Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Housing, Affordability—Homeownership Rate and Impact of Overseas Buyers

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “housing is always a big issue because people need to own a home or, frankly, in most cases, a lot of people want to own a home”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. The Government does not want to see house prices double. That would be shocking, because that happened under the period from November 1999 to November 2008.

Hon Member: Did it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, they doubled; they doubled in that time, and that, significantly, had a big impact on homeownership. That is why, for example, we signed the housing accord with the Auckland Council, which will see 39,000 new sections and dwellings consented over 3 years. That is why, for example, we are also focused on another important area of affordability, which is interest rates. We would not want to see interest rates go back to 11 percent, as they did under the previous Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: When the Prime Minister said that the main problem in Auckland’s housing market was a lack of supply because not enough homes had been built in the last 3 to 4 years, what responsibility does he take for that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government itself does not, for the most part, actually build homes, and the consenting for homes in Auckland is the responsibility of local government. But what the Government has done is a few things, and that is to ensure that special housing areas can now be fast tracked in Auckland, so that houses can be consented and houses can be built. But—

Hon Member: A failed policy.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —I know failure when I see it. It is a doubling of house prices and interest rates at 11 percent. It is called a Labour Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is he concerned that the latest BNZ-REINZ Residential Market Survey indicates that 2,750 New Zealand homes and 12 percent of all Auckland homes sold were sold to non-resident offshore buyers in the year to February 2014; if not, why is he not concerned?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member needs to be very careful because many of those offshore buyers may well be New Zealanders. Secondly, they could be Australians, which, by the way, Labour seems to have exempted from its policy, whatever its particular policy is. But let me make this simple point: if you look at the numbers supplied by Tony Alexander, in terms of his monthly survey of real estate agents, what he says—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s got no numbers.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I actually reckon he does not have much in the way of numbers. But if we go to them, he says that 6.4 percent of dwellings sold in March this year were considered to be from people from offshore. But when you take out those who are Australians and those who are legitimately moving to New Zealand, actually, it comes down to 2 percent that are considered in that category. When you look at the sellers who are offshore, interestingly enough he says that the net sales and the net purchases are about equal—in other words, the number is zero. So we should quote the oracle of all this information, Tony Alexander, when he says that the implication is that there could be close to zero net transfers of New Zealand homeownership occurring to offshore investors.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Prime Minister thinks that it is all about Australians, is he concerned that the new website statistics show that New Zealand is among the top 10 most searched for countries by Chinese house hunters; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There may be many reasons why Chinese nationals are looking at New Zealand. For the most part, it will be because it is such a well-governed country under National.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with the two-thirds of New Zealanders who say that there should be restrictions on offshore speculators buying Kiwi homes; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When it comes to speculation of homes in New Zealand, they would be subject to a capital gains tax. That is the reality. Secondly, if the member is talking about his policy, which seems to be banning foreigners unless they are Australians, then, as I pointed out earlier, the sales that fit into that category are next to zero. Interestingly enough, why bother with the theoretical? Let us go to the practical. Australia actually has that system and, by the way, even with that system, the number of sales to foreigners, in total, was more than those in New Zealand.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Prime Minister now commit to supporting Labour’s capital gains tax; if not, why is he standing by while young Kiwi first-home buyers are outbid by foreign telephone bidders using cheap foreign money to buy up New Zealand houses—for example, like the more than a dozen overseas phone sales witnessed by Auckland real estate agent Adam Wang?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking me whether I am going to support a capital gains tax on every small business in New Zealand and every hard-working farmer in New Zealand, and whether we are going to support a capital gains tax in an area that is already in existence. It is already on speculators. If the member does not know that, he does not know anything.

Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus

2. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in achieving its goal of returning to fiscal surplus next year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget next month will confirm that the Government remains on track to return to surplus next year. This will be the first of ongoing and increasing surpluses, provided we stick to the current programme. The financial statements for the 8 months to February were issued yesterday, showing that spending is under control but revenue is below forecast for this year. The deficit for the 8 months was around $880 million larger than forecast in December. Although revenue was 5 percent higher than at the same time last year, it was still around $1 billion lower than forecast. This will be factored in to the Budget next month, reinforcing the need for ongoing control of Government spending.

Paul Goldsmith: Why will it remain important for the Government to maintain fiscal discipline, even after the Crown’s accounts return to surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first reason is that we should not, of course, be wasting taxpayers’ money, and, given that this Government has developed much more thoughtful ways of spending Government money, we should stick to that. Secondly, we want to make sure we do not put extra pressure on interest rates. The Reserve Bank has already started to raise interest rates from 50-year lows towards more neutral levels. Keeping Government spending under control means that over the course of the interest rate cycle, interest rates will be lower than they would otherwise be. The Government wants to avoid the mistakes of the previous cycle, when a 50 percent jump in Government spending under the previous Labour Government led to first mortgage rates of close to 11 percent. Households and businesses simply could not carry that burden this time.

Paul Goldsmith: What will be the Government’s approach to allocating new spending in the Budget next month and in future years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s approach is to examine critically each of its interventions and to ensure that any new spending shows a clear pay-off. A good example would be the fairly significant commitment to increasing the quality of teaching, with a view that we will gain a clear pay-off of more children reaching national standards and higher levels of achievement in our secondary schools. We have found that if we take that robust approach, many propositions that people have simply do not add up to a good use of taxpayers’ money.

Hon David Parker: Did he say in 2008 “This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for.”, after Labour ran nine Budget surpluses and reduced net Government debt to zero, and can he confirm his Government has since borrowed over $50 billion?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I did say that. What the member left out of his little story is that in the last Labour Budget of 2008 they forecast a surplus of $1.3 billion. What actually happened was a deficit of over $3 billion, plus forecasts of a decade of deficits and a blowout in Government debt. We are very pleased this Government has been able to get that financial wreckage under control.

Paul Goldsmith: As part of its wider economic programme, what progress has the Government made in reducing previous increases in Government spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If I could use just one measure of progress, following the previous Government’s final Budget in 2008, since that seems to be where Labour members prefer to fight their political battles, core Crown expenses jumped $7 billion, just in that Budget—just in that Budget. This left a deficit of $3.9 billion in Labour’s last year. Since then, under the discipline of the current National-led Government, spending has increased by only 13 percent over five Budgets, compared with a 12 percent increase in just the one Budget in 2008. We are very pleased to be off that track.

Schools, Canterbury—Consultation on Proposed Closures and Mergers

3. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her decisions and statements as Minister of Education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes, in all the circumstances they were made.

Chris Hipkins: Is she satisfied that she allowed sufficient time for Phillipstown School’s board of trustees to undertake meaningful consultation with its community on her proposal to merge the school with Woolston School, following the court’s declaration that her original decision was unlawful; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, following the judgment made by Justice Fogarty, who had said that the Crown had consulted in good faith but that there had been one inadvertent error in relation to property costings, and that continued consultation on that particular element should be considered. I then wrote to Phillipstown School and Woolston School and suggested that we would continue consultation, how and when we would do that, and invited their feedback. On the basis of that, we began continued consultation on 18 November. That concluded on 4 March. That was a further 10-week consultation process—absent the holiday period that occurred in the middle of that—during which time several boxes of information were provided to both Phillipstown School and Woolston School, and there were officials available to answer their questions.

Chris Hipkins: What alternative proposal to a merger with Woolston School did the Phillipstown School board suggest in its 6 March letter to her titled “Response to Minister on continuing consultation process”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Over the course of the consultation there were a number of discussions with Phillipstown School, and they included that no further action be taken for a 2-year period, at the end of which time a review should occur. They included that the school just continue as is without any kind of merger, and they made a number of suggestions around that.

Dr Megan Woods: On what date did her official meet with the Phillipstown School board to address outstanding questions around property information, and what follow-up actions did her official agree to as a consequence of this meeting?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Officials have been meeting with the Phillipstown School principal and board on several occasions since 18 November through to the conclusion of the consultation period—originally on 3 March, but at the request of Phillipstown School on 4 March. I do not know which specific meeting the member is referring to or which specific follow-up action in the context of those numbers of meetings.

Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister to Phillipstown School, referring to her officials meeting on 28 February to address property information follow-up questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter from the Minister to the school. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Dr Megan Woods: Does she consider that the 6 days between the 28 February meeting, when the school board received further information regarding its property, and her 6 March deadline was sufficient time for it to take independent expert advice on that information, disseminate that information to parents, and receive their feedback in order to make a meaningful submission on the proposal; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I have already indicated, when the decision was made to continue consultation, I invited both boards to give me feedback on how they wanted that consultation to proceed. They were given 10 weeks from 18 November until 3 March. If the boards had questions to raise, they had all of that period to do so.

Chris Hipkins: Why, after having her initial decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School declared unlawful by the courts, and after the community has loudly and clearly rejected that proposal, does she intend to force this change on that local community, ignoring all of its feedback?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I think it is really important here to recall that there are two schools involved in this process. Woolston School also consulted its community. It had a 91 percent response rate and it is keen for the merger to proceed. In the case of Phillipstown School, there are those who do not. But on the basis that we have been focused on investing in better provision across the greater Christchurch network—and that has involved an investment of $1.37 billion into the community—it is for better provision, not simply repair.

Crime Statistics—2013 Figures

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): My question is to the Minister of Police. What recent reports—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing against the yelling coming from my left-hand side. Would the member please start the question again.

4. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she received on crime levels in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I am pleased to advise the House that crime fell for the fourth calendar year in a row in 2013, down by a total of 20.2 percent, so that recorded crime is at its lowest figure in 29 years. Overall, the number of offences dropped by 4.1 percent in the 2013 year, with 15,600 fewer recorded crimes compared with the year before. This is nearly 91,000 fewer crimes reported in 2013 than in 2009. The biggest drops in crime were in Auckland and Wellington, with a 9.9 percent fall in each of those, and a drop of 5.6 percent in Canterbury. This is an outstanding achievement, and I would like to congratulate police staff and all those involved in the justice sector on their hard work.

Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Despite listening carefully, because of the noise from the Opposition benches I found it difficult to hear that answer. Is it possible—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot help the member on this occasion, but the level of noise we did have through that question was unacceptable.

Mark Mitchell: What steps has the Government taken to reduce crime in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Under this National-led Government the police have changed their focus from just reacting to crime, to preventing crime. We have provided our front-line police officers with smartphones and tablets, allowing them to spend much more time out on the streets and less time at the station doing paperwork. This technology has delivered 520,000 additional front-line hours every single year. That is the equivalent of an extra 354 extra police. Police have also increased foot patrols by 155 percent in the last 2 years, and they are using their rosters in a smarter way, ensuring that their officers are in the right place at the right time, preventing crime before it occurs. There is no doubt that under National crime has gone down, whereas under Labour it just went up.

Carol Beaumont: Do the statistics show that sexual violence crimes are going down?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. What the statistics show is that there has been an increase of around 11.6 percent in reported sexual offences. That in itself is a very good indicator that the public has much more confidence. This is a notoriously under-reported area and the police are working very hard, in fact, to make sure that more people report sexual crimes and that the police can take action accordingly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many manned police cars were available to act on calls in Greater Auckland last night?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would say to that member: as many as were necessary.

Telecommunications Infrastructure, Pricing—Commerce Commission Determination

5. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Clare Curran: Given yesterday’s decision by the High Court validating the Commerce Commission’s draft determination on copper prices, does he still stand by his statement that “The Government’s view is that they”—the Commerce Commission—“are interpreting the law incorrectly.”; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, at the time I made it, which was in September, which was—

Hon Annette King: So what?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, that was because the interim decision was made then, and the Commerce Commission itself said it did not take that into account.

Clare Curran: Does he agree with yesterday’s High Court judgment that “The Commerce Commission did not err in law.” and that “The new statutory regime was always going to drive a pricing sea change.”, and will he rule out legislation overturning the Commerce Commission’s final determination on copper pricing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think we have already ruled out legislation, but in terms of the first part, I think the court made it quite clear that it was not a definitive statement in terms of section 18(2A).

Clare Curran: Given the High Court judgment yesterday validating the Commerce Commission’s draft determination on copper pricing, will he and his Ministers now refrain from pressuring the Commerce Commission to make a determination that favours Chorus, and let the independent regulator make its decision free from political pressure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No one on this side of the House has tried to intimidate or put pressure on the Commerce Commission, any more than that member did when she told David Cunliffe she would go to the Internet Party if he was not nice to her.

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

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

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek your advice as to whether that reply was out of order either because of irrelevance or because it was factually untruthful.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was a reply that in my opinion was not out of order, but it certainly was not helpful to the order of the House. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Clare Curran: Maybe he could try a straight answer this time. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the interjection, but if the member could assist the order of the House by simply asking her supplementary question, I for one would be very grateful.

Clare Curran: Does he now accept that he, Amy Adams, Steven Joyce, and Chorus were wrong about the copper price determination and that the High Court, the Commerce Commission, and the wider information and communications technology industry got it right; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is the person who got it wrong: “the people of New Zealand who are receiving broadband services now will find that”—

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member asked the question about the Prime Minister and his Ministers. To begin an answer by saying “This is the person who got it wrong” does not address that question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: In fact, Mr Speaker, the member addressed the question to you and to no one else by starting the question with “Does he”. If we are going to get into the pedantic details of how a question is directed to a Minister, or, in fact—[Interruption]

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If that circumstance is answered, then I think we would go back to the question being asked again, but I am sure the same answer would be quite reasonable.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think there is any need to have the question heard again. I heard the question. The Prime Minister can continue with his answer if he wishes to.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A person in Parliament in 2011, as a result of the proposed changes, made this statement: “the people of New Zealand who are receiving broadband services now will find that their existing copper services go up in price while they are waiting for fibre.” That is up in price, not down in price. Oh, that is right—that person was Clare Curran.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to tell me how that addressed Clare Curran’s question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked a question. It was certainly a political question. The Prime Minister has answered. If the member wants to elucidate further information, she has the ability to do so through further supplementary questions.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a question that goes to what the Prime Minister and other Ministers said be answered by an answer that does not refer to any of them?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I do not need assistance from the Prime Minister either. The question went on to ask whether he now accepted that John Key, Amy Adams, etc. were wrong. He said no, and in his mind the person who was wrong was somebody else.

Grant Robertson: He didn’t say “no” at all!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is my interpretation of the question. [Interruption] Order! My patience is very much waning, and if I have further carry on like this, then a member will likely be leaving this Chamber. If I could finish my explanation without interruption from the front bench of the Labour Party—I considered the question was in order, I considered it to be political, and I consider that it got an answer that addressed the question. I accept that it was not to the satisfaction of members opposite, but it addressed the question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check before I hear this point of order: is it in any way relitigating the decision I have just made? Can I just check—[Interruption] I give the member one more chance. Is he in any way relitigating the decision I have just made? Then I will certainly hear from him.

Grant Robertson: I invite you to, after question time, go back and see whether or not the Prime Minister said “no.” You said he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will immediately resume his seat. That is relitigating the decision I have made, but I will definitely look again at the answer. For the information of the member, I always do. Are there further supplementary questions? [Interruption] Order! The Hon David Parker will stand and withdraw for that remark.

Hon David Parker: I withdraw.

Welfare Reforms—Impact on Beneficiaries Travelling Overseas

6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: How many people have had their benefits suspended since the Government tightened rules on overseas travel?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): As part of last year’s welfare reforms the Government tightened the rules about people travelling overseas while receiving a benefit. Since then more than 21,000 people have had their benefits suspended for taking unauthorised overseas travel. More than 1,750 people have had their benefits suspended for multiple trips. Suspending these benefits has saved taxpayers more than $10.5 million.

Melissa Lee: Why did the Government tighten the rules?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We tightened the rules because we believe that those who have work obligations should be in New Zealand and looking for a job. Those with work preparation obligations should be here and looking for a job. If they travel and do not tell us or do not have compassionate reasons for travelling, then their benefits will be suspended.

Melissa Lee: Are there exceptions to allow beneficiaries to travel in some situations?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. The new rules still allow for overseas travel on compassionate or health grounds, and, obviously, the rules do not apply to those who are on superannuation. People without work obligations can, in most cases, travel overseas for up to 28 days as long as they tell Work and Income they are going. Since July last year we have had around 13,000 exits from New Zealand where the person has been able to keep their benefit while they have been travelling.

Oil and Gas Exploration—2014 Block Offer and Conservation Land

7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, of course, always—within the nuanced context in which they have been given.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that he was unaware of Victoria Forest Park, New Zealand’s largest forest park, even though he recently opened it up for oil and gas exploration?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, because my role, and this Government’s responsibility and commitment, has always been, in terms of the conservation estate, to ensure that no schedule 4 land, no national parks, and no World Heritage areas would be opened up for oil and gas exploration. I took that responsibility exceptionally seriously.

Dr Russel Norman: Was Victoria Forest Park mentioned in the briefing papers he received about the areas proposed for oil and gas exploration?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, because what my responsibility was, and what the papers briefed me on, was where the conservation land was and the classifications of that. I took particular note, of course, about the schedule 4 land, about the national parks, and about the World Heritage areas, and also noted the process in terms of the consultation with local iwi, with councils, and also with the Department of Conservation, which raised no objections in relation to anything, including the forest park.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that he has told the House that he was told of the different kinds of classifications, was he told that this area that sits between Nelson Lakes National Park and Kahurangi National Park was a forest park, and did he inquire as to why the largest forest park in the country was being opened up to oil and gas exploration?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I think the premise of the question there is a misconception. As I said, what I was undertaking to do was to ensure that there was none of the upmost sensitive areas in that park. What I was also advised of was that there were various classifications within that. But the Department of Conservation does not have a hierarchy of conservation land outside of schedule 4, and so whilst I noted that, I was most concerned about the other, as I say, schedule 4 and national park areas and ensured that they were not included in any shape or form.

Dr Russel Norman: Had he heard of the following conservation areas that just last week he opened up for petroleum exploration: Kakapōtahi Ecological Area, Te Wharau Ecological Area, Deep Creek Ecological Area, Mōkihinui Forks Ecological Area, Upper Tōtara Ecological Area, Doctor Hill Ecological Area, Mount Hārata Ecological Area, Coal Creek Ecological Area, Kaniere Ecological Area, Three Mile Hill Ecological Area, Greenstone Ecological Area—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring it to a conclusion.

Dr Russel Norman: —and Mount Richmond Forest Park. Had he heard of any of those areas that he opened up for oil and gas exploration last week?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There are over a thousand such areas, and I had not heard of all of them. One wonders whether the member had heard of the four permits for coal mining in the Victoria Forest Park when he was last in Government, including for open-cast coal mining in the area he now purports to be concerned about.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you have quite rightly ruled on occasion that we should not debate an answer during points of order, but for a Minister with this experience to assert as part of an answer that a member who has never been in Government has been just shows a level of ignorance that is unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point. The question was long, it was answered relatively quickly, and the rest of the answer was actually unnecessary to the order of the House.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he heard of the following conservation areas that just last week he opened up for petroleum and gas exploration, such as Te Wharau Wildlife Management Area, Orikaka Ecological Area, Bell Hill - Granite Hill Ecological Area, Fletcher Creek Ecological Area, Card Creek Ecological Area, Lyall Historic Reserve—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion

Dr Russel Norman: —and White Creek Fault Scientific Reserve, all areas that he has now opened up for oil and gas exploration; and did he check out whether any of them were on the list before he signed it off?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think behind the question is a premise that there should not be any development in these sorts of areas, but that was not the case when under his watch there were 12 mining permits, including for exploratory petroleum, in the very area—the Victoria Forest Park—where he now says there should not be any mining.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard raised a point of order with you. It is simply that these matters go beyond being debatable, but the Minister repeated his assertion that someone had been a Minister or had been in Government before. He said “on his watch”. He meant that, and it means he comes down here—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty I have is, again, with the length of the question. When the question is that long, it is clearly going to invite an answer that is likely to raise the temperature of the House, and that is exactly what happened on that occasion. It would help, if the member has further supplementary questions—could he make them concise and to the point.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a different point of order. It is that the question was not addressed. The Minister simply talked about Dr Russel Norman’s motivations in the premise; he did not actually say whether he had heard of any of those parks before he opened them up.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, in my mind the question was definitely addressed.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that Victoria Forest Park, the park he had not heard of until yesterday, even though it is the biggest forest park in the country, with 200,000 hectares of land that he recently opened up to be exploited for petroleum exploration, has many ecological areas in it, and many areas that are defined as pristine by the Department of Conservation and worthy of protection from his depredations?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am aware of some of those matters, and also that Russel Norman allowed open-cast coalmining in that area when he was—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to ensure that Ministers are not entitled to stand up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any—[Interruption] Order! Would the Minister stand and answer the question that was asked. He does not need the political barb about whether a member was involved in a decision, particularly when that member was not part of a former Government.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made the point in the past that where politically loaded questions are asked, they will get politically loaded answers back. It is a reality that the previous Government, which did allow open-cast mining in these areas and did allow mining permits and oil exploration in these areas, could not have stayed in Government—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can resume his seat. If the Minister wanted to answer along those lines, I would find it acceptable. To simply stand up and attack the Green member is unacceptable. If the Minister has an answer to continue with, he should do so. Thank you.

Schools, Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes, in all the circumstances they were made.

Catherine Delahunty: Does she think that she has a better idea about what is best for the children of Phillipstown School than their principal, Tony Simpson, has?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not a question of what just two people think; it is a question of the weight of evidence, a full round of consultation, and what the submissions of both schools confirmed.

Catherine Delahunty: Is she not sticking with plans to merge the school to save face, rather than doing the right thing by the school and their pupils?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The proposal is driven by substantial educational evidence. It is driven by significant proposed investment of $11.8 million into the merged space. It is driven by the oversupply of primary school spaces in that particular network. It is driven, overall, about how we get better outcomes for all of those children.

Catherine Delahunty: Does she agree with experts such as Canterbury University’s Bronwyn Hayward that children should never be exposed to the prospect of major changes like school reorganisations so close to a major disaster; if so, why did she rush into this?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Christchurch has faced a significant challenge. It has been 3 years—a process of discussion and consultation. The mergers that were decided on, the closures that have been decided on, the brand new schools, and the redevelopments are all part of the 10-year programme, for which we have invested $1.36 billion and which is built on providing a better modern learning education system for all of the children.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. After consultation with my colleagues, we have agreed that the Labour Party will sacrifice one supplementary question if—

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

Rt Hon John Key: Can the Minister confirm that the merger of Phillipstown School and Woolston School was part of a wider reorganisation of schools in the Christchurch area as a result of the Christchurch earthquake, can she confirm how much extra the Government is putting into those overall mergers, and can she give the House some feedback on what the general perception has been now that those mergers are actually taking place?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I can confirm that. In fact, I took three options to Cabinet for proposals to deal with the challenges in Christchurch: a $500 million option, which was simply to repair and walk away; an $800 million package, which was to repair and refresh some; and a $1.1 billion package, which was to create a modern learning environment there that will be the envy of every part of New Zealand as well as Australia. Since then, there has been feedback from the mergers that have gone ahead. The principal of Hornby High School has told me and the media that it has been a “game changer”. Hillmorton High School has seen stronger involvement from its parents. The Windsor-Burwood merger has moved to a completely different provision—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Overall, the reports have been extremely positive.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and I wish to hear it.

Catherine Delahunty: This was not a public relations opportunity; this was about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Every member has a right to ask a supplementary question. It was a supplementary question asked.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: It is your members’ day we are wasting, but Chris Hipkins—a point of order.

Chris Hipkins: In his question the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Education how much extra the Government was investing. The Minister indicated what the total was; she did not indicate how much of that was extra money.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member wants a supplementary question, he may be able to have one.

Bowel Cancer Screening—Funding for Colonoscopies

9. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about colonoscopy services in New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Today the Government has announced that we are investing an extra $3.5 million to provide over 3,000 extra colonoscopies. Some district health boards have traditionally been stretched to keep up with the demand from a population that is both growing and ageing, but we are making good progress. In the 2012-13 financial year 41,000 colonoscopies were performed by district health boards—a 20 percent increase on 2008-09.

Shane Ardern: How does this announcement fit with the Government’s drive to improve diagnostic services?

Hon TONY RYALL: The funding boost is the latest in a range of recent Government initiatives aimed at improving colonoscopy delivery in New Zealand. This includes the $24 million bowel screening pilot in Waitematā; the $16 million faster diagnostics project, which aims to improve access to a range of tests and scans; and the $1.8 million National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme. We know that the biggest constraint to a larger roll-out of bowel cancer screening is the need for a workforce, and a symposium is to be held next month in Wellington to look at ways of increasing New Zealand’s colonoscopy workforce capacity and efficiency.

KiwiRail—Interislander Ferries and Funding

10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Does he have confidence in KiwiRail following the most recent incidents involving the Aratere and now the Stena Alegra; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Had the member asked me a question relating to my overall satisfaction with KiwiRail’s recent performance, he might have got a different answer, but what I can say is that given the importance of KiwiRail to the transport task in New Zealand, I am confident that KiwiRail’s management is dealing with the recent incidents affecting the Aratere and the Stena Alegra appropriately.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Bearing in mind the original question that I asked the Minister, how can he possibly have confidence in KiwiRail when the Aratere has now been found to have cracks in its rudder stock following its propeller falling off into Cook Strait earlier this year, while its replacement ship, the Stena Alegra—much vaunted by the Minister—is now sitting with a gash in its hull, having crashed into the wharf yesterday?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I think the first point is that the issues relating to the Aratere are being dealt with satisfactorily in Singapore. There is no other choice. It lost a propeller, we have got to find out why, and we have got to fix it. Of course, while—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You know why—you stretched it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member says that he knows why. Well, I tell you what, he probably knows where MH370 is as well. He should tell the House and the world that one. He is an expert on almost anything nautical or aeronautical—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the Minister just answer the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: When it comes to the issue with the Stena Alegra, the KiwiRail management was not at the helm when it happened, and in time we will find out exactly why it did crash into the wharf.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Stena Alegra is out of operation due to the gash in its hull and the Stena Alegra uses 20 times as much lubricant as the other ferries, indicating a serious engine issue, does he believe KiwiRail will need to get a replacement ship for the replacement ship?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he telling the House that after these incidents—the Arahura missing sailings because of engine problems in April; the Arahura out of action due to cracks in the stern door in February; the Arahura having a lifeboat out of service due to the cable snapping, also in February; problems with the bow door and stern ramp on Stena Alegra in January; and Aratere losing its propeller in November last year, having stabilised its radar problems in May last year and propulsion problems in January of this year, among countless other issues—he still has confidence in KiwiRail; if so, would anything short of a sinking—

Hon Member: I think your rudder’s fallen off.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —cause him to lose that confidence? Do not worry about my voters—they are on the rise, sunshine.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I can answer only some of that question because most of it was mumble. But what I would say is that there is no doubt that the previous Government bought an absolute lemon when it bought back KiwiRail—no question about that—and this Government has poured over $1 billion into a recapitalisation programme, trying to make the thing work. Sometimes it is hard to kick life into something that is fundamentally dead, but that member supported that previous decision, and this Government will be the one that makes it work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can it possibly be a fact that his incompetent handling of his portfolio and others is the real reason right now in Canterbury that the National Party is polling to gauge Mr Brownlee’s own popularity?

Mr SPEAKER: In as far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, I am far too modest to discuss with Mr Peters in the House today my enormous popularity!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for instructing him with the words “In so much as you can answer”, because I asked him whether his own party was polling about his popularity. He knows that, but he will not say so.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked the question. It was a marginal question. The Minister has addressed it.

Darien Fenton: How can we have confidence in his Government’s KiwiRail Turnaround Plan when his squeeze on KiwiRail has forced it to opt for low-cost procurement and short-term fixes that threaten health and safety and have cost New Zealand highly skilled jobs?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Investing over $1 billion of taxpayer funds in the company is not putting on a squeeze.

Justice, Minister—Visit to China

11. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: What was the name of the Chinese official that she dined with during her Ministerial visit to China in October 2013, and if she will not name him, why did she give details of his seniority and place of work?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I assume that the member is referring to the private dinner in Beijing on Sunday, 20 October 2013. I have stated publicly that I attended the private dinner and have disclosed the other attendees at that dinner. It is not appropriate to disclose the name of a person who was a friend of Mr Shi. He was attending a private dinner and is entitled to protection of his privacy. Even though it was a private dinner, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff said that it would be appropriate to advise that in their working life the person was a senior Government official with a Chinese border control agency.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance whether under Standing Order 383 the Minister is telling the House that it is not in the public interest for her to tell us the name of the official, because she has refused to answer that part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I did not hear her invoking that; I just heard her say that it was not appropriate.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would refer the Speaker to Speaker’s ruling 174/1: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House, and through the House to the country, to account for the public offices they hold. Question time is an important element of this accountability. Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” I would suggest that unless there is some ground that I would not understand that a public interest can be claimed in pursuit of not answering the question, then the Minister has a duty to this House to answer it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Strictly speaking, this matter is not a matter for the House. It was not a ministerial meeting. It was not at the funding of the taxpayer. It was a private dinner and I have answered the question appropriately.

Mr SPEAKER: The question was clearly accepted as in order. I listened very carefully to the answer, and in my opinion she has addressed it. She did not invoke the use of the words “It is not in the public interest.”; she just said that it is not appropriate. Members can make their conclusions. I cannot accept the argument that the question has not been addressed satisfactorily. The member has further supplementary questions. That is the way the member must make progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have accepted the Minister’s answer—and it is her judgment, but it is yours, really—which was that it was not appropriate. However, when you have got ambassadorial staff there at the meeting, like the Ambassador to China—[Interruption] Excuse me. I am raising a point of order. Keep quiet.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is raising a point of order, but at this stage I cannot actually accept it as a point of order. If the member wants to clarify, I would be very grateful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I am trying to clarify it by saying that the use of taxpayers’ money for the attendance of ambassadorial staff means that that trip in all respects is one on which she should answer questions.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister gave a far more lengthy answer than just saying that it was not appropriate; she gave an explanation as to the dinner, etc. It was quite a lengthy answer. She then said, as to the name of the person and the seniority, etc., that she does not think it is appropriate to know that. That is a satisfactory answer. It is now over to the House, if it wants further information, to elucidate that with supplementary questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you again, when you look at the tape, as you indicate that you do, to note the fact that the Minister said that it was a private dinner but that she has also said that taxpayer-funded staff were in attendance. It cannot be both. If we are paying for her ministerial office staff—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He has asked me to have a look at the transcript and I will do so.

Grant Robertson: With reference to the Minister’s answer, if this was a private dinner, why did she invite New Zealand’s Ambassador to China to the dinner?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because, for a start, I believe that that is the polite thing to do, and, secondly, it is—[Interruption] It is polite. I know that it might be something strange to the Labour Party to be polite to staff, but, actually, I invited the ambassador and his wife because I thought that that was the right thing to do, it was polite, and also there was no reason not to at least let them know that the dinner was occurring.

Grant Robertson: Why did the ambassador decline her invitation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a question for the ambassador.

Grant Robertson: Was the official from the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not able to provide that information.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is considerable public interest in this issue, which goes to the probity of Government. [Interruption]

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

Hon David Parker: It goes to the probity of Government. The Speaker’s ruling reference that I gave you, Speaker’s ruling 174/1, shows that Ministers have a duty to this House to answer questions so that the House can hold Ministers to account. [Interruption] Mr Henare might not think corruption is inappropriate, but we have an obligation on this side of the House to hold Ministers to account. We cannot do that if Ministers are allowed not to answer questions other than on the grounds of some national interest that supersedes their duty to this House.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, although the member is raising a valid point of order, I do not agree with him. The Minister has answered by saying she cannot answer that question. [Interruption] Well, I have forgotten the words. It is so long ago. But she effectively said she will not answer it. That is the Minister answering the question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the Minister said in her answer was that she was unable to answer it—unable to answer the question. That cannot be true, because she has said the person was from a border control agency. She clearly knows the answer to the question. How is it acceptable for her to stand up in this House and say that she is unable to answer that question? That cannot be an addressing of a question, when we know that she knows the name of the agency.

Mr SPEAKER: But the member needs to think about the question he asked. It is now so long ago I have forgotten. It was about whether the official was from the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Minister said she cannot answer that.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I will have some help from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. It is your members’ day that you are wasting, I point out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Every Minister who has ever been abroad will know that when you go to meetings, particularly in China, the full list of guests is laid out before you, particularly because the language is different from the English language, and both of those titles and names would have been given. This Minister knows full well that that information was available to her, so why will she not give it over now?

Mr SPEAKER: If the member had only listened to the questions earlier. The Minister rose and said it is not appropriate to do so. That is the answer the Minister has given. We are getting to the stage—[Interruption] Order! I am not prepared to entertain this waste of time any longer. If the member has a further supplementary question, I will accept it.

Grant Robertson: Why is it not appropriate for her to name the official whom she had dinner with on a ministerial trip?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner, and the person is entitled to their privacy.

Grant Robertson: How does she think it is acceptable to taxpayers, who paid $30,000 for her and her staff member to go to China, to not give the name of an official from a border control agency, when she was at a dinner with the directors of a company that her husband is a fellow director of? Why should taxpayers not have some honesty from the Minister for once?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That question is quite incorrect. In fact, it was a private dinner, and as that member might one day find out, even Ministers are allowed to have private dinners with friends.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ ruling 172/5 says: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest;”. You have already ruled that the Minister has not claimed that it is not in the public interest. She has claimed that it is not in her private interest.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member resume his seat, immediately. I never ruled that the Minister claimed that. I said she did not use those words. This particular question has been asked, and it has been answered perfectly satisfactorily to me. I will accept that it is not to the satisfaction of the Opposition, but we are moving on.

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

Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard in silence. But before I hear it, I want to make absolutely sure that the member is not in any way relitigating a decision I have just made.

Hon David Parker: I am trying to clarify your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I am on my feet. I am on my feet.

Hon Annette King: Stop yelling.

Mr SPEAKER: I would prefer not to have to yell. But when I rise to my feet, the member then sits down, regardless of who that member is. [Interruption] Order! I just want to clarify. If the member is going to continue to relitigate a decision I have made, that will lead to disorder and I will treat that very seriously. If the member wishes to raise a fresh point of order, I will certainly hear it.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?

Hon David Parker: It is, Mr Speaker. I am endeavouring to clarify whether your ruling was—and I may have misunderstood it—that the Minister claimed that there was a public interest that prevented her from answering the first question.

Mr SPEAKER: It was quite some time ago. The Minister rose to her feet and said it was not appropriate, or words to that effect. She did not use the words: “It is not in the public interest.” That is the point I am trying to make to the member. She gave the—[Interruption] Order! Furthermore, when I am on my feet, I do not want interjections from any member. She answered that it was not appropriate. That is the answer she has given. I invited the member, if he wanted to make further progress, to ask further supplementary questions, and he has done so. That is the way to do it, not to relitigate the answer that has already been given, which I have said has addressed the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to make two points of order. The first point I would like to make is whether you are in fact making a new Speaker’s ruling that a Minister can decline to answer a question because it is in her private interest.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that a Minister has been asked a question. The Minister then rises and answers. In this particular case the Minister rose and answered the question, and I considered that that answer addressed the question. The second point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The second point of order goes to when you look at the tapes. Can you please look at the tone, the laughing support of the Prime Minister from the Chair, and the tone used to the deputy leader of the Labour Party? It is not an indication of a lack of bias. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have a look at the tapes on this occasion, but I say to all members again that when I rise to my feet to maintain order in this House, it is absolutely essential that members then resume their seat, regardless of whether that is the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, or the deputy leader of the Labour Party. I want to make that clear to all members.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification, and it is this. You see, the question came by way of a supplementary question and you allowed the question to be put. Then the Minister’s response was that answering the question was not appropriate. Is it to be that henceforth the Minister may decide the appropriateness of a question, or you?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I decide the appropriateness of a question. The Minister then has the discretion to answer. I am just repeating the text or the answer that the Minister then gave, and I ruled that that addressed the question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you are reflecting on that, can I ask you to reflect on this. In the answer to my supplementary question asking whether the official was from a particular department, the Minister answered that she was unable to answer that question. In her primary answer, she made clear that she did know the agency the person was from. I would ask that you reflect on whether that is an acceptable answer for a Minister to give, consistent with the Speakers’ rulings that Mr Parker mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER: I have already said I will reconsider.

Energy Efficiency—Transport and Industrial Heat Initiatives

12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about energy efficiency initiatives in the transport and industrial heat sectors?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I thank the member for his interest. Earlier this week I announced three new energy-efficiency initiatives. The energy sector, specifically transport and industrial heat, are two key areas where such initiatives have the potential to save business and consumers thousands of dollars and reduce carbon emissions. Administered by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Energy Efficiency Meat and Dairy Farm Initiative, the expansion of the Heavy Vehicle Fuel Efficiency programme, and the Fuel Efficient Tyres Initiative will increase awareness and provide essential information through energy audits, training workshops, marketing campaigns, and industry partnerships.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What savings are expected as a result of these three initiatives?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: From a modest investment of $3.8 million we expect businesses and consumers to be better off by up to $30 million. For example, an increased uptake of fuel-efficient tyres represents a great opportunity to reduce emissions at a national level. The initiative is expected to save around 2.5 million litres of fuel each year. In the heavy vehicle programme—already a proven success—we expect to deliver around $1.2 million of diesel savings each year, with a potential for fleet operators to save up to 15 percent of their fuel use. With good information businesses and consumers can make smart choices.

Questions to Members

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Implementation

1. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill: What reports, if any, has she seen on how practical it is to implement the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?

SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill): I have seen a report in the National Business Review on 5 April that says that the way to make 26 weeks’ paid parental leave affordable in the current financial settings is to do so by “gradually introducing an increase in paid parental leave … over a period of three years, adding an extra month each year.” This is exactly what my bill proposes to do.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What are the fiscal implications for Budget 2014 of her bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months?

SUE MORONEY: Core Crown expenses for the next financial year to June 2015 are forecast to be $73.2 billion. In the same period my bill will cost a net amount of $36 million—just 0.05 percent of the core Crown expenses. The Government plans $1 billion of new spending in that period, and my bill would account for just 3.6 percent of that new spending. There is no justification for a financial veto in these circumstances.

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Purpose and Feedback

2. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?

SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill): Thank you—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read the bill!

SUE MORONEY: —and Mr Brownlee might like to listen up. The purpose is to give families the time to spend with their newborn baby in these precious early months and to support breastfeeding to 6 months. Research and evidence shows this approach will improve the health and education outcomes and the social development of these children.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What support has she seen for her bill to extend parental leave to 6 months?

SUE MORONEY: Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave has the support of 99.6 percent of the 3,807 submitters on the bill, 62 percent of New Zealanders polled by Colmar Brunton last year, and a majority of MPs in this Parliament. All we need is for National to step aside and let democracy take its course. If you just bear with me, Mr Speaker, I want to describe the document I would like to table in the House. This is a document from the 26 for Babies—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not prepared even to put the leave.

Urgent Debates Declined

Schools, Canterbury—Merger of Phillipstown and Woolston Schools

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Minister of Education’s decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School. The Minister’s announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A debate was held on the Government’s proposed changes in September 2012 because of the importance of the proposal for the future direction of education in Canterbury and the wider public interest. The Minister’s announcement today relates to a particular school merger. Speaker’s ruling 190/6 is relevant. Following in principle consideration by the House, every subsequent decision will not necessarily be of sufficient importance to warrant an urgent debate. The general debate today offers members the opportunity to raise particular constituency concerns. In these circumstances I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House again today. The application is therefore declined.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Over the weekend something went wrong with daylight saving, because everyone else in New Zealand turned their clocks back 1 hour, but in the Labour Party, members turned their political clocks back 40 years. They spent yesterday arguing that National should clean up its mistakes from the 1975 election. I thought they were a bit, just a bit, backward-looking when they spent most of last year burnishing their economic credentials for the run-up to the 2008 election—their budgets, their debts, their deficits; all that stuff. Of course, they still think that the 2008 election result was a big mistake and that one day the public will wake up and realise that. John Key will blow away like a flake in the wind, Helen will be back, and all will be well.

But I ask myself why it is that they would spend a whole day yesterday, 5 months out from an election, talking about the 1975 election, which occurred before some of the MPs in this House were born. I have figured out why they want to talk about the 1975 election.

Dr Cam Calder: Why’s that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is because it means that they do not have to talk about David Cunliffe. That is why. He is a man sinking in a sea of his own self-importance, shown by his classy intervention on the first day of the royal tour, among a whole lot of other things. We look forward to next week’s edition of Campbell Live. It is at the doer-upper. He will be there in his paint-spattered overalls with his mate, having been down to Bunnings to buy a second-hand hammer to show us how he is doing up his house.

Hon Tony Ryall: In his shiny gumboots.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In his shiny gumboots. So that is why the Labour Party is still talking about the 1975 election and a decision at that time around national superannuation, a time when today’s new recipients of national superannuation were 25 years old. I used to think that Labour was reading the books from the best Fabian thinking of the 1970s. I did not realise that they were reliving it in some kind of daylight saving time machine—not just reading about it but reliving it, and reliving it when they get tired of that 2008 election.

But, of course, if they could not bring themselves to talk about their leader—and why would they—they should be able to talk about their hard-working, effective team. But they do not.

Hon Member: Why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, that is because there is no hard-working, effective team to talk about. I know that David Parker, standing up yesterday, would have liked to talk about the hard-working, effective team, having decided that he is getting dragged down by the leader, as—is he the deputy leader or the—[Interruption] He is the finance spokesman, or one of them. I do not know who the deputy leader is, and that is saying something, knowing how irrelevant deputy leaders are. You would think that I sympathise with them, but I do not, actually.

The Labour Party is letting its own people down. It is letting down this Parliament—there is no doubt about that—but it is letting down its own people, because the kind of forward-looking, aspirational politics and leadership that Labour Party voters are looking for are coming from our Prime Minister. There is absolutely no doubt about that. That is why increasing numbers of them are turning away, having stuck with Labour for 5 years. They now think that they cannot even make a decent Opposition and are turning away to look to the leadership that shows their path to a better future for their kids, that shows a real interest in the safety of their communities, and that ensures that they get the health services they need. But on top of that is a thriving economy that can deliver wage and income increases—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): An hour ago I received on the steps of Parliament this petition. I undertook to bring it immediately to the attention of the House. The Clerk has tabled the petition today. It is fair to say that this is perhaps the most important petition ever to be delivered to Parliament. It is called the “Appeal to Parliament for a NZ Risk Assessment”. It calls for the 50th Parliament to commit to an all-party risk assessment of how and where New Zealand might be exposed to key global threats. No single undertaking could be more important.

The petition comes just 2 days after the fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the assessed impacts of climate change on the world in the 21st century. As the petition puts it, “We live on a biologically complex and exquisite planet, home to 7 billion people and a myriad of other unique life forms.” The petitioners say: “We believe it is our human responsibility to maintain the integrity of life support systems and the natural processes which sustain and renew them. … It follows”—they contend—“that our generation must satisfy our present material needs in ways that do not diminish the prospect of their realisation for future generations.” The petitioners express a concern. They say that “So far, New Zealand has failed to truly face up to such unprecedented threats to its collective security.”, yet with scientists saying that certain critical thresholds are upon us, the consequences of not taking the proper action will, “in all probability, be disastrous and irreversible.” They say: “Therefore, in the name of all our children and grandchildren we, the undersigned, call on the New Zealand Parliament to face up to this situation now … We believe that Parliament should build on its proud tradition of foresighted collective response to risks, and initiate a risk assessment as the first step in achieving a more secure future.”

This petition is signed by some 6,000 New Zealanders, with a leadership group of 100 signatories. They include a former Prime Minister and past MPs; the mayor of a major city; leading Māori; a number of former All Blacks and Black Caps; a university pro-vice-chancellor and other prominent academics; a former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; a poet laureate; some of the country’s leading artists, authors, and broadcasters; and several leading scientists who serve on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself. I choose to cite one name, Sir Lloyd Geering, Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University. I cite him because, at age 96, Professor Geering is a member of the Order of New Zealand, the highest honour this country can bestow. This is no ordinary petition. It is no disparagement of any others brought to this House to recognise that this petition is of unprecedented magnitude and import. It essentially appeals to Parliament to consider the future of the planet and our nation, and it does so in light of the enormity of what lies before us.

This House is the arena for party rivalry and the contestation of ideas. We devote our time to critiquing each other and competing for electoral support. It is a pluralistic democracy, and that is fine. But there are issues that transcend domestic political competition—above all, the fate of the planet. There is no other phrase that can do it justice. It requires that we lower our swords and come together to reason our way through. There is something primordial occurring here, and we need to be up to the task. We need to be up to the task, for future generations, not only our own, depend on the decisions we make in this House now and in the critical next few years. I advance this admonition to myself as much as to colleagues opposite. I have on occasion been critical—trenchantly so—of Government policy, but I have also held conferences in the neighbouring Chamber designed to enable us to come together in a different setting and spirit and to reason our way to a cross-party consensus. May this appeal assist us in that endeavour. May it be favourably received. Mō tātou, ā, mō ngā iwi ā muri ake nei. [For us and the people who are to follow.]

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I am going to talk about the economy and justice today, but I am going to start off with this, and I hope you will indulge me. I grew up in the Labour Party. I grew up as a member of a family that was staunchly Labour, and I can well remember nagging my mother in the early 1970s until she actually joined the Labour Party. That was pretty much the last time anyone should have joined the Labour Party, and I now apologise to my dead mother for the fact that I nagged her until she did. But, then again, “Big Norm” was the leader of the Labour Party, and, apart from Helen Clark, it has not had one since. I have to say that what I have been hearing from the Labour Party is nothing about the economy, nothing about law and order, nothing about health, nothing about welfare, and nothing about transport—pretty much nothing about anything that matters to the ordinary mums and dads, the Kiwis who used to vote Labour and who are now wondering why they are giving David Cunliffe even 8 percent. I heard a rumour today that it was down to 6.5 percent. So that is what is going wrong with the Labour Party.

Let us talk about the economy. Well, for a start, we will be in surplus this year—not a huge surplus but in surplus. When we came into office at the end of 2008, we were told that we would look forward to a decade of deficits—a decade of deficits—and that we would not be in surplus. We did not inherit a growing economy. We inherited an economy that, unlike the rest of the Western World, had been in recession for a year. We went into recession first. We were there before Australia and before the UK—before those other countries. Labour had taxed and had spent up large.

Hon Annette King: They never went into recession.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Annette King was one of the worst-performing—one of the worst—Ministers of Health ever seen. Then again, she almost was here in the 1970s, but, no, actually, she came here in the early 1980s, so let us give her her due. What we are now doing is seeing a Government that has worked together right across Cabinet and right across the backbench to make sure that we have been able to secure an economy for our people—for New Zealanders—instead of what Labour did, which was tax and spend.

Let us go to justice, shall we. When I became the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections in 2008, I was given the happy news that we would have to have 12,000 prison beds—12,000 prison beds—in the next 10 years. We had 8,300 prisoners, I think, at that time—I may not be strictly correct about that number—and Labour had left us with not enough beds, and all the graphs showed the numbers going up like this. It was unbelievable that all Labour did in the 2000s was to imprison people and leave them there. It inherited 5,000 people in the prisons; it left with 8,500. What we had to do was double-bunk them. We had to bring in container cells and we had to actually bring in rehabilitation. Since then, Anne Tolley as the new Minister of Corrections for the last 3 years has doubled all that and more, so we now have the best crime statistics in 33 years—33 years. It is not 10 years; it is 33 years. That is before the statistics even started to be collected—33 years.

Who can argue with that? Well, the Labour Party members can argue with that. But why is it that they never ask Mrs Tolley any questions on law and order these days? Well, we know why. We have brought down crime. We have actually legislated on alcohol, the very thing that Labour talked about and never did. We have cracked down on welfare fraud. We have cracked down on inefficiencies in the health system. There is more elective surgery for New Zealanders; we are looking after people in the area that we need to. I can say that I am very proud to be a member of this Government and that I am so pleased I am no longer a Labour supporter.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): I am not going to address the climate change issues that have been addressed by my colleague from the Greens, Kennedy Graham, but I do acknowledge the petition that has been lodged today by, amongst others, Sir Lloyd Geering and Sir Alan Mark.

The Deputy Prime Minister said in his address that the Labour Party was letting down this Parliament. The worst example of someone letting down this Parliament is the member who is just walking out, Judith Collins. That Minister will not answer questions and will not be held to account. That Minister most clearly allowed her personal family financial interests to come into conflict with her ministerial duties. She profited her family through her ministerial rank, and she will not answer questions in this House. She does not claim that there is a public interest at stake. She says that there is some private interest of hers that means she does not have to acknowledge who the paid officials were who were there.

We do not know whether this particular official is a multibillionaire on the back of corrupt practices in China. We do not know whether this person is a good person. We cannot tell—despite the fact that there is lots of news of corruption in China in respect of the facilitation of international trade with companies, including, no doubt, some companies from New Zealand—because the Minister refuses to answer questions. That is a disgraceful stain upon the reputation of this Government and, through its actions, a stain upon the character of New Zealand. New Zealanders do not like it because we have a reputation for transparency and freedom from corruption. We have no transparency from this Minister. We have the stink of corruption, her personal interests having come into conflict with her ministerial interests.

In the last week we have had the Prime Minister lay bare what the Government’s narrative is for the Budget. The Government is trying to say to not blame it for rising interest rates; blame a future Labour Government. I thought John Armstrong got that quite right. His column over the weekend hit the nail on the head there. The Government claimed responsibility for interest rate reductions caused by the global financial crisis. That was its good management, it said—its good economic management. Then the Government turned round, and its next line was that rising interest rates are caused by its good economic management. That did not work, so now it is trying to say that rising interest rates are caused by the next Labour Government.

Why this worries people is that if you have got a $400,000 mortgage in Auckland—and a lot of people do, because house price inflation has gone out of control in Auckland because of the terrible housing policies of the National Government—at 5 percent interest, you are paying 20 grand a year. At 8 percent interest you are paying one and a half times that. You are paying about $1,000 a month more—$1,000 a month more—on your mortgage. National is scared of that. National is scared of that.

What else is National scared of? It is scared of the fact, as John Armstrong puts it here, that “The placid mood of the electorate … [is] a reflection of the current optimism that New Zealand has finally turned a very important corner. It is a mood which is the harbinger of one of the most dangerous forces in politics—rising public expectations of what politicians can and must deliver.” New Zealanders are sick of waiting. Forty-five percent of New Zealanders did not get a wage increase last year. They are facing higher interest rates, higher rents, and higher electricity prices. All they want is their fair share. They know that under this crowd they will never get it, because everything goes to the top few percent, who are disproportionately owning all of the houses, buying all the luxury cars, and buying the shares in the State-owned enterprises. Under this crowd that is what happens, and New Zealanders are tiring of it.

You know, the Government has had the playing of golf with Obama, the visit to the Premier of China—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Kissing George.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and it has got the royal tour, but you know what? It is still stuck, in terms of the divide between left and right. The difference between them is 2 percent, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters is on about 7 percent. That is why the National Party is worried. That is why it is worried. Labour and the Greens combined are within 2 percent of National. National has run out of friends. They are either in the dock or on their way out of Parliament for other reasons. Winston Peters is sitting there, smiling to his ears today, on 7 percent in the polls. The National Party has got a problem, and that is why it is trying to blame increases in interest rates on the next Labour Government.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That member, David Parker, could not use even 5 minutes. The best person in the Labour Party could not use even 5 minutes in the general debate. That is a party from the past. As Bill English said, it is a party from the past—a party from the 1970s. Well, it is better than its coalition partners. Winston Peters was in his prime in the 1970s. He is actually out of it now, but the 1970s were his best years. And the Green Party—well, the Green Party is actually from the 1930s, because if you look at it, it wants to go back to Stalinism and communism and 5-year plans. It wants the central planning of the world.

The Green Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Labour Party represent a vision that is gone. They represent the past. New Zealand wants a future. New Zealanders want leadership. They want a young, inspired country that looks forward and takes its place in the world. That is what the National Party offers. That is why the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party are struggling where they are because they do not represent New Zealanders’ desire to look forward and have a strong and developed and wonderful country.

Look at Hamilton—Hamilton is the future of New Zealand, the city of the future. Remember those words. Hamilton represents that dynamic, forward-thinking, progressive country that we will represent. National is giving Hamilton the ability to be that forward-thinking place. We are building the Waikato Expressway, and everybody from Hamilton and the Waikato should listen to this. I will say this again and again for the next 5 months: the Labour Party will not build the Waikato Expressway. The Hamilton bypass and the Huntly bypass are due for contract in 2015.

If you were the Labour Party looking for $1.3 billion, where do you get it from? You tell the people of the Waikato “No expressway.” That is what the Labour Party members are thinking. I bet you that is what they are thinking. I challenge the Labour Party members to stand in this House before the end of this parliamentary session and say that they will fund the Waikato Expressway next year. Will you do that? No way. There is no way they can do that.

Waikato and Hamilton have the most to lose in this election. If we do not get a National Government re-elected, that road goes back 30 years to the 1970s, where it is on the plans but it does not actually happen. That is what the Labour Party wants. It wants us to dream of a road, as it did in the 1970s.

Sue Moroney: They’re worried in Hamilton.

DAVID BENNETT: Well, we make it a reality, Sue Moroney, and I want to see somebody in the Labour Party come out and say that before the next election.

The other thing we get is that we have schools. We are building new schools in north Hamilton for the growing population of that city. I see it as very rich for the Labour Party members to come in here today and go on about those Christchurch schools and talk about the community’s wishes. I know that when the Labour Party was in Government, Sue Moroney stood on a bit of land and had this article in the paper saying: “This would be a lovely place for a school.” But did she do anything about it? No. It was only when we came in that we bought the land and we built the school, and we are going to give the people what they deserve and what they need.

The New Zealand National Party delivers the future for cities like Hamilton that are the future of New Zealand.

Hon Annette King: We bought the land.

DAVID BENNETT: No, you did not buy the land. You did not buy the land. We have got Annette King here. I want to see Annette King stand up and put in front of this House the piece of paper saying the Labour Party bought the land for the secondary school, because it did not. That Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley, bought it, and I can tell you that. No, no, you cannot do that, Annette. None of that rubbish in this House.

We are looking at a diverse, open, successful, modern country going forward. Hamilton is an example of that. We do not want the 1970s approach, which does not build the Waikato Expressway. We do not want the 1970s approach of politics, which is all about personal attacks. We do not want the 1930s approach of politics, which is Stalinism. We want a modern, free, and open world and country, and that is what we are going to get under a John Key - led Government. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am glad once again for the opportunity to rise to take a call in this general debate, to once again raise the awareness, to hammer the point, and to bang the drum yet again as I and other members on this side of the House have promised to continue doing with regards to this Government’s blasé, irresponsible, “Look, Mum, no hands!” approach to biosecurity. There is an old saying: “Penny wise, pound foolish.” That sums up the National Government’s approach to biosecurity very succinctly—in a nutshell, you might say; possibly an undetected nutshell, possibly even an unfumigated nutshell, such is the dearth of capacity to examine goods arriving at the border.

The latest fruit fly incursion in Northland is alarming, to say the least. Somehow these potentially extremely damaging pests are getting through. Somehow, despite the best efforts of our beleaguered border officers, they are managing to slip the net. Maybe, just maybe, this could be because we inspect just one container in four of the tens of thousands that arrive on our shores every year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many?

RICHARD PROSSER: One container in four—25 percent. A mere quarter of shipping containers are actually inspected, or so those very same border officers tell us, speaking anonymously, in fear for their jobs—in very real fear for their jobs in what is still, bizarrely and inexplicably, a shrinking service. It is shrinking in real terms, despite the protestations of this Government. Whatever the dollars being spent, the number of actual boots on the ground is diminishing, and so is the number of paws. We have too few sniffer dogs to service all our airports and seaports, all the points of entry through which an ever-increasing volume of people and goods continues to flow. Border officers, customs officials, Ministry for Primary Industries staff, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand—the people on the ground tell us that shortages and deficiencies lead to three-quarters of containers that arrive from overseas being opened and unloaded uninspected. There are not enough officers. There are not enough X-ray machines. There are too few dogs. So we just let them in to clear the ports to make way for the next wave of arrivals. There could be anything in those containers, and in all reality there probably is.

At this rate, it is only a matter of time before we lose this battle as we have lost other biosecurity threats. It is as though nothing was learnt from the Psa incursion into kiwifruit. The varroa parasite that worked its way down the country is a case in point and is expected to cost New Zealand between $400 million and $900 million over the next 30 years as varroa becomes resistant to sprays. And what else might it cost us? If we have no bees, we have no pollinators. Without pollinators, we have no plants that require pollination. Three-quarters of the economy depends on agriculture, and at least half of that depends on plant pollination.

Three-quarters is a recurring theme here. Three-quarters of the economy depends on the primary sector, yet three-quarters of the shipping containers that arrive here go uninspected for the biosecurity risks that threaten that sector because this Government expends only three-quarters of 1 percent of the value of agricultural exports on biosecurity measures to protect them. That is right—three-quarters of 1 percent, $180 million - odd spent to protect about $25 billion worth of exports. And that is only the direct exposure. Taken to the next degree, about $60 billion worth of New Zealand’s economy is at risk from biosecurity threats. Instead, we have computer systems that are rolled out despite being less than three-quarters ready for a combined ministry that is still only about three-quarters properly integrated.

Three-quarters of 1 percent is also about what this Government spends on military defence. Perhaps there are parallels here. A strongly resourced biosecurity system is just as important in terms of the defence of our country as our military is. As we arm the Defence Force so that New Zealand is part of the collective security for the region, so we must also arm ourselves to defend our future well-being against unknown biosecurity strikes. A $60 billion economy depends on it. Given this Government’s colossal lack of understanding of the need to resource defence properly and adequately, perhaps it is no surprise that it should similarly ignore the need for proper resourcing in biosecurity. Curiously enough, about three-quarters is also the proportion of the public of this country who agree with New Zealand First that we should never have got rid of the air combat force and that we want it back.

Three-quarters of an effort appears to be enough for Government members. They are about three-quarters concerned, making maybe three-quarters of an effort. I would be generous if I said they were perhaps three-quarters adequate enough to be doing the job—maybe three-quarters too generous. The voters can decide on that one. In just over 5 months, they can do just that. This Government must be living in hope that we do not have a foot-and-mouth outbreak before then, because this country’s biosecurity is nowhere near three-quarters ready to deal with one.

This problem is not going to go away in this global age when travel and trade are increasing daily. New Zealand intercepts thousands of risky organisms and risky goods each year that could threaten our $60 billion export trade, yet our biosecurity teams do not have the weapons and the staff they need to search every container coming in. New Zealand First will properly resource our border biosecurity and we will fund science and research adequately so that New Zealand is ready to handle incursions.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I just want to commence today by acknowledging the contribution of one Tau Henare to this Parliament. He has added much-needed personality and character to this place. I, for one, appreciate his sense of humour. I think it is valuable. I just want to make a point while I am on the topic and talk very briefly about the rejuvenation of any business. It is essential for any business to rejuvenate itself and to have a reasonable turnover. I note that there is not one single movement on the other side of the House to rejuvenate it. That, of course, is its problem. There could be some involuntary ones.

Today, of course, is another great day for provincial New Zealand. It is raining everywhere but the lower Rangitīkei electorate, and we need it. We have had no rain in the Rangitīkei since 21 February. It makes one realise why farmers tend to stand around in the rain. However, the very good spring and great start to summer will ensure that this year’s production will not suffer as it did last year. Significant rain will be needed very soon or next year’s production will start to suffer. For those who do not understand this, the rams are now out in the hill country, and tupping will not be as productive as ewes lose weight, meaning the probability of fewer lambs being born next spring. I will continue the agricultural lesson. Building up feed supplies is also very important for the dairy sector at this time of year, as the cows’ condition is critical as the new season approaches. As we move into the new season, it has a great influence on milk production and, consequently, interestingly enough, on the tax take next year. I will get on with some serious stuff now.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s like a Federated Farmers speech.

IAN McKELVIE: I thought you might need a little bit of a lecture. I want to spend a little time on the work of this Government and the progress that I have seen in the Rangitīkei electorate in the past 2 years as a result of this, and on the confidence that has been retained in the business sector by the prudent leadership of the Minister of Finance, Bill English, and his fellow Cabinet Ministers. In the Ruapehu area, the Prime Minister’s national cycleway initiative has created new jobs and optimism as the cycleways progressively open up more opportunity. They are also creating new opportunities for accommodation providers and food outlets. In Taumarunui, the Forgotten World Adventures is a very successful business running carts into Whangamomona and on to Stratford and back. This business is extremely popular and has regenerated Whangamomona, its hotel, and associated backpacker businesses, and has provided new life for accommodation and food businesses in Taumaranui.

Hon Trevor Mallard: This member’s on the same “Road to Nowhere”.

IAN McKELVIE: That was on the “Road to Nowhere”. There is the increasing popularity of walking, such as on the Tongariro track, with some 120,000 visitors per year walking the track, and the gorge track in the Manuwatū even attracts some 30,000-odd people every year walking across it. Other environmental tourism initiatives include the wonderful Wanganui River and two national parks, Wanganui and Tongariro. Slowly but surely more jobs are being created throughout the region, leading to new opportunity and optimism in our region. This is all created by the friendly business environment created by this Government. Of course, agricultural-related businesses are thriving in this environment as well. As market access improves, so do prices and jobs, and better pay will follow. Logs, meat, and milk are all selling well internationally and demand is continuing to be strong.

As more attention is given to the environmental matters affecting agriculture and the use of technology increases dramatically, a higher skill set is required by the sector. A more sophisticated and better-paid service sector is needed to service our farmers. These people are adding spice to our rural communities. If we maintain the momentum, we will see our smaller communities revitalised, slowing the urban drift, which is one of the keys to a brighter future for regional New Zealand.

In the Manawatū, Palmerston North, and Rangitīkei Plains part of the electorate, manufacturing is thriving, as the Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce, saw last week, as he visited a number of very progressive, innovative companies, including New Zealand Pharmaceuticals and C-Dax. We also have some newcomers in the area that are creating great interest and many job prospects in our region, like at Fonterra with the Massey research facilities and the Crown research institutes. It is easy to paint a very rosy picture of business progress in provincial rural New Zealand, all created by the activities and initiatives of this National Government.

I think this Government has achieved an awful lot for provincial New Zealand, and I, for one, am very proud to be part of that growth. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): “We do not reward courage with refusal.” This is a quote from one of the support services that made a submission to the Social Services Committee inquiry into the funding of sexual violence services. The Green Party believes that all New Zealanders deserve good lives and a safe future. Courageous advocates and survivors have been telling this House for decades what they need. Sadly, all too many more have been suffering in silence, and too many more again have lost their lives while they have been waiting for action from this House.

Domestic violence and sexual violence are at epidemic levels in this country. One in three women is likely to experience domestic violence in her lifetime. One in four girls and one in eight boys are likely to be sexually abused in this country. Like most people in this House and in this country, I carry stories of sexual and domestic violence with me as part of me. This issue is personal; it is not abstract. It takes incredible courage for victims to disclose abuse. It also takes incredible courage for abusers to admit fault or seek help. It takes a peculiar form of resilience for those working in these sectors to keep hopeful, to keep going, and to keep giving us another chance to fix this for their communities.

As a Parliament, this is our opportunity to all come together and reward courageous women and men with support through sexual violence services funding and also, I propose, through workplace protections for victims of domestic violence. I hold great hope for the select committee inquiry into funding proposed by Alfred Ngaro and me and supported by Labour and the Government. I hope that it will give New Zealand a cross-party solution and a sustainable solution for sexual violence so that everyone can finally get the right help and the reward for their courage. It has been suggested to me that we could see a major turn-round in the levels of violence in this country within just 10 years if we started on this now. Surely—surely—that is a future worth coming together for.

Last week I also proposed a member’s bill to help victims of domestic violence keep their jobs, because, sadly, at the moment, all too many of them are losing them or having to leave them because of the behaviour of their violent partners. This bill would also offer support for employers to be able to help their staff who are experiencing domestic violence. I put this bill forward because I know that domestic violence is a huge problem in this country and one that I believe that every member of this House wants to solve. This bill offers really practical solutions to help businesses and help victims in the workplace because it has a huge impact on our workplaces at the moment. Victims are being harassed, stalked, and assaulted in workplaces at the moment.

The Public Service Association commissioned some New Zealand research by economist Suzanne Snively, which found that, by conservative accounting, New Zealand businesses are losing $368 million a year in productivity from the impacts of domestic violence in the workplace. But even if employers had to pay for implementing all the provisions in my bill—and I think there is an argument for ACC doing it instead, for much of it—businesses would still, with all those costs, be making $150 million within 10 years through productivity gains. For me, this is another thing that we can come together on because it will save money in the income support budget, it will protect victims, and it will increase workplace productivity—win, win, win.

I hope this House will come together to ensure that we can make New Zealand a great and safe place for every New Zealander. Kia ora koutou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa e tautoko i ngā mihi ki te Hōnore Tau Henare, tēnā koe. He wā tōna ka mihia koe e te Whare Pāremata.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Salutations to us all endorsing the accolades to the Hon Tau Henare; greetings to you. There will come a time when the House of Parliament will acknowledge you.]

Yesterday I was giving a statement to the media, and it went something along the lines that the justice system we have in Aotearoa is flawed. For many Māori it is unfair, it is biased, and it is filled with prejudice, and there is institutional racism in the justice system of this country that spans across the entire system, from the police to the courts to corrections. How do we know? Well, the United Nations recently released a report urging authorities here to address the disproportionately negative statistics that impact on Māori from the criminal justice legislation extending sentences or reducing probation or parole. We know because international reports tell us that it is institutionally racist. We know because umpteen reports written here at home base tell us that that is so. All we have to do is look at the statistics. Māori are 15 percent of the population, yet we are 50 percent of the prison population. That is a disgrace—that is a disgrace—and we have got to do something about it.

But it is not just the proportion of prisoners who are Māori; it is the proportion of Māori who are actually prisoners. For Māori males born in 1975, it is estimated that 22 percent had a corrections-managed sentence—that is, both custodial sentences and community-based sentences—before their 20th birthday, and that 44 percent had a corrections-managed sentence by the age of 35. This means that virtually every Māori whānau in the country will have someone who has been labelled a criminal. That is unacceptable to the Māori Party. We can say that Māori are four to five times more likely to be apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted than non-Māori counterparts, and in the case of Māori aged between 10 and 13 this is six times more likely. Māori are seven times more likely to be given a custodial sentence and 11 times more likely to be remanded in custody awaiting trial. It costs $90,000 to keep a prisoner in prison. It costs $1 billion to run the Department of Corrections. That is simply crazy.

I want to draw on a local example, because they are easy to talk about. Following the apprehension for crime, the percentage of Māori who are prosecuted is far higher than the percentage of non-Māori who are prosecuted. For the same crimes, Māori are arrested at three times the rate of non-Māori, and here is the example. In the Waiariki electorate, there were two similar examples that resulted in two vastly different outcomes. In one incident, a Pākehā offender was in a boating accident that caused the death of an acquaintance. This person was discharged without conviction and ordered to pay a fine to St John Ambulance. In the other incident, two young Māori boys were involved in a jet ski accident resulting in the death of a friend. They were both convicted, even though they had participated in a restorative justice process and were close friends of the victim. This conviction will now hang over them for the rest of their lives. The Tūhoe raids signalled serious flaws in how the police dealt with Māori communities. Thankfully, the police have moved to deal with that, having acknowledged that there were serious flaws in that. And, of course, the foreshore and seabed bill introduced by the Labour Government some years ago—it also acknowledged some serious flaws there.

So it is not just about acknowledging that those are there; we have got to do something about it. For our part, for the Māori Party’s part, it is that we need to try to keep people out of prison, out of the system, and get them back into the communities. We have raised a number of times through the media the need to look at a system-wide review, and the United Nations has supported this by also recommending a review of the degree of inconsistencies and systematic bias against Māori at the different levels of the justice system. Minister Sharples has established Whare Ōranga Ake, and he is also working constantly with other Ministers to advance programmes that work to address the issues of offending, such as Drivers of Crime, a youth justice plan. And we are doing some good things: the Rangatahi Court, which is an awesome initiative, and community law forums. We need to develop those further.

So we want to work with iwi and whānau to reduce Māori imprisonment and find a better way to go. We want to search for creative and integrated solutions to root causes that cause the disproportionate rates of Māori who are locked up in prisons. In the short term, and until this transformation occurs, the Māori Party would, firstly, like to throw out that stink three-strikes legislation—get it out of here—extend Whare Ōranga Ake to every State prison, initiate computers in cells to foster literacy and numeracy, support whānau focus on alcohol and drug addictions, and also reintroduce preferred lawyer status in legal aid. In the end, what we would like to do is shut down the Independent Police Conduct Authority and establish an anti-corruption commission. We believe that those are some of the answers that, moving forward, might deal at least in a small way with the issues that we have around institutional racism in Aotearoa.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It has been really insightful and instructive listening to the National MPs in this debate because clearly they are trying to get back in touch with the provinces with the speeches they have made. I think what that tells us is that they know they are in big trouble in the provinces, and so they should be. They absolutely deserve to be because just last week the GDP data that came out from Statistics New Zealand showed that economic activity per capita is actually going backwards in the Waikato but also in Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Manawatū, Wanganui, Marlborough, the West Coast, and Southland. So those members are in big trouble and they deserve to be. The great sucking noise that you hear from provincial New Zealand is, in fact, Government services being withdrawn from the provinces in New Zealand and, as a result, economic activity dropping and unemployment going up.

Just in my area alone, the week previous to that data coming out, there were 120 jobs lost at the Hutton’s factory. That factory has been going for more than 60 years in Hamilton, but under a National Government those 120 jobs are gone and that factory is shut for good. But that was not the only thing that happened that week. That same week, because of the funding cuts from this Government in the health sector, the Waikato District Health Board decided that it was no longer going to provide maternity services in Morrinsville or Te Awamutu. Those are actually quite large New Zealand towns, and that is another example of public services being withdrawn from the provinces in New Zealand.

In Hamilton, in the Waikato region, unemployment is actually going up at the moment. In the last quarter, unemployment rose to 6.8 percent. In the previous quarter it had been at 6.1 percent. That 6.1 percent is bad enough, but, actually, unemployment is increasing in areas like the Waikato, and that shows how badly this Government is doing in the regions. We also learnt this week that the Public Service is growing in Wellington, and that is because services are being sucked out of provincial New Zealand and centralised. The Government knows that it is in real trouble and it is trying to retrieve that.

It also knows that it is in real trouble when it comes to New Zealanders understanding the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country and inequality, because we learnt also last week that nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders know that the gap between rich and poor has increased under 6 years of the National Government, and almost two-thirds of New Zealanders feel they are no better off or have gone backwards. That is what the Herald-DigiPoll tells us, and that is the real challenge ahead of New Zealand today. We know that there will be more money to go around in the Budget, and, of course, you know, we are used to that on this side of the House because under Labour we had nine surpluses when we were in Government—nine surpluses, year after year—so we know what that looks like. But how will it be spent under a National Government? I think New Zealanders sense and know that when we get increases in the Budget, it is not going to go their way under a National Government. It is going to go to National’s mates. We have seen it time and time again, where the decisions National has made have favoured its wealthy mates at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders, and that is the challenge for the Budget coming up.

I talked earlier in question time about a way that we could actually do something that helps families. What I said—and I think these figures are important—is that the core Crown expenses for the next financial year to June 2014 are forecast to be $73.2 billion. In that same period, increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks—under my bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—would cost a net amount of $36 million in that same period. That is just 0.05 percent of the core Crown expenses. It would also be just 3.6 percent of the new spending that the Government is planning. So why is National insisting on using a financial veto? There is no justification for a financial veto against this bill. The public knows it. Last year Bill English was inflating the actual cost of the bill by 100 percent, and even when that inflated figure was put to New Zealanders, 62 percent of them said they wanted it anyway and they knew it was affordable. They are not going to be fooled by this Government’s plan to try to pretend it is not affordable.

Also, the submitters on this bill know it is affordable. Out of 3,807 submitters who came forward on the bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks, 99.6 percent of them agreed. They agreed that it was affordable and that it should happen in the way it is planned by Labour—staged in over the next 3 years. It is entirely affordable and the Government knows it. These are the issues in front of New Zealand.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. The only sucking noise, which was described by that member over there, Sue Moroney, is actually the sucking up and the vacuuming of all the votes that traditionally were going to Labour but that have been sucked out by a whole lot of other parties. Why? Because—and I want to make this statement in my general debate speech—Labour is no longer the traditional choice for many people in New Zealand. It is no longer the traditional choice. You would have heard that from the honourable Minister Judith Collins. It is no longer the traditional choice. How do we know that? I think that member should be more worried about the urban centres, not the provinces.

This is how it goes. On Sunday we were at the Malaeola Community Centre, and there we were in the heart of Māngere at the Catholic service. There were over 1,000 Pacific Islanders who were there at that service. It was quite interesting because we knew at that time that there were three National MPs who were there. There were two Ministers and me. There was furious texting by Mr Su’a William Sio to try to get support to come to that service. There was a bit of a rent-a-crowd. He came along and then afterwards, when there was the interview on TV3, this is what happened. They went out to what was the traditional base and voice of the Labour Party and the question they asked was “Do you vote for Labour?”. Yes, some said yes, but here is what others said: “Yes, but Labour is not delivering the goods.” That was the first statement that was made. Oh, that has got to hurt a little bit.

Secondly—and I love the way our Pacific people said this—TV3 asked: “Oh, well, what about the leader David Cunliffe?”. And they go: “Oh, yeah. He’s good, but he’s got so much to learn. He has got so much to learn.” That has got to hurt again. Why? Because the fact is that he is not the leader of choice for the Pasifika community.

Here is the third thing. Here was Su’a. He had the people there. The rent-a-crowd at the back were all looking good and trying to make Labour look good, but when the old man with the green coat was asked the question about David Cunliffe, he simply said: “Who is David Cunliffe? Who is David Cunliffe?”. That is right. He is sort of like Where’s Wally?. Where is David Cunliffe? We do not know him. But here is where it gets really interesting. When Tova O’Brien asked the honourable member Su’a William Sio “Is that correct? Do they not know David Cunliffe?”, he said: “Yes, that’s correct.” They do not know him. So that is supposedly the heartland.

The Labour members are quiet at the moment because they know it hurts. Forget about the provinces and go back to the cities to the places where you know that you had your support—it is gone. Why? Because the people do not even know who this leader is. Sue Moroney is shaking her head, but she knows this is true, because Labour’s own member said it.

But it gets even better. Then on The Nation there was Shane Jones. He was being interviewed. He was asked the same thing too. He was asked about David Cunliffe. Even with his oratorical excellence, he stumbled and sort of said: “Well, we are a team.” and “Yes, we’re trying to gather around him.” In other words, Labour is stumbling and struggling to try to find an answer to this.

So here is the reason Labour is shifting and changing. It is no longer the traditional choice. Why? Because we are first, second, and third generation. People are saying in our Pasifika communities that actually there is another choice that we can make in order to be able to choose a Government that makes a difference for us. I want to give a couple of examples. Here is the difference. This is not about just shelling out more money to say that is it—we have got more money for benefits, more money for housing, and more money for employment. It is actually about being in partnership with those particular communities.

Let us talk about the Lotofale’ia Tongan Methodist Church in, again, the heart of Māngere. It had a 6.4 hectare block of land on Donnell Avenue. It went into a three-way partnership with a social housing provider, Lifewise, and with the Government, and $4.3 million was granted. How many homes did they build? They built 22 homes. Twenty-two homes were built. Twenty-two Tongan families now have an opportunity to be housed. Here is the point of difference. Here is the point of difference, and it is not just about doing things to people or doing things for people. It is actually doing it with this community. They are starting to wake up. They are starting to say that this is the sort of Government that they want to work with. Why? Because they can be self-determining for themselves.

I will give you another example: The Rise UP Academy. This one has really got to hurt. Why? Because here is a trust that even has Labour Party members inside. We know that on the Labour side it has clearly said that if it comes into Government, it is taking out charter schools and partnership schools. But here is this Pacific school in the heart of a community, in Māngere, turning round and saying that it wants to have the right to choose. I will tell you why it is not turning towards Labour. It is because Labour is removing the ability to make a choice for change.

Hon Annette King: You wait.

ALFRED NGARO: Yes, that is right, Annette King. We will wait. You are removing the choice. They do not get to choose, so Rise UP Academy turned round and said: “Guess what? We want to choose for ourselves.” So here is an academy making a difference for 50 Pacific and Māori children in the heart of Māngere, again, and it has got to hurt every single time because we are making a difference with that. Let us also talk about—

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. Meitaki. Do you realise that this is my fifth month here, and I have been listening to debates across the House on the drivers of inequality in our society and the commentary on the causes and measures of child poverty, for example. Is it about choice, is it poor decision-making, or is it a lack of education? Possibly. A young mother of a 1-year-old boy came into my electorate office a few weeks ago. Having found a two-bedroom flat, she paid a week’s rent as a deposit to hold it and was seeking support from Work and Income to pay the bond to move in. Her current housing situation was really unsafe. She, along with her young son, was in a boarding house. The bedroom that they rented did not have a lock on the door, their landlord was starting to act inappropriately towards her, and she was feeling unsafe.

Work and Income was unable to support her with her bond, so she was in a bit of a predicament. She could either try to find other people to help her put up the bond or remain unsafe and lose all the money that she had already paid. We regularly have families turning up desperate for accommodation, and we have developed a pathway with local community housing providers and others to triage and support the most at risk and in need, much like the case that I have just described. We regularly have requests through the colder months for support for power bills, sometimes in excess of $300. Our local blanket bank has reported this week that it has run out of blankets, and winter has not even started yet. Our food banks report an increase in the number of people accessing them on a regular basis. I read a report recently in context with the social sector trials discussing the hospital admissions for cellulitis, pneumonia, and other respiratory conditions—conditions of overcrowding and poorly heated, damp homes.

The Social Services Committee recently heard from the sexual violence prevention sector about the pressure that it is under to deliver services to more for less. Notifications to Child, Youth and Family have increased exponentially, and the community sector is being asked to plug the gap that the statutory agency can no longer manage. Back in the electorate office, we have more people looking for accommodation who are unable to find it, to afford it when they do find it, to get into it, or to afford to keep it.

The Minister of Education believes that the way out of poverty is through education. Although I do not entirely disagree with that statement—I believe that education, and particularly the level of education of our mothers, is a key factor in the success of our children—I have a problem with the statement that is twofold. It fails to recognise and deal with the need that exists today. These fine words will not feed our kids; house them in decent, warm, dry homes; provide for their health; or help them to thrive—not the kids who are poor, hungry, and homeless.

The other problem that I have with that statement is that it flies in the face of the exemplary results that Phillipstown School has achieved with its Māori and Pacific children. On a recent visit there I was really impressed with what the school had been doing, with the achievements of these children, and with what they had made based against the national standards targets. Māori and Pacific kids are bettering their targets under national standards, yet the decision to merge that school with Woolston School goes ahead.

I believe that our families are being put in an impossible situation where, based on the resources they have, there is no choice. It is not bad decision-making; there is no decision to be made. Our families do not want handouts; they want a Government that provides jobs that will pay them enough to care for their children. That is when they can have a choice, not in a low-waged economy that means 60-hour to 80-hour working weeks to provide the basics, and sometimes not providing that. They want a Government that recognises that families build communities. That occurs when you put down roots, build relationships, and actively engage in community life and are not constantly on the move to find work and cheaper, and sometimes safer, places to live, in homes that are healthy and warm. They do not want a Government that refuses to intervene to house its people. They want a Government that will make sure that all people pay their fair share and that it is distributed with some equity across the spectrum of need. They want a Government that recognises how valuable the mother-child bond is in future success.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I move, That the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill be now read a third time. We have now come to the third reading of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, and I know that there will be many officials and councillors in Richmond and the Tasman area who will be relieved to know that the bill is about to pass through the House. It has been some time in coming. In fact, it was 23 January last year, I think, when the bill had its first reading referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. So it has taken some time to come through the process, and I am sure that the council has felt as though it is on tenterhooks since that time.

Reluctantly, I think all members of the select committee, and Parliament, of course, realised that this bill needed to pass through to rectify the mistakes—that would be the polite word, I guess—that had been made by the Tasman District Council in setting rates that were wrong not just in 1 year but, in fact, from 2003-04 through to 2008-09. Mistakes will be made and we accept that we must rectify them. Parliament does not like putting through retrospective legislation, but we will do so to assist the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council.

The lesson here for staff in all councils up and down this country is to listen a little more carefully to ratepayers who may raise issues from time to time, trying to alert them to mistakes, possibly, or to things that need improvement, more likely. All too often—and I have to say that it still occurs within the Tasman District Council—the officials and ultimately the councillors, who are supposed to run the officials, do not listen carefully enough to wise and sensible propositions from ratepayers. One of the issues at the moment, and it has taken me about 2 years to make some progress with the council, is the speed limits outside schools. I am not going to dwell on that other than to ask that the Tasman District Council and other councils take more action in a more timely way to improve the way that they operate.

When ratepayers like Mr Schmuke and his group of ratepayers at Tata Beach and Ligar Bay raise issues about possible irregularities—the possible illegal setting of rates—then they should be listened to with an open mind and not simply shut down by the council, as happened here. Mr Schmuke should be applauded. His tenacity took this issue through to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman then ruled that not only were the rates for the urban drainage area of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach wrong but, in fact, the rates relating to this longer period were wrong. That is why the Tasman District Council had to draft this legislation.

I am happy to support this bill on behalf of the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council, to move forward and to ensure that we have proper rates-setting in retrospect but also that we have a better system going forward. As I said, the comment to the select committee that this was a failure of “Rates 101” is perhaps something that council staff should not forget. It should prompt them, as I say, to have an open mind, to always be listening to the thousands of ratepayers who in their own right are astute and inquisitive and who have good ideas to improve the way we run our local government systems. Do not shut them out in the future.

It is with that in mind that I thank the House. I thank the select committee for its careful consideration. There was another hearing of both parties relating to the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay urban drainage area in an attempt to try to find some solution. I know that not all parties feel happy about the solution. In the end, politics is the art of the possible. We have moved forward, and hopefully such mistakes will not occur again. I am happy to have sponsored this bill and, as I say, to have appreciated the wider support of Parliament. Kia ora.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am very pleased to be speaking to the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill at its third reading. I would really like to commend the work of Damien O’Connor, who is the sponsor of this bill, because he makes a very good point. This bill came to the House because of the disputes between the ratepayers and the Tasman District Council, and those things could have been dealt with earlier if those parties had been more sympathetic to each other. In the Local Government and Environment Committee we did try. We actually had the council and the ratepayers to the select committee on two occasions, and we tried to mediate something, because, of course, again, as Damien O’Connor has said, Parliament does not like validation legislation. It does not like anything that looks backwards. We like to be positive and look forwards. We have had a rash of validation legislation recently. Unfortunately, those bills do come before us, and I think really that in this case it was because of errors. There was no malicious intent that led to this situation. In the long term, Parliament has to pass this legislation for the public good.

What this bill actually does is validate the rates that were set by the Tasman District Council in the period from 2003-04 to 2008-09, and that was a while ago. That was because, during that time, the council did not follow the correct procedure in setting rates. The bill also validates the rates and penalties paid over that period and authorises the council to recover any unpaid rates. Furthermore, it ratifies the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate, and that is really the most controversial part of this bill. From 2003-04 to 2008-09 the Tasman District Council passed rates attached to its annual plan rather than ratifying each rate individually, and the council set the rates before it had adopted the annual plan. This was a breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. There was also the debate over the consultation and the documentation pertaining to the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate.

The Local Government (Rating) Act does provide an avenue for councils to amend incorrectly set rates, such as in this case, but the window for that time had passed. So unless you do it immediately, you have to go through validation legislation. This validation is required in order to allow the council to recover unpaid rates and penalties. Without the validation the council remains vulnerable to legal challenges from ratepayers over incorrectly set rates.

As I have said, the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate was probably the most controversial area in this bill, and it boiled down to a debate between the ratepayers and the council. There was a debate over how the ratepayers should have been rated, but that was not the legal situation that led to this bill. Basically, what happened was that there was a mistake in the documentation. The process was not followed correctly, and when the ratepayers complained, they did not get a sympathetic hearing from the council. That escalated. It escalated till they went to the Ombudsman and actually dealt with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman came back and said that, yes, the council had made a mistake, and then it had to go through all its documentation from the past, and all these other areas, again, came to light. So it was because of the ratepayers and because of this dispute between the ratepayers and the council that this situation came to pass.

In this legislation, clause 9 is the clause that deals with this rate, and the select committee was very sympathetic to the proposals to perhaps delete clause 9, simply because that was what uncovered all the errors. But we found that it was outside the scope of the bill and that it was impossible for us to do. That is why we persevered with trying to come to some arrangement between the council and the ratepayers.

One of the key issues that we need to think about in terms of this type of legislation—and I echo the concern of Damien O’Connor about councils working more closely with their ratepayers—is that, when you really think about it, councils and ratepayers want the same outcomes for themselves. They want to have the same thing. We need good infrastructure and we need good, efficient services, and that is to underpin a quality of lifestyle in their area. Ratepayers and councils should be working together because, after all, they are mostly reasonable, sensible people, and together they can get a better outcome.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on this bill. As I say, we have been looking at validation legislation, and this was another case that came through. We reflected on the fact that councils do need to be very careful with their documentation, and we think that, going forward, legislation needs to be simpler so that it can be understood. National is very keen to make local government more efficient, more responsive, and better focused.

The other thing that I think is important for this bill is that it will highlight to other councils how important it is that they get their documentation correct. When you look at the errors that were made in this case, I am sure there are other councils throughout New Zealand that have probably made similar errors. They need to be very careful about how they do that. I have also heard that there are more validation bills to come to the House.

Finally, I would like to thank Damien O’Connor for his work. I think this is a very good example of a council that perhaps should have been more careful with its documentation, but also should have been more careful with its relationship with its ratepayers. In the end, this validation legislation has to be passed so that the council can collect the rates and penalties from during that time and also so that it is not vulnerable to legislation in the future. So I support this bill to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. All that needs to be said on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill has been said. To repeat the same thing over and over again only delays the inevitable. This House needs to pass this bill and support the Tasman District Council and its peoples.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is a huge pleasure to rise and speak to the third reading of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill—

Iain Lees-Galloway: You didn’t rise; you sauntered in.

JACQUI DEAN: —yeah—and with due respect to the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, although this is the third reading of this bill, I do think that it requires a decent scrutiny by this House. I am never one to rush things. I do not think that we as members should be rushing, particularly on local bills. If I reflect on some of the local bills that I personally have been associated with—and I do hope that the House will indulge me just to—

Moana Mackey: Oh no! It’s going to be like a Wikipedia entry.

JACQUI DEAN: Yes. I can give chapter and verse. Moana Mackey, over the other side, wants chapter and verse of some of the local bills. I do not think we should make light of the importance of local bills coming to this House, because it is a privilege for a local member to host a bill through the House. The reason it is a privilege is that a local bill will deal with matters that might not be of great moment—[Interruption] Local—thank you, Minister Tolley. A local bill deals with matters that may not be of great moment to the nation but certainly are to the local community. The Minister is absolutely right.

I can think about some other local bills that have been before this House. I brought one on behalf of the Waitaki District Council, to do with the designation of a piece of land. That sounds as dry as an old chip, and on first blush, yes, it would be as dry as an old chip, except that it did mean an awful lot to that particular local community. In fact, I venture to say that for a number of years it proved to be hugely divisive amongst that community. Some members of the community wished to see development on that land and others wanted to see the land staying the way it was and always has been, and each of them went to the council to try to clarify that designation.

That is what we want our local authorities to do. Goodness me! We stand up in this House all the time, calling on our local authorities to be precise in their deliberations and make good decisions on behalf of their communities. Sometimes, making good decisions on behalf of their communities is not helped by some little flaw in the legislation or, in fact, as with the Tasman District Council, by some slightly suboptimal decision-making processes. Going back to the Waitaki District Council example, it was not a suboptimal decision—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speak to the bill.

JACQUI DEAN: Thank you. That is Trevor Mallard, over the other side, who is another member who is intolerant of local issues. I am kind of interested in local issues because I have got a pretty cool electorate, and I do want to talk about the importance of a local bill to a local community. In the Waitaki, with the local bill, it was not a matter of poor decision-making on behalf of the local authority. It was a mistake made way back in 1938 in the land registry. I know that Trevor Mallard does not have patience with this kind of detail of legislation. I think a lot of it just goes over his head, and so he puts on this big, buffoonery front—[Interruption] I will yield. There is a point of order.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood we were discussing the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. The Waitaki bill, which the member for Waitaki is talking about, this House passed some time ago.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for drawing that to the House’s attention. I think the member makes a very valid point. I would ask the member to come to the bill.

JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do appreciate the guidance. The connection that I am making here is that this is a local bill and it is of great matter, but not, perhaps, to the whole Parliament.

Hon Annette King: Very good.

JACQUI DEAN: It is a good local bill—a very good local bill. It is not of great moment to the Parliament but, certainly, to the local community. So now I come, naturally, to talk about the Tasman District Council and the issues that have beset that council.

The Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is about validating rates. If I were to expand the conversation just a little bit, the validation of rates by means of a local bill in Parliament is not ideal. It is suboptimal, but sometimes it is necessary to do that. This is one of those cases. On behalf of the local community—and I do regret that members across the House do not find value in talking about other local communities and the troubles they have had with their local bills. I do regret that people like Eugenie Sage and the member for—I do not know; Wellington somewhere.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Hutt South.

JACQUI DEAN: Oh, Hutt South. I do regret that they do not see value in talking around the wider issues that beset local communities.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know you are not allowed to draw attention to members reading their speeches, but I think you are allowed to draw attention to people reading speeches on the wrong bills. Maybe she should read the speech for the right bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just thank the member and tell him it is for the Speaker to recognise whether a member is reading from the bill.

JACQUI DEAN: Thank you so much, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Assistant Speaker is quite right, and, of course, he himself is shepherding a local bill through the House. At least the Assistant Speaker, unlike the member for Hutt South—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member cannot bring me into the debate.

JACQUI DEAN: Of course. I do thank the Assistant Speaker for allowing me to continue with this speech. The Tasman District Council has brought in a bill to validate rates that were incorrectly set in the past. The reason Parliament is taking so much time, and the reason I have tried to give some context around this—which I suspect will be appreciated more through the wireless than in the House, because the mainly list members on the other side of the House are not as well connected with their communities—is that when a rates validation bill is brought to the House we are not quite having to paper over the cracks, perhaps, but we are being asked as parliamentarians to put right, by means of a local bill, mistakes that were made at local authority level.

It is an important function of our Parliament, and speaker after speaker—those who understand the issues; the Hutt South member excepted—know that Parliament is uncomfortable picking up the pieces from local government. It is our desire to have strong local government that is efficient, on behalf of its ratepayers. Why do we want that? Quite simply because it is ratepayers’ money. Ratepayers deserve good, decent decision-making from their local authorities, because it is their money, it is their rating, and it is their services that we are dealing with.

Although Parliament is sympathetic to the Tasman District Council bringing the bill to us, we certainly do not want, as a Parliament, to see—and I think for once I speak for most of us—too many bad decisions being made at local authority level that Parliament is then required to redress, as is the case here. What we are dealing with here is the validation of rates. I pay rates. I pay lots of rates. I would like to know that the money that goes to my local authority quarterly—and I sure notice it going out of our bank account and into the district council’s—is being spent well. I want to know that the money that is going out of my bank account and into the council’s account is being wisely spent, based on good decision-making.

If the members across the House think that the context around that, which I have spoken about today, is irrelevant or outside the scope of this bill, well, I disagree. I think we must never forget the functions of local government, and when we have a case like this, having to deal with some mistakes, we should always remember that this is not Parliament’s money that we are dealing with. This is not the Government’s money we are dealing with. This is the money of the people of New Zealand. This is ratepayers’ money, including people like me and, no doubt, Louise Upston. This is our money that is being spent by our local authorities, and we want that money spent well.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Argh!

JACQUI DEAN: Again, poor old Trevor Mallard just cannot cope. It is because he is not in touch with his community. I think that that is the basic problem with a lot of the Labour members of Parliament, actually. Most of them are list MPs, but those who are constituency members just are not in touch with their communities and do not understand the importance. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you. I will make a very short call on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. This bill deals with the funding of stormwater infrastructure in several small Golden Bay settlements. It corrects mistakes that the Tasman District Council made in the way it set its rates to fund that stormwater infrastructure from 2003-04 to 2008-09. The council is embarrassed by those administrative mistakes. It has apologised for those errors.

In the Committee stage we had National members reading at length from the bill itself, so I think members of this House and any listeners are very familiar with the content of the bill and what it does. We should simply get on and pass it. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I have to agree with the Green member who has just taken her seat, Eugenie Sage. We have gone over and over the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill numerous times. We had extensive discussion in the Committee stage. We know the issues. None of us likes to be passing retrospective legislation to validate rates that were set unlawfully, but we need just to get on and do it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): It is a pleasure to be giving this speech on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I have had a significant number of meetings with constituents about the bill and this issue. The Tasman District Council is part of the Nelson constituency. About half of the people who actually live in the Tasman District are constituents of mine, and I have taken a strong interest in this bill over the last 5 or 6 years. There has been a group of quite aggrieved ratepayers who do not agree with the way in which the Tasman District Council chose to levy them for stormwater rates in the area of both Tata Beach and Ligar Bay—a truly beautiful part of Golden Bay, an area where there are a number of baches and holiday-type homes, a place where I have often gone with my family and holidayed. At the core of the issue for that Ligar Bay community is that there are different levels of stormwater risk. There are some of those property owners who are at some elevation and overlook Ligar Bay, and there are those who are right down by the estuary and beach and who are subject to quite a lot more stormwater risk. At the core of some of the local argument has been whether everybody should pay equally, relative to the value of their property, or they should be paying a different amount depending on what level of stormwater and flood risk they have.

A number of homeowners have raised concern with the council. They think the rate was levied unfairly. The view that we on this side of the House have taken is that we do not want to usurp the job of the Tasman District Council and its community board in Golden Bay to resolve those tensions and those inevitable arguments about where the money should be spent. The real question for us relates to the administrative anomalies in the way that these rates were struck, and I would note that these were years when we were not the Government. During the period all the way through from 2003 to 2008 the Tasman District Council did not follow the right procedural routine for striking those rates. I think there is a legitimate question, and that is whether when the previous Government passed the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 it invested sufficiently in communicating to councils at both an administrative and an elected-officer level and whether it put in the necessary resources so there were no mistakes of this sort made. The fact there were mistakes made not just in 2003-04 but in, frankly, every single year following that suggests that there was an under-investment in communication and around the new requirements of that 2002 Local Government (Rating) Act.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did every other council get it right?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, there is a question for Parliament, having had the Tasman District Council members at the Local Government and Environment Committee, which my colleague noted. They were embarrassed by the mistake and they apologised for the mistake, and Mr Trevor Mallard, from the other side of the House, would be the last one to be standing up in this House and say he has never made any mistakes.

Maggie Barry: Tens of thousands of mistakes. He’s an expert on mistakes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague quite rightly refers to Trevor Mallard as an expert on mistakes. We are a forgiving Government, a kind Government, and in the case of Tasman District Council there is no question that it was an honest mistake. There is no question from the evidence the select committee heard as to what the intent of the elected council was when it struck each of these rates in the period from 2003 through to 2008. That is why Government members are saying that, yes, we acknowledge that there are some grumpy ratepayers, we acknowledge that it is pretty arbitrary in terms of how you allocate the stormwater costs for that Ligar Bay and Tata Beach community, but to be pragmatic we need to pass this bill. We need to look at what the counter would be.

If we did not pass this bill, what would be the consequence? There would be a huge administrative burden on the Tasman District Council to go back to each of those ratepayers over each of those 5 years and to then give them a rates refund. Some of those properties have changed hands since, and it would be necessary to try to find where those owners are, and then, of course, the council has got the difficulty that it needs to fill that financial hole. That would be a cost that would sit on a good number of my constituents in the Nelson electorate who are ratepayers to the Tasman District Council, and that would be a very unsatisfactory outcome.

So it makes sound sense for Parliament to do the generous thing, to accept the apology from the Tasman District Council, to ensure that it has got its system sorted so that mistakes of this sort are not repeated, but taking that pragmatic view to allow those rates in that community to stand. I would note that although the focus of the submissions and the angst have been around the issues of rates for the Ligar Bay community, there are actually other communities who are also affected by this bill. We are dealing with river works around the community of Māpua. We are dealing with the ASB Aquatic and Fitness Centre in Richmond and the way in which rates were struck in the 2008-09 year. We are dealing with rates not just in 1 year at Tata Beach and Ligar Bay but actually over 5 consecutive years.

One of the things that the Government does take a sympathetic view of in respect of ratepayers is that if we look over this period not just in Tasman District but across New Zealand, we see that there were excessive rate rises. Over that period we had rate rises going up by 8 to 9 percent every single year, year on year. We would say on this side of the House that the previous Government was far too cavalier about the cost on ratepayers of that Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and that is why this Government is making changes to that Act to get a greater degree of financial discipline so that we have councils not contributing to the cost pressures. I was quite pleased to see the latest rates data, which has shown that rate increases over both the last 2 years since this Government has advanced local government reforms have come down quite significantly, and I think that is a positive in terms of the underlying tensions from those ratepayers who were concerned about these illegal rates and the ongoing increase that has occurred.

In conclusion, this is an unfortunate bill. It is not the sort of bill that Parliament likes to advance, but it is pragmatic legislation that recognises that there were mistakes made, that there was no question as to what the intent of the council was, and that there would be a very significant cost to the ratepayers not just in Golden Bay or in Ligar Bay but throughout Tasman District if this bill was not passed. My view is that Mayor Richard Kempthorne and his council have taken a pretty conciliatory view. They have apologised to their ratepayers, they have apologised to Parliament, and that means that the passage of this bill puts right that administrative error in the way that incurs the least ongoing cost to the collective ratepayers of Tasman District. I think there is a challenge for the Tasman District Council to rebuild the confidence particularly of the people in Ligar Bay and Tata Beach. I do think they need to go back to that community and, having raised these rates, work through in the longer term to ensure that the rates are spent appropriately—that the money is invested in proper stormwater systems for that Ligar Bay and Tata Beach community particularly—so that those ratepayers who inevitably had to pay these charges, albeit unlawfully and now to be made lawful, actually see some of the infrastructure that they would have expected from those rates contributions that they made between 2003 and 2008.

This is a bill that Parliament should pass in the interests of pragmatism, so that the Tasman District Council can get on with the business of trying to provide efficient services for the communities it serves, without these sorts of errors being repeated. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the honourable member Andrew Williams.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Thank you for recognising me, because you did not in the Koru lounge on Tuesday morning, calling me Brian once again. So thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think that is about the fifth time you have called me Brian in the last 2 months. But as you did say in the Koru lounge, you do always recognise me correctly in the House.

Having said that, Brian—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker—New Zealand First does support this bill, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, and we commend Damien O’Connor, the local member for Labour there, for bringing this to the House and helping to sort this out on behalf of the Tasman District Council and, indeed, its ratepayers. At the end of the day, there were some administrative errors made. Everybody makes mistakes. It would appear, listening to the speeches of the National Party members, that nobody in their party makes mistakes. They seem to think that they are perfect and that people should not make mistakes.

But in this situation, quite simply, what happened was that a map was not included when the council sent out the advice with the official documentation to the ratepayers, and the map did not determine exactly where the rates were being struck in terms of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach. It was simply the omission of that map that meant that the rates that were struck for the area were not deemed to be valid. We need to rectify that so that for those 4 or 5 years that the rates were taken, the rates are not required to be clawed back. To try to claw them back and to try to refund those rates to those ratepayers would be almost impossible, because properties change hands, owners change, people come and go. Therefore, it would be virtually impossible.

At the same time, if those rates were refunded, the burden of the cost of those rates goes on to the remaining ratepayers of the district, and why should the remaining ratepayers across the Tasman District pick up the tab for what was simply an administrative error? It is a lose-lose situation for all, in a sense, and we have to validate it to turn it into a win-win, so that everyone can just get on with it.

At the end of the day every council has a collective responsibility across every community to provide for stormwater and all sorts of other services. In this situation there was a collective responsibility to provide the infrastructure in this area. They have had some significant flooding through this area at different times. They have had some terrible disasters and storms that have gone through the Tasman District. At the end of the day they are very dependent on having stormwater provisions, and this is just one of them.

Also, we heard today some interesting comments from Nick Smith. He said—and so did some of the other National members—that councils are responsible for making sure this all happens, and that there is a responsibility on both councillors and the council staff to ensure that this all goes tickety-boo and goes to plan. However, much of this is also on the basis of what is handed to them in terms of the legislation from this Parliament—from central government. Councils have to work within that legislation. Too often, central government politicians, particularly National Government politicians, criticise local government and say that it is not fulfilling its requirements. Yet what local government is doing most of the time is actually carrying out what is required of it under legislation.

It is very interesting when the Hon Nick Smith talks about the rate rises running at 8 or 9 percent in some areas of New Zealand in the early part of the 2000s. One of the reasons for that—for instance, in the Auckland situation; and it was identified in a number of reports—is that Auckland, for instance, received $7 billion of underfunding for its roading and infrastructure over a 15-year period from central government petrol taxes. That is one of the reasons why Auckland got into an incredible traffic jam. Had Auckland received the amount of petrol taxes that the people of the Greater Auckland region had paid over that 15-year period, there would be $7 billion more in the kitty to spend on roading and transport infrastructure in the Auckland area.

As a result, today much of the roading that was started under a Labour Government, with support from New Zealand First in the mid-2000s, is now being finished. It should probably have been finished 10 years ago. Also, as a result, much of the other public transport infrastructure would have been completed. So we cannot always point the finger at councils.

In the present situation, again, regarding Tasman District Council, the Hon Nick Smith says that councils like the Tasman District Council and others have to cut their cloth and work on behalf of their ratepayers. Nicky Wagner, the chair of our Local Government and Environment Committee, said the same. However, this very same National Government, which is at the moment looking at the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), is in the process of removing development levies from how the councils operate and how they take their revenues. It is removing development levies from the provision of community infrastructure.

Community infrastructure covers things like sports grounds, recreational facilities, libraries, swimming pools, and all sorts of community facilities. Those development levies that are taken on new subdivisions—on sections, on subdividing properties, on new builds, and all that sort of thing—go towards the overall kitty. It is a little bit like the collective kitty for Tata Beach across Tasman Bay. They go into the collective kitty that provides for the councils to then provide the necessary infrastructure for their community.

But the National Government is at the present time looking to remove that. It is very interesting, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, to sit on the hearings at the moment. We have had hearings in Wellington and in Auckland and we have heard from councils, developers, associations, and all sorts of organisations across New Zealand. At the moment it is running at about nine to one in terms of opposing what this Government is doing and in terms of removing those development levies from community infrastructure—nine to one. There are very, very few in support of what the Government is doing. As usual, it is the Government’s old mates—the ones from the Business Roundtable, and those sorts of people—who are supporting that. But, in fact, most of the authorities throughout New Zealand and most of the people who know—in fact, indeed, developers have come along to the Local Government and Environment Committee and have said that this is not on. They have said that this is not good legislation and that removing development levies from community infrastructure will be a retrograde step, and that what it will do is to put more rates on to the ratepayers. It will result in more rates on the ratepayers.

In the case of the Auckland Council, it submitted that as a result of this legislation from the National Government, the rates will have to increase by something in the order of 8.5 percent over the next 10 years if the development levies are removed from community infrastructure. That is shocking. We cannot have the likes of Jacqui Dean, Nick Smith, and Nicky Wagner pointing the finger and saying that rates have to come down. We will probably hear shortly from the toxic one, Maggie Barry, about the same thing. We will get a rounded round-up from Maggie Barry very soon. We are bound to have an attack from her on local government again. She will pour borax all over local government and attack it for rates rises, while she sits on the very same Local Government and Environment Committee that is about to remove the ability of councils throughout New Zealand to levy development levies on developers for community infrastructure.

Maggie Barry: You’ve got that wrong, as usual, Brian. Wrong, Brian.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: She cannot deny it, but that is what is going to happen. So Brian—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker, HV—New Zealand First supports this bill. We commend the member Damien O’Connor for bringing this forward. No one likes to look at retrospective legislation. It is always a difficult thing in the House to have to validate situations like this, but in this case New Zealand First is of the mind that this legislation is necessary and valid. We must do it and we must allow this community to get on. We wish the Tasman District Council and all those in Ligar Bay and Tata Beach all the best, and we hope that we can put this behind us and get on, in the best interests of that community. Thank you, Brian.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise to support Damien O’Connor’s Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill in its third reading. Although Andrew Williams gave a reasonable address, it was a little bit simplistic, and I would like to lay out a bit more detail as to what we are doing here in this legislation. So I am back by popular demand, and the House has asked me whether I would do this.

I will just lay out a bit more of the detail and undercurrent that are happening in this legislation, for the general public. Essentially, though, in summary this bill is needed to validate certain rates set incorrectly during the period 2003 through to 2009. It was not just a physical map being sent out to ratepayers as part of the consultation period, or lack of a map, that brought about the incorrect setting of rates in the district, although that, I acknowledge, was part of it. In fact, over those annual periods between 2003 and 2009 there was a large number of rates set incorrectly, not just those ones in relation to that smaller area in the Tasman region.

Without validation, without this legislation, the council remains very vulnerable to legal challenge from ratepayers over the incorrectly set rates. Court action would, of course, result in further ratepayers’ money being spent by the council in its defence. Individual ratepayers taking the council to court would, of course, again, end up adding to the financial burden of those individuals, who rightly bring a challenge, because even this Parliament has established that those rates were set incorrectly. So validation is also required in order to allow the council to recover all unpaid rates and penalties, something we considered in depth.

Some residents have objected to details of the stormwater rate. They were not properly consulted on the urban drainage area and are being charged for stormwater services they are not using. That is what Andrew Williams was directly referring to when he talked about the map not being sent out. But Damien O’Connor, the bill’s sponsor, has discussed their concerns and is himself convinced that the Local Government and Environment Committee will provide residents with an opportunity to express their views, and for any appropriate changes to be made. That is what he himself assured would happen. It is what happened. The select committee did consider the concerns of residents and we landed in a place—although not ideal, because this Parliament, as a general rule, does not like retrospective legislation—where we believe that the right decisions have been made. So Damien O’Connor can be assured that the select committee did listen to ratepayers in the electorate that he represents. We heard from them. They put through sound arguments. We took on board many of their suggestions but, unfortunately, not all of them.

National does want to give affected ratepayers and residents the opportunity to engage. We did, and we supported this bill to select committee and took it through that process, and we are now on the third reading. It should be noted that, at a higher level, a key part of National’s Better Local Government reforms is the monitoring and improving of council performance. Publicity about the bill will show other councils that their own processes may come under greater scrutiny, and so they should. The reality is that far too often we see across New Zealand rate increases, or increases in development levies, or whatever the charges may be, and the decision makers not being held to account. The need for this legislation just goes to show what can go wrong if councillors, decision makers within a council, are not held to account.

The bill will validate rates set by the Tasman District Council from the period 2003 through to 2009. One of the big issues here, of course, is that in each of those years individual rates were passed through council processes and the rate charges were set out on that annual rate demand. By way of example, in the 2003-04 year—and this is where I get down into the detail, which I am so familiar with; I share it with the House—the Tasman District Council resolved that the general rate and the uniform annual general charge be adopted, that the Motueka business rate be approved, that the Richmond business rate be increased, and that the council adopt a community facilities rate for that year as well.

As it so happened, the resolutions did not comply with certain sections of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The council had to state clearly that it was setting rates as required by the relevant section; it did not. It had to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set when it did that. It actually referred specifically to only those ones that I read out and a couple of others. The council did not set the rates before it had resolved to adopt the annual plan, and it failed to state the financial year to which the rates applied, which is an unusual oversight, I must say. It failed to say that the rates could be paid by instalments—which, of course, is usual right across New Zealand—and it failed to resolve that it could authorise penalties to be added to rates that were not paid by the due date. That was just the 2003-04 year.

As members here are clamouring to hear about what happened in other years, I will go over—members in the House, do not worry; I will come to it—how the 2004-05 rates were set. Well, in that year the special council meeting did, in fact, resolve that the charges, including the uniform annual general charge and targeted rates, be adopted, and that the Tasman District Council set rates under the Act for the financial year. It did a detailed impact statement. The council said that except for metered water rates, it would invoice rates quarterly, so that is good, and that the council would adopt its long-term council community plan. The council did all those things but, unfortunately, the council did not comply with section 23 of the Act by purporting to set the rates before the council, again, had resolved to adopt the long-term community plan. So it made that mistake again. It failed to resolve to authorise that penalties be added. Again, it made that error.

That, of course, leads me to the 2005-06 year, which I think members are most interested in, if I can gauge the interest of the House here. Members are most interested in what happened in 2005-06. Well, at the council meeting that resolved issues around rates in 2005-06—and, incidentally, that occurred on 24 June 2005, for those members who want to take a note of that. It was on 24 June 2005. The council said that the refuse recycling rate would be adopted, that the general rate would increase, that the uniform annual general charge for that financial year would be set at, incidentally, $160, that targeted rates would be set, and so on.

But, unfortunately, once again, it did not state clearly that the council was setting rates as required by the Act. It did not refer to all of the rates that it meant to set but just cherry-picked, if you like, and it did not resolve to adopt the annual plan before it set the rates. Once again—once again—it did not name the financial year to which the rates applied and it did not say that they could be paid in instalments, and once again it did not include the provisions around penalties. That is very disappointing. It brings us to a point in the third reading where we simply have to, as a Parliament, support the passing of this bill to resolve what were serious mistakes by the council at that time.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Mr Speaker—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do apologise to the member Maryan Street. I am very much looking forward to hearing what she has to say, and I apologise for interrupting her before she has even got under way. I noticed from the speaking list that ordinarily at this point, Mr Assistant Speaker, you would indicate that this is a split call. I am just wondering whether that is the case. Are you able to clarify that for us?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The call is a call to the Labour Party. In the past it has had the right to share that call with the Green Party, with 5 minutes each. I understand it has chosen not to do that and the Green Party is not going to take its 5-minute call. That is why, when I announced the Labour speaker, I did not say that this was a split call of 5 minutes. I have just allocated the call to the Hon Maryan Street, and it is a 10-minute call.

Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is enough. The time for filibustering is over. For those interested people in Tasman District and the people of Tata Beach and Ligar Bay who may be watching this debate at the moment, be aware that the Government is simply filibustering on this piece of legislation, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, which affects those people, because it does not wish to debate Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill before the Budget. That is the kind of disdain in which the Government holds the people of Tata Beach and Ligar Bay and the Tasman District Council. Nobody likes retrospective legislation, but this has to be done, and I support the bill.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise with great pleasure to speak—

Hon Maryan Street: At length.

MAGGIE BARRY: —to the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. If I choose to speak at length, I say to the member, Maryan Street, who has just resumed her seat, then I shall do so. I would have to say that the flawed logic and manipulative nonsense that we have just heard from that member is entirely inaccurate, as is much of the nonsense that she peddles.

But staying with the point, which is what I would like to do, unlike that member who just resumed her seat, I do respect the need for a local community to have their voice heard and to have their message put through Parliament in the way that it needs to be done. I must say, I am a little bit surprised that someone from the party of the member who is actually putting this bill through would take such a jaundiced and really quite a cynical view. But, I suppose, given that member’s stand on a number of issues, that is not surprising.

Tim Macindoe: Particularly cynical from the cynical.

MAGGIE BARRY: Particularly cynical from the cynical. [Interruption] Oh, they filibuster about everything. This is not such a silly exercise as all that.

I return to the subject in question. As someone who has recently had a member’s bill drawn from the ballot and who has also been sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee for a couple of years now, I am very well aware of how important it is for local bills and for members’ bills to reflect what their community wants and needs. That is a very important issue. When we look at the validation and recovery of certain rates, which is what this bill of Damien O’Connor’s is seeking for us to do, I am reminded of Kaipara, and I am reminded again of the need for local government reforms.

The New Zealand First individual, whose name escapes me for the moment—it has been got wrong a few times in this House this afternoon. He is not a very memorable individual, and what he says is not particularly memorable either. That is probably why he was the lowest-polling candidate and did not get his deposit back at the last election, nor was he voted back as the mayor, or as—[Interruption] The Life of Brian. That is very good. It is very good. I think that was something like his name.

When we look at what is the substance of this piece of legislation, one of the submissions that really brought home to me how important it was that we do this thing thoroughly was from the Mayor of Tasman District, Richard Kempthorne, who had spoken at length to the Labour member who was somewhat jaundiced just a few moments ago, Maryan Street, and, as well as that, to Damien O’Connor. He talked about the problems that the council has had and the various solutions that it put forward. I would like to go through those, because I think they are vitally important. Unless we learn from the mistakes that have been made in places like Tasman and Kaipara, and unless the local government laws are changed to make the processes more rigorous, then there will indeed be a need for more validation bills of the nature of this one and the Kaipara one.

Nobody in this House—with the possible exception of that member, whatever his name is, from New Zealand First—would want that to happen, because it does waste the time of the House and that does cost a lot of money for taxpayers. When you add up all the advisers who have worked on these things, all of the plane fares bringing people up from the West Coast, and all of the expense that individuals have gone to, then you can see that there is a real need to listen and to pay proper attention to what goes on with these bills so that they do not ever happen again. Nobody—with a couple of exceptions—in this House wants to see people go to this sort of trouble.

When I heard Richard Kempthorne talking about the idea of remitting rates, which was one of the things that was put forward as a potential solution, I wondered just how much rigour the council had put into that progress. As it turned out, it had deliberated over it for more than a couple of years and it had worked out that remitting rates over more than 2 years with the ratepayers was not going to be a lawful, let alone a practicable, solution—plus, it would cost a great deal of extra money. That is what the mayor said in his submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which I must say was very ably chaired by Nicky Wagner, as is everything that she chairs.

In the discussions, the council canvassed a lot of different ways of compensating people—in particular, Bob Schmuke. For those of you who are not familiar with Bob Schmuke, he is something of a local hero, but he has gone beyond that, really. He was an individual who was told no—that it was not possible. He was an individual who stuck it out and stood by his convictions and principles, which is something that New Zealand First, particularly the member who was speaking earlier, could take note of. Bob Schmuke—unlike the lily-livered, spineless people—was somebody who would not take no for an answer. The council and the mayor actually apologised to him. They wrote to the committee and, through Nicky Wagner, our chair, enclosed an apology to Mr Schmuke and to the community for their failings in the whole matter. When we look at accountability and transparency and, really, I guess, stepping up to the plate and acknowledging when wrong has occurred, this is a very good example of what could and should happen.

When we last debated this bill in the House some weeks ago, I asked Damien O’Connor, the sponsoring member, whether he felt that the residue of bitterness had gone. He talked a little bit about that and said that he felt that some of those old wounds had been healed. I guess, over an issue like this, that ratepayers really have their opportunity at the time of the local government elections. They did take action and they did vote out many of the people.

I suppose it is fair to say that as a result of this piece of legislation coming through, there has been a healing of the community and there has been a sense that the wrongs have been put right. I think that as a select committee we comforted ourselves with the thought that at least that community was going through a proper process. Mr Schmuke’s costs in coming up to Wellington to the select committee hearings—which he did, I think, twice at least, if not more—and the expense he went to in getting laminated photographs done, such was the courage of his convictions, were met by the council. I think, in the words of Alan Martin, it is the putting right that counts. That is what Richard Kempthorne and the others on the Tasman District Council tried to do with the guidance of Parliament.

When we look at the wrongs, they were really simple, actually. It was about not giving a map at the right time. It was a sort of basic mistake. It was not about the sort of worrying levels of incompetence and difficulties that we saw in Kaipara in some detail. It was more that just genuine mistakes were made and it was a blunder. It became more and more difficult to see how people on the council could work their way out of it and work their way through it. I know that Damien O’Connor spent a lot of time talking to them and had several meetings. These are not easy exchanges. They were, I think, probably quite tense, judging from some of the discussion that we had at the select committee. The implications for ratepayers generally are horrific, and I think it is really important that ratepayers understand that when things have really gone awry, when they have been let down by their council, as in this case, and when things do need to be set straight, it can and will happen. This is a bill that does highlight to other councils the importance of proper scrutiny when you are setting rates. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt for underperforming councils in this, and one is pretty much “Be warned.”

When we looked at this bill and the changes that came through at the select committee, some of the provisions that we really needed to address were clauses 5(a), 6, and 9. Their language needed to be tidied up. These sorts of technical amendments may seem boring to the members of the Opposition who are not really paying attention, but they are certainly very much an important part of what went wrong and then how it was to be put right. We as a committee were very sympathetic to the proposals to debate clause 9, but ultimately found that that course of action was really outside the scope of Damien’s bill, and it did not appear a good idea to go back and revisit it after all the hard work that had gone on.

The committee also noted that there were going to be a lot of practical implications of deleting clause 9 in particular, because that really, I suppose, set us on a different course and a different path of things that might need correcting. So we erred on the side of caution and we determined that what the ratepayers had paid in the rates for 2006-07 was all right. They ascertained throughout our committee discussions that the current ratepayers were the same ratepayers as those in 2006 and 2007. So we went through the detail of it in some detail, I would have to say, and really arrived, I think, at a bill that does satisfy all parties.

This piece of legislation is absolutely essential to validate those certain rates that were set incorrectly. Without that validation the council remained very vulnerable to further legal challenges from ratepayers over incorrectly setting rates. Those legal challenges, of course, would have had to be paid for by the ratepayers, who would be again penalised for that initial blunder.

Some residents objected to the details of the stormwater rate, as I indicated. Mr Schmuke and others addressed those concerns very well. The committee also noted that aspects of the council’s consultations were not ideal, but that the council was to be commended on the steps that were taken to improve the way that rates are set so that similar rates are not made in the future. That is why I commend this piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Labour supports the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I just want to say that although the filibuster is a perfectly legitimate tool of debate in this House and part of the democratic process, it is a shame that the Government members in this debate—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been in the House for the last hour or so and I have been particularly concerned by some of what is happening, and I am going to seek your guidance. During the course of that time we have had Mr Andrew Williams, when he spoke, in his contribution implying that the National Party was improperly guided or influenced by the Business Roundtable. Subsequently, we had Maryan Street, a Labour list member, implying that the—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. The member will sit. Look, this is a debating chamber and, so long as it is not unparliamentary, members will make the comments that they make. They can imply things. It is up to Government members, if they take offence, to rebut those in their speeches. I have not heard anything during the course of my presiding at the moment that is unparliamentary.

PHIL TWYFORD: I was simply going to point out that in choosing to filibuster their way through this members’ day, the Government members are showing their own desperation to avoid debating Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. They are so scared of the political embarrassment that they face by a majority of members in this House voting for Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave bill that they are willing to sacrifice the interests of the members of this House in having a productive members’ day. They are willing to filibuster—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would invite you to require this member to direct his comments to the nature of the bill, because so far we have heard nothing at all about the Tasman bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I thank the member. Mr Twyford has been going for less then 30 seconds. I will be asking the member to come back to what this bill is about.

PHIL TWYFORD: I support this bill.

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

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 1

Mana 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Sullivan Birth Registration Bill

Third Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill be now read a third time. To begin proceedings tonight, I want to thank, on behalf of Rowen and Doreen and myself as the sponsoring MP, the Office of the Clerk, and specifically Tim Workman, for the assistance given to ensure that we both understood and complied with the requirements of progressing a private bill through this House. What could otherwise have been a daunting and exhausting process was in fact a simple and methodical process for introducing the bill and then progressing it systematically through our House of Parliament.

In that progression through the House, I want to again thank my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson, as chair of the Government Administration Committee, and committee members for the professional and caring manner in which they conducted the progression of Rowen’s bill. This private bill was by definition incredibly private to Rowen, Doreen, and their family. To know that they have been empowered through the process of sharing their life story is something that this House should celebrate and be proud of.

Finally, I thank all members of this 50th Parliament. We have consensus on this bill, which means we have not been required to vote. That too is something to acknowledge, celebrate, and be thankful for. Again, on behalf of Rowen, Doreen, their family and friends, and myself, I thank my colleagues for their collective support for this bill.

This bill exemplifies why we have private bills. It is about addressing the special circumstances of an individual situation that does not come under the general law. This bill does exactly that. This bill, as the select committee members have recognised, allows Rowen Sullivan to have her family formally recorded on the very documents that are used to confirm who she is and, to quote the select committee report, to “make what is a matter of fact … a matter of law.” Although this bill is specific to the circumstances of Rowen and her parents, Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields, it does highlight how important it is to allow people to identify themselves with reference to their family.

We have a number of antiquated laws on our books that reflect society in a bygone era. Our Marriage Act had been applied as society existed in 1955. With the 2013 amendment, it now embraces the reality of relationships in respect of the State’s role, which is to issue licences. This private bill has highlighted the inability of the Adoption Act 1955 to properly reflect the reality of families today. An adoption order that would result in Rowen having her living parent on her birth certificate meant her recently deceased birth mother could not remain as her mother on her formal birth documents. Such a cruel action will be righted by this private bill, but it emphasises the need to look at the Law Commission’s 2000 report and the subsequent proceedings filed in a Human Rights Review Tribunal, and for there to be a united approach across this House to address the many situations that do not fit into the 1955 societal model.

We all know someone who has been affected in some way by the operation of the adoption laws. It is time now for a comprehensive review that puts the child at the forefront of adoption decisions and recognises the importance of being able to stand firm in the knowledge of who you are and who your family are. I thank my colleagues in the House who have taken the time to understand Rowen, Diane, and Doreen’s situation and to acknowledge the importance of their family unit being recognised officially in all things that Rowen does from now into the future.

I have been very proud to sponsor this bill and proud that this House can take steps that can make a difference to this family, particularly to the memory of Diane, which will not be confined just to the efforts of Doreen and Rowen alone but will always be a formal part of their story. Doreen and Rowen, who are here tonight, have asked me to add their thanks. In Doreen’s words: “We didn’t expect many people to be interested in our story and we have been profoundly moved by the sympathy and support we have received. When Diane was diagnosed with cancer they gave her 2 years at best. She fought and suffered for almost 4 years because she wanted so desperately to be there for our daughter. Rowen should not have someone who loved her so much erased from her history. On behalf of Diane and her family back in Yorkshire, thank you for giving Rowen her mum back. After 21 years she finally has both her parents.”

The final word must go to Rowen: “Having my mum’s name taken off my birth certificate was hard. It was a horrible thing to do to someone who really wanted to have me and love me so much. This was never really about me. All I ever wanted was to honour and acknowledge my mum.” Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): In relation to this Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, it is indeed a great pleasure to follow on from Louisa Wall, who has so ably championed the bill during its passage through the House. It is great to be here now, with the third reading of this bill, approaching closure for one Rowen Sullivan’s journey through a labyrinthian experience of battling through a miasmic maze of legislative procedure. For Rowen’s family to be so gracious as to pass on the comments that Louisa carried for them is a tremendous tribute to the love they have for Rowen’s natural mother. They have done it for someone who actually is not here any more but who would none the less have taken great satisfaction and comfort from knowing that true love had its way. It is not, though, an unduly complex legislative situation that Rowen faced because, as Rowen and her family explained to the Government Administration Committee when we met them, and to Louisa, who championed the bill within Parliament for Rowen, it was the situation that surrounded her family that was complex.

I want at this stage just to reflect briefly on our role as parliamentarians in assisting individual people with complex situations, because I think that when the bill was initially introduced, there was some feeling that it was quite a narrow bill, it had a limited level of interest, it would not affect very many people—or worse, would it set a precedent? And there were all those sorts of legislative questions we ask about things in the normal process of a bill. But I think we are here—and this is a good example of assisting someone in, I guess, a complex situation not of their own making—because there is no way in the world that anybody else could address this particular situation.

I recall a take-home comment from a constituent on the West Coast who was having a problem with his immigration status at the time. This was in 2005. He was told that his situation was complex, which was why he was experiencing delays in the response from the Immigration Service. He appealed to me as an MP with the question—and this was the take-home message that I got from it—“Do Government departments in New Zealand do only simple things?”. I guess, when we heard that this was a complex situation, I remembered that and I thought, well, here is a good opportunity to get involved in something that is not just simple. That was in 2005. There have been considerable advances in the Immigration Service since then, and, indeed, in every other branch of the Public Service, as I am sure Mr Twyford would agree.

In Greymouth quite recently, I understand, an award was given to the ACC office there, following a survey of client satisfaction that showed an overwhelmingly positive response. That is a good thing to hear about and a good thing to happen. Similarly, with this particular bill, I think there has been a very good response and a good result, and it has been a pleasure to be part of the committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon Ruth Dyson, to reach this point.

So let us go back to Rowen’s complex situation, for members who have not been directly involved, and the circumstances that the Government Administration Committee set itself to resolve, along with the Government departments involved. I will just go through, if I may, some key background points for members so that they can understand the seeming complexity. My apologies to members of the family, who have got to hear it yet again. However, Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan, 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 would have required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s—that is, the birth mother’s—name from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. This expired on Rowen Sullivan’s 18th birthday.

You can see how the individual bits of legislation cut in at various points without the intention of dispossessing anybody of their mother. There was no intentional nastiness in this; it was just the way it played out. Doreen Shields applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan. The order was made on 15 January 2013.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What was the date?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: 15 January 2013. However, the order required that Diane Sullivan’s name be removed from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. This must have been a huge wrench when that occurred. Had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry, they would have been able to jointly apply to adopt Rowen. If this had occurred, they would both have been named as her parents on her birth record. Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, which by coincidence was passed through the same select committee, same-sex couples have been able to marry and, therefore, to apply jointly to adopt children. In fact, what happened was that Rowen was caught between two legislatures, no birth registration in New Zealand, and changes in adoption laws as they apply to same-gender couples.

The select committee resolved to make some changes to the original bill following consideration and representations from the Department of Internal Affairs, and it would be quite remiss of any member of the committee if we did not follow Louisa’s comments and comment on the depth of information that officials have provided throughout this bill as it proceeded through the select committee. There have been really good levels of discussion and really good, interesting points. Let us, if we may, just consider some of these. The Government Administration Committee recommendations have proposed that the bill be passed with the following amendments: “that the title of the bill be changed to the ‘Sullivan Birth Registration Bill’.” That is because the title of the bill as introduced—here we go—the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, could be misleading as its passage would not directly effect change to Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. And so we had this really intriguing debate. What is a birth certificate? It is simply a reflection of a birth registration. If you just change a birth certificate, that does not change the registration. If you lose that birth certificate and you apply for a copy, you go back to where you were before. It was really quite intriguing.

There were other changes that we had to bring in just to bring everything to the situation that we are now in, which is being able to say, as members on both sides of the House, and I would imagine from all parties of the House would like to say—and I would like to say it from the point of view of the select committee—job well done. It is a delight to hear that the family are well-pleased with the result because, as I say, they have introduced the fact that it is not really Rowen who is delighted; it has been done for someone who has passed on, and I think that it is great that we have been able to assist in such measure. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am not going to take too long on this call because I think the issues have been well traversed throughout the various stages. I want to recognise Rowen, Diane, and Doreen for the personal journey that they have been on. I cannot imagine it is much fun having such a personal matter discussed by Parliament, but it does highlight a very important point, which is that until we get full equality under the law for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people, we are going to find these loopholes in many parts of legislation. This was a very important step along the way for Parliament’s understanding of how what might not seem like a very big issue can actually have a huge impact on families. I really do not underestimate how difficult this must have been to have had such a personal matter discussed in public.

Thank you very much for bringing this piece of legislation, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, to the House, and thank you to my colleague Louisa Wall for once again being a champion for this community and raising further issues. That is all I really want to say. I am very excited to see this bill pass into law, so I am going to sit down now.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the third reading of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. During the second reading I acknowledged Rowen Sullivan for her proactiveness towards the bill. I would like to repeat what I said at that time. This bill shows the respect Rowen Sullivan has got for her parents. To set the context, the purpose of the bill is to require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registry entry.

Before I go any further, I would like to acknowledge Louisa Wall for sponsoring this bill. This is the second bill that has gone through the Government Administration Committee that has been under the name of Louisa Wall. You have championed something that no one has before, so I congratulate you on your work and acknowledge all the hard work you did during the progress of this bill. I would also like to echo what my colleague Chris Auchinvole just mentioned and acknowledge the officials who supported us during this process, because there were many technical things we were not aware of. We initially thought it might take a few days to sort out this bill, but because of a few technical things that were pointed out by the officials, it took us a long time. At last I think we have done justice to this bill, and Rowen will be pleased with the result. I acknowledge you once again for all your effort.

It may be that people will consider this bill to be something of a technical detail, and, indeed, when we saw it before us in the Government Administration Committee, we thought that it did have a very technical aspect to it. The reality, though, is that it also has a very, very personal aspect. This is one of those occasions when the only solution available to the applicant was through Parliament. The bill may appear simple. However, I can tell you as a member of the select committee that discussed and debated this bill that once we started to progress the legislation, there were a number of tricky technical issues we had to think about. Some time back the House passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act. It is that amendment to the definition of “marriage” that has now led to the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill being presented before this House.

Before I move to further details of this legislation, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a very important point. At the time that this House was discussing the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, there was a perception being created that I am opposed to the LGBT community. May I share with all of you today that I have no objection to, and I am not at all against, anyone who is from the LGBT community. I consider all of us to be an equal part of New Zealand society. My religion teaches us “Manas ki jaat sabhe eke pehchanbo.”, which means that every human being is equal. I was, however, against the changing of the definition of “marriage”. Marriage for me was between a man and a woman. However, New Zealand has passed a law that allows LGBT people to marry. I am a law-abiding citizen with no personal or hidden agenda against the LGBT community. Therefore, I respect and will continue to respect the law that provides for LGBT people to marry the person of their choice. That was a big burden on my chest, and I felt it was important for me to share it with my parliamentary colleagues and with New Zealanders.

Coming back to the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, had there been the legislation at the time when Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields wanted to marry each other, that would have also allowed them to adopt Rowen and record their respective names as Rowen’s parents. Once again, this to me is a person who is an excellent example of how one should bring up one’s children. It was because Rowen was taught the basics of respect that she decided she would go all the way to ensure that the names of both parents were recorded on her birth certificate. To me, this investment of time and effort from Rowen speaks volumes for her family culture.

The legislation is once again a reminder that the Government has the capacity to impact on the lives of individuals positively and at a very personal level. At the start of my speech, I mentioned that the legislation appears to be very simple—probably a minor bureaucratic issue. In some ways, that is exactly what it is: a minor bureaucratic issue. However, the positive emotional impact that it will have on Rowen and others in similar situations cannot be defined with words. I am sure all of us will agree that every child should have the opportunity to honour their birth parents.

There is no doubt that one other thing that this particular bill brings up is the fact that Rowen’s mother conceived through artificial insemination. Thirty years ago this was done anonymously. Today this is not done anonymously, and, by and large, I think that is a very good thing. Openness and transparency are things that are so important to ensure we are equals going forward. With these words, I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I wish Rowen good luck for her future. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with pleasure that I rise to take a short call on the third reading of what will become the Sullivan Birth Registration Act. I am taking a short call not because I want to deal with this flippantly or I do not see this as a really, very, very poignant moment for this House and for Rowen, her mum Doreen, and her mother Diane, whom I am sure is watching, but because, really, I think it is so simple. It is just such a simple and such an obvious thing to fix that I think the family, I imagine, just wants it to be done. I think that the speedier we can be about that, the better, because this is about enabling a family to be able to move forward and about fixing a gap in legislation to enable them to do that.

That is something I am really pleased to be able to be part of, and thank you, Louisa. I remember my colleague Louisa Wall sharing this story with me before the third reading of the marriage equality Act. I was very moved at the time, because it is just such a maddening situation that this could ever have happened, but we are so used to dealing with people falling between the cracks of our legislation on a very large scale. To be able to bring this piece of legislation to the House, which deals with one family, makes it just real. We can see the people and we can see the impact and fix something, which is a really, really lovely thing. So on that note, I wish the family well in the future, and the three of you will be together for all legal purposes from now on. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): It gives me great pleasure to take a short call also and to join with previous speakers to support the intention of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill and its passing into legislation. I had to reflect on the debates that have come to the House on this bill, and I really want to say that it is the little things that matter. I want to applaud Louisa Wall for having attention to detail and for fixing something that can be fixed in a way that will make a difference, not only in the life of Rowen but, I think, in the lives of many other children who may find themselves in the same predicament. It is worth doing.

Many contributions have talked about this being a minor, bureaucratic, technical issue. It certainly does advance the principle of equality in ways that this House often struggles with. There are a great deal of moral and ethical challenges, but actually if we were looking purely at the principle of equality, this is something that we should, and must, do. We should continue to build, I think, on the courageous nature in which many issues have been championed before the House—by Louisa, in particular—so that they can be addressed in a manner that is fitting and worthy of the cause.

I do not want to take a long call, upon request, because it is important to make sure that we pass this bill quickly tonight and that we all see fit to be able to do that in the spirit with which this bill has been brought not only to the House in its first reading but before the Government Administration Committee and back to the House. With that, to Louisa, Rowen, Doreen, and Diane, I say thank you for making the little things matter, and for reminding us all that we can do simple things to make things worthwhile. Kia ora koutou.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I too would like to support the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill at its third reading. As we have heard, it is a private bill supported by Labour MP Louisa Wall, and it is linked to her Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 because since the passing of that bill, same-sex couples are able to marry and, therefore, will be able to apply jointly to adopt children. If Rowen Sullivan’s birth mother had been able to marry her long-term partner, Doreen Shields, this situation would never have arisen. The purpose of the bill, as we have been discussing, is to require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in New Zealand to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registration entry.

The background to this bill is important because it sheds light on the rules that made the documentation of one’s life and relationships difficult for a same-sex partnership before our legislative changes. The background was that Rowen Helen Louise Sullivan was born on 23 February 1993 in England to a same-sex couple: Diane Sullivan, a British citizen, and New Zealander Doreen Margaret Shields. Only Diane Sullivan’s name, as the birth parent, was recorded on Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. In November 1999 the family moved to New Zealand, and Rowen and Diane Sullivan gained permanent residence on family grounds. At that time the law did not allow Diane and Doreen to marry or to jointly adopt Rowen. Diane Sullivan died in 2010, and Rowen was formally adopted by Doreen in January 2013. However, this required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s name from Rowen’s post-adoption birth record—something, of course, that Rowen did not want to do. Therefore, the purpose of this bill is to add Diane Sullivan’s details to the record so that the names of both Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields can be included on Rowen Sullivan’s New Zealand post-adoption birth certificate and both Rowen’s parents can be acknowledged.

I am very pleased that Parliament was able to deal with this issue, and I note that Chris Auchinvole was talking about it being a complex issue, but I am very pleased that it could deal with it because I understand completely why Rowen would want to have both her parents listed on her birth certificate. The bill does not create a precedent for other individuals seeking to change their registered birth record because since 2005, New Zealand law has allowed both same-sex parents of New Zealand - born children conceived through assisted human reproduction technology procedures to be named on a child’s birth record. That change was made retrospective so that pre-2005 New Zealand birth registration records can be amended on application at any time to include both same-sex parents’ details.

Further, the law already contains rules for changing a birth record in other circumstances, including, but not limited to, situations where a paternity order is obtained, where an individual changes her or his name by statutory declaration, or where an individual undergoes gender reassignment. So this bill applies to only Rowen Sullivan’s unique situation, which has itself arisen from a unique combination of circumstances, including her birth overseas following an assisted human reproduction procedure, that meant that her birth was not registered in New Zealand.

The key consideration is that since 19 August 2013, married same-sex couples can adopt jointly. If the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act had been in place before Diane Sullivan died, the train of events giving rise to this bill could have been avoided. So, in summary, this is a good bill and it is very pleasing that it will be passed unanimously in this House. I think it illustrates two things: firstly, the importance that Parliament places on families, and also the empathy that parliamentarians have had for Rowen’s situation. We all believe in happy families, and we want to see that reflected in our documentation. I commend this bill to the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Magna Carta of 1215 states: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” I think that those beautiful and striking words are the words we should keep in mind when we look at situations such as this, because right and justice—

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

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

DENIS O’ROURKE: Before the break I referred to some of the fine words of the Magna Carta. That guarantee of individual rights and of justice is, of course, the foundation of our legal system. New Zealand First will continue to support the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill because it is just and right to do so. We are satisfied that it is necessary and that it is, indeed, the only solution to ensure that the birth certificate concerned will properly and realistically show the names of Rowen Sullivan’s late birth mother, Diane Sullivan, as well as her adoptive mother. It is a very natural thing for anybody to want, and everybody can relate to it. It is difficult to see, in fact, how anyone could rationally object to it once, of course, the reasons for it are known. Others in this debate have well enough explained those reasons, and it is not necessary for me to do so again.

It is actually extraordinary that it would be possible in our legal system not to record the birth mother on a birth certificate—absolutely extraordinary—so this is a unique solution to a unique set of circumstances. The desired solution would not be achievable without legislation, and I observe that if Rowen had been born today, her parents could marry and both of them would be recorded on her birth certificate as a matter of course. New clause 4(1) provides that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Helen Louise Sullivan.” That clause reinstates the legal position for all purposes, including the laws relating to succession and parental relationship, and that, as we all agree, is as it should be. So there does not need to be a great deal more debate. This is a good bill, which should proceed to final enactment forthwith with New Zealand First’s wholehearted support.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised this is a split call with a 4-minute bell.

MELISSA LEE (National): I would like first of all to acknowledge Rowen Sullivan and her mother Doreen Shields up in the gallery. Welcome and thank you for being here. It is almost like I am getting energy from up top. It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the third reading of this bill, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. I am unsure how it actually happened, but I am quite sure that I have been involved in this bill right from the beginning—from the first reading, including turning up and being subbed on to the Government Administration Committee hearing when Rowen was actually presenting to the committee. I have been involved with the second reading, as well, I think, as the Committee stage and now the third reading. It is an absolute privilege. Thank you. I would also like to put on record that I am extremely jealous of my friend across the benches Louisa Wall, as she has shepherded successfully a very high-profile member’s bill and now is the sponsor of this private bill, which I believe is very meaningful. So congratulations once again.

A member said before dinner that this issue is simple, and I think another member said that it is the little things that actually matter. I agree with both. They seem simple and little, but only in hindsight. And you know what they say about hindsight—20/20 vision. At the time when Rowen and her mother Doreen were putting this private bill through the select committee and when they were petitioning Parliament, I am sure it would have seemed like a mammoth task—that something that means so much to them was so hard to actually get through. But with the help of our friend Louisa and the members of the select committee, this has actually happened. I cannot imagine Louisa with wings on her back, but she should feel like a fairy godmother right now, and all of the members who actually helped make this happen should also feel like fairy godmothers, because it is granting Rowen the wish that she has been wanting for such a long time. So congratulations on being her very own fairy godmother.

I know that at the conclusion of this bill’s third reading, when Rowen’s birth mother’s name, Diane Sullivan, is again added to Rowen’s birth certificate, the simple yet mammoth action of adding 13 letters, “Diane Sullivan”, will mean the world to Rowen and to us as members of Parliament—I also feel a bit like a fairy godmother at this stage as well. At this juncture I would also like to congratulate the members of the select committee who considered this bill. I have to say I think they have done a fantastic job.

Just a quick background on this bill. It does not create a precedent for other individuals seeking to change their registered birth record, and that is a real shame because I would not mind changing my birth date. Rowen Sullivan had no means to achieve this outcome that she wished for, other than by petitioning Parliament. This bill applies only to Rowen Sullivan’s unique situation, which arose as a result of a unique combination of circumstances that began with her birth overseas, which meant that her birth was not registered in New Zealand.

I want to dwell on this for just a minute about the registration issue. It is quite a significant one for many New Zealanders who are born overseas. Without wanting to make light of Rowen’s situation, I too was born overseas. I moved to New Zealand and became a New Zealand citizen, which meant I had to give up Korean citizenship. This does not mean that my records were deleted, but when I moved here—just bypassing all of the other stuff—I got married, I had a baby, and I got divorced. In New Zealand I am recorded as such, but in Korea apparently I am still single, have never been married, and have never had a child. So I have got a clean record.

Scott Simpson: A clean slate.

MELISSA LEE: A clean slate. I mean, I do not know whether that is actually a good thing or a bad thing, but I am not recorded in Korea, because I have moved here.

Talking about records, in previous readings I talked about my birth date being registered wrongly. I know that this is an issue for a lot of migrants as well and for a lot of refugees who moved to New Zealand, especially when they have come from war-torn countries. They have wrong birth dates and wrong names. Even New Zealand - born Chinese who have five generations in New Zealand can attest to this. When they first arrived in New Zealand, their names were recorded wrongly. Often, they ended up with the first name of their ancestor. To my culture our last names mean so much because it ties us back to our roots. The name actually shows that it is my clan. Often, it comes with a prefix that denotes and shows which clan we belong to. Often, it comes with a generational name, which basically means that with that name people can identify whether I am at a grandmother’s level, a child’s level, or a mother’s level, so people know how to identify us. Names are so very important. So, Louisa, maybe you can come up with another member’s bill to right my birth date. Aside from the joke, I would like to just say thank you and congratulations once again. Rowen, my love, thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to support the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill at its third reading, and might I too acknowledge Rowen and Doreen up there in the gallery. I too feel almost as though I have been on a little bit of a journey, in that although I am not on the Government Administration Committee, it has been a great privilege to be part of this process here in Parliament. It is quite historic and is, indeed, unique to the circumstances. There is no doubt that this is a situation driven by a young woman’s determination to honour her mum. As I understand it, in her own words she said: “I want my mum’s name on my birth certificate to honour her”. This bill is indeed about human rights and very deep-rooted human instincts that all of us should be able to realise.

In previous readings of this bill I have pointed out some of the huge transitions that we in New Zealand and around the world have witnessed in the changes in birth technologies, changes in the law, and of course changes in our attitudes to areas that previously were really extraordinarily taboo and in many respects put things under the carpet, which led only to confusion and dishonesty and often to deep-seated resentment. May I too acknowledge Louisa Wall for the double whammy it was indeed. It was her earlier bill, which was landmarked here in the Parliament, that led, I understand, to Rowen approaching her, and congratulations on that, in that respect. When I first spoke on this bill I did speak about a variety of examples of young people who had searched the world, more or less, despite huge hurdles, because of this deep-seated instinct to be able to find their parents and know their parents, whether they were alive or not, or whether they were in a different country or not.

It has been fascinating to me, as a former obstetrician and gynaecologist, to see what has happened in New Zealand over the years. I was at the National Women’s Hospital’s celebration of 50 years just last month. I spoke, and I heard of the extraordinary work in New Zealand that occurred. Professor Bonham, who was the head of the hospital at the time, used to literally mix together donor sperm so they could not be detected, because of the legal ramifications. That is how far we have changed. The opposite is that we surely want to seek transparency and openness, because that is the way people will unravel the huge distortions that occur when information is repressed. I want to acknowledge a young social worker called Joi Ellis, who was at National Women’s Hospital through the time when the debates on informed consent were raging. She was the one who came up and said: “Look, it’s absolutely inappropriate to have the prevailing situation continue. We must have transparency and honesty.” It set the legal profession, academics, and sociologists in New Zealand working hard to see whether we could follow that sort of pathway. I would like to acknowledge Professor Ken Daniels, sociologist from Canterbury University, who has represented New Zealand in the academic literature in this field and is widely regarded as an international expert and innovator in terms of ensuring that openness prevails, and, of course, Freddie Graham and “Mont” Liggins, who led the in vitro fertilisation team.

But, finally, I come back to the bill. This indeed is, I hope, very much one of celebration. It is fantastic to see you, Doreen and Rowen, here tonight in the Parliament. It is wonderful that Louisa has been the person who has brought this bill through to reality. I certainly think this is a wonderful bill and I commend it to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say first of all that it has been a real privilege to be involved in this bill, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, and a privilege to chair the Government Administration Committee. The name of the bill has changed since it was introduced. It started off as the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. It has ended up, more appropriately, as the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. Whatever it is called, it addresses an injustice and it makes a love story come true. I think it is something that Parliament very rarely does, but it is something that I am delighted we are doing with, I understand, unanimity tonight. That is a good message from our Parliament, and I think it is a very important step, however unusual it is for us to take.

I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall. It was not good luck that this became her bill, actually. It was her clarity, her vision, and her determination to address that injustice. So can I recommend to Melissa Lee that if she would like her registration records put right in Korea to reflect her correct status, she should just write a bill and put it into the ballot and see if she is as successful as Louisa. Louisa has shepherded this bill with great clarity and determination but also in an inclusive way that has allowed concerns and questions to be addressed and answered. I think that is, again, a very good message for Parliament to give to the public.

I want to acknowledge the late Diane Sullivan, Doreen Shields, and their daughter, Rowen Sullivan. This is a pretty simple bill for those of us who have been involved in legislative procedures. Compared with most other pieces of legislation it is tiny, but its impact is significant. What it does is allow Rowen to have both of her parents’ names recorded on the birth certificate that she can now apply for, when we have changed the birth registration. We have put a new clause in this bill, just to put beyond all doubt that this status—the recognition of both Diane and Doreen as Rowen’s parents—applies in all situations so that not just Parliament but Rowen will never have to go through this sort of ordeal, this sort of questioning, or this sort of challenge. I think the addition of new clause 4 was entirely appropriate.

We have got other issues that we want to deal with later on this evening, so I am not going to take my full allocation of time, but I want to make it clear that that is the opposite of a reflection of how I feel about this bill. I am delighted to have been part of it. I think it is a very good—however, unusual—step for our Parliament to take. It makes what is a matter of fact—that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are Rowen’s parents—a matter of law. That is a good thing for us to do. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that this is again a split call.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): In commencing my contribution to this third reading debate on the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, I want to acknowledge the chairmanship of the Government Administration Committee by the Hon Ruth Dyson and her contribution to this debate just immediately prior to mine. I think the committee this term has had to consider some incredibly weighty issues and it has done so with great patience, with clarity, and with dignity. Yet, sometimes the committee comes to relatively small matters, which it has also treated with dignity and grace, and I think that is something that speaks volumes about the power and might and importance of our little democracy that we have here.

I do not want to go through the details of this bill. Others have spoken at some considerable length about the particular uniqueness of the situation that this bill confronts and seeks to address. But it is, I think, an absolute irony that the situation that we are addressing and correcting and putting right here tonight would not, in fact, have arisen if Louisa Wall’s other spectacular piece of legislation had come into law earlier. For me, that is something of an irony and something of, I guess, a justification, if one was ever needed, that this is the right and proper thing to be doing tonight.

I have mentioned in a previous contribution on this bill that in a previous life—in fact, immediately prior to coming into Parliament—I had the great pleasure and honour of being the chief executive officer of a wonderful children’s charity called Make-A-Wish. Make-A-Wish is a terrific organisation. It literally grants wishes to sick children and young people who have life-threatening medical conditions. In my role for nearly 3 years as chief executive officer of that great organisation I was literally and figuratively a professional wish-granter. I made mention in my maiden speech that one of the challenges I felt would confront me in going from a professional wish-granter to becoming a parliamentarian was how I could transition those job skills into this place. Tonight I have to say that I have something of a sense of achieving that small goal of granting a wish, and in doing so I want to just commend to the House not only the bill but also the power of a wish. It is something that I do not think we as adults, as parliamentarians, as MPs, should ever underestimate in any respect or way.

We are fortunate to live in a small, precious, intimate little democracy. Usually the work of this House and members of this House is occupied on focusing on the many. Occasionally we focus on the few, and it is fully appropriate that we do. Almost never do we focus on a single person—on a single, individual citizen. So I think it is an absolute hallmark of this place and our democracy and our Parliament that we, in fact, can come here tonight to do just that—to focus on an individual citizen who has an injustice that needs to be put right.

This is, I think, an historic occasion for our House. It is an occasion where we can together accept that, as I came across many times in my time at Make-A-Wish, life sometimes is not fair and that from time to time, no matter what the circumstance, bad stuff sometimes happens and bad stuff sometimes happens in a very unfair way. But that does not mean that sometimes great things cannot occur from small deeds, and this, I think, is an absolute classic example of how small deeds can have great power and great influence.

So, in summing up my contribution in this third reading debate, I do just want to congratulate the House on its resolve to achieve what I think would not occur in many other democracies. I think that we can as parliamentarians and, indeed, as citizens of New Zealand be proud of what we are doing tonight. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): It is my real pleasure to stand and take a call, albeit a split one, on this third reading of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. Can I also acknowledge Rowen and Diane in the gallery and just commend you for your persistence, your determination, your bravery, and your courage to have what is a very personal situation aired in the public gallery of the Parliament of New Zealand, and to have a bill in your own names go through Hansard and go through the process, because this is what is really important to your lives, and I really commend you for that. I also, obviously, want to congratulate Louisa Wall with some envy on having her second member’s bill successfully shepherded through the House. It is not just the fact that the bill is in the name of the honourable member Louisa Wall; it is the way that she does shepherd these bills through the House and gets consensus, and explains them in a non-partisan, pragmatic, sensible way, because this is the right and fair thing to do.

I must admit, though, when I first saw this bill, I thought, no, it cannot be right. We cannot possibly need a separate, discrete piece of legislation for just one New Zealand family. It cannot be right. Yet the experts, the advisers, said there was no other way. I was a simplistic lawyer in my old days before I was a politician, and we have to think there must be another way. Surely, surely, the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages would have had power to change what seems so obvious—something that needed to be changed. Why did the registrar-general not have that power? But our experts, our advisers—and we have to trust them—said there was no other way, and that has brought us to where we are today.

Then my second concern was whether it would set a precedent, because there will be other families out there who perhaps are not happy with their birth records, birth certificates, or registrations; whether it would open the floodgate for a whole lot of other New Zealand families to also try to use the parliamentary process to right some wrongs; and whether it would result in a logjam, if you like, of bills and legislation through the House when there are other really important economic issues that have to be shepherded through. But again, we were persuaded and convinced that it will not set a precedent, so it is unique, it is discrete, and actually it is the best use of parliamentary time because we are all here to make a difference. I think that for most politicians that is our reason for being—we want to make a difference to New Zealand, we want to make a difference in our country, and we want to make a difference to New Zealanders’ lives. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill makes a huge difference to the lives of Rowen and Diane, so it is a win-win-win, really, and I am delighted that I have the opportunity to speak at this third reading of the bill.

I am also appreciative of the commencement date. We all want this bill to go through quickly and to get it righted and remedied as soon as possible. The commencement date is, of course, the day after the Royal assent, which I think is quite timely when we have the royals visiting right at this moment. We are all reminded, because they are a wonderful young couple, Prince William and Princess Catherine, and they have the delightful young George. I just think it is also quite timely that they are here at a time when the commencement date for this bill will be the day after that Royal assent.

This is really a very straightforward bill. It simply requires the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen’s mum on her birth certificate. I say to the registrar-general to just get on with it. Just do it. It is only fair. It is only reasonable. It makes a huge personal difference to someone’s life. That is what we are all in Parliament to do. To the registrar-general—do not waste time. Sort it out. I commend this bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana kōtou kātoatoa na roto i te aroa ma’ata o Te Atua. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take a short call on the third reading of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. I do not want to take up too much time and hold up the passing of what is a very significant piece of legislation for those people sitting in the gallery—and thank you for being here today.

When I had the opportunity of speaking in an earlier reading, I spoke about how this bill is a bill about love—about the love of two parents for their child and the love of that child for her parents. It has to be a powerful emotion like love that has seen you through this process and given you the fortitude that you had to hold on to in order to engage in this particular process. So I hope that today you feel, justly, that all of that process—my goodness, what a process it has been—has been justified and that you feel what your reaction is, as well, and that you have done the right thing. I really want to commend you for doing this because, as I have said in the House before, it does speak volumes for those of us who are adoptees about our recognition of our birth parents. I think this really opened up a discussion for all of us to at some stage consider the diversity of families, and parenting and parentage, so I thank you very much for doing that.

I want to commend also my colleague Louisa Wall, who has held this bill very dear and has encouraged such widespread bipartisan work on it by both sides of the House. That is really due to Louisa as a parliamentarian and as a thoroughly decent person who knows that by doing so, and by being the type of person she is and the type of parliamentarian she is, she will get this bill passed with unanimous support from all parties. So thank you, Louisa, for that. Without further ado I am going to finish my call, and I heartily commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is very kind of you to give me an opportunity to talk about the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, which I have brought to Parliament. We are dealing first with clause 1, which is the title. The Act is the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Act 2012—

Hon Ruth Dyson: I think it’s “bill”.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —bill. Yes, thank you very much. I thought we could just have some opening remarks about contract formation and why that is an important area of the law.

Most important, people need to know that their contracts will be honoured in life and in business. That is a very important function of the law. Clear and predictable laws governing commerce are some of the foundations of our successful society and are part of the foundation of a successful economy. The fundamentals of business have not changed over the years, in that trading is among the most natural activities of humanity. It is a civilising activity at bottom because it is about making an arrangement from which both parties will benefit. People make deals only if both of the parties will flourish. So most of all trade flourishes when there is a shared understanding of the rules. I trust that this bill will go some way to add to that shared understanding, which is so important in contract law. Clarity and certainty lead to confidence, and confidence leads to greater investment. Investments lead to jobs, employment, and economic growth, which drive the economy, so that we can afford quality health-care, decent education, support for the vulnerable—all those sorts of things that this Government supports.

In my first reading speech on this bill, I said that this bill may not on its own “bring about the brighter future to which we all aspire and to which this Government is so committed, but it is a small and useful addition to the latter’s work.”

Moana Mackey: You’re halfway there.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you. So this bill tidies up one small area of uncertainty and will go some way to increase the flow of business. Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today, including emails, smartphones, social media, Twitter, and all those things, it is useful that the current Act be amended to cover such areas.

I confess that I am not a lawyer. In fact, I actually started off studying a law degree at the University of Auckland, but found it was not to my taste, so rather indulgently—and now I cannot believe that I did it—I turned down my place in the law school at Auckland University and decided to do a Bachelor of Arts in history.

Hon Todd McClay: The rest is history.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: The rest, as they say, is history—that is right. So I did not get to study law, but funnily enough, here we are in the Committee of the whole House embroiled in the details of law.

I wonder whether I could take just a little bit of time in this opening address to bring out some of the details and the origins of the bill that we have got before us. In essence, it is about bringing clarity to the question of electronic transactions, hence the title, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. In essence, the bill clarifies a point of contract law that is currently vague. Its purpose is simply to clarify the legal position on the time at which a contract is formed, if the acceptance of the offer is sent by some form of electronic communication. The bill recognises the need for contractual transactions to join the electronic age.

The general rule of contract formation is that a contract is formed at the time at which acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offeror. So when somebody says: “Yes, I accept the offer.”, or the offeror and the acceptor shake hands, then a contract is formed. However, an exception to that rule was created for acceptances created by mail. This goes back to a famous case that we heard about in some of the early addresses, Adams v Lindsell, in 1818. I might trespass just a little bit to go into the details to explain the case.

The case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and requiring an answer in the course of the post. The defendants, however, misdirected the letter, so that the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September.

Scott Simpson: Fleeced.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, no—they were not fleeced. They were trying to buy a fleece. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day, but it was not received until 9 September. Meantime, on 8 September the defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they had expected, sold the wool to somebody else, hence the case. The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received and that until then they were free to sell the wool to another buyer. The judge, however, said that if that was true it would be impossible to complete any contract through the post, because if the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received, the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had received word that the defendants had received their acceptance, and this could go on indefinitely.

Instead, it must be considered that the offerors were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post. So when the offeree had placed their acceptance in the post, there is a fictional meeting of minds that concludes that the offer gives effect to the acceptance. This was tidied further into what was now referred to as the postal acceptance rule in the 1892 case Henthorn v Fraser—and I will not go into the details of that right now—where the court determined the precise timing of acceptance, and that was the moment when the letter of acceptance was posted.

The longstanding rule as to postal acceptances in Adams v Lindsell is not appropriate, I contend, for electronic communications. This has already been recognised by the courts in relation to acceptance of contractual offers by telex, as far back as 1955, in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation, which treated the communication as being—as with a telephone communication—simultaneous. The facts in the Entores Ltd case involved a London-based trading company that sent an offer by telex for the purchase of copper cathodes from a company based in Amsterdam. So there is no clear case authority on acceptance by email.

I am very grateful to members right across the House, because in the second reading I think we had unanimous support for this bill. I am very grateful to members on all sides of the House for their support on this bill, and I hope we can continue in that spirit of bipartisanship as we go through the rest of the debate this evening.

This bill provides an appropriate way to deal with email acceptances by providing that an offer that can be accepted by electronic communication is deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt by the offeror—that is, when it arrives at the offeror’s in-box. As we go into further consideration of this bill, in the later clauses, we can look at some of the intricacies and nuances around arrival times and the definition of receipt, which is an area of great discussion. That will hold for a few minutes.

I gave consideration to other potential names. The “Email (Contract Formation) Bill” might have been one, but that does not cover the full gamut of potential electronic transactions that could be dealt with by this legislation. The “Text Email and Other Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Bill” could have done it, or the one that I thought probably covered it in most detail would have been to call it the “Electronic Transactions (Clarifying the Moment When a Contract Is Formed When Sent by Electronic Means) Amendment Bill”, but I felt that that might have been too wordy. That might not be the first time that I have been accused of being too wordy, and I did not want that reputation to extend. So, on that basis I was hoping that—

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): It is a pleasure to take part in the Committee stage of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, and it is particularly important as we approach or get into the guts of clause 1 of this bill, which deals with the title of the bill, one that I have actually just mentioned.

It has had me pondering, actually—the title of this bill—because tonight we have learnt that the member in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, has a BA in history and, obviously, did many English papers, is a linguist, one with much ability in the spoken and written word, and is an astute and intelligent man. So I think it is our duty tonight to challenge the member in the chair as to the title of this bill and as to whether he has actually got the nub—the true essence—of the title accurate.

We will be considering a range of different names for the title of this bill this evening and asking the gentleman in the chair, Mr Paul Goldsmith, to respond to these titles and to give us a sense of whether we have actually got the nub of the title correct tonight, because what is really important is that this bill will go down in history. It will go down in history as the first bill that the member Paul Goldsmith has taken fully through this House, and that is not a small matter. There are members in this Chamber who have come here year in, year out and have never been able to climb those lofty heights of taking a bill from its formation through the period. I am one of those members, apart from as a Minister where I was able to achieve that, but a member’s bill is something that very few people are able to climb the heights to. As a result of that, the title is actually very important because it will go down in history. And given that the member in the chair has a BA in history, it is critical that we focus on it in some detail.

So the question I have tonight is about the current name, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, because the bill is very much focused on enabling electronic contracts in the modern world. One of the key pieces of Government policy that has been worked on recently has been the Government ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017. I am wondering whether the member in the chair gave much consideration to linking the title of this bill to the Government ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017 to ensure that it captured the nub of the strategies in this particular strategic document so that when we get to clause 5, which is actually the heart of this bill, we will be sure that we have actually captured that correctly in the title.

Key to that strategy is actually result 10, which many members out there in the community will have heard of. Result 10 was one of the Prime Minister’s key statements when we commenced this term of Government, and it was that by 2017 an average of 70 percent of New Zealand’s most common transactions, electronic transactions—

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Pardon?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: By 2017 an average of 70 percent of New Zealand’s most common transactions with the Government will be completed in a digital environment. This bill goes to the heart of that. So my question to the member in the chair, with his BA in history and English, is whether he gave strong consideration to the title.

Moana Mackey: What’s a BA in history got to do with it?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Well, he also did English papers as well and has written many books over his time, so I am just suggesting he is a linguist of note. Did he give consideration to the strategy in his consideration of the title before us tonight? That is my question for the member. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill—a very grand title indeed. The bill clarifies one small area of uncertainty and would assist business. Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today, including email, smartphones, and social media, it is useful that the current Act be amended in the way now set out in the bill as amended by the Commerce Committee. But it is a little sad that such a simple bill as introduced had to undergo so much amendment. The member concerned clearly did not do his homework well enough. But the bill as introduced has now been saved and is worth enacting.

Having said that, the bill is probably not needed at all, because the general rule of contract formation is that a contract is formed at the time an acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offeror—that is, when acceptance is received. This applies generally unless there is an established exception. There is no such exception for electronic transactions such as emails. There is, as the member himself said, an exception for acceptances by post, established by the rule in Adams v Lindsell, so that the date and time of acceptance is when the letter is posted, not when it is received. The longstanding rule in Adams v Lindsell is not appropriate for electronic transactions. Contractual offers by telex, as with the telephone, are simultaneous, so a contract is formed when the offeree accepts, and that is settled law.

Although it is correct that there is no clear authority on acceptance by way of email, there is no established exception either, so the general rule applies in favour of acceptance when it is received. This is effectively at the same time as when it is sent, if sent by electronic means such as email. So this bill is not really needed, because the general rule relating to acceptances would apply, but the bill will serve to confirm and clarify the law.

I support the select committee’s amendment of the bill to confirm that the contracting parties can decide for themselves when and how acceptance will occur. That, again, is no real change, because that has always been open for contracting parties to do. The provision in the bill for acceptance as at the time of receipt will be the default position, and that is consistent with the law as it now is.

So although this bill clarifies one small area of the law of contract, it has hardly really been worth the time and effort, and hopefully the member who introduced it can think of something more worthy of our time for his next member’s bill.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. I will start with congratulating my learned colleague Paul Goldsmith on introducing this bill. As my friend the Hon Chris Tremain mentioned, he will be remembered in this Parliament for introducing this bill. There are very few members who get a bill drawn from the ballot in their first term, and I was one of those whose bill was drawn from the—

Scott Simpson: What was your bill?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: My bill was the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill.

Iain Lees-Galloway: That was a stunner.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes, that was a stunner. That bill had unanimous support from those members who are talking about this. That was a fantastic bill, which I introduced and which was drawn on the very day that I dropped it into the ballot, and it was unanimously supported.

Hon Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek the leave of the Committee to give the honourable member just a few minutes to reflect more widely on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, just so we can understand—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not going to put the leave. That is out of order.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Coming back to this bill, once again I congratulate Mr Paul Goldsmith. As he mentioned in his introductory remarks, he wanted to do law—luckily he did not do it, but he did other things. Otherwise, there would have been more bills in the ballot. We are debating clause 1, which is the title of the bill. I have got a question for Paul Goldsmith: did he consider giving other names to this bill? For example, it could have been the “Waiver of the Postal Acceptance Rule in Relation to the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill”. I would like to know from the member what considerations were given when he gave this bill the name that he has given it. So with these words, I conclude my contribution on the first clause and will be back on the second clause.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I would just like to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues and congratulate Mr Paul Goldsmith, the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, on bringing the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. I would like to just reiterate the comments made by my colleague the Hon Chris Tremain in that we would like to test this little bill through the Committee stage. I think he asked a very fair question around whether or not Paul Goldsmith has got the title of the bill right, because we are talking about the title of the bill. I notice that Ms Mackey has got a fair bit to say, and I see that she is going to take a call. I am very pleased about that. I would like to see the Opposition taking some calls on this bill tonight.

If you could bear with me just for a moment please, I would just like to reflect on a bill that I was given the stewardship of, which was the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill.

Hon Member: Oh, that was a good bill.

MARK MITCHELL: It was. I was very fortunate to be given the opportunity by the Hon Todd McClay, who actually brought that bill to the House—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Come back to the bill.

MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I will, Mr Chair. I was very fortunate that when he was promoted to become a Minister, he entrusted me with that bill, and it was a real honour to bring it through the House.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is the Committee stage; this needs to be relevant to the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, I know. I have indicated to the member that he should debate clause 1.

MARK MITCHELL: I was actually just about to point out that, of course, Louisa Wall, who is here tonight, has also had some great successes in this House in bringing some bills through the House. It is a bit disturbing to me that one of her own colleagues would take a point of order when we are trying to congratulate and acknowledge her great efforts in the House.

But coming back to the bill and the title of the bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, I would again just like to reiterate and support the comments made by my colleague the Hon Chris Tremain, and I would encourage the member in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, to take a call and speak to us just a little bit about the title of the bill. He highlighted the fact that he has obviously got some very strong qualifications and a background in history and English, and it would be very interesting for the Committee to hear how he actually came to develop what appears to be a very succinct and very good title for this bill.

I was a little bit disappointed by Mr O’Rourke’s contribution when he referred to the bill as a simple bill. It is not a simple bill. It is actually a very important bill, because it safeguards people’s rights in terms of when they are making an electronic transaction. Of course, the world has changed so much that a lot of our transactions now are electronic, so I was a bit disappointed—

Iain Lees-Galloway: He hasn’t made a single point yet.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, I am looking forward to Mr Lees-Galloway taking a call and making his contribution to the debate tonight as well.

Hon Member: Will he talk about the title, do you think?

MARK MITCHELL: I do not know; let us see. But I would just like to finish by saying again that it is a very good bill, and I will be very happy to take calls on clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Hon Member: What was the name again? Tell us the title.

MARK MITCHELL: The title, again, is the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 57

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

Noes 64

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): I was worried for a moment there that I would not have an opportunity to speak on the title of this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. Before I do, I want to congratulate the mover of the bill, Paul Goldsmith, on an excellent piece of work. Members opposite have been a bit flippant about this legislation and the importance of it, but I can honestly say when looking at the title, anybody sitting at home at the moment watching their television who has entered into an electronic transaction and who is concerned about whether the contract has been formed or not will now be reliably informed that Mr Goldsmith has their best interests at heart. I congratulate him on that.

Others in this debate so far have spoken about bills that have come before the House from members and the titles of those bills. Some of the members of the Opposition have not seen the relevance of that as far as this debate is concerned. Well, I would argue that it is relevant, because if you get the title of a bill wrong, it can give the wrong impression as to exactly what it is the member is trying to achieve. There have been many examples of this—of very well-meaning bills that have fallen on the steps of this Parliament because they have not gained the votes or support that they needed, because members, often from the Opposition, have not understood the importance of them, the import, or what they are trying to achieve, because the title has not been done correctly.

In the case of Mr Goldsmith, who—we have heard from him firsthand—so narrowly avoided becoming a lawyer and instead decided to look backwards in history so that he could learn from the mistakes of others and could therefore come forward with a bill with a title that is about the future, not about the past, he has put great depth and detail into this. So the bill is the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill 2012.

The member responsible for the bill spoke eloquently at the beginning of the debate, but he has not answered the questions that have been posed. The question I have—in fact, I have many questions for him, but, in this case, the first question is: when he decided to name this the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, why “contract formation”? It could just be the “Electronic Transactions Amendment Bill 2012”, and that would be enough. But there would be people out there who have unknowingly and unwittingly entered into contracts as a result of an electronic transaction, not knowing they have done so, and therefore there would be obligations imposed upon them, one assumes. Is that the reason he has decided to include “contract formation” in the title? There will be people who have wanted to enter into contracts, I am sure, and were not sure that they were able to do so when they entered into that electronic transaction.

This is quite a weighty piece of legislation. Although on the surface of it, that may not be clear, it will touch many New Zealanders’ lives. For those who have had issues in the past around contracts and contract law and for those who maybe did not narrowly avoid the obstacles that would have been placed in the way of Mr Goldsmith—those who continued on to study law—they know how detailed, how complex, and how very, very difficult contract law can be anywhere in the world, particularly in New Zealand. So I am very interested to hear from him about exactly why he decided this should be the title.

I would say it is so very important, because this is my sixth year I have been in Parliament now, and I do remember many, many opportunities and many occasions when the Opposition has kept us here talking late into the night about whether or not the title of a bill should be changed. Actually, it was enjoyable, and it is one of the great things about this Parliament. When the Government has an important piece of business to do, we do not mind sitting aside and letting others who do not want there to be any question—whether or not they are intelligent—and who are happy to stand up on the other side, the Opposition members, and decide to get rid of any doubt at all by going on and on about things that they think the Government has not got right.

In this instance, I guarantee that any moment now a member from the Opposition will decide that, actually, Mr Goldsmith has not done his job properly, he has not thought this bill through properly, and it is going to do things other than those suggested in the title, and they will come forward with a swathe of Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage to make changes. That is why we have to decide whether or not it is right and whether Mr Goldsmith has got this right. For my part, I think from my reading of the bill—and I spent quite a bit of time looking over it before deciding to make an intervention—he has it about balanced. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call the Hon Todd McClay.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I was going to conclude, but one other thought came to mind, so I will continue for a moment, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity for this. So in reading this bill and spending quite some time looking at it, part by part—

Kris Faafoi: How sad are you?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the member has asked how sad I am. I have got to tell you, looking at what has happened in the polls, I am not as sad as the members opposite. I have got to tell you that if my party was at 29 percent in the polls, I would not have that grin on my face. I would be focusing on this legislation. The reason there are differences in the way the different parties in this Chamber are polling at the moment is that some members on this side of the Chamber come here to make a difference to New Zealanders. Paul Goldsmith, with this bill, is one of those members. He is one of those people who want to make a difference in the lives of New Zealanders. He has worked so very hard in the last 3 years that he has been in this Parliament. This piece of legislation is merely one part of the hard work that he has done over the last 3 years that he has been here.

This title will send a very clear message to New Zealanders about what he is deciding to do on their behalf so that they can be more comfortable in their commercial lives, in their private lives, when they are engaged with the internet, when they are working with their banks, and when they are looking at their electronic transactions of very many different types, the contractual obligations they have, and exactly how those contracts are formed. So this will be called the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Act 2012. I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. I think Mr Goldsmith has done a very important piece of work here. I very much look forward to taking many, many, many more calls when we get into some of the substance of this, because it will be so very important that we have clear understanding.

One of the challenges you have is that, in the case that members opposite do not fully understand the intricate detail of the bill that Mr Goldsmith has brought before the Committee, it may be that we need to consider a change to the title. That is why this Parliament has decided that any member may take the floor to talk about the title of the bill, so we can make sure that we get it right. In the case of what Mr Goldsmith has done here, if it was not correct, one day in the future when his great-great-grandchildren—because he is a great family man from Epsom—look at the sterling work he did here, they may see only the title. They would not fully appreciate the many, many hours of detailed study and work he put into formulating this idea, into the research to draw up the bill, and then into going to all parts of this Parliament to lobby them to get their support so that he could put it into law. They may think, actually, with a title that was not well-thought-up, that this was a trivial piece of legislation.

But, indeed, as I have said earlier, I think he has the balance about right, at least in my simplistic understanding of this legislation. Those in the future who may look at only the title and not take the time to read the great detail of this bill, should it become an Act, will see that it is a piece of work with great gravity and that he is a man with gravitas. So can I again thank him for bringing this to the Committee and congratulate him on so very narrowly avoiding the direction he could have fallen in, moving towards a career in law. Had he become a lawyer, I am sure there would have been many, many more words in this bill, but I am not sure so much would have been added to it. So if he could address my question about exactly why he decided that this was the title that this bill should have, I would be eternally grateful.

Scott Simpson: What is the title?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The title of this legislation will be the “Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Act 2012”. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the Committee report progress.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Committee report progress.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I appreciate the contributions of my colleagues. They have argued very eloquently the necessity of my colleague Paul Goldsmith explaining why he used this title, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. I actually have a PhD, but in international relations. I always admire those who understand electronics, so I would appreciate it if he could explain exactly why he used this title and give further explanation. It is important because this bill is itself particularly important. Of course, you can say it is simple, it is straightforward, but, none the less, it is particularly important.

I want to re-emphasise the importance of this bill simply because the internet industry has become so important to our economy. I will emphasise some statistics that I have used in the past. Businesses and consumers are now living in the internet age, and our legislation needs to keep up with changing technology to ensure that we have constituency. The internet has already impacted the economy in a range of ways, such as investment in internet-related infrastructure.

In 2009 Statistics New Zealand—and this is very important—valued the net capital stock held in the telecommunications, internet, and library services industry at $14.7 billion, or 2.6 percent of total New Zealand capital stock. Since then the Government has agreed to invest $1.65 billion in the ultra-fast broadband roll-out through to 2019.

In 2009 the internet service industry contributed $4.2 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Also, I would emphasise that the Boston Consulting Group estimated in 2012 that broadband would deliver $32.8 billion in benefits to New Zealand end-users over the next 20 years. Also, more important, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research completed a report on the role of the internet in the New Zealand economy in 2012. The report emphasises that “economists see the institutions ‘rules of the game’, such as the legal status of different types of transactions in an economy, as vital determinants to the way it functions.” The structures and frameworks must suit—match and support—the types of economic activities that are taking place. So the wider rules of society such as laws, enforcement provisions and other policies, and oversight of the internet play a role in determining its effect on the level of structural change for innovation in an economy. This suggests that for the internet to maximise its impact, complementary policy and institutional settings need to be correctly set and kept up to date. So this is my quotation.

Basically, I would emphasise again the importance of the bill simply because it is so crucial to our economy. As I said, I was educated in international relations, but I really admire those who are good at electronics. So I admire my colleague Paul Goldsmith, who has drafted this particular bill. It is particularly important, and I would appreciate his explanation regarding the title itself. Thanks.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I have been a little surprised by the extent of probing questions I have had from my side of the Chamber on my ability to accurately describe this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, in its title, but I had given some thought. I mean, it could conceivably have just been the “Electronic Transactions Amendment Bill”, but what I wanted to achieve by adding the words “Contract Formation” was to draw people’s attention to that part of the bill that is about trying to give clarity.

I did note a certain snide element to one or two of the speeches from the other side, particularly from New Zealand First, implying that this was a minor bill, but there can be no more important task, in my opinion, than to ensure that the rule of law in contracts is effective and operational in this country. We are living in very dynamic times, where the mode of communications is changing rapidly. We want to make sure that business people and individuals have a measure of clarity when they are trying to transact their business. At the moment there is that lack of clarity, and that is why I have chosen the title Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill for this bill. I did consider “Waiver of the Postal Acceptance Bill”, which was proposed by Kanwaljit Bakshi, my colleague, but I think that it is important, because it amends the Electronic Transactions Act, that we included that in the title, otherwise people would be confused as to which piece of legislation it was amending. So that is where I fell on this one.

I do not think we need to add any more, but I do not think we measure the importance of the contribution that a piece of legislation brings to the economy and to the country by the number of pages it has. I would describe this bill as small but perfectly formed. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): This clause 2 relates to the commencement of the bill, and it says that the Act will—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You obviously got briefed on this one.

Kris Faafoi: Get on with it then, son.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, when you give me the courtesy of some quiet, I will continue. It says: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I suppose the first point I would make is in reference to Royal assent. It is important to pay tribute to the Duke and the Duchess who are here in New Zealand with young Prince George. I am sure there is no question that all of us here in this Chamber hope that they had an enjoyable time with the Plunket kids and no doubt are relaxing and turning to this broadcast. We welcome them to New Zealand. Many arrangements have been made in the course of their visit through electronic transactions, no doubt contracted over the internet in the age that we live in. It is interesting to contrast that with the Duke’s grandmother when she first came—1953—when most of the details would have been managed by letters.

In terms of the commencement, I am suggesting that the Act comes into force a day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. The important point here is that I am not suggesting, and have not suggested—and I will not accept any suggestion from anybody else that I have suggested it—that this would be a retrospective Act or come into effect retrospectively, because I do not agree with retrospective legislation unless it is in the most extreme cases. It is such a sound principle that people should have certainty as much as possible about the laws under which they are to operate. From certainty comes predictability, comes confidence, and comes investment. So I have no truck with those who would argue that this bill should be introduced retrospectively. I think it should definitely come into force only on the day after it is signed, and should not be applied by going back at any point.

By the same token, though, I also do not think that there is any argument for—but I considered it at great length—whether we should delay the introduction of this bill, or the commencement of it, in terms of it coming into force, say, 1 year out after it had received the Royal assent, because there was some thought given as to whether we needed to give the business community the opportunity to prepare for this change in legislation.

Moana Mackey: This doesn’t do anything.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it is a very legitimate question to ask. You do not want to ram change through too soon. But my conclusion after thinking about this was that this legislation cannot come soon enough, because at the moment we are in a period of uncertainty. At the moment we are not sure exactly when an offer is accepted when it is received by means of electronic communication. Is it when he or she receives the email, or when it is in their in-box, or when they open it up, or when it arrives in the server, if there is a gap before its arrival in the server? Similarly, for text messages and other messages. So it may well be that it is best to include a definition of “receipt”. These were the sorts of circumstances that we were considering amending in the bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is this the commencement?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, but the point I am trying to make, Mr Cosgrove, is that I do not think it makes sense to delay the introduction of this for a year, given the fact we had an episode in February this year when Telecom cancelled the passwords of more than 60,000 Yahoo!Xtra email accounts that were believed to have been compromised following a cyber-attack. So we have to be cognisant of the fact that people were not able to access their accounts for several days in that instance, and that was just one instance; I could refer to many others. Presumably, the emails had arrived in the server, but they were not available.

So it is that area of uncertainty that this legislation is hoping to resolve, and that is why, in my view, it does not make sense to hold off for a year but, rather, it makes sense to focus on bringing it in the day after the Royal assent.

I did give some thought as to whether or not it would be appropriate to have the Act come into force on 20 September. I did give some thought as to whether it should commence on 20 September, but the thinking was that this could be a point of change or it could be a point of continuity. So after a while I thought, well, 20 September is an election day and there will be a lot going on there. It would not necessarily make sense to have the Act starting on 20 September, but then another opportunity I thought might have been 15 January, but—

Moana Mackey: Are you going to go through every date in the calendar?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I was not, but if you would like me to, I could. But the problem with 15—[Interruption] The problem with 15—[Interruption] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): They are being rather noisy, are they not?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am trying to concentrate. I am afraid I have lost my place. I might have to go back. It is a question of retrospective legislation. I do not agree with that as a general principle. What I wanted to say is that I had considered it commencing the day after the Royal assent and that is where we have fallen down at the moment. I would just be interested in the views of the rest of the Committee. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): It is a pleasure once again to speak in this part of the Committee stage on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill now that we are on to clause 2, the commencement clause, which is a very exciting part of the bill, actually.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The gritty part.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: It is actually gritty, yes—one of those parts of the bill that you want to get down and really understand in some depth. I know Mr Cosgrove is very focused on this part of the bill. He is a details man. He is a details man. I know that from the work I have been doing with him on the Commerce Committee. He gets into those reports—particularly minority reports. There may, in fact, be an opportunity tonight, Mr Cosgrove, to put in a minority report on the commencement clause, the second clause, of this bill.

Kris Faafoi: Don’t start us.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Do not start you? Well, I am happy to sit down and give you the opportunity to do that, Mr Cosgrove.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): My challenge clearly was not taken up by Opposition members, which is unfortunate, but we gave them the chance. Perhaps tomorrow in the select committees—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh yes! Same time, same place.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —when you have that opportunity again you may choose to sit out on that one, Mr Cosgrove, but possibly not.

The commencement date is really important because it is actually the commencement of another part of the great National Government plan to actually take this country forward. In fact, if you think of the four key parts of that plan, it is, firstly, to get the country back into surplus, and we are doing that. We are doing that very well. Secondly, it is to build a more competitive and productive economy. Well, this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, and the commencement date go to the heart of that particular focus of building a more competitive and productive economy. The urgency of getting this bill across the line once it has obviously had the appropriate debate that is needed in this Chamber is very important.

Do not forget the third part, Better Public Services, which we continue to do on a day-by-day basis in this Chamber. The public is now coming up to me and saying “Minister Tremain”—ex-Minister—“the services that we are seeing from our Government sector are absolutely fantastic.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Relevance?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Do not forget, Mr Cosgrove, the fourth part of that plan. It is very relevant to your electorate down in the south there, rebuilding that beautiful city of Christchurch—that beautiful city of Christchurch.

Coming back to that commencement date, which is critical, and specifically to the second part of that wider Government plan for the economy of building a more competitive economy, one of the key parts of that, as I spoke about earlier, is the information and communications technology strategy and action plan.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has strayed a long way from the commencement clause. In the Committee stage, he needs to keep his comments directly to the clause we are debating.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Actually, he does. I have been listening, and I have to say that less than 15 seconds ago he actually mentioned the commencement date. But I would ask the member to try to focus on the date.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Thank you, Mr Chair, particularly for listening so intently to the points that I was making. What I was getting to and continuing to focus on was that commencement date and the urgency of it, once we have had the appropriate debate that needs to happen in this Chamber tonight and possibly over more weeks to get this bill through.

What I was really focused on, though, were the other strategies that we are rolling out, particularly in the computing and information and communications technology sector. I want to turn particularly in this regard to other commencement dates in regard to services that are digital by default, because these also are other strategies that we are rolling out in conjunction with the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. In clause 2, “Commencement”, it states the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Well, these other strategies also have some level of urgency to them as well. If the Committee would like, I can go through some of those strategies in some detail. Perhaps the member in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, could comment on some of these strategies and the relevance of the information and communications technology strategic plan and the commencement date in this bill, and how the two wider strategies relate. Yes, I agree, this is not a silver bullet to taking the economy forward, but it is one of the small parts, so the urgency of the commencement date is very important.

I will leave it at that at this point in time. It is up to one of the other members to expand on the commencement date and the importance of the urgency that we are attributing to it this evening. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am going to call the honourable member Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Chair—that is a very wise call. We are debating the second clause of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. It is a fantastic bill introduced by my good friend Paul Goldsmith. As has been mentioned, he will be remembered for this bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, he certainly will. He certainly will be remembered.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes, he will be remembered. He has done a lot of work and is continuing to do so. He is a very good chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

This bill has got clause 2, which states that the Act commences on the day after the date on which it gets the Royal assent. I would like to ask the member in the chair why he decided on having that Royal assent date, because he mentioned that he had considered making it 1 year after the commencement date. Why not 2 years? It is important that people should understand this important bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Do you understand it?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes, I have understood it. Do not worry about it, Mr Cosgrove.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’m not.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yeah? We will see to it. I would like to mention that the member from New Zealand First said that it is a simple bill. Every contract is very important and has very detailed clauses in it. It is not a simple bill. It has got many clauses. We need to understand how the contract has been formed and what clauses are there. With this, we need to understand, and I ask the member, why he considered that once the Royal assent is received, it commences on the day after that date. Why not later on? With these words, I conclude my contribution.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That the question be now put.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very happy to take a call on the second clause, the commencement clause, in what is a very good bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, brought to this House by my colleague Paul Goldsmith. He made a very good explanation around the title and I now clearly understand why we have the words “contract formation” in there. It is really the heart of the bill.

The commencement date is very important in this bill. Mr Goldsmith has already indicated very clearly that he wants the commencement date to be the date after it receives the Royal assent. I support this position completely. It was interesting, because I guess I did have a question around whether or not this should be retrospective legislation, and the member made it very clear that he has decided that he does not want it to be retrospective. In fact, as he said, he is a member of this House who is not in favour, generally, of retrospective legislation for his own very good reasons. In actual fact, this bill probably does not lend itself to being retrospective in nature.

This is a very good bill, and I think that Paul Goldsmith made a very good point, which is that there is a sense that we do live in an electronic age now. He sort of went back in time and said that once upon a time a contract was formed through the preparation, the mailing, and the receiving of a letter. The contract was formed when it was put into the envelope, the stamp was put on it, and it was put in the mail—that was when the contract was formed. It was very clear. The reason why I mention this is that it relates directly to the commencement date, and to why the member is pushing very hard for a commencement date that will be the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. But now, in the modern age—hello, Barbara—we live in an entirely different era, where electronic transactions—

Carol Beaumont: The member is better than this.

MARK MITCHELL: —are a part of daily life. I would invite Ms Beaumont to take a call so we can actually hear what the Opposition feels about this bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, no, we’re listening to you.

MARK MITCHELL: I would be very interested to hear that, and I am sure that there would be an amazing contribution from Mr Cosgrove. I invite him to take a call as well.

In these modern times a lot of our transactions are electronic, and I think Mr Goldsmith raises a very good point. It comes to the heart of this bill, and it comes to the reason why the commencement date is so important. I keep coming back to the fact that the member in the chair has highlighted the day after the Royal assent is given, and I fully support that bit. But the thing is that now in these electronic times, he is quite right to ask when the contract is formed. Is it when an email arrives in the server, when the email arrives in your in-box, or when you open the email? There does have to be certainty and there does have to be clarity around this. I come back—

Carol Beaumont: Commencement.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, the commencement date is critical.

Hon Todd McClay: No, no, but the contract forms when it commences—like the commencement date.

MARK MITCHELL: That is right. The contract does form on the commencement—you are absolutely right. We keep coming back to it and we keep highlighting it, but, listen, I think it is very important to continue to highlight that Mr Goldsmith has stated very clearly that he wishes the commencement date to be from the day that the bill receives the Royal assent.

I would like to come back to a comment that my colleague the Hon Chris Tremain made, because he made some very, very good observations. When we are talking about transactions, it actually does come to the heart of our economic growth, does it not? There are thousands of transactions being made every day in this country.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Really? Is that right?

MARK MITCHELL: Yes, that is right, Mr Cosgrove. I know that you might be a little bit disconnected from what is happening in the country, but, actually, there are thousands of transactions happening every day. So, finally, I would just like to come back and finally state and support Mr Goldsmith’s comments and statements around his preferred commencement date—that is, the day after this bill receives the Royal assent. Thank you.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Now we come to clause 3 of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, which relates to the principal Act. It says: “This Act amends the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 (the principal Act).” If we look at the details of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002, which was brought through this House by the Hon Paul Swain—and I would like to pay tribute to him. I used to play with him in the parliamentary rugby side back in the 1990s. He was the left-winger; I was the right-winger. He was not quite as fast, but he was a good man, the salt of the earth, and the sort of politician who represents the Labour Party, in my mind—a good man.

In essence, if I look at the third reading speech that he delivered when that bill was passed in October 2002—just to give you an idea of the idea behind the Electronic Transactions Act 2002, which this bill of mine seeks to amend—he said: “The bill will also allow many interactions with Government that are presently required to be in paper form, to be done in an electronic form. Because the bill is based on the international standard of the model law on electronic commerce, prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, it will make it easier for business to trade electronically. The bill follows closely the Australian Electronic Transactions Act, and this minimises transaction costs for exporters in our largest export market.” So Paul Swain was very pleased, and that bill was actually passed unanimously.

But, interestingly enough, supporting the bill and speaking during that debate was the Hon Richard Prebble, who now is devoted to plotting my downfall in the seat of Epsom, but back then he was the leader of the ACT Party. He made some interesting comments on that bill. He noticed that the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 was rushed through this House under urgency by the Labour Government. I just wanted to remind people of that. The concern was—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Relevance.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the concern was—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Relevance.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: I will come to the relevance and it will all become clear, because the concern was at the time—and I will quote another voice from the past, Pansy Wong, whom you will all recall. Pansy Wong spoke during the debate in 2002 and said: “The Minister also mentioned that the bill will remove uncertainty. I doubt that it will achieve that effect, because, first, I pointed out that clause 6 states that when a person interprets the Act, reference may be made to the model law on electronic commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [but that] introduces a lot of uncertainty. Imagine when a dispute arises as to whether an electronic signature is acceptable, whether the electronic document has been received, at a time when the sender or the receiver is in dispute. I can just imagine the lawyers reaching into the model law on electronic commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission.” The circumstance of that was that she was being ironic at that point. I did not quite capture the mood of that as I was expressing it, but what she was trying to say was imagine—imagine—the lawyers reaching into the model law.

She went on to say: “However, more than that, they can reach a whole raft of documented material that relates to the development of international law.” So Pansy Wong at this time was concerned that the Electronic Transactions Act, which was passed under urgency by the Labour Government in 2002, was being rushed through and that there were elements of it that were going to cause trouble further down the line. One of the areas that she particularly drew attention to—and, funnily enough, she was quoting her colleague Tony Ryall, who I see is at the back of the Chamber today. She said that he “pointed out that because of the language used in clause 11, an electronically transmitted message may be deemed to have been received by a person on the receiving end. The legislation states that, as long as the sender ensures that the message left his or her system, and goes to the address given by the receiver, it is automatically assumed that the information would have been received.” So the point I am trying to make is that Pansy Wong was predicting—quoting Tony Ryall—in 2002 that the Electronic Transactions Act of 2002, which was rushed through in urgency, would not deal effectively with some of these issues about the specifics and the details of the manner of the moment of instantaneous receipt.

So 12 years later I have had to come along and tidy up the mess that was left by a hurried piece of legislation in 2002. I do not want to blow my trumpet too far, but I would say that, 12 years on, we have dealt with that issue, which was left untidy and ineffectively dealt with by that previous Government. I just also want to refer to a mention that was made by a fellow called Paul Adams, an honourable member he was, from United Future back in 2002. I do not think that—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Relevance.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the relevance is that this is the legislation that I am amending. I am trying to get an understanding of what the House was trying to achieve through the original legislation, and then, from there, to understand what needs to change. But I thought the Committee might be interested in this contribution from Paul Adams. He said: “New Zealand as a nation is ripe to receive positive change. The discerning have picked up on the fact that many, many New Zealanders are tired of the old systems that simply are no longer relevant to the hour in which we live. For example, today I wear a pink shirt and have coloured my greying hair. Just 20 years ago, if I walked into the House and looked like I do today, I would not have received positive comments. So I believe that that in itself shows that I am, indeed, open to positive change, as are the three ladies in my life—my wife and two daughters who heartily approve of the change that they now see.” I do not like to be unkind but I think that may explain why United Future did not—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just draw your attention to the issue of relevance. I cannot for the life of me see how the colour of the shirt of a former member who was in here, what, 10 years ago or his attire has anything to do with electronic transactions. I know that the speaker in the chair is desperate to sort of waylay this as long as he can, but there are limits. I do not think that a debate about a dress code, even though Mr Ryall has broken the mould and is in the Chamber, is in any way relevant to this bill.

Tim Macindoe: Apart from that gratuitous comment at the end, in reference to the Minister of Health, which had no relevance, I want to point out that the member who is objecting on this occasion is the one who has probably spent most of the last half-hour doing his level best to try to distract not only the fine member who is sponsoring the bill but also many other members. As members are trying to gather their thoughts around what is, at times, a fairly technical matter, it is important that they are able to retain their train of thought. The problem is that members such as Mr Cosgrove are doing their level best to distract the member. So I would just point out that I think he really needs to look at himself if he has a problem with where the member is going.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can I just urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. Remember that and we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas. I just ask the member to try to speak to the bill. I know that he is trying very hard and I am listening intensely to what he is saying. It is important that we debate the issues in front of us. I understand where he is coming from.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would not like to regard myself as simply a trier; I thought I was achieving the ability of talking about this bill. What I was trying to get across to the Committee was the whole purpose of this bill, which I have had the good fortune to see drawn in the ballot and also the good fortune to have the support on from all members in the House for the last reading stage. I do not think too many members can claim to have unanimous support for a bill that they have brought into the House only 2 years into a parliamentary career.

Hon Todd McClay: Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi did with his Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you for pointing that out. The point I was trying to make was that this bill seeks to amend the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. Going back to the original debate, it is worth reminding us that people were predicting—and I can quote Richard Prebble saying in 2002: “When we draft legislation as loosely as this, I think we are being reckless and irresponsible.” So, really, the point I am making is that this bill amends the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 because it was flawed and it did not give that level of detail and clarity in this area around the acceptance of contract formation of electronic transactions. That is why I have brought this piece of legislation to the House for its consideration, in the hope that we will provide that clarity upon which the smooth regulation of commerce in this country depends. That is why I wanted to make that point. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): At this point in time, we go through the Committee stage of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill and arrive at clause 3, which is dealing with the principal Act, the Electronic Transactions Act 2002, which this bill amends. Through the good fortune of the athletic attributes of my colleague the Hon Todd McClay, who—

Hon Todd McClay: Climbed up the ladder.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —climbed up the ladder outside the Chamber here, we managed to secure a copy of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

Hon Todd McClay: I had a touch of vertigo.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: He had a touch of vertigo. It was good to learn that it was the Hon Paul Swain who shepherded that particular bill through the House—a fine member of this House from the Government of the day. He would be in the Opposition now. I had the good fortune to deal with Mr Swain in a number of areas. In fact, when I was Minister of Internal Affairs he led the fire review that we took through at that point in time.

But the reason for clause 3 is to give us a clear sense of what we are changing, because clause 3 talks about the principal Act. That is why I have got that Act here before us now. I know that my own colleagues will be interested to have a look at this, because there are a range of clauses in here that I am sure you will be able to talk to and actually ask some questions of the member in the chair, Paul Goldsmith. We want him to stand and answer some of these questions.

What is really important to start off with—and I am sure that Mr Cosgrove will be really interested—is the purpose of the principal Act, because that kind of defines where we are at and what we are actually changing. So if you will bear with me, I just wanted to read through the purpose of the principal Act in Part 1: “The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the use of electronic technology”—Mr Swain was really ahead of his day back then in 2002—“by—(a) reducing uncertainty regarding—(i) the legal effect of information that is in electronic form or that is communicated by electronic means;”. So we are really getting to the heart of the bill here. It continues: “(ii) the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications; and (b) providing that certain paper-based legal requirements may be met by using electronic technology that is functionally equivalent to those legal requirements.”

That is at the heart of how back then in 2002 departments like the Department of Internal Affairs were starting to lead the drive of this change in information and communications technology in a drive towards a digital economy and where it had its genesis. That is why today members such as the member in the chair, Mr Goldsmith, have taken it upon themselves to advance the legislation. There is nothing surer than that technology is changing faster than we know. I mean, all of us—look at our kids. In fact, it was interesting, because my son the other day came up to me—he is 17 years old—and it was the first time in a while he had to send a letter. He said: “Dad, what side of the envelope does the stamp go on?”.

Tim Macindoe: Really? Good lord.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes. It is quite incredible to understand how much the electronic age is changing us.

The bill before us seeks to amend that principal Act, that 2002 Act, in the purpose clause. In particular, the really relevant section in this 2002 Act is section 13, and you will note that later in the debate on the bill tonight—I think when we get to clause 5, if I am not wrong—we amend section 13. So in thinking about that, that amendment becomes new section 13A. What I want to remind members of tonight is the principal Act and what is actually section 13 now.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Wow!

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I know, Mr Cosgrove, that you would be interested, would you not? Section 13 of the Act is “Place of receipt”, and that part of the legislation says that “An electronic communication is taken to be received at—(a) the addressee’s place of business; or (b) if the addressee—”

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I would actually like to pick up where my colleague the Hon Chris Tremain has just left off because I think he has touched on some quite relevant issues. I am a late starter in this particular debate on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, and so I apologise to the fine member who is sponsoring the bill, Paul Goldsmith, that I was unable to hear everything that he told the Committee earlier on in the evening.

Nevertheless, this particular clause, clause 3, is amending the Electronic Transactions Act. I was very interested that the honourable member Chris Tremain had a copy of the Act there. That Act was passed only 12 years ago, and I daresay that there could be members of the public listening to this debate who would wonder why it would be necessary to move an amendment to something of that nature in a relatively short space of time. In fact, I am intrigued, as I look around the Chamber, that with the exception of the Minister of Health in the back area where the Green members are now, there is not a single member on this side of the Chamber this evening who was actually a member of Parliament at that time. I do think that if we are going to make a decision of this magnitude in amending the principal Act, we do need to be able to hear from the member as thoroughly as we can what the reasons are for his feeling that this particular principal Act needs to be amended.

The member told us also, and this really concerned me, that the principal Act in 2002 was passed under urgency. I know that there are many members on this side of the Chamber who have been accused over the last few years—sometimes quite unfairly—of such grandiose things as an abuse of process or a breach of parliamentary procedure, or whatever, whenever the suggestion is that a matter should be passed under urgency. Of course, there have been some significant things. Budgets are frequently passed under urgency. We passed the Auckland governance legislation under urgency, and a number of other things have happened. Usually Oppositions howl and scream whenever that happens, and yet here we are, learning that the previous Labour-led Government passed that particular Act under urgency back in 2002.

I therefore ask the member sponsoring the bill if he could please, when he next takes a call, give us a little bit of the history of the issue, or maybe there will be a member of the Labour Opposition—I see Mr Cosgrove has been here since 1842. He might be able to tell us why the member Paul Swain saw the need—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’m younger than you, you prat.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

TIM MACINDOE: I think that was a particularly unparliamentary expression from Mr Cosgrove.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What—“prat”?

TIM MACINDOE: That is not the expression that he used, and he well knows it. But, anyway, I will turn the other cheek and we will carry on. The point is that I would appreciate him taking a call to tell us why the previous Labour-led Government felt it was necessary to pass that principal Act under urgency. What were the reasons for that? An Electronic Transactions Act certainly does not obviously lend itself to that sort of treatment. As I say, we have had to listen to many lectures in our time in Government as to why urgency is not an appropriate way of acting. I would also like to know what the actual vote was at the time that that happened. If it was passed under urgency—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Look at the Hansard.

TIM MACINDOE: Well, I have not had a chance to look at the Hansard because I have only just become aware of the fact. That is why I am saying to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove: take a call and fill us in as to why you and your colleagues at that time felt it was necessary to move this particular Act under urgency. Tell us what the vote was. I would be interested to know how the House divided. Of the parties that were here at that time, which parties supported the measure, which were opposed to it, and what were their reasons for it? But, more important, what was the actual purpose of the principal Act? We do need to know that if we are going to be able to make a considered decision about amending it. This is not a trivial point.

As the Hon Chris Tremain noted just a few minutes ago, technology is evolving rapidly. It is actually quite frightening at times just how quickly technological change is taking over. Quite often you get to my age and you think: where is a teenager when you need one in order to understand the latest technological gadget. I have to admit that I had that experience just a few days ago. Every year it seems that there is a new gadget on the market. We are being expected to become more and more proficient with gadgets that are being used quite often now for electronic transactions. It is important not only that we know how to use them but that we can ensure the security of those transactions when we are using all this technology.

Mr Chairperson, you and I are both old enough to still have cheque books, and I bet you still have one. I certainly have a cheque book. I have to admit that at times I feel a bit of a dinosaur when I use it. In fact, when I look at it, it tends nowadays to be mainly used for charitable donations. I certainly do not pay accounts with cheques any more. I do most of those things online. But I am sure that we have all had the odd occasion of being a little bit fearful about how that is going. In fact, as an electorate MP, more than once I have had constituents who have been concerned about the security of those transactions. I do ask the member in charge of the bill, as we focus on clause 3, this particular clause, in which the sole purpose is to amend the principal Act, whether he could give us that history, please, as to why it is necessary to do this. What was it about the original Act that he now considers to be flawed, and what is it about what he is proposing to do now that will enhance the security?

I also make the point that the Government has set a very ambitious target under the Better Public Services target, which is a cornerstone of our administration, of ensuring that a substantial number of transactions that used to take some time and involved a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of waiting, and quite often a lot of expense, are now available online. We are talking about the sorts of things such as applying for a passport or maybe obtaining a visa to go to another country. We all, I am sure, welcome anything that reduces costs and improves the efficiency and the speed with which things can be done, but it is, of course, absolutely vital that we can be assured of the security of these matters. We want to ensure that there can be no danger of theft of identity, misappropriation of funds, or misuse of the particular technology, which could lead to danger.

We need only think about the fact that if somebody was dishonest enough, they could maybe look down from the gallery and see a member on this side or on the other side of the Chamber putting a pin number into a smartphone or something. That is something that could easily happen and does often happen as members use their iPads and their iPhones in this Chamber frequently. It is possible sometimes for members of the public to look over from the gallery. If they were sufficiently savvy to be able to pick up the pin number of a member and then to get hold of that appliance, then they have got the ability, with that contraption, to get into the member’s account to do all manner of evil. That is a very real possibility, so we need to know from the member in charge of the bill whether that sort of eventuality was contemplated by the member at the time that this bill was originally being pushed through in 2002. Is clause 3, by which the principal Act is going to be amended, a way in which those sorts of concerns can be alleviated?

These are not insignificant questions, because with the rapid evolution of technology it is likely that we will become even more dependent on these technological gadgets in years to come. Electronic transactions will probably become the entire way in which transactions are conducted in the future, and we need to be absolutely sure that the legislation the member is putting forward in this Chamber tonight will be sufficient as we move forward into that era. I do ask the member in charge of the bill whether he could address himself to that as well, and perhaps alert us to whether there are any matters in the bill, as he is putting it forward, that would cover future eventualities. I believe that this is a significant issue. I realise there has been some levity in some of the contributions, and that is good. On a members’ day it is always nice to feel that there is a degree of jocularity in the Chamber and that members can enjoy a little bit of banter. Nevertheless, this is a significant matter.

I am a little bit envious because this particular member has achieved something in half the time that I have been in the House that I have not been able to do, and that is to get a bill drawn out of the ballot and to be able to have the honour of pushing it through. I congratulate him on that, and I do look forward to his answers to the questions that I have put forward. I believe that they are significant and we need to get them on to the record. I look forward to hearing his next contribution. I know that my good friend the Hon Todd McClay has one or two other questions that he wants the member to consider as well, so I hope that the member in charge of the bill will be able to deal with both of them in his next contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member I want to caution members about name-calling, which occurred during the debate. Let us remember that all members are honourable, and all will get a fair and equitable opportunity to address the people’s business within the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings. By and large, name-calling comes through frustration, and that is understood, but it is out of order as a personal reflection—I refer members to Standing Order 117 and Speakers’ rulings 28/1—because it can lead to disorder.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): I move that the question not be put, because I want to intervene in this part of the debate on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill to talk about the principal Act, the Electronic Transactions Act. I was not going to but when the Hon Chris Tremain spoke I was moved to, as I am the person who climbed to the top of the ladder to get the paper copy of the Act to be able to come here and sit in the Chamber and read it. I am going to ask my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to bring it over to me, if he would, because I very much believe it is quite important. He can take his time. I reckon that I have got 10 minutes in me for this part of the debate.

The thing about this is that there will be members in this Chamber in the Opposition who were in Government at the time when this piece of legislation, the principal Act, went through who did not bother to read it back then. They would have taken part in the debate, they would have been in the House, they would have voted in favour of the principal Act, and they did not read it. Today the hard-working member of Parliament Paul Goldsmith has brought in an amendment to the principal Act, and I give you a guarantee, Mr Chairman, that there are members in this Chamber who were there in 2002—who were in Government at the time and who are now in Opposition—who did not read the Act back then. Now we have an important piece of legislation to amend the principal Act to fix some of the challenges and problems that Mr Goldsmith found in it, and I am sure they still have not read the Act.

I too would say that when I came here and had an opportunity to look at this draft piece of legislation, I had not read it. That is why I went out the back and I climbed the ladder to the very top, got this New Zealand Statutes 2002, Volume 2, at page 1,217, and found the principal Act and started to read it. And do you know I think that any members from the Opposition who would take part in this debate, who want to rush through this and are trying to get the Committee to vote on the different clauses before we are ready to, who have not read this legislation, the principal Act, are doing themselves and the Committee a great disservice, because it is a very weighty piece of history of what this New Zealand Parliament has done.

When one looks at the bill Mr Goldsmith has brought before us, it is not the largest piece of legislation we have had to debate on a members’ day. But when one looks at what he is trying to achieve and you take the different clauses in this and you come back to the principal Act, it is clear that he has put great detail and thought into his legislation. It is clear that he, at the same time, has looked and found inadequacies in the legislation that was passed by a Labour Government in 2002, and that he genuinely comes here to fix them. He wants to make the lives of New Zealanders who are uncertain about their electronic transactions and the formation of contracts better by diminishing and taking away that uncertainty.

I can say to my colleague that I was going to stop at the next bell anyway, but what I can say to you, Mr Chair, is that that uncertainty that New Zealanders will be experiencing is unnecessary. Had the original movers of this legislation—some members opposite who are now in Opposition who were members of the Government in 2002, who voted on this legislation, who would have made speeches in this House, and who might not have read the legislation—read the legislation, they could have moved Supplementary Order Papers. They could have improved it, they could have spent the time that was needed in the Committee stage, taken that extra bit of time in urgency to make the changes so that we would not have to be here today, so that the House could be doing other business that may or may not be more important. But Mr Goldsmith has had a close look at the principal Act and Mr Goldsmith has found problems that are affecting New Zealanders, and some members opposite did not take the time to get the legislation right, and that is why we need to be here right now.

Can I say to Paul Goldsmith, I want to congratulate him on reading this lengthy piece of legislation. It actually is good legislation. It is detailed, it is quite technical, but the Labour Government did not get it right. I want to give members opposite the benefit of the doubt, because members’ days are—what did the last speaker say about “jocularity” or something like that; we studied in different places—and it could well be that some of the challenges and some of the difficulties that Mr Goldsmith is fixing here with this legislation this year in our Parliament may not have been as obvious or as apparent in 2002. The world has changed. Many, many more people are involved—

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 4 amended (Overview)

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Now we are getting closer to the meat of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill and that is clause 4. This is the part that has been amended by the Commerce Committee, which was led by Jonathan Young, the MP for New Plymouth, and I do want to thank the committee members for the hard work they did on this piece of legislation. Originally, my clause 4 was actually the purpose for this bill. What I said was: “The purpose of this Act is to establish that, for the purpose of contract formation, an offer is deemed to be accepted by an electronic communication at the time of receipt of the acceptance by the offeror.”

In its wisdom the select committee members—and I am not criticising them in any way, shape, or form—considered that section 3 of the principal Act, the Electronic Transactions Act 2002, sufficiently addressed the purpose of the legislation. Let us just quickly refer to that so that we know what we are talking about here. The purpose of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 says: “The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the use of electronic technology by—(a) reducing uncertainty regarding—(i) the legal effect of information that is in electronic form or that is communicated by electronic means; and (ii) the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications;”. That is the point we laboured in the previous debate because they did not effectively manage to achieve that by the looseness of the language.

The second part of the purpose set out in section 3(b) is “providing that certain paper-based legal requirements may be met by using electronic technology that is functionally equivalent to those legal requirements.” The select committee members in their wisdom decided that referring to the purpose of the principal Act would be sufficient so that they did not need to have a particular purpose in this bill. As I say, that is important.

The Commerce Committee decided that anyone seeking to understand the thinking behind this legislation—my member’s bill—would be able to gain that understanding by looking at the purpose of the principal Act, which was passed 12 years earlier. To be honest, I am not sure that I necessarily agree with the logic of the select committee. Frankly, I would have preferred that my original purpose about why this particular bill was important had stood. But I am not going to die in a ditch over it. What they were trying to do in terms of economy of words and expression—not having extraneous or otiose clauses in the legislation—is important, but still, it would be fair to say that it rankles with me a little bit that the select committee chose to alter the way that I put the bill together, but I still think it hangs together reasonably well.

So what we have now in clause 4 is a fairly simple clause. It says: “Section 4 amended (Overview)—In section 4(b), replace “13” with “13A”.” I thought I would explain to the Committee just what the committee was trying to achieve there. It says that section 4 of the principal Act should be amended. If we look at section 4 of the original 2002 Act, it says: “Overview—In this Act,—(a) matters concerning the legal effect of information that is in electronic form or that is communicated by electronic means are set out in section 8: (b) default rules about the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications are set out in sections 9 to 13:”. The new clause in my amendment bill replaces “13” with “13A”. So that is really just to point out that the default rules about the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications are set out in sections 9 to the new section 13A, which we will come to in clause 5 of this member’s bill. That is the key.

So if we run through those sections, we will just get an idea of the sorts of things that have been considered in the bill. The first of those is when the default rules in section 10 to 13 apply, and the time of dispatch—that is, an electronic communication is taken to be dispatched at the time that the electronic communication first enters an information system outside the control of the originator. [Interruption] Pardon? OK. All the details such as time of receipt and place of dispatch will give you an idea of where we have got to. The select committee did away with my purpose in clause 4 and introduced this new clause 4, which really just locates this amendment bill within the original Electronic Transactions Act. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal, Mr Chair, and thank you very much for the opportunity. We are now debating clause 4 of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. The bill has really progressed very well this evening, and we hopefully will be concluding the Committee stage of this bill by the end of today.

Clause 4 as introduced detailed the purpose of the bill. The Commerce Committee considered that section 3 of the principal Act sufficiently addressed the purpose of the legislation. A purpose clause is unnecessary in an amendment bill. So that is why we made some amendments to that clause. The select committee was well chaired by Jonathan Young, and I would like to acknowledge him for his leadership in the Commerce Committee. The committee recommended—

Tim Macindoe: Very good chairman.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: He is a very good chairman. He is not here today. His absence is very much—

Tim Macindoe: He brings gravitas and dignity—

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Exactly. The select committee recommended that clause 4 be amended to update the overview in section 4 of the Act, to add the reference to new section 13A.

Defining the time of receipt and designated information was also considered. The select committee considered whether the terms “time of receipt” and “information system” used in sections 10 and 11 of the principal Act lacked clarity. There were so many things that were missing in the original Act, and I congratulate this member on bringing this bill to the House. The principal Act also stated in section 35 that it was to be reviewed within 2 years after commencement. That still has not been picked up. The committee was also not persuaded that the terms “time of receipt” and “information system” lacked clarity, and considered that those terms were in no need of definition. So clause 4 is amended by the select committee, and I propose that it should be acted upon.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I congratulate Paul Goldsmith again. Regarding the Electronic Transactions Act 2002, the main purpose of that Act is to reduce uncertainty about the legal effect of electronic information and communications, and also the uncertainty about the time and place of dispatch and the receipt of electronic communications. The Act defines basically only the time of dispatch and also the time of receipt, but not really the time when the contract is formed. So this bill, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill, will tidy up that particular loophole and will be particularly good for providing certainty to electronic contracts.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 New section 13A inserted (Time of communication of acceptance of offer)

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I am very glad that we have made such good progress on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill this evening, and I do want to thank my colleagues all around the Chamber for the goodwill with which they have responded to this piece of legislation.

We come to clause 5. This is another area where the Commerce Committee saw fit to amend the bill quite substantially. In truth, that reflected some of the submissions. My original bill dealt with the problem that we were trying to deal with, which was trying to clarify the law in this area by introducing a section 32A to the Electronic Transactions Act, and that would have said—it was just a simple section 32A—“An offer that can be accepted by electronic communication is deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt of the acceptance by the offeror.” That was, I thought, a simple and elegant way of getting it across.

But the concern raised by some of the submissions was that this could create a misapprehension that a hard-wired rule applies and that an offer can be deemed to be accepted electronically only at the time of receipt. That, indeed, was not what I was trying to achieve. The suggestion was to abandon the section 32A approach and instead insert a new section 13A into the Act and to make it clear that this was a default rule instead of a rigid approach, from which the parties would be able to contract out.

So now we see here that clause 5 of the bill introduces: “13A Time of communication of acceptance of offer (1) For the purpose of the formation of a contract, an acceptance by electronic communication of an offer is taken to be communicated to the offeror at the time determined by section 11 to be the time of receipt for that electronic communication.” But, importantly, we now have a new subsection (2): “Subsection (1) does not apply if—(a) the parties to the contract otherwise agree; or (b) an enactment provides otherwise.” I think this makes it very clear that the time of receipt referred to in section 11 also applies to the acceptances of contract offers that are communicated electronically, and that is the essential point of this bill.

Again, in response to submissions, the suggestion from the select committee was to add a new section 13A(2), which I just referred to, enabling parties to agree otherwise—that they may want some other formation. Interestingly—

Tim Macindoe: Did they consult the member about why they were recommending that?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: They did not consult me at all, but I think the basic logic of that stands. Interestingly, that change that the select committee brought through nicely dovetails with my next member’s bill in the ballot, which is all about freedom of contract over an employment contract. So that fits very nicely with my principles for people to arrange their contracts as they see fit and have them be enforceable.

What we have as a result is a facilitative Act that ensures that negotiating parties are free to specify their own mutually agreed conventions. But in the absence of that, everybody knows the rules around when a contract is formed and when it is not. So, as I said at the start, although this bill on its own will not bring about the brighter future to which we all aspire in this Chamber and on this side, in our party, it does add one small piece to the jigsaw that draws together that coherency, consistency, predictability, and certainty in our legal framework, which underlies the strong economic foundations of New Zealand. That is why, in the broader context of a strong, stable, and predictable Government, it has been so successful as a Government over the past 5 years. I want to finish the debate on this bill by paying tribute to the Prime Minister and all the good work that he is doing in this country. Thank you.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 5 to Minister, 8 April

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers I gave to a supplementary oral question on 8 April.

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

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yesterday in the House during question No. 5, in answer to a supplementary question from Richard Prosser, I said “This is why funding has increased every year since we took over from Labour.” I would like to correct that to “This is why funding has increased since we took over from Labour.”

Bills

Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I move, That the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ngā mihi ki te whānau whānui o te Mātaatua waka. Ngā mihi ki te whānau me te hapū o Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Rangitihi me Tūwharetoa.

[Greetings to the extended family of the Mātaatua canoe and to the families of the subtribes Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Rangitihi, and Tūwharetoa.]

To all the whānau, but especially to the Marr whānau and the Fox whānau, one day this Te Tiriti breach and injustice will end and your river will be healed from the lake to the ocean. I also mihi to Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa hapū and whānau katoa, who have also been affected by this Resource Management Act section that I am seeking to change. I would like to acknowledge the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Prue Kapua, the Sawmill Workers Against Poisons, the FIRST Union, Greenpeace, Fish and Game, and the more than 1,000 people who sent in lobbying submissions in the last few weeks to MPs, who have the opportunity to right this wrong and to take a step towards something better than up to 35-year rights to pollute rivers. To my partner, Gordon Jackman, who led the Greenpeace campaign on the Tarawera River from the 1980s and 1990s and who took on the pulp and paper mills and the most technically complex chemistry of their pollutants, because it was necessary and he had the heart and the capacity to do the hardest things.

This bill, which I may farewell in this reading, is not just about one river; it is about a section of the Resource Management Act that needs to change. This section allows “exceptional circumstances” to have no legal time limit and thus has allowed the courts to give a series of up to 35-year consents to a small group of companies, who have used it to abuse waterways or to propose to abuse them because they cannot meet the normal standards of the Resource Management Act. My bill was drafted to limit section 107(2)(a) to 5 years of exceptional circumstances pollution, without stripping the current consent holders of their rights. How fair and reasonable is it that the arguments from the other parties at the Local Government and Environment Committee table and a small number of corporates were such that these decisions can be left to the courts, and that we cannot afford to upset unnamed future businesses and investors that might in future need to pollute rivers for more than 5 years? The argument that Contact Energy raised about deep-water aquifers was of a different order. I met with Contact Energy to negotiate a Supplementary Order Paper to address its aquifer needs.

Another example of the problem of section 107(2)(a) was its use in the many years of fighting to get basic sewage treatment in the Gisborne city. Exceptional circumstances were the convenient legal barrier used to allow a city of 40,000 people to have their waste pumped raw into the beach by the town. It took many years of campaigning and Treaty settlement money, which could have been better spent, to finally force the district council to invest in a treatment plant and to commit—theoretically, at least—to getting that sewage out of the bay. This is all because of section 107(2)(a) and the phrase “exceptional circumstances”, meaning “We don’t want to pay.” The community has not said that, but the Gisborne District Council tried to say it for them. Fifteen years later, after a long struggle, we won in court, but that is how section 107 has been used, and that is the price we paid in having to use it.

Interestingly, the union, with members from the Kawerau pulp and paper mill, supported my bill. It knows that jobs will not be lost and that the mills need to modernise. They can be modern biorefineries without dumping resin acids and pulp mill chemicals into a river. They can invest in new technologies and products. But, sadly, thanks to this Parliament, they do not have to and they will not. It is cheaper to pollute if you have no knowledge of, or concern for, the real price to be paid. I came to Parliament to try to do this very thing, because I am haunted by the testimonies I heard over many years on the marae and in the hearings in the Bay of Plenty. I honour those elders who have gone now who told us their terrible stories of a beautiful water source turning black overnight in 1955; of a Government that passed an Act to enable pollution from a large business whose profits were made by externalising the costs into a river that became the “black drain”. The contamination of water, tuna, and fish in the Bay of Plenty also became the contamination of the people whose whakapapa binds them to that river and whose health and well-being has been severely compromised for many years.

One action we shared with the river hapū was to take several busloads of people to the source of the river at Lake Tarawera. Into that shining, translucent water the three iwi laid mauri stones. My partner, Gordon, laid one for Greenpeace. We then travelled down that pristine waterway to the mills and witnessed the dreadful and, in part, invisible transformation of that river into an industrial drain. The pollution darkens the water and used to fill it with toxic foam. Now it is dark but less polluted, except for the unknown effects of mixing pulp and paper mill bleach chemicals with the resin acids from the pulped pine trees. No one has properly assessed what the synergistic effects of these chemicals and resin acids are, let alone when they are mixed with salt water. It is unknown but it is real. How do the river people prove it is an issue, with no money for experts and no modern precautionary-based research on the effects? They cannot, hence my bill.

The contamination of this river symbolises a historical willingness to compromise water quality, to the contamination of the people who might have gathered kai or made good use of the river. There has been no costing done of what opportunities were lost by the river people when the river became the “black drain” from 1955 to this day. The pulp mills have consents until at least the mid-2030s. All I am asking for in this bill is that they cannot rely on another 25 years, and that a line is drawn after their consents expire. My profound disappointment is not in the Government, which no one expects to stand up for the environment, but in the other parties, who might have shown some vision and courage and listened to the submitters, from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment through to the Matatā whānau.

Tonight was the opportunity we had to undo the harm done in 1955 by this Parliament, drafted into the Resource Management Act to protect Tasman Pulp and Paper’s profits. It was a chance to create certainty for industry and hope for the river people—for all river people—that gross pollution will not be tolerated without a fair time limit. People who have lost in court so many times because of an imbalance in resources look to Parliament to create a fair framework, and we have failed them.

But I would like to mihi to Mana and the Māori Party for their unwavering support, and I thank all those who voted for the first reading. I hope others will vote for my bill, but let us not pretend that Labour’s suggestion of amending the bill to 15 years would have been a worthy compromise or a fair solution; 5 years of pollution is enough. To those who have the courage of their convictions and tried to help this bill, I pay tribute. It is not finished until the rivers run clean to the sea. The Green Party has wholeheartedly supported this bill, as have the many citizens who have responded to our call to action. The concept of exceptional circumstances as a legal justification to pollute has been greeted with disgust and amazement, but not in these halls of insulated privilege and frequently spineless compromise. People who will vote this bill down as written tonight or any other night—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is now interrupted. The time has come for the House to rise.

Debate interrupted.

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

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

(continued on Thursday, 10 April 2014)

Bills

Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I move, That the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. This bill amends the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932. Its principal purpose is to make changes to the membership of the trust board.

The board is charged with looking after what is probably the most significant historical site in New Zealand—the most important to the nation. It is at this site that James Busby, the British Government’s first official representative, erected the residency that we now call the Treaty House. On the lawn, the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa first raised its flag in 1834 and signed a declaration of independence the following year. Lieutenant Governor Hobson and Māori representatives met there to sign the Treaty in 1840. In 1940 the centenary commemorations of that signing saw the realisation of Sir Apirana Ngata’s vision of a new whare rūnanga close to the Treaty House. A magnificent ceremonial waka, also completed for the centenary, is housed in the grounds and is still used on Waitangi Day, as we all know. The grounds have been the focus of the nation’s Treaty commemorations for several decades. They have become a destination of interest to large numbers of New Zealanders and international visitors alike, and these numbers, of course, can only continue to grow in the future.

Before I outline the provisions of the bill, it is instructive to recall how the current legislation came into being and how the Treaty House, its grounds, and surrounding land were secured for the nation. The Busby property changed hands several times in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and in 1932 it was about to be sold again. Over the years there had been some Government interest in purchasing part of the property, but no sale had eventuated. In 1932, it is fair to say, the considerable economic challenges resulting from the Great Depression were foremost in the minds of the people.

We can thank Vernon Reed for the role he played in saving the Treaty House. He was a former member of Parliament, and he escorted the Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe, and Lady Bledisloe on a visit to see the Treaty House. Mr Reed was very keen to see public ownership of the site and had already petitioned the Government to purchase it. The Bledisloes, for their part, knew about the major constitutional events that had taken place at Waitangi and appreciated its historical importance. When they visited the site they were very affected by the sad state of the house. The Bledisloes, there and then, resolved to purchase the property themselves, much to the delight of Mr Reed, who had merely hoped to gain their support in his latest bid for Government ownership of the site. We are very fortunate indeed that the Bledisloes had the foresight to gift not only the Treaty House and its immediate surroundings but a full 506 hectares, the Waitangi estate, in perpetuity to the people of this land.

Lord Bledisloe wanted not just to reclaim a part of New Zealand’s history but also to seek reconciliation to heal past controversies. He said he wanted to foster the sense of nationhood and to link for ever Māori and Pākehā on a common basis for a common good. In a time of high unemployment, he also saw the restoration process as an opportunity to create work. To this end he provided £1,000 for the Waitangi renovation fund to restore the Treaty House and other parts of the grounds. The Government contributed a further £500.

The 1932 Act gave statutory effect to the Waitangi National Trust deed and established the trust board. It vested the estate and the board to be held in trust for the people of New Zealand, as a place of historic interest, recreation, and enjoyment. The composition of the board reflected Lord Bledisloe’s wish to maintain an enduring relationship between tangata whenua and Pākehā in the governance of the site and to ensure ongoing Government involvement in the work. Board members were to include descendents of particular individuals, both Māori and Pākehā, who had been prominent at the time of the signing of the Treaty; a representative of Māori living north of Auckland and a representative of Māori living south of Auckland, as well as representatives of the Bay of Islands and the South Island; and a prominent person with a background in politics, history, archaeology, or natural history. The Government was represented on the board through ex officio rules for the Prime Minister and two Government Ministers. Governors-General were also to be given the option of becoming ex officio members.

Under the deed the board was given powers to manage the estate, including protecting and enhancing its heritage values, engaging in income-generating activity, and making by-laws to regulate conduct within the estate. It is not surprising that participation by the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, and the two Ministers in the board’s decision making has been somewhat limited. Quite apart from the potential conflict between their two roles—constitutional and board member—there is a risk of damage to the Crown’s reputation and to the office of Governor-General if, for example, the trust were to embark on a commercial venture that subsequently failed or took decisions that proved to be controversial.

The Ministry for Culture and Heritage has reviewed the Act. It has identified these issues, which must be attended to. The board needs workable governance arrangements that maintain the original intent of the Act and also reflect contemporary expectations of board members. So what the bill does is create a clearer, formal separation between the Government and the board while ensuring a practical ongoing workable relationship.

New section 4A establishes a new statutory Crown representatives group, comprising the Prime Minister, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and the Minister of Māori Affairs, replacing the ex officio roles previously provided for in the Act. This group is intended to be a vehicle for ongoing dialogue between the Government and the board. It may well be convenient and, indeed, symbolically appropriate for their meetings to occur on or around Waitangi Day, when the board and the Crown representatives would be up there at Waitangi.

New section 4B broadens the current membership of the board by providing for parliamentary representation. Two members of Parliament are to be appointed as full members of the board. One will be nominated by the Prime Minister, and the other by the Leader of the Opposition, and this will ensure that a Government and a parliamentary perspective will be represented at the board table. The terms of office of the parliamentary representatives will expire at the end of the parliamentary term in which they are appointed, if they become Government Ministers, or if they cease to be members of this House. Part 2 contains miscellaneous provisions to amend the deed of trust and to provide for transitional arrangements for people serving as representative members of the board when the Act comes into force. These are all very sensible amendments that modernise the trust’s governance. They in no way diminish or negate Lord Bledisloe’s vision for the trust board and its work.

As I noted earlier, the trust board has broad responsibilities that go beyond the maintenance of the buildings on the site. These changes come at an important time as we look forward to the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty in 2015. The board has ambitious plans to improve the visitor experience at Waitangi. This work includes upgrading the existing visitor centre, improving interpretation at the site, and undertaking a major reinterpretation of the Treaty House. The board also plans to encourage visits by schoolchildren and to build a new museum, which is intended to give New Zealanders and overseas visitors the opportunity to learn more about the early history of New Zealand. The board is also intending to promote Waitangi as a visitor attraction to tourists, using an enhanced online presence as a marketing tool.

The Government looks forward to seeing this work progress and to a continuing positive relationship with the board. The board, on its part, has expressed support for the changes contained in the bill and welcomes the prospect of a new working relationship with the Government. I am confident these changes will also be widely supported by other parties in this House. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei ata, i a tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare Pāremata, ka whiriwhiri, ka whakaputa kōrero mō tēnei pire e pā ana ki a tātou katoa, ahakoa kiri parauri, ahakoa kiritea, ahakoa nō tēhea pito o te motu tā te mea, ko te papa tēnei i waihangatia ai, i whakaaetia ai, i whakairongia ai, ko te kawenata i tū ai tō tātou motu me tōna kāwanatanga, arā, ko te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā reira, tēnei ahau te tū i te taha ō ōku hoa ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero kua whakatakotongia ki te kapu o te pepa, ā tōna wā ka whai pakiaka, ka weu ki te mata o te ture. Nā reira, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[So greetings to us all this morning, as we sit in Parliament House to consider and to talk about this bill that relates to us all, regardless of whether we are brown, fair-skinned, or whichever end of the country we are from, because this is the ground upon which an agreement, the Treaty of Waitangi, was created, agreed, and penned—an agreement that our country and its Government was founded on. And so, I stand alongside my colleagues to endorse the statements written into this bill that will shortly become validated and embedded in law. Therefore, greetings to us all once again.]

I stand to support the amendments outlined by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. I speak with obvious affection for this part of the country not only because of wanting to embrace our heritage but by dint of coming from that part of Aotearoa. I want to remind the House that in 2006 the then Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, with the support of the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, explored whether the capital base of the Waitangi National Trust Board could be strengthened by infusion of a Crown grant. I recall being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, chairing the select committee, and it was John Key who posed the question to the acting Minister on the day—I think it was Minister Judith Tizard. That then led to some unfortunate rhetoric in and around personalities on this trust board and, indeed, from my erstwhile northern parliamentary colleague John Carter.

At that point in time, the fear was that any changes that took the Crown closer to either providing assistance or making other such changes to the Waitangi National Trust Board would weaken or corrupt the original kaupapa laid down by the Governor-General of that time, Lord Bledisloe. I think that the wrong decision was made at that time and that this trust board statute has been well and truly overdue for amendments of this nature. The fact is that this group is responsible for—well, I would say—the pre-eminent site in terms of our nation’s history and constitutional pedigree. The fact is that the Crown to date has not been able to work very closely with this organisation to ensure that it has the direction and, indeed, the resources to fulfil what this generation and future generations will expect of it as our multi-ethnicity grows and we ensure we do not move away from the original kaupapa that led to ordered, settled development in our nation State.

This is a particularly interesting bill because it seeks to blend together some of the leading colonial families, and I am glad that now there will be parliamentarians in a slightly different way, and a connection with the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the Opposition, to ensure that the two streams of thinking—the thinking of whichever the Government of the day is or, indeed, in Parliament and the thinking of the custodians of that site—do not diverge. But it is interesting because the great-grandfather of the current list member Tau Henare was an original member of this trust, as indeed was Korokī, and as indeed was the mokopuna of Te Ruki Kāwiti.

That particular appointee, Te Riri Kāwiti, was established as a custodian here to represent the interests of four families, or four lineages, of the Ngāpuhi people—Pōmare, whose mokopuna is Kelvin Davis; Pōmare, whose indigenous name was Whētoi; Pōmare, who took his name from the Tahitian king of that time. In the rather wanderlust ways of the Ngāpuhi, he had settled upon a kaupapa that he was going to go with several ships to Tahiti. The colonial forces of the time did not think that was a great idea. But Pōmare was also the tupuna who took back to Ngāti Porou their princess, their tapairu, by the name of Rangipaia. It was Pōmare who went with Hongi Hika, as being the first iwi to get the muskets to settle historic scores. But he came to grief in the Waipā River in Tainui country, and he had been warned by the High Chief Pōroa of Hokianga, who had made peace with Tainui, the ancestor Te Kanawa: “Do not make mockery of my peace.” There is a great story to be told by Hēnare Tūwhāngai and Rua Cooper that once they split the belly open of Pōmare, the Tainui managed to get the kernel of corn to grow their gardens. This is not the stuff of stuffy history. This speaks to the red blood, the liveliness, of Māori history as well.

The other ancestor is Tāmati Waka Nene. Tāmati Waka Nene is the son of Tapua. Tapua was the young man who greeted Cook, not far from the Cavalli Islands. The third tupuna mentioned here is Hone Heke. Hone Heke needs no explanation. He decided that the flagpole was a source of irritation and, a bit like his great, great, great mokopuna Hone Harawira, was rebellious to his core. I do not recall Hone Heke having a German connection, though, but that is another matter. [Interruption] A little bit of humour. That is the Ngāpuhi style—Kāwiti, Pōmare, Waka Nene, Hone Heke. That part of New Zealand’s heritage is still embedded in this bill.

The creation of the Waitangi waka is also a story that needs to be properly told, and, hopefully, will be through the restructuring of this bill. I would say to the Minister that, over time, perhaps the passage of some material assistance would be valuable because this trust went through a bad patch prior to the arrival of Sir Don McKinnon. I have to acknowledge Sir Don McKinnon as having done a great job in turning the fortunes of this trust round. It made an unwise decision about a decade ago. One bad executive can create all types of tantrums, so I am so glad to learn that he has remained involved, and indeed it has a fund-raising initiative with Westpac Bank, which has continued to offer its support.

The story of the Ngāpuhi waka Ngātokimatawhaorua, a replica of which lies at Waitangi, was the effort of Te Pūea and the effort of Ngata, supported by Tau Henare’s tupuna, who brought the big logs out of Ngāti Hine. Hone Harawira and I have an uncle who has recently passed away. He was the last surviving man who paddled that canoe when he went home from St Stephen’s School, on holiday—Mr Glass Murray. He told us the story of how they were assembled near Kerikeri, and the Tainui had come forward and were helping them with the drills. But in the great Ngāpuhi tradition, the Hokianga people took offence at this. So they went into the backblocks of Hokianga and built their own waka. That waka too was called Ngātokimatawhaorua-iti and it took place under the leadership of the tohunga of Ngāpuhi of that time, Mr Rei Kauere, aided by Toki Pāngari. That waka has been restored. It has also graced the waters recently at Waitangi.

I only hope that that part of the history is embraced as this trust grows and acts as a custodian for future generations because know this: as the demography and the composition of our population changes, we must fight incessantly to ensure that we do not become untethered from this original narrative outlined in the Treaty, hopefully safeguarded and evolved through good stewardship of this organisation. I feel a lot more confident as a consequence of these statutory changes that the organisation will grow to meet the challenges of the time. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Waitangi is a place that belongs to all New Zealanders—Pākehā and Māori. Incredibly, those words were spoken 80 years ago by a British Lord who had been born in the same year that British troops invaded Waikato-Tainui. Lord Charles Bathurst Bledisloe, New Zealand’s fourth Governor-General, was a visionary man, a man whose thinking was years ahead of his time, a man whose generous actions matched his words. When public servants’ salaries were cut during the Great Depression, Lord Bledisloe insisted the Government reduce his own salary by the same proportion—something we do here in this House! It meant that he ended up using his own private income to carry out his duties and to leave an enduring mark upon New Zealand history.

In 1931 he donated the Bledisloe Cup to mark the annual rugby test between Australia and New Zealand. The Bledisloe remains physically the largest cup in world rugby. In 1933 after working alongside Tā Apirana Ngata, Lord Bledisloe donated the Ahuwhenua Trophy for the Māori Farmer of the Year. The Ahuwhenua remains New Zealand’s oldest national farming competition. However, Lord Bledisloe’s most significant gift to the nation was made in 1932, when he used his own money and purchased the Waitangi estate from private vendors. He then gifted all 1,000 acres to the nation and said that Waitangi is the birthplace of our nation and that Waitangi is a place that belongs to all New Zealanders—Pākehā and Māori. More than 80 years later, Lord Bledisloe’s words resound through the generations. They are as relevant today as they were in 1932.

This bill is about nation-building, and it has been a great honour to have served as a member of the Waitangi National Trust. Those who have served before me include representatives, some of whom have been mentioned already. They include some of the forefathers of Aotearoa, particularly of the north: Hone Heke, Maihi Kāwiti, Tāmati Waka Nene, Pōmare, James Busby, Archdeacon Henry Williams, and Edward Gibbon Wakefield. Those of us who are privileged to serve on the trust today have very large shoes to fill and to follow.

This bill strengthens the existing trust by making the Governor-General its honorary patron. It extends the membership, with two additional members of Parliament who are not members of Cabinet. The Crown representatives will provide for an enduring relationship between the Crown and the Waitangi National Trust. It will be made up of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. This legislative makeover for the Waitangi National Trust is being matched on the ground with plans for a state-of-the-art Waitangi Museum. The plans are outstanding and in keeping with the trust’s vision for Waitangi to be a place for all New Zealanders, a place central to our history as a nation, a place central to our growth as a nation, a place of honour, partnership, scholarship and courage, and a place for all Kiwis to want to visit at least once in their lifetime.

Next year Aotearoa New Zealand turns 175 years old from the signing of the Treaty. This bill is about succession planning; futureproofing our most significant national site. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi marked the birth of our nation. The lands at Waitangi mark the birthplace of our nation. The Treaty of Waitangi itself is the birth certificate of our nation. Ka hoki ōku mahara ki te wā i tae tuatahi au ki ngā whenua o Waitangi, ā, he taitama tonu au i tērā wā. I uru au ki roto i te whare i reira, ā, he whare i whakatūria i te tau 1940. I reira ngā kupu: ko au anō tētahi i reira.

[My thoughts go back to the first time when I went to the Treaty grounds. I was still a young man at that stage. I went into the house that was there, which was built in 1940, and there were the words: I was one of the ones present.]

Those words were put in that house for the reason that that house was erected—that every tree had some Governor-General’s name associated with those trees. So in 1940, when they built the house and opened it, this says: “I was also there.”, putting the other half of the Treaty, the Māori people, in there. It is a pleasure for me to stand and support this bill today. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be able to join previous speakers and support the passage of this bill, the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill.

I was listening to my colleague Shane Jones reciting history, and I can say that in terms of the relationship the Bledisloes had throughout the country with Māoridom at the time, it was certainly significant. They visited Tūrangawaewae Marae a number of times. Te Rata was a member of the original trust board. It was during this time that Te Pūea consolidated the nature of that relationship by sending our master carvers up to the north to be able to carve Ngātokimatawhaorua. I am recalling those carvers like Piri Poutapu, Hoani Hērangi, and the like, who contributed their time and effort to the aspiration set down by the Bledisloes to remember our history; to purchase this piece of estate and gift it back to the nation in a way that we can celebrate. It is a place that is a historical site of significance, not just to the north and not just to Māori but to New Zealanders. Eighty years later, now that we are looking again at this legislation, we can remember with only pride the amount of foresight that was held by those leaders at the time to make sure that where the founding document of our country was signed, there was a place to remember that occasion. I want to acknowledge Pita Paraone, who is a current board member of the trust and is listening to the debate, representing those original whānau who were on the board as well.

I am really excited by the fact that the time has now come to modernise the trust deed, which informs the way in which the trust board operates, but also to think about how Waitangi as a site of significance can grow and be a place where more tourists come to learn about our history and more schoolchildren come to experience a little bit of what is unique about New Zealand. I want to maybe dwell a little bit on some of that opportunity. I do not think that there is a school in the country that I have visited where Waitangi is not an annual school trip fixture—maybe not for all the classes of the school, but they always try to make a pilgrimage to Waitangi or to Parliament here in Wellington.

It is with that kind of sense of optimism that I want to say that the trust board does the nation a great service, not just by looking after the place in itself but by continually challenging itself to see how it can be a part of telling New Zealand’s stories. I remember some years ago there was a debate about the fee for going in to visit the place. At the time I think people were saying that New Zealanders should be charged nothing and only tourists should pay. That was by the by, and I think the real point of the debates of the day is that the trust board has a good opportunity to link New Zealand’s national heritage and story in a way that continues to promote us with some integrity. That is a two-sided story.

I want to come to the membership of the board. We support this bill going to the select committee because we think it is far overdue that the trust deed be modernised so that the membership and the way in which it works for the benefit of the board can be a more proactive, I guess, engagement of ideas, skills, and enthusiasm.

Having had a discussion with people around this particular bill, maybe there are two issues that might be put on the table now that we might expect at the select committee. I am expecting that it will come to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: It will.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Fantastic. I must have been distracted slightly. When it gets to the select committee, maybe the issue of the lands in the estate supporting the work of the board could be a possible point of discussion. Shane Jones raised the issue about potential further investment from the Government for the ongoing operations of the trust board, but more important is guaranteeing to the board that the whole estate that was gifted to the Waitangi National Trust Board remains intact. At the moment we have got Treaty settlements in the area. Far be it from me to predict what might be part of the settlement package, but if the farm estate in this area, which was originally gifted for the purposes of preserving this particular site, becomes part of a settlement package, we might see ourselves revisiting a number of components of our contributions today, which will not be very helpful, I think.

The other point is one that I observed when I looked at the original membership of the board in the bill. We have one member who represents four of the Māori whānau who have a direct connection there. One might presume that each of those whānau in their own right deserves to have a member sit on the board and make a contribution. I understand they have come to their own arrangement, where there is a rotation of who represents those four whānau, but that is still one representative for four whānau. That could, again, be a matter that the select committee might have to consider at that point. I do not want to dwell too much more on this bill. We need to get it to the select committee. Hopefully, we will get at least to the submissions before the House rises.

Shane recited some history that also links to my Ngāpuhi connections and my Te Takapau Ngāti Manu connections to Pōmare. The place that he was referring to back home in the Waikato was Te Rore, where that incident happened. It is a place that has for my own family particular significance because of that event, but, more important, I think it is an opportunity for us to live what the successive, I guess, marriage relationships have been in consolidating the relationships between Waikato and Ngāpuhi.

Nō reira, with that said, I support the bill. I support the renewing of the trust deed and the revisiting of the membership of the trust board. I would like to get an assurance at some point about the nature of the estate that looks after the trust. If Shane Jones’ recollection of history is right, there may well need to be in the future some consideration of further investment to support the activities of the board. Tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to stand for the Greens and speak in support of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. On the face of it, typically the restructuring by some amendments of a Government body might not excite much emotion or passion, except, of course, that this bill does relate to what is undoubtedly the single most important historic site in New Zealand. For that reason, of course, it is important that the work be done and that we get it right. I believe the Green position is that largely this does seem to be a well-intentioned and well-drafted piece of legislation that does effect some necessary and positive changes. For those reasons, we of course will support it.

It has taken some time to get to this point. If I understand correctly, there was a review undertaken by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage—the Ministry of Arts and Culture, as it may have been then—in 2006 to 2008, and there were some concerns about the potential for constitutional conflict in the various roles of the Prime Minister, particularly, and, indeed, the Governor-General. It is interesting to note that in 2007 the then Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, broke with convention by choosing not to take up a seat that was available to him on the board, which, one can only assume, reflected a level of unease, perhaps, from a gentleman of the highest integrity. I think there is a signal in that that all has not been well with the existing structure. So, as I say, I think it is a good thing to move on and to look at what and how we can do better.

I think it is critically important that we retain a couple of the key characteristics of the original board as it was formatted, and those characteristics are representation and inclusion. Clearly, it was insightful to the extent that membership of the board represented Māori with significant mana and connections to the site and to New Zealand more generally, and, of course, Pākehā and Government representatives. When you see names on that original board like Kāwiti, Hēnare, Māhuta, and Williams, these are names that resonate with anybody with the least understanding of, or exposure to, our New Zealand history. It is important that we retain that quality of representation, the breadth of representation, and the inclusiveness of the representation on the board. We have no qualms with this bill in the sense that we think it will achieve that. With people with goodwill, there is no reason we cannot continue to retain the best of it but make some necessary amendments to it.

I believe that there was initially some concern that the bill on the face of it appeared to be politicians handing away a level of power and control. That is not something that politicians are wont to do, typically. It perhaps created a little bit of unease or some questions raised, but I think that it is clear that it is well-intentioned. It does address a potentially concerning constitutional conflict, and we see nothing in it that is not benign and helpful.

I think it is important to acknowledge that in Waitangi as a site, as a historic site, and as a dynamic, live, living place, there have been some positive developments in recent years. The whole ambience and the whole dynamic of the place seem to have picked up. It is a more engaging place. It is in beautiful condition. It is well cared for. It reflects care and concern being put in to it. There have been some developments, and I think one would hope that the new board, in its new format, will continue. It is a historic site, obviously, but it is also part of our present and part of our future. It is very encouraging to hear that there are some positive plans afoot to expand the site, to add value to it. I must confess that I continue to be surprised by the number of New Zealanders who actually have never set foot in Waitangi. No doubt there are other places around New Zealand where people have not been, and to my mind it is peculiar. But I do think to the extent that we can add value to the site and make it a more open, more interesting, more engaging place for those who do not have the close relationship to it that some of us already do, as I say, the plans afoot, it would seem, will achieve that outcome as well. I think that is as much as I need to say.

As I say, the Greens are very keen and able to support this. We look forward to engaging in the select committee process. One of the things the bill does, of course, is to have a Government representative and a person representing the Opposition parties. It is important that those people, particularly the person representing the Opposition parties, are selected in a cross-party, consensual sort of way. Clearly, an MMP situation does require that there be a level of engagement before that appointment is made, to ensure that whoever stands in that role will have the support of all of the Opposition parties. Indeed, the same applies for the Government representative, given the likelihood that the Government of any day will constitute a number of different parties under our MMP system. We look forward to this. We think it is well-intentioned. We think it will deliver good outcomes. We will be pleased to vote for its process through the House. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Tēnā tātou katoa. It is with a sense of pride that I stand and speak on this bill, the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. It is about 10 days away from the 100th anniversary of the election of my great-grandfather to this House. From 1914 to 1938 he represented the Northern Maori electorate. When you read through his Hansard—it is not like the Hansard of these days—his was centred really on one thing, and that was the Treaty of Waitangi. His time here, 24 years, was centred on making sure that Waitangi was the jewel in the crown. I stand here with a sense of pride that my great-grandfather was able to do so much for the nation in terms of actually getting the place running and being an inaugural member of the Waitangi National Trust Board, as I have also served on it when I was the Minister of Māori Affairs.

I just want to take a brief call to mention a few names and also to say that I am looking forward—actually, it is a bit serendipitous that this may be my—

Hone Harawira: Serendipitous? Woo hoo!

Hon TAU HENARE: I see Mr Harawira has been out figuring out what “serendipitous” means. But anyway, I think it will be one of the last things that I do as chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee. I am looking forward to going to Waitangi and listening to some of the kōrero there—the submissions about what we are doing. I am interested to see the proposal that there be a Government representative and a member of the Opposition. It is not new. I maybe think that those people should represent Parliament, rather than the Government or the Opposition, as we do in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We are parliamentary representatives, rather than representing the Opposition or representing the Government.

Waitangi is the single most important geographical point in New Zealand, absolutely. If you travel the world and see other countries and the respect and honour that they give their birthplaces, I think that we tend to miss out on that emotional tie to the birth of the nation. There was a whole lot of stuff that happened prior to the Treaty of Waitangi and to Waitangi becoming the home of New Zealand, but we should revel in the fact that as we go forward we do have a place that was established in 1840.

Two names that I want to write into the records are George Waititi and Eramiha Te Kapua, and also Mōtatau’s gift, I suppose, to the nation of the tōtara that was pulled out of the Ngāti Hine forest to build the whare rūnanga, which were actually carved at Mōtatau. My great-grandfather’s son Sir James Hēnare spent years with the trust, making sure that he carried on that mantel, and his son Ērima Hēnare has done the same. I also want to congratulate the present board, with Pita Paraone, a former member of Parliament, and also Sir Donald McKinnon, a former Deputy Prime Minister as well.

I think the trust has a rosy future, and I think that we need to make sure that we do not change it just because we think it might need changing. I think we should definitely listen to those who come before the select committee with their views. On that note, thank you very much.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to us all, members of this House.]

I rise in support of the first reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. It gives me honour to support previous speakers in acknowledging the national significance of the Waitangi grounds and its history. I too look forward to the progress of the bill, with its commitment to modernising the governance arrangements of the trust board. Can I first acknowledge Pita Paraone, a former member of this House and the current chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe, matua. I too am happy to hear that this bill will get forwarded to the Māori Affairs Committee.

My contribution is really in acknowledging the iwi of the far north. I note the Hon Chris Finlayson’s acknowledgment of Lord Bledisloe but I want to acknowledge those original iwi owners. The history in my research is that after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the grounds belonged to the Busby family. In 1882 Agnes Busby, the wife of James Busby, sold the land, 10 years after his passing. It was local iwi who felt that the farmlands were in decline and sought to persuade Parliament to support the resurrection of what was a significant site—the beginning of our history and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. I want to pay tribute to the iwi of the time who did forge and try to pursue that resurrection, and their commitment of support to make the Waitangi Treaty Grounds into what they have become now. So I wanted to first pay tribute to them.

It was interesting, in my own little bit of research about that time, that in 1878, when members of local tribes petitioned the Government to set up a commemorative meeting house, the Government of the day actually refused. I am glad we are not in that period, but it is important that if we are going to be honest about our history, we acknowledge that part—that there were other people just as determined as, clearly, Lord Bledisloe and the local MP, Vernon Reed, were at the time to bring the state of the Waitangi Treaty Grounds estate to the attention of Parliament.

I want to acknowledge the original trustees who took part in this trust board. I want to share a little story about having attended one of those trust board meetings at Government House under the governance role of the former Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright. I attended a meeting with the trust alongside my predecessor, the late Hon Parekura Horomia. There are times in your life when you are amongst people who have touched history that is significant to you. I can share with you that the hairs on the back of my neck rose when I sat at a table with direct descendants of Hone Heke, Tāmati Waka Nene, and the Pōmare whānau on one side, and on the other side there were direct descendants of the Williams family, the Bledisloe family, and, of course, the Busby family, as well as the Wakefield family. It was one of those occasions before which you had not thought you would ever be able to touch your history in such a personal way. I do know, from that short time that I sat at the table with those trust members, the absolute commitment those members have to honouring the founders in terms of reserving this site on behalf of all the nation, so I do want to acknowledge, like I said, the original trust members.

Also I want to acknowledge the work done on this particular amendment bill by Mr Finlayson in terms of strengthening the relationship between the Crown and the board. I too want to add my support to the Government—whoever is in Government—seriously considering the ongoing resourcing and investment into ensuring that with this trust, on behalf of all the nation, we acknowledge the significance of the Waitangi grounds in terms of forging our history as a country. It is quite fitting that we investigate ways in which we not only support it in spirit but actually support it with resourcing.

So I join with all members in this House in supporting the first reading of this bill. I too look forward to it coming to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I encourage people to participate in that process to ensure that these grounds have a major and unquestionable part to play not just in our history as a nation but definitely in our future going forward. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It is a privilege to take a short call on this particular piece of legislation, the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. As the MP for Northland I just want to acknowledge the work of the Waitangi National Trust Board and Pita Paraone and Greg McManus and the work that they are doing there. There has been something of a renaissance in the efforts in Waitangi, and that is so very important to not only the people of Northland but the people of New Zealand because of the significance, which many have regaled, of the history and the personalities and the individuals, and, of course, because of it being the birthplace of New Zealand.

Can I just acknowledge the Hon Tau Henare, who has been an outstanding member of Parliament and a flamboyant and colourful individual. I will certainly miss his involvement in this place, now that he has signalled via the Twittersphere that he is moving on. I will always remember, of course, that he spent most of my first political term trying to convince me that Tau Henare Drive was actually named after him and not after his great-grandfather. I have since come to learn that I have been defrauded by his machinations. He is a very, very important part of this place and its history here, but I also think we should acknowledge the contribution that he has made to Māoridom, and this bill is, I think, another step in a very positive direction in terms of the significance of our nation and the way in which we are coming together as many peoples, in actual fact, and forging ahead.

The significance of Waitangi cannot be understated. As a Northlander for many, many years of my life, the significance of Waitangi has not really landed upon me in the way that I think it should. It is probably a sad indictment that in many ways we have not got the cultural settings or the identity in the fit place. I think that a bill like this—and the good work of the Hon Chris Finlayson in terms of the Treaty settlement process and the opportunities that are in front of us to be led by law from Waitangi, the birthplace of New Zealand—is very, very important.

I look forward to participating in whatever way I can to support the interests of the Waitangi National Trust Board. I think that the governance structure and the model that is obviously set ahead of us in terms of this legislation makes absolute sense in a practical and pragmatic way, but what we should also reflect on is the importance of where we are going as a nation, where we have come from as a nation, and what the Waitangi National Trust Board can be, and is and should be, for this nation. It is a privilege to support this piece of legislation and to support those in Tai Tokerau who work in the interests of all of New Zealand. I support this bill wholeheartedly.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koutou katoa. The Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932 incorporated the Waitangi National Trust Board, which administers the Waitangi Treaty grounds and associated lands. National is delivering on its promise to improve governance for the arts. The governance structure of the Waitangi National Trust Board will be modernised to reflect the cultural and historical importance of the Treaty grounds at Waitangi. Waitangi is the birthplace of this nation, both old and new, and it is fitting that this important heritage status is acknowledged.

The Treaty House was originally known as the residence where James Busby conducted much of his official mahi from 1833 to 1846. Te Whare Rūnanga was the idea of two great tūpuna: Tau Hēnare and Sir Apirana Ngata. Te Whare Rūnanga was opened in 1940—100 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The waka house near Te Ana o Maikuku homes the ceremonial waka Ngātokimatawhaorua. The flag that was first flown at the grounds was that of the United Tribes of New Zealand.

These are the historical stories around Waitangi, but there are also very modern stories around Waitangi, and many of us in the House were part of that modern-day story when we marched in protest about the honouring of the Treaty. I am really proud to be standing with this Government and alongside my Ministers in this Government who have signed the majority of Treaty claims.

The trust is self-funded and maintains the Treaty grounds without cost to the people of Aotearoa. The changes in the bill will strengthen the financial viability and governance structure of that trust. This will enable us to increasingly place Waitangi—its history and significance—at the heart of being a New Zealander and as an essential experience for overseas manuhiri, as well.

The Waitangi National Trust Board currently consists of two categories of members—ex officio members and representative members. At this time I would like to acknowledge our rangatira Pita Paraone, Ērima Hēnare, and Sir Tumu Te Heuheu.

The Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill introduces changes to the composition of that board. The Governor-General and Ministers will be removed from ex officio positions on the board. The Governor-General will become an honorary patron of the trust. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and the Minister of Māori Affairs will form a Crown representative group to foster good relationships and share information with the board.

Two members of Parliament, one representing the Government and one representing the Opposition, will be appointed as full members of the board. By removing the Governor-General and Ministers from ex officio positions on the board, the bill removes the risk of conflict between their constitutional roles and their roles as trustees. I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the National caucus on this Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. Colleagues before me from both sides of the House have gone through the history in quite a lot of detail.

But I do want to bring just one extra point to the House. Minister Chris Finlayson talked about the original members of the very first trust board, one of whom was Vernon Reed. Vernon Reed became a member of Parliament in the Bay of Islands from 1908. He is the grandfather of my father’s wife, Kirsty Reed, so I have a very interesting connection to the Williams family. Having been involved in many discussions with Kirsty and her family—and they have portrayed the stories of that time—I do want to acknowledge each and every one of the members of both the original board of the Waitangi National Trust and every single member who has served since that time, and, obviously, Lord and Lady Bledisloe themselves, because what they have done is allow a very important part of New Zealand’s history to be maintained and restored. So whether it is schoolchildren visiting as part of their education about Waitangi, or whether it is the pilgrimage of many, many New Zealanders on Waitangi Day, they have preserved a treasure that is important to all Kiwis.

One of the other things that were interesting when my stepmother, Kirsty, was going through some of the history, and bringing out some of the books that were written at the time, including one by Vernon Reed, was looking through some of the photos. I was intrigued to read the name Tau Hēnare. Of course, that was Tau Henare’s great-grandfather, who, I have since learnt, was a great friend of Vernon Reed. So it is somewhat interesting to then see that two descendants, albeit connected through marriage, are serving in the House of Parliament now.

I do want to acknowledge my colleague—if he is listening—the Hon Tau Henare, who is muttering. I want to acknowledge his service to this House over a significant period of time, and I acknowledge the announcement of his intention to retire from Parliament at this upcoming election. He has served New Zealand very well, and I am very proud that his forefathers served with a member of my extended family in this House and that they have allowed for this national treasure to be maintained. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Ā, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou kua tae mai ki tēnei Whare mō te wā whakamutunga. Kua oti te tono mai, te whiriwhiri ngā kōrero me ērā atu. Nā reira, kua tae pai mai koutou i tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou katoa, tae noa ki ngā mihi ki a rātou kua ngaro atu, rātou kua tukuna atu ki te kōpū o te whaea. Nā reira, haere ngā mate. Waiho rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, e kawe nei i tēnei kaupapa mō te rā nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you all. Salutations to you collectively who have arrived here in this House for the final time. Submissions, statements, and everything else have been completed. Therefore you have arrived here safely on this day, so we acknowledge you all, including the tributes accorded to those who have passed away and have been interred in the womb of mother Earth. So farewell the dead. Allow them to remain there among their own while we deal with this matter that is before us today. Greetings and acknowledgments to you all.]

I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the members of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū who have travelled here to join us on this important day. I acknowledge those who carried the burden of the wrong suffered by Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, many who have passed away without seeing this day. Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū are tangata whenua within their takiwā. In their takiwā they have held and continue to hold ahi kā roa. Their takiwā extends from Maungaharuru Range in the west to Tangitū in the east, from Waikari River in the north to Waiōhinganga and Keteketerau in the south. This is the takiwā of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, who are commonly known as Ngāti Marangatūhetaua, also known as Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tāngoio, and Ngāi Tauira—tēnā koutou.

In this takiwā, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū were the recipients of the Crown’s actions and inactions, which cannot be ignored or excused. In this takiwā, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū were challenged on their own whenua, yet, despite this, here they are today to settle with the Crown. The story of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū is therefore not a story about land loss but one of determined continuity. The settlement for Maungaharuru-Tangitū as encapsulated by this bill is a result of that determination. Prior to the arrival of the Pākehā, Maungaharuru-Tangitū lived independently and without the need to leave their rohe to survive. The Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū whakatauāki “Ko tō rātou pā kai ngā rekereke” means that their fortified villages were in their heels, and it eloquently describes that life for the hapū. Resources available on the coast of Tangitū and available on the inland areas mean9t that Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū had year-round nourishment without having to leave their tribal boundaries. These rich resources were and continue to be taonga to Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. The Crown’s actions completely changed this way of life.

We are here today to consider a bill that resolves injustices inflicted by the Crown through its acts and omissions under the privileges of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, arā Treaty of Waitangi. From the 1850s the Crown undertook a process that systematically confiscated nearly all of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū ancestral lands. The Waitangi Tribunal recorded in its Mohaka ki Ahuriri Report that Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū suffered land loss through pre-1865 Crown purchase, the operation from 1865 of the Native Land Court, the 1867 confiscation, and later Crown purchasing mainly conducted from 1910 to 1930. The impact of the land loss, the lack of development opportunities, the fragmentation and multiple ownership of tiny parcels of land, and the lack of access to the remaining land completely undermined the social, economic base of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. The impacts of that land loss can still be seen today.

Yet, despite that, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū are here today to settle with the Crown—me mihi ki a tātou. For generations Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū have sought redress for the many breaches of the Treaty by the Crown. From Te Teira Te Paea’s petition to the Privy Council in London in 1901 over the confiscation of Kaiwaka Block, to the filing of claims with the Waitangi Tribunal in the 1990s, Maungaharuru-Tangitū have continued to seek justice for the wrongs they have suffered.

In May 2004 the tribunal presented the then Minister of Māori Affairs, the late Hon Parekura Horomia, with the Mohaka ki Ahuriri Report. It reported that the claims of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū were well founded. It concluded that overall it had identified serious breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown in the loss of Māori land in their district. The Waitangi Tribunal recorded in its Mohaka ki Ahuriri Report many actions and inactions by the Crown, a few I will mention here. It found that the Crown negotiated unscrupulously to purchase land at Ahuriri and Mōhaka in 1851. It described that the Crown was unjustified in its attacks on Pai Mārire followers at Ōmaranui and Pētane and its subsequent pursuit of the escapees and destruction of their property.

Further, the tribunal reported that the Crown unlawfully confiscated land from Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and had no basis for depriving the hapū of ownership of the Tāngoio and Maungaharuru blocks. It did not provide any redress for this exclusion of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū from the title to the Kaiwaka Block in 1870, despite protests by the hapū over many years and the extensive legal action they successfully took to be included in the title. The Crown also failed to adequately protect the environment in Mōhaka ki Ahuriri, including Lake Tūtira, coastal reefs, and other places. Through its failure to adequately protect the environment, the Crown’s actions negatively impacted on the treasured resources of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and the little land they retained. With resources impacted upon, the Crown failed to make adequate efforts to halt Māori depopulation and improve the health and living standards of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū to standards equal to those of the Pākehā. These actions by the Crown and others cannot be ignored or excused, and today Maungaharuru-Tangitū is here to settle with the Crown.

Today this bill gives effect to the deed of settlement negotiated between the Crown and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. This bill provides for cultural, financial, and commercial redress, in compensation for these breaches. It is a way that the Crown can acknowledge that it breached the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a way the Crown can apologise for those breaches and their consequences. This bill looks to make amends for the Crown’s past actions, and to build a shared future with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. The legislation before us is much more than a new law. It is a history of a people. It is the future of a people. It allows Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and the Crown to acknowledge the past grievances and look forward to a more prosperous future. It is about creating a bright and prosperous future for Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū.

At this point I just want to pay tribute to Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. They have suffered heavily at the hands of the Crown, but Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū have a proud history of seeking justice and have not remained passive as these injustices have occurred. They have continued in their kaupapa resolute and determined. I stand before you to acknowledge the courage and determination you have shown. However, my words can only briefly touch upon the mamae and the pain that Maungaharuru-Tangitū have had to endure and carry. This settlement will support the healing of the relationship between Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and the Crown. It also serves an important lesson for the Crown, to ensure that the devastation inflicted on Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū is never repeated. I hope the apology that forms part of this settlement will also assist in this healing. We acknowledge that as a consequence of the Crown’s actions from 1850, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū have been left bereft in its own whenua, yet they have come today to settle with the Crown. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koe.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us all, members of this House.]

It is an honour to rise and speak in the third and final reading of this significant bill, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. It is an honour on a couple of fronts. It is an honour because I am the local member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, from which these people descend. But, more important, it is an honour for me to rise in support of this bill because I share common ancestry with my kinfolk who have joined us here in the public gallery today. My great grand-uncle Harvey Whaitiri is borne in the urupā of Pētane and I share common ancestry with the Spooner or Puna whānau. E te iwi kua tae mai tēnei wā, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai. Hoki mai ki tō tātou Whare i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira. Nō reira, ōku rau rangatira, e kui mā, e koro mā, ngā mātua, ngā mokopuna, tamariki hoki, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi.

[To the tribe who have arrived here at this point in time, welcome, welcome, welcome. Return to our House in regard to this important matter. And so, to you my leaders of a hundredfold, my elderly women and menfolk, my parents, grandchildren and children as well, I acknowledge, salute, and greet you.]

The Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū deed of settlement is the full and final settlement of all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. It is made up of a package that includes an agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments that form the basis for a Crown apology to Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. It includes cultural redress and it includes financial and commercial redress. The benefits of this settlement will be available to all members of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, wherever they may live.

All Treaty claims are unique, and there is no difference with this particular claim. I want to acknowledge the envy that I share with the people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū in terms of their takiwā and what it stands for. To members of the House and to the people who are listening, if you ever get the opportunity, you see amongst us a proud people—a proud people who enjoyed, prior to the wars of the past and the confiscation of land that occurred, the absolute subsistence of a beautiful forest out at Maungaharuru and all of the bounties of the coastline. Maungaharuru-Tangitū ki te tai, Maungaharuru-Tangitū ki uta.

[Maungaharuru-Tangitū to the shore, and Maungaharuru-Tangitū towards the hills.]

I mihi to you all in your tenacity and commitment to getting to today’s final reading of your important bill.

The Hon Pita Sharples has amply described the history and the mamae suffered by these people. Like I said, every settlement is unique. When I look over the settlement of Maungaharuru-Tangitū I want to touch on two particular areas that, for me, are unique to this settlement. I did mention them in my second reading speech when this bill came through the House. Unfortunately, we had bad weather so we could not get the whānau here, but I know that you were all here in spirit as we spoke of that.

The unique point of difference for me in this settlement is the speed with which the claims were actually settled. The speed that I acknowledged in my second reading speech was, on looking at it, 3 years and 7 months. Some people will say that that may be too fast and others may say “Phew, that was really efficient.”, but I do want to acknowledge your negotiators. I do want to acknowledge that without the people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū getting behind the process, I do not think you would have met those time lines. I know Tānia Hopmans. I mihi to Tānia and Uncle Bevan and the others involved in the whole negotiation process for not only the swiftness with which you presented the claims but the way you shepherded your whānau, the hapū, to actually get to this point.

Like I said, the deed of mandate, just for the record, was signed on 20 October 2009. The agreement in principle was signed on 22 September 2011. The deed of settlement was signed on 22 March 2013 and it was ratified by the whānau on 25 May 2013. So from go to whoa—and I mention that the significant difference that stood out for me in this settlement was the speed—in 3 years and 7 months is pretty tough going. As a former Treaty negotiator I can say that that needs to be acknowledged. Underlying it is the work that went on behind the scenes. Also being a former mandated negotiator, the pressures on the whānau to move that swiftly cannot be underestimated. I am labouring this point, but I am doing it in acknowledgment that you would have got to this point only if you had the buy-in and commitment of the whole kainga, so again I mihi to you all for that.

The second significant part that jumps out at me in this settlement is the strong emphasis Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū have placed on the cultural redress in this bill. I acknowledge the many reserves, the lake beds, and the coastline that they have obviously fought to return some sort of control back to ngā hapū of Mangaharuru-Tangitū. Without dwarfing the financial redress, it speaks volumes of the importance that those cultural redress sites and those sites of significance have to a people who were left, I guess, desolate in terms of the land that they lost. So again that was clearly a strategy and a commitment from ngā hapū of Maungaharuru-Tangitū to ensuring that our lands, our waterways, and our coastline have returned back under the mana where they rightfully sit. So I want to acknowledge that as a significant component of this settlement.

I also want to quickly turn to the select committee process. I too want to acknowledge our chairman, the Hon Tau Henare. I am not going to say farewell—that will come in due course. The hearing that we had in Napier, which many of our whānau attended, was ably chaired by Te Ururoa Flavell. Because Tau likes to keep us moving in the Māori Affairs Committee, we had half the committee up at Auckland on that day and the other half came to Napier. So I do want to mihi to those who attended that hearing. The issue that came up that was addressed at the select committee hearing was hapū not feeling included, and also the cross-boundary issues between Maungaharuru-Tangitū and Ngāti Pāhauwera. I can say that through the work of the select committee, we were pleased that no one was going to miss out—no one was going to miss out. That became clear in the submission response on behalf of Maungaharuru-Tangitū that those whānau—who are our whānau—who felt they were not being included now would be. So the select committee process was fairly straightforward and robust, and we were very happy to support this bill in getting to where we are today.

As I close, it is important that I acknowledge people who have shepherded this bill to the House today. I do want to pay tribute to our kaumātuas, first and foremost—those who are here and those who are not here—for your wisdom, your guidance, and your patience in getting us over the line. To the negotiators, the settlement claim members, I mihi to you all. I mihi to ngā hapū for your involvement in ratification, and the Hon Pita Sharples mentioned the hapū. Also I mihi to the Hon Chris Finlayson, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and Government officials for their support and making sure that we got here today. I mihi to you, Mr Finlayson. Finally, I mihi to members of our select committee, who did the job expected of us to ensure that when this bill got to this House we had dotted every “i” and crossed every “t”. I can say without a doubt that that was done, ensuring that our part in this process was completed to the satisfaction of this House. I join with all members in this House in celebrating with ngā hapū of Mangaharuru-Tangitū this full and final reading of this bill. I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I too acknowledge the people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and the long road that they have taken to reach this day. I welcome those who have travelled from the Hawke’s Bay to be here to listen to this, the third reading of their bill, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. To those of you who have worked so tirelessly to make today possible, I offer you my sincere thanks. It is wonderful to have this day arrive. It has been more than 20 years since Fred Reti, Bevan Taylor, Heitia Hiha, and others brought their raupatu claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, and those three individuals have been involved in the negotiations to this day.

I acknowledge the many kuia and kaumātua who are no longer with us, including Rere Puna and Arona Rangitere Taurima, who provided leadership, wisdom, and inspiration to the negotiators and to the hapū in their long journey for justice. I think the negotiators and the komiti for Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū have done their people proud. They left no stone unturned and no aspiration untold. Their determination to achieve the best for the hapū has, I think, led to a robust settlement package. It is a package that clearly reflects the four aka, or vines—the intertwined aspirations of the hapū—which, I believe, will continue to grow upwards long after settlement date.

This bill settles the historic Treaty grievances of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. In this bill the Crown formally acknowledges its breaches of the Treaty, offers an apology, and provides cultural, financial, and commercial redress. I think it would be good if many, many New Zealanders looked at the history of this hapū. The claims relate primarily to war, raupatu, and Crown land - purchasing methods that left the hapū virtually landless by 1930. The Crown purchased large areas of land from the hapū in the 1850s and 1860s without ensuring that the hapū would always retain adequate reserves. In October 1866 the Crown’s military forces unjustly attacked Māori at Ōmarunui and Pētane and began to treat the hapū as rebels. Some individuals were detained without trial for nearly 2 years on the Chatham Islands, and after they escaped became embroiled in a war with the Crown, during which Crown forces summarily executed some prisoners at Ngātapa in 1869.

The Crown confiscated hapū land at Tāngoio North and awarded their land at Kaiwaka to one of its Māori allies, who was not a member of the hapū. This led to the hapū beginning litigation, which proved fruitless and led to huge costs for the hapū, which were borne for generations. The Crown’s confiscation process led to the extinguishment of the hapū’s customary titles to nearly all of their remaining land. The Crown did agree in 1870 to grant this remaining land to individual members of the hapū, and also agreed that this land would be inalienable. However, between 1911 and 1930 the Crown unfairly and oppressively purchased nearly all of this land and left the hapū virtually landless.

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

The Crown failed to actively protect the hapū from the degradations of war, the alienation of their land, and the effects of native land laws. The hapū were not able to retain their land, maintain it economically, or prevent its deterioration. As with all Treaty settlements, it is not possible to provide full reparation for the losses that have been suffered. By entering into a full and final settlement, the people of this hapū have agreed to forgo full compensation, thereby contributing to the future development of New Zealand. I place on record on behalf of the Crown our acknowledgment of that and our thanks for this act of generosity.

As so often happens in a third reading, there are so many people who deserve to be acknowledged—those who have contributed to this settlement over the years. I want to acknowledge my ministerial colleagues—in particular, the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Conservation. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Hastings District Council deserve recognition because they really have been very helpful and very willing to engage with officials and the hapū. That has been central to a number of elements of the redress. I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee and my good friend Tau Henare. Now is not the time for a valedictory address in the direction of Mr Henare, but he has been a fantastic chair of the Māori Affairs Committee over many years, and he is going to be missed.

I want to acknowledge the valuable support and contribution made by the work of many Government officials and departments who have contributed to this settlement. I also acknowledge those who have worked with Maungaharuru-Tangitū, and I particularly want to mention their advisers. I see Professor Richard Boast up there in the gallery. He is this country’s pre-eminent legal and Treaty historian. His analysis of the history of this hapū needs to be read. It is devastating. I love the story of how he became involved when a bright young law student called Tānia Hopmans approached his office in the law faculty of Victoria University and asked him a couple of questions. The rest, as they say, is history. I thank him for the work that he does not only for this hapū but for other settling groups around the country as well. I also acknowledge his wife, Deborah Edmunds, and the team at Kensington Swan, who have done very good work in this area over many years.

Most important, I acknowledge the tireless work of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and, in particular, their negotiators Tānia Hopmans and Bevan Taylor. They are two of the nicest and most professional negotiators with whom I have worked in this area, and so nice that I was so willing to concede on so many points. I know that you have had a huge load to carry, and it has not been just your sacrifice. I am very grateful to your families for supporting you to fight hard for your hapū and to get your settlement to this point.

To the members of the komiti of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Incorporated and to the trust, thank you for supporting your negotiators and making some extremely difficult decisions at critical points. The dedication and determination of the hapū have been vital on the path towards settlement, and I commend you for your commitment to negotiating a settlement with the utmost good faith and with tenacity, and it does take courage. This settlement is the basis of a new relationship between the people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and the Crown based on trust, cooperation, and respect, and it will succeed if the Crown, regardless of administration, honours its commitments to this hapū not just tomorrow, not just in 10 years or 25 years or 50 years, but for ever. That is why it is so important to ensure that the Crown lives up to its commitments, and that is why we have established the Post Settlement Commitments Unit.

Once again, thank you to those who have travelled here this morning. I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Korōria, harerūria ki a Ihowa o ngā Mano, Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā Ānahera Pono me te Māngai hei tautoko mai, aia nei, āke nei, āe. Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou kua tae mai nei ki te Whare Pāremata. Nō koutou tēnei rā, he rā whakahirahira tēnei. E ngā pou o te hāhī, tēnā koutou, ā, huri noa e rau rangatira mā i roto i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you. Glory and praise be to Jehovah of Hosts, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the Faithful Angels and the support of the Mouthpiece now and forever after, amen. Greetings and acknowledgments to you the subtribe of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, who have arrived here at Parliament House. This is your day and an important one at that. Greetings to the pillars of the church and to you leaders of a hundredfold throughout this House, acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to you and to us all.]

It is indeed an honour for me to speak to the final reading of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. Can I firstly acknowledge our manuhiri, Maungaharuru-Tangitū, who have travelled from afar. I understand you had to get up very early this morning, in the wee hours, and have travelled all the way through to come down here to Pōneke. So I would like to welcome you all.

I do want to give my acknowledgments at the start because there are so many people who have been part of this culmination that we are at, at this point. I do want to acknowledge the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust and, in particular, Tānia Hopmans and Bevan Taylor, the negotiators, and the trustees. I would just acknowledge all the whānau and our kaumātua and kuia who are here to witness this historic occasion, and to represent their whānau and the whānau who have gone before them, who have been on this long journey in taking their grievances forward, and who have been fighting for recognition over many generations. I do acknowledge you all for all your mahi and for coming here at this historic time. In particular, I started off my speech today with a wee Rātana inoi because I acknowledge the pou here, and Fred Reti and Hine Reti, the whānau. I know your dad, the late āpōtoro Joe Reti, who played a significant role as the initial claimant for the hapū. I do acknowledge your presence here today also.

Maungaharuru-Tangitū is a collection of hapū. They include Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio, and Ngāi Tahu, but not the one that I am part of. We may have a connection; I am not sure. As has been mentioned in the contributions from Minister Sharples and my colleagues, there has been a terrible history that was inflicted upon this people. The trouble started back in 1851. We know about the Crown and its modus operandi in the early settlement of our nation and how it went about purchasing large tracts of land at Ahuriri and Mōhaka. It failed to ensure that sufficient reserves were set aside for the hapū. They were not adequately consulted on any of the purchases, and those also included areas like Ahuriri and Te Whanganui-ā-Ōrotu, which were never part of the deal.

So there is a long history. Maungaharuru-Tangitū is not a familiar name in the history books. This hapū and its history seem to have been bypassed by historians, by and large. Most Kiwis know about the history of our country and the land wars in Taranaki and Waikato, or maybe the pursuit of Te Kooti through Poverty Bay and the Tūhoe land on the Central Plateau, but not many have heard of Maungaharuru-Tangitū and the hapū there or their district or the way they were ill-treated by the Crown. But not today—today is their day, and today their history and their grievance are finally being recorded and being recognised by this House. Indeed, it is a historic occasion. I do acknowledge the historians in the House, too—Richard Boast and his work with this wonderful hapū over many years also.

Not too many people have heard of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, but they do have a very particular mamae, because this hapū was the only hapū in the Kahungunu that suffered raupatu. I would like to talk a little bit about that, because that particular mamae is the way the lands at Ōmarunui and Pētane were attained. A group of inland chiefs wrote to the Crown to say they were travelling to Napier to negotiate the end of their participation in the New Zealand Wars, only to be stopped by colonial troops and given 24 hours to give up Ōmarunui.

They did not. A battle ensued and the chiefs were left to count the cost—23 Māori killed and around 80 exiled to the Chatham Islands, Wharekauri, Rēkohu, where they were detained for 2 years without trial. Members of Maungaharuru-Tangitū who were part of that were also part of Te Kooti’s escape from Wharekauri. When they returned, they found themselves in a fight not of their making. They were just part of the rebellion. It goes without saying that because of so-called rebels within the hapū, that was reason enough for the Crown to alienate 9,000 acres at Tāngoio as raupatu land and land taken as recompense for their disloyalty to the Crown. They then split the land into 12 blocks and gave title to individual Māori owners.

We are familiar, as I mentioned, with the tactics of the Crown in this situation, a tactic that it has employed in many other settlements that we have spoken about in this House. Another way to pressure the hapū into selling the land was to forbid the owners from leasing to private owners. This made the land less productive and less valuable, and it played right into the hands of the Crown. So the land could not be sold. But it went further. In 1909 there was more legislation that made it possible for individual owners to sell shares in the land to the Government. So by the 1930s, by these actions of systematically forcing the purchasing of the land from these people, some 100,000-plus acres of land had been bought by the Crown and taken from these people. The remainder of the hapū were left without an economic base or a presence in their takiwā. The only land they have left is 3 acres in Tāngoio where their marae is. Think about that—110,000 acres down to a mere 3 acres. It was a huge loss. As I say, it is the greatest land-grabbing machine—legal land-grabbing machine—in the history of this country that the Crown created as the Native Land Court. That was a part of systematically depriving these people of their whenua.

I do want to talk about that landscape, that ancestral landscape, of these people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū. It is that lovely stretch of coastal land mixed with foothills and a dividing range between Napier airport to the north, along the coast past the mill at Whirinaki, and onwards to Tāngoio and its dramatic gorge, heading towards Lake Tūtira. Nothing expresses this dramatic country of Maungaharuru Tāngoio better than driving from Napier to Taupō. The land is as beautiful as it is dramatic, from the fertile Esk Valley and its row upon row of grapevines and its pretty little church to the lakeside settlement of Te Pohue high up in the Maungaharuru Range. Throw in some big rivers such as the Mōhaka, and you pretty much get the big idea of the geography that I am talking about.

It is this part of the country that the beneficiaries of Maungaharuru-Tangitū whakapapa to, along with their relatives and whanaunga in Ngāti Pāhauwera. It is mountain to the sea in all its ruggedness and glory, and the people who should be binding the land together, holding it together—the tangata whenua—have been marginalised to Tāngoio, which is a very flood-prone area. That is the beautiful ancestral landscape of these people.

I am delighted that we can be here to celebrate the passing of this bill. This marks a new chapter for the hapū. I am delighted to be able to mihi to you all and commend this bill to the House, because it certainly is a historic day. I wish you all the very best for the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā tangata o tēnei hapū o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, ngā rangatira, ngā kuia mā, ngā koro mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the people of this subtribe of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, leaders, elderly women and menfolk, acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to you all.]

I rise to take the call for the Green Party on this third reading of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery today, who have come from their rohe to witness this historic occasion: the final passage of this bill as it is passed into law. I mihi to the people of Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio, Ngāi Tauira, and Ngāi Tahu.

As well as acknowledging those who are with us today, those in the gallery, and those who are watching at home, I also want to acknowledge those who are not with us. That includes those who have passed away over the many decades it has taken to bring this legislation to its conclusion in the House today. Legal action for this bill started in 1870, so there are generations who have worked to bring this justice to the House and who have passed away.

I also think it is right to acknowledge the mate who are mentioned in the bill itself, those who died in 1866 defending themselves from the Crown’s forces at Ōmarunui and Petāne, those who were summarily executed by the Crown at Ngātapa in 1869, and, of course, those who died from poverty-related illnesses as a result of the loss of their land over the last 150 years. Tēnā koutou me ō koutou tini 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.

[Acknowledgments to you and your many, many deaths. Therefore, depart the deaths. Return to the homeland, to the true home of our Father in Heaven. Farewell, journey on, and goodbye.]

To return to the living, I want to address what this legislation is about. This legislation is an acknowledgment from the Crown that it breached the Treaty of Waitangi and acted abominably towards the people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. It offers some small compensation for the Crown basically stealing, through various dodgy methods, the land that belonged to the hapū. The legislation does not mince words. The Crown’s actions are described as a sham, as a misuse of its monopoly powers. The bill says things like “the Crown exploited …”. So the point of this bill is to restore some of the mana lost as a result of the hapū being alienated from most of their lands and consequently having their role as kaitiaki taken away from them. From my understanding of the legislation, the first land alienations were in 1851 with the Ahuriri Block and the Mōhaka Block, when the hapū were tricked into accepting a low price for the land, believing that they would receive full ongoing economic benefits from European settlement, and that just did not happen.

The hapū lost more land in 1866 when the Native Land Court awarded the Moeangiangi—I will try that again. The Moeangiangi—I have really got to work on my Māori pronunciation, sorry. I will come and talk to you later and get the right pronunciation. That reserve and the Pētane and Te Pāhou blocks were awarded to individual Māori. The land losses continued in 1867 with the Crown declaring a confiscation district over most of the takiwā of the hapū.

In 1870 the Crown also gave—and it has been mentioned before—30,000 acres at Kaiwaka to a Crown ally, cutting the hapū out of the deal. The legal expenses that were incurred by the hapū at that time have been described in the legislation as crippling. The actions of the Crown continued to alienate the hapū from their land throughout the 1900s, with the compulsory vesting of Tāngoio South in the Ikaroa District Māori Land Board in 1907. It continued through the 1930s with the Crown abusing its powers through various mechanisms to ensure hapū remained separated from their land. This is spelt out in Part 1, clause 8(13)(e), where is says “the Crown’s actions were unfair, oppressive, and did not live up to the standards of good faith and fair dealing, which are expressed in the Treaty of Waitangi …”.

So it is worth restating that the loss of their land has had a massive impact on the people and it has had a massive impact on the land as well. With no land—or hardly any land—the economic base for the people was gone. The hardship they endured was extreme. I think one of the most distressing aspects in the history here is that entire bloodlines, entire families died out. In Te Ao Māori we recognise that whakapapa links are hugely important. When the people lost their role as kaitiaki, the land suffered as well. The legislation lists the pollution of Lake Tūtira, the pollution of the coastline, the degradation and loss of mahinga kai, and the flooding of the community and marae at Tāngoio. It mentions the degradation of the environment from deforestation and pastoral farming. Like others, I note that the flood-prone 3 acres with the marae at Tāngoio is all that remains from the original 100,000 acres that was the takiwā of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū in 1850.

In this context, the fact that this hapū will settle with the Crown is phenomenal, especially when the compensation is so very small and covers maybe a fraction of what the land losses alone are worth. Even then, there is very little land actually returned to iwi. Separate from the commercial redress property, there is roughly 30 hectares in total in the two reserves in the cultural redress package. We should also contrast this with the four gifting-back properties that are some of the Ōpouahi Reserve, the Bellbird Bush Scenic Reserve, the Boundary Stream Scenic Reserve, and the Whakaari Landing Place Reserve, which together make about 1,100 hectares. These are the reserves that the Crown will symbolically give to the people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, and they will give them back to the people of New Zealand. I have to recognise that these people are incredibly generous.

I am aware that with the legislation the apology of the Crown is accepted by the hapū, as they wish to move forward and to heal. I celebrate with them the enormous success they have achieved in bringing this settlement through the House and into law. Like others, I wish to acknowledge the Treaty negotiators, the kaumātua, the people who have ushered this through.

But I have to say that although we celebrate with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, we also disagree with the Government that this is a full and final settlement. We say this every time because, as we all know, it is not full compensation. We do not believe it is final either because we do not know how the generations that are yet to come will be impacted by these historical claims. What is known is that the hapū will be on a surer economic footing as a result of this deal than it has been for the last 150 years.

My dearest wish is that with the passing of this bill and the many others like it that have been passing through this House that the true history of our country, like the account that is listed in the deed of settlement and in the bill, will be taught in our schools so that the rangatahi of this hapū, for example, will be able to hold their heads up with pride and know where they come from and know what happened to their people. I also wish that every citizen of Aotearoa comes to understand that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of our land. Nō reira, to the whānau and the iwi here today, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): Tēnā koutou to so many familiar faces of people from Hawke’s Bay, who have been there for a lot longer than I have ever been there. Thank you so much for your cooperation, your generosity, and your patience.

I just want to talk about something a little bit different—maybe it is part of my journey. We have heard from other speakers. When we signed the deed at Tāngoio Marae not too long ago there was a moment of change for me. That shook my faith a bit in our system. Up until that time, I had always looked at the progress we are making with Treaty settlements around the country, but I always rested upon the legal framework, trying to address things that had not been right many years ago, and resting upon that framework as a legislator but also as a fair play Kiwi who does believe in fair play and fair dealing, as prescribed in the Treaty.

But it was when the most wonderful person, Bevan Taylor, spoke. He told the story about—and excuse me if I do not get it quite accurate—how his grandfather had used legal process to seek redress. He had gone all the way to the Privy Council, and had borrowed large amounts of money, which are still being paid off or have only recently been paid off. They were huge, huge sums in today’s terms. It was at that moment when I learnt how the Privy Council, the place of last resort for all of us who rely on the legislative process, the fair and transparent legal process, had let you down. For various reasons that are beyond my limited legal brain, it let you down, and actually let all of us down, to this day, leading to the bill we have in the House today.

At that moment, I started to question my faith in the process, the procedures, and the system that we have to allow all New Zealanders redress before the law, whoever they are. I was shaken when I learnt that story—absolutely shaken. I thank and acknowledge you, and particularly Mr Taylor for his calm and gentle way of describing more of that to me later during the day. It was a fundamental moment for me—a learning, a revelation—that the system that this place is set up to be part of, to protect, had let you down and let New Zealand down. That made me start to question so much else of what is discussed and talked about in and around all Treaty settlements, and in and around all issues about our identity as a country and the founding people of our country. I have been doing that for quite some time.

I am thankful, of course, that we have got to this point. It is a tragedy that we had to even get to this point, but we have, with all the hurt, with all the things that happened long ago, and with the implications for whānau, for family, for bloodlines, for people, for pride, and for mana that have been so, so attacked and damaged over many years. But it is an absolute credit and strength, and I admire and bow to you, because you have kept the faith, and at the end—I can be thankful, but it has taken far too long—the legal process and the parliamentary process has finally worked in your favour in at least a limited way.

Again, I just acknowledge your standing. I am proud to be part of Hawke’s Bay, but I am just proud to have been there on the day of the signing of the deed, and I am thankful for my understanding, for my family and our community’s understanding, of learning about what actually happened and how you have come to this place. I do thank you for my glimpsing of the system’s failure so long ago. Yes, it may be working a little bit better now, but at that moment—I will say again—my faith in the judicial system was shaken when I learnt that story, regardless of it being in the context of 100 or so years ago.

I look forward to working with you to make sure that that system we all have faith in, good faith and fair dealing, serves us much better as a people going from today onwards than it has, obviously, in the past. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi, tēnei ka tāpiri atu aku mihi ki a koutou kua uru mai nei i roto i tēnei o ō koutou Whare ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tā koutou kerēme Tiriti. Nei te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In the first instance, I add this salutation of mine to you collectively who have entered this House of yours to listen to the speeches about your Treaty claim. Heartfelt greetings to you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues Meka Whaitiri and Rino Tirikatene and the Ministers to be able to support the passage of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Claims Settlement Bill and make it law. None of us in the House could hope to express the rich tapestry of history, good and bad, that has led to this point in time. I suspect people have been up very early travelling to get here. I suspect that there has been a lot of excitement from people to be able to say, finally, that it is done and we can move on. I suspect that there are a lot of kaumātua who are thinking about other kaumātua who are no longer with us, because this is an important day for you and it is an important day for us. It is not only a day to remember history but a day to celebrate the future and one your children, grandchildren, and mokopuna will be able to hold on to, because this is an opportunity as well.

I was not on the Māori Affairs Committee for this particular bill, so I thought, well, what I would like to do is have a look at the cultural redress components of your settlement, because often that is the place where the stories are told, and where the histories have been retold and will continue to be retold. If New Zealanders were interested to know what was happening in their own area in relation to Treaty settlements, they would go to the cultural redress components of Treaty settlement legislation. This is what I found.

Interestingly enough, with the help of Google and the help of my colleague Meka Whaitiri, I managed to find a number of very interesting things. Firstly, I remembered that during the by-election Meka and I were travelling through her electorate, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I do not know how many kilometres she had already travelled, but we went past Lake Tūtira. You know, seeing is holding on to things. She proceeded to tell me stories about the area and Lake Tūtira and things like that. I notice that a significant component of your Treaty settlement is the vesting of four lakebeds back to you: Lake Tūtira, Lake Ōrākei, Lake Waikōpiro, and Lake Ōpouahi.

As I used my Google engine, I said: “Well, gee, Lake Tūtira.” I remembered that we went past that, and I found that both Lake Ōrākei and Lake Waikōpiro were close by. Further investigation showed that they are on a number of websites. When New Zealanders come to look at the Hawke’s Bay and see what they could experience, these are some of the lakes they get steered to because there is wildlife there, there are walkways, there is access to these particular lakes. If you were not a frequent visitor to the Hawke’s Bay, Lake Tūtira might be a reason why you would want to go there.

I found that particularly interesting. I thought: “Well, if these are being vested back as reserves with public access, then why are people going there?”. So I had a look and there is a wildlife refuge order over the lake. It makes particular mention of people being able to use the lake, but you cannot have powerboats on Lake Tūtira. Well, I did not know that. But it did then give me a sense of the fact that people enjoy this place because it is a place where you can experience nature and the wildlife around it, and they also utilise the lake in ways that people get enjoyment out of.

We have a connection, albeit remote, and it is through Lake Ōpouahi. I understand that round the lake there is a pest-proof fence. I rather suspect that that pest-proof fence might be the same kind of fence that we have got at Maungatautari in Cambridge. The whole idea of the pest-proof fence for Maungatautari was to regenerate and repatriate natural wildlife into the area, so that you can keep the predators out and get our wildlife back there. There are stories in that, because I suspect that it is a place where our tūpuna gathered because of the wildlife that was there. It may have been the kai that was there. So that is our connection, albeit remote.

I was really interested to see that on your websites around restoration, around preservation, and around telling stories—and it is all in Google—there are a whole lot of activities that have already happened; activities you are already doing prior to the Treaty settlement to repatriate the things that belong there in ways that you can be very proud of.

Then I come to some of the statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition. Here is a story or two. The peaks of the Maungaharuru Range are—well, there are so many pictures on Google that, actually, it is breathtaking. It makes you want to experience them and have a look for yourself at what is to be shared in the Maungaharuru Range. But it is the Mangapūkahu Scenic Reserve that I want to come to. Interestingly, I found out with a little bit of research that the background of the reserve was connected to the Arapaonui Block, which was in the New Zealand Gazette in 1860. It had its native title extinguished, but there was going to be a reserve put together. So I am kind of weaving back through the history, finding this out. What it indicates is that this is perhaps the reserve at Mangapūkahu.

But when I go back to our history here in Parliament, there was a petition that came before Parliament from Peter Bloomer in 2008. He petitioned the Māori Affairs Committee in particular because of the lack of access for Māori to get to their sacred sites. I thought: “Well, that is interesting.” It was the former member for Te Tai Tonga in 1987—and Rino’s auntie—Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan, who made a point of actually ensuring that that petition got some recognition by the Department of Conservation at the time. That was interesting because then what it indicated was that, yes, this was a reserve; yes, it had sites of significance. There needed to be an opportunity to ensure that Māori could continue to go back to the reserve, because at the time it was seemingly under Crown land administration. That particular petition was supported by the Māori Affairs Committee in terms of reviewing that. So we do have walking access there in that particular scenic reserve. I thought to myself, golly gosh, if you are reading through the deed of settlement and you just read the name of the “Mangapūkahu Scenic Reserve”, you would not have any sense of what was really happening in this area or any sense of all the bureaucracy, I guess, that had to be got through to be able to repatriate important sites of significance back to people.

So, again, I reiterate that I am but a humble newcomer to the full extent of the rich history that you have within the context of your settlement. But can I say again, and reiterate in support of your Treaty settlement, that if anyone wanted to have a glimmer of the essence and the rich tapestry of history that belonged to you, the people of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, then they should go to the cultural redress section of your settlement. You have done well to get to this day. A lot of people have worked really hard within your team, and I guess mention has to be made of the Crown officials in the Office of Treaty Settlements whom you have had to negotiate with, and certainly the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his efforts to get this progressed as speedily as possible. I wish you well. I know that the future will look bright, but, more important, when your children tell these stories they can visit their places with pride and know that those stories can continue to be told to their children and their children after them. Tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): Ā, tīhei mauri ora. Whaia te pae tawhiti kia tata, whaia te pae tata. Whakamaua kia ū, kia tina, ā, tēnā koutou.

[Behold the breath of life. Reach for the distant horizon and the one close at hand. Seize and hold fast to them, and greetings to you collectively.]

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, and members of Maungaharuru-Tangitū. Welcome, nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare. It is a huge privilege to be able to speak in this third reading of your settlement bill, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill, and to welcome you to Parliament to be part of this historic occasion. Today, those of us in the House and in the gallery are part of history.

This bill, sponsored by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, is another step along the pathway towards meeting a huge commitment that we made as a Government back in 2008 to settle as many outstanding grievances and issues as possible with hapū, with iwi, and with whānau throughout Aotearoa. It is great to be here today and to be part of the historic occasion of making one of those settlements in my own electorate of Ahuriri, of Napier.

Today I have to acknowledge the Minister because he has done an outstanding job in getting to where he has got to. To put it into perspective, over the course of history over the last 20-odd years there have been 69 Treaty settlements, and the Crown is now over halfway towards completing that journey—a very important journey. Of those 69 settlements the Minister before us today has been responsible for 43 deeds of settlement since November 2008, which I think is an outstanding achievement. I believe that he will be remembered in this Parliament and in New Zealand for the accomplishments that he has made and for the work that he has done to progress some very difficult issues.

I have no doubt that within your own hapū there have been issues to overcome. I remember talking with Bevan about getting to the point of settlement and the issues that you have had to overcome. It is a huge undertaking. So I do acknowledge not only you but the Minister in this process.

The great thing about the settlements is that they do recognise and right the wrongs of the past. I would like to think—I guess only history will judge us properly—that it strengthens the partnership between the Crown and Māori. There is no doubt that it does unlock economic potential and boost regional and provincial areas such as Heretaunga, Ahuriri, and Hawke’s Bay—the place that I call home, just like all of you in the gallery today.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown with the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. I have got to say that this settlement is particularly relevant to me, given that my home lies within the rohe of Maungaharuru-Tangitū at its southern boundary. As Nanaia Mahuta said in her speech, it is, in my opinion too, not only one of the best parts but the most beautiful part of Aotearoa. There is no doubt in my mind.

To the south is the old Ahuriri lagoon and lagoon farm. That is sort of at the southern boundary of the area, which is the rohe of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū in that beautiful area of richness of Bay View. I am fortunate to live in the Esk Valley, which is, again, at the southern boundary of this beautiful area. But if you think that to the east is the Tangitū coastline and the richness of that area of the rohe from Waipātiki Beach, Tāngoio, Arapaonui, and further up the coastline, it was renowned historically for the kai moana, and still is in that part. I have had the good fortune of being able to be part of that over my 47-odd years—to be able to go out with my whānau, with my family, when we are holidaying out at Waipātiki Beach and dive for pāua and kina and kōura. It is an amazing place. To the north is the Mōhaka River, which we were fortunate last year to settle with Ngāti Pāhauwera. We have seen the result of the settlement there, which is to empower Pāhauwera to go forward as an iwi and a hapū. To the west we know that the area is bound by Maungaharuru, which is the mountain range—“maunga” meaning mountain; “haruru” meaning the area of many beating wings. My hope is that over time we can return some of those birds to Maungaharuru. I know that Julian Robinson is working closely with the hapū on a project to do that.

I am particularly fortunate not only to have my home in the rohe but also to own some land there. My brother and I own some land, on the ridge line of which there was an old pā site from many years ago. In January of this year members of the iwi met with me. We wandered across the land looking for old pits and other evidence. We spoke of the opportunity for a coastal pathway from Napier to Waipātiki, a pathway that I think could bring significant tourism potential over coming years. We spoke at length about the beauty of the land and the rich resources there. So, like I say, this settlement has particular relevance to me and my own family. But, more important, today’s third reading ends a process that began many years ago.

Can I acknowledge, as I said at the start of my mihi, those in the gallery who have contributed to the journey. There are too many to mention, but, in particular, can I acknowledge Bevan Taylor and Tānia Hopmans, who have led the negotiations. I mihi to you and acknowledge the huge undertaking that you have done and what you have achieved here today. More generally, can I acknowledge all the whānau who are here today and who are part of this process.

I chose in my opening the whakataukī, “Whaia te pae tawhiti kia tata, whaia te pae tata. Whakamaua kia ū, kia tina.”

[Reach for the distant horizon and the one close at hand. Seize and hold fast to them.]

I chose it not just because it is another whakataukī that I could use in the speech, but more as a wero, a challenge. Today is not the end of a process; it is the start of a journey, and my challenge to you is to reach for the stars, to use this opportunity to be everything it can be for your respective hapū, to rise to the challenge, and to become leaders in our community, leaders for your mokopuna, your tamariki. Use this opportunity to be the very best that you can be.

It has been a huge privilege to be part of this process and I am particularly honoured to be here at the third reading with members of the hapū in the House. Can I thank you for that privilege. It is indeed one of the highlights of my time as a member of Parliament and I will remember it for the rest of my days. Thank you very much.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, ngā whānau o Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the authorities, languages, leaders of a hundredfold, and families of the subtribe of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.]

I am a proud member of this Parliament. I am also proud to be Ngāti Tūwharetoa, to be Waikato, and I know that all of us here in the House—our Māori caucus, Māori members across the House, and, as we have seen displayed, not only Māori members but all members of this House of Parliament—congratulate you on what has been a battle since 1851. I congratulate you on this, the third reading of your settlement legislation, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Settlement Bill. I congratulate you on the heart and soul and tenacity to get to this point of recognition.

I say welcome to your House. Parliament is your House. You are tangata whenua. You are not manuhiri here. I acknowledge that status that you have and I thank you very much for the journey that you have made. I know that for all of you there will be many emotions that are flowing not only through your bodies but through your minds as you think about your tūpuna, our tūpuna, and the fight that they have had for over 100 years now to get to a point in time where we, as a country, can acknowledge you for your status as tangata whenua and as mana whenua, which cannot be underestimated in the context of the bill.

I am always really interested in the statutory acknowledgments in the deeds of recognition because what they do is to be very clear about the co-governance—co-management—of a number of historical sites over waterways and over reserves. There is the fact that within your piece of legislation, 22 place names will hold the names of tūpuna who will for ever be acknowledged as having mana whenua over your rohe.

I want to acknowledge all the members of your Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, because what today is all about is the future. You have a board that has been established and committee members. Your chair is Bevan Taylor. I would like to acknowledge Bevan, Charmaine Butler, Tānia Hopmans, Tamehana (Tom) Manaena, Kerri Nuku, Sabre (Thursday) Puna, Cathy Spooner, and Elaine Taylor. The people within your Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū who have now been empowered with the leadership role in terms of taking your hapū forward, I acknowledge you.

What this piece of legislation does is create a base for you, and it is a base that adds to the base that you have, and have always had, in terms of your identity, your language, your culture, and your marae. This adds to that base, and from that base it has been great to see—I have visited the website; I am a bit of a googler, just like Nanaia, and I have looked at your priorities—that engaging with central government and local government will be a key priority for you. In terms of these statutory acknowledgments, you will have an ongoing role in resource management issues related to these specific areas, and also you have established protocols with the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, so obviously you see a partnership going forward between yourselves, as mana whenua, and the Crown. Actually, if we are all really serious about what these settlements are about, they are about finally realising what the Treaty of Waitangi was all about. It was about a partnership between mana whenua and the Crown. That is the biggest acknowledgment that I can say today. It is actually about the going forward and our rightful place now in terms of the decision making that will be required within our rohe.

The other issue that I want to focus on is, for me, a clear commitment to you to serve your people within the context of education and within the context of health. I see that one of the opportunities you have is to establish other entities that can then contract from the Crown to make sure that the services your people will receive in the future are culturally appropriate and will reinforce your language and your particular kawa and protocols. I see that as the other aspect of this piece of legislation going forward. It is that part that I want to focus on and wish you all the best for, because within that context we provide opportunities for our tamariki and mokopuna to be educated and to get the skills that you require as a group of hapū leading into the future.

I am not going to talk too much more other than to again congratulate you. I am sure you will travel home and have a big party back at your marae and within your whānau.

I hope that this process has empowered you and that you have seen, through the speeches here in the House, that this is an area where we have consensus. Every member of this House of Parliament going forward will work with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and with our Māori Affairs Committee, and as a member of the House of Representatives in this 50th Parliament, I am incredibly proud to be part of a process that acknowledges our true status as the original sovereign owners of this land. The opportunity going forward is now in your hands. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Ka tū ake anō ahau ki te mihi ki a koutou katoa. Ki te whānau o Maungaharuru-Tangitū, ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa.

[I rise once again to acknowledge you all. To the family of Maungaharuru-Tangitū, greetings to you all.]

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū. The Māori Affairs Committee whānau examined the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Bill and recommends that it be passed. A number of submitters expressed dissatisfaction with the way Maungaharuru-Tangitū claimants have been defined in the bill. The concerns centred largely on two issues—the entitlements for claimants with connections to both Ngāti Pāhauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, and those individuals descended from ancient hapū who may fall between two settlements.

Ngāti Pāhauwera—it is an important part of the settlement process for claimant groups to have the opportunity to set out their whakapapa as they see it, and this has been done in the deed of settlement. Although different approaches to self-identification have been taken, the select committee is confident that this has not resulted in any entitled individuals being excluded from benefiting from one or more settlements.

Ancient hapū—we also heard from submitters who believe that as their ancestral hapū were not explicitly mentioned in the deed of settlement, they could not benefit from it. The committee is satisfied that between the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and the Ngāti Pāhauwera settlements, the people and hapū in that region will be fully represented and that after the enactment of this bill no outstanding claims will remain to be settled.

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū comprises six hapū with interests in historical claims in the Hawke’s Bay area north of Napier—Ngāti Kurumōkihi, Ngāti Tu, Ngāti Whakaari, Ngāi Tauira, Ngāi Te Ruruku ki Tangōio, and Ngāi Tahu. The claims of the hapū relate primarily to war, raupatu, and Crown land-purchasing methods. The only land left in the possession of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū is in a flood-prone zone, which is the location of its marae, Tangoio, and its kōhanga reo.

The bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the deed of settlement. The bill includes a summary of the agreed historical accounts, Crown acknowledgments, and apologies, and provides for a cultural redress package including vesting of part of Opouahi Station and part of Opouahi Scenic Reserve, unencumbered; and the vesting of Te Pohue Domain Recreational Reserve, subject to reserve status and public access being retained, and excluding the hall that is located on the site. The site will continue to be administered by the Hastings District Council. The bill provides for the vesting of the lakebeds of Lake Tūtira, Lake Orakai, Lake Waikōpiro, and Lake Opouahi, subject to reserve status; and the vesting of administration of the stratum above the lakebeds in the hapū, in trust, subject to reserve status. The stratum is a space occupied by the water and air above the lakebeds, but not the water itself. The bill provides for vesting and gifting back four significant cultural properties: the Boundary Stream Scenic Reserve, the Bellbird Bush Scenic Reserve, the balance of Opouahi Scenic Reserve, and the Whakaari Landing Place Reserve.

These sites will be vested in the hapū on the anniversary of their confiscation, 12 January 2017, and gifted back to the Crown 7 days later. The bill provides for tātai tūāpapa, an overlaying classification, over nine sites of significance to the hapū; and the establishment of a fund with the purpose of soil conservation in the Tangōio area and the formation of a relationship between the hapū and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. The regional council is to manage the fund. The redress reflects the special nature of the Tangōio area and the desire of the hapū to exercise kaitiakitanga there. The bill provides for te kawenata with the Minister of Conservation that will recognise the special relationship that Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū has with that land, relationship agreements with the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation in respect of fisheries, statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition for several sites, including the hapū coastal marine area, and the appointment of an advisory committee.

This Sunday 50 kōrure will be released into Maungaharuru, and we wish you well on that occasion. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Ngāti Rangiteaorere Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Rangiwewehi Claims Settlement Bill

Tapuika Claims Settlement Bill

Third Readings

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Rangiteaorere Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Rangiwewehi Claims Settlement Bill, and the Tapuika Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Nā reira, Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa iwi, Te Arawa tangata, nau mai, hara mai rā. Hara mai rā ki tā koutou Whare, kia whakaoti ai tēnei kerēme. Tēnei te wā whakamutunga mō tēnei kerēme nā reira, he hōnore māku te tū ki te mihi ki a koutou, me ngā tini mate kua mauria mai e koutou ki rō Whare. Nā reira, rātou kua ngaro atu i a koutou i ēnei wiki, i te mārama nei, haere. Haere, okioki pai ki te Kaihanga, hei whāriki mā tātou nei. Nā reira, koutou ngā mate ki a koutou, ā, ko tātou hoki te hunga ora ki a tātou. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Therefore, to you the canoe of Te Arawa, the people of Te Arawa, welcome, welcome. Welcome, indeed, to our House to finalise this claim. This is the final stage for this claim, so it is indeed an honour for me to rise and acknowledge you collectively and the very many deaths you have brought with you into the House. Therefore, to those who have passed in these weeks and this month, farewell. Journey on and rest well with the Creator to pave the way for us here. So you the deceased remain there amongst yourselves, as we the living remain here amongst ourselves too. Therefore, acknowledgments and salutations to you all.]

Today we welcome the sons and daughters of the great Te Arawa waka. I do not usually say that in front of Te Ururoa Flavell, but he is not in the House anyway—he has probably gone for a run. I am honoured to welcome the people of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika for the third reading of legislation arising from the omnibus Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. Iwi eternally bound by whakapapa, for ever bound by history, and, today in this House, finally bound by justice. We remember the tīpuna who a millennia ago set off from the sands of Whenuakura. Today their journey reaches Parliament, as Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika once again work together for the future of their people.

Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru is a large natural grouping of 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 the tokotoru, they have signed separate deeds of settlement. They have shown whanaungatanga on the one hand, as well as rangatiratanga. Tēnā koutou.

The Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru omnibus legislation here gives effect to aspects of all three deeds of settlement signed by the Crown between 2012 and 2013 with all three iwi and will settle all outstanding historical Treaty and Waitangi claims for Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika.

Ko Tiheia te maunga, ko Te Awahou me Kaikaitāhuna ngā awa, ko Tarimano te marae, ko Puhirua me Ōrangikāhui ngā takotoranga o ngā tipuna, ko Rangiwewehi te iwi.

[Tiheia is the mountain, Te Awahou and Kaikaitāhuna are the rivers, Tarimano is the courtyard, and Puhirua and Ōrangikāhui are the resting places of the ancestors. 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 returned were compulsorily extinguished. A hundred years later, in 1966—in our lifetime—Ngāti Rangiwewehi’s land loss continued, with the enforced Crown acquisition of whenua at Ngongotahā. A pump station was built over the ancestral Taniwha Springs, which remains to this very day, unless something happened overnight.

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 the potential of the iwi was eroded. Today we focus on the future.

I acknowledge Ngāti Rangiwewehi’s 2040 strategy and the advancement of Ngāti Rangiwewehi people as Rangiwewehi, which captures the essence of what a Treaty settlement should be: to focus the energies into the future while considering the social, economic, cultural, and spiritual growth and activity that affirms and maintains the mana and the tino rangatiratanga over Ngāti Rangiwewehi resources and the knowledge—mātauranga—of Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Ngāti Rangiwewehi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

He wai kōriporipo nō Waiōhewa ka ū ki Mātaikōtare. Ka koinga te titiro ki ngā uri o Rangiwhakaekea te whakapakari nei i te pupuri i ngā taonga tuku iho o Ngāti Rangiteaorere, ka ora e.

[The glittering waters from Waiōhewa extend to Mātaikōtare, and the glance moves to the descendants of Rangiwhakaeka, who are to strengthen this hold over the resources handed down by Ngāti Rangiteaorere, for their betterment indeed.]

The 1800s saw Ngāti Rangiteaorere drawn into the New Zealand Wars with huge, 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 benefits, was taken by the Crown by the Geothermal Energy Act of 1953—the compulsory takeover of an ancestral wāhi tapu. A whakataukī from Ngāti Rangiteaorere kuia i reira captures the challenge of this new Treaty settlement era. Kāhore i hangaia te kupenga hei hopu ika anake ēngari, i hangaia kia oioi i roto i te nekeneke o te tai. Awesome, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. The net is not fashioned purely to catch fish but also to be flexible, so that it may flow with the tide—awesome. Ngāti Rangiteaorere, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

Mai i ngā pae maunga i te toro puke e tūkau mai rā, i te awa e rere mai ana, waiho te whenua ko te takapū o taku tamaiti a Tapuika.

[From the mountain range in the distance, to the hill that stands before me as the river flows towards me, I proclaim the land to be the belly of my son Tapuika.]

This ancient claim defining the boundaries of their homelands was made by the tipuna chief 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 promises within the Treaty of Waitangi, were broken. A series of claims made by others to Tapuika ancestral lands culminated in the Crown land alienation policies that 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, social, spiritual, and cultural autonomy, generations of Tapuika families have suffered incalculable loss.

This settlement sought to address historical grievances, which included the wars in the Bay of Plenty; the Native Land Court; the impact on Tapuika of management, modification, and degradation of the waterways within Te Takapū o Tapuika; Public Works takings; and the loss of Tapuika’s identity. Today Tapuika can move forward in a positive Treaty relationship to rebuild, to restore, and to once again thrive. The Tapuika reo revitalisation strategy is an example of what is already taking place—congratulations.

All these things the peoples of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika have suffered can never be forgotten, and yet these iwi, despite that, wish to settle their grievances with the Crown with mana and with dignity. So they honour us with their incredible generosity. Ahakoa te hītori o te raupatu, kua tae mai koutou. Kua hoki anō, kua hoki anō koutou ki konei, Ngā Puna Wai o Te Toko Toru.

[Despite the history of the confiscation, you, the Three Water Springs, have arrived and returned here repeatedly.]

Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru has enabled all three iwi to negotiate collectively with the Crown and also help each other with their individual claims. The spirit of whanaungatanga and rangatiratanga demonstrated by Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika has enabled the resolution of claims across three tribes. This cooperative approach is already being replicated across Aotearoa, so 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 mana and their mahi kua oti i a rātou [their integrity and the work that they have completed] will for ever be honoured in the laws of this country and in the hearts of you, the descendants.

Today is the 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 tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Tapuika, Ngā Puna Wai o Te Tokotoru, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Paremata e takatū nei. Harikoa ahau ki te tū, ki te kōrero i te wā whakamutunga o tēnei pire. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. E rau rangatira mā huri rauna i te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the canoe of Te Arawa, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Tapuika, and Ngā Puna Wai o Te Tokotoru, greetings and acknowledgments to you collectively. Welcome, welcome to Parliament House, standing here in readiness. I am pleased to stand and address this closing stage of the bill. Therefore, well done and congratulations. To the leaders of a hundredfold throughout the House, I acknowledge you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the final reading of the former Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill. Today is a historic day. It is a historic day in the lives of three proud iwi of the Te Arawa confederation. After so many years and so many Governments, the tribes Rangiwewehi, Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika can start to look towards a new future for their people and for their whānau, and it is wonderful to see so many of them who have travelled from afar to be here to celebrate this historic day.

For over 20 years these tribes have been more than patient, and it sort of concerns me that after such a lot of mahi has gone on we get only 10 minutes to devote to three iwi in these speeches. But such are the procedures of Parliament that we have to adhere to. It does not give us much time. Nevertheless, I will do my best to reflect something of the tragic circumstance that befell these three iwi that have led us here today. The three iwi, to use an Office of Treaty Settlements term, are a “large natural grouping”. In Māori terms they are whanaunga—or cuzzies, to use a more colloquial term. Rangiteaorere and Rangiwewehi descend from Tamatekapua, while Tapuika descend from Tia. Both are of the Te Arawa canoe, which came to Aotearoa from the Pacific.

It goes without saying what a terrible impact the New Zealand Wars had upon these three and many other iwi, as shown in various other settlement bills we have put through this House. I like to say in my speeches that to understand the whakapapa is to understand Māori history. That has been a consistent theme that I use throughout. From Polynesia to the Bay of Plenty and inland to Rotorua, the tribes of Rangiwewehi, Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika certainly have had that close relationship. They are part of what is known as the eight beating hearts of Te Arawa, which play such an important part in tribal life.

I will attempt to make mention of at least one grievance of each of these tribes that they have had to carry, bearing in mind, though, that there are hundreds. Firstly, let us acknowledge all three iwi. They were drawn into the Kīngitanga dispute with the Crown. Whether on principle or because of a genealogical relationship, all played a part on all the sides of the wars. Truly it became, for some, whānau against whānau and hapū against hapū. Heoi ano—such were the divisive ways of the Governor and his war machine. It was about divide and conquer. That was the standard modus operandi of the day: take from them what they value most and you will deprive them economically and spiritually.

So that is what the Pākehā did. It took them 25 years to come up with two wars and the Native Lands Act of 1865 to subjugate the natives, and to engineer, as I call it, the greatest legal land-grabbing machine in the history of this country, the Native Land Court. Auē taukiri e! It is at the forefront of every claim that ever came before the tribunal, and it is the tino taniwha in the history of the Treaty of Waitangi and nearly every claim that has been made, and it certainly is with this bill. So much mamae is shared between these three tribes, but such are the travails of interrelated hapū—the taking of the good with the bad.

Let us look at the economic benefits that these tribes have missed out on. Ngāti Rangiwewehi and Rangiteaorere were owners of significant geothermal areas. Who amongst us here does not enjoy the therapeutic and healing waters a waiariki offers? Never mind the cultural benefits the tribes have missed out on; what about all that geothermal capacity? Have these tribes, like all indigenous tribes the world over, not really missed out on sharing the wealth from the natural resources of their own estate?

Whether it is gold or ore or oil or geothermal energy, the tangata whenua always seem to be missing out. As fossil fuels dwindle across the world, new and alternative methods of realising our future energy sources are needed. To my way of thinking, Rangiwewehi and Rangiteaorere have not only had their warm, healing waters taken away from them but also the chance to benefit economically from that geothermal capacity. I know that when it comes to those natural resources, such as minerals and oil and gas, the Crown has first dibs. Crown Minerals has the mana. That is the law, but surely it is time for that law to be rethought, to let the hapū and iwi share in the profits.

The Tapuika iwi have had an interest in the Maketū area since their arrival on the Te Arawa waka many, many years ago. They have had more than their fair share of mamae over land loss and loss of mana. They have had their economic opportunities seriously curtailed. I would like to highlight two points. They suffered the indignity of losing tribal estate and challenging to have that estate returned, only to have the Crown acknowledge the wrongdoing and then try to right that wrong by making the hapū beneficiaries in a block of land they had no cultural connections to. We have come across that in various other settlements, whether it is Mangakino, or we could talk about SILNA in Te Wai Pounamu as well. This appears to have been quite the done thing back in the day, in the 1890s and 1900s. Is there any greater ignominy to Māori than being placed in lands far away that you have no connection to? I also think of the Palmerston North Square for Te Ātiawa, to just highlight another one of those actions that were taken in those days.

There have been many missed economic development opportunities for these iwi, and if anyone needs a reminder of another missed opportunity for Tapuika, one needs only to look at the takutai and the change of tides that it brings over a 24-hour period. Every tide brings in its precious—precious—resource known as sand, the same sand that road makers and builders the country over need to help construct the roads and pathways that lead to our big cities. And yet the only ones making any money off this resource are the big corporate players, who have only to whip over the railway lines and dig up truckloads of ordinary sand and turn it into a multimillion-dollar business. Well, why can a tribe like Tapuika not be a part of that industry? Why should the natural resources from their tribal estates go offshore to make other people rich?

I have tried to use my time allocated to highlight just a few things of these three proud iwi. Ngā Punawai o te Tokotorutapu—not Tokotorutapu; sorry, my Rātana-ness is coming out of me—Ngā Punawai o te Tokotoru. It happens—the wairua. I have highlighted those three examples of missed opportunities, but the great thing is that these settlements provide a new chapter for these iwi. They provide an opportunity for them to actually harness these opportunities now.

I am delighted to be able to speak here and to mihi to all gathered here today. We know that the Crown apologies have been offered and accepted. Cultural and commercial redress has been offered and accepted, as well as financial redress. Now it is time for the descendants of Tamatekapua and Tia and Kahumatamomoe and Rangitihi to finally start a new and exciting voyage, like their ancestors of long ago. All those years ago back in Hawaiki, Te Arawa had little choice but to leave, but now the mana has been given back to Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, and Tapuika to decide their own future, and I wish them all the very best. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): To the representatives here today from the three iwi who have travelled from your homes for this occasion, nau mai, haere mai. Today we approach the end of a long road, for a partial agreement was reached between the Crown and Ngāti Rangiteaorere as far back as 1993. In the early 2000s the three iwi took their claims to the Waitangi Tribunal’s central North Island district inquiry. Comprehensive negotiations with Ngāti Rangiwewehi and Tapuika began in 2008. In 2009 Ngāti Rangiteaorere joined the collective, and Ngā Punawai o te Tokotoru was born. All three iwi signed agreements in principle with the Crown here in Parliament in 2011. The Tapuika and Ngāti Rangiwewehi deeds of settlement were signed in December 2012, on a beautiful day at Ngāti Moko Marae near Te Puke. The Ngāti Rangiteaorere deed was signed not long after, in June 2013, 20 years after that first agreement.

These bills, the Ngāti Rangiteaorere Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Rangiwewehi Claims Settlement Bill, and the Tapuika Claims Settlement Bill, have received their previous readings as an omnibus bill. When the omnibus bill was read for a first time in July last year, I acknowledged some of the key individuals from the three iwi who worked with tireless determination to make these settlements happen. Today I want to emphasise the collective achievements that these settlements represent. What I want to do now is speak briefly on each of the three settlements before the House. As the bills are being read in cognate, I must necessarily be succinct in my comments. Mind you, I am always succinct; the problem is for other people in the House to contain themselves! The Tokotoru iwi have been very gracious in accepting that as the election date has put pressure on the agenda of this House, the bills themselves will not each receive a third reading. For this I am very grateful.

Let me first turn to Ngāti Rangiwewehi, an iwi based on the north-western shore of Lake Rotorua, near the mouth of the beautiful Awahou River, with interests stretching out toward the coast at Maketū.

Te Ururoa Flavell: That’s right.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I hear my friend Mr Flavell approving of my geographical assessment, and I am grateful for that. Water is of vital importance to all these iwi. For Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Te Waro Uri—Taniwha Springs—and Te Puna-a-Hangarua—Hamurana Springs—are the dwelling places of the taniwha Pekehauā and Hinerua. The Taniwha Springs actually feed the Awahou River, and that flows through the main settlement of the iwi and is a prized taonga. The claims at the heart of their settlement relate to the Crown’s role in alienating these precious waterways. In the 1890s the native land laws facilitated the Crown’s acquisition of Hamurana Springs. In the 1960s Ngāti Rangiwewehi lost Taniwha Springs through a public works taking. I have been to both those springs, and one can understand the feelings that the iwi have for them.

Other key Ngāti Rangiwewehi claims relate to confiscation, war, and the treatment the Crown meted out to two prominent 19th century tūpuna, the scholar and rangatira Wīremu Maihi Te Rangikāheke and the warrior prophet Kereopa Te Rau. Over the generations the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty compromised the social and the traditional structures of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, the autonomy of the iwi, and the ability of its members to exercise important customary rights and responsibilities. With great sorrow the Crown apologises for its actions and for the impact that these had on so many individuals, whānau, and hapū. The iwi and the Crown negotiated a settlement of these claims that includes, very importantly, the agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and the apology, the quantum of $6 million and several commercial properties, a statutory pardon for Kereopa Te Rau, statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition over Crown-owned lands across the rohe, and the return of culturally significant sites, including 37 hectares at Hamurana Springs and recognition of the profound importance of this place to Ngāti Rangiwewehi.

Can I say something about Tapuika, an iwi based in and around Te Puke with an interest that runs from slightly to the north of Rotorua to the coast at Maketū. As I have said earlier, water is the thread that links the Tokotoru iwi. The waterway most cherished by Tapuika is, of course, the Kaituna. Its waters are as precious to Tapuika as shimmering greenstone. Little wonder, then, that deeply felt Tapuika claims relate to the degradation and pollution of the Kaituna River in the 20th century. Other major grievances arise from the Tauranga confiscation: the line drawn by the Crown through the rohe in 1875, the ultimate exclusion of Tapuika from title to ancestral coastal lands and sacred sites, and repeated takings by the Crown of burial lands for public works. The Crown profoundly regrets the anguish it has caused for Tapuika and for failing to protect the special relationship that Tapuika has with the Kaituna River and its tributaries.

The settlement of the claims negotiated by Tapuika and the Crown includes the agreed historical account, the acknowledgments and the apology, the quantum of $6 million, 17 commercial redress properties, and rights of first refusal over 11 Crown-owned properties for a period of 171 years. It includes the return of 12 sites of special significance to Tapuika across their rohe totalling approximately 209 hectares, three additional sites jointly with other iwi, and, crucially, a framework for governance of the Kaituna River that recognises the great significance of the river to Tapuika, which will help restore the mana and the mauri of the river for future generations.

Thirdly, I refer to Ngāti Rangiteaorere, an iwi based on the eastern shores of Lake Rotorua near the Tikitere geothermal field. This iwi have successfully held on to, and cared very much for, Rotokawa, one of the tribe’s cherished bodies of water. However, the tribe was not so fortunate when it came to key ancestral lands—again, largely as a result of the Crown’s introduction of native land laws. The individualisation of title resulting from the Crown’s award rendered the lands of Ngāti Rangiteaorere, including the maunga, more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. On top of the quantum, the redress negotiated and the settlement include the apology and the account, quite a few statutory acknowledgments, and the return of 321 hectares of Whakapoungākau, reuniting Rangiteaorere with the maunga.

So I want to conclude by expressing thanks to all those in the iwi who negotiated the settlements. I want to acknowledge my wonderful officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements and the chief Crown negotiator for these three iwi, Patsy Reddy, who did a fabulous job. I acknowledge her contribution as chief Crown negotiator to quite a number of settlements and look forward to her continuing work. She thinks she is going to retire; I have other thoughts.

These settlements are three important steps towards a revitalised Treaty relationship and brighter futures for Māori and Pākehā in this country. As I said, it is so very important that the post-settlement unit that is being set up monitors these settlements to make sure the Crown does do its job, not just tomorrow but in the years to come. If the Crown lives up to the promises contained in these deeds of settlement, things will go very well indeed. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnei e tū ana ki te tuku mihi ki Ngā Puna Wai o Te Tokotoru, koutou Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi me Tapuika. Anei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[I stand to acknowledge you the Three Water Springs, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Tapuika. My congratulations to you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a small contribution on the third and final reading of these three bills, the Ngāti Rangiteaorere Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Rangiwewehi Claims Settlement Bill, and the Tapuika Claims Settlement Bill. The submission process was informative for the Māori Affairs Committee and gave a sense that we were doing the right thing at somewhat the right time. In 20 days’ time there will be a commemoration event at Pukehinahina, recollecting the Land Wars that took place in the 1860s and the alliances that occurred over that time, and recognising that Māori fought for their lands, the assertion of their identity, and the continuation of their mana motuhake within their own country. It is somewhat serendipitous that we have Treaty settlements occurring during this period. The time is right.

I want to, in my small contribution, recognise the efforts of each of the respective claimant groups and your negotiators for bringing your settlement to fruition and providing an opportunity for the next generation to look forward. Firstly, I will make my contribution with regards to Ngāti Rangiwewehi. It is a testament to the modernisation of aspirations amongst Ngāti Rangiwewehi that people can go to a website and see what is happening. They can see that actually over the last 150 years, you have not been sitting around, doing nothing, and twiddling your thumbs. In fact, if anything, it is indicative that there has been a lot of innovation and creativity and a lot of looking towards yourselves for solutions around some challenges. What the Treaty settlement will do is, I guess, boost effort that has already been taking place. I want to acknowledge that, because often when people come to the House to debate Treaty settlement bills, there is a thought that Treaty settlements are the beginning of something. In fact, it is the beginning of something more, but it does not mean that nothing has happened before, if I can say it like that. I want to acknowledge that for Ngāti Rangiwewehi.

I want to acknowledge and support the comments of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations with regards to the components of your redress, which have restored and repatriated significant taonga to you so that you can look at ways to build your cultural history, your asset base, and also the cultural heritage and natural heritage that exists within your rohe. Not enough can be said about Hamurana Springs, a significant component of your redress, and Taniwha Springs, because they are iconic features of the landscape within your rohe, and it is really important that New Zealanders gain an appreciation of not only the natural beauty of these places in your rohe but the history that goes with them. This is a significant and positive step that all New Zealanders gain from.

I want to also recognise that, yes, there is commercial redress, but it is kind of like a seed. I am absolutely confident that Ngāti Rangiwewehi will grow the seed to its maximum potential and opportunity. Treaty settlements are always a space where the Government, if it changes its frame around how to continue the Treaty relationship, looks for active partnerships with Rangiwewehi when it comes to developments in your own rohe. So that is that.

To Tapuika, again your Treaty settlement provides added impetus to developments that have already taken place, but can I say that when I look through websites—because it is a good sense of how you are engaging with your tribal members to promote information and to secure feedback—I would have to say that the Tapuika website provided a very clear and logical approach to how some of your tribal members from outside the rohe might be wanting to understand what is happening with the iwi and where we are going. In terms of the presentation of your website, it was a pretty cool fulla or “fulless” who developed that website, because it provided a really good snapshot and entry for people wanting to learn more.

My sense of this settlement, especially around the issues, the instruments, and the cultural redress component, is that the Kaituna River, through a co-governance framework, will be a real opportunity for you to engage with local government, importantly, and also with users of your waterway, to ensure the well-being of it and the ongoing sustainability and use of the water resource. Also, your decision making in resource use starts with the Kaituna River, but it does not stop there. So I hope that the co-governance framework will be, I guess, a further peg in the ladder to secure your ongoing advocacy with local government about ongoing resource use of all kinds within your particular rohe.

For Ngāti Rangiteaorere, this is a discrete continuation of a settlement. We had heard quite clearly from the submitters that although the 1993 settlement took place, the geothermal interests were not covered, and that, in part, informs some of the contribution here. We were reminded that there were some aspects of the settlement with relation to the Māori Land Court that you brought to the attention of the select committee, although we could not address them. We recognise that those were some of the challenges that you were facing. Can I say that in so far as Ngāti Rangiteaorere interests are concerned, it seemed to me that as a discrete settlement, it did provide an avenue for others to follow when they are thinking about how to advance within a large natural grouping some very discrete components of settlements that must be recognised by the Crown. So that is a learning that I took forward anyway, when I considered how things were put together by the Minister.

Lastly, can I say that I am under no shadow of a doubt that although there may well have been trials and tribulations in getting to this point, this point is the continuation of a really important chapter for each of the respective groups that are here today, and it pegs a firm stake in the ground for another generation to be able to look beyond those of their ancestors and their tūpuna to carve out a future of opportunity. That is the space that these three iwi, in my mind, have brought in front of Parliament and politicians. That opportunity through innovation and the total sum efforts of just pure determination have been captured within each of the components of these settlements, and I am sure that given further feathers to fly with, they will soar very high. Nō reira, kia koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou katoa.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika. Nau mai, haere mai, ki te Whare Pāremata, koutou Whare. It is wonderful to see you in all your splendour and to have all your generations present with us today. Before I start talking about the bills—the Ngāti Rangiteaorere Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Rangiwewehi Claims Settlement Bill, and the Tapuika Claims Settlement Bill—I would just like to pay tribute to the descendants of Tamatekapua. I live in Hauraki and have spent many of my years at the foot of Te Moana Hau o Tama-te-Kapua, the sacred mountain. In 1980 a mining company from Canada said that it would turn the mountain into a lake for us, and without Te Arawa, that might have happened. So, thank you, because your rangatira came and they said: “Skin and hair will fly before you touch this maunga.”. And so it was that the mountain could not be touched. We have not forgotten them. We are grateful in Hauraki for that leadership, that rangatiratanga.

These third readings are an extraordinary achievement, and they say much about the extraordinary tenacity of the rangatira of these three iwi. It is also important to acknowledge the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and the Māori Affairs Committee and its chair. I cannot do justice to this, let alone in the time available, but I do want to acknowledge that this is an important and great day. The rohe of these three iwi is one of the most beautiful, fertile, and diverse rohe. It is a thermal energy wonderland, and the once-sparkling rivers, pure lakes, and coasts were so beautiful and valuable, hence the colonial enthusiasm for their appropriation, by hook or by crook. Making it right is not a single action through a Treaty settlement process; it is a national project into the future, and it enhances all of us—I am speaking to my own Pākehā whakapapa here, all of us—to engage with it. The work that you have done, the mahi that you have done, is an intergenerational koha, not only to your people but to Aotearoa. So thank you for that.

To Ngāti Rangiteaorere, I do not claim any special knowledge of your rohe, although I have passed through it many times. I have passed Te Ngāe, and I was very interested to read the history. But I would like to highlight the way in which establishing 19th century historical hurts and thefts are not the only challenge to be faced by tangata whenua here. For example, this iwi has had to fight the renaming of their ancestral maunga, Whakapoungākau, in the 2000s. The Waitangi Tribunal in 2007 found that the Crown had breached the Treaty of Waitangi by failing to consult fully with Ngāti Rangiteaorere about this proposal in a timely manner. Why the Greens always say that we resist the term “full and final settlement” is that these situations continue. Whether it is the takutai moana, the attempt to rename an ancestral maunga, or Patricia Grace and her whānau having to fight for their land in 2014, the contemporary breaches and proposed breaches must be brought before the tribunal. The ability to negotiate justice by te Tiriti must never be shut down.

I would like to acknowledge the achievement of Ngāti Rangiteaorere in maintaining through the turbulent years of colonisation many of their taonga, assets, despite the Crown’s best efforts. I particularly want to wish you the very best with your future, your quantum, and your cultural redress in relation to Te Ngāe, Rotokawau, Waiōhewa, Tikitere, and Ōkataina. The taniwha is individual title, and it is collective strength that will restore these assets and these lands. Individual title brought through the Māori Land Court and every other mechanism has been a contamination of rangatiratanga, but we have faith that through this process you are restoring the collective rangatiratanga.

To Ngāti Rangiwewehi, this historical account is, sadly, typical. Irrespective of their previous relationships in the post - Treaty of Waitangi signing period of 1840 to the 1850s, when things went kind of good, the raupatu was extreme against the so-called rebels. Who gets to call whom a rebel in this country is an interesting, ongoing subject for debate. What is rebellion against injustice? Are you a rebel? But 290,000 hectares around Tauranga were confiscated, including land in which Ngāti Rangiwewehi had considerable interests.

Then there is the tragic story of Kereopa Te Rau and how the Crown killed his whānau in Waikato and the subsequent consequences that we have heard about in other bills before this House, including those associated with Mokomoko and Whakatōhea. Also there is the impact on Te Arawa katoa. At Ngongotahā, a place where I spent many holidays in complete ignorance of these things, like so many Pākehā do, Taniwha Springs is a symbol of abuse. The collection of springs central to Ngāti Rangiwewehi’s identity was compulsorily acquired for waterworks in 1966—so we are not talking just about the 19th century; we are talking about the 21st century—by local government because the Crown had refused to make any other water available. Layer upon layer of alienation, and all of us who have drunk the water have no understanding of this and are ignorant to the damage done around Ngongotahā. So I just want to mihi to Ngāti Rangiwewehi for those issues. Though you have obviously done well, there is so much more that we all need to do to understand what you have been through.

Lastly to Tapuika—again, their stories are unique. There may be patterns of similarity but they are all different. I just want to focus on two aspects of this settlement bill in relation to Tapuika. One is to do with the Public Works Act—a wonderful, familiar monster, which involved more theft. The Crown acknowledges that it took land. This is what gets me when I read this stuff. It took the land three times from Tapuika urupā at Kēnana. The urupā was in use at the time and the people did not consent to any of these takings, but this continued. And the urupā, which is still in use today, is now divided in two by a highway and a railway line. We drive through this oblivious to the pain, the mamae. If it was our whānau, we might be thinking again. So I want to acknowledge that the Public Works Act has been another tool alongside, as my colleague has talked about, the Māori Land Court—the engine of colonisation. There is no more abuse that you can do to people than to desecrate their urupā—none.

I would also like to acknowledge the Kaituna River. Last night I was in the House and fought for Tarawera—another awa in the rohe—because it is deeply contaminated, as I am sure you know. But Kaituna has a similar and equally tragic history. When you look at how the river was compared with how the river is—the modification, pollution, and degradation. I found this phrase in the settlement bill very interesting: “the Crown has failed to respect, provide for, and protect the special relationship …”. That is a bit of an understatement. I find it a little bit of an understatement—“failed to”. The Crown has actively facilitated the modification, pollution, and degradation of Kaituna—Kaituna.

I live next to a river in Hauraki that is full of eels. One of them bit me the other day just to remind me of where I was. It was an awesome experience, but that is what every river should be like. That is the Waiwhakaurunga in the Kauaēranga valley. But that is how every awa should be. Those tuna have a right to bite, just as the tangata whenua have the right to collect them for kai. So Kaituna has been desecrated by sewage, by the draining of wetlands, and by the farming practices. It has affected wāhi tapu. It has destroyed kai moana and compromised water supply for these communities. But it is always more than that because people’s whakapapa and identity, as I have been taught by tangata whenua, relates deeply not only to their maunga but to their awa. So if you contaminate awa, you contaminate the people. I believe that we are all contaminated by the pollution we have subjected this country to, but we are not able to claim, and should never claim, the site-specific whakapapa responsibilities that were damaged during this process in the Bay of Plenty, particularly in Kaituna.

To look forward to the future positively, I wish the Kaituna River all the best but also the people who are going to manage the co-governance. As iwi know better than anyone else, co-governance is a huge challenge but it is also an opportunity, just as long as Pākehā are listening as well as exercising well-resourced bureaucratic participation. We are very good at that and it does not always help. However, I am getting the sign to finish my speech, so I would just like to say to you all, thank you for the privilege of speaking about your rohe. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia kaha katoa.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa iwi, nau mai. Haere mai ki tōku Whare tautohetohe nō reira, ngā mihi nunui ki a koutou Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa iwi.

[Welcome to you the canoe and tribe of Te Arawa. Welcome to my House of debate; so a massive congratulations to you collectively.]

I will not go over what everybody else has said. In fact, I will talk about something completely different, which is par for the course for me. But I do want to put this into a relationship with the first bill that we spoke about this morning, which was the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. Although we fall over ourselves talking about Waitangi and how it is the jewel in the crown, and about what we have to do, history cannot be just about the good parts. History cannot be about how lovely people may have been or may not have been. History is about the warts and all—all the bad stuff as well. History is nothing without a certain amount of heartache. This is why these occasions in New Zealand and in New Zealand’s Parliament are essential for the growth of a nation. It is the fact that we tell those stories about what the past has done to the indigenous people.

I am always thrilled to bits to be a player on the field in this game that we play, because my kids are growing up, my mokos are growing up, and I want them to be proud of New Zealand’s history, and that includes Te Arawa history and other people’s history, as well. But I also want my children and my mokos to know what the journey was like getting there. For us in this House, and particularly for the Māori Affairs Committee—I take my hat off to the select committee because of the way it does its job, because of the speed of our committee. Speed is not necessarily dangerous. Speed is because we want to get to a position whereby we allow Te Arawa to make the decisions, which they rightfully deserve to do. Speed for our select committee is all about making sure that we hurry up and get to the next one. There are so many that they pile up behind each other; it is not that we do not do justice to them.

I think that our committee, out of all of the committees in the House, does justice to every bill, because there is a feeling of what each bill actually means. It is not like passing some sort of rates bill about Tasman, and when that happens, that is it. When we do our work, when we finish our part of our work, we know that it is a continual struggle, and is part of that big story of Te Arawa.

I am mindful that when we pick up the book, the old book, Te Arawa: A History of the Arawa People by Stafford, who knows whether in 50 to 100 years they will write about this process in the updated version of the book. If we can play our part in that history, then I think that we have done a pretty good job.

I do want to mention one thing before I sit down, because we have got only a short time. Who would have thought, even 10 years ago, that a Pākehā Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations from the National Party would stand in this House and talk about things like taniwha? That is the development that a nation goes through. You know, it was not so long ago that people used to—and, in fact, some of them still do—laugh at those sorts of stories. But on the other side of the world they have the Loch Ness monster, which makes millions of dollars out of the tourism budget every year.

This country is growing up, and it is growing up fast. The more babies that we have, the quicker we are going to grow up. We MPs pat ourselves on the back, but I want to congratulate Te Arawa, and Māori in general, on having the foresight, for having the strength to actually go to battle for years and years and years and never ever letting go of the history—never ever letting go of who they are and who the nation is. I personally think that Māori have a great ability to see who the nation is, whether it is 5 years from now or 20 years from now.

The last thing I want to say—and it is very, very heartfelt—is that I have had the opportunity to travel the world and I have got to say that Māori are the best indigenous race on this earth. This is only because—and I am not boosting anybody up—the fight continues and continues and continues. It is the one way that we keep ourselves alive—well, one way our culture keeps itself alive. So I not only thank Parliament, I not only thank the community, but big thanks to Te Arawa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to us all, members of this House.]

It gives me an absolute privilege and honour to stand in support of the final reading of this significant omnibus bill. First, I need to mihi to Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa tangata, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai. Nau mai, haere mai ki tō tātou Whare i tēnei wā. Harikoa te ngākau ki te kite i a koutou mō tēnei wā nō reira, tēnā koutou ōku rau rangatira. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Welcome to you the canoe of Te Arawa and the people of Te Arawa, welcome, welcome to our House at this point in time. The heart is joyful to see you collectively at this moment, so acknowledgments to you collectively, my leaders of a hundredfold. Greetings and congratulations to you all.]

In the time allotted to us it is going to be a challenge to recognise the significant day here today in Te Arawa’s history. I do want to acknowledge the people who have travelled from afar to be here today. I particularly want to acknowledge the rangatahi, the faces who are joining here in the gallery. You are our future and I do want specifically to mihi to you this day. I am going to try to condense my talk, but I want to go on record acknowledging the significant day today, in particular the three iwi who have joined us here. I am going to quickly acknowledge the summary history of each three groups, so bear with me. It will be a bit of speed reading but I do want to do this in seriousness to acknowledge the work that has gone on to bring us here today.

Ngāti Rangiwewehi is a Te Arawa iwi based in the Rotorua area. In referencing their summary of historic background to the claims, it describes the constructive relationship that developed between the Crown and Ngāti Rangiwewehi in the 1840s and 1850s. However, when the Crown brought war to Tauranga in 1864, members of Ngāti Rangiwewehi went to assist their traditional allies. The Crown regarded Māori who fought in the Tauranga battles as rebels and confiscated 290,000 acres of land around Tauranga, including land in which Ngāti Rangiwewehi had customary interests. The Crown retained 50,000 acres and returned the remainder to Māori. However, all customary interests in the returned lands were compulsorily extinguished.

Kereopa Te Rau was a member of Ngāti Rangiwewehi. In 1864, during the Waikato War, his wife and daughter were killed by Crown forces. In the Eastern Bay of Plenty in 1865 a group of Māori killed a missionary who had previously sent the Crown a plan of the pā where Kereopa’s whānau were killed. In 1871 Kereopa was convicted of the murder of the missionary and sentenced to death. The historic account also discusses the impact on Ngāti Rangiwewehi of the land laws introduced in the 1860s, and how in the 1870s Ngāti Rangiwewehi leaders criticised these laws and unsuccessfully called for tribal control of land and resources. In 1880 Ngāti Rangiwewehi were among the Māori signatories to an agreement made with the Crown to establish a township at Rotorua. A committee of local chiefs concluded Ngāti Rangiwewehi had interests in the township block, but the Native Land Court did not award Ngāti Rangiwewehi any interests there. The Crown acquired most of the lands of Ngāti Rangiwewehi prior to 1909. In the 1890s the Crown purchased individualised shares in a block in the core Ngāti Rangiwewehi rohe before the block had been partitioned and the specific holdings of hapū and whānau had been defined.

In 1896 the Crown applied to have its interests in the block defined, and was awarded roughly a third of the block, including the most valuable land in the block and freshwater springs near Hamurana, which are taonga for Ngāti Rangiwewehi. The historical account concludes with a description of the 1966 taking from Ngāti Rangiwewehi of a block near Ngongotahā. This block, which was compulsorily required by a local authority for waterworks purposes, contains springs known collectively as Taniwha Springs, which are central to Ngāti Rangiwewehi traditions and identity as an iwi. I understand a pump station was built over the springs, where it remains today. I would like to mihi to the whānau of Ngāti Rangiwewehi, particularly the kaumatuas and the negotiators, for the mahi that you have done in bringing the bill to this House.

I now want to turn to and acknowledge Ngāti Rangiteaorere. Ngāti Rangiteaorere is a Te Arawa iwi situated on the eastern shores of Lake Rotorua. It is one of the eight beating hearts of Te Arawa—ngā pūmanawa e waru. The summary of historical backgrounds that led to the claims of Ngāti Rangiteaorere describes how Ngāti Rangiteaorere were drawn into the New Zealand Wars from the mid-1860s. Those Ngāti Rangiteaorere who supported the Crown during the wars did so at a considerable cost to themselves. Damned if you do, and damned if you do not, when you fight on the side of the Crown. Ngāti Rangiteaorere held all their lands under customary tenure when the native laws of the 1860s came into force. However, the Native Land Court was not designed to accommodate the complex and fluid customary land usages of Māori as it assigned permanent ownership to a clearly defined area of land. The title determination process also carried significant costs for Ngāti Rangiteaorere.

In 1882 the Native Land Court investigated the ownership of the Whakapoungākau Block and awarded much of it to members of Ngāti Rangiteaorere and neighbouring iwi. In 1990 the Native Land Court awarded the Crown 348 acres from the Ngāti Rangiteaorere subdivisions of Whakapoungākau, in lieu of survey costs. The individualised interests acquired by the Crown were spread across Whakapoungākau subdivisions, but the Crown persuaded Ngāti Rangiteaorere to allow the Crown’s awards to form one contiguous parcel of land. The land awarded to the Crown was flat, fertile, and easily accessible by road. The land that remained with Ngāti Rangiteaorere was fragmented and much of it was steep and inaccessible.

Ngāti Rangiteaorere have always valued the Tikitere geothermal field highly for medicinal, spiritual, and economic purposes. In 1853, without the consent of Ngāti Rangiteaorere, the Crown acquired the sole right to regulate the use of geothermal energy resources when the Geothermal Energy Act 1953 was enacted. Ngāti Rangiteaorere considers that the Crown had no authority to override the mana of Ngāti Rangiteaorere in the Tikitere geothermal field.

In the early 1970s the Crown purchased a land swap to extend the Lake Ōkataina Scenic Reserve. This involved the exchange of land in Whakapoungākau, which Ngāti Rangiteaorere had significant ancestral connections with, for land that they had no such connections with. As a result of this exchange, Ngāti Rangiteaorere were alienated from the Whakapoungākau maunga, one of their most sacred sites. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā whānau whānui o Ngāti Rangiteaorere. [Bell rung] I knew that was going to happen.

To try to do justice to Tapuika, can I please mihi to you and acknowledge the efforts that you have made to bring this Tapuika Claims Settlement Bill to the House and acknowledge that you, along with Ngāti Rangiteaorere and Ngāti Rangiwewehi, have negotiated what I think is not a settlement that we would all agree with but something that would absolutely go towards the future development of you as the people of Tapuika. Like I said in my earlier introduction, it was nice to mihi to our rangatahi that have joined us here today. I would like to leave you with the thoughts of supporting you in your settlements today but also I would like to acknowledge that our futures are in their hands, and it is good that they are here to join us on the significant day of the third and final reading of this legislation. I look forward to the returns from your settlement being put to good use to, firstly, preserve the mana—the prestige that Te Arawa is renowned for—but particularly, with these young rangatahi coming through, to use the opportunities that I know are available to them once this legislation is passed. So, nō reira, e ngā iwi o Te Arawa, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. I commend this legislation to the House.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Ka tū ake ahau ki te mihi i a koutou katoa te whānau o Te Arawa.

[I rise to acknowledge you all, the family of Te Arawa.]

The purpose of this legislation, arising from the Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill, is to give effect to the deeds of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngā Punawai o Te Tokotoru. There were changes made by the Māori Affairs Committee to Parts 3, 6, and 9 of the omnibus bill in relation to the right of first refusal. We amended clause 292 and clause 293 but the select committee, chaired by the Hon Tau Henare, feels that these amendments only went to strengthen this legislation. So, with that, I commend this legislation to the House.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Te Reo Māori, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry?

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Reo Māori, Mr Deputy Speaker—Reo Māori. Kia tere. He tono tēnei ki te Whare Pāremata, kia mutu taku kōrero, kia waihohia ake mā Ngāti Rangiwewehi e whakakōpani ā-waiata nei. Kia mutu a Rangiwewehi ka tukuna te rākau waiata, kōrero rānei ki a Rangiteaorere. Ka mutu a Rangiteaorere, ka tukuna ki a Tapuika, hei whakakōpani i te āhuatanga o wā tātau kōrero, ā, hei whakanui i te āhuatanga o tēnei rā. Nō reira, koinei te tono ki te Whare, kia whakaae mai ki tērā tono.

[Māori language, Mr Deputy Speaker—Māori language. Hurry along. I seek leave of this House of Parliament that when my address ends I would leave it for Ngāti Rangiwewehi to close it with a traditional song. When Rangiwewehi finishes that, the rod of opportunity to sing a traditional song or make a traditional speech is passed on to Rangiteaorere. When they are finished, it is passed on to Tapuika to close the circumstances relating to our speeches and to celebrate the circumstances about this day. So this is the nub of this leave being sought, and I seek leave that the House grant it.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In response to that, my understanding is that permission has been granted for the tangata whenua to respond, and I am not going to restrict how they might want to do that. The normal procedure is that that would occur after the vote is taken. Is the member happy with that? This is just so that we all understand that after the vote is taken there can be the three waiata, and we are happy with that arrangement.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ko te mate kē, ko ētahi o ngā waiata o Tapuika, āhua roa nei. Nō reira, ko te tono e pēnei ana, mēnā ka hipa i te kotahi karaka, ko te kōrero me ngā waiata kia haere tonu wā tātau kōrero kia oti katoa i runga i te rangimārie.

[The problem really is that some of Tapuika’s songs are quite long. So if the songs of embellishment or the speech go beyond 1 p.m., leave is being sought to allow this to continue until everything is completed amicably.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we are breaking new ground, because it is actually not a debate in the House. I think, in the spirit of the settlement, there will be some tolerance. The member should get on with his speech so we do not go over.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia ora koe mō tērā whakatau āu. E mihi atu ana ki a tātau katoa kua tae mai ki te Whare Pāremata i te rā nei, ki aku hoa mema Pāremata e kōrero nei mōku mō Ngāti Rangiwewehi, mōku mō Tapuika, mō te āhuatanga ki Ngāti Rangiteaorere, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko te mate kē nō roto ahau i ēnei iwi. E āhua raruraru ana te ngākau kei kī mai ētahi, e kī, e kī, kei te kōrero te tangata nei mō tōna painga. He iwi hūmārie a Ngāti Rangiwewehi. He iwi kore kōrero mō rātau, mō ō rātau ake painga a Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Nō reira, me whai au i te tauira o ōku mātua, i o ōku tūpuna kia ngāwari te kōrero mō taku iwi.

Hoi anō ko tāku kei taku rahi, koutou kua eke mai ki raro i te kāhui o tērā kōrero, mai i Maketū ki Tongariro; tēnā koutou, haere mai. Ēhara i te mea māku koutou e whakatau ēngari, hara mai ki tōku kāinga tuarua. Hāunga te taha ki Te Awahou, ki Waitetī, ki Ngongotahā, ki Ngāti Rangiwewehi tonu, haere mai ki te kāinga tuarua o Te Ururoa, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I a au e tū nei, poto noa iho taku kōrero i te mea, kua kōrerohia katoatia ngā kōrero. Ko te wāhi ki a au, i a au e tū nei, e, ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hunga kāre i konei i tēnei rangi, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te mea, i te tīmatanga mai o te whakakotahitanga o ngā iwi e toru, i puta te whakaaro o ngā pakeke ō roto o Ngāti Rangiwewehi i tērā wā, kia haere atu a Ngāti Rangiwewehi ki te toro i a Tapuika, a Ngāti Rangiteaorere, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te ara whanaunga.

Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te wā i tae atu ahau, ko Huka tērā, i haere atu ki roto o Tapuika. I whakatakotohia te kōrero, te tono ki tērā o ngā marae a Makahae, kia whakakotahi nei i te āhuatanga o ngā kerēme katoa, kia anga whakamua te kaupapa nei. Nā, nā wai, nā wai, nā wai, anā, koinei te otinga mai i tēnei rangi tonu nei. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te haerenga ki runga o Rangiteaorere, o Ngāti Rangiteaorere, i pērā rawa te āhuatanga o te tono. Kāre au i te tino mōhio mēnā i reira au i tērā hui ēngari, kua tae atu au ki tērā o ngā marae o Waiōhewa. Nō reira, koinei te tangi o te ngākau mō te hunga kāre i konei i tēnei rā. Me haere mai koutou me ngā mate huhua ō roto o Tapuika. Me haere mai koutou me ngā mate huhua ō roto i a koutou o Ngāti Rangiteaorere. Ēngari me whakahuihui anō rā rātau katoa i tēnei rangi i te mea, kātahi te rangi ātaahua, hāunga te ua i waho rā. Ēngari ko te kaupapa nei, me kī, ko te otinga mai o ngā mahi nui, o ngā mahi roa i ngā tau kua hipa ake.

Ka huri atu rā ki te Minita, e kōrero nei. Ā, ka pai tana mōhio ki ngā kōrero mōku mō Rangiwewehi. E mōhio nei ia mō te taniwha nei o Pekehauā. Ka pai hoki e te Minita, ka nui te mihi ki a koe me te tautoko i ngā mihi a te tangata nei a Tau Hēnare ki a koe, mōu i kaha nei ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata o ngā iwi katoa o te motu, kia tutuki pai wā rātau kerēme. Ā, i ngā tau kua hipa ake e hoa mā, ko tāku ki te Minita, he kongakonga noa iho tērā ka whakahokia ki roto i ngā ringaringa o ngā iwi ēngari, i tōna mutunga mai ko ngā take ō roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, he take mā tēnā iwi tēnā e whai atu, mā tēnā iwi e whai atu, ā, mēnā ka tutuki, ka pai. Ki te kore, ā, hoi anō koinei te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te wānanga.

Nō reira, e hoa mā wā tātau mate. Kua kite atu i te āhuatanga o te hunga kei ngā whakaahua kei a koutou, ka tangi ake, ka tangi ake, ka tangi ake. Ē, me te kī atu ki tōku ake rahi, e aroha atu ana ki te āhuatanga o ā tātau mate i ngā wiki tata kua hipa ake me te parekura nui kua eke mai ki runga i a tātau i te kāinga. Nō reira, kei te kite atu i a Haami, koinā te tangata nāna tēnei kaupapa i āki i tōna tīmatanga mai. Kei te kite atu i a Te Meihana, i whai tonu a ia i ngā tapuwae o Te Haami. Ka kite atu i a Hukarere, ko ia tērā i haere ki ngā huihuinga katoa o te iwi. Nōnātata nei ko Marla. Ko ia tērā e noho nei hei pou mō tō tātau pakeke a Haami. Kei te kite atu i a Ngāti Rangiwewehi ki tai, ā, ko te hononga anō rā ki a Ngāti Rangiwewehi ki uta, tēnā tātau katoa. Nō reira, kāti ake.

Ka nui te mihi ki a tātau katoa otirā, ki te wahine rā poto nei, ki a koe Patsy. Tēnā koe i kaha āki nei i ngā kaupapa kōrero kia eke ki tēnei taumata. Ko te pai o te wahine, ka noho, ka āta whakarongo, ka āta wetewete i ngā take ka mutu, ka puta tētahi whakatau. Nō reira, ki taku mōhio kua rongo au i ngā kōrero i Ngati Moko, kua rongo anō hoki i ngā kōrero ki ngā iwi e toru nei. Ko koe te wahine mō te āta whakakotahi nei i ngā kōrero. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Nō reira, kāti ake.

Taku kupu whakamutunga e pēnei ana ki a tātau katoa. Ēhara au i te atua ēngari, he kōrero noa ake. Kua mutu te āhuatanga o te uauatanga ki te eke ki tēnei kaupapa, ki tēnei rangi tonu nei. Ko tāku ko te pātai, he aha āpōpō? He aha ā tahi rā? He aha ā ngā wiki? He aha ā ngā marama kai mua i te aroaro, hei painga mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Ko au tērā i te mura o te ahi i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Ēhara i te mea, i tino rata nei au ki ngā kōrero katoa e pā ana ki tō tātau kerēme ēngari, waihotia ake tērā ki roto i ngā ringaringa o te hunga nā rātau tēnei kaupapa i kōkiri. Ko te āwangawanga nui ō roto i te ngākau, ka pēhea āpōpō, ā tahi rā, ā ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro. Āe, kua whiwhi i te pūtea. Āe, kua whiwhi i ētahi whenua ēngari, kāre he take o ērā ki te kore tātau e whakatipu kia kitea mai ai tētahi painga mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Nō reira, tēnei te whakatau atu, kia kaha tātau ki te whakariterite i ētahi kaupapa mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Ēhara i te mea koinei te mutunga mai, tērā pea he pai kē te kī, koinei te tīmatanga mai. Koinei te tīmatanga mai mō ngā rā kei mua i te aroaro.

Nō reira, e harikoa ana, ā kō ake nei kua hākari tātau ēngari, ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā hui, ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hunga kua ngaro, ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā tohe otirā, ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā whakatau i puta. Kai taku iti, kai taku rahi huri noa i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa. Kia kaha, kia toa, ā ngā rā kei mua i te aroaro. Ngāti Rangiwewehi kei a tātau te waiata, ka mutu, ka huri haere, kia eke ki te kotahi karaka. Tapuika, kia māmā mai tā koutou waiata.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you for that decision of yours. Salutations to us all who have arrived here today at Parliament House, and to my fellow members of Parliament expressing their sentiments about me, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Tapuika, and the circumstances relating to Ngāti Rangiteaorere. I thank you all. The problem really is that I am from within these tribes. The heart is somewhat apprehensive, should some say to me: “Is that right? Well, well, this person here is going on about his benefits.” Ngāti Rangiwewehi is a humble tribe. They do not boast about themselves or about their own benefits. And so, I must follow the example of my elders and ancestors, and speak modestly about my tribe.

So my greetings to you my great ones who have arrived here under the mantle of that aphorism, from Maketū to Tongariro; greetings to you collectively and welcome. It is not really for me to officially welcome you, but I do so to my second home. Apart from the Te Awahou, Waitetī, Ngongotahā side, and Ngāti Rangiwewehi itself, welcome to the second home of Te Ururoa. And so, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.

As I stand here before you, I need to stress that my address is to be but a brief one because everything has been addressed. The part for me then, as I am on my feet, is to reflect on those who are not here today. Because of the situation at the beginning, when the three tribes were getting together, it came to the elders at the time within Ngāti Rangiwewehi that it should visit Tapuika and Ngāti Rangiteaorere, because of the kinship ties.

The thoughts go back to the time when Huka and I went and arrived there among Tapuika. The statement, the mandate was made at Makahae—that one of the courtyards there—to combine, because that was the situation with all claims, so that this matter could move forward. Eventually and over a period of time, this is the conclusion on this very day. The thoughts go back to the journey upon Rangiteaorere, upon Ngāti Rangiteaorere. The request was the same. I am not really sure whether I attended that meeting, but I was at Waiōhewa, that one of the courtyards. So this is why the heart laments for those who are not here today. Therefore, come forth with the many deaths from within Tapuika and from Ngāti Rangiteaorere that are upon you. But they must also gather here today because it is indeed a beautiful day, aside from the rain out there. But, as far as this matter is concerned, let us say it is the culmination of important and lengthy work over the past years.

I turn to the Minister who commented. What he knows about me and Rangiwewehi is good. He knows about this supernatural guardian Pekehauā. Well done, Minister. I commend you highly, and I endorse the accolades accorded to you by this man Tau Hēnare, in regard to your efforts to meet the expectations of all tribes of the country, and to ensure their claims are completed well. Fellow colleagues, a few years ago I told the Minister that only a minuscule amount is returned to tribes, but ultimately matters in this House of Parliament are left for each individual iwi to address. If it is achieved, that is good. If not, that is the purpose of a discussion.

Therefore, what about our dead friends? Seeing the photographs you have with you moves one to mourn, weep, and cry. Indeed, to my numerous I am saddened by the circumstances of our deaths in the past weeks, and the great calamities that have come upon us back home. Therefore, I see Haami there, the person who urged this matter along when it began. I can see Hukarere. She was one who went to all tribal gatherings. Recently it was Marla. She remains a pillar for our elder Haami. I can see Ngāti Rangiwewehi, coastal-wise, and their kin Ngāti Rangiwewehi, inland-wise; greetings to us all. So let us leave it at that.

I do have great admiration for us all, and especially that short woman there, you Patsy. Congratulations to you, to the lady who strongly urged that matters be discussed until it reached this level. The good thing about a woman is that she sits, listens, and critically analyses issues, and then makes a decision. To my understanding, that is what I heard at Ngati Moko from these three tribes. You are the woman who carefully brought the stories together as one. I commend you greatly. So enough.

My closing word to us all goes like this. I am not a god but merely bringing it up. The difficult part of getting this matter here has ended. My point is about this question. What about tomorrow? The day after tomorrow? The weeks and months ahead, in terms of benefits for the children and grandchildren? I was intimately involved once years ago. It was not as though I warmed to all the stories about our claims, but I left it in the hands of those who addressed this matter. What about tomorrow, the day after, and the years ahead is the primary concern within. Yes, we have received funding and some land, but those are of no consequence if we do not make them grow, to ensure that benefits accrue for the betterment of our children and grandchildren. So I urge us to work hard to arrange schemes for the children and grandchildren. It is not as though this is the finish; it is better to say that this is perhaps the beginning, the start towards the future.

And so, I am euphoric. Shortly we will feast, but meetings are recalled. Thoughts go back to those who have passed away, to the arguments, and to the decisions that emerged. To my diminutive ones and great ones throughout our House, greetings to you, salutations to you, and congratulations to us all. Be strong and courageous, going forward into the future. Rangiwewehi, we have the traditional song, and after that it will continue on until we get to 1 o’clock. Tapuika, ease up on the length of your traditional song.]

Waiata

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall I put the vote?

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Taihoa, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngāti Rangiteaorere mēnā he waiata tā koutou, ā, tukuna.

[A moment please, Mr Deputy Speaker. Rangiteaorere, if you have a traditional song, sing it now.]

Waiata

Haka

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Mai e te tipua, mai e te tawhito, mai e te kāhui o ngā ariki, mai eee tāwhiwhi ki ngā atua. Ōī, ka takina te mauri, ko te mauri i ahua noa mai ki runga ki ēnei taura, ki runga ki ēnei tauira. Kia tau te mauri ki runga ki ēnei tamatāne, tamawāhine he tukuna nō te whaiorooro a Tānetewaiora. Tēnei te matatau ka eke, whakatū tārewa ki te rangi. Ūhi, wēro, hara mai te toki, haumi e, hui e, taiki e!

[I invoke the inspiration and guidance from the universe and the gods. Therefore, I bestow upon these disciples and young men and women the life-force under the auspices of Tāne, the giver of life. I invoke the inspiration and guidance from the universe and the gods. Therefore, I bestow upon these disciples and young men and women the life-force under the auspices of Tāne, the giver of life. Let them attain the sacred knowledge from the highest heavens. Hold fast, hold strong, and let it be done!]

Bills read a third time.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.