Wednesday, 12 March 2014

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Solomon Islands—Prime Minister

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands, led by the Hon Gordon Darcy Lilo, Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, is present in the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s Gallery be welcomed.

The Hon Gordon Darcy Lilo, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Interest Rates, Housing Affordability, and Power Prices

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: How will the expected increases in the Official Cash Rate over the coming year affect New Zealand families and businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): That will depend somewhat on the circumstances of those families and businesses. For instance, for those who have some of the over $100 billion on deposit in New Zealand banks, it will mean slightly higher incomes. For others with mortgages, it will mean slightly higher costs. We would need to remember, though, that this is against a background where interest rates have been at near 50-year lows for the past 3 years, and they are likely to be on a gradual return to more normal levels. For all households and businesses, any rise in interest rates signals growing momentum in the economy and, therefore, the prospect of more jobs and higher incomes.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen the research conducted by Reserve Bank officials that found that when the official cash rate increases by 1 percent, the unemployment rate increases by around 1.2 percent above what it would otherwise be, which means 30,000 fewer jobs in the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I have not seen that particular piece of research, although I am sure that the Governor of the Reserve Bank has seen it. He has a job of targeting inflation, and in the next few days he will tell us about just how he intends to do that in the context of a growing economy. He will also be publishing forecasts about unemployment and employment growth. If they are consistent with other market forecasts and Treasury forecasts, they will show that even if interest rates rise somewhat, there will continue to be strong growth in employment—as indicated by information from SEEK today showing record job ads—and also continued reductions in unemployment.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the relevant Reserve Bank paper from August 2011—An estimated small open economy model—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been adequately described. Leave is sought to table that particular publication from the Reserve Bank. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Dr Russel Norman: Does he understand that if interest rates rise this year, then families will pay more for mortgages, businesses will pay more to borrow, and the exchange rate will rise above its already record level, hurting our exporters, all of which adds up to fewer jobs for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is possible that some or none of those things might happen. But the member seems to be, in a roundabout way at least, questioning the current monetary policy framework. New Zealand has learnt some hard lessons in the last 30 or 40 years. If there is one thing that erodes confidence, erodes household wealth, and erodes jobs, it is high and persistent inflation. That is why there has been, until recently, a bipartisan consensus on a Reserve Bank framework that targets keeping inflation relatively low, because we have learnt from experience that in the long run that is the best setting to promote growth.

Tim Macindoe: How has the Government’s economic programme since 2008 helped to keep interest rates lower for longer for New Zealand families and businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Looking back to 2008, it has not been that difficult to help keep interest rates lower for longer, because we have had a recession and very low interest rates. But looking ahead, it is quite a challenge. What we know is that as interest rates begin rising, if the Government starts spending more rapidly and house prices continue to grow rapidly, then interest rates could end up over 10 percent, as they did as recently as 2008 under the stewardship of the previous Labour Government.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government’s responsibility, rather than the Reserve Bank’s responsibility, is he aware that house prices, rents, and power prices accounted for a third of inflation in the past year, so if the Government had stabilised the housing market and tackled rising power prices, there would be no need for the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has tackled those issues, and I must say without the support of the Green Party. We have had a couple of years of hard work getting on top of the regulation of our housing market. The Greens, like a few other people in New Zealand, do not like any new houses anywhere. That is one of the problems behind the fast-rising housing market. We have also worked hard on a more competitive electricity market, but, again, the Greens have not supported that.

Tim Macindoe: What policy prescriptions would push up interest rates and put pressure on New Zealand families and businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Two in particular. One is the expensive emissions trading scheme, supported by the Opposition parties. The emissions trading scheme, which they have stopped talking about, would add $500 a year to household electricity bills and that is before we get to the NZ Power proposal, which would almost certainly push up power prices.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government’s success in controlling house prices and electricity prices, given that there has been a 44 percent increase in Auckland house prices during this Government and a 20 percent increase in power prices over the course of this Government, does he consider that his policies have been successful in controlling inflationary pressures coming out of the housing market and the so-called electricity market?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first point is that the rate of increase in both housing and electricity prices has been much lower than it was under the previous Labour-Green Government. Secondly, yes, we do believe our policies will have an effect. Of course, particularly in respect of housing markets, it takes some time to change the mind-set promoted by the Greens that all housing development is bad. The price of that approach is that New Zealanders pay far too much for their houses. Against the opposition of the Greens, we are trying to change it.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government policy—which is what question time is about— of skyrocketing housing prices, which have gone up by 44 percent over the last 5 years, and with regard to the Government policy of skyrocketing power prices, which have gone up 20 percent, is it not the Government’s failure to control inflation coming out of housing and electricity that is driving the Reserve Bank to push up interest rates, which all New Zealanders will have to bear the brunt of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not believe that is the case. The Government has been working for several years to ensure a more competitive electricity market and to ensure a more flexible market in housing supply, so that as demand grows, prices do not go up. It is notable that Labour and the Greens have opposed every measure the Government took in that respect. If there is one thing that would certainly push up inflation and interest rates, it is a big-spending Government with an expensive emissions trading scheme that would put power bills up by $500 per household per year.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister realise that ordinary New Zealand families are being hit three different ways by the Government’s policies: firstly, they are paying too much for housing and for electricity because of the Government’s policies; secondly, they are about to see their mortgage payments rise as a result of the failure of the Government to control house prices and electricity prices; and, thirdly, on top of that there will be 30,000 fewer jobs as a result of the interest rate rises?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not accept any of that. The Government has had to work very hard to undo the damage the previous Government did to electricity prices—

Hon Simon Bridges: 72 percent.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —which went up 72 percent in 9 years, and undo the damage that the Greens and their fellow travellers have done to the housing market, where they have forced regulation that ensures house prices go up. I admit that we could have perhaps unilaterally taken over local council planning functions, but we have not quite done that. Instead, we have worked with local councils to fix the damage done by the Greens and others who are opposed to all new housing development, which is why we have one of the most expensive housing markets in the developed world.

Dr Russel Norman: Aside from spreading misinformation about the Greens, does the Government have any actual policy, given that over the last 5 years—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask his question. I cannot hear it. It would be helpful if the member would just address the question without the initial comments.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Every question during this question time you have allowed the Minister to attack Green Party policy when the questions were nothing about that. The one time I introduce it into my question, you tell me that I am not allowed to say it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member carries on like that, we will move immediately to question No. 2. I did not rule the member’s question out of order; I simply pointed out that he had a right to have his question heard. I could not hear it. I believe the member was himself struggling to get his question out. I pointed out to the member that the way he started his question led to the disorder. I invite the member now to ask his question; otherwise we will proceed to question No. 2.

Dr Russel Norman: Aside from spreading misinformation about the Greens’ policy, does the Government have any actual policy to control inflation coming out of the housing market and the electricity market, given that over 5 years house prices in Auckland have gone up by 44 percent and electricity prices have gone up by 20 percent as a result of the policies of this Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the last point the member made is the one where he is most obviously wrong. The Government has worked very hard to undo the damage done by the previous Labour Government to the electricity market, and we have slowed the rate of increase considerably. The Opposition policy of a single buyer and an emissions trading system would certainly force prices up fast. In respect of the housing market, I welcome the Greens’ new-found support for the idea of building more new houses, because up until now, like the Labour Party, it has opposed all policy measures designed to enable New Zealanders to get better-priced houses.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Deputy Prime Minister has done throughout all of his answers today, he has breached the Standing Orders. He is misrepresenting policies of parties that he has no responsibility for.

Mr SPEAKER: That is very much a debating matter. The answers have been addressing the question. As I warned the member as he rose to ask his question, the way he asked the question meant that he was likely to get a very robust reply.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask whether it is fair to sit Russel Norman down and criticise the form of his question right at the start of a question retaliating to similar jibes from the National Party three or four times, and then for you to not stand up and stop the Deputy Prime Minister doing exactly the same in reverse.

Mr SPEAKER: I have listened very carefully to the answers. I think they have fairly addressed the question. If I thought for one minute they did not, I would address the matter. My job here is to attempt to be as fair as possible to all members in this House, and I will continue to attempt to do that.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Minister’s claim that the NZ Power policy would push up prices, has the Minister seen the report from Infometrics, commissioned by Business New Zealand, which says that the Green Party’s and Labour Party’s NZ Power proposals would cut power prices for families by 13 percent and add $200 million a year to the economy, which means it would create at least 2,000 jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree with it. There is one place that this policy has been tried. That is in the province of Ontario, and it has led to the utterly predictable result of blackouts and higher prices. That is why we will not be adopting that policy. Secondly, the emissions trading system, which the Greens have stopped talking about, will add $500 per household per year to their power bills.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister stand up tomorrow and explain to New Zealanders why his policies have pushed up housing prices and power prices, which have put pressure on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates, and why it is that ordinary New Zealand families will have to pay more for their mortgages and more for their power prices because of his failed Government policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. If I had the opportunity, I would explain to them how Government policy has enabled interest rates to stay lower for longer—in fact, at 50-year lows for longer—and I would also explain to them the risks of a big-spending Labour-Green Government, which would certainly push up interest rates much further than it needed to, like it did last time when first mortgage rates reached 10-plus percent in 2008.

Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus

2. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Government’s economic and fiscal policies ensure its accounts return to surplus in 2014/15 and help keep interest rates lower than during the previous economic cycle?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government will continue to focus its Government spending on programmes that make a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders, such as investing to help people get off welfare and into work and investing to reduce crime. What we have learnt in recent years is that often the solution to the problems that the taxpayers pay us to fix lies with finding better, more effective answers, not with spending more money. By remaining on top of its spending, the Government will help avoid a repeat of the sharp interest rate rises during the last cycle up to 2008, when floating mortgage rates actually reached almost 11 percent.

John Hayes: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s finances, and what trends are emerging in both spending and revenue?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s financial statements for the 7 months to 31 January were released yesterday. They showed that Government expenses are around $140 million below forecast, at $40.1 billion for the 7 months, indicating that the Public Service is doing a good job of containing expenditure but achieving better results for our communities. However, despite stronger economic growth, tax revenue continues to track below forecast. Although we have spending under control, Government revenue is inherently more difficult to forecast. We are yet to see just how much of that shortfall of around $800 million flows through to the end of the year. In any case, the Government is on track to deliver a surplus for the 2014-15 year, and that, of course, will raise questions for New Zealanders about big-spending promises in election year and what damage they might do not just to the Government’s books but also to pushing up interest rates further.

John Hayes: How does the Government’s current financial position and outlook compare with the position inherited by the incoming National-led Government in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have learnt some lessons from the period particularly of about 2005-08, because by 2008, despite a decade of good economic conditions, the New Zealand economy was in recession, and floating mortgage rates were nearly 11 percent. This Government is determined not to make the same mistakes—that is, to go on a spending spree just when times are better, and, secondly, to allow the housing market to grow at very high rates, putting pressure on our exporters.

Hon David Parker: How can he claim to be a good economic manager when despite record dairy prices and the Christchurch rebuild boosting construction, the Government accounts have still come in well under forecast for the third month in a row?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The commentary around the accounts points out some of the reasons for that. I am very pleased to see that this Labour Party spokesman, unlike the rest of its spokesmen, is so devoted to achieving a surplus. We look forward to pre-election policies that indicate that he is going to be as prudent in his fiscal management as he says the current Government should be.

John Hayes: With the Government on track to surplus next year, what policy prescriptions would put that return to surplus at risk and fuel sharp interest rate increases?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it is increasingly obvious that policies, for instance, that promise large amounts of cash to New Zealand households mean that not only is the Government unlikely to make a surplus but also it would be a pretty clear signal to the Reserve Bank that it should put interest rates up. Other policies, such as an expensive emissions—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will be very apparent to you that seeing as the Minister is not talking about anything within his portfolio or Government administration or Government policies, he should not be talking about it at all.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I cannot accept the point the member raises. Members have the right to ask a question. The question effectively was what policy prescriptions would put at risk a return to economic surplus, etc. That is a legitimate question; it is allowed a legitimate answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I was just going to finish by referring to the emissions trading system policy that certainly is Green policy and may be Labour policy. An expensive emissions trading system would push up electricity prices and inflation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, the Minister of Finance is not responsible for any other political party’s policy—the Greens’, the Labour Party’s, or anyone else’s—so why is he being allowed to persist with his answer?

Mr SPEAKER: He is certainly able, in response to that question, to talk about the potential that he considers would be aligned with an emissions trading scheme. It is unhelpful for the Minister, in giving the answer, to refer to the policy being adopted by any other party in this House.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With reference to your last ruling, my simple question would be—and I agree with you—why he was not pulled up and why some action was not taken against him. He has done it before, time and time again.

Mr SPEAKER: It was. If the member had listened, he would have heard me make a comment.

Justice, Minister—Investigation into Compliance with Cabinet Manual

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did he tell the New Zealand public on Monday that “Yes, they”—the Cabinet Office—“looked at the translation.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I believed it to be correct and, actually, the Cabinet Office has written to me to say that the information it provided to me could well have left me with that impression. It apologised for that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister personally, or through directing his office, specifically ask the Cabinet Office to look at the English translation of Oravida’s Chinese website when this issue first came to light last week; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have all the details of who contacted the Cabinet Office, but my understanding was they looked at all the information required.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. These are deliberately very straight and simple, factual questions, and a supplementary to—

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member to repeat his question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister personally, or through personally directing his office, specifically ask the Cabinet Office to look at the English translation of Oravida’s Chinese website when this issue first came to light last week; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is the same answer. I do not have the information with me of what was asked for but—[Interruption]

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

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

Hon David Cunliffe: The question asked—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the question. You have put it twice. The Prime Minister has chosen to answer it by saying he does not have that information.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the question went to his own personal knowledge or direction and not to the actions of any other party, how is it possible for him to not have the information about his own personal actions?

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I can easily answer that before I accept—

Hon Member: He’s covering up.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it could be that the Prime Minister on this occasion feels he does not have the information because he cannot recall it accurately enough. It is in his hands; it is for him to decide how he is going to answer the questions. [Interruption] Order! If members want to stay for the balance of question time, then when I am on my feet I expect them to be silent. I have attempted to assist the member to get an answer that is more helpful. The Prime Minister has chosen how he is to answer that question and that is his responsibility. The member then has further supplementary questions and who knows—he may get an additional supplementary question to help elucidate the answer he may require.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. By the nature of Mr Cunliffe’s question, it may be that Prime Minister can seek a defence in not being prepared, but if you look at question No. 7, where he is asked whether he gave honest answers to questions asked on this matter, he has had now 4 hours to be prepared, so he should be down here today ready to go and not be hiding behind the points he—

Mr SPEAKER: And that is for this House and the public of New Zealand to judge.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On previous occasions when there has been an apparent or possible obfuscation by a Minister to a direct question, you have given members on this side of the House three opportunities to ask the supplementary question, and the Minister concerned three opportunities to give a direct answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled. I have given it—what, two goes? I have determined that that is enough. The member has further supplementary questions.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister understand that the statement by his office that the deletion of the Chinese version of the website means there is no longer a conflict of interest, means that there must have been an actual conflict of interest to start with; if not, what does he understand by that statement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, the member is not correct.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Prime Minister seen the Chief Ombudsman’s report from October 2012 that states: “if a Minister refers to Cabinet Office advice publicly in a way that is misleading or exaggerated, the countervailing public interest in disclosure is likely to outweigh the need for confidentiality.”, and will he therefore table the Cabinet Office advice now for members of this House?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I do actively encourage the member to take the matter up with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will then look at all of the advice I have seen and the Ombudsman will—guess what—not release it, because they will know that I am correct.

Hon David Cunliffe: The underfunded Ombudsman. On what day—

Rt Hon John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, as he got to his feet, impugned the reputation of the Ombudsman of New Zealand. I think that is a very serious matter and the member might want to reflect on that.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the remark. If the member made a comment that he thinks is unparliamentary—[Interruption] I will hear from the member.

Hon David Cunliffe: Speaking to the point of order, if the Speaker did not hear it, the words I said were “The underfunded Ombudsman.” That was going to the point—

Rt Hon John Key: No, you said “Government funded”.

Hon David Cunliffe: If I may, that goes to the point that the Prime Minister is hiding behind an officer of Parliament whom he has insufficiently funded in the full knowledge that there will be a long delay before an answer can be given. That is impugning himself—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will accept what the member has said, and, therefore, we will move forward.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree that there is a conflict of interest arising from revelations this morning that Judith Collins had a previously undeclared dinner with her “close personal friends”, which included the chairman of Oravida and a senior Chinese border control official, while on a taxpayer-funded trip to China, in which she also visited Oravida and endorsed or promoted its products?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe that the accumulation of meetings that the Minister of Justice held in China could lead to the perception of a conflict of interest, and that is why I believe that transparency is very important. I believe, for instance, that if you get secret donations through a trust, you should make those known. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he consider it merely a perception of a conflict of interest that all this occurred with a company of which the Minister’s husband is one of only three directors, which is supplied by a company substantially owned by the president of the National Party, and from which his party has received $56,000 in political donations?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think it can lead to a perception of a conflict of interest. Secondly, what is important here is that we actually do know what has taken place. We do not, when it comes to the trust funds of—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has answered the question.

Hon David Cunliffe: If Mrs Collins does not understand that this combination of circumstances reflects a serious conflict of interest, is she fit to be a Minister in his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, she is quite fit to be a Minister. My own view is that Judith Collins is an outstanding Minister, but I think that on this particular occasion she has got this wrong. All I can say to Mrs Collins is this: thank goodness you did not grant him citizenship in the Labour Party caucus—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Electricity Market—Performance, Prices, and Alternative Approaches

4. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What has the Government done to improve the performance of the electricity market in New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): When this Government took office in 2008 it was clear that significant changes needed to be made. Power prices were rising at record levels, there had been four dry-year emergencies where consumers had been asked to switch off their lights and conserve power, there had been serious under-investment in transmission, and we got too much of our power from non-renewables. This Government’s reforms of 2010 have halved power price increases and promoted the ability of consumers to shop around for the best deal. Security of supply is simply no longer an issue, despite the fact that the first 6 months of 2012 were the driest on record. There has been much-needed investment in infrastructure, with Transpower spending set to total $5 billion. Renewables have gone from 65 percent to 75 percent. The Government backs its record on electricity against the left’s any day of the week.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How have consumers benefited from these changes?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The market reforms have seen an expansion in the number of retailers, with a wide range of innovative offerings available to consumers. Substantial savings are available from special deals for consumers who shop around. Discounts of up to $300 are available, effectively reducing a power bill by up to 14 percent for the average consumer. Consumers in their hundreds of thousands are increasingly taking the opportunity to switch providers. The What’s My Number campaign goes from strength to strength, with record numbers switching last year. This is all evidence of exactly how a competitive market can and should work.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports has he seen on an alternative approach to the electricity market?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, I have seen many, many reports commenting on a vastly different approach to organising the electricity market. Former Labour Minister of Energy David Butcher said that it “would largely destroy the renewables industry,”. An independent report by Sapere Research Group concluded “There is a very real risk that the proposals would result in higher electricity prices”—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, I would like to be heard. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is appealing for some chance to finish his answer. The Hon Simon Bridges—if he could, with haste, complete his answer.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I appreciate that these answers are embarrassing for the Opposition—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just get on with it.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Gareth Morgan called it “classic politicking; a solution in search of a problem.” Professor Frank Wolak, once loved by the Opposition, said it was “largely just window dressing.” They were all commenting on the half-baked NZ Power policy that the Labour—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know that in the Standing Orders answers are meant to be succinct. We have had three speeches from the Minister. This is question time, not speech time.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a reasonable point and that is why I stood on my feet and concluded the answer.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member seeking a point—

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am happy to give a more succinct answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That would not be helpful at all to the House.

Brendan Horan: What has the Minister done to lower power prices in his electorate of Tauranga, which currently pays 15 percent above the national average?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Simon Bridges, in so far as he has ministerial responsibility.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I refer the member to all of my succinct answers previously, but I have already made clear that we have a system in New Zealand where power prices have gone from a 72 percent increase when Labour left office to half of that, where security of supply is no longer an issue despite four near-blackouts when Labour was in Government, where from under-investment we have gone to $5 billion of investment in transmission—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer now has got nothing to do with the specificity of the question.

Brendan Horan: That was what I was going to ask.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those matters all go to power prices in Tauranga.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister ought to go back to his office, study the Standing Orders, and in future give more concise answers to the questions he is asked.

Justice, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: Did she seek advice from the Cabinet Office regarding any conflict of interest arising from her husband’s directorship of Oravida Ltd; if so, when and why?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I wrote to the Cabinet Office on 31 January 2013, advising that my husband had been appointed to a number of directorships, including Oravida Ltd. This letter was in addition to the annual review of Ministers’ interests.

Grant Robertson: Does she believe that her actions in China while on a taxpayer-funded visit, including visiting Oravida’s office and having dinner with the chairman of Oravida and a Chinese Government official, gave rise to a conflict of interest?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. However, I do believe that there is a risk of a perception of a conflict of interest, and that is important.

Grant Robertson: What has changed between today and yesterday when she did not think there was a perception of a conflict of interest?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, that particular issue was not raised with me yesterday by that member.

Grant Robertson: Did she consider the conflict of interest implications before the dinner of having dinner in China with the chairman of the company that her husband is a director of and a Chinese Government official; if so, what did she do about that?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I really did not because I viewed it as—

Grant Robertson: Really?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I really did not because I viewed it as that I was having dinner with two close personal friends. My adviser, who is also a close personal friend, was with us, as well as another friend. Actually, in the fullness of time and in hindsight I can see why there might look like there is something there. But I am sorry, I just did not even think of it.

Grant Robertson: What issues were discussed at the dinner with the Chinese Government official and the chair of Oravida?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Not an awful lot, because of English language issues. Having said that—

Hon Annette King: Oh, so none of our negotiations—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, no negotiations. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the Minister to complete her answer.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, we talked mostly about me saying how it would be really good if more people came to visit New Zealand because it is the best little country in the world.

Grant Robertson: Is the Minister telling the House that at the dinner that she held with the Chinese Government official and the chair of Oravida Ltd there was no discussion about Oravida’s business activity?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes.

Grant Robertson: Did she hold any other meetings with business contacts during her trip to China that she has not yet declared?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have declared meetings with business contacts in China already.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the question; the question was whether there were any other meetings.

Mr SPEAKER: In the normal course of events, if the member who asked the question is unsatisfied with the answer, he may appeal to me.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the member, so I will ask him to repeat the question.

Grant Robertson: Thank you. Did she hold any other meetings with business contacts during her visit to China that have not been declared?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: They have all been declared either by way of the Official Information Act or in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave—can you tell that guy on the camera to get there faster.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot hear the member’s point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, he has finally got the microphone to me. Through you, can I ask him to get there faster. Right?

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just raise his point of order if he wishes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have now finally ascertained that this is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an article from the Oravida website and its English translation.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information from the website and its translation. Is there any objection to that being done? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.

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

Better Public Services Targets—Businesses and Interaction with Government

6. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government making it easier, quicker and less complicated for businesses to deal with the Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! In a minute a member from this immediate quarter of the House will be leaving the Chamber. I rose to my feet. I called for order. The barracking that continued from a number of members is completely unacceptable.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss, and I formally launched the New Zealand Business Number. Businesses have been requesting a universal identifier for business for many years. Similar approaches are used in other developed countries, including Australia and Singapore. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now require this answer to be heard in silence. If any member interrupts this answer, that member will be leaving this Chamber.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: From the top, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss, and I formally launched the New Zealand Business Number. Businesses have been requesting a universal identifier for many years. Similar approaches are used in other developed countries, including Australia and Singapore. Having a single business number means that by 2016 businesses will have to provide Government with their information only once, and it will be shared across Government agencies. The New Zealand Business Number is a core initiative of the Government’s Better Public Services programme for business, which is working towards making it easier for business to work with Government agencies.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just so that we get absolute clarity, because I am sure none of us want to leave, was the requirement for silence for all of the answers to the supplementary questions or just to the primary question?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a very good example of why the member would be better to keep his interjections to a minimum level and to listen. The requirement was for that particular answer, but I still do not want to hear, or have to listen to, a return to the unruly barracking that I was hearing earlier.

Dr Jian Yang: What are the benefits of a New Zealand Business Number?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Rather than having a range of numbers and identifiers for businesses to deal with, the New Zealand Business Number is a single identifying number for all businesses and commercial entities in this country. Initially, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Customs Service, Statistics New Zealand, the Inland Revenue Department, ACC, Callaghan Innovation, and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise are committed to the New Zealand Business Number, and more Government agencies will follow as it is rolled out. The New Zealand Business Number will also help simplify business-to-business transactions, making it easier for businesses to invoice out and pay bills, apply for credit, and authenticate other businesses. Software providers are already integrating the New Zealand Business Number into their software packages.

Dr Jian Yang: How will businesses obtain a New Zealand Business Number?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Registered companies were allocated a New Zealand Business Number in December last year. We are now consulting on how and when to allocate a New Zealand Business Number to the other half of all New Zealand businesses that are not companies. Business representative groups have told us that they want it to be as easy as possible to access their New Zealand Business Number and we are investigating how they can be allocated automatically. Ultimately, the New Zealand Business Number is about ensuring businesses can spend more time on their business and less time with compliance costs for the Government. We are keen to hear from businesses on whom should be allocated a number, what information should be linked, the rules around using it, and how to ensure information is protected.

Hon David Cunliffe: Was Judith Collins making it “easier, quicker and less complicated” for Oravida, its directors, or the National Party to make money?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand Government Ministers work all the time to enhance the prospects of New Zealand companies operating in international markets. This Government is proud of that approach. It is building exports and growing business for New Zealand companies offshore. I appreciate that the Labour Party is a thin veneer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was specific about Minister Collins—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been addressed. It was a marginal question as to whether it had ministerial responsibility.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask why you say that the question was marginal. The question was in order, so why did you say it was a marginal question?

Mr SPEAKER: Because I considered that it was. Otherwise, I would not have said anything else. I let the question go through, and I advised the Minister when answering it to address it in so far as he had ministerial responsibility. The member is free to disagree with my opinion, but he still must accept it.

Justice, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual and Prime Minister’s Response

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Were all his answers to questions relating to the Hon Judith Collins and Oravida checked to ensure they were true; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. It is the standard practice of my office to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to check proposed answers to both written and oral questions I might give this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When Judith Collins had secret meetings with a Chinese border official, her policy adviser, and the Chinese managing director of her husband’s company Oravida, and a New Zealand diplomat and New Zealand consul; did not merely stop for a cup of tea on the way to the airport but had lunch and dinner with the company; as the Minister of Justice and the Minister for ACC held meetings on trade matters well outside her portfolios; and facilitated access for products obtained by Oravida from Sanford, a company owned in part by the National Party president’s family, how can he now not sack her?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier, I think that Judith Collins has been an outstanding Minister. I think that she has got a big contribution to make for New Zealand. I think that in this particular case she put herself in the place of being accused of a perception of having a conflict of interest. I think that that is unwise, but I am sure that the Minister has learnt from that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say “transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I have led that charge.”, when page 5 of the Judith Collins Cabinet travel report was blanked out entirely when the travel report was released to me?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not responsible for the blanking out of that. That comes from her office. But here is the important point: that looks awfully like the number of donors that we know gave David Cunliffe—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about the number of donors in the Waitematā club, if that is an issue?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not sure where the question is. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking a supplementary question, but he decided to put that issue on to the last answer.

Mr SPEAKER: And I heard that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say as Prime Minister “transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I have led that charge.”, when he refuses to release the Cabinet advice on this matter, when that advice was never checked against the Chinese translation, when he totally misled questioners when he claimed the advice was checked against the Chinese translation, and when the Minister herself has so grossly failed to tell the truth over the real extent and import of her meetings involving Oravida?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refute many of the assertions in that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I am entitled to some accountability in this House, and so is the country. I have asked a serious question.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty was that the question was excessively long, and the Prime Minister has chosen to answer it the way he has, just saying he does not agree with the assertions. If the member wants specific answers, he should ask a specific question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will give you an example. When he admitted last night—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the member just come to his question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am raising a point of order, and it is this.

Mr SPEAKER: And would he come to his point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say he does not agree with the assertions, when at the beginning of the week he said that the translation was checked, and last night he said to the public, on TV, that it was not?

Mr SPEAKER: Because the member started his question with the words “How can he say”, and then went on with a whole lot of things. The Prime Minister got to his feet and said he did not agree with the assertions. That is an answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, I did not begin it in that way. I began with his quote, so how can he dispute that?

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled that the question has been addressed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know what your ruling is. With respect—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. My patience with the member will not last much longer. If the member wants to leave the Chamber, I can ask him to do so. If he wants to conclude his questions, he should move to his supplementary question, otherwise we will immediately go to the next question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say “transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I have led that charge.”, when he refuses to release the Cabinet advice, the advice was never checked against the Chinese translation, then he claimed that it was, and the Minister has so grossly failed to tell the truth over the full extent and import of her meetings?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I stand by the view that transparency is a good thing. Successive Governments have followed the same position that advice from the Cabinet Office is not released.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that he sacked Richard Worth, as a precedent, over a clear conflict of interest much less than this one, what has the Minister of Justice got on the Prime Minister that he will not sack her in circumstances and for reasons far more serious than he has used to sack others?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to pay attention. Richard Worth was not sacked for that. If he goes back and looks at the records in 2009, when there was a potential conflict of interest, I took the same approach and said that I thought the Minister was being very unwise.

Transpower—Dividends, Debt, and Investment in National Grid

8. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the total amount of dividends that the Government has taken out of Transpower since 2011, and what is the current debt gearing ratio of Transpower?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Dividends paid since 2011 total $610 million. The debt gearing ratio is 70 percent.

Hon David Parker: Did he write to the chair of Transpower in 2008 and 2009 demanding that the company increase its debt so as to pay out larger dividends?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to go back and check the records, but it is likely that that is the case.

Jami-Lee Ross: How much has Transpower invested in the national grid since 2008, and why has it made this investment?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Because the Labour Government told it to.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually, I agree with the interjection. Under a programme initiated by the previous Labour Government and its last competent Minister, Trevor Mallard, Transpower invested over 10 years, from 2008 to 2018. Its investment will total $5 billion. This represented at the start of the programme, and does still now, a much-needed and overdue investment in transmission assets. It has increased reliability, particularly in the upper North Island, and enabled growing demand in Auckland to be met from mainly renewable generation south of Auckland. These investments are being made under the independent oversight of the Commerce Commission, which requires investments to be made only in the long-term interests of consumers. Although the costs of this investment pass to consumers, so do the benefits, in terms of an improved network, fewer blackouts, greater competition between generators, and more use of renewable energy.

Hon David Parker: Did he receive a letter from the chair of Transpower dated 19 February 2010 that stated: “A target gearing ratio of 40 to 60 percent was appropriate for a business of our type and consistent with our peer group.” and “To go above this range would be imprudent.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall the letter, but I think the member can be assured that the Government would have taken the best commercial advice available in setting the levels of debt applicable to Transpower.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the letter of 19 February 2010 from Transpower to the Hon Bill English, which says—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been described well enough. Leave is sought to table that particular letter dated 19 February 2010. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Jami-Lee Ross: What is the process for setting Transpower prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Transpower is now independently regulated by the Commerce Commission, which sets the prices Transpower can charge. It does so under the Commerce Act. The Commerce Commission’s price-setting process does not refer to Transpower’s dividends or debt—that is, it does not matter what Transpower’s level of dividends or debt is, the Commerce Commission applies its own criteria regardless. So the dividends paid by Transpower do not change the prices charged by Transpower. The Commerce Commission also determines whether investments over $50 million are in the long-term interests of consumers. Overall, consumers are facing increases of an average of 2.6 percent in their electricity bills to pay for Transpower and lines company investment to improve the network.

Hon David Parker: Is he aware that after the Government forced Transpower to borrow more money to pay higher dividends, taking it over the debt gearing ratio that the chair had warned was imprudent, Moody’s downgraded Transpower’s credit rating, saying that it was because of “the company’s willingness to weaken credit metrics in favour of shareholder distributions,”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware that that occurred. Shareholders have the rights of owners. The point, I would have thought, of the Government owning Transpower is that it can set those policies. We do not rely entirely on what the chairman or the rating agency thinks. Of course, that is taken into account, along with other advice, and also the needs of the shareholder.

Hon David Parker: Has the effect of increased indebtedness and interest bills been to increase Transpower’s costs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is arguable. The fact—

Iain Lees-Galloway: That would be a yes.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It can be argued because if it had less debt, it would pay fewer dividends and higher interest—exactly a point that Opposition parties have made when arguing against the sale of the other electricity generators. It is not obvious exactly what impact it would have. What the member needs to be clear about is that the Commerce Commission does not take account of those issues or Transpower costs in determining prices. The prices are set independently by the Commerce Commission.

Better Public Services Targets—Reduction in Crime and Reoffending

9. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports has she received on Justice sector results?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Today the justice sector Ministers have released the 2013 justice sector annual report. The sector has achieved fantastic results, reducing crime and reoffending. Crime in New Zealand is at a 30-year low and the justice sector is on track to meet, if not exceed, all its Better Public Services targets by 2017. From June 2011 to September 2013 the total crime rate has fallen by 13 percent. The violent crime rate is down by 9 percent, youth crime has fallen by a whopping 22 percent, and reoffending rates are down by 11.4 percent. In real terms, this means over 50,000 fewer crimes have been committed against victims in this period. These are great results and speak of the great teamwork across the justice sector.

Joanne Hayes: What new process has been developed for accessing the justice sector statistics?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Ministry of Justice has today launched its new online Justice Datalab tool, which will enable better understanding and communication of crime statistics and safety information across the sector. There is a lot of information publicly available online, but it is not easily accessible or easily understood. The Justice Datalab will be a useful tool for students, journalists, and members of the public generally to research crime statistics based on many variables, such as region or type of offence, and create graphics showing results and trends. The launch of the Justice Datalab is part of the justice sector’s desire to make justice sector information more widely available to the public and especially the Opposition.

Joanne Hayes: What is one of the key initiatives that has contributed to these excellent results?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The justice sector’s annual report highlights the success of the Hutt Valley Innovation Project as a prime example of what can be achieved when agencies work together across the sector and bring together supporting agencies and networks. During 2013, while the project was in its trial period, crime nationally dropped by 3 percent, but in the Hutt Valley it dropped by a remarkable 10 percent. Since June 2011 total crime in the area has dropped by nearly 25 percent, with violent crime down 20 percent and youth crime down by more than 33 percent. These are fantastic results, and I want to congratulate the team responsible for this project.

Child Poverty—School Food Programmes

10. HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) to the Deputy Prime Minister: What more is the Government planning to do to ensure all New Zealand children have food to eat each school day in light of the recent Treasury finding that the number of children living in poverty has increased to 285,000?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): First, I would disagree with the member’s assertion about the number of children. Treasury recently announced that it had discovered an error in its high-level statistics. No one’s actual circumstances in the real world have changed one bit as a result of its statistical error. Secondly, the Government believes that parents have the primary responsibility for feeding their children, and I think most New Zealanders would agree with that. But we do know that some children go to school hungry, through no fault of their own, so the Government co-funds a breakfast in schools programme with Fonterra and Sanitarium in any school in New Zealand that wants to run it.

Hone Harawira: With the Ministry of Health figures showing that an estimated 100,000 kids are going to school hungry each day, and the KickStart Breakfast and KidsCan websites showing that they are feeding about 20,000 kids on a good day, meaning that 80,000 kids are still going to school hungry every day, will the Government now do what 70 percent of New Zealanders are calling for, and that is to initiate a comprehensive, Government-funded food in schools programme in all low-decile schools?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, we will not do that, and there are a couple of reasons why. One is that although the Government does set out to support those schools that believe they need a breakfast in schools programme—and, as I have said, it is open to any school in New Zealand that wants to run it—we do not believe that the Government should take the place of parents in feeding children. We are happy to assist where there is need, and we have in place a joint venture with Fonterra and Sanitarium to achieve that. Some schools have taken that up. Some schools feel that they do not need to.

Hone Harawira: With child poverty now at record levels and students from Naenae College asking “Why can’t John Key make a smart decision and feed the kids?”, can you please tell the House what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the tonnes of fish being dumped regularly by Countdown will be made available to feed the tens of thousands of New Zealand kids still going to school hungry every day?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I gave, and that is that the Government believes it has struck about the right balance for assisting those children where there is genuine hardship and an inability by parents to feed them, without instituting some nationwide programme, which would be quite likely to undermine the sense of responsibility that families have for feeding their own children. Of course, in the longer run these children are best served by the other measures the Government is taking alongside the breakfast in schools programme to ensure that when they get to school, they actually achieve something, and that we do not tolerate a system that says that because they are poor and hungry, they cannot learn.

Brendan Horan: What would the Deputy Prime Minister say if he was asked by the parents, students, and staff of Naenae College whether he would commit to ensuring that New Zealand’s next cohort of children receive the best possible start in their first years, as recommended by the Health Committee’s unanimous report, and will he commit to policies to ensure that every child has adequate nutrition at school, consistent with that unanimous report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say to the students of Naenae College that the Government is committed to the best start for children and is working alongside those people who care for children every single day, which is actually not the Government; it is the teachers and the parents. Where those children do come to school hungry, the school already now has the option of going into the breakfast in schools programme. But just as important for those children is that when they get to school, they get taught under policies from a Government that has aspirations for those young New Zealanders and that believes that every single one of them can learn, and a Government that is willing to hold the public education system and itself to account for assisting those young children to achieve.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very long answer, but I did ask whether he would commit—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can resume his seat. I listened to the question. I listened to the answer. It has been addressed.

Power Prices—Increases and Prepay Schemes

11. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Further to his reply to Oral Question No 9 yesterday, will he now tell me what is his Ministry’s best estimate for the percentage increase in retail electricity prices for the period 1 February to 1 August this year for a household of four persons, averaged across New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is 2.4 percent.

David Shearer: Given his answer yesterday that the Prime Minister’s statements, not Transpower’s, were correct with regard to what has driven up electricity prices, has he now gone back to Transpower to ask it why it is making misleading statements in the media?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yesterday I said I agreed with the Prime Minister. I still do, but it is also equally possible that Transpower is right as well. They could both be right.

David Shearer: Does he believe it is fair that Kiwi families who are forced to go on to plans where they are required to pay for their electricity in advance should pay up to 60 percent more, or about $1,500, on a standard plan, given that their electricity company has already pocketed the money?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think it is important that there are different options and flexibility for consumers, and I think that is what the prepay option should be seen as. I certainly know of at least one prepay scheme that is not charging more than that company pays for power.

David Shearer: Given that he agrees with the statement that New Zealanders are not paying too much for electricity, will the increases he is forecasting over the next few months force him to reconsider that statement?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, because, as I have said in earlier questions, we have halved the rampant increases we saw in 2008. And all the while we have seen an unprecedented investment from transmission operator Transpower of some $5 billion. We have seen the share of renewables go up. We have seen excellent security of supply. So I think, all in all, we have a very strong system that we should not take for granted, and that could be put at risk if Labour and the Greens were in power.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Bowel Cancer Screening—Waitematā District Health Board Pilot

12. CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made on the Waitemata bowel screening pilot?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The screening pilot at Waitematā is detecting cancers at an earlier stage than expected, and we know that bowel cancers found and treated early can often be cured. Figures show that more than 129 people of the 58,000 people who have completed a bowel screening test have been found to have cancer. Many of these people had no symptoms at all. The $24 million pilot will run in the Waitematā District Health Board area, certainly until at least 2015.

Claudette Hauiti: What are the challenges involved in extending bowel screening across New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL: That is a very good question. The single-biggest constraint to a larger roll-out of bowel cancer screening is having the workforce to do the colonoscopies. At the moment we simply do not have the professionals to do the procedures. Colonoscopies are performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons, and I am advised that to roll out national screening would mean that we need around an extra 100 of these professionals. So we do need to consider a new approach. A symposium will be held in Wellington next month to look at ways of increasing New Zealand’s colonoscopy workforce capacity and efficiency, and we need to look to countries like the UK that are now using highly trained nurse endoscopists as part of their endoscopy teams.

Urgent Debates

Justice, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the statements made by the Hon Judith Collins about her involvement with the company Oravida. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, in which there is public interest. It is very important that the public have confidence in the conduct of Ministers and, to this end, that any conflicts of interest that they may have are well managed. A senior Minister is involved, and there is not a general debate today. Having carefully considered the application, I have decided to allow the debate.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The reason we have conflict of interest provisions in the Cabinet Manual is so that there is something to prevent personal gain—gain by family, gain by friends, or gain by a political party—from the actions of a Minister. And it is quite clear to all New Zealanders that Judith Collins, in her actions, in visiting the offices of Oravida in China, and in holding a dinner with the chair of Oravida and a Chinese Government official, has a clear and demonstrable conflict of interest. And it is a failure of leadership from the Prime Minister that today he stood in this House and defended Judith Collins. He stood in this House, and the most he could say was that there was a perception of a conflict of interest. There has never, in my time in this House, been a clearer conflict of interest than Judith Collins’ role with Oravida.

Let us work through the time line of this situation with the National Party and Oravida. Let us be absolutely clear. Judith Collins’ husband was appointed to the board of Oravida in October 2012—October 2012. Not long after, Oravida announced its partnership with Sanford for exporting seafood to China—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who owns Sanford?

GRANT ROBERTSON: —Sanford being more than 50 percent owned by Peter Goodfellow, President of the National Party. Interestingly, some months before that, in July 2012, a delegation was brought to New Zealand from China, at Oravida’s behest. They met with Peter Goodfellow and described him on the Oravida website as the chairman of the National Party. Those are the beginning signs of the links between Oravida and the National Party being used to ensure that Oravida benefits.

But we have to take one important step back, and that is to the 2 days either side of the 2011 election, because on the day before the 2011 election, Oravida New Zealand Ltd donated $1,600 to the National Party. Then, curiously, a couple of days after the general election in 2011, Oravida New Zealand Ltd donated $55,000 to the National Party. That was $56,600 in political donations from Oravida New Zealand Ltd to the National Party. That happened at the end of 2011. The delegation came in 2012 and met Peter Goodfellow, and Judith Collins’ husband, David Wong-Tung, joined the board of Oravida at the end of 2012. Early in 2013 John Key was reported to have played golf with the chair of Oravida, Mr Stone Shi. There is a little flurry of activity, and we found out in just the last couple of days that Stone Shi and John Key have played golf on a number of occasions. So that link is in there as well.

Judith Collins, who had already made a trip to China in 2012, a trip where she did meet some businesses, talked in her trip reports to Cabinet about the businesses that she met, which was something she did not do after the 2013 visit. But in 2013 Judith Collins sought approval from John Key to go to China in October 2013. She did that in August 2013. Interestingly, at that time, she sought approval for her husband to also travel to China on that trip in October 2013. We will come back to that in a moment.

Not long after, in October 2013 but before she went to China, Judith Collins officiated at the official opening of Oravida’s offices in Auckland. That is attended by—let us list them—Dame Jenny Shipley, Sir Don McKinnon, Peter Goodfellow, Melissa Lee, Paul Goldsmith, John Banks, Anne Tolley, and, of course, Judith Collins, who got the opportunity to cut the ribbon. She cut the ribbon of the offices of a company that her husband is a director of. And let us be absolutely clear here. There are only three directors of this company: Stone Shi, Julia Xu, and David Wong-Tung, Judith Collins’ husband. There are only three directors of this company.

So Judith Collins officiated at the opening of the Auckland offices. Three days later she received an invitation to visit the Shanghai offices of Oravida Ltd. In that invitation the company said: “We would be honoured for you to visit us in Shanghai on 23 October 2013 during your official trip to Shanghai.” So let us be absolutely clear. Oravida knew whom it was inviting. It was inviting a Minister of the Crown to come and visit it. At that moment, if she had not done it at any point up to then, Judith Collins should have declared her conflict of interest—at that moment then. She should have known, frankly, that she should go nowhere near the Shanghai offices of Oravida. She should have known straight away that that would give rise to a conflict of interest if she visited the Shanghai office of a company that her husband is a director of and that has donated $56,000 to the National Party. That was 9 October but then on 15 October, mysteriously, David Wong-Tung withdrew from the trip to China. All of a sudden, he was not going any more. But, as we now know, when Judith Collins did go to China and did go to Shanghai, she took up that invitation to visit the Shanghai offices.

Let us deal with a couple of the misleading statements Judith Collins has made about that. She “popped in for a cup of tea or a glass of milk”. Like some sort of “Countess Homogenised”, she shows up at this office and says: “All I’m here for is a glass of milk.” That is not true. That is clearly not true. Anyone who has seen the photos on the Oravida website can be absolutely clear. There is a huge line of people who are there to meet Judith Collins. There is a very formal setting on the table. Anyone who has done business in China will tell you that these things do not happen by accident. These things do not happen on the hoof. This was a pre-planned, well-organised photo opportunity for Oravida that Judith Collins participated in.

She was invited on 9 October. The meeting occurred on 23 October. There is no doubt that that represented two clear breaches of the Cabinet Manual. It represented a breach in terms of a Minister’s job of not endorsing products, and it represented a breach because the Minister’s husband is a director of the company. The Cabinet Office could not be clearer about the need for Ministers to avoid conflicts of interest of that sort, and in that moment Judith Collins clearly breached both of those. She was there in China on a $36,000 taxpayer trip—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Thirty-six thousand dollars for that taxpayer trip. There are families in New Zealand who have to live for a year on $36,000, and Judith Collins spends that going to China to promote the business that her husband is a director of. But what we learnt today is that that was not the extent of it. Judith Collins has spent the last week minimising everything about this, arrogantly dismissing the concerns of anyone who would raise them, and saying that there was nothing wrong with what she did. And today we learnt that in addition to visiting that company, which her husband is a director of, she met with and had dinner with the chair of the company, Stone Shi, and a senior Chinese border control official. Let us just pause on that for a minute. Let us ask the meat exporters of New Zealand just how difficult it is to get products into China. Let us ask any New Zealand company that exports into China how difficult it can be. So what benefit might there be for Oravida to have a meeting where a Chinese official from the border control agency meets a Minister—a Minister? Stone Shi can say: “Look, this is how influential I am. I have got a Minister of the Crown here.” I do not think there is much more serious in this story than Judith Collins holding that dinner. Today in this House Judith Collins told us that there were not any discussions at that dinner about the business activities of Oravida. I do not believe that, and I think Judith Collins will have to come back to this House to correct that statement.

So when we put all of those things together, what we have is a tale of a Minister who has quite clearly breached Cabinet Office rules, a Minister who does not think that the rules apply to her. Sadly, that is typical of the National Party, which works in the interest of its wealthy friends rather than in the interests of all New Zealanders. That is what a Minister travelling overseas is there to do. Judith Collins said it herself: “I’m there to work for ‘New Zealand Inc’.” No, she was not. She was there working in the interests of her family’s company and the interests of the National Party’s donors. It is the wealthy few in this country who benefit from the National Party.

But then we had the reaction of John Key. We had John Key’s response to this—a man who told us that he would lift the standards of behaviour by Ministers. Well, that is not what we have seen. What we have seen is a continuous run under his leadership of poor behaviour by Ministers. But today—not like Nick Smith, who had to resign over a letterhead, not like Richard Worth, not like Pansy Wong—Judith Collins gets away with it. That is because Judith Collins is too powerful in the National Party caucus for John Key to deal with.

Today is the low point in John Key’s leadership. Today is the day that he failed his own test by not getting rid of Judith Collins. If she does not understand that this was a conflict of interest, she is not fit to be a Minister. This visit and the endorsement that happened at it benefited Oravida. This visit and the endorsement benefited the directors of Oravida, one of whom is Judith Collins’ husband. This visit and the endorsement benefited the National Party via donations. That is where we have reached with this National Government. It is cronyism. This Minister should resign and this Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): That is a bit rich coming from a man who has been white-anting David Cunliffe around Wellington because of his leader’s appalling misjudgment over the donations to his leadership campaign. I will give Grant Robertson credit for consistency. The things he is saying about Judith Collins he is also saying about David Cunliffe. I will give him credit for that.

Hon Anne Tolley: And David Shearer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, no, he did not say those really nasty things about David Shearer. He just said David Shearer was hopeless. He did not say he was untrustworthy or had bad judgment; he just said he was hopeless. Therein lies the contrast between the way that this issue with Ms Collins has been dealt with and the way that David Cunliffe, as potentially the leader of another Government, has dealt with his personal issues around the trust that he has set up.

Another thing I take issue with in regards to Grant Robertson is that Mrs Collins has worked assiduously in the interests of every New Zealander, and the best measure of that is the lowest crime rates that New Zealand has seen in 30 years—the lowest crime rates we have seen in 30 years—and 25 percent fewer young people going through our courts. The member is simply wrong—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have granted an urgent debate on a specific matter. The fact that room is being freed up in the cells for people involved in this is, I think, irrelevant.

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Let us be clear about the difference between the handling of this issue and the handling by David Cunliffe. Mrs Collins has made full disclosure and has accepted that her actions demonstrated some poor judgment. That has been underlined by the Prime Minister and his view that these actions were unwise because they gave rise to a perception of a conflict of interest. Mrs Collins was working as a Minister of the New Zealand Government and, as we expect all Ministers to do, being supportive of New Zealand businesses doing business in a difficult market, a challenging market, in China.

What is very clear, though, is that she has made full disclosure and accepted that a misjudgment was made. That has all been dealt with quite transparently. Let us contrast that with the actions of the leader of the Labour Party. First, he did not declare his trust. How did that come out? Well, we do not know. We think it came out because fellow members of the Labour Party caucus or organisation leaked it to the media. Certainly, unlike Mrs Collins, the leader of the Labour Party did not reveal the actions that he took. Mrs Collins’ actions are clear, both from the response to the Official Information Act request and from her public statements made today. David Cunliffe never brought to public light that he had set up a secret trust. We found that out by virtue of leaks from the Labour Party. Then David Cunliffe said—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have granted an urgent debate for the House on a matter that is of significant public interest related to Minister Judith Collins. It has nothing to do with David Cunliffe or any members of the Labour Party, and yet the majority—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. That is a repeat of an earlier point of order that was not a valid point of order. I am listening very carefully to the debate. The Minister is attempting to respond to the challenge outlaid to him by Grant Robertson, and he is within the rules. I do not want to have another interrupting point of order that is invalid from this side of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to put it on the record that I resent your suggestion that my point of order was invalid. You might have ruled against it, but it does not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I have ruled.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve ruled wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Trevor Mallard will stand, withdraw, and apologise. [Interruption] Order! Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the actions of Mrs Collins are clear from the public record. David Cunliffe failed to reveal, as he is required to by the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament, the existence of his secret trust—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection from the Opposition side of the House is totally unacceptable. It will inevitably be a robust debate; that I expect. But when the level of noise and interjection gets to the level it has got to now, I will have no choice but to ask somebody to leave this House.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is pretty clear that the Labour Party does not want to hear the contrasting behaviour of David Cunliffe when he made a severe misjudgment. He did not reveal publicly his secret trust. Judith Collins, through an Official Information Act request and her public statements, has revealed all the actions relevant to the potential conflict of interest. We know about David Cunliffe’s trust only because of leaks from the Labour Party—from the “Anyone But Cunliffe” brigade, led by Grant Robertson, trying to white-ant their leader. That is how we know.

We do know that Oravida, as a company, used the appropriate legal procedures to donate money to the National Party. That is on the public record. We do not know who donated to David Cunliffe, because he devised the mechanism to keep it secret. He asked the donors whether they would reveal their identity. Some of them did; two of them did not. How do we know it was not Kim Dotcom? We do not know, because the Labour leader, unlike Mrs Collins, has kept in place an arrangement designed to deceive the public—designed to deceive. As of today, he still will not reveal those donors. So I challenge David Cunliffe to meet the standards Mrs Collins has met and go out to the front steps and reveal those donors. He said he did not know who they were, and then said he would give them the money back. How does he know who to give it back to if he does not know who they are? So I want to see David Cunliffe meet the same standards as Judith Collins—go out to the front steps of Parliament and declare who the secret donors are. Until he does that, the Labour Party has no credibility criticising a Minister who has revealed all the relevant actions and all the relevant participants in dealing with this perception of a conflict of interests.

It is a bit rich, but typical of the Labour Party, to over-egg this situation, and typical of it to apply to others standards it will not apply to its own leader. David Cunliffe’s trust issue remains unresolved. He set out deliberately to create a device to deceive the public by hiding the trust and, actually, he hid it from Parliament. He did not declare it in the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament. So now he can rise to the challenge put by his deputy leader, Grant Robertson, because, after all, those two are meant to be working together, not separately as everyone else believes they are. When Grant Robertson says everything should be revealed, well, I believe that David Cunliffe should reveal everything. Until he does, no one will take any notice of what the Labour Party is saying on this issue.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. You can tell that Judith Collins is in trouble when all that the National Party can do is talk about the Labour Party. I did not hear any sort of cognisant defence of her, any explanation, or any rationalisation. All I heard was the National Party throwing mud. All I saw was a party that could say only “But, but, but, but Labour …”. That is why Judith Collins is in trouble—because the party cannot even defend her. All it can do is throw mud.

I want to speak to the people of New Zealand because what we saw in question time today was three parties throwing mud at each other. This is why young New Zealanders and many other New Zealanders are turning off from our politics. They are sick of the scandals. They are sick of Ministers not taking responsibility. They are sick of the conflicts of interest that we have seen numerous times. They want a different type of politics. We need to change the climate of politics. We need a good Parliament that takes responsibility and acts transparently, and that is what the Green Party is going to champion.

When you look at the Judith Collins case, which we are debating today, it is all over milk. The Minister early on last week had a cup of milk and said: “I drink milk. What’s the scandal?”. But like a cup of milk left out in the sun, every day it has started to smell a little bit more. Every day that sour, rancid smell has continued, and what we see is something smelly. It does not pass the sniff test. In fact, what we see is something rancid when it comes to this case.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It stinks.

GARETH HUGHES: It stinks. This debate is around the Minister’s actions in China. This was a $36,600 taxpayer-funded trip. This is a Minister who was invited. This was not a casual popping in to the airport. This is a Minister who was formally invited to visit a company in which her partner has a directorship—a clear and demonstrable business relationship with the Minister and her spouse. We also saw this company, Oravida, on its website, post what could be translated as an endorsement of its product.

This is about perceptions and realities in a conflict of interest. The Minister’s husband is a director. This is a company that donated $56,000 to the National Party. This is a company whose chief executive plays golf with the Prime Minister. This is a Minister who this week, as that cup of milk started to smell more and more, has revealed that she also had dinner with Stone Shi.

Hon Annette King: The dance of the seven veils, it was.

GARETH HUGHES: The dance of the seven veils, Ms King says. What we know is that as more detail has come out, it has got smellier and smellier.

John Key today said of Ms Collins that he was “very disappointed” in her. He said she had handled the situation “very poorly”. And she says that she got it wrong. We have seen a conflict of interest. The National Party is saying that it is only a perception. I believe that it is a clear conflict of interest, which the Minister should have disclosed.

One of the questions for the Government has to be why it will not release the Cabinet advice. If it wants to clear this up, if it wants to clear the air, it should be releasing the advice. Why did the Minister, who had sought approval for her husband to travel with her, decide not to take him? Was advice offered to her and her husband? These are the critical questions this Government has to answer.

What we have here is a senior, very experienced Minister with obvious legal training who has breached Cabinet rules—clearly breached Cabinet rules with a conflict of interest. It is critically important that particularly Ministers of the Crown are held to a high standard. When it comes to business interests, we do not want our Ministers out advertising, promoting, and shilling for corporate brands. We want integrity in our politics. We want conflicts of interest, where they arise, disclosed and managed responsibly.

Other New Zealand businesses rightfully feel that they are not on a level playing field, that they are not getting a fair go, because of this Government’s relationships with certain corporates. It is not just Oravida or the Prime Minister playing golf with Stone Shi. You can see it in the Bathurst Resources case. You can see it with the secret meetings over Skycity. You can see it with the Prime Minister taking time out the day before the last general election to have a meeting with Anadarko—big oil—which has just left the country. What this country needs is a Government that is going to focus on real people and real Kiwi businesses, not just the Choruses, the Tīwai Points, the Anadarkos—real people and real Kiwi businesses.

But although this debate is about Judith Collins, the buck stops with John Key. He is the Prime Minister. He is the one who defended her initially but is now backtracking. The buck stops with Key. Remember when Key, before he became Prime Minister, said he would bring a higher standard for Ministers and politics? Do you remember when he said that? Do you also remember when he forgot that when it came to the discredited ACT leader, John Banks, and when it came to Peter Dunne, who still will not give a categorical assurance that he was not the leaker? You see it with the dance of the seven veils when it comes to Colin Craig and some of his far-out views.

What we need is transparency. What we need is better management of conflicts of interest when they arise. What we need also is a Prime Minister who is going to take responsibility, who is not going to pass the buck, and who is going to stand up and demand that the Minister is held accountable. I recall that early on when Key was still talking about a higher standard, we saw the Pansy Wong case, which has some parallels with what we see here. What we need are answers and responsibility, because what we are talking about is taxpayers’ money and the status, the role, and the responsibilities of Ministers. What I want to see are Ministers, no matter what political affiliation they hark to, who can handle conflicts of interest, who can stand on the New Zealand and world stages with integrity, and who are not putting special corporate business interests first. I want every New Zealander and New Zealand company to know that they are going to get the same hearing from the Minister because they are individuals, not because they donate to a particular party, not because they are married to a particular person, and not because they play golf with the Prime Minister. Every New Zealander and every New Zealand company are going to get a fair go—that is what I believe that New Zealanders want, and that is what I believe we should feel proud of. We are one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We cannot just stand by while this type of activity happens. We need to keep fighting for higher standards and holding Ministers to account when they breach those rules.

I want to finish with two solutions. Hopefully, we can learn from this. What we need is a better lobbying disclosure regime. This is something the Green Party has championed. It is something we are now pushing through the Standing Orders review. What we need is a better regime when business lobbyists are lobbying Ministers and MPs.

Secondly, although there has been some reform around electoral donations, there is more that needs to be done. We need greater transparency so that the public, when they see us in this House, can feel confident knowing who has contributed to each party or to their election campaign. Every New Zealander has the right to have confidence in their elected officials to serve in the country’s interest, not in the corporate interest or a particular company’s interest. Something is smelly and rancid when it comes to this, and I just hope the Government can show some responsibility, take responsibility, and answer the critical questions we have before us. Kia ora.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): There is a raw irony about the events surrounding Judith Collins, because on 31 October last year she was in China to give a speech to the China Executive Leadership Academy in Pudong. There she gave a very lofty speech about a matter that is dear to all of our hearts and hitherto had been to hers. She said in that speech that she was there to contribute to a culture of openness and transparency. She went on to say: “[The] law provides mechanisms for the public to find out what different branches of the Government are doing. We believe that this builds trust and confidence in our system.” She was talking about the glory of New Zealand’s political system and no doubt her role in it. Then what do we then find on the Oravida website? The translation is as clear as daylight that here is a Minister who is over there not on a justice and ACC trip, which are her portfolios—no, she is on a trade trip, engaged in a family operation and she was not merely, as she tried to blithely say, having a cup of tea on the way to the airport.

Hon Members: With milk.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With milk. And she said: “What’s wrong with milk? I like milk.” Apparently, she likes scampi as well. She left that part out. That was the Sanford connection. Sanford is owned by whom? Why, the National Party president’s family. Just like Skycity, it is tawdry and ugly. It is terrible, venal behaviour. [Interruption] I know Gerry loves it, because Gerry was once, for about 5 weeks, a director with Goodfellow on the new Christchurch casino. Yes, Gerry wants us to forget that, but there was Gerry, taking a job as a director—he and Goodfellow—on the new Christchurch casino proposal. How venal is that?

Andrew Williams: Donkey-deep.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Donkey-deep is the word for it. It is John Key - deep, in fact. Can I just say that this is what Mr Key said—earlier this week he said that the Collins case differed from that of his former Minister, Richard Worth, because there was no personal gain involved in Judith Collins’ visit to Oravida. That is demonstrably false. There was every personal benefit involved and that is why she had the Ambassador to China, the consul-general from New Zealand in Shanghai, border officials, and taxpayers’ money all involved in promoting her husband’s business. If you read that website, and the Chinese translation into English, you will see how much she was involved. In fact, it went on to say that she tasted Oravida’s fresh milk and the New Zealand scampi and could not stop praising these products.

Judith Collins instructed that she is expecting to continue the cooperation exchange between Oravida and New Zealand. She is on a trade trip now, is she not? And based on this, that is to develop bi-mutual relationships further. She is in there donkey-deep, and yet the National Party members have, of course, got their heads down. They should be ashamed of themselves. How glad I am that I left that party. How glad I am that I left that party, because I can go to bed at night feeling good about myself and not have to walk down the street and be ashamed, and when the voters talk to me, cough and splutter and change the subject like Gerry does. No, siree.

Then John Key said this: he made it clear that if the Cabinet Office advice suggested a problem, he would take action. That is what he said. The Cabinet Office advice was given not with knowledge of the Chinese translated into English. No, it was with just a few sentences of English. Do not tell me that Cabinet officials are so bad now that when asked to investigate something, they did not walk downtown to get a Chinese interpreter to find out what they were investigating. Mr Key is now caught red-handed—totally red-handed. Look, here we go—here we go. He refuses to release the Cabinet Office advice on this matter, when the advice was never checked against the Chinese translation. Then he went out and told all the journalists that it was. He simply failed to tell the truth and so did Judith Collins.

Here is the real issue though—there is a smell growing on this, and it will intensify each day. The thing is there is more to come. There always is. There always is.

Hon Annette King: There’s more.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is always more. The public has now lost confidence in the Minister of Justice, because more and more is being revealed of her business connections and associates. By the way, his name is Wong-Tung—Wong-Tung. It is Wong-Tung, not Wung-Tong, as other people have been saying it. It seems like Wong-Tung did “wong”. The reality is, there is an old saying that Caesar’s wife must be above reproach—

Paul Foster-Bell: Disgusting.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it is not disgusting, sunshine. That member there was a former foreign affairs official, and he knows full well that you cannot, as a foreign affairs official, be involving yourself in trying to advance a venal politician’s interest. No, Mr Foster-Bell, I can see why Whangarei did not want you, because they have got some standards up there. I know, because I come from there. He stood there and he got beaten as a sitting MP in Parliament.

Denis O’Rourke: Tell him, Winston.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am telling him. The meaning is very clear about Caesar’s wife. Of those who are granted the privileges of power and position, we also require accountability. Judith Collins has twisted and turned as the whole sorry, sordid saga has emerged. As each layer has been peeled back, the more rotten, ugly, and disgraceful the whole business looks. Imagine if any of us over here had done that. National members would be screaming blue murder. In fact, I recall when we did not do that, and they were still lying and screaming blue murder. As Mike Williams pointed out over the weekend in one of the Sunday papers—and I am very grateful to him for finally telling the truth—we have had plenty of this dodgy stuff from this National Government.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We voted the right way.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You did, and I am very grateful to the Labour Party for actually seeing the truth. Mike Williams is probably the reason why, and I am grateful to him. But there are the National Party members over there, prepared to malign, defame, and traduce someone else’s reputation without facts. They are sitting there using their majority. Today one of theirs was found to be worsening in her attitude towards honesty, and they want to cover it up. There is plenty of dodgy stuff like that—Skycity, for example. There is also the Antoine’s Restaurant meal. National has got the effrontery to attack other members of Parliament in this House and it raised $105,000 at a restaurant in Auckland, where Mr Key spoke and charged each attendee $5,000.

Andrew Williams: Just up the street from his house.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Just up the street from his house.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read the Electoral Act.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Pardon?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read the Electoral Act.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have read the Electoral Act, and so has the National Party. It is just a deceitful device where sometimes—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, the law is a device?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no, Mr Brownlee. I know that you sold $5,000-plate dinners and never even turned up to eat the dinner. It is just a device—we know that. It is like the Waitematā Trust. Again, that is a heinous device that National used for darn years, and then it has the effrontery to challenge other parties on their trusts. What a disgrace National is. The members look in the mirror every time they make an allegation.

The Prime Minister is on record as having stood in this House and saying this. I asked him about decision-making responsibility and he said: “As Prime Minister I have responsibility for protecting the integrity of the decision-making process of executive Government and maintaining public trust in the executive. I have always expected and demanded that my Ministers act lawfully and in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.” Well, Mr Key, here is the day of truth. This is the moment when New Zealand gets to see whether he stands by his words or whether they are just hot air—empty and meaningless. He says: “Personally, I’ve been of the view that transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I’ve tried to lead that charge.” When he was asked about that, he said: “Yes, I stand by that statement, which was made in the context of discussing reform of MPs’ remuneration, travel privileges, and transparency around expenses.” Here is the expense account of $36,000-plus, associated in part with a familial connection with a business, and the National Party has the effrontery and audacity to think it can get away with it.

Well, the campaign has started and National is off to a shocking start. I want to say to those backbenchers in the National Party hiding now and probably watching TV—all those backbenchers whose knees are starting to knock—that you could stop the rot now by saying that you will not put up with this. There has to be the same accountability that was demanded of Pansy Wong and Richard Worth. They were far more innocent in this context than this senior Minister, who used to be in the Law Society, and who was one of the first to go out and give her views about other MPs’ behaviour from a legal point of view. Now she has been hoisted with her own legal, haughty petard. This is a day of reckoning for Mr Key, and hitherto he has dramatically failed.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): Can I first put on record my absolute disgust at the comments made by the previous speaker, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—not only bringing members’ families into this but making fun of a partner’s name. Mr Peters, to make fun of a name simply because it is not a European name is, I think, absolutely racist. I think it is racist, and I want to put on record my disgust at those sorts of comments in this debate. I have to say that it is a bit rich to sit and listen to a number of members in this House talking about honesty, openness, and transparency. Actually, that member who has just resumed his seat could not even answer questions; he had to put a notice up that said “No”, rather than answering questions, quite simple questions, about openness and transparency. Mr Peters, what happened when you were on the end of it?

Well, I want to speak today about my colleague the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, because she has proven that she fronts up and she is the one who gives the media full disclosure of what happened. She is the one who fronted the media on the steps of Parliament and disclosed the dinner. She did not wait for the media to dig it out, like they had with Winston Peters. It was not coming from the media, like David Cunliffe’s trust. It did not come from them. It came from her fronting the media and saying that this was what had happened. She answered the questions last week. She answered the questions that were put to her.

But right at the heart of all of this is the fact that from the day that this John Key - led Government came into Government, we have been fighting to increase the exports from this country after 9 years of a Labour Government that drove this country’s exports into the ground. This is a country that makes its money, that supports its people, by selling our goods around the world, and 9 years of a Labour Government saw internal consumption at an all-time high and exports at an all-time low. We have worked assiduously to support and promote the exporters of this country. Every Minister, every time they travel overseas, has a responsibility to be promoting New Zealand, to be promoting New Zealand goods, and to be promoting all that is good about New Zealand exporters, and this Government has a proud record of doing that. As a consequence, we have seen a growth in the export market.

Through the deepest, darkest days of a recession, we as a country were thankful that the previous Labour Government had negotiated a free-trade agreement with China, because the growth in exports to China helped this country earn dollars in order to support us through that recession. In fact, the exports to China have made it our most important market. So the growth in exports from New Zealand companies has seen this country help itself through the recession. So there has been a responsibility on us all, and I have no doubt that any Minister in any portfolio, any time they have the opportunity overseas on any sort of official trip, would do their very best to support New Zealand and promote New Zealand.

The Prime Minister talked about a higher standard for Ministers, and that has been quoted here. Yes, we have had no drunk-driving convictions on this side of the House. We have not had any people convicted of corruption, and we have had no one whom the media have had to dig out and find had hidden donations in trusts. Mr Cunliffe used a device that he knew would hide who his donors were. We do not know today who two of those donors are. The media are still working on it. Why does David Cunliffe not take a leaf out of Judith Collins’ book and stand and talk to the media and disclose fully who those donors were and how much money they gave to his leadership campaign? If we are talking seriously in this House about double standards, then it is about time that the Labour Party came to the party too.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Trevor Mallard—5 minutes.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): We have now had 25 minutes available to National members taken by senior Ministers, and neither of them has been prepared to defend Judith Collins. Why? Because you cannot defend the indefensible. Mr Assistant Speaker, I remember what it felt like being attacked by one of your predecessors over Taito Phillip Field. It got to the point where you could not defend the indefensible, and that is the situation that the National Party is in with Judith Collins.

Those members should not be surprised, and Bill English, I am sure, is not surprised, because what did he say about Judith Collins? He said that she was a member pushed beyond her capacity. That is what he said about her. He said that she had an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence. Who said that?

Hon Members: Bill English.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Bill English said that about Judith Collins. He said that she spent too much time cultivating the media herself and then believing the resulting publicity. Bill English said that about Judith Collins, and I think that what we know now is that Bill English was absolutely right.

What we have is a Minister who is prepared to help line the pockets of her family while she is on a trip paid for by the taxpayer—someone who is prepared to take the officials of the New Zealand Government in to support a company that is paying her husband in order to do that. I, frankly, thought that Pansy Wong was the limit. I thought that Pansy Wong was the limit, but Judith Collins has gone well beyond that. She must have known at some stage that she had done wrong, because she did not put it in her report. Unlike previous visits on previous trips to China, she did not write it up and she did not admit that it happened. She was not transparent. Why was she not transparent? Because she knew then that it was wrong. She knew that it was wrong last week when she was tackled about it and said, first of all, that she dropped in for a cup of tea and that it was not planned. That was not true—that was not true. She knew before she left New Zealand that she was going there. She had dinner with the person, and possibly lunch as well. We are yet to find out whether that is the case.

The idea that it was a minor diversion, as she told the New Zealand public, was just a lie. We should not have in this Parliament Ministers who lie to the public, because our ethical standards—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have made mistakes in my time as a Minister. But what you do when you make a mistake is you fess up. I want to make it clear. I have never been corrupt. I have never got my family income boosted using my Government funding. But the mistakes I have made I have admitted to the Prime Minister, I have admitted publicly, and I have not lied about in the way that Judith Collins has.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Gerry Brownlee—5 minutes.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I think it is healthy for our democracy that we have a debate about perceptions of conflict of interest in the dealings that we all have as elected members of this House. But what this debate also proves is that when it comes to a debate like this, hypocrisy does not, apparently, limit the way in which people offer their thoughts in the context of the debate. There is no one better in this House than the Hon Trevor Mallard at outlining all sorts of spurious facts, joining them together in a loud, tub-thumping way, and making them seem more than they really are. It is truly a skill that he has and I want to acknowledge him for it.

If the Labour Opposition is so outraged by finding out from public sources exactly what Judith Collins was up to on her trip to China, why is it not outraged that its own leader is using—as Mr Peters, his potential coalition partner said—the law as a device for deception? That is what Mr Cunliffe is doing by not telling the public of New Zealand who tipped the money into his leadership campaign. We know that it is the Unite union that is causing the most problem—we know that—but the member David Cunliffe needs to stand up and admit it and, as the Hon Bill English said, get out on to the steps of Parliament and tell us who put the money into the trust that he used and is now saying that he does not have to tell anyone about because he is giving it back. Well, I think there is a huge lapse on the part of the Opposition here when it comes to, effectively, waving out a flag and saying: “Oh, look, here’s what we can publicly see. That’s an outrage. By the way, put your head in the sand, pretend you are an ostrich, and don’t look at the mess that we have got into over on our side of the House.”

Ms Collins has said that in hindsight she feels that she could have been more open about what she was doing, but in the context of a whole lot of things that Ministers do and the public disclosures—which are clear, because we are having this debate—I think that it is a mock debate that the Opposition is trying to mount this afternoon. I think that it would also be useful for us to perhaps recite all sorts of other situations where members on both sides of the House have got into difficult situations, and then try to line them up and judge them. But that does not take us anywhere. What is really important here is that this debate would not be happening if it were not for the demands for transparency that the Rt Hon John Key has put on his Ministers. And it is only because there is transparency that the Opposition has a basis for a debate. So I think that what we are seeing here this afternoon is a whole lot of outrage from the Labour Party that has very little basis to it.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I want to echo the comments that were made by my colleague Anne Tolley, because I was quite disturbed by some of the comments and behaviour that I have seen in the House this afternoon that were of a racist nature, which I do not think I have ever witnessed before. That is not just the example that Anne Tolley gave of the comments that the Rt Hon Winston Peters made but the comments and the mocking of one of the National members of the House earlier in question time that were very clearly racially motivated, which I found quite disgusting.

In terms of this urgent debate, you know, members opposite are looking for an argument. They are trying to find something to argue about. It is somewhat ironic that we are having this debate on this day, because if you look at Minister Judith Collins, clearly we have had a situation today where she has reflected on a couple of the issues, she has had a discussion with the Prime Minister, and she has fronted up to the public. She has fronted up to the public on one minor issue—one minor issue. On this very day—this same day—that same Minister has gone out into the public and said what a stunning result that she and the justice team have achieved in crime in this country. I am a bit saddened, actually, that on this day all of those people whom she has led in those organisations have not had their contributions recognised today. Instead, there are these kinds of nasty, personal, racist attacks that come from the Opposition. So it is kind of a sad day for me that we have to stoop to that level and take the time of the House on this sort of issue.

If you look at the facts, the Prime Minister has acknowledged in this very House today the enormous contribution that the Minister of Justice has made, and will continue to make, on behalf of hard-working New Zealanders.

Andrew Williams: $55,000 to the National Party.

LOUISE UPSTON: There is a conversation, or somebody is bickering and interjecting, about donations. I am really happy to talk about donations. They are on the public record, unlike some that the Opposition will not disclose. So it is the pot calling the kettle black. Get your story straight. The reality is that if you want to talk about donations, get David Cunliffe out there. Get him out there this afternoon on the steps—

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who is on her feet just offered to table information about donations. I wonder whether she would be so kind as to table—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. [Interruption] Order! That is not a point of order.

LOUISE UPSTON: The very point I was making, and I am happy to repeat it, is that we have a Leader of the Opposition currently who clearly knows who the two parties are that made donations to a trust that he had set up to hide that fact. They are supposedly anonymous, and yet he knows them well enough to know whom to return the funds to, which is somewhat interesting in a conversation around inappropriate behaviour. So I would be really happy to see your leader out on the steps of Parliament today to talk about disclosure, about openness, and about transparency around having a situation where, clearly, he is quite comfortable. But, no, we are talking about “Tricky David”—“Tricky David”, who will not disclose the facts.

I want to conclude by saying that the Hon Judith Collins has done extraordinary work in this country. The results have come out just today. Hard-working New Zealanders are proud of the fact that we have the lowest crime rate in 33 years, but that side of the House cannot cope with the facts.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): The previous speaker, Louise Upston, said that we should feel sorry for the staff of the Ministry of Justice. Yes, we should, because they will be ashamed to have a Minister of Justice who allows conflicts of interest to put her own and her family’s interests ahead of the country’s interests and who uses her position to benefit her family and to benefit the National Party. That is what has happened here. That is why this is a conflict of interest. That is why the Prime Minister is wrong to continually pretend that it might be only the perception of a conflict of interest, because it is a conflict of interest. The Cabinet Office prohibits conflicts of interest that benefit Ministers or their family members or close associates. That is what conflict of interest rules are meant to prevent. They are meant to prevent the private benefit going to a Minister or their family or close associates.

We had the Minister of Police, Anne Tolley, another person in charge of the justice system, and she said that the Minister of Justice has been open. What the Minister of Justice said was that she had a short cup of tea on the way to the airport. What the Minister did not do was put reference to that meeting, which was not a short cup of tea on the way to the airport, in her report back to Cabinet, and she hid the fact that she had an additional evening meeting with Oravida representatives and customs officials—

Hon Annette King: And dinner.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and dinner. She hid that. This conflict of interest is one in which the Minister has enriched her family through using her contacts for the benefit of Oravida. The first visit, an endorsement of Oravida, benefited it. It was used by Oravida to increase its sales—to make more money. That was a conflict of interest. That conflict of interest was for the benefit of Judith Collins’ family. A director of the company is her husband. That is a conflict of interest.

This conflict of interest also arises from the donations that the National Party accepted from Oravida in return for the favours that it gave Oravida. The favours included turning up for dinner and meeting with customs officials and Oravida in China. There are the benefits, which no doubt Oravida claims, from the photographs of the Prime Minister having a round of golf with the main owner of Oravida.

Hon Annette King: Not one.

Hon DAVID PARKER: A number of games of golf. These are actual conflicts of interest. What other things do we not believe here? Judith Collins said today in the House that there were no matters of business discussed at that dinner. I do not believe that. It is incredible that you would have customs officials there, against the background of melamine scandals and tainted milk coming from New Zealand, and that those sorts of issues would not be discussed at that meeting. I bet you that Judith Collins was there saying: “You can trust New Zealand milk that’s coming from Oravida, because we’ve got good systems.” Does anyone in this House really think that those discussions did not take place? I bet they did. These are real conflicts of interest.

Then we have got the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said: “The Cabinet Office didn’t consider that to be an endorsement.” But he will not release its advice. I bet that the Prime Minister is misrepresenting the Cabinet Office. I cannot believe that the Cabinet Office would tell the Prime Minister that even the first bit that was known to him was legitimate. The Cabinet Office would have been saying that it is wrong for a Cabinet Minister to be endorsing products, in China, from a company that her husband is a director of. The Cabinet Office would be saying that it is wrong to be out promoting a company that the National Party has taken donations from. I do not believe that the Cabinet Office said it was all kosher. I certainly now know that the Prime Minister said he was wrong when he said that the Cabinet Office had seen the translation from the Oravida website. He has since been forced to say that that is not the case and that the Cabinet Office had not seen it.

This is an actual conflict of interest, and if the Prime Minister says it is not, then he is effectively saying to New Zealand that the only conflict of interest in this matter is a bribe, and anything else is not a conflict of interest. There has got to be a bribe because there has been cash going to the National Party and favours back to Oravida. There have been appointments of directors that put money into the family of Judith Collins, and that is a conflict of interest. But the Prime Minister says: “No, it’s not, because it’s not a direct bribe.” Well, I am sorry, Mr Prime Minister. It might not be convenient to him, but conflicts of interest go further than just bribes, and this is plainly one. To have the Minister of Police stand up and defend it, the Prime Minister defend it, and Bill English refuse to address it is disgraceful, because this is a disgrace. It is an actual conflict of interest, and this Minister should be forced to resign. Why is she not? Because this is business as usual for the National Party.

This is the tip of the iceberg. We know that there is this cronyism rife within the National Party. Its members get these secret donations from their mates at the big end of town, and they deal them back favours. This time they have been caught. But it is the thin end of the wedge, the tip of the iceberg, because this is business as usual under this Government, where the rich get richer and everyone else gets a stagnant position. This is why inequality and fairness are the issues for this election. The electorate knows that that is what is happening in New Zealand. This Government serves the big end of town, and everyone else can worry about themselves. Under Labour, this will not happen. Everyone will get a fair deal, and conflicts of interest will be called conflicts of interest.

I have one final point. Why has Judith Collins not taken a call? I have been in a similar situation. In fact, I resigned. I took a call. I was willing to come here and defend myself and put the truth out there. Judith Collins is not to be seen, Bill English will not address the issues, and the Minister of Police is defending Judith Collins, saying that she has been open. What a disgrace—what a disgrace.

I cannot understand that the Prime Minister will not concede that this is an actual conflict of interest, not some perception of a conflict of interest. This is a situation where the Minister’s family benefits from Oravida doing better—it benefits from Oravida doing better. That is what the endorsement was about. That is what the meeting with customs officials was about. That is why they are conflicts of interest. It is truly that simple. This is improper behaviour by the Minister, for the benefit of her family, that she tried to cover up. The Prime Minister then tried to cover it up, and the Prime Minister, even now, says it is only an alleged conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest and not an actual conflict of interest.

There would not be any clearer case than this. I cannot think of a clearer case. The Prime Minister is saying that effectively there has to be a bribe before there is any conflict of interest. That is effectively the standard he is saying. I cannot think of a more clear case of a conflict of interest than doing something that benefits a company of which your husband is a director. As a Minister she went to China. She had these meetings. She did not put them in her report to Cabinet. That is quite in contrast to her earlier reports to Cabinet. She said: “Oh, it’s because it was only a little cup of tea.” What about the dinner at night with the customs officials and her own ministerial staff, whom she said were there as friends, not as ministerial representatives? What a nonsense.

This is a bit like Peter Dunne saying, when he leaked the report, that he was acting as a member, not as a Minister, and therefore the emails between him and others are not able to be disclosed under the Official Information Act. We have all this dissembling on behalf of the other side, but the truth is that this is dirty. This is a conflict of interest. The Minister acted for the benefit of her family and for the benefit of the National Party. The National Party does not even think it is wrong, because it is business as usual, according to its standards.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): When you cannot win a game of rugby through strategy, through skill, through talent, and through putting points on the scoreboard, you resort to dirty tactics. You resort to punching people in the ruck and kicking them while they are on the ground. I will say it again. When you cannot win a game of rugby by putting points on the scoreboard and through talent and through teamwork, you resort to kicking people in the guts. What we are seeing today is Labour Party members wallowing at the bottom of the ruck, and, my goodness, they are good at it. They love the bottom of the ruck. They love to put the punch in and to scream at the ref and say that it is not fair. They are truly excellent at this style of politics.

Labour Party members are not winning the game. They have not got the talent and they are not putting the points on the scoreboard. It is pretty clear. If you look at the points on the scoreboard right now, in the polls National is at 48, 49, or 50 percent, and Labour is wallowing in the late 20s and maybe the early 30s if they are lucky. There is no new talent coming in to the party. Those members are at the bottom of the ruck, punching, kicking, and fighting. There is not any new policy out there—nothing that it can win this election with that is gaining any momentum on the scoreboard for Labour.

I stand here proudly today to speak on behalf of one of my team members in the National Party, and that is Judith Collins. I am proud to have been a junior member working under Minister Judith Collins for the last year. This is a woman, a strong woman, who has come in here, into what has been a man’s world in Parliament over the last thirty or forty decades, and has stood up and answered the challenge. She has climbed to the top of politics and has delivered for this country, like few other women have. She has done an outstanding job.

I just want to go through some of the things that she has done.

Andrew Williams: How many cars did she crush?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Andrew Williams, do not talk to me about what you have achieved, mate. People who piddle under lemon trees should just shut up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is unparliamentary and I will ask the member just to be very mindful of those sorts of comments.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The Minister whom I proudly speak of today has made huge achievements in Parliament. She has put significant points on the scoreboard for us. She has successfully led the justice sector. She has achieved the lowest crime rate in 33 years. She has overseen the modernisation of the courts system. She has introduced alcohol law reforms. She has introduced tougher sentencing and parole. These are things that the Labour Party talked about but never delivered. Minister Judith Collins has delivered them. She has delivered tougher bail laws for this country, and she has had a huge focus on improving victims’ rights.

I am proud to have been part of the team here that has had Judith Collins in it. She has done a wonderful job for this country and also when she has been overseas representing the country, taking this country forward. That is one of the reasons we see growth now in this country, which is taking this country to new heights. So I am proud to have been a member working with Judith Collins. She has done a great job. She does not need to be wallowing at the bottom of the ruck like members of the Labour Party and New Zealand First, who cannot get points on the scoreboard. They now see this as their opportunity to see some daylight. Bad luck, guys; it is not going to happen.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

PAUL GOLDSMITH (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2014. The John Key - led Government heads to the 20 September general election firmly focused on the issues that matter to our community, to all Kiwis: a stronger economy and more jobs, better front-line health and education services, a safer New Zealand, and rebuilding Christchurch. That is what I want to talk about today, and that is what most New Zealanders are concerned about.

The National-led Government’s programme to build a faster-growing economy with more jobs and rising incomes is delivering positive results for all New Zealanders. Updated forecasts in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and Budget Policy Statement issued in December show a relatively strong upturn with expected economic growth reaching 3.6 percent in 2015 and the unemployment rate falling. Although the recovery is gathering momentum, the global environment still remains uncertain. We have only to look at the events in Ukraine and Russia over the past few weeks to see how fragile the world is. Markets have largely shrugged off those geopolitical scares so far, but we do not know how things will pan out in the next few months, so we do need to take all care. In this environment it is important to maintain clear and credible economic and fiscal settings. This is the best way to create new jobs, raise incomes, and help families to get ahead.

The latest forecasts show the Government posting a modest operating surplus before gains and losses of $86 million in 2014-15, similar to the $75 million surplus forecast in Budget 2013. Surpluses are then forecast to increase over the next 2 years, debt is forecast to fall, and net core Crown debt is expected to peak at 26 percent of GDP in 2014-15 before falling to 16.9 percent in 2019-20. The National-led Government remains committed to responsible long-term fiscal management, and that is why I fully support all the figures that are outlined in the Budget Policy Statement.

By the way, I just wanted to talk about some comments I came across in the Australian Financial Review yesterday in its review of the New Zealand situation. There was a quote from the Australian Financial Review that said, speaking of New Zealand: “A new Labour government, if it kept its promises (NZ Power, NZ Assure, Kiwibuild), would likely be the most interventionist Labour government since well before the Roger Douglas led pro-market reforms of the 1980’s”—i.e., if Labour followed the policies that it has announced so far, it would be heading back to Bill Rowling’s days or worse than that.

Funnily enough—I was doing some digging around—the Labour Party, when it was formed in 1916, was all about nationalising the means of production, distribution, and exchange. The party got around to dropping that in 1954. I took the time to have a look at the Labour policy platform that was signed off at the November 2013 conference last year. David Parker’s introduction to that policy platform said that it is binding: “The Platform is binding on the Party, including the Caucus. It will guide the creation of the manifesto …” for next year. So what does that include? On the question of equality it says: “Our vision of a just society is founded on equality and fairness. Labour believes that social justice means that all people should have equal access to social, economic, cultural, political, and legal spheres regardless of wealth, gender, ethnicity, or social position.” Well, I think most people could basically agree with that.

It continues: “Labour says that no matter the circumstances of our birth, we are each accorded equal opportunity to achieve our full potential in life.” Again, I think most people would agree with that. But that is not where it ends, because in the Labour Party policy platform it says: “We believe in more than just equal opportunities—we believe in equality of outcomes.” Equality of outcomes—Labour has not learnt the most basic lesson of history, that the equality of outcomes can be achieved only through extreme force and by massively increasing the power of bureaucrats and the State, and that the outcome generally, universally, in those situations has been disastrous. Some people work hard; some do not. Some are lucky; some are not. Some are talented in music and sport and science; others have talents elsewhere. Some make wise choices in their personal lives; some do not. Some people smoke; some do not. Some have five kids with five different partners; some do not. They all lead to very different outcomes, so how can the State alter the natural outcomes of the diversity of life—that is something that the Labour Party is very keen on, diversity—so that all the outcomes are the same?

By outcomes I am not quite sure what the Labour Party means. Does it mean that all are as wealthy as each other, or all have the same incomes, or all are as happy as each other or live as long as each other? I am not sure where it is all heading, but I would be very interested to hear from Mr Cunliffe as to what he means by “achieving equality of outcomes” in New Zealand. The only way you get there, historically, is by using massive amounts of force. I am sure that that is not what Labour is proposing, but I would like to know what it is proposing. That is the problem we face here today. New Zealanders up and down the country are scratching their heads and trying to work out what it is that Labour actually stands for. Talk is cheap—fine words and sentiments, but there is no basis to them. What is Labour really saying? What is David Cunliffe really saying? What is he, really? Is he a raging left-wing union reformer or is he a more moderate, business-friendly man? Nobody really knows.

So if we just run through a few of the contradictions in what they are saying, we hear Labour members talking about power prices going up and being very concerned about power prices going up—notwithstanding the fact that they went up twice as fast when Labour was last in power—and yet they champion an emissions trading scheme on steroids that would inevitably lead to higher power prices. So which one is it? Are they concerned about it or are they quite happy to increase power prices? It is the same with housing affordability. They say that they are very deeply concerned about housing affordability, particularly in Auckland, yet the single most important thing with housing affordability is interest rates. This Government, by constraining new spending on government to $1 billion a year and being highly disciplined in Government spending and fiscal policy, has kept a lid on interest rates. It has kept them lower than they would otherwise have been. But when the Labour Government was in power, it was splurging around $3 billion a year in new spending, stoking the fire of inflation and stimulating the economy like nobody’s business. The result was that interest rates were nearly 11 percent. So Labour members go on about housing affordability, yet Labour’s record was to greatly increase interest rates. They talk nobly, but their actions achieve the exact opposite.

In the meantime, the Greens go on about housing affordability, but they support, promote, and push for at every opportunity highly restrictive planning policies that artificially increase the value of land. Labour goes along saying: “Me too.” in that area. It is the same on the question of poverty. We know that the best way out of poverty is work, and yet Labour and the Greens oppose every aspect of our welfare policies, which are designed on the principle that everybody can do something and should do something, and that the best thing they can do is get back to work.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Where are the jobs?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is where we have the contradictions that we have to make our way through in this Government.

We have had a good start to the year in terms of the economy. Things are going very well, but a successful rebalancing will require consistent and positive change over the next few years. The New Zealand economy has continued to expand through 2013, growing at 3.5 percent a year into September, despite the severe drought that we have had and significantly reduced growth in the first half of 2013. This was amongst one of the higher rates in the developed world.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Where are the pay rises?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Let us not forget, when we talk about where the jobs are, which I heard from over on the other side, that there have been more and more jobs. There are 66,000 more people employed now than a year ago, and the unemployment rate is at 6 percent. It is still too high, but it is dropping as the economy gathers strength, in contrast to what is happening in Australia. Budget 2014-15 will continue this.

It is the consistency of the way that the Government has been approaching the situation over the past 5 years that has given the confidence that businesses have needed in order to invest and to create jobs. It is the consistency about the four priorities that we have had: responsibly managing the finances and getting back to surplus, pushing ahead with a wide range of microeconomic reforms to increase the productivity and competitiveness of the economy, driving better results through Better Public Services, and supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch. People know where they stand with National. They do not know where they stand with Labour. On that basis, I affirm this Budget Policy Statement. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): In this Budget Policy Statement, National will say: “We are the party of business.” The truth, as we can all see laid bare, is that to National, politics is a business. It is a business where the coinage of the day is its relationships with the rich and the powerful—the interests of the few, which it defends. It is seen in the big things like Warner Bros and Skycity and MediaWorks. It is seen in what might initially have looked like littler things, like a Minister’s visit to China, where she happened to endorse the products of a company of which her husband is a director and that gave her party a tidy $56,000 donation. But then it gets more complicated because, as usual, it is not the initial pitfall that takes National out; it is the way it deals with it. The way it has dealt with this is to hide from the public, to obfuscate, and to delineate between what the public should know and what it has been prepared to say. The Prime Minister has got to the point where, No. 1, he has told untruths to the country—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We have just had an hour and a half’s debate, an urgent debate, on the matters that you are talking about. I just ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to this debate. It is on the Budget Policy Statement 2014. So this is what we are actually debating, and I ask the member to come back to that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The numbers contained in the Budget Policy Statement are the outcome of economic and commercial processes that respond to the rules set by this Government. They have been set by this Government in the interests of some of the most powerful members of the business community, not in the interests of all New Zealanders. I will not go on for the whole of this speech about the mishaps that the Minister of Justice has faced or committed. I will not go on about the fact that the Prime Minister has misled the country or that he should have sacked the Minister today but he could not summon the courage to do so. I will not go on about that. But I will conclude this part of my remarks by making clear that this is not the first time that this National Government has fallen for the interests of the powerful, and it will not be the last.

This is the tip of an iceberg known as crony capitalism, and it is wrong. It is wrong in its effect. It is wrong for its victims, and their names are everywhere. They are the one in four children in this country growing up in poverty. One in four of our children is growing up in poverty while this Government protects the interests of the wealthiest few from the normal processes of business or the normal conventions of good governance. It has got to stop, and it will stop. It is going to stop on 20 September 2014, when New Zealanders get a new beginning and a new start and a new Government.

The Government crows that it might finally, for the first time in 5 long years, get the books in the black. Well, we remain to be convinced, because for the last 3 months the actual numbers have been nowhere near the projections. They are $600 million short so far this year. But even if the Government does get the books in the black, we ask the question: who would not? It has a 20-year high of dairy prices and a $30 billion insurance payout for Christchurch. Frankly, a trained monkey could balance this Budget, because it ought not to be hard. But I have forgotten—Labour ran nine surpluses in a row; National has run four deficits. National members would not know a surplus if they tripped over one.

But the worst of the Government’s problems are actually not what it has done, and that takes some beating—those tax cuts for the rich, remember, and the GST for everybody else. The worst of this Government’s problems embedded in this Budget Policy Statement are what it has not done. Business people say to me that even if you give the Government credit for taking the ship through some rough waters in the global financial crisis, it has no plan for the future. The Government has no strategy. It has no vision. It does not know where it is going, so the rest of the country does not know either.

Where does the Government need to be going? It needs a plan for better jobs and higher wages. It needs a plan to take New Zealand from thinking about volume to thinking about value and to work with our primary sectors to increase investment, to increase innovation, to increase skills, and to increase productivity, so that we can increase returns and increase wages. That is the strategic approach that the incoming Labour-led Government will take.

What are the core elements of that approach? Firstly, let us recognise that we live in an economy that is starved of capital and is, year upon year, building up net international debt to a point where it is now around the whole of New Zealand’s GDP—75 percent. It is a shocker. And what it is made up of is roughly 85 percent private debt and only 15 percent Government debt. So even if National manages to fluke its way to a Government surplus, that would not change the answer—the economy is still going backwards. The only way to save that is with a savings system that increases our savings rate, with a superannuation system that is sustainable, and with a tax system that encourages innovation, not speculation. That means a capital gains tax, an essential platform for taking New Zealand forward because it backs out of distortion that favours property investment at the expense of business investment.

Hon David Parker: Why won’t they do that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Well, maybe Oravida will not let it, or maybe it is people like Oravida or the property speculators who are driving this Government. We have to get this economy moving on its stalled journey from volume to value.

Maggie Barry: Secret trusts—“No Credibility Cunliffe”.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Oh, well, there is a member who is conveniently turning a blind eye to the fact that there were apparently 21 donors at an Antoine’s Restaurant dinner. While this member says to any donors: “Open up and be frank with the public or you have your money back.”, John Key says: “No, I won’t reveal a single donor. I won’t give a single dollar back.” Why would he? He has got his Ministers scouring the world doing favours for companies and taking money on the backhander. That is a shocker—that is a shocker. If that member cannot recognise a conflict of interest when it walks like one, talks like one, and stinks like one, well, she just needs to watch the 6 o’clock news tonight, because it will be writ large for everybody in New Zealand to see.

New Zealanders demand better standards from Ministers than John Key does, and they demand better standards from a Prime Minister than he is delivering. If he is so out of touch with New Zealanders that he thinks he can get away with a blind eye and a wet bus ticket to a Minister of Justice who is neither ministerial nor just, then he has got another think coming.

Hon David Parker: An economy which works for everyone.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: We want an economy that works, as my excellent finance spokesperson and deputy leader has said, for everyone, not just for the few. That has to be an economy with fairness and opportunity for all—for the kids growing up in poverty as well as for the kids growing up at the top end of town. That is opportunity and fairness for every New Zealander. It means a good school. It means a warm, dry roof over their homes. It means an affordable house. It means a health system people can count on. And it means opportunities for training and, above all, for good jobs—for good jobs that lead to better wages.

New Zealanders are sick of this Government’s dead-end economy. This is a Government that cares more about its own books than New Zealanders’ books. It is a Government that is feathering its own nest—those of its friends, its families, and its party—not New Zealanders’. This Labour-led Government will be a Government for change, a Government for social justice, and a Government for development. It is time we had a long, hard look at the New Zealand economy if we want the next Budget Policy Statement to be better than this one.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): The only thing going backwards in this House is that member’s popularity. “Mr Tricky David Cunliffe” is an individual who rants and raves and stampedes and makes very loud statements about everything. What has he actually achieved as the leader of the Labour Party this year? Very little. He has gone backwards. His own party does not trust him. This is a guy who trumpeted in this House for such a long time that we needed to reform legislation in relation to donations that effectively precluded the use of trusts. So what did he do? He established a trust for his leadership battle. The other contenders were honest enough about their trusts, but he was not. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

As we head towards the 20 September election, it is time to put aside the distracting antics of the relentlessly negative Opposition parties—the uneasy and motley alliance of tired old Labour, which is really bereft of ideas and energy. It wants to borrow more. It wants to spend more than we can afford. And then it wants to raise taxes through the roof. Then there is the increasingly rancid Greens, who do not represent the environmental and conservation concerns that their name might suggest. I will talk a little bit about that later in my call.

Let us focus at the moment on the issue that really does matter to our communities and to this country, and that is a stronger economy. As others have said, we are on track for getting the books back into surplus. There are more jobs now because of the strong economy—66,000 more people are employed now than there were a year ago. There are more of them. There are better front-line health and education services and we have a much safer New Zealand. I intend for my call here today to examine the good progress that this John Key - led National Government has achieved. We have a very busy legislative agenda, which we are sticking to, and a very clear plan that we are also sticking to.

In the area I represent, on Auckland’s North Shore, we are very well aware of the advantages of building a stronger economy. We appreciate that unemployment is down to 6 percent and is trending in the right direction—downwards—and that is because of the more competitive and more productive economy. It all traces back to that. Those are the sorts of issues that New Zealanders are most concerned about. They are not distracted by the antics and the sideshow pony tricks of the Opposition forces, such as they are.

Interest rates, as we know, are at a 50-year low. Government spending is well under control. Inflation is currently running at 1.6 percent, and that is much better than it was when we inherited the Treasury benches back in 2008, when it was over 5 percent. On a day-to-day level, we know that we are living in safer communities, with the lowest reported crime in 33 years. Some trends are on the up and up, even going through the roof. Business confidence is at its highest level in 20 years. The economy grew at 3.5 percent in the past year, and we do not want to put that at risk. The economy is doing well, but it is a fragile recovery, and this Government is committed to ensuring that it continues.

Let us look at a specific group: the seniors. This Government is making sure that older New Zealanders have the security, the well-being, and the overall respect that they deserve—our seniors who have worked hard and really do deserve to enjoy their retirement. We have recognised that in many tangible ways over the past 5 years.

Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY: Yes, that is quite all right, Chris Auchinvole. You do appreciate it as a man over 65, in your prime. The net rate of superannuation for married couples is up 25 percent in the past 5 years. That is up by an extra $183 a fortnight, and the single living alone payment has increased by more than $125 a fortnight. Since the last Labour Government in 2008 the Consumer Price Index has increased by 12 percent. With the net rate for superannuation up by 25 percent, that does represent a much faster rate of increase for seniors than for any other beneficiaries in New Zealand. New Zealand’s faster economic growth has certainly benefited our seniors, and they deserve it.

This year we are investing $1.55 million on aged care. That is an increase of more than 60 percent on what Labour spent back in 2008. We are spending more on people in aged care—on respite care, on carer support, and on new clinical assessment tools for older New Zealanders. That is really going to make a difference to the quality of life of our older people. I feel, in particular, that it is commendable what we have done around Alzheimer’s, with the amount of money that we have put into that. My own mother had a long journey with dementia, and I was very upset to see the lack of advocacy for many of those older people who did not have friends and family to keep an eye on them. For 12 years I was patron of the organisation Alzheimers Wellington, and I know very well how difficult it has been to raise public awareness as well as to raise necessary funds. So I am very proud, indeed, that we have put more money into this important area.

At the moment in New Zealand there are 48,000 New Zealanders who suffer from some form of dementia to some degree. By 2050 that will have tripled to 150,000 New Zealanders. It is increasing at a rate of 4 percent a year. We have labelled dementia as a priority. We have put $100 million specifically towards services like home support, so that people with dementia-related conditions can stay in their homes for longer, and so that the people who care for them can have more support and better training to be able to do well the jobs that they do and to do them even better. To me it is not just a matter of clinical care; it is also a matter of having people attracted to that profession who have compassion, because that is one of the many qualities that is required.

Dementia bed subsidies have increased by 25 percent over the past 5 years. We have allocated $3.2 million in the last Budget to something I have been very involved in for a very long time, which is the early diagnosis of dementia. Unless you realise and know and understand what to look for, it is quite easy to miss those initial signs of dementia and not see it until it is too late, and to perhaps misunderstand the symptoms and misunderstand the behaviour changes that do occur. So there is a need to put money into raising awareness and making people aware of how they can get support and what they need to tap into from an early stage. There is a thing called Cuppa for a Cause, which Alzheimer’s New Zealand has just relaunched. When I was part of it back in 1993, we were jumping out of planes, with parachutes and people strapped to our backs, to raise awareness of dementia. It is something that has gradually been occurring over the years. I commend Alzheimer’s New Zealand for coming together and trying very hard to make mainstream New Zealanders, whose lives have perhaps not been touched by this yet, more aware of what is required. Fund-raising is needed—that is true—but to me raising awareness is the thing that needs to happen.

There are other initiatives as well that are helping older New Zealanders get quality of life. The SuperGold card, from very humble beginnings, has certainly been improved on. Since 2010 this National Government has invested more than $68 million in this scheme, and as of last week there are now more than 11,000 businesses involved, including transport, retail, dentists, pharmacy, and utilities services. For those seniors who can afford to and who have a mind to go overseas, reciprocal arrangements are now in place so that our over-65s can also receive a range of commercial discounts that the Australian seniors receive there.

When I look at environment and conservation, I see as well a Government that has really put its money where its mouth is and that has also endeavoured to make sure that the regulations, the controls, and the penalties are in place so that our environment is protected. It would be foolish not to explore what our potential is when it comes to oil and gas. We need to see what is there. Anadarko has not had much success in Taranaki. There may or may not be oil reserves off Canterbury and Otago. Indeed we do hope so, but it is prudent to find out. If they do find that there are oil reserves that are worth doing, there will be full public hearings to ascertain what needs to be done before those permits are actually granted. That is an enormous improvement on what Labour did. There were more than 35 grants given through just the signature of a Minister, to ensure that wells could be dug and drilled. There were not any provisions, there were not any safeguards, and there were no penalties and fines put in place. Labour compounded that problem, along with its cronies in the Green Party, by not supporting the exclusive economic zone legislation. We have now put in place very good measures and provisions—$10 million fines and so forth—for people who do not do what they are supposed to do.

I would hope that when you look at us on balance as a Government and see what we are doing with marine reserves, you would see that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has certainly made huge gains here. We are effectively expanding our protected territorial sea from 7 percent to 9.5 percent, which is very close to New Zealand’s target of 10 percent. That is part of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. There is our Coastal Policy Statement, our benchmarks for water and how we need to maintain water treatment and to clean up the waterways, which have really over a very long period of time degraded and deteriorated, so it is important that we ensure that these things continue.

When it comes to the war on 1080, I think once again we have led the charge there. The battle for our birds ensures that we will be able to cut through some of the more emotive arguments that have surrounded this space in the 20 to 30 years that I have been involved and interested in horticulture and conservation. The 1080 aerial drops are the weapon that we need to ensure that our New Zealand native birds do not perish—2.5 million of them die annually and we do not want that to continue. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): There is a rumour going around Auckland that the seat that the National Party is going to throw to Colin Craig is North Shore—North Shore—

Maggie Barry: Yeah, right!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yeah, right! Well, we will see. That is the rumour. They do not want to protect you, Maggie. Colin Craig is coming for your seat, they say. Devonport has had enough of Maggie and it is going to go to Colin Craig. Well, time will tell.

That is another example of how the National Party manipulates things for the benefit of the few. It is manipulating MMP for its own benefit and also we see it manipulating the way the New Zealand economy is run for the 2 or 3 percent at the top of society. That is going to be an essential issue at this next election. Do voters want to continue with the National Party and see the rewards going disproportionately to the top 2 or 3 percent, or do they want to have a Labour Party under which everyone will get their fair share? Everybody will be expected to do their share of the work, but everyone will get their fair share of the rewards under a Labour Government.

Under National and under the policies that it has pursued, this is clearly not the case. The list is such a long one it proves the point, and people know it. We had National doing the special deal for Skycity. We had the special deal for Rio Tinto down at the smelter, where it was bailed out for 30 million bucks and the Government did not even get a jobs guarantee. Why did it do that? It did that in order to sell the State-owned enterprises, the power companies that used to be owned by all New Zealanders, to less than 2 percent of the population, and, in the process, privatise the value of New Zealand’s rivers, which drive all our cheap hydro that we pay ever-increasing amounts for because it privatised them to less than 2 percent of New Zealand and to some overseas shareholders.

What else has National done? Well, crony capitalism does not come any clearer than it has this week with what has been going down with the National Party and Judith Collins and Oravida. There is $56,000 of donations to the National Party, Judith Collins’ husband being appointed a director, off to China, promoting while you are a Minister—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have had an urgent debate on this matter. This is the Budget Policy Statement debate and we are not going to regress to a subject that we have dealt with. The member can—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not notice when you came to the Chair, but I was listening to Maggie Barry—

Maggie Barry: That makes a nice change.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I do occasionally, but I was listening to Maggie Barry, who devoted a large proportion of her speech to the matter of trusts and where money came from. That was also a matter that was transgressed in the previous debate, and for you to rule that money that we are currently allocating as part of a process for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to give Cabinet advice to the Prime Minister—whether that can be debated or not, as part of this policy statement—cannot be debated would be a very radical decision.

My view is that we are debating the process, which includes the money for the Prime Minister’s advice, and therefore we should be able to refer to the quality of that advice and what the Prime Minister does with it.

Maggie Barry: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance. Well, I can just assure the member I have been paying attention to the entire proceedings this afternoon, and of course any comparative situations can be raised if they are pertinent to the current debate. What I am saying is that we are not going to transgress or shift back into material generally around a subject that we have debated. It needs to be pertinent.

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I was saying, under this Government we have an economy run for the top 2 or 3 percent. We have crony capitalism that is rife, and I have instanced a number of examples that overwhelmingly prove the case. If you want more proof, what about housing? There are decreasing rates of homeownership because a few people own a lot of houses and fewer young people can afford to buy one. That is another example of how this Government is running the economy in the interests of a few at the expense of the many. Under Labour it will be different. We have got a housing plan that will substantially change that.

Why will the National Government, in the face of rampant house price inflation, not tax capital gains, excluding the owner-occupied home, like just about everywhere else does in the world? It is because it is protecting the top 2 or 3 percent, whom it so plainly acts for, who own multiple houses. So while the top 2 or 3 percent do disproportionately well, we have got flat-lining wages for most workers. The Government comes along and uses an average. What that average hides is the fact that most of the gains are going to the people at the top. Indeed, if you look at the amount that is paid differently from year to year for 1 hour of work, it did not go up any more than the rate of inflation—it went up 1.6 percent for that same hour’s work for 1 year compared with when we had inflation at 1.6 percent.

Look at power prices. Having privatised these State-owned enterprises, having transferred what was previously owned by all New Zealanders to that small section of New Zealanders, we have got power price increases and we have got the rewards of cheap generation from our hydro rivers being captured by the 3 percent who have bought shares. We have got rents going up, we have got widening gaps between the rich and the poor, we have got increasing rates of child poverty, and the Government has not got a plan to change that.

Well, in the Labour Party we have. It is a very significant plan that will bring about a fair economy that works for everyone. David Cunliffe has already spoken of it. It will improve the amount of capital that we have got to invest in our businesses by having a compulsory KiwiSaver scheme so that there is more money saved in the New Zealand economy and we are less reliant on imported capital. That does not suit the National Party members. Their end of town is quite suited to more imported capital coming in. They like the concentration of wealth that happens from year to year in New Zealand. We do not. We want to save more in New Zealand.

It was us in the Labour Party who created KiwiSaver, with the support of Winston Peters and others, with the support of the Greens—I hope—and with the opposition of the National Party. So, in addition to building more capital, growing New Zealand savings through a universal KiwiSaver, we are going to make sure it is spent in the right part—not in the speculative part of the economy where National’s cronies hang out, not in the area where, disproportionately, the top 2 or 3 percent who own multiple houses hang out—[Interruption]—or own big farms like David Bennett, who is interjecting on me but does not want to pay capital gains tax.

No, National will not bring about a capital gains tax because it does not suit its members, or the interest groups that back it. Nevertheless, we will, because we know that that will direct capital into the higher incomes and jobs that we need as a country in order to lift productivity and lift the wages and salaries of those people who work there.

This means that we need to invest more in the further processing of, for example, our forestry exports. Why is it that we are sending so many logs offshore unprocessed? The answer, in large part, is because of the poor Government policy. Who suffers in respect of that? It is the New Zealanders who do not have well-paid jobs working in the forest-processing industry. Who benefits from the current settings? It is the small proportion of wealthy New Zealanders, particularly the overseas corporates that now own our forests, that is sending our logs off overseas.

Who also benefits from these settings are the likes of Oravida. You do not like me talking about this, Mr Speaker, but I am afraid I have got to, because Oravida’s interests are being pursued by the National Government and on behalf of the National Government by Judith Collins, as a Minister, going overseas and promoting the interests of Oravida, which will make Oravida a wealthier company because it will improve its sales. That is why Oravida wanted Judith Collins to endorse its products, and that is why Oravida skited about the fact that a Minister in the New Zealand Government endorsed its products. That was for the benefit of the big end of town. There can never be a clearer example. It was for the benefit of Oravida, it was for the benefit of the National Party, which got a $56,000 donation, and it was for the benefit of Judith Collins’ own family—her husband being a director of the company. Under the current Government, you get it acting for the big end of town, while everyone else is flat-lining or going backwards. Under the Labour Government, you will get an economy that works for everyone, and everyone will get their fair share.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party. I think it is important—just to frame this debate around the Government’s economic management and fiscal management—that we are coming up to an election on 20 September. Of course, the Green Party will be putting up an alternative to the Government’s economic and fiscal strategy at that election that could be summarised as being that we need a smarter, greener, more compassionate Government than the one we have.

I think that when you look at the economic and fiscal policies of this Government, you get a sense of how badly it is doing. I wanted to talk about one way in which National has been consistent over all of these years, because I think consistency is an important value, and that is with regard to debt reduction. From 1999 to 2004 the National Party consistently opposed debt reduction at every opportunity. At every Budget from 1999 to 2008, when it was in Opposition, it opposed debt reduction. It said that the surpluses the Government had should be given away as tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders. National, from 1999 to 2008, when it was in Opposition, said that surpluses should be given away as tax cuts rather than being used to pay debt. John Key and Bill English put out press releases saying that the surpluses should be given away as tax cuts rather than being used to pay down Government debt.

Fortunately, the parties that had the dominant position in the House during those years—which, I think, probably were New Zealand First, the Greens, and Labour—were able to vote for Budgets that reduced debt. That meant that when there was the global financial crisis, the Government of the day was in a position and had some fiscal headroom to deal with the challenges it faced. We would not have had that had we taken the advice of Bill English, John Key, and the National Party because they consistently said from 1999 to 2008: “Don’t use the surpluses to pay down debt; use the surpluses to give tax cuts to the wealthy.” Fortunately, everyone ignored the National Party.

Then there was a change of Government. Since the change of Government, National has consistently advocated for increased debt. So every Budget since National took over has been a deficit Budget, which has increased the Government’s debt—every Budget. Throughout the entire period of 1999 to 2014, a 15-year period, National has consistently opposed every effort to reduce debt. That is quite an achievement in terms of consistency—it has consistently opposed it. Since National has been in Government, since it took over the Government benches, it has borrowed $50 billion to $60 billion.

So you think, well, there was a global financial crisis and there was a Christchurch earthquake, so there was reason to borrow money, and there is certainly some truth in that, but it was borrowing money for other things as well. Let me give you an example. National is borrowing $1.1 billion a year—that is, $1,100 million per year—to pay for the tax cuts for the top 10 percent of income earners, which are the tax cuts that National introduced right in the middle of the crisis, in 2010. When National became the Government after advocating for all those years to increase, not reduce, debt, it immediately threw the Budget into a big hole by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country at an ongoing cost—we are still paying for this—of $1.1 billion every year, which is a big hole in the Budget. You would have to say National has been entirely consistent over this 15-year period in increasing debt and advocating for increases in Government debt. Then when it got an opportunity to be in the Government, it actually managed to do it—a $52 billion increase in debt since it has taken over the Government benches. So it is a very consistent position from National.

I also wanted to talk more broadly about costs of living for people. We know that tomorrow the Reserve Bank may well increase interest rates—the official cash rate. We will find out in the morning. The two major drivers of inflation in the New Zealand economy at the moment are coming out of the housing market and coming out of the electricity market, or so-called market—it is not actually a market; it is a jack-up. But they are the two key drivers of increases in the CPI at the moment. It is the increase in inflation coming out of electricity and housing that is putting pressure on the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates.

The Government has persistently and consistently refused to take action to reduce increasing prices in housing and the increased prices in electricity. For example, in Auckland, since John Key became Prime Minister, house prices have gone up 44 percent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: There has been a 44 percent increase in house prices since John Key became Prime Minister. This is just after the global financial crisis. So in terms of electricity, since John Key became Prime Minister, prices have gone up 20 percent. What we have seen is very significant increases in the cost of living for ordinary New Zealanders. The National members opposite are laughing about this because they could not give a damn about ordinary New Zealanders. They are laughing about the fact that ordinary people are getting priced out of the housing market. Ordinary people are struggling to pay their electricity bills and National thinks it is funny and says there is nothing it can do about it.

National has made no efforts to deal with the inflationary pressures coming out of housing and electricity. The effect of that is that the Reserve Bank is very likely to put up interest rates tomorrow. Think about what that means for ordinary families. Not only can they thank National for the fact that house price inflation is out of control; they can thank National for electricity price inflation and their big bills in electricity, which are out of control. Also, their mortgage payments will go up because the National Government has failed to control inflationary pressure coming out of housing and electricity.

Instead, National has been defending the big electricity companies, the vertically integrated generator retailers, which have been pushing up the price of power. During the whole privatisation debate, the Green Party was saying if you go ahead with privatisation, the electricity companies will push to increase prices. Now what has happened? The National Government proceeded with privatisation, and all around the country people are getting bills in the mail telling them that the price of electricity is going to go up because National forced through privatisation on a single vote, opposed by most New Zealanders. Since privatisation, the price of electricity is rapidly escalating.

On top of that, National refuses to actually make sure there is competition in the electricity sector that could actually put competitive pressure on prices. The result of that is that ordinary New Zealand families are facing very significant pressures in terms of electricity bills, very significant pressures in terms of housing costs and rents, and soon-to-be-increased mortgage costs because the National Government has failed to deal with these problems because National protects the big electricity companies rather than protecting New Zealand households. That is the fundamental reality of our economy right now.

I want to now step back a little bit. We have talked about the fiscal performance of the National Party, which has been to consistently support increases in debt over a 15-year period. I have talked a little bit about the pressures that are coming on households as a result of National’s agenda and policy—increased electricity prices, increased housing prices, and soon-to-be-increased mortgage costs. I want to talk now about some of the macroeconomic indicators for the New Zealand economy. The Government has made a lot of the macroeconomic indicators of the economy. So let us put together two basic numbers. We are looking at the best terms of trade for the New Zealand economy in about 40 years—our best terms of trade. The terms of trade are not determined by the Government of the day; they are simply the prices for what we sell to the rest of the world, so they are controlled by the global economy. So the Government cannot take credit for the fact that we have the best terms of trade in 40 years. However, at the same time we have a current account deficit that is one of the highest in the OECD. It is over 4 percent of GDP—one of the worst current account deficits in the developed world—at the same time that we have some of the best export prices in several generations.

What does that tell you? Is this an economy that is performing well, when even at the best point, when prices are the highest, we are still running very significant current account deficits? How do you pay for a current account deficit? I have asked Ministers of Finance from National about this before; they do not know. The answer is there are two ways to pay for a current account deficit. Firstly, you borrow more—well, we have seen that the Government is doing quite a lot of that—or, secondly, you sell assets, and, well, we have seen quite a lot of the Government doing that.

Across the New Zealand economy more and more large corporations are falling into foreign ownership to pay for the current account deficit. So when you look at it at a macro level—that is, what is going on on the big scale for the New Zealand economy—we see that, actually, it is performing extremely poorly. Let me give you some other macro indicators—for example, the number of unemployed. There are 50,000 more unemployed than when John Key became Prime Minister. So in spite of all the talk from the Government about how well things are going, there are, in fact, more people unemployed than when John Key became Prime Minister—50,000 more unemployed.

Let us talk about manufacturing. Manufacturing exports are in decline in real terms, both simply transformed manufactures and elaborately transformed manufactures. That is the macro picture of a failure in fiscal and economic policy by this Government, and that is why we need a smarter, greener, and more compassionate Government. On 20 September, we are going to get one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Bennett.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, no.

DAVID BENNETT: Have you got something to say? No, he has got nothing to say. He has got the next 10 minutes, but he will not have anything to say. This is economic policy. I would like to hear what Winston Peters’ economic policy is. Do you know how Winston Peters’ speech will go? He will stand up and he will wait for someone to interrupt him—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will know, there is a procedure in this House, and there has been for a long time, that a member can request that the other member yield so the challenge he is making out can be met. He wants to hear me speak, so I am asking him to yield.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, it is.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not a point of order. It is up to the member on his feet to decide whether he wants to yield.

DAVID BENNETT: You see, the other part of his speech process is to do a point of order, because he cannot handle someone actually attacking him in this House, and so he has to raise a point of order to try to break it up. He is an old dog with some new tricks, but it is good to see him back. He has been here only 5 minutes but—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Call his bluff.

DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, nah, that is right. We will be interested to see his economic policy. I will tell you what his economic policy will be. It will be squat, it will be zero, it will be nothing. He has never had an economic policy. He never will and never could get one together. It is such a shame to see a politician of such longevity sit there in pain and not understand what he has got to do for the next 10 minutes. He will just try to abuse people personally instead of actually doing anything of any consequence.

Tracey Martin: Come on, Mr Bennett. Say something about the actual topic. Come on.

DAVID BENNETT: OK, I will. OK, let us have a look at the Green Party. The Green Party just spoke. It was Russel Norman, the economic guru, who said it was going to print money. Where has the printing money idea gone? The Green Party soon got rid of the idea of printing money. Or does it still secretly want to print money—is that what it really wants? Russel Norman came into this House year after year after year saying the Green Party would print money to solve New Zealand’s problems. Then, suddenly, Russel Norman worked out that it was a dumb move, and he stopped saying what he had said he would want to do, which was print money. Now he comes back in here with the next level of his agenda. He always talks about macroeconomic policy as if he were some economic guru who studied and got a doctorate in economics, when he has no idea of what is going on in the world economy or in the New Zealand economy. When he talks about debt reduction and inflation, let us look at the reality of what has gone on.

New Zealand has had to deal with the biggest recession since the 1930s, and we did not have this country go into depression. New Zealand has had to rebuild our second-biggest city. We have done all that at the same time as keeping our country’s economic finances under control and delivering a strong future going forward. We now have growth rates above 3 percent—the second-best in the Western World. That is the kind of economic management that New Zealanders wanted and got from this Government. It is not the kind of economic management that the Green Party and the Labour Party would deliver.

The Green Party talks about housing and electricity as the two big expenses that are causing inflation. Let us have a look at both of them. I will come back to housing when we talk about the Labour Party policy around capital gains tax, but let us talk about electricity first. The Green Party wants to bring in a carbon tax on New Zealanders—that $500 a year on everybody’s power bills that it wants to bring in around emissions trading. It has said that time and time again. What does that do to your power price? It puts your power price up. If it puts your power price up, under the Greens’ logic that means you have got higher inflation. That means you have got higher interest rates. The Green Party is saying that power prices have gone up 20 percent in the term of this Government; yes, they have. That is nothing compared with the 70 percent they went up under the previous Government. The Green Party would want to hike them up 70 percent in 3 years if it ever got near the Treasury benches, because it would do that for its emissions trading scheme. Get ready, New Zealanders: if you had a Labour-Greens Government you would have much higher power prices. That is the reality of the Greens’ economic policy.

Then we look at the Labour Party. It has talked about a capital gains tax.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Look at them.

DAVID BENNETT: Look at them—yes, what is left of the Labour Party there. A capital gains tax—if you go and talk to any international organisation like the IMF, it will talk about capital gains taxes, but it will talk about them as capital gains taxes across all assets, not just what the Labour Party is talking about, which is putting capital gains taxes just on the productive side of the New Zealand economy. Why would you want to tax the side of the New Zealand economy that produces the most income? Why would you want to tax businesses? Why would you want to tax the companies, which pay for jobs and provide the income for this country going forward, and exempt family homes? You exempt family homes under the Labour one, but you tax the productive part of the economy. That does not make a lot of sense.

When you go overseas, you look at countries that have a capital gains tax. Have they got lower house price inflation than New Zealand? No. In San Francisco last year the price went up 30 percent in 1 year. That is what you are dealing with. Sydney has got a large increase in the prices of homes, as well. They have both got a capital gains tax. It does not stop increases. It does not stop them.

Phil Twyford: We wouldn’t expect you to support a CGT.

DAVID BENNETT: That is Phil Twyford over there—the housing person for the Labour Party. He would have no idea. He is just doing what David Cunliffe told him to do. So if we look at it, the Green Party wants to put up power prices. It wants to put up power prices through its emissions trading scheme. The Labour Party wants to attack the productive part of New Zealand, and that is still not going to stop New Zealand property prices going up. That does not work in the economic sense.

Before I finish, I just want to talk about one local issue that is dear to my heart and dear to the hearts of the people of Waikato.

Hon Todd McClay: What’s that?

DAVID BENNETT: That is the Waikato Expressway. This country has got the ability to grow, and grow successfully, and we need the infrastructure to do that. When you look at the roads of national significance, the Waikato Expressway has got two contracts that come up in 2015 for two parts of that road, both of them around $600 million to $700 million: the Huntly and Hamilton bypasses. They need to be contracted in 2015, which is next year. The Labour Party and the Green Party, mark my words, will not commit to funding those projects. The people of Hamilton and the people of Waikato have the most to lose from this election. They have the most to lose from the National Government not being re-elected. If National does not get back in, those roads will not happen—those roads will not happen. There will be no economic growth plan for Hamilton going forward.

I see Nanaia Mahuta there. I bet you she will go back to Tainui and they will say they need that road for their inland port. Do they not? They do need it at Ruakura. I do not know how you can sit through those meetings with Tainui and say to them that you will not build the road that makes the biggest capital investment for that tribe going forward. That is the truth of what happens, and that is the truth of what will happen after this election if you get a Labour-Greens Government. The people of Hamilton and the Waikato will miss out. They will miss out on the golden opportunity they have in front of them to leap with Auckland into Tauranga. That will happen because Labour and the Greens will not build the roads. You say: “How do you know that, Dave? How do you know that they will not build them?”. Well, the Green Party has already pulled the plug on two that are signed up now, so it is certainly going to pull the plug on anything that is in the process of being signed up next year, is it not? The Labour Party does exactly what the Green Party wants to do when it comes to these things, because the Labour Party is under the hand and the fist of the Green Party when it comes to transport.

So I say to the members of the public out there that this is an important election. This is an important election because it is about the economic future of New Zealand. This is what the Budget Policy Statement is about. Are we willing to back a growing, strong economy? Or are we willing to vote for a Green Party that is going to put power prices up? Are we going to vote for a Labour Party that is going to put a capital gains tax in, which is its trump economic policy, and that will not actually achieve anything? Are you going to vote for a Labour-Greens Government that is going to hurt the people of Hamilton and the Waikato and deny them the future that they could have had under a National Government? That is why people will not vote for them.

Then there is a red herring. There is New Zealand First over there, which does not actually know what it will get if anyone votes for it. Its members would have no idea about economic policy. I bet you that Winston Peters is trying to look up what the Waikato Expressway is. He would not understand. That is the road to the future of Hamilton. If you ever visit, you will see how important it is. This is an election that is going to be about economic policy. The choice is clear. We have had good economic management, we have delivered good economic growth, we have reduced unemployment, and we have managed our finances in the most difficult of times. On the other side of the House you have weird and wonderful platforms that will actually increase the cost of living and that will not achieve the purpose that the Opposition says they will achieve. And the third party does not even have a platform. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): There is no better demonstration of how desperate and hopeless the National Party is than in the address of the last speaker, David Bennett. First of all, David Bennett, from Hamilton East, of course purchased farm after farm on tax avoidance. That is why he does not like—

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I request that he withdraw and apologise for those comments. I take offence at that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: On tax avoidance?

David Bennett: Yes.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, first of all—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the point of order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to explain why—

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot speak to the point of order when it is one of those comments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will determine that.

David Bennett: You know it is against the Standing Orders for him to raise a point of order in his speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the member is speaking to the point of order—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I am.

David Bennett: But it’s against—he can’t.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the Speaker says I can. The reality is that tax evasion is illegal—

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, tax evasion is illegal—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —but taking steps to avoid taxation is not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am asking you to sit. A point of order has been raised. The manner in which the member used the term is implying that the member is not an honourable member.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I didn’t say that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am ruling, so the member will—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, you are not. No you were not. I have no—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. Do not respond to me when I am on my feet. The member will desist from using terms that imply that the member is not an honourable member.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am remembered for taking on the wine-box conspirators. The issue there was not avoidance; it was evasion. I know the difference, and far more clearly than you do. I am not going to be ramrodded in this House on the basis of your lack of understanding.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the member casts an aspersion on the Speaker like that, his speech will be terminated. I have made a ruling. The member is not to imply issues that count against the honourableness of any member of this House. He may continue.

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have taken offence. To the member, I say that it does not matter whether it is evasion or avoidance. He needs to withdraw and apologise. That is the nature of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence, so the member Winston Peters will withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member will withdraw—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now writing the tax laws for this country, and saying that tax avoidance is illegal? That is what I am telling you, and that is what the wine-box inquiry was all about. Having spent 7 years on it, I am entitled to make that assertion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We have got to a situation where the apology has been accepted. The member may continue.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One of the reasons why Mr Bennett likes the Waikato Expressway is that, of course, it goes past one of his farms.

The Budget Policy Statement is a whitewash. It is a snow job. It fails utterly as a realistic description of New Zealand’s true economic and fiscal position. It has to be asked whether the Budget Policy Statement is designed to inform the public in an objective and disinterested way on economic policy, or whether it is just outright Government propaganda. The Budget Policy Statement is very sanguine—indeed, complacent—about the economic and fiscal outlook for our country.

This is all part and parcel of National’s orchestrated campaign to create a false sense of confidence and well-being about the economy prior to this year’s election. Well, New Zealand First is sorry to spoil the make-believe, but we prefer facts and they tell another story. First of all, after 5 years of a National Government, New Zealand’s economic fundamentals are still woeful. The structural weaknesses remain. Despite having the advantage of the best terms of trade in 40 years, as mentioned by members of the Opposition, ordinary New Zealanders are struggling to find decent jobs. There are almost 150,000 unemployed, and then there are tens and tens of thousands who simply have not got enough work. Our current account deficit is one of the worst in the OECD, with New Zealand’s net international debt a staggering $150 billion.

I want every National Party person over on that side of the House to explain to me how they can get up and say things are right when the net debt is a staggering $150 billion. In the Budget Policy Statement itself, the current account deficit is predicted to get worse. That statement has the current account deficit getting worse. It is going to grow to—listen to this—6.3 percent of GDP by 2016.

Tracey Martin: How much?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To 6.3 percent of GDP by 2016. All of that is debt building up in this country. Nearly half of all Kiwi workers got no pay increase last year. Ordinary New Zealanders are being hit by rising costs and stagnant incomes. The result is that 70 percent of workers do not even get the average wage—70 percent of the workforce do not even get the average wage. They are being told: “Just trust National. We know what we’re doing.” The result is that homeownership is no longer a prospect for thousands of young Kiwis. In the Budget Policy Statement real wage growth is forecast to average—listen to this—1 percent a year. What is the inflationary growth? Well, it is closer to 3 percent than 2 percent. So wage growth is forecast at 1 percent a year, and forecast inflation is closer to 3 percent than 2 percent. That is why the Governor of the Reserve Bank is going to slap on an interest rate hike tomorrow morning. That is what he is going to do.

We have a Government that is lax on immigration policy. That is having a huge effect on the inflation of house prices in Auckland, and the Government will not do a thing about it. There is someone from offshore buying 77 homes in Auckland, and the Government does not want to know. That person is an offshore landlord now. The people in New Zealand are now paying this money into a foreign economy.

What is significant in this Budget Policy Statement is what it does not say. There is very little attention paid to taking action on tax challenges arising from the rapidly growing digital economy and the threat posed to the tax base. The Government is happy to get all Draconian against Kiwi offenders and overdue student loan scheme repayments, but seems content to let the hikes and the likes of Google and Facebook take millions in profit from New Zealand and pay almost no tax at all.

On foreign ownership and its consequences, there is a deafening silence. It does not want to know. The Government will not go around the Waikato, Southland, and the West Coast and tell the people that it is selling out the country, left, right, and centre, because the Government does not want to know. Only a National Government could be so wilfully blind to the fact that the housing bubble in Auckland is being fed by foreign speculators. Just recently, Waste Management has been sold to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Beijing Capital Group for $950 million, subject, of course, to the usual rubber-stamp approval of the Overseas Investment Office.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is that like Huka Lodge?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So now Chinese interests will own almost all of New Zealand’s waste collection and landfill businesses—and for the benefit of the member from the North Shore, no, that is like quisling. That is like treachery, in an economic sense. That is what it is like, and that is what the people are going to think when they front up at the election in 2014. And, I might say, what a bumbling, stumbling start the National Party has had to this campaign. First of all, John Key makes the announcement that the election is going to be on 20 September. In the next breath he demands that New Zealand First says what it is going to do. I thought it was about what National was going to do.

Nicky Wagner: Otherwise people don’t know who you’re going for.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I know you would love to know that, but you want to know this. What the member from Christchurch should be listening to, apart from ignoring all the people there about the terribly slow rebuild, is what New Zealand First is saying about policy. I know those National members are mere cannon fodder. [Interruption] Those members can shout hysterically, but they are not going to be here for long. For goodness’ sake, by the time I finish my career, I will have been here 10 times longer than both of them. That is how short their careers are going to be. Listen and learn. You might learn something.

This will be the biggest Chinese acquisition of a local business in New Zealand since Haier electronics took full control of Fisher and Paykel Appliances in 2012—under which Government? Why, it was the National Government. Ownership matters. These things are not just interesting little details on the business pages. Along with all the prime agricultural land that continues to be sold to overseas interests, it means that New Zealanders are increasingly working to enrich other people in other countries. But the National Government just looks the other way—head stuck firmly in the sand. It will not even keep any accurate data on what is being sold, to whom, and for how much. Ignorance, in National’s world, is total bliss.

There is very little acknowledgment in the Budget Policy Statement of growing regional disparities and the need to overcome market failure—this is a bit long so I am trying to speed it up, and I think I have slowed down. The result is that regional economies are being neglected. The Government would not even find $4 million for the Napier-Gisborne line—not a lousy $4 million—although, mind you, it is heading towards $45 million for the bungle on Novopay. No doubt about that—$44 million for a bungle. The poor people cannot even get $4 million for the Napier-Gisborne line.

On the West Coast—Solid Energy and Bathurst Resources—there is no real Government support whatsoever. The fact is that the Government’s attempts to rebalance the economy have failed miserably.

Jacqui Dean: Who wrote this rubbish?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike that member, I am able to write my own speeches.

Jacqui Dean: Oh really?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike that member, I do not have to go to the research unit to be told what to do. Unlike that member, I do not just parrot what the financial markets paid into the National Party’s coffers. No. New Zealand First is a party with members who know what they are talking about because they are experienced and they have been through it all before. National, in over 5 years, has done nothing to address the structural weakness of the economy.

But here is the point. Here comes the sale of Genesis Energy. I want to ask those National members over there: does the Government intend to make any structural changes to the State-owned enterprise companies that the Government has in the mixed-ownership programme this year? Does it, for example, intend to retain the chairperson of Genesis Energy, whose only experience as a chair of a listed company was with Mainzeal Property and Construction, which went bust? Are those members over there aware of the growing resistance from the market to having Jenny Shipley as chairperson of Genesis Energy? Do they believe that having Jenny Shipley as chairperson will affect the price of Genesis Energy?

I picked up an article in the weekend from a guy called Tim Hunter, and he said that downtown the market is not too keen on this product. Even more important, he said that if she is there, it will take some real sweeteners, indeed, to sell Genesis Energy. How much will this cost the country because of the Government’s cronyism and the appointment of its own, when they are not competent to do the job? And Mainzeal is all the evidence I know of that. How much did Mainzeal owe when it went down? Well, it owed a staggering figure of $130 million, and there is a stack of subcontractors who have lost everything. They have been sent bankrupt by Mainzeal’s collapse. And the person who headed Mainzeal, of course, was Jenny Shipley. What on earth is she doing heading Genesis when we are trying to sell it?

Grant Robertson: She’s busy at the Oravida opening.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know of Oravida, and she also was a director of China’s second-biggest bank. I mean, this is astonishing stuff. If Holyoake and Muldoon and Holland, and people like that, were alive they would be turning in their nightcaps at what these people are doing. They would be turning in their nightcaps at what this new bunch of novices is doing. For the sake of that member over there who is pointing to her head, and I know why—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know. I’m moving for an extension—this is so good.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not happening today.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Oh, what a blessed relief when that bell rang and it was only 2 minutes to go, and then Winston Peters had to sit down. That was very good. The House is much relieved at that turn of events. In an election year, it is a really good opportunity for the National Government to reflect on what our priorities have been and, with the Budget coming up on 15 May, to really put our stake in the sand about what we want for New Zealand and what we want for this country. I am very proud to say that the National Government has been focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders from the moment that we came into Government in 2008. Leading up to the election on 20 September and, of course, Budget day on 15 May, here we are, putting our stake in the sand and telling New Zealanders what we plan for the future and, in fact, what we stand for.

This Government has had four key priorities in the time that it has been in Government. Firstly, we are responsibly managing the Government’s finances, just like New Zealanders expect us to do, just like New Zealanders voted National for us to do, and just like we are doing. The economy is growing by 3.5 percent, with a similar forecast of growth again for this year. On average, wages are growing faster than inflation. Business confidence is at the highest point it has been since 1999, and the terms of trade are expected to remain just as high. The Government will produce a Budget surplus next year, and that is in the context of other countries that will still be in deficit and, indeed, building up debt.

Secondly, we are building a more competitive and productive economy. That is our second major focus. Why? Because that means creating more jobs. It means increasing wages. The average weekly wage has gone up by 2.8 percent in the last year, compared with inflation that went up by 1.6 percent. Through our Business Growth Agenda the Government has been investing heavily in education and training to lift skills and match the needs of employers. I was interested to hear the comments of the previous speaker, who quite mistakenly contended that this Government is ignoring the provinces. Quite the opposite is true. If I talk about my own province and I think about the huge amounts of investment that have gone into the province of Greater Otago, and if I have a look at some of the ups and downs that all businesses have and have a look at Summit Wool Spinners, which was sold to Canterbury Spinners—so the company changed hands and there was a loss of employment in the town. For those who wish to talk down the economy and say it was all doom and gloom, well, here is the good news. Most of those workers have been either re-engaged or have found other work because they are skilled and they are valued, and I for one will not hear of those skilled workers being talked down in much the same way as the Opposition is fond of doing.

If I have a look at Macraes Mine, it is the same scenario—the ups and downs of business. Macraes Mine is suffering because the gold price is currently at a low and it has had to lay off a number of staff. It is doom and gloom in some quarters of the House—mostly on the left-hand side, it is fair to say. Well, here is the good news. Most of those workers either have found work in and around North Otago or, in fact, have been re-engaged. There is work out there. There is opportunity out there. Why? Because this Government has got such a strong focus on building the economy. In fact, as I go around the Central Otago portion of the province of Otago, there are some pretty severe skills shortages, to the point where I am attending meetings with people who are saying: “Well, what are we going to do about this? We have got work, but we cannot find the workers.” That is the situation that we find ourselves in because this Government has had such a strong focus on building the economy, building wages, and finding real jobs for people.

Thirdly, I am so proud that we have got a strong focus on rebuilding Christchurch. We said that we would. During those awful dark days of the earthquakes, we said that we would. My colleague and friend Nicky Wagner, MP for Christchurch Central, has, I believe, spent probably the last 2½ years living, breathing, and sleeping Christchurch people and their needs, and how we as a Government can work with those communities to rebuild Christchurch and make it strong again. It is the work of people like Nicky Wagner on the ground, proactively and positively working with the people of Christchurch, together with Government Ministers, that is proving to make such a difference to the people of Christchurch.

Finally, our fourth strong priority in the past, now, and in the future as we go to the Budget is delivering Better Public Services within tight budgets. We know that there has been a global financial crisis. We know that we have had to get Government spending under control. Bill English is another Minister who has worked ceaselessly to bring our Government spending under control and to get good-value money for spending on public services, because we over on this side of the House know that it is public money, it is taxpayer money, and we have a duty to spend it wisely.

I want to talk about the Better Public Services targets within the justice sector. That is the sector that is led by the Hon Judith Collins, who is providing outstanding leadership in the justice sector and whose work, together with that of Anne Tolley, the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections, and Chester Borrows, the Minister for Courts, is making a difference to the lives of New Zealanders. Target: reduce overall crime rates by 15 percent by 2017, reduce violent crime by 20 percent by 2017, and reduce youth crime by 25 percent by 2017. What is the result so far? Total crime is down. Total crime is down by 12 percent, violent crime is down by 8 percent, and youth crime is down by 19 percent. That is a success, and that is making New Zealand safer. Those are excellent results already, and huge credit must also go to the police for their unrelenting focus on making New Zealanders safer in their homes.

There is some pretty smart policing out there, with the Prevention First strategy and a strong focus on preventing crime. We visited Auckland. We visited the Mount Roskill police station. We had a look at the crime reporting line. Phil Goff is forever bemoaning the fact that the front desk at the Mount Roskill police station has been closed. He sees that as a bad thing. Well, if we talk to the police themselves who work within that station, they say that they could not be more happy that they are providing good service to the New Zealand public. People are using the crime reporting line. So, instead of having to go down to this old police station, stand in line, and make a report, they now lift up the phone and make a crime report to a person who is a dedicated taker of those calls. They are getting good service.

Finally, I just want to talk about our corrections system and say that the target for the Department of Corrections is to reduce prisoner reoffending by 25 percent, with a result already of a 12 percent reduction. But please do not take just my word for it. Today the Law and Order Committee considered an independent report from the Office of the Auditor-General entitled Department of Corrections: Managing offenders to reduce reoffending. Here is what it said: “Summary of our findings. 2.2 The Department has a clear strategic priority to reduce reoffending, which staff understand well and support. The reducing reoffending programme is based on sound intervention logic that targets the groups and behaviours that contribute disproportionately to rates of offending. The Department now offers programmes to prisoners on remand or short sentences who had high reoffending rates but who were previously ineligible for rehabilitation.”

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

JACQUI DEAN: The programme is expanding. The programme is showing results. Independent evaluation by the—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

JACQUI DEAN: —Controller and Auditor-General is showing what this Government—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I thought for a minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you were going to give the member Jacqui Dean an extension of time, but we are all gratified that you managed to stop her in her tracks.

Phil Twyford: On humanitarian grounds.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, it was a humanitarian gesture on your part, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for that. That was the member, of course, who did not know what H2O was. She comes from a province that needs a lot of that substance, but she did not quite know what it was when she was written to.

The Budget Policy Statement deals, as it says, with allocations of funds to a variety of Government departments, including—as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, because Mr Parker and Mr Mallard alluded to it—the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is interesting that the previous member referenced Judith Collins, because we have had a couple of very, very serious days in this Parliament. Nothing cuts to the heart of a democracy more than questions over the credibility and integrity of a Minister, questions over the credibility and integrity of the Prime Minister, and questions over the credibility and integrity of statements and advice that is provided from the Cabinet Office. This all goes, Mr Deputy Speaker, to moneys allocated, of course, to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and moneys allocated to Ministerial Services, including, of course, the Minister of Justice’s own office.

Judith Collins has made a bit of history today. I think that she could be labelled the “Minister of Cronies”. We know that cronyism is rife in this Government. It gets extremely dangerous and extremely serious when Ministers and others put themselves, either deliberately or through a lack of judgment and through negligence, in positions where not only their own credibility and integrity can be questioned but also that of a Government.

These questions cannot be answered because, of course, the Prime Minister, who has slipped and slid all over this issue day after day, will not release Cabinet advice. We found out today, and I know there is a quote from the Minister of Justice’s stand-up today where she effectively said when asked why she did not provide this information to the media when she was questioned in previous days: “Oh, because I answered the questions I was asked.”—“I answered the questions I was asked.”

That might be sort of tricky stuff, of course, because you have got the Prime Minister—well funded, of course, by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—who has continual brain fades, continual amnesia, and who came down to the House today, had all this advice, and then said: “I can’t remember what I did because I don’t have the advice.” Then, of course, we have Judith Collins, who said: “I answered only the questions I was asked.” That might be—might be; it probably is not—a pretty low standard even for question time in this place, but when journalists and others are asking you direct questions and you answer only the questions that you are asked, there is a word for that. I will not use it in this place, but it shows an absolute lack of integrity on behalf of that politician and that Minister—absolute lack of integrity.

Even with all the money that is allocated to that Minister’s office, and to the press secretary who stood behind her, taping every word so that she can go back and check what she said, she cannot get her story straight. She is the “Minister of Cronies”, and she is not the only one. When you look around this Government you have John Banks—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back to the debate.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, well, all these things are funded through the Budget Policy Statement. John Banks may well end up looking through striped sunshine, and the allocation ironically—ironically—through the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Corrections programme may well put him there. It may well put him there because the allocation to the High Court judges, of course, comes through the Ministry of Justice via this document and others, and it may well be that John Banks, on his third potential conviction—he has already got two, of course—may end up looking through striped sunshine.

That is the first rotten foundation, followed by Peter Dunne, who cannot tell us whether he leaked a document or not. Again, that document and the ramifications around it were funded through a Government allocation of funds, as represented in the Budget Policy Statement. Then, of course, we have Judith Collins. She did not look so happy today, did she? She did not look so arrogant and full of herself today, did she? She has been found out, and found out in the worst possible way, because she has slipped and slid and would not answer questions.

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

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): It is a shame that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is unable or unwilling to take the rest of his call.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is out of order to refer to the absence of a member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit—sit. The member did not refer to the absence of the member.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I said that Mr Cosgrove was unwilling or unable to take the remainder of his call. He would have been welcome to give it a go. Actually, I think the Minister of Health should be looking at more hearing checks for people like Iain Lees-Galloway, because he needs to listen a bit more.

I am disappointed that Clayton Cosgrove is unwilling or unable to take the rest of his call because we would have got a 5-minute diatribe from him about how much Labour wants to tax and spend more, and how much damage it was doing to the economy when it was last in office. I say “damage” because we know that after some difficult periods of time that this country has been through, we are now one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. What we know about the Labour Party when it was last in office is that it ramped up spending. It had a huge debt track that was going to lead us towards having debt of about 60 percent of GDP. We have turned that round.

When the Budget comes out later this year it will reflect pretty much the debt track that the last Budget had, which would see debt track down to about 20 percent of GDP by the mid-2020s, and we know that that is completely the opposite of the direction that debt was going under Labour. We know it would get worse again under Labour because Labour is the party of taxes. Labour is the party of opposing innovation in the economy. It is the party of opposing growth in the economy. It is the party that would see fewer jobs being created in this economy. We know we would see fewer jobs being created in this economy because Labour would take more money out of the economy. It would ramp up the minimum wage, which would see more people unemployed. It would also make changes to the youth wage, the starting-out wage. We know that would hurt young people, because the last time Labour made changes to the starting-out wage it led to 9,000 young people losing their jobs. This side of the House cares about young people.

Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s another lie.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I do not care what he says, Mr Deputy Speaker. He can prattle on. No one else is listening to him. I do not care what he says, because he is wrong. He is wrong, because 9,000 young people lost their jobs. This side cares about young people getting into employment. This side cares about jobs being created in the economy. This side of the House cares about a growing economy. This side of the House cares about New Zealanders investing in our economy. This side of the House is seeing results. The other side of the House would have a recipe to see fewer jobs, less investment, more debt, more spending, and more taxation. New Zealanders have rejected that in the past two elections, and I am hopeful they will reject that again.

I want to give the House a few facts about where we were in 2008 and where Budgets under Bill English, and led also by John Key, have seen this country move. When we came into office in 2008 this party saw an economy that had a current account deficit of almost 9 percent of GDP. The current account deficit is now 4.3 percent of GDP—a very big turn-round. When we came into office the economy we inherited had net external debt that had blown out to 84 percent of GDP. Net external debt is now down to 71 percent of GDP. Inflation was running at 5.1 percent. Inflation is now at 1.6 percent. New Zealanders do not see an economy and a situation where the wealth in their pockets is decreasing as much as it was under the Labour Party—inflation at 5.1 percent versus inflation now at 1.6 percent.

When we came into office in 2008 mortgage interest rates averaged 10.9 percent. Mortgage interest rates now average 5.9 percent. If members on the other side of the House ever get out into the community and talk to people about what impacts on their back pocket the most, it is mortgage rates. Mortgage rates under this Government are considerably lower than they ever were under Labour. They are considerably lower. More money is in people’s pockets because they are paying less in interest. More money is in people’s pockets because they are paying less in tax as well. New Zealanders have had across-the-board tax cuts. Also, wages have been going up faster than the rate of inflation. These are all success stories that the Labour Party likes to deny, but under Bill English and John Key these are success stories that New Zealanders are feeling.

I am acutely aware that I have the Minister for Food Safety sitting next to me. Food prices in 2008—in Labour’s last year in office—went up 11 percent. Food prices have gone up 1.5 percent in the last year, under this Government. Labour members like to cry about food and how much it is costing. They like to complain about prices going up. But they forget about the fact that in Labour’s last year in office food prices went up 11 percent. They have gone up by 1.5 percent in the last year. Government spending under Labour went up by 50 percent in its last 5 years—50 percent. One of the problems that we saw in European countries, where they had big economic problems, was that their Governments had borrowed too much money and they spent too much money.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How much money is this Government borrowing?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I am happy to mention the borrowing rates, because the track that Labour had us on had us on borrowings of 60 percent of GDP in the 2020s. It is going to start going down. It is being turned round under this Government. In the last 5 years under Labour, Government spending went up 50 percent. We have now got spending well under control. Despite the fact that we have had a global financial crisis and despite the fact that we have had the Christchurch earthquakes, spending is well under control under this National Government. We are doing exceptionally well in this economy.

I want to turn a little bit to the Better Public Services programme. We have focused very clearly on ensuring that better public services are provided to New Zealanders. A report on the justice sector was released earlier today. There are some exceptional changes that have been taking place in the justice sector that are seeing more New Zealanders safer and that are seeing more New Zealanders enjoying a justice sector that is working for them. We are enjoying a country that has less reoffending. The costs to the taxpayer long term are also going down.

Crime rates in this country are at 33-year lows. Youth crime is going down, and violent crime is going down as well. We have changed the bail system to make it tougher for people to get bail. We have also spent more money on ensuring that there are people getting alcohol and drug assistance while they are in prison, to reduce reoffending. There are also more measures to assist people to turn their lives round once they get out of prison.

If Opposition members want a bit of bedtime reading—if Iain Lees-Galloway wants to do something tonight, rather than wasting his time doing whatever he likes to do; another sleepless night wondering about the next leadership change Labour will have later this year—I would encourage them to read this justice sector report. This report highlights very well the good changes we are seeing under this Government in the Better Public Services programme that we have.

More kids are coming out of the education system with better results in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. More people are getting elective surgery under Budgets that we have passed. The crime rate is down. The economy is turning itself round. We are going to reach surplus this year. We are going to start paying debt. We are turning round the debt track that Labour left us on. More jobs are growing in this economy. The economy is one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world. We have got an excellent Budget. I know Bill English will do very well when he delivers his next Budget in May. New Zealanders will get to decide that later this year.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call—Jacinda Ardern.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Just because you say it, does not make it true. To have to sit through a speech from that member of the House, Jami-Lee Ross, claiming that Labour, when it left office, left an economy that was damaged is an absolutely outrageous statement, unless, of course, you deem damage to be nine continuous Budget surpluses, unless you consider damage to be zero net Crown debt, or unless you consider damage to be the highest continuous economic growth since World War II.

It seems incredible to me that that side of the House has tried to completely rewrite history when it comes to the economic management of New Zealand under a Labour Government. It is outrageous. It speaks to the lack of trust you can have in the way that that Government describes what is going on in the New Zealand economy today. What is not in doubt at all is that this is not an economy that is working for everyone. Everything that that member just said about the current economic status we are living under in New Zealand ignored what most New Zealanders are experiencing day to day. What he described was an environment where very few are doing well, but a lot are doing a lot worse.

What I want to speak to is how this Budget, this debate, this Budget Policy Statement could have been different; how instead of using just economic markers—as the last member did around GDP, Crown debt, net deficits—a Budget should ultimately be about people. A Budget should be about the outcomes for people. What is the most consistent measure that you get groups like the OECD or even Unicef talking about these days? They talk about how the true marker of a decent society is not those economic indicators but how your young and your old fare in a society. Those are the kinds of markers that we as a nation should be focused on.

And how are they faring? Well, even before Treasury corrected its miscount recently, we now know that our older citizens—the ones, for instance, who are renting but are in their retirement—have a poverty rate amongst that group of 50 percent. Of our oldest citizens, 50 percent who are in rental accommodation are living in poverty. That is a marker of our society. There are 285,000 children living in poverty—27 percent. That is a marker of our society. Fourteen percent of children are living below 50 percent of the median income. That increased after we found out about Treasury’s significant error. Those children are living in severe poverty—not just poverty; severe poverty. A large number of them are in their most vulnerable years, zero to 4 years. That is the period when those children are spending the longest—that is a marker.

And how are those children faring under this economy? Rising power prices are impacting on those children. Rising housing costs—the average house price has gone up 24 percent under this Government. As much as that member talked about interest rates, these are families that do not have the luxury of owning a home and who are suffering significantly under increasing rents. High food prices are impacting on those vulnerable children. These are the measures of a society, but that is not what this Government is interested in. If it was, it would measure poverty. It would show leadership on it. It would have a plan. It would target to reduce it. It would report on it. That is what the Labour Party would do.

Labour has a bill that says, when it comes round to speaking on the Budget, we will put into the Public Finance Act that the Minister of Finance will have to report on how much progress they have made on child poverty. That is the marker that we are going to put up next to the current account deficits and GDP—how are our children in poverty faring? We will set a target to reduce poverty. We will build on our Best Start plan, which helps every single child under the age of 3 in poverty. They will benefit from Best Start, the weekly payment that we would introduce.

Those are the kinds of measures of a society: whether you look out for your young and whether you look out for your old. Therefore, that should be what Budget Policy Statements are focused on.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is quite interesting—I cannot remember the last time I followed both Jacinda Ardern and Jami-Lee Ross. It is great to see the three youngest members of Parliament, I think, all taking a call in this Budget Policy Statement debate because the budgetary and fiscal issues, social issues, and environmental issues facing our country are pressing, enormous challenges.

In this debate tonight I am reflecting on the differences—sure, there are asset sales and deep-sea drilling—but also on what unites us. I believe that every member in this House and every party in this Parliament wants to see a richer New Zealand. They want to see those kids out of poverty. In a country that exports food, that feeds 20 million people, I am sure that we can all agree that kids should not be going to school hungry. We all grew up camping on the beach and swimming in rivers. We all love and, I believe, want to protect our environment. We also want to see Kiwis in jobs. We have all seen experiences of chronic joblessness. I believe there are a lot of things that unite us in this Parliament.

It is a question, however, of the plan. Where is the plan to deliver those outcomes we can all agree on? I think what is clear when you read the Budget documents is that we are absolutely unsustainable. I do mean in an environmental sense—a sustainability sense—but also I mean in a fiscal sense. The debt outlook facing our country is huge. At the moment our current account deficit of 3.6 percent is the second-largest owing in the OECD, just behind Turkey. It is absolutely unsustainable for us to carry this much international debt. The only recourse for a small country like ours is to keep selling off the assets, keep selling off productive assets like farmland.

It is time to take control back. This Budget paints a very dark picture in terms of debt, the cost of living, inflation, and also the simplification of our economy—the reliance on only a few raw commodity exports. What we also know from the Budget documents is that this country is borrowing $1.1 billion a year—$1.1 billion a year—to pay for those tax cuts. As someone of above-average income in this country who has benefited from those tax cuts, I have seriously got to question the wisdom when the country is paying for those tax cuts for the wealthy—they are paid for by everyone, paid for by previous generations who have had their assets sold off. We are seeing debt spiral out of control. We are seeing an economy increasingly reliant. We are seeing our tradables sector fall behind the non-tradables sector. What we are seeing is the real income earners at a national level, the exporters, actually struggling versus the non-tradable sector. What we are seeing is the cost of living increase.

For a country that is working its hardest—so many New Zealanders are working two jobs; they are working 60 hours a week—this is a country where the cost of living is amongst the highest and we work some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages in the OECD. That is why our households are struggling in debt. When you look at the inflation announcement we are expecting tomorrow, what we are seeing are rampant house price and energy price rises leading to inflation. We see housing prices are up 44 percent in the last 5 years. Electricity prices are up 20 percent in the last 5 years. An unknown story I think the public should be more aware of is that the drivers of that are leading to inflation, which will bring a real cost to New Zealanders.

So it is about choice, because we all want to see Kiwis in work, swimmable rivers, and kids out of poverty—but it is about choice. Who is going to focus on that? Who is going to prioritise that? To be frank, what I see from that side of the House is a Government that is focusing on the Choruses, the Tīwai Points, and the Anadarkos, not on the real people who live in real streets, in real Kiwi businesses—the small and medium enterprises doing it hard in the current environment.

What we need is a fiscal balance with a capital gains tax, broader capital markets, and a broader mandate for the Reserve Bank. We need to strengthen Kiwibank. We need to embrace the opportunities in clean energy, where we know there are four times more jobs. We need to support our thriving IT sector.

Today we have seen a massive plank in the Government’s economic agenda fall out entirely. It was the Government pouring literally tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money down Anadarko’s deep-sea oil well. You know what? It looks like Anadarko did not find anything. And you know what? It was never going to be a credible economic strategy—hoping that someone finds something down in the depths of the ocean and that they do not leave too much of a mess.

That plan to embrace the past has fallen over. It is time for New Zealand to embrace the future and put real people and real kids and their parents first; to be a country that looks to the future with confidence and entrepreneurialism and innovation and embraces new sectors like clean energy and IT. That is the richer New Zealand, a cleaner, smarter future for New Zealand, and that is what we will be taking to the country this election. Kia ora.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this Budget Policy Statement debate this evening. I think I am going to be the last speaker. It is always interesting to follow Green MPs like Gareth Hughes because they often talk about the planet and their place on it, but we are just as often not sure which planet that is.

I know that in my own electorate of the Coromandel, where we have had a very good summer—in fact, the farmers on the Hauraki Plains will be saying about now that summer is just about ready to be over because we are ready for some rain; hopefully, we will get some this weekend. But we have had a very good summer in the Coromandel, and the good people of Coromandel are looking forward to the next Bill English Budget, which will be read in May of this year, because they know that this will be a Budget that will continue the careful, prudent fiscal management of Bill English and this John Key - led Government. They know that when we go to the polls on 20 September, the general election policy of the National Party and this Government will remain absolutely firmly focused on the issues that matter to all New Zealanders. Those issues matter to our communities and to all Kiwis: a stronger economy, more jobs, better front-line health and education services, a safer New Zealand, and, of course, the continued rebuild of Christchurch.

My colleague Jami-Lee Ross spoke only a few minutes ago about where we were when National came to the Government benches in 2008 and what a dreadful, chaotic mess the country was in at that point. Jami-Lee Ross talked about the situation that confronted the Government. We were already in recession ahead of the global financial crisis, ahead of the worst economic situation to face our nation and the world since the 1930s. So ours was a Government that actually took a prudent, careful, and managed approach to that crisis, and, indeed, we did borrow. We borrowed to maintain the social services and the support for all New Zealanders that was required at a time of crisis—a time of crisis when many other countries were slashing, freezing, and cutting costs and cutting services to their public and their State services. So I am very proud that, in fact, the Government that I am a member of did not do that, and we did a very good job.

What I want to focus on tonight is health. I have the pleasure of sitting on the Health Committee, and I want to talk a little bit about the progress that this Government has made in the health sector since it came to power in 2008. Over the last 5 years the Government has been working assiduously to improve the patient journey through our hospital system. We have increased elective surgery, we have reduced waiting times, and we have found new ways to maximise our health care services. Tony Ryall has done an absolutely outstanding job as Minister of Health. He has been described by others—and I would also be one who would do so—as the country’s finest health Minister in the entire history of our parliamentary system. I think he deserves that accolade. I think he has earned it. I think that anyone who has needed to go through our health system would probably endorse that.

There have been some very significant improvements made within the health and disability service sector. We have been focused on delivering better, sooner, and more convenient health care to New Zealanders. This is a Government that continues to invest in elective surgery and has done so even during those darkest days of the global financial crisis. Back in 2010, $51.5 million was invested over 4 years to fund more elective surgeries. That was followed in 2011 by a further $68 million, and then, in 2012 and also in 2013, $48 million in each of those subsequent years as well. So this strong investment has led to a decrease in waiting times and an increase in surgery volumes and the number of surgical procedures being done.

Waiting times are internationally regarded as a measure of quality and performance, and so to have reduced waiting times during that period of time when other countries were cutting and slashing their health spending is, I think, an indication of the careful, prudent, and responsible management of Tony Ryall and this John Key - led Government. Since 2008 when we came to power the average number of days that patients spend in hospitals has fallen consistently. This is important because spending longer in hospital can reduce a patient’s well-being completely, and, of course, it increases the cost of care, using more of our already stretched and valuable health dollars.

But it is not just patients in hospitals and those in need of surgery that the health focus has been on. A person’s first contact with our health system is, more often than not, with their general practitioner. The Government has been working to strengthen and support primary care to provide the best possible care for all New Zealanders at every stage. District health boards are now working more closely with primary-care providers to achieve clinical integration and care closer to patients’ homes or, preferably, in their own homes. Integrated family health centres provide a more diverse range of health professionals and enable a more coordinated approach to patient care in primary-care settings. This is to be applauded and lauded. I want to again congratulate the Hon Tony Ryall on making sure that in the tough times we have had, the focus has been on maintaining that spend, and, yes, we have borrowed to make sure that that occurs.

Just one example of how that has occurred is in agencies such as the Health Quality and Safety Commission. Some people may not know much about the Health Quality and Safety Commission, but it is a special commission whose work is entirely focused on the reduction of falls and the harm from falls that occur in New Zealand homes, in places of work, and in our community. Since 2010 the Health Quality and Safety Commission has been building a culture of constant examination and improvement in the health and disability sector. This is a small but very important step and provides further indication of the focus that the Government has been placing on this important sector.

Let us not forget just how bad things were after the 9 long years of a high-spending, high-borrowing, high-handed Labour-Green Government. Remember back in 2002 when Annette King said in the Evening Post that “New Zealand is not rich enough to have the kind of health system found in Australia, Canada, Britain, or the USA.” That was an incredibly pessimistic indictment of our health service and the future of our health services from the then Labour health Minister.

It surprises me that a person who entered this House campaigning against Robert Muldoon is now being pushed forward as Labour’s great new young hope in health. Our health system was chaos after Annette King’s stewardship under 9 long years of the Labour Government, and we do not want to return to that chaos again. Waiting lists were absolutely out of control, and Labour was spending like a drunken sailor, but the results were all heading south. So the spending was going up but the results were going down. We all remember those stories in the newspapers and on our television screens of patients who were lying on trolleys in hospital corridors under bright florescent lights for sometimes days on end, awaiting basic surgery and treatment. We also remember the cancer patients who were shipped offshore—flown across the Tasman to Australia for basic cancer treatment.

It has taken nearly 6 years for Tony Ryall and the John Key - led Government to put it all right and to sort it out. While many developed countries were freezing and reducing their health spending, we were increasing ours. So we have got less waiting, more operations, and more doctors and nurses, and we have moved health spending from the back office to the front line. When we go to the polls on 20 September, New Zealanders will have a stark decision to make. They will say: “Am I prepared to put it all at risk, or will I stay with the careful, prudent, managed approach of John Key and Bill English?”, and I know which way they are going to vote. It has been a pleasure to participate in this debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2014.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

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

In Committee

Preamble

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I rise to speak on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee gave this local bill in the name of Damien O’Connor pretty good consideration in its time at the committee. The committee listened very carefully to a number of submitters who were affected by this bill. It was really sympathetic to the submissions of the people who cared enough to put a lot of time in to coming to Wellington or perhaps giving us a videoconference in support of this bill or, indeed, in opposition to the bill.

There was the desire to delete clause 9. We decided that this would be outside the scope of the bill, so the technical amendments were made for consistency to clauses 5(a), 6, and 9 to replace “declared to have been” with “declared to be and to always have been”. Without validation of this setting of the rates, the council would be required to undergo a good deal of work that was retrospective in nature around things like determining which ratepayers had actually paid the 2006-07 rates and the amount they had paid. That time, 2006-07, was 8 years ago. It was a long time ago in the council’s record and also in the ratepayers’ records. Of course, they are not required to keep those records for that long. The council would also have to ascertain whether the current ratepayers were the same ratepayers who occupied those properties in 2006-07, and that is a nightmare in itself.

It is something we did consider. The council would be required to apportion rates if there are or were multiple owners of properties. Again, the nature of ownership of properties can change substantially over time. Then the council would have to write to each ratepayer advising them of the amount of the refund and requesting bank details for repayment. So it was decided by the committee, under the leadership of Nicky Wagner, who I know is waiting to take a call—

Scott Simpson: A very good chair.

JACQUI DEAN: Actually, Nicky is an excellent chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and she runs a very collegial environment in the committee, which enables the committee to discuss some quite thorny issues. I am happy to say that on this particular one the committee was pretty united in its care for this bill. The committee also determined that any merit of setting a stormwater rate was, we decided, outside the scope of the bill, and that that is a matter that the local authority would have to deal with separately.

In essence, this bill is about validating certain rates that were set incorrectly during the period of 2003-04 and 2008-09. The Tasman District Council is not alone in having made a mistake of this nature—not exactly the same perhaps. But this kind of critical decision-making, by its very nature, is critical because if it is not set correctly, then we are faced with a retrospective validation bill like this, and Parliament, I believe, is not of the mind to really support this kind of bill. It is a situation that has been brought to us on behalf of the local council and its community, so we have got to deal with it. So we are dealing with it.

Maggie Barry: Yeah.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, where does the buck stop, you know? The council has been charged with some important decision-making. It has made errors in that, so it falls to Parliament to correct them. Damien O’Connor has done a very good job in keeping the lines of communication open between the council, its ratepayers, and the committee, under the chairmanship of Nicky Wagner.

Without doing the validation, the council will always be vulnerable to challenge from ratepayers over their incorrectly set rates. If it were me—I am a ratepayer—and my rates were incorrectly set, I would be ropeable about it. I would be ropeable about it because every 3 years I do vote for my councillors, who then select a mayor, and I would like to think that they run a pretty tight ship. I would like to say that this Government’s Better Local Government reforms have a very strong push towards enhancing the decision-making capability of councils. I would also like to say that Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers share that desire. I am sure that the Committee would agree that we do not need too many more of these bills, but, having said that, I believe that we have got this one in pretty good shape and I commend it to the Committee.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Let me just acknowledge my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor for ushering through an issue that is obviously very important to the people of his particular electorate. It is also an issue where nobody wins at the end. Sure, we are validating this bill, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, to allow the Tasman District Council to rectify a mistake it made. If we did not do that, however, the council would still need to find the money somehow, and the council would still need to depend on ratepayers.

In saying that, I have to say that from what I have heard from colleagues in this Chamber, most of us are reluctant participants in this affair. Most of us support the bill with a great deal of reluctance, particularly when we are validating a mistake made by a council. I can imagine how the ratepayers who brought this mistake to the attention of the council and to this House must be feeling at this particular point in time. I would just say to the council that despite the authority and the power that it will be able to wield with this particular piece of legislation, it is still charged with the care of, and responding with some responsibility to, the people who brought this wrong before the council.

I am not going to try to dictate to councils what they ought to be doing, but they do need to recognise that their ratepayers, the people in that city, in that town area, who are dedicated to their council—if they were not dedicated to it, they would not have brought this to their attention—will have a right to feel some sense of grievance about the wrong that has been done here. I think that the council needs to not be just holding up this piece of legislation once we sign off on it and say that this is what it is going to do but has a responsibility to meet with the ratepayers concerned and try to accommodate the circumstances they face.

Despite my name being on the committee report, I, unfortunately, did not get the opportunity to hear a lot of the submissions that were presented there. I did not get an opportunity, either, to meet the ratepayers who had brought this to our attention. So I simply say to my colleague and the council listening that I think they still have a responsibility to meet with the ratepayers concerned and to attempt to find some accommodation in the concerns or issues that they have raised as a result of the mistake made by the council.

I want to turn to the technical amendments and ask my colleague this. The technical amendments suggest that the committee looked at clauses 5(a), 6, and 9. However, I would like to know whether my colleague and the council—which is his council—are OK with clause 9. The committee did consider it and it was advised that that was outside the scope of the bill, but I am wondering why it was raised in the first instance anyway.

I want to respond briefly to the comments made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, about Better Local Government. This is not the time to be promoting a policy—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I apologise. I got a little bit confused as to where I was and I gave the member a 1-minute bell. It was my mistake. I have been under pressure lately. I apologise. You have 1 minute.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I accept your apology, Chair, and thank you for giving me that 1 minute’s notice. I would say to the previous speaker that I would be very careful about promoting Better Local Government, because as I go around the country and meet up with mayors, what they are saying to me is something very, very different from what the previous speaker said. In fact, some have said to me that the Better Local Government policy is really quite deceptive because it is more about removing democracy from local government. At a period of time when local government is under attack, these kinds of bills just do not help the cause of local government. Just briefly, this is a period of time when local government is under constant attack by the reform that this Government is driving. It was only the other day that mayors felt that they had to meet in secret to try to force the Minister of Local Government to come and listen to their concerns. That is not a good sign. It is not a good sign when local government mayors have to try to force the Minister of Local Government. It is her job to be listening to mayors, and I understand that she did not bother.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Who is the Minister?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: The Minister of Local Government now is Paula Bennett, but I think she is just the face of local government. I think there are probably others behind the scenes who are trying to drive this undemocratic what they call Better Local Government.

Coming back to the bill, though, these kinds of bills do not bode well for this House, and for local government in particular, particularly at this time, because I suspect that members of this Government would probably be going around the country holding up these bills as examples of why they feel vindicated by not trusting local government more and more.

Anyway, I commend my colleague again, the Hon Damien O’Connor. What a wonderful member of Parliament he is, championing the cause of ratepayers and recognising his duty to those voters in the district of Tasman, and may I wish him all the best in the coming election on 20 September.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): Back by popular demand, I would like to thank the Hon Damien O’Connor for bringing this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill to the House on behalf of his constituents. As I spoke about in the first and second readings, it is very important that we put to bed this particular issue and the issue around the rates payments in the Tasman District from 2003 through to 2008. Of course, the preamble neatly summarises the mistakes—what ought to have happened in council meetings in that period, what actually did happen, and where the faults are. So, essentially, this piece of legislation and preamble talk about the 2003-04 years right through to the 2008-09 years when the council passed rates attached to the annual plan rather than ratifying each rate individually, which needs to be done under the Local Government (Rating) Act, and setting rates before the council had actually adopted the annual plan. That was the second big mistake; it was also in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

The rating Act provides an avenue for councils to amend and correctly set rates, but the window for that has now passed. Whether that was because the errors were not picked up quickly or because they were set aside as unimportant or were, in fact, ignored, we do not know. What we do know is that this House reluctantly now needs to pass this retrospective legislation to ensure that what is unlawful in that rates setting is now lawful. So the bill is needed to validate certain rates set incorrectly during that period. Without validation, the council remains vulnerable to legal challenge from ratepayers, and validation is also required to allow the council to collect or recover unpaid rates and penalties for expenditure that it has undertaken during that period.

Looking at the preamble here, I think that by way of example it is worth working through the errors that were made in that 2003-04 rating year. I am not going to go through the 2004-05 year, or the 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 years, but I think that by way of example the 2003-04 year is a good one to start at and to examine. In that particular year a special council meeting was undertaken. It was held on 26 June 2003—the birthday of many New Zealanders, I am sure.

The Tasman District Council resolved amongst a whole bunch of things, first of all, that the general rate including the utilities rate be adopted as proposed in the council’s draft annual plan. So that was the first thing. It proposed that that general rate be adopted. Secondly, there was this Motueka business rate, which the council voted to be approved for that particular financial year. There was the Richmond business rate, which it wished and, in fact, voted to be increased in that particular year, and the council also voted to adopt a community facilities rate. So there you have just four actions in that particular year: to adopt a general rate, to approve the Motueka business rate, to increase the Richmond business rate, and to adopt a community facilities rate. And I am sure the council meant well. I am sure there was some consultation about that. I am sure there was much debate in the council chambers before it voted.

Unfortunately, the funding impact statement provided that rates be paid by instalments. It set out the penalties and it set out all those rates that the council had proposed. However, the resolutions did not, in fact, comply with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, because the council failed in several ways. First of all, the council failed to state clearly that it was setting rates as required by that section. So the vote on the floor should have relayed the setting of those rates as associated with that section under the Act. Secondly, it failed to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set when the resolutions referred only to the adoption of some of the rates. So it referred to a few of the rates, not all of them. It should have individually set out each of the rates that it wished to be set for that financial year.

The council did not comply with section 23 of the Act by purporting to set the rates before the council had resolved to adopt the annual plan. It should have adopted the annual plan and then set the rates, so there was an issue of order. The council failed to state the financial year to which the rates applied—a simple thing, we might think in hindsight. It did not actually state in its resolution as to which year these rates would apply. It failed to say that the rates could be paid by instalments. Lastly, it failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added to the rates if they were not paid by a due date. So I think those are quite simple things that the council overlooked to do—say what year the rates related to, say that they could be paid in instalments, and actually say that, in fact, there were penalties that could be added to the rates if they remained unpaid.

So there we have it. Many years after the 2003-04 financial year, we are now reluctantly having to pass legislation because of the oversight of that council at that time. Of course, those oversights ran into the 2004-05 financial year, the 2005-06 financial year, the 2006-07 financial year, the 2007-08 financial year, and, lastly, the 2008-09 financial year, which we are dealing with this evening. As I say, I will not go forward and explain in detail the errors made in those subsequent financial years. Members can be assured that I know what they are, and that I know here and here what they are. I encourage members to read for themselves the preamble in the legislation to get a good understanding and grasp of what those errors were.

What I can say is that National is comfortable with passing this legislation to validate in law what should already be lawful had it been done properly and had due process been undertaken properly in the council chambers when those motions were debated, voted for, and passed. We are going to pass this legislation through the House. It is our intention in National to make lawful what should have been lawful. We do it reluctantly, because it is retrospective legislation. We understand there are still aggrieved ratepayers in the Tasman District. We know that Damien O’Connor, in a sense, was reluctant also to bring this bill to the House, but we feel that it is the right thing to do.

I do support this preamble. I challenge other speakers to perhaps go through the 2004-05 year and explain to members and to colleagues the errors that were made there. Perhaps Damien O’Connor could do that off the cuff for the 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 years. I will leave him to make that choice. I have highlighted the difficulties. I have highlighted what are quite difficult errors to make. Those things should simply have been passed by resolution. They were not. That is why we are here today.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I commend Mr Heatley for his detailed reading of the preamble of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. There are eight and half pages that set out the errors that the Tasman District Council made in its rating resolutions in relation to the urban drainage areas in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay. I will not go through any more of them, because I think we would be here all night. The Green Party is supporting this bill, which the Hon Damien O’Connor has reluctantly brought to the House as retrospective legislation, because stormwater infrastructure is important. The council was trying to ensure that those growing settlements in Ligar Bay and Tata Beach had an adequate stormwater infrastructure. It made a number of mistakes, which are itemised in some detail in the preamble, in failing to ensure that the rating resolutions were separate from the annual plan, and in failing to include a map of the area that the rates would apply to. It was the detective work of Mr Schmuke and other residents of those communities who brought this to the council’s attention.

As the Hon Damien O’Connor said, the council really failed “Rating 101” in terms of the stormwater infrastructure and the rates, but there was a very concerning and quite dismissive attitude by the former chief executive officer of the council, whom Maryan Street quoted in her second reading speech, that it was cheaper to come to Parliament to get these errors fixed than it was to be involved in legal action. I think subsequently the council has realised—with a number of trips to appear in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee, a lot of meetings with the affected ratepayers, and the time that this House has had to spend on the legislation—that this is not a cheaper way of doing things. Certainly, the council has promised that it will improve, and it has improved, its processes so that it will not be guilty of making errors in the form and content of rating resolutions again and will ensure that they are in the correct form.

Stormwater infrastructure is essential for healthy communities, and the stormwater club approach that the council operates in all 16 communities in the Tasman District, where it spreads the cost of providing and maintaining this infrastructure over everyone and rates against the capital value of properties, is a fair system, so it is really unfortunate that the council made these errors in the way the rates were levied or resolved. We certainly agree with the National member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, that we do not want to see many more bills like this one, because they are retrospective. But we disagree with her claims that the Government’s changes to the Local Government Act will improve the way councils operate and enhance their decision-making capability, because the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this bill, is also considering the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), and that legislation will make councils much less democratic and much more reliant on rates to fund community infrastructure as well as three waters infrastructure, which this bill largely deals with, and it will reduce the opportunities for public participation, which tends to then alienate ratepayers from their councils. It was only last week that we had quite a prominent National Party supporter and former Christchurch councillor Margaret Murray telling the select committee that the Government’s changes were tearing the very heart out of local government for no good reason.

This bill is something that the Green Party supports—reluctantly, like everyone else—but the changes to the local government legislation are anti-democratic in rolling out the Auckland super-city model of a big unitary council with local boards with quite limited powers. So we support this bill, but we will certainly be strongly opposing the major changes to the Local Government Act unless the select committee is able to recommend changes there. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. For those of you who suffer from insomnia, which I do at times, I recommend that you get a copy of the Hansard of Phil Heatley’s speech and take it. I am certainly going to take it home tonight. [Interruption] No, it was an interesting speech, but I say to the Hon Phil Heatley, my goodness, it was full of all sorts of facts and information that probably we did not need. At the end of the day, this council made a simple—

Hon Phil Heatley: That just hurts.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: —mistake, Phil. It made a simple mistake. It omitted, basically, to include a map with the information that was sent out with its annual plan. That map would have, had it been included, designated where these particular rates were going to apply. Therefore, the people in this particular area of Tata Beach and Ligar Bay were not fully aware that it applied to them. As a result, this all blew up.

The mayor of Tasman District Council, Richard Kempthorne, sent a letter on 27 August to the Hon Damien O’Connor, who is sponsoring this bill—and congratulations to that member of Parliament on bringing this through. The mayor summarised it very well. He said that the council “fully acknowledges that we made an error in setting the 2006-7 rate for the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater urban drainage area. We regret that the error was made.” He went on to say: “We also note that if we had included the required map, the rate would have been lawfully made and the rates would have 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.” He said: “We are not asking to validate something that council could not have done lawfully if we hadn’t made that mistake. The extent of, and amounts of, the rate was clear in the 2006 long-term community plan (LTCCP). When we discovered the error, we undertook a review of the inclusion of Tata Beach in the stormwater urban drainage areas (UDA) and consulted the ratepayers in Tata Beach on the options of being included in, or excluded from, the stormwater UDA. More people preferred the option of staying in the UDA, otherwise the status quo, than any of the other options.”

He said: We’ve explained to you”—this was to the MPs and to the select committee—“that 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 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 in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay, while the ratepayers in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay do no pay for any.

There is a heavy demand for stormwater infrastructure across the district following recent flooding events. This is particularly prevalent in Ligar Bay following the devastating flood flow in December 2011. In the end council came to the clear view that remitting rates over 1 or more years with these ratepayers was not a lawful or practical solution.”

So in terms of that, the Local Government and Environment Committee had no alternative but to accept this information and acknowledge the fact that if there was going to be any form of remittance of rates, it would have been a burden on the rest of the ratepayers in the Tasman district, which would have been unfair. Secondly, if you then have to go and try to find ratepayers over a period of several years—and properties change ownership; they change in terms of their titles and all that sort of thing—it would be a nightmare trying to refund rates or return rates or pay out rates to whoever owned the properties at the time, and all that sort of thing. It becomes a nightmare simply because of the fact that a map was not included. It was an administrative error.

Mistakes happen. Mistakes happen in central government and mistakes happen in local government. This is a very minor mistake, a very small one. Again, as some other speakers have said, we would hope that this National Government does not again use this as an example of local government in terms of wanting to try to highlight inadequacies in local government when, in actual fact, like any organisation, there will always be human error. This was a case of human error, and we would hope that we do not for the next 6 months, while we are going through the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), hear these sorts of excuses as justification for the National Party and the National Government kneecapping and undermining local government in this country.

We have two tiers of government. We have central government and we have local government. We do not have three, like they have in Australia or the United States or many other countries; we have only two. Our local government is very much the grassroots delivery agent for what the Government needs to roll out around this country. If this Government continues to undermine local government, as it is doing in the latest local government amendment bill, then all we will see is simply a breakdown of much of the infrastructure of New Zealand and the support infrastructure of New Zealand, which is so vital to making New Zealand a success.

In terms of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), which is very much in line with what we are seeing in this situation, we have to support local government to do its very best, because at the end of the day there is $100 billion of assets out there in local government, and the assets in the Tasman district are just part of that. They are vital to ensuring the future success of this country, and we cannot have central government undermining the efficient delivery of service by local government throughout New Zealand.

We are hearing more and more feedback from around the provinces, around the rural areas—and these are in National Party electorates—that mayors who you would think were National Party mayors are saying enough is enough. They are getting tired of the National Party and the National Government undermining the good work that local authorities are doing throughout the country. I think it is time the National Government looked at itself seriously and asked whether it wants to bring local government to its knees, and whether it wants to end up in a situation where New Zealand communities are broken up, where communities of interest are destroyed, and where it is all about the dollar and about making money out of local government rather than making good communities and good communities of interest.

It seems to be that at the present time this National Government is wanting to drive down the council-controlled organisations route, to have decisions made behind closed doors, to have decisions made by unelected people, and to have decisions made that are in the interests of its mates, big business, and people with interests in commercialising local government rather than ensuring that local government is there to deliver on behalf of the people.

So New Zealand First supports this bill for the Tasman District Council. This is a very, very minor blip in terms of the significant work the Tasman District Council does. It is in an area that has suffered significant storms and significant flooding. There have been all sorts of significant events in the Tasman district in the last decade, and this is a very minor aberration in terms of the council’s overall work. We commend the Tasman District Council for its ongoing good work and we support this bill.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): As we have heard in the Committee tonight, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is about validating the Tasman District Council rates from the period of 2003-04 through to 2008-09. That is when the council just did not follow correct procedure in setting its rates. It also validates the rates and the penalties paid during those periods. Then—perhaps most controversial of all—it ratifies the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate. As you have also heard in the Committee tonight, Parliament and parliamentarians do not like validation bills. We would much rather that councils got it right, that they used correct procedures the first time. But every now and then, just as the member Andrew Williams has spoken about, a bit of logic and a bit of common sense demand that we pass a validation bill. These bills always come to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we work really hard to get a good result for ratepayers.

The test we apply when we are looking at these breaches is whether the rates would have been valid if the processes were followed correctly. In other words, is this a technical breach? Maybe the council used the wrong words, maybe it did not consult properly, maybe it left out a map, or maybe there was incorrect timing. Is this a technical breach rather than something that could not have been valid even if the council had done everything right? In this case these rates could all have been levied correctly. The errors were technical, and hence the Local Government and Environment Committee—because this test was passed—supported the bill.

But the committee was very sympathetic to the arguments from the ratepayers in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay drainage area. There had been debate around what rating category was correct for the area, and why the stormwater levies were necessary when some of the houses along the beach were sitting on free-draining sandy soils and did not get affected by the severe flooding. There was also debate about where the levy money would be spent and the quality of previously installed drainage work. This had been a long and bitter debate between local ratepayers and the council, and so the committee did encourage them to try to find a negotiated solution outside the bill. We wanted them to see whether they could sort this out at a local level. In fact, we had two attempts to get some agreement between the parties, but we were unsuccessful. We considered deleting the relevant clause, which was clause 9, but that was outside the scope of this bill. So the committee decided that the time, the efforts, and the cost to the council—and so, in turn, those are the costs to the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council—far outweighed the benefits to a small number of ratepayers.

The philosophy we used when thinking about this was the fact that we all live in communities. We all pay our rates for a suite of services from local government. Individuals and neighbourhoods use more or less of those services, but by sticking together we get the best outcome for everyone. So, although some of those properties of those ratepayers in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay area are less prone to flooding, and were not flooded during the last flooding event, the roads that led to that area and that they drive on, the community facilities that they use, and their neighbour’s properties still need to be protected from stormwater and everyone needs to contribute to the community’s solution.

We also note that this bill has required a large amount of work, effort, and expense for the Tasman District Council. We hope—and we have heard from it—that it has improved its processes and that it will be able to manage its rating decisions more efficiently. We do expect it to lift its game because we hope that it will never again require further legislation in this House. Therefore, despite our dislike of validation legislation, the Local Government and Environment Committee—after much thought, much debate—supports this legislation. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I will just take the opportunity to perhaps summarise a few things. I appreciate the help of the Local Government and Environment Committee members and those who have spoken before to outline—some of them in much detail—what is in this legislation, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I would like to acknowledge Nicky Wagner and all the members of the committee, who were so cooperative. They really did try to do their best for the ratepayers of the Tasman district.

I hope that each and every councillor is actually listening to this debate. It may seem long and difficult, but they should learn from it. We do not like retrospective legislation and I have to acknowledge that the House has committed quite an amount of time to sort out a problem that was basically developed because the Tasman District Council made basic mistakes—both by the staff and in the oversight by the councillors. I would just like to say that in the preamble to the bill here, the wording is pretty much perfect except for one word that I would like to change. It does say here in recital 37 of the preamble that it is “desirable” that the irregularities relating to all the rates be fixed—no, actually it is necessary. I do not think it is desirable that the Committee should have to commit to fix this.

I think we would be sending a message quite clearly to the councillors at the Tasman District Council and to the staff in particular that they pay attention to detail. I would like to send a clearer message to some of the staff that in their dealings with the ratepayers, who are ultimately the people who carry the cost of these mistakes, they should be more cooperative. From time to time I hear stories where forms that might not have the right signature or something are rejected and sent back, and not in a helpful way but in a rather hindering way. In the spirit of the passage of this legislation, I hope that the staff at every level of the Tasman District Council acknowledge that mistakes can be made and that they are there to help people, not to hinder them.

I will just go through a couple of other things. The Tata Beach situation has been mentioned, of course. The maps were mentioned. Yes, it is true that that particular incident was incorrect and that the determination and the tenacity of Bob Schmuke and a few of those ratepayers saw them take that issue that they claim was incorrect to the Tasman District Council, which rejected them out of hand in a rather arrogant fashion. They then took that through to the Ombudsman, who ruled in their favour. In looking at this case, the Ombudsman then found fault in other areas of rate setting. Again, there is a lesson for councils. Sometimes the ratepayers—although they might seem a little obnoxious and they might seem difficult and persistent—are right. In the spirit of democracy we have to respect those people who put time and effort into trying to keep democracy open, transparent, and accountable.

In summary, I will just once again thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. There is a message here. The staff and the councillors of the Tasman District Council have to show a little more attention to detail around things like, as I have said, speed limits around schools, where they, again, have an attitude that in my view may not be correct. There are community facilities that they are not supporting because of various issues. They have got water management, they have got support for information centres, and they have got internal processes that are sometimes not helpful. What I am saying is that the consideration of Parliament and the passage of this legislation—and I thank members for their support for me and the bill—should be acknowledged by consideration right through every area of the Tasman District Council for their ratepayers, and that should flow on to the rest of the country, for people who pay hard-earned dollars to support infrastructure, to support their communities, and, sometimes, to invest in areas where councils may have some unease about that. So on this particular first part in the preamble, I guess that I have summarised some of the points that I would like to make.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak about the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. This is, of course, a piece of legislation that should never have happened. Other speakers before me have alluded to the fact that it is a series of mistakes, incompetence, and silliness, and that is generally a darn good reason why these local government reforms that we are putting through ought to be put through in extreme haste. What we had here was a council that was, in the words of the sponsoring member of the bill, Damien O’Connor, arrogant, and it was not treating its ratepayers well. I commend also Bob Schmuke for his tenacity. I think that he is an individual who decided he would make this something that he would not let go of, and I commend his tenacity and the rigour that he brought to this particular case. Had he not persevered—as Damien O’Connor said—taking it through to the Ombudsman and really persisting when he was given the cold shoulder and every discouragement possible, then we would not be here today.

On some levels, of course, we regret being here today, because we have lived through the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, and it is a bit like the Jaws movie, is it not—just when you thought it was safe to come back into the Chamber, another validation bill comes its way. I guess none of us want that. As other members have pointed out, not only has the council’s and ratepayers’ money and everybody’s time been wasted over a long period of years, but now taxpayers are also bearing the burden of this having to come to the House, of the waste of the House’s time, and of the waste of effort that all the advisers and everyone else—let alone the sponsoring member—have had to put into this.

I have to say that it is a little ironic when we hear the “Winston First Party” member Andrew Williams, who has a former association with the North Shore, trying to teach us—

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I object to the term “Winston First”. That is not the correct name of the member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members must refer to honourable members of this House by their correct name. So in future that will be abided by.

MAGGIE BARRY: As I was saying, for someone like Andrew Williams, who failed so spectacularly on the North Shore, to attempt to give us lessons—for the North Shore’s most famous irrigator to dare to try to hand down a few lessons from, or hand up a few lessons—

Scott Simpson: What was he called?

MAGGIE BARRY: North Shore’s most famous irrigator. Surely you have heard the stories. Everybody on the North Shore has an Andrew Williams story and most of them could not be repeated here in the Chamber. I would not waste the Committee’s time going through them yet again. They have been well-tracked through. It is interesting to see that he talks about his insomnia. I think his treatments for it were the traditional ones, which had then enlivened his late-night texting and caused him the sort of infamy that even he will never live down. But it is ridiculous to—

Tim Macindoe: Probably just lemons.

MAGGIE BARRY: Lemonade—well, whatever it was—who knows? You do not want to go to into those dark thoughts of what he might have had. I guess that—

Tim Macindoe: Aiding the lemon.

MAGGIE BARRY: Aiding the lemon. Yes, he would have had something to go with the lemons—you are quite right. There is some very helpful advice coming through.

When Andrew Williams talks about people making mistakes at the local government level, he is after all the expert in that matter, because, you know, mistakes, he has made a few, and they continue to haunt him to this day. So there are layers and layers of irony that such a failed individual, who has so conspicuously not delivered in his own area—the lowest-polling candidate and the guy who never made it back as mayor—did not even get back on one of the local boards. This is the kind of individual whom we will not be taking notice of, and we will certainly not be following any advice that he gives. In fact, I am surprised that we did not have a “North Shore Council Validation Bill”—from mistakes that that man would have made when he was the mayor. [Interruption] No, no. That has all been abolished now, partly because of people like himself.

As I have said, the local government reforms that this Government is putting through at the moment are, of course, absolutely essential, when we look at what has happened with Kaipara and with the Tasman District Council. I think that when you do look at incompetence and slack councils, the ratepayers are in a position where they really do need central government to step in and lead the way. It is disappointing—very disappointing—that it has to happen, but this is a Government that does not shirk from its responsibilities. We will absolutely ensure that the legislation goes through with due consultation and through due process, unlike what happened with the Tasman District Council.

I look at some of the submissions that we had—Lindsay McKenzie, the chief executive, came to us. This was the council that was actually part of the problem. Perhaps the sponsoring member might like to clarify this point for us, but in terms of the people who were in positions of responsibility when this mistake with the map was made, it would be interesting to know just how many of them were still involved, or did the ratepayers get their way, ultimately, and do what all people need to do when they do not like people in public office and vote them out? We have seen that, of course, with Labour, which had, I think, its lowest polling ever. Would it have been in the last elections or was that in 2008? Anyway, voters, whether they are paying their rates or paying their taxes are absolutely within their rights to exercise their democratic right to vote people out. So I am assuming that most of the people who caused the problems at the Tasman District Council were thrown out on their ears.

The background of this bill is indeed interesting. I think, when you look at the options that the council left itself, there were not too many. Three, in fact, were outlined to us by the chief executive of the now Tasman District Council. An Order in Council was one of the things that the council could have been given, according to its legal advice. A replacement rate was the other option. Then there was a local bill, and that is when Damien O’Connor took up the challenge of putting this bill through. The council had no choice. It had boxed itself into a corner, and that is why the bill is here today.

I think the other standout submission for me was from the office of the Mayor of the Tasman district, Richard Kempthorne. He wrote us a submission, of course, and then he came and saw us as well and talked about the fact that the council did admit and acknowledge that it had made an error in setting those 2006-07 rates for the Tata Beach - Ligar Bay stormwater urban drainage area. The council regretted that that error was made and it fessed up to it, but it also noted—and I think this is an important point—that if it had included that 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 lawful if the map had been included. It was not asking the select committee to validate something the council could not have done lawfully if it had not made the mistake. So when we look at the facts of the matter, as they were outlined and as admitted by the mayor, the facts were very clear and very straightforward. The enduring miracle—

Andrew Williams: Nice compliment to repeat.

MAGGIE BARRY: —apart from the fact that the person who is trying to interject at the moment was ever elected mayor, let alone thrown out on his ear after one term. Apart from that miracle of silliness from the ratepayers—a momentary aberration—the fact that this council did actually get up and admit that it had done wrong, and admitted and supported what Damien O’Connor has done, is ultimately a commendable thing.

I think when we look at this bill, it is pretty straightforward. There are a number of things that need to be learnt. And I must say, when the Local Government and Environment Committee was presented with some of those laminated photographs of the beach area and we looked at the Ligar Bay area, in particular, we could see that it was a pretty straightforward sort of solution. Ultimately, I guess there are silver linings to this particular cloud, and one of them is that, basically, this will not happen again—certainly not in this neck of the woods, in Tasman, and, hopefully, not in Kaipara either. I think that once we look at what we can do as a Government to continue on with local government reforms, we can ensure that ratepayers are protected from the sorts of silliness that we have seen in both of these places around New Zealand that have resulted in members’ bills, which are expensive, time-consuming, and, ultimately, things that we would rather not have to go through. But we are here.

There was unanimity across the select committee.

Scott Simpson: The price of democracy.

MAGGIE BARRY: It is the price of democracy and it is what we need to do really to ensure—as Alan Martin used to say—that it is the putting right that counts. And that is what is happening, so I commend Damien O’Connor for putting this bill through.

I would be very interested in the sponsoring member’s response to the question I put to him about how many of the councillors remain and whether there is still a residue of bitterness and anger in that community, or whether, by putting this validation through, it will put things right for a community that has suffered. For someone like Bob Schmuke, I hope that the slurs on his reputation, the put-downs, and the arrogance that he had to endure have been worth it. I have not heard back from Mr Schmuke at all, but I did commend him on his tenacity at the time and welcomed that he had come through to us, and I hope that Mr O’Conner will pass that on.

We do need more Mr Schmukes. We could have used them on the North Shore a few years ago, but we have come right now and it is all working terrifically well. I think that they are very well represented by Jonathan Coleman on one side at Northcote. Once again, a Labour seat briefly, but people saw the light and Jonathan Coleman was then introduced.

I will have to leave it there—all choked up. Thank you very much.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. I stand to take a call on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. Like my colleagues here, I would like to reiterate that the bill will validate rates set by the Tasman District Council for the period from 2003-04 to 2008-09. I think that it is really important to reiterate that because it is just for that one period of time. As we heard, this is retrospective legislation. The member Damien O’Connor brought it here. He was supportive of the legislation but not overly enthusiastic, and I think that we have got a sense of that here from the debate this evening.

The council did not follow correct process in setting the rates, and we have also heard that this was a mistake. However, we would hope that, being retrospective, it will not happen again. Therefore, we are going to ensure that with this legislation going forward, these kinds of things will be put in place. In respect of the local councils, National’s Better Local Government reforms will help make local government more efficient, responsive, and well focused, which is another reason why we have given support to this bill, and it deserves to be given its due diligence. Better Local Government reforms include a work stream to monitor and improve council performance to help prevent future procedural errors. Again, this is not the only council where this has happened, so we are hoping that the council going forward will ensure that these types of mistakes do not occur again.

This bill will highlight to other councils, as I have said, the importance of proper scrutiny when setting rates. For the sake of consistency, a technical amendment will be made to clauses 5(a), 6, and 9 to replace the words “declared to have been” with “declared to be and to always have been”. The Local Government and Environment Committee was sympathetic to proposals to delete clause 9 but found that this course of action would be outside the scope of the bill. As such, the committee recommended only the technical amendments discussed in its report. Clause 9 seeks to validate targeted rates set by the council for the 2006-07 financial year for the purposes of stormwater works in the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach urban drainage areas.

The committee noted that there would be many practical implications of deleting clause 9. That time has passed since the rates were set, compounds this issue. Without validation the council would be required to determine which ratepayers had paid their rates in 2006-07 and the amounts that they had paid; to ascertain whether the current ratepayers were the same ratepayers as those in 2006-07—and I think some of my colleagues have already talked about that too—to apportion rates if there are or were multiple owners; and to write to each ratepayer, advising them of the amount of their refund and requesting bank details for those repayments. The merits of setting the stormwater rate were found to be outside the scope of this bill, as well.

In 2003-04 and in 2008-09 the council passed rates attached to the annual plan, rather than ratifying each rate individually, and it set rates before the council had adopted the annual plan. This was in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. That Act provides avenues for councils to amend incorrectly set rates, but the window of time has now passed. So this bill is needed in order to validate certain rates set incorrectly during that period, and without validation the council remains vulnerable to legal challenge from ratepayers over incorrectly set rates. Validation is also required to allow the council to recover unpaid rates and penalties, and I think, again, that my colleagues across the Committee have already talked about that.

Some residents objected to details of the stormwater rate, and they said that they were not properly consulted on the urban drainage area—that was a really big concern for the select committee—and that they were being charged for stormwater services that they were not using. The committee has noted that aspects of the council’s consultation were not ideal, but steps have been taken by the council to improve the way the rates are set so that similar errors are not made in the future. A key part of National’s Better Local Government reforms is monitoring and improving council performance. Publicity about the bill will show other councils that their own processes may come under greater scrutiny.

I just want to reflect on the whakapapa of that area and to put it into some kind of context historically, in terms of its whakapapa. In respect of Tata Beach, that is also part of an area next to Pōhara. The area of Golden Bay that we know now as Golden Bay was identified as the area where first Pākehā-Māori contact was had, by crew members of the ship of the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman. Unfortunately for those crew members, the local Māori there killed them. So I think that was just something that was very much an aside, so that there might be some kind of historical context regarding Pōhara in that area. I commend the bill to the Committee.

Preamble agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Having had a pretty good go at the preamble of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill—

Maggie Barry: Oh, only getting started.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, we are only getting started because the preamble has a good deal of the description of the bill, but really this bill comes right back to council processes and decision-making processes within the council. I think that the Committee understands what has happened here that brings this bill to the House, which is that back in 2003-04 rates were incorrectly set and now need to be put right, because if they are not put right, then, in fact, those rates would be deemed to be unlawful and the council would be open to challenge.

I just want to take a moment to reflect on the decision-making responsibilities of any local authority in New Zealand and on how important it is that those requirements under the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act are adhered to closely and carefully, because if they are not, then you are going to end up in the kind of state that the Tasman District Council and others—mercifully few—have found themselves in. So it is really incumbent on the chief executive of the local authority to make sure that the calculations and the information put in front of elected members are correct, so that when members do go to vote on the rating declaration, there are the maps attached that describe the rating boundaries for the purpose of targeted rates and that sort of thing.

So although I am absolutely sure that the elected members of the Tasman District Council have taken quite a bit of heat over this, how much liability do you place on them? You know, as an elected member—and I was an elected local authority member—I ask how much is it your responsibility for making sure that the resolutions that are placed in front of you for voting on are correct, and how much of that lies with the council officers. Well, I have a view on that. I reckon that although councillors need to make good, robust decisions, they have got to be made based on good evidence and good information, and clearly in this case those councillors made a decision a number of years ago that was not based on good information and good evidence.

I think that that is exactly what underpins the purpose of the Better Local Government reforms brought in by this Government. This kind of example just absolutely underlines exactly why we need local authorities that are capable, that are proficient, and that are focused on what matters. Around rates-setting time what matters is putting good information in front of the elected members so that they can have a good debate about what they are about to vote on, because the voting that takes place in every local authority has an impact on rates and is taking money out of ratepayers’ pockets to provide them with services.

Part 1 of this bill, which is the preliminary provisions, describes in detail the purpose of this bill, which is to “validate specified rates set and assessed by the Council and the penalties added to those rates;” and it is the penalties where things get quite tricky for the—

Chris Hipkins: This is possibly the most boring speech I’ve ever heard.

JACQUI DEAN: You see, the member over the other side of the Chamber has just said that this is possibly the most boring speech he has ever heard in this Chamber, and I think that that is really unfortunate, because this matter is quite important to the people of Tasman District. I think that those ratepayers of the Tasman District—which electorate is it? Which electorate is the Tasman District in? It is in West Coast - Tasman and maybe a little bit of Nelson. So let those ratepayers listen to what just happened from the members of the Labour caucus. They are finding this debate, which is about providing good governance on behalf of their local authority, boring. So I do hope that those people who are listening and watching this on television clearly understand that if they are looking for any sympathy from the Labour caucus for local government, then they need not look to Labour. Clearly, the member from the other side of the Chamber, who has no knowledge about local government and clearly no love for local government, has just absolutely displayed to everyone here that those members have no sympathy, they have no empathy, and they have no liking for local government.

I think that that is a shame, because local government underpins our communities and the provision and the setting of rates, if done correctly, is absolutely critical for every single community. It does not matter whether it is Wellington or the West Coast - Tasman—it does not matter where it is. It does not matter how boring that little process is that the councillors have to sit down and make the resolutions on, just as we do sometimes. It is about as dry as a chip, occasionally. It does not matter how dry and boring it might seem to those Labour members; actually, it matters. It matters to those ratepayers because it is their money that is being taken out of their pockets by their council to pay for services that they need.

I reckon that Labour has just laid its intentions bare. Those members do not care. They think it is boring. Well, I tell you what: the National Government does not think that it is boring. Through our Better Local Government reforms we are putting a huge amount of focus on providing good services in local government. You see, over on this side of the Chamber we want to provide—it might be boring and it might be as dry as a chip—

Maggie Barry: That’s democracy.

JACQUI DEAN: —good service and, as Maggie Barry says, that is democracy. Sometimes it is a little bit dry and not that exciting sitting down and reading lots and lots of papers, and I can understand why the Labour members would not like that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Now I would actually like to hear something about Part 1. We are actually on the parts of the bill now, and the parts are quite limited. I am asking the member to talk about Part 1 of this bill.

JACQUI DEAN: Thank you so much, Mr Chairperson, because this comes right back to the purpose of this bill, which is to correct the deficiency with the Tasman District Council. I think it would be fair to say that correcting mistakes made in the past is exactly what this Government is focused on doing through its Better Local Government reforms. I acknowledge that members on the other side of the Chamber, Labour members in particular, find that a bit boring, but I can assure the Committee that we do not.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I would like to take just a short call on Part 1 of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill because it is a short part of the bill. We have talked about the preamble, which covers most of the issues that we are dealing with. Part 1 actually outlines the purposes of the bill, which, to recap, are to validate the specified rates and the penalties added to those rates, to collect any rates or penalties that have remained unpaid, and also to validate the more controversial part of this bill, the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rate for 2006 and 2007. Part 1 also lists the definitions used in the bill, and they show us the large number of rates that have been set incorrectly. Yes, they are technical breaches and they are procedural errors, but it has required a lot of time, a lot of energy, and a lot of money to bring this bill to Parliament so that those rates can be validated. Yes, it is a necessary process, but it is wasteful of council resources, and when you talk about council resources, what you really are talking about are ratepayers’ resources.

The member who sponsored this bill, the Hon Damien O’Connor, in his previous speech to the Committee made a very important point to the Tasman District Council. Local councils should be responsive to the ratepayers whom they serve. They should avoid disputes with those people whom they are set to look after. They should try to deliver what the communities want, when the communities want it. This validation bill would probably never have come to the House if it were not for the dispute between the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay ratepayers and the Tasman District Council. Perhaps that could have been dealt with in a more cost-effective way if everybody had been on the same side. But this was a dispute that escalated, and, in actual fact, everybody from that escalation—the council, the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach ratepayers, the ratepayers for the wider district, and Parliament—were all the losers in this process.

Let us hope that this council and others can view this bill as a bit of a cautionary tale. Councils should remember that it is their responsibility to provide efficient, effective, and affordable services to their ratepayers, and so they need to treat their ratepayers with respect and work with their communities. The members of this Committee have reluctantly supported this validation bill. They are supporting it because it is a pragmatic and sensible decision and it will benefit the ratepayers of the greater Tasman district area.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is my pleasure to speak on Part 1 of this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. The Tasman district is a wonderful part of the country. I have not spent a hang of a lot of time there, being based in Auckland—

Kris Faafoi: Whereabouts?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —based in Epsom—but I have had the opportunity to spend a little bit of time there, and it is a wonderful part of the country.

I just want to go through some of the preliminary provisions and the purposes of this bill, particularly: “to—(a) validate specified rates set and assessed by the Council and the penalties added to those rates; and (b) treat all money received by the Council in payment of the specified rates or penalties added to those rates” in order to fix what was a mistake made when certain rates were incorrectly set during the 2003-04 period through to 2008-09. As you would have heard, Mr Chair, in previous speeches, without validation the council does remain vulnerable to legal challenges from ratepayers over the incorrectly set rates. This part is focused on trying to fix that problem.

Certainly, my experience in Epsom, as in most areas, is that rates are a subject that a lot of people get very concerned about because they are not linked necessarily to an ability to pay. They are based on capital value, and older people on a fixed income, in particular, find it very difficult to cope with that. People have a very keen interest in making sure that the rates are as low as possible, but they also obviously have a very keen interest in the fact that they are set lawfully and properly. Unfortunately, in this instance in the Tasman District Council, under the oversight of Damien O’Connor as the local MP, things did not quite go right. This bill is aimed at trying to sort that out. National wants to give affected residents the opportunity to engage, and is therefore supporting the bill, and we have made good progress.

I just want to go through the interpretation clause, because this really drills down to the meat and drink of this bill. We are talking about clause 4, “Interpretation”, which states that in this bill, unless otherwise required—we are coming up with a definition for the 2003 rates. Let us look at 2003. Of course, that was really the start of the second term of the former Labour Government, when it was basically maintaining a reasonably disciplined approach to spending but was about to start increasing Government spending, which was to lead to the very significant increase in Government spending overall. I accept I am moving a bit away from this bill, but it was a period I think when New Zealand was doing extremely well. We did not really make the most of that opportunity because the Government just expanded its own spending, rather than leaving money in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders in order to grow their own businesses and make jobs.

If we move through to the 2004 rates, which is on the next line here, it means “the rates set out in the funding impact statement adopted by the Council for the 2004/2005 financial year”. Again, if we look at 2004, that definitely was one of the years that the locusts consumed, because New Zealand was doing very well, but in Auckland in particular we saw house prices really start to rocket, based on—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sorry, I will move back to 2004. If we go on to—[Interruption] Sorry, did you want me to start again?

If we go on to 2005, we will be looking at “the rates as set out in the funding impact statement adopted by the Council for the 2005/2006 financial year”. Again, 2005 was when the Tasman District Council started to get into serious problems because the rating information that it laid down was incorrect.

Further on, if we look at the 2006 rates, it means “the rates as set out in the funding impact statement adopted by the Council for the 2006/2007 financial year;”. The problem with that was it was in this particular period that the technical mistakes were made, which are being fixed by clause 9, which we dealt with previously. But it was there that the technical mistakes were made, and the rates were levied incorrectly, and that led to this legislation, really, which is all about trying to get the right form of words and get it done officially so that the people of Tasman can move on and have some certainty around this area.

There are no particular winners out of this legislation, because nobody is happy about having to do retrospective legislation in this way. But, in the end, if the council is tied up in endless litigation, then that costs everybody. If, for some reason, the people whose rates were levied incorrectly do not pay their rates, that just means that everybody else in the district has to pay those rates, and that is unfair to them. And so the correct thing is to ask whether if it were not for the technical mistakes that were made, those rates would have been properly levied, and, therefore, this legislation really just recreates that situation.

I will just move on to 2007 and 2008. Those two years were also in error, and this bill is trying to correct those problems. It is interesting that this piece of legislation interprets the term “Council” to mean the Tasman District Council. That is a reminder of specifically which council we are dealing with in this legislation. The funding impact statement has the meaning given by section 5 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. These two places are Ligar Bay and Tata Beach, neither of which, sadly, I have ever been to. I have been to Golden Bay, if that is in the same district. I think it is. But those two bays, Ligar Bay and Tata Beach, are the two particular areas that we are talking about, and that is what this part relates to.

Overall, I just want to say, finally, that National’s Better Local Government reforms are aimed at helping make local government more efficient, responsive, and well focused. This legislation and this part are not what you would describe as a critical part of that overall framework, but it is a bill that highlights to other councils the importance of proper scrutiny when setting rates. On that basis, I think I have said enough, so thank you very much.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Validation and recovery of certain rates

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): If you thought that Part 1 and the preamble were fascinating, I am delighted to be able to take a lengthy call now, analysing clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8, and then, the exciting culmination, clause 9. There were no changes recommended to those, but the process of how that conclusion was arrived at is indeed fascinating. I am, of course, hoping that the sponsoring member, Damien O’Connor, will be able to shine a little light on how the community has responded to the progress of his member’s bill, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, so far, but I see he is deeply engaged in conversation. Perhaps at a later moment he might be able to sort of elucidate and come to it. I could ask him again, really—now that you are paying attention—to talk about the community and how it feels about this validation and whether it will in fact smooth over some of the hurt feelings and problems that have happened.

When we look at clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8, they are specifically concerned with the validation of the specified rates, the validation of penalties, the payment of specified rates that have been declared lawful, and then, clause 8 itself, the “Recovery of unpaid specified rates or penalties declared lawful”. A number of submitters opposed clauses 6 to 8, in relation to the penalties in particular. One submitter’s view that was particularly interesting was that the council should be limited to being able to collect only the base rate but not the penalties for late payment on the base amount. This is the logic around it: the ratepayers who had delayed paying the rates because they were invalid should not be penalised. This was considered unjustified because it would mean that the council would then be benefiting from its own errors, which is, of course, something that we need to take into account. After all, as every good parent knows, you cannot reward bad behaviour. By benefiting from its own errors, the council would indeed be in a difficult situation. Well, in fact, it would be in a good situation, but that would send a very bad signal to other councils.

One submitter, on those clauses 5 through to 7, suggested that penalties should apply only to amounts that remain unpaid after some specified period after the Act comes into force. So you will appreciate that there were a number of submitters who had given this a great deal of thought, time, and energy. The officials, for their part, also devoted a lot of time and energy to this. As I said in my earlier call on the preamble, it is a shame that something like this has got to the stage that it has and that it has wasted so much of the House’s time and the taxpayers’ money. But there it is—that is the nature of democracy. We know that the Labour members’ short concentration span on the whole cannot really tolerate it, but we will go through it—

Jacqui Dean: They find it boring.

MAGGIE BARRY: Yes, they find it boring. That is a very, very telling observation. I think that they seem to find most things boring, which is probably why the local government reforms will go through, and they will go through without too much in the way of rigorous opposition, because Labour members just cannot marshal the intellectual rigour to be able to counter any of the excellent arguments that we put forward. So there you go—they are indeed wallowing in their short concentration spans and their problematic moments.

I would like to go now to the recommendations of the Department of Internal Affairs on the clauses. It did consider them to be appropriate for purpose. The department recommended no changes to clauses 5 to 8. When we come to clause 9, Mr Chair—and I know you will be interested in this—it makes explicit the nub of the problem, which is the 2006-07 Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates. It made them valid and declared them lawful, despite the category of rateable land not being identified in that earlier impact statement. You know, floods occur occasionally in this area, and that was explained to us in detail by a couple of submitters—in particular, Mr Schmuke, who had gone to a lot of trouble to laminate several large photographs and had, as I said in my earlier call and as others have referred to, just taken it that step further.

Nine submitters opposed the validation of the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates. They were very much opposed to the initial levying of the stormwater rates on the grounds that no stormwater drainage services were provided by the council and that there was no need for them; therefore, why should they pay for them? Further, there was no initial consultation on the inclusion of Ligar Bay, so those ratepayers felt themselves disenfranchised, not involved in the process, and were obviously therefore very unhappy at what they were expected to pay. Submitters also opposed the validation of the invalid stormwater rates on the basis of the Ombudsman’s opinion back in 2009 that supported the position that levying a stormwater rate for Tata Beach was based wholly or partly on the mistake of law and fact. Really, was that natural justice? No, it was not.

So the officials had commented—

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I thought I would just take the opportunity to answer a couple of questions I have been asked. On the one of accountability for mistakes and whether that has run far and wide, I can say that there were a number of councillors who lost their positions in the last election and a number of staff have been shifted around. So I think that that has occurred and hopefully the rest of them will have had the message.

On this particular part, Part 2, I would just like to mention on clause 9 that it was the request of the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach residents to have it removed so that, in fact, they would then have to go back through a full process of consultation as to whether the rates should be struck or not. The Local Government and Environment Committee, I have to acknowledge, brought the parties back twice—they were at the committee twice—to try to reach a common position on this. It could not be reached. On balance, the committee thought that it was essential that this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill proceed for the good of all the ratepayers and that there should perhaps at some point be some acknowledgment of the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay residents. That is yet to be seen, but hopefully is to be committed to and honoured by the Tasman District Council. I am not quite sure how that might occur, but I think they probably deserve it.

Clause 9 remains in the bill and it proceeds, and it is up to the council now to ensure that fairness and harmony exist among as many ratepayers as possible. So, once again, I would just like to acknowledge the work of the select committee in giving it a fair go but arriving at what I think is a pragmatic solution.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I would like to take the time to focus in on clauses 5 to 9 of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill and on the details that for many members are hidden behind these words. A once-over-lightly reading might suggest that we are making some sweeping changes here, but it is important to note that clauses 5, 6, and 7 in particular are a summary of what we saw in the preamble. For example, in clause 5 here, it talks about the “Validation of specified rates” and says that “Despite the failure of the Council to comply with section 23 or 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002—(a) the specified rates are valid …” and on it goes. Well, sections 23 and 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act, in terms of what we are having to validate in terms of section 23 by way of an example, the council in 2003 and 2004, as stated in recital (3), did not “state clearly that the Council was setting rates as required by that section”, which occurred in 2003-04. So there was the unlawful action covered by section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. It also failed “to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set”, so when the resolutions were made, the council, in effect, did not detail all the rates to be set. It sort of cherry-picked which ones it described in detail, and it should have actually resolved to set them all individually and, presumably, voted on each of them.

Also, the council did not comply with section 23 of the Act, as described in recital (4) of this bill. It did not “set the rates before the Council had resolved to adopt the annual plan …”, and that is an important matter. It should have adopted the annual plan, and then the rates setting falls out of that adoption, rather than the other way round. Recital (5) of the preamble also talks about the breaches of section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act, and, in this case, section 24 was breached because the council failed to state that all the rates were purported to be set in that particular year, “that the rates could be paid by instalments”—it never made that clear—and that, in fact, penalties could be added to the rates. It should have done that all under section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. So, in fact, when you look at recitals 5 to 7 of the preamble, where it talks about those breaches of section 23 and section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act, those are the specific breaches we are talking about. Of course, that is just in the 2003 to 2004 year.

So here we have a change that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended to these particular clauses of Part 2. For a start, for the sake of consistency, we are recommending a technical amendment be made to clauses 5(a), 6, and 9 to replace the term “declared to have been”—and we are talking about “declared to have been” made valid. We are saying that what we should better say, for the sake of consistency, is “declared to be and to always have been”, and that is much more thorough, all-encompassing, and clear. It leaves little room for any doubt in any courtroom across New Zealand, particularly in the courtrooms of the Tasman district, that we are talking about validating rates. They are “declared to be and to always have been” valid. So where this works out in clause 5(a), we are saying that “the specified rates are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully set by the Council”.

In clause 6 we are saying that “those rates are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully imposed by the Council.” In clause 9 we are saying that “the Tata Beach stormwater rate for the 2006/2007 financial year are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully set”. So there you have in clause 5(a), “always have been lawfully set by the Council”; in clause 6, “always have been lawfully imposed by the Council”; and, again, with Tata Beach, in clause 9, “set and assessed by the Council”. So it is very, very important to note that we have made that technical change. I would encourage parliaments moving forward—so for the rest of this year, and, I guess, if most of the country feels this way, hopefully with a National-led Government for the next 3 years—to include the consistency that we have included tonight. That is not to simply say “declared to have been”, but to say “declared to be and to always have been”.

I do want to touch a bit more deeply on clause 9 of Part 2 as well, and that is the validation of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates. The committee was tempted—and many members of the committee are more open to temptation than others. Some of us try to lead more pure lives than others, but some are tempted. We were all tempted to a degree by this issue of actually wiping clause 9 off the record books. Given the historic nature of the rating errors in question, and being a very open Government and honest about what we do, this would be difficult, because without such validation, a council would then be required to do a whole bunch of things regarding Ligar Bay and Tata Beach. It would have to determine which ratepayers had paid the rates in 2006-07 and the amounts they had paid, and ascertain whether the current ratepayers are the same ratepayers as those in 2006-07. What an onerous task. It would have to apportion the rates if there were multiple owners of a residence—so if there were two owners over that time period, it would have to apportion the rates, presumably pro rata. If there were three owners, it would have to apportion them three ways, four ways, and so on, depending on the turnover of that property. It would have to write to each ratepayer advising them of the amount of the refund and requesting bank details for repayment.

It is a difficult task tracking those people down, getting their consent, getting their bank account details—finding out all those details—and, in the end, having the permission to do so from the individual. So it is a difficult task indeed. We decided that we would in fact retain clause 9, albeit in an amended form. So that is a pragmatic solution to the issue of validation of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): I would like to reiterate that the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill will validate the rates set by the Tasman District Council for the period 2003-04 to 2008-09, during which time the council did not follow correct process in setting rates. The bill will also validate rates and penalties paid over that period, authorise the council to recover any unpaid rates, and ratify the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rates. This bill is, as we have heard this evening, retrospective legislation, but it is very necessary legislation in order to set the foundations for better local government going forward.

This National Government is about Better Local Government reforms. It is about allowing those councils to make those very hard decisions, especially under increasing pressure. However, mistakes like this do occur and we are hopeful that this legislation will minimise the risk going forward and will ensure that other councils learn from this mistake. Better Local Government reforms include work streams to monitor and improve council performance. This legislation will reinforce to those councils that they will be monitored and that compliance must be met. Although those viewers at home may find that this is very technical and rather dour and boring, it is absolutely necessary that we get this right for the sake of the Tasman District Council and all other councils going forward. I say again that this is retrospective legislation, but it is necessary. Of course, it is being supported across the Committee, albeit not overly enthusiastically, but, again, the bill has got to be given its due diligence.

For the sake of consistency, technical amendments will be made, as we have heard this evening. The Local Government and Environment Committee was sympathetic to the proposals that were brought forward by members of the Tasman District community to delete clause 9. However, it must be reinforced that the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is absolutely necessary for the Tasman District Council to go forward in a robust fashion. The committee noted that there would be many practical implications of deleting clause 9, which is actually quite important. It needs to be reiterated and reinforced that the time that had passed since those rates were set compounds this. Without validation of the stormwater rates, the council would be required to determine which ratepayers had paid the rate in 2006-07 and the amount that they paid. I am repeating this because although this bill may seem to be technically very detailed, it is absolutely crucial that clarification around these technical details is had. The merits of setting a stormwater rate were found to be outside this bill and I think that that needs to be reiterated as well, given the submissions that wanted that to be done.

From 2003-04 to 2008-09 the council passed rates attached to the annual plan rather than ratifying each rate individually, and that is something that this council will need to do going forward. To ensure that this does not occur again, the council will need to implement procedures to ensure it meets compliance with the legislation. This was in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

The Local Government (Rating) Act provides an avenue for councils to amend incorrectly set rates, but the window of time had passed. The bill, as we have heard, is needed to validate certain rates that were set incorrectly during that period. Without the validation, the council remains vulnerable to legal challenges from ratepayers over incorrectly set rates. Validation is also required to allow the council to recover unpaid rates and penalties.

Some residents have objected to details of the stormwater rate. They were not properly consulted on the urban drainage area and they are being charged for stormwater services that are not being used. The committee noted that aspects of the council’s consultation were not ideal, but steps taken—

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): We are dealing with clauses 1 and 2, I believe, of this bill. The title, which is the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, could, I suppose, just as easily be the “Tasman District Council (Recovery and Validation of Certain Rates) Bill”, but I think the word “validation” probably should come first, followed by the word “recovery”. If we were to have the word “recovery” before the word “validation”, we would get ourselves into a terrible pickle. So I agree in essence with the title as it is laid out. It has to be the Tasman District Council, because that is the council that is affected by this bill. It cannot be any other council. What puzzles me, however, is that the bill says “2013”, because, as we all know, it is 2014 at the moment. But I presume that that is part of how it is operated.

So we are dealing here with the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, and that, I suppose, in essence, is the problem that we had with the legislation—that the rates were not certain at all because they had been incorrectly rated. So this bill here is indeed attempting to validate what had been made uncertain by the poor process. If we can make those rates more certain, then we can give certainty back to the people of the Tasman District, who have been going through a difficult time because of this bill.

The second clause relates to when the bill comes into force. Again, the suggestion is that it would be the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Again, that makes perfect sense, because you certainly would not want it to take force the day before it received the Royal assent, because that would not be appropriate. It could have been considerably later at any particular given time and, indeed, a number of people considered various options. It could have been 1 January 2015, for example, but, in essence, the Local Government and Environment Committee was persuaded that it did not make any sense necessarily to stick with 1 January, but, rather, to go with the date as suggested so as to come into force exactly on the day after the date on which this bill receives its Royal assent. On that basis, I think I will leave it. I just wanted to make a short call on these clauses 1 and 2. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Sullivan Birth Registration Bill

In Committee

Preamble

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to stand to discuss and debate the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill during this Committee stage of the bill. It has been equally interesting listening to the previous speakers on the previous item on tonight’s agenda. The opportunity for private bills or local bills to come through is a very significant part of parliamentary work, even if it affects a small number of people. Most of our legislation, of course, is designed to embrace populations, or large parts of populations, or certain sections of them, whereas these bills, this one in particular, affects one individual. It does so in a very particular way, because it provides an identity for a person, an identity that was, in fact, lost and has now been restored—or will be restored by the passing of this bill as it completes its various stages.

I was reflecting earlier on what I might contribute to this bill to assist the understanding of people who are not familiar with the technicalities of it—and it is a very technical bill. But to give it personal reflection, I thought this evening of how fortunate I have been to travel earlier in my life to large parts of the South Pacific basin, in particular Papua New Guinea, which is a country I spent a lot of time in and fell in love with. But I was constantly reminded of the fragility of personal identification, because in that country—and in plenty of other countries in the world, probably, but fewer and fewer all the time—people do not carry personal identification in the form of passports, driving licences, or that sort of thing. Their identity is within their own family, within their wantok, within their groups of people. They are identified because they are known as individuals. And that is very, very fragile, especially when rural comes in to urban community.

In this particular case, this bill would require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her birth certificate. Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, same-sex couples are able to marry and therefore to apply to jointly adopt children. If Rowen Sullivan’s birth mother had been able to marry her long-term partner, this situation would not have arisen. Ultimately, this bill will make what is a matter of fact—that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are Rowen Sullivan’s parents—a matter of law.

I would suggest to anyone who asks why we are doing this through Parliament—that this seems to be a lot of time being spent on an individual—to just try not having these things right in their life. I would suggest it is a breakfast, lunch, and dinner job. It is going to be affecting you all the time.

To give listeners and people who are in the Chamber the detail of how this happened, I will just go through a list of the events. Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan—that is her birth mother—and Diane Sullivan’s female partner, Doreen Shields. 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, believe it or not, would have required the removal of Diane Sullivan—that is, the birth mother—

Preamble agreed to.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

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

Clauses 1 to 4

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Government Administration Committee for the wonderful work that it has done on behalf of Rowen Sullivan, Doreen Shields, and the late Diane Sullivan. The work that the committee has done has ensured that the integrity of this family has remained intact. I particularly want to thank the Hon Ruth Dyson, who has chaired this process, Chris Auchinvole, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, the Hon Trevor Mallard, Mojo Mathers, Eric Roy, and Jan Logie.

I, as the sponsor of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, would like to support the recommendations of the select committee, and there are two. The first is that the title of the bill be changed to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill”. The intention of this piece of legislation is to ensure that Rowen Sullivan has a birth certificate that names both of her parents. In fact, that outcome or that output will be available by virtue of the registration of her parents, so I support 100 percent what the select committee has done. In addition, the select committee recommends the insertion of a new clause 4, which provides that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents” of Rowen Sullivan.

I would like to thank, again, the select committee for its wonderful work. I look forward to the third reading debate on this bill. I thank the Committee and all members for their support. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): As has been mentioned, the mover of this bill, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, is Louisa Wall. Can I thank you, Louisa, for introducing and sponsoring this bill, because it is very important for the Sullivan family and they have been waiting for it for a long time. I would like to acknowledge the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, my colleagues Chris Auchinvole and Eric Roy, and the other members of the Government Administration Committee, who have supported this bill all the way. The Sullivan family, and particularly Diane, have got a special place in Rowen’s life, and she wanted her parents’ names on her birth certificate. Thank you.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill without amendment, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill without amendment, and no progress on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

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

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

(continued on Thursday, 13 March 2014)

Bills

Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill be now read a second time. This bill is the result of very intensive negotiations between the Crown and 13 iwi and hapū of Auckland between 2009 and 2012. It differs from other Treaty bills in that it does not settle historical claims or provide financial redress. Rather, it takes an innovative approach by providing to the iwi and the hapū in the Tāmaki region collective redress that recognises their complex interconnected interests.

In this way, the bill provides an important component to the settlement of the individual claims of the participating iwi, who are at various stages of their negotiations with the Crown. Some iwi, like Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, are now settled. Many will conclude their negotiations this year, and for almost all other groups, negotiations are under way and are progressing well.

The bill provides collective redress to the 13 iwi and hapū of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau, a body otherwise known as the Tāmaki Collective. Members of the collective are Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Akitai, Te Kawerau-a-Maki—with whom we signed, just a couple of weeks ago—Te Patukirikiri, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, headed by that great New Zealander Naida Glavish.

A key aspect of the redress provided in the bill is the transfer to the Tāmaki Collective of 14 of Auckland’s volcanic cones. These maunga will be held as reserves for the common benefit of the Tāmaki Collective and the people of Auckland. Third-party interests and public access over the reserves will be protected. The maunga will be governed by a body made up of representatives of the Tāmaki Collective and Auckland Council, called the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority, or the Maunga Authority.

If I could put on another hat as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, I can say I have been working with Unesco over the last year to see whether it will be possible for the maunga to receive World Heritage recognition. It is a big project, and it is one that will take some time to achieve, if at all, but we are under way on that, as well.

Other collective redress includes the vesting of four islands in the Tāmaki Collective and their subsequent vesting back in the Crown. A right of first refusal for 172 years over Crown-owned lands and certain Crown entity - owned land that becomes surplus is also provided for, and that is a very, very important aspect of the relief.

Last year the Māori Affairs Committee considered the bill and the issues raised in the submissions. It received nine submissions, which it heard in Auckland, and it was very, very encouraging that the overarching message of the submissions was one of support for the bill. I acknowledge the time that that committee spends on Treaty settlement legislation. In this bill, as with other bills, the committee has done an excellent job.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the iwi leaders of the Tāmaki Collective, and I particularly want to mention Paul Majurey, who has a very busy legal practice but provides fantastic leadership to the Tāmaki Collective. I salute him for his contribution to his own iwi, Ngāti Maru, and also to the work of the Tāmaki Collective.

I want to acknowledge the support of Mayor Len Brown and the Auckland Council. They have been very, very supportive of the maunga relief and have worked hard with the Crown so that we could get to this stage. I want to thank Ministers, my parliamentary colleagues, and the departments and agencies that have contributed to this bill. Finally, I acknowledge the tremendous work that was initiated by Sir Douglas Graham in 2009—things were a bit of a mess when we came into office in 2008; he is the one who brought the various iwi together and started to talk about the way in which we could plot a way forward—and more recently, the chief Crown negotiator in the region, Michael Dreaver, who has done a phenomenal job over the last few years in working through both the collective redress and also working with the iwi and hapū, not only of Tāmaki but also extending down right into Hauraki.

This bill provides an important step towards addressing the historical claims of the iwi and the hapū of Tāmaki. I very much look forward to the bill progressing to its third reading to give effect to this innovative and ground-breaking redress. I commend the legislation to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei ata i a tātau ngā kaitōrangapū e wherawhera nei i ngā kōrero kia tūtuki pai ai tēnei pire. Kua pau te whiriwhiri i roto i te kōmiti uiui i whakatūngia ai hei whiriwhiri, hei torotoro ki waenganui i te iwi i ngā take pēnei. Nā reira, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[So salutations to us all this morning as we politicians debate the contributions so that this bill is completed well. The committee tasked to consider and to take matters of this ilk among tribes have completed their part in the process. Therefore congratulations to us all once again.]

I rise to support what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said, but I just want to step back for a moment. Obviously, my colleagues on this side of the House try as much as possible to bring a bipartisan spirit to the task of settling the claims. Occasionally, it does irk us when we realise how quickly the process has gone since the current Minister has been in office, but it would be trivial and churlish to talk about politics on a day like this. We do salute the fact that Sir Douglas Graham and a host of others under the leadership of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations have been able to bring all these iwi together to deal with the issues of stewardship around the landscape, environmental values, and competing interests to do with heritage values.

Let us identify why this bill, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill, should be supported by this side of the House. We are still a young country, and, indeed, it was only a year or 2 ago that a relative of my grandmother’s passed away, the sister of the Rev. Māori Marsden, a well-known New Zealand clergyman. I tell you, when that woman passed away, New Zealand lost the last grandchild of a signatory of the Treaty of Waitangi. So that tells us how young our country is. We knew that woman as Auntie Lucy. Her father was the Rev. Hoani Matenga, who was educated at Te Rau Kahikatea. I do not think St John’s Theological College was around then, and I will come back soon to talk about why these Māori names for the college are not in the bill, but that is another matter. The Rev. Hoani Matenga’s father was Paerata. The name “Paerata” came from the transliteration of the word “pilot”. He piloted a number of the original vessels coming up into that part of the north. The name “Matenga” came from when they were baptised as Christians. That also gets me to the name “St John’s”, which is another mountain that has not got the right Māori name, but I will come back to that as well.

When that tupuna brought the missionaries into our rohe, I think that we should remember that that is an example of how we are still a young country. So if we can have institutional arrangements that go down to our mokopuna and that find a way to elevate the status of where our cultural identity meets the landscape, in such a way that it will outlive our politics, outlive us as we move on to either other careers or off the mortal coil, that is a very noble thing to do, not only for Māori, not only for the Treaty, but for the future of Aotearoa. We are wont in New Zealand to be pretty dismissive of aspects of our heritage and our culture because, in the zest of trying to develop and grow the country as a youthful nation, it is often seen as too stuffy or too expensive to spend time and money on. This is one Minister who has placed a considerable level of accent or emphasis on ensuring that that aspect of the Treaty settlement process is not left behind.

Reference has been made in figurative terms to the super-city council and the role that it has played in facilitating this bill. Naturally, we support those remarks, etc. I have been invited to go to a meeting with the Auckland Independent Māori Statutory Board. I will go on the understanding that Naida Glavish is not there. I have not had a good batting average with Māori women over recent years, so I think I might pass on that invitation if she is there. It is not just the Māori side I fear in the woman; it is the Dalmatian side, as well. But let us acknowledge that the super-city has played a role here with the iwi leaders. I do recall how fractious it was in earlier times, and I know that it has not been polite, perhaps, to refer openly to Sir Douglas Graham. Well, I want to stand in this House and say that I saw him at Matua Laly Haddon’s tangihanga in Ngāti Manuhiri. When Matua Laly Haddon, our famous Māori All Black of Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu, died, Sir Douglas Graham was there and they had no compunction whatsoever in taking him to sit with our matuas and our kaumātua. He has played a key role not only in this claim but in the earlier stages. Blemishes aside, we should acknowledge the contribution that the man has made.

When this bill eventually is implemented, it is absolutely essential that the Crown in the bureaucracy does not forget about the obligations. I would like some reassurance at some point in time from other Government speakers that the bureaucracy itself will be given a message that the politicians and the parliamentarians do their mahi, but the actual implementation takes place at the executive level of government down in the bureaucracy. It would be a very lamentable day if our kaumātua and iwi stewards find that the politicians have come and gone but there is actually an unwillingness or an inability on the bureaucracy to implement these changes. So I look forward to hearing from the other side of the House that there is some structure to ensure that these obligations, which cannot be managed just by money—they cannot just be monetised—are carried out. The super-city has a problem with its rates and the cost of running the super-city. We should send a message that these issues are matters of priority in terms of the identity of Auckland City, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and in terms of the vitality, the culture, and, quite frankly, the health of the city. So let us hope that when the various rationing exercises take place in terms of the cost of the super-city, these issues are not diminished or deprecated.

I want to come back and read into the record the names for seven geographic features requested by the Tāmaki Collective. They are all beautiful names, and I do not want to talk just about Rangitoto Island, Te Rangi-i-Totongia-a-Tamatekapua. Those of us who spend a lot of time on the marae would know the meanings of these names, but my plea is to our people on the other side of this debate. As I understand it, the Geographic Board will tolerate only one Māori name and one Pākehā name. So, as is the wont with our iwi, they sent nine. If we want our fellow Kiwis to embrace our perspective on these things, please try to sort it out at home. Mount St John I know a thing or three about by dint of having a bit to do with the Anglican Church; Te Kōpuke or Titikōpuke—not a great deal of difference between the two. I only hope that, as St John went around baptising, a political baptism might be visited upon these iwi leaders so that they find some unity.

Puketāpapa—according to Phil Goff, that is the name, because it is Mount Roskill. Phil is no great Māori linguist; indeed, he has raised a few eyebrows with his views about Māori over time, but he says that he sounds definitely polite compared with me, so I guess that is not his problem any longer—Pukewīwī. Māngere Mountain is Te Ara Pueru or Te Pane-ō-Mataoho. Mount Albert is Ōwairaka or Te Ahi Kā a Rakataura. These are names that we know from the matatua traditions. The point is these are beautiful, these are indigenous names, and I encourage the leaders of our various Tāmaki Collective to sit down and choose a name so the Geographic Board can append it to the country’s mapping system. It is a small but symbolic gesture, and I think it will actually go some way to enabling more Pākehā, firstly, to know there is a name, and, secondly, to hazard a go at actually learning how to pronounce it.

We support this bill, these minor imperfections aside, and wish all the kaitiaki of the various iwi up in Tāmaki-makau-rau, along with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and other supporters, including Minister Sharples, the best in terms of implementing this to a level of success that would meet with our seal of approval on this side of the House. Kia ora koutou.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e hui tahi nei i te Whare. E tautoko ana i ngā mihi a Shane ki a tātou, kia hui kotahi ai tātou ki te whakamana i ēnei kerēme kia puāwai ai ō tātou nei moemoeā i tēnei wā, nā reira, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa. Tāmaki Nui, Tāmaki Herenga Waka, Tāmaki Puia, Tāmaki-makau-rau, te pai me te pai rawa o Tāmaki. Ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ahakoa kua puta ana te tokorua rā.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to us all gathered together here in the House. I endorse Shane’s tributes to us collectively and for us to come together to give effect to these claims so that our dreams at this point in time bear fruit. So greetings to you therefore and to you all collectively, Tāmaki Nui, Tāmaki Herenga Waka, Tāmaki Puia, and Tāmaki Makaurau. How really great and wonderful Tāmaki is. So greetings, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively, even though those two over there have just arrived.]

It is my honour to welcome to this House the two who have just left the House, descendents of Ngāi Tai, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Ākitai Waiōhua, Te Kawerau a Māki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, and Te Patukirikiri. Nō reira tēnā koutou.

In September 2012 the mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau gathered at Pūkawa maunga to sign a collective deed to settle their Treaty of Waitangi grievances with the Crown. I was honoured to take part in what was a milestone achievement for New Zealand’s largest city. The legacy created that day by the mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau is one that will be shared by all of us who call Auckland our home. The legacy created that day by the mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau will live on in other regions as a collective example to others yet to settle their Treaty grievances.

The crucial part of the legacy that we are creating with this legislation is the restoration of the original names of Tāmaki-makau-rau. What is disappointing is that many New Zealanders remain bitterly opposed to the celebration of Māori place names, of our spelling of them, and so on. Look at Whanganui. They say things like: “It will cost too much money.”, “Who cares?”, “What’s in a name?”, and so on. My response to them is that a name is not just a word; a name is our history, our whakapapa, and our heritage. A name is our identity. But the reality is that Tāmaki-makau-rau, the largest Polynesian city on the planet, has few modern Māori landmarks. The ancestral Māori landmarks in Tāmaki-makau-rau carry an incredible heritage, but too often these places have been renamed, and their Māori identity replaced.

The time has come to tell the children of Auckland the incredible history of our city. The time has come for the children of Auckland to know the identity of these lands they call home. The children of Tāmaki-makau-rau should grow up knowing that the footprints of the mana whenua can be found not just in waiata or whakatau; they need to know that the physical footsteps of the mana whenua can be found on Motutapu Island in the Waitematā. More than half a millennium ago, Māori were living around the Waitematā when a massive eruption saw a giant underground volcano surge up out of the harbour, rushing skywards, to form the iconic Rangitoto, Te Rangi-i-Totongia-a-Tamatekapua.

The footprints of those first residents of Tāmaki-makau-rau have been discovered between layers of volcanic ash on nearby Motutapu Island. Their hunting tools and fish hooks have been found buried beneath the ash at Rangitoto. Tāmaki-makau-rau holds an iconic and amazing heritage that all of us should know. Restoring the Māori names of these sites of significance is a practical way that we can help make that happen.

The descendants of those first Aucklanders have acted with honour and generosity in settling with the Crown. They have demonstrated incredible leadership and rangatiratanga in resolving a wide range of mandate interests, governance, and allocation issues. The collective approach they have chosen is already being replicated in other parts of Aotearoa in our claims work. I would like to acknowledge the members of the Ngāti Whātua rōpū: Ngāti Whātua o Ōrakei, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. Without your patience, we would not be here today. The Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei agreement in principle was originally signed in 2006.

I would like to acknowledge Marutūāhu, whose mahi has been instrumental to the collective approach in Tāmaki. In its 2007 report the Waitangi Tribunal acknowledged Marutūāhu’s perseverance.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the members of the Waiohua rōpū. Your commitment to finalising the redress in this deed has been key. Your willingness to receive the redress collectively with other iwi and hapū of Tāmaki-makau-rau has been essential. I also acknowledge the connections to Tainui through Waiohua and Marutūāhu and the blessing of the king and Te Kauhanganui.

The transfer of ownership of 14 tīpuna maunga to ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau is a legislative landmark in the history of Aotearoa. Each iwi and hapū will have the opportunity to record their respective spiritual, ancestral, and cultural associations with each maunga on its land title. Twelve of the tīpuna maunga will be managed by a co-governance body, which will govern and oversee their administration and their management. So mana whenua in Tāmaki will soon be involved in making decisions affecting their tīpuna maunga.

The mana whenua and their incredible history in this region will be formally recognised by the council, by the Crown, and by all the people of Auckland. The footprints of those tīpuna are set in volcanic stone on Motutapu Island. When this bill is passed, the footprints that we leave behind us will ensure that the history of Tāmaki-makau-rau is set in the laws of Aotearoa. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution today on the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. It is an innovative approach to look at how co-management of maunga can occur in the Auckland area. Auckland is indeed our biggest city, and the bill will stretch, I think, some of the aspirations that locals have for the ongoing preservation and management of maunga, so it is a very courageous step. We received at the Māori Affairs Committee nine submissions, and we heard them all in Auckland. There are four particular issues that I want to bring to the House, hoping that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations may consider a response to some aspects that I will raise in the Committee stage of the bill.

Firstly, I want to commend the Friends of Maungawhau, who came to the select committee. They demonstrated a great deal of passion and commitment to seeing Maungawhau, which is Mount Eden, restored and preserved so that all New Zealanders and visitors coming to Auckland can benefit from the beauty there. They were integral in campaigning for the removal of cattle and buses going up to Mount Eden, and they should be commended for that. They participate in the life of restoring natural vegetation on the maunga and ongoing protection of the values of that particular maunga. What they represented for Maungawhau I think a number of other groups will represent for many maunga around the Auckland area.

It would be very helpful to the broader interests of Auckland, I think, if the Minister were of a mind to respond in the Committee stage to two issues that the Friends of Maungawhau raised. The two issues were, in particular, when integrated management plans are being prepared for Maungawhau in the co-management arrangement, whether consideration could be given to existing plans. In the instance of Mount Eden, the local board has a plan for Maungawhau. There was some concern that a clean-slate approach might be taken when new plans were developed for the ongoing management of these maunga. I thought that was a really good point, and what it did certainly give insight into for the committee was that we were not approaching this new co-management arrangement with an entirely clean slate, and that there were groups already actively involved and committed to the ongoing management of the maunga. So that is the first issue.

The second issue, again, can be more generically applied, and that is whether, in the interests of transparency and openness to the public about management plans and the creation of them, the consultation provisions could be more overt and express in terms of how the public engage in the creation of the plans through the Maunga Authority.

Upon hearing this particular submission, I felt that public consultation cannot be taken for granted, and that in instances where there is a genuine attempt through the Treaty settlement process to assure the broader interests of New Zealand, this is a step forward, not a step back. The issue of public consultation then becomes one of the litmus tests for good engagement that preserves and protects the values of Māori within a new management regime but also makes clear to the general public that those aspirations that will have a general benefit can also be reflected. This can be done in a tangible way through a public consultation process and reflected in the integrated management plans that fall through that particular process. So, Minister, I am hoping that in the Committee stage you might be of a mind to either give an assurance that the bill will continue to do that or perhaps look to some of the suggestions that were made to the select committee to amend the bill accordingly. We understand, as a select committee, that it is entirely inappropriate for us to change the terms of a Treaty settlement, but I certainly felt that those were two compelling issues that came out of that submission.

The second issue that kind of exercised my mind was the issues brought to the table by Watercare Services. By and large, it had a concern that in the transferring of an administering responsibility to the Maunga Authority, it would be unclear whom it would consult with if it had future infrastructure and easement aspirations for the works that it wanted to carry out. I was sufficiently, I guess, assured through the advice that we received from the officials on this matter that, actually, the trustee and owner, whom Watercare Services would readily identify with and consult with, was vested in the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust. That is certainly my understanding from reading the bill and how I read the officials’ report, so it is very clear that it has a point of contact and that its current interests would not be prejudicially affected. In fact, our select committee basically expressed that in the report. So we did not make any changes to accommodate Watercare Services.

However, I would acknowledge that whereas, for both the purposes of the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, there would be a clear point of contact for Watercare Services, if, on the other hand, Watercare Services invoked the Public Works Act to put a pipeline through one of the maunga. That is a matter of such significant interest to a whole lot of people, not just the iwi concerned, that I think it would be a matter of broad public debate. I would find it hard to believe that Watercare Services would do that, and it would be a matter of such significance that there would be a full range of affected parties who would want to express their concern. So the interests of Watercare Services, I think, are probably well protected under the bill.

The third point for me was the issue that was raised by Waikato-Tainui, who reached a settlement in 1995. They asserted that the interests around Māngere mountain, in particular, were prejudicially affected by this bill because there was a provision for first right of refusal over Māngere mountain if the Crown ever sold off the reserve part of that mountain. I think the hapū in the collective that really affirmed to me that the bill does not impinge negatively on that interest was Te Akitai, who are situated the most directly near the mountain, but also the other Waikato hapū who are also captured by the Waikato-Tainui settlement. That is Te Akitai, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata o Waiohua, and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. It seems to me that the way in which the bill is intended to work, albeit representing the collective interests of all the iwi in Auckland, is that where there is a maunga in a particular area where mana whenua interests are expressed, they will have a more direct relationship with the issues around the ongoing management of the maunga. That, certainly, was reflected in the submission that came to us from Te Akitai. On that front, I think we were sufficiently able to say that, no, the interests represented by Waikato-Tainui had been taken care of.

As Shane Jones mentioned, the committee did raise with officials the issue of multiple naming. We were told that the New Zealand Geographic Board would not allow for multiple names, but let it be known that in the advice that we received from the officials, there is a table in Appendix B that outlines the multiple names for each of the areas where an English name exists in the bill. I think that, for the purposes of time, in my third reading speech I will come back and recognise the multiple Pākehā names that have been represented in the bill, but this is the one point that I would like to make now: if in the future the New Zealand Geographic Board provided for multiple names to be recognised, the only real challenge is what the common usage name in the area would be. That is a policy matter that I think would have to be further thought through so that we could give the public a general assurance that we are all talking about the same place and so that, at a practical level, on the GPS when you are trying to get somewhere, you are all going to get to where you need to go.

At another level, in terms of telling the history of New Zealand, having multiple names, I think, further enriches the places and the connections that you have to areas throughout the country. All too often it is convenient to not use the right name and to then totally reject the local history that exists in the area.

As this is a second reading speech, I will say that I think the select committee thought long and hard about the issues brought before us. We did make some technical amendments to the bill. They have been outlined. In the Committee stage, I am just hopeful that two of those issues could be responded to by the Minister so that we can perhaps further strengthen the intent, which is good co-management for the maunga in the Auckland area. Kia ora.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia koutou katoa. I am pleased to take a short call on this Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill to affirm the Green Party’s support for it. As the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations pointed out in introducing the bill, this legislation has some features that are typical of other settlement bills. It restores mana whenua, recognises kaitiaki status, and deals with the issue of naming, which I will return to. But it is also unique in that it is addressing and recognising the reality of overlapping claims, a very complex situation, and it creates what, in principle at least, is a very elegant mechanism. It establishes a body that will represent the interests of the multiple iwi and hapū and will give them all an opportunity to be involved in decision making, not just as consulted parties, not just as co-managers, but at the governance level. At the decision-making level these various iwi and hapū groups will be represented. That is as it should be and we are very pleased to see that.

I recall I made the comment at the first reading that given the unique features of this bill, the Māori Affairs Committee might have had its work cut out to bring the bill through. But given the relatively few changes that have been made, the bill has emerged apparently unscathed in principle, and that would suggest that the work was done well and diligently, and I would commend the committee for the work that has been done. Although some of us have chosen to escape Auckland and move to the north, nevertheless we recognise the attractions of Auckland. It is that very appeal of the place, both in the present day and historically, for a broad range of reasons, that means there is considerable overlap of interests and many parties with legitimate claims to be recognised, which has generated this solution—this multipartisan solution, if you like.

It was interesting reading the submissions on the bill. The previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, made reference to it. There are a number of NGOs and voluntary bodies that for many years have worked very hard to protect and restore the quality of the cones, particularly, but also of some of the waterways around Auckland. Friends of Maungawhau has been mentioned, and that is an extremely able and committed body. Friends of the Whau, Friends of Oakley Creek—these typically Pākehā organisations and conservation groups have worked long and hard to maintain, to restore, and to recognise the preciousness of these sites, of the maunga, of the cones, and of the waterways.

In reading the submissions, it occurred to me that there is still a level of nervousness within some of those groups. We have seen this idea, even within the Green Party—within our own membership, historically—that as soon as you introduce a greater level of Māori control, management, and authority, some of the conservation groups, frankly, get a little bit nervous about that. There are reasons for that; they are historical, I know. But I do think that this legislation has the opportunity to quell some of that nervousness when people see that Māori are perfectly capable managers, owners, and guardians of sites and have been for a very long time, in fact. It is returning, in some respect, to a status quo. I think it is a very positive move.

Again, I reflect Nanaia’s comments that one hopes that the relationships will be positive; that all parties will recognise each others’ contributions—historical, present, and future—and that we will get much better outcomes not only for Māori but particularly for Māori, who have been denied a place in these decision-making points for a very long time. This legislation goes some way to restoring that, and that is as it should be. It has to be acknowledged that some of the cones and some of the landscapes that are being returned to a level of Māori control and authority are not in a good shape. They have not been well looked after, and I do see that there is an opportunity in this both to restore the physical landscape and to enrich the social landscape of Auckland, of Tāmaki-makau-rau.

There is a word I came across when I was endeavouring to teach landscape architects: the word “palimpsest”. Originally it referred to documents, and particularly parchments, that would be written on, and then, because parchment was precious, those words might be washed or scraped off and new words written on. But the original script would remain, albeit with a very faint imprint on that document. That word can be usefully translated into a landscape as well. As each succeeding generation makes its mark and makes its impression on the landscape, nevertheless the marks of the previous generations, of the people who came before us, remain there that people with the right eyes can understand and can interpret. That is the opportunity in Auckland, I think, with this new model, with the considerable Māori influence and control now over the development and the enhancement of those landscapes. We can still see, if people are educated and given the insight, the imprint made by previous generations, both physically and socially. We can celebrate that.

Auckland does have a longish history, in New Zealand terms at least—clearly, the pre-European history, and then the post-contact history, the 19th century history. It is rich, it is colourful, and it is extraordinary. It is something we should celebrate and acknowledge—that harm was done, but some good was done as well. I do see that there is an opportunity now with this new governance and management structure to bring to light some of that history and to enrich the understanding of Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders, of tauiwi, of everybody who now lives in that city, and to celebrate its history and reflect on the lessons we can learn from the past and carry them forward to the advantage of everybody who lives in that place and will continue to live there.

This is not new. Some of this work has been done already. I acknowledge, particularly, Ngāti Whātua and individuals like Ngārimu Blair who have worked very hard and long to install and reveal in the landscape the richness and the significant markers that are the imprint of the history, the historical use, the historical importance of the various cones and the waterways, and so on. I think this will create an opportunity for much more of that work. People can live for a very long time and spend a lifetime in Auckland but not be aware of the history and the colour and the excitement that has historically focused on some of those cones—the volcanic cones, particularly.

As this new structure beds in I am sure it will not be seamless. There will be a few speed bumps along the way, no doubt. But I think with goodwill and good leadership they can be overcome and we can get a much more positive approach—a much better outcome and a much richer outcome for people. The opportunity—both the social and, indeed, the economic opportunity—to reveal Auckland’s very rich history and to celebrate it is now able, and much more likely, to come to fruition under this new structure than previously, when Māori were very much alienated both physically and socially and in every other way. Recognising the centrality of the Māori history of this place and the mana whenua rights of the various iwi and hapū to these environments, to these landscapes, I think will take us to a much better place.

The question of names, of course, has been brought up and is central to this legislation. Names are important not only for reasons of recognising mana and identity but also, as I said, because Māori names do have a history to them, like Te Puke Ōwairaka. A lot of people do not know about the ancestor Wairaka, an extraordinary woman in her time, with links back to the Bay of Plenty and right through to Auckland, back to the waka. It does unite our country. The simple act of restoring an original name to a site can be very inclusive, very enriching. It can be an action that unites people rather than divides them because it unites our history, it gives us links to other places, other people. So the naming will be complex. It will not be easy, but I think the effort will certainly be rewarded many times. Again, we are pleased to support this bill. We look forward to it moving through the House and giving the new structure an opportunity to bed in and produce very positive results. Kia ora.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I too want to support the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makarau Collective Redress Bill. It is really good that there is unanimous support right around this House. It is a very important step in the steps towards completing final and durable settlements of Treaty of Waitangi claims. This bill covers 13 iwi. It covers a large area of our major city. It has significant claims and counterclaims and overlapping claims and it has been a very complex process to get here, so it is very pleasing to be standing in the House today.

The National-led Government is pleased to see another step on the way of settling these claims; 43 deeds of settlement have been passed by us since November 2008. I think each and every single one of these deeds of settlement has a long history and a valuable story to be told for both Māori and Pākehā. These settlements recognise and right the wrongs of the past and they strengthen the partnerships between the Crown and Māori. It is really important, also, to realise the potential in these settlements—the potential to unlock economic situations of regions and areas. I come from Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island, and Ōtautahi, Christhurch. That is Ngāi Tahu country, of course, and there is no doubt that we have seen enormous positives out of their settlement, which was one of the very first settlements. Now Ngāi Tahu are in a position to be one of the corner stakeholders of the rebuild of Christchurch, and what would we have done without that process? So it is very pleasing to see this happening today for Auckland, our largest city. I think it is important because it is not just for the well-being of Māori but for the well-being of all New Zealanders.

We have heard about how innovative this bill is and how this collective has worked long and hard together. There was an enormous amount of discussion, of argument, of debate, and of generosity of spirit in sharing ideas, moving, and making negotiations, because this went on from 2009 to 2012. So it has been a long process, and we are very hopeful that because the gestation has taken time and people have gone through a thoughtful process, it will be long enduring.

The Māori Affairs Committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with a few minor amendments. We met in Auckland, we heard the nine submissions, and it was a very positive experience. There were some issues raised, and I would like to echo the Hon Nanaia Mahuta on the comments of people who had been working on the maunga and the motu—the mountains and the islands—and had been looking after these very special places for Aucklanders. It was really good to be able to recognise their work. Equally, the question of names came out, and that has been canvassed quite a lot in the House today. I can only say there was unanimous support for keeping multiple names. I think it is just an operational exercise of how we do that, because certainly we want to know where we are going when we talk about a name of one of these special places.

As I have said, the Tāmaki-makau-rau region recognises 13 iwi and hapū. Their settlements cover this area. But really a lot of the bill, particularly its cultural redress, is about the mountains and the islands. It recognises the history, the cultural significance, and the local connection to all these very special areas. There will be the vesting of the 14 maunga—those are the volcanic cones in the Tāmaki Collective—and that is on the condition that they are held in trust not only for the common benefit of the iwi and hapū of the Tāmaki Collective but for all the people of Auckland. They will be vested as reserves, and public access and third-party interests will be protected. As an interesting aside, this is the first time that a proper legal definition of the maunga and some of the easements that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was talking about have actually been recognised. They have tended to be put there in the past and sometimes we did not even know they were there, but now they have all been mapped and we have a really good, accurate description of the maunga and the easements around it. That in itself was an interesting legal exercise.

The bill also vests the four motu to the Tāmaki Collective: Rangitoto, Motutapu, Motuihe, and Tiritiri Mātangi. Again, I think that that is recognition of the generosity of the Tāmaki iwi and hapū to all the people of the region. Parts of the area of Rangitoto will be retained in ownership of the Tāmaki Collective, including the summit, but Rangitoto will remain in the administration of the Department of Conservation, again with all public rights of access.

The bill also provides for co-governance arrangements over the motu, and a relationship with the Minister of Conservation and three seats on the Auckland Conservation Board for the Tāmaki Collective. So this is a really important day. The bill covers such a large part of our country. It covers a large number of people. It covers a significant group of iwi, and they have worked long and hard to get to this stage. I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi aroha ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau. Tēnā tātou.

[To the authorities, languages, and the many esteemed leaders, salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to you all. Fond regards to you, the local tribes of Auckland, and greetings to us.]

It is my pleasure on the second reading of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill to stand in support of this piece of legislation, which is an incredibly innovative piece of legislation. It will enable the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau to participate in processes that reaffirm their status. For me, that is one of the major points of this piece of legislation—that, in fact, this bill will rightfully name the mana whenua across the Tāmaki-makau-rau sites of significance—the maunga and the motu. They will now have a formal role in the administration and management of those particular sites across Tāmaki-makau-rau.

I want to acknowledge the goodwill of the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau to get to this point. I think it was an incredibly pragmatic move and I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and all the officials involved. But, first and foremost, it is because of the mana whenua themselves that we come to this point in time where they can create a solution and then look positively to the future.

What this bill also does is provide a tool for councils and the Crown to work together with the mana whenua in a manner that does recognise their special status. What it does is elevate Māori, our iwi groups, to the position that they rightfully have. So I do want to highlight the formation of a co-governance entity in recognition of that status, and that co-governance entity is the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority. The significance of the formation of that entity is that mana whenua across Tāmaki-makau-rau will sit at the decision-making table with the Crown, with the Auckland Council, and they will oversee the governance of maunga across Tāmaki-makau-rau. That recognition in legislation is incredibly important. For me, it is the foundation for Māori going into the future, playing a formal role in how Tāmaki-makau-rau will develop into the future.

They will also have three seats on the Auckland Conservation Board. The collective itself will enter into a relationship agreement with the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General of Conservation. So this really is fulfilling the partnership that the Treaty guaranteed to Māori—that it guaranteed to the hapū and iwi who signed the Treaty. So, again, this is a very significant step in terms of the status that Māori have not only in Tāmaki-makau-rau but across Aotearoa New Zealand.

I also want to highlight the vesting of four motu: Rangitoto, Motutapu, Motuihe, and Tiritiri Mātangi. The collective will have a responsibility with the Department of Conservation to develop a management plan for how Aucklanders, how New Zealanders, can enjoy those motu. Again, this is a very significant step. It is a status that we will have by right of being mana whenua. Standing side by side with the Crown is incredibly significant, so I want to highlight that.

I have got just two more points. In terms of these co-governance relationships, what they really do is give effect to the Resource Management Act. I want to highlight section 8 of the Resource Management Act and the fact that we now know which iwi and hapū groups people across Tāmaki-makau-rau can consult. So the other importance of this piece of legislation is that it makes it crystal clear which iwi groups have mana whenua and which iwi groups should be consulted by right in respect of any developments, in this particular instance, around maunga and motu.

With regard to other issues, around the issues of effects there is quite a bit of talk at the moment about cultural impact assessments. Again, what this piece of legislation does is be very clear who the mana whenua groups are. Sections 6(e) and 7(a) of the Resource Management Act ensure that it is mana whenua who will write these cultural impact assessments. This is not generic. It is not for Māori outside of Tāmaki-makau-rau to come into Tāmaki-makau-rau and say what the effects are. What this bill, again, reinforces is that is it for mana whenua to undertake that role.

Finally, what I want to highlight is that I hope this bill will now lead to councils, the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and the people of Aotearoa New Zealand actually fully understanding and accepting the role that mana whenua have in the future governance of our region. So, for example, in section 33 of the Resource Management Act there is an opportunity for our councils to transfer powers to hapū and iwi groups, for us to become the decision makers in some of these resource management decisions. The opportunity for us is there within the legislation. I see this legislation as providing a clear pathway to that type of governance opportunity for mana whenua. To date, barring a joint management agreement between the Tūwharetoa Trust Board and the Taupō District Council, there has not been a transfer of this joint management with iwi and hapū, but I see the opportunity that this piece of legislation provides. I see the opportunity for Māori to become a greater stakeholder in Tāmaki-makau-rau, and, in fact, across Aotearoa New Zealand.

I am happy to be part of this debate today. I wish the whānau and the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau all the best in terms of this legislation, and I know that it is the beginning for the 13 mana whenua groups across Tāmaki-makau-rau. Some of them have settled, Ngāti Whātua being one of them, but there are, in fact, Treaty settlements that will take place progressively over the next few years. From my perspective this is a wonderful foundation for the enactment of mana whenua status for the mana whenua across Tāmaki-makau-rau. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill at its second reading. This is indeed Tāmaki Makaurau Mātā Waka, Tāmaki Herenga Waka. I stand as a proud child of Tāmaki Mātā Waka. In my generation I was classified as one of the children of the cones, because in my time, where we had Mātā Waka coming into Tāmaki-makau-rau, we were housed in the shadows of Maunga Puketāpapa, Mount Roskill, and Ōwairaka, Mount Albert. It is gratifying to see that the mana whenua of those areas, the 13 iwi and hapū, are now being recognised in this bill. The 13 iwi have been broken up into three rōpū, which make up this collective: Ngāti Whātua rōpū, Tāmaki rōpū, and Manu Tuahu rōpū. They negotiated to have the maunga vested in their interests.

It is interesting that some of my colleagues have brought up the fact that the maunga have several names. That would be quite correct as well, because each of their mana whenua have their own pūrākau around those maunga. I think we also need to remember some of the stories of the rūaumoko beneath those maunga, which are still sitting there, and remember that every single one of those maunga links to each other. In fact, on Ōwairaka, Mount Royal Avenue, every single household that borders the base of Ōwairaka has caves that go into the crater of that maunga. And all those craters also link to Maunga Tāpapa and into Maungarei as well. They were used as exit points for some of the waka coming down from Ngāpuhi, from Ngāti Whātua, on their way down to Ngati Porou and further down as well. So they are not only very significant in terms of their ingoa—their names—but also very significant in terms of their history of Māori.

So with that is the vesting of the 14 maunga and, as we have heard, the trust for the common benefit of iwi and hapū and for all the people of Auckland as well. I do think that there may be issues with some of those organisations that have felt in the past that they are the kaitiaki of these maunga and that they will need to go into discussion with the mana whenua to progress the development of those maunga going forward for the benefit of all of Auckland and for the people of New Zealand, and for our visitors overseas as well. Now that this bill has come into the House, we are looking forward to seeing what the mana whenua will do in One Tree Hill on Maungakiekie, and whether or not they will replant or what they will do now that we can move forward, after we lost that pinus radiata off that maunga. The legal descriptions around this maunga have also been implemented into this bill, and that is a great step forward as well.

There is no financial redress for iwi and hapū in this bill, as that will be provided individually in each group’s deed of settlement. However, the deed and the bill provide resources and opportunities to assist iwi and hapū to secure and grow their own economic base. There is the right of first refusal for the Tāmaki Collective over Crown-owned land and certain Crown entity - owned land in the Tāmaki area that becomes surplus, and the second right to purchase any deferred selection properties not purchased by individual iwi through their own settlements as well. The following matter is not directly covered under this bill, and that is Maungakiekie after the tree was chopped down in 2000, but we are hoping that with the settlement of this claim, something will be done about that.

This National-led Government is making great progress on the completion of the Treaty claims. So far we have signed 43 deeds of settlement. But this settlement is quite significant in that it does address about a third or a quarter of all settlements thus far, which are the ones that are in Tāmaki-makau-rau itself. So this bill’s coming into the House is quite a significant way to address the remaining settlements under this National-led Government. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill represents the culmination of a huge amount of work over many years by a number of dedicated people. As with other Treaty settlements, what it enables us to do is put the past behind us—not ignore it; recognise it, but put it behind us—and then lay a foundation for the future that I certainly hope is going to bring very much improved relationships between the Crown, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika.

The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 31 July 2013. Having considered the submissions received, the committee reported back to the House just before Christmas, and I am very grateful to those who took the time and trouble to make their submissions. Their participation, as in all settlement legislation, is a very important component of the parliamentary consideration of this type of work. After consideration of the bill, the committee recommended that it be passed with only very minor technical amendments—so minor and technical that I am not going to take the time of the House to go through them. So I want to thank Mr Henare and his colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee for considering this bill in such a timely fashion.

Can I acknowledge the work of all those who have contributed to the progression of the bill. I particularly want to thank Patsy Reddy, who was my chief Crown negotiator and who worked very well with these iwi to reach this result. One of the interesting by-products of all the consultation and the work that we had actually arose out of the negotiation with Ngāti Rangiteaorere. They came and spoke to me about various matters concerning their land, and it was that discussion, among others, that has got the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform under way. So I want to thank Donna Hall and others who have contributed to that discussion.

Concluding this settlement is a very important step towards settling all historical claims. I do not intend to speak for a full 10 minutes. We are dealing with three bills this morning and these iwi know it is important to 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 the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou rau rangatira mā huri noa i te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively, esteemed leaders throughout the House.]

I am delighted to speak in the second reading of the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill and in support of this bill. Today we are dealing with Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru, a grouping of three iwi—Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tāpuika—of the Te Arawa confederation. One of the issues with omnibus Treaty bills is that they do not really give members long enough to really get into the nitty-gritty of the bills in this Chamber. Here we have three iwi, but I understand that for expediency the practice is now to group the iwi together so that their settlements can move expeditiously through the House, and we are seeing that also in the case of my own electorate at the top of the south. Although that is the case, it does not really give us much time to really get into the details, which I believe that these iwi do deserve. Having made that point, I will get into the submissions.

It was a pleasure to go up to Rotorua to listen to the submitters on this bill. In relation to Ngāti Rangiteaorere, as was touched on by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, there were submissions made on the mandated post-settlement governance entity, Ngāti Rangiteaorere Koromatua Council, exercising rights on behalf of absentee landowners. One submitter, Kiri Pōtaka-Dewes, opposed that action, and on the other side the esteemed Māori lawyer Donna Hall requested that the bill be amended to allow the post-settlement governance entity to hold the mana for those owners and exercise those voting rights. It is really a can of worms, and that is why it is good that that has led to a review taking place now of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

Currently the shares of absentee owners are administered by the Māori Trustee, and to actually allow another entity to take on those rights would require changes to the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. That Act is currently being reviewed, and there are discussions taking place about other entities, such as post-settlement governance entities, looking after the rights of absentee landowners. We do commend that and we look forward to maybe seeing an amendment bill coming through this House, although with the election date—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: It’s not an amendment; it’s a complete rewrite.

RINO TIRIKATENE: A complete rewrite?

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Oh, you wait.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Well, I am looking forward to that, then. Who knows? It may be introduced in this parliamentary term.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I hope so.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Oh, we look forward to that, Minister. That is a good development that has taken place as a result of the submissions on this bill.

There was one submission regarding the low amount of commercial redress compared with what other tribes are getting. That is a common submission that we hear, and it is very valid. I understand that the commercial redress for Ngāti Rangiteaorere is something in the vicinity of $750,000. After 175 years of whatever grievances they have held, they have settled for a princely sum of $750,000. You do not need a degree in quantum mechanics to figure out that there is not much cash in the Treaty pūtea.

I know that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is probably doing his best trying to fight for some more pūtea there, but I am reminded of this country’s biggest fraud trial, currently taking place in the courts. Bill English had plenty of pūtea back then for that great tribe of the South Island, “Ngāti” South Canterbury Finance, and the many hapū of investors of that tribe. It was not a problem then to find $1.2 billion for “Ngāti” South Canterbury Finance. That is $1,200 million to bail out that company, which is now the subject of the biggest fraud trial. I contrast that with Ngāti Rangiteaorere—$750,000 to settle all of their historical Treaty grievances. That submitter is right. They are not getting enough. We would hope that the Minister will do his bidding and show a bit more pūtea for a lot of these iwi that are in the Treaty settlement pipeline.

I want to turn to Ngāti Rangiwewehi. There were a few submissions, but one kaupapa took my interest, and that was about the manuscripts of Wīremu Maihi Te Rangikāheke and the issue of intellectual property rights. Much of the country’s early Māori history and knowledge about art, spirituality, and myths come from the collection of early colonial writings, most notably the work of Sir George Grey. But Grey was simply a collector of stories who edited the works and then took the credit for the works. These works were really the work of Māori who had reading and writing ability, thanks to the influence of men, largely missionaries, such as Selwyn, Williams, and Hadfield. Men such as Mātene Te Whiwhi in Tawanui, up in the north, and Te Rangikāheke were the unacknowledged gatherers of information in manuscript form.

Ngāti Rangiwewehi sought acknowledgment for Te Rangikāheke for the work he had done. It is a matter of intellectual property rights. The Te Rangikāheke manuscripts followed the old Governor Grey around the world until, in the 1920s, the manuscripts found their way back to Aotearoa. They have since been held in the Sir George Grey Special Collections in the Auckland City Central Library. It was the hope that the manuscripts could be repatriated to the Rotorua Museum of Art and History, but the Auckland library was unwilling to do this. There have been discussions between those two institutions and Ngāti Rangiwewehi about the possibility of some sort of arrangement that will enable the manuscripts to be put on display in Rotorua. In the meantime the Crown in this bill will acknowledge the influence Te Rangikāheke had on the writings of Sir George Grey. It is a matter of intellectual property rights and giving recognition where it is due. Hopefully we will see more examples of this recognition as other tribes negotiate their settlements also.

Finally, I just want to touch on the people of Tāpuika. The Tapuika Iwi Authority asked the Māori Affairs Committee to include in its settlement a school site, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Mataī, to be vested in them. To cut a long story short, the site is not available, unfortunately, to Tāpuika. The Crown has been in negotiations with the Waitaha tribe since 2008 and has done a settlement, so several school sites in the Tāpuika region have already been used in other negotiations. The land at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Mataī has, however, been offered back to Tāpuika, but on a right of first refusal basis. They have agreed to that.

In finishing, I give a mihi to the members of Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru, the three iwi there, the three springs—that is a fine name, which references the geothermal nature of the land these three cousins belong to. That is a constant theme that I like to integrate into my speeches—that understanding the whakapapa and the genealogy is to understand Māori history. The whole of our history is because of whakapapa, and the more one understands those finer threads, the more detail is available to students of Māori history and, indeed, the history of our country. With those words, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi ki a tātou e hui tahi nei ki te kawe i tēnei kaupapa i te rā nei. Me te mihi ki a rātou kua eke nei ki a tātou i tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou, e te mana. Te Arawa e! Te Arawa e!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us all. My acknowledgments to us gathered here to progress this matter today. I also acknowledge those who have arrived here amongst us today. Salutations to you collectively, the august. It is Te Arawa! It is Te Arawa!]

Today we gather here for the second reading of the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. I am honoured to welcome and acknowledge the people of Ngāti Rangiwewehi today, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika. Nā reira, tēnā koutou katoa. These are iwi eternally bound by whakapapa, for ever bound by history, and today in this House finally bound by justice. We remember their tīpuna, who millennia ago set off from the sands of Whenuakura. Today their journey reaches Parliament, as Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika, and Ngāti Rangiteaorere once again work together for the future of their people.

Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru is a collective representing these three iwi of Te Arawa, whose members are based in and around Te Puke and Rotorua. Although they have negotiated some aspects of their settlements as part of Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru, they have, in fact, signed separate deeds of settlement. The Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru omnibus bill gives effect to the aspects of all three deeds of settlement with the Crown between 2012 and 2013 and will settle all outstanding historical Treaty of Waitangi claims for Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika.

Ko Tiheinga te maunga, ko Te Awahou me Kaikaitāhuna ngā awa, ko Tarimano te marae, ko Puhirua me Ōrangikāhū ngā takotoranga o ngā tipuna, ko Rangiwewehi te iwi.

[Tiheia is the mountain, Te Awahou and Kaikaitāhuna are the rivers, Tarimano is the courtyard, Puhirua and Ōrangikāhū are the resting places of the ancestors, and Ngāti Rangiwewehi is the tribe.]

The Crown brought war to Tauranga in 1864, and after Ngāti Rangiwewehi supported their traditional allies, 290,000 acres of land were confiscated. All customary interests in lands were compulsorily extinguished. One hundred years later, in 1966—in our lifetime—Ngāti Rangiwewehi’s land loss continued, with the compulsory Crown acquisition of whenua at Ngongotahā. A pump station was built over the ancestral Taniwha Springs that remains to this day. The Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with the descendants of Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Over generations lands were lost, lives were taken, and potential was eroded. He wai kōrikoriko nō Waiōhēua ka ū ki Mātaikōtare, ka pai ki te titiro ki ngā uri o Rangiwhakaekea, kia whakapakari nei i te pupuri i ngā taonga tuku iho o Ngāti Rangiteaorere, ka ora e.

[The glittering waters of Waiōhēua extend to Mātaikōtare and it is wonderful to see the descendants of Rangiwhakaekeau. Be resolute in holding on to the heirlooms of Ngāti Rangiteaorere. They will live on.]

The 1800s saw Ngāti Rangiteaorere drawn into the New Zealand Wars, with huge consequences. The Native Land Court’s land policies left the Crown with lands that were flat, fertile, and easily accessible by road. Ngāti Rangiteaorere were left with lands that were fragmented, steep, inaccessible, and uneconomic. Fifty years ago the Tikitere geothermal field, prized by generations of Ngāti Rangiteaorere for its medicinal, spiritual, and economic value, was taken by the Crown under the Geothermal Energy Act 1953—the compulsory takeover of an ancestral wāhi tapu.

Mai i ngā pae maunga i Te Toro Puke e tū kau mai rā, i te awa e rere mai ana, waihoa te whenua, ko te takapū o taku tamaiti, ā, ka tahuri.

[From the mountain range to the hillock standing there in the distance, to the river that flows towards me, leave well alone the land which is the abdomen of my son. I end here.]

“From the mountain range in the distance to the hills that stand before me, to the river that flows towards me—Tapuika.” This ancient claim was made by the tipuna chieftain Tia aboard the Te Arawa waka. However, the arrival of the Crown in this rohe soon brought war to Tia’s people, and his ancient claim, along with the Treaty of Waitangi, was broken. A series of toa claims made by others of Tapuika ancestral lands culminated in the Crown land alienation policies, which were akin to raupatu, punishing Tapuika for taking up arms against the Crown in the 1860s. The land loss was widespread and severe.

Tapuika’s loss would lead to the alienation of Tia’s people from their ancestral lands. Deprived of economic, spiritual, and cultural autonomy, generations of Tapuika families have suffered incalculable loss. All these things the families of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika have lost, have suffered, can never be replaced, and yet these families wish to settle their grievances with the Crown with mana and with dignity. They honour us all with their incredible generosity.

Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru has enabled all three iwi to collectively negotiate with the Crown and to also work with each other on their individual claims. The spirit of whanaungatanga and rangatiratanga demonstrated by Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika will enable the resolution of claims across these three tribes. This collective approach is already being replicated across Aotearoa. I thank Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru for leading by example.

So many of those who have made this day possible are no longer with us, but with this bill’s passing their mahi and their mana will be for ever honoured in the laws of Aotearoa New Zealand. Today is a day to remember those who have passed on, to resolve grievances with those who are with us today, and to plan for those yet to be born. From the sacred marae of Taputapuātea to the beating hearts of Te Arawa, to the New Zealand House of Representatives, Te Arawa e! Te Arawa e! Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. I want to mihi to the three iwi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tāpuika, who will see the quick transition of their bill, I am sure, to a third reading. I do not intend to take my full 10 minutes, because the Māori Affairs Committee made some, I think, key amendments, but by and large the substance of the bill was well agreed to.

This is a discrete settlement. We received 17 submissions and heard around about 12 in both Rotorua and Wellington. The bill in its totality covers around about 2,500 tribal members over those three iwi, so I reiterate that it is a discrete bill. It will make a huge difference to the lives of people in Te Arawa, and, significantly, it changes the nature of relationships that each of those respective iwi have to reserves, Department of Conservation land, and sites of significance. It also makes provision for commercial redress.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the select committee’s key recommendations and amendments to the bill to improve its interpretation. Firstly, in the area of rights of first refusal, we did clarify the extent to which rights of first refusal provisions work, especially in relation to waivers and variations and those relevant clauses in the bill. We also clarified that the fee simple estate for Te Wētā Pā be vested in the trustees for the Tāpuika post-settlement governance entity, and recommended changing clause 292 to include land within Te Pehu Pā that is currently a legal, although unused, road. So those were, I think, for clarity’s sake, important changes. We also clarified that Te Mataī Forest North and Te Mataī Forest South and the Pūwhenua Forest were excluded from transfer by the Crown in clause 353 and clause 359. We recommended in relation to the Pūwhenua Forest amending subpart 1 of Part 10 so that it could be offered by the Crown as a deferred selection property.

So they were very simple recommendations to improve the intent of the bill. Without taking away from the substance of a third reading speech, I want to ensure that this bill gets through the Committee stage and to a third reading as quickly as possible so that those respective iwi can get on the road and implement the expectations of their settlement. Tēnā koe.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak to support the second reading of the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill in this House. I want to give this speech on behalf of the Green Party but particularly on behalf of Catherine Delahunty. First up I would like to say that it is an absolute privilege to be here speaking on Catherine’s behalf on the second reading of this bill. It is an omnibus bill covering significant issues of justice for the peoples of the Te Arawa confederation, including Rangiteaorere and Ngāti Rangiwewehi. It is designed to settle historical claims, cultural redress, and commercial redress. I would like to congratulate all involved in the negotiations and the process. This bill includes an apology and various rights of first refusal for a range of properties in the rohe of this iwi. It acknowledges the Crown’s breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to this iwi.

The concept of right of first refusal is an interesting model in the framework of a justice-based Te Tiriti settlement as it is not exactly restoration of rights or mana. It is not exactly the restoration of whenua or other resources that have been stolen, alienated, or otherwise removed from the people of the land. It is the right to purchase a property back, often at market rates, but as a first right. That is the compromise in the Te Tiriti settlement process when land has become individual private property or State property, and it is difficult to include in the redress of raupatu. But it is not what many people think Te Tiriti settlements are all about. Many Pākehā and tauiwi katoa need to read the detail of the redress clauses in these bills and have their eyes open to what is actually available in the context of the settlement process. Their assumptions might receive a therapeutic education on the facts of what some people consider a very generous option.

There were 12 submissions on the bill, and the Māori Affairs Committee has recommended passing it with some amendments. The Green Party supports these amendments. The bill is about historical grievances and estrangements of the iwi from the cherished places in their rohe—the lakes, maunga, fertile lands, and geothermal taonga. There is much detail in the settlement that tells the shoddy tales of the Native Land Court, used as a tool of alienation, and the all too familiar saga of Crown disgrace. The bill also establishes Te Maru o Kaituna, the Kaituna River Authority, in an effort to create co-governance of the Kaituna River/Awa, which is badly in need of a joint effort to restore, protect, and enhance that much-abused waterway.

The process is important, as are all co-governance processes, which stand or fall on the way these processes reflect the balance of power and resources. The concept of co-governance relies on an equitable relationship, whereby both parties can come to the decision-making table with the capacity to participate without one party dominating either via their world view or their access to resources.

The Green Party continues to ask questions about this model of settlement, with the greatest respect for the parties who have negotiated this, and with all our good wishes for the future negotiations, because Te Tiriti o Waitangi never ends; it embraces the model of permanent negotiation for justice and peace between the people of the motu. Hence, we reject the final settlement concept but embrace the concept of permanent Te Tiriti negotiation. We acknowledge this omnibus bill as a huge body of work affecting this vital part of Te Arawa lands, and we look forward to the third reading. Kia ora.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): I stand to support the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill, an omnibus bill. The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru, made up of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika, and Ngāti Rangiteaorere.

The Māori Affairs Committee examined the bill and recommended it be passed with the following amendments: changes to Parts 3, 6, and 9 in relation to the right of first refusal redress process to ensure that if a waiver or variation was agreed to, the right of first refusal provisions would work as intended, and amending clause 293 to vest the fee simple estate for Te Wētā Pā in the trustees of the Tapuika post-settlement governance entity. This is normal procedure and was inadvertently omitted from the bill as introduced. It also recommended amending clause 292 to include a parcel of land within Te Pehu Pā, which is currently a legal, if unused, road, and amending clauses 353 and 359 for the sake of clarity to exclude the transfer of Te Mataī Forest North, Te Mataī Forest South, and Pūwhenua Forest, as they are already covered by clauses 354 and 355.

Each settlement provides an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments, an apology to iwi, and cultural and commercial redress for each iwi. With Ngāti Rangiwewehi cultural redress includes the vesting of certain areas, including Te Riu o Kererū, which is in Ngāti Rangiwewehi; vesting a part of Hamurana Springs as a recreation reserve, and Ngā Tini Roimata a Rangiwewehi and Te Riu o Kereru B as scenic reserves; making Te Riu o Ngata subject to a conservation covenant; and statutory acknowledgments over a number of sites of cultural significance to Rangiwewehi.

For Tapuika the settlement establishes a framework for co-governance of the Kaituna River. The Lower Kaituna Wildlife Management Reserve will be vested jointly in Tapuika and Ngāti Whakauē, who will in turn, and after a specified period of time, gift the reserve back to the Crown. There is also the recognition of the significance of certain sites totalling approximately 209 hectares, which will be vested in Tapuika, including three sites from Kaharoa Conservation Forest, two sites from within Te Mataī Conservation Forest, Ōtahu Pā, and Ōtūkawa, which is in the Pah Road area. The settlement provides a whenua rāhui over Ōpoutihi, a 65 hectare area from within Gammons Block Conservation Area, and one additional site, Te Taita Scenic Reserve will be vested jointly in Tapuika and Ngāti Rangiwewehi.

The settlement provides for statutory acknowledgments over a number of sites and waterways of significance. With Ngāti Rangiteaorere, the bill provides for the vesting of fee simple of the Te Ngāe/Rangiteaorere site, to be known as Waiōhewa, the vesting of Te Ngāe Junction Recreation Reserve subject to recreation reserve status, to be known as Rangiteaorere, and the Crown vests the Lake Ōkataina Scenic Reserve, which is 321 hectares, to be known as Whakapoungākau. The deed of settlement will provide for protocols to facilitate good working relationships between Ngāti Rangiteaorere and the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The final redress amount paid under this settlement is around $750,000. Again, the purpose of this bill is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru. I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou, ngā mema o te Whare nei. It gives me privilege and honour to stand and rise in support of the second reading of the Ngā Pūnawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. As Kirira outlined, it is an omnibus bill that seeks to give effect to the deeds of settlement signed by the Crown and the three Te Arawa iwi. I take this opportunity to mihi to Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika as parties to this bill. The purpose is a final settlement of their historic Treaty of Waitangi claims. The bill sets out the cultural and commercial redress for each iwi and records the acknowledgments and apologies offered by the Crown to all three iwi. In addition, there is a statutory pardon for Ngāti Rangiwewehi tipuna Kereopa Te Rau, and I would like to come back and talk a bit more about this rangatira. Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika have a combined population of approximately 2,500 members, and the various areas of interest of these three iwi cover Te Puke and the Rotorua area, including Te Ngāe.

Every claims settlement bill has unique aspects about it. I mentioned in my introduction the pardoning, in this bill, of Kereopa Te Rau. I want to take a moment because in my own research on Kereopa I wanted to explore who this man Kereopa Te Rau was. So I undertook a bit of research and I would like to take this opportunity to put on record what I uncovered. Can I preface that, before talking about this particular tipuna, by acknowledging that each iwi and each hapū will have their own version of this tipuna. So I am going to put on record this particular tipuna as accorded by the biography written by Steven Oliver in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, volume 1, in 1990.

Kereopa Te Rau was one of the five original disciples of Te Ua Haumene, the founder of the Pai Mārire faith. He was a member of Ngāti Rangiwewehi of Te Arawa. The date and place of his birth are not known, nor are the names of his parents. Sometime in the 1840s he was baptised by the Catholic missionary—and I apologise if I get this pronunciation wrong—Father Euloge Reignier, and he took the name Kereopa. He is believed to have served as a policeman in Auckland in the 1850s. In the early 1860s he fought in the Māori King’s forces in the Waikato. His wife and two daughters are thought to have been killed in Rangiaowhia near Te Awamutu, when it was attacked by Government forces on 21 February 1864. The following day he was at Hairini, a defensive position just west of Rangiaowhia, where he saw his sister killed.

After the defeat of the Māori King movement forces in mid-1864, Kereopa joined the new religion of Te Ua Haumene. In December 1864 Te Ua instructed Kereopa and Pātara Raukatauri to go as emissaries to the tribes of the East Coast. They were told to preach the Pai Mārire faith in the districts they passed through, to go in peace, and to not interfere with Pākehā. Kereopa, however, demanded that a European be given up to him at Ōtipa, a settlement on the lower Rangitaiki River, and that a Catholic priest be handed over at Whakatāne. These requests were refused, but at Ōpōtiki, the missionary C S Völkner was seized and ritually killed on 2 March 1865. Völkner was hanged from a willow tree near his church by members of his own congregation.

Kereopa was widely believed to have instigated the killing of Völkner. Although he had agreed to it, in fact he did not take part in the actual hanging and cannot be held responsible. The arrival of the Pai Mārire party at Ōpōtiki precipitated the tragedy, but there were complex reasons for Völkner’s death. Principal amongst these was Te Whakatōhea’s anger at the missionary for his actions in spying for the Government. In returning to Ōpōtiki at the time, Völkner had disregarded the explicit warnings of Te Whakatōhea. Kereopa himself may have sought to avenge the deaths of members of his family at Hairini and at Rangiaowhia, a plan of which Völkner had sent to Governor George Grey.

After the killing of Völkner, Kereopa, with his party of Pai Mārire followers, went on to Gisborne and to the Urewera, where he preached the Pai Mārire faith among Tūhoe. In May 1865 he attempted to travel to the Waikato to preach to the Kingite tribes but was prevented from reaching the Kaingaroa Plains by a force of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Rangitihi. After a long siege, Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Rangitihi abandoned their defences at Te Tāpiri and Ōkupu in the western Urewera. But Kereopa was forced to turn back when a relief party of Te Arawa, led by W J Mair, arrived. He then returned to Ōpōtiki, but was driven from there by Government troops and fled into the Urewera.

Kereopa had much mana in the eyes of Tūhoe as the bearer of the Pai Mārire faith to that tribe and thus obtained their protection. The dense bush of the Urewera mountains also offered him protection from his pursuers, as it later would for Te Kooti. Martial law had been declared in Ōpōtiki and Whakatāne districts after the killing of Völkner, and a reward was offered for the capture of those responsible. Kereopa concealed himself at Te Rōau on a densely wooded hillside, Te Miromiro, at Ōhaua-te-Rangi, a Ngāti Rongo settlement north of Ruatāhuna. Te Rōau had never been occupied, and it commanded an excellent view of anyone approaching. There Kereopa was able to elude his pursuers for the next 5 years.

From mid-1868 the Ringatū faith of Te Kooti gained popularity among Tūhoe, and the influence of Pai Mārire correspondingly faded. The reverence in which Tūhoe held Kereopa also diminished, but Tūhoe did not disclose his whereabouts. Over the next 3 years, however, the people of the Urewera were weakened and their land devastated by the Government’s relentless pursuit of Te Kooti and the remaining Hauhau leaders. Government troops, including a Ngati Porou contingent led by Rōpata Wahawaha, embarked on several campaigns between May 1869 and early 1872 in which Tūhoe pā were plundered, crops destroyed, and people killed.

On 22 December 1871 Kereopa stood trial at the Supreme Court at Napier for the murder of Völkner. There was no direct proof of his responsibility for the killing, but a European witness, Samuel Levy, testified that he had seen Kereopa among those who escorted Völkner to the willow tree. On the basis of his evidence, Kereopa was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. William Colenso appealed unsuccessfully for clemency on the ground that the crime had already been punished by execution and land confiscation. Kereopa was hanged on 5 January 1872 in Napier.

This is one of the tragic stories of Treaty settlements and breaches in this country, and I wanted particularly to acknowledge in this settlement the pardon of Kereopa Te Rau. I join this side of this House in commending the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and the submissions that were presented, and join with all in supporting this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take this brief call to support the second reading of the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. I stand humbled to acknowledge the hard work of the mandated iwi entities of Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika. Each settlement provides an agreed historical account and a Crown acknowledgment and apology for iwi, along with both cultural and commercial redress for each iwi. This National-led Government continues to work hard on completing final and durable Treaty of Waitangi settlements. I look forward to the next phase of this bill’s journey. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill will be divided by the Clerk, and the Ngāti Rangiteaorere Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Rangiwewehi Claims Settlement Bill, and the Tapuika Claims Settlement Bill are set down for third reading on the next sitting day.

Bills

Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for Whānau Ora) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Tēnā koe e Te Mana W’akahaere, tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā kanohi o Raukawa i konei i tēnei rā, me ērā i te wā kāinga, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka nui te mihi rawa atu ki a koutou kua tae mai nei ki te w’akanui i tēnei kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you all. To the representatives of Raukawa present here today and to those ones back home, salutations to you all. I acknowledge those of you greatly who have arrived here to celebrate this matter of the day. Greetings to you collectively.]

This day has been a long time coming for the people descended from Raukawa. This is the day that the people of Raukawa have come to represent, to practise, and to maintain the tikanga that has been left for them to protect, to hold strong to the legacy of those who have passed on before them. It is a day to celebrate and acknowledge the significance of their custodial role, and to practise manaw’akahaere, kaitiakitanga, and ahi kā roa within their rohe. It has been 5 years since the deed for the co-management of the Waikato River was signed in December 2009. The Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill completes the settlement of their historical claims. It is then right to celebrate the culmination of so many aspirations and dreams woven over time, and, indeed, long before.

This bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown and the Raukawa deed of settlement and the supplementary deed. The most significant milestone, however, is in this day marking a place to rest, to recover, and to restore the relationship that Raukawa has always had, mai rā anō, with the land and the waterways in their rohe. The bill recounts the damage and destruction that was wrought upon the people through three major attacks on the human spirit. The first attack was through war and confiscation. The Crown acted unjustly in sending forces into the Waikato in July 1863 and occupying the land and the region. Crown forces penetrated through the rohe of Rangiaow’ia and Pāterangi, ending at Ōrākau. Approximately 250 to 300 tangata w’enua defended Ōrākau Pā against 1,800 troops for 3 long days. During the war, Raukawa chief Te Paerata was killed. Over 80 of their people were slaughtered during the battle and when fleeing the pā. The loss of prominent leadership was intensely felt.

After the battle at Ōrākau, Raukawa participated in the battles of Gate Pā and Te Ranga, and the latter was known as the bush campaigns. Loss of life was suffered when the Crown attacked Pukehinahina and Te Ranga. Kainga and cultivations were destroyed, forcing Raukawa to flee their homes. If the loss of life and property because of war and raupatu was not in itself severe, the Crown confiscated the land that Raukawa had interests in. Before the confiscation was completed, the Crown reformed Māori land legislation, leading to the introduction of the Native Land Court within the Raukawa rohe in 1866. And so the second tranche of confiscation was suffered, as Raukawa land became susceptible to alienation. They successfully used legal processes to challenge the exclusion of their tupuna Raukawa from the tūpuna of the Taupō-nui-a-Tia block. Raukawa sought to retain control and ownership of Māori land within Te Rohe Pōtae by opposing construction of roads, surveys, and land court hearings until the early 1880s.

The third and final impact was experienced through the effect of systematic, large-scale land speculation by private parties, resulting in rapid and substantial land loss in the late 19th century. Eighty percent of land within the Waikato Basin was taken by private land speculation and the Crown before 1900. In the 20th century the iwi lost further land through public works takings including for hydroelectric projects. Then in 1915 the Crown gifted 20,000 acres of the Pouakani block to an iwi with no ancestral ties to that w’enua, which exacerbated the grievance that Raukawa continued to feel. They were rendered virtually landless.

This is a deplorable history—acts of injustice that led to the economic, social, and cultural impoverishment of the iwi. I want to reflect today on the leadership of George Whakatoi Rangitūtia, the chair of the Raukawa Trust Board, who started this latest negotiation phase of their history. I mihi to him today. At the first reading of this bill, I said that this is a settlement bill that has been built on the vision of honouring the words of our tūpuna and building a strong foundation for our tamariki mokopuna. Me hoki w’akamuri, kia ahu w’akamua, ka neke—the future is behind us.

I cannot help but reflect too on the karanga that came across the airwaves this last Saturday night: “Kua wikitoria a Mōtai Tangata Rau!”. Mōtai Tangata Rau, led by Paraone Gloyne and Ngāhuia Kopa, saw Ngāti Raukawa win the Tainui Waka Kapa Haka Festival in the weekend. It was perfect timing to remind us of the dignity, the determination, and the courage that has allowed this iwi to emerge 150 years after the wars to become a leading player in the recent Kākano Investment forestry management regime, the environmental restoration of the Waikato River, and small business developments within their rohe.

The settlement is not about justice. It will never compensate for the attack on w’akapapa, the loss of life, the loss of land, and the destruction throughout their rohe, but it will allow the people to move forward, to utilise the settlement, to develop their own economy, to develop their people, and the restore their right to their Raukawatanga. The bill enables a cultural redress package designed around their aspirations to reinvigorate their relationship with cultural sites of significance, such as statutory acknowledgment of Raukawa’s association with 18 areas; geothermal statutory acknowledgment of Raukawa’s association with seven geothermal resource areas; vesting of eight conservation sites including Te Tuki, Whakakahonui, the Whakamaru Power Station village site, and five other sites vested as reserves; and the assignment and alteration of geographic names.

Over and above the quantum, there is a $3 million cultural fund to negotiate the sale of, or access to, sites of significance situated on private land within the Raukawa rohe, a $5 million fund to explore commercial arrangements with Mighty River Power, and a $2 million lakebed fund.

The commercial and financial redress package has been designed to contribute to the economic development of Raukawa now and for future generations. It includes the option to purchase part of Pureora North Crown forest licensed land, the right of deferred selection to purchase 35 Crown-owned properties for up to 5 years from settlement date, a right of first refusal for a period of 171 years from settlement date, over 26 properties owned by the Crown, and another 84 owned by Housing New Zealand Corporation, the Waikato District Health Board, and the Crown, should they be declared surplus to requirements.

There is one final point I wish to make. Raukawa often think of themselves as the most overlapped tribe in this process today. This settlement is about having to foster relationships with Tūw’aretoa, Rereahu, Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, Koroki Kahukura, Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Hinerangi, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāruakahunui, Te Arawa, Pouakani, and Kauwhata. The negotiations have required leadership, integrity, respect, and steadfast determination to do what was right to allow this iwi to move forward, and I think of the leadership that resides within Raukawa—those at the negotiating table, those who have attended the hui, and those who have cared for the w’ānau while the talks have gone on. I think about the vision your settlement represents to keep the future behind you to always be in pursuit of an opportunity to grow. I know that already Raukawa has started to experience the fruits of settlement. The future is stretching out to the mokopuna to come, and all of Raukawa must continue to demonstrate the unity of purpose that has got you through to this point to build a new tomorrow that you can all share. Nā reira, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tuatahi, tēnei ka tāpiri atu aku mihi maioha ki a koutou o Raukawa, i uru mai nei i roto i tēnei tō koutou nei Whare ki te whakarongo ki a mātou nei whakaaro hei tautoko i a koutou tutukitanga i raro i te kerēme kei mua i a tātou. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa, ngā marae maha, ngā koroheke, ngā rūruhi, te hunga taiohi e kawea nei te toimahatanga o ngā mahi tuhituhi, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Firstly, I would like to extend my affectionate greetings to you of Raukawa who have entered into this House of yours to listen to our thoughts in support of your achievements under the claim before us. Therefore, to you all, the many courtyards, the elderly men and womenfolk, the younger generation that bear the hardship involved in the written work, I salute you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to join with the Minister for Whānau Ora and support the third reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. There are aspects of the settlement that hinge together like a jigsaw, and I use that analogy very carefully because, as Minister Turia pointed out, there is such a complex web of relationships that have required being sorted through for Raukawa to get to this point.

I want to reflect on a conversation I had with Vanessa Eparaima, the chair of Raukawa, in seeking to understand the intent of the settlement and, more particularly, what it had taken to get to this point and what was envisaged for the future. One thing stood out very clearly in my mind, and it was this issue of relationships. She made it very clear in the discussion that it has not been a perfect path, trying to pull together the total sum of interests in the bill, but in working through relationships, certainly within the iwi, and alongside neighbouring iwi, they were able to get to a point. I respect her commitment to the enduring nature of relationships to make Treaty settlements last. I respect the amount of effort that has been taken to work out some very inside the house issues, if you like, and some neighbour issues. I think people will understand what I mean.

More important, when she talked about relationships, she said there was nothing more fundamental than what was happening within Raukawa—a transformation of change to take the iwi into the future. When she talked about, for example, the amount of effort that had gone into the thinking behind the governance entity, I was encouraged by the amount of consultation that had taken place within the iwi and by the rigour with which first principles informed the nature of their governance entity and, more important, informed their mode of practice. So this settlement is brought together by some words in a deed of settlement that a lot of work has undoubtedly gone into. Because of the spirit that has gone into pulling together a settlement that prepares the iwi to go forward into the future while never losing sight of where they have come from, I commend the settlement in this bill to the House.

We heard at the Māori Affairs Committee a number of issues raised, for example, with regard to the map of association. We considered this with, I guess, quite a lot of thought about whether the map of association was an opportunity for Raukawa to extend their domain, or to make clear and express the nature of their relationships throughout their domain. I think, after advice from officials and after clarification from Raukawa, we settled on the second one—just to make clear that they have a number of interests in their geographical area that should not be forgotten. That was an important point, because we tussled with the fact that should the statement of association be put into the legislation, it would not make it clear that the nature of Raukawa interests were not over and above what had been expressly provided for in the legislation. We decided against that and stayed with Raukawa’s best judgment. I draw the attention of the House to that in so far as the issues raised around Lake Ōhakuri. Again, the clarification that we have in the bill makes very clear where Raukawa’s interests lie with regard to the lake, and that applies to the Tatua West side of the lake.

Raukawa has put a lot of effort into its relationships with stakeholders other than iwi—local government, for example. I recognise that the mayor is here today. I think the amount of effort put into the Te Reo Māori strategy in the South Waikato district is, for our region, a very stellar example of what can be achieved when you have a good relationship with local government and, more important, the commitment of the leadership. So I too want to commend Mōtai-Tangata-Rau, because the evolution of that tenacity and commitment towards Te Reo has manifested itself through other types of relationships that the region can certainly claim support of, as well.

There was some discussion, again at the select committee, with regard to removing Waitangi Tribunal claim 443 from the bill. Just for those who are here and listening, it was our final determination that that claim, when it was lodged by Wally Papa, was done on behalf of Raukawa. It would not be fitting to remove the claim within the context of this particular settlement. Although there was significant interest put forward by Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, in time things may subside and in time, I think, relationships can be mended.

I come to Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. We currently have their bill, the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill, sitting before the Māori Affairs Committee. There were two things that stood out, and these were the two points that were certainly impressed upon us from the Raukawa perspective and are certainly being impressed upon us from the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura perspective. Firstly, Raukawa is all inclusive in their settlement. Clause 13 of the bill makes it absolutely clear that it is intended to be an inclusive settlement for all those who identify with Raukawa. Secondly, in so far as Ngāti Koroki Kahukura interests emerge, I think it becomes clear in relation to the Waikato River.

One of the things they said, for example, was that from Karapiro to Arapuni, when it comes to exercising their interests as kaitiaki in the river, there are some other settlements that overshadow the intent of this settlement and that they want to clarify it through their own settlement. So, for example, their application for Waikato River Authority funding for the clean-up is overshadowed by the extent of Raukawa’s interest, under the river settlement, in Karapiro. I think that that is a relationship issue and it could be worked through. Maybe the select committee might be able to do something within the context of the Ngāti Koroki Kahukura settlement. But this settlement should not be changed to reflect the nature of that interest. And that is certainly where the select committee felt that things needed to remain the same.

For Waikeria Prison, thankfully, with the relationships that underpin the discussions between Raukawa and Maniapoto, the change to the bill that has been recommended I think just clarifies how the issues around Waikeria Prison can be worked through over time. With the goodwill and commitment of the two parties, I am sure it will be done.

We cannot go further without recognising that a lot of effort has been put into expressing how Raukawa want to go forward, and recognising the commercial entity and the work that has gone into that. The people whom they have secured to build capacity throughout their iwi, I think, is something that other iwi are watching very carefully. They have sought technicians and experts to build the capacity of iwi and work alongside their own people so that they can carry out their fiduciary obligations as iwi—in so far as the river is concerned, their environmental interests and their commercial interests—very well. I would hope that in time there will be an opportunity for iwi like Raukawa to share what best practice can look like, so that everybody does not have to reinvent the wheel. That is the last thing I would say.

I wish Raukawa well on their journey forward. I know that their commitment to young people, to the histories, and to the language of Raukawa has been most definitely demonstrated over the last couple of weeks. I am confident that the extent to which, certainly, Vanessa has led the issue of managing relationships thoroughly and in a way that will work out some of the more difficult issues means that the relationships will endure. And I am confident that over time some of the sharper edges of those relationships will subside.

Nō reira, i tēnei wā, ka whakarāpopoto taku mihi ki a koutou o Raukawa. Nei te mihi maioha mō tēnei wāhanga, kia tutuki pai a koutou wawata i roto i tēnei o ngā take Tiriti. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[At this stage I would therefore curtail my acknowledgment to you collectively of Raukawa. My affectionate regards for this part in the hope that all your aspirations in regards to this of the Treaty matters will be met well. So, greetings and well done to you collectively and my thanks to us all.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Welcome to the people and the friends of Raukawa who have joined us today to mark this significant milestone in the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Raukawa. I greet those of you in the House and those watching and listening elsewhere. Our guests in the House may have wondered why it was that when Mrs Turia stood up, I walked out. Well, it is not because I have the pip with Mrs Turia—far from it. She is my favourite member of Parliament. She is a great woman. [Interruption] Maurice Williamson always gets very upset when I say that. But I have to say this to Maurice, in the immortal words of Lloyd Bentsen: Maurice is a friend of mine, Maurice is a great politician, but Maurice is not Tariana Turia. So I stood up and walked out because Mrs Turia has been the local member of Parliament for many years and I thought it was entirely fitting and proper that she should lead off in this debate, because I know how closely she has followed the debate and how keen she has been to see a just and durable settlement with Ngāti Raukawa.

Ngāti Raukawa have settled their Treaty grievance against the Crown, not only for the present generation but for those before, who carried a great burden, and for those who will follow as Raukawa usher in a more optimistic future for the people of Raukawa. I acknowledge the weight of responsibility that all have felt in undertaking such a responsibility. I say in the third reading that that is not formulaic, because I know from negotiations just what people have done. I am confident that the mana of Raukawa will be widely evident as they use the opportunities this settlement provides to enhance the well-being of their people, their river, and their lands and to advance the standing of Ngāti Raukawa within the community at large.

I begin by acknowledging Kīngi Tuheitia me Te Whare o te Kāhui Ariki. I acknowledge too the respected kaumātua and kuia of Raukawa and those who maintain the home fires of the marae within the Waikato and the surrounding regions. When I introduced the bill, I acknowledged past and present negotiators: Chris McKenzie, Vanessa Eparaima, Nigel Te Hiko, and Patricia Cowley. I want to say that I first met Chris McKenzie in 2007. I know that his family is up there in the gallery. He and others, like Stephanie O’Sullivan, who was present at the meeting in Hamilton, briefed me on Raukawa’s historical river claims. Chris has worked for his iwi for many years. This is a bipartisan debate so I am not allowed to say that I look forward to seeing him in here at the end of the year. My respect for them and for all their hard work, for their achievements on behalf of their people, and for the way they have conducted themselves in what, at times, has been a very vigorous debate is something that I wish to place on record again.

Above all, on this special day, our thoughts naturally gravitate towards those who have suffered the grievances that are settled today. We also remember those who worked in so many ways and for so long to get the Crown to a position where it acknowledged its wrongs, and we remember those who are not here to see the outcome of their endeavours. I know that the people of Raukawa, along with many members of the House, have many special people in mind at this time. I need to acknowledge the late Fraser Te Hiko, Marīna Jacobs, Ēmare Nīkora, Ngira Simmonds, Pita Thompson, Tommy Rangitūtia, and so many others who had the foresight to establish the Raukawa Trust Board.

I salute the very special role played by the late George Rangitūtia. As many of you in the gallery know, I had a wonderful day in January 2011 when George and you got me in that bus and we drove around the rohe. He played a pivotal part in the negotiations, and it was very sad that his health did not allow him to attend the formal signing ceremony for the deed of settlement. After the signing ceremony, Vanessa, Louise Upston, and I took the deed to George in Waikato Hospital so that he could sign it. It was a very special moment that I will always treasure. The last thing that I said to him was: “Well, George, I’ll see you in a few weeks.” But that was not to be; the next time I saw him was on the marae for his tangi.

This settlement is a fitting legacy for George and demonstrates all his efforts over many years on behalf of his people. The other day I was in Tāneatua for the opening of the great Tūhoe House, and I said to Tāmati Kruger that he reminded me of something that Harry Truman once said: “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” I think that is the epitaph of George Rangitūtia. This settlement has been built on the foresight, determination, and courage of all these people.

As is well-known, Raukawa are based in the Waikato region and have been represented in negotiations by the Raukawa Settlement Trust. Its connections cover a significant area from Taupō-nui-a-tia in the south, to Maungatautari in the north, westward into the Rangitoto Range and the Waipā Valley, and eastwards into the Kaimai and Mamaku Ranges. I am certain that members will also be well aware of the importance to Raukawa of the Waikato River, as historically it was the centre of commercial, social, and spiritual life.

In 2008 Raukawa began negotiations for its comprehensive settlement. These negotiations, as I have said, were not without their complexities, but they reached their conclusion with Raukawa and the Crown signing the deed of settlement on 2 June 2012. Mrs Turia has outlined the essence of the settlement redress, and I will not repeat those comments here, but I want to say something about the historical aspect of the claim. First, let me say that that the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act 2008 and the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010 both addressed aspects of the historical Treaty claims of this iwi. It is this bill, however, that brings together all the remaining historical Treaty claims.

As the bill acknowledges, in 1863 the Crown sent its armed forces into the Waikato, and Raukawa were drawn into the fighting that followed, through their whakapapa connections and links to the Kīngitanga. I think the historical account and the acknowledgment set out in clauses 8 and 9 of the bill are so very important because what they do is set out in detail further breaches of the Treaty visited upon Raukawa in the years that followed, including loss of life through raupatu, confiscation, and privatisation of land through the operation of the Native Land Court, the Crown’s failure to acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Raukawa, and the failure of the Crown to protect Raukawa interests in their customary resources and significant sites. It is a very sad history. It is a sorry list of dishonoured obligations on the part of the Crown.

I will always remember that day in Tokoroa where we had the airing of grievances. It occurred about 18 months ago. One does not have to be some kind of bleeding-heart liberal to be affected by this history. This history is not good. I take as an example the old kuia who stayed in her house until the water was lapping around her porch before she left. So my plea to those who send me rude emails, as most assuredly they will do after this speech—they send them after every settlement, especially some strange person in Nelson. She is always telling me I am an unelected list MP, which is of course an oxymoron. All I say to her is: “Look, just study the history. Look at the facts, because if you look at the facts, the facts speak for themselves, and the facts are not flash.”

What has been done cannot be undone. Most of what has been lost cannot be returned, but the generous people sitting in the gallery today have accepted the redress contained in their deed of settlement and in this bill. I very much look forward to continuing to work with and getting to know the people of Raukawa. I hope we shall keep in touch long after I have left this place, and I am sure Mrs Turia feels the same. I look forward to a new era in the relationship between Raukawa and the Crown, one that does really live up to the principles of the Treaty. So I wish those in the gallery and the iwi at large all the very best for the future, and I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare nei. I join with all members of this House in celebrating the third reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. Ā, tuatahi, e te iwi Raukawa, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki tō tātou Whare i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira i tēnei wā. Nō reira, ōku rau rangatira mā, kui mā, koro mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Firstly, to the tribe of Raukawa, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome to our House in regards to this matter of enormous importance at this point in time. So therefore, to my leaders of a hundredfold, to the elderly women and menfolk, salutations and greetings to you collectively, and to us all.]

I join with all members in celebrating the third reading of this most important bill of Raukawa. I want to pick up on the comments of the Hon Tariana Turia, who talked about the unique qualities of this bill, particularly around the tensions of the relationships and overlapping iwi interests. I want to add my support and say that it is often not an easy thing to manoeuvre yourself through Treaty processes when you have such competing interests in this area. So I want to particularly acknowledge the leadership of those who have been mentioned—Chris McKenzie and Vanessa Eparaima, particularly—for ensuring that your settlement waka has come to this point today. So I do mihi to you for the efforts of your negotiators and your leadership, particularly.

Just picking up on the complexity, particularly around the overlapping interests, when looking through at the progress on this bill I noted that the deed of mandate was signed in September 2008. Ten months later, in July 2009, the terms of negotiation were signed, and then the deed of settlement was signed in September 2011. My point is that that is a 3-year journey from the deed of mandate to the deed of settlement. I want to acknowledge that there have been very few claims where iwi can say that they have achieved it in such a short space of time, given the complexity issues that were talked about earlier. So I want to labour that point, because I recall a particular iwi that was first off the block under a Labour-led policy called the large natural groupings. The Tūranganui a Kiwa claims were the first off as part of that process, and we did not meet the time lines that Raukawa has clearly met in terms of 3 years of settling. I think we took somewhere in the vicinity of 8 years.

But the point is that for iwi to get to the deed of settlement process it is no short undertaking, and I do want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the officials who played their part to ensure that we were getting to this point. Like I say, a 3-year journey is something to be proud of, given the backdrop of the relationship issues and the overlapping claims that came through. So for me, that speaks volumes about the leadership demonstrated by the Raukawa people in ensuring that we have got to this point in the process and to the bill having its third reading. But I do want to make the observation that although the deed of settlement was in September 2011, this bill was not referred to the Māori Affairs Committee until August 2013. So I am, in my own head, doing my calculation of what the delay was in getting from a deed of settlement to the select committee process.

None the less it was referred, and can I say that the work that the Māori Affairs Committee, ably led by the Hon Tau Henare, gave this bill was a very good look over. We had, I believe, a number of submissions. It was interesting for us to travel to Tokoroa, where we heard submissions. We had some 22 submissions, of which we heard 10, including during the hearings we held in Tokoroa. Can I say that there were some very strong submissions made before the Māori Affairs Committee. Like my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, I can say that the select committee gave consideration to all submissions, supported by the advice of the officials. So when you see the recommendations from the select committee, you can see the comprehensiveness with which the committee members particularly addressed the issues of the submitters.

But this is about the third reading, and it is about celebrating the success of Raukawa at this point in their history. Like everybody else, I am looking forward to the next part of Raukawa’s journey in terms of how this settlement will assist and enable their development as an iwi in their area. But this was a short call to support the third reading, and to acknowledge particularly the work of people like Vanessa and Chris for their leadership on this particular bill. Can I say that if Raukawa’s future is anything like Mōtai Tangata Rau in taking out the Tainui regional kapa hakas, this country is in for an exciting, innovative, and very entertaining future. Nō reira. I stand to support and commend the third reading. Kia ora tātou katoa.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. 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, tihei mauri ora. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rangatira mā, e ngā iwi e huihui nei, tēnā koutou. Ngā rangatira o Raukawa, koro mā, kuia mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you all the House. 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. Behold the breath of life. To the authorities, languages, leaders of a hundredfold and the tribes gathered here, greetings to you collectively. To the esteemed leaders, elderly women, and menfolk of Raukawa, greetings, salutations and acknowledgments to you all.]

I am speaking with my back to the gallery, where my whanaunga are. However, I do just want to take this moment to acknowledge all the people who are in the gallery and the people who are at home watching. I am too afraid to name them personally because I might miss someone out, so I would like to take this moment just to thank them all for being here to watch this last passage of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill through the House.

I am delighted to speak on this third and final reading on behalf of the Greens. On behalf of myself, I am also delighted to be part of this historic occasion today. I wanted to start my kōrero with a karakia tīmatanga because it is such a lovely and hopeful prayer. It is also the karakia that I said last week at the tangi of my Auntie June, who was married to my Uncle Ken.

I think it is right to acknowledge the many rangatira who have passed away—not just those who have been involved in the struggle to get to this stage, and the years that it has taken to do that, but also the ones who have been fighting for this for decades. My understanding is that the fight for justice for Raukawa has been going on since the late 1860s. Tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou te hunga mate, nō reira, haere e ngā mate. Haere ki te wā kāinga, haere ki te kāinga tūturu o tō tātou Matua i Te Rangi, haere, haere, haere.

[Greetings to you collectively and to you the ones who have passed away, farewell. Return to the true and real home of our heavenly Father. Depart, journey on, goodbye.]

As early as 1868 our Raukawa ancestors were attempting to use the legal processes that were imposed on them by the Crown through the Native Land Court to right the blatant land grabs that happened to them. The deed of settlement and the bill itself set out the agreed historical account and where the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi occurred, and it is fair to say that Raukawa were punished for both their political convictions—their involvement in the Kīngitanga movement—as well as their involvement in the wars in the Waikato and Tauranga in the 1860s. As well as loss of life—and this has been spoken about today by Minister Turia—they suffered raupatu, or land confiscation, after the wars in Waikato and Tauranga in 1863 and 1864 and the bush campaigns in 1867.

The introduction of the Native Land Court, which Raukawa were not consulted on, resulted in Raukawa being alienated from even more land. The return of confiscated land to individual Māori resulted in the breaking down of collective ownership, basically because it is difficult to shift collectively owned land to private individuals. Clause 9(7), in Part 1 of the bill, states that “the operation and impact of the native land laws, in particular the award of land to individual Raukawa and the enabling of individuals to deal with that land without reference to iwi or hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This undermined the traditional tribal structures, mana, and rangatiratanga of Raukawa, which were based on collective tribal and hapū custodianship of the land. The Crown failed to protect those collective tribal structures, which had a prejudicial effect on Raukawa and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

From my understanding, it was around this time that the Crown, through the Native Land Court, despite a legal challenge from the iwi, excluded the tūpuna Raukawa from the tūpuna associated with the Taupō-nui-a-Tia block. There is much, much more in the historical accounts that record the breaches of the Treaty that separated Raukawa from their land. The bill outlines that the Crown acknowledges that by 1910 the Crown and private purchasers had alienated Raukawa from more than three-quarters of their landholdings, and that before 1900 private parties and the Crown had purchased around 80 percent of the land—that is, around 800,000 acres within the whole of the Waikato Basin. In clause 8(10) of the legislation, it states that “The Crown failed to protect Raukawa from becoming virtually landless. This restricted their ability to participate in new economic opportunities and contributed to the economic, social, and cultural impoverishment of Raukawa.”

When we take just these issues of land loss—and that is aside from the loss of life—it is apparent that Raukawa are extremely generous with this settlement. The redress package does not, and cannot, fully compensate for the harms that were done to them, and this is one reason why the Greens maintain that we do not believe this is a full and final settlement.

The settlement itself is made up of both commercial and financial redress and cultural redress. I know that the cultural redress includes the birthplace of the ancestor Raukawa himself, the common ancestor of all Raukawa iwi. Like others, I want to congratulate the negotiation team and the leadership of Raukawa on the tightrope they have walked to deliver this settlement bill.

In my second speech, I revisited some of the overlapping interests, as others have done. Raukawa have shared areas of interest and association with Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Waikato, Tainui, Te Arawa, and Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, and there are many more. It is not surprising that there are overlapping concerns, because Māori do not live in a jar. As it has been noted by Raukawa themselves in their written submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee, it is a finely balanced settlement to acknowledge those joint associations and interests. Raukawa have sought creative solutions in the settlement. As an example, there are the unusual protections of Maniapoto interests over the right of first refusal for Waikeria Prison.

The settlement also covers significant commercial and financial redress. When it comes to commercial redress, I always feel a bit nervous even mentioning it, basically because of the hate speech from the ignorant, who frequently describe Treaty settlements as a gravy train. Minister Finlayson referred to that. There is a woeful lack of education or understanding from the general public about Treaty settlements and about Te Tiriti generally. As a country, we have been suffering from cultural amnesia. We more often than not forget that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the document, ensured that every non-Māori citizen has the right to live here, that this country was not taken by force, and that the breaches of the Treaty, as outlined in both the settlement deed and the more abridged version in the legislation itself, seriously undermined a sovereign people. They have suffered to this very day.

The ignorance of our history is actually taught in schools. My daughter, Matariki, is 15. Last year she attended a training seminar on the Treaty of Waitangi that was led by real Treaty educators. When she came back home she was absolutely incensed. As soon as she got back to school she hit up her social studies teacher, handed over some resources, and told him that he had been teaching it all wrong. She did do it tactfully, I think, which might be a Raukawa trait rather than a Roche trait. My daughter has had the benefits of bilingual education for her first 6 years at school, and before that she was at a kōhanga reo, yet in all her time within the education system she has never heard the true story of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

So it is no wonder, then, that so often our rangatahi suffer isolation and dislocation from their culture. The true history that connects them to their land is hidden. How can a young person step confidently into the future if their past is unknown? My daughter is here today. She is in the gallery. Her father and I decided that attending this historic occasion contributes more to her education as a young woman of Raukawa than her school could provide.

I want to congratulate Raukawa because this settlement carries them forward into the future to look after all their rangatahi, and they will do that with pride and from a sound economic base. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Tēnā koe e Te Kaiwhakawā. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi, ngā rangatira o Ngāti Raukawa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to you the House. I salute you collectively leaders of a hundredfold in regards to the matter of the day. Acknowledgments to you the people and leaders of the Raukawa tribe. So greetings, salutations, and congratulations to you all.]

It is with the most generous of hearts that I welcome you here to our place—to this place. I am enormously proud to be your member of Parliament, and I use that word very carefully and consciously. I acknowledge the previous speeches and that of Minister Turia in particular. She is also your member of Parliament. But I want to reflect in this House today on the journey, because I think probably more uniquely for me in this House is that I have got to walk most of this journey with you. So September 2008 was when you signed your mandate, and I was elected only a couple of months after that. I do not think I had any idea quite what was in store.

When I look up at the gallery and I look at who else is here—and I acknowledge both the mayor and deputy mayor—I see Raukawa, the heart of the community. For me, definitely, you are the heart of the Taupō electorate, and, again, I use that word very deliberately because every step of the way I have seen you reach out to all the stakeholders, to all of those in the community who have an interest—real, imagined, and everything in between. I think that has taken enormous courage and generosity. I think back to the Prime Minister’s visit at the end of 2010. My understanding is that that was the very first time a Prime Minister had been on one of your marae. I know what an enormously proud day it was—the range and breadth and depth of the community who were there to welcome him. And for you to share that occasion very much speaks to the way you have approached this whole process.

I think probably most significant was the day that I would say was the reconciliation day, 25 May 2011. I must confess that I said to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: “What is this day? What happens? What do I have to do?”. I was not quite sure. I remember sitting there and hearing your stories. The Minister spoke about one of those stories in particular—of one of your family members sitting there waiting while the water rose around her. I remember the very, very powerful story that Mal McKenzie delivered on behalf of her family—your mother, your grandmother. I sat there and I was very, very clear that I was a representative of the Crown hearing the stories of the carnage and the damage that had been inflicted on the people of Raukawa.

But the thing that stood out for me that day was how this process heals. I saw it within a matter of hours—the tears, the anguish, the hurt, the anger being turned very quickly into generosity, acceptance, and forgiveness. I saw it, I witnessed it, and I felt it. I really wish that every single New Zealander, as the Prime Minister enters a conversation this week about nationhood and about what our flag might look like, could witness that kind of occasion, because to me that is what will make this nation even greater than it is today. So I want to thank you for allowing me to be part of that process. You have allowed me to be part of every single part of the process, and that is the Raukawa way.

The next big occasion that, again, was a first for me was the signing of your deed at Aotearoa Marae. That was the day that the Crown, through Minister Finlayson, delivered the formal apology. Again, I will be honest. I thought that that was probably just a speech, just the stuff that the Minister has to stay, and he has to do that lots of times, but, man, that was so wrong, because what was very clear when he spoke—and it was clear from looking out at the faces of Raukawa—was that apology being delivered but, more important, being accepted. That is where the generosity of Raukawa comes in.

When we talk about riches and we talk about wealth, we talk about people and we talk about resources. Raukawa lost both of those things—significantly. People say to me: “Why in these Treaty settlements is there so much money involved? Why do you do that?”. I use some very simple examples and I say to someone: “You imagine if you were a farmer. You have some land, you look after your family, and you create wealth from that farm. What happens when you wake up one day and that farm has gone? Then what? Oh, and half your family’s gone too. Then what?”. So the third reading and the passing of this legislation are for us to complete that part of the journey.

There are so many highlights in this process, but I loved the day in December 2012 when it was time to sign the ministerial accords. Raukawa invited me to attend, but, more important, you invited me to attend with you. I think there were some very nervous-looking officials and some very puzzled Ministers when they saw Louise Upston, the National MP for Taupō, arriving on the side of Raukawa. But that, to me, said it all, because your belief, your actions, and your partnership go far beyond anything I have ever witnessed. And knowing the stories and knowing what you have been so generously willing to accept in order to move on really make that even more powerful.

My one regret, as I am sure it is for those of you in the gallery, is that George is not here today. The fact that we took the deed for him to sign in his chief’s jersey is another memory that will never leave me. So to George and to those of Raukawa who cannot be here, congratulations. This is a proud day for you all, for us all, and I look forward to every next step of the journey with you. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngāti Raukawa, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare Paremata e takatū nei ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata o rātou mā. Huri noa ki ngā rangatira o te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To the Raukawa tribe, greetings and welcome to you collectively. Welcome to Parliament House standing here in readiness to fulfil the aspirations of those who have long gone. And greetings to you leaders throughout the House, salutations, and acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all.]

I am delighted to be able to speak at this final reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill I come from the South Island. We are in the process of doing a lot of settlements in the south, and my own iwi of Ngāi Tahu were first off the block. I have marvelled, really, at being able to be part of it within my own iwi but also, some 15-plus years on now, to see the developments that have taken place as a result of the Treaty settlements. I know that Ngāti Raukawa have a very exciting future ahead of them.

In my earlier speeches I have spoken about the historical accounts and the heinous acts that were inflicted upon Ngāti Raukawa. Ngāti Raukawa were drawn into conflicts when going to the aid of their cousins in the Waikato wars and in the Tauranga wars, and as a result of that they were largely left landless, had all their rights stripped, and were really just left with not much at all. In fact, in the 1800s and 1900s Ngāti Raukawa were not even acknowledged as an iwi; they were included just as a hapū of Waikato-Tainui. So I am very humbled to be able to stand here today to acknowledge this iwi of Ngāti Raukawa and all of the kaumātua and all of their talented people who have been involved in negotiating and getting this settlement to this final, home run stretch. It is a great honour.

I look at the quantum amounts of the settlements, and I mentioned in my earlier speech the generosity that the negotiators of all iwi have shown. We know that the Treaty pūtea is quite limited, but in terms of reparations, there really can be no equivalent reparation for the loss and the mamae that have been inflicted upon iwi throughout the motu. We just had a very small amount for one of the iwis from Te Arawa earlier this morning—all three, in fact. I contrast that, as I do, with “Ngāti South Canterbury Finance” and the $1.2 billion—$1,200 million—going to that “iwi” down there and its “hapū” of investors, although do not tell my Ngāi Tahu whanaunga about that. For “Ngāti South Canterbury Finance”, when it comes to down to it, there is pūtea there when it needs it.

I do acknowledge the graciousness of this iwi Ngāti Raukawa, who have accepted this and worked hard to come to this point with their settlement. It does include a lot of complexities. I am from the south, so I do not quite know all the arrangements with all of their cousins around their immediate vicinity, but I know that they have worked very hard to be able to get to this point, and I acknowledge them for that.

I mentioned at the start of my speech the contribution that Māori and particularly iwi settlements are making to the Māori economy. I am really looking forward to the contribution that Ngāti Raukawa will make from this settlement to the Māori economy, which is entering a golden age, as has been expressed by ANZ bank, I believe. It is an exciting time. If you do look around the central North Island in particular, with all of the agribusiness, geothermal generation, and all the other work, the ability for Māori landowners and for recapitalised iwi groups to harness those opportunities that they have really is exciting. I was with my own folks down south just last week. They have got some very big plans down there in terms of dairy expansion throughout the South Island. It blew my mind in terms of what is happening right across Aotearoa when you look at the Māori economic space. Not enough attention is really paid to it.

It really is under the radar, but there are some phenomenal organisations out there, and I know that Ngāti Raukawa is right in amongst those ranks with the talented people that they have leading their iwi, particularly through this settlement. I do acknowledge Vanessa Eparaima. I met Vanessa only briefly when I attended the Māori Affairs Committee, but I was just very impressed with the very highly capable crew that they had there, and also Chris McKenzie. I know he is gunning for Te Tai Hauāuru, but our man Adrian might have another—we will see who has the last word there. But I do acknowledge Chris McKenzie also and his contribution that he has made towards this settlement.

There is a lot of history, a lot of mamae, a lot of sweat and tears and anguish, and huis and more huis, and I do want to acknowledge those in that process who are not here today to celebrate. I know that there will be many karaua and kuia who have passed on. We also use these occasions to remember them. As we say: “Āpiti hōno tātai hōno, rātou te hunga mate ki a rātou, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou.” We bind together and we acknowledge all those who are not here, those who have passed on and us here, the living.

So I really do not have too much to add. I could have read out a whole lot of historical notes, but read my speeches from the first and second readings. It is all in there—that taniwha General Cameron. Oh boy, he was a bad bugger—he was a bad bugger. Excuse me. But, yes, we are here to celebrate Ngāti Raukawa and their fantastic achievements in this settlement. I just want to wish them all the very best for a prosperous future and may they add more of that golden glow to the Māori economy. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Ka tū ake ahau ki te mihi ki a koutou katoa e te iwi o Raukawa, me ō whānau e noho ana i te kāinga, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Haere mai ki tēnei Whare, nau mai, haere mai.

[I rise to acknowledge you all, the tribe of Raukawa and your families at home. I greet you all. Welcome to this House, welcome, welcome.]

The purpose of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Raukawa. The Māori Affairs Committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed. Te rohe o Raukawa is from Te Wairere, Horohoro, and Pōhaturoa. At Ongaroto is the house of the ancestor Whāita. The rohe is from Nukuhau to Taupō-nui-a-Tia, and to Hurakia on the Hauhungaroa Range. From Titiraupenga maunga, the horizon is the boundary of the district of Raukawa. From the maunga Wharepūhunga and the marae at Arowhena to the ranges of Whakamaru, it extends to the region of Te Kaokaoroa-o-Pātetere, to Maungatautari. It goes beyond Wharepūhunga to the ancestor Hoturoa, to the marae at Pārāwera.

Raukawa interests in this rohe are derived from discovery, conquest, gifting, and whakapapa. Raukawa and the Crown acknowledge that other iwi also have interests in parts of these lands, but Raukawa also claim association with Tauranga, Tarukenga, Ngongotahā, Reporoa, Kaingaroa, Tahorakuri, and, in the Manawatū, Kāpiti and Ōtaki.

The Māori Affairs Committee heard opposition from Maniapoto to the inclusion in the settlement of specific land blocks at Waikeria for Raukawa. However, the committee believed that the provisions in the bill offer sufficient protection of the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board’s interests and authority. The committee recommended amending clauses 110(1)(c) and 136 to include a definition of the “Maniapoto Maori Trust Board” and its successor to futureproof the legislation. Ngāti Koroki Kahukura also submitted and argued that the bill appears to recognise Raukawa interests in Ngāti Koroki Kahukura territory without acknowledging the dominant mana whenua status of Ngāti Koroki Kahukura. Engari, the committee considered these matters carefully, but did not propose any amendments to the bill regarding Ngāti Koroki Kahukura.

The select committee amended schedule 1 and Part 2 of the bill by replacing the words “Lake Ōhakuri” with “Part Lake Ōhakuri” to make it clear that the statement of association would apply to only the Tatua West block of the lake.

In terms of the Maungatautari Mountain Scenic Reserve, the select committee inserted new clause 84A and acknowledged the significance of Maungatautari to Raukawa. Since the introduction of the bill, the surveys of Te Tuki and Pureora sites have been completed, so clause 63, clause 65, and schedule 4 were also amended to reflect land descriptions updated following these surveys. For Pureora, clause 75 was amended to make it clear that the entire Pureora site would not be exempt from section 24 of the Conservation Act if the revocation and surrender is applied to parts of these sites.

Raukawa kia mau, kia ora. Raukawa, tikanga, kawa, and mana of the whānau and hapū, mana motuhake a Raukawa—determining their future for their whānau, hapū, and marae. Raukawa kia mau—preserving and cherishing their uniqueness and actively celebrating iwi virtues. Raukawa, kia ora—underpins decision making and sustainable development in business practice. This settlement is necessary. The Crown failed to protect Raukawa from becoming landless. The lack of land resources undermined the ability of the iwi to participate in new economic opportunities in its rohe. This contributed to the economic, social, and cultural impoverishment of Raukawa.

This settlement rights some of the wrongs of the past and allows Raukawa to build a stronger future for itself, the rohe, and Aotearoa. Raukawa will receive financial redress, which includes value transferred under the central North Island settlement in 2008 and its estimated interest. With this interest, Raukawa will further invest in its people through marae development grants and the education grants that currently support tauira study in medicine, health and science, Te Reo, business, and commerce.

Commercial redress includes lands, forestry, and the opportunity to explore future commercial arrangements with Mighty River Power. Cultural redress recognises the traditional historical, cultural, and spiritual associations Raukawa has with places and sites within its rohe or area of interest. The settlement provides a deed of recognition over parts of a number of awa and reserves. Resilience is a quality that fortifies Raukawa in the face of challenge. Hope is the elixir that sustains the iwi. This settlement bill gives Raukawa much to be hopeful for, providing not just an economic base but the freedom to determine, without impediment, mana motuhake. Raukawa kia mau, kia ora. I commend this bill to the House.

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. Hoi nō, hei kōrero tuatahi me mihi atu ki te “Koti Whero”, ki te Rōpū Reipa, e whakaae nei kia tū ahau ki te mihi atu ki a koutou e Ngāti Raukawa, i haere tawhiti mai ki roto i a mātou o Pōneke i tēnei rā, ā, kia rongohia i ngā kōrero hākoa wētahi ko ngā kōrero pahupahu, ngā kōrero koretake, kia tae atu ki te mutunga, kia hoki tika atu ki te kāinga me te pūtea a te Kāwanatanga, kia kaha koutou.

Nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou i haere tawhiti mai i runga i ngā whakaaro ō rātou mā kua ngaro atu ki tua o te ārai. Rātou e tū i ngā rā o mua, kia ū ki te whenua, kia ū ki ngā taonga, ngā ngāhere, ngā awa. Hākoa kua mate, kei te ora tonu ngā kaupapa, kei te ora tonu ngā maumaharatanga mō rātou mā. Nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou e te iwi o Ngāti Raukawa i haere mai i roto i a mātou i tēnei rā. Me te mea nōki, hākoa e mōhio ana, e mea ana te kōrero kua tatū i tēnei rā, kei te haere tonu tēnei kaupapa mō āke tonu atu.

Kaua e waihotia mā te Kāwanatanga e whakaarohia kua oti i tēnei rā. Mēnā he raru anō āpōpō, me tū anō āpōpō. Mēnā he raru ā te wiki e tū mai nei, me tū anō ā te wiki e tū mai nei. Kia ū ki wēnei kaupapa, kia mōhio ai ō koutou tamariki, mokopuna. Mēnā kei te pai te haere ō tō tātou wā, horekau he raru. Ēngari, mēnā he raru e pā tonu ana ki a Raukawa, kei te tū anō koutou āpōpō.

Nō reira, me mihi atu ki a koutou, hākoa nō Ngāpuhi ahau me wā mātou nei tini raruraru. Hoi nō me mihi atu ki a koutou i tēnei wā.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. The first thing I want to acknowledge is the “Red Coat” Labour Party for allowing me to stand and to extend a greeting to you collectively Ngāti Raukawa, who travelled from afar to be among us here in Wellington today, and to hear contributions, even though some will be mere waffle and of little significance. But at the end of it all, you go home directly with Government funding, so go hard.

And so, I must acknowledge you collectively who have travelled some distance upon the thoughts of those who have passed beyond the divide. They stood in those days committed to the land, treasures, forests, and rivers. Although they are dead now, matters that they sought then are very much alive still, as are the memories of them. So I must acknowledge you collectively Ngāti Raukawa who have come to be in our midst today, knowing full well that there is a saying that even if it is settled today, it does not end there.

Do not allow the Government to think that it has been settled. If a problem arises again tomorrow, bring it up again. If a problem comes up again next week, bring it up again then. Be committed to these matters so that your children and grandchildren are aware of them. If it is done well in our time, there will not be any problems further down the track. Should a problem continue to affect you Raukawa, you will rise up again in the future.

So I salute you collectively even though I am from Ngāpuhi, with all our myriad of problems. But I do congratulate you at this point in time.]

I know that wherever we are in Te Ao Māori, these settlements are not the settlements that will last for ever. It is not appropriate for any Government to assume that it can settle for ever a debt at a level of less than 3 percent of the value of the claim. So remind your children and your grandchildren that regardless of the paperwork that gets signed down here in our time, the challenge is for them tomorrow and in the years to come to be stronger in themselves so that the ones coming after them will always have a better life.

For me, I remember back in the days when I was kind of fortunate because I went to St Stephen’s College and we had Māori language in school, but there was not that in all of the other schools. We had to fight for that. We got it. It is now for the next generation to fight to lift it to the next level. It is for our generation, for example, to fight to try to get funding back for Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, so that we all remember that if we stand together, we stand a chance of being successful. So to you, Raukawa, I will not drag this on. I know you fellows want to get home. Mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E koro mā, e kui mā, e ngā mokopuna, e rau rangatira mā o te iwi Raukawa, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the elderly women and menfolk, to the grandchildren and leaders of the Raukawa tribe, I acknowledge you all greatly.]

I feel honoured to rise in support of the final reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill. I feel honoured because I too share your tipuna Mahinarangi through my Kahungunu side. I pay my respects to the many Raukawa whānau who have worked diligently over the years on this bill. Raukawa is an iwi that was forcefully displaced from its ancestral whenua and that has come into its own from Waikato-Tainui, similar to that which my Rāngitane o Wairarapa iwi from Kahungunu has done. It is an iwi for which the journey of its settlement is close to its conclusion.

I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for his determination to ensure that the wrongs have been righted for Raukawa. I acknowledge the hard-working Māori Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon Tau Henare, and the officials who have played an integral part in this bill. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.05 p.m. (Thursday)