Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Canada—Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Canadian House of Commons, is in the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair.

The Hon John Baird, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Tabling of Documents

Veterans—War Disablement Pensions

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table an open letter to members of Parliament from John “Doc” Mountain, retired Viet Nam veteran, in relation to an ongoing miscarriage of justice regarding declining war disablement pensions—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought for that document, that open letter, to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Southern District Health Board—South Link Health and Fraud Allegations

1. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he think fraud in the publicly funded health sector is serious and if so would he investigate any allegations of fraud if they were raised with him?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, and yes. In relation to the dispute between the Southern District Health Board and the Dunedin general practitioner organisation South Link Health, this matter has been under dispute for over a decade. It involves an argument over $5 million or $6 million of savings generated through laboratory and pharmaceutical contracts during the 1990s and whether there was an agreement on how those services would be reinvested back into health services. This has remained a complex dispute. The district health board has advised me that it has received advice that it is best to pursue this as a commercial matter, but it has also referred the issue to specialist forensic accountants to see whether any illegality was involved.

Kevin Hague: When did the Minister first become aware of concerns that South Link Health may have misused public funds in excess of $5 million that were intended for patient services but were instead spent on other things without authorisation?

Hon TONY RYALL: To the best of my recollection and the advice that I have received, I became aware of that issue in November 2013 as a result of a management letter from the Auditor-General. On the wider issue of the dispute, I have been aware of that for quite some time.

Kevin Hague: Is the Minister quite sure that he was not made aware of it in 2010 and briefed on the legal advice that had been received by the Southern District Health Board that suggested there was the possibility of fraud?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have no recollection of that, and we have got no record in our office of such a briefing.

Kevin Hague: Is it not true that even though he knew that the Southern District Health Board had legal advice that fraud may have occurred, he as Minister personally discouraged the district health board from taking this allegation to police in 2010?

Hon TONY RYALL: I do not have any recollection of being aware of it, so I cannot have actively discouraged the district health board. What I would have required, of course, would have been for the district health board to act on whatever advice it had. I am advised that that letter of November 2010 was not clear-cut. It actually says there could be elements of fraud or there could be elements of commercial dispute.

Kevin Hague: Is it not true that even though the district health board had repeatedly asked for assistance from the Ministry of Health on this matter, beginning in December 2010, no ministry action was taken at all until it became clear that the Office of the Auditor-General was going to refer to potential fraud in its report on the Southern District Health Board in 2013?

Hon TONY RYALL: That is not the information I have received. My understanding was that the matter was considered by the audit and compliance people at the Ministry of Health and that there were negotiations that I think the ministry was involved in trying to facilitate in 2011 but that did not go anywhere.

Kevin Hague: What interactions did the Minister have with the Office of the Auditor-General over its management letter to the district health board in 2013, and what was he seeking?

Hon TONY RYALL: When I received that management letter, I then asked for a meeting with the Office of the Auditor-General to discuss its concerns further and to get a better understanding of the information and concerns that it had. I was able to discuss those with the chair of the district health board, and, as he advised the Health Committee today, my strongest advice to him was that if it believed there was sufficient evidence of fraud, then it should refer that to the Serious Fraud Office.

Kevin Hague: What dealings has he had with South Link Health since he was made aware of these allegations of potential fraud in 2010?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have no recollection of being made aware of those, and there is no record of that. What I can say to the member is I have met South Link Health on a number of occasions, since it is a leading general practitioner organisation.

Kevin Hague: Why, given that a massive question mark ought to have remained in his mind about a potential fraud, did he, in June 2012, describe the executive director of South Link Health, Professor Murray Tilyard, as having “great entrepreneurialism and innovation” and being a “prophet in his own land”?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member can sort of cast as many aspersions as he likes and make allegations. When I became aware of the management letter on the issue of fraud, I met as soon as I could with the Auditor-General, and I have made it very clear to the chairman of the Southern District Health Board that if he believes there is sufficient evidence of fraud, then that must be referred quickly to the Serious Fraud Office. And, as the member will know from my earlier answer, it has been referred to forensic auditors for that very purpose.

Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table a page from the New Zealand Doctor website. It is protected behind a paywall, so most members will not have access to it. It is entitled “South Link groups in growth phase”, and it refers to the Minister’s interaction, as in those quotes.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document that is not easily available to members. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: In this meeting with the Auditor-General, did he seek at any time to have any mention of the word “fraud” removed from the Audit Office report to the select committee?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Health to direct the Auditor-General in what they do. [Interruption] No, no, I have no recollection of asking them to remove the word “fraud”. The member can cast as many stones as she likes but, actually, she was the Minister at the time that most of this contract stuff was happening.

Hon Annette King: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order, which I want to hear in silence.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to show that, in fact, this problem started in 1995-96—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is using the point of order system simply to continue a political debate. The member has got a question coming up shortly. She should use that opportunity, with supplementary questions, to continue the debate.

Health Services—Funding and Delivery

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he seen on inadequate standards of health care in New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The vast majority of reports I receive on the standard of health care in New Zealand are very positive. However, I have seen a recent report about a small group of women whose experiences with maternity services in Counties Manukau were disappointing. It is unacceptable if any mother feels unwelcome or disrespected by maternity services, and I have asked the district health board to report to me on what action it is taking to address these concerns.

Hon Annette King: Why was the so-called increase in funding to Hutt Valley District Health Board not sufficient to prevent a recent audit report showing that conditions at the maternity ward, the mental health unit, and the children’s ward were so concerning that they were labelled as high risk, with staff shortages, overcrowding, and a recurring flea problem that had been there since he became the Minister?

Hon TONY RYALL: Our Government has given the Hutt Valley District Health Board an additional $59 million in the last 5 years. We have also supported much stronger auditing processes in district health boards. I am advised in respect of Hutt Valley District Health Board that it is addressing the issues that have been raised. New lino has been installed and the maternity unit has apparently been fumigated. I have to remind the member that fleas were reported at another hospital back in 2007 and in a hospital facility back in 2002. Who was the Minister of Health then?

Hon Annette King: Why was the so-called increase in funding to Counties Manukau District Health Board not sufficient to address the serious shortcoming in maternity care, including bed shortages, inappropriate care, overcrowding, and vulnerable women being sent home 4 hours after giving birth, after his promise for longer stays for mothers in hospitals—the promise he made in 2008-09?

Hon TONY RYALL: Over the last 5 years we have given the Counties Manukau District Health Board $265 million worth of additional funding. There was a major review of maternity services that was commissioned in 2012. It identified that there were significant problems with dealing with vulnerable mothers, particularly new, Pacific, and Māori mothers. This research has been undertaken to inform the district health board, and I am sure we are going to see improved services as a result.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a document sent to me under an Official Information Act request from Counties Manukau, showing that over 4 years there has been no improvement in the length of stay for vulnerable mothers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table an Official Information Act request that has been sent to the member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No. A reply, not a request.

Hon Annette King: It was a reply.

Mr SPEAKER: A reply. I apologise. Is there any objection to that particular document? There is objection.

Hon Annette King: Why should mental health patients in Christchurch be forced to live in Portacom and caravans, which both health professionals and board members are concerned about, even going—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not want your colleague there to continue holding up pieces of paper, which is leading to disorder.

Hon Annette King: We’re allowed to.

Mr SPEAKER: I have asked the member to desist from doing so. That is the end of the matter.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the many, many years that I have been in this Parliament, the use of visual aids—including your allowing me to use them only a few weeks ago—was permitted. Why is it not permitted now?

Mr SPEAKER: Because it is leading to disorder. A visual aid might be one thing. To hold up lots of pieces of paper—copies of the newspaper—is not helping the order of this House. I have made a ruling. If the member wishes to carry on with her supplementary questions, I suggest that she do so.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Could I point you to Standing Order 109—

Mr SPEAKER: 109?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: —109, Mr Speaker—and it says this: “A member may use an appropriate visual aid to illustrate a point being made during the member’s speech, provided that the aid does not inconvenience other members or obstruct the proceedings …”. The second point says: “Such an aid may be displayed only when the member is speaking to a question before the House and must be removed from the Chamber at the conclusion of the member’s speech.” I would put it to you that the visual aid itself was innocuous. It was directed at the member’s question that was being asked, and it has been a tradition to use visual aids as long as they are removed relatively quickly after the speech.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to look very carefully at that particular Standing Order. What it says is that the member can use a visual aid, if the member specifically needs a visual aid to help that member make a point with a supplementary question. What we were seeing was an additional member of Parliament, not the member asking the question, using the visual aid, which was, in my opinion, leading to disorder. If—[Interruption] Order! If the member asking the question finds that it is absolutely critical to making the point she is making, I will allow that member but not any other member to use that aid to assist the Hon Annette King.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is critical to my question. Why should mental health patients in Christchurch be forced to live in Portacom and caravans, which both health professionals and board members are concerned about—even going so far as to label the proposal as a “low-life ghetto”—when he was aware of the unprecedented demand for mental health services in Christchurch since the earthquake and has washed his hands of the problem?

Hon TONY RYALL: We have been strongly supporting the Canterbury District Health Board since the earthquake. In the last 5 years $201 million worth of extra funding has gone into the Canterbury District Health Board. There are significant housing issues in Christchurch, which are being dealt with and work is under way in that area, but I do welcome any thinking the district health board can have about how it might be able to provide services for some of those more vulnerable people in the community on a temporary basis until more permanent accommodation can be provided.

Hon Annette King: Has he received—[Interruption] Yes, yes, we have just heard from the “Brains Trust”. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member want to continue with her question?

Hon Annette King: Has he received any reports from front-line health professionals that on numerous occasions patient safety is compromised due to care rationing, patients missing out on care or having their treatment delayed, and reports that reportable events are often not getting past front-line managers? Has he received any of those reports?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure that I have read some of the newspaper clippings that the member is using for those reports, but also I have seen reports of people waiting 3 days on end under bright fluorescent lights at hospital emergency departments during the term of the previous Government. Next week, we will be announcing the best performance ever by emergency departments in the New Zealand public health service.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an email I have received from a health professional working in a tertiary hospital, setting out exactly what I have just put in my question. I am sure that the Minister has also received it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then we do not need any further explanation. Leave is sought to table an email received by the member from a health professional. Is there any objection to that email being tabled? There is objection.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a set of statistics from New Zealand Doctor. I am advised that it is similarly limited in its availability as Mr Hague’s information from New Zealand Doctor was, from behind a paywall. This is a set of statistics that notes as its headline: “Labour’s King gains as Ryall slips in popularity”.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I am going to let the House decide. Leave is sought to table that particular information from behind a paywall. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Member: They don’t like it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And I do not like the noise levels of the interjections, either.

Economic Programme—Social Issues and Support for Vulnerable New Zealanders

3. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government balancing its focus on responsibly managing its finances with addressing some of the most challenging social issues facing vulnerable families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has been clear since it became the Government that the 50 percent jump in Government spending in the 5 years to 2008 was unsustainable. In setting a path back to surplus, we rejected the option of aggressively cutting spending. Instead, we took the time to understand the drivers of existing spending and whether the spending was delivering results, and to ensure that results were delivered. At the same time, we put significant resourcing and effort into improving the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders, particularly children. We are not doing that by throwing taxpayers’ money around indiscriminately. We are attempting to resolve the complex and persistent problems that mean some of our children have lives that sap their sense of opportunity.

Shane Ardern: What are some of the social issues the Government is addressing to improve the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has set out what it believes those social issues are, but, more than that, it is publishing results in order that the public can hold us and the Public Service to account for achieving something for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. The Better Public Services targets are particularly challenging because they cover some of New Zealand’s most persistent problems, like long-term welfare dependency, vulnerable children and the amount of violence that they suffer, the need to build skills and employment so these young New Zealanders have real opportunities, and also crime reduction and making our communities safer. Overall, we are making good progress towards meeting these results, and further updates will be published tomorrow.

Shane Ardern: What kinds of social issues affecting the most vulnerable New Zealanders did this Government inherit in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There were a number of longstanding social issues making the lives of New Zealanders miserable in 2008. They are set out clearly in the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report of February 2008. It said: “The social outcomes which we as New Zealanders have achieved over the past five years”—that is, under the previous Labour-led Government—“were somewhat mixed and in some areas quite disappointing.” The report noted that in 2008 more children appeared to be at risk of harm, more young people were engaged in petty crime, there was more violent crime, and the number of people going to jail was rising at a significant rate. I do not think that any of those trends could be seen as progress. The Salvation Army noted in 2008 that New Zealand households were chronically indebted.

Shane Ardern: What else do reports say about the serious social challenges facing New Zealanders when this Government took office, and particularly the fiscal policy approach to dealing with those issues?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Salvation Army said in its report in 2008 that perhaps the most disappointing aspect was that New Zealand had invested huge amounts of money in core areas of social spending but the spending seemed to have contributed very little to New Zealand’s social progress. This was not said by the then Opposition’s spokespeople; this was from the people from the Salvation Army. The report listed billions of taxpayers’ dollars that had been spent, and then listed many indicators that were going backwards—rising numbers of referrals to Child, Youth and Family Services, more children in Child, Youth and Family Services care, rising youth offending, rising teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, continuing educational inequality, and early childhood enrolment rates lower than 65 percent. Funnily enough, in 2014, almost all of these indicators are turning positive, when the Government has been very careful about its spending but instead has focused on its effectiveness.

Jacinda Ardern: In light of the Deputy Prime Minister’s line of questioning around the Salvation Army report, I seek leave to table a graph from the Salvation Army demonstrating—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. That report was certainly available to all members.

Commerce Legislation—Passage

4. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: When does he expect the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be passed into law?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): It is my expectation that this bill will be passed this year.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given the serious concerns of supermarket suppliers that were raised last week in the House by the Hon Shane Jones and subsequently by the Food and Grocery Council, and given that he admitted yesterday in the House that he knew of concerns regarding the behaviour of supermarkets towards suppliers well before it was raised here last week but did nothing, why has he not expedited the passage of this bill?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: The serious concerns raised by the Hon Shane Jones of alleged blackmail, of alleged extortion, of alleged retrospective payments are not part of the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Some of those allegations actually should be referred to the police, as I advised the member yesterday, but they are ongoing matters.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that he is not prepared to expedite this legislation and that he admitted, and I invite him to check his Hansard from yesterday, that he knew of these concerns prior to Mr Jones raising them in the House, what is he prepared to do, if anything, in the interim to ensure that supermarket suppliers and, ultimately, consumers get a fair go and are protected?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: As I have answered in this House, I was not aware of any commentary about blackmail, extortion, or retrospective payments a week or so ago before the member raised them in the House.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will he accept the offer I made to him in writing prior to Christmas last year and support my Supplementary Order Paper 408 to the cartels bill, which amends section 36 to ensure that when excessive market power is wielded, based on consequences regardless of intent, it can be acted on by the Commerce Commission?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes, I thank the member for the Supplementary Order Paper and his letter. I also look forward to him replying to my various letters to him. I am still considering advice on this one, and a similar issue was raised at the Commerce Committee as this bill went through the select committee. The committee, as a whole, unanimously agreed with the officials’ recommendation that such a proposal as outlined in the member’s Supplementary Order Paper probably should go through a full policy process.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the Minister continues to drag his feet on legislation he is responsible for, such as the Insolvency Practitioners Bill, which has languished on the Order Paper for 46 months, the Consumer Law Reform Bill, which languished for 25 months, the Financial Markets Conduct Bill, which languished for 23 months, and the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which was introduced 28 months ago and counting, when can I expect a decision on a simple matter of support or otherwise for a Supplementary Order Paper?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: The member mentioned the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. That was passed last year. The Financial Reporting Bill was passed last year. The Patents Bill was passed last year. The legislation on international cooperation between the Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was passed last year. The biggest consumer law reform in decades was passed last year. We are working currently on the consumer credit legislation as well as the bills the member mentioned. I look forward to Labour’s continuing support for these bills, although I am not sure of that support because that member has yet to reply to one letter from me seeking Labour’s position on these bills.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I accept there were some lengthy examples—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member is going to argue—[Interruption] Order! If the member had asked that question, I could have helped him.

State and Social Housing—Building, Redevelopment, and Maintenance Initiatives

5. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Housing: What progress is the Government making in growing the Community Housing sector and redeveloping Housing New Zealand homes to better match today’s housing needs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): We are making excellent progress in growing the community housing sector, with an all-time record number of houses to be built this year. We have got projects like Weymouth, with 282 homes; like the Matanikolo Housing Project, which I opened last week with the Pacific Islands Minister, Sam Lotu-Iiga; and around a dozen others that through the Social Housing Fund will enable us to treble the size of this sector over 3 years. Housing New Zealand’s redevelopment projects are also gaining real momentum such that the Government will this year directly build more houses than in a decade. This includes the Infill 500 project in Auckland, the new developments at McLennan and Hobsonville, and the 700 new houses that are being built in Christchurch over this year and next year.

Alfred Ngaro: What specific initiatives is the Government taking to improve the quality and safety of homes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Our first major goal was to insulate every State house that could be, and we successfully completed that project last year, with 48,000 homes done. That is on top of the 244,000 homes that have been insulated under the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme. We also last year embarked on a $30 million driveway safety programme, where over the next 4 years we will install fences, signage, gates, and mirrors on 13,000 State houses to address New Zealand’s poor record of hospitalising a child every fortnight and killing a child every 10 weeks in vehicle driveway accidents. We are also trialling a Housing Warrant of Fitness scheme on Housing New Zealand homes to ensure we have a far more systematic approach to ensuring the quality of our State houses.

Alfred Ngaro: How are his housing agencies assisting the Government to achieve its goal of reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds by 2017?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand’s acute rheumatic fever levels are 14 times the OECD average, and the rates are 25 times and 44 times higher for our Māori and Pacific Island families respectively. I noted the interjection from Labour members opposite, but I note that in 9 years Labour did nothing. Poor housing contributes significantly to the risks, and that is why the Government has changed the social housing allocation system to support this important health goal of reducing the incidence of this disease by two-thirds. In August we set up a fast-track system in Auckland for families at high risk of rheumatic fever. We had planned on extending it after 1 year to other high-risk areas, but on Monday Cabinet decided to bring this forward. On 1 March this fast-track system will also apply to eight further district health board areas, covering tens of thousands of families.

Phil Twyford: What advice has he received on the number of non-functioning power points in State houses, or the number of dripping taps or smoke alarms that go beep in the night, and, if these are in fact a problem, why does he as Minister of Housing not just issue an instruction that they be fixed, instead of announcing a pilot scheme; and why will he not tackle the real problem here, which is substandard housing in the private rental market?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to say that substandard housing in the State sector was a huge problem for this Government when we came into office in 2008, and the last members in this House whom I am going to get a lecture from about the quality of housing are members opposite. In respect of the member’s claim that all we need to do to get quality housing across those 69,000 State houses is write a letter to the Housing New Zealand, actually, what you need is a proper system for measuring quality. That is why what we have announced in the trial today ensures that up to 50 different areas of houses are checked on a 3-year rolling basis—so that we can ensure that our State houses are of a high quality.

Supermarkets—Relationship with Suppliers

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): What documentation, if any, did he and his office prepare prior to 12 February 2014 regarding the behaviour of supermarkets towards suppliers, and when was that documentation prepared?

Hon Members: Who’s the question to?

Mr SPEAKER: The question is to the Minister of Commerce. [Interruption] Order! If the member wants an answer to his question, then I suggest—

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will gladly ask this question, and my four other questions, to the Minister of Commerce.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. He should have done it correctly in the first place.

6. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: What documentation, if any, did he and his office prepare prior to 12 February 2014, regarding the behaviour of supermarkets towards suppliers, and when was that documentation prepared?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I am not aware of any documents prepared by my office regarding the behaviour of supermarkets towards suppliers. However, I have received reports from officials on supermarket issues. These reports did not contain information about the behaviour raised by that member alleging blackmail, alleging extortion, and alleging retrospective payments in the New Zealand supermarket sector.

Hon Shane Jones: When he makes contact with the Commerce Commission, what will he do to ensure that the Commerce Commission vigorously embraces section 98 and protects the anonymity of New Zealand - based suppliers, given that they are being leaned upon over in Australia?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: The Commerce Commission is perfectly able to carry out its duties as prescribed in the Commerce Act in and around issues such as confidentiality, as the member raised just then.

Hon Shane Jones: When will the Minister exercise his powers under section 99 and secure Australian assistance to ensure that this Commerce Commission investigation does not falter because of threats and intimidation by Australian-based supermarket owners?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Once again, I understand the member has made a complaint to the Commerce Commission. I, for one, follow due process. I look forward to the outcome of that due process from the Commerce Commission, and we will see what comes of that.

Hon Shane Jones: Does he think it enhances or undermines the Commerce Commission processes if Woolworths’ Australian chairman, Mr Ralph Waters, is found to be calling New Zealand suppliers and discouraging them from participating in this legal process lest they face dire consequences in his supermarket in Australia?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: What enhances the Commerce Commission processes is due process and not members grandstanding on issues that they will not repeat outside the House and making serious and inflammatory allegations of blackmail, of extortion, and of retrospective payments that, quite frankly, we are yet to see backed up.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question, which went to the actions of a particular individual Australian—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No. Order! The Minister addressed that question to my satisfaction.

Hon Shane Jones: Name one single action this Minister has effected to stand up for New Zealand - based suppliers in the face of adverse action from the supermarkets?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: At least one: adherence to the Commerce Act, in which, actually, the particular section we are talking about was last addressed by the Labour Government in 2001, was considered in 2008, and was actually left alone. Adherence to due process is absolute, and I await the outcomes.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this question has been approved by you, but I ask that you look at it carefully and see whether it does meet this House’s standards for acceptance.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think on this occasion there is a question around the wording of the question. It should have been raised with me a lot earlier, and I might have made a decision. But at this stage it has been accepted on to the Order Paper and I am going to allow the question to proceed as it is written.

Street Racing—Deterrents

7. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister of Police: What results have Police recorded since new laws were introduced by the Government in 2009 to combat illegal street racing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): More good news. I am pleased to advise that the legislation introduced by this Government in 2009 to deter illegal street racing and antisocial boy-racing behaviour is working very well. The number of infringement notices issued by police for illegal street racing has fallen from around 2,700 in 2009 to 1,380 in 2013. That is a reduction of nearly 50 percent—a 50 percent reduction. Over the same period the number of 15 to 24-year-olds killed on our roads has fallen from 105 to 66. This Government’s crackdown on boy racers has resulted in our streets being safer and fewer young lives being needlessly lost on our roads.

Mike Sabin: What changes did this Government make in 2009 to deter illegal street racing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The 2009 law changes gave the courts the power to seize and destroy the cars of repeat offenders. It gave local councils greater powers to outlaw boy racers cruising in the streets, and made it easier for police to impound vehicles caught racing. We made these changes to send a strong message that antisocial and dangerous driving behaviour will not be tolerated by our communities. Of the 10,000 offences since 2009, only 242 offenders are now on the second strike.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many cars crushed so far?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Just patience, Mr Peters, just patience—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Thirteen drivers have received three convictions and three cars have been destroyed. This shows that the changes that we made in 2009 are having a strong deterrent effect, and the young drivers know that there are consequences.

Question No. 4 to Minister

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I seek leave to table two letters. The first is a letter to the Minister of Commerce of 20 February 2013 regarding the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. The second is a letter of 9 March 2013 regarding the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. He may want to read his correspondence file.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I assume both those letters were written by the member?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Correct.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table two letters written by the member to the Minister. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 4 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of that information, if that is correct then I need to correct my earlier answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask the Minister to stick to the rules. He is asking to raise a point of order. Would he simply get on and raise the point of order.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I seek to raise a point of order regarding my earlier answer to question No. 4 from the honourable member.

Mr SPEAKER: I take it that now the Minister is seeking leave to correct an answer. Leave is sought to change an earlier answer given in this House. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I thank the House. In the light of that information, obviously I have received some replies from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry—Investigation into Leaked Cabinet Papers

8. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: What was the total cost of the Rebstock inquiry into the leaking of internal documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and how much of that was paid to Paula Rebstock?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: The Minister is advised that the cost to the State Services Commission of the inquiry is $513,434.95, including litigation costs. Of this total, $208,916.79 has been paid to Paula Rebstock.

Hon Maryan Street: Does he consider the report to have been robust and worth the expenditure?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is important to note that the inquiry was initiated not by Ministers but by the commissioner in accordance with section 8 of the State Sector Act. As to whether the findings were robust, yes, the Minister believes they were, because it confirmed that the leak had come from a former Labour Party staffer working for the State Services Commission. It found that person X had the papers, that person X scanned the papers of the exact same size as the Cabinet papers when they were in his possession, that person X could not explain what he had scanned or why it was saved into the system, and when asked whether he gave Cabinet committee papers to someone who was not authorised to receive them, he responded: “I don’t know.”

Hon Maryan Street: Have any issues of natural justice or other shortcomings in the report been raised with him, given a QC’s opinion that the report “is quite unfair from a legal perspective, contains numerous flaws, contains what we see as basic errors of fact, is often misleading, has omissions, and was flawed and unjust.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There have been issues that have been aired in public on those particular points, which could be the subject of judicial review. The Minister is sure that the Attorney-General would feel that it would be inappropriate to answer those questions, but on the core issue about politicisation of the Civil Service by the Labour Party, the report is very robust indeed.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a memorandum from Bruce Corkill QC to Derek Leask, dated 8 November 2013, which contains all of those quotations that I just mentioned to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Just to clarify—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would appear on the face of it that she is leaking a document that is subject to legal professional privilege. She would at least have to say in this House that Mr Leask gives her permission to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: I will just clarify for the benefit of the House before I put the leave to table this memorandum. Has Mr Leask has given his authority for it to be tabled?

Hon Maryan Street: On 27 January this year, Mr Leask released a public statement and attached to it was the memorandum from Bruce Corkill QC.

Mr SPEAKER: Then if it has been released publicly, I fail to see why it is necessary for it to be tabled in the House today.

Hon Maryan Street: It is not available publicly in the common understanding of things. It has been reported in the media—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The quickest way of moving this forward is to say that leave is sought to table a memorandum from a solicitor—whose name I have now forgotten—but it concerns Mr Derek Leask. Is there any objection to that memorandum being tabled? Yes, there is.

Hon Maryan Street: Why was the evidence presented to the Rebstock inquiry by the prestigious senior civil servant Sir Maarten Wevers that communications from senior heads of mission to relevant departments, chief executives, and even Ministers was common practice, appropriate, and even important ignored by Paula Rebstock, when the reputations and careers of two senior officials have been curtailed or seriously compromised through unfounded accusations in her report?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is important to note, as I said earlier, that this was an investigation initiated by the commissioner. It was an independent inquiry. The findings were independent. It would be inappropriate to start commenting on it. If people have a grievance, then they can always seek judicial review.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table the statement by Sir Maarten Wevers tabled to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade investigation dated 12 February 2013.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the statement by Sir Maarten Wevers to that inquiry. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister uphold the need for free and frank advice from civil servants; if so, how does he reconcile the Rebstock report and its chilling impact on senior public officials throughout the Public Service with that fundamental principle, and does he still believe that the report is worth the money spent on it?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, indeed the Minister does. The Minister also upholds the core principle that we have an independent Civil Service, and it would be really good if the Labour Party could talk to its activists and tell them not to politicise the Civil Service and use TVNZ headquarters as campaign headquarters, because it is their disgraceful behaviour that has caused this problem.

Health Services—Patient Information Portals and e-Health Ambassadors

9. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has the Government made about e-Health Ambassadors and their role in promoting patient portals?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Last night we announced seven e-Health Ambassadors, and these e-Health Ambassadors are general practitioners who will work closely with the National Health IT Board to encourage other general practitioners to establish patient portals in their practices this year. A patient portal is an online service that allows a patient to securely log in and do things like check their latest laboratory results, order a repeat prescription, or send a message directly to their GP—all from the convenience of their home.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How will these e-Health Ambassadors assist the roll-out of patient portals?

Hon TONY RYALL: All of the e-Health Ambassadors either are using a portal in their own practices or are in the process of introducing one. The ambassadors will be able to talk to fellow general practitioners about the benefits of the portals for patients in clinics and provide guidance and support to these general practitioners as they establish their own portals. Currently, we know that about 15 to 20 percent of practices are offering a patient portal service, and with the leadership and guidance of these e-Health Ambassadors we hope to get around half of practices offering this service by the end of the year.

Internal Affairs, Minister—Actions Prior to Appointment and Confidence

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Prime Minister: Further to his response of “No” as to whether he received an assurance from Mr Dunne that he had not made a copy of the draft Kitteridge Report on the GCSB available to a Fairfax reporter, in Oral Question No 11 on 12 February and that he “accepted him at his word”, in a supplementary answer to the same question, in what context did Mr Dunne give his word that he did not make said report available to the reporter?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is “GCSB”. I will save you having to read it out. As I advised the House last year, I was aware that Mr Dunne had made statements to the media where he categorically ruled out that he played any part in leaking the report.

Hon Trevor Mallard: So, therefore, did he rely on a media report or media reports of Mr Dunne denying making the Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax reporter to establish that Mr Dunne had “given his word” on this matter; if not, how did Mr Dunne give “his word”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I saw the statements the member had made to the media and in the House and accepted them as good enough.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he say on 7 June 2013 that he could not accept Mr Dunne’s assurances made earlier that day to the media that he had not made the draft Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax reporter?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Most probably, but a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement: “I want to believe him, but the problem is unfortunately the inquiry doesn’t rule him out and I can’t dismiss the possibility that he has because of the information contained in the report.”? Does he stand by those comments, and what has changed now?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do stand by those statements, in the same way that I want to believe all the comments the member made about the Owen Glenn donations.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Prime Minister decide not to seek Mr Dunne’s direct answer on the question of whether he made the draft Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax reporter because if Mr Dunne told the truth and admitted making it available, he could not reappoint him, and if he denied making it available, Mr Dunne would have been misleading him and therefore equally unappointable; if that was not the reason, why did he not ask Mr Dunne?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I say to Chief Inspector Clouseau, no.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement: “He has advised me that he remains unable to fully meet the inquiry’s requests and, accordingly, he offered, and I have accepted, his resignation as a Minister.”? If he stands by that comment, what has changed now?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I stand by that statement. As I say, I also relied on the assurances the member gave in the House, in the same way that I am relying on the assurances that Mr Peters has given over the Owen Glenn affair.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the second time the Prime Minister has introduced extraneous matters into his answers.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no; let me finish. Let me finish. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order. It is required to be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That answer does not fit the parliamentary requirement to be terse and to the point when it comes to answers. But, more important, as we all know, he went out and made all those allegations before the 2008 election, but we are back now, and it is too late.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was doing marginally well when he started his point of order; he certainly was not by the time he finished.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he feel more comfortable having his Government propped up by a member currently before the High Court following a prima facie case of electoral fraud being established, or by one who has repeatedly declined in this House opportunities to deny being the person who made the draft Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax reporter because to do so would involve telling the same lie he told to reporters? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I would ask you to think very carefully about whether or not it is in order for the last part of that question to be introduced to the House. It is an unreasonable accusation. All members in this House are to be treated as honourable members at all times. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need the assistance of the member Trevor Mallard. Because of the noise, I could not actually hear the part to which I know the member is objecting. I would have thought the Prime Minister would actually be able to respond quite satisfactorily to the question. I call on the right honourable Prime Minister to do so.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refute the assertions made in the member’s question, but I do say this. At least we have actually got a Government, which is a lot better than that member has in Opposition, because none of them is here today. Goodness knows where they are.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During that exchange of comments a bit prior to Mr Key answering that question, Mr Banks made a thoroughly unparliamentary statement. He should be asked to withdraw and apologise audibly.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I certainly did not hear any comment that I considered unparliamentary coming from the Hon John Banks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, what has that got to do with it? We heard it, I heard it, this member back here heard it—we all heard what he said, and you should be relying upon my complaint. If you want to get to the bottom of it, I will tell you what he said, but that is what he did.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that will not be necessary. The best way forward is that I am going to ask the Hon John Banks, if he did make a remark, to withdraw that remark for the benefit of the House.

Hon John Banks: Definitely not. Definitely not, Trevor.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I can take the matter no further.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Banks called Mr Mallard a liar. We all heard it and he should be asked—

Hon John Banks: That’s true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now he says it is true. Now he says it is true.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This clearly goes right to the point of the question. The question itself made a very similar assertion. There is no proof one way or the other. The member asking the question therefore left himself open to the same suggestion that he had just made about another member—my point I raised before.

Mr SPEAKER: And I think that is a reasonable point, but the more important point is that I asked Mr Banks whether he made an unparliamentary comment. He said he did not, and Mr Banks’ word will be taken.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence, but I just want to caution the member. If we are relitigating the matter that has been discussed, that is a direct challenge to a ruling I have given, and the member would give me no choice but for me to then ask her to leave the Chamber. Does the member want to raise a fresh point of order?

Tracey Martin: I do. Can I please seek clarification from you either now or after question time, as a new member of Parliament. When a member of the Opposition rises and gives their word that a statement was made and that is not accepted, yet when a member who is accused gives their word and it is—I am not seeking clarification now, but it would be helpful for those of us who will be here after 2014.

Mr SPEAKER: I am happy to take the member through this matter after question time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following Mr Banks’ interjection, I called him a liar. I withdraw and apologise for that because I, unlike him, am an honest member.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member for trying to assist the order of the House. Question No. 11—Gareth Hughes.

Gareth Hughes: It’s time to go back to the real issues, eh? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is members’ day that the members are using up. I have called Gareth Hughes.

Gareth Hughes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we please get back to continuing with question time.

Power Prices—Electricity Market and Alternative Policies

GARETH HUGHES (Green): My question is to the Minister of Energy and Resources and asks: does he think New Zealanders are paying too much for their power? [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This a primary question on notice. I am trying my best to hold the Government to account and to focus on real issues to New Zealanders, and no one can get a look-in.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty is—[Interruption] Order! The member is making a reasonable point. He has the privilege of asking question No. 11 today, and it will be heard in reasonable silence.

11. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he think New Zealanders are paying too much for their power?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Obviously consumers will always want to pay less for electricity, but I think that prices reflect the environment we find ourselves in, with increased—significantly increased—investment in transmission and infrastructure. If consumers are worried about price, they should look back to the last Labour-Greens Government, which saw steep power price increases that this Government has halved since taking office.

Gareth Hughes: Does he support the idea of Kiwis generating their own power rather than having to pay rising electricity prices and paying for the electricity companies’ profits when bills have gone up 22 percent under his Government?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, of course, solar has got its place, but the reality is that the Green Party’s policy of wishful thinking just does not stack up. This is a Government that has invested significantly and seen significant investment in transmission and lines and has, of course, halved the steep increases we saw under the last Government.

Gareth Hughes: Is he telling families like the Hugheses—no relation—in Nelson, who recently received a monthly power bill of $1.80 after installing solar on their roof, that they have made a bad decision?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: What I say to the Hugheses—I am glad they are no relation—is that if they shop around they will see increasingly sharp competition, which is not reflected in the quarterly survey prices. Meridian is offering $100 credit and 10 percent to 12 percent prompt payment discounts. Contact is offering similar 10 percent to 15 percent prompt payment discounts. But I can only agree with Mr Binns of Meridian, when answering questions from Mr Hughes, that he simply cannot follow the economics of solar and it just does not stack up.

Gareth Hughes: Is this Minister, who is off tonight on his oil-drilling world tour, going to spend election year standing up for big oil and power companies’ profits at the expense of cleaner, cheaper, smarter electricity for New Zealanders and thousands of green jobs?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that that outburst was entertaining for the member, but where was the question? There were assertions all the way through that question that are totally unreasonable. It might be member’s day and people will waste time. Once we start these things, then we seem to have trouble getting off the treadmill. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not need the assistance of the member. The question was way off the mark and made allegations that are not helpful to the order of the House. I was not, and I am not, going to rule the question out of order, but if the Minister gives a relatively political reply, I will not be surprised.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I am very disappointed in those snide remarks from the member given that a core value of the Green Party is to engage respectfully without personal attacks. But let me come back to those important issues that the member talks about. We have halved the steep increases in the power prices that we saw under Labour and the Greens. We have seen significant—in the billions of dollars—investment in transmission, in lines, and we are seeing increasingly sharp deals from the power companies, which actually are not passing on their increasing costs in their prices.

Aged Care, Residential—Standard of Care

12. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is she satisfied with the current level of care in rest homes?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): The majority of providers do a very good job. However, when issues do arise the Ministry of Health and district health boards respond swiftly to make sure that the immediate situation is addressed and the risk of it happening again is minimised. To support the aged-care sector in providing higher-quality care, today I announced that all aged residential care providers have signed up to the use of the comprehensive clinical assessment tool interRAI 6 months ahead of the deadline. Already 720 registered nurses have been trained in the use of this tool and have completed over 10,000 assessments. This will lead to more consistency and higher-quality care.

Barbara Stewart: Is she aware of recent reports of elderly rest home residents in the Waikato who have received care “not more than that of a concentration camp” and have sustained “wounds conducive to physical abuse”, as reported in the Waikato Times recently?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I am aware of a recent article in the Waikato Times that did outline 12 complaints that had been made. I am able to say that some of those complaints were substantiated and that, in fact, it was the swift response on the part of the auditing agencies that actually brought about an improvement in each of those facilities. Regrettably, sometimes situations that none of us would want do occur. What is important is how we respond to that and that we make sure they cannot continue to occur.

Barbara Stewart: Does she agree with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation that “A lack of regulation around staffing levels was a major concern”; if not, why not?

Hon JO GOODHEW: No, I do not agree with that, and the reason I do not agree with that is that when a rest home is audited, it is audited on whether, irrespective of how many staff are used, it is providing high-quality care to the residents. In fact, that is the bottom line for these residents—whether they are getting quality of care. I can, however, also add to that that the Waikato District Health Board funding into aged residential care has gone up by 22 percent since 2009-10. So it appears that, in fact, extra money is going into the situation. But it is the quality of care, not the numbers of people providing it, that really counts.

Barbara Stewart: Does she agree with the Service and Food Workers Union that aged care is undervalued and underfunded; if so, what is she doing about it?

Hon JO GOODHEW: What I am able to tell the member and this House is that spending on aged residential care since 2008-09 has gone from $744 million to $953 million forecast for this year. That is a 28 percent increase over 5 years. So what I am saying is that in the end it is the quality of care that counts, because certainly any lack of quality is what causes complaints in our system.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātau. Kei te pīrangi au ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tō tātau Reo Māori, kōrero i tō tātau Reo nā te mea, nō Aotearoa tonu tēnei Reo, nā tātau katoa e noho ana i Aotearoa nā reira, tēnei au e tū atu ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tō tātou Reo Māori.

Nā, kua puta mai te pūrongo Wai 262 o Te Taraipiunara, i roto i tērā pūrongo ka kiia, kei te ngaro haere tō tātou Reo. Ā, nāku i whakatū tētahi komiti, ngā tohunga matatau ki te kōrero Māori, ki te whakaako i Te Reo Māori kia haere ki roto i ngā iwi ki te kimi i ō rātou whakaaro, me aha tātau ki te whakaora i tō tātau Reo Māori. Anā, kua ārahina tēnei rōpū e Tā Tāmati Reedy. He komiti tokowaru kei roto i tēnā rōpū. I haere rātau ki ngā iwi ki te kimi i ō rātou whakaaro mō tō tātau Reo, me pēhea ka taea e tātau te whakarauora i tō tātau Reo. Ahakoa tō tātau kaha ki te whakatū kōhanga reo, puna reo, kura kaupapa, kura ā-iwi, whāre wānanga, whare kura, ātaarangi, kura reo, ā, Panekiretanga. Ahakoa tō tātau kaha ki te whakatū i ēnei āhuatanga, ngaro haere tonu tō tātau Reo. Ka mate tō tātau Reo nei i tēnei wā.

Nā reira, ka tipu te pātai me aha tātau, me aha tātau? Nā reira, kei roto i taku mahi Minita mō ngā take Māori, tukuna atu tēnei rōpū, Te Paepae Motuhake, ki te kimi i ngā whakaaro o ngā iwi o te motu nei. Kua hoki mai rātau, kua whakatakoto ai i tā rātau pūrongo, Te Reo Mauriora, te ingoa. Kei roto i tēnā pūrongo ētahi kōrero kia whakatū tētahi rautaki kia whakaora ai tō tātau Reo Māori. Ēngari i te mutunga ake mehemea kāre mātau, tātau rānei e kōrero Māori i ngā whare, i ngā kāinga, tamaiti ki te koroua, koroua ki te tamaiti, ka ngaro hoki tō tātau Reo. Nā reira, tēnei ahau e tū nei ki te kōrero pēnei ki a tātau me te pātai, kia whakarau ora i tō tātau Reo kei roto i tēnei wā.

Nā tēnei pūrongo, ka kōrero rātau kia whakatū tētahi waka hou, ko Te Mātāwai te ingoa mai i ngā mema o ngā rohe Reo. Kia whakatū tēnei rōpū, kia riro te mahi o te Minita Māori mō tō tātau Reo ki a rātau, kia whakahokia te mana i runga ake i tō tātau Reo ki te iwi Māori nā te mea, nō wai tō tātau Reo, tō tātau Reo Māori? Nō ngā iwi, nō ngā hapū. Ka heke iho i ngā tīpuna Māori mātua, ēhara no konei i tēnei wā ēngari, nō ngā tīpuna mātua heke iho; he taonga tēnei. Nā reira, nāku i haere ki roto i ngā iwi i tēnei wiki, ki Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Rāwhiti, Te Wai Pounamu, Taranaki, Parihaka, ā, Te Arawa. Āpōpō ki Te Tai Tokerau anō, ā, Tāmaki-makau-rau ā te Paraire kia tuku atu aku whakaaro, ngā whakaaro o Te Paepae Motuhake hoki ki te iwi, ki te kite mēnā e tautoko ana rātau i tēnei rautaki Māori.

Ēhara māku e whakaroatia ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te rautaki, heoi anō kei te kōrero au mō te pai o te whakahoki ki te iwi Māori, te kī mō tō tātau Reo. Te mana, ka pupuritia e te Minita Māori, ahakoa, ko wai te Minita, he Māori, he Pākehā, he Hainamana, he aha rānei, kei a ia te mana i runga ake mō te whakahaere i Te Reo mō te Kāwanatanga, arā, Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo, Te Māngai Pāho, Te Pouaka Whakaata Māori me ērā atu. Nā reira, ākuanei ka whakahokia tēnā mana ki te iwi mā rātau e kawe tēnei. Nā reira, he tīmatanga tēnei kōrero i roto i tēnei Whare mō tēnei wā, ā, tēnā koe, tēnā tātau e whakarongo ana ki a ahau.

[Greetings to you and to us. I want to speak about our Māori language, our language, because this language actually belongs to New Zealand, to all of us living here. So this is why I rise to talk about our Māori language.

The Wai 262 report of the Waitangi Tribunal has been released and in that report it states that our language is on the decline. So I set up a panel of experts fluent in the language and skilled at teaching the Māori language to go out amongst the Māori people and seek out their views on how the revitalisation of our Māori language might be addressed. Sir Tāmati Reedy leads this panel, which is made up of eight members. They went out amongst the tribes and sought out their opinions about our language and how we might rejuvenate it. Despite our efforts to establish language nurseries, language pools, Māori-medium schools, tribal schools, Cuisenaire methodology learning schools, language schools, and Excellence in Māori Language Institutes, these kinds of institutions, our language continues to decline. In time and at this rate our language will become extinct.

And so emerged the question of what we should do, how we address it. So in my role as Minister of Māori Affairs, I empowered this panel Te Paepae Motuhake to seek out the views of Māori tribes from this nation. They have come back and presented their report called Te Reo Mauriora. In that report are some recommendations about establishing a strategic plan to restore our Māori language, but, ultimately, if we or all of us do not speak Māori in homes and houses, a child does not speak Māori to grandad, and grandad to the child, our language will disappear. So this is the reason why I am standing here and addressing you in this manner with the request to have some input in reviving our language at this point in time.

As a consequence of this report, they talked about establishing a new governance body with the name Te Mātāwai, comprised of members of language regions. This governance body would take over the role that the Minister of Māori Affairs has in terms of our language and returning the mandate over it to the Māori people, because who does our language, our Māori language, belong to? It belongs to the tribes and subtribes. It was passed down to us—it is not from here and now, but was handed down from ancestral fathers. This indeed is a treasure. Therefore, I have personally gone amongst tribes this week, to Northland, East Coast, the South Island, Taranaki, Parihaka, and Te Arawa. Tomorrow I am going back again to Northland and then to Auckland on Friday to impart my views, and those of Te Paepae Motuhake as well, to the people, and to ascertain whether they support this Māori language strategy.

In regard to the strategy, I will not labour on about that, and instead I will talk about the positive effect of returning the mandate over our Māori language to the Māori people. That control is held by the Minister of Māori Affairs, regardless of who is the Minister—be it a Māori, a New Zealander of European descent, a Chinese person, or whatever—they have the mandate to administer the Māori language in Government entities such as the Māori Language Commission, the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency, the Māori Television Service, and so on. Therefore, that mandate will soon be returned to the tribe for them to administer. And so this address to this House at this point in time is just the beginning. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to us all for listening to me.]

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): Twelve months on, some things have not changed about the Labour Party. I think I have said this before. The leader is still called David. Most of his caucus still do not support him.

Tim Macindoe: Probably more.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably more, actually. Grant Robertson is still going around the country undermining a leader called David. But one thing has not changed: this David is a tricky David. With the other one, you at least kind of knew what he was—and at least he knew. But, of course, David Cunliffe is not quite so sure. This is a man who is a unionist with the unions, a Māori with the Māoris, and a farmer with the farmers. But one thing that he tried not to be was a leafy suburb guy in the leafy suburbs. But what happened? He got caught standing in front of a yacht—a picture he could not get them to delete in Taranaki, unlike the other ones. It turns out that for all of his references to large homes in leafy suburbs, he has one. And, of course, being the working-class hero with the working class does not quite fit with being the leafy suburbs guy in the leafy suburbs.

So what I thought I would do is have a quick look at the latest update on his CV, because, as we know, that is a dynamic document, to say the least. Bits appear on it and then disappear. He is the founder of Fonterra—actually, he is not; he is something else now. I came across this thing called DavidCunliffe.com—a digital identity. He is a digital guy when he is with the digital natives. This is a DavidCunliffe.com website, and I thought maybe I had found him. It says: “David has guided and supported individuals with matters of the soul for decades,”. I thought maybe he is a monk with the monks.

But then his CV goes on to say he has “become a respected figure …”—well, that does not sound quite like the person we are after. It says he is “often described as a … insightful individual,”—and he is, in his CV, described that way often. But the next one killed it: “refreshingly humble”. That was when we knew this was not the real David Cunliffe, because although he may be refreshing, it is not with humility. That is absolutely sure. Then I knew for sure when it said: “Surprisingly, his spiritual path has remained … refreshingly unboastful.”

This is a party that cannot boast about its leader—that is for sure—and does not want to. But usually in the Opposition when the leader is having a bad patch like he is, the front bench does the work. It actually took Shane Jones to show everybody just how weak and lazy the Labour front and middle benches are, because when they should be carrying their leader—because he is going to need a lot of that—by running issues that put pressure on the Government and attract the public’s attention, they are not doing any of that. They are not focused on anything that matters.

In fact, it is infecting David Cunliffe. On my little phone I got a tweet from David Cunliffe that was about a big issue of the day. It said something like: “I am very sorry to see the end of @massivemagNZ.” What the hell is that? It is the big issue—and not for just the Leader of the Opposition, because he also says to refer to Grant Robertson.

I think it must be a student magazine. That is the big issue of the day.

I know that Grant Robertson never really left student politics, so the end of Massive Magazine from Massey’s campus probably is the biggest single issue that has preoccupied him all week. But he should be doing more than that to carry his leader, who needs guidance, who needs to be carried, and who needs a team around him to feed him issues instead of him making them up as he goes.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He kupu hei tīmata. Ka nui noa atu taku whakahē ki te tū mai o tō tātou Minita Take Māori me ēnā kaupapa ōna, ka ora tō tātou Reo i roto i ēnei tūru e whakanekenekehia ana e ia. He kupu whakarite nōku tūpuna o Ngāpuhi: ka oti tetahi mahi ware, ka kainga e te hau. Me pēnā taku whakamārama.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. Some words to start with. I utterly condemn our Minister of Māori Affairs greatly for standing before us with those proposals of his that our language will survive in these pews that he is merely moving around. My Ngāpuhi ancestors have a saying to compare it against: when something completed is substandard, the wind gobbles it up.]

After having just reminded our Māori listeners that anything Dr Sharples believes he is doing to save the Reo is sadly misguided, I cannot wait to have the opportunity to dismantle whatever other foolish notions he is going to proceed with. I have been accused of being intemperate. I have been accused of abusing parliamentary privilege. But I want you, Mr Speaker, and my fellow parliamentarians to know that this privilege is a key feature of our culture, of our tradition. It is traceable right back indeed, I should say, to Thomas More, along with our Westminster traditions. So I know it is fair enough that we must not use or abuse this position of bringing issues of significance.

But it is not this side of the House that has had secret meetings with the chairman of Woolworths; it is the Prime Minister. It was not this side of the House. When the Prime Minister met with the chairman, he unfortunately came home empty-handed from meeting with one of the most powerful commercial men in Australia and New Zealand. That is his problem. Our problem, our challenge, is to highlight issues but avoid any suggestion that we are being excessive in what we say and do under the cloak of privilege. People from Countdown went on national television last night and accused me of lacking specifics. They sought to derogate what I was saying. They know exactly whom I have been talking to. They know exactly who the shadowy characters are in that windowless Countdown room, putting the squeeze on our fair-minded, garden-variety New Zealand businessmen. It is not Dave Chambers; he can warble all he likes. I want to remind those people that they have managers who will face the music.

Let me just give you an example of three specifics so I can move beyond these gratuitous criticisms that I lack specifics. Specific No. 1 is an email I look forward to handing on to the Commerce Commission, subject to suitable anonymity protections. Countdown demanded tens of thousands of dollars from a supplier by 5 o’clock that day as payment for insufficient sales achieved in the previous month from the supplier’s product lines, or it was goodnight Irene. Specific No. 2 is that my source told me that even to get into Countdown—to get anywhere near there—he had to pay 7 percent of his turnover back to the company. When he spoke to the Aussie supplier—to Countdown—it said it had never heard of this policy. Do not, out there, accuse this parliamentarian of not having detail.

Specific No. 3 is a family-owned business with a $4.5 million turnover—[Interruption] Now, that side of the House might sneer at these people with small businesses. I accept that National is the party of big business, but do not sneer at undercapitalised small businesses trying to make an honest living and gain access into what is a tolling operation, the duopoly structure of our supermarkets. The business had a $4.5 million turnover and 30 employees. What happened when they stood up to Countdown tactics? The result is that they lost their business, have now moved, and are living in Australia.

They would love to come back, but they are fearful because of the inability—the disinterest—of the Minister of Commerce to grapple with this problem. What did he say today? He has done absolutely nothing as the New Zealand Minister of Commerce in dealing with his counterparts in Australia. He did not know that sections 98, 99, and 100 of the Commerce Act actually enable him to get the Commerce Commission to work collaboratively with the Australian equivalent, which is now conducting that investigation. The person at the centre of these allegations fled from Australia. He fled from the investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. He fled into Woolworths and Countdown here in New Zealand. He is the person who has caused these dramas—an Australian merchandise manager—and I look forward to providing his identity to the Commerce Commission.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Well, we can see what is happening over there in the Labour Party. There is the true emerging leader of the Labour Party, Shane Jones. Where is David Cunliffe leading off this general debate today for Labour? He is nowhere to be seen. Where are the other front-bench members? There we have—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Repeatedly today we have had Ministers questioning the absence of other members. It is well established that that is not acceptable, and I am surprised that you have not stopped them from doing it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has not been a repeated practice of the day at all—that is the first time I have heard it—but it is out of order to refer to the absence of any member.

Hon NATHAN GUY: There we have the emerging leader, Shane Jones. The person sitting behind him today and last week, smiling away there, was the former leader of the Labour Party, David Shearer. Of course, he backed Shane Jones for the leadership bid, so he is loving it now. We heard that Labour had a very robust caucus this week—very intense discussions in there. We know that the blood has started dripping on the floor already. There is a lot of doubt about David Cunliffe’s leadership already emerging, and it is starting to be unpicked by the New Zealand public, starting to be unpicked by the press gallery. There is a lot of doubt emerging now about tricky David Cunliffe. We now have the emerging Labour Party leader of the future, and it might be this year, in 2014, that Shane Jones steps up to the plate.

Things are not looking good for the Labour Party. What a woeful couple of weeks it has had: a baby bonus policy where every backbench member of this House would get $60 a week—what an embarrassment that was—and, of course, Labour’s poll rating, when we had the Prime Minister out there in a recent poll with a trust rating of around 60 percent and a likeability factor that is very similar. Is that not fantastic?

But, importantly, today what I want to talk about is the backbone of this New Zealand economy, and that, indeed, is the primary industries. Today I released a very significant update: a 6-monthly update for the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report through to June 2014. What did it say? Primary industry exports are up nearly $5 billion on forecast. Is that not fantastic? Of course, the heads go down on the other side of the House.

Hon Annette King: Oh no, they don’t.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, they do. Those members do not care about exports, because they know their policies are going to damage the productive sector of the New Zealand economy. They do not care about and do not support our dairy exports, which are up $2.7 billion. They do not care about the fact that our meat industry and our meat exports are returning more to farmers—$1.2 billion. Of course, logs are up $0.8 billion. Is that not fantastic news?

Well, what is Labour all about? National has got a plan. We have got a clear plan. The Primary Growth Partnership is investing with industry in research and development, encouraging irrigation and water storage projects, working hard on more free-trade access agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and lifting the performance of Māori agribusiness. What have Labour and the Greens proposed? Let us hear it. They are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They are against water storage projects. They are already talking about capping the dairy industry and its growth. They are against the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. They do not want our rural communities or New Zealand businesses to be able to connect not only with other suppliers here in New Zealand but also internationally. They do not have a plan for lifting the performance of Māori agribusiness. We do. We care about job creation. We care about supporting the regions. We back our exporters.

Labour is just going to roll out a capital gains tax. It is going to propose this living wage of $18.80, which will lift the unemployment benefit numbers. It does not care about the productive sector. It is not interested in the roads of national significance, in supporting them and getting our products through to ports and airports. It does not care about the Kapiti Expressway in my region. Labour does not give a damn. We do not even know whether it supports Transmission Gully. It does not have a clear plan for the productive sector apart from lifting tax and saddling our exporters with more regulation and compliance. We back our primary industries, the backbone of the New Zealand economy.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member. There is a Standing Order that says that you cannot move from your seat in order to get a better position to barrack. Right through my colleague’s speech, Andrew Little was calling out and barracking and has actually made a change of seat to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is the general debate, which is normally a fairly robust debate, and to date that has certainly been the case. I will watch further the behaviour of all members.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I am very happy to have as many interjections as that lazy Government over there can provide. I want to start off by asking why this debate included Nathan Guy today, because why would you put up a loser as a member to speak—the losing member for Ōtaki? I was in Levin yesterday. I went up there to service his electorate because he does not. Ten members of the public came to see me in Levin yesterday. Why? Because they cannot get an appointment with him. You see, he is too important to see the people of Ōtaki. In fact, he does not give a damn. To use his own words, he does not give a damn about the people of Ōtaki. Bye bye, Nathan Guy, I say to him. He reflects the week after week arrogance of the National members of Parliament. You know, they are so puffed up these days.

The old egos are very bloated, and they are the know-it-alls of Parliament. We have Judith Collins. Judith is here to give advice on what we all should wear and what our attire should be. She is the know-all of the attire of Parliament. She knows what makes a nice jacket and what makes an ugly one. Then we have Tau Henare. He is here to lecture us about media neutrality. The old talkback host—of course, he knows a lot about that.

Then we have my cousin—you cannot pick your relatives—Chris Finlayson. Of course, he inherited the nasty gene of the family, unfortunately. I have beaten him twice, and I increased the majority last time. I gather he is going to stand against me for a third time in Rongotai. Bring it on, because the majority will be even bigger. He is here to lay down the rules on where to put your commas and whether you should wear jandals.

Then we have Gerry Brownlee. He places a ban on any interview with any media person who happens to question him. Then we have the junior Minister Simon Bridges, who often loses his rag in this place. Now he is so important that he will not even answer questions.

But the doozy of them all has to be the Prime Minister, John Key. Well, I have noticed over the last few weeks that he has become totally fixated, manic, and paranoid about the Green Party. He manages to include them in just about every sentence that he uses. But whom do National members listen to for advice? They are certainly not listening to the people you would normally expect that they would listen to. They are experts on everything! But whom are they listening to for advice? It is not the Salvation Army, because John Key said it ought to get out and look at what is happening on the street. He said that to the Salvation Army. I have to say that they are not listening to the Children’s Commissioner, because they are taking no notice of his ideas about poverty. They are not listening to the New Zealand Police, which is telling them that it is short of cash and it cannot fund front-line police. They are not listening to health professionals, who are telling them that there are problems in our health system. In fact, it is reflected, I have to say, in an aid that I am using today.

Mr SPEAKER: And the member is using it well too, might I add.

Hon ANNETTE KING: This aid reflects the fact that Tony Ryall is slipping in popularity with our health professionals, because obviously they find his health policies very, very poor indeed.

So who are National members listening to? Well, we now know whom they listen to. The Prime Minister told us. They listen to Cameron Slater. For those who do not know who Cameron Slater is, he is that infamous blogger called Whale Oil Beef Hooked. The Prime Minister has admitted that he talks to Cameron Slater a lot about political events because he has got an insightful mind. Cameron Slater is the man who calls people “feral” when they die, when they are killed in car accidents. Well, he is Paula Bennett’s bestie. Here I have a little photo of them together. He has been advising Paula Bennett on her policy on children. And what does he say about children? Well, here is some of his advice, especially if a child dies. He calls them “SOCKs”. If you do not know what “SOCKs” are, I have to tell you that it is so obscene and it is so offensive that I could not use the word in the House. But that is what Cameron Slater, who advises the Prime Minister and Paula Bennett, says about children when they die in New Zealand. He also says that if children have a silly first name, then that leads to their death, so somehow it is their fault. The last thing he says is that Māori are not caring for their kids. That advice is what goes to the National Party members from its main adviser, Cameron Slater. They should be ashamed of themselves.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): That was a particularly awful and distasteful intervention from Parliament’s most prominent landlady, Annette King. You know, the truth is that if you cannot run your own caucus, then you simply cannot hope to run the country. It is as simple as that. We on the National side of Parliament are working hard around the traps, day after day, and the message coming back to us loud and clear, day after day after day, is: “What on earth is Labour up to? Has it not learnt a thing since the last time it was in Government?”.

At the very moment that we get a lift in the economy—and that is thanks to John Key and Bill English—Labour just wants to start spending the money all over again. So it is just a couple of weeks into the new year and Labour and the Greens have promised to spend the thick end of three-quarters of a billion dollars a year. That was just their spending promises in January—that was just January. Three-quarters of a billion dollars of extra spending—that is Labour and the Greens. But even with his rather transparent election bribes, Mr Cunliffe simply cannot get it right. Do you remember his baby bonus policy?

Jami-Lee Ross: Baby bribe.

JACQUI DEAN: Baby bribe bonus policy—thank you. Well, it certainly sounded very generous. In fact, I was almost contemplating restarting my family. I mean, it is never too late. I could have done with the bonus. But, anyway, it certainly sounded really generous, and he certainly let the media think so. In fact, they printed all the lines.

But he got offside with them after that, of course. Read the fine print, and it ended up being just a little bit tricky—and then he blamed his staff. Oh, what a guy. He got found out for being tricky with his policy. What did he do? Did he front up like a man? Did he front up like a true leader? Did he what! What did he do? He blamed his staff. Oh, how appalling. Gosh, no wonder they are all leaving. You know, it must be absolutely gutting to have Shane Jones hogging the media for—how long has it been? Nearly a week—nearly a week with Shane Jones hogging the media. There must be a lot of those in the Labour caucus with absolutely sinking hearts. Do you think that in their heart of hearts they are beginning to realise that, once again, they have just chosen the wrong guy? Well, the latest Fairfax poll has Labour at around 30 percent. That is one off from 29 percent. That is not very good. That is no better than it was under David Shearer. [Interruption] So over on the other side of the House those members must be really worried. You are right—their heads are down.

Do you know what? New Zealanders are not stupid. They can see what they would get under a Labour-Greens Government. What they would get are big spending promises that mean big borrowing. That would mean big taxes, which, of course, those members would give back to us as welfare and policies that will utterly shut down the productive sector. So mining, agriculture, and fisheries will all have this great, big, green, sanctimonious hand come right down on top of them with policies that are centred around what they cannot do any more for the New Zealand economy. Both parties want less competition in the energy market. So, obviously, electricity prices will go up and, obviously, investment will go down, and they will implement an emissions trading scheme that will put household energy bills up by—how much? By $500 a year.

Jami-Lee Ross: How much?

JACQUI DEAN: By $500 a year. What they should be talking about—what this Government is talking about—is growing the economy, creating new jobs, getting the crime rate down, getting more bang for your buck from our public services, getting more elective surgeries, getting welfare dependency down, and getting more kids leaving school qualified so that they can get further training and have the brighter future that they are having under this Government.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): In this Parliament today, as veterans’ affairs spokesperson for New Zealand First, I tabled the following letter from Viet Nam veteran and medic John “Doc” Mountain, and I would like to now read this letter to the House: “The Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament. In October 2013 party representatives stood in this House and lavished praise upon New Zealand veterans who trained to serve in the armed forces. These men and women—ordinary New Zealanders—were prepared to do the extraordinary in the service of their nation. They were proud to be deployed, without hesitation, into harm’s way. In October 2013 MPs promised unqualified support to war veterans. However, I and many other military personnel, both current and veterans, express our bitter disappointment at the ongoing failure of MPs to honour this promise.

Unsatisfactory outcomes include the Nepata brothers’ claim for further compensation being declined and the recent unfavourable decision and despicable treatment of Jason Pore, an SAS trooper disabled in combat whilst serving our nation. Jason Pore received his injuries in combat but was cast aside like unwanted flotsam, without the compensation he was so deservedly entitled to. We believe that distressing outcomes such as these imply that the Ministers and members are not in possession of the full facts and are not receiving the comprehensive advice needed to provide the support veterans have been promised.

The military is the only occupation where one loses basic human rights accorded to normal citizens, thereby effectively nullifying any means of redress. Military personnel are required to sacrifice their lives in the execution of their military duties on the orders of an immediate superior. Surely such a profound commitment requires an equally profound response. Men and women in the armed forces must be able to have faith that no matter what happens, they and their families will be looked after. We ask the House to consider the ongoing miscarriage of justice regarding declining war disablement pensions based on incomplete military medical records linking the claimed condition to the claimants’ service. This claim rejection practice continues to be applied by Veterans Affairs New Zealand (VANZ) in spite of the Crown’s formal acknowledgment that medical records were poorly maintained and that Defence let veterans down.

During Tribute 08, a welcome home parade for Viet Nam veterans, in a public apology by the Crown to Viet Nam veterans, the then Chief of Defence and now Governor-General, Sir Jerry Mateparae, made a public apology to assembled veterans and Government visitors. He said: ‘I acknowledge here your concern about the maintenance of your personal and medical records. I believe your expectations around the integrity and completeness of your files were both fair and reasonable. NZDF let you down.’ He then went on to say: ‘You should not be concerned that this situation will affect you, as you are protected by the War Pensions Act, which provides that any benefit of doubt will be upheld in your favour.’ In such cases any benefits of doubt of a linkage to service are to be upheld in the veteran’s favour, as provided under sections 17 to 18 of the War Pensions Act 1954.” In conclusion, John Mountain said: “We implore members of this House to honour this promise and revisit these inequitable situations. We respectfully request that any such claims be reviewed and that those declined on the basis of missing medical records be accepted.”

Attached to that letter was an Official Information Act response from Veterans Affairs New Zealand that showed that in the period 2010 to 2013 some 7,412 claims were accepted, but 6,953 were declined—almost 50 percent were declined. Of those, a significant percentage was declined on the basis of the medical records being inadequate, missing, or incomplete. Those veterans deserve better. We have challenged the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs to take this up, to look into this properly, and to find out why many of these veterans’ claims are being declined and why so many of them are not receiving their due entitlements in terms of additional disablement payments. New Zealand First will be following this through with the Minister and with the ministry because we do believe that there are many thousands of veterans out there who have been hard-done-by through this whole process. It is time that this Parliament honoured its promise, as it has in the past, and honoured the commitments that Sir Jerry Mateparae made in Tribute 08.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): There is something really rotten going on in the Labour Party at the moment. No, I am not talking about its leadership, although you do have to ask yourself where its top three are. Cunliffe, Parker, and Robertson are nowhere to be seen today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is just out of order to refer to the absence of members within the Chamber.

MAGGIE BARRY: Certainly. But there is a silence from the Labour leadership, which makes a change from the sorts of gaffes that it is normally associated with. I could talk today about Labour’s total lack of policies that will grow our economy. I could dwell on those members’ financial mismanagement—buying the votes with the baby bonus. It is all very fertile ground for dwelling on their failings, but no. Today I am going to ask them to answer another case. It is one they are trying to duck and distance themselves from, but I think they really need to stand up and answer questions about their role.

I would like to ask them, and especially their leader—for the time being anyway, for today—David Cunliffe, to explain his role as the puppet master of a Television New Zealand (TVNZ) head of department, Shane Taurima. This is a man who was head of TVNZ’s Māori and Pacific unit, and at times he was a front-line television news and current affairs interviewer. This is a series of positions that have given him unbridled power, setting the agenda for news and current affairs programmes such as Waka Huia, Te Karere, and Marae Investigates. This is an individual whom his organisation, TVNZ, trusted.

As you all know, I think in this House at least, he was the unsuccessful candidate for the by-election selection for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Then he went back to his old job at TVNZ, saying, when he was asked by his bosses, that he was putting journalism ahead of politics. Well, that was a Tui billboard moment, because as it turns out that was not so. What he was doing was that he was up to his neck in organising political meetings in the buildings of TVNZ.

Dr Cam Calder: Whereabouts?

MAGGIE BARRY: Indeed, at TVNZ, in Hobson Street in Auckland. I worked there for many years myself. In fact, I worked in television news and current affairs for the State broadcaster, for both Radio New Zealand and television, for the best part of 30 years. It would never have happened then—absolutely never. We had journalistic principles, we had fair balance, we had integrity, and we did not overstep the mark. This man did. When he was asked by his employers at TVNZ whether he had chosen journalism over politics, he said journalism. Their only mistake in this, in my view, is that they trusted him. They took him at his word because he had been in the job for 12 years, and he was somebody whom they thought knew which way was up. Well, as it turns out, he did not.

His staff also have a case to answer because they used their TVNZ emails to organise branch meetings in the building of TVNZ. All of this is terrible. It is a disgrace, actually. TVNZ—because the Minister of Broadcasting, Craig Foss, has asked them as well—are calling a review into this. They are very disappointed, and admit that in retrospect they should not have reappointed him to that job. But I ask the Labour Party this, and in particular David Cunliffe and the leadership, such as it is in Labour: what was their role in all of this? What were they doing, allowing this to happen? We have Mr Cunliffe, an individual who perhaps was about to be the new boss of Mr Taurima. Did he give him assurances that he would get the nod at the next candidates’ selection that he was contesting? Were there undertakings given that his bosses-to-be at the Labour Party would give him favourable treatment? It could really be a battle of two Shanes, could it not, if he does go against Shane Jones. And he has declared pretty much that he is going to be doing that. I think it is “Shameful Shanes” times two—[Interruption] It is all of the above, Mr Calder—absolutely so.

I think that when you have an individual who ought to know better, who has made his living as supposedly an investigative current affairs journalist and news interviewer, it is an absolute disgrace. In the 30-odd years I spent in the business, somebody like him would not have been tolerated. I do not know how duplicitous he must have been or how arrogant he and his staff must have been to think that they could have got away with it.

Someone like Paul Henry has been an individual who has a late-night show, and it is a bit of an old chat show. He is a known opinionator—a known guy to peddle his views, and he is someone whom I suppose you could call a bit of a shock-jock, really. Shane Taurima, on the other hand, was a self-styled individual who had integrity and who supposedly held journalistic integrity close. I do not think he did. I think he has let his colleagues down. He has let the profession of journalism down.

If Labour is foolish enough to allow an individual like that to be selected, and allows someone as dishonourable as that to become a member of Parliament, then it has outdone itself. I think, and I put it to the House, that Shane Taurima, having betrayed the professional journalism code of ethics—fairness, impartiality, honesty, and integrity—is not a man who should be considered for higher office. David Cunliffe needs to be here to answer those questions about the role that he played in that situation. He has blood on his hands.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): You can see the desperation and hysteria setting in on the other side of the House. This is a Government whose members have become used to the ministerial BMWs and their leather seats and to the ministerial houses, and they do not want to give them up—they do not want to give them up. They can see them slipping away, and as they can see that the hysteria grows—the hysteria grows on the other side of the House, and the desperation grows.

You can see how desperate they are simply by looking at whom they are reliant upon and whom they are willing to do deals with. They will do deals with anyone if it improves their chances of holding on to the ministerial BMWs and the Treasury benches. They are willing to deal with that twice-convicted criminal John Banks. They are quite willing to take his vote. They are willing to make a Minister out of somebody who leaked Government information. What did John Key say about him less than a year ago? Less than a year ago, John Key said: “I want to believe him.” He was talking about Peter Dunne. He said: “I want to believe him, but the inquiry doesn’t rule him out.” He used that as the justification at the time for accepting Peter Dunne’s resignation as a Minister. There is a simple question that John Key has yet to answer: what has changed? What has changed?

Peter Dunne has repeatedly been given opportunities in this House to deny that he leaked the report, and he has repeatedly refused to take those opportunities. Why is that? Why is it that Peter Dunne will not stand up and say that he did not leak the Kitteridge report? Why is it that John Key thinks that someone who leaked confidential Government information to a journalist is an appropriate person to have as a Minister? There is a simple answer: he is desperate. He desperately wants Peter Dunne’s vote, he desperately wants to stay in Government, and he will deal with anyone in the process. He is quite happy to do a deal. There will be a cup of tea deal coming with Colin Craig, that homophobic misogynist who I do not think has any role in this Parliament. He wants to ban unisex toilets. That will be part of the Government’s agenda if Colin Craig gets his way in a future National Government. But John Key is quite happy to deal with him. He is quite happy to deal with anyone, as long as it keeps him in Government.

This is a Government and a Prime Minister that have completely lost their moral compass. There was a time when John Key did stand up and rule some lines in the sand around whom he would and would not deal with—but that is all out the window. It has all gone out the window now, as long as he can stay Prime Minister. It does not matter whom he is going to deal with. As long as he can stay Prime Minister, John Key will do a deal with anyone.

I listened before to one of those National members over there talking about fiscal responsibility. It was Jacqui Dean, the one who wants to ban water. She was talking about fiscal responsibility. I will tell you what, I will not take a lecture from the National Government about fiscal responsibility. This is a Government that will leave as its legacy at the end of this term of Parliament the biggest debt in New Zealand’s history. Let me say that again: this Government has clocked up the biggest Government debt in New Zealand’s history. It is bigger than Muldoon’s. At the end of 6 years National will leave a debt for future generations of New Zealanders that will be even bigger than the debt that Rob Muldoon managed to clock up. That will be this Government’s legacy to New Zealand.

I will not take lectures on fiscal responsibility from that Government, because we know that the last Labour Government left New Zealand with a Crown debt that was net zero—none. The debt was gone. The last Labour Government paid it off, and in a short space of time—in the 6 years that National will have been in power—it has managed to clock up the biggest debt in New Zealand’s history. National members are in no position to be lecturing anyone about fiscal responsibility.

And, of course, we know that they have got their priorities all wrong. Take education. They want to spend more money on charter schools than they are willing to put into the State school system. That is simply wrong. They are quite happy to plough money into the ideological experiment that is charter schools as part of their desperate deal with John Banks and the ACT Party, but they are not willing to put that level of funding and that level of support into our existing public school system. That is wrong, and it is simply another example of how this Government is willing to do a deal.

It is that desperate to stay in Government that it is willing to do a deal with anyone. There is no principle behind this Government’s decision making—no principle, no moral compass. It is just simply doing whatever it takes to stay in Government. That is the John Key mantra. Whatever it takes to stay in Government, John Key is willing to do it. And, of course, we know he is getting his advice from Cameron Slater. This is the guy who thinks it is OK to make fun of children dying—to make fun of children dying. John Key rings him up all the time, because he thinks he has “great insights”. Those were John Key’s words. He thinks Cameron Slater, the guy who makes fun of dead kids, has got great insights that are useful for the Prime Minister. How demeaning to the office of Prime Minister for him to be ringing up someone like Cameron Slater on a regular basis to ask for advice. He should be ashamed of himself. He should be ashamed of the type of people whom he is willing to associate with.

I think New Zealanders should be able to expect better from their Prime Minister than that. I think John Key should have more respect for the job and the office that he holds than that. Clearly, he does not. He is simply willing to do a deal with anyone as long as he remains Prime Minister. He is willing to talk to anyone as long as he remains Prime Minister.

Of course, this is not a Prime Minister who has had a particularly honest or robust relationship with the truth in the past. Let us not forget about the Tranz Rail shares, where John Key deliberately tried to mislead New Zealanders about the number of Tranz Rail shares he had, or about him appointing his childhood friend—what’s-his-name Fletcher—as the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau and then pretending he did not know anything about it. They get memory loss over there on that side of the House every time they are confronted with something that is a little bit inconvenient. There is the whole Kim Dotcom saga, and John Key’s and John Banks’ memory lapses. Every time there is something—

Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is an extraordinary pleasure to rise to take a call in this debate. We have to acknowledge—and a number of speakers have alluded to this—that the third Labour Party leader in as many years is struggling. I take no pleasure in saying that. I am not into schadenfreude. I take no pleasure in it but he is struggling. We have noted that he has not been asked to take a call today. He has not been asked to take a call today in this debate. Instead, the debate has been led off by the Hon Annette King, who, it has to be said, is one of the better performers in the House. I think that members of the Labour caucus are probably rueing the day that the Hon Annette King said that she did not want to be leader, because I think that it is possible that they are overlooking one of their more able performers, because the others are in disarray.

The others are in disarray, and the third Labour leader in as many years made a stuttering start to the year. A Best Start? How could it be anything like that? It was nothing like that. It was a stuttering start, talking about middle-class welfare. It was poorly delivered and poorly costed and, of course, it just goes on from there. So are the members of the Labour caucus disheartened? Well, of course they are. Are they scratching their heads? Is there massive debate? Are they saying: “Shane, can you take a bit more pressure off the leader?”, or “Grant, what are you going to do about it?”. Yes, we know there are big problems.

On this side of the House, the Government is managing the economy in a fiscally prudent way. We have managed the recession well and now the economy is making encouraging progress, and we are reaping the benefits. This is the stark decision for New Zealand. We have to have the same probity and fiscal rectitude that managed the recession to manage the period of growth that we are entering into. The economy is building good momentum. It is generating more jobs, which lifts people out of welfare dependency, and is providing more opportunities.

Sue Moroney: Come to Hamilton. Come to Hamilton and see.

Dr CAM CALDER: It is generating higher incomes, and as the member across the House alludes to, it is broad-based in the regions. It is broad-based in the regions and more and more New Zealanders are reaping the benefits. They are reaping the benefits from that economic growth. From September 2012 to September 2013 growth was 3.5 percent. The OECD is forecasting that in the year ahead it is going to be even better. But it has to be managed— it has to be managed.

The stronger economy, improving business and consumer confidence, has translated into more jobs. We heard that last year in the September quarter there was a huge increase in growth, with 27,000 more jobs for New Zealanders—new jobs for New Zealand. The increase in jobs over the year to last September was 53,700. There were 53,700 more jobs in that September than in the previous September. So employment levels increased by 2.4 percent. This is at the same time as participation increasing to almost 69 percent. So we have been fiscally prudent in our management of the recession and New Zealand now needs prudent management of the period of growth.

We have a plan. We have a plan for this, with key inputs to lift business opportunities, jobs, and growth. I refer, of course, to the Business Growth Agenda, where we are going to grow the export markets available to us. Tim Groser is doing a great job on that. Capital markets are going to increase, we are sponsoring a massive amount of investment in innovation, we are investing in skills and safe workplaces, we are exploiting in an appropriately environmentally sound manner our myriad of natural resources, and, of course, we are building infrastructure. So we have a responsible plan to go forward.

What about the Opposition? Well, we have heard from a number of speakers that in the first few weeks Labour, with its Green acolytes, has been promising even more spending. It has been promising $750 million more spending. It is uncosted, untargeted, and it is more spending. It is ill-conceived middle-class welfare. Really, it is a fantasy world that those members are living in. We are back into this tax more, borrow more—

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Despite all the negative politics, and despite all the doom and gloom and negativity of the National Party, the Green Party has a simple message in this election: here comes the sun. The Greens want to give Kiwis energy choices, more competition, and make it cheaper for them to produce their own power from the sun. I do not know whether members have noticed today but outside we have seen a massive solar spill in Wellington. Unlike a deep-sea oil spill, the only impact we are seeing is a lovely day and Kiwis producing their own electricity.

On Sunday, as you all know, Green Party co-leader Russel Norman launched the Greens’ Solar Homes package, to help Kiwis access low-cost loans to face the upfront barrier of the capital cost of solar panels. Solar is one of the greenest forms of generation we have and we have ample sunlight in New Zealand. It gives Kiwis independence from the big electricity companies, and with no fuel cost it insulates Kiwis from relentless electricity price rises. We all know about those price rises. We all get that sinking feeling in our guts when another power bill arrives in the post.

What we have seen under National is our power prices increase by 22 percent. This year, despite demand going down, the prices keep going up and up. It must be clear to everyone by now that National’s electricity system is not working for New Zealand and is not working for New Zealanders. Under the Greens’ Solar Homes initiative, Kiwis will be able to go to the Government to access a low-cost loan to be repaid through their rates so they can purchase solar panels or batteries.

The loans will be cost-neutral to the Crown. There is a small administration cost to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority of under $1 million, and the net Crown fiscal position is still neutral. Once the loan is repaid, the families own the panels and batteries in full. They can make money by selling excess generation into the grid. I think that this is an example of smarter, greener economics in action. I think that this is an example of energy freedom in action. I think that this is an example of new jobs and clean energy in action.

We estimate that we could see 1,000 new jobs created from Kiwis helping Kiwis to go solar. When you look around the world, in America, every 4 minutes a new home or business goes solar. Across the Ditch in Australia there are 1 million homes with solar panels on the top. New Zealand has a tremendous opportunity to grow jobs, help Kiwis save money, and save carbon. So, predictably, the Government came out with its negativity, with its shrill screaming of “Subsidies!”—never mind that it is not a subsidy; it is a loan. I think the reason why the Government screams “Subsidies!” as a knee-jerk reaction is that subsidies are on its lips.

Hon Annette King: So what did it give to MediaWorks?

GARETH HUGHES: That is exactly right, Annette King. Subsidies are on its lips—look at the $30 million it has just paid out to Rio Tinto, despite Rio Tinto making a $3.7 billion profit in the last year. When I look at the $46 million in tax breaks and the $25 million in seismic survey subsidies for the oil industry, or the dodgy deals National members are entertaining for the Choruses and the Skycities of this world, I think the word “subsidies” is on the tip of their lips.

Then they started to scream about renewables. Never mind that under National Huntly power station has just had a 25-year extension to burn more coal and gas. Never mind that under National the Prime Minister is going around Taranaki opening gas-fired peaking power stations powered by the controversial fracking practice. And never mind that the Government’s own officials advised the Government that it is not on track to meet its 90 percent renewables target. So this policy from the Greens is a good example of smarter, greener politics and it is a bright start towards getting 100 percent renewables.

What we know is that in terms of energy National is stuck in the dark age. But the good news for New Zealanders is that here comes the sun. We are giving Kiwis a real choice this election. Under National there are more excuses for power price rises, more risky deep-sea drilling, more assets flogged off. Or, on the other side, the Green Party is offering cheaper power from NZ Power, insulation under your roof, and a solar panel on the top. If National wants to be the party of big oil and big power company profits, so be it. We are going to be the party offering Kiwis cheaper, cleaner, smarter power, and we are going to give the power back to New Zealanders. We think that is the real brighter future for New Zealand. Kia ora.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is a great pleasure to have the final slot in today’s general debate. It has been a week of very interesting facts and quotes. The one that I was most interested in was the Fairfax poll that indicated that most New Zealanders do not want more tax and spend. Funnily, there was also a poll that said that National was riding a wave of soaring optimism, which I thought was rather good. The poll said that 67 percent opposed, and only 27 percent were in favour of, raising taxes to fund new initiatives, which must have come as a bit of a shock to the Labour Party and the Greens. But what I found most interesting was the quote from David Cunliffe. He said the question was unfair because the vast majority of New Zealanders would not be affected by its planned tax rises, which would include a higher top tax rate and a capital gains tax. I thought: “Well, there it is. There’s the Labour philosophy in a nutshell. It is perfect: you’re going to give lollies to everybody, but you’ll make only a few people pay for it. There’s the way to win political salvation.”

But of course nobody believes that. They all know that we all end up paying for it in the end. We already have massive redistribution in this country where we have the top 6 percent of income tax payers paying nearly 40 percent of the tax—more when you take Working for Families into account. And do not forget that about 70 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand pay a 17.5 percent tax rate or less. So this is a Government that has been very successful at keeping taxes down and New Zealanders like it. It is interesting when you drill down to the figures. Funnily enough, it is the under 30s who are strongly opposed to higher taxes and more spending, and, funnily enough, more Māori. There is 50 percent net disapproval amongst Māori. More Māori than Europeans opposed raising taxes to pay for spending. Those with no qualifications at all were most stridently against paying more taxes and having more spending by the Government. Those with household incomes below $50,000 were more opposed to paying more taxes than higher-income ones.

New Zealanders have realised that they are better equipped to spend their money than the Government, and that is because money is very hard to find and it is hard to earn, and it is annoying to see it being wasted by councils and Governments. That is why this Government has being so disciplined in its spending, has been so disciplined in the way it has gone about making sure the Public Service gets results for the best prices, and that is why this Government enjoys the level of support that it has.

I must say I found it positively weird listening to Mr Hipkins’ contribution on debt, saying that National is being bad because it has left a high level of debt. Well, he seems to ignore the Christchurch earthquakes and the billions of dollars that were spent, he has ignored the global financial crisis, and he ignores the lag effect. Yes, Labour inherited a well-run economy in 1999 and held things reasonably firm for a few years. But it left a country pregnant with 10 years of future deficits in 2008 and massively unfunded spending schemes, which has meant that if the Government carried on the policies that we inherited in 2008, we would have massive deficits and massive debt. But National did continue spending to protect the vulnerable and to deal with the earthquake but, importantly, it has set a path back to surplus, which we are going to achieve this year, and it has got a path back to paying back debt, and that is why New Zealanders trust National with the economy.

It is also weird to hear from the Greens. They spend their whole time arguing for measures that will increase the cost of energy in the economy, yet they jump up and down with a couple of gimmicks about somehow subsidising solar energy, as if that is salvation for a problem that they have created themselves by advocating for policies that increase the price of energy.

Finally, I do not want to comment particularly on Mr Shane Jones’ claims. There have been lots of allegations, lots of innuendoes, and not many facts, but I am sure there will be due process. It will be very carefully figured out. All those issues will be taken seriously to get to the bottom of them. But I must say that there is a strong anti-Australian strand coming through everything he said. He was standing there this morning in the Finance and Expenditure Committee going on about Aussie banks and he was going on about Aussie companies all the time. Well, I do not think there is a hang of a lot in favour of this country taking on an anti-Australia campaign such as has been carried out by Mr Jones. There is that old saying that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I have never really understood that until now, but when we look at Labour, when it is on to the third leader and we have got Mr Cunliffe, it is a bit like the words of the singer Pink.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I move, That the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill be now read a second time. Can I firstly thank all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the efforts they made in trying to reach a win-win solution with this bill. I suggest it was more like a win-draw solution in the end, but I do acknowledge the extra efforts they made to try to get a solution.

It could be said that what goes around comes around, and there are a number of lessons in this whole process for not only the Tasman District Council and its staff and councillors but also many councils up and down this country. This bill has been subject to much concern and comment—and quite rightly so—from a group of ratepayers from Ligar Bay and Tata Beach who brought this issue to the attention of the Tasman District Council. I appreciate the efforts that they went to to follow through with this, which is effectively leading to the bill in Parliament today.

As its name suggests, the bill seeks to validate a number of irregularities that occurred in the setting and assessing of rates by the Tasman District Council over a 6-year period from 2003-04 to 2008-09. In this regard I do find myself repeating the words of a colleague in the House at the end of last year. He was saying, with regard to the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, that no one is a fan of retrospective legislation, least of all the MP who is required to sponsor that legislation. So I bring this legislation to the House somewhat reluctantly but on behalf of the ratepayers in the northern part of my electorate.

As I say, it is never a good look to have retrospective legislation to rectify failures that have occurred, and this bill effectively validates the actions of a council that failed to follow proper process and to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act. But it is, as the member previously acknowledged regarding Kaipara, the only way to make progress and give some certainty.

The question I would like to see answered on behalf of the Tasman ratepayers is whether it is also the case that the overseers in the case, Audit New Zealand, provided proper safeguards for the ratepayers through those years when, effectively, it approved the process in the Tasman district. And, of course, that was proven not to be valid. Some would say the ratepayers of Tasman District Council had been let down. As advisers told the committee, Tasman District Council failed “Rates 101”, effectively, and that is something of a condemnation for a council that has prided itself, I guess, on process. It certainly demands proper process of its ratepayers when they come to make applications, so it does go, as I said, to the situation of what goes around comes around.

In regard to the ratepayers of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach, I would just like to say that, firstly, they ended up paying a rate they considered was not valid. They have not been receiving specific water drainage services but, indeed, were asked by the council to pay a rate. They have been angry and frustrated. It was, indeed, their follow-through that alerted the Tasman District Council to the mistakes across other areas of its rate demands.

Tasman District Council, of course, as is prone to happen in councils, absolutely denied any problem with the setting of the rates and denied the fact that these rates were illegal. The origin of the dispute, as I said, lies with the challenge by those ratepayers. When the council denied that anything was wrong, the ratepayers then took that to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman came to an interesting conclusion, and there are a couple of quotes I would like to refer to: “The procedure for making a rate is set out in section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. I am accordingly not satisfied that a rate has been made.” The Ombudsman went on to say: “I am accordingly not satisfied that a Tata Beach Urban Drainage Area has been established.” And, finally, to take a quote: “I have formed a view that levying a stormwater rate for Tata Beach was based wholly or partly on a mistake of law and fact”. Effectively, the rate was not properly imposed.

These things may seem technical to someone from the outside, but a particular ratepayer in the group decided to follow through with this and was proven to be correct. In investigating it, the Ombudsman said that, actually, there are a whole lot of rates that have not been set properly. I would like to acknowledge Mr Schmuke and a number of people who live over at Tata Beach for their tenacity. They have brought this to a head, and they have probably alerted a number of councils around the country to the technical challenges of setting rates.

Parliament deems rates, levies on industries, and taxes paid to be very sacrosanct, and it is important that there are protections for both the person paying the rate and those people who demand them. Unfortunately, limitations around a local bill and the scope of the notices advertising meant that the request by the local ratepayers at Tata Beach and Ligar Bay to have clause 9 omitted from the bill was not possible. And, in fact, the bill put to the select committee had to be passed in its complete form, or, if there were to be any amendments, there was a requirement to take the bill back for consultation, which the council did not want to go through; I guess officials certainly did not.

There was a view that even if the bill for all of the rates for Tata Beach and Ligar Bay were omitted, it would have been a big challenge to then go and find the people who paid the rates at that time and subsequent to that, and find out where they are living now and how much they had paid. So the committee, on balance, decided that we should proceed with the bill as presented by the Tasman District Council, without any change.

The people who raised the issue, the people who were proven to be correct, the people who still think they are paying a drainage rate when they should not be, are still a bit sore about this. But I have to say that, on balance, we should acknowledge their efforts and we should assure them that the rates paid by them will protect their properties better than they otherwise would if there was no money. So I think that, overall, we have made some progress in what has been a long and tortuous process for a number of key ratepayers.

I would just like to say to Tasman District Council that although I am happy to sponsor this bill and to put it forward, the council should hear the lesson, and that is that officials in councils should listen to ratepayers who come along with queries and with issues, because often they are correct. And this is a unitary council, so the normal tension between resource management of a regional council and the district council’s responsibilities does not exist in Tasman District Council. It is one council for both areas of responsibilities. That tension that often gives better accountability does not occur in Tasman, so we are reliant on the wisdom, the skills, and the judgment of officials in one unitary council. I am not convinced that that is the best way forward. None the less we have a unitary council in Tasman, in part due to the lobbying and cheap politicking of the Hon Nick Smith some time ago. But we will put that to one side and say that the passage of this bill will validate rates that have been claimed by the Tasman District Council.

Without this bill’s passage those rates are, effectively, illegal, so the council needs certainty over the income it took. It does not want to be subject to any legal challenge. But in passing this legislation in whole, we should acknowledge the efforts of the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay residents who brought this to the attention of the council first, and then to the Ombudsman. Then legislation in Parliament was required to rectify a problem that was initially denied by the Tasman District Council.

Councils up and down this country should take note—there may be some technical problems with rates being set today or yesterday, so double-check. And councils should appreciate the fact that ratepayers, ordinary people of New Zealand, can make mistakes in dealing with councils, and they should not be clobbered for it, just in the way that Parliament is facilitating the passage of this bill and acknowledging the mistake of the Tasman District Council but not making it pay the penalty.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise to support the member Damien O’Connor on this local bill that he introduced to the House, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, in its second reading. We are certainly supporting it as a National Party team. We understand the weaknesses in the bill, but then, as the member so clearly put it, it is a very imperfect situation there in the Tasman district. We are making it better; we are not claiming to make it perfect. The situation there is that, essentially, the rate setting was broken. We are cobbling together the pieces to make the best of what is a difficult situation.

This bill will validate rates set by the Tasman District Council for the period from 2003-04 through to 2008-09—that 5-year period during which the council did not follow the correct process in setting rates. We want to be clear about that. This bill will also validate rates and penalties paid over the period, authorise the council to recover any unpaid rates, and ratify the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate. This bill will highlight to other councils the importance of proper scrutiny when setting rates.

I know that Damien O’Connor in his first reading speech introduced this legislation with some angst, and he has repeated those concerns just now. I cannot do better than quote Damien O’Connor in his first reading speech where he said: “I have to say I am not overly enthusiastic about bringing retrospective legislation to the House. However, I am a very proud local member, and I have spoken to the Tasman District Council and agreed to sponsor this bill into Parliament where a select committee can give it due consideration.” The member Damien O’Connor said he was a reluctant sponsor of retrospective legislation, as, of course, we all are. “The main area where we seem to have this in the House is over fisheries legislation. This is not the case here.”, said Damien O’Connor. “It is local government.”—it has made mistakes—“Mistakes do happen from time to time. I know each and every one of the councillors, in good faith, took advice from their staff and of course assumed that they had put in place valid rating claims on the ratepayers.”

I do not know those councillors. The Hon Damien O’Connor obviously does know those councillors. He felt and he was assured that they, in good faith, had left the role to staff of actually putting together the rates and ensuring that they were brought together properly, and that ratepayers would be legally required to pay those rates. As Damien O’Connor said back then, “So this is perhaps a long and drawn-out, and quite expensive, process, but it is one that we have to go through none the less.” And that is what brings members to the House today. The National Party is joining Damien O’Connor in passing, I hope, when the vote goes through, the second reading of this piece of legislation.

It is true that we have seen issues like this arise across the country from time to time. We just recently dealt with a similar issue in Kaipara. National, as the public will know, has introduced Better Local Government reforms, which will help make local government more efficient, more responsive, and better focused so that these types of issues do not arise again. They will help the National Government drive the reform process to ensure that councils focus clearly on their core business, are not frustrated or in any way confused, and are not led to not pay attention to the detail of their core business. The Better Local Government reforms will include a work stream to monitor and improve council performance and to prevent future procedural errors, as we see in this Tasman District bill and we saw in the Kaipara bill as well. So it is quite timely for us as the National Government to drive through those reforms to get better outcomes from local government for their ratepayers.

I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which went through the process in committee of looking at the clauses one by one and discussing them with the Tasman District public and the Tasman District Council and others who had a view. We made some changes. For example, for the sake of consistency, technical amendments will be made to clauses 5(a), 6, and 9 to replace the statement “declared to have been” with “declared to be and to always have been”. The committee is sympathetic to proposals to delete clause 9, but found that this course of action would be outside the scope of the bill. Damien O’Connor outlined the issues there.

As such, the committee has recommended only the technical amendments. Clause 9 seeks to validate targeted rates set by the council for the 2006 financial year for the purposes of the stormwater works in the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach urban drainage areas, for example. The committee also noted that there would be many practical implications of deleting clause 9, and that is why the intent of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 is for local authorities to address rating errors as soon as is practicable. Under that Act, we are ensuring that when councils come across errors they act swiftly and justly. Leaving those errors, setting them aside, and not dealing with them leads to the problems we have seen in the Tasman District. I would like to emphasise not just to the Tasman District Council officials who are listening but to those in local authorities right across New Zealand that if you come across errors in the rating orders that councils have passed historically, then the council needs to address those errors as soon as is practicable, not just because it is useful to face up to mistakes and, in the end, deal with them but because the law says that councils need to do that immediately.

Given the historic nature of the rating errors in question, it would be difficult without such validation. The council would need to be required to determine which ratepayers had paid the rate in 2006-07 and the amount they had paid—a very difficult task for it to undertake. It would also have to ascertain whether the current ratepayers are the same ratepayers as those in 2006-07, it would have to apportion rates if there were multiple owners, and it would have to write to each ratepayer advising them of the amount of the refund and requesting bank details for repayment. So in making those changes in the bill that we have before us today, if the committee had recommended that, that is what councils would have to go through—not only an onerous task for the council but one that would inevitably result in mistakes and would transfer angst from one group of people to another group of people, from one set of ratepayers to another set of ratepayers. It is not this Parliament’s role to transfer vexed problems from one group to another, and we are making the best, as I said at the beginning of my speech, of what is a difficult situation. The merits of setting a stormwater rate were found to be outside the scope of this bill.

So, in summary, this bill is needed to validate certain rates set incorrectly during the period 2003-04 through to 2008-09. Without validation, the council remains vulnerable to legal challenge from ratepayers over incorrectly set rates. No one is arguing that they will. Some residents have objected to details of the stormwater rates that they were not properly consulted on and that they are being charged for stormwater services they are not using, but Damien O’Connor himself acknowledges, as the bill’s sponsor, that he has discussed their concerns and is convinced that the select committee will provide residents with an opportunity to engage and to move on. A key part of National’s Better Local Government reforms is to prevent this from happening again. I support—reluctantly, like Damien O’Connor and others in the committee—this bill in the House today at its second reading.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Malo le soifua, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I note that following this bill there is a range of members’ bills, including bills that have been put up by my colleagues. I would like for the House to be able to spend time on those particular bills, ushering those through, so my comments on this particular bill are not going to be very long.

I note also the Local Government and Environment Committee’s report. I am a member of that committee. I regret, however, that as a new member I have not had the opportunity to sit through all of the discussion around this particular bill. I do note that the committee received 14 submissions from interested groups and individuals and it heard four. Like the previous speakers, I too am somewhat reluctant. I am sort of dragging my feet on this bill. I know that my colleague Maryan Street aired it quite well when we were debating the Kaipara District Council situation. But as much as I am a strong supporter of local government, as much as I value the role that local government plays in community development and in nation-building, and as much as I strive and aspire to ensure that, going forward, there is a close working relationship between central government and local government, I have to say that when these rates validating bills are placed before the House, it just makes it harder for those who do not believe in local government to come on board and support the kind of vision that the Labour Party has for local government.

I note, however, that the Tasman District Council, in presenting this bill and asking Parliament to consider it, had this to say. It said that the “Tasman District Council failed to set its rates correctly across the District due to incorrect administrative procedures from 2003/2004 to 2008/2009, and we failed to include a map in our 2006/2007 Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) to adequately describe the area covered by the Ligar Bay and the Tata Beach stormwater urban drainage area rates.” The council admits its “procedural mistakes and are now seeking to rectify the situation through this Bill. Council is very sorry and apologises to our community for our mistakes. We are very embarrassed for the mistakes—and rightly so. We also apologise for needing to take up Parliament’s and this Select Committee’s valuable time in order to correct our errors.”

I do not doubt the sincerity of those words. However, what my colleague Damien O’Connor emphasised earlier in the latter parts of his speech was a call for councillors to treat seriously the roles that they play as elected representatives. Sure, we can call these procedural mistakes, but the fact of the matter is that if we want the public to take an active and participatory role in our local decision-making, then we need to treat our stewardship of local councils with a great deal of care and responsibility. By and large, if most residents are given the opportunity to see the intimate goings-on of councils—as far as the public are concerned—they can rightly make all sorts of allegations when these mistakes are made.

So I recognise that when we look at the 2011 local body elections, we seem to be heading into a new era, a crossroads in our local government system. On the one hand, you have the school of thought promoted by others of wanting to take control of local government. On the other hand, there is another school of thought arising from the strong desire of the public to participate more and the public demanding their right to have a say in those local government decisions. I saw in Auckland how, for example, the Pacific communities put up many representatives to run in the race for those local boards, and I can say that for Auckland, for the Labour Party at least, out of the 18 candidates who ran, 14 of them were elected on either the council or the local board. Out of those 14, eight of them were brand new candidates. I think that in many ways that reflects the strong desire that is held by many sectors in our communities to participate more in local decision-making.

I note that the committee, when deliberating on this particular bill, had an issue about clause 9. I think that there was a call—perhaps an advancing by some—for clause 9 to not stay as it is, and I understand that the advice received from the officials was that by removing that particular clause they would actually be dealing outside of the scope of this particular bill.

It gives me no pleasure to support my colleague on this bill. I think, as I emphasise again, the councillors, the mayors—you know, from this House at least—must look to how they can avoid these kinds of bad decision-making. And I think that Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers have a role to play in providing training—absolute training. I was a member of the council, and I think it is quite easy for new councillors to come on board, whatever the local authority is, and begin to feel that as new councillors they rely on the officials, that they rely on the senior councillors. That might be OK for some, but I think that when you put yourself up to run for these positions, you have got to be prepared to hit the ground running. I think not only do the councillors have the responsibility to be well prepared for these roles but also our officials on local councils have a role to play to ensure that their advice is of the highest standard. So those are my comments here.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): In speaking on the second reading of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, I want to, first, commend Damien O’Connor for the way that he has worked with the Local Government and Environment Committee over what has been a very careful consideration of the matters raised in this bill.

Members from across the House are expressing their reluctant support for the objective of the bill. I think that is the correct position to take on this bill, because although Parliament is here to enact legislation, I think we all feel uncomfortable with enacting retrospective legislation that picks up the pieces from a lack of due process in local government. It is important that our select committee consideration of this bill, our readings in the House, and the comments we are all making on this bill reflect that but also acknowledge that although you can point the finger as much as you like and point out the deficiencies, what matters, actually, in Parliament and in the bill that Damien O’Connor has brought to the House is that we find a solution for the ratepayers. It is the ratepayers who are the ones who are feeling the impacts of deficiencies in the decision making of their local authority.

I do hear the comments of the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, about capability and capacity building within the local government sector, and he is quite right. That is why this Government has brought in a broad programme of Better Local Government reforms to ensure that the kind of situation we see in this bill does not arise again. It is germane also to recognise that local authorities throughout New Zealand come in many different forms and many different sizes.

We do know that as a result of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, after a process of a commission and then council organisation, we now have, I think, what is becoming an effective Auckland Council. It is not perfect. Of course it is not perfect, but we have a much more efficient large urban local authority—still with the same powers. It does have its own Act—yes, it does—but, essentially, it still has the same powers as the Tasman District Council, just on a vastly different scale.

The Tasman District Council’s activities are Tasman’s activities; they are not Auckland activities, and probably do not want to be. Those people live in a very nice rural corner of provincial New Zealand, on the West Coast, and none of them, I imagine, is going to argue that they would want their council to be any different. The reason I am talking about the differences between local authorities is that although we might have Tasman, we might have McKenzie, and we might have Waimate and other local authorities that are effectively tiny—there might be one full-time planner and one full-time finance officer—when the finance person, for example, goes away on maternity leave, has to be away, or goes on a course, there is simply not anybody to fill the gap.

So I think we need to recognise that although local governments are very, very different in terms of their capacities, we expect them to have the same capability in setting their rates. Why is that important? It is important because we are taking money—tax-paid money—from ratepayers to provide them with council services, such as, in this instance, stormwater drainage and other rating matters.

So we have to have every sympathy with the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council and they have to have the confidence, and should have the confidence, that their elected members, the chief executive officer, and the people who work for the chief executive officer have the capability of correctly striking the rates. In this instance they have not done so, and the Local Government and Environment Committee has also dealt with other councils where that has not been done properly.

I want to just talk a little further about the ratepayer. We call them ratepayers, but they include our elderly citizens. We are all, I guess, ratepayers in this House, and everybody who works here is a ratepayer. We all expect our local authorities to provide us with good services in turn for that cheque that we write out every quarter or that direct debit that we provide every quarter. We expect, as ratepayers, to get good value from rates—it does not matter whether we are politicians or whether we are retired and on a fixed income, like my mum-in-law. She is a superannuitant, so she is on a fixed income. She has got to pay rates too and it has a big impact on her life—arguably more so, perhaps, than on a politician’s life. But we all expect to get good value from rates and we expect, absolutely, that if people are going to be taking money out of our wages—our tax-paid wages—that it is done fairly, it is done for a good purpose, and it is done correctly.

The Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill puts right those deficiencies in the decision making of the Tasman District Council. I imagine that there has been an election between now and the time when this bill was lodged and Damien O’Connor was working with the council to find a solution. So there might have been a number of changes in personnel, but I can guarantee that from the mayor and the chief executive officer down they will be having a pretty close look at their rate-setting mechanisms. It is all set out for them. It is all set out in the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act. It is all set out for them. It is incumbent on them to set the rates correctly.

The Better Local Government reform package, which this National Government has been working on since we came into Government 5 years ago, has been introduced to provide clarity around the role of local government. I cannot help wondering whether that focus on providing good services and good infrastructure for ratepayers is long overdue. So we have done a piece of work, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012—was it in 2012, Minister Tremain?

Hon Chris Tremain: The first one was in 2012.

JACQUI DEAN: We are considering an amendment bill from 2013. That is before the Local Government and Environment Committee now. They are all part of that drive to provide better public services to ratepayers. It does not matter whether they are in Tasman—we are dealing with the Tasman bill at the moment but we have dealt with other similar bills. I hope that we do not have to do so in the future, but we may.

So the Better Local Government reforms that this National Government is working hard on—and the Hon Chris Tremain has played an important part in that work—are aimed at stronger governance in the local government sector. They are aimed at providing greater efficiencies for ratepayers, more clarity for ratepayers, and more responsible financial management for ratepayers—and perhaps this comes to the nub of this issue for local government. We also have a really strong desire—and let me just talk about my dear mum-in-law—to keep rates affordable for everybody in our communities.

I acknowledge that it is OK for politicians—all of us politicians—because we can afford our rates. Of course we can afford our rates. We are privileged in all sorts of ways and we must not forget those people on fixed incomes. For them, the rates bill is a big portion of their expenditure and they expect—and they should expect—good performance, clarity, and a real purpose of local government that is there to provide good service for them.

I support the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I do commend the local member, Damien O’Connor, for bringing it to the House. And I do hope that we can get this bill through in a timely manner so that the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council can move forward with some certainty and confidence in their local authority.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe. I hope that we can get the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill through in a timely manner. I will be taking only a short call. Along with others, I acknowledge the work of the bill’s promoter, the Hon Damien O’Connor. Like everyone else who has spoken, none of us likes retrospective legislation, and it is a concern that both the Tasman District Council and the Kaipara District Council have had to ask Parliament in this term for retrospective legislation because of defective rating resolutions. The Christchurch City Council is suggesting that it may need to do the same. So it certainly might assist if the Department of Internal Affairs provided templates to councils on the form of their rating resolutions so that these are made correctly and we do not have to waste parliamentary time on such matters.

The Green Party supports this bill because it corrects the procedural mistakes made by the district council and it is validating something that the council could not have done if it had got the process right. We agree with the council’s assessment that its mistakes did not deprive people of any significant rights. As others have explained, these mistakes were administrative errors between 2003-04 and 2008-09 and a failure to include a map that adequately described the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater urban drainage area. None of the 14 people who made submissions argued that it was inappropriate for the stormwater rate to apply to their properties.

If we did not pass this bill, then the council would be faced with the cumbersome task of unwinding that urban drainage area for Tata Beach and Ligar Bay and finding a different mechanism to pay for the stormwater infrastructure.

As the photograph provided by the council shows, it is quite a comprehensive network of about 3 kilometres of pipe and some 50 sumps in a stunning area of New Zealand, Golden Bay. We want to ensure that the stormwater treatment and discharge mechanisms there ensure that water quality is not downgraded. As Mr O’Connor has acknowledged, it was Mr Schmuke’s unhappiness with the proposal—his work and that of others—that brought the defects in the rating resolutions to the council’s attention, which led to this bill.

One of the other reasons we are supporting the bill is that all of the residents and ratepayers in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay areas do receive a benefit from the stormwater services, even if it is an indirect benefit. After heavy rain, the fact that the stormwater system exists potentially reduces the likelihood of flooding on their properties. It is because the council uses quite a progressive approach to funding the stormwater system, where it charges all ratepayers the same rate per dollar capital value of their properties, that you have the cost spread across everybody equitably. If the council had to unravel that, then potentially it would require a much more difficult way of funding the stormwater system and the capital infrastructure improvements.

But it is puzzling that because of the quite rapid growth in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay areas, because of their coastal location, the council has not required a development contribution from subdividers and land developers to help fund improvements in the stormwater system. It has relied just on rates. This is where I take issue with the speakers from the National benches and their comments about Better Local Government. A major attack on development contributions, which will have ratepayers feeling the burden that some National speakers said they were concerned about, is the way in which the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) seeks to restrict the ability of councils to levy development contributions for community infrastructure. That bill has a very narrow definition of community infrastructure and will restrict development contributions from being levied for anything much beyond things like public toilets and planned infrastructure on council reserve land. It means that the council would not be able to levy development contributions for things like libraries or swimming pools. And that means the cost of these community facilities, where you have got growth in coastal communities in Golden Bay and in towns and cities around the country, potentially falls on ratepayers.

So the Government members are weeping crocodile tears when they talk about protecting ratepayers, because their changes to the Local Government Act, by narrowing the scope of development contributions for community infrastructure, will put those costs on to ratepayers or mean that infrastructure like swimming pools and like libraries is not provided by councils because it is not affordable when areas grow. So it is crocodile tears from Government members to talk about their concerns for the impact on ratepayers, because councils would then have to turn to them.

This bill is an unfortunate one, but it is one that we will support because it does remedy these procedural errors by the Tasman District Council. But we think that the Department of Internal Affairs should be doing much more to make sure that councils have a template so that there are fewer councils making these procedural mistakes. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak again on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I just want to traverse a couple of things that have not been covered already, but before I do that I want to acknowledge the speech of the member who has just resumed her seat, Eugenie Sage. I think she highlighted in her speech some of the critical issues around this particularly vexing bill. I do not wish to relitigate that material but there are some points that I do want to make about this bill.

It is now a truism to say that none of us enjoys bringing retrospective legislation of this sort before the House. I am one of those who have declared themselves to be pathologically averse to such legislation. But I do want to explain for a moment why the Local Government and Environment Committee arrived at the position it did and why I personally have come to the point of supporting this piece of legislation. Living and working as I do in the Nelson area—part of the Tasman District Council catchment covers the Nelson electorate—I have a lot to do with the Tasman District Council and the mayor and the councillors there, although the particular areas of concern are in the electorate of my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, West Coast - Tasman.

The controversy around this particular situation arose when the council designated Tata Beach—which is a beautiful area—along with Ligar Bay as one of its urban drainage areas. The area is one of 16 settlements that have to pay towards stormwater works around the wider Tasman District. The Tata Beach and Ligar Bay ratepayers discovered the change only when their rates bills soared by some hundreds of dollars a year. Bob Schmuke, to whom the ratepayers and certainly the Tasman District Council owe a debt, is the person who brought forward the error that the Tasman District Council had made and took the case to the Ombudsman, and he was successful in that effort. He was successful.

But at that time the Tasman District Council said that it was going to then take this situation to Parliament to remedy. The Tasman District Council’s Chief Executive Officer at the time, Paul Wiley, was reported to have said in a report that was in the Nelson Mail on 18 February 2010—and here we are with the second reading—that “The costs of going through a court process, which we believed we would win, are a hell of a lot more than the quite simple expedient of going along to Parliament saying ‘fix this technicality with some retrospective legislation’, and that is what we are doing,”. That was a comment attributed to Paul Wiley, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Tasman District Council. He said he did not know how much the legislation would cost. In my experience in raising other local bills, I understand that there is a charge by the Office of the Clerk of some $2,000, so certainly that would be all that the Tasman District Council would have to pay as far as Parliament is concerned.

But I must just register that it is a somewhat cavalier attitude towards what the taxpayers pay to have this House go through all of the stages—the first reading, the second reading, which we are up to now, the Committee stage, the reporting back, the third reading stage, and the final Royal assent. There is a great deal of expense, actually, in bringing a local bill to Parliament and that falls on all taxpayers. I wanted to make that point because I was a bit concerned that there seemed to be a slightly cavalier attitude within the Tasman District Council.

However, I am supporting the bill, and I want to explain briefly why I am doing that. It is to do with the way the Tasman District Council exercises its ability to rate ratepayers. I support the way it does it, but it made a mistake in this instance, and it would have been a costly mistake to the council had it not been for this legislation before the House. But the principle behind this that I support is that community assets must be paid for by all members of the community for the sake of the community, whether or not one uses those assets. Bob Schmuke’s particular case, which gained a lot of sympathy—and certainly from me as well—was that he was not even hooked up to this stormwater system. He was not hooked up to it, it did not impact on his property, and here he was with these additional rates that he had not been advised about.

But in the end I came down on the view that the good of the community is borne most equitably by all of the members of the community. I may not use the Nelson libraries—although, in fact, I do—or I may not use the Riverside Swimming Pool in Nelson, but I am very pleased that the facilities are there for the benefit of all who live in Nelson. The same thing applies when it comes to drainage systems and urban drainage systems. They, in the end, provide a collective benefit. In this case, should they have been paid for by the three houses that were linked up to this stormwater drain, they would not have been affordable. By spreading the cost, there is an important piece of infrastructure in place that benefits the whole community, in principle. It is that principle that I support and that principle that has brought me to the position—again, reluctantly but persuasively—of supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maggie Barry.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Yes, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker—still and always. Thank you very much. I rise to speak to the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. It is at its second reading, and it is a local bill sponsored by Damien O’Connor.

As other speakers have noted, this is yet another validation bill. We endured Kaipara and the horrors, the torture, the intense discussion, and the pain of the taxpayers—the ratepayers, I should say. Although, of course—as Maryan Street, who has just resumed her seat, pointed out—because this bill has to be validated through Parliament, it becomes an expense that the taxpayers have to deal with. One would caution all councils, as the member sponsoring this bill did in the opening call in this debate, to learn from this and to listen to their ratepayers. If things are not going well and there are grumbles and complaints, then for goodness’ sake address the issues before they become a problem.

Damien O’Connor pointed out at the outset that one of the issues around this is that the Tasman District Council is a unitary authority, so it does not have, perhaps, the same checks and balances as are provided by regional councils or other closer councils working alongside it. Perhaps had that occurred, then this silly mistake, really, of not including a map with the rates and therefore invalidating them would never have occurred. I find that when I look at some of the correspondence—looking back over it now, because it was last winter when we heard many of the submissions on this bill. We heard 14 submissions in all. One of them, from the Tasman District Council Mayor, Richard Kempthorne, really does get to the heart of the matter. The council, he wrote in his letter in part of his submission to us, “… fully acknowledges that we made an error in setting the 2006-07 rate for the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater urban drainage area. We regret that the error was made.” And so say all of us and the ratepayers of the area.

The mayor went on to say that “We also note that if we had included the required map, the rate would have been lawfully made and the rates would have been payable.” So when you peel aside all of the other things that have been a problem in this, it comes down to a basic fundamental error. It has cost ratepayers tens of thousands of dollars and endless, countless hours, and you cannot measure the cost of the misery that many of the ratepayers have been through in that area over this.

As others have before me, I would like to acknowledge Bob Schmucke. Without his energy and without his determination and effort, this case would not have got as far as it has. When I call it a case, it almost is that, because there have been so many warring parties that initially tried to say “Not my fault. Can’t do anything about this.” There has been a lot of obfuscation around the issue, and a lot of other issues have come into play.

I know that there are aspects of this that the Local Government and Environment Committee agonised over, but we were not ultimately able to help some of the people who had issues around whether or not the stormwater pipes should have been laid in the areas that some of the ratepayers wanted them to be in. I will not go into all of the detail of that, because I think others have tracked that over before me. But it is very much a warning to other councils. It is a warning to take heed of what you do, to be very careful about your procedures and processes, to listen to your ratepayers—as I said a moment ago—and also, I think, to embrace the Better Local Government reforms that this Government is putting through. Part of those reforms is that we want local bodies, local councils, to be really careful around their monitoring and improving of their own performances for their ratepayers. Perhaps the publicity around this bill will show other councils that their own processes may and will come under greater scrutiny. So the silver lining to this cloud that is hanging over the Tasman District ratepayers is the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), which we have started to put through.

I look back at some of the calls that were taken at that time, as someone who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee throughout the Kaipara hearings and now on this bill, and there are a number of issues that continue to come up. Maurice Williamson, the Minister for Building and Construction, took a call on behalf of the then Minister of Local Government Chris Tremain, who I must say has done an excellent job of putting this through to this point. He made the point in his call that although the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) that we are talking about is not specifically aimed at these worst-case scenarios—Kaipara and Tasman District—it is really going to help out in those kinds of situations and prevent them from happening again. That is my absolute belief in this.

We do not propose, really, to discuss the details of the particular cases, but they do provide salutary lessons for us all, and that informs us as legislators. The bill and the legislation that we are passing around local government will address the lessons, and the changes enacted will allow Ministers to identify potential problems before they get too bad and before they get too expensive and almost insurmountable for the local people to deal with, which is why they have had to come back to Parliament to be validated by us today.

Our local government legislation does introduce requirements for greater transparency in the management of infrastructure, and also a lot more discipline in the documentation of agreements for infrastructure that have to be provided, not just by the council employees themselves and their elected representatives but also by third parties that may be contracting and may be part of the problem. So all of these things are vitally important, and perhaps if the Tasman District Council had had the benefit of this legislation and the scrutiny and the requirements that come with it, it might have made a better job of what it needed to do.

One of the Green members took a call and said that on this side of the House there were crocodile tears being shed for ratepayers. That is absolutely incorrect. We have a genuine concern for ratepayers and for the rise in rates, as Jacqui Dean pointed out in her call. She is no stranger to putting through very good local bills as a member, because she represents her community and cares about what they say, and that is really the purpose of local bills. So she is no stranger to that. And as she pointed out, members of her own family who are on fixed incomes struggle in a big way with these kinds of rates hikes and irresponsible spending, let alone problems that blow out as a result of absolute errors, and incompetence in the case of Kaipara. I think the Auditor-General’s office, in that case involving Kaipara, as we discussed exhaustively at the select committee, does have a case to answer in its very large bill, which the Auditor-General said was one of the most complicated she had ever been involved with in her 20 years. The office spent a phenomenal amount of time trying to deal with the inefficiencies of a local council that kept no paperwork, that did not follow due process, and that did not do what its ratepayers elected it to do, which is to be a good steward and a prudent manager of the funds that it was paid. So all of these sorts of things are important to keep in mind.

In my own electorate on the North Shore, I am very mindful that a lot of older people on fixed incomes have properties that have very expensive rates. That is the nature of the way we do the ratings—based on the land value, and the improvements, of course. But people are finding that they are living in places for which they are struggling to find the rates money that they need, and that is why local authorities and, in particular, councils need to be very, very careful about what they spend their money on. Spraying it around and squandering it on the four well-beings is not going to get people where they need to be. Those are the kinds of things that actually need to be addressed in legislation.

This Government has the courage of its convictions and the knowledge, as opposed to the wittering that is going on at the moment from the opposing benches. We have the knowledge, the competence, and the ability to put through decent legislation that is aimed at helping the ratepayers.

Tracey Martin: How terribly sad for the people of North Shore that they got landed with that.

MAGGIE BARRY: It is not aimed at puffing up local body people, as that member who is interjecting at the moment very much is. She is an individual who tends to think she does a much better job than her own ratepayers allow. In fact, I do not think her own mother got elected on the basis of the legacy that was left for her by her daughter. It is a sad state of affairs. I know that the member has a very high opinion of herself as a list MP, but I know that that is not at all reflected by people in her own community. But there you go. We will withdraw from the petty politics and the yapping.

Let us say it is suffice to say that the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) are going to work very, very well to make sure that the problems that occurred at Kaipara and occur in the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill will not occur again, and that is a very important part of why we as a Government will continue to put through reforms, despite the braying of the opposing forces. That is why I support this local bill. I support Damien O’Connor in what he has done. I acknowledge, as many have said, that we are making the best of a difficult situation. We are making it better, but we are not making it perfect. But we are doing our best. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I had to pull out my handkerchief in the last couple of minutes of that particular speech, to wipe away the tears of laughter. They were not crocodile tears; they were tears of absolute amazement from listening to the previous speaker, Maggie Barry. It never fails to amaze me how some of the National Party MPs who sit on our Local Government and Environment Committee have so little knowledge of local government or, indeed, of their own electorates.

It is unbelievable that the previous speaker said that because Tasman District Council is a unitary authority, which is a combination of a regional authority and a territorial authority, these sorts of mistakes could happen because it does not have the checks and balances, because it is not a normal council. What an extraordinary statement, when we have got unitary authorities around the country that have done a fantastic job over many years. So there is a total lack of understanding as to what a unitary authority does. And it is extraordinary for her to then say that all these councils, like Tasman and other places, are squandering money on all these things like the four well-beings.

If you ask the average person in the street whether it is important that they have economic development, whether it is important that they have a good environment in their town or their district, whether it is important that they have social responsibility in their community, and all these sorts of things, the average person will say: “Actually, we do want that. We choose to live here because this is the place where we want to live, and these are the expectations that we have.” Otherwise, as we have seen in the United States, cities like Detroit end up absolute ghost towns because they do not provide the four well-beings. They do not provide that community spirit and they become, literally, wastelands. We have seen that in parts of New Zealand, but, fortunately, local government is responding to the challenges.

Despite this National Government trying to absolutely kneecap local government, local government will persevere. Under a Government where New Zealand First has involvement, and where you will have the likes of Tracey Martin with her local body experience, me with my local body experience, and Denis O’Rourke with his extensive local body experience, we will get on, and I can tell all of local government out there that we will properly support local government.

I can recall that when National first became the Government back in 2008, it took it close to 12 months to have its first meeting with the mayoral forum and the Local Government Forum around New Zealand—close to 12 months before it even met with local government. It was appalling. Under the previous Government—the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First—they met every 6 months, at least. But this Government—no, it has no regard. But, anyway, back to the Tasman District Council.

I would challenge the member Jacqui Dean, who is having a good chat with Maggie Barry at the present time, to really understand what a unitary authority is. She said these councils are small and have probably got only one staff member doing a particular function, and so when they go away on maternity leave, it does not get done. Well, I would just inform that learned National Party member that according to the Tasman District Council website, it has in excess of 200 staff. At the moment, recent vacancies have been advertised for a revenue accountant, a management accountant, a senior management accountant, a coordinator of land use consents, and a water resources officer. Those are just some of the some recent appointments that it has been making.

Tasman District Council is a significant council that covers a wide area. It is far from being some little council where there are a half a dozen people sitting at the top of a flight of stairs, doing something, and then putting an “Out to lunch” sign up when they leave. It is doing a good job and doing a very, very responsible job in that part of the South Island. Having said that, it has made some errors, and they were very simple errors in terms of what it did with setting the rates in that period.

As Maggie Barry mentioned, the letter from the mayor explained it very well. He mentioned that in that particular period, 2006-07, it overlooked including a map when it was setting the rates, and it did not properly describe the area in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay area in terms of this. The mayor went on to say: “If we had included the required map, the rate would have been lawfully made and the rates would have been payable. Therefore, passing the bill in its current form would validate a rate that would have been made lawfully if the map had been included.” So it is quite simple. It was a simple administrative error that needs to be rectified.

The mayor went on to say—this was to the select committee: “We have explained to you that the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay ratepayers receive a service from the stormwater infrastructure provided in their communities, and they pay for this through our club approach. In our view, not only is there no legislative power to remit the rates but it would also be not equitable to remit the rates to the Tata Beach and the Ligar Bay ratepayers. A reason for this is that it would mean other ratepayers in the district would then have to pay for stormwater services, including those at Tata Beach and Ligar Bay, while the ratepayers in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay do not pay for any.”

So, quite obviously, it was not going to be fair to do that, and in the end Damien O’Connor brought this to the House and fair enough. But, in so doing, it is very interesting in that this opens a bigger can of worms in terms of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), which is going through our select committee at the moment as well, where, again, the National Government is wanting to do away with development contributions.

We heard from the learned Maggie Barry—who is having a good chat with Jacqui Dean at the present time, again—that the Government is wanting to do away with things like development contributions, and all this sort of thing, but she said at the same time: “But we don’t want councils to put up their rates. We don’t want them increasing their rates.” Well, I have got news for that member, which is that, basically, development contributions were brought in by the likes of North Shore City Council—which was the lead council, virtually, in this whole area in the last 10 years—to ensure that the growth of a city, or a community or a district, was funded by those who came into the club. It is like joining a golf club or a tennis club. If you are the last one in and you have already got all the facilities, you pay a joining fee. You pay a joining fee to join the club.

It is the same in local government. If developers want to come in and set up a whole new subdivision, and they are coming into a city and they have not contributed anything at that point in time, they pay a development contribution as their contribution to join the club, to then provide all the services across the city. It is a total nonsense on the part of this National Government to say that things like swimming pools, libraries, and other community facilities of that nature should not be paid for from development contributions but from the existing ratepayer base. That is absolutely nonsense. When we on the North Shore were planning for the new Albany library to be built for a growing population, we had to start taking development contributions 7, 8, and 9 years ahead of when the new library was going to be required, from the new subdivisions, from the new sections, from the infill housing, and from the people cutting off their back lawns, so that when the population got to that point, we could build the library with the funding. You know, you do not wait until everybody is there and then say: “Oh, we’ve got an extra 40,000 people in our city, and they cannot read a book because the nearest library is 14 kilometres away.” That is not what you do.

So it is interesting to hear the comments from the National Government—but we get that from them. When we went through other local government legislation last year and the year before, it was astonishing how ignorant the National Party members were of most of the facts in relation to local government—totally ignorant. Even Paul Goldsmith over there, who wrote John Banks’ biography, seemed to have a lack of understanding of how local government operated.

So, basically, I would suggest that many of the National members on the Local Government and Environment Committee should maybe take the next adjournment to go off and learn “Local Government 101”, and find out what local authorities actually do around New Zealand. They should go and spend some time with Local Government New Zealand. They should go and speak to some local bodies. They do not like to come down off their high horses and speak to mayors and councillors, but they should go and find out how local government operates in this country. We have only two tiers of government in New Zealand: central government and local government. As a result, they might actually realise that central government and local government are mutually supportive of each other and that it is not central government trying to kneecap local government all the time.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I have never listened to a speech from that member, Andrew Williams, that has not been twice as long as it needed to be. I was not sure whether we were debating a local government amendment bill or the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, because it sounded like he was more interested in talking about local government. I was not sure, from the end of that speech, which certainly went round and round the mulberry bush many, many times, whether he supported the bill or not. That is the complication with this kind of legislation.

I would make one point on development contributions, which are not related to this bill but which seem to be the topic of debate in most of the speeches. We are not doing away with development contributions. We are getting some discipline around that process. It does not necessarily follow that you have to put up the rates. You actually just have to get some discipline around Government spending, and that is what this Government has shown very effectively around bringing Government spending under control in a disciplined fashion and getting back to surplus. That is why this Government enjoys the support that it has.

Phil Twyford: Forcing councils to put rates up.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Only if they keep on spending more, and what we need is some discipline around spending.

Phil Twyford: Someone has to pay, Paul.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: You do not have to pay great sums if a council is efficient. That is what all our local government reforms have been about. They are about trying to get some efficiency into local government. But if we return to the bill, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill—

Andrew Williams: Hasn’t worked in Auckland.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it has not worked as well in Auckland as it could have, primarily because we have had a raging leftie as a mayor, who has been spending like a runaway train. It is time we got some discipline back into the council, and then Aucklanders will be a lot better off.

I come back to the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. It is worth going back to the details, because nobody is comfortable with, or enthusiastic about, passing this sort of bill, which validates procedural irregularities made by the Tasman District Council. Let us go back and see just what happened here. What happened was that the council had identified a series of procedural irregularities under the Local Government (Rating) Act in the process used to set rates between 2003-04 and 2008-09. They were mainly in relation to failing to comply with sections 23, 24, and 57 of that Act. In summary, these sections required that the rates are to be set by a resolution of the council, and that the resolution must specify certain details of the rates and of the penalties to be paid. But, more important, the resolution must be separate from resolutions to adopt annual plans and funding impact statements, even when these documents contain details of the rates. It also must be that the resolution is made after resolutions to adopt annual plans and funding impact statements pertaining to that financial year.

That is a reasonably clear legislative outlook, and it has to be done in a certain way, but, unfortunately, the Tasman District Council made a number of mistakes. It purported to set and assess the rates and rates penalties by way of a resolution to adopt an annual plan and funding impact statement, rather than by way of a separate resolution. So it tried to get everything into the same resolution, rather than by separate resolutions. It also resolved to adopt rates prior to the adoption of the annual plan and funding impact statement pertaining to that financial year. So it got things round the wrong way. It passed the resolution before the adoption of the annual plan, rather than after the adoption of the annual plan.

Secondly, but worse than that, in 2006 the council purported to set and assess a targeted stormwater rate for properties within the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach urban drainage areas. We listened to a number of submitters on this topic in the Local Government and Environment Committee, which was very ably chaired, I might say, by Nicky Wagner. It enjoyed a good measure of bipartisanship as we dealt with, and tried to get to the bottom of, what was a tricky issue. I do want to pay tribute to the work of Damien O’Connor on this bill, because no local member of Parliament particularly wants to have to shepherd a bill such as this through Parliament, but he did it with good grace. We listened carefully to the submitters on each point.

Getting back to 2006, the council purported to set and assess a targeted stormwater rate—[Interruption]—if you could just pay attention, please—for properties within the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach drainage areas. However, it failed to visually identify the geographical location of the rateable land to which the targeted stormwater rate applied in the 2006-07 funding impact statement, as required under section 17 and schedule 2 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. So, in essence, it failed to produce the map. Those are the procedural irregularities made in regard to the resolutions.

This is all very irritating, but, in essence, when we were faced with the request to pass legislation to overturn some mistake that was made previously, obviously the committee was not comfortable with it if there was some way in which the rates were not proper rates or they should not have been done or they were not part of the overall plan, and that was never the allegation here. It was a procedural irregularity. The advice that we had from the Tasman District Council was that if the map had been included in 2006 and 2007, in the funding impact statement, the rate would have been lawfully made and the rates would have been payable. So it was the absence of the map that made what were otherwise quite acceptable rates unacceptable. This piece of legislation is trying to fix the situation.

What are the alternatives? The alternatives are that we could have just said: “Oh well, maybe the council should just forgive or pay back those rates because they got it wrong.” But that is actually more complicated than it seems because paying back rates is not easy. There is actually no legislative power to remit the rates. The council would then have to run around and see whether it could find the people who owned the land back in 2006 and 2007, and then that would not be fair because those people who would be getting their rates back in effect would not have paid rates for that year. They would have had the stormwater coverage and the benefit of it all, but not have paid for it. So that is hardly fair to the rest of the people of the Tasman District. It is an awkward juggling act that Parliament was set to deal with, and, on balance, after a great deal of consideration, we decided to come down in favour of this bill.

When I come back to some of the broader issues that we are dealing with here—

Phil Twyford: Talk about John Banks. We always enjoy that.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Certain members have raised the biography of John Banks. The only thing I would say in relation to that is that I do write about successful people and not failed local body politicians. Maybe there may be an opportunity for Mr Williams’ political career to take off, in a very late trajectory, and reach that sort of height, but I am not necessarily confident that that is going to happen. As for Mr Twyford, I am not sure, either. But there may be an opportunity before too long, with the fast rotation that we are seeing in the Labour leadership, for Mr Twyford, although I personally would favour Moana Mackey, being a close cousin of mine. So there we have it. I think Labour does have issues, but we do not want to get distracted from this bill, which is very different.

I suppose, just in summing up, the broader issues that I want to draw on are that National’s Better Local Government reforms will help make local government more efficient, responsive, and well focused. This bill deals with an example of when the Tasman District Council was not well focused and it was not particularly efficient, and that is always going to happen. People do make mistakes. I suppose the overall lesson of having to deal with these sorts of bills is that we do not want to have a legislative set-up for local government that is so complex that people regularly make mistakes. On the other hand, we do absolutely expect and require that local government does do things correctly, so that ratepayers can have confidence that they are paying things legally and that all the boxes are ticked. The Better Local Government reforms include a work stream to monitor and improve council performance, to help prevent future procedural errors. This bill will highlight to other councils, I am sure, the importance of proper scrutiny when setting rates. I have no doubt that when other councils consider this bill and others such as this one, they will see it as a very powerful warning that when it comes to the time of setting and passing procedural law matters—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to inform the member but he has utilised his entire allocation of time. I am advised that this is not a split call—Moana Mackey; 10 minutes.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It is always scary to get a glimpse of the world through the eyes of Paul Goldsmith once again. I do not think that I have ever seen a member looking so desperately for the Speaker to tell him that his time had concluded, because he got to the end of the research unit notes about 2 minutes before the end of the speech and had to start repeating himself. That is quite a hefty workload in a day for Paul Goldsmith. I do not think I have ever heard him give a 10-minute speech. I hope he does not get a nosebleed from the effort.

I am actually not going to take too long on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I think that members have covered it adequately. We do not like passing retrospective legislation in this Parliament. It is the best of a number of bad solutions. We certainly acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies in the way that the Tasman District Council has dealt with the setting of rates. Unfortunately, Parliament has to step in and retrospectively validate them. We have seen a little bit of this happening in recent times. Certainly, members have raised issues around the function of auditing, and picking up on these solutions so that problems can be resolved before it comes to this would be helpful.

I do not think there is really anything more that I can add to the debate, apart from saying that we will be supporting the bill. Unfortunately, we will be supporting it, but it is just one of these things that we need to do.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak in support of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I notice that there is a theme—I am not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which worked very hard on this bill, and it is to be complimented, particularly the chair of the committee.

Tim Macindoe: You were a very fine chair in years gone by.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: In years gone by I thoroughly enjoyed working as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was fantastic. It was a very busy committee, and the second-largest in Parliament.

Phil Twyford: Good times.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: They were good times—they were. But I think this bill has been very well handled by that select committee.

I was interested to hear Moana Mackey, who is something of a veteran politician herself, say that she would rise reluctantly or sadly to support this bill. That seems to have been a sentiment that has been expressed by almost every speaker. Without having been party to the submissions and the detail of the bill, I have reflected on why that might be. I reflected on the question of how this whole thing came about. I guess one could say that it was users versus non-users of a service, collective benefits being sought versus individual rights, and peremptory changes being made by a council versus transparent procedures.

The good people who live in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay who are affected by these stormwater rates are strong individuals. I have met them. I know them. They are nice people. They have a fine sense of personal justice, individual rights, and what is right and what is wrong. Tasman District Council, which I think is probably one of the country’s larger unitary councils, is a council of fairly determined councillors and very experienced staff. I think there has been a case of a certain amount of antagonism, if I can use that word without it affecting individuals, and a certain amount of antagonistic points of view on both sides in relation to identifying the problem and then seeking a solution to it. It was a “Yes, you will.”, “No, we won’t.” sort of job. So the councillors found themselves nonplussed.

This seems to have been a somewhat long-drawn-out bill. Observers could say that there was an element of wishing that it would go away or hoping that the antagonism would stop. I understand that they have tried a variety of mediation techniques, discussions, and listening to individuals and to one another, to seek settlement. It did not happen. So legislation became a requirement. Not to proceed would have simply passed the vexation of one group on to another group, and it would have gone on. So they sought legislation.

What is the parliamentary view of that? One of the things that we learn early on as politicians is the difficulty of preparing legislation and the difficulty of foreseeing unforeseen circumstances. If you look at New Zealand, statistically it has its fair share of re-legislating or passing of legislation to correct things that were not foreseen. As this is a country of some speed and a very fine sense of fairness, I think it is reasonable to anticipate that you will be correcting legislation for unforeseen circumstances.

The difficulty with this particular piece of local legislation was that it did not have an unforeseen consequence; it was perhaps just representative of equivocal leadership. Things were not done correctly, and yet people wished to hold on to what they had done. The council’s apology has been commented on as being singularly sincere. Some of the comments that have been made today have been that this bill was in fact a waste of Parliament’s time. I do not perceive it to be a waste of parliamentary time, because there was no other solution apparently available to the contestants in this particular issue. Therefore, in my mind, it is not a waste of time. I think it is a perfectly proper use of parliamentary time. It is necessary to re-establish confidence and certainty in the work and the efforts of the Tasman District Council.

We have heard from a variety of speakers on this bill, from Maggie Barry, Jacqui Dean, Paul Goldsmith, Nicky Wagner, Andrew Williams, Moana Mackey, and others—people who, one could say, are fairly experienced in the ways and workings of district councils. If we were not to pass this bill, then people would be deprived of their rights, and the consequences would be very long-drawn out.

We come again to the point that has been made, that the good of the community has to be borne by the whole of the community in order to create collective benefits. That is OK as long as the whole of the community is in a position to share the benefits. I understand, without knowing the particular detail—and I have not participated in any of the select committee discussions, having being engaged in other select committees—that in this case there will be people who are not really comfortable with this outcome. I think that is always going to be the case where you have this type of imposed legislation to try to sort out a problem. So they will not be particularly happy.

But let us remember the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is not to make people happy, because Parliament did not make them unhappy in the first place. What we have to do is validate the rates set by the Tasman District Council for the 5-year period affected, during which the council did not follow correct process in setting the rates. I think the fact that the complainants in this issue will hear very clearly that the council has acknowledged—and we in Parliament acknowledge—that it did not follow correct process is going to ameliorate a lot of hard feelings in this particular issue.

The bill also validates rates and penalties paid over the period, and authorises the council to recover any unpaid rates and ratify the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rates. I have no doubt that that bit will stick in some people’s craw. They will feel that they were robbed and that it is not a fair way to do it. I am assured by members of the select committee that every other possibility was exhaustively examined—exhaustively examined. Having been a member of that particular select committee for about 3 years, I am very familiar with the excellent advice it gets, the work of the local government officials who advise the committee, and the sincerity and commitment of the individual members of Parliament, from all parties. I think it is one of the select committees that demonstrates a lot of bipartisan approaches to the work in hand.

One of the things I take confidence in, in particular, is that National’s Better Local Government reforms will help make local government more efficient, responsive, and well focused. The Better Local Government reforms include a work stream to monitor and improve council performance, in order to help prevent future procedural errors. Finally, this bill highlights to other councils, sadly—sadly—the consequences of not having proper scrutiny when setting rates. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Annette King—the Hon Annette King.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is nice to see you too. I rise to support the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, brought in in the name of the very good local member of Parliament Damien O’Connor, who somewhat reluctantly brings in this bill to validate specific rates in the Tasman District Council area. None of us likes retrospective legislation. It is necessary in this case. I support it. I congratulate the ratepayer who discovered this error and brought it to attention, and who has ensured that we now have legislation to fix this irregularity.

It is a fantastic part of New Zealand: Ligar Bay, and also Tata Beach. You probably know it well, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly do. I have spent holidays there. In fact, my old schoolteacher Miss Dizren retired there, and I know for a fact that she used to go swimming in the nude on a regular basis down at Tata Beach, such was the cleanliness and the beauty of this place. This is not quite in the bill, but I thought I would get it on record that it is a pristine and wonderful place. It deserves to have proper rates struck for it, and I support the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 1

Mana 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill

Second Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I move, That the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill be now read a second time. Tēnā koutou katoa. This private bill allows the birth details of Rowen Sullivan to record the reality of her family. As the Government Administration Committee states in its report, the bill, with the amendments recommended, will make “what is a matter of fact, that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are Rowen Sullivan’s parents, a matter of law.”

For those who are not familiar with the background, this bill arose out of the fact that Rowen Sullivan cannot by law have the names of both her parents on her birth certificate. After 7 years together her parents, Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields, had a daughter who was born by an assisted human reproduction procedure to Diane on 23 February 1993. At that time only Diane’s name was recorded on Rowen’s birth certificate as her birth mother.

In 2006 Diane was diagnosed with a terminal illness and passed away in 2010 when Rowen was 17. At that time Rowen and Doreen decided that Doreen would apply for an adoption order as that was the only legal option available to them to record their parent-child relationship. But in doing that Rowen received a new birth certificate with just Doreen’s name on it and her mother Diane’s name had been removed. That was the law, but it means that the reality of Rowen’s upbringing and family was not recorded and there was no ability for her or Doreen to take advantage of changes made by the Status of Children Act and last year’s marriage amendment Act. Rowen’s age and the passing of Diane meant that was not possible. A private bill is the only way Rowen’s parents can both be recorded on her birth registration details, from which a new birth certificate can be issued.

I particularly want to acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee, so ably chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson, for their work and the amendments to the bill that they have recommended. The amendments reflect the commitment of the select committee to understand what this bill is seeking. The amendments recommended by the select committee clarify what this bill is about. It is about Rowen Sullivan having the names of both her parents on her birth certificate. The select committee has rightly renamed this private bill the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, because it is the details held of Rowen’s birth registration, which currently record the adoption order in the name of Doreen Shields, that are the basis for the issuing of Rowen’s birth certificate. Should this bill pass, Rowen’s parents will legally be the two women who were her parents in true life: Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields.

On a personal note, I would also like to thank the members of the select committee for the manner in which they heard and reported on a matter that is extremely sensitive for the promoter, Rowen Sullivan, and her living parent, Doreen Shields, whom I acknowledge in the House tonight. Doreen and Rowen have asked that I pass on their thanks to the select committee. In Doreen’s words, she told me: “Rowen and I had no idea what to expect from the select committee. We thought it might be quite intimidating and we wondered if maybe they wouldn’t really be very interested in the bill. As it turned out we didn’t need to worry about either of those things. We are really impressed with the care the committee took to understand what Rowen wanted to achieve with the bill and with the changes they made to it.”

I am honoured to be the sponsor of this bill, which I recommend to the House with the amendments proposed by the select committee. Appropriately, I will leave the last word to the promoter of the bill, Rowen Sullivan: “It’s hard to believe that I’m about to turn 21 and am, hopefully, very close to finally having official recognition of both my parents. I feel very lucky to live in a country where it’s possible for that to happen.” Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): In the very brief amount of time available just before dinner I would like to begin my speech in support of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, which is set down for its second reading and sponsored, very ably, may I say, by Labour MP Louisa Wall, with whom it was a pleasure to work.

The purpose of the bill is to require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registry entry. It may well be that people consider that something of a technical detail, and, indeed, when we saw the bill before us at the Government Administration Committee we thought that it did have a very technical aspect to it. The reality was, though, that it also had a very, very personal aspect. This is one of those occasions when the only solution available to the applicant was through Parliament. It has no effect on any other person—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come to suspend the House for dinner. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. Bon appétit.

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

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to resume speaking about the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. As we had spoken of earlier, this is one of those occasions in Parliament when legislation can do something for someone that nothing else can do and that applies only to that individual person. In fact, there are no negative elements at all associated with the passage of this bill. It requires the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registration entry.

We heard from Louisa Wall, who introduced the bill—and I do not doubt we will hear an echo from Ruth Dyson, the chair of the Government Administration Committee—that there was apprehension on the part of the applicants for the bill that they would be perceived as wasting our time, or not having a significant thing for us to do, and which required a bill of their own. But this is a member’s bill. This is what these times are set aside for, and anyone, of course, who knows the Hon Ruth Dyson would realise that the applicants would be guaranteed a good reception, I am sure.

For those members who would like to know the minutiae of how this came about, we can, through the good services of the sponsor of the bill, Louisa Wall, provide a summary of the events, and I would like to read that to the House now. For members opposite, I shall be conducting a small written test afterwards to see how much of it you remembered and understood!

These are the complexities of the situation. Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan, her birth mother, and Diane Sullivan’s female partner, Doreen Shields. Have you got that bit? Diane Sullivan died in 2010 when Rowen was 17 years old. Doreen Shields chose not to adopt Rowen while Diane Sullivan was still alive as this would have required the removal of the name of Diane Sullivan, the birth mother, from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. This expired on Rowen Sullivan’s 18th birthday. Doreen Shields then applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan. The order was made on 15 January 2013. However, that order required that Diane Sullivan’s name be removed from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. For those who are still travelling the journey with us all—and let us remember that this was a journey that someone actually travelled—had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry, they would have been jointly able to apply to adopt Rowen. If this had occurred, they would both have been named as her parents on her birth record.

Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013—which, coincidentally, went through the same select committee—same-sex couples are able to marry and are therefore able to apply jointly to adopt children. I think anyone would be forgiven for not completely following the intricacies of those events, and it was a credit to the members of the committee. Everybody took an avid interest. The applicants for the bill gave a really useful submission to the select committee, which really made things very apparent to us.

Then there were the aspects that had to be considered that we required officials’ advice on. Again, I really want to say to those who are watching or listening to the radio this evening that the advice one gets as a parliamentarian is first class in New Zealand—first class. I think almost every member would agree with that. Perhaps there is the odd occasion when something might not quite come up to the mark, but for the most part I do not think that MPs can really justifiably say they could not find something out, because we have a superb library—a superb library—and I have always found the quality of officials and the quality of official advice to be excellent. I see some nods from people whose academic background I have great respect for, and they have been in a position of comparison.

This was one example where, I think, the smaller details were taken into account, so that in setting a precedent—if it were creating a precedent—there would be no harm done. As it is, this bill does not set a precedent, because the circumstances are almost unique. You cannot use the phrase “almost unique”. I can see Mr Finlayson bristling at the very suggestion. I would like to formally withdraw that remark. I did not intend to say—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: You did. Noted, and you will be counselled later.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh dear, oh dear! I did not intend to say “almost unique”, because that is a stupid conflict of terms. This is a relatively unusual situation and it would be most surprising if the circumstances were ever duplicated in exactly the same order. So this will not be a repeatable situation.

The proposed addition of clause 4, which the select committee recommends, would make it clear that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Sullivan.

It was a really interesting bill from all points of view, not just in respect of the family concerned but in consideration of how we are identified as individuals. I would have thought—and I know that other select committee members shared the thought with me—that your birth certificate was it, but, in fact, it is not. It is simply a record of what is recorded within the record system. So it was a very interesting journey through the identification of individuals and the linkage with other people through relationships.

It has been a pleasure to be part of considering this bill. It has been educative and informative, and, from the comments relayed from the family, I understand that it has been considered useful. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak to the second reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I want to begin by paying a tribute to the sponsor of the bill, my colleague Louisa Wall, and saying that yet again she has brought issues to this House that have caused a lot of interest. We have had a lot of consideration of the bill at the Government Administration Committee, and I am pleased it was referred to our select committee. It was a real privilege to be part of that process. I want to pay a tribute to our select committee’s members. Some of the issues were more complex than perhaps we had originally considered, and both the select committee members and the officials deserve a note of tribute for the way they gave and received a lot of questions and a lot of answers. I think that really paid respect to the bill itself and the purpose of the bill.

But more than to Louisa Wall, the select committee members, and the officials, I want to pay tribute to the three women whom this bill is about: the late Diane Sullivan, Doreen Shields, and their daughter, Rowen Sullivan. This bill is really a bit of a love story. It is a story about the relationship that Diane and Doreen had and the fact that they raised their daughter together in a time when they were perhaps a little ahead of the societal recognition of what is not an unusual practice now—same-sex couples raising children together. So I want to pay a tribute first of all to Doreen and her love—and mother of her daughter—the late Diane, and their daughter, Rowen.

Doreen and Rowen appeared before the select committee. I think that most of us would recognise that a bunch of MPs sitting in a room is not an easy process. We are a little bit intimidating. We do not try to be but I think we are. The formality of a select committee process can also be quite daunting for people to go through. And that is at a time when you are talking about something that is quite theoretical. You might be talking about a tax change or you might be talking about something that is really one step removed from your life. People find that process quite a scary prospect and often get quite rattled when they come before a select committee, so to have people come to a select committee talking about the very essence of their relationships and lives and why they want us to make a law change took a lot of courage. I want to particularly acknowledge the courage and strength that Doreen and Rowen showed towards each other, but also acknowledge that that reinforced to the committee just how important this move was.

Their story said it all for us, actually. We understood that this was not a minor technical issue, that this really talked about the recognition of society towards their relationship, and I know that all members of the select committee were very moved by their presentation, by the reality of their situation, and by the fact that we had the opportunity to recognise the relationship of Diane and Doreen and their legitimate—in the law—parenting of Rowen. The deputy chair, Chris Auchinvole, made a comment in his contribution about the fact that we thought that once we had made this clear, a birth certificate would suffice for all purposes, and that was one of the many challenges that the officials threw to us: that this proof of parenthood might have to be done through some other method at some time in the future. We decided that that was a nonsense, actually. I am not saying that the advice was a nonsense; we thought that the requirement to do that would be a nonsense. So we have made it clear that this is it.

Once Parliament sets the seal on this, then Diane and Doreen are Rowen’s legitimate parents for all purposes, and neither they nor Parliament will ever have to go through this again. I think that it was probably important for us to have the debate, but none of us could think of one single instance in our own lives when we had had to produce anything other than our birth certificate with our parents’ names on it, in order to prove who our parents were. But, anyway, we have put it beyond doubt, I trust, and in the Committee stage I am sure we will make sure that that is the case.

As I said, I want to particularly recognise the love that Diane and Doreen and Rowen have and had for each other and say that Parliament does not often get that sort of involvement in our debates. It is a responsibility that I am sure every member of this House will take very seriously as we go through the debate and go through the voting process. I want to quote a couple of things that Doreen said in terms of how she felt. She said it publicly, so I am not breaching any privacy, but it had a huge impact on me, and I am sure it will on others. She talked about how she felt when—following the passing of her partner and her adoption of Rowen so that Rowen would not be left as a legal orphan and so that she had a legal living parent—she saw her partner’s name, Rowen’s birth mother’s name, taken from the birth certificate. She said that it was horrible. She said: “Given what Diane went through and how she struggled to be there for Rowen it was just obscene, quite honestly.” I do not think any of us can imagine how hard it would be to watch your partner’s name being taken from the birth certificate of your child, their child, in order for you to become their legitimate—legitimate in terms of the law—parent. That wrench must have been huge, and it is so good to be able to put what I think is an injustice right through this process.

Rowen, who, of course, is the holder of this birth certificate and the centre of attention as far as the legal change is concerned said that, actually, it was not about her. She said: “It’s more about my parents—having me in the ’90s when gay people having children was very uncommon, they showed a lot of bravery and courage. They chose to have me together, and made many sacrifices to give me the best life possible. And I want that to be recognised legally. I had two parents, and my birth certificate should show that.” It does not seem to be a very big ask. I think that it is something that every member of this House wants to support, and I certainly hope that as the debate progresses, that is where we get to in terms of the recognition in the law of the legitimate parents of Rowen.

As I said earlier, this came about only because of the death of Diane Sullivan. As Rowen’s birth mother, when Diane Sullivan died, Rowen was legally an orphan. She had no legitimate—in the law—living parent, and that was not acceptable to her mother Doreen Shields. We all know that there can be circumstances where those legitimate relationships that are not upheld in the law can cause problems, so having a legally recognised relation is really important in terms of your will, in terms of other arrangements such as medical decisions. There are many circumstances in which having a legally recognised relation—mother, in this case—is very important, and it was for Doreen and Rowen. But I actually think that it was important because that was the nature of their relationship, and the law was behind the eight ball. So it was only because of that situation that this really unfortunate circumstance arose.

We heard a lot of concerns at the select committee—not raised in any attempt to undermine this—about whether this would set a precedent, whether it would provide unfairness to other people who may be in a situation where they did not know who their birth parent was and found out at a later stage and wanted them put on the birth certificate. We had all sorts of discussions and considerations around that. In the end, we came back to what I think was the correct advice—and certainly was the leadership that Louisa Wall provided when she introduced this bill. This is a stand-alone situation, designed specifically for this family. It does not set any precedents. Actually, if it did, I would be very happy for any family in a similar situation to have the same legal recognition, but it is a circumstance that will not arise in the future, because of subsequent law changes, and I think that that is a very good thing. I enjoyed listening to the discussion around this. I enjoyed the submissions. I am delighted to be able to support this bill, to progress an injustice, and to recognise the love and the relationship of Diane and Doreen and Rowen. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker. First of all, I would like to congratulate the sponsor of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, Louisa Wall, on bringing this issue to Parliament. Above all, I think the biggest acknowledgment goes to Rowen Sullivan, because the bill shows her respect for her parents. I think that when this bill was introduced—as the chair of the Government Administration Committee, Ruth Dyson, mentioned just now—it looked like a very simple bill that would go through the select committee process quickly and be reported back to Parliament. But as this bill progressed, many more technical issues came up, which were dealt with accordingly by the select committee.

I would like to acknowledge the advisers on this bill, who helped us to make sure that this bill passes through Parliament with all those answers available for Rowen Sullivan. This bill is a reminder that quite frequently the Government can and does have a significant positive effect on people’s lives at a very personal level. Therefore, it is important that we in this House do not forget our duty to handle these cases with respect.

Here I would like to also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee, which has dealt with many issues in this term. Whether we are considering the marriage equality legislation or paid parental leave legislation, we have learnt a lot in this term in this select committee, and I acknowledge the members of this select committee, from whom I have learnt a lot. I feel like every day I come to Parliament I learn something new. That is unique, and I acknowledge all the members contributing in this House.

The matter arises because the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act was passed, after which same-sex couples were able to marry and therefore make applications to adopt children. Had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry as the law now allows, they would have been able to apply to jointly adopt Rowen. If this had occurred, they would both be named as parents on her birth record. Here I would like to acknowledge both parents, because this is about their raising of their daughter. She has really made an effort to bring this issue to Parliament so that both parents are mentioned on her birth certificate. This shows the good family culture that I think Rowen has received from both her parents.

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 now allows the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields as Rowen’s parents. I think this is an important piece of legislation to ensure that New Zealand and its citizens keep up with the times and the reforms where there is a need to. We have always been an open-minded society. We have always listened to what the citizens of this country want. Due to our nature, since 2005 New Zealand law has allowed both the same-sex parents of New Zealand - born children conceived through human-assisted reproductive technology to be named on the child’s birth record. The change was retrospective, so pre-2005 New Zealand birth registration records can, on application, be amended at any time to include both same-sex parents’ details. There is absolutely no doubt that this law change will bring a smile to the faces of the Sullivan family.

Can I share that the law already contains a rule for changing a birth record in other circumstances, including, but not limited to, situations where a parental order is obtained, an individual changes his or her name by statutory declaration, or an individual undergoes gender reassignment. However, may I also share that this bill does not create a precedent for other individuals seeking to change their registered birth record. The bill applies only to Rowen Sullivan and her situation, which has itself arisen from a unique combination of circumstances, including her birth overseas following a human-assisted reproductive procedure that meant her parents were not registered in New Zealand. The key consideration is that since 19 August 2013, married same-sex couples can adopt jointly. If the marriage amendment legislation had been in place before Diane Sullivan died, the train of events giving rise to the bill could have been avoided. The bill does not change the adoption order itself, because to do so could set a precedent for other situations where a deceased individual has not indicated an intention to adopt.

Before I conclude, once again I would like to congratulate Rowen Sullivan on her courage and her commitment to both her parents to get their names on her birth certificate so that she can live with pride that she has, in due course, acknowledged her parents. With these words, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a genuine pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. Earlier this year I had the great privilege of being able to participate in the Government Administration Committee’s consideration of the marriage equality bill, and it was fantastic to work with a group of people who were committed to getting great outcomes. Today to again participate in a debate that is characterised by warm, generous, and kind speeches from members of that committee is a great experience. I want to thank members of the committee—in particular, Ruth Dyson, as the chair of that committee—and the officials who worked with the committee. I hear they did a fantastic job. I did not get the chance to experience their work this time around. In particular, I want to say thanks and congratulations to my colleague and friend Louisa Wall. It is twice over a pretty short space of time that an important human rights bill has come to this House under Louisa’s name.

I am one of several members of this House who is in a same-sex relationship and has children, and I am sure that those of us in that situation can all think about how it would be for us in our situation if we were plunged into this nightmare scenario that Rowen Sullivan and her parents have been through. Human rights is an area that is frequently debated in this House. Typically, when we talk about human rights, we talk about the rights of collectives, of large groups of people, and the denial of human rights to a whole ethnicity, to a whole gender, or to a whole sexual orientation. I think that is probably the most frequent use of the idea of human rights in this House, but really that relates to just one of those human rights, and that is the right to freedom from discrimination.

When Eleanor Roosevelt, who was perhaps the most motivating force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explained the idea of universal human rights, this is what she said: “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.” This Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill is about human rights. It is about the human rights of one person—the right of that person to acknowledge their own identity and to have their parents respected by law as being their parents. I have not dealt with very many private bills in this House, but I cannot think of another situation where a private bill is more appropriate.

Congratulations to Louisa Wall and to the Government Administration Committee. Congratulations to Rowen Sullivan, to Doreen, and also to Diane. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Kia ora. I am very happy to take a call on the second reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I congratulate my colleague and friend Louisa Wall on once again being a champion for some very important issues in this House and around the country. I also, of course, congratulate the Sullivan whānau for having the courage to go out there—and I do not underestimate how difficult it must be to have a bill with your family’s name on it going through Parliament and being spoken about.

Like Mr Hague I was on the Government Administration Committee for the marriage equality process, but not for this bill’s process. But what really struck me about the marriage equality process was when you sat down and looked into the faces of the people who were submitting, you realised that they were sitting in front of a bunch of strangers, being forced to talk about the most personal aspects of their lives in order to see progress in human rights legislation. Not many of us who are just afforded these rights at birth have ever had to do that. We do not earn these rights. There is nothing particularly special about us when we are heterosexual. We just get all of these rights handed to us by the fact that we were born straight. We have never had to do that—we do not have to sit in front of a bunch of strangers and argue why we should be treated exactly the same as everyone else and why our family is just as valuable as everyone else’s families. When you go through the process of looking into the faces of the very real people who are affected by this legislation, you really appreciate their courage and their commitment. So I imagine that to do that when it is only your family involved must be even more difficult. But it is just as important—just as important—so I really want to acknowledge the family that we are assisting tonight to address a great injustice.

I was also on the select committee that considered the civil union legislation. The change in the tenor of the debate between civil unions and marriage equality was huge—in a very positive way. The civil union debate was very, very bruising, very, very brutal, and very, very negative. The marriage equality legislation was not a walk in the park either, but by comparison things had changed significantly and there was a lot more respect at the select committee for the marriage equality process than we saw for the civil union process.

When we went through the civil union legislation, a lot of it was about giving same-sex and de facto couples the rights of married couples without going the full way to marriage. But the stories that we heard were just truly horrific—in particular, the case of the death or incapacitation of one family member, where that family member was the biological parent of the child involved and where there had been a falling out with the extended family. There was a complete lack of power for the partner in that relationship to have any rights at all. So we had situations where couples who had been together for decades and decades, in loving and supportive relationships, and then one of them ended up in hospital. The family did not approve of that relationship, so the family swooped in, took over, and went against the wishes of the individual who was sick in hospital. In these cases, the partner had no rights—absolutely no rights at all. They had no rights in the funeral arrangements. They were not even able to see the person with whom they had been in a loving, committed relationship for decades, purely because the State refused to recognise in even the slightest way that their relationship had any kind of legal standing.

A lot of this was addressed during the civil union debate, but the one crucial part that did not get addressed by civil unions and remains an issue today is adoption. We acknowledged during that debate that the status of children of heterosexual civil union couples, as well as of same-sex civil union couples, remains a very grey area under law. It is one that does need to be resolved, because at any time we can wind up with a situation like this, where you suddenly realise that you do not have the rights that you expected you would have. I expect that a lot of heterosexual civilly united couples believe that they have those rights, but, in fact, it is an area of law that remains very grey. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has a bill, the Care of Children Law Reform Bill, to try to address that. It is an area that we do need to address because when you are talking about the relationship between parents and children you are talking about something that is extremely personal. It is something that this Parliament should prioritise.

One of the things that I think this bill really highlights is that the relationship you have with your parents does not end when you turn 18. Guardianship, which was offered by the Care of Children Act, is a very different thing from being a parent. You can say that somebody has a legal responsibility for somebody until they turn 18, but, if anything, I think that our relationship with our parents gets better beyond the age of 18. It stops being a kind of “You do this, you do that.”, mother-child or father-child kind of relationship. It becomes a friendship, and it becomes a very, very fulfilling relationship. So I entirely understand why it is incredibly important to have that relationship with your parents—a relationship that only gets better the older you get—legally recognised under the law. I understand why it is not enough to say “Well, they are all adults and they should just get on with it.” No. I would be just gutted if the legal relationship that I have with my parents was in any way compromised by an action of the State.

I want to make just two final points. I hope that this bill will have the support of everyone in the House. Given the amount of time that we spend in here and as MPs in the communities dealing with the horrific fall out from parents who do not want to be involved in their kids’ lives, and the amount of time that we spend talking about parents who do not fulfil their legal responsibilities and who do not behave in a way that is conducive to a healthy relationship and a healthy child, it would seem to me to be utterly hypocritical and repugnant not to support a parent who says that they want to legally be there for their child, and for this Parliament to actually stand in the way and not allow that.

I think that where we have parents who want to be involved in their children’s lives, who want to take that legal responsibility and want the State to recognise it, we should be doing everything to get the State out of the way and say: “Absolutely. We wish there were more of you.” We wish that every family had the strength and the love and the commitment that this family obviously has for each other, to go through this process. Our country would be a much better place, a less violent place, a much healthier place, if the kinds of commitment, morals, and family values that we are seeing in this particular family were reflected right across our society.

Finally, I want to end by making the point that this bill highlights a very real fact: until we get full equality under the law for same-sex couples, there will always be loopholes, there will always be families that fall through the cracks, and there will always be sad cases like this where, through no intended malice, the law does something very, very cruel and does something very, very destructive in a family’s life. That is why full equality for same-sex couples must be the goal of this Parliament. If we truly want to see every family supported and every family recognised and to support loving and good families, then that will happen only when we get full equality for same-sex couples. Thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to speak on this Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, the title of which I understand the Government Administration Committee has recommended be amended to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill”.

May I, from the outset, just acknowledge Rowen Sullivan and her enormous determination and commitment to ensure that this almost impossible task has actually become a reality, or is becoming a reality. It was a great pleasure for me tonight to meet her adoptive mum, Doreen Shields. I had not met her before. I just happened to be in the parliamentary cafeteria. It was clear from the outset what a warm and lovely person she is and how wonderful it is for Rowen to have an adoptive mum of her lovely character.

Of course, I want to acknowledge her biological mother and also the sponsor of this bill, Louisa Wall. There is no doubt, as I think Kevin Hague pointed out, that here is someone who has brought two really important human rights issues to Parliament in a very short space of time. It is a great contribution. Might I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee members who dealt with the bill because, listening to them, they all have been deeply moved by this situation, and it has been hugely interesting and moving to hear their contributions.

I guess, in many respects, the bill is driven by a young woman’s desire—in fact, an overwhelming desire—to have her biological mother’s name appear on her birth certificate. That is something that most of us, all of us, would absolutely just take for granted. I think I heard in the first reading of the bill that her own words were: “I want my mum’s name on my birth certificate to honour her …”. That is indeed a sentiment that any child would want for their parents.

I do recall, in the first reading of this bill, a remarkable coincidence in hearing a documentary about a young Indian man who was about the same age—about 19 or 20. He had been born in provincial India, in very poor circumstances, and had gone down with his brother to the local railway station to sell beads, or something similar, to pay for rice to feed the family. Somehow he had been separated from his brother. In a panic he hopped on a train that took him 3,000 miles away, and eventually he wound up in South Australia and was adopted by, again, some very loving people. But he had recurring nightmares about wanting to see his birth parents. He happened to be a very bright individual who was talented in mathematics and in the new technologies, and particularly in GPS. For over 3 years he used to wait up until 2 or 3 in the morning, figuring out the possibilities of where his biological parents came from in India.

To cut a long story short, after 3 years he reckoned he had cracked it. He went back to India and methodically went to the places where he had most likely been born, and eventually he found his parents. This brought absolutely profound joy, both to himself and his family and to his adoptive family.

But the point of making this analogy is the drive that all individuals have to know about their parents, and to have that transparency and ability to find them and not have hurdles put in their way. So the bill’s purpose, undoubtedly, would require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother, whose name is Diane Sullivan, on her post-adoption birth registration entry.

I note that the Government Administration Committee organised a variety of amendments to this bill. The one I mentioned earlier relates to the title that, correctly, is changed to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill” because it could have been misleading as its passage would not directly effect change to Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate.

There were a couple of other amendments, including the committee’s recommendation of inserting a new clause 4, which would make it clear that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Sullivan.”

I think it is worthwhile to just make mention of the enormous transition that we have been through over the last few decades in this area of both human rights and in the area of assisted human reproduction, and the huge debates that have led us to believe what 30 years ago was regarded as impossible can now be normalised.

Last Friday I was at the 50th anniversary of the founding of National Women’s Hospital. A fellow by the name of Dr Freddie Graham, famous for introducing in vitro fertilisation into New Zealand, went through the changes in birth technology in New Zealand over the last 20 to 30 years. He explained how Professor Dennis Bonham used to secretly organise sperm donation in the 1960s. The reason for that was that the hospital board would not let it happen. He had his own private practice and they literally used to mix up the sperm so they could not identify who the parents were, because of the legal ramifications that might occur in terms of making a claim through the legal process. However, a young social worker by the name of Joi Ellis persuaded the academic department that it was wrong not to be transparent. Over a period of time others joined her, including Professor Ken Daniels.

Today in New Zealand we are leading the world in having one of the most transparent systems of ensuring that children can identify their biological parents. So I think it is very good timing that this bill has reached Parliament in New Zealand and that we are making it possible for someone such as Rowen, who is so clearly driven, to do what is right and to have the appropriate framework in New Zealand to enable her to do so. I acknowledge all those who have brought this bill about and, indeed, I celebrate the fact that I have been able to speak in this second reading.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First originally had reservations about the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. We were wary about a bill for the benefit of one individual rather than the community as a whole. But since then we have looked at the bill in much more detail. I have had the benefit of discussions with Louisa Wall, who was very persuasive, and, also, the discussions were very productive and worthwhile, and I thank her for them. We are now satisfied that the bill is necessary, that it is indeed the only solution to ensuring that the birth certificate concerned will properly and realistically show the names of Rowen Sullivan’s late birth mother, Diane Sullivan, as well as her adoptive mother. That, of course, is a very natural thing for anybody to want. Everybody can relate to that.

Indeed it is extraordinary that it would be possible not to record the birth mother on a birth certificate. It is not much of a birth certificate, when you think about it, if that were the case. So this is a unique solution to a unique set of circumstances and we in New Zealand First now recognise it as such. The desired solution would not be achievable without legislation, and I observe that if Rowen had been born today, her parents could marry and both of them would be recorded on her birth certificate, which cannot occur now, of course, because Diane died in 2010. However, that consideration alone justifies this bill, I think.

We in New Zealand First also approve the change of name of the bill to the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, because, in fact, that is what this is really about. We also approve of new clause 4(1), which will provide that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Helen Louise Sullivan.” The proposed clause reinstates the legal position for all purposes, including, of course, the law of succession and parental relationship. That is really a very important consideration. I am very glad to see that the Government Administration Committee has made that amendment—very worthwhile.

For all of those reasons, New Zealand First will now be pleased to vote in favour of the bill. Like other speakers, I congratulate all concerned on bringing it to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Ahn nyung ha se yo. On that note, I would like to start by wishing everyone a happy New Year, considering the lunar New Year just actually happened and we have all been around many different parts of the country celebrating the lunar New Year, the Year of the Horse. Let me greet you in my mother tongue: se hae bok mani baduseyo. It translates to “May your new year bring you lots and lots of luck.” I just thought I would start and actually have a look at the Year of the Horse. The wood horse, according to the Chinese horoscope, is a time of fast victories, unexpected adventure, and surprising romance. So if there are any single people in this House, I wish you good romance this year. According to the Korean astrological chart, this is the year of the blue horse. May it be significant in this election year.

Let me start by acknowledging all of the speakers who have spoken on this bill, the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. It is, of course, my pleasure to rise in support of the bill. I remember speaking at the first reading and actually mentioning my little cultural experience, where in certain countries where people are born in a particular town or at a particular time, and because they are worried that the children might not actually survive a certain period of time, they do not register the children. They actually register them later, and often the children end up with the wrong birth date. This is quite different.

I have not actually been to the Government Administration Committee. I was not part of the select committee, but I commend the members who have worked on this bill. Hearing them speak so passionately about this bill, I commend the work that you have done, because I think it is incredible to hear everyone talking about and acknowledging Rowen Sullivan and her parents. Her parents have obviously done a fantastic job in raising an amazing young woman who wants to honour her mother. As a parent of a teenage child, I would only hope that one day when he grows up that he might want to honour me. I hope he is actually listening to the debate today.

I was looking at the issue of identity—how a person conceives their identity and how they express their identity. Often their identity comes from their parents. Parents are the very first people who imprint the personality on their children. Children identify with their parents, and their own identity is formed as a result of the education that they receive from their parents as the first educators. I also want to talk about things like national identity, because it is where you come from. It is the cultural identity. It is like how I am Korean. Yesterday we had the Speaker from the Korean Parliament visit New Zealand’s Parliament. I was so very proud to have met him here and actually have lunch with him as the chair of the Korean - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group, because that is my cultural identity. That is where my first impressions of my own personality and identity were formed. From being born in Korea through my parents, I am who I am today because of all of the influences that I have had. I think Rowen has had fantastic parents, both Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields, and she wants to honour her mother.

As previous speakers have said, this bill requires the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on Rowen’s post-adoptive birth registration entry. I was thinking about how it would feel to not have my parent’s name on my own birth certificate. I mean, I would not even know how to feel about that, because we all take it for granted. I know Mr Hague talked about having children in his relationship and how in the past for couples who are of the same sex who adopt, it was only the one person who could adopt, rather than both parents who could actually adopt. So when you look at it that way, and translating it into my own circumstances and my own life, you sort of think “How would I feel if I did not have both my parents’ names on the birth certificate?”. That would really upset me very much, because I am who I am as a result of both my parents—my father and my mother.

For Rowen it is both Diane and Doreen who have made her who she is. Rowen’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan, her birth mother, and Diane Sullivan’s partner, Doreen Shields. Diane Sullivan’s name was on her birth certificate, but Diane died in 2010, when Rowen was just 17. That is only 2 years older than my son, who is now 15. Knowing my son and how young he is at 15, how devastating would it have been for Rowen to have lost her mother and to find out subsequently that when Doreen applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan, the order required Diane’s name to then be removed from Rowen’s birth certificate, and for them to consider that? And how would they have actually felt? No one in this House could possibly understand what that might have felt like. Only Rowen knows and only her adoptive mother knows what that was like. That would have been a terrible, devastating, heart-wrenching experience, because you would want to remember your mother.

Had Diane and Doreen been able to marry, as previous speakers have said, they would, of course, have been able to jointly apply for their names to appear on the birth certificate. For someone who has actually gone through the process with some friends who have had help with human reproductive assistance, where a couple who could not actually have children for more than 15 years went and had some assistance—in my culture even adoption is actually frowned upon. I remember my friend going through the whole pregnancy of her surrogate—this actually happened outside of New Zealand. But her surrogate, the mother, was going through the pregnancy, and then the adoptive mother pretended that she was pregnant right throughout the whole pregnancy. I remember her having to actually stuff her tummy with things to make her look like she was pregnant, because she did not want the stigma attached to her daughter when she finally came home as her daughter. So that heart-wrenching experience that she went through was something that made me sort of understand the kind of agony that Rowen and Doreen would have gone through.

Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act of 2013, same-sex couples are now able to marry and can apply to jointly adopt children. So what this bill is actually doing is making a matter of fact—the fact that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are, in fact, both Rowen’s parents—just a matter of law, just a record, and it will make it permanent so that from now on, when Rowen applies for a future birth certificate, both her parents will be on that piece of paper. For me, that piece of paper is very significant, because that is one way Rowen identifies herself. It is a certificate basically confirming what she has known all her life, which is that it was, in fact, both her parents—not just one, not the other, but both of them—who were her parents, who brought her up so well to be proud of who she is, and it is honouring her mother, who has, very sadly, passed away. I wish you the best of luck, and I would like to congratulate my colleague and friend Louisa Wall on bringing this bill to the House and managing the select committee process so that all your colleagues would support you in this bill. It is a great bill. I commend it to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia orana kotou katoatoa na roto i te ar’a ma’ata o Te Atua. It is a privilege to be able to speak on the second reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I want to acknowledge the courage of Doreen Shields and Rowen Sullivan and their determination to ensure that this bill becomes law. I can assure you of my total support for your achievement to this end.

This bill is essentially about love—the love and commitment of two women for each other, the love of these women for their child, and the love of that child for both of her parents. This bill speaks to the diverse and modern way that our families are structured and the way that we should be able to acknowledge those who are the most important in our lives—namely, our parents and our children.

We are a modern society that has in recent years made provision for the diversity of our relationships—and here I must commend my colleague Louisa Wall for ensuring the equality of rights for all on the subject of marriage and for bringing this bill to the House—so it is a natural progression to look at the needs of families and the children in these families in the modern New Zealand context, to ensure that they are catered for, that their rights, as well as their needs, are met, and that they are permitted equality as well.

I want to point out to you that I too am an adoptee. This bill resonates on so many levels for adoptees and for adoptive parents—more, I think, than even Rowen and Doreen know—and this is my own personal view of how important this bill is. When you are an adopted child, the State dictates who your parents are. When you are a prospective adoptive parent, you become involved in a formal process that takes many months, or often years, to determine your suitability and fitness for becoming a parent and to ensure that no objections from other parties are forthcoming. I believe that that is still the process for adoption. The State then permits you to be named as a parent on a birth certificate or, more specifically, as the mother or father of a child. The Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages could record only the mother and father of a child—not parent. That piece of legislation—the current piece of legislation, not the bill before us—does not translate well in this modern context. The requirements met the needs of a time, but this is no longer the time. I strongly suggest that it is time to put it right.

We have seen this House pass legislation to afford equal rights to the state of marriage to same-sex couples. I am really proud that we have, yet we deny them the dignity and responsibility of shared parentage. This is the predicament we find here. When you are born into a family—not adopted, but born into a family in the traditional sense—you do not need the State to tell you who you are or who your parents are. You just are, and it just is. I understand the need for legal process to determine your status in legal terms and your rights, for example, to property or to estate that you are a beneficiary of. But in modern New Zealand, where we have made huge strides in terms of acknowledging equality in marriage, we now need to develop equality in parenthood.

I speak as an adoptee whose 90-year-old birth father sat in the gallery just a few weeks ago to watch his youngest birth child deliver a maiden statement to this House. It has been 52 years since my adoption, and I am extremely grateful for the gift that was given to my adoptive parents, as their love and care has made me the person I am today. I want to just comment on my colleague Moana Mackey’s point that as you grow older, your circumstances change and your view of life and family relationships changes. How powerful it is that I could now acknowledge my birth father on my certificate as acknowledgment of the gift that he made to my parents.

It is not so long ago that adoption and the circumstances and reasons behind adoption were too shameful to share. There are many adopted children who are unable to trace birth families because it was not proper at the time to record those details. The process of recording and registration of adopted children in those days removed the record of birth parents.

This is not the case with Rowen Sullivan. However, there is a bigger implication here. I want to point out to many that births to same-sex couples and the subsequent adoptions sometimes happen with the help of sperm and egg donors—surrogates—and it should be possible for those who contribute to the care and the love and the parentage and the parenting to be given the privilege of appearing on the certificate.

Here I would like to note that I support the amendment of the title of this bill to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill”. This bill supports a young woman whose real-life experience is of being parented by two women—two women who have loved her, cared for her, and raised a wonderful young woman. I would like this House to now support the love and commitment it took Doreen Shields and Diane Sullivan to raise this young woman by providing them with the opportunity to both be recognised equally as the parents of Rowen Sullivan. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Before I begin, Mr Assistant Speaker, I wish to advise you that pursuant to Standing Order 118(2), I will be splitting this call with my colleague from Coromandel, Scott Simpson JP. Could I have a bell at 4 minutes, please?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much for that—for informing the House. A split call, colleagues.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: As I was listening to the speeches from the House, I was sitting here wondering whether Doreen and Rowen would be watching this debate tonight, and I assume that they probably are. I was also wondering to myself whether it would be a moment that they are proud of, or whether it is a moment that they would be quite relieved by, because I do not think we are talking tonight, really, about guardianship status, and I do not think we are talking about an adoption order, either; I think what we are really talking about is a family. I picked up on some words in the speech from Poto Williams—it is about love and care, and it is about family—and I think that this is really what the bill is all about. It is about recognising a family situation that has existed, regardless of what laws say and regardless of what pieces of paper say. It is about a family and it is about recognising formally the situation that exists.

I want to congratulate Louisa Wall on bringing the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill to the House. It appears, based on the speech from Mr O’Rourke, that she has achieved unanimity in this House. Would it not have been great if she could have achieved that on her other bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill? That would have been a proud day for New Zealand, but it was not to be. But she has done equally well on this bill, so congratulations to Louisa Wall.

I note also that Poto Williams—if I could draw from your speech again—mentioned that she was adopted. I was not adopted myself, but I am also someone in this House who was not raised in your stock-standard nuclear family of mother, father, and siblings. I was raised, effectively, by my grandmother. We never went through the formal route of recognising that in law, but certainly growing up I always knew that my grandmother played the role of mother, father, and everything else. I think that if we think back to it, probably formalising that situation would have been an ideal thing to do. It is surplus to requirements for us now, but I can understand completely why Rowen would want to see this situation formalised for herself.

Although the details around the bill have been discussed in quite a bit of detail tonight already and I do not want to go over them again, I just want to say that it is a very good thing that this House is doing for that family. And it is about the family. It is not about the pieces of paper; it is about recognising the family.

I was a little bit interested in the mechanisms of private bills. I have been a member of this House for only 3 years and I have not actually seen many private bills come to the debating chamber. So I was quite interested in the history of them, and whether or not this was the appropriate mechanism to be used. I found it interesting. I pulled out McGee and had a bit of a read about private bills. There is a bit of interesting information here.

If you want to find out the origins of private bills, they really go back to the time when Parliament rarely passed legislation. Nowadays Parliament passes legislation on a very frequent basis, but back in the day when Parliament very rarely passed legislation, for individuals to seek relief for a particular matter they had to ask Parliament to pass a piece of private legislation. Ironically, according to McGee, if one wanted to seek a divorce prior to 1867, one had to get a private bill passed through Parliament—to get a divorce. Parliament would be exceptionally busy these days if that were still the case. Fortunately, it is not. But certainly from reading about the history of private bills I can see that this is very much a situation where a private bill is appropriate.

As I come to the conclusion of the few remarks that I have to make on this bill, I just want to say congratulations again to Louisa Wall, and to the Government Administration Committee as well, because it has made some good amendments to this piece of legislation. I just want to again say congratulations to Rowen and Doreen, because I cannot imagine that it would be easy to front up to the New Zealand House of Representatives, to go through what I imagine would have been a lengthy process to become the promoter of the bill, and to get it all going. So congratulations to them and to everyone who will be voting in favour of this—even New Zealand First. Congratulations.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure indeed to stand in support of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, which, as my colleague Jami-Lee Ross has just mentioned, looks like it will have unanimity across the House. That in itself is a rare and wonderful thing. The speeches tonight, I think, have been generous, meaningful, and from the heart. I have been incredibly impressed with the personal stories of individual members, but also impressed with the story on the basis of which this bill has been brought to the House by its sponsor, Louisa Wall.

I want to congratulate the member Louisa Wall on bringing yet another piece of legislation to the House. As a backbench MP of very short duration in this House, I am in awe of her ability to bring this sort of stuff to the House in a way that is, I think, unifying and useful to us as a Parliament and to us as a democracy in New Zealand.

Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act of last year, same-sex couples are, of course, able to marry and therefore they are now able to jointly apply to adopt children. Had that been the case for Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields and they had been able to legally marry, then of course they would have been able to adopt Rowen. If that had occurred, then this bill would not be required.

In a previous life before coming to this Parliament, I had the great privilege and pleasure to be the chief executive officer of a children’s charity called Make-A-Wish. So for about 3 years I was a professional wish-granter. That, let me tell you, is a terrific thing to be able to do. In my maiden speech to this House I mentioned that one of the challenges I saw for myself in this House was to be able to, in some way, bring the job skills and transfer of knowledge from my role as a professional wish-granter into this Chamber.

Tonight I have a small sense of having achieved a little bit of that by being a participant in this debate and, indeed, by having been a member of this House as we pass the second reading of this bill. I mentioned also, when I was speaking in my maiden speech about being a professional wish-granter for Make-A-Wish, that one should never underestimate the power of some magic, the power of a wish, and the power of small things, small deeds, and small actions to have an enormously important impact upon the lives of individuals. Tonight I think we are, as I say, having a small sense of that.

This is a member’s bill. I am grateful to my colleague the member Jami-Lee Ross for giving us a little bit of history about members’ bills, because indeed the House would be sitting under extended urgency very frequently if the old rules still applied.

I want to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee who have considered the bill. The committee is chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I, of course, did not have an opportunity to sit on the committee when considering the bill, but I was particularly taken by speeches made earlier on in the debate from members who did participate in the consideration of the bill after its first reading. I note with interest that they have made a number of modest but significant and important changes.

The Government Administration Committee has made a number of recommendations, and one of them is to change the title of the bill. That seems entirely appropriate, given the circumstances and the unique features of the situation that exists relating to Rowen’s situation. The title of the bill as introduced, the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, was likely to have been interpreted as a little bit misleading. So the suggested change is one that I support.

I think that the committee has yet again shown its willingness and ability to get its head around difficult issues. Previously, the committee has had to consider issues of very major significance to a great number of people. On this occasion it has been considering a difficult but problematic issue for just one family and, in particular, one individual. Living as we do in a small, precious, intimate democracy, I say it is a great pleasure to see Parliament working as it should to achieve this piece of legislation. I thoroughly commend it to the House.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise as the last speaker on the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I have listened very carefully. It is a really unusual situation we are in, with this private bill that does benefit a single family. It is an unusual situation that we have had such positive contributions from everybody in the House, and this bill has the support of all parties. That is a very good thing, and this does feel like we are making a real and significant difference to two people, one of whom is here tonight. I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall in this process. I think most people come to Parliament because—and it is a rather clichéd term—they want to make a difference. Louisa has had the opportunity and the drive to do two very powerful things—quite different in their scale, but two very powerful things—in recent times, both with her marriage equality bill and now with the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I want to acknowledge her for doing that, for making a difference, and for being an active MP.

I want to also acknowledge Rowen Sullivan and Doreen Shields for driving this, really—for having the heartfelt desire to make this so. You have done it—you have done it. A lot of people would not, perhaps, have gone the distance, felt so strongly, and decided to make this happen. I think that is fantastic. As my colleague across the House, Scott Simpson, has just said, I also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee. I have listened closely to contributions from people on that committee, and I got a real sense that that committee worked very well on this bill, trying to work its way through it, and, of course, it was very well chaired by my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Others have gone through all of the detail, but this bill will now allow Rowen to have both of her parents’ names recorded on her formal birth certificate. I think that that is a great achievement. Effectively, the guardianship that was taken by Doreen expired when Rowen turned 18, and this issue of feeling legally orphaned struck me. It must have been a deeply unsettling and upsetting situation. So this is not just a piece of paper. This is a process to respect and honour a mother who had obviously loved her daughter very much. With those few words can I just finally again acknowledge the determination of Rowen and Doreen. Can I say that as a family you have achieved something really important, and that is great to see here tonight.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Sullivan Birth Registration Bill.

Bills

Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I move, That the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the legal position on the time at which a contract is formed if the acceptance of the offer is sent by electronic communications. It is indeed a very important piece of legislation.

If I may begin with just a quick overview of the importance of contracts—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You could tell us why you thought of it, too. Like, where did the inspiration for this come from?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: We will move on to that later on, thank you. Of course contract law is one of the fundamental cornerstones of our legal system. Contracts facilitate trade and commerce, as well as other business and social transactions, where they are proof of a transaction having taken place for a promise to fulfil a certain obligation. A contract is important as it protects both parties from any surprises and any changes to the contract. This helps parties to avoid any type of misunderstanding that may arise, and sometimes provides a mechanism for settling disputes that arise between parties. So a contract is an agreement having a lawful object, entered into voluntarily by two or more parties.

Typically, each of these parties intends to create legal relations between themselves. The elements of the contract are offer and acceptance, normally by competent persons having legal capacity, who exchange consideration—which is generally in the form of money—and where the terms of the contract must be certain. So contracts are at the very heart of the market system that underpins the prosperity that we all enjoy and, indeed, are the foundation of this nation and our economy. Contracts may, of course, be formed orally. They may be formed on paper or through conduct or electronic means.

As has been explained in the explanatory note of this bill, the general rule is that the contract is formed at the time at which acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offeror. An exception to that was created by a famous legal case called Adams v Lindsell. Here I must impose a little bit of history on the House and go back to 1818, when the two parties in that case were involved in the sale of some wool. On 2 September 1818 the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them fleeces and required an answer in the course of the post. The defendants in this circumstance misdirected the letter, so that the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. Meanwhile, on 8 September, the defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they expected, sold the wool to somebody else. Therein was the nub of the problem.

The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received and that until then they were free to sell the wool to somebody else. The judge said that if that was true it would be impossible to complete any contract through the post because, if the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received, the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had received word, and it would go on and on indefinitely. So it was decided that when the offeree places their acceptance in the post, there was a fictional meeting of minds that concluded that the offer was done and gave effect to the acceptance. The idea was tidied further into what is now referred to as the postal acceptance rule in the 1892 case Henthorn v Fraser, where the court determined the precise time limit of acceptance—that is, the moment when the letter of acceptance is posted.

So the longstanding rule as to postal acceptances in Adams v Lindsell is not appropriate for electronic transactions. Therein lies the background to this member’s bill.

Kris Faafoi: Why take 5 minutes to explain something that takes 30 seconds? Get on with it.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: I know it is difficult sometimes for these complex things to sink in on the other side of the House, so I want to take my time. However, be that as it may, the will of this House was sufficiently favourable to pass this bill at its first reading. I think it was 83 votes to 37, so it was quite a resounding victory. It was sent off to the Commerce Committee, which considered this bill in quite some detail and heard submissions. I was grateful for the work—

Hon Member: You don’t have to do the full 10.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: What was that? I was grateful for the forbearance of the committee and the hard work that it did in listening to the submissions and wrestling with some of the issues. It is not as simple as it seems, because when indeed is an electronic offer accepted? Is it when it arrives in the in-box, or is it when it arrives in the server? Sometimes there is a gap between when it arrives in the server and when it arrives in the in-box. It is not always as straightforward as it seems.

The committee made a couple of suggested changes, which I am grateful for. Clause 5 of the bill relates to contract formation. My initial bill introduced a proposed new section 32A to explicitly state that an offer submitted electronically would be deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt of the acceptance by the offeror. This would create a misapprehension of a hard-wired rule applying—that the offer can be deemed to be accepted electronically only at the time of receipt. The committee proposed amending clause 5 to insert a new section 13A into the Electronic Transactions Act 2002, instead of the new section 32A, to make it clear that this is a default rule instead of a rigid approach from which the parties would be unable to contract out.

Proposed new section 13A(1) would ensure the bill would achieve its intended effect. Section 11—

Kris Faafoi: I’ve changed my mind; I want to hear the rest.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a lot of disruption. I am finding it hard to follow my train of thought on this, and I am finding myself getting muddled. I am wondering whether I should start again—go back to the start—because I really have lost my train of thought.

If you do not mind, I just want to touch on the committee’s proposed amendment to clause 5 to insert new section 13A instead of the new section 32A into the Act, to make it clear that this was a default rule instead of a rigid approach from which the parties would be unable to contract out. So new section 13A would ensure that the bill achieves its intended effect. Section 11 of the Act establishes the time at which the electronic communication is taken to be received. The amendment would make it clear that the time of receipt referred to in section 11 of the Act also applies to acceptances of contract offers that are communicated electronically.

Proposed new section 13A(2) specifies that the acceptance rule would not apply if the contracting parties agree otherwise. I think that is absolutely appropriate because if the parties negotiated specifically their own mutually agreed conditions in relation to the time and place of receipt, then good luck to them. We live in a free society and they should be able to do that, and I absolutely agree. In fact, that is indeed the principle that underlies my next member’s bill, which I hope to have to drawn in the next ballot. That bill is about contract formation in terms of fitting in elements of industrial relations. The committee’s amendment would maintain the freedom of contracting parties to decide the time at which a contract is formed.

I also want to mention the question of the time of receipt and the designated information system. The committee considered whether the terms “time of receipt” and “designated information system”, used in sections 10 and 11 of the principal Act, lacked clarity. I am pleased to see that the committee was not persuaded that they lacked clarity and considered that the terms were in need of no further definition. On that score I was very pleased that the committee reported back and I do want to thank the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for all his work on the committee and the fact that he was part of the overall group who reported back unanimously that this bill be continued on in this way. So I am looking forward to the support of Labour this time round.

If I did have a little bit more time—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you have no more time, unfortunately.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): There are times in this Parliament when history is made, and tonight has been one of them. The member Paul Goldsmith, who is the author of this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, thanked the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, for its assistance. Indeed, I have to say that after dealing with this piece of legislation the members of the Commerce Committee felt like the collective guys with the shovels following the elephant—big time.

I have to say that I thought that Mr Goldsmith was a writer of some repute. He is a man who has penned many literary works including, I think, a biography—he will correct me—of Don Brash and some interesting works regarding that notable member of Parliament John Archibald Banks, known to us here colloquially and affectionately as “Brown Bag Banks”. But when it came to this piece of legislation, I have to say to Mr Goldsmith, you would have thought it had been written by the local village idiot. This is a piece of legislation that presumably came about because the whips or somebody in the hierarchy of the National Party said: “Look, we need a member’s bill. We need to throw a few in the ballot to cut Labour’s chances and the Greens’ chances down. So can somebody somewhere come up with a few pages of drivel so we can bang it in.” You know, a bit like taking a lotto ticket.

Kris Faafoi: And Paul said yes.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: And Paul said yes. You know, there is an old military phrase: “Never volunteer.” And I have got to say that this was pure spin, pure bunkum, and Mr Goldsmith is right in one thing. The Commerce Committee—

Louise Upston: You’re just jealous you didn’t come up with the idea, Clayton.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Jealous of Mr Goldsmith? Hell no, I have got to say, not on this one—and a man who has on his CV the biography of John Archibald Banks. I am told he got sidetracked and that is why this bill is in trouble—because he got sidetracked. He got sidetracked because apparently he is writing the trilogy of John Archibald Banks, the penultimate work. I think it is going to be entitled John Banks: Looking Through Striped Sunshine—or something like that—From Behind the Wire, or something like that. This will be the final chapter, or the penultimate chapter, in the career of one John Archibald Banks.

But I have to say that when I heard Mr Goldsmith talking about this, I heard three words. I heard the words “fleece”, “fraud”, and “the defendant”, and I have got to say that I thought of John Banks again. Mr Goldsmith was quoting ancient legal cases. Mr O’Rourke is a lawyer. He will take up this point, I am sure, because unlike me he has got a legal mind—I am not a lawyer. But there was “fleecing”, “fraudulent” activity, and “the defendant”. Maybe Mr Goldsmith could answer this question: did the Hon John Archibald Banks act as a consultant in respect of this bill? “Fleecing”, “fraudulent behaviour”, and “the defendant”, I think, are three concepts that Mr Banks—I am sure he will take a call at some point—could give us many hours of dissertation on. “Fleecing”, “fraudulent behaviour”, and being “the defendant”—after all, he has been the defendant three times, convicted twice, and is up on the third strike.

Then we look at the bill, and it talks about “offer” and “acceptance”. It talks about “offer” and “acceptance”. Sam Lotu-Iiga, again a lawyer, will know this. He will recall his stage 101 law classes on offer and acceptance. I am just wondering whether Mr Goldsmith, as he put this piece of drivel together, actually consulted John Archibald Banks. He had the offer, he accepted, and he is now the defendant. Who got fleeced? I would say it was Dotcom, but who knows?

I have to say that this bill should have been encompassed in a Statutes Amendment Bill. When it arrived at the select committee it even failed to clear up ambiguities in electronic contract acceptance by not defining when the contract “arrived” at the recipient’s electronic address. That is how much effort and intellectual rigour was put into this legislation. He could not even define the word “arrived”—when an offer and an acceptance have arrived. This is the drivel that was put in place.

So I say to Mr Goldsmith, who I know is hanging on every word, that if he paid John Archibald Banks a consultancy fee to consult on this bill, he should ask for his money back. He should ask for his money back because a fraud has been committed, because Mr Banks was obviously offering advice—[Interruption] Well, maybe he did have a qualification for it, actually. Did that advice arrive in a plain brown paper bag? I do not know. So I just say to Mr Goldsmith that surely there is a lesson in here for him. Next time the whips ask for a volunteer, I say to Mr Goldsmith, do not volunteer, because this is drivel. This is absolute drivel. It is wrongly defined, badly drafted, and I presume it never made its way anywhere near the Clerk’s Office for the assistance that we can obtain in drafting legislation, because the Clerk would have looked at this and said: “Oh my God! How do we fix this?”. So it obviously got nowhere near the Clerk’s expertise or any legal mind, or any intelligent mind of any kind. It was just hashed together as a bit of political spin that is substandard.

I have got to say that I cannot recall the amount of money per hour—maybe the Speaker or somebody else could remind me—that it actually costs to run this place. Mr Goldsmith in his political career has been one who has railed against wasteful expenditure, as has Mr Banks, even though in his last term as mayor Mr Banks trebled the debt of the Auckland City Council, the big spender.

Kris Faafoi: He did what?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He trebled the debt of the Auckland City Council. I do not know how many dollars, how many thousands of dollars, it takes to run this Parliament hour after hour, but it is a disgrace that we are wasting taxpayers’ money tonight dealing with a political stunt and political drivel, which was so badly drafted that the Commerce Committee spent hours trying to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. We did our best. We shovelled behind the elephant. We tried to get something with a semblance of intelligence back into this Chamber, wasting taxpayers’ money every hour that we did it. I say to the Government that I look forward to the next speaker who will get up and have a crack at this. If you cannot even define the word “arrived” in your draft legislation that goes before a select committee, if you cannot define “offer” and “acceptance”, you should not be in this Parliament.

I got one member’s bill through. That was the boy-racer stuff. Luckily, I had a lot of good sound minds to lean on both in my party, in the bureaucracy, and in other places. The bill was actually adopted by the Government and got through and hopefully contributed to doing a little bit of good work around the country.

But I have to say that this bill is political drivel. This is a political pamphlet. But I have got to say that it is very apt when the owner of the bill, the sponsor of the bill, John Banks’ biographer, gets up and talks about fleecing, fraud, and the defendant, and quotes legal cases, then we know he is still under the influence of that very special mind, that very special mind in the Parliament, John Archibald Banks. He is in the rotten pile, one of two, including Peter Dunne, that props this crew up over there. It is very, very telling that this bill deals with offer and acceptance because we know, of course, that Mr Banks was offered, he accepted, and got the brown bag and then does not want to admit it, and he is going to pay a price for that.

So I just say this to the National Party. Fair go. Let us treat the people out there with a bit of respect. They are not numbskulls. They are not stupid. They are intelligent in our communities, and they can smell and see bull when it is put before them, and this is pretty substandard stuff. Those members over there know that this bill does not make sense and know that it makes very little contribution to the body politic. But I suppose again there is a correlation with Mr Banks in that when he was Minister for Small Business he introduced a piece of legislation that abolished 31 Acts that did not exist—another classic and historic moment in this Parliament. I say to Mr Goldsmith: next time, do not volunteer, but I will buy a copy of the book when it comes out, John Banks: Behind the Wire.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): Mr Cosgrove has painted a very unparliamentary picture, or perhaps a metaphor, of the Commerce Committee wandering through a zoo, following an elephant—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: With a shovel.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —with a shovel. Yes, those were your words, Mr Cosgrove. Fortunately—well, possibly fortunately—in regard to the bill, I was not a member of the Commerce Committee at that point in time, and so I come to it with fresh eyes. I come to it with fresh eyes and a different perspective from Mr Cosgrove. I read the title of the bill—Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill—and I think about the modern economy that we are currently in. It is a wonderful economy, and it is an exciting time to be a Kiwi, to be a New Zealander, in the New Zealand economy. It is exciting for a range of reasons.

I will start with the Business New Zealand Back to the Grindstone function I attended just last night down at the Cake Tin, where the speakers stood up one after another and said there were very good omens for business in New Zealand. They talked about the positive vibe that was in the business community and the way the Government was creating the right conditions to invest in New Zealand. There was a great vibe. I think that is why it is so exciting to be part of the New Zealand economy at the moment and to be part of this Government, which is actually driving that economy forward. The reason why I say that in relation to this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, is that, actually, more and more transactions are occurring online. I do not know the figures, but, in fact, millions and millions of transactions are being conducted every year online, and that requires us to be pretty clear and accurate about when the offer and acceptance on those transactions takes place.

I commend Mr Goldsmith for bringing this bill to the House. I commend him for bringing this member’s bill. Not too many members have the opportunity to get to this point in time, to successfully bring a member’s bill into the House and to have it pass, as I am sure it will over the next few weeks in this House. But let us be clear about what this bill does. It clarifies the legal position on the time at which a contract is formed if the acceptance of the offer is sent by electronic communication. It does take the debate forward, and it actually adds to the initiatives this Government has rolled out to drive a better economy. According to those guys at the Back to the Grindstone meeting last night, there has not been one silver bullet that has actually taken the economy forward; it has actually been done by a huge volume of different policies that we have driven as a Government.

Just to remind you, there have been four key goals of the Government. Firstly, there is getting the country back to surplus. We are going to do that in 2014 and 2015. Secondly, there is rebuilding that beautiful city of Christchurch.

Chris Hipkins: What has this got to do with the bill?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: There are 50,000 repairs that have taken place down there already. I tell you, Mr Hipkins, it has a lot more to with this bill than what Mr Cosgrove was talking about when he talked on and on about Mr Banks. So I will continue. The third goal is actually about building better public services, and in that regard, we have outlined 10 key result areas. Result 10, which is actually about driving more online transactions, has a lot to do with this bill, and I want to talk about that in some depth. I will come back to Better Public Services Result 10, because for electronic transactions, the point at which offer and acceptance is agreed, as defined clearly by this bill, is going to play a big part in modern transactions going forward.

The fourth area where we have tried to drive big change is through a more competitive and productive economy. That has been driven by the Business Growth Agenda, of which there have been six key components, many of which require changes in information and communications technology.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Can you elaborate on that?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Can I elaborate more on that? I certainly can. One of the big initiatives there is ultra-fast broadband. What will that do? It will drive more electronic transactions. It is a modern economy. This bill helps us to be clear about when offer and acceptance is achieved in those electronic transactions.

I just want to be clear about what we have achieved with ultra-fast broadband, because it is exciting to see what the Government has rolled out in that respect. In terms of broadband, we are spending $1.65 billion, or that sort of level, on making sure that that electronic highway to conduct these transactions is good. The aim is to have that delivered by 2025. We have rolled it out to 40,630 new end-users just in the last quarter, up until 31 December. Now there are 363,000 end-users around the country with ultra-fast broadband. We are 27 percent complete. That is another huge initiative. There are more than 2,000 schools that are now online. They are able to connect to fibre. We have even got 39 of the most remote schools connected, allowing those communities to be connected through hubs. And, guess what? They also depend on electronic transactions, as well.

Kris Faafoi: Is that right?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: They probably even do out in that beautiful suburb that you live in, in Wellington, Kris. They will actually be concerned about electronic transactions, as well. But I will come back to the third point, which I wanted to spend some time on, which is around those key objectives in building Better Public Services, which this bill certainly adds to significantly. In terms of Better Public Services, we had 10 result areas that the Prime Minister rolled out. Result 10 was about bringing more transactions online in a digital environment so that by 2017, 17 percent of transactions by which the Government interacts with New Zealanders are online. In that regard we have brought out a basket of those transactions, many of which are electronic transactions that require an offer and acceptance component.

Let us go through a few of those transactions that are in the basket of 10. I will just start with applying for financial assistance with the Ministry of Social Development. Fifty-one percent of those transactions are now being delivered online. For paying individual tax, 75.1 percent of those transactions are now being delivered online. For filing an individual tax return, 77.9 percent are. Paying for a vehicle licence from the New Zealand Transport Agency actually requires an offer and acceptance. This bill goes to the heart of being clear about when that transaction is completed, so I think it is really important, and 24.8 percent of those transactions are being delivered online now. The New Zealand Police—paying for a fine on time. I accept that in respect to that it is probably not a transaction where there is an offer and acceptance. One is actually being forced to pay that one, but 42.2 percent of those are delivered online.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What about for passports?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Passports? Well, that was one that I was fortunate to have a fair bit to do with myself through the Department of Internal Affairs rolling out passports online. We now have 31.4 percent of passports being delivered online, which is 20 percent more than they used to be, with a turn-round time of 3 days. That is absolutely sensational. We have also got New Zealand Customs using digital transactions, with 45.6 percent using SmartGate.

So, far from the metaphor that Mr Cosgrove wanted to paint at the start of this debate—that the Commerce Commission was following around some elephant with a series of spades—I see a totally different view of this particular piece of legislation. I see it as part of a tranche of new initiatives that this Government has rolled out. We have made it clear that we agree that there is no silver bullet for taking this economy forward. It is going to take constant and never-ending improvement and constantly lifting the bar. Even small bits of legislation like this inch the economy forward. And, guess what? We are actually seeing results. Some of the best economic growth in the Western World is being projected. This economy will be back in surplus in 2014-15. We are in fantastic shape. It is an exciting time to be a New Zealander and an exciting time to be part of this Government. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): There are some bills that this side of the House opposes when they come before this House because they are wrong, because we fundamentally disagree with them, or because we are philosophically opposed to them. We absolutely oppose the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill because it is not worth the paper it is written on. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment that a member has brought in a member’s bill that has wasted the Commerce Committee’s time. The Commerce Committee usually does very good work. Officials were brought in on more than one occasion essentially to tell us that this bill is a nothing bill and that it has essentially been rewritten to become a nonentity.

The only thing I want to say about this bill is that the “Purpose” clause no longer has a purpose. The purpose has been removed. This is a nothing bill. We oppose it.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): When I was elected to Parliament, I hoped to come to this House to really make a difference to New Zealand, because I really believe in creating a fairer, greener, and smarter future for all New Zealanders, and that is what the Green Party is working towards. I do have to say that I knew when I came here that we would have to deal with some trite and trivial details, but I never really expected anything quite as trite and trivial as this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, which I had to sit through in the Commerce Committee. I do not really have much to say on it, so I will stop there. Thanks.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): We are moving through this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, at tremendous speed because members of the Opposition have very little to say. I am very surprised at that. We live in an electronic age and it is imperative right through the systems of electronic transactions that we have in this country that they be foolproof, and that when we see areas where improvements can be made, no matter how small, we actually apply ourselves to that. You know, there is an old saying that if you look after your pennies, then the pounds will look after themselves. It is important in regard to detail that attention is paid to it and that things are improved, and that is what this bill, brought to the House by my friend and colleague Paul Goldsmith, does.

It is small but he has gone through and shown through history that moments of transactions being conveyed and completed are very important for the economy of whoever may be involved. It is nothing to be trite about. We know that businesses have been lost because of transaction failures at times. No doubt relationships have been lost because of transaction failures at times. It is important, as Mr Goldsmith has identified, that this is an area where clarity can be achieved, and this is what we have achieved in this bill.

I guess it is part of this John Key - led Government that we attend to the detail of these sorts of measures, and this member of Parliament, this National member of Parliament, has sought to do that. We are very committed to ensuring that we have a very competitive and robust economy. So although it may be in the mind of the Opposition to mock and make trite these things, we take these things, as small as they are, as very serious. So I would like to congratulate and commend my colleague who has brought this bill to the House.

It has gone through the Commerce Committee. During that process we had eight people submit. Members of the Opposition will acknowledge that we had some very interesting discussions during that select committee process. Although on the surface it may seem to be a small measure, behind it there were some very interesting philosophical discussions that I think we need to acknowledge.

As I come to the conclusion of my remarks, I want to just mention that we did find in our procedures in the committee that there were cases—in Australia, in particular—where there had been errors and mistakes made in the transmission of information, payments, or bills, whatever it might be, that actually did cause concern. Mail servers in a particular jurisdiction of a council received information but it was not passed on to the appropriate person. In that particular case, that did go to court. It was deemed that once it had been received by the server in that jurisdiction, in that council, it was received then. Those things do not go to court unless they really matter, and they did matter. We found those sorts of cases where just a single transaction, an email, an acceptance, a payment, whatever it could be for anybody out there who uses electronic means to communicate, even though it might be a small email, to that person it could mean a lot. So we worked through this and we have brought our recommendations back to the House. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill under the name of Mr Paul Goldsmith. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill is not one of the great pieces of legislation by this Government. In fact, if it was, it would be the only great piece of legislation by this Government. It is also not one of the many awful pieces of legislation by this Government, and it has actually been crowded out by so many pieces of even worse legislation by this Government. So it is neither good nor bad; it is sort of neutral, in between.

In fact, it is probably a piece of legislation that is not really needed at all, because the general rule of contract formation is that a contract is formed at the time an acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offeror—that is, when the acceptance is received. This generally applies unless there is an established exception. There is no such exception for electronic transactions such as emails. There is an exception for acceptances by post in Adams v Lindsell, so that the date and time of acceptance is when the letter is posted, not when it is received. The reliability of the postal system was considered to be such that this rule should apply. Otherwise, it would be impossible to complete any contracts through the post because if the offeror is not bound by their offer until the acceptance is actually received, then the offeror, if he wanted to avoid the contract, could simply deny having received acceptance. So the longstanding rule for postal acceptances in Adams v Lindsell is not applicable to, or appropriate for, electronic transactions.

Contractual offers by telex, as with the telephone, are simultaneous, so a contract is formed in those cases when the offeree accepts, and that is accepted law. Although it is correct that there is no clear authority on acceptance by way of email, there is no established exception either, so the general rule applies in favour of acceptance when it is received. This, effectively, is at the same time as when it is sent, if it is sent by an electronic means such as email. Nevertheless, this bill will serve to clarify the law.

I accept that the position with telex differs from emails in some respects because communication by telex is generally acknowledged at each end—the sending machine and the receiving machine. With email it is not known with certainty to the sender that an email has been received unless confirmation is received from the recipient. The sender of an email can obtain confirmation that a message has been received, although that is not commonly done, as we all know. It is also true that emails are delivered by a variety of servers, and there is therefore not the same assurance that an email will get to the intended recipient as in the case of post. This bill, therefore, does deserve support, as recommended by the Commerce Committee. I also support the select committee’s amendment of the bill to confirm that the contracting parties can decide for themselves when and how acceptance will occur, and that the provision in the bill for acceptance as at the time of receipt will be the default position. This bill clarifies this one small area of uncertainty and would, to that extent, assist business in New Zealand.

Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today, especially email and by smartphone and social media and so on, it is useful that the current Act be amended in the way that is now set out in the amended bill. So although it is certainly not an earth-shaking piece of legislation, it does have some use. New Zealand First will, therefore, support it.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): It is a great pleasure to speak on the second reading and in support of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. This bill is in the name of my good colleague National MP Paul Goldsmith, and I would like to thank him for bringing this member’s bill to the House.

This bill amends the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 and clarifies the legal position on the time in which a contract is formed, if acceptance of an offer is sent by electronic communication. This bill is a simple but good bill. It will tidy up uncertainty and offer New Zealanders peace of mind, as well as increasing the flow of business. Businesses and consumers are now living in the internet age, and our legislation needs to keep up with changing technology to ensure that we have consistency.

The internet has already impacted the economy in a range of ways, such as investment in internet-related infrastructure and creating an industry that provides goods and services that enable the internet. In 2009 Statistics New Zealand valued the net capital stock held in the telecommunications, internet, and library services industries at $14.7 billion, or 2.6 percent of New Zealand’s total capital stock. Since then the Government has agreed to invest $1.65 billion in the ultra-fast broadband or “UFB” roll-out through to 2019. In 2009 the internet service industry contributed $4.2 billion towards GDP, or 2.3 percent of GDP.

The Boston Consulting Group estimated in 2012 that the internet economy contributed US$2.3 trillion towards the G20 economies in 2010 and projected that it would reach US$4.2 trillion by 2016. It is believed that broadband will deliver $32.8 billion in benefits to New Zealand end-users over the next 20 years.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research completed a report on the role of the internet in the New Zealand economy in 2012. The report emphasises, and it is quite a long quote but a very important one, that “Economists see the institutions (‘rules of the game’)—such as the legal status of different types of transactions—in an economy, as vital determinants to the way it functions. The structures and frameworks must ‘suit’ (match and support) the type of economic activities that are taking place. So the wider rules of society such as laws, enforcement provisions, and other policies outside the internet play a role in determining its effect on the level of structural change or innovation in an economy. This suggests that for the internet to maximise its impact, complementary policy and institutional settings need to be correctly set and kept up to date.”

Under the current legislation, when the contract is accepted by post a rule applies and it means that the contract has been formed as soon as the acceptance was placed in the post. However, this rule does not cover contracts accepted electronically, namely by email. So if someone accepts a job by email, then there is no legal certainty over when that contract was formed.

The National-led Government is focused on building a more competitive and productive economy—hence we are rolling out ultra-fast broadband and we are working hard to ensure our public services utilise online services. This bill recognises that we live in an internet age. The Commerce Committee has recommended that the postal acceptance rule be applied to electronic communications. This bill is as simple as that.

I would like to talk a bit about the amendments. Firstly, in the original member’s bill, clause 5, which relates to contract formation, proposed inserting new section 32A, which clearly stated that an offer submitted electronically would be deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt of acceptance by the offeror. However, the Commerce Committee felt that this could create a misapprehension that an offer can be deemed to be accepted electronically only at the time of receipt. Therefore, the committee has proposed amending clause 5 by inserting new section 13A, instead of the original section 32A, to clarify that this is by no means a rigid approach but instead a default rule that would allow flexibility. This amendment would ensure that the time of receipt, referred to in section 11 of the Act, would be applied to acceptances of contract offers that are communicated electronically.

The National-led Government is committed to making better online services for New Zealanders. We believe that ultra-fast broadband is vital and that it will promote innovation, create jobs, and grow the New Zealand economy. This is why we are investing $1.65 billion to deliver ultra-fast broadband to 97.8 percent of all New Zealanders by 2025. It will bring us closer to the rest of the world and increase our competitiveness.

There are now more than 363,000 end-users connected to ultra-fast broadband in New Zealand. The Rural Broadband Initiative has connected over 179,000 rural homes and businesses to fast wireless broadband, and over 2,000 schools are now connected to fibre. Ultra-fast broadband has revolutionised the way that many businesses, schools, health care providers, and communities operate.

The impact that the internet has on us is far-reaching. It is believed that the changes that the internet has already caused could be the tip of the iceberg. Many types of commercial and social contacts are possible on the web. It is also noted that the internet’s transformational impact is not limited just to who produces what, and how, and where; the internet has already created new wants, and the products and the markets to meet them.

From day one, National has been firmly focused on the issues that matter to our economy, to our community, and to all New Zealanders: a strong economy, more jobs, better front-line health and education services, a safer New Zealand, and rebuilding Christchurch. We have a Business Growth Agenda with hundreds of initiatives to improve the productivity and competitiveness of the economy.

To conclude, clear and predictable laws governing commerce are some of the foundations of the success of the modern economy upon which our prosperity depends. Clarity and certainty lead to confidence, and confidence leads to greater investment, so our laws need to be consistently maintained and adapted to respond to changing technologies. This bill tidies up one small area of uncertainty and will go some way to increasing the flow of business. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I know that the country is still basking in the collective glory of our cricket result yesterday and the season that our cricketers had, but what people at home are either listening to or watching tonight is not cricket in two senses. The first sense that this is not cricket in a parliamentary sense is that the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill should not even be being debated on a members’ day. This is one of those bills that the Government puts into the ballot to prevent really, really good bills from this side of the House being debated, so for that reason this bill is a waste of time. The second reason that this debate in the House tonight is not cricket is that the National Party members will take up about an hour of this House’s time explaining one simple thing, the one very small thing that this bill does.

The bill cleans up a piece of legislation that the Government has already amended. This amendment bill went to the Commerce Committee and was actually tidied up by that select committee. When it arrived at the select committee it was rubbish, and then the select committee cleaned it up. This bill does one thing; it does not do all the things that the National Party members are debating tonight about the economy. All it does is clarify a rule about the formation of a contract. The postal rule, which has applied for many, many years, is that if you have a contract offered to you, then that deal is done when the letter is sent—offer and acceptance. In this digital age it is different, so when someone’s server receives the acceptance, that is when the contract is done. That is all that this bill does. That is all it does. And this House has spent time in this House and money—in terms of the select committee process and all of the officials—just to do one small thing. So, on that basis, this bill is a waste of this House’s time. It should have been put through as a Government bill and as part of a Statutes Amendment Bill, and that is why we oppose it.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I was absolutely intrigued to listen to the last person speaking, Kris Faafoi—I suppose that was what he was doing. He did start to talk about something extremely constructive for a moment or two—the cricket, which I thought was going to be really interesting. He wavered off, of course, into something that the Labour Opposition, since I have been in this House, has spent hours and hours and hours doing: wasting the time of this House. I listened to Mr Cosgrove tonight making the same speech that I have heard him make seven times since Christmas. It is beyond me to understand how Mr Faafoi could get up there and accuse this Government of wasting the time of the House, given the record of his associates.

Anyway, it is a privilege for me to get up and speak on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. I, of course, do not sit on the Commerce Committee and have had no part in the discussion on this bill. I sit on the Primary Production Committee with the guru from the Greens, Steffan Browning, who is very busy over there. The guru from the Greens is constantly on the case of the agricultural sector. I sit on that committee with him and of course we do some very structured stuff in our select committee. We pass the most important bills—bills that keep this country running—like the animal welfare legislation and the Food Bill. Of course, to use one of Mr Cosgrove’s favourite terms, they are pillars of this country’s economy. He talks about the pillars or whatever, does he not?

Anyway, I listened to Mr Goldsmith tonight speaking extremely eloquently about this bill. I then listened to Jian speaking about this bill, and in no uncertain terms he outlined the whole process of this bill—the process that it goes through and all of the parameters of it. I thought he did a wonderful job of it and I was impressed with his speech.

I am old enough, I guess, to remember a time when a shake of the hands formed a contract. We have come a long way since those days, of course. Now you zap your little card across the top of a machine and it steals your money very quickly. That is what this bill is all about. It is about creating the environment for us to do business quickly, efficiently, and effectively. I cannot help but go back to the Greens and think of the objection they have to bills like this. The amount of time the Greens spend in this House tabling papers—for a party that spends its life trying to preserve our environment, it is beyond me to understand why it would consistently, every day, table more and more trees in this House. I think that is a great shame. For a party that ostensibly supports the environment, for it to be tabling paper after paper in this House seems extraordinary to me.

Kris Faafoi: What about CO2 emission?

IAN McKELVIE: That is a problem as well, Mr Faafoi. That does create quite significant problems. Actually, I do have the privilege of driving through your electorate of Mana on a regular basis, and I do see there is quite a problem there. I just cannot wait for that road to get built, because that will definitely lower not only the carbon dioxide emissions but a number of other emissions as well, particularly the carbon emissions. From a Wellington perspective, I think once we get that motorway open and operating—and there is now a fly in the Chamber, and I have been here so long it is settling on me. To get that motorway open I think will be quite—in fact, the fly is attacking me—a major bonus for the capital city, and it will certainly help us get down to this most important place. I have got the fly. I have got it—that has solved that problem. So I am very keen to support this bill.

I just want to get on to the comments of Mr O’Rourke. Mr O’Rourke believes in policies that uphold public benefits ahead of private interests. That is the statement he makes on his own website. I was very pleased to hear him tonight supporting this bill. For New Zealand First to be supporting this bill through the House with Mr Goldsmith and, of course, the Government, I think is a pretty good effort.

Tonight, across the passage from here, we saw people from the Riddet Institute from Massey University, Palmerston North—the electorate of Iain Lees-Galloway. They live on my side of the river. They were in there tonight with some outstanding young scientists. They had six of the very best scientists who specialise, as they do, in food innovation and health. They were talking about things that would make this country a much stronger country. I was most impressed with the activities of the Riddet Institute and the presentations that were made tonight. Without those sorts of people working in this country, practising and putting into place scientific stuff that is hugely important to us, we would not make the progress we need to make in this country.

Of course, the same thing applies to technology. The Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill deals very much with modern technology—

Kris Faafoi: This is not cricket.

IAN McKELVIE: —and the way our society has evolved. Of course, if you really want to get back to that cricket, for those of us who like cricket, the last few days have almost been made in heaven for us. For people who are very keen cricketers, like Mr King here—who, in fact, props up the parliamentary cricket team—the last 3 months have been bliss for us. You just cannot believe that you could have so much success. So thank you, Mr Faafoi, for bringing up the cricket. It has been an extraordinarily successful time for us in New Zealand. Of course, the other thing about sport is that it emotionally prepares you for the dour bits of life. Those of you who participate in this House should play sport on a regular basis because it will encourage good health and make you feel an awful lot better about what goes on.

I just want to get back to Mr Browning, who is still in the House. I do not think he has listened to one thing that has gone on in this debate tonight. In fact I am sure he has not. I just want to get back to him for a moment, because he does make an interesting contribution to this Parliament and his theories on agriculture are well worth listening to.

Anyway, to get back to the bill, I heard Dr Jian Yang speak on this bill at length tonight. He talked about the way the bill is structured and the way it works. He talked about some of the history of it and gave me a great background on it, I guess. As I said earlier, I was not on the Commerce Committee, which dealt with this bill, and it certainly educated me as to what these sorts of things do for us.

It is a very interesting place to be, this Parliament, and I think that members’ day, particularly, is an interesting time.

Kris Faafoi: Not cricket.

IAN McKELVIE: No. Well, I will get back on to rugby now. Members’ day does give us the opportunity to bring things from our electorates into this House—things that concern us and things that concern us as members of Parliament—and to make a difference as to where we are going in the future, to make a difference as to where the country goes, and to have some little bit of influence on what goes on in our lives on a daily basis.

This Government is committed to producing or creating an environment where we can thrive and do well as a country. It is determined to create an environment that creates less dependence and gives people the ability to make their own way in life and to sort things out for themselves. I think that we have some extremely good policies in place to achieve that. We have taken a great lead in the last 3 years or so, and, certainly in the last 2 years since I have been in this House, we have taken a great lead in a lot of these things. I think we are really creating an environment that will make a huge difference to the future of this country.

We have listened to a number of speakers tonight on this bill. Most of them spoke for a very short time, which I find absolutely ironic given the amount of stuff we have had to listen to from the other side of the House over the 2 years since I have been here. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support this bill. I want to congratulate Paul Goldsmith once again on navigating this bill through the select committee stage and getting it into the House and through its second reading in one piece. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that this is not a split call.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): As my colleagues have said, Labour is opposing the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. This is just a waste-of-time bill designed to clog up the member’s bill ballot process. If it was meaningful, it should have been part of a Government bill designed to deal with e-commerce matters. If it is a very minor thing, as it is, it should have been part of a Statutes Amendment Bill. For those reasons, Labour is opposing this bill.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): It is my privilege to stand in support of this bill. This bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, is an excellent piece of work done by my colleague Paul Goldsmith. The purpose of this bill is to provide some much-needed clarity on contracts and agreements that are accepted electronically or online. As more and more organisations look to offer their services online, it is only natural that the legal agreement that two parties sign may well be signed electronically. Therefore, it is imperative that the law is clear on such contracts and agreements so that the consumer is protected and the party offering the services is aware of its legal obligations.

This National Government has always said that clear and predictable laws are the foundation for any modern economy to succeed. Furthermore, it is no secret that markets prefer clarity and certainty from the Government in order to work with confidence and also to ensure that all parties to the transaction benefit. I congratulate my colleague Paul Goldsmith on introducing this bill and providing consumers and the market with certainty. This no doubt will increase the flow of business and make it easier for consumers to avail themselves of services. This will also attract more investment in different sectors with the clarity of this electronic contracts bill. The bill also fits in with the Government’s agenda for making public services more efficient. We have, for instance, initiated electronic passport renewal services, electronic applications with Work and Income New Zealand, filing one’s tax return online, and renewing one’s worker licence online, among a number of initiatives to make life for New Zealand consumers easy.

We are also working proactively on providing ultra-fast broadband to all New Zealanders. This will no doubt revolutionise the way many businesses, schools, health care providers, and communities operate. It will also overcome the tyranny of distance from the rest of the world, and new applications and ways of doing things will be developed. The latest quarterly report on the Government’s ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband programme shows fibre roll-out to a further 4,630 end-users across New Zealand during the 3 months to 31 December 2013. This means that more than 363,000 end-users are now able to connect to ultra-fast broadband networks across New Zealand. This means that 27 percent of the project has been completed. Further, fast broadband will provide prompt, innovative, and creative services to the consumer. It will also create new jobs and grow the economy.

I would like to touch on the bill regarding the time of communication of acceptance of offer. Clause 5 of the bill relates to contract formation, and, as introduced, it proposed inserting new section 32A to “explicitly state that an offer submitted electronically would be deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt of the acceptance by the offeror. … this could create a misapprehension that a ‘hard-wired’ rule applies; that an offer can be deemed to be accepted electronically ‘only at the time of receipt’.” The committee proposed amending clause 5 to insert new section 13A into the Act instead of new section 32A “to make it clear that this is a default rule instead of a rigid approach from which the parties would be unable to contract out.” A new section 13A(1) would ensure that the bill achieves its intended effect. Section 11 of the Electronic Transactions Act establishes the time an electronic communication is taken to be received. The amendment would make it clear that the time of receipt referred to under section 11 of the Act also applies to the acceptance of contract offers that are communicated electronically.

The Commerce Committee received nine submissions and heard two submissions in person. The committee recommended that the bill be passed with amendments. The committee reported: “The bill seeks to amend the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 to clarify in legislation the time at which a contract is formed when the acceptance of the offer is communicated electronically. Contracts are generally understood to be formed at the time that the acceptance is communicated to the offeror. An exception emerged in Adams v Lindsell; the ‘postal acceptance rule’ deems, for offers accepted by post, that a contract is formed at the time at which the acceptance was posted. Whether this rule could be extended to contract acceptances communicated electronically has not been tested in the courts. However, if the ‘postal acceptance rule’ were used in an argument relating to electronic communication, the bill would ensure that the general rule of contract acceptance applied.”

It is the intention of this Government to provide better public services to New Zealanders, and we have set a target of having an average of 70 percent of New Zealanders’ most common transactions with Government being completed in a digital environment by 2017. Ten transactions are being used to make progress towards the 70 percent uptake online. Renewal of adult passports—more than 125,000 people have renewed their passports online since the launch of online adult passport renewals in November 2012. Other transactions include applying for a visa; applying for financial assistance to the Ministry of Social Development; applying for an Inland Revenue Department number; paying individual taxes; filing individual returns; paying fines like speeding tickets or any other tickets issued by the police, which can be paid online; and paying a vehicle licence with the New Zealand Transport Agency. The experience of SmartGate for air travellers is a unique one. It is very convenient that you can just go to the SmartGate and you are processed without any hesitation. This has really brought New Zealand into the category of countries that have got modern technology available for their people travelling overseas.

This Government wants to make sure that people have got all those facilities that they need in this modern world, and we are committed to the development of this economy. We are proud of what this Government has done so far, and we hope that we continue to grow this. I am really proud to be part of this Government, led by the Rt Hon John Key, who has ensured that in the past 5 years the economy has got back on track. When we received the economy in 2008 it was in a real shambles. We are proud that we have really made progress, and we hope to continue doing this.

Kris Faafoi: Now he’s ad libbing.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Sorry? I hope that this continues for 5 more years, and we will make this country the top country in the OECD. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

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

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

(continued on Thursday, 20 February 2014)

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): There are somewhat unusual circumstances prevailing here in Wellington this morning with the airport being closed. As you will be aware, the Business Committee had enabled select committees to sit outside of Wellington yesterday. Those members are having difficulty getting back. Most important, one of those committees is the Māori Affairs Committee. There might have been an expectation, quite reasonably, that many of those members would be speaking to the bills that are before the House this morning. What I would like to point out is that whilst select committees continue to operate this morning here in Parliament, over two-thirds of Cabinet are present in the House, as well as senior members of the Opposition. They are filling those benches while Parliament’s committees continue to operate in difficult circumstances.

I thought it was worth making a comment about that so that there was no feeling that these bills were of lesser importance to those people who worked very, very hard on them. I am sure the contributions from all this morning will reflect the fact that Parliament has considered very favourably the intention of these bills.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, your explanation is most helpful. Thank you very much.

Bills

Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This omnibus bill represents the culmination of a huge amount of work over many years by some very dedicated people. The bill is going to give effect to eight deeds of settlement that seek to remedy the wrongs of the past and set a foundation for eight iwi at the top of the South Island to thrive into the future. Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa, and Ngati Toa Rangatira are the eight iwi whose claims are going to be settled through this bill.

I want to say something about the historical claims of the iwi. They relate to events at the top of the South Island, the prow of Māui’s waka. In legend, from this waka Māui and his brothers raised the great fish—that is, the North Island—from the depths of the Pacific. With all remaining South Island historical Treaty claims settled through this very bill, I am sure that we as a country will be in a strong position to pull that sluggardly large fish, the North Island, to a similar position. In that regard, I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for the tremendous work it did yesterday on the Tūhoe bill in the North Island. I acknowledge Mr Tirikatene, who, to quote the lyrics of the old song, “drove all night” so that he can be here for the hearing today—the debate. I forget I am not in court any more! This bill is a strong step in the direction of settling all historical Treaty claims in New Zealand. The progress of the bill is indeed long awaited for the eight iwi concerned, but also for New Zealand as a whole. I encourage the House to support this bill today and the four individual bills it will split into for the third reading.

Te Tau Ihu, at the helm of the waka, was the setting chosen for one of New Zealand’s earliest settlements for migrants coming out from England. Nelson was seen as an ideal place for those from England to start afresh and to find a place to set their feet. In the course of this stage of our country’s development, we saw eight iwi lose access to their land, so it is time to again start afresh through this bill. Te Tau Ihu was also the setting, in the Wairau Valley, for one of New Zealand’s most infamous violent conflicts between Māori, who were attempting to preserve their land ownership, and Pākehā. It is indeed unfortunate that large tracts of Māori land in Te Tau Ihu are today locked into inert forms of land ownership. Te Reo is not widely spoken Younger generations do not have the connection to the whenua that their ancestors had, and Māori do not have the representation in decision making for their region that they should.

As I often say when I get these speeches, it is not possible to fully compensate iwi, or, indeed, any claimant group, for the loss their people have suffered. The redress in this bill seeks to recognise the long-standing cultural and spiritual association the iwi had with places in which they resided in the 18th century but where they have since incurred substantial land loss and disenfranchisement. The bill provides a platform for the iwi to establish a strong position into the future and to rebuild a relationship of dignity with the Crown. The omnibus bill will also settle the historical Treaty claims of Ngati Toa Rangatira, across the Cook Strait to the lower North Island, and, very importantly, is going to recognise the relationship between Ngati Toa Rangatira and the “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” haka. The redress package acknowledges that Ngati Toa Rangatira lost land in the Porirua and Kāpiti area, as epitomised by the case of Wī Pārata and the Bishop of Wellington.

Negotiations between the iwi have been long and, at times, difficult. They were difficult because of the highly overlapped nature of interest in claims in this area. As such, a novel approach was taken whereby all eight iwi progressed to a final redress package concurrently. Not only did they individually have to negotiate with the Crown but also they had to work through the differing views with other iwi. So I am very grateful to the members of the Māori Affairs Committee who have considered this bill, having invited public submissions on it. They heard submitters in Wellington, and they travelled to Blenheim and to Nelson to hear from submitters, such is their commitment. I thank the committee in the context of the handful of other Treaty settlement bills soon to be referred to it on the back of this one. I acknowledge the time that the committee spends on these bills, and, once again, say that the committee has done an excellent job.

The committee received 36 submissions. It has examined the bill and has proposed amendments with the endorsement of the Crown and the iwi concerned. The first amendment is a statutory release from liability in favour of Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa in relation to Puketāwai, a cultural redress site they will receive as part of their settlement. The second amendment is the refinement of a section of the “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” haka’s attribution. This refinement clarifies the exclusion for educational purposes from the attribution right in favour of Ngati Toa Rangatira over the “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” haka. I will say a lot more about that particular form of redress, which is novel and very, very important, when we come to the third reading. Other amendments are minor and technical in nature. I commend the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tuatahi, me mihi atu ki a koutou e ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka, naumai. Haere mai ki te Whare Paremata e takatū nei. He rā whakahirahira tēnei. Huri noa, e aku rangatira, e te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the first instance, I acknowledge you, the tribes of the Prow of the Canoe, welcome. Welcome to Parliament House, waiting here in readiness. This is an important day. So salutations to you collectively my esteemed leaders throughout and to the House, greetings and acknowledgements to you all.]

I am delighted to be here in this House this morning to speak at the second reading of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill. Not fog, nor thunder, nor rain, nor any other type of weather that Tawhirimatea could throw at me would hold me back from being here in the House this morning. [Interruption] It may have held Tau back but not me.

I am delighted to speak in support of this bill. As you can see, this bill is some 480-plus pages long. It is a voluminous bill. It is a very significant bill. It settles the claims of all of the tribes of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Māui. Rangitāne, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Apa, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua, and Ngāti Kōata are all resident in Te Tau Ihu, and Ngati Toa Rangatira of Porirua also has shared interests and propriety rights in the south as well as in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. So it is a significant bill.

I am very proud to have been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. We met on several occasions to hear public submissions on this bill. As is always the case with every submissions hearing that I have sat through, there are those who are in support of the bill and there are those who are against. Those who are for are generally those who have done the hard mahi, the hard graft, to actually bring this bill into fruition, and they are generally satisfied and want to hurry its passage through because the work has been done. Unfortunately, some of the submissions are against, and, obviously, they voice their opposition quite strongly. We heard some strong opposition from certain submitters.

Just to canvass a range of the issues that we covered at the select committee—and I am selecting only a few because it is such a huge piece of legislation and it spans such a wide geographic area and numerous iwi and waka groups—we heard submissions from the Port Nicholson Block and Te Ātiawa against Ngāti Toa regarding redress in central Wellington and also Ngāti Toa’s interest in Taputeranga Island in Island Bay.

The issue of that police station is a complex argument between the tribes, the negotiators, and the lawyers. There was eleventh-hour legal action, as we know, by Te Ātiawa, and that led to some frustrating delays. But, at the end of the day, Ngāti Toa’s presence on the south-west coast is acknowledged by Te Ātiawa. It is not so accommodating when it comes to Taputeranga, but it seems that, unfortunately, these actions really go back to the Crown, because previous negotiators with the Port Nicholson Block claim have some explaining to do. They have some explaining to do just in the way that it created a quite messy issue that was not available during previous negotiations, but then there was a way forward when Ngāti Toa came to negotiate. That has been acknowledged, and that was an impasse that was created by the Crown in terms of the negotiations on those respective claims.

At the hearings in the South Island we heard from all the iwi, all very much supportive of the negotiation process. But it is very true that more recompense should have been available under these settlements, and that was very much a strong thrust of the submissions from the iwi. But he aha—they are willing to get the deal done and make sure they can move forward, and I do mihi to them and acknowledge them for that.

In the south we heard from Pākehā families—for instance, around the Tuamarina area—who are associated with that site, regarding public land and reserves being transferred over to Ngāti Toa. These Pākehā families are some of the descendants of the settlers who took part in what has become known as the Wairau incident. These people felt that no change was necessary, and they were unhappy with the statutory role Ngāti Toa will play in the administration of that reserve. But the Wairau Valley and that incident involving Ngāti Toa and the settlers is a very important footnote in the history of both the settlers and Ngāti Toa. I think it has been dealt with appropriately through recognition. Ultimately, these matters will require an ongoing relationship being formed between the iwi and the actual resident groups, the people, at Tuamarina. We can only encourage that taking place, and it will take place into the future.

Still in Wairau, there was a Pākehā family by the name of Fairhall, who asked for the return of some land that was acquired under the Public Works Act to build the Woodbourne air force base. This land has been earmarked by the Crown to use in the Treaty claim settlement negotiations. The family say it is at their expense, and they have recently gone to the High Court, I understand, for a judicial review on that particular matter. But just as the Public Works Act has been a taniwha for many a Māori whānau or hapū right throughout the country, it was interesting that it applies not only to Māori but also to Pākehā families.

There were many other submissions from various other hapū, and I am thinking internally within the Rangitāne. Of significance, I think, were the submissions in relation to the Wakatū Incorporation and other historical land entities within the top of the South Island area—Nelson, Wairau—and their assertion that their rights have been overridden through these settlements. My only comment to that is that, ultimately, these settlements are about the iwi working together, as the Crown has done on a regional grouping basis, and, ultimately—ultimately—the outcome that has been achieved through this legislation benefits all of the iwi members in Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui, whether or not they are shareholders in Wakatū Incorporation, Ngāti Rārua-Ātiawa Iwi Trust, Wellington Tenths Trust, or other historical land entities and incorporations. This is an iwi-wide settlement and the iwis have gone through a tremendously long process to establish themselves and to get to this point, and, ultimately, all of the whānau benefit because they are all members of the iwi.

That is the only way I can really address the mamae of certain whānau. There is mamae right across all the whānau of Te Tau Ihu. You can never really adequately address it, but this is an iwi-wide settlement, and the eight iwi who have participated have done so in good faith. Even though there has been opposition from corporate organisations like the Wakatū Incorporation, the iwi have stood strong and that has prevailed, and we tautoko it here through at the second reading as this bill continues its passage.

One of the sadder parts of the submissions around this bill was the number of those who were totally opposed to the Treaty settlement process. You know, some made some very racist accusations towards the iwi, towards Māori. In particular, they were accusing certain rangatira of being murderers of both Māori and Pākehā. Look, it is not for me to go over all of the history. What we are trying to do here is not only acknowledge that history but also ensure that the Crown properly recognises the injustice and the grievances of these iwi and settles them so they can all move forward.

We heard a few of these submitters. They do not believe that the Crown ever breached the Treaty—they probably do not even believe in the Treaty. Clearly, their thinking is wrong, but it is a sad indictment that there are still intractable parts of society who believe that Māori deserve nothing from the Crown. Some of the letters that were received are quite openly hostile along those lines.

Be that as it may, we heard a range of submissions, but, I think, under the guidance of our chair, the committee considered everything—all the submitters—and we are very pleased with the outcome that we have come to. I look forward to awhi the further passage of this bill through the House, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill will be the most important piece of legislation for my community of Nelson in the term of this Parliament. I want to recognise Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa, and Ngāti Toa representatives in the gallery and many of their elders who started this claims process but have since passed on.

I also want to recognise Chris Finlayson for the outstanding pace that he has put on to the Treaty settlement process, which for us South Islanders gives the very real prospect that in the term of this Parliament all Treaty claims in the South Island will be settled with this bill. The lifting of that cloud of claims over the South Island, with the very substantive Ngāi Tahu settlement as well as these claims, is a huge step forward.

When I attended Waitangi Day at the Whakatū Marae this year, the first thing that was notable for me, as one who has been there over many years, was the record number of people who were there, and rather than an atmosphere of almost shame, there was an atmosphere of pride. The story of Treaty settlements associated with not just this settlement but those that are being achieved New Zealand - wide is showing a maturing of our nation and an acknowledgment of things in our history that were not right. And in terms of settlements of this sort, that really offers huge hope for communities like mine in Nelson.

The previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, noted that there are a few grumbles around the edges, and there are elements of my community—I too get the letters of the grumpies who oppose this process. I assure my colleague opposite that they are an increasingly small minority and, actually, the broader mood of the Nelson Pākehā community is one of really looking forward to this work being completed, to these settlements being resolved, and for our top of the south community to be able to celebrate the success and the partnership with Māori, their success in the economic world, and their greater involvement in many of the public lands that are in our areas. Also, in terms of the economic significance of the scale of the settlement and the way in which, actually—let us be honest—this money is more likely to stay in our community, with the very long history of each of these iwi and the way in which they will move forward.

Can I acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I mainly actually want to acknowledge the huge patience, the determination, the hard work that have gone in by iwi to get us to this point. I look forward to the point where this bill goes through its third reading and when Nelson and the entire South Island can move forward from the period of grievance over these Treaty breaches and look forward to a far more prosperous and optimistic future for the top of the south. Thank you very much.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): It gives me great pleasure to be able to contribute to the second reading of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill. I recognise the huge amount of effort and commitment that has gone in to reaching this point by all those negotiators and advisers and acknowledge all those people who have participated throughout the whole process to ensure the result we have here today, which is a cluster of settlements tasked with taking the people in Te Tau Ihu forward. I want to also make an acknowledgment of my friend and colleague Maryan Street, who was at those same Waitangi Day celebrations at the marae that the Hon Nick Smith referred to. One of the things that she said to me in our conversation was that it was a brilliant day because everybody from the whole community came on to the marae and had a place where they all felt they belonged. Is that not a great testament to the progress that Treaty settlements can make for all New Zealanders in terms of shaping our national identity within communities throughout New Zealand? That is what Te Tau Ihu and the group of iwi in those claims groups are able to achieve.

When we went down to Nelson to listen to the submissions, we understood how acute some of the local issues are for those iwi. We understood that despite some of the tense points of negotiation and some of the internal factions that occurred, it had taken place over a long period of time. So anyone listening to this debate today should have the confidence that this has not happened all of a sudden. It has happened because there has been a lot of work and effort put in to reconciling issues within each respective iwi and trying to progress a settlement for the greater interests of those iwi members.

One of the things that always vexed the Māori Affairs Committee is the issue of mandate, so I thought it would be useful to actually go through the ratification of the deeds of settlement of each respective iwi involved in the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill so that people can see that the rate of participation and the level of confirmation of the deeds of settlement were quite healthy. We should be encouraged by that. Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu had a 40 percent participation rate in the ratification of its deed of settlement and an approval rate of 100 percent. It had very few invalid votes. Ngāti Rārua had a 28 percent participation rate and a 99 percent approval rate. Ngāti Kōata had a 25 percent participation rate of its tribal members in ratifying its deed and a 98 percent approval rate. Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui had a 28 percent participation rate and a 92 percent approval rate. Ngati Toa Rangatira had a 26.2 percent participation rate and a 98.7 percent approval rate. Rangitāne o Wairau had a 34 percent participation rate and a 98 percent approval rate. Ngāti Kuia had a 34 percent participation rate and a 99 percent approval rate. Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō had a 32 percent participation rate and a 99 percent approval rate.

I guess in percentage rates people might think 20 percent or 30 percent is not much, but when you look at the scale of Treaty settlements across the board, they range from something like 18 percent to around about 52 percent at the highest level, from what I can observe. So we can see that the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill is somewhere in the middle. We should have a level of confidence that a lot of work has gone in to ensuring that the broadest possible net of securing greater participation in the decision-making process has happened. Mandate is a key issue in the Treaty settlement discussion, and it certainly became a point of criticism, I guess, for those people who did not support it.

But we must, in fairness, go to some of the submissions that were put before the select committee. I want to ask the House to look at the key amendment that the select committee raised. That was in relation to the Puketāwai site. One of the things that tasked our minds around getting that particular amendment was actually agreeing with submitters that they should not be inheriting a liability. So we have amended the bill to insert new clause 277A to ensure that the liability on that landfill site does not transfer to the new owners. Why that is so important is because previously it was, to my understanding, in the hands of local government, and it is not fully disclosed what level of contamination exists on that site. We sought advice from officials. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations certainly heard the plea of the select committee to reconsider this particular aspect, and, thankfully, we were able to achieve an amendment to make it very clear that no liability was to transfer from this closed landfill site.

I think that is a gain in terms of the value of the select committee and what it contributes to the process. It is also a gain because the iwi are much more confident in terms of taking back land where there may be an undisclosed liability that they will not have to pay for the cost of clean-up. In terms of the Woodbourne airbase, we did, as my colleague Rino Tirikatene has said, get a fair amount of concern around the return of this land and it not going back to private landowners. However, we recommended no change to the bill, because it is an airbase site, it is a defence site, and it will continue to be that. There was no indication, when the select committee pursued the interests of people who objected to the clause, that the site would no longer be used for a defence site, so we thought that, actually, the provision in the bill can stay the same.

In terms of Wakatū, this is another area where the Wakatū Incorporation put its interests before the select committee and said that some of the private shareholding interests underneath its purview would be significantly affected by terms in the bill. Our mind was tasked around two particular things—firstly, the cluster of Te Tau Ihu claimants actually did originally include members who were advocating for Wakatū, and some way through the process, if I recollect the discussion, those interests had fallen away from continuing with the negotiation. The second key point was that this is an iwi settlement; this is not a private shareholder settlement. The fundamental difference is that some of the shareholders of Wakatū are not members of the iwi who will benefit from the settlement. So we kind of teased that out and got ourselves sufficiently comfortable with the fact that the clause protecting or preserving the legal interests that currently exists in the bill covers off all the concerns that Wakatū were concerned about.

But can I put on the record, because we wanted to make absolutely sure, that we sought advice from both the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Crown Law Office in terms of that significant submission. I will read the advice that we got back from the Crown Law Office for the benefit of those who are listening and are interested in the debate. It says: “The current orthodox position is that the Treaty of Waitangi does not give rise to directly enforceable legal obligations without specific statutory authority. In the Wakatū proceedings the claims are based around the same factual grievances that are the subject of the settlement, but primarily raise private law claims based in trust and fiduciary duty, not based on the Treaty breach. The ability to prosecute certain private law claims raised in Wakatū may be impacted by extinguishment provisions of the Tainui Taranaki Treaty settlements and their extinguishment clause, unless expressly preserved. Crown Law advice was sought on this matter and ultimately, it was considered … improper to obstruct the final determination in the appellate courts. Legislative drafting was developed to specifically apply a preservation clause only to the current litigation and specific parties to that litigation.”

I have read that quote for the benefit of Tainui Taranaki so that they are clear in terms of the way in which the select committee approached this issue and reconfirmed that the bill should not be changed in this regard. This is the second reading. Hopefully, in the third reading of the bill every member of the Māori Affairs Committee, who I know would want to speak on this, will be able to make a contribution and acknowledge the hard work and effort of all those negotiators of Te Tau Ihi who have brought this bill to the House to be considered. Kia ora.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare. E ngā iwi e huihui nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to you all in the House. To the tribes assembled here, salutations, acknowledgments, and greetings.]

I just want to acknowledge, before I start, the people who are in the gallery today, ngā tangata o Te Tau Ihu te rā. They are: Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Ngati Toa Rangatira. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I acknowledge that the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill is complex, covering eight deeds of settlement for breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for historical grievances, and that it offers some redress for those breaches. The bill also covers the intellectual property issue of the haka “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!” and acknowledges Ngati Toa Rangatira Te Rauparaha as the composer of this iconic haka. In the next part of the parliamentary process this bill will be split up into separate Acts.

I said in my first reading speech that it is a privilege to rise to speak on this bill, and I reiterate that. The Treaty settlements have such a wide-ranging impact on so many people, and to understand the significance of that is to feel the weight of the respective histories as a very tangible thing.

I have to confess to the iwi that this is the first time I have sat on the Māori Affairs Committee to hear submissions. I am struck by how very different it is from my other committee, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is very collaborative, with the interests of the Treaty settlements at heart. I am very glad that I did get to the top of the south—Te Tau Ihu—to hear firsthand from the people affected by these settlements. I do read the written submissions, of course, but to actually hear what the people say while they are in their own rohe, on the whenua, about how these settlements will affect them is very powerful. I do believe that the submissions process helps us as politicians to understand the settlements so much better. So for all those who have submitted or who have ever made a submission in any type of democratic process, take heart. It does make a difference.

It is also good to hear the arguments directly from those who oppose the bill, and I want to take time to acknowledge them—in particular, Ngāti Rangitāne o Kaituna, who presented to the select committee in Blenheim. The select committee report back to the House refers to decisions of the Waitangi Tribunal in 2003 that said that there was no distinction in whakapapa for Ngāti Rangitāne o Kaituna and that, effectively, Ngāti Rangitāne o Kaituna must sort things out with Ngāti Rangitāne o Wairau. I guess this is where the Greens’ position on the Treaty settlement process is made apparent. Our position, and I stated it in the first reading, is that we reject that these Treaty settlement bills are full and final, regardless of what they say.

One reason for that is that the Crown determines whom it will and will not negotiate with, and our concern is that it can perpetuate further grievances by pitting Māori against Māori and hapū against hapū. This has happened before. The Crown has refused to acknowledge the status of iwi and they have had to fight tooth and nail for recognition, and several of the Treaty settlements in recent times outline these struggles. It is the Crown, then, that draws the line in the sand and says: “We will talk to only these people, and only if they have been there since a certain date.” That explains one submission that was in opposition to the Ngati Toa Rangatira redress in the Wellington area.

Our unease is probably best summed up by this bit from Chris Matenga Webber, who submitted on behalf of the descendants of Te Rangi Hīroa from Kāpiti, who had their own Treaty of Waitangi claims lodged. He wrote: “Members of Te Rangihiroa and other family lines have expressed concerns that [the Te Tau Ihu] settlement does not cause further harm within and between the iwi and have sought for opportunity to resolve [matters]. Concern remains around the non return of lands, government manipulation of tribal and political landscape and imposition of models and agreements which further cement that status of tangata whenua as subservient whilst the Crown strengthens the inequality of its relative position.”

I note that in the Tasman District the Wakatū Incorporation had a similar concern, as well as concerns that these settlements would impact on its ability to settle its own property claims. But we have heard in great detail from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta the legal position of that and how we sought legal advice. Basically, to sum it up, because the Crown will not negotiate with an incorporation, it negotiates with iwi.

I want to acknowledge that I realise that there will always be competing interests. Iwi so often share common ancestors and whakapapa to the same areas and, quite simply, have had boundaries around their rohe that have stretched and reduced over time and that overlap. So I note that in this bill, in some areas of redress like the Puketāwai cultural redress site, the land is jointly vested. Here it is vested in three iwi: Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki te Tonga, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui. This redress property is another example of the generosity of iwi in these Treaty settlements.

The report back to the House says that this bill needs to make sure that with the vesting of Puketāwai with iwi, they not be liable for the economic or environmental liabilities that result from the closed landfill that is also on this land. Iwi in this area lost thousands and thousands of hectares of land, and they get a tiny proportion back. In this case, with Puketāwai, it includes a closed landfill. That must be a metaphor for something, but I do not know what.

I want to acknowledge the generosity of the iwi who have had land returned to them that they have then given back to the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, for example, will be receiving and returning the alpine tarns in the Nelson Lakes National Park. Again, that iwi, with Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, will have Te Tai Tapu in the North-west Nelson Forest Park vested in them, but will return it to the Crown after a week.

The commercial redress in these settlements offers the chance for iwi to start to rebuild their economic base. The cultural redress is an acknowledgment and restoration of the status of the iwi in relation to their land and their resources and of their role as tangata whenua and kaitiaki. The renaming of certain sites back to their original names is important in telling the history of the area from a Māori perspective, and again it addresses the tangata whenua status of iwi.

I want to recognise the fact that these settlements do not just drop out of the air, that it takes years and years of work. These bill readings and the submission process are the culmination of a huge collective effort over generations. I also want to acknowledge that these settlements are hard fought for and hard-won and that their success should be celebrated. I look forward to the third reading and the enactment of these settlements. I will be supporting this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): Kia ora, everybody. I would particularly like to congratulate our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson, who has done a fantastic job in making progress on completing final and durable settlements for these Treaty of Waitangi claims. I hope that the people of Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu in my electorate of Wairarapa are watching their televisions screens this morning, listening to their radios, and watching this progress. One thing about the Treaty process here this morning is that my own iwi are behind the game, because for the last 8 years we have not got into the same space as the good people of Te Tau Ihu.

When the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill enacts the final settlements in the South Island, finishing the work that was begun by the National Government in the 1990s with Ngāi Tahu, the settlement will recognise the rights and wrongs of the past and, I hope, strengthen the partnership between the Crown and Māori and, as well, between all people in New Zealand, irrespective of their ethnicity, their background, and their path to this country. I think that the main benefit, which is why I want to see progress also in the Wairarapa electorate, is that the settlements will allow iwi to unlock their economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas, in keeping with the Government’s policy of building a more productive and competitive economy. This is a very good bill. I congratulate not only the Minister but also the Treaty negotiators, the Government’s negotiators, and all the people who were involved in coming to this very momentous occasion through this legislation in the House today. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E ngā iwi o tēnei kerēme, ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki tēnei Whare, ki tō Whare, ki tō tātou Whare, Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. Nō reira, ōku rangatira, kui mā, koro mā, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.

[To the people of this claim, Te Tau Ihu, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome to this House, to your House and ours, Parliament House of New Zealand. So to my esteemed chiefs, elder women and menfolk, I greet, acknowledge, and salute you.]

I join with all members of this House in supporting the second reading of Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill. Labour believes in building a future for all. Labour believes in having an economy that works for all New Zealanders. Labour believes in having a fair and just society, where all live in dignity. Labour believes in having an environment we protect and a nation we can be proud of. In the second reading of this bill, I believe that ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu will be able to build that very future for their own. They will be able to build an economy that works not only for their people but for all New Zealanders. Ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu will also be able to build a fair and just society, where their own people and others will live in dignity, and I believe they will build an environment that they will protect. Finally, I believe wholeheartedly that ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu will build a nation that they can be proud of.

I stand in consolidation with all members of this House in supporting this important bill, Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill. Can I acknowledge the efforts and role of the negotiators, the role of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and, of course, the role of the Māori Affairs Committee for its work throughout the select committee process, both down in Nelson and also here in Wellington. Obviously, in a joined up or large settlement such as this there are a lot of compromises and challenges that go on behind the scenes to get it to this stage, so it is with a lot of, I guess, personal experience, having been a mandated negotiator for the Rongowhakaata claim, that I know that that is not often an easy challenge to overcome. Often, our people are forced in terms of time and, of course, resources, but the way in which I believe that the people of Te Tau Ihu, the iwi of Te Tau Ihu, have shown the humility, the dignity, the patience, and the perseverance to get us here—I believe that what I see in front of us in the second reading of this bill is an acknowledgment of all those combined efforts and commitments. So, again, I join in celebrating this bill in its second reading.

To the bill itself. Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill is an omnibus bill. It comprises four components, three of which are claims settlement bills that seek to give effect to the deeds of settlement entered into by the Crown with Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, and Ngati Toa Rangatira for the final settlement of their historic claims for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The fourth component bill provides Ngati Toa Rangatira with the attribution rights in relation to the very famous haka “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!”. The eight deeds provide for the settlement of all historic claims in the top of the South Island, an area referred to as Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka o Māui. The Ngati Toa Rangatira deed also provides for the settling of all of Ngati Toa Rangatira’s historical claims in the North Island. The bill includes only those elements of the redress and the settlement package that require legislative authority. The deeds of settlement set out in full the redress provided for the eight iwi in settlement of all their historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. I could not do justice going to each part of the bill, suffice to acknowledge, and I would like to take this time to reflect on, all the iwi in giving a brief background to them as a way of supporting the second reading.

I turn to Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō. Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō has customary interests in Te Tau Ihu, or the northern South Island region. Around 700 people registered an affiliation to Ngāti Apa in the 2006 census. The Waitangi Tribunal heard the Te Tau Ihu claims of all iwi with interests in the northern South Island between August 2000 and March 2004 and released preliminary reports in 2007 and a final report in November 2008. On 23 November 2005 the previous Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi negotiations and the Minister of Māori Affairs recognised the mandate of the Kurahaupō ki Te Wai Pounamu Trust to represent Ngāti Awa and two other iwi in negotiating a comprehensive historic Treaty settlement. The Crown signed terms of negotiations with the Kurahaupō Trust in June 2006. On 11 February 2009 the Crown and the Kurahaupō Trust co-signed a letter of agreement. So to Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō I say: kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.

We turn to Ngāti Kuia. In terms of a background, Ngāti Kuia has customary interests in Te Tau Ihu, or the northern South Island region. Around 1,600 people registered an affiliation to Ngāti Kuia in the 2006 census. The Waitangi Tribunal heard the Te Tau Ihu claims of all iwi with interests in the northern South Island between August 2000 and March 2004 and released preliminary reports in 2007 and a final report in 2008. I note here that the terms of negotiations were signed with the Kurahaupō Trust in 2006 and on 11 February 2009 the Crown and the Kurahaupō Trust co-signed a letter of agreement.

I want to acknowledge Rangitāne o Wairau, who hold customary interests in Te Tau Ihu, or the northern South Island region. Around 1,000 people registered an affiliation to Rangitāne o Wairau in the 2006 census. I knew that if I started going down this track I would run out of time in acknowledging all the iwi. Suffice to say to Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui: can I again commend you for all the efforts and the mahi that you have displayed in bringing this bill to this House, with the support of, clearly, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and with the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. I join with all members in this House, particularly on this side of the House, in commending this bill at its second reading. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Tēnā koe. I would like to acknowledge the participants in this settlement: Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, and Ngati Toa Rangatira. I am speaking from the desk of the Hon Tau Henare, who, I am sure, would like to be here with you today. I will not say that I am speaking on his behalf, because I would not attempt to emulate his skills. I would like to also acknowledge the wonderful work of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who I think is respected by all sides of the House for the work that he has done. Of course he has been only half of the combination that it takes to form these agreements.

This is a particularly important agreement. I find it important because in my 9 years here I have spent 3 of them as the electorate MP for West Coast - Tasman. So I am familiar with that part of the northern part of the settlement. The National-led Government is making great progress. This bill is very special because it finishes the work that the National Government began in the South Island with Ngāi Tahu. This is the final settlement so it makes it particularly special. Settlements, of course, recognise the rights and wrongs of the past and strengthen partnerships between the Crown and Māori. Settlements also help unlock the economic potential and boost the regional and provincial areas, in keeping with National’s priority to build a more competitive and productive economy. I was very comforted to hear that—and I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee.

I understand from previous speakers that the Wakatū situation has been taken into account, has been addressed. And although it may not have resulted in a situation that is satisfactory to everybody, the matter has been addressed and has been fully worked through. I think that is the very important thing.

The select committee has examined the bill carefully and has brought through a number of recommendations, which I would just like to address now. The Woodbourne airbase will allow Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kuia, me Rangitāne o Wairau to exercise the right to purchase the land at Woodbourne airbase, by way of redress. Part of this land was acquired by the Government for defence purposes from the estate of George Fairhall. Members of the Fairhall family, as we heard from other speakers, have opposed the inclusion of this land in Treaty settlements as they consider this will override their rights under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 and they have commenced a judicial review. So, again, the process will take its time and the results will reflect, I am sure, a sense of justice.

It is always quite interesting to reflect on what is being achieved with the settlements, particularly, as I say, under the authority of the present Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I can think back to my own origins, which are Scottish, and, of course, they had the Highland Clearances, which—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Really?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, yes, indeed Scottish. That is why I have a hairy nose. Those clearances were never really properly addressed, and they still, to this very day, are a source of grievance to people whose relatives were so affected. So although there are injustices, the important thing about the New Zealand society and the New Zealand community on both sides is that they are working together to address these and to create fairness and a decent outcome. If I could just conclude, I guess it is a case of exercising with caution my limited skills in Māori: “Let us wield the paddles of the canoe as we move forward together.” Tiakina te hoe kia rite [ensure the rowing is in unison]. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I te tuatahi me kōrero ahau i roto i tō tātau Reo Māori, hei tāpiri atu ki runga i ngā kupu kua puakina i waenga tonu i a tātau i tēnei ata, hei tautoko i te kaupapa, arā, ko te waka e whakaterengia ana i raro i te ture hei hari, hei hāpai i ngā taonga roa noa e tāria ana. Kātahi tēnei rā ka whakawhiwhia atu e te Karauna ki te iwi ko rātau ngā uri, mai i ngā tūpuna i mamae ai i tō rātou wā i roto i ngā mahi i mētia e te Karauna. Nā reira, a Te Tau Ihu tutuki noa ki tēnei taha o Te Wai-a-Raukawa, Te Moana-a-Raukawa, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i tēnei rangi, tēnei rangi whakahirahira tā te mea, ko tā koutou i ōhia ai, kātahi ka tutuki ki te kapu o te pepa i raro i te ture, i raro nōki i te tāhūhū o tēnei Whare, tō koutou whare, te Whare Pāremata. Nā reira, Te Tau Ihu, ngā kokonga katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Firstly I must speak in our Māori language and add my sentiments to those expressed this morning amongst us to endorse the passage of this bill, which is responsible for the development of long-awaited resources. At last this day the Crown has provided to the people who are descendants of the ancestors who suffered, in their time, through deeds imposed upon them by the Crown. We have reached the day where the tribe will soon receive these resources from the Crown. And so, to those of you of Te Tau Ihu, stretching across to this side of Cook Strait, the Sea of Raukawa, greetings to you collectively. Salutations to you on this day of great significance, because that is what you collectively have hankered after, and now it has been done. It is at last on the palm of the paper under the law and under the ridge pole of this House, your House, Parliament House. And so to you Te Tau Ihu and to all corners of the Chamber, greetings to you collectively, greetings.]

I rise to support the earlier speakers and remind us how long this claim has been wending its way through the process. I have recited some of the history on earlier occasions and have shared the pleasure of sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee for a brief period of time during one of our visits down in Te Tau Ihu to hear the submissions.

There are several elements I want to focus on in the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill. First, I want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson. I want us to focus on something that I genuinely believe will, over a period of time, prove to be an extremely intelligent thing to have done. I am not being facetious to the Minister. I refer here to the ability of the iwi to actually enforce their protocols.

Often, iwi find that once these settlements have been entered into, Governments come, Governments go, and Ministers move on and do other things with their lives. Goodness me, I can think very vividly of the time when Doug Kidd was the Minister of Fisheries—a personality not unknown to these people. I think also of Douglas Montrose Graham, who, irrespective of what might be said about him outside of this House, I have no compunction whatsoever in saying he did a lot of the heavy lifting in the original stage of the Treaty settlement process. I recently saw him at the mate for one of our matuas of the Tai Tokerau, the late Laly Haddon, otherwise known in North Auckland rugby lore as the “Black Tracker”. I had no qualms whatsoever in escorting him around the marae and sitting with him on the marae in that area.

But the point I am making is about cultural redress, in clause 32: “The Crown must comply with a protocol while it is in force. (2) If the Crown fails, without good cause, to comply with a protocol, the relevant trustees may, subject to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, enforce the protocol.”—if the Crown fails, the relevant trustees may, subject to the Crown Proceedings Act, enforce the protocol.

I think that in times to come, that simple provision will be an injunction to the courts to ensure that these protocols, which do not have the same force and standing of property rights, do represent an attempt on the part of the Crown to ensure that Māori are no longer marginalised in a range of areas, whether it be fisheries, whether it be landscape management, whether it be heritage, or whether it be standing up for those cultural resources the Tau Ihu iwi feels are integral to their identity.

The other thing that is important for us to emphasise today is that this claim covers an area that is provincial. We need to ensure that the Crown, as it goes forward with its Māori affairs policies and economic development policies in the regions of New Zealand, never overlooks the endowments and never overlooks the rights that the smaller iwi in the regions are receiving.

It could have been that Te Tau Ihu, in times gone by, was regarded as one homogeneous group of Māori. That is not the case in this bill. This bill recognises each particular iwi, just as the bill to deal with the Muriwhenua tribes—when it wends its way into the House—will recognise my grandmother’s iwi, a small iwi by the name of Ngāi Takoto. I doubt it even has 1,000 members, although, as a consequence of economic stewardship that I am sure will be skilful, its numbers will grow in time.

The point I am making is that it is very important to claimants that they see their particular identity not melded into, let me say, larger organisms. But that is not always the case. A choice was made by the Kahungunu iwi, which thought the Treaty claims would be better dealt with by dismembering the broad Kahungunu iwi community into more specific parts. That is not an approach that will work with the Ngāpuhi tribe. The Ngāpuhi tribe has the largest claim outstanding, as I am sure the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will agree. That is the largest tribe with outstanding claims. It has members in excess of 125,000. Whether or not they are active members or they are the great-grandchildren of our forays into Ngati Porou is another matter—that is another matter. In fact, I am quite confident that a number of them are growing more confident that their whakapapa in Ngāpuhi is no longer an item of embarrassment.

I would say to the Minister, who has also got heritage responsibilities, that Christmas Day 2014 will be 200 years since my matua Ruatara brought Samuel Marsden to Aotearoa, along with our other matua Hongi Hika, an unrivalled chief. The less said about that today the better.

I think we need to celebrate what this group of Māori iwi have achieved. The task will not be easy to transform this into a durable flow of economic benefit, but you have made your choice. The Crown has taken it as far as it believes it can, and the fact that there is no more internal dissension is something the Ngāpuhi people need to learn.

Given that the Ngāpuhi claim could very well be in the vicinity of $250 million, if that was put on account, it would earn 5 percent per year. A 5 percent yield on $250 million is about $13 million. The squabbling has gone on in the Ngāpuhi area for over 6 years. Six times 13 is not far from $80 million. No mana-munching personality in the Tai Tokerau Ngāpuhi iwi is worth $80 million. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Bill read a second time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, this bill will be divided by the Clerk of the House, and those bills are set down for third reading next sitting day.

Bills

Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill enables settlement of all the remaining historical Treaty claims of the Waikato iwi Raukawa. Last year the bill was considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, and I really do appreciate the work the committee did in considering the bill and the issues that were raised in the submissions.

For those guests of ours from Ngāti Raukawa who may be here, I say that members of the Māori Affairs Committee were in the Tūhoe rohe yesterday hearing submissions on their bill and they have been unable to get back to Wellington because of the fog. I know that they would have wanted to be here for consideration of this bill.

We are very lucky to have Mr Henare as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and I really want to thank both Mr Henare and the members of the committee for their very, very efficient work. The committee considered 22 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and it heard 10 submissions. It held hearings both in Tokoroa and in Wellington.

I am very grateful to those who took the time and trouble to make submissions. Their participation is a very important component of parliamentary consideration of Treaty settlement legislation. In a number of cases suggestions made in submissions about how the bill could be improved have resulted in better legislation being reported to the House. I should also say it is very encouraging to hear from those who support the bill. In the case of this bill the committee has incorporated a number of changes to the legislation. These changes are mainly technical in nature and they help clarify aspects of the redress.

I do not intend to fill the Chamber with my eloquence for a full 10 minutes. We are dealing with three bills this morning, and it is important that we progress all of them. I will have a lot more to say about this settlement at the time of the third reading, so with those few words I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E koa ana tēnei ki te tuku i ēnei whakaaro hei whakarāpopoto i ngā whakaaro kei waenganui i a mātou, te komiti whakahaere mō ngā āhuatanga, e pā ana ki tēnei whakatutukitanga o Raukawa. Nō reira, Ngāti Raukawa tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to express these views that will sum up the thoughts amongst us, the committee, responsible for addressing the circumstances that relate to this settlement of Raukawa. So acknowledgements to you collectively, the tribe of Raukawa.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to offer a contribution in this second reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. I will reserve the substance of my comments around this bill for the third reading and want to limit this contribution really to the considerations that the Māori Affairs Committee made in hearing the submissions in Tokoroa regarding each component of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. Can I say this: I want to commend the chair of the Raukawa Trust Board, Vanessa Eparaima, and your team for presenting the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill in a way that gave a quiet assurance to members that a lot of work had gone in to building and networking the relationships that impacted on some components of your settlement. I say that with some caution because, in a sense, this settlement can be considered within the context of the Waikato River settlement, within the context of the Ngāti Korokī Kahukura settlement, which is currently being considered by our select committee, and also—hopefully, Minister—the Maniapoto settlement, which, with fingers crossed, might just get to us before election time.

What we have is a matrix of very interwoven interests and whakapapa connections that contribute to a profile, I guess, of why settlements such as this will continue to require a lot of work. Vanessa herself, when she came to the select committee, made a very strong point about how much work had gone in to the issue of overlapping claims because of where Raukawa is situated with interests around Te Arawa whānau, interests with their cousins in Pōhara and Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, and interests with their whanaunga in Maniapoto. This is how their conversation occurred before the select committee.

Firstly, in relation to Waikeria, obviously, both Raukawa and Maniapoto have interests in Waikeria. One of the issues that came to the committee’s attention was how both parties signalled that they were wanting to take up or purchase the Waikeria property. We heard views from both Raukawa and Waikeria. We understand that with agreement of each party, whether it is by first right of refusal or otherwise, each party will have cognisance of one another’s interests to either purchase or exercise the first right of refusal interest in Waikeria. The select committee, stripping away all the narrative around this, considered that the provisions in the bill are fine and that this will be a healthy way to deal with this particular property.

The issue of Ngāti Korokī Kahukura is a sensitive issue because the original Raukawa claim was lodged by Wally Papa who is Ngāti Korokī Kahukura and now has since passed. His family continue to carry the interests of their hapū, which is straddled by Waikato and Raukawa in a very—let us say—independent way. What the committee had decided in this instance is that although certain mana whenua and Ahi Kā interests exist for Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, the overall benefit of the Raukawa settlement cannot get away from whakapapa links that are intrinsically tied to Ngāti Korokī Kahukura people and marae, and the fact that there is an amount of interest that must be expressed in relation to Maungatautari and to areas of overlapping interests.

I think it would be wrong for us to try to sift through some of the internal relationship, whakapapa, and geographical interests in a legislative way. My great hope, actually, is that through good relationships and ongoing communication, these types of issues will be sorted. I will probably come back to this issue when the Ngāti Korokī Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill comes to the House, to try to clarify how we can do that. But Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, on the substance of this bill, wanted the Māori Affairs Committee to make it absolutely clear that they had specific rights and interests from Arapuni back to Maungatautari, and that that should not be impinged upon by the Raukawa settlement. I think the solution here is not a legislative one; it is a relationship one. I stand to be corrected on that, but if I back my gut instinct on it, then the bill should enable those relationships to be strengthened in time. Whew—that felt like a hard thing to say.

The next concern was the interests around Te Arawa. We had a very healthy conversation about whether Raukawa’s map of association should be included or not. The nature of the conversation was that Raukawa had expressed a geographical interest in an area, or an association with an area, but the question was whether that association necessarily, Minister Finlayson, leads to an interest. The conversation we had was that if there is an expressed interest with exclusive rights, then we must be very clear about it. If it is an association, then that relationship to a geographical area should not be leveraged over and above those Ahi Kā who live in a particular area.

I specifically refer to the submission of Eru George, who came to the select committee, and some of the concerns that he had on—I think, if I was correct—the west side of Mangakino. The committee was very clear in its mind that, having understood what Raukawa was trying to affirm, it was a whakapapa relationship and, therefore, a geographical connection to certain places within its settlement. We accepted that, but we did not accept that it should be anything more than that, if there are hapū, mana whenua, or ahi kā roa in areas who have a direct and relevant interest in an area. I need that to be very clearly understood in this second reading debate, because in the third reading debate, it is certainly my view, and it will have to be absolutely assured, that when people read the final Act and they read the debate in the House in reference to what was intended, the expression of interests should not be over and above those interests of mana whenua and ahi kā roa in a particular area.

We were very impressed with the way in which Raukawa had gone about seeking participation and affirmation of their mandate, and also their governance entity. There was no doubt about the fact that they had really thought about the future and how they could better prepare Raukawa going forward, and that they had looked at this from an intergenerational perspective, from a good governance perspective, and from a representative perspective. We could not fault the way in which they had approached that. Therefore, any criticism in that component of that debate was not really received by the select committee.

Those were, in essence, what I had identified as the key issues in this second reading that should be referred to. One last point: we did make an amendment to make it clear that should the Ngāti Maniapoto Māori Trust Board change and become some other entity, the reference in the bill needed to be clarified to ensure that any transfer of asset could go to the successor of the trust board. I wanted to make this point: given that the board is in its current process of claims hearings and it wants to be proactive in speeding up its negotiations, it may well be that any transfer of Waikeria in the future may go to another entity, not the Ngāti Maniapoto Māori Trust Board, and that is as it should be.

I enjoyed listening to the history, the passion, the expertise, and the wisdom of the people of Raukawa when they presented to the select committee. They have done a fine job. I trust that my comments relating to Ngāti Korokī Kahukura will be taken on board by all listening, and I trust that this bill will provide a way for better relationships to continue. Kia ora.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakahaere. Ki ngā mema Pāremata huri noa i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei Raukawa, ngā kanohi o Raukawa i konei i tēnei rā, me ērā o te wā kāinga o Raukawa, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei te mōhio tātau mō tēnei āhuatanga o te whakaaetanga i waenganui i ngā iwi me te Karauna, he uaua, he taumaha, he wero kei roto ēngari, ko te tikanga ka oti pai i runga i te mōhio, me whakatau ngā hara, me huri te kanohi o te iwi ki ngā tau kei mua i a koutou. Nō reira, he mihi tēnei māku ki a koutou katoa, mōku, mō tō mātau taha o tēnei Whare, otirā, i runga anō i te wairua o ngā whakaaetanga nei, i runga i te whakaae tahi a te Whare Pāremata, kia tau tēnei kaupapa i waenganui i a tātau. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. To all members of Parliament throughout our House, greetings to you all. To you of Raukawa, representatives of Raukawa present here today, as well as those at home, acknowledgments to you all. We are very much aware of the nature of a settlement process between tribes and the Crown. It is difficult and heavy going, and there are challenges in there. But normally wrongdoings are settled knowing full well that the tribe must face the future before you collectively. So this acknowledgment is to you all from me personally, and from our side of this House, and indeed in the spirit of these consensual agreements of Parliament for this matter to be settled amongst us. And so, acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to you all.]

I am very privileged to have the opportunity to rise and make a small contribution to the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. It is not usual that I have this opportunity, because, as the Minister of Education, I believe that I am out there investing in the post-settlement opportunities, which is to ensure that as many of our young people as possible are participating in quality early childhood education and are achieving through their primary school years, so that they can go on to be successful in securing a senior secondary qualification to be the investors in, the carriers of, and the faces of the future of iwi such as Raukawa, of iwi such as Ngāti Porou, of iwi such as Ngāi Tahu, and, of course, for the benefit of Aotearoa New Zealand. However, I do have that opportunity this morning, and, firstly, I acknowledge—as I have done—Raukawa.

Treaty settlements are both challenging and rewarding, and we know that, as the previous speaker, my parliamentary colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has indicated, they are as much about relationships past, present, and future as they are about a legal agreement between the Crown and the iwi themselves. In that regard, can I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, my friend and colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson. He has tackled this portfolio with an absolutely unshakeable conviction of the importance of achieving these settlements, and achieving them quickly but without compromising the sustainability of these settlements. His track record of work cannot be surpassed by anyone, and that is a reflection not only of him but of his commitment to ensuring that we have a better, stronger Aotearoa New Zealand. So the work that has been done on the Raukawa settlement, those that have preceded it, those that are in progress, and those that are yet to come is a great tribute to that conviction that he carries every day in the work that he does.

Similarly, I would like to pay tribute to Tau Henare, as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, for the gusto, zest, and vigour with which he tackles these challenges within the select committee. He is relentless in his passion in getting this work done.

Can I extend that to all members of the Māori Affairs Committee, all of whom, on all sides of the House, understand that they are carrying a responsibility on behalf of the Crown of New Zealand, which sees no divisibility in terms of our particular political partisanship. This is how Treaty settlement work should be carried out, because we are honouring the partnership that the Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti o Waitangi, reflects.

That means that we do need to put aside our partisanship and focus on how we get the best and most durable and sustainable settlements possible in the interests of not only enhancing and strengthening those relationships, and healing those that were broken in the past because of injustices in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, but also in terms of looking forward to a future that creates a stronger Aotearoa New Zealand. So I thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for that work. Some of them are unable to be here today because of Hine-Pūkohurangi, who has made it impossible for our manurere to fly today.

As I have indicated—indeed, as both the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta have indicated—there are particularities that relate to the Raukawa settlement that must be dealt with within this settlement bill. We know that there are relationships, given the geographic location of Raukawa, that inevitably impinge on both expectations and relationships. These are sensitivities that must be worked with and worked through in order to ensure not only that we get a durable settlement for Raukawa in terms of this settlement bill but that we get durable and enduring relationships, whakapapa relationships, that are on the boundaries of Raukawa, and, therefore, reach into the wider Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, Ngāti Maniapoto, and others that Raukawa bounds and is bounded by.

This is not an unusual feature, obviously, of the Treaty settlement map, because all of us are not only physically co-located with each other but are whakapapa connected with each other. I was thinking of that, in fact, when the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was speaking, because, of course, Nanaia is a tipuna who has particular whakapapa connections between Kahungunu and Ngāti Porou. Also, of course, we have very mobile iwi, and over the future years we will see even greater connections between ourselves.

Our Government is particularly invested in how we get these settlements so that we can get on into economic prosperity for all. Māori and iwi have demonstrated their capacity and capability for entrepreneurial activity, for enterprise, for business creation, and for innovation. The lack of an economic base has hindered that development in a number of iwi. Raukawa has already demonstrated its extreme capability to look towards the future.

I can remember many years ago sitting in the Ngāta Memorial College assembly hall as Professor Whatarangi Winiata came to talk about his vision for Whakatupurango Ruamano, and, of course, we are well into Ruamano now. But even then—and I think this was in the late 1980s or early 1990s—he was talking about the importance of Te Reo as the platform or vehicle for language, culture, and identity that provides the context for economic drive, for social prosperity, for political participation, and for growth in all of those dimensions.

That kind of vision is something that he carried, as a revered leader of Raukawa, for the iwi map of Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Wānanga o Raukawa is another example of Raukawa’s vision for education and for their young people, and not just for their young people but for the health and vitality and vibrancy and dynamism and strength of Raukawa in a fully rounded way. They have demonstrated that by ensuring that Raukawa has secondary tertiary qualifications that create the human capital base for realising the potential that this Treaty settlement will now give exponential heft and momentum and lift to.

So I am delighted to be able to have the opportunity to be in the House this morning to speak to the speedy resolution of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill, such that we can have a meeting of that investment in human capital, and, of course, we would say: He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. In more clinical terms, we would talk about human capital. Regardless of the way we describe it, Raukawa has already invested in their future, continues to do so, and now has the opportunity of strapping economic, commercial, and cultural redress to that, to give lift to their aspirations for their own people and, in so doing, contribute to the strength of Aotearoa New Zealand. It is on all of those bases that I stand to support this bill in the House today. Nō reira, kia ora tātou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou Ngāti Raukawa kua tae mai nei ki roto i te Whare Pāremata nei, tēnā koutou. Huri noa, rau rangatira mā tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively, the tribe of Raukawa, who have arrived here into this House of Parliament. Salutations to you collectively, esteemed leaders of a hundredfold throughout, and to us all.]

I am delighted to speak in the second reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. I wholeheartedly endorse and tautoko the sentiments of previous speakers—both the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the Hon Hekia Parata. My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta covered a lot of the aspects that were dealt with at the Māori Affairs Committee. We had a very enjoyable trip to Tokoroa, where we heard the submissions. I was particularly impressed with the chief executive of Ngāti Raukawa, Vanessa Eparaima, and all of the people who were involved in that team, to bring the bill to its current place here in the House. My colleague has dealt with a lot of the aspects in terms of the Waikeria lands, the overlapping claims, and the other such specific matters that were the subject of the submissions before the committee.

What I would like to do is focus on the history of Ngāti Raukawa. I would like to make this the topic of my speech, and I would like it to be recorded in Hansard because every iwi that goes through a settlement has their own history, and I think it is right that it be recorded. The history does form part of the historical account that is contained in the bill also. The iwi of Ngāti Raukawa are central to the story of the New Zealand Wars. We know that the Waikato-Tainui settlement took care of the raupatu aspects, but these settlements, particularly for Ngāti Raukawa, encompass other aspects regarding their individual grievances and settlements. So Ngāti Raukawa were central to the New Zealand Wars, and through genealogical links and the current social status of the day, they were, in the 1860s, members of a land alliance opposed to the further sale of Māori land to the Crown and to land speculation.

With other hapū of the Waikato-Tainui confederation, Raukawa became followers of the Kīngitanga movement, which led the land league movement. They fought bravely and with honour against the forces of General Cameron in Waikato, in the Bay of Plenty, and in their own tribal rohe at Ōrākau. They fought at Tauranga twice, in 1864 and in 1867. Some survivors of the campaigns became so-called fugitives and went on the run, with some joining small guerrilla-type bands of fighters. Having been forced into conflict with the invasion of Rangiaowhia, Raukawa really had no choice but to try to defend their tribal lands. They became part of the raupatu. The land was confiscated because they were deemed to be rebels. Ngāti Raukawa came under further pressure when land that had once been locked up in the Kīngitanga land bank slowly started to be alienated. Once shady land dealers had got their mitts on land deeds, it became a free-for-all. It became apparent that not all members and beneficiaries of hapū land received any recompense.

Raupatu issues aside, the tribe has two serious issues. In 1866 Ngāti Raukawa missed out on giving evidence in the Taupō-nui-a-Tia block because they were deemed, as I mentioned, to be in rebellion against the Crown. The ancestors Raukawa and Tuwharetoa were related and had many shared interests around the western and northern Lake Taupō region. It still rankles with the people of Raukawa today that they have no interest in this block, when whakapapa clearly shows that they have.

But by far the most egregious action against Ngāti Raukawa was the taking of land in the Pouakani block and the gifting of that to a hapū that had no association with the area. It was over in the Wairarapa, within Kahungunu. That land became the incorporated township of Mangakino, on the shores of Lake Maraetai, on the Waikato River. Most of the township’s shareholders probably live in the Wairarapa—Featherston, Carterton; far away places, with no association to the Mangakino township itself. That is one of the country’s most poorly thought-out acts, and we as members of Parliament and members of the Māori Affairs Committee, through supporting the passage of this bill and other settlement bills, have an opportunity to right the wrongs—some of the wrongs—that have been inflicted on these iwi.

I do not want to prolong my contribution, but I do acknowledge Ngāti Raukawa and the long and arduous journey they have been on to get to this point. I am looking forward to passing the bill through the final stages of the House. We are a very busy committee, as the Hon Hekia Parata noted. We have, as a committee, a significant amount of legislation under consideration. Yesterday we were up in Tūhoe; the day before we were up in Tauranga. We have, as a committee, a lot of work on our plate, but I can assure everyone—members and all the good people out there in Aotearoa—that it is very rewarding work and we really enjoy doing it. We know that when we see the looks on the faces of the kaumātua and the kuia, particularly at the final third readings, it is one of the most rewarding aspects of being a member of this House.

So, in closing, I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and his team and all the good work that they have been doing in loading us up with plenty of mahi to do. We are ready for more. I am sure there is more in the pipeline.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: There’s a Hiku bill coming.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Te Hiku, up in the far north—we are looking forward to that. But today is about Ngāti Raukawa. I tautoko this bill and I look forward to its third reading and its eventual passing. Kia ora anō tātou.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā rangatira o Raukawa nei, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively, the House. To the authorities, languages, and esteemed leaders, salutations and acknowledgements to you all. To you, esteemed leaders of Raukawa gathered here, greetings to you collectively.]

I recognise that the fog has not only left us bereft of the presence of the wonderful Tau Henare, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I think it may have delayed some of Raukawa as well. I am sure there are lots of people watching this at home, and I acknowledge you as well.

In my first speech on this bill, the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill, I said that I thought it was a privilege to speak here, and I maintain that position. I am fully aware that the passing of this settlement bill into law is a momentous occasion and it has taken enormous persistence and sheer hard work to get to this point. I acknowledge in the gallery today Chris McKenzie, one of the lead negotiators.

I also feel that to speak on this bill is a privilege, because I am Raukawa, Ngāti Huri from Pikitū Marae. I want to personally acknowledge Ruthana Begbie in her role as one of the claimants and as a kuia of Pikitū. In my first speech I also acknowledged the passing of kaumātua George Rangitūtia, who signed the settlement deed from his hospital bed. I want to acknowledge those kaumātua and kuia who are no longer with us who have helped create a settlement that will give Raukawa an economic base for future generations.

At Waitangi a couple of weeks ago kaumātua Maanu Paul from the Māori Council said in his kaikōrero, as he welcomed us again to Te Tii Marae, that there is a concern that with the Treaty process we will set Māori against Māori, pitting Māori against Māori. Raukawa know this feeling too well. In the bill it outlines one of the grievances that the Crown apologises for, the alienation of the Pouakani Block in 1915—nearly 100 years ago—when the Crown gifted 20,000 acres to an iwi with no ancestral ties in the area. We heard in the first reading of this bill that the honourable Meka Whaitiri has whakapapa to that iwi, as does our own co-leader Metiria Turei.

I want to acknowledge that this is only the second time that I have travelled with the Māori Affairs Committee to hear submissions on a Treaty bill, and I do feel that it was a privilege to have the opportunity to go to Tokoroa to hear the submissions from submitters in their own voices. I believe that there is a clearer understanding of issues when in the rohe of the tangata whenua, and it is also good to hear the submitters who oppose the settlement, because understanding is always clearer when it is kanohi ki te kanohi.

It is clear from the evidence presented that Raukawa have worked hard to maintain relationships with the iwi that are all around them—Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Maniapoto, Te Arawa, Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, and Tūwharetoa in the south. During the submissions I was very heartened to hear that one of the guiding principles for Raukawa has been to not settle their own grievance by creating more grievances. I have also heard that from the Chair of the Raukawa Settlement Trust, Vanessa Eparaima. She said the same thing during her speech at the signing of the settlement deed in June the year before last at Aotearoa Marae. I think Maniapoto were on the pae then too.

I have also read the submissions that Raukawa have made in support of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill, with similar statements. Again, that was stated by Raukawa in their submission supporting the Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill. We did also see in the evidence the memorandum of understanding that was developed some years ago between Ngāti Korokī Kahukura and Raukawa.

Raukawa have also worked collaboratively with other iwi on previous settlements, including around the Waikato River and the central North Island forestry settlements. So it is obvious to me that Raukawa are genuine in their desire to settle their own grievance and not negatively impact on other iwi. Having said that, there are some overlapping interests, and we heard about them during the submission processes. I am pleased that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has put it on record how we see those overlapping associations and interests playing out.

Overlapping interests and associations include the Waikeria Prison land with Maniapoto. I note that there is the potential for the two iwi to develop joint ventures around this land. I also note that there are restrictions on Raukawa exercising first right of refusal. They cannot purchase unless they have consent from Maniapoto. The select committee report outlines that Maniapoto’s interests are protected.

We heard from the Te Arawa River Iwi Trust about the overlapping interests in Lake Ōhākuri. It has been clarified, and will be clarified in the bill, that Raukawa’s statement of association includes only the part of the lake that is within the Tātua West Block. We also heard from Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, who were concerned that they may have been inadvertently included in the claimant definition of the settlement bill and wanted explicit exclusion about the overlapping areas of interest.

The report back to the House by the Māori Affairs Committee also clarifies that Ngāti Korokī Kahukura’s area of interest is explicit in their own settlement. It is explicit in their own deed. I note that Raukawa’s claim over where they have stated association areas or interests does not give Raukawa mana whenua status in areas that are clearly Ngāti Korokī Kahukura’s.

I also need to make the political point that some of that unease that the Greens feel about these raupatu settlements as full and final is because it is the Crown that dictates who it will and will not negotiate with. If we look at the historical account of this settlement and the battle to be recognised as an iwi, to be recognised by the Crown was indeed a struggle for Raukawa. That was resolved only at the end of last century, so Raukawa know better than many the grievance that is felt from that.

The fact remains, though, that while the Crown decides who it will and will not recognise, there may be hapū or iwi left out of settlements. So our concern is that there may be some whom the Crown will refuse to negotiate with because it will choose the winners and determine who will be the losers. Fundamentally, this does little to ensure the partnership between ngā iwi Māori and the Crown, as was envisaged by Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Greens also maintain that we do not see these Treaty settlements as full and final settlements. What is lost is far greater than what is gained, and I think that is clear from the historical account in the bill. Thank you, Mr Tirikatene, for outlining some of that. Having said all this, I recognise that Raukawa have worked within the limitations dictated by the Crown over a very long period of time for this settlement, and that the passing of this bill is to be celebrated. Certainly, it gives Raukawa more of an economic base and the independence to utilise the incredible entrepreneurial skill in the iwi to raise the standard of living for our people. I know that Raukawa are already working innovatively, and are trialling youth services, for example, that could be potentially rolled out throughout the country.

Today is a day to celebrate the passing of the second reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. The Greens will be supporting it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakahaere, ā, tēnā koutou. Tihei mauri ora! Whāia te pae tawhiti kia tata, whakamaua kia ū, kia tīnā. Tēnā koutou. Ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Ki ngā hoa Pāremata, tēnā koutou. Ki Ngāti Raukawa, tēnā koutou. Haere mai, nau mai ki te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you collectively. Behold the breath of life! Seek the distant horizon, draw it near, grasp and hold on to it firmly. Greetings to you. To the House that stands before me, I salute you. To parliamentary colleagues, I greet you. To the tribe of Raukawa, I acknowledge you. Welcome to Parliament House, welcome. Greetings, acknowledgements to you collectively and to us all.]

Kia ora. Good morning. It is a huge privilege to be one of the speakers in the history of the settlement process. Although I do not pretend to be one of those who have led the charge in this area, if we look at the history of settlement claims from both sides of the House, there have been men and women here who have worked to bring settlements to a head.

Today I would like to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, led by Tau Henare, who cannot be here. They are obviously stuck in fog, as other members of the House have alluded to. The committee has worked collaboratively across the House to bring these settlements and this second reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill to the House.

Can I acknowledge Minister Finlayson, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who has worked tirelessly, as Minister Parata pointed out, to bring many settlements to fruition. For those who are interested, there have been 68 Treaty settlements across New Zealand. Of those, 42 have come to fruition since 2008. We are well over halfway through the Treaty settlement process, which is indeed a milestone. If I reflect on the mihi that I used at the start of my whaikōrero this morning, it talked about reaching for the big goals, the stars, and going after our dreams. I think that certainly one of the dreams that not only Māori but many New Zealanders now have is that we can progress through these Treaty settlements, get through to the end of them, and look to the future.

If I talk to many of my constituents, there have been concerns historically about the time frame it has taken and concerns about the cost of it. But when you actually reflect on what it is now achieving, it is well worth the process, well worth the time, and well worth the investment of the Crown in these settlements.

In regard to Raukawa at this second reading, as in each of the bills that have come before the House there are different idiosyncrasies or different situations that have arisen in how each of the iwi or hapū have arrived at the settlement process. In regard to Raukawa, they are here with this process because they became landless. That lack of land and resources undermined their ability to form an economic base and to be part of the economy. And actually that is really, really important, because when you are not part of the economy—if you are not in work, if you do not have businesses—it is really difficult to see a future. Having that ladder—having your people in business, I guess, and in jobs—provides aspiration and a strong future. So I think these settlements are the foundation to providing the economic base that is so necessary to providing that aspiration and that future for so many New Zealanders, and, in this case, Raukawa.

The redress in Raukawa’s situation includes an apology for the actions that arose through the land wars throughout that period. The Crown acknowledges this, and profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Raukawa for its actions. It apologises and regrets its actions during the New Zealand land wars of the 1860s, and it apologises for its past failures.

Of course there is some commercial redress that goes hand in hand with this. Raukawa will receive approximately $52 million. It is interesting to reflect on that, because some constituents of mine always look at the number—the dollar figure—and say: “Oh, it’s been millions, it’s been hundreds of millions—it’s been billions.” Well, in fact, it has not been that large. If you think about the total appropriations of the New Zealand Government on an annual basis, it is somewhere around $78 billion to $80 billion, which is pretty significant. But if we add up the total that we have spent on Treaty settlements to date, it is above the envelope, but it is only about $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion. In the greater scheme of things, it is not a significant appropriation, but it is certainly one of the best investments we can make.

In this case $52 million is going to Raukawa. I note that it also includes the opportunity to purchase part of the Pureora North Crown licensed land. If I understand it correctly, Pureora Forest is, obviously, below Tokoroa, which is where the rohe of Raukawa exists, but for those who are interested, Pureora is now the start of one of the great New Zealand cycle trails. Just before Christmas I decided to take my son and do the trail. For a few days before Christmas we cycled an 84-kilometre trail from Pureora and down south, through the old timber trails there. If anyone who is listening is into cycling, I have got to say that that was one magic ride. I am not sure what opportunities will come for Raukawa with that particular land. Maybe it is forestry, but I think that they could get into the tourism around the cycle trail. We stayed with one lady in the Blackfern Lodge. There are some members on different sides of the House who have said that the cycle trails would never be successful. Well, this particular lady used to have 450 bed nights per year, and she now has over 3,000 bed nights a year as a result of the trail. So those are the opportunities that come from tourism and investment.

There are other opportunities for Raukawa here, such as the 25 Crown-owned properties that they will have the opportunity to purchase in and around their rohe there. Raukawa will have the first right of refusal for a period of 172 years on a further 36 Crown properties.

In addition, there is some cultural redress. There is a cultural fund of $3 million, a pouwhenua fund of some $50,000, where pou can be built and established around the rohe on sites of cultural significance, which I think is an excellent thing to do.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to stand and be part of the history of these Treaty settlements. I am looking forward to speaking on the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, which comes up next, which is from my own rohe of Heretaunga, of Hawke’s Bay. Yes, it is a privilege to speak on these historic Treaty settlements, and I wish Raukawa all the best as this bill progresses through to the third reading and to final settlement. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E te iwi, Ngāti Raukawa, ā, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, nau mai, hara mai.

[To the people of Ngāti Raukawa, greetings to you collectively. Welcome, welcome, welcome.]

It gives me an absolute privilege and honour to stand in support of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill at its second reading, and to join with colleagues in this House in doing so. It feels like this week is Treaty settlement on speed dial, with this being our second one today and with our third one to come following this. As a new member of the Māori Affairs Committee, it definitely requires one to have their skates on when dealing with the Treaty bills. But can I say that it is an absolute honour to be part of that select committee, and I want to acknowledge all members for the commitment in what they do in bringing these very important settlement bills to the House. In my experience, when settling historical Treaty claims, a couple of things come to mind. One is the assertion of iwi in terms of their mana in their own rohe, and the settlement process also allows us to tell their story. So if I could beg the indulgence of the House, I would like to do exactly that.

Ngāti Raukawa derive their identity from their eponymous ancestor, Raukawa, who descends from the Tainui waka through his father, Tūrongo, a descendant of Hoturoa. Through his mother,Māhinaarangi, Raukawa also descends from the Tākitimu waka and Tamatea Ariki-nui. In terms of relationships, you always remind yourself of how you relate to others, and so I mihi to Māhinaarangi, an ancestor of Ngāti Kahungunu. The Raukawa rohe is described in a tauparapara used by Raukawa kaumātua. The district of Raukawa is from Te Wairere, Horohoro, and Pōhaturoa, and at Ongaroto is the house of the ancestor Whaitā. From Nukuhau to Taupō-nui-a-Tia, to Hurakia on the Hauhungaroa range, from Titiraupenga mountain, the horizon is the boundary of the district of Raukawa. To the mountain Wharepūhunga and the marae of Arowhena. To the ranges of Whakamarumaru, the view extends to the region of Te Kaokaoroa-o-Pātetere to Maungatautari. The view extends beyond Wharepūhunga to the ancestor Hoturoa to the marae at Pararewa.

The Crown recognises the mandate of Raukawa negotiators in September 2008, and I do particularly want to acknowledge the chairperson of the Raukawa Trust Board, Vanessa Eparaima, for her leadership and her guidance in getting us to this point in the process. I want to acknowledge also that we have Chris McKenzie in the gallery here in the House. I mihi to you, Chris, for the mahi, and to all the Raukawa whānau, hapū, and iwi for the work that you have done. Like I said in my previous call it is not an easy undertaking. There are a lot of compromises. It is often done with a lot of humility and a lot of grace and so I mihi to you and also, clearly, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I was listening to the previous speaker, Mr Tremain, a fellow Hawke’s Bay-ite, talking about the speed the Hon Chris Finlayson has applied to the role of Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and I do want to acknowledge Mr Finlayson for that.

Turning to the historic background to the claims of Raukawa, I acknowledge that they suffered much from the wars of that time. Of course, like many, they lost a lot of land. I too joined the Māori Affairs Committee in its hearings in Tokoroa, and was pleased to see the number and range of submitters who appeared before the select committee. We had a number of interested groups in support, clearly, and with some mentions also of how the bill could be improved. We had submissions from, for example, the Te Arawa River Iwi trust, Ngāti Paretekawa, Ruthana Begbie, a wonderful kuia from Tokoroa. We also had submissions from a neighbouring iwi of Raukawa, Ngāti Korokī Kahukura Trust.

One of the submissions I do want to just highlight—because I absolutely believe that that is the way the country is going to be moving in terms of local and regional relationships—was the submission done by the mayor of—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: South Waikato.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes, the name escapes me at the moment.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Neil Sinclair.

MEKA WHAITIRI: That is right, Mr Finlayson—Neil Sinclair. What I enjoyed from his submission to the select committee was the ongoing relationship with Raukawa in terms of what is pending in terms of the settlement. I enjoyed the fact that he spoke not only highly in support of the bill but on the issue around maintaining relationships and the opportunities that a settlement such as the Ngāti Raukawa one will bring to the community in his area. I do not want to go on much more in terms of the detail of the bill, but I do want to acknowledge the work that people have done to bring it here, and to support it in its second reading. I, too, look forward to its third and final reading. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, kia ora e te Whare, tēnā koutou e te iwi, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. For reasons that others have explained, and largely revolving around the lingering fog at Wellington Airport—of course fog is a meteorological condition with which we in the Waikato are totally unfamiliar—I find myself here rather unexpectedly. We have not had much fog in recent times, I have to say. For those reasons I am rather unexpectedly taking a call. Nevertheless, as a Waikato member of Parliament, albeit from the western side of Kirikiriroa, I am particularly pleased to be able to support this Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill, which is of such significance and interest throughout the wider Waikato region.

Other speakers this morning have already traversed the background to the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill, and the considerable work that has been undertaken by all parties in bringing this bill to its second reading today. That is in itself a matter to welcome warmly. Could I, as other speakers have done, acknowledge very sincerely the outstanding leadership and work of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who has been doing an outstanding job in that role for more than 5 years now. It is worth pointing out that under his stewardship, we have signed 42 deeds of settlement. Minister, I congratulate you on that and thank you for the huge work you have been doing in this area.

The Raukawa grievances include the Waikato and Tauranga wars of the 1860s and the confiscation of Raukawa land following that conflict. The introduction and implementation of native land laws that facilitated the alienation of Raukawa land and the Crown’s failure to ensure that Raukawa had adequate lands to ensure for its present and future needs contributed to the considerable economic, social, and cultural detriment of Raukawa. That is at the heart of the process that we have been undertaking and the major basis of the Crown’s apology.

I believe that the settlements process in New Zealand is now being seen for the considerable benefits that it can convey. As others have mentioned, some people around the country have been dubious about them. There have been some cynical comments, but now, as we see in my own area of Waikato, where the Tainui settlement was, of course, the historic trendsetter—that Tainui settlement of nearly 20 years now is having a huge and enduring impact for the good throughout the Tainui region. It is a model that others have followed and that we are seeing unlock iwi economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas. In keeping with our priority as a Government to build a more productive and competitive economy, it is absolutely part and parcel that we want to ensure that iwi are in a position to be a leading part of that process.

I also want to acknowledge, as others have done, the inimitable style and leadership of the Hon Tau Henare in his chairing of the Māori Affairs Committee and the contributions of all members of that select committee, who have done very good work.

This second reading debate represents another significant step on another important journey. The process has been a long and often arduous one. It is in everyone’s interest for the destination to be reached, and I look forward to the day when that occurs for Raukawa. I thank all speakers for their contributions to this debate and especially all who have been a part of this important Treaty settlement negotiation. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, nga whānau o Raukawa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I specifically want to mihi to Chris McKenzie, who is here in the House. He has led the Raukawa claim as their chief negotiator for many years now. In fact, when I went on to the Raukawa website I was really impressed to read your pānui. In fact, dating back to 2011 Raukawa had comprehensive claims hui right round the rohe of Raukawa. From my perspective, the inclusive and transparent way that you have led this Treaty settlement process needs to be acknowledged. I want to acknowledge the Minister Chris Finlayson and congratulate him on the wonderful work that he is doing to enable these settlement processes to happen in a timely manner. I also want to mihi to Tau Henare in his absence, to Nanaia Mahuta, and to other members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and, in fact, everybody across the House. This is the one area where we have consensus, where we are all working together, to ensure that our whānau, hapū, iwi can move on positively into the future. So this area of Treaty settlements is one where we have consensus about what is best for the nation.

What I want to highlight are just a couple of things. Firstly, I do want to acknowledge Wally Papa and others, because I did have a look at that Wai 443 claim. Wally was the initial claimant, and I think that we should always remember where processes begin. So I want to acknowledge Wally and the whānau for, I guess, beginning the kaupapa that the Raukawa Trust Board and the Raukawa Settlement Trust have continued.

I want to acknowledge that the deed of settlement that has now been translated into this piece of legislation had 93 percent support from Raukawa beneficiaries. I think that we should acknowledge that. Also, the trust board was mandated by the 16 marae, and the Raukawa Settlement Trust comprises representatives of those 16 marae plus 10 hapū representatives. So what we have seen is a very inclusive process, as I said before, that has enabled, I guess, the smooth passage of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill and the deed of settlement through the rohe of Raukawa. What I have been particularly impressed about, and it was really in a submission by Kataraina Hodge, was the fact that throughout this process she wanted to provide some context in respect of our whakawhanaunga within our iwi. So the bill itself was carefully crafted to ensure that our whanaungatanga was maintained. I want to acknowledge throughout this process that rangimārie feeling. The ability for everybody within Raukawa to participate needs to be highlighted.

What I also want to highlight is that the Raukawa Charitable Trust is one of the largest iwi health providers in the south Waikato. The Raukawa Charitable Trust whānau have been participating positively within their community. They have the capacity to deliver health services. From reading their website, I see they have got a huge focus on kaumātua health, whānau health, the retention of their reo. So this iwi group has not waited for this Treaty settlement process to get on with the mahi. I think what this settlement process will do is enhance the mahi that they are already doing. I think we need to acknowledge the fact that this iwi grouping actually has been able to develop their capacity to develop their capability to deliver services not only for their people but also for the people of the south Waikato. So I want to acknowledge and thank them for the work they are doing.

When I read the Treaty settlements legislation, I am always really interested in the statutory acknowledgments. For me, that statutory acknowledgment is acknowledging the status that our iwi groups have as mana whenua of Aotearoa. It is a status that no other group has. So it is not about us being an ethnic group or another racial group within Aotearoa New Zealand; it is actually recognising the special relationship that we have. So the statutory acknowledgments within this particular settlement acknowledges the relationship that Raukawa has with aspects of the Waikato River and its tributaries, to lakes, to geothermal sites—for example, part of the Kaimai Mamaku Conservation Park, the Pātetere Scenic Reserve, the Arapuni Scenic Reserve, the Kaahu Scenic Reserve. I am mentioning these names because I think the significance of that statutory acknowledgment actually creates the opportunity for the relationship that both central and local government will have to develop with Raukawa. It will be about how we manage those sites, the consents that will happen over those sites. For me it means that Raukawa, in this instance, will continue to have a formal decision-making responsibility for those sites into the future. For me that is the most significant aspect, because for ever the footprint of Raukawa will be felt throughout the south Waikato.

I also note that there will be naming rights for certain sites that Raukawa will have, which mean that we will maintain that footprint. The tupuna for Raukawa will for ever in our history be acknowledged. So I am really pleased to support this bill. I am really pleased to be a member of Parliament who has an opportunity to participate in these Treaty settlement processes. I am no longer on the Māori Affairs Committee. It was a committee that I was very honoured and privileged to be a member of. I, again, just want to thank my colleagues for the way in which they conduct the business of the House. I want to thank our hapū and iwi groups for the way in which you have conducted yourselves. And, as always, I want to acknowledge the generosity in this instance of Raukawa to enable us to get to this point in time. I look forward to both the Committee stage and third reading of this bill so that we can make a piece of legislation that will reinforce the deed of settlement that Raukawa has created. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. As with other bills, this is very much the culmination of a tremendous amount of work over many years. I particularly want to recognise Bevan Taylor and Tānia Hopmans, two people for whom I have enormous personal and professional regard for the way they have worked on this matter for many, many years.

The bill has had a very rapid passage. I signed the deed on behalf of the Crown on Saturday, 25 May 2013. I was really pleased that my colleagues Craig Foss and Chris Tremain were also there representing the Crown and Parliament. The bill was then introduced and referred to the Māori Affairs Committee after its first reading on 31 July 2013. Notwithstanding the extraordinarily huge amount of work that the committee had during last year, it reported back to the House on 18 December 2013. So when viewers are watching and they may think that we say all these nice things about Mr Henare and the Māori Affairs Committee, let us bear in mind that last year this committee not only dealt with this legislation but also dealt with the huge Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill, which we have just read a second time today, and the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill, which we have just dealt with. It has been working on the Tāmaki Collective bill, the Tūhoe bill, the Ngāti Korokī Kahukura bill, and many others. As people say, these bills give rise to a number of submissions, and they have to be dealt with very carefully indeed. So I do really just say on behalf of all of us that when we thank the Māori Affairs Committee, we mean it. It has done a very, very good job.

As it turns out, there were a number of submissions on this bill, but at the end of the day there are very minor changes indeed. They are of a technical nature and they are referred to in the committee’s report. I am very pleased that that is the case.

I heard someone say something about the importance of Crown acknowledgments in the Raukawa bill. Actually, it was a very good point, and I just thought I would spend a little bit of time on it because the acknowledgments that are contained in clause 8 of the Maungaharuru bill are actually very important indeed. They are certainly not pro forma acknowledgments that are sort of drafted in a few minutes. They are the result of very careful discussion with iwi over an extended period. I can say about one bill—which I will not, obviously, refer to by name—that there has been lengthy and sometimes very heated discussion about what is and what is not appropriate to include in an acknowledgment. So I just want to assure the House that such acknowledgments are very carefully thought out. They are the result, as I say, of a lot of discussion and a lot of careful analysis, particularly by historians on behalf of the Crown. The decisions are not made lightly and they are a very important part of the legislation. Getting the history right, setting out the acknowledgments of what went wrong, and then the apology are, in fact, very important parts of a bill, which I think are often overlooked.

Several people from Raukawa texted me this morning to say that they were sorry they could not get to town because of the fog but they were glued to their television sets. I went back to them—you are allowed to text in the House, are you not—and said that it was fine and that it is the third reading where all the really lengthy speeches are given, so they were not to trouble themselves. I acknowledge Vanessa Eparaima, who is probably still beaming in even though we are no longer dealing with her bill. I do thank Maungaharuru-Tangitū for all the tremendous work they have done. I very much look forward to welcoming them to the House for the third reading and for a function afterwards, because they have certainly done an enormous amount of work to reach this stage, and I have so enjoyed working with them. I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei. It is an absolute privilege to again rise in support of the second reading of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I too want to acknowledge the whānau who have not been able to make it from Napier because of the closure of the airport. Quite rightly, like the Hon Chris Finlayson said, this is really a part of the process. The critical part is the third reading. I do just want to say to those who could not make it due to fog that I know you are here in spirit and, despite your absence from here, I know your excitement at the thought that we are almost at the end of this journey. I do want to acknowledge that.

I was fortunate to be on the Māori Affairs Committee in Napier. We were talking about the speed with which the Māori Affairs Committee is working in terms of dealing with these bills, and can I say that at the hearing we had at Napier the Māori Affairs Committee was split. We had half in one area and the other half in Napier. I want to acknowledge the honourable Te Ururoa Flavell, who chaired the Māori Affairs Committee in Napier, and to share with the House that we had many submissions. The fact that the honourable Minister Finlayson has just commended the bill shows that the submissions were not of any major concern. But I do want to acknowledge those in Napier and around Hawke’s Bay who came to submit to this bill and to strengthen it for what it has become.

There was one thing I did pick up in the submissions in Napier. We talk about the relationships that are critical for Treaty settlements, not just between iwi and the Crown but, obviously, iwi with iwi and hapū with hapū. In the submissions of the early submitters to the Napier hearings there were concerns around certain hapū missing out and not being reflected in this bill. I have got to say that for the short 7 or so months—not even 7 months—since I have been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, that seems to be a common thread coming through: where hapū or iwi are in a claim, out of a claim, or in nowhere claim. We heard that through the Manungaharuru-Tangitū but I do want to acknowledge Tānia Hopmans, Uncle Bevan Taylor from Tāngoio, and Petane Marae, who were able to take the concerns raised at the submissions and report back to the select committee.

Treaty claims are a very complex and convoluted area, and only when you know the history of not just that particular claim but previous claims and the previous injustices does the whole picture unfold itself. Clearly, it was important to have the opportunity to sit with Tānia to explain the concerns of Ngāi Tahu—and not Ngāi Tahu from the South Island but the hapū of Ngāi Tahu from the Nūhaka-Mōhaka area of the Hawke’s Bay, who clearly were one of those hapū who felt left out. They were not reflected in the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement, and clearly did not see themselves in the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Claims Settlement Bill. But I was assured, having shared a flight back with Tānia, that that actually was not the case. Again, it just goes to my point around what processes we allow for people who feel that they are not adequately reflected, or whose interests or beneficial interests are not reflected, in Treaty settlements.

The issue for me, having heard those submissions, was to do with knowing that the whakapapa and the genealogical links can go back many, many generations. I recall from both my colleagues the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and our able chair, Mr Tau Henare, that the role of the Māori Affairs Committee is not to determine whakapapa. It is not to determine whose whakapapa is more correct than the others, and I think I have used that—it has been a very good point made several times—as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. This message is not just to the House but clearly to those whose Treaty settlements have not been heard, in order to reflect that it is not and should never ever be the role of the Crown to determine whose whakapapa should and should not be included.

Again, that goes to my point around getting to those points where there are very passionate people when it comes to whakapapa and your mana whenua over areas, but for me it is around creating a process for that to happen and where it should rightly sit, and that is with the whānau, the hapū, and the iwi. But often, for members of the Māori Affairs Committee, it feels sometimes that people who are putting up their cases to be included are looking for some sort of adjudication by the Māori Affairs Committee, so I am proud to be associated with a committee that draws the line that that is not the role of the committee. As I said, coming back to this particular bill—and subsequent ones that the Hon Chris Finlayson has acknowledged—that seems to be a recurring issue.

I really did not want to take too much more time of the House. Clearly the report that was produced by the select committee with very, very minor details has been presented. I do too join with others in the House and look forward to the third reading of the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I am really confident and clear that the passing of this bill, added to the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Act with the other four large natural groupings of the Ngāti Kahungunu iwi collective settlements, is going to do some amazing things for the region of Hawke’s Bay from Paritū all the way down to Turakirae in the Wairarapa. It is with those closing words that I again support the second reading of the Manungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I wish them well and look forward to them all joining us in the third reading. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): It is with pleasure, actually, that I get to stand up and speak to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I am standing up on behalf of my colleague Tau Henare, who could not get here today—and I know he is incredibly disappointed—due to the fog that has kept him in Auckland, I think. I am kind of pleased that the honourable Minister Chris Finlayson has gone, because I wanted to say one thing nice about him, and I do not like doing it when he is sitting next to me. He has done a great job in pulling this work together. I know that the Māori Affairs Committee has put a lot of work in, but I think it is the hapū who get the best recognition for the work that they have done.

Because I am unlikely to speak on this bill in the third reading, I am going to take 2 minutes and perhaps speak differently to the second reading than would normally happen. I had to get myself up to speed with the details in a relatively short time this morning, stepping in for someone else. I actually lived at Lake Tūtira for about 2 years in the early 1990s, which was an interesting time in my life, and fell in love with the area. It was an important part of my life. Reading the historical background to the claims that have been made here, and just acknowledging the grievance and the history, it is just kind of staggering.

It is staggering to think of Māori and the hapū in the mid-1800s going out there in good faith and wanting to seek settlement and seek a peaceful settlement for the wars that were going on at that time. When you read about how they were actually involved in a peaceful end to their involvement in the New Zealand Wars but were attacked in October 1866, which ultimately led to 23 Māori being killed and some hapū individuals being among the 86 prisoners who were exiled to the Chatham Islands, where they were detained without trial for nearly 2 years, it is staggering to think of the effect that must have had on the whole hapū, on all of the whānau—those who were left behind, those who had to go there, and those who were going through that death.

I am just so pleased, and I hope that this bill puts the Crown’s apology in place, that it actually means that they get recognition financially, and that it helps them now gather that strength that they already have to actually see progress happen. So I wish them all very well in this settlement. I hope the third reading comes along quickly so that we can move on with it, and I congratulate all those who have worked so hard to get them to the place where we are at today.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I stand as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee who did not hear submissions on this particular bill, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, but I want to acknowledge the amount of hard work and effort that has gone into compiling the deed of settlement, which was signed last year. In fact, the agreement was reached in May last year. So people can see that the progress from the deed of settlement to legislation through the select committee process has been quite swift. That is the first point.

Acknowledgment has to be given to Minister Finlayson, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, for progressing Treaty settlements where there is a sense of urgency from iwi to get things done—more so in an election year—to give certainty in terms of their ability to take their interests forward. Parliament surely has played its part in supporting the Minister in that ambition.

This is one of the types of bills where you would look to the schedules to get a real feel for what it is all about. You will notice in all parts of the schedules, with the exception of schedule 6, the description of properties that are being returned to the Mangaharuru-Tangitū hapū. And when you go through the schedules, you see that there are lakes, streams, and conservation bits of land, and recreation reserves and scenic reserves—all component parts of this settlement. It gives you a flavour, then, of what it is that these people value the most. What is it that they value the most? Obviously, your local connection to your lands and boundaries form a very important part of how you see yourselves continuing to play a constructive role in your community. But they also give a sense of what identity means, and what whakapapa links exist, for these people within this area.

Lake Tūtira, as was referred to by the previous speaker, Paula Bennett, is a beautiful place. When I was on the campaign trail with Meka Whaitiri, the local candidate for this rohe, she took me past Lake Tūtira and told me some very nice personal stories about the area. But you only needed to look at the place to think “Wow, this is a great place to come and stay.” It is relatively untouched. It still has the natural preservation of the beauty that we all know and love—the New Zealand that we want to preserve—and now, overshadowed on that, there is the opportunity for the local tangata whenua to be able to be active protectors—kaitiaki, if you like—of that area.

I want to acknowledge the work that has gone in to ensuring that the most precious parts of the natural heritage—the lands, the reserves, the lakes, and the streams—are included in this settlement and also that there is an active management instrument tool, if you like, within this bill to give the people of Mangaharuru-Tangitū a role in how these lands are cared for. There is commercial redress, which is a component of every settlement, but I do not get the feeling that that is the overriding objective of this settlement. There are statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition that make up the component parts of this settlement as well.

Can I step back from the particulars and just make this comment with regard to how Ngāti Kahungunu as an iwi has approached its Treaty settlement process. The Māori Affairs Committee is often challenged with the internal divisions of hapū within iwi collectives who may feel either disenfranchised from the process or totally disregarded. The way in which Ngāti Kahungunu has approached its Treaty settlement process for the land settlements is somewhat different from that of other iwi. They have enabled pockets of Ngāti Kahungunu to settle their comprehensive claims within their rohe as a unique collective. If other iwi want to take the learnings from the whole evolution of the Treaty settlement process, I think Ngāti Kahungunu has approached this in a way, given its land mass, and its territory, that preserves the integrity of clusters of hapū that have distinct interests in an area and that does not take away from the centre, from the common identity of the iwi.

Again, this is one thing that I think Ngāti Kahungunu has contributed to the settlement space. They collectively advocated for their fisheries interests as an iwi, and they enabled hapū, for their land and historical Treaty settlements, to continue as unique, identifiable clusters of hapū. I commend them for that, because what happens as a result of that is you get Ngāti Pāhauwera and you get Mangaharuru-Tangitū being able to argue for the way that they want to approach their unique interests in their rohe and administer those interests.

There is one issue that came up that I think I could comment on, and it did come up in a previous settlement under the Ngāti Kahungunu cluster, which was in regard to Ngāti Pāhauwera. There were people of Ngāti Pāhauwera who felt that they had some overlapping interests in this bill, which is currently being considered by the House. In my understanding—and certainly from my reading of the submissions and getting feedback from the members who were at the select committee hearings—that although it is acknowledged that there are overlapping interests here, it is not an exclusionary benefit to just the people of Mangaharuru-Tangitū. So, for example, if someone with connections to Ngāti Pāhauwera had equally strong affiliations and connections and interests in this bill, they would not be prejudiced or cut off from being able to exercise an interest in this space. I felt it was important to mention that because it was one of the areas where the select committee had to consider the extent to which this bill took account of some very real practical issues in the area.

I do not want to take too long on this bill. The substance of the issues will be dealt with in the third reading. There were no significant changes to the bill from the way in which it was introduced to how it has come back to the House for its second reading, except for a change and a clarification—a technical amendment to the date. Therefore, the bill is basically presented as it was tabled, with some very informative discussion as to why the settlement has been comprised in the way it has. I commend the bill to the House. I look forward to a speedy third reading. A lot of effort has gone into it. Kia ora koutou.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I want to acknowledge that for Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, the fog has had an impact on the people both in the House and in the gallery. So I want to acknowledge the people who are probably watching this on television. They are the people of Ngāti Tu, Ngāti Kurumokihi, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangoio, Ngāi Tauira, and Ngāi Tahu.

It is my privilege to take a call for the Green Party on the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill for its second reading in the House. I said it was a privilege when I spoke at the first reading in the middle of last year. To be in the House at a time in history when the Crown seeks to right the wrongs and heal the hurts is an opportunity that very few New Zealanders get. It is where we see our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which enables non-Māori to live in this land peaceably, finally honoured after many, many breaches that left the people of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū poor, unhealthy, scattered, and dispossessed.

I was not able to come and hear the submissions on this bill that were made to the Māori Affairs Committee, but I have spent some time looking at the submissions that were made. There were 45 of them. I did that so that I could get a clearer picture of the issues and add to my understanding of the report that the committee has presented to the House. I thank the previous speakers for outlining in more detail what the issues were.

This is the third Treaty bill that the House has heard today for a second reading. Looking at the submissions on this one, there are common themes that appear across those bills. I guess to sum it up, it would be fair to say that a common fear from some submitters is that they will be either included in the settlement, with negative consequences, or, alternatively, that they will not be included in the settlement, with negative consequences. So with this bill there were submissions from those concerned about the claimant definition. Some were concerned that those descended from ancient hapū who were not explicitly mentioned in the bill would not be covered by the settlement, or that they were being subsumed unfairly into another hapū, or that they were not adequately recognised.

The second area where people were concerned is that they would not be included in the settlement because they have connections with both Ngāti Pāhauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitū, and that the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlement was enacted several years ago. I guess this highlights the point that was made at Waitangi this year by Maanu Paul from the Māori Council on the paepae at Te Tii during his whaikōrero when we were welcomed on. He said that he was concerned that the settling of historic grievances may set Māori against Māori, and he is right to be concerned. It is one of the reasons the Greens have some unease about these settlements, and why we always say that we do not believe that these bills represent a full and final settlement.

We are also concerned at the fact that it is the Crown that determines who it will negotiate with, that some will be shut out of the process, and that because it is the Crown that determines who it will negotiate with, it perpetuates the status of the Crown and diminishes the partnership with ngā iwi Māori that was envisaged by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So it could have the potential for creating further Treaty breaches.

Of course, our third reason for not accepting these settlements as full and final settlements of historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi is that the historical breaches—what happened in the past—may yet affect generations to come in ways that have not yet been foreseen. I know that Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, in common with iwi across our country, have no wish to short-change the children yet to come.

It is worth noting here in Parliament that for the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, the Crown’s historical Treaty breaches nearly wiped them out. They went from having 100,000 hectares of land to now having just 3 acres at Tāngoio. Tānia Hopmans, the general manager of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, referred to her people as tangata whenua without whenua. With the settlement under this bill, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū will be in a better economic condition, but they are incredibly generous in accepting this settlement when the losses—people killed, detained, and executed, and land taken by confiscation and by other unfair means—were so large.

I want to acknowledge that my comments about the Crown are not in any way to detract from the sense of achievement that Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū should rightly claim as theirs for resolving these historical claims to this point. It has taken decades and decades and so much perseverance, commitment, and resolve to get to this final part, and generosity and patience.

One of the submissions, from Evelyn Ratima, the chair of Mana Ahuriri Inc., which is a neighbour of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, describes their graciousness really well in her submission supporting the bill. She says: “As neighbours of Maungaharuru-Tangitu we acknowledge all the indignities and trials they have endured and in remembering the suffering of their and our Tipuna, which is much, and that is been polite … have maintained their integrity and the integrity of the people … MTI have been transparent throughout the duration of the claims process, they have … been committed and true to the legacy of their and our ancestors and are very deserving of having their Claims Bill heard, supported and passed through Parliament.”

In Treaty settlements the commercial redress offers a chance for iwi to start to rebuild their economic base. The cultural redress is an acknowledgment and restoration of the status of iwi in relation to their land, their rivers, their lakes—and I want to note here Lake Tūtira, which is one of the most polluted in the country—the sea, and their role as tangata whenua and kaitiaki. The renaming of certain sites back to their original names is important in telling the history of the area from a Māori perspective, and again it addresses the mana tangata status of hapū and iwi. The vesting of several thousands of hectares of Department of Conservation reserves, as will happen under this settlement, which Maungaharuru-Tangitū will return to the people of Aotearoa, is a symbolic act of recompense by the Crown, but it is a much larger gesture of generosity by the hapū. All this redress is designed to start the process for Maungaharuru-Tangitū to heal.

After my last speech in this House I received an email from one of the negotiators, which was really nice, I have to say, and I am going to quote from it because it is positive. She said: “I believe there is hope and a quiet optimism among our people that things will get better for future generations.” Later she says: “We are looking forward to putting this chapter in our history to rest, and charting a new course for our hapū, whānau, and marae.”

I reiterate that it is a privilege to speak in the second reading of this bill. The Greens will be supporting it through to its third reading and final passage. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakahaere. Tīhei mauri ora! Whakataka te hau ki te uru. Whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura, he tio, he huka he hauhunga. Ā, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Behold the breath of life! Cease the winds from the west. Cease the winds from the south. Let the breezes blow over the land. Let the breezes blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air, a touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day. So greetings to you collectively.]

The mihi I have just used was the one that I started my speech with in the first reading on the Maungaharuru-Tangitu Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. It has particular relevance because it speaks of a new dawn for Maungaharuru-Tangitū—a touch of frost, which is probably quite relevant today with the fog that is coming through Wellington. It has prevented many of the negotiators and members of the six hapū from coming down to Pōneke, to Wellington, today to be part of this second reading. In that regard, as many other members in the House have done—Denise Roche from the Greens, Meka Whaitiri, and Minister Finlayson—can I acknowledge the presence in spirit, very much, of kaumātua and rangatira from Maungaharuru-Tangitū who cannot be here today. In particular, can I acknowledge Bevan Taylor and Tānia Hopmans, who are two of the lead negotiators, the rangatira, who have led the negotiations to bring the bill to the point that we are at now, where we can reach a settlement for this natural grouping. I say “natural grouping” because there was some debate from some—certainly not from members of these hapū—that they were not a natural grouping. So to establish that fact has been excellent.

To be clear, the rohe of Maungaharuru-Tangitū sits within my electorate—or, should I say, my electorate sits within their rohe. The area starts at Mana Ahuriri, which is the group that sits in Napier. For those of you who know where Napier Airport is, that land there will be part of the Mana Ahuriri claim. But going north from there, it is up along the coast. It takes in Waipātiki Beach, goes up through to Ridgemount Station, through to the Waikari River, which is where Ngāti Pāhauwera and their iwi sit, further north. That claim has been settled since I have been a member of this House, which is absolutely fantastic. Ngāti Pāhauwera are getting on with building an economic base and businesses, and becoming very much a part of the local economy. The rohe goes west from there, to the ranges of Maungaharuru. Interestingly, Maungaharuru talks about the beating of wings. If you go back a couple of hundred years, the Maungaharuru Range—maunga, as in mountain, and haruru, the beating of wings—talks about the petrels and seabirds that used to nest up in what I would not quite call mountains, but in those mid-hill areas. It is interesting to see that the iwi are now working with Julian Robertson, who has put a million dollars into bringing back seabirds to that area, which is absolutely fantastic. This is a wonderful point in time—that we have got to this point, and we can settle.

I have actually got quite a close connection to the area. I happen to be fortunate to own some property at Waipātiki Beach. Just this January I worked very closely with Maungaharuru-Tangitū. We had Bevan Taylor out to the beach. I have got a property that sits right beside the beach—actually about 18 acres there—which had one of the old pā sites around it. So we had the members of the iwi out to look at where some of the dugouts were and just to have a sense of what may need to be protected in future years if that site was to be developed. It was really interesting.

In terms of the settlement itself, as I said on the Raukawa settlement, it actually empowers Maungaharuru-Tangitū not only by returning land to them but there is some financial redress there as well, plus cultural redress. In terms of the redress there, we see the vesting of part of Ōpouahi Station and the Ōpouahi Scenic Reserve, the vesting of the Te Pōhue Domain Scenic Reserve back into Maungaharuru hapū, and the vesting of lake beds at Lake Tūtira, Lake Ōrākai, Lake Waikōpiro, and Lake Ōpouahi. Also, we see the return of the lake beds to the hapū and the vesting and gifting of a number of significant cultural properties, including boundary streams, scenic reserves, the Bellbird Bush Scenic Reserve, and the balance of the Ōpouahi Scenic Reserve and Whakaari Landing Place Reserve.

So all these things come together and have reached what I think is an excellent settlement for the Maungaharuru hapū. It has taken a long time to get to this point, but, as I said earlier, Bevan Taylor, Tānia Hopmans, and the other negotiators have worked hard to get to this point. I think there is definitely hope there for a quality settlement, and, as my colleague in the Green Party Denise Roche said, there is genuine optimism amongst the hapū about the future. I must say that when I was there for the signing of the agreement in principle at the marae, it was fantastic to talk to the people, who were very optimistic and who really wanted to look forward and put behind them the issues of the past, to look forward for their own mokopuna, their tamariki, their children, and to focus on how they could get them really, really well educated so that they could then become significant contributors not only to their own community but to the wider community, and with an understanding of their place in the world in what is now more and more a global community. I think you actually need to have your roots very clearly embedded in some part of the world, which for me is the mighty Hawke’s Bay and very much a part of this area, Maungaharuru-Tangitū.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As I said in the speech on the Raukawa bill, it is a huge privilege to be part of these historical Treaty settlements and a huge privilege to have those settlements from my own electorate taking place and seeing genuine progress being made and huge development in Hawke’s Bay as a result of these settlements. Thank you very much.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi ki ngā whānau o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, ngā hapū o Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio, Ngāi Tahu. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[To the authorities, languages, and esteemed leaders, greetings and salutations to you collectively and to us all. Acknowledgements to the families of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, subtribes of Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio, and Ngāi Tahu. So, greetings to us.]

I would also like to take this opportunity to mihi to my colleague Meka Whaitiri, who represents the area of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, within which Ngāti Kahungunu is a very significant iwi, and also in recognition that this settlement is a settlement of a hapū cluster that affiliates to Ngāti Kahungunu. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Tremain, who represents the area.

I would like to start with a place name that will have official status by virtue of this piece of legislation, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill—that is, Whakaari. Hawke’s Bay will, after this piece of legislation goes through, be able to be called Whakaari. It will be interesting to see whether or not Hawke’s Bay businesses start using “Whakaari”. It could see the introduction of bilingualism within the region.

The interesting thing about the name is that Whakaari is the name that tangata whenua have regarded this area of Aotearoa as. When I look at the history of Hawke’s Bay I want to share it with the House today and with those who are watching, because it is a name that Captain Cook gave New Zealand in honour of Admiral Edward Hawke, who defeated the French at—and excuse my French—the Battle of Quiberon Bay. That happened in 1759. So it is really interesting that we have this place name that comes from France in honour of an Englishman, and that by virtue of this piece of legislation we are actually going to have a name that honours the tangata whenua, the mana whenua, of Aotearoa and it comes from here. So I particularly want to highlight that fact, which will be enabled through the passage of this piece of legislation.

I also want to highlight that the deed of settlement for this piece of legislation was signed on 25 May 2013. Of the 5,000 registered members of this hapū grouping, 62 percent voted, and it had 98 percent support. It is one of the highest engagements that has been seen through the Treaty settlement process, so I do not underestimate how important and how engaging this settlement process has been for the Maungaharuru-Tangitū whānau to be involved in.

What I do want to do is share an article from Hawke’s Bay Today that was written by Doug Laing. It was written on 27 May 2013 and it starts: “The Crown has made one of its most profound Treaty settlement apologies in redressing grievances of four Hawke’s Bay hapu decimated by the military invasion of their marae almost 150 years ago.” What this article acknowledges is that in 1866, 20 people were killed at Ōmarunui and Pētane and 13 others were incarcerated on the Chatham Islands for 2 years. The other thing that is highlighted in this media reporting is that land confiscations happened within the context of the time that resulted in the hapū becoming a landless people.

When we look at the settlement processes that we are engaged in, we always have an opportunity to look at New Zealand’s history. I think that we should be very clear, in moving forward, that the generosity of our hapū and iwi means that we should always acknowledge the atrocities of the past. We do so today actually fully embracing that history. We do so today honouring our hapū and iwi groups. All of them have endured stories like this. But we do so today honouring the generosity of the hapū and iwi in enabling us as a country to move forward. So I always want to thank our hapū and iwi groups—leaders such as Bevan Taylor, Joseph Reti, and others. As well, there are leaders such as Ms Hopmans, who, if I read the article that I quoted from earlier, decided as a university student that she wanted to write a piece of research that Dr Richard Boast is now going to turn into a book, which is going to be called Forgotten Raupatu. So the other part of this Treaty settlement process that I think has been enabled is the telling of our stories, and telling of our stories in a way that not only will we never forget what has happened in the past but it actually provides a really solid platform on which to move forward.

The other thing that I wanted to highlight within the context of this settlement is actually the kawenata—the relationships that this piece of legislation will enable with our hapū and iwi. For example, there will be a partnership agreement with the Minister of Conservation within the context of this piece of legislation. There will be a relationship agreement with the Ministry for Primary Industries, so that the Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation and other hapū that wish to participate will have a direct and formal relationship to discuss fisheries, which are a major asset for the hapū and iwi. They will also have a relationship with the Ministry for the Environment. I will not go through the list of statutory acknowledgments, but, again, that formal relationship enables the whānau within the Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū collective to for ever have a say in how those specific sites of significance will be managed. The other thing worth highlighting is that a protocol will be developed to facilitate a working relationship with the Minister of Energy and Resources in respect of Crown minerals, and also with the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in respect of taonga.

The legacy that these Treaty settlements are creating will enable Māori to move on. I truly believe that, and I do truly believe in this Treaty settlement process and the way that it has been, and is being, managed by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson, and I want to acknowledge him in his absence, again.

It is these statutory acknowledgments—it is the relationships—that we are forging within these Treaty settlements that actually give our hapū and iwi a rightful place to stand and a rightful place in terms of the development of our country as we move into the future. They really are truth and reconciliation documents, and we in this House should all just take the time to read some of the histories. I know that, depending on where we come from, a lot of us engage in these processes on a daily basis, but what I see is that these pieces of Treaty settlement legislation are actually creating the Treaty partnership that was envisioned when Māori signed the Treaty. They are making that partnership a reality as we move into the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hapū o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, e ngā iwi o te motu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the authorities, languages, and subtribes of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, and to the tribes of the country, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgements to you all.]

It is indeed a great privilege to speak on the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, the purpose of which is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. May I specifically acknowledge the hapū and their six component hapū, their ancestors, those who are living now, and those who are going to come in the future. As my colleague Louisa Wall mentioned, it is hugely important to recognise the great harms that have occurred in the past. Hopefully, this is indeed one way of seeing reconciliation take place and a very positive and constructive future for those who are going to be born in the years ahead.

Settlements are designed to recognise and right the wrongs of the past and to strengthen the partnership between the Crown and Māori. Hopefully, this is indeed a quality settlement. Settlements also help unlock economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas, in keeping with National’s priority to build a more competitive and productive economy. We do indeed want to see Māori and young Māori totally involved in the economic progress of this country and to be able to participate fully.

I remind myself so often that when I went to university down in Otago, less then 0.05 percent of the students at that time were Māori; now it is in the order of 9 percent, and growing. It is through education and it is through economic power that the practical ability to move forward and create high standards of living is effected.

I was not on the Māori Affairs Committee. Indeed, it is a great privilege just to be able to make some comments regarding this settlement. I understand the committee recommends the bill be passed. I am told a number of submitters expressed dissatisfaction with the way Maungaharuru-Tangitū claimants have been defined in the bill. The concern centred largely on two issues: the entitlements for claimants with connections to both Ngāti Pāhauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, and those individuals descended from ancient hapū who may fall between the two settlements.

I want to mention Ngāti Pāhauwera. It is an important part of the settlement process for claimant groups to have the opportunity to set out their whakapapa as they see it, and this is done in the deed of settlement. Although different approaches to self-identification have been taken, the select committee is confident that this has not resulted in any entitled individuals being excluded from benefiting from one or more settlements.

With regard to ancient hapū, the committee also heard from submitters who believed that as their ancestral hapū were not explicitly mentioned in the deed of settlement, they could not benefit from it. The committee, I am told, is satisfied that between the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and Ngāti Pāhauwera settlements, the people and hapū in the region will be fully represented, and after the enactment of this bill no outstanding claims will remain to be settled.

As I said before, it is a great privilege to speak on the second reading of this bill and I, like many others, commend it to the House.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā tangata o te wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is the first time I have had the pleasure of speaking on a Treaty settlement bill, and I take great pleasure in doing so. Can I acknowledge the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and all of those who have worked on this settlement in getting it to this point. I think that, for me, having the opportunity to say a few words on this is important. It is important, obviously, to the hapū concerned, but it is also important for all of us in this country. As a Pākehā New Zealander, I want to acknowledge the importance of Treaty settlements for our nation. One of the inspiring times in this House, really, is when we debate Treaty settlements and we have strong cross-party support for this process in moving forward as a country.

One of the things I am also clear on is that when I was a young person, the history that I got taught in school did not include the history that we are now all learning and seeing as a result of the Treaty settlement process. I think that that history is a taonga for us all. It is important for us to all know and understand the real history of this country—the good, the bad, and the ugly, really. In the case of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, I have looked at a summary of the historical background, and there are so many things that are truly unfortunate, tragic, and just downright wrong that happened to the hapū. This is a hapū that tried to negotiate a peaceful end to their involvement in the New Zealand Wars, but were attacked and then exiled to the Chatham Islands and detained without trial.

This is not something to be proud of as a country—prisoners summarily executed, confiscation, and then deforestation and the development of pastoral farming in their area, which has significantly increased erosion and pollution there. These are not things to be proud of as a country; nor are the infectious diseases and diseases of poverty that cost the lives of so many of that hapū. Obviously, living conditions and health services have improved, but, as we all know in this House, there is still a significant gap between what is experienced by many Māori and many Pākehā in this country. So we have a long way to go.

I do not record these things to be negative at all, but just to say that this is part of the history that we need to understand as a country so that we can move forward. I want to pick up on the point that my colleague Louisa Wall made about generosity. Each and every one of us, wherever we live in this country, benefits from the generosity of the local iwi in our area. Many of the public places and many of the open areas that we all use are there because of the generosity of the local iwi. So, again, that is something that I believe we as New Zealanders should all know and acknowledge.

This settlement bill—again, I was not part of the Māori Affairs Committee—has three components. It has the apology and the cultural redress, and I understand from talking to my colleague Nanaia Mahuta that one of the really interesting parts of this settlement is around the active guardianship of the natural environment that the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū will gain as part of this settlement. That active guardianship role that they will play in our natural environment will benefit us all.

I just conclude by saying that settlements like this one and the other two that we have had in the House today are an important way for us in the whole of New Zealand Aotearoa to move forward. Again, can I acknowledge the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū for their work and I congratulate them on this settlement.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 12.15 p.m. (Thursday)