncle died on 15 December 1944 at the tender age of 22, passing away on the same day but buried in two different graves, in Forli and Faenza. I want to acknowledge the 28th Māori Battalion website, because without that website, I would have had no idea where to locate my uncle and my grand-uncle.

I say to the Speaker and to this House that it is one of the most moving occasions to walk along row upon row of young Kiwi soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives for freedom, liberty, and justice for all. That was a sobering time in my time in Italy, but one that will remain with me. In coming back and sharing that story with my father, I know he was very proud that somebody was able to go to the grave sites of his brother and his uncle, whom he remembers fondly as a young boy growing up.

In terms of personal relationships, my dad was fortunate enough to travel back to Korea 50 years after serving there for 2 and a bit years. His sharing of his time there, as Melissa Lee quite rightly shared with the House, is the remembrance of a very, very cold, harsh Korean winter. My dad served as a gunner. Back in those days—and I am glad this bill is addressing not just physical but psychological and environmental risks—my dad suffered hearing problems. Sitting on gunners, he never had any ear protection, so I am standing in his honour and memory, and for all the other veterans who suffered during their time serving this great country. I join with this side of the House in recommending that this bill go to the Social Services Committee, and I look forward to the closer scrutiny that will require. Kia ora tātou.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just inform the House that this is a split call.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): This debate on the Veterans’ Support Bill is beginning to wind down, but not the commitment of this Parliament to its objective and its principles. I rise just to reaffirm the Green Party’s support for this bill. We will see it referred to the select committee. It has been a while in coming—3½ years since it was reported back to the House—but, as the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs himself said, it is important to get it right, and I assure the Minister that the Green Party will work constructively with him to that end.

It is always an interesting characteristic of debates and bills pertaining to national security and veterans’ sacrifice that they bring out a personal commitment and personal recollections on the part of members of Parliament. We have heard the very moving speech from Melissa Lee, and I think there is no individual member of Parliament here who is without some form of personal relationship to sacrifice in this country. Certainly, I had an uncle, whom I never met, who fell in Egypt during World War II. My father-in-law, who served in the RNZAF in the United Kingdom and was stationed over at an RNZAF base, died just 3 years ago, leaving behind his widow—my mother-in-law—who is still with us, but who has very, very, very little time left with us.

We certainly endorse the principles in this bill. I think they are sufficient for the purpose: community responsibility, fair entitlement, equal treatment, and beneficial approach. I think with those that we apply into practical manifestation, we will, indeed, get this right.

Just to conclude on a philosophical note, my colleague Jan Logie identified the fourth principle in the Green Charter, which is non-violence, which effectively means that conflict needs to be settled in a non-violent way. For that to happen, you basically need a mechanism, I think, of peace—a fabric for peace. I think it is not so much turning round, or presuming to turn round, human behaviour. If we wish to avoid the nightmare of fallen loved ones and people returning as veterans with physical and psychological scars, then we need to develop, with greater determination and insight than we have in even the last half century, a fabric for peace. In fact, it was Melissa Lee, on behalf of herself and her countrymen and women, who referred to the United Nations coming to the aid of South Korea at the time, and I would endorse that. It was probably the clearest case of the United Nations rising to the challenge in terms of aggression, and effectively making this the critical contribution to restoring peace.

Coming out of that, however, the fabric for peace that you need—which is there in the Agenda For Peace; the United Nations is developing this, slowly, agonisingly, but it is getting there—is preventative diplomacy, pacific settlement, conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and peacemaking. That requires—especially the last one, peacemaking—the legitimate use of force. The pathway to a world without war is the strengthening of international law and the legitimate use of force. A world without force would require a change of human nature, but a world without war simply requires a change in human principles and institutions. I do not think it is in any way impossible, naive, or unrealistic to look for a world without war, while fully recognising that human nature does not need to change. We just need to be more insightful, more determined, to get it right.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I want to finish the debate on the Veterans’ Support Bill by acknowledging the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, and by acknowledging members across the House for the support they have shown. I acknowledge some of the comments that have been made. This is a very important bill because the men and women who have served this country, many of whom lost their lives in the service of this country, are very important people and will always be in our hearts, minds, and otherwise. It is important for this Parliament to recognise the contributions veterans have made, and those men and women of the New Zealand armed services who paid the price with their lives.

I am a former naval officer. My father spent a significant amount of time in the Royal New Zealand Navy, as well as my uncle, and so matters of this nature do resonate very strongly with me. I also just want to take a short opportunity to acknowledge someone who has made a significant contribution to the interests of veterans in New Zealand, and that is a former senior army officer Ross Miller, who was a constituent of my electorate. He worked very closely with successive Ministers, including the current Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, to advance the very important interests of veterans and to contribute to a huge body of work that has gone on in reviewing what is a very significant piece of legislation, and the need to recognise and address the issues that have been brought forward by veterans. So I just acknowledge Ross Miller and his contribution to this process. I commend the work that he has done.

I acknowledge all the veterans who have also contributed to the process that has brought us to this point, where the bill is now in the House. I think the House can enjoy moving it forward in the spirit, which we must all acknowledge, that reflects the importance of these citizens to our nation, lest we forget. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I move, That the Veterans’ Support Bill be reported back to the House by 27 March 2014.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Human Rights Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 11 December 2012.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have got here that Tim Macindoe was speaking. He has 6 minutes remaining to speak if he so wishes to, but given that the honourable Andrew Little has called, I will call him.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Perhaps my speech will be taken as being on behalf of Mr Macindoe himself anyway, because I am sure he would concur with what I have to say. This is not a frivolous matter. This is a matter to do with human rights, not only domestic human rights but our international human rights, as well. The Human Rights Commission plays a very important role not only in administering our Human Rights Act and the very important role that that piece of legislation plays in our country but also in being the voice, perhaps the conscience, if you like, of the nation when it comes to matters of human rights issues of discrimination and issues of fairness and equity, whether between races and ethnicities, whether between sexes, or on any other ground. So we take this issue very seriously.

The motivating force, as I see it, behind the Human Rights Amendment Bill—having read both the bill and the regulatory impact statement, which I might say I thought was somewhat inadequate; it set out options and then simply chose an option without a great deal of analysis—is efficiency. But it is clear from that document and from the bill itself that this is once again a very important piece of legislation, carrying with it very important principles, and carrying with it a very important institution, which is being faffed around with on grounds of efficiency alone. It says “efficiency and effectiveness” but it is really about cost-cutting. One of the things that the bill does is that it reduces the number of commissioners. It concentrates the role of commissioner under the Human Rights Act into full-time roles as opposed to the flexibility that is available at the moment with a combination of full-time and part-time roles. So there is a real question about whether or not that is going to add to the effectiveness of the administration of the requirements of the Act. It will almost certainly be efficient. It will allow costs to be cut, but whether it will allow it to be effective remains another point.

There is a very important change, a very subtle-looking change, that the bill makes in clause 5, which amends section 5 of the present Act, the Human Rights Act, in particular subsection (2)(k). Presently, section 5, “Functions of Commission”, talks about a range of things. One of those functions is “to report to the Prime Minister on …”—and one of the three things it can report to the Prime Minister on is—“(iii) the implications of any proposed legislation (including subordinate legislation) or proposed policy of the Government that the Commission considers may affect human rights:”. Most members of the House will recall, of course, that it was that section that was invoked by the commission only some months ago as the Government passed its legislation on the rights of the family caregivers of disabled people. When the commission intervened in the way that the statute clearly contemplated, in full compliance of its rights in the Act, that prompted the Prime Minister to respond by, effectively, threatening its funding. So we look at this provision in the Human Rights Act and we consider that it needs to be jealously guarded.

The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent. It is meant to express independence and that is confirmed in sections 7 and 19 of the current Act. Section 7(1) says of the commission in determining the general nature of its activities: “Subject to the role of the Minister in the process of setting and monitoring the strategic direction and targets of the Commission under … the Crown Entities Act 2004, the members of the Commission acting together determine the strategic direction of the general nature of activities undertaken in performance of the Commission’s functions.” It is up to the commissioners to decide what its strategic priorities are, and what the issues are that it chooses to engage in and embark on. That is confirmed in section 19 of the present Act, which is headed, interestingly, “Duty to act independently”. We know that when a Crown entity has a requirement to act independently, it is acting independently of the Government of the day. That is, indeed, what section 19 says: “the Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties,”.

There is a good reason for that and that is because although there are many countries around the world where human rights are given short shrift, they are abused, and people are treated shabbily, we do not exactly have that experience here. But the reality is that Governments, even in the worst countries and even in the best countries, can find themselves not complying with, and in breach of, basic human rights. It is important that we see human rights as something that is separate from the political fray and as something that is not open to the horse-trading of the political system. That is why we say that the Human Rights Commission is independent and must be independent. That is why when our Prime Minister threatened our Human Rights Commission on the basis of funding, because it chose to exercise its statutory right to report on a matter that it considered was in breach of the Human Rights Act, that was a matter that ought to have horrified—and, indeed, did horrify—many New Zealanders. That is why the independence of the Human Rights Commission is so important.

So when we see parts of this bill that suggest that its independence is under threat, we must be concerned. We see in clause 6 new subsection (1B) of section 8, which says: “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” I am concerned at the reference to the involvement of the Minister now going beyond just setting its budget to now interfering in the decisions that commissioners must make about the priority work that the commission must do, because sometimes the priority work might be challenging the Government, telling the Government that legislation that it has on its book or bills that it is proposing to push through the House are in breach of citizens’ human rights. That is a role that a properly supported and well-resourced Human Rights Commission ought to do. Ours does it and it has attracted the wrath of the Government of the day. That is not good. That is not a healthy development, at all.

So we look askance at this bill and we say that we hear the language of efficiency and effectiveness, but when we look at the fine details of the bill, this starts to look like legislative measures at undermining the role of the Human Rights Commission not only in upholding the rights of the citizens of New Zealand but challenging those institutions that might threaten it. Some of those institutions will be private, but some will be public, and the institution, of course, with the greatest power and the most resources that can threaten citizens’ rights, if it is not this House, is certainly the rest of Government.

We need to know that the Human Rights Commission is properly supported and is well resourced, and when it does challenge the Government of the day—whether it is a National Government, whether it is a Labour-led Government, whatever the hue of the Government—the institution of the Human Rights Commission is there, has the correct statutory powers, and can interfere and intervene in accordance with its powers and its duties to do so. So it is for that reason that we are looking very closely at this legislation. It is not just simple legislation truncating the number of commissioners or consolidating their roles; it goes beyond that. So we will have a close examination of the bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee. We will ask the questions. Hopefully we will get good advice from the officials beyond just what has gone into the regulatory impact statement and we will find out whether or not this is actually necessary in order to have a Human Rights Commission that can fully acquit itself of its role. We will do that. We will support this bill to the select committee so that we can undertake that examination, because it behoves all of us to ensure that, of the many important institutions in Government, those institutions that directly affect citizens’ rights and their place are protected and looked after, and we want to make sure that the Human Rights Act continues to do that.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a short call on the first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. The Human Rights Commission was set up as a body to investigate, promote, and protect human rights. Having a dedicated Disability Rights Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission reinforces this Government’s commitment to promoting and monitoring mechanisms that will really make a difference to the lives of disabled people. New Zealand ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 25 September 2008. This bill not only supports this convention but also the direction of the Government.

I look forward to this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee, to hearing submissions, and to furthering the course of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): The decision by the Government to create the position of a Disability Rights Commissioner was prompted by the pulling from the ballot in 2010 of a member’s bill from my colleague Catherine Delahunty, the Human Rights (Disability Commissioner) Amendment Bill. Catherine’s bill provided for the creation of a designated disability commissioner to sit alongside the current specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner. Catherine withdrew her bill in good faith when the Government announced that it would be creating the role of the Disability Rights Commissioner. This was done under the assumption that any bill establishing such a position would be along similar lines to her bill.

Following the withdrawal of Catherine’s bill, we were pleased that the Government moved quickly to appoint New Zealand’s first Disability Rights Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission, Paul Gibson. Like many in the disability community, we welcomed Paul’s appointment, because Paul was so clearly the right person for the job. Not only did he have a proven track record as an advocate for the disability community and a wealth of knowledge and expertise on disability issues, he also brought to the role a lived experience of disability and a strong commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In addition to welcoming Paul’s appointment, we were celebrating that there was finally a full-time, designated Disability Rights Commissioner, which was something that the disability community had pushed for for such a long time.

Given this background, the Green Party had hoped to be supporting this bill tonight, as we had expected something along similar lines to Catherine’s bill—something that would deliver for the disability communities. So it was with some dismay, to say the least, that we found that not only does this bill fail to create the role of a specialised disability commissioner in the way that was provided for in Catherine’s bill but also it proposes a restructuring of the Human Rights Commission and its role, which has consequences for its future work. Instead of creating a designated disability commissioner to stand alongside existing specialist designations, as we had expected, this bill actually removes the specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner from the Human Rights Act. Instead, it adds these to the list of functions of the commission.

Although this bill does add disability rights to that list of functions and stipulates that there must be a commissioner designated by the chief commissioner to lead work in disability along with other priority areas, we are very concerned about the impact of this larger restructuring on the focus of these roles, particularly as commissioners will be expected to work in more than one priority area. We believe that the effect of this move will inevitably weaken the focus on these areas. Commissioners will become human rights commissioners with primary responsibility to the work of the commission as a whole, rather than to the work that they are leading. This has worrying implications, particularly for disability, where there is so much work to be done. There is so much work that has to be caught up on after decades of being kept in the dark—being kept out of the policy debate.

In contrast to this bill, Catherine’s bill was clear and specific to disability. In addition to creating a designated disability commissioner, it also spelt out specific criteria for their appointment and an extensive list of functions specific to a disability commissioner. This list was developed in extensive consultation with the disability community and reflected the significant input that it had into it. That bill outlined 13 functions for a disability commissioner and included a number of important elements that are missing from this bill, including explicit requirements for the disability commissioner to actively engage with different communities of persons living with impairments, to act as an advocate for their interests, rights, and well-being, and to assist the Government with work towards the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. None of these functions is in the much-simplified list of functions in clause 12 of this bill.

This bill is not delivering for the disability community, and it will not be delivering for the other communities that will also have their needs watered down by this bill. The restructuring and reframing of the roles, with a shift to more broad and generalist skills, will affect the choice of people being appointed to the lead commission work and priority area. Someone with a broad understanding of human rights may not, and probably will not, bring with them the specific knowledge, understanding, and background in disability that is so urgently needed in this country for this role to be effective in making a difference for disabled people.

Also, the criteria for their appointment in clause 12 do not include a key one: knowledge of the various communities of people living with impairments in New Zealand. This, in our view, is absolutely essential for an effective disability commissioner. There was a strong push from the disability sector for a disability commissioner with lived experience of disability and a proven track record as a disability advocate, and that is not just symbolic. In our party we have seen the difference that Mojo Mathers has made in providing a link to people in a variety of disability communities in the country. They know that they do not have to explain to her—that she gets it—because she has had that experience and she has that role of advocacy. This bill is robbing the disability communities of the guarantee of that person, and it is a shame.

Furthermore, although the bill stipulates that there must be a commissioner appointed to lead the work in the three priorities, it does not guarantee that they will get to work full time on these issues.

This bill is a wholesale review of the Human Rights Commission done by stealth. If we are going to have a full-time position for a disability commissioner, then let us do it and not just say we are doing it, which is what this Government has been doing. This is also happening within the context of the Government’s decision to freeze funding for the Human Rights Commission until 2020. That decision has resulted in a 15 percent staffing cut at the commission.

This Government has very few checks on the power of government and has minimal tools to fight discrimination. By the response to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, we know that people in this country care about human rights. This bill is letting them down. Over the past 2 years I have seen far too many pieces of legislation that are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We need a strong institution to uphold human rights in this country. We have a long way to go for people with disabilities, particularly, to be able to achieve equality in this country, and they deserve an institution and people representing them who are able to understand them and who will strongly advocate into this place for their rights to be realised. We will be strongly opposing this bill as an undermining of those rights and aspirations.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this bill, the Human Rights Amendment Bill, going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We generally support the scheme of the bill because it gives effect to New Zealand’s international human rights obligations, but we do have a number of reservations. The Minister of Justice said that the bill replaces the current mix of full-time and part-time human rights commissioners with full-time commissioners only, but the bill does not specify whether the appointments must be full-time or part-time. New Zealand First wants to see a specific provision in the bill for full-time commissioners. If that is what the Minister intended, then that is what the bill should say. So we will be seeking an amendment along those lines.

Concerning the roles of commissioners, instead of a particular role identification in the bill, which would mean that a commissioner has sole responsibility for a priority area and would be unavailable for other work, the bill provides that there must be a commissioner appointed, other than the chief commissioner, to lead the work of each of the priority areas, which are race relations, equal employment opportunities, and the new role in the area of disability rights. The chief commissioner is also able to designate a commissioner to lead the work in other priority areas of human rights, after consultation with the Minister of Justice and the Human Rights Commission itself. But the areas of race relations, equal employment opportunities, and disability rights are still explicitly recognised as priority issues for the commission. New Zealand First does agree with that approach. It allows for the specialisation needed in the three priority areas, while allowing for the flexibility needed to ensure that the other areas are well provided for too.

But New Zealand First is concerned that there is no special priority area for age-related human rights issues. There are many such issues. Ageism is rife in New Zealand. People are discriminated against on the basis of age right across the employment spectrum. Their plight is largely ignored in this country, except, of course, by New Zealand First. We will hold the line against any increase in the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation, for example. No other party can be relied on to do so. Labour has already commenced the attack. There is also ageism in ACC benefits. People who reach 65 years have their ACC compensation confiscated from them upon application for New Zealand superannuation at age 65. That can occur even shortly after the compensation was granted. This shows that the Government does not understand that New Zealand superannuation and ACC are entitlements, not social security benefits. New Zealand First wants to see age discrimination identified as a human rights issue. We know that this Government does not care, but we in New Zealand First do.

Concerning the number of commissioners, the bill provides for a minimum of four and a maximum of five commissioners, including the chief commissioner. Will this be sufficient, with the extra workload resulting from the disability area and the growing workload of the commission? It seems unlikely to me that five will, in fact, be enough. And even if it is enough now, it is unlikely to be sufficient within a relatively short period of time. Human rights issues and human rights work is a growing area in our legal system and must be properly resourced. It would be wise, I think, to legislate for a maximum of seven commissioners, so that their number can be increased if needed and when needed, without the need for further legislation. We think this is justified because, as I have said, this is a rapidly increasing area in our legal system, and it needs to be properly provided for. I look forward to discussion on that issue at the select committee stage.

As to the need for the appointment of suitable people for the lead areas, I note that the chief commissioner has said: “… as there will be fewer Commissioners, those who appoint Commissioners will need to ensure those in key roles reflect the diversity of New Zealand.” I agree with that, but I also note with satisfaction that in new section 13, under clause 9, and in addition to the criteria in section 11 of the principal Act, the Minister must have regard to the candidate’s “(a) understanding of the principles and practice of the priority area in question … (b) appreciation of issues, trends, and developments … internationally … (c) ability to perform the functions stated in section 16.” Section 16 itself is amended in clause 12 to ensure skills in leadership ability and the ability to contribute to public debate. That is a very important part of the function of these commissioners. I think that these provisions are pretty well-thought-out. They will ensure that commissioners are better able to promote and participate constructively in debate, and the commission will not be the sort of ivory tower that we have seen it be in the past.

Turning now to the functions, powers, and responsibilities of the commission, there are changes to these in clause 5 of the bill. I think they provide more certainty about the commission’s mandate to undertake its activities, and they provide for promotion of compliance with New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. Concerning statements, I think this is an important new provision. The bill makes explicit in clause 5(3) that the commission may make public statements on any matter concerning human rights and, in particular, may comment on the position of the Government in relation to matters that may affect or infringe on human rights, and that is not clear in the current Act. It is very important that this clearly be allowed, and I congratulate the Government on putting this provision in the bill. It will be helpful to everyone interested in human rights issues in New Zealand.

The bill also provides that the commission must report on existing or proposed legislation, including subordinate legislation; administrative provision; or policy of the Government that the commission considers may affect human rights. And it must report not only to the Prime Minister but also to the Minister responsible. I welcome that new provision, as well. It will mean that the commission will have an open and clear responsibility to inform the public, irrespective of what the Government policy may be.

Lastly, concerning equal employment opportunities, the bill provides functions for the commission in relation to equal employment opportunities, including the use of benchmarks to evaluate the roles that certain instruments play in promoting equal employment opportunities, and also to lead the development of guidelines and voluntary codes of practice and to work with other bodies promoting equal employment opportunities too. I think that those are important provisions, as well, and they will provide another aspect to the work of the commission.

There is much to commend this bill, but, as I have said, there are also areas where amendment is indicated. However, for the time being, New Zealand First will vote for the bill to proceed to the select committee.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill tonight. This bill does change the role and structure of the Human Rights Commission to strengthen its performance. It also allows it to be more versatile and to change as times change, as well, and to keep up to date.

I do want to just quickly touch on one part of the bill in a bit more detail, which is about the Disability Rights Commissioner. I think it is a long time coming, actually, that the disability sector is getting a commissioner. I remember back in about 2008 the Social Services Committee had an inquiry into disability services. We heard from hundreds of submitters that they felt they did not have a voice, they felt they were not represented, they felt they were the poor cousin to health in many instances, and they were overlooked and overseen. So I think that this has been a long time coming, actually, and it is good to see that those people are going to have a voice, they are going to be heard, and they are going to be represented, and the Human Rights Commission is exactly the right place for them to be. When we were looking at how we could enhance their voice and how we could get them better representation, this was one of the suggestions, along with a number of other suggestions, about what we could do for them. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the select committee process and to hearing from submitters. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure, actually, to rise to speak to the first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I think that this bill is to be welcomed, despite the fact that we have some concerns about it, but one would hope that the process of the Justice and Electoral Committee would see many of those concerns addressed and removed. But my reason for supporting it, in particular, is that it gives this House an opportunity to have a look again at those processes of developing, confirming, ratifying, implementing, and monitoring human rights, both domestically and internationally, and I do not think we have paid enough attention to that in the past.

First of all, I would hope that this legislation would generate a better understanding of human rights in Parliament and, thereafter, a better understanding of human rights out amongst civil society. Here in New Zealand we do have a creditable history of contributing to the international human rights framework and acknowledging many of our own human rights challenges. My party was instrumental in advancing the UN human rights agenda during and after World War II. The National Government ratified the international covenants on human rights in 1978, giving us as a country international legal obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights. This has in the past been a bipartisan commitment between the two major parties, and I hope that it will become a multipartisan commitment across this MMP Parliament.

We need to assist the public, I think, in understanding that we are legally bound to respect, protect, and fulfil rights to an adequate standard of living for health and well-being, education, work under decent conditions—all of those things that relate to the everyday life of New Zealanders. But beyond that, we are legally bound also to observe and implement those conventions on human rights that we have seen fit to sign up to but may not yet have ratified. I welcome this bill for the opportunities that it gives us to explore these things, and I hope that in the course of debating this bill we will be able to strengthen executive and parliamentary human rights mechanisms.

In addition to that, I hope that in the context of this bill we will be able to argue for human rights education. I hope that as part of civics education within the school curricula, human rights education, as envisaged in the World Programme for Human Rights Education, be included in our school curricula, in the education system, and in the professional development of public servants. So, to start with, those are my general comments about the opportunities that this bill actually provides us.

I want to come to some of the concerns that we have about it. Our major concern on this side of the House is that the amendment bill removes the three designated specialist commissioners already in place and their functions, in preference for the ability of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to delegate all or part of these functions to one or more commissioners. In the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry of Justice it is clear that it has recommended this position. It recommends replacing the current three full-time commissioners and five part-time commissioners with no fewer than four and no more than five full-time commissioners, and for the roles to be changed around. But one of the things that is going to be important in the consideration by the select committee is what we lose in the course of that if we do not have a designated Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, a designated Disability Rights Commissioner, or a designated Race Relations Commissioner. What is to be lost in the course of removing these tagged and designated roles and subsuming them into the role of a commissioner who is responsible for these things—amongst others? There are risks in that, and the Labour Party is concerned about those risks.

I want to highlight one other point that my colleague Andrew Little made very well but that bears repetition, and that is in new section 8(1B), inserted by clause 6, which says that “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” One of the purposes of the Human Rights Commission is to uphold standards and human rights, both domestic and international standards of human rights, and to hold the Government to those standards. It has to be independent. Its determination of what is a priority work area should not be determined by a Minister.

I understand the phrase “after consultation with”, but it says “only after consultation with the Minister …”. I understand that the Minister might want to be consulted when priority areas of disability, equal employment opportunities, and race relations are set down in the legislation as priority areas, even though we no longer have a tagged commissioner with that designated responsibility. But I am concerned that we have already seen one example, from the Prime Minister, no less, who has threatened the Human Rights Commission with a loss of funding, for speaking out against the Government’s position on the Government Communications Security Bureau.

The Prime Minister thought it was OK to do that because he thinks he is running a company not a country. He thinks that if he is running a company, he can instruct employees on what to do. This is a more complex exercise, being the Prime Minister, than being the chief executive officer of a company. I would have thought that 5 years in the job would teach him that. So the first moment when the Human Rights Commission exercises its legislated right to report directly to the Government—to report directly, as it is allowed to do under legislation—the Prime Minister takes a swipe at the commission and says “Watch out for your funding, guys. If you’re going to turn up with reports like that, you’ll have to watch out for your funding.” That completely demonstrates the Prime Minister’s—and, I suspect, the National Party’s—lack of understanding about the importance of the independence of the Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission is there to defend the human rights of New Zealand citizens, especially when the Government does not observe them. It is absolutely beholden on the Human Rights Commission to tell the Government when it is not observing its own citizens’ human rights. In addition to that, it is the Human Rights Commission’s job to promote international human rights and to promote the understanding of those in New Zealand. So I am pleased that there are a couple of clauses in the bill that make the independence of the Human Rights Commission more explicit, but, please, would somebody show the Prime Minister those clauses.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a privilege to rise to take a brief call in this important first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I am going to carry on in the generosity of spirit of the first half of the Hon Maryan Street’s previous speech and acknowledge the very good work done by a previous Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Ruth Dyson, in shepherding through New Zealand’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008. Having been at that time on a diplomatic posting in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with human rights being a significant part of my portfolio in that job, it was interesting to see the reaction in a country that was very unlike New Zealand to that effort. We were seen as a world leader. I am very glad that we are continuing to look at ways that we can improve the status of disabled people in New Zealand.

An interesting anecdote was that we were surprised in having to explain to the Iranian Government why at Auckland Airport there was a priority lane for disabled people, where they were getting advance treatment but Government officials were not. That is in New Zealand; it is the opposite situation in some countries. We on this side of the House believe very strongly that people are born free and equal in dignity and are entitled to having those human rights observed, and I am very glad that we will be creating a full-time human rights commissioner role with leadership in disability issues. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise the House that this is a split call.

Hon Maryan Street: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not a split call? Then I call the honourable Dr Rajen—

Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a split call, as I understand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes. That is what I have just said, yes. In that case, then, I call the honourable Dr Rajen Prasad.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It is a pleasure taking a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill, particularly because I did have the role of human rights commissioner for 5 years and have lived through the previous manifestations of some of the things that are coming through here. But first it is important to say that this side of the House is not averse to improving human rights legislation, and for that reason alone we will support this to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is inevitable that there will be occasions when the environment has changed so much that an Act as important as the Human Rights Act needs to be modernised, and if that is what this amendment bill is trying to do, then there is every reason why we should support it.

However, I would say this: in the area of human rights it is important for Parliament to reach consensus, because these human rights are the rights we have by virtue of being human, and there ought to be no dispute and no difference amongst the various sides of this House about the instrument we develop to promote those rights for our citizens. So we will work very hard in the select committee to achieve that consensus, but fair warning is served by the Greens and also by us that we will want certain changes to this bill before it comes back in a form where we will support it. We will debate those matters at length during the select committee process.

It is interesting that this bill recommends changes to the structure of the Human Rights Commission. Again, there are no strong views that I have as to whether or not the structure proposed is a better one, but it is certainly worth experimenting with. However, what is to be reflected on is that the structure that is recommended in this bill is the old structure—the structure that was changed in 2000 by an amendment bill. The arguments made then were the exact opposite of the arguments being made here. The arguments were that we wanted to reduce the commissioners to a governance role, and therefore part-time commissioners would be much better. That was part of the argument that the consultants made to give us the very structure that is now being changed. What is being recommended here is to go back to the old structure. Well, if that is the experience of the Human Rights Commission, then we should follow it. We want to hear the arguments in the select committee.

But the regulatory impact statement, however, makes a very interesting argument. It says that the present way of appointing commissioners actually is inflexible, and in fact this compromises the Minister to some extent. Well, I will need some convincing that that is to be so. The regulatory impact statement actually says that the Minister himself—herself, in this case—in determining who are to be the designated commissioners, does not enable flexibility within the commission and it actually compromises the role of the Minister. Well, it does not. I refuse to see that. However, this is an argument that the Ministry of Justice has pursued for a long time. It has not liked the independent commissioners. In the 2000 reforms the only bit of my recommendation that was followed by the then Government was to retain the specialist commissioners, and they have served us well. So the part-time commissioner change—we will see. Let us hear the arguments, let us hear what is proposed, and if this is a better governance structure, then we will have no difficulties with that particular one.

But there is another issue here. The explanatory note of the bill says this, and I read: “a full-time position of Disability Rights Commissioner within the Commission will be established.” The bill does no such thing. It actually does not do that. So why does the explanatory note say that that is what the bill does? The bill actually distinguishes no specialist commissioners. What it does is it establishes generic commissioners to be given designated roles, but they will not be called those roles; they will simply have a generic responsibility. That is where we begin to dig into the reasons behind some of the changes being proposed here, and we do not support just generic commissioners. We support the specialist commissioners, because in every case those specialist commissioners have been very, very effective—incredibly effective. Look at the work of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. She was one of the most successful—

Sue Moroney: The previous one.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —the previous one—commissioners we have had. She was so successful. Why are we doing away with that? The sector that advocates the particular area, actually, in a sense, identified with that role and had ownership with it. The same can be said for race relations people. At a time when New Zealand society is diversifying to the extent that it is, and there is so much identification amongst the diverse communities with that particular role, this Government is trying to do away with that role. Why? It is for no reason. The Disability Rights Commissioner is the same. That role must be retained—I agree with the Greens. So we will argue for that in the select committee.

We wonder why it is that the Government is doing this, because the real issue in this commission is not the specialist commissioners. The real issue is the inability of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to actually manage this commission in such a way that it all works well. So there is a governance problem—the problem of the role of the chief commissioner—that is being addressed, in one of the most dramatic ways possible, by doing away with the very roles in the commission that are the most effective. I would rather the select committee really tussled with how to underscore the responsibility of the chief commissioner. I would like to see that role strengthened if that is the real issue. So we will be asking the select committee why the changes and what it is they are expected to achieve. If we can be convinced, then we will want the officials to rewrite this piece so that that role is strengthened—the role of the chief commissioner. It does have an implication for the Minister to appoint chief commissioners who have a human rights background. In order for us to have a commission to operate in the way in which these recommendations seek, then, indeed, that particular role has to be changed appropriately.

There is a lot here that is below the surface. As is typical of the Ministry of Justice, it has proposed a structural change. It has written its regulatory impact statements, and in fact there is still much more to be thought through and done in order to keep those things in this commission that are good, which are the specialist commissioners. We have no objection to the number of full-time commissioners. That is fine. The role of the chief commissioner—let us face that head-on and ask why we need to strengthen that; if so, what is the best way of doing it? What we do not want is for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater, because if we did that, we would lose the very things that are important to us. So with those comments, I bring my speech to an end. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

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

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

(continued on Wednesday, 23 October 2013)

Business of the House

Business of the House

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mōrena, kia ora tātou. He rangi nui, whakaharahara tēnei mō ngā mea e noho mai rā i runga ake nei. Kua eke mai ētahi o Tūhoe, kua eke mai te whānau o Mokomoko. Ko tāku, ko te Whare, he inoi noa atu kia riro mā tētahi o rātou, tētahi karakia i te tīmatanga mai o tēnei rā, hei whakatūwhera i te āhuatanga ō wā tātou nohotahi. Kei te mōhio tonu au ki te nuinga o te wā ko koe tērā, Mr Deputy Speaker; ko koe tērā e kawe nei i tō tātou karakia i te tīmatanga mai o te rā. He rā hou tēnei. Kua mutu ngā mahi o nanahi. Kua ara mai te rā, kua moe te pō. Ko tāku ki a koe, otirā, ki te Whare, kia tukuna te kupu kōrero, karakia nei ki tētahi hei kawe i tō tātou karakia, hei wāwāhi i ngā kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Good morning, and greetings to us all. This is a very important day for those people seated above. Some people from Tūhoe have arrived here, and also the Mokomoko family. I just wanted to ask the House whether we could allow for one of them to conduct the prayers this morning, to open the proceedings of our joint gathering. I know very well that on most occasions, this is your job, Mr Deputy Speaker; you generally conduct the prayers to begin our day. This is a new day. Yesterday’s business is over. A new day has arisen as the night takes respite. My point to you, indeed, to the House, is that we allow for one of them to conduct our prayers as a way to open our discussions.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that you are seeking leave for that to happen, so I will put the leave. Leave is sought for a karakia to be held to commence proceedings today. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. Would one of the whānau from the gallery like to lead the karakia.

Karakia

Bills

Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. This is a very important day. We are debating a bill to resolve the historical grievances of Ngāi Tūhoe. It is not, however, the first time that this House has debated these issues. But, hopefully, as a result of our work, this time the Crown will learn something from its previous mistakes, and the Tūhoe-Crown relationship will henceforth be very positive.

The history of Tūhoe’s interactions with the Crown is summarised in Part 1 of the bill, but a few words can never adequately explain all that has happened. I ask anyone who doubts the wisdom of what the Government is proposing to do to go behind the summary of the acknowledgments in the historical account and look at the primary facts. Take, for example, acknowledgment (6) in clause 8 of the bill. It talks about Parliament enacting the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, which provided for local self-government over Te Urewera and for decisions about the use of land to be made collectively and according to Māori custom.

So what did happen in 1895-96 that resulted in the Urewera legislation? At that time the then Premier, Richard Seddon, had been concerned about Te Urewera and visited Ngāi Tūhoe. Apparently, Seddon almost drowned when he crossed Lake Waikaremoana to meet some of the rangatira. There were also a number of Tūhoe delegations who visited Wellington. After many discussions, Seddon agreed to introduce the Urewera legislation. Ngāi Tūhoe representatives were in the gallery for those debates, just as they are here today.

It is instructive to read the Hansard from the bill’s first reading in the House. This is what Seddon had to say: “… after having seen the country, and after having listened attentively to what was put forward by the Tūhoe people, I have come to the conclusion that if the promise made many many years ago … to the Tuhoe had then been kept, if we had given the same powers and privileges which we are proposing to give under this Bill, a lot of the trouble that has arisen [and which has been the cause of bloodshed]—which has been the cause of an otherwise well-disposed people being estranged from the rest of the colony—would have been avoided.”

The next acknowledgment in clause 8 explains how that legislation was undermined between 1896 and 1921 and then repealed without any reference to Tūhoe. In 1954 the Crown established Te Urewera National Park, which included most of Ngāi Tūhoe’s traditional lands. The Crown did not consult Tūhoe about this and did not recognise Tūhoe as having any special interest in Te Urewera or its management. So throughout the 20th century the story has been one of Tūhoe being ignored and not consulted on decisions affecting their rohe.

Tūhoe has always tried to approach resolution of its dispute with the Crown in a principled and determined manner, but up in Te Urewera the messages about the unfairness of it all have been passed down from generation to generation. Indeed, I will never forget the elderly gentleman whom I met at Ruātoki, who said to me in relation to the events of 2007: “I said to my grandchildren: ‘It happened to my grandparents, and now it’s happening to you.’”

Given this history, this Government is determined to address these issues, not because they are necessarily easy to resolve, and not because they are politically popular or there are votes in it, but because it is the right thing to do. The legislation we are debating today contains more than a historical account of what happened in the past, together with an apology and compensation. It is also a forward-looking arrangement that has the potential to produce very positive results for Tūhoe and the Crown. The fact that it is happening is because the Crown has been given a second chance to work with Tūhoe in an honourable manner. So the past is very important. As is so often said, ignore the history and one is doomed to repeat it.

Key to success will be the post-settlement relationships. This, of course, applies to all settled iwi, and that is why the Crown has established a post-settlement unit to monitor the progress of settlements, to audit them, and to ensure that undertakings given on behalf of the Crown are honoured not just tomorrow but in 50 years’ time.

Let me now turn to some of the detail of the bill. This legislation comprises two bills, which it will be divided into at the Committee of the whole House stage. First, the bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the Tūhoe deed of settlement. It includes the Crown acknowledgments and apology, cultural and commercial redress packages, and provisions consolidating Tūhoe’s governance entities. A forward-looking and exciting aspect of the deed of settlement is the social agreement. Its dual aims are both to build Ngāi Tūhoe’s capability to manage its own affairs and to improve the Crown’s delivery of services in Te Urewera. A number of Government agencies are already working with Ngāi Tūhoe in a number of areas, from housing to the delivery of primary care services, and ensuring that education is underpinned by a Tūhoe philosophy. Child, Youth and Family is assisting Tūhoe to achieve their goal of having no Tūhoe tamariki in Child, Youth and Family care.

To the few people left in this country who still talk about Māori privilege and special treatment for Māori, my answer to them is to visit Ruatāhuna or Ruātoki. Let them see the reality. Big issues need to be addressed within the rohe of Ngāi Tūhoe. The Crown and Tūhoe are going to work together to address them.

The second piece of legislation addresses Te Urewera. For too long the people of Ngāi Tūhoe have been locked out of having any say in the affairs of Te Urewera. This has been most unfair, particularly when one looks at the map and sees the extent of privately owned Māori land. This bill rectifies terrible historical wrongs.

Te Urewera will have its own legal identity. It will not be governed by the National Parks Act, but will be administered by a board made up of Crown and Tūhoe representatives. After a short initial period, the board will contain a Tūhoe majority, and this is as it should be. One of Tūhoe’s goals throughout the negotiations was to provide for the reconnection of Tūhoe to Te Urewera, and for that connection to be strengthened through Tūhoe’s role in its governance and management. Public access will continue. Tūhoe has always welcomed visitors, and public input into management and public access will be guaranteed.

Finally, work is now under way to explore international recognition for Te Urewera, such as a Unesco biosphere reserve like the Everglades in Florida. I met with Unesco on this issue last week, and told the officials that decisions on this issue will be for the new board to determine.

So I finish this short speech by acknowledging the people of Tūhoe, who have carried their grievances through the generations. I will leave individual acknowledgments until my third reading speech because so many have worked tirelessly to get to this stage, and in this speech I cannot do all those people justice by mentioning just a few names. I commend this bill to the House and to the tender care of Mr Henare’s Māori Affairs Committee.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, i te tuatahi ka huri ki Te Reo Māori. Kāti, e ngā uri a Tūhoe-Pōtiki, e ngā mokopuna a Tūtakangahau, Te Umuariki, a Kererū, a rātou mā nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i poipoi i roto i te ao kōhatu, heke iho ki a koutou, tēnei mātou o te Whare e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou i roto i tēnei rangi, ka whakaterengia tēnei waka ahakoa ko āna tā moko kei te kapu o te pepa, ko tana wairua kei te ngākau me te wairua o te hunga e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa i tēneki rā. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou mai i ngā raorao, mai i ngā marae, Huiarau, te tihi o Maungapōhatu huri noa ki te tutukitanga ki Te Moana-a-Toi, tēnei mātou te mihi atu ki a koutou kua tatū mai ki Te Ūpoko-o-Te-Ika.

Ahau nei e mahara ana ki te rārangi o ngā kōrero i titoa e te hau tupua o te ao Māori mō te kaitito wahine a Mihitekapua. Nāna te kī: “Te roa o te whenua te tāpae atu rā. Noho ana hoki ahau i Pōneke. Awhi ana ahau i a koe, e te Karauna. He whakairitanga tēnei mō te mate o taku tinana.” Tāku ki a tātou, ngā kupu i oti i tēnā kuia o roto o Tūhoe, he whakatūpato i tēnei reanga e tū nei, me ngā mokopuna e haere ake nei. Waiho hei kōrerotanga mā ā tātou tamariki ki te marae, otirā, me huri tātou ki te whitinga o te rā. Nā reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Firstly, I turn to speak in Māori. So to the descendants of Tūhoe-Pōtiki, the grandchildren of Tūtakangahau, Te Umuariki, Kererū, and others who nurtured this matter in days long past and handed down now to you, we of the House offer this acknowledgment to you in this day that this vessel is launched: even though its designs are contained in the hollow of the paper, its spirit is with the heart and soul of those supporting this matter on this day. Greetings and salutations to you from the lowlands, the courtyards, mountain of Huiarau, summit of Maungapōhatu, and eventually the extent of the Bay of Plenty. We salute you who have arrived here in Wellington.

For me particularly, I recall the line of words that Mihitekapua, the greatest female Māori composer of Māoridom, composed. She stated: “The land that lay out before me is long. I also live in Wellington. I embrace you, the Crown. A suspension of this would be the death of my body.” My interpretation to us is that the words that elderly woman from within Tūhoe came up with serve as a caution for this present generation and for the grandchildren still to come. Leave it as something for our children to talk about on the courtyard, but at the same time we must turn to the rising of the sun. Greetings, therefore, to you all.]

In our Māori language I have recited a verse from one of the great composers of Te Ao Māori from Te Urewera-Tūhoe region, Mihikitekapua, where in English what she said was: “I travelled such a long way to reach distant Wellington. When I embrace you, Crown, I know it will destroy me.” This is a day when the descendants of that kuia—and, indeed, on my side of the House the descendant of Richard Seddon, in the form of David Cunliffe, whose tupuna 100 years ago went to Galatea, Waikaremoana, Ruātoki, and Ruatāhuna to meet and discuss with the chiefs of that time. The fact that he was brave enough to do it 100 years ago, when today the average Kiwi hardly knows where these places are, let alone has visited them, is testimony to not only how small our country is but also how history actually has a way of reminding us that it is both political and personal.

We stand to support this bill, the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. We stand to support this bill knowing that over the last 10 years members on my side of the House have had to endure an episode that has not been a proud moment in the affairs between the Crown and Tūhoe, and I refer here very briefly to what has become known in the media as the police raids. It was a bleak day, and I salute the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in his willingness not to shy away from that issue in the various commentaries that have been developed and reported upon as the Minister has brought this kaupapa to the House in this form. It was a very regrettable incident, and my senior colleague Annette King, sitting to my left, was, unfortunately, at that point in time the Minister of Police. Though not responsible for the affairs of the police, she has apologised on a number of occasions for the hurt and the anguish that that episode represented. I want to say that in the context of this bill, because we will not leave any stone unturned to ensure that not only is this bill supported but the select committee process gets every level of support it deserves from our side of the House.

It was in 1871 that the Tūhoe elders conceived of and composed a set of policies that have become known as the “whitu tekau”, which is translated from Māori as “the seventy”. In Māori it simply was kaua te rori, kaua te rūri, kaua te rīhi, kaua te hoko. In the 1890s it fell to Seddon and his Māori colleague Carroll to try to give practical expression to that via the passage of legislation. As the Minister has pointed out, although the bill was debated at the time and law was passed, it was observed in the breach, not in honouring it.

So today this piece of legislation is very significant because this is an iwi that had it not been for their matua Tūtakangahau, there would be no Elsdon Best books for anthropology, ethnography, and Māori students and the other host of souls who go to university and want to read Elsdon Best. I must confess that I was not one of them. This is also the people who, amongst Māoridom, have been regarded as the final bastion for the quality of our Māori language, and I want to salute those families who have endeavoured to maintain that kaupapa. I will not isolate particular individuals. It is better that that task fall to the third reading speeches, because it is going to be quite a demanding process for my colleague Tau Henare to shepherd the bill through the Māori Affairs Committee.

This is significant in what it does to one of our national parks. Make no mistake that I, along with my colleagues, was extremely surprised that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was able to carry the support of his senior colleagues and bring this forward as a model of governance, kaitiakitanga, and embedding Māori in the—they are already in the soil, but embedding them in the spirit of the new law and in the application of the new law. It is something—I have not a doubt in my mind—that never would have been attempted or, indeed, delivered upon in the time of our predecessors Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer. So the fact that you have done that and that we support you shows that there is a maturing amongst the Pākehā people of that particular region. But, broadly speaking, the media are not prepared to pick these issues up, to divide us.

The real test lies in the actual execution and the application. We support the notion that these settlements should be checked up on from time to time. This is an area where the challenges are large because it is a region that has been overlooked and neglected. Although this kaupapa does represent a transfer of financial capital and land, to turn that capital and land into a durable flow of economic good and benefit will be an exacting task. But that is not for us. We are the parliamentarians today who want to work together to ensure that this piece of legislation actually passes with minimal drama.

I want to quote from 1869, after Tūhoe consented for Te Kooti Arikirangi to enter their territory. This is what is attributed to Te Kooti—the words received by Moses: “Tango ana ahau i a koutou hei iwi mōku. Ko ahau hei Atua mō koutou. Mōhio koutou ko Ihowa ahau, ko koutou nōki te iwi o te Kawenata.” I take you as my people. I will be your God, and you will know I am Jehovah. You are the people of the covenant. The covenant takes a new shape and form today in the representation of this legislation. It is imbued with spiritual significance, the heritage of the people, and the honour of the Crown. For those reasons, it is important that all parties join together and demonstrate to the Treaty partners that our generation is serious about upholding the duties of history, and also about working together so the future and its potential and its promise are delivered, not only for Tūhoe but for our entire country. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora koutou katoa.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. A large part of Te Urewera and other parts of the Tūhoe rohe, including the centres of Tāneatua and Maungapōhatu, fall within the East Coast electorate, which I have the great privilege to represent here in Parliament. It is a huge honour for me to stand here today to speak at this first reading of the Te Urewera - Tūhoe Bill. The National-led Government is making great progress on completing final and durable settlements of Treaty of Waitangi claims. This, today, is one of the most significant settlements during my time in the House. I want to acknowledge those from Tūhoe who have travelled down to Wellington today to speed this settlement on its final journey.

Settlements recognise and right the wrongs of the past, and strengthen the partnership between the Crown and Māori. Settlements also help iwi unlock economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas. It is the right thing to do, and it benefits all New Zealanders. This settlement will bring great benefits to the region. It will be a boon for the people of Tūhoe and for regional economic development on the East Coast. So how does it do that? Well, firstly, this settlement reconnects Tūhoe with its homeland of Te Urewera. It gives them a financial base with which to help their people prosper where they are born, and it provides them with the means to make choices for themselves.

Most obviously, the settlement provides for commercial redress of $170 million. So, secondly, this allows the iwi to develop an economic base. I well remember—I think it was 2009, actually—Tāmati Kruger and Matt Te Pou sitting in my electorate office in Whakatāne, explaining this to me, and saying that this was dependent upon the return to Tūhoe of Te Urewera. I said to them: “I just can’t see that ever happening. It’s a national park. I can’t see that ever happening. I understand what you are saying, but it is so hard to do.” But we have done it. Together, we have done it. Tūhoe has already begun the process of revitalising Tāneatua with the construction of its outstanding new high-tech tribal community centre and headquarters—New Zealand’s first living building, sourced largely from local materials. So they are already showing economic and environmental leadership. The tribe has the experience and aspirations for ecotourism in this pristine part of the country.

However, just as important is the sense of a new relationship between the iwi, its neighbours, and the communities of the region. In a formal sense, the settlement provides for relationship agreements with some Government agencies, and exploration of such agreements with key local authorities. In a practical sense, the process of agreeing on a historical account, and the apology of the Crown in recognition of the wrongs of the past, smoothes the way for opportunities for forward-looking collaboration and common purpose. Tūhoe can now feel free to participate properly as leaders in the region that is their home, without feelings of estrangement.

Tāmati Kruger, who has provided superb leadership to his people, said on 3rd Degree that he saw mana motuhake as “inter-independence”. He said: “We quite like being part of the region, part of the district. We are part of New Zealand. We like to think we have dual citizenship.” An example of that was in the Gisborne Herald recently. It reported that the Wairoa, Whakatāne, and Rotorua councils, along with Tūhoe, are working together on proposals for improvement to State Highway 38, which is still the only unsealed part of the State highway system, to make it more user-friendly. Those of us who have travelled along that magnificent road know that you get past Murupara, and all of a sudden it goes down to what could be described as a goat track through some magnificent country—17 kilometres, I think it is, of shuddering gravel. That would be a great project to see completed, although some of the locals are a bit worried because they do not like too many people going there.

Mana motuhake redress relates to improved relationships between Tūhoe and the Crown, and the delivery of Government and iwi services to Tūhoe communities. It includes the Crown-Tūhoe relationship agreement signed in 2011, which provides a foundation for how Tūhoe and the Crown will work together, and the social service management plan, which covers relationships with, and the management and delivery of services by, key Crown agencies and Tūhoe over the long term. The initial planning is for 5 years of the eventual 40-year period. It sets out how the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the three district health boards in the area will work with Tūhoe to address the disadvantaged and improve social outcomes in Te Urewera. Tūhoe is engaged throughout in the same spirit of inclusiveness. During negotiations over the often difficult subject of Te Urewera, they engaged extensively with other users of the park in order to define different groups’ expectations and values for the area. Not surprisingly, there was a great deal of shared values in terms of the importance of biodiversity, conservation, and access.

The innovative redress in this bill reflects a Tūhoe view that Te Urewera is its own identity, has its own intrinsic rights and interests, and provides for Tūhoe and the Crown’s representatives to govern Te Urewera in its own best interests, while maintaining access for all. To those of us who know, love, and respect Te Urewera, that is absolutely correct. It stands alone. It is often surrounded in mist—often secretive, hiding its beauty, which is revealed only to those who appreciate it, especially if you are trying to fish on Lake Waikaremoana. But it does have its own personality. It does have its own breathtaking beauty, and it is, and always has been, an identity in its own right.

But we need laws to encapsulate that, so the current national park land will be vested in a Te Urewera legal entity and protected under new stand-alone legislation. This legislation will recognise and provide for cultural values associated with Te Urewera, and will include key principles relating to the protection of biodiversity, natural and historic heritage, public input into management, and public access into the future. This is a significant bill for Tūhoe, for the East Coast region, and for New Zealand, and I speed it on its way through this House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): He hōnore, he korōria, he maungarongo ki te mata o te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Arohaina ngā tāina me ngā tuākana i raro i te whakaaro kotahi, i raro i te tuanui o tēnei Whare. Ngāi Tūhoe tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ki a tātou, pai mārire. Nei anō te mihi maioha ki a koutou mai i a Waikato-Maniapoto me ērā o ngā hononga kei waenganui i a tāua hei tū kei roto i Ōrākau ki te pupuri ā tātou whenua, arā, hei hāpai i ērā o ngā wawata o ngā mātua, tūpuna, te mana motuhake o ō tātou iwi Māori. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Honour, glory, peace upon the face of the Earth, and goodwill to all mankind. Be of one mind under the roof of this House in being charitable to the younger and older siblings. I acknowledge you all, the people of Tūhoe. Goodness and peace to us. An affectionate greeting once again from me to those of you collectively from Waikato-Maniapoto and those connections within you and me in Ōrākau. They hold our lands. In other words, they elevate those other aspirations of the parents, the ancestors, and the independence of our Māori people. So I salute you all.]

It is a great privilege to be able to support the passage of this bill, the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill, to the Māori Affairs Committee and to its final stages. We are in a moment of history that only in hindsight will people be able to recognise the significance of what is being achieved in the Tūhoe settlement. This is an important day for New Zealand, not just for Tūhoe.

I was reminded of all the great orators who have spoken in this House throughout the years on a number of, I guess, testy issues that have tested our aptitude as a nation to really live what it means to be a truly bicultural nation, having greater regard to the aspirations of iwi of Māori in New Zealand and in the formation of our identity as a country. Just as we have great orators, I thought I would draw on one of the great poems of a poet who is well known to you, because it tells a story that I want to be able to draw on in my contribution. It goes like this:

Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half-light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

This, in a sense, draws upon the spirits of those ancestors, I believe, of Tūhoe and many others like them, who had great aspirations to live in a country that they could hold on to, enjoy, preserve, bring up children in, and say: “This is ours.” But our chequered history has meant that so much of that hope and aspiration has been impacted on by interactions with the Crown.

I hesitate to tell the history of others within the context of Treaty settlements, because I know how important it is. But for anyone listening to this debate today, a very important part of the Treaty settlement process is to have the history recorded in the deed of settlement and referred to within the context of legislation. And, because we go through this debate referring to how significant these Treaty settlements are—and, most important, for Tūhoe today—for those young children who hope to build our nation in a way that makes mana motuhake the Treaty partnership, a living spirit within our national identity, it is important that they draw on the words that come into this House.

As I looked at the aspects of this Treaty settlement, there were a number of things that I felt compelled to say in its first reading. I too am not proud of Labour’s time in Government with regard to the police raids, but what it has done is necessitate the commitment of both sides of the House to having an enduring Treaty settlement. So I am sure that in the future Labour’s track record on the Tūhoe settlement will be tested against the hopes and aspirations of the mana motuhake agreement, and we will also be ensuring and committing to long-term, enduring aspects of the way in which Te Urewera will be looked after in the future. I would like to be able to stand as testimony to say that this is a working, living relationship that has been forged.

So out of some very difficult times come some very positive opportunities. I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for being able to extend his vision around the way of looking at some very unique features of this particular settlement that are not in any other: firstly, the way in which Te Urewera has been conferred its own identity. That, in itself, is a significant milestone in the way that we are looking at our lands, our resources. The ability to look after them for future generations, recognising that Te Urewera has its own identity, inherently within that a mauri of its own, and inherently in that the need to look after it for the preservation of its food source and identity for the people growing up and living around Te Urewera, is significant. I would like, through the select committee process, to learn a little bit more about that, if for nothing else than to see how that particular legislative approach can continue to innovate our way of looking at ongoing resource management conservation within the context of other areas in the country.

I am excited by this settlement. I am excited by the opportunity that it provides for the people of Tūhoe to push their expectations on the way in which regulatory functions are carried out and management plans are implemented effectively, taking account of tikanga. I am excited by the fact that it puts a higher regard on the Department of Conservation to really live the strongest principle that it has in the Conservation Act to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi principles. This, I predict, will be a pillar of future lawmaking approaches going forward, as we continue to review the benefits that Treaty settlements have provided.

There is also some explanation within the bill and detail around the governance entity, the selection of trustees, and how that is going to be approached. If I could perhaps offer a few comments—you know, this has never been easy for any iwi going into a Treaty settlement process, and I do not think anyone is immune to the challenges of having to ask themselves: “How do we want to reorganise ourselves for the future, so that we’re going to have regard for everybody who is entitled to benefit from a settlement, and also have a say through our governance instruments and arrangements?”. Again, this is not the time to ask questions and seek answers, but at the select committee level there will be a high rate of interest from members, I suspect, in the way in which Tūhoe has approached this significant question. If we can ensure that the governance entities are as robust as they can be within the context in which they have been designed, then that is going to give the next generation greater opportunity and hope that what has been preserved for now will continue to be there for tomorrow.

The other part of this settlement that excites me is the fact that it is an affirmation of a history that has not been as well understood by broader New Zealand. Correcting place names is an important part of that. Once we begin to ensure that place names are corrected and references within the context of our history are revealed in ways that become real, so that when people passing through on that road that Anne Tolley was talking about, which I have probably been on only once—

Hon Member: Shame on you!

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I know, and it was a long trip too. What it will reveal to those passing through Te Urewera is that they are in a very special part of the country. Place names do that, rectifying history does that, and recognising just how important the footprint is that Tūhoe has over its relationship with its domain is so significant.

Again, this is a first reading speech. There is so much more to say about the bill. I hope that the select committee process will not be too taxing for those who have toiled long and hard to get it to this point—over 5 years, I would say. But we will give it the full attention it deserves, to ensure that the expectations that have been set out in the deed align with the legislation. That is our job. It is a small part of a bigger wheel that has already been put in train, but can I say that we are in a historical moment for this nation. Tūhoe being here today to settle their historical grievances means that the settlement will endure, and on both sides of the House we need to ensure that we commit to an enduring relationship. Kia ora koutou.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. E te manuhiri tūārangi, ngā kaumātua, ngā rangatira, ngā tuākana, koutou o Ngāi Tūhoe kua tae tautoko mai i tēnei rā, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to you collectively the House. To the visitors from afar, elders, leaders, elder sisters, brothers, and cousins, to you collectively of the Tūhoe tribe who have arrived here in support today, welcome, welcome, and welcome here.]

When you read through the historical account that is written in the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill, you realise the extent to which we are all victims of history, destined to repeat it unless the lessons are truly learnt. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations speaking about exactly that in his first reading address this morning, because when it comes to issues concerning Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Crown does seem hell-bent on repeating the colonisation process over and over again.

Tūhoe, as much as others, know this only too well. From the historical account in the bill, you can see this repeated cycle, where Tūhoe assert their absolute and unequivocal sovereignty—their nationhood—but the Crown then uses force to put down their rangatiratanga. It then creates some kind of legal structure that, although rhetorically it is supposed to deliver some restitution, is actually designed to take even further land, resources, and mana from iwi. Then, some decades later, there is an apology for all of those past actions.

So what is an apology worth? History has repeated itself over and over in Tūhoe, and now, of course, Tūhoe is owed yet another apology from the Crown, which may still take some years to come. Just a few weeks ago it was the anniversary of the Tūhoe raids, which was just the most recent example of where the Crown went into Tūhoe territory, used the full force of the State against whānau, kuia, kaumātua, and tamariki, and used yet again the same justifications that have been used for 150 years for the exercise and abuse of that power. May Tūhoe not have to wait a century for an apology for that process—for that colonial invasion of Tūhoe lands.

Looking at the history so that people can see how it has been repeated, Tūhoe was subjected to a completely unjust and entirely unjustifiable confiscation of land in 1865. They were not in rebellion; they were simply living, as they always have and always intended to, as an independent nation, as was their right then and is their right now. The damage caused at that early stage was made significantly worse by the compensation court process, which returned much of the confiscated land to other Māori, but excluded Tūhoe from the land that they had traditionally occupied and cultivated.

After the confiscation the Crown waged war in Te Urewera, used scorched earth tactics extensively, and was responsible for the execution of unarmed prisoners and the killing of non-combatants. Those wars caused Tūhoe to suffer widespread starvation and extensive loss of life. Tūhoe went from being a strong, truly independent nation to being a small, largely landless group, all within a 5-year period.

Eventually, the Crown withdrew its forces and agreed to leave Tūhoe to manage their own affairs—that sounds rather familiar. A governing council of chiefs, Te Whitu Tekau, was then established to uphold the mana motuhake in Te Urewera. But then there was the Native Land Court, yet another grand idea, a grand structure of Government, which helped to further alienate the remaining land. The Crown, indeed, induced Tūhoe to sell a large area of land at Waikaremoana by threatening to confiscate their interests if they did not sell.

In 1896 Parliament enacted the Urewera District Native Reserve Act. This provided for local self-government over 656,000 acres of the Urewera Reserve, and for decisions about the use of that land to be made collectively and according to Māori custom. Tūhoe at that time, quite rightly, believed that this system would protect their lands from sale and would deliver them genuine decision-making, but the Crown did not implement the self-government provisions of that Act and it undermined its protective provisions. Let that not be the case again.

Further dodgy tactics and, in my view, racist law were used by the State to take even more land. Harsh tactics were used to acquire land at Waikaremoana, where the Crown assumed control over Lake Waikaremoana and resisted for decades attempts by the owners to secure title to the lake bed.

In 1916, 70 armed police arrested Tūhoe prophet Rua Kēnana at Maungapōhatu. Two Tūhoe men were killed during that arrest. Rua was cleared of eight charges, including sedition, but was convicted of “moral resistance”. He was convicted of moral resistance, which was the only justifiable action in the face of decades of abuse of power, of threats, of structural racism and discrimination, and of murder—moral resistance.

The history continues. In 1954 the Crown established Te Urewera National Park, which included most of Tūhoe’s traditional lands. The Crown consulted Tūhoe about neither the establishment of the park nor its expansion in 1957, and it did not recognise Tūhoe as having any special interest in the park or its governance. National park policies have led to restrictions on Tūhoe’s customary use of this land and adjoining land. Again, we have the exercise and expression of rangatiratanga by Tūhoe; violence in various forms, structural and physical, perpetrated by the Crown; and legal structures being deliberately built to deliver unfairness, over and over again.

We have recently used the word “deal” to describe settlements—and I know that the Minister finds that difficult to hear, but I do think that it is the best and truest description of the settlement process—but I do want to acknowledge the Minister for the unique and innovative agreement concerning Te Urewera National Park. I do think that the Minister really has made a great step forward in finding new ways of recognising and delivering to iwi Māori decision-making over their land while trying to address the huge public issue that comes largely from not understanding the true history of Māori in this country.

So we are really pleased about the return, at least in some form, of Te Urewera to Tūhoe. It is a novel legal arrangement, giving Te Urewera its own legal identity, its own legal status, whose interests are managed by another group of people—by the board. We are very pleased that the board will in just a few years’ time be dominated by Tūhoe people, so that there is genuine majority decision-making by those who are uri of that place, and so it should be. We are thankful, actually, to Tūhoe for their ongoing commitment to having public access and public engagement in the decisions around Te Urewera, and we need to make sure that the public understand the extent to which in any settlement, including this one, iwi Māori make great gifts to the public—make great gifts in the public interest—even in the face of decades and decades of structural abuse. So we are thankful for those gifts.

Finally, the Greens have always been very highly critical of the settlement process, where iwi, who are the aggrieved party and the victims of historical attacks, have no authority of control over that process. We do understand that the necessary boundaries in a negotiation should be jointly determined by the parties and not set by just one party, and we will continue with this critique of the process. But we do want to expressly acknowledge the work that Tūhoe have done to come to a very good agreement with the Crown over this settlement, developing novel ways—innovative ways—of finding decision-making authority, returning some of that rangatiratanga.

We support the bill. We look forward to hearing more of the stories during the select committee process, and we look forward to the swift passage of this legislation. Thank you.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): He kohu, he kohu, tau ana, tau ana. Tau tāpapa ana ki runga ki a Maungapōhatu a Hinepūkohurangi. E, ko Tūhoe-Pōtiki, nau mai, hara mai rā, nau mai.

[Tis a mist, tis a mist that has landed and settled. Hinepūkohurangi has settled face down upon Maungapōhatu. Behold, it is Tūhoe-Pōtiki, welcome, welcome, welcome indeed.]

I am deeply honoured to welcome to the House today the sons and daughters of Maungapōhatu, the children of Hinepūkohurangi, and the descendants of Tūhoe-Pōtiki. Nā reira, e tautoko ana ngā mihi ki a koutou e haere tinana mai ki te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā, te tīmatanga o ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te kerēme. Nā reira, nau mai, hara mai. Kua whai koutou i ngā mahi kua mahia e te hunga whiriwhiri, i a Tāmati mā. Nā reira, whakatau mai me ngā mate kua pā ki a koutou mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei pire, tae noa ki tēnei rā, ā, tautoko ana au i ngā mihi, ngā poroporoaki ki a rātou kia okioki pai rātou i Te Kaihanga. Heoi anō, kua tae mai, tēnā koutou, nau mai, hara mai. Tūhoe, moumou kai, moumou taonga, moumou tangata ki te pō.

[And so I endorse the tributes accorded to you who have arrived here in person to Parliament House today, the commencement of the addresses that relate to the claim. Therefore, welcome, welcome. You have followed through the work carried out by the negotiators, by Tāmati and the others. So welcome with the deceased related to you from the start of this bill to the present day. I endorse the tributes and eulogies to them to rest well with The Creator. So much for that. You have arrived, so greetings to you, welcome, welcome. Tūhoe, wasteful of food, wasteful of treasures, and wasters of men to death.]

Before this claim is over, the famous whakatauāki will be uttered many times in this House. It is a proverb that perfectly fits the important mahi that we are here to acknowledge today. Tūhoe moumou kai—Tūhoe, renowned for generosity. Tūhoe moumou taonga—generosity that has seen the lands and people of Tūhoe become living bastions of culture and language for all Māori people. Tūhoe moumou tangata ki te pō—Tūhoe, renowned for steadfast determination, resilience, fearlessness. Tūhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown had no footprint in the Urewera before the 1860s. However, the footprint the Crown would soon leave across the lands of Tūhoe-Pōtiki was a footprint of confiscation, violence, and scorched earth. Critics of this Government’s Treaty settlements usually complain about the monetary cost, but how can we ever put a monetary cost on lives, land, and livelihoods taken by force by the barrel of a gun?

Every New Zealander should read the deed of settlement we are enacting today. How else can we know the history and identity of our country if we do not know the whole story? As well as those stories that make us proud to be New Zealanders, we should know the stories from our nation’s past that are shocking and shameful. I am an advocate for our history, Māori history, being taught in schools. Kia mōhio mai ai a tauiwi, he aha tēnei mea te mana whenua. Ko wai te tangata whenua? Ērā āhuatanga e pā ana ki a tātau.

[So that non-Māori will understand what this thing, authority over the land, is about. Who are the indigenous people? Those kinds of things about us.]

New Zealanders need to know about the war crimes committed by the Crown against the Tūhoe people. Banned by the United Nations Geneva Convention, scorched earth is a military strategy where the assets, food sources, transportation, communications, and resources of the civilian population are destroyed. Scorched earth military tactics were used by the Crown as it waged war in Te Urewera from the 1860s onwards. Crown soldiers executed unarmed Tūhoe prisoners. Crown soldiers murdered unarmed Tūhoe civilians. Crown soldiers forced Tūhoe families out of Te Urewera and imprisoned them at Te Pūtere. Entire communities were starved. The loss of life was extensive. Those who survived returned home and found their homes burnt to the ground. These crimes took place over years—indiscriminate raupatu or land confiscation, killings, and scorched earth warfare. So when the critics complain about settlements like the one we are introducing to this House today, I urge them to read the history before they dismiss them.

I too reacted strongly when the police raids happened in Tūhoe recently, like other members in this House today. I referred to it as putting race relations back 100 years, and I still stand by that. We are past that stuff. We must be past that stuff if we are going to move on as a nation. Forty years ago the late Tūhoe rangatira John Te Rangiāniwaniwa Rangihau described marae as “A place of refuge, a place to live our lives on our terms, according to our values; a place where we live, learn, and cherish a heritage, which is truly and always will be our own.” Today is a day for all of us to pay tribute to a tribe whose people have always sought to live their lives on their terms, and to bring their children up according to their values. Tēnā koutou, Tūhoe. They have always sought to keep their ancestral lands as a place in which to live, to learn, and to cherish a heritage that is truly and always will be owned by the sons and daughters of Tūhoe-Pōtiki—Tūhoe, puna of knowledge, stronghold of culture, and a place of refuge for Māori language and culture. The Māori nation is indebted to the Tūhoe people. The New Zealand nation is indebted to the Tūhoe people. As a tukemata of Ngāti Kahungunu, I am humbled, proud, and honoured to stand here on what is a milestone day for all New Zealanders.

A major part of today’s milestone is the concept of matemate ā one. That lies at the heart of Tūhoe-tanga, a touchstone for kinship, human relations, and eternal bonds, which are those things that unite a whānuau, a hapū, a tribe. Today these are the kinds of bonds that we are hoping to rebuild. The Tūhoe settlement has always been a Te Urewera settlement. One of the key components of this settlement is the recognition of Te Urewera in her own right and with her own identity. This settlement will release Te Urewera from the Crown’s control and influence. Through this action, the Crown acknowledges Ngāi Tūhoe’s unique and special relationship with her and the wāhi tapu and taonga that lie within her boundaries.

In conclusion, the kind of loss faced by the families of Tūhoe-Pōtiki is the kind of loss that can never be minimised in a dollar value. This kind of loss is forever felt by whānau across generations, throughout an entire tribe. And yet the people of Ngāi Tūhoe are here today because they wish to settle their historical Treaty of Waitangi grievances with the Crown. So I acknowledge the sacrifice, pain, and injustices caused by the Crown, suffered by the whānau of Te Urewera.

So many are no longer with us, but their sacrifice, their steadfast determination, and their mana will soon be recorded in the laws of this nation mai rā anō. I would like to acknowledge Minister Finlayson. One of the first settlements he began researching was this one. He went backwards and forwards, as did Tāmati, and he would come springing—actually springing—into my office, saying: “I’ve got it. I’ve got it. I’m going to get the bloody forest back.” Ēnā momo kōrero. [Those kinds of stories.]

Then the next day there were the fish hooks. Then on another day he said: “I’ve got it.” And so on. Congratulations, Minister. You really pulled one off here. It is really good for us all. I also pay tribute to and thank the sons and daughters of Hinepūkohurangi for their leadership. Without their mana, without their incredible generosity, we would not be here today. Tūhoe moumou kai, Tūhoe moumou taonga, Tūhoe moumou tangata ki te pō, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

[Tūhoe, wasteful of food, wasteful of treasures, and wasters of men to death, so salutations and greetings to you collectively and to us.]

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora. Te mea tuatahi, ki aku rangatira Tūhoe, tēnā koutou. Ā, tēnā koutou i haere mai i tēnei rā, nō reira, e ōku tuākana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you. In the first instance, greetings to you, my Tūhoe elders. Salutations indeed to you who have arrived here collectively today, so to my elder brothers, sisters, and cousins, acknowledgments, greetings, and congratulations to you all.]

I thought I might do something different and speak from notes. I want to read to the House and into the record the second schedule of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896. It states: “Second schedule. Premier’s Office, Wellington, 25th September, 1895. To the persons who came hither to represent Tūhoe, and who have addressed me with reference to certain matters affecting the tribe. Friends—salutations! In response to your application that I should give you an answer to the matters brought before me, and acquaint you with the decision of the Government thereon, in fulfilment of my promise I now address this communication to you. In the first place, you ask that the rohe-potae of the Tūhoe land—that is to say, the country known as that of the Urewera—be permanently determined; and, in order to do this, that a Commissioner be appointed to define the boundary known as the rohe-potae. I do not see why this cannot be done. I have no objection to that. The boundaries of these lands can be determined by the trig stations that have been erected. You ask also that a Commissioner be appointed to inquire into the title of the persons owning land within the said rohe-potae, and to determine the boundaries of land belonging to hapus and persons who consider that the land is theirs, his decision to be set down in writing; the Commissioner also to make a sketch-plan of the country, to be approved by the Surveyor-General, the boundaries of the land belonging to the hapus being determined by landmarks where possible to do so; if not, then to be surveyed with the concurrence of the owners of the land. In coming to such a decision the Commissioner must pay due consideration to Native manners and customs, and, where it is possible to do so, he must follow the boundaries of the several hapus, each block to be dealt with in a clear and proper manner.

In dealing with the title of a person and his family they must be deemed to be joint tenants. When the Commissioner has concluded his investigation into the title of the several blocks, then the Maoris who are in a block of land belonging to a hapu may elect a Local Committee, the members of which must not exceed seven in number. This Committee to be an administrative one, to act for the owners of the land for the period for which they were elected. The number of these Local Committees should be determined by the number of the hapus and the owners of the blocks of land.

You ask further that a General Committee be appointed to deal with the tribal lands generally, and that the decisions and proceedings of the said Committee be binding on the Local Committees and hapus; its proceedings to be conducted in accordance with Maori manners and customs. I think that such a Committee should be appointed, and, in order to give effect to this, I agree that each Local Committee or hapu should elect one of their number to be a member of the General Committee, all the decisions of the General Committee to be communicated to the Local Committees for their guidance.

The regulations for the appointment of a Commissioner, and for the election of members of Local Committees and of the General Committee, will be communicated later on, after an Act has been passed giving effect to what is here set forth, which will be explained by the Hon Mr Carroll and Wi Pere, member for the Eastern Maori Electoral District, to Tūhoe.

You also remind me of the promise that I made when I visited you a short time back with reference to the establishment of schools at some of your principal kaingas. As I feel that the education of your children will give you pleasure, and that the children will benefit thereby in the time to come, the erection of school-buildings will be proceeded with forthwith. I regret very much that this has not been proceeded with sooner, but I will give instructions to have it done forthwith.

You refer to the road works in your district, and ask that certain sections be given for the Maoris to do, and that when the roads are finished that certain portions be given to the Maoris to maintain. These requests are reasonable, and will be given effect to.

As you feel that it would be desirable to provide an additional attraction to European tourists, and at the same time provide you with additional sources of food, you have asked that arrangements may be made for the introduction of English birds, and by stocking the rivers with English fish. By such means you Maoris will be benefited, and the rest of the colony as well. I will place myself in communication with the Curator of the fish-ponds at Masterton, and ascertain whether there are any English trout that can be supplied to you this year;”—and so on and so forth.

As a second-generation urban dweller I always wondered what Tame Iti was on about when he used to refer to the nation of Tūhoe. I always wondered, well, hang on, what about Ngāpuhi? What about everybody else? Why do I only ever hear about the nation of Tūhoe? In the 1860s on rolled through Tūhoe lands one of the biggest confiscations this country has ever seen. In the 1890s there was a bill that set out the rangatiratanga, that set out mana Māori Motuhake, in a form that we have never seen, in a bill. The Prime Minister, the Premier, in that second schedule to the bill, set out what he wanted for Tūhoe and allowed them to have, basically, from what I read, self-governance. Basically, it is what I read as being a nation. It set out a Commissioner of Lands. It set out tribal land committees, even before we knew about Māori committees and all the sorts of things we have today. It established Tūhoe schools. It even talked about roadworks. We have been doing the “whoa-go” sign for years! Finally, it talks about the fish in the lake from Masterton.

That is what Tame was on about when I used to hear him talk about what the Tūhoe nation was. So I am really overwhelmed at the fact that we have got to this position. As chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, I cannot wait until we get up to have our first hearing on top of Taiārahia, and wherever else they want to take us to school us up on what it is in the bill that makes them want to sign—makes them want to get it over and done with.

I am not of the school that thinks we should be looking at the bill and wondering whether it is OK; I am of the school that we should ask Tūhoe whether it is OK. If it is OK, then let us get on with it. My wish is that my colleagues on the select committee feel the same way, and that, as soon as is practically possible, we can get the bill back into the House and then on to its Committee stage and third reading, and there would be a very good new year’s gift to Tūhoe.

But I also have to mention that after the tanks rolled in, even before we had tanks, in the 1860s, the horrible thought that in 1916—you know, we talk about the Māori land wars and issues of the 1840s, the 1850s, the 1860s, the 1870s, the 1880s, and the 1890s and we think that it all ended in that century, but it did not. We thought that it ended in 1916, but it did not. Only a couple of years ago—a couple of years ago—why would you send people dressed in black balaclavas and tooled up to the nines into a land, into a nation, into a country? I say “country” because that is actually what Seddon referred to with regard to the Tūhoe people. [Interruption] I have not heard the bell.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know. I was so deeply listening, Mr Henare, that I forgot to press it. So I will give—

Hon TAU HENARE: So when you push the bell, I will have 2 minutes left. [Bell rung] Thank you very much. It is a country. I have never heard anybody say this, but I have heard outside the House reference made to this by my colleague and very dear and very good friend the Hon Annette King, who has said sorry. I also want to apologise to my tuakana for those dastardly raids, which are a blight on this nation’s history. They are a blight on this nation’s history.

Why would you do that? Why would you go out of your way to treat people like that after you have treated them poorly right throughout history? It is a continuation of what I see as just absolutely poor behaviour by a Government. And it does not matter whether it is a Labour Government or a National Government. We are all part and parcel of this Parliament, so we bear the shame of that day.

I will close by saying this. Apart from Ngāpuhi, Tūhoe people are my favourite people. Kia ora.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare e tū mai nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Tūhoe mana, Tūhoe reo, Tūhoe tangata, karanga mai, karanga mai, karanga mai. Karanga mai ngā tini aituā kua wehe atu ki te pō, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ōku rau rangatira mā, e kui mā, e koro mā kua tae mai nei, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki tēnei Whare i runga i te kaupapa tino whakahirahira. Nō reira e te iwi Ngāi Tūhoe, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you, the House standing here and salutations to you all. Tūhoe authority, Tūhoe voice, Tūhoe person, call, shout, and summon. Beckon the innumerable deaths that have departed to the void. Go, journey on, and farewell. To my many chiefs, my elderly women and menfolk who have arrived here, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome to this House in regards to this matter of great significance. And so to you the people of the Tūhoe tribe, acknowledgments, salutations, and congratulations to you all.]

I join with my colleagues on this side of the House to support the first reading of the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. Before I go through the bill itself in detail, could I make some acknowledgments to the people of Tūhoe to thank them for their patience, thank them for their tolerance, and thank them for their sacrifice in what today is the beginning of the end of settling your historical grievances. As a former mandated negotiator for Rongowhataata, I can only share the celebration and also the mamae of those kaumātua who are no longer with us who began this process. So to you all I mihi. Tēnā tātou katoa.

The purpose of this bill, the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill, is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed on 4 June 2013, in which the Crown and Tūhoe agreed to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims for Tūhoe. The deed of settlement sets out in full the redress provided to Tūhoe in settlement of all of their historical claims. In settling these claims, the Crown acknowledges past wrongs and its intentions to put in place the foundations for a constructive future relationship with Tūhoe.

It is intended that this bill be divided at the Committee of the whole House into two parts. Parts 1 to 4 will be known as the Tūhoe Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge the Minister Chris Finlayson for bringing this bill to the House, and his special acknowledgment of the social agreement of building capacity for Tūhoe people and also providing better Government services. Parts 5 to 7 will be known as the Te Urewera Bill. Tūhoe is New Zealand’s sixth-largest iwi, with a population of over 32,000 at the 2006 census. The traditional lands of Tūhoe centred on Te Urewera, but, over time, Tūhoe influence extended to Waikaremoana, and Pukeuri in the south, and from Kaingaroa in the west to Ngātapa in the east. Can I just acknowledge my tīpuna from Rongowhakaata who were killed and thrown off the cliff at Ngātapa, and our close relationships with the Tūhoe people. In the north, Tūhoe and other iwi used the resources of Ōhiwa Harbour.

The claims of Tūhoe against the Crown are wide ranging. They relate to confiscation—raupatu—during the 1860s; Crown military operations in Te Urewera during the 1860s and 1870s that resulted in widespread destruction and loss of life; the impact of the native land laws from the 1870s; the failure to properly implement the Te Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896; Crown purchasing, some of which was illegal; and further loss of land through Crown-instigated consolidation schemes.

As previous speakers have said, in 1954 the Crown established Te Urewera National Park, which included most of the Tūhoe traditional lands. The Crown did not consult Tūhoe about this, and did not recognise Tūhoe as having any special interest in Te Urewera National Park or its management.

Labour supports a reconciliation process for historical breaches by the Crown to Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal and the Treaty settlement process are an important part of that process. We acknowledge the commitment and leadership required for iwi to reach an agreement with the Crown, and we understand that it must be a durable settlement. Each settlement is unique in its redress components, which attempt to restore what has been taken and what can be preserved and developed for future generations. Treaty settlements are an important part of our modern identity and we hope that iwi, the Crown, and our communities will better understand the conflict of our past, the commitment to resolve outstanding grievances, and the hope of a shared future.

I will turn to some of the detail now. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee and we also commit to our chair, Mr Tau Henare, that we will do all in our possible grasp to ensure that this bill gets through in a speedy fashion and in a timely way. In terms of this settlement package, I would like to draw the House’s attention to Part 1, which contains a summary of the historic account from the deed of settlement, the acknowledgments and apology given by the Crown to Tūhoe, and the acceptance by Tūhoe of that apology. That is important to acknowledge. In writing our own historical account, in our Rongowhakaata settlement claims, it was, let me say, an arduous task getting our historical account right. So I want to acknowledge the work that has been put in from Tūhoe and the Crown to ensure that we have got an acknowledgment and an apology that are acceptable to both parties.

Part 2 of the bill sets out the cultural redress provided to Tūhoe, including the vesting of five cultural redress properties, the provision of two protocols, and the appointment of the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua as a fisheries advisory committee, as well as changes to a small number of geographical names that also includes Tūhoe as a member of the Rangitāiki River Forum.

Part 3 of the bill includes some of the commercial redress that will enable Tūhoe to establish an economic base, including the opportunity to purchase five Crown-owned properties within the deferred selection period, subject to their lease back to the Crown, and an exclusive right of first refusal over Crown-owned properties within a specified area for 172 years from settlement date.

Part 4 of the bill will assist Tūhoe to consolidate and improve the efficiency of their governance entities as well as instituting a tikanga-based process for selecting trustees to their mandated iwi organisation. It provides for dissolution of the Tūhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board and the vesting of its assets; a merging of the Tūhoe charitable entities, the Tūhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board Charitable Trust and the Tūhoe Fisheries Charitable Trust, into the Tūhoe Charitable Trust; recognition of the Tūhoe Charitable Trust as the mandated iwi organisation of Tūhoe; and an exemption from the requirement in the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 that individual iwi members must have a vote in the election of trustees.

In reading this bill to the House, I am attracted to the innovation that comes back at me. I want to acknowledge both Minister Finlayson and the people of Tūhoe, particularly around Te Urewera, for giving that important taonga its own wairua and essence, in terms of its own legislation, but also for the mana motuhake part of this bill. I say in my closing summary that I too join with this House to acknowledge the work that has gone ahead. I look forward to this bill coming through the Māori Affairs Committee, and, again, I stand to support and celebrate this historic day for Ngāi Tūhoe. Nō reira, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i tēnei ata, otirā, ki tō tātau kaiwhakarite. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe e whakatau nei i te āhuatanga o tō tātau noho tahi i tēnei ata. E kī ana te kōrero, Ngāi Tūhoe, kiri kawa ki te kupu, kiri kawa ki te riri, kiri kawa ki te rākau; tēnā koutou, haere mai.

Ka noho a Rangiwhakaekeau a ia Uenukurauri ka puta ko taku whakaihu waka, a Te Hāpito-o-te-Riri. E kīia ana tōna ingoa ko Rangiteaorere nāna hoki te kōrero: “He kotahi nā Tūhoe ka kata te pō.” E kīia ana anō hoki te kōrero: “Ngā mate o Te Arawa mā Te Arawa e tangi, ngā mate o Mātaatua mā Mātaatua e tangi.” Nō reira, e hoa mā, kawea mai ngā pare kawakawa kai a koutou mā mātau e mihi, mā mātou e tangi. Kua puta kē te kōrero “Tūhoe moumou kai, moumou taonga, moumou tangata ki te pō.” Otirā, ngā uri o ngā ika a whiro o Ngāi Tūhoe, haere mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ko te ngākau kei te kī me kōrero Māori mō te roanga ake o ēnei 10 meneti ēngari, arā anō ētahi kōrero, ē, te tikanga o te āhua nei ka whakaputa i Te Reo Pākehā kia tuhia e ngā tāngata nei, mō āke nei, mō ake nei. Nō reira, kaua e riri mai. Kia hoki mai i te wā tuatoru, ā, ko Te Reo Māori te kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate you greatly this morning and in particular the person who conducted our prayer. Thank you immensely for that in respect of our sitting together this morning. According to a saying, Ngāi Tūhoe is short tempered with words, short tempered in battle, short tempered with weaponry; salutations to you and welcome.

Rangiwhakaekeau had a liaison with Uenukurauri and begat my famous ancestor, Te Hāpito-o-te-Riri. It has been stated that his name was Rangiteaorere. He gave rise to the saying: “A single one of Tūhoe cause laughter in the underworld.” Another saying also states: “Te Arawa’s deaths will be mourned by Te Arawa, and Mātaatua’s deaths will be mourned by Mātaatua.” So bring forth your head greenery adornment of mourning for us to acknowledge and mourn over. The saying “Tūhoe wasteful of food, wasteful of treasures, and wasters of men.” has already been mentioned. And so welcome to the veterans of Tūhoe, greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to you all.

The heart is saying to me to speak on in Māori for the remainder of these 10 minutes, but there other statements to be made that must be done in English so that these people here can capture them in the record forever. So do not be angry. When we come back for the third reading, it will be totally in Māori.]

I thought I would just say, as the MP for Waiariki, that I kind of like to think I have been pretty close to the action over these many years. I do not say that I know it all about this particular bill, the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill, but I have been pretty closely involved in terms of many things that have gone on. I thought I would take the opportunity over the 10 minutes I have got left just to put some comments out there.

I want to acknowledge Minister Finlayson for his efforts. Like Minister Sharples has said, I too have been at the end of the lift when he has come down saying: “I’ve got it! I’ve got it! I’ve got it!”. After five times it sort of wears off, Minister, but you did it today. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe—congratulations. Congratulations also to Mr Woods and to the other negotiators Tāmati and Kirsti. Tēnā koutou katoa. There will be more acknowledgments of you, I am sure, in the future.

Talking about settlements, I think, for me, it is pretty hard to get a feeling for what those people who come into this House, like the ones who are here today, really feel unless you live there and you are part of the community. When you go to Taranaki, you cannot talk about understanding confiscation until you sit there, you sit in front of the people, you sit in those communities, you hear those stories, you go to Parihaka, and you feel what it is like and what they feel like when they come through the doors to listen to these settlement speeches. I cannot say that I have lived in Tūhoe—close enough, Ngongotahā—but, be that as it may, I would like to feel that I have got enough close contacts like Mr Tau Henare talked about: the fortunate experiences of sitting next to people like Tame over the many years and visiting Tūhoe.

The one thing I do remember is back to the time when the Waitangi Tribunal went into the Tūhoe valley. What a day! I will never forget it. I will never forget it because it was the first time I had seen cars tipped upside down on the side of the road—not just one but about a dozen. I will not forget the fires. I will not forget the smoke. I will not forget the hot day. I will not forget not one, not two, but at least three pōhiri to the tribunal. I will not forget the 30 people who were on horseback who came in and ushered the tribunal into the Tūhoe nation. I will not forget the semi-naked Tūhoe people who made the point about scorched earth policy, which affected those people on that day. I will not forget, even though I missed it, a certain person armed with a certain shotgun aimed at a certain flag. I will not forget that, because it is well documented. That, for me, brought it home because I was with my young child at the time. It was a hot day and I could not stay for the whole day, but it will never ever—never ever—be forgotten by me as a part of my experience with this bill.

But there were others. I think about the first efforts that were made to pull together the Tūhoe people. Tāmati, of course, has been acknowledged. I think about Matiu Te Pou and I think about Robert Pouwhare. I think about Te Toka. I think about the many others who took this claim around to try to get some agreement by Tūhoe. The people came and, in fact, had the signing here in Parliament, and I believe were of one mind, one spirit, and one heart. There was a real desire to have settlement brought to conclusion—the history that has already been discussed in this House. They went through a process of formalising entities, and, of course, you get to the point where some would fall away. There were some from Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu, a little bit of Maungapōhatu, and a little bit of Waikaremoana. I do not know all the details, but what I do know is that some fall away, as they do in all settlements.

But a few things happened for me. One was that I was asked to present concerns raised by some people to the Minister of Māori Affairs, and I can put my hand on my heart and say I did that. I was asked to get meetings with the Ministers to allow them to put an alternative case to what was being generated. I can put my hand on my heart and say I did that. I was asked to try to see whether we could pull the parties together. Hand on heart, I think I tried to do that. But the trouble was that it did not quite pan out. I was asked to attend meetings at Waiōhau, where the Te Umutaoroa Collective pulled together numbers of people, asking that I present a case to the Ministers. I did that.

I remember going to Tūhoe and to Ruātoki to visit taraipara, a hui of the collectives of all of the marae of Ruātoki, where I was told, in no uncertain terms, firstly that the door is always open to anyone to come through the claims process. I was told that Urewera is at the heart of their settlement claim and to get it back. We tried to facilitate hui, but, unfortunately, it did not come to pass, as I say. So the things that stick for me about those hui were that the door was always open, a proclamation on the part of pakeke at Ruātoki, and that there was a willingness to meet with the other parties, the disaffected parties. That was great. But the Tūhoe settlement could not be held up for the few, especially as everyone had stood together here in this Parliament to get the signing. Finally, I was told that no discussions should be had with any other disaffected groups if Tūhoe substantively was in front of the court. And they were at that time. I think about that because that is the part of the long history that gets us here today.

I recall the court cases. Tūhoe have not only had to suffer injustices way back, and in terms of the Crown, but internally, in a sense, because they have been hauled to court. I need to say that there is a particular president of a political party called the Mana party who was the lawyer at the time, who had, I suppose, the audacity to say that the Tūhoe settlement should go ahead on the election trail, and yet she was the lawyer at the time who took the action against Tūhoe. That, for me, was way out of order. So there have been court cases and there have been challenges.

I have been to the taraipara hui in Ruatāhuna and Ruātoki, and the view has always been that Urewera is at the heart of this settlement. In fact, I recall one hui in Ruātoki where Tāmati and other pakeke advised me again that that is at the very heart of how they wanted to move forward.

I was asked to give some support and give some assistance. I know it is not right that MPs treat for votes—in other words, throw incentives for people to vote for you, and I have to say I have not done that. But I am not sure, either, whether it is appropriate or whether there are any rules around people saying that if you do certain things then they will vote for you. I do not know whether it is the opposite side. Well, at the recent signing, I reminded Tūhoe of a gesture made to me by, I will say, the taraipara at the time, but it was probably Tāmati, I think. He said that if we could achieve this deal today, a magnanimous gesture would be given to me in that a swamp would be named after me. It is not every day that you get a swamp named after you, but I make that statement simply to remind us, I suppose, of the depth of feeling. Even if it is a shallow swamp, I will take it.

We should remember that all of the debate has been against these difficult circumstances. There have been others. Firstly, the deal has been on the table against the backdrop of what other members have talked about, so Tūhoe needs to be commended for the avenues it has taken. The raids have been talked about. I do not want to go any further than that, apart from saying that they would have tested the relationship between the Crown and the negotiators. I leave it at that. It was a sorry saga, and we may come back to that later. Also, there were the statements from the Prime Minister from time to time, when he said that Urewera is not going to be part of the settlement. Well, you got proved wrong. Well done, Minister. I think that the master stroke was a deal, or at least a relationship agreement, signed on 28 June 2011, which was an attempt to bring the parties together. I say to the Minister and to those associated—master-stroke theatre.

Just to wrap up, just to say this—2 nights ago, 3 nights ago, maybe, on Native Affairs there was a professor, Professor Innes Asher, who talked about the psychological harm done to the children of this generation with those raids. I hope that the positives of this settlement will also be in the hearts and minds of young Tūhoe in the future. Talking about the history—not long ago I read the book called The Prophet and the Policeman by a person by the name of Mark Derby, talking about the relationship between Rua Kenana and John Cullen, the first policeman ever to arrive in New Zealand. He went up to Maungapōhatu, and for all intents and purposes, you would understand why people feel pretty sour about the historical context, because that event was duplicated some 5 years ago.

There is a lot at stake in this bill, and you can take it that the Māori Party is fully behind its settlement. We look forward to the future debates, but I commend Tāmati. Ki a koutou ngā mātātahi o tēnei kaupapa, ki te Minita, i māia koutou. Kua eke ki te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[To you the young battlers of this matter, to the Minister, you were courageous. It has made in Parliament House, so greetings, congratulations, and thank you all.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ā, tihei wā mauri ora ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Ngāi Tūhoe, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Pāremata, ki Te Ana o ngā raiona e takatū nei. Nau mai, piki mai i ngā wawata ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata o rātou mā, tēnā koutou. E aku rangatira huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Behold the sneeze of life to the glimmer of dawn, to the bright light of day. Greetings to you, the people of Tūhoe. Welcome to Parliament House, to the lions’ den standing here in readiness, welcome. Welcome, come aboard with aspirations of fulfilling the hopes of those no longer here, well done. Acknowledgments to you my leading figures throughout the House, salutations and greetings to us all.]

I stand wholeheartedly in support of this bill, the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill. I am honoured to be able to make a contribution in these debates. As the member for Te Tai Tonga, Te Wai Pounamu, I have not had the privilege yet of going into Tūhoe country, but I am very much looking forward to that when I go travelling through with our Māori Affairs Committee.

We have heard many contributions on this historic occasion. I would like to acknowledge my colleague, my matua, the Hon Shane Jones because he talked about the history of Tūhoe and it has been well documented by Pākehā and Māori over the past hundred years or so. But the Tūhoe struggle is still unknown to all New Zealanders. That is a sad occurrence and that is why it is really important that we can try to do our best to project and to inform all of Aotearoa New Zealand on the importance of the history of this people and the atrocities they have gone through.

Just referring to my notes, my colleagues from around the House have referred to the terrible scorched earth policies, the raids, and various other histories, but I would like to take this opportunity in my contribution to talk about the history—one story of many hundreds of stories that make up the history of the Ngāi Tūhoe people. This story I think sums up for me a whole lot of the stories of Crown actions that we have heard. But this story concerns the dodgy land deals by Pākehā acting in their private capacity, and of subsequent Governments that failed to take action to prevent Tūhoe from being alienated from their lands. I would like to acknowledge Dame Judith Binney, Emeritus Professor of History at Auckland University, who is a close friend of the Tūhoe people and whose kōrero in Stories without End I acknowledge today because this story has a bit of an association with Te Wai Pounamu, and that is why it struck out to me.

The actual central character of this story is one Hare Rauparaha, Native Land Court interpreter who lived among the Arawa, Tūhoe, and Ngāti Awa peoples of the central North Island Bay of Plenty region at the time that Te Kooti was moved across the island. He was a mate of Te Kooti’s and son of the famous warrior Te Rauparaha of Ngati Toa Rangatira. He ingratiated himself among the whānau of Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu by marrying a daughter of the chief. Hare Rauparaha ultimately defrauded the community he lived in of 7,000 acres of land by manipulation, deceit, and fraud.

These traits are hardly becoming of the son of the great fighting chief Te Rauparaha, composer of our national haka, and they are not. They are the actions of a European male, born to immigrant British parents in Nelson in 1842, by the name of Harry Roberts Burt. Harry Burt, who would have grown up in the New Zealand Company settlement of Nelson, would have been raised on the stories of Te Rauparaha, the conquering of Ngāti Toa, the allies of Ngāti Toa, and my whanaunga at Ngāti Rārura, Te Ātiawa, who raided and conquered Te Tau Ihu in the 1820s. They had the mana in that area. Young Harry grew up with the pā kids, and he became part of those lucky first-generation Pākehā kids who spoke Te Reo Māori. He understood Māori ways in a manner that his parents did not understand, and armed with this knowledge, Harry Burt became an obvious choice as a Native Land Court interpreter. He had a nice English wife and children, but when he hit the road for mahi, he turned into Hare Rauparaha, Native Land Court interpreter and illegitimate son of Te Rauparaha—quite a transformation. He was not quite a superhero; he turned into a supervillain.

The story of the loss of mana and land of Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu, situated in the Rangitaiki River valley at Te Houhi, is as complex as it is egregious. As complex as the story of Te Houhi is, it is another example of the lengths that Europeans went to in order to accrue land illegally. I will try as best as I can to convey this to the House, but the basic chronology of the loss of Te Houhi goes like this. Te Houhi sat within the land block known as Waiōhau, and through deception and fraud, Hare found a couple of blokes. There was a partition that came up, and he managed to have the 14,000-acre block partitioned into two equal potions. Waiōhau 1B was put into the name of these two blokes. As soon as they got the title, they walked out of the court, and the judge and Hare witnessed the sale of that 7,000 acres to Hare’s wife. Every time I hear of these stories, I am so shocked and almost disgusted at the fraud that went on.

The land was placed into Burt’s wife’s name. There was an inquiry. The people rightly complained. They had the grievance investigated, but due to the incompetence of that inquiry, the title stayed in the name of Burt’s wife. A caveat was placed upon the land, and the Crown knew that the people of Te Houhi had been swindled, but the caveat was lifted and Burt’s wife became protected. She was guaranteed title because she had acquired clear title, regardless of whether it had been obtained by fraud or not. The miseries of the people of Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu continued when they were not permitted to remove their meeting house, as well as a native school that the people of their community had built on that land. The Government, in its shame, had to purchase the whare tupuna, and the hapū had to break the house down in parts and, with a horse and cart, remove the whare and take it north to much poorer lands in the original Waiōhau block.

The pain of that transaction started in 1878 and ended in 1906. For nearly 30 years, Tūhoe and Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu tried to use the law to retain their lands, but to no avail. The admittance of the Crown that Tūhoe had been part of a terrible fraud and deception was of little comfort to them. The lengths to which Harry Roberts Burt went to defraud the families of Te Houhi will go down as one of the most reprehensible acts visited upon Tūhoe. There is much I have not shared with this House, out of respect for Tūhoe and Dame Judith Binney. Suffice to say, what I have shared will in some way help to explain why Tūhoe have had very little to do with successive Governments. If I could leave these words of the judge who presided over that case regarding Te Houhi, he said: “I regret the hardship to the defendants. That they have suffered a grievous wrong is, in my opinion, plain. It is doubly hard that this wrong should have resulted from a miscarriage, which certainly ought to have been avoided, in the very court which was specially charged with the duty of protecting them in such matters. The plaintiff is, of course, blameless in the matter.”

Once again, this was just one story of these illustrious people of Tūhoe. I would like to acknowledge them once again—the hapū of Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu and their story of Te Houhi and their land at Waiōhau. Once again, I acknowledge the work of Dame Judith Binney and her book Stories without End. There are stories without end but this is a new story. This is a new story for Ngāi Tūhoe, and I am pleased to be here talking in support of this bill. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the select committee, under our chair, Tau Henare. We will speedily bring this bill through the House. I commend this bill. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ka tū ake ahau ki te mihi i te iwi o Ngāi Tūhoe, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to acknowledge the people of Ngāi Tūhoe, greetings to you all, the tribe of Tūhoe.]

This has been a long journey for Ngāi Tūhoe, and although we need to reflect on the significance of today, we must also focus on passing this bill, the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill, and setting in motion the next phase of the Tūhoe and Crown relationship. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed at Parliament on 4 June 2013 by Te Kotahi ā Tūhoe Trust iwi negotiators and the Crown. It was a momentous occasion, with almost a thousand Ngāi Tūhoe members in attendance. The bill provides redress for Ngāi Tūhoe’s historic Treaty claims.

Ngāi Tūhoe’s grievances are significant and long standing. The impacts of Crown actions were severe—almost the worst in our history. They include raupatu during the 1860s and Crown military operations that resulted in widespread destruction and loss of life. This bill provides a historic account of, and apology for, these terrible breaches of the Treaty. It provides commercial redress totalling $170 million along with the earlier on-account forestry settlement as part of the Central North Island Iwi Collective. It also provides for mana motuhake redress.

Mana motuhake has unique meanings for different iwi. For Ngāi Tūhoe, mana motuhake is connected to Te Urewera, the whenua within which they dwell—these lands that sustained Tūhoe in times of adversity and in times of peace. Simply put, mana motuhake is entwined with Tūhoetanga. Mana motuhake is in the songs sung, the haka performed, and on the haki that has become known as Tūhoe’s symbol.

Mana motuhake, for Tūhoe, is simply but implicitly Tūhoe whenua, Tūhoe tangata, Tūhoe self-determination, the distinctiveness of autonomy, self-sufficiency, self-respect, self-discipline, and independence of judgment and decision making. Mana motuhake o Tūhoe is responsibility for wise and beneficial leadership protecting the environment, and therefore the resources of the community, its life force, and its integrity. By cleaving to that ethos, Tūhoe will pursue and enhance the autonomy of its people and its homeland, deciding how they will develop, manage, and maintain health, education, infrastructure, employment, capability, and leadership.

This bill incorporates a social service management plan for the Tūhoe rohe governing relationships with, and better management and delivery of services by, key Crown agencies and Tūhoe over the long term. At the heart of the settlement in the bill are the new arrangements for Te Urewera. Ngāi Tūhoe’s relationship with Te Urewera is unique. The significance of Te Urewera to Ngāi Tūhoe is that the people are embedded in the landscape. They breathe as one. With the rolling contours so too does the blood within each Tūhoe descendant flow. Te Urewera and Ngāi Tūhoe are not an extension of each other; they are each other and one another.

Te Urewera National Park was established in 1954, but its origins date back to the New Zealand Wars and the rongopai agreed between Tūhoe and the Crown in 1871. After invasion and unjust confiscation in 1866 and 3 years of the Crown’s brutal scorched earth tactics from 1869 to 1871, which devastated the district and left one in eight Tūhoe dead—most from starvation and illness—peace was welcomed. In exchange for Tūhoe continuing to preserve the peace, the Crown pledged to leave what was left of Te Urewera as an inviolate protectorate within which Tūhoe, through Te Whitu Tekau, would manage their own affairs.

For a time after 1871 the Government respected Tūhoe’s wishes to preserve their homeland, but the edges of Te Urewera were progressively nibbled away through shady, shonky Government land deals with neighbouring iwi who held shared interests in Te Urewera’s border lands. By the 1890s Te Urewera was an encircled land and Tūhoe strived to preserve what remained. When the Government began to impose costly surveys of their land in 1892, Tūhoe protested. The military, including an Auckland artillery detachment, were promptly sent in to enforce the survey, and 15 Tūhoe were arrested and imprisoned. We heard the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations talking about Premier Richard Seddon’s visit to Te Urewera in 1894.

In 1896 Parliament enacted the Urewera District Native Reserve Act. This purported to provide for a measure of local self-government over a 656,000 acre Urewera reserve and for decisions about the land, the use of the land, to be made collectively according to Māori custom. However, the Crown never implemented the self-government provisions of the Act and undermined its protective provisions. In April 1916 there was the assault by 70 armed police on Maungapōhatu to arrest the prophet Rua Kenana—an illegal act in which two Tūhoe men were shot dead.

Roading and survey costs imposed on Tūhoe under the 1921 Urewera consolidation scheme resulted in the significant loss of land. Harsh tactics were used to acquire land at Waikaremoana. The Act was repealed in 1922. In 1954 the Crown established Te Urewera National Park, which included most of Tūhoe’s traditional lands. The Crown did not consult Tūhoe about this and did not recognise Tūhoe as having any special interests in the park or its management.

This legislation provides new arrangements that confirm Tūhoe to Te Urewera and provide for that connection to be strengthened through Tūhoe’s role in its governance and management. Te Urewera will no longer fall under the National Parks Act. It has its own mana, its own mauri. The legislation provides that Te Urewera will have its own legal identity and that the land will be vested in that identity.

Tūhoe will have an increasing role in management over time, with the Department of Conservation working alongside Tūhoe. Tūhoe and the Department of Conservation will enhance Te Urewera as a place of outstanding natural, recreational, and cultural value. It will be a place that all New Zealanders will enjoy. This is not the end of the Ngāi Tūhoe - Crown relationship but a new beginning of a post-settlement relationship. This bill gives mana to mana motuhake o Ngāi Tūhoe to go forward confidently, to set its economic growth agenda, to invest domestically and globally, to investigate and enter joint ventures, and to develop, manage, and sustain Ngāi Tūhoe business operations. Nō reira, ka whakatau au i tēnei pire ki te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

[And so I support this bill to the House. Greetings to you all. Thank you.]

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand, honourable members, that permission has been granted for a waiata, so I would invite those in the gallery who are going to do the waiata to please lead. We are in your hands—we are in your hands.

Waiata

Haka

Bills

Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill

First Readings

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Tēnā koe. I move, That the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider these bills. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, koutou kua hara mai nei ki te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā, te wā i pānuihia tuatahingia ngā kōrero mō te pire i mua i te Whare i tēnei wā. Nā reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei ngā rangatira i kite koutou i a Tariana i konei ēngari, kua karangahia kēngia te Minita ki tētahi atu hui i tēnei hāora tonu. Nā reira, kua pā nei ki ahau te hōnore kia pānuihia āna kōrero ki a koutou i te ata nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[So greetings and salutations to you who have come to this Parliament House today at the first reading of what this bill that is before the House at this moment is about. So well done and congratulations to you all. You saw Tariana here, leaders, but she was called away instead to another meeting that is in progress right now. It is my privilege indeed to present her comments to you this morning. So greetings, salutations, and congratulations to you all.]

Unfortunately, Minister Turia has had to leave for the moment, so I have the honour of reading her paper to you today on this claim. In doing so I acknowledge the most distinguished manuhiri who have come to this House today, in keeping with their sacred relationship that both Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura uphold for the Waikato River. The Waikato River gives rise to responsibilities to exercise their manawhakahaere in accordance with tikanga to protect the mana and mauri of te awa. This is a deeply felt obligation; a responsibility outlined clearly in the text of this legislation. We learn, for example, in clause 8(5) “For many generations the Waikato River has been perceived as a tupuna, a living taonga, and a critical resource for Ngāti Koroki Kahukura.” As a result of this profound respect, the deterioration of the health of the Waikato River while under the authority of the Crown has therefore been a source of significant distress to both Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. Waikato taniwha rau, he piko he taniwha, he piko he taniwha.

[Waikato of a hundred chiefs, at every bend a chief, at every bend a chief.]

Today, then, is about recognising the grievances, acknowledging the longstanding failure of the Crown, and articulating the sense of harm and injury caused to generations who have been wronged. But first we must traverse the history that led us to this point.

The deed of settlement signed on 18 July 2013 with Ngāti Hauā has its genesis in the traumatic armed conflict suffered in the 1860s. For two decades prior, Ngāti Hauā had established a strong economy, located at Pēria. They were governed by the first Māori King, a relationship negotiated and navigated by their rangatira, Wīremu Tamihana. However, in the early 1860s the relationship between the Crown and Kīngitanga deteriorated. During the invasion of 1863 and 1864, many Ngāti Hauā were killed or wounded. In 1865 the Crown confiscated a large area of Waikato land. The raupatu caused destitution within the Ngāti Hauā rohe, leaving them virtually landless. In May of that year Tamihana laid his taiaha at the feet of a British officer and signed te maungarongo, the covenant of peace. Until his death the next year, he sought the return of the lands, a cause that was subsequently pursued by his son Tupu Taingakawa, in his role as tumuaki of Te Kauhanganui. By the 1880s private parties had acquired a large quantity of Ngāti Hauā land. The alienation was exacerbated in the 19th and 20th centuries through public works for roading, railways, schools, and hydroelectric purposes. Slowly, surely, and comprehensively, the landscapes and waterways within the Ngāti Hauā rohe were forced out of their hands. The loss of land undermined their social and traditional structures. It removed the ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities.

Despite a long history of seeking a meaningful relationship with the Crown, Ngāti Hauā have endured great prejudice. Today, with this legislation, we mark a new chapter—a new relationship with the Crown based on respect for the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Hauā and its leaders. Although the raupatu claims were settled under the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 and the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, this bill provides for the full and final settlement of Ngāti Hauā’s historical Treaty claims. Kia ora koutou. There is a substantial cultural redress package, including the vesting of eight sites of cultural and historical significance, the administration and provision for the vesting of the Waharoa aerodrome, the vesting and gifting-back of Te Tāpui Scenic Reserve, provision for the conservation relationship, provision for a taonga tūturu protocol, and, amongst all the other elements, the extension of the co-management instruments for the Waikato River. There is also a commercial redress package, including the purchase of two school sites and rights of refusal over other properties from the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Justice, Land Information New Zealand, the Department of Conservation, and the Waikato District Health Board.

But perhaps of all the acknowledgments made, by far the most profound may come in the way of words. And so today we pay tribute to all those who descend from the eponymous ancestor Hauā: Ngāti Te Oro, Ngāti Werewere, Ngāti Waenganui, Ngāti Te Rangitaupi, and Ngāti Rangi Tāwhaki. We commend to you the apology from the Crown, which recognises that the burden of pursuing justice has been the work of generations of Ngāti Hauā. Tēnā koutou e kaha nei ki te noho tahi i te Minita nei a Finlayson ki te whiriwhiri i te kaupapa, te huarahi e pai ana mō koutou kia tae ki tēnei wā. Nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

[I commend your efforts to work alongside this Minister Finlayson to choose the best theme and way for you to arrive at this point in time. Therefore, a huge acknowledgment to you collectively.]

This morning we also take time to recognise the journey that Ngāti Koroki Kahukura have travelled—in particular, the failure of the Crown to protect their traditional tribal structures and to respect and to provide for their unique relationship with Maungatautari and Waikato rivers. The circumstances around this settlement for Ngāti Koroki Kahukura date back to early 1840, when the people were enjoying the profits of economic prosperity associated with successful trading ventures with Europeans. By the end of those two decades, however, with tensions rising, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura decided to place their lands under the protection of the Māori King to safeguard their lands from alienation. Peace, however, was short-lived. In 1863 war broke out, resulting in the deaths of some of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and the capture of others, including their esteemed rangatira Tīoriori. Despite their preferences for peace, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura were named as rebels, and for that status had much of their land confiscated. Maungatautari was their tipuna, their ancestral mountain, central to their identity, yet the land in and around the maunga became victim to Crown-imposed tenure reform.

The bitter consequences of confiscation and land alienation forced Ngāti Koroki Kahukura into more than 50 Native Land Court hearings before 1901. The adverse impacts of invasion by others in their rohe were many. Swamps and wetlands were drained, the river polluted, and the construction of the hydroelectric power schemes has depleted traditional fisheries and flooded their culturally significant sites, including urupā. By 1950 many were migrating from their traditional rohe, becoming disconnected from the very essence of all they are.

This cognate bill addresses the grave injustices of the Crown, the unfair labelling of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura as rebels, and the longstanding grievances that are long overdue. It acknowledges that their spiritual relationship with their ancestral maunga and awa have been adversely affected by the operation of native land law. The cumulative impacts have led to the economic, social, and environmental degradation of the people of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. The bill, therefore, includes a cultural redress package, including the vesting of 15 sites of cultural and historical significance, statutory acknowledgments over 6 sites of significance, and it states, amongst other measures, that Maungatautari Mountain Scenic Reserve is to be owned by the Maungatautari community.

The bills we consider today within the context of the cognate format give expression to acknowledgment that reveals the Crown is deeply sorry and profoundly apologises to the ancestors and descendants for the hardship endured. Is it sufficient? Is reconciliation able to be experienced in our lifetime? You know, as we read these things to you—your history, your pain, and your endurance—it just hammers home the fact that New Zealand does not know our history, and its people need to know it. They need to know it in schools. They need to know the pain over generations that has been handed down, the stories. Then maybe they will understand what is mana whenua, what is tangata whenua, and then there will be no difficulty naming one island Te Wai Pounamu and the other one Te Ika-a-Māui. So I acknowledge you for coming today, and I again apologise that Tariana Turia got called away and you got me instead. Nō reira, kia ora koutou. Tēnā koutou. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnei e tāpiri atu i āku mihi ki a koutou i uru mai nei ki roto i tēnei Whare. Nō reira, Ngāti Hauā, ko koe tērā te tumuaki, me koe Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa.

[I add my acknowledgments to you collectively who have entered this House. That is you, Ngāti Hauā, principal negotiator, and you, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. So a loving salutation to you all.]

We have not got much time. We are reading two bills in conjunction, the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I do not want to mince my words. I want to give those who have come to hear the first readings of these bills the assurance that we want to give the legislation full attention at the Māori Affairs Committee, but we want to pass it fairly quickly so that you can get on with doing what you need to do.

Firstly, I want to make a few points with regard to the Ngāti Hauā settlement. The interests represented within this settlement are extant to those agreements that were reached under the 1995 Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act. It is important to mention, so that people who are not familiar with the history of the Waikato region are aware, that these are legitimate and important claims, which were not covered within the boundaries of the confiscation settlement that was reached earlier in 1995.

Secondly, I think that for Ngāti Hauā there are two particular aspects that relate to the history that Minister Sharples was talking about that would be of significant interest to members of Parliament: firstly, the Tumuakitanga and the accord to recognise Wīremu Tamihana and his descendants and the role that they played in relation to the Kīngitanga movement, and the importance of having an enduring relationship. So within the context of this bill it is important that the nature of that Crown-iwi relationship with Hauā is embodied within the context of the tumuaki accord.

Secondly, of particular interest to the House will be Te Kauhanganui within Ngāti Hauā. As members will recall, when Māhuta came down and sat in this Parliament—and we have celebrated some 100 years since that time—there was a Māori Parliament within the area of Ngāti Hauā, for which they have now done up the building. It is an important historical feature within the area, and I know that the member Lindsay Tisch will be familiar with that. It has a lot of historical records and artefacts that are significant to the history of New Zealand, and, again, there have been aspects of this settlement that seek to ensure that its contribution can be a rich part of New Zealand’s history.

Extending the accords, or the relationship of Hauā to the Waikato River, to that particular part of the catchment becomes significant. There are major waterways running into that area. We have just had the local body elections. There have been two newly created Māori seats. People want to ensure that there is going to be some greater contribution of, certainly, iwi-hapū interests with regard to catchment management and resource management within the area. I am sure that the pillars of the Hauā settlement and its intent will seek to make that real.

In regard to the other aspects of the redress that the Minister spoke about, I can say only that they will ensure that Hauā are able to do things that help their children thrive and prosper, that will continue to unite and strengthen the hapū within the Hauā area and the marae—which are very active—and, more important, that will ensure that there is going to be growth and opportunity in a part of the country that is very rich and fertile, and that is a gateway, if you like, through the Waikato region to Tauranga, and also to Taupō and to Rotorua. So I certainly applaud those who have negotiated this settlement.

This is just the first reading. The legislation will go to the Māori Affairs Committee. We will peer over it, we will bring it back for the third reading, and we will get it back to you as soon as we can.

For Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, the next thing I would like to say is that there is an important relationship between Koroki Kahukura and Hauā. Again, they are somewhat linked through the geography and the adjacent relationship of the areas but also through whakapapa, which is enduring into contemporary relationships of this time.

Again, the interests in this particular claim become significant for the select committee today because we are also hearing the Raukawa settlement claim. I want to draw the attention of the House to the nature of Koroki Kahukura’s relationship with both Waikato and Raukawa and to put a point on the expectations of how that relationship relates to a bill we are currently hearing in the select committee. A letter like a relationship accord was written between the Raukawa Trust Board and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Trust on 8 May, and if it pleases the House I am happy to table it if members should wish to see that for their own interest.

There are three paragraphs that I would like to single out and read for the Hansard record. When we are considering the Raukawa settlement bill and the interests of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and their settlement, we can be assured through the select committee process that there is no impinging on one another’s interests, because clarity has been reached between the two iwi and is nicely set out in the letter.

It reads as follows. Paragraph (3) says: “As a part of our undertakings to each other, Ngati Koroki Kahukura acknowledges that the Raukawa rohe includes the Maungatautari rohe and extends to Te Tiki O Te Ihingarangi and Te Taurapa O Te Ihingarangi. For its part, the Raukawa Trust Board acknowledges that from a Raukawa perspective the mana whenua, mana whakahaere and kaitiaki within the Maungatautari rohe is held predominantly by Ngati Koroki Kahukura.” It goes on to say: “For the purposes of this letter the Raukawa Trust Board acknowledges the specific dominant mana whenua (ahi kaa), mana whakahaere and kaitiakitanga of Ngati Koroki Kahukura in the following resources: a. The Waikato river …”—and then there is a description of that—“b. Pukekura, Horahora, and Maungatautari land blocks (excluding titles west of Maungatautari and specifically excluding Parawera marae and surrounding area); and c. Maungatautarimaunga.”

The letter culminates in paragraph (11): “Ngati Koroki Kahukura Trust and the Raukawa Trust Board agree that Ngati Koroki Kahukura descendants will be unable to access Treaty of Waitangi financial or commercial redress benefits from the wider Raukawa Treaty Settlement unless this is through another Raukawa whakapapa. To reinforce this, the Ngati Koroki Kahukura Trust agrees that it will indemnify the Raukawa Trust Board against any claims that Ngati Koroki Kahukura descendants may have against the Raukawa Trust Board with respect to any settlements achieved through the Ngati Koroki Kahukura Trust.”

I have read that out for members so that we understand that within the context of the Raukawa settlement that is being heard by the select committee, committee members have to assure themselves that there is no crossing over of interests—that the boundaries are very clear—because what has been reached in the Koroki Kahukura settlement is very clear. If there is any shadow of a doubt that it is impinged upon by another settlement, then we have got a level of concern. I would not say that it is substantial, but it is an area where greater clarity might need to be given within the context of a related settlement.

As I said, I will not dabble about with my words. I think we should be considering this legislation with the fullness of interest that it deserves, but let us get on with it, get it through the House, and return it to Koroki Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā, so that they can do what they need to do for their people. Kia ora.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to begin by thanking both iwi for agreeing to the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill proceeding in this manner so that they can get to the Māori Affairs Committee as quickly as possible. These non-raupatu settlements, together with the settlements contained in the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 and the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, provide for the full and final settlement of the historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā.

I want to begin with a few acknowledgments: first, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. Their settlement would not have been possible without the knowledge and the dedication of their trustees and negotiators. I for one certainly appreciate their willingness to engage with the community and consider alternative and novel options. I acknowledge them and I look forward to working with them as we take this legislation through the House.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work, commitment, and perseverance on the part of the Ngāti Hauā negotiators—most notably, the role of the Tumuaki, whose leadership has contributed to the timely success of the settlement. I particularly acknowledge the trustees for their tireless efforts in reaching this day. I also acknowledge the claimants who have carried the claims of their tūpuna, and those who suffered because of the actions and omissions of the Crown. I want to acknowledge particularly those who have passed on without having seen the fruits of their labours.

Let me say something about the negotiations. For Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, the journey to this first reading has indeed been a challenge. The Crown recognised the mandate on 17 June 2010, and the parties initialled the deed of settlement on 2 November 2012. Following ratification, the deed was signed on 20 December last year. However, there were community concerns about the transfer of Pukeatua cemetery, one of the sites included in the settlement package. I particularly acknowledge the gracious actions of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura in agreeing to reconsider the redress over the cemetery and to remove the cemetery from the settlement package. The Crown provided substitute redress to Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. The deed to amend, outlining this agreement, was signed recently. So I really appreciate the willingness of the iwi to agree to changes to their package that allowed the Crown to address these concerns.

A novel aspect of this settlement and this bill relates to that beautiful maunga Maungatautari. I refer members to clause 72 and to the definition of “Te Hapori o Maungatautari” in clause 71. This is the iwi’s ancestral maunga. It is a symbol of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura identity. It has provided the iwi with shelter, protection, and sustenance. The local community and other iwi also care greatly for Maungatautari. There is a beautiful scenic reserve up there, and I acknowledge the hard work of the community and the farmers up there in developing this very special reserve over recent years. Their actions have really disclosed the generosity of spirit of their community.

As part of the settlement the Crown acknowledges Ngāti Koroki Kahukura’s relationship to the maunga, and working together we have developed some special redress affecting it. The bill provides for iwi with customary interests in Maungatautari and members of the wider community connected with Maungatautari to be named as the registered proprietor for the mountain’s scenic reserve. The site’s scenic reserve classification under the Reserves Act 1977 will remain and the Waipā District Council will continue to manage the reserve.

I particularly want to thank the negotiators and members of the iwi for the way in which they have approached this issue. In some respects a few clauses in a bill just does not do justice to the amount of negotiation and the amount of thinking that needed to go into that particular part of the settlement. I also particularly want to thank Louise Upston, the chief whip of my party, for her tremendous contribution. It was over and above what one would expect of a local MP in terms of working closely with me and with all relevant parties to get to a good result.

I want to say something about the Ngāti Hauā settlement. Towards the end of last year representatives of the iwi visited the Minister of Finance and me and said that they wanted the Treaty equivalent of a rocket docket. They wanted to negotiate the settlement and not mess around, and they wanted to do it within about 6 months. After they left, my response could have been put up on a Tui advert—“Yeah, right!”—because I did not think that it would be possible to achieve a settlement in such a short space of time. In fact I thought, frankly, that it was impossible. I do not know what Mr English thought. He just wants me to get on with these matters. But I have to say that, indeed, I was proved wrong.

We went from deed of mandate to deed of settlement in 7 months—the fastest time in which a Treaty settlement has been achieved. The deed of settlement was recognised in December 2012. The deed of settlement was signed on a beautiful day in the Waikato—where, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, you would say that every day is a beautiful day, in the Waikato—on 18 June 2013. Without, of course, bringing you into the debate, Mr Assistant Speaker, can I say how delighted I was that you were with me on that day because you have always had a particular interest in this settlement.

This streamlined settlement is a tremendous achievement. It is a great testimony to the leaders of Ngāti Hauā and to their clear and pragmatic approach. It should be said that speed is, of course, no substitute for getting the thing right, and, indeed, speed did not mean that the i’s were not dotted and the t’s were not crossed. But it was hard work, which has enabled all parties to achieve a just and a durable settlement quickly, and I am really glad to see a number of those who were involved in those negotiations represented in the gallery today.

A key part of their settlement is the vesting of Maungakawa, the ancestral maunga. It is very important to the iwi and New Zealand as the site, in the foothills, of the first Māori Parliament. The bill provides for the vesting of Maungakawa in Ngāti Hauā as a scenic reserve, with public access maintained. Ngāti Hauā’s rangatira Wīremu Tamihana, year in and year out, sought a constructive and a peaceful relationship with the Crown. On several occasions he petitioned Parliament, detailing the events leading up to and during the Waikato Wars, to seek recognition for the harm done to his people and to find a pragmatic way to move forward. His claims were ignored, so today I am very pleased to stand in this House and work with other member to make amends for the way in which he was treated over a century ago.

These settlement bills are now ready to be referred to my friend Mr Henare and his team on the Māori Affairs Committee. I am sure that they are going to address these bills diligently and return them to the House in the very near future. The challenge, of course, will be to return them to the House as quickly—in relation to Ngāti Hauā—as the deed of settlement was negotiated. It takes a lot to beat Lance and the team, but I am sure that Tau will give it a really good go.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, Ngāti Hauā, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to you, Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. Welcome to Parliament House in readiness here, welcome. Salutations and congratulations to you, the many leaders, and to us all.]

I stand to tautoko and support these bills, the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill, for these two iwi, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā. The bills have been joined together for this first reading stage, but I understand that they will be split out when we get to the final stages.

This is another historic occasion. As I like to do, I like to traverse the history of all of these visitors who come here to Parliament. The history of the Waikato Wars raises its ugly head once again. In this House we turn our attention to the claims settlement bills for Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā, two very closely related whānau, who were drawn into conflict due to the Crown’s troops crossing the aukati at Mangatawhiri. The Christian chief Wīremu Tamihana, also known as Tarapīpipi, was the son of the famous Ngāti Hauā warrior chief Te Waharoa. At the death of his father, Tamihana assumed the mantle of his father, and he was the first of his generation of the sons of chiefs who learnt Christian doctrine and who learnt how to read and write in English and Māori. He was certainly a man of his time.

After his father’s death he started a new community and built a church at Te Tāpiri. It is said that the church could hold 1,000 Māori. The community’s rules were the Ten Commandments of God, as given to Moses on Mount Sinai all those years ago. Three hundred people lived at that settlement, all governed by the word of God. In the 1850s Tamihana built another Christian community, named Pēria. Pēria was a much larger community than Te Tāpiri. It had a post office, a schoolhouse, and a flour mill. It was administered by a tribal committee of rūnanga. Pēria soon became a prosperous community through trading with Europeans locally and as far afield as Tāmaki. Even that tino taniwha known as John Gorst, at that time a civil commissioner in the Waikato, was impressed with the political, social, and secular way in which Pēria was run.

We know of Tamihana’s concerns about land sales and how he soon realised that the Government was not listening to growing Māori concern over alienation of Māori land. History records Tamihana’s support for a pan-tribal council, which ultimately became the Kīngitanga. Tamihana’s preference for kōrero over violence remained consistently in the forefront of his mind. He was a reluctant combatant who gave up his taiaha in a gesture of peace.

Then came the raupatu—the devastating loss of land and mana by hundreds upon hundreds of hapū of many, many iwi, from Tāmaki to Taupō and across to the Bay of Plenty. What became of Pēria? Well, like everything in the raupatu, it was lost. It was taken unjustly. A thriving Christian community involved in commercial transactions with Pākehā Europeans was forfeited. The community of Pēria’s economic base was completely wiped out and the families left destitute. They never ever recovered.

The loss of Pēria is but one story of grievance and loss that runs through the histories of Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, and Ngāti Hauā in the Kīngitanga. There are many, many more. It seems to me that the last thing the Crown needed during the New Zealand Wars was a Māori community that was seen to be thriving and prosperous. Pēria, under Wīremu Tamihana, and Parihaka, under Te Whiti and Tohu, bear a striking resemblance. They were two communities given over to Christian values and run by tribal rūnanga with their own leaders, and whose communities had started to acquire the tools of their European neighbours—Christianity, education, a post office, and flour mills. In the 1850s Pēria, like Parihaka was to become, must have been the envy of Māori and Pākehā alike.

This story of Tamihana and of the communities he established underpins this settlement in terms of the history for these iwi. I am looking forward to doing my bit as part of the Māori Affairs Committee as we go through the aspects of this bill and as we hear the submissions. We have got a lot of work on our plate. We have quite a full work programme, but I know that we will be getting through that mahi as expeditiously as we can. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for giving us plenty of mahi to do. I would also, once again, like to acknowledge the whānau of Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura who have travelled all this way to be here at this first reading. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call—Denise Roche.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Ki ngā rangatira o Ngāti Hauā me Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively, the House. To the leaders of Ngāti Hauā and of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations to you all.]

I would like to acknowledge the people in the gallery today from Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā, and I maintain that to stand in this House to speak on the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill is a privilege. It is a privilege to speak on your bills. Each of the iwi who are recognised in these bills is recognised through a separate piece of legislation, but the legislation is going through together as part of the proceedings. I will speak mostly on the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill, while my colleague Catherine Delahunty will speak on the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill after me.

I am mindful that when a Treaty settlement bill comes to this House, it represents decades of work across generations. I pay tribute to those who have bravely fought for justice and to bring this legislation to this House. I acknowledge the struggle it has taken to have this legislation brought here today.

One of the most important aspects of the legislation is that, together with the deeds of settlement, it records the historical nature of the grievances that the legislation seeks to address. It also records the apology from the Crown. The grievances that the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura bill addresses date back to the 1860s and, of course, to the wars in the Waikato. In July 1863 the Crown invaded the Waikato, as we have heard, and some Ngāti Koroki Kahukura were killed, and their rangatira Tīoriori was among those who were captured. Tīoriori was captured while he was going to the aid of a wounded British soldier—an officer. He was eventually released, but Ngāti Koroki Kahukura were labelled as rebels by the Crown and their land was confiscated. From 1865, with the creation of the Native Land Court, more land was alienated, and large areas of land were sold by individuals without reference to hapū or iwi. That included the land on and around Maungatautari, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura’s ancestral mountain. So by the end of the 20th century Ngāti Koroki Kahukura was left virtually landless. By 1901 the iwi had been involved in more than 50 Native Land Court hearings, and that has contributed to their alienation from their land.

The bill recognises the relationship that the iwi Ngāti Koroki Kahukura has with Maungatautari and also with the Waikato River. Ngāti Koroki Kahukura is defined as part of the Waikato-Tainui under the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. They will continue to be represented by the Waikato Raupatu River Trust. However, with this bill, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura will have co-management enshrined in legislation and acknowledged, and they will receive the tools to enact integrated river management plans for the awa in their own domain. The settlement includes $3 million for financial and commercial redress, $3.2 million for cultural redress, the return of some lands, and the right of first refusal for other properties.

I have to state for the record that, as Greens, we do not believe that this is a full and final settlement, despite that being referred to in the settlement. The ramifications of the Crown’s actions are not final because generations to come will still be affected. We believe that this is a deal. It is the best deal that the iwi can get. But Ngāti Koroki Kahukura’s generosity in accepting the financial and cultural redress package when it in no way fully compensates for what has been lost should be acknowledged.

There is also the issue of the Crown determining with whom it will negotiate and with whom it will not. That was stated very clearly in a submission from Ngāti Koroki Kahukura that they made on the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. We have become increasingly concerned that the recognition that the Crown accords to some and not to others can set Māori against Māori and create more grievances.

Having said that, I acknowledge that today is to be celebrated, and I acknowledge the huge generosity that this iwi has shown in taking its part in creating this settlement today. We will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. He mihi nui ki te tangata whenua o Waikato Ngāti Koroki Kahukura me Ngāti Hauā. It is very humbling to speak here today. I am a neighbour from Hauraki. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Hauā, in particular, because I believe it is time for Pākehā to learn to be good neighbours and to acknowledge our neighbours in the truer sense through Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So we are honoured to speak on this bill, the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill, today. I would also like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the negotiators for what has obviously been a remarkable negotiation with great efficiency, and that is something that Ngāti Hauā and the Government can be proud of.

The Ngāti Hauā settlement is an important issue for this Waikato iwi, who experienced a massive raupatu. The proud descendents of Wīremu Tamihana Tarapīpipi and others have done their very best to gain a better future for their mokopuna. Again, the settlement has some positive cultural and commercial elements, but we have to stop and weep for what these people have lost since their tūpuna experienced the full weight of a colonial juggernaut that was intent on the fertile lands of their rohe and their maunga from Te Aroha to Maungakawa.

Te Aroha, where Ngāti Hauā, as well as Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu and Ngāti Hako, have fought long and hard for the clean-up of a 20th century destruction by the Tūī Mine toxic site, which has finally occurred—I am one of those working to see that this never happens again on that sacred mountain—through to the dairy lands and to the very interesting issues in the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill, such as the aerodrome issue, which just shows the huge need for redress and the undeniable call for justice, not just because of the 1860s, but because of the 1950s and beyond.

I would like to return to the long shadow of a particular incident—the burning of unarmed women and children at Rangiaowhia. That caused angry anguish for so many, including Wīremu Tamihana, the Kīngitanga, and his people, who lost faith in the Crown and in the messages of the supposed Christians, whose missionaries preached a wonderful message of peace but whose soldiers killed the innocent in a place of sanctuary. It does not get much worse than that.

It is my belief that on the walls of this Chamber we recognise many wars, but we will have finally matured as a nation when we recognise the wars that took place in our own country and the people who died on both sides of those conflicts with honour and respect—to our own history as well as our global responsibilities.

If we look at the specific issues covered in the bill and the redress, they are not related to the raupatu issues covered in the other Waikato settlement bills, which include Ngāti Hauā and include where Ngāti Hauā’s loss has been acknowledged. They address non-raupatu claims, and there are some very creative and good ideas in here. The cultural redress is covered by a cultural protocol that binds other legal instruments such as the Resource Management Act and the Historic Places Act, and requires serious consideration of the Environment Court. I hope these things come to fruition.

There are eight sites that are also being vested in various ways, including a number of reserves, notably Maungakawa, which is such an important maunga, and also the Pukemako site A and Pukemako site B historic reserves, which are revoked and vested in joint trustees. So you see the coming together of the communities to govern these three management plans.

Obviously there are many significant issues, including the issues around the Māori Parliament, Te Kauhanganui, and the recognition of the extraordinary tupuna Wīremu Tamihana. But the story I want to focus on a little bit is the Waharoa aerodrome. This is a classic story of land taken for an aerodrome in the 1940s during the War, and then the complete failure to return it after the War. Instead, the Public Works Act was used again as a legal instrument of oppression to legitimise the confiscation. This land is now to be managed by a permanent committee of trustees with very specific powers and with limits on their powers. I hope that this committee will result in a genuine and lasting benefit to the hapū of Raungaiti Marae, because I am very aware of the losses that continue to this day for those communities.

Again I would say that the bill was negotiated very efficiently and I look forward to its future progress. The Crown has apologised for breaches of Treaty rights from the 1860s and the 1950s, and it has acknowledged the direct and the devious means employed to strip these hapū of their fertile lands, sacred rivers, and maunga. As we heard from our previous speaker, thriving communities with a strong economic base were totally destroyed and have not recovered, but the history and the reality of their tūpuna, the gift that has been given, is still alive beneath the overlay of dairy farms.

Ngāti Hauā have played an extraordinary role in the Kīngitanga through their tūpuna and themselves, and they have negotiated positive redress. Much of this is still unfixable in the full settlement goal of the land itself—land that is in the private hands of people who honestly do not demonstrate ever, in my experience, the knowledge of its incredible, sad transformation from Ngāti Hauā and their rangatiratanga via various means. It is now alienated beyond reach, but we are proud to support this bill.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Salutations to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively, the House. To you the multitude of leaders, I extend this greeting to you collectively in regards to the matter of the day. Acknowledgments, greetings, and congratulations to you all.]

I stand before you in this House as the proud member of Parliament for the Taupō electorate. The anchor at the northern part of the electorate is, of course, your mighty Maungatautari. What is connecting the people of the Taupō electorate is the Waikato River, and the mountain that anchors the south is Tongariro. The places that are referred to in this House today, the names and places where tragedy has occurred, where wrongs have been undertaken, and where blood has lain on the ground, are the places where I work, that I love, and where I am raising my children.

The generosity of Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura allows these first readings to be read together, as a cognate bill. As you are neighbouring iwi, iwi in my electorate, I know how closely you work together, and I know that it was not a difficult decision for you to agree to these first readings to be combined. But I think it is a particularly special moment for your member of Parliament to be able to speak in the first readings in this House.

Some of you would have travelled here to Parliament before, but for many of you it will be your first occasion. I was disappointed that I was not able to attend the deed signing for Ngāti Hauā, but it was in December last year, on a beautiful sunny, shiny day, at the base of Maungatautari, that the deed was signed for Ngāti Korokī Kahukura. One of the things that will always be a very lasting impression for me is the generosity that you showed. I want to honour you as a people in coming to an agreement. I think to say in this House that it is a deal dishonours you as a people and what you brought to the table over many, many years to get to this point. I have seen it, I have been part of it, and I have witnessed it in a way that I feel is extraordinary. Your generosity even recently around the Pukeatua cemetery is yet another example of your generosity.

I want to honour you in this House as a people who have reached an agreement with incredible generosity and with the real intention around being able to say that we take nothing away from the horror, the injustice, and the indignity of the past. We acknowledge that very clearly. When the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations stands on your marae and offers the Crown apology, that is heartfelt in a way I have never seen a Minister of the Crown speak. That allows for that part of our collective history not to be forgotten, but for a chapter to be concluded so that we can move on with the next part.

Very important in terms of the resolution and the agreement around Maungatautari was the fact that it was an issue that divided a community in a way I have never seen before—the intensity of feelings, the real ignorance, and the lack of understanding. But your generosity when you turned up, were patient and understanding, and shared your experience made sure we could get to a point of agreement, with the Minister’s incredible commitment, that the community at large could be proud of.

At the end of the day the Maungatautari reserve is something that is special to all New Zealanders and something that we do share, and want to share, with the world. That meant an enduring agreement. So I am enormously proud of you here in the gallery, representing your iwi, for what that took. The job for us now—and I say “us”—is to make sure that the wider community continues to know and understand and respect the history to get us to this point, but, more important, what that provides for us and the future.

My only regret is that I am no longer a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, so I will not get to share the next part of this journey. With you, with Raukawa, I am very, very clear how important this is to you, to your young, for completing the past but, more important, for securing the future. Thank you for being here physically in the Chamber, thank you for your generosity, and I look forward to the day that we stand together in the third reading of your legislation. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi kei a koutou e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā. Nō reira, āhua potopoto tēnei mihimihi ki a koutou katoa.

[In the first instance, acknowledgments to you, my leaders, Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, who have arrived here today. I therefore extend this somewhat brief welcome to you all.]

I have been allocated only 1 minute—well, that is what it says.

In the notes we are given on all sorts of bills, but especially on Treaty settlement bills, one thing is clear. With each group we deal with—Ngāti Hauā, Raukawa, Tūhoe, Ngāti Koroki Kahukura—there is a line in most of our notes that says: “During the 1840s and the 1850s there was a thriving economy.” You can just imagine that if we were able to get up today and say things like: “In Ōtara there was a thriving economy.”, that would be good for our people. I saw, about 2 weeks ago, a painting from 1835 in Australia, of all places. It was of three Māori looking out over Sydney Harbour, and they were there on an economic trip to garner more trade for their people. I do not know who those three were, but it gave truth to what we think we know happened in the 1840s and 1850s. It made the statements that we make in here more truthful, knowing that it actually happened. Just imagine if we were able to recreate for our people the conditions for hapū and iwi to thrive economically off their own backs, rather than off somebody else’s.

I do commend the two bills, the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill, to the House and I cannot wait to get on the road. I am not saying that we have fun doing these road trips. Actually, I am saying that we have fun doing these road trips. It is fantastic because when you see a bill, all you see is the words, put there by some people better than I am, but when you go out to visit the people and when you go out to a face-to-face meeting, you hear all of the stories and you hear all of the words of the people who have gone before you. That is when you get a really good grasp of what is on the table.

Last week we were in Raukawa. It is poignant that we have on the table now Koroki Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā and that we are moving down the country to wrap up these Treaty settlements. I think that one thing that binds Parliament together is that we can work cross-party for the benefit of Māori outside, and it is one of the things that I am very proud of, and lucky and privileged to play a little part of, in the history of iwi Māori. Nō reira, I commend this legislation to the House, and I am sorry I did not take my full 1 minute.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā tātou katoa. E ngā uri o Ngāti Hauā me Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki tēnei Whare i runga i te kaupapa tino whakahirahira. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us all. To the descendants of Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome to this House in respect of this very important matter. So acknowledgments to us all.]

It gives me great privilege to take a call on these two very important bills. I join with not only members on this side of the House but also clearly all members in the House today to support the first reading of the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge all those who have worked tirelessly to get us to this stage, the people of the two iwi in the galleries today, and those at home listening or watching. I also want to acknowledge Minister Finlayson for his speedy work in claims, and ensuring that our iwi katoa around the motu can, hopefully, recover what we have lost over many years. I thank you all for your efforts in bringing this bill to the House today.

As we all know, there are two bills. I am going to try to do justice in talking, touching briefly on both of them, in the short time I have on my feet. Can I first turn to Ngāti Hauā and can I talk about Ngāti Hauā, descended from the eponymous ancestor Hauā, a direct descendent of Hoturoa, the captain of the Tainui waka, from the uri of the waka tipua ō Tākitimu, tēnei te mihi ki a koe, te waka ō Tainui [from the descendant of the demonic vessel Tākitimu, I salute you, Tainui vessel]. The hapū of Ngāti Hauā are Ngāti Te Oro, Ngāti Werewere, Ngāti Waenganui, Ngāti Te Rangitaupi and Ngāti Rangi Tawhaki. The Ngāti Hauā rohe spans from Te Aroha, south along the Kaimai Range to Te Weraiti, from Te Weraiti west to Maungatautari, then north-west to Te Rapa, from Te Rapa eastward to Mangateparu, and then to Te Aroha. Part of the Ngāti Hauā rohe is located within the Waikato Raupatu claims area established in 1995.

In December 2012 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Hauā Trust Board to represent Ngāti Hauā in negotiating a comprehensive historical treaty settlement, and signed terms of negotiation with Ngāti Hauā. Ngāti Hauā and the Crown signed an agreement in principle on 19 February 2013, which formed the basis for this settlement. On 24 May 2013 Ngāti Hauā and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. The deed was then ratified by the people of Ngāti Hauā and signed on 18 July 2013. The settlement will be implemented following the passage of settlement legislation.

The Office of Treaty Settlements, with the support of the Department of Conservation and other Government agencies, represented the Crown in day-to-day negotiations. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, represented the Crown in high-level negotiations with Ngāti Hauā. Again I acknowledge and thank all parties for bringing this bill to the House.

Just by way of a comment around resourcing—and I am glad Government departments were part and parcel—I understand the struggle there can be in negotiating claims as iwi. Often a lot of us are called on to do this in our spare time or on weekends. So I do acknowledge the sacrifice your negotiating team have made on behalf of the people of Ngāti Hauā.

During the 1840s and 1850s Ngāti Hauā established a strong economy, which my colleague the honourable Rino Tirikatene spoke about. He spoke of the Christian community of Pēria and the rangatira Wīremu Tamihana and his attempt to protect his lands from alienation, not only constructively but proactively seeking a relationship with the Crown on issues of Māori governance. However, his attempts to engage the Crown left him dissatisfied and he supported the establishment of the Māori King to provide order and law within Māori communities. That was, of course, Pōtatau Te Wherowhero.

We have heard, and we will continue to hear, how the relationships between the Crown and the Kīngitanga deteriorated over the early 1860s. In July 1863 Waikato was invaded. Part of the Kīngitanga, Ngāti Hauā, opposed the invasion of 1863 and 1864, and many were killed or wounded. The February 1864 attack by Crown forces on the unfortified agricultural settlement of Rangiaowhia aggrieved Wīremu Tamihana, who understood it should be a place of refuge for women, children, and the elderly.

So without going into too much detail, there is enough to say that in this particular iwi, huge atrocities were applied to them in the confiscation of their land, when clearly their rangatira sought a more peaceful and constructive relationship with the Crown. In this small way, through this bill, the Crown is acknowledging its wrongdoing and, like I said, trying to make small amends for those past dealings.

I would like to turn my attention now to the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. I am afraid I might run out of time, so I just want to acknowledge them in the House again today and say, in support of this bill, that Ngāti Koroki descend from Korokī, a descendant of Hoturoa, captain of the Tainui waka. Ngāti Kahukura descend from the tupuna Kahukura. Joined together through common ancestry and lineage, their descendants are Ngāti Koroki Kahukura.

The rohe of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, which they refer to as their homeland, stretches from Karapiro along the Pukekura Range and through Rotorangi and Puahue in the west, from Maungatautari 4 and 5 blocks, to the top of Lake Arapuni in the south, then follows the Waikato River back to Piarere in the east, and from Piarere to the south of the Maungakawa reserve, and on to Karapiro in the north.

Part of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura rohe is located within the Waikato raupatu claims area established in 1995, including Arikirua, Tamahere, Hautapu, Te Koutu, Pukekura, Te Papara, Nukuhau and Horotiu Pā. Ngāti Koroki Kahukura also hold historical customary interests in the Hinuera, Waipā, and Huihuitahā blocks on the eastern side of the Waikato River.

I know the bell has rung. I do want to sincerely acknowledge Ngāti Koroki Kahukura again for their work in getting this bill here. I, along with members of the Māori Affairs Committee, will have a lot more time than 10 minutes to hear your stories, to hear the mamae that you have gone through, to ensure that we have got this right for you when we come and address this bill. I look forward to that day. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēna koutou katoa. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I am very pleased to be speaking to this legislation, the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill. It has been a long journey that both Ngāti Hauā and Ngāti Koroki Kahukorua have travelled before getting to this place. Both iwi, we have heard in this House today, have had rich and illustrious pasts, much of which was destroyed during the New Zealand Wars and beyond. Today, despite this disruption and pain, despite complex and difficult negotiations and processes, we have reached an important milestone: the first reading of your settlement bills.

I would like to add my thanks to those of others in the House to those past and present who have contributed to this day. We all look forward to seeing these bills passed through the House and becoming Acts.

The Hon Pita Sharples made an important point when he said that all New Zealanders should know their history. They should know their history so that they can understand the importance of these settlements. They should know their history so that they can embrace these settlements. And they should know their history so that they can support iwi as they make the most of every opportunity going forward.

This bill, as you have heard, passes into the hands of the Māori Affairs Committee. I can assure you that we will work hard on these bills, we will enjoy our road trips, we will come to see you, and we will make sure that these bills pass through the House as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Bills read a first time.

Bills referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, as a presiding officer, I do not get an opportunity to speak in Parliament, but on this occasion I am taking the liberty because I have been part of Ngāti Hauā for all my life. This is a great day for the two iwi here today. Congratulations. It has been an honour and a privilege for me to be presiding today, and also to have been with Minister Finlayson for the signing. Congratulations to you both. Permission is given for a waiata.

Waiata

Bills

Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask whether we have got restricted time? What we are doing in terms of the length of time? I mean, do we shorten our speeches—what is the procedure?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, the extended hours go until 1 o’clock. The extended hours go to 1 o’clock, and at 1 o’clock the House rises, or is adjourned, until 2 p.m. So if you want this bill to be completed within that time frame, it is up to the speakers to make sure that that happens, because we cannot go beyond it unless leave is sought.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the various Standing Orders, I seek leave for the House to continue past 1 o’clock for up to about a quarter of an hour, but only if that is necessary. Or we can do it by leave—anything.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Could I ask the member, before I put the leave—it is to adjourn following the completion of the second reading. Would the member like to seek leave for that purpose?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I seek leave for that, which means exactly what I said before.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, it is to adjourn, all right? Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I was seeking leave to continue, which is the same thing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. Well, we will just get it right. Leave is sought for that purpose. There is no objection.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill be now read a second time. Tēnā tātou e hui anō nei i roto i tēnei Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Tangohia te taura i taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata. Ko te karanga a Mokomoko kia rangona tōna reo e te motu, kia puta ai ōna whakaaro, ōna wawata, tōna riri, tōna aroha, kia kitea ai he tangata tonu a ia. Koia taku karanga, taku mihi hoki ki te whānau a Mokomoko i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou. Kai te tangi tonu mō ngā hara a te Karauna ki a rātau ēngari, i te rā nei kei te mihi ki tā rātau mahi whakarangatira i a tātau katoa.

Ko ngā mahi a te Karauna ki a Mokomoko, ko aua mahi anō rā ki a tātau katoa. Nā te taura tārona i tōna kakī a Mokomoko i mate ai, ā, tōna reo i ngū ai kātahi, ka murua ngā whenua o te iwi o Whakatōhea whānui, o te waka o Mātaatua, ā, ka tīmata te korekore haere o ō rātau reo tīpuna. Otirā, ko te whānau i tino mate i te whakamā, ko te whānau a Mokomoko. Nā te whiu o te ture tō rātau tipuna i patu, ka waiho tōna whānau mā te whakamā e patu. Tēnā koutou. Kua kōrero mai rātau mō te nohongū i roto i te pōuritanga me te taumahatanga mai rā anō i te tāronatanga o Mokomoko tae noa mai ki ēnei rā.

Ki te whakaaro ake tātau ki te ngaro haeretanga o ō tātau reo, tō tātau Reo Māori huri noa te motu tērā ka kīia, kua tāronatia tātau katoa ki ngā taura here o te ture a te Kāwanatanga. Ka ngaro Te Reo Māori i roto i ngā kura, i ngā reo irirangi, i ngā tari Kāwanatanga. Kāhore tō tātau Reo e whai mana, e whai wāhi ki roto i te Kāwanatanga o tēnei whenua. Kāhore Te Reo o ō tātau tīpuna i rangona i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. E te Māngai, nō tēnei rā tonu kua huri te ao. Kua tae ki te wā, mā te whānau a Mokomoko tātau katoa e whakatika. Nā te kaha akiaki o te whānau i te pire e kōrerotia nei, i tuhi ki Te Reo Māori, reo Pākehā hoki kia rite tonu ngā mana o ngā reo e rua. He tuatahitanga tēnei mō te Whare Pāremata. Nō reira, me kī, nā te whānau a Mokomoko te taura i tango i taku kakī, kia whakaputa kōrero au i Te Reo Māori mō tēnei pire whakamana i taua reo, hei whakamana hoki i a Mokomoko rātau ko tōna whānau i tēnei Whare, i tēnei rā. Tangohia te taura i taku kakī, kia waiata au i taku waiata.

[Greetings once again to us gathered in this House. Greetings to you all. Remove the rope from my neck so I may sing my song. That was Mokomoko’s call so that his voice could be heard by the nation, his thoughts, aspirations, anger and empathy could emerge, and he could still be seen as a human being. That indeed is my call too, and my acknowledgment as well to the Mokomoko family on this momentous day. I applaud you, the family. I continue to grieve over the transgressions inflicted by the Crown on them, but today I commend the whānau for what they are doing to make us all better off.

What the Crown inflicted upon the Mokomoko family was also inflicted upon us all as well. It was the rope that strangled his neck that killed Mokomoko and silenced his voice. Then the lands of the Whakatōhea people at large and of the Mātaatua canoe were confiscated, and the beginning of the gradual loss of the language of their forefathers began. It was the Mokomoko family that suffered greatly from the humiliation. It was the exercise of the law that killed their ancestor and left his family to suffer in humiliation. My sympathy to you, the family. They have spoken to us about remaining silent, in a state of despondency and severe illness, from the time of Mokomoko’s execution to the present day.

If we consider the gradual loss of our language, of our Māori language throughout the country, it could be said that we are all being strangled by the binding ropes of Government law. The Māori language was lost in schools, on radios, and in Government departments. Our language did not have official status and involvement in the Government of this country. It was not heard in this House of Parliament. But from this day the world has changed. We have reached the time when the Mokomoko family will put everything right for all of us, because this family strongly urged that this bill being debated here be written in Māori and English, as well, so that both languages have equal status. This is a real first for Parliament. Let us say, therefore, that the Mokomoko family removed the rope from my neck so I can express my views in the Māori language about this bill, which will restore the integrity, as well, of Mokomoko and his family in this House today. Remove the rope from my neck so that I may sing my song.]

“Take the rope from my throat so that I may sing my song.” Have the strength to speak up, and the truth will not be silenced. I quote a great leader of Te Whakatōhea, Mokomoko. He was arrested, tried, convicted, and, finally, executed by the Crown on the morning of Thursday, 17 May 1866 at Mount Eden stockade in Auckland. While in prison, Mokomoko composed that waiata, which has since become a guiding philosophy for generations of his whānau. I think it is so important.

I would like to now thank the Māori Affairs Committee for considering the bill and attending hearings at Waiaua Marae, Ōpōtiki—Mokomoko’s final resting place. The committee recommended that the entire bill be translated into Te Reo Māori. I commend and support the recommendation wholeheartedly. The committee also noted the whānau request for an expanded historical narrative concerning the treatment of Mokomoko during 1865 and 1866 and an apology to be included. I will address the House on these matters, perhaps in the third reading debate. Ēngari, kei te mihi au i te komiti Māori, ā, me te whānau a Mokomoko.

[But I commend the Māori Affairs Committee and the Mokomoko family.]

This is a first—to have a bill presented in the House in the Māori language, and in doing so they are leading us, New Zealand, in this institution. Who knows where next—where Te Reo Māori can be the official language to carry such serious things as this? In my third reading speech, I will talk about Carl Völkner, the events that happened, the shame. I would just like to say this: I support this claim 100 percent. I have seen the pain, I have heard the mamae i roto i te karanga i te marae rā, me te wero, me ngā kōrero i puta mai i roto i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei take [hurt in the formal call of welcome at that courtyard over there, and the stories that emerged about accounts relating to this matter]. Kua kawea tēnei mamae mai i tērā wā tae noa ki tēnei rangi. Nā reira ki ahau nei, he kaupapa nui tēnei pire. Kei te tautoko au.

[This hurt has been borne from that time to this day. So to me, this bill is of huge significance. I endorse it.]

I support this bill, but I also support, Minister Finlayson, that the opportunity be given for this bill to be heard as a separate bill belonging to the whānau a Mokomoko. Nō rātau te mamae. [The hurt belongs to them.] The hurt has been from those closest to them, and therefore they should be allowed to stand in their own right and have this bill for themselves, so they can relate face to face with the rest of the world, particularly their extended whānau and neighbours. I have no right to say that—however, I have. Nā reira, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā.

[Therefore, this is a conciliatory acknowledgment to you who have arrived here today.]

Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ā, te whānau Mokomoko, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata, Te Ana o Ngā Raiona. E rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And to the Mokomoko whānau, greetings to you, welcome, welcome. Welcome to Parliament House, the lions’ lair. Greetings to you leaders of a hundred fold, acknowledgments and salutations to you all.]

I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill, at its second reading. As a very hard-working member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I unfortunately did not get to the hearing on this bill up in the Bay of Plenty—

Hon Tau Henare: Missed a good day, bro.

RINO TIRIKATENE: I did. I was somewhere down deep in Te Wai Pounamu, as I recall. But I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the committee on this bill. Can I particularly acknowledge our chair, Tau Henare, for his work. We had to give the officials a bit of a hurry-up on a couple of occasions, but I would like to thank Minister Finlayson also for what is a historic bill at its second reading. It is all because of the perseverance of te whānau Mokomoko—their perseverance and their tono. They wanted this bill in Te Reo Māori. This is very much a historic first for our Parliament and for our country. It is a wonderful occasion.

I am going to keep my contribution quite brief this morning, but I think what I would want to say is that this bill is a salutary lesson in how important it is for Governments to properly negotiate with whānau, hapū, and iwi over their mamae or their claims that come before this House. We know that there was an apology given back in 1992, which related to some other tūpuna from Ngāti Awa, but it did not fully restore the mana of Mokomoko. I am sure this is a lesson for our Parliament that we want to get things right and we want to get things right the first time. Having said that, I am pleased that we have been able to go through this process. I actually think we have achieved a better outcome. We have achieved a better outcome because not only have we brought things on a par for Mokomoko but I think we have taken them to another level by having this special bill, which has been completely put in Te Reo Māori.

I would like to talk just a bit about the nature of the man Mokomoko and mana and reputation, which are what this bill is about. There is a quote from Abraham Lincoln. He was the President of the United States back in the day, as we know, from 1861 to his untimely death in 1865. He said, when he was talking about what we call mana, that “Character is like a tree, and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.” What President Lincoln was telling us is that the reputation of a man is what someone says it is. As we kōrero more about a person, their reputation grows, but it is only the thought, what someone else thinks of us, that makes our reputation. The true estimation of a person is their character. In the case of the quote it is the metaphorical tree, so what has more substance is the tree. That represents the person’s character. Like the character of the person, it is the real thing that you or I or society should not lose focus of. The tree is real; the shadow is reputation. Character is defined as the mental and moral abilities of an individual.

I just wanted to leave that quote because we must not forget the lesson as we progress this bill. We want to not lose focus of the tree, of Mokomoko the man. With that in mind I just want to repeat that quote again: “Character is like a tree, and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.” The shadow that was cast over Mokomoko was due to some misinformation and some trickery. It was an angle. It was some trickery that created a false shadow. But the shadow that was cast by the big tree, Mokomoko’s tree, is from a tree of strength, character, and mana. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): E tū ana au ki te tautoko i te kōrero o tō tātou Minita a Pita. Nō reira, kei a koutou te whānau, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I rise to endorse the sentiments expressed by our Minister Pita. And to you, the family, I extend salutations to you all.]

It is funny that back in 1992 the Government of the day thought that it had better go and apologise. So off it went and apologised and gave Mokomoko a pardon, but forgot to talk to the people about that pardon. Those are lessons that we pick up along the way. Having the inability to pardon a person again for the same offence, there has to be some other way of recognising what the Government had done. The Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill sets out to restore the character, the mana, and the reputation of that person who has been accused and actually been dispatched by Her Majesty’s Government.

Personally, I travel past where Mokomoko is from at least once a year. I have never ever turned to my right and acknowledged those people until the day that the Māori Affairs Committee went up and did the business and listened to the concerns of the whānau. I am glad to say that we were able to deliver to the House 90 percent of what the whānau wanted, even breaking new ground in this Parliament by not so much having a translation of the legislation but a version of the bill in Māori before it is enacted. So when it comes time to enact the bill the Governor-General will be signing off the English and the Māori versions. When I talk about the restoration of mana, especially of Mokomoko, how can you restore somebody’s mana and reputation if not through his own language? I think that the huge lesson that we got from our whānau was just that. That is how you proceed to restore his contribution to their society.

I see Mokomoko as a bit of a hero, along with other people right throughout history and through the world like Breaker Morant, and all of those people who have been dispatched by their Governments because of some skulduggery. It is not the first time that somebody has been pardoned in this House. Let it be known that there are others who have been dispatched by Her Majesty’s Government for not carrying out orders and have been pardoned along the way. I think it is a good thing. I think it does restore the character, the mana, and the reputation of that person, of Mokomoko, but hopefully it works on the restoration of the people’s mana and their reputation. They can stand tall in their communities and say that they are the descendants of Mokomoko without shame, and without carrying the burden of 150-odd years of that.

I think that this bill will go through the House very, very smoothly and we will be on to our third reading in no time at all. Kia ora.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, ngā uri o te rangatira Mokomoko, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To the powers, voices, myriad leaders, and the descendants of Mokomoko the chief, salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings to you all.]

It is my pleasure to join the House in our collective support of the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill. I want to begin with some words from Mokomoko. I repeat them: “Tangohia te taura i taku kakī, kia waiata au i taku waiata.”

[Remove the rope from my throat so I may sing my song.]

The translation is: “Have the strength to speak up, and the truth will not be silenced.” This bill is all about tika me pono. This is about truth and justice for Mokomoko and his uri. This is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to specifically address the historical injustice that was perpetuated on this rangatira of Te Whakatōhea and his uri, and for ever more raise him to the esteem that he had, and raise him to the esteem that he currently has, and will always have, in the eyes of not only his whānau but in the eyes of us here in Parliament.

I want to tautoko Minister Sharples’ words about the importance of this piece of legislation and the right of this piece of legislation to stand on its own merits. This morning we have been here discussing Treaty settlements, but also actually the mana of this particular legislation. I am glad Minister Finlayson is here, and he hopefully will be able to ensure that the next passage of this bill means that the whānau will be able to come here to Parliament in the third reading and enjoy, I think, the intention of this bill, which is about restoring the character, mana, and reputation of Mokomoko.

I do want to highlight the process that has led us to this particular point in time. Mokomoko was executed in 1866 for a crime he did not commit. The whānau of Mokomoko, from that time on, have fought for justice to prevail. They wanted to clear their tupuna’s name. They wanted to make sure that the mana of Mokomoko as a rangatira for his community was also addressed. In 1988, via the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act, section 11, there was an acknowledgment that others involved who had been accused of the death of Carl Völkner were also pardoned, which led to the Governor-General in 1992 extending a pardon. We are all here because the extension of that pardon did not include the whānau.

So what we are trying to do today is make sure that we as a country acknowledge the wrong that was perpetuated. This bill is trying to correct it. Part 2 specifically provides that the character, mana, and reputation of Mokomoko and his uri are restored by the passing of this bill.

I too want to focus on the uniqueness of this bill, in that contained within it is Te Reo, an official language of our country. It is not a normal thing. This bill, in itself, is an incredibly unique piece of legislation. I think the uniqueness of that, in itself, restores the mana of Mokomoko, because it is only through this process that, actually, we have created, I think, a legacy for the future. It is something that the whānau should feel very proud about, because it is through your persistence, it is through your insistence, that we here are able to help to restore the mana. It is through your guidance and support that we are able to do that.

I will not take up much more of the House’s time, other than to again acknowledge the generosity of Mokomoko and his uri in enabling us as a country to come to this point in our history. This is all part of our truth and reconciliation history, our history of Treaty settlements. I think it provides an amazing platform for the future in terms of how we work together, how we acknowledge each other in a respectful way, but also how we uphold the mana not only of Mokomoko but of Te Reo and of our mana whenua status. I wish you a safe trip home and expedited travel, as this bill goes through this House, so that you can feel that all the work you have done to get us to this point is something that you can celebrate in the very near future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki ngā uri o Mokomoko, te tangata whenua o te rohe o Whakatōhea, tēnā koutou.

[And thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Huge compliments to the descendants of Mokomoko, the indigenous people of the Whakatōhea region, greetings to you collectively.]

It is great to see you back here again at the second reading of the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill. It is a great privilege to have spoken on the first reading of the bill and to acknowledge the whānau and the long moments that have led to this moment since the terrible act in 1866. I also acknowledge the issues in 1992, when a first but not sufficiently consultative attempt at redress and apology was made. I also acknowledge the importance of the bill before us today. The Māori Affairs Committee has obviously done good work and is on board. Tau Henare said maybe 90 percent of what was asked for by the whānau is included.

The recognition of Mokomoko is more than a heartbreaking story of the hurt and pain of a whānau that led to an unjust hanging and raupatu of 490,000 hectares of Whakatōhea land because Mokomoko was falsely accused of what happened between Völkner and Kereopa and others. As a strictly non - historical expert, I would like to acknowledge some of the possible context for the actions of Kereopa Te Rau of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, who was not from Ōpōtiki but who had suffered from the actions of the Crown in 1864 in a manner that drove peace and the philosophies of Pai Mārire from his heart.

We have already heard this morning about the burning and bayoneting of the women in the church at Rangiaowhia in 1864, including the burning of Kereopa’s daughters, and, some have also said, of his hoa rangatira and, a few days later, his sister. This terrible act in 1864 by the troops of General Cameron, who refused to accept that the church was a sanctuary, possibly led to Völkner’s murder in the church at Ōpōtiki. But what makes it so much worse is that all of this tragic violence was then compounded by a guilty State deciding to kill an innocent man and stigmatise his descendants. It took the opportunity to confiscate the land, and so it has stood until today.

But today, at least, the manner of Mokomoko’s death is being acknowledged, and the mana of Mokomoko has been re-examined and recognised, and his status as an innocent and proud rangatira upheld. The Green Party is more than happy to support this bill and any future bills that shed light on injustice and unfinished business. We particularly acknowledge the leadership of the whānau in demanding that Te Reo Māori was the language of the bill, and that is great leadership for our House and for the future. I am very appreciative of that effort. It is so important that we keep moving.

We do not believe in using the word “final” around these laws because, with the best will in the world, each generation has limited knowledge and tools at its disposal. As new information, hurts, or creative opportunities evolve around best practice in terms of this truth and reconciliation around Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we believe that Parliament has an obligation to review the past—that is why this bill is so important—and to look at redress in terms of the inherent justice and fairness at every stage. Te Tiriti issues need to be looked at in terms of consistency and best practice over time, and mistakes like this one need to be rectified, as we do not need to compound our hurts. When we are not returning whenua and when life cannot be returned, the least we can do is to be sorry and to say sorry as wholeheartedly as we can.

But the Greens would also just like to say that we believe that the name Mokomoko shall never be forgotten and will always stand for a reminder of the need for justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done throughout the generations. Tēnā koutou katoa.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa. Tēnā koutou i hara mai ināpō nei ki te Whare Pāremata, ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero. Ki taku mōhio anō hoki kua hui tahi koutou me ngā Minita ki te kōrero mō te āhuatanga o te take hōhonu nei, ā, kia kaua e kōrero ki tēnei pire me tōna kotahi anake ēngari, ko te nui o te mamae kei roto i te ngākau mō te āhuatanga tuatahi, āe, tā koutou tupuna ēngari, mō te āhuatanga o tā koutou whakakotahitanga i raro i te korowai o Te Whakatōhea. Ēngari taihoa ake nei, māku tēnā e kōrero.

Hoi anō he kitenga kanohi. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hunga kua ngaro e hoa mā. Ki tērā o ngā papa, a Mannie, ka mutu, ki a Matenga, ko rātou kua ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. Hara mai me te āhuatanga o ngā pare kawakawa kai runga i a koutou. Kaua ki a Mokomoko i tōna kotahi i te mea, arā noa ngā whakatipuranga kua ngaro atu, kāre e kite i te āhuatanga o tēnei rā. Nō reira, tēnā tērā kōrero.

Kai te papa, Tai, tēnā koe. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe kua tae mai i te ata nei ki te kōrero, ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, otirā, te hononga ki waenganui i a tātau a Ngāti Rangiwewehi, ki te āhuatanga ki a Mokomoko. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations to us all. Greetings to you collectively who came here last night to Parliament House to listen to the discussions. I understand, as well, that you and the Ministers met together to discuss an aspect relating to the depth of this matter and not to address this bill in isolation, despite the pain in the heart being huge for the first aspect, and, yes, about your ancestor. But rather that you address the situation where you came together as one under the cloak of Te Whakatōhea. Park that there, however, as I will come back later to speak on it.

Well, and now for faces seen. My thoughts go back to those who have passed on, dear friends, to Mannie, father of all fathers, and, furthermore, to Matenga. They are ones who have departed and are no longer seen. Welcome here with the symbolic mourning wreath of kawakawa leaves upon your heads, not just for Mokomoko alone but for the very vast number descendants who have passed away and will not witness today’s event. So, that is that statement.

Greetings to you, Tai, the father figure, I appreciate your presence here greatly this morning. You have arrived here to talk, to listen to the addresses, and in particular to reaffirm the connection that exists between us and Ngāti Rangiwewehi and the circumstances relating to Mokomoko. Therefore, greetings and salutations to you collectively and to us all.]

I heard that earlier Mr Tau Henare talked about the historical context, which was, I suppose, a pardon back in 1992, and what we are doing here today. I think that the title of this bill, the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill, tells it all. The terms of the 1992 pardon did not expressly restore the character, the mana, and the reputation of Mokomoko and all of his uri. Because it did fail to do so, conversely, it added to the stigma and the shame felt so strongly by the descendants of a man wrongfully labelled as a murderer.

I have got a couple of links here with some of the people in the gallery. Of course, recently we had the settlement of Ngā Punawai o te Tokotoru, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tāpuika, and Ngāti Rangiteaorere. They came through the door, and one part of the Rangiwewehi settlement was around the pardon for Kereopa Te Rau. Of course, Kereopa Te Rau, as other speakers have said, was of Rangiwewehi, a disciple of Te Ua Haumene, and the founder of the Pai Mārire faith, if you like. The other speakers have talked about the consequences that happened to Kereopa. In a sense, actually, it all fell on Mokomoko, but Kereopa was involved in terms of the murder of Völkner.

The thing I want to make my short contribution on is to think about two things that I think have really come to light. The first thing is to say that there were some serious consequences of that whole episode that many people would not know about. Of course, as other speakers have said, the first consequences for Te Whakatōhea was that their rangatira Mokomoko was arrested, tried, and hanged in 1866 for Völkner’s murder, and a consequence was that, I suppose, his execution was only the beginning of Te Whakatōhea’s punishment. The Government then confiscated, as I understand it, about 490,000 acres, and then, basically, banished the so-called rebels to about 20,000 acres out at Ōpape, in the general reserve out there.

I think that the Minister of Māori Affairs has highlighted an issue that I tend to support, which is around the fact that, I suppose, amongst the internal things that happened—and I talked a little bit about that this morning at the Tūhoe settlement legislation—this particular issue is a little bit different around the settlements that we know of around the loss of land. Sure, that has to be dealt with, and the loss of life has to be dealt with as well. Reputation is one thing, which I suppose goes hand in hand there, but I think it is a worrying episode that, in a sense, the people who are in this gallery—and they have expressed it, I understand, on more than one occasion—believe that their issues are separate from those of Whakatōhea. In some senses, they need to have a right to have a say about that. I was, in a former life, an educator, and one of the things I used to do was to go—

Hon Trevor Mallard: A good one, too.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: A very good one—an excellent one. Thank you, Mr Mallard.

Dr Megan Woods: And a good PPTA member, as well.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I was a Post Primary Teachers Association member, but you are making me digress, and I want to come back to the serious part of it, which was that part of what I used to teach was around Treaty education. One of the resources I had was a video, which I think is actually very relevant to today, because, from memory, the video was called One Land, Two People. It was about an hour-long documentary. It actually went over this whole issue in 1 hour. It showed and talked about the stories, and talked to the actual members of this whānau about their stories. I was taken by that video, and I used it because it talked about, sure, the arrival of the settlers, and there was some role playing in there about the settlers having farming days and so on, and the loss of land, but also the actual impact on the people. But I think that one of the interesting parts of that video was that it actually talked about this issue, which probably has been swept under the carpet and kept hidden.

I suspect that for all intents and purposes, although one might say that they are part of Te Whakatōhea—and far be it from me to sort of put this on the table, but it is out there already, so the Minister has made it available. For all intents and purposes, these people have also suffered internally under the korowai of Te Whakatōhea. That is a pretty strong statement for somebody from Ngāti Rangiwewehi to make, but I think that that is the point of the exercise, and, therefore, it should be put out there. I hope that with support from the Minister we can look at that issue, such is the feeling and such is the depth of feeling that is held by this whānau, and I think it should be rightly acknowledged.

The last part I want to say is that, as other speakers have said, it is not every day—and it is a little bit of a contradiction, me speaking English—that you have iwi who come to the House who expressly want their bills to be put into the Māori language. I want to acknowledge that. Me mihi rā ki a koutou katoa i whakaaro ake mō tērā o ngā kaupapa, he mea nui tērā hei tauira mō ngā pire katoa ka tae mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Mēnā ka ea i a koutou, ā, tērā pea ko ētahi iwi ka whai atu i tērā tauira. Nō reira, kāre he kōrero i tua atu o tērā, ko te pānuitanga tuarua tēnei, ka waiho ake ki te mutunga mai. Mā reira ka taea te kī, kua mana, kua ea, kua tutuki, waiho tērā ki reira. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[I truly acknowledge you all for giving the matters due consideration, because that is a major one and can be used as a model for other bills that arrive in this House of Parliament. Because you achieved that, other tribes may follow suit perhaps. Therefore, there is no other statement beyond, and, as this is the second reading, I will leave it there for the final reading. It is at that point where one is able to state it has been validated, settled, and done. Leave that there. Greetings and salutations to you collectively and to us all.]

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a very brief call on the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill today, not because it is not important—because it is a very, very important bill—but we do want to get this finished today and go on to our Committee stage and third reading, so that this bill can be passed. This is a very unique bill, as you all know, and it is good to see that, actually, a bill like this can come before Parliament and be recognised.

I would like to thank the Waiaua Marae for hosting us as the Māori Affairs Committee. You were fantastic hosts. What it allows us to do as a select committee is to go and listen to you, listen to your stories, get an understanding of what has happened, see the grief that it has caused, and know that we can make a difference. We listened to what you had to say, we came back into Parliament, and we made those changes that you recommended to the bill. So thank you for hosting us and being such fantastic hosts. Thank you for telling us your stories. You have certainly given us stories to tell our children about what has happened to Mokomoko. Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 12.45 p.m. (Wednesday)