Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Justice, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Hon Judith Collins and her handling of her relationship with Oravida Ltd?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. However, as I have stated in the past, the Minister’s interactions with Oravida could have led to a perception of a conflict of interest. I am sure she will manage that situation more carefully in the future.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that Judith Collins has disclosed to him all relevant information about Oravida that she knows?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given his statement that he would “not want to be in her shoes” if there were any further embarrassing revelations, or if she has withheld relevant information or has been “cute with the truth”, will he rule out removing Judith Collins’ ministerial warrant if it emerges that she has withheld further relevant information?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is asking a hypothetical question, but I am comfortable with the actions of the Minister.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “I think she had a responsibility to make clear all of the meetings that she held in Beijing, even if one of them was a ‘private meeting’. And she certainly should have made me aware of that.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: How does he reconcile his answer to the last question with Judith Collins’ resiling from that position yesterday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: She did not and if the member was here, he would know that. But I guess that that is what it is like when life is in the slow lane. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: At least I did not renege on a housing debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Prime Minister’s office advise Judith Collins not to divulge the name and position of a senior Chinese border control official?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it was not germane to the conversation. What I can confirm is that I made the name, the individual’s agency, and his seniority well known to the Cabinet Office on the advice that it provided to me.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is Oravida being given favourable treatment above and beyond any other company or cooperative, sending the message that if you make a sizable donation to the National Party and appoint a Minister’s husband to your board, you get a better deal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon David Cunliffe: Did a donation to the National Party result from the Prime Minister’s second game of golf with Oravida chairman, Stone Shi?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no ministerial responsibility for that. [Interruption]

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

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

Grant Robertson: The question that the Leader of the Opposition asked was whether a donation had come from something that the Prime Minister had done. He is responsible for his actions as Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: No. There is no ministerial responsibility. I was about to rule the question out before the Prime Minister managed to get his answer out by saying that. That is an acceptable answer. There is no ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was wondering whether you could ask the Prime Minister to speak up when he answers the questions. He is not speaking very close to his microphone and we most definitely want to hear his answers.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the issue is more the level of noise and interjection—and it is occurring now and I am on my feet. The level of interjection from all around the House is not only making it difficult for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to hear but making it difficult for me to hear as well.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to remind you of exactly what that last question was. It asked about an action of the Prime Minister, which involved the Prime Minister in his prime ministerial capacity taking with him Diplomatic Protection Squad people, using ministerial services—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will have a careful look later. I have made a ruling with regard to that question for today.

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

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

Hon David Parker: I struggle to understand why you stood the Hon Trevor Mallard down through the middle of his point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Because I had heard enough. It was not strictly a relevant point of order. I have ruled on that question. I have given the member an assurance that I will look at the transcript. I always do.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reviewing the tape, as you have undertaken so kindly to do, could I draw your attention to a possibility, which is that if the Prime Minister had not played a second game of golf with Mr Shi in his prime ministerial capacity, it would have been open to him to state that to the House. What he has said to the House is that he has no ministerial responsibility for the question at all and I would submit for your consideration that that is a different answer from the fact that he was not using his prime ministerial capacity.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly relook at the transcript later on this afternoon.

Cost of Living—Interest Rates and Affordable Housing

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: what are likely to be the main pressures on interest rates and what steps—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That level of interjection from the Hon Trevor Mallard is unacceptable. I invite Jami-Lee Ross to start that question again.

2. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: What are likely to be the main pressures on interest rates and what steps is the Government taking to help prevent home mortgage rates from returning to levels seen in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): We know what the main pressures on interest rates will be because we know the lessons from the period up to 2008. At that time we learnt that runaway Government spending can push interest rates up further and faster. Up to 2008 Government spending jumped 50 percent in the previous 5 years. We also know that a runaway housing market can drive interest rates higher. The effect of both of those mistakes was that floating mortgage rates reached nearly 11 percent by 2008 and inflation exceeded 5 percent. That is why this Government is focusing on being careful with any increase in Government spending and is working closely with councils to improve housing supply.

Jami-Lee Ross: What other steps is the Government taking to prevent house prices doubling as they did between 2001 and 2007, which created risks for households and pushed up interest rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, New Zealanders could not afford another doubling in house prices, as occurred between 2001 and 2007. So the Government is focusing on a wide range of particular measures to take pressure off the housing market, including reform of the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, reform of the rules around development contributions, which have proven to be a significant obstacle in Christchurch, and addressing these issues directly with councils through housing accords; for instance, the housing accord with Auckland, which is on track to reach its first year’s targets, and earlier today, the housing Minister announced a housing accord with the Christchurch City Council. We acknowledge the significant efforts of both of those councils to ensure that more people in those cities can have affordable housing.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last two questions asked the Minister to talk about home mortgage interest rates and steps taken in respect of them, but he has only talked about house prices and availability, and has not addressed at all the question of steps taken in respect of home mortgage interest rates. Perhaps he could be asked to actually address the questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I am actually unsure of the point that the member is making. In regard to the second supplementary question around what steps the Government is taking to increase housing supply etc., that was well and truly addressed by the Minister in his answer.

Jami-Lee Ross: How have New Zealand families benefited from lower interest rates and smaller increases in the cost of living in recent years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Lower interest rates and smaller increases in the cost of living are pretty important to households. Floating mortgage rates fell from 11 percent in 2008 to around 6 percent today. For a family with a $200,000 mortgage that is a reduction in their mortgage costs of around $200 a week, or $10,400 per year. It is no wonder that they do not want to go back to record high interest rates, as they were paying in 2008. Statistics New Zealand reported this morning that annual inflation has dipped to 1.5 percent in the year to March, just a 0.3 percent increase in the March quarter, and household electricity prices rose by only 0.1 percent in the March quarter. On average, household wage increases are greater than the increase in the cost of living.

Phil Twyford: How can he claim that his Government’s record on housing is better when Real Estate Institute of New Zealand data shows that the growth of house prices in Auckland has been nearly 50 percent higher in real terms since 2009 than it was between 1999 and 2008, and that the median house price in Auckland has gone up by $156,000 since his Government took office; or is $600 a week just to stand still an achievable savings goal under his regime?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has been dealing with the worst possible circumstances, and that has been a doubling of house prices between 2001 and 2007, followed by sharp reductions in supply, particularly in our biggest market, Auckland, and then, uniquely, in our second-biggest market, Christchurch.

Phil Twyford: Five long years.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have been working for 5 years to persuade councils that the rules they make about new land supply and new house building affect house prices. In the last 12 months we have been starting to get somewhere, but it has been a long, slow process.

Jami-Lee Ross: What economic policies would push up interest rates and send the cost of living soaring for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We know what sorts of policies would do that because we saw them in the years up to 2008: runaway Government spending, which jumped 50 percent in the 5 years to 2008, and a doubling of house prices between 2001 and 2007, accompanied by, for instance, a 72 percent increase in electricity prices in the 9 years to 2008 and a doubling of the cost of the emissions trading system on households. These are all policies of the Labour-Green Opposition.

Justice, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual

3. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: Was the employer of the senior Chinese border control official, who she had dinner with in Beijing in October 2013 on her Ministerial visit to China, from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, also known as the AQSIQ?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): It was a private dinner for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. But, as I have previously acknowledged to the Prime Minister and to the media, the cumulative effect of the events in China meant there was a risk of a perception of a conflict of interest. I have apologised widely for not seeing that risk earlier and providing more information.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In terms of the actual question that was asked, I invite you to consider whether a response that says that a Minister who was on a ministerial visit to China and who met with an official of the Chinese Government can claim that she has no ministerial responsibility. It was quite clearly not a private dinner if there was a Chinese official present. She has ministerial responsibility to answer that question. It went through the normal processes. You accepted that she has ministerial responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER: I did last week, and I still do today. The Minister has now addressed that question. I fully accept that that is not to the satisfaction of the member. It is, again, as I said, now the responsibility of this House and the public to judge. I will allow the member an additional supplementary question to move the matter forward.

Grant Robertson: Did she meet a senior Chinese border official from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, also known as the AQSIQ, during her ministerial visit to China in October 2013?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I had no ministerial visits with any such person.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I asked was not about visits; it was about whether she met with any of those people. She did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now looking for a direct yes or no answer, which he cannot insist on. The member has had the ability to use a second supplementary question. Again, that was not answered to the member’s satisfaction, and I accept that. The answer now is to move forward with further supplementary questions.

Grant Robertson: Was the senior Chinese border official at the dinner someone who could have influenced whether or not Oravida’s products gained entry into China?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner. There was no business discussed.

Grant Robertson: How can it have been a private dinner when there was a senior Chinese border official present?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Even officials are allowed to have private dinners.

Grant Robertson: Did she discuss with any of Oravida’s three directors before she left New Zealand on her ministerial visit any of the issues that Oravida was having with testing requirements for its products to enter China? Answer truthfully.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Hon Judith Collins—and without the last part, thank you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Would he like to ask that again?

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry—is the Minister saying she did not quite hear the question?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I could not hear him over the interjections from—

Mr SPEAKER: OK, we will have the question again, please.

Grant Robertson: Did she discuss with any of Oravida’s three directors before she left New Zealand on her ministerial visit any of the issues that Oravida was having with testing requirements for its products to enter China?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously not, because I did not think it had any problems.

Grant Robertson: That is a good answer. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting for some assistance from your colleague.

Grant Robertson: Was she aware of Oravida’s request to her fellow Ministers Tim Groser and Nathan Guy for ministerial intervention to gain access for Oravida’s products into China before she went on her ministerial trip in October 2013?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly not.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister understand that by refusing to rule out that she met with an official from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, she leaves open the perception that she went to China to make sure that her husband’s company’s products got entry; and will she now rule out that she met someone from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine while she was in China?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Answering the first part of that rather long question—well, of course, the member knows fully well I was invited in July 2013 by the Ministry of Justice in China to attend.

Oil and Gas Exploration—2014 Block Offer and Conservation Land

4. 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.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement that it is “emotional claptrap” to stand up for the New Zealand fernbird—the threatened fernbird—to try to protect it from drilling rigs?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, because I think what the member was doing was presenting the worst conceivable scenarios as if they were fact. The member was totally ignoring the extensive consultation process with the Department of Conservation, iwi, and local government. He was ignoring the extensive legal processes—which we are, really, just at the start of here—that involve, again, the Department of Conservation, access arrangements, Resource Management Act processes, and the like, which very much safeguard environmental factors. Fundamentally, he was also ignoring the fact that the area he talks about has been mined for 100 years.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that the Victoria Forest Park, which he unknowingly opened to petroleum drilling, is home to the kākā and the rock wren—two birds ranked last week in the scientific journal Current Biology as being in the top 100 most evolutionary—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s shouting is making it very difficult for us to hear over here.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It would certainly assist the order of the House if the member could ask a substantially shorter question and without injecting his own opinion as to whether the Minister knowingly or unknowingly approved a particular site. I invite the member to reword his question.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that the Victoria Forest Park, which he unknowingly opened to petroleum drilling, is home to the kākā and the rock wren, two birds ranked last week in the scientific journal Current Biology as being in the top 100 most evolutionarily distinct birds under threat from extinction?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I always knew there was a conservation park here that I was deliberately opening up. I also know that fundamentally the Green Party is anti-development. That is OK—that is a perspective. But it also means no taxes and royalties and no jobs, including the hundreds in this park in gold mining and other activities.

Dr Russel Norman: In the extensive consultation that he described earlier, did he realise that the Victoria Forest Park is home to the kākā and the rock wren, two birds that were ranked last week in the scientific journal Current Biology as being in the top 100 most evolutionarily distinct birds under threat of extinction in the world?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: At the end of the consultation process, I received extensive documentation. I studied it conscientiously, and it made very clear that there are a number of areas of sensitivity that were excluded and, indeed, others that I excluded as well. But I come back to it: this particular area of conservation park, which the Labour members laugh about, includes hundreds of jobs that, frankly, Damien O’Connor should be standing up for. I appreciate the member’s position of no development; that is not the Government’s position.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a journal article that is not readily available, “Global Distribution and Conservation of Evolutionary Distinctness in Birds” from Current Biology No. 24, May 2014.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is not—I will take the member’s word that it is not—readily available to members, I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular journal. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon John Key: Can the Minister tell us how many previous mining permits were on the Victoria Forest Park, and does he have any idea what view other parties in Parliament took on that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first part of the question can be answered.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, there are 58 mining permits in that area. Some 12 at least were granted by the last Labour Government, when the Green Party did absolutely nothing.

Dr Russel Norman: Are New Zealanders wrong to love the unique and threatened rock wren, with its rounded olive brown wings, and to want to protect it from the bulldozers and gigantic drilling rigs that this Minister is proposing to send in to wreck the habitat of this globally threatened bird?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was very hard to hear what Dr Norman was asking there—

Hon Annette King: Because you were yelling.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, Mrs King, I was not laughing, although every time you speak the House does come to a certain standstill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member please get to his point of order, otherwise—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I would if I was not interrupted. [Interruption]

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Could I ask you to consider whether, in fact, the material that Dr Norman is putting into his question is reasonable under the Standing Orders. He is making all sorts of assertions, casting aspersions, etc., and then asking a question that is always couched in a catch-22 nature. Everyone knows that the Greens support this sort of thing when Labour is in Government but not when National is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That last part is unnecessary. [Interruption] Order! Would the member asking the question please have a look at Speaker’s ruling 171/1: “Questions are meant to be succinct, not speeches or long statements.” If the member was prepared to adhere to that Speaker’s ruling, he would greatly assist the order of this House. The member does many times ask very long questions that do invite a lot of disorder and a lot of interjection, and the answer he then gets is probably one that is unhelpful to the member anyway. But I am not going to rule that question out of order. I am relatively generous in allowing fairly extensive questions to be asked, but extensive questions are very unlikely to deliver an answer satisfactory to the person asking them.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that the member is not in any way disputing a ruling I have just made?

Gareth Hughes: No, I am not disputing; but it is related.

Mr SPEAKER: Good.

Gareth Hughes: I would just like to point out to the House, in terms of the Standing Order around disorderly conduct, that we have twice seen questions interrupted by interjections from the Government side, and twice you have chastised the Opposition side of the House for the questions when, in fact, all the disorder was coming from the Government side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I would really appreciate it if the member would listen to the point that I have just made. When we get lengthy questions—almost speeches—that inject a lot of opinion from a particular member, it does create disorder. So it would be helpful if we could get away from these lengthy questions that are full of a particular member’s opinions. Are there further supplementary questions?

Dr Russel Norman: How can the Minister justify his attempt to destroy the habitat of the kāka, which many New Zealanders—if not the Minister—love and want to protect, when this is a treasure for all of New Zealand and he is letting it be destroyed?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I repeat what I said last week. The member is scaremongering, because he is simply not taking account of the extensive consultations and legal processes that protect our environment in this area and will be ongoing. The fact is that, actually, New Zealand is one-third conservation estate, and 40 percent of that is in schedule 4, and we should be proud of that. But I repeat: where was the member when the Labour Government, in this very area that he talks about, opened up open-cast coalmining, which he is all of a sudden upset about?

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to answer the Minister’s question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. Question No. 5—[Interruption] No. Question No. 5. The Hon Kate Wilkinson.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked for a supplementary question, as is my right. You may not like my questions, but none the less they are questions within the Standing Orders of this House. It is my right to ask questions.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have already explained to the member that I find his questions very difficult to chair because of the length of them. He has done nothing to rectify that. He then trifled with the Chair with his point of order. I have moved to question No. 5. The Hon Kate Wilkinson.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister invited Dr Norman to answer a question. I have heard many times in this House people doing exactly what Dr Norman did, and seeking leave to answer a question. Clearly, you did not feel that that was in order. The next step is then to ask whether there are any more supplementary questions. Dr Norman had one. I think it would help the order of the House if he were able to ask another supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope that members will listen to the rulings that I have given today. Question No. 5. The Hon Kate Wilkinson.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that the House is the master of its own destiny. If the member seeks leave in the way that Dr Norman did, that leave should have been put to the House. We run this in the end, not just you.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no. The leave was sought to answer the question on behalf of the member. That is not appropriate leave. If the member sought leave to ask an additional supplementary question that he is asking, that is leave that I would have to put.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Greens have more allocated questions as of right by proportionality in this House. So I think the member Dr Russel Norman should be able to ask a supplementary question if he wishes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now questioning a decision I have made. I have moved to question No. 5. The Greens—[Interruption] Order! If the Greens wish to use their supplementary questions, they have another opportunity later in the day. Question No. 5—

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

Mr SPEAKER: I want to be fair to all members. I have made a decision—[Interruption] Order! I have made a decision that we are moving to question No. 5. If any member is now relitigating that decision, I will be inclined to ask that member to leave the Chamber.

Hon David Parker: It is a new point of order. The Minister in his answer was out of order. I would ask why you did not call him to order in that he is meant to answer questions, not ask questions. I am surprised that he was not stood down in the way that Mr Norman was for breaching the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a reasonable point the member has made. I can assist the member. If you go back and look at the context of the question that was asked—how the Minister can justify destroying habitats etc.—it was a question that some might say was emotive. It was certainly full of opinion. On that basis, as I have said to this House on many occasions, it gives wide licence to the Minister when he answers the question.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a ruling made by Speaker Hunt in the term of the last Labour Government that political parties would be able to determine how they allocated their supplementary questions. Previously, there were set numbers of supplementary questions per primary question, and the responsibility was then given to parties as to how they allocate them. You have now indicated that it is no longer up to a party to indicate how it allocates its supplementary questions, and that you will determine when you have had enough supplementaries on a particular primary question. I wonder whether you could give us some further clarity around that ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now in danger of leaving this Chamber. He is relitigating a decision I have made. I was very unhappy with the point of order raised by Dr Russel Norman. I have put up now with lengthy questions, despite asking him to ask them consistent with the Standing Orders and being completely ignored. We are moving to question No. 5.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I just want to be absolutely fair to the Hon Trevor Mallard—if in any way this is a point of order that relitigates my decision to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, not all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am talking. If it—[Interruption] Order! If it in any way relitigates the decision I have made to move to question No. 5, I will then be asking the member to leave the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am not relitigating the question. I am making it absolutely clear—I am not asking you to reverse your position now but to consider an alternative method going forward, and that is to allow members, if you believe their questions are out of order and inappropriate, to ask their questions and then rule them out of order the way that previous Speakers have.

Mr SPEAKER: I will consider that.

Christchurch, Recovery—Housing Initiatives

5. Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What new initiatives is the Government supporting to assist housing affordability in Christchurch?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): This morning, on behalf of the Government, the Hon Dr Nick Smith signed a housing accord with the Mayor of Christchurch to increase the number of affordable houses in the city. The accord includes a $75 million Government commitment to develop temporary and affordable housing, and a $50 million Christchurch City Council investment in a new housing entity. This adds to the Land Use Recovery Plan, which will make as many as 40,000 greenfield sections available for development, as well as private sector development. The Land Use Recovery Plan will facilitate Housing New Zealand’s programme to build 700 new homes in Christchurch and repair 5,000 of its homes over the next short while.

Hon Kate Wilkinson: How is the Government reducing regulatory barriers to housing development in Christchurch?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Under the new housing accord the Government and the council will be working closely together to minimise the barriers to development, to make consenting processes more flexible, and to explore a one-stop shop for consenting. The Land Use Recovery Plan has already removed the need for a resource consent to build two homes on earthquake cleared sites where once only one was allowed, or to convert a single home into two dwellings, and it enables higher-density developments in certain areas under certain criteria. These new rules are expected to result in 10,000 to 12,000 new homes in addition to the new greenfield sections. I hope that the housing accord announced today by the Government will see the Christchurch City Council able to consent land for affordable homes as quickly as Waimakariri and Selwyn have done.

Hon Kate Wilkinson: What housing projects will be funded through the Government’s $75 million commitment?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government fund will be used for a number of housing initiatives. This includes the potential sites at Welles Street and Colombo Street, which will total up to 180 homes. These will expand the number of homes available for temporary accommodation for families while their homes are rebuilt or repaired, and they will be sold as affordable homes on the open market when that demand subsides. The Government fund will also be used to facilitate the construction of other affordable homes, like the 270 proposed on the Awatea block near Carrs Road.

Justice, Minister—Visit to China

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Why will she not identify the senior Chinese border official with whom she met on 20 October 2013, and disclose the business that was discussed at the dinner with him that evening?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): It was a private dinner with friends, the Chinese guest is entitled to privacy, and no business was discussed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When she spoke to the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister, did she provide it and him with all the facts and details so that he could make a prime ministerial decision on her behaviour?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has she repeated denials in this House when she knows that she was enlisted specifically to address issue 2, page 2, of the 6 August Oravida letter to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy about border testing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite incorrect, and he knows it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did she try to tell this House, and the media and the country, that she merely stopped off at Oravida on the way to the airport for a cup of tea or, later, that she merely went to a private dinner, when she knew at the time the name and the status of the senior Chinese official and, more particularly, why she and he were at that meeting?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I actually had difficulty following what the member was saying. Perhaps you would like to try it again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll repeat it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the best way forward. Would the right honourable gentleman repeat the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much. Why did she try to tell this House, and the media and the country, that she merely stopped off at Oravida on the way to the airport for a cup of tea or, later, that she merely went to a private dinner, when she knew at the time the name and the status of the senior Chinese official and, more particularly, why she and he were at that meeting?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I count at least three questions in that, so I will deal with just one of them, and the one that I will say is this: I do not try to say anything. Whatever I have said, I have said.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to how does it work that she and her colleagues give Oravida $40,000 of taxpayers’ money and then Oravida gives the National Party $56,000—was that for services rendered by her to that company?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that the member is confusing me with himself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That cannot be a satisfactory answer to a serious question.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty was that it was not a very satisfactory question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Who says so?

Mr SPEAKER: I did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, you should have said so before I gave the Minister a chance to speak.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I did not say that the question was out of order; I said that it was a question that was full of opinion and was alleging money-swapping from one to another. [Interruption] Order! If I am on my feet, the Hon Ruth Dyson will remain quiet. So the question got an answer that addressed the question. It was not to the satisfaction of the member, I accept, but the question was addressed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. These documents categorically set out that Oravida got $40,000 from the taxpayer. Other publicity disclosed by Oravida says that it gave $56,000 to the National Party—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has documents he wants to table, he should seek leave to do so.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am surprised that you made the comments about the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question. A question might be about something distasteful, but it does not make the question out of order in terms of the Standing Orders. Your comments implied that it did.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I was quite clear. I will relook at the Hansard, and I invite the member to do so. I did not rule the question out of order. I was quite clear about that when I spoke earlier.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just understand what the fresh point of order is?

Hon David Parker: Your response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters was that he could not expect an answer because it was a distasteful question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member now is just trifling with the Chair. I said that the answer the Minister gave addressed the question within the frame it was asked. Question No. 7—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You do not mind if we have our quota of supplementary questions too, do you?

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to take a supplementary question, well, he rises—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course I do.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! The member has been here a long time. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question, he rises to his feet and says “Supplementary question.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You were in such a rush to move on. Now we know why. Is she telling the House that she has disclosed everything to the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister, because if that is the case, both she and he are involved, first, in a deep conflict of interest and, second, in committing in her case and abetting in his case a corrupt action by the Minister?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, that question is so loaded with allegations that are false, I cannot be bothered answering it.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on what is clearly concerning you, which is a level of disorder in the House and from where that generates. It generates from a Minister who has simply, over the last 2 weeks, not been prepared to answer straight questions about her actions as a Minister on a ministerial trip to China. I ask you, Mr Speaker, what the remedy is for the Opposition when a Minister will not answer questions about the business she does on a ministerial trip.

Mr SPEAKER: I would have thought that the remedy available to Opposition members is the one that they are using. My duty is to listen very carefully to the question and then to judge whether I think the Minister has addressed that question. Many times, the answer that is given will not be of satisfaction to the questioner, in this case, the Opposition, and then the tactic that is used is for the Opposition to continue to ask supplementary questions.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have previously ruled in this House that a Minister is entitled to use the defence that answering a question is “not in the public interest”. I seek your clarification of whether the phrase “I cannot be bothered.” is the same thing as “not in the public interest”.

Mr SPEAKER: No. In my opinion it would not be.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a speech about clean and open Government, given by Judith Collins in Beijing.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that speech has not been made freely available, I will put the leave and it will be over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular speech. Is there—[Interruption] The Minister is saying that it is already a published speech.

Accident Compensation Corporation—ACC167 Form and Operational Policy

7. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for ACC: Does she stand by her answers to Oral Question No. 10 yesterday?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Yes. I especially stand by my answer when I said that the policy was first agreed to by the Hon Ruth Dyson when she was Minister for ACC.

Iain Lees-Galloway: When she answered the primary question, saying: “The policy in respect of stopping paying weekly compensation to clients who refused to provide a signed, unaltered copy of the ACC167 form was first agreed to by the Hon Ruth Dyson in March 2006 in a briefing paper signed by her as Minister for ACC after discussions with officials.”, was she aware that the briefing paper she referred to contained no reference whatsoever to stopping payments to ACC clients?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No; the report makes it very clear that that is exactly what is going to happen. If people cannot fill out a form and the form is required for the application, clearly that is exactly what is going to happen.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Where in that briefing paper does it reference stopping payments to claimants?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: How can anybody get a claim through if they cannot fill out the form? It is pretty obvious.

Simon O’Connor: What was the Minister’s reaction on being briefed by ACC about the decision of the High Court as to the legitimacy of stopping weekly compensation for clients who refused to sign an unamended form ACC167?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My advice to ACC was that I believed that it should comply with the ruling. I agreed with the decision that it advised me that it had taken—that is, not to appeal the decision. I also asked ACC to attend to the form forthwith so that people could not have their claims disallowed or not even received for not having completed the form in an altered form.

Iain Lees-Galloway: When she answered the first supplementary question to question No. 10 yesterday, saying: “The question is in relation to the ACC167 form and the policy’s adoption. It was adopted by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not have details on any other details he has asked for.”, was she aware that paragraphs 2.6 and 3.2 of the briefing paper she tabled in the House yesterday did provide the details I was asking for in that supplementary question and indicated that claimants were able to place conditions on ACC’s authority to collect data in 2006 without fear of losing their weekly compensation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He is going to have to do that again. It was such a long question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister is saying that she could not clearly hear the question, we have no choice but to hear it again.

Iain Lees-Galloway: When she answered the first supplementary question to oral question No. 10 yesterday, saying: “The question is in relation to the ACC167 form and the policy’s adoption. It was adopted by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not have details on any other details he has asked for.”, was she aware that paragraphs 2.6 and 3.2 of the briefing paper she tabled in the House yesterday did provide the details I was asking for in that supplementary question and indicated that claimants were able to place conditions on ACC’s authority to collect their data in 2006 without fear of losing their weekly compensation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was such a long briefing paper and I had just tabled it, so I did not actually have it with me.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why did she make any claims about what that briefing paper actually said if she had not read the thing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is asking about a particular point within in it. Since I did not have it with me, having just tabled it, I presumed that he had it.

Iain Lees-Galloway: You lied. You lied and you know it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. Mr Speaker, I ask for that member to be asked to withdraw and apologise for that comment he has just made.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member withdraw and apologise for that interjection?

Iain Lees-Galloway: I withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That sort of interjection leads to disorder. We have just had it withdrawn by one member. It will cease.

Student Loans—Debt Recovery from Overseas-based Borrowers

8. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has the Government made in ensuring overseas-based student loan borrowers meet their obligations to New Zealand taxpayers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): We are making very good progress in what is a big project. There are around 110,000 student loan borrowers overseas and repayment of their loans by them has historically been very low. The previous Government put it in the too-hard basket. In 2010 we launched a comprehensive programme of work to improve repayment rates, and borrowers do need to know that when they go overseas their loan does not disappear; their obligation to repay it continues. Today I was able to announce with the Minister of Revenue that the Inland Revenue Department has now received over $100 million extra from overseas borrowers as a result of this initiative. As I say, it is a good start on tackling a large problem. For every dollar the Government has invested in this initiative, taxpayers have received about $11 in additional repayments, so it has been a very worthwhile investment.

Tim Macindoe: What tools has the Inland Revenue Department been using to increase repayments from borrowers who are based overseas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, it is a multi-agency initiative, and the first thing we did was make it easier for overseas borrowers to actually repay their loans. The Inland Revenue Department set up toll-free phone numbers for borrowers in Australia and the UK, and they can choose from four online money transfer companies offering fee-free services, and they waive the convenience fee for credit or debit cards as well. The Inland Revenue Department has also been advertising on social media, directly contacting borrowers, working with private debt collection companies to assist in tracking and collecting from borrowers in default, and taking legal action against those who continue to ignore their obligations. It is important that they do meet their obligations to the people who have supported their tertiary study, wherever they are in the world.

Tim Macindoe: How has the Inland Revenue Department been working with other Government agencies to increase repayment rates?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, recently we had an information-sharing agreement signed between the Inland Revenue Department and the Department of Internal Affairs so that passport applications to the Department of Internal Affairs are matched with the Inland Revenue Department’s database of overseas-based loan defaulters. Since October last year, as at earlier this year, over 500 contacts have been made, and repayment arrangements totalling $1.2 million have been set up from that initiative alone. Thirteen borrowers actually immediately paid their loans in full. The Inland Revenue Department is also notified by the Customs Service now when overseas-based borrowers in serious default return to the country. Over $2 million has been received as a result of contacts through that approach. Finally, the Inland Revenue Department now has the ability to seek an arrest warrant to deal with the most serious cases, when all other efforts to persuade the borrower to make repayments have failed. It has received over 3,000 calls from overseas borrowers since this power was introduced through the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Act 2014.

Housing, Affordable—Government Policies, Mortgages, and Overseas Buyers

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that it will take “a period of a decade or two” to get housing affordability to his long-term target?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I have set a long-term target of house price to income ratio of 4. Nationally it is currently 5.5. In Auckland it is over 7. I note that independent housing commentator Bernard Hickey has noted it would take 19 years of wage growth over 3 percent over house prices to reduce the house price ratio back down to 4 in places like Auckland. I also note that if house prices had not doubled between 2000 and 2008, this target could be achieved in a small number of years.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the country’s largest real estate group, which says that loan-to-value ratios have been a failed experiment that have had little effect in the heated Christchurch and Auckland markets, and why has he chosen to force a generation of aspirational, hard-working Kiwis to abandon their homeownership dreams, when the obvious solution is to abandon his failed housing polices and build 100,000 affordable homes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I find the first question about loan-to-value ratios ironic from that member, in that only a year ago he was advocating for us to have loan-to-value ratios as an alternative policy for the Reserve Bank. Secondly, in respect of how successful they have been, I note that over the last 3 months, house price inflation nationally has been just 0.1 percent, the lowest in many years. In respect of the Government’s housing policies, I know that the number of houses being built per year has increased from 13,000 per year to 23,000 per year, and I rate that as a success.

Phil Twyford: Does he stand by his statement that “I’m satisfied the number of overseas buyers is tiny and not having any substantive effect on prices.”; if so, has he spoken to the Prime Minister, who used to agree with him, but now thinks that something needs to be done about it, to cover up for the Government’s preference for offshore speculators?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the independent Productivity Commission spent 18 months looking into the issue of house prices after the disaster of the last Labour Government. It received over 150 submissions. It produced a comprehensive report of over 200 pages. It made absolutely no mention of foreign buyers having any impact and that is the view that is supported by the advice of Treasury and my own ministry.

Accident Compensation Corporation—ACC167 Form and Privacy and Security of Information

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Have all of the recommendations of the 2012 Independent Review of ACC’s Privacy and Security of Information been implemented; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): ACC advised that it has implemented 37 of the 44 recommendations. A number have ongoing activity associated with them. Of the remaining seven, two are under active management, which relate to information governance and the implementation of data loss protection software. The other five involve a fundamental review of ACC’s end-to-end claims process activity. Accordingly, ACC advised that it has taken a deliberate decision to complete the end-to-end process review of claims management as part of its work around improving trust and confidence. This is to ensure all processes and information technology changes required under these five recommendations comprehensively meet the intent of the report.

Kevin Hague: Is she confident that the recommendations to ensure that consent forms follow the law and are best practice have been properly implemented, given that the court has just found that the way that ACC was using its ACC167 form was actually illegal?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not want to argue with the member, but, strictly speaking, the form was not held to be illegal, but the way in which it was used was outside of the statutory requirements. I agree with the member that the form must be changed to comply with the latest decision. I have also been advised by ACC that this form has in the past been approved by the Privacy Commissioner, by the Human Rights Commission, and, I have been told, by six different District Court decisions. So the fact that this latest decision has said that it has been wrongly used is something that ACC is taking very seriously, as am I.

Kevin Hague: How does she reconcile ACC’s illegal use of this form with the privacy review’s findings that stakeholders’ single-biggest concern was the attitude and culture of the organisation in dealing with their personal information, and the report’s finding that a consistent theme was that information not relevant to the claim was held on file?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I also recall that the review said that the form itself was able to be used. So I think the problem is that the past decisions of the courts and of other agencies, like the Human Rights Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and also the review, have not actually said that the form has been misused. But I believe that the member is right that the form should be changed. ACC told me on Monday this week that it was not going to appeal the decision and that it would abide by it. I think that is the right outcome.

Kevin Hague: How do revelations today that ACC has been handing people’s full ACC files—including information on sensitive claims—over to prospective employers stack up against the recommendations of the privacy review?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sorry, I have not heard that claim, but if the member would like to provide me with the information, I will be happy to take some action. I seek leave to assist the member with the summary—

Mr SPEAKER: You are seeking leave to table a document?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is a document that is the independent review recommendations and summary of actions as at 24 January this year, and I think that might help the member.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that summary of actions. Is there any objection to that being tabled? It can be tabled.

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

Kevin Hague: How does the Minister reconcile the responsibility she took as Minister in 2012 and her comment that “I’m not going to sit back and let one of the most important Government entities we have let people down time and time again around things such as privacy. They have to act in the way that I expect them to act.” with her comments over the past several days that the implications of the court decision are an operational matter?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, strictly speaking, forms are an operational matter, but if the member is going to come to see the progress that has been made and what actions I have taken, I think that I have been very strong on this issue relating to ACC. I can look at the proof of just how successful that has been. In August 2012 there were 80 privacy breaches from ACC. A year later, in August 2013, that was down to 28. In March 2014—the month just past—it was down to 19. There are significant improvements in the ability of ACC to protect people’s privacy and, at the same time, to comply with its obligations under its own Act.

Wage Rates—Growth, Inequality, and Employment Relations Legislation

11. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement “we still have much more to do to improve New Zealand’s economic growth and to support higher incomes across the board”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do because the first stage of Government action was to undo the damage done by the previous Government, including home mortgage interest rates at nearly 11 percent, a current account deficit of 8 percent, and houses prices that had more than doubled in 9 years. Having undone a fair bit of that damage, there is much to do to build our future capacity to deliver higher incomes to households.

Andrew Little: In light of the fact that two-thirds of wage and salary earners earn less than the average wage, that the average wage has increased in real terms over the last 5 years at less than half the rate it increased under the Labour-led Government, and that incomes for the bottom half of all earners have either stayed the same or gone backwards, what exactly will his Government do to lift incomes higher across the board?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place the facts do not back up the member’s assertion that the incomes at the lower end have fallen further behind. That is simply not the case. The process set up by the previous Government to measure income inequality shows that despite a recession, over recent years incomes have been flat, not declining. In respect of the Government’s plans, we intend to persist with a comprehensive strategy to raise educational achievement so that every young New Zealander gets a decent start in the workforce; continue to fine-tune the skills system, which was very wasteful under the previous Government but is now starting to produce some real benefits for young New Zealanders; continue to negotiate free-trade agreements with more of the world’s faster-growing economies so we can sell more to the rest of the world at higher prices; and continue to reform the Government itself so we deliver more benefits and more value to those who are very dependent on the Government for their standard of living.

Andrew Little: What specifically will he do to ensure that the nearly 50 percent productivity improvement achieved by New Zealand workers since 1992 will be fully shared with them rather than the 14 percent to date that has gone to wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm whether the member’s figures are actually correct. There is a bit of a challenge in that there is a worldwide phenomenon where the proportion of where the benefits of productivity lie has changed, particularly since the global financial crisis. We do not know all the answers to that puzzle, actually. In the first place, in New Zealand we need to raise our productivity levels so that we will be working out how to divide a larger cake. In fact, that is the Government’s top priority because whatever the proportions are between wages and capital, the larger the pie is the more the workers are going to get.

Andrew Little: In light of his Government’s employment legislation currently before the House allowing employers to peremptorily walk away from collective bargaining and to abolish the application of collective agreements to new employees, and his claim in 2011 that low wages are an advantage for New Zealand, does he now accept that his claim of an increase in incomes of $7,500 over the next 4 years is just deceitful and cynical?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly do not agree with that. I mean, I made a similar claim about increases in the average wage over the last few years, and that was actually the basis on which this Parliament decided that New Zealanders over the age of 65 should get their superannuation. I do not think that Parliament was being deceitful when it used the average wage as a measure of incomes in New Zealand appropriate to apply to every single New Zealander over the age of 65. Where I think we differ is that the member believes that collective bargaining is the only way workers can get wage increases. In fact, collective bargaining applies only to quite a small proportion of the workforce, and the rest of them are getting significant wage increases in any case. We would like to see them get more.

Paramedics—Funding for New Technology

12. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What investments has the Government made to support new technology for paramedics?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): New technology partially funded by the Government is being introduced by St John Ambulance. Using a new hand-held device while on the road, ambulance crews will be able to send photos of injuries and accident scenes direct to hospital specialists for advice. This will also mean that emergency departments can be better prepared to receive a patient. The Government has allocated $2.5 million towards the cost of the development and roll-out of these devices.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How will this technology improve patient care?

Hon TONY RYALL: For the first time, ambulance officers will now be able to notify GPs that their patients have called upon the services of St John Ambulance. This is a world-leading move. Previously, some GPs never knew that their patients were calling an ambulance. In one case, a patient called an ambulance eight times about their medication before their GP was finally notified and made a minor change, which stopped the calls. This is very significant—as the member knows—when you consider that nearly 20 percent of ambulance call outs are for high users with four or more call outs a year.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Life is full of irony. I quote: “The third pillar of clean Government is transparency.” That was Judith Collins lecturing the Chinese about corruption on the same taxpayer-funded trip where she had dinner with the chairman of her husband’s company and the senior Chinese border control official that that company wanted to get its products through. That is corruption. That is what—to quote her—corruption looks like.

John Key is no better. He is donkey deep in the Oravida scandal. He is so compromised because he took $55,000 for playing his first game of golf with the same chairman and lied to cover it up. That is a strong word. He said it was a charity; he was the charity. The National Party was the charity. No wonder he cannot sack Judith Collins—he is just as guilty as she is. She has got the numbers in that sorry caucus, and he knows it, which is why he will not lift a finger—

Hon Steven Joyce: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is the laugh of the damned. Imagine being an also-ran to the “Minister for Corruption”—imagine being the also-ran to the “Minister of Corruption”.

Let us summarise why she is toast. She is toast because she has a deep, abiding, and pecuniary conflict of interest. Her husband was appointed to the board of Oravida. She has a financial gain from that appointment. That company gave $56,500 to the National Party. She shares in that benefit. She went to China on a taxpayer-funded trip. She posed for the company, to promote its products. She lobbied Chinese Government officials to get those products into China. She did not declare the meeting in her ministerial report. She did not declare the details to the Prime Minister. She did not declare the details to the House. She has repeatedly made a mockery of your rulings, Mr Speaker, by saying that she has no ministerial responsibility as a Minister on an anti-corruption trip for sitting with the chairman of her husband’s company and the border control official.

That is a joke. It is worse than a joke. It is the same kind of corruption that she is lecturing about. Here is what she told the Chinese academy of young executives: “Fighting corruption is not easy. It is a complex offence that is difficult to detect.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s true!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Just ask Grant Robertson. Just ask Winston Peters. Just ask my colleagues who have day by day been fighting to get the truth from that Minister—the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not the scampi equivalent that she thinks she can get away with.

What did Mr Key say a month or two ago? He said: “Gee, I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes if she does this again.” Well, guess what? She has just been caught out, because not only did she prepare in advance for those Oravida dinners and not only did she not just pop in for a cuppa on the way to an airport that was in the opposite direction by 30 kilometres, but she has lobbied for the interests of her husband’s company. That is a conflict of interest.

She expects the New Zealand people to believe the lie that they never discussed Oravida business—yeah, right! But I say this to you. Even if they sat around that table eating scampi and did not say a single word of any kind the whole night, in Chinese culture the fact that she was there, a Minister of the Crown, with the very border control official who could influence that company’s outcomes, even if he was dumb, blind, and mute, and she said nothing, it is still—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Well, if I were the Leader of the Opposition I would not be discussing the numbers in caucus in any situation. I would not be talking, if I were David Cunliffe, about toast—the guy who will not even tell New Zealanders who donated for his leadership bid. That is how straight that person is in this Parliament.

But there is actually a more important issue for the Opposition, and that is: what is going on with the Labour Party?

Hon Annette King: Nothing!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Exactly—nothing. That is my point. Why is it struggling along at 30 percent in the polls—or 27 percent, according to one prominent commentator yesterday? It is not like its leader is not out there, rushing around, doing stuff. He is too busy to come to Wellington some days because he is so busy out there giving speeches. He is too busy to go on the television for prearranged interviews because he is busy rushing around the place. He is working away, but nothing is happening. He sort of tries to look like a leader. He puts on his nerd face and says: “Oh yes, I’m a very serious leader. This is what leaders look like.” But, actually, it is not going anywhere.

Why is that? Well, it is a tricky conundrum. It is a tricky conundrum, and there are a number of possible reasons. One is, possibly, that Labour members focus on beltway issues all the time—far be it from me to tell them about that, but perhaps that is what they do. But possibly a more telling issue is that they spend their lives constantly making stuff up, so that when they open their mouths the public go: “Ah, I don’t think so.”, before Labour members hardly say a word.

Here are just a few examples from recent days. Yesterday their leader was out, saying: “Labour ran a surplus every year in Government.” Well, it did not. In Labour’s last year in Government it was proposing a $3.9 billion deficit—wrong, Mr Cunliffe. The claim yesterday that our economic recovery is due only to Canterbury and high dairy prices—wrong. That recovery is a broad-based recovery. The claim that New Zealand was nowhere to be seen on the whaling issue in the last couple of weeks—wrong. The Attorney-General was actually in the court. The claim that there is a manufacturing crisis—also wrong. The sector has been in expansion for 19 months. Of course, there is the claim that costs are rising faster than wages.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Stand up for Judith!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, since September 2008 average after-tax wages have increased more than inflation. Trevor, go home. You are getting on, Trevor. Let it go. But there is another example of making stuff up and exaggeration.

Here is Labour’s new policy. The new policy says Labour will require trucks not to be driven in the fast lane. Yes, it is apparently a new policy of the Labour Party, which is sort of OK, fair enough, except you have to read the fine print. At least on this one the fine print is here, which we could not say for the baby bonus policy. The fine print says it is only for three and four-lane motorways. So they will stop trucks being driven in the fast lane, but only on three and four-lane motorways. How many three and four-lane motorways do you think there are in New Zealand? How many of these motorways exist? I will give you a clue. Of 11,000 kilometres of State highways in New Zealand, how many of them are three or four-lane motorways that this wonderful policy affects? The answer is about 50 or 60 kilometres. Of 11,000 kilometres, about 50 or 60 kilometres will be affected by this. But you do not hear that from the Labour Party. “Mr Nerd Face Labour Party Leader” David Cunliffe—very serious, very serious—says: “We’re going to stop these trucks passing, but only for 60 kilometres. The other 11,000 kilometres won’t be changing.” That is their problem: they make up stuff and they exaggerate. But at least it is the issues that matter—at least it is the issues that matter!

Actually, I have been thinking of some more policies for them to think about for the next few days. I have got a few more. I have been crowdsourcing some policies—not just trucks, but how about pedestrians who walk slowly? That is annoying. Let us have a rule against that. That could be a new Labour Party transport policy—pedestrians who walk too slowly. Let us have that one, because that is an issue that matters.

What about another one? What about people who constantly change lanes in the security queues at airports? That is annoying. Let us have a policy for that. Let us sort that one out. And what about people who have too loud TV commercials? They used to have that one. Let us bring that one back. The reason the Labour Party is struggling for relevance is that its members have no idea what is important to Kiwis. They make stuff up and they exaggerate. In short, they are tricky.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Not one word from that Minister to defend Judith Collins. Not one single word from Steven Joyce to defend Judith Collins, because he is enjoying every single minute of this. The so-called “Crusher” Collins, the powerful person who backs down to nobody, sneaks out the back door of this House. She did not face the media on the way in and she did not face the media on the way out. That is because she has something to hide. She does not want to front up to New Zealanders about what she did. The great “Crusher” Collins has been crushed. She has been crushed because she has refused to front up to New Zealanders.

Do not mistake it for a minute. There is a reason why John Key has not got rid of Judith Collins. It is because he is donkey deep in this Oravida saga. He is the recipient of $56,000 worth of donations that we know about, and there could well be more. He is playing golf with the chairman. But he has also managed to appear in advertisements for Oravida Ltd. I did not know that John Key was a fan of Monty Python until yesterday when this advertisement appeared. It is a large advertisement—that is what I would call it—for Oravida Ltd, which appeared in a Chinese airline magazine. Down at the bottom of this picture of Mr Goodfellow’s scampi that is here we have a picture of John Key. That would be John Key at the bottom of this. The Chinese translation here says that John Key hosted a banquet for important Chinese people—presumably a banquet with this scampi in it. But it is OK—it is OK—because John Key’s office said that this is not an advertisement. As they say, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and this is a dead parrot. This is an advertisement. John Key is right in the middle of this Oravida saga, and that is why he is refusing to sack Judith Collins.

Let us make sure that everybody is absolutely clear here. On a $30,000 ministerial visit to China for the Minister of Justice, she pre-arranged two meetings with the Oravida directors, one in Shanghai and one in Beijing. Let us be clear. Stone Shi and Julia Xu travelled with Judith Collins on this trip. They were in Beijing for the dinner and then they were in Shanghai 2 days later for her to visit their offices. This was not the Minister of Justice on her own on a ministerial trip; this was the Minister of Justice pre-arranging visits with the fellow directors of Oravida who were there, along with her husband. Again, her husband is a director of five companies associated with Oravida Ltd, associated with Stone Shi and Julia Xu. These were pre-arranged meetings that she has sought to cover up from the beginning, claiming that she popped in on the way to the airport when she had to drive 30 kilometres in the wrong direction to actually get to Oravida’s headquarters.

She then sought to cover up a dinner—a dinner with an official from a border control agency. I am sure that that person was from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, the agency responsible for whether or not Oravida’s products get into China. We know, because Julia Xu went on Television One’s Q+A programme and said it, that Oravida was having trouble getting products into China. Julia Xu then wrote to Tim Groser and Nathan Guy and said: “We are having trouble getting our products into China. Please intervene.” And then Judith Collins ended up at a dinner with a senior official from the agency responsible for getting those products in.

She was there working on behalf of her husband’s company. She was there in a clear conflict of interest situation. If John Key had any standards whatsoever for his Ministers, she would be gone. Pansy Wong went. Richard Worth went. Judith Collins should be gone. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve far better than the cronyism and corruption of John Key’s Government. Judith Collins does not deserve to be a Minister. She should go. John Key should know that New Zealanders expect a fair go for all companies and all people. That is not what they are getting at the moment. What they are getting is Oravida, a company that Judith Collins is closely associated with, being preferred over other companies. That is called cronyism. That is called corruption. That is the National Government.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): This Government knows what is actually important to New Zealanders. This Government knows that what is important to New Zealanders is delivering safer communities. I have to say that I am proud to be part of a justice sector that is led by Minister Judith Collins, as the Minister of Justice, who is leading the justice sector Ministers and delivering safer communities to New Zealand.

It has to be said that since David Cunliffe has become the leader of the Labour Party—albeit an invisible one—one thing I have noticed is that Labour has become far more critical of the justice sector. Despite the magnificent results that have been delivered by our justice sector, by police, by corrections, and by the courts, what we have had under David Cunliffe’s watch is a questioning of the crime statistics, a questioning of corrections methodologies, and, in fact, a questioning of the fantastic results that the justice sector has delivered.

Opposition members are actually all about facts and figures. They are all about dollars and they are all about numbers of people. Those sorts of things are important to them, rather than what exactly is happening on the ground for ordinary New Zealanders. So what this Government has done is focus its resources on being as effective as it possibly can—

Sue Moroney: Out of touch—being out of touch.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —and delivering results for New Zealanders. Yes, the member over there talks about being out of touch. If it is out of touch to see crime dropping and fewer victims in our community, then I would much rather be on the National side of the House delivering those sorts of results than on the Labour side of the House, which had the record of seeing crime going up and predictions of 11,000 people languishing in our prisons, with no education, very little drug and alcohol treatment, and certainly no qualifications or job skills.

So what have we done? Well, I will tell the member because she might like to listen and learn something. With police, we have changed the focus in police from just reacting to crime to getting out there and preventing crime. We have encouraged and worked with the police to work smarter so that they stop crime happening. How have we done that? Well, we have done that through things like introducing technology. We have given them smartphones and iPads to use, so that they can be out there on the job and not have to go back into the office to carry out paperwork, which is what grew into enormous proportions under Labour.

And what did Labour do in response to that—what was Labour’s response? Labour members played the man. They actually went out and attacked the deputy commissioner who led that roll-out of technology. That is how it reacted to that amazing—amazing—transformation of our police, which is delivering great results.

We have seen much more visible policing under this Government. There is a 155 percent increase in foot patrols, which means that all over New Zealand people are saying to me: “Gosh, the police are out there on the streets. This is fantastic. We’re seeing our local cops out here on a Saturday night, walking up and down the streets.” It did not happen under the Labour Government. It did not happen. So what did Labour members say in response to that increase in foot patrols? I will tell you what they have done. They have complained about the police kiosks. They want to see uniformed police sitting behind the counter, waiting for the victims to turn up and complain. That is what they did. Instead of saying: “This is great, police. You are out there preventing crime, being visible on the streets.”, they want them stuck back in the police stations, sitting behind counters, filling in paperwork, and waiting for the victims to turn up.

Well, this Government is backing the—

Hon Annette King: This is rubbish and dishonest—rubbish and dishonest.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We are backing the victims, in this Government. When that member was the Minister of Police, Labour did not have the focus on victims that we have.

So what has the result been? Well, in 2013 there was another 4.1 percent drop in crime—the fourth year in a row that we have seen recorded crime drop. We are down to—

Sue Moroney: It’s been dropping for decades.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, it went up under Labour.

Sue Moroney: It’s been dropping for decades.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It went up under Labour. You do not know your statistics. That is another thing. This Government has seen crime drop to the lowest in 29 years. That is a National Government delivering what it knows New Zealanders care about—safer communities.

Mr SPEAKER: Eugenie Sage—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Could the Hon Annette King stop yelling across the House. Eugenie Sage.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The Green Party knows what New Zealanders care about. We know that as well as clean Government they want clean rivers, and that is because thousands of Kiwis wrote submissions on the Minister for the Environment’s draft proposed changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, asking for standards in it that would deliver rivers that you can swim in—not just rivers that you wade in but ones that you can swim in without having to ring the regional council or check a website to check that you are not going to get sick.

That is why the report and the decision that the board of inquiry delivered yesterday on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal is very interesting, because potentially that decision could stymie the Ruataniwha Dam and the massive expansion of irrigation and dairying in the Hawke’s Bay, which this Government is so keen on. Although it was disappointing that the board granted consents for the scheme and for a dam that would be only 16 metres lower than the Clyde Dam, in its decision it is imposing much tougher limits on nutrient pollution than the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and its dam company wanted, and it is imposing much tougher limits, in terms of water quality and nitrogen, than the Government is proposing in its National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

That creates a real conundrum for the Government, because the board has, effectively, said that you cannot have irrigation without actually safeguarding water quality and the health of the Tukituki Catchment. Yet this Government, in all its policies, is about sacrificing the environment in order to promote short-term economic growth. Here, under this Government, you have the Government tightening the criteria for small communities like the Tokomaru village to get access to the Ministry of Health’s Drinking-water Assistance Programme to help upgrade its drinking water supplies. On the one hand, those criteria have got much tighter, so that they are available only to the most deprived communities. Yet, on the other, we have the Government playing fast and loose, giving major handouts through its Crown Irrigation company to agribusiness and irrigators.

We saw $6.5 million given recently to Central Plains Water, and we have the Crown Irrigation company lining up to give another big subsidy to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme in Hawke’s Bay. Given that this Government set up the board of inquiry and hand-picked the members of that board, it has got to read the board’s decision—look at what the board is saying about the nutrient limits—and it has got to get its hands off any further involvement in decisions around the flooding of the forest park. Even though the scheme potentially has got quite major costs for the region, the board did not decline the dam and it did not look in enough detail at the ecological impacts on the river from the flooding, in our view.

Yet when we have the Minister of Conservation suppressing the submission of the Department of Conservation, suppressing its ability to get in front of the board of inquiry to present information on ecological values and to present information about the forest park, we do not trust the Government when it comes to the other decision that could frustrate this dam, which is whether 200 hectares of the forest park would be flooded. Nick Smith’s paws were all over the decision to suppress the Department of Conservation’s submission, and we suspect that he will be all over the decision around whether that land should be flooded. So the Government needs to take stock. It needs to read the decision carefully and actually wind back its aggressive promotion of more dairying and more irrigation, because this dairy juggernaut is not sustainable. It is simplifying the economy and it is sacrificing the environment.

A Green Party in Government would make sure that we made our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand real. We would not be giving big handouts through the Crown Irrigation company to irrigation. We would put in place strong national standards and bottom lines to ensure that our rivers were clean enough for swimming. We would strengthen our major environmental laws like the Resource Management Act, not gut them as National is doing, not reduce the opportunities for the public to have a say. We would ensure that regional councils focus on their critical role of independently managing water, not promote irrigation, as the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is doing. That council now has to look really seriously at the changes to the plan that the board of inquiry is making.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): What a ridiculous set of contributions we have had from the Opposition this afternoon. It started with David Cunliffe going on about Judith Collins’ numbers in our caucus. Well, he was, I think, purple with envy because he has never had the numbers in his own caucus. Of course, the only party that David Cunliffe has the numbers in to remain Leader of the Opposition is the New Zealand National Party. We are absolutely desperate for him to stay as Leader of the Opposition for just as long as he can. Then, of course, we had Grant Robertson from the Opposition. He started off OK, actually, I thought. He was all right. About halfway through he got hungry and started talking about Chinese banquets. I could see him sort of mentally visualising dumplings in his head or something.

Actually, in all seriousness, we have had speeches from the other side of the House that have not focused on a single issue of importance to New Zealanders around this country. Nothing in those speeches—

Sue Moroney: Ah, he won’t defend Judith.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Actually, for the people of Hamilton, where Sue Moroney comes from, despite never having won the seat she has stood in, there was nothing in the speeches for them. There was nothing for the people of Napier, New Plymouth, Tauranga, and so on. On this side of the House is a party that is focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We are resolutely focused on a Budget coming up very soon that is on targeted spending—not the kind of spend-up we would get from the Opposition parties—on the areas that matter most to families and New Zealanders: health care, education, and safer communities. We will be sticking to the $1 billion Budget allowance because we know that that is the responsible thing to do. We know that that is what keeps mortgage rates lower for longer. We know that that is how we will achieve average annual wages increasing by $7,500 to around $62,000 a year in 2018. Over the past 2 years we have seen a $3,000 lift in the average wage to $54,700 a year. We have got great results here in this part of the Government. We know we cannot have a spend-up.

Of course, we then heard from Eugenie Sage. It is true that, unlike the Labour Party, she did focus on a real issue, and she made clear the Green Party position on these things. We have seen today in the House from Russel Norman that the Greens are absolutely anti-development. That is their position on these things. They are anti-irrigation for farms and anti - intensive farming and the jobs they bring. They are anti-manufacturing, and we know that they are anti-resources. We saw that from Russel Norman getting in a lather today about the Victoria Forest Park, despite the fact that that party—and it hates to hear this—whilst it was propping up the Labour Government, did nothing as the Labour Government oversaw mining in this area. Of course, we have got Damien O’Connor on the other side and Labour Party members who have been as quiet as church mice on this issue—not even a squeak from them—because they are confused. They have got on the one side the university types—the Maryan Streets and so on—the bookish types who are probably with the Greens on these things. Then they have the manly, chest-beating, Tarzan types like Shane Jones who actually are probably more gung ho—certainly, actually—on these issues than we are.

On this side of the House we are absolutely focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders. We are focused on a Budget that is going to be sensible, that is going to be responsible, and that is going to deliver for New Zealanders. We know that we can live in a country where we explore all our opportunities. In my portfolio, we do pursue resources. That does not mean that we do not care about the environment. We absolutely do. We know that the legal processes and so on safeguard what is happening.

So while the other side of the House focus on the trivial—

Sue Moroney: Don’t call Judith trivial.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and focus on Chinese banquets and things that the people in Napier, New Plymouth, Nelson, Christchurch, and Hamilton, Sue Moroney, could not care less about, this side will focus on the things that matter to New Zealanders and, on that basis, be re-elected later this year.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora anō tātou. In this short contribution of mine I am going to focus on accountability. I am going to focus on accountability in three areas. No. 1 is the absence of any accountability from Judith Collins in terms of giving a truthful account of what happened while she was on her oriental express. Next I am going to turn my attention to the Māori Party. Then, in my trans-Tasman fashion, I am going to come back to making a few observations about Lotto and the Countdown supermarkets.

If Judith Collins—as is correct and as stated by Grant Robertson, and soon to be stated, I am sure, by Winston Peters—is toast, then the Māori Party is, as they say down on the marae, “brown bread”. But when the Māori Party went to the Northern Club, it did not get brown bread. It leaves Māori bread for Rātana Pa and fried bread for Waitangi, but it feasts on bagels, baguettes, and other kinds of flash types of bakery items that you get at the Northern Club that I have never heard of.

Why I am raising this issue is that this is an example of how far that party has lost its way. I actually did a bit of research on what Tariana Turia has said in the past. This is what she has said: “The majority of our kids don’t get to go through the door unless we can go and convince the employer to give them a go.” So is that why they went to the Northern Club—to actually address the unemployment in Kaikohe and Kaitāia? Tariana Turia is afraid to go to Tai Tokerau. She hates the place because that is where Hone Harawira comes from. Did she go there to advance the interests of the young Māori job seekers in South Auckland? No. Well, perhaps she went for this reason: “There is only one party you can trust with absolute certainty”—according to Tariana Turia—“to protect and look out for Māori interests, and that is the Māori Party.” Is that the Māori Party that is now whistling: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”?

When you embrace your funder, when you cuddle up to the Prime Minister and his funders from the other end of town, they tell you what to do. There is no independence left with that particular party. There is no independent analysis. Now that it has received the gold and silver as a consequence of the Prime Minister, you can rest assured it will show no accountability to the voters in Waiariki. It is more than likely that Rawiri Waititi, our candidate, will beat both Te Ururoa and Annette Sykes because he will come through the middle, but the real problem is that the Ministers in that particular tawdry outfit show no accountability to the people who put them there. That is why they will go.

Let me come back to Countdown. I want this House to know that since my democratic contributions to do with the behaviour of this Australian-owned supermarket hit the press, matters have improved between them and suppliers. But what Countdown does not know is that there is an avalanche of information being sent to the Commerce Commission, and an additional email I am going to make available to the Commerce Commission.

During this episode, people have pointed out to me that Countdown has a cosy relationship with Lotto, which is why I have asked Ruth Dyson and why I have asked Mr Mallard to ensure that they use their good services on the various select committees that they are on to call Lotto into Parliament to account for the following: “Hi. I’d like to let you know that even Lotto New Zealand have had intimidation methods used by both Countdown and Woolworths on numerous occasions and with all the Lotto executive team keeping this very quiet”—which is why it must be forced to come to Parliament. “Hundreds and thousands of dollars have been paid to both of these entities in project payments. This is so that Lotto can sell tickets through the checkouts”—worsening gambling spread, at a time when Lotto bases itself on the myth of being the family concerned. “This also is because Countdown threatened to close Lotto counters in their stores. They have dictated they will sell, and when refusing to sell Instant Kiwi tickets”—it is rather bizarre that an Aussie-owned company is able to do that—“in the past, which they did not like. No other Lotto retailer can or has been allowed to do this, only Countdown. Everyone is under strict threats not to say anything, from the chief executive officer to the chief operational officer.”

Drag those people to the highest court in the land and bring them before the select committees of this Parliament to account for their dealings, which are possibly dodgy.

MELISSA LEE (National): I have a lot of respect for Shane Jones, the member who just sat down, but I would give him just one piece of advice: people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

I feel that I have to start my contribution by saying how grateful I am to my parents, who, in a way, forced me to move to New Zealand. They forced me to migrate to New Zealand when I was much younger. When I first got to New Zealand my feelings towards my new country were not how I feel about it now. I am a very proud Kiwi, or a “Kowi”, actually—a Korean Kiwi, which is what we Koreans actually call each other; “Kowi”—and I cannot think of living anywhere else but this gorgeous country of ours, Aotearoa.

I would like to think that I am pretty ordinary in that I am a mother—a single mother—with a teenaged son, and my mother lives with me. Although privileged to be a member of Parliament and lucky to have had the successful career that I have had, my life is like everybody else’s. I wish that my family have good health and that my son will get a good education, and, according to him, he attends the best State school in New Zealand. I want my family to be safe and protected from crime, and I hope that we do not ever become welfare dependent. These are the things that matter most to our New Zealand families, which is why this National-led Government is investing heavily in these areas.

Like all Kiwi families who live within a budget, and most of us do, this National-led Government is careful and fiscally responsible. We are carefully targeting our spending in the areas that matter and sticking to a $1 billion Budget allowance for the 2014-15 financial year. Growing our economy so that more people can have jobs, more people can have better pay, and more people can have economic freedom is the paramount concern for this Government. As a small country at the bottom of the world, New Zealand’s economic future lies in the strength of our connections to our international markets and to our neighbours to sell our goods and services. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s objective is to help New Zealand companies achieve international success. China, South America, the Middle East, and the ASEAN region provide strong opportunities for New Zealand’s economic future.

I went to Indonesia not long ago, and that is one of the areas that we are actually focusing on. Just to give you an idea of how big that country is, it has a population of close to 250 million people. Yes, it is a lot poorer than us in terms of its economy and how well its economy is actually doing, but its population is growing at the rate of our total population in New Zealand a year—growth of 4.5 million people a year—and the economic growth in that country is phenomenal.

I was told when I was there that New Zealand companies are going into Indonesia to trade with it and are actually doing fantastically well. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is there and our embassy is there to assist our New Zealand companies to do so, and I think it is fantastic. Lifting our trade with these regions will help create higher-paying jobs for Kiwi families. The additional $69 million will allow New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to connect more Kiwi companies with growing markets, delivering stronger long-term economic growth for New Zealand.

Another one that I am personally waiting for is the free-trade agreement with my birth country. They are currently negotiating, and I hope that they will actually come to a conclusion very, very soon. That will boost trade between our two nations, my birth country and my country—New Zealand and Korea—and it will actually make a huge contribution to the growth of our economy, which is doing fantastically well.

New Zealand is in a good place. We are growing. Every day our economy is looking bright and our future is looking much better because of what National is doing—

Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?

MELISSA LEE: —and it is doing better than Labour did in the previous 9 years of Government.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This House has witnessed a disgraceful state of affairs. The Prime Minister allows a Cabinet Minister to abuse her position, and then helps her cover it up. The Minister of Justice used her office to help her husband’s company during the Fonterra botulism scare. Along the way she has sucked in two other Cabinet Ministers plus the Prime Minister.

It is obvious from the official papers that the Minister used her position to work for Oravida from the start. Oravida asked the Government for urgent help. The help arrived in 2 days flat. The Cabinet Minister did everything Oravida asked. This included providing taxpayers’ funds, issuing statements, and then, of course, a public relations trip to China—paid for by the taxpayer—by the Minister of Justice herself. Was it a coincidence that her husband is a director of the company? Was it a coincidence that a senior Chinese border official was at a dinner she attended? We know where the official was from, and there was only one reason he was there. The reason was Oravida. Was it a coincidence that Oravida’s problems suddenly went away?

Many other companies were in the same position as Oravida, but they did not get the same high level of help from the Government. Other companies are still fighting through a bureaucratic nightmare to get goods into China—not only dairy companies but meat companies. We know that one New Zealand firm last week received approval from the Ministry for Primary Industries to export primary products to China. It now faces a delay of 3 to 9 months to get past over 455 pages of documentation to get goods into China. China has required all New Zealand plants and goods and brands to re-register following the Fonterra incident. As these companies struggle through the waves of a bureaucratic sea, Oravida goes past on a jet ski with Minister Collins at the helm. This issue cannot be explained away by a series of coincidences. The Prime Minister is over a barrel. Do not forget that he is also the milk poster boy for a number of companies.

It is time to get everything out in the open so that New Zealanders can see the extent of cronyism and naked corruption in this Government. New Zealand is being run like some kind of international trading company for the benefit of the National Party and its mates, and to think that Minister Collins was in China boasting about our glorious, corruption-free, transparent Government! This is the same Minister who has been trying to block all of our Official Information Act requests. This is the same Minister who appeared on the APEC Women Leadership Forum. The forum, of course, was sponsored by whom? Oravida.

We have written evidence that shows that 2 days before Minister of Justice Collins had dinner with her Oravida friends and connections and a senior Chinese border official, Oravida attended a briefing run by the Government on China’s new guidelines following the botulism scare that was bringing Oravida to its knees. The focus of the briefing was China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, known as AQSIQ—the very organisation that the senior Chinese border official who went to a dinner with Judith Collins and the Oravida people belongs to.

This is not a coincidence; this is a cover-up. It is a shameful, scandalous, cronyistic, serious conflict of interest and, worse still, corruption. She said today that she told the Prime Minister everything. Well, now the Prime Minister is in with her, and he has been found out following double standards. He knows full well that the more we dig, the more we will find, and there is more information coming. We will release soon the fact that just 3 days out, the department advised Oravida about the briefing. They attended it and, just 3 days later, there she is, with the very same official, from the very same organisation, giving the briefing. It stinks, and this Minister—this so-called Minister of Justice—must now go.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): What we have just seen is classic Winston Peters at his almost old best. He had his birthday last week. Many happy belated returns for your 69th birthday, the honourable member Winston Peters. You are looking nearly as good as you did when you first came into this House back in Muldoon’s time.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have seen a very sorry state from the Opposition this afternoon. That was a once-proud, principled party, that Labour Party over there, but now it is bereft of policy, it is bereft of principle, and it is bereft of leadership. Indeed, this afternoon in the general debate their sometime lost leader actually just about lost his voice. I am not sure how he is going to make it through the election campaign. Certainly a 20-minute speech will seem to be an absolute mountain of a challenge for him. He has not actually got long to show a glimmer of leadership, and he is yet to try to shine not only in this House but for his party and for the people who do support him, not that they are many, because at the conclusion of today’s sitting of the House there will be but 28 sitting days left in this 50th Parliament.

So that does not give the Opposition members very much time to get their act together from the woeful position that they find themselves in. But it is a very good time to reflect on the wonderful and very good achievements of this John Key - led National Government in its 5½ years. It is a good opportunity not only to reflect on the achievements of the Government but also to concentrate a little on what work has yet to be done, because there is still a lot we have to do. We have come an awful long way since inheriting the economic mess of the Labour Party and the Labour-Green Government that preceded us. It has been very difficult but we have managed the economy with prudence and with care, so that all New Zealanders have benefited during what has been the worst economic situation in living memory.

This weekend is Easter weekend, and tens of thousands of New Zealanders will arrive on the Coromandel peninsula. They will be very fortunate to travel across the wonderful new Kōpū Bridge, a bridge that was delayed and stymied and stifled by the Labour-Green Government for 9 long years but was fast tracked by John Key and this National Government. So on the 6 o’clock news on Thursday evening, instead of the lead story being about how traffic is building up on the Kōpū Bridge, with delays of hours and hours taking place for thousands of tourists and spenders and people who are coming to invest a bit of money in the local Coromandel economy, they will make a seamless approach across that bridge and they will do so without having to combat both the physical and psychological barrier that the old bridge put in place. That is very good for the business people and for all the people of the Coromandel electorate.

So we have had not only a very good new bridge this summer but a very good summer in every other respect as well. Yes, it is true that our hard-working farmers on the Hauraki Plains and in other parts of the Coromandel could well do with a few days’ rain because they have had a very long, dry, hot summer. But they are in good heart and they are doing very well under a Government that understands fully and completely that the rural economy is and always has been the backbone of our economy. It is the hard work of our rural brothers and sisters, the hard-working farmers on the Coromandel and across the Hauraki Plains, that we acknowledge, and their contribution to the total success of our economy now.

Commentators around the world are praising and giving credit to this John Key Government and our coalition partners for the good work and the prudence that they have shown over these 5½ years. They are saying that our economy is growing almost faster than any other developed economy in the world, and that can be attributed to the very good work of Bill English and his finance team.

So the good people of the Coromandel are in good heart. They are looking forward to a prosperous Easter weekend and they are looking forward to using the new Kōpū Bridge, giving them access to the peninsula, in a way they were never able to use under the Labour-Green Government. They will also be out in numbers. They will be using the Hauraki Rail Trail cycleway in ever-increasing numbers. In January of this year we had 14,500 people use the cycleway in just one month. To put that into a context, on the Otago Central Rail Trail cycleway—

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I have to say that the last speaker who has just resumed his seat, Scott Simpson, is a very nice bloke—but was that not the speech he gave to this House just 3 weeks ago? It was almost identical—talking about the Kōpū Bridge, etc., etc. He needs to get some new speech notes.

It is time. The time has come; in fact, it is overdue. Judith Collins has to go. She must stand down as a Minister. She is an embarrassment to the National Party. She is a blot on Cabinet collective responsibility, she is an insult to this Parliament, and she has lost her way in an overdose of self-importance, blatherskite, and bravado. I think she needs some time out—some time out for detoxifying her considerable self-confidence and ego.

I have sat opposite Judith Collins for week after week as she has been grilled on her behaviour as a Minister. She has blustered. She has thrown out insults. She tried contrition—very, very briefly. She made false accusations against other members of this House. She has flouted requests from the Speaker to answer questions. She has laughed hysterically at times. She has bullied, and, finally, she has stomped out of the Chamber and scampered down the back alleys and back corridors—anything to avoid the media.

As the weeks have gone by, the political noose has been tightening round her neck. As her answers have become more obtuse and more evasive, her colleagues’ behaviour has changed. They have gone from the usual laughing and clapping, like well-trained circus seals, to now having their heads down, busily reading whatever is in front of them—Woman’s Day or whatever is of importance to them. They talk to each other—anything but look at her. They duck behind the bench if they can—if they are fit enough to do it—and all the while they are not wanting to look at Judith Collins. She has been left with the departing Minister of Health as her only cheerleader. Even he has gone from looking adoringly at her, as he does every day, to now staring straight ahead.

She is just not believable. In an attempt to divert attention from her highly inappropriate behaviour as a Minister, she has tried to turn it into a personal attack on her and her family and her friends. Therein lies the problem. She is incapable of separating her role as a Minister from her personal life. Because of her self-belief that she can do whatever she likes as long as it is in the name of private and personal, she has now made the Prime Minister—the Government’s greatest treasure—look like a weakling. He likes to be seen as a reasonable and nice bloke, but now he looks indecisive, he looks inconsistent, and he looks like he is not in control. He is too scared to act—too scared to act. If he does not act now and remove her from office, then he deserves to be labelled “nice but weak”.

Perhaps there is something much deeper here that we do not know about. What is it that she has over the Prime Minister? What is it that makes him hold back from giving her the same marching orders that he gave to Pansy Wong and Richard Worth? Did he actually approve of her activities? Did he approve of those activities in return for some big cheques from Oravida? It seems that perhaps that is the case, because the Prime Minister appears to have got his private life and public life mixed up as well. He plays golf with big business for dollars—not for charity, as he said, but for the National Party. He has cheques for endorsements and photographs for the National Party. It appears to me that the Prime Minister has lost his moral compass. His moral compass has gone, because he cannot see that what the Minister of Justice is doing is wrong. He cannot see it, and he needs to get his moral compass back or he will be seen as a weak leader and only a nice bloke.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I stand in this House today to make a statement. Late last year my family had been at a property in my electorate where my stepson had been testing his rally car in preparation for competing in his father’s memorial rally. Later that evening my wife, Peggy, and I attended a barbecue at the same property. While there I was confronted by Mr Kim Dotcom, who was also a guest. I can only describe the conversation as chilling. Direct threats were made by Mr Dotcom towards our Prime Minister. He stated that he could and would destroy the Prime Minister and that he already had members of our Parliament working with him to achieve this. We left immediately.

Because I had had many years of dealing with, and being exposed to, violent and intimidatory people, I did not immediately recognise the seriousness of the situation. But, sadly, in our vehicle with my wife it was obvious that she was shaken and that the nature of the threats had frightened her. I did not believe Mr Dotcom’s claims that members of our New Zealand Parliament were actively collaborating with him. A good Opposition’s job is to challenge the Government, to ensure that the Ministers remain laser-focused on their portfolios, to challenge policy ideas, and to present an alternative Government. I watched in amazement as it became apparent that members of Parliament were collaborating with Mr Dotcom at his mansion in Coatesville. I felt that a sinister corner had been turned for the first time in our country’s history when Opposition parties appear to have given up on challenging our Prime Minister through debate and policy ideas and have instead turned to assisting Mr Dotcom in his mission to destroy the Prime Minister.

Every time one of the Opposition MPs drove into that Dotcom mansion, they were driving past people and being served by people who were scared, who had not been paid, who were struggling to support their own families. Imagine what they were thinking when they saw our country’s political leaders bowing down to that same person. Where could they turn to for help when the country’s political leaders appeared to be in the back pocket of Mr Dotcom? Is it true that Mr Dotcom tasked Labour with the further development of an IT policy he had been working on? Come to this House and tell us. Is it true that Mr Norman, co-leader of the Green Party, was tasked with challenging his extradition to the United States? Come to this House and tell us. Is it true that Mr Peters was given questions by Mr Dotcom to bring to this House to attack our Prime Minister? Come to this House and tell us.

I have now had time to reflect on the abusive behaviour of Mr Dotcom at the function I attended in my electorate last year. The violence of the threats towards our Prime Minister has not left me. Today I felt that it was important to place these matters on the record in this House. I believe that the people of this country are beginning to question the real motives of Mr Dotcom. From my own experience, he is a man who uses threats and intimidation on people to get what he wants. I wait to see the next instruction or order given from the Dotcom mansion to members of this House. Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to remind you, because I thought you might have got to your feet, that it is out of order to suggest that any member is directed by an outside party. That is exactly what that member just did, and normally the Speaker is very protective of the rights of members of the House in that area.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is right, actually. That is not in order. I note Speakers’ ruling 50/4. It is not in order to say that a member is dictated to, dominated by, or has received instructions from, an outside body. That was Speaker Barnard. It is a long one. So you are quite right. You are quite right, Mr Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s an old one—nearly as old as I am.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): He is as old as you are, is he? The member is quite right, so I would just say to the member that it is not in order to indicate that members of the House are involved in that.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): You are absolutely right about the Speakers’ ruling. However, if you closely examine the text of what the member said, he did not attribute that; he asked questions. He asked questions. I believe that in Parliament any member is entitled to ask a question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Of course members are entitled to ask questions, but I think the point has been made that as members of Parliament we need to be careful about any accusations we make, because we are held accountable. All members in this House are honourable and their word is their bond. So I would just caution the House about that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

First Reading

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. I rise to speak in the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. The bill allows amendments to be made that would not normally receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. It amends 33 Acts administered by 12 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references, such as the amendment in clause 61 to the definition of drug-dealing offences in section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, which removes an incorrect reference to the now repealed section 46 of the Act, and the amendment in clause 100 to section 88AE of the Summary Proceedings Act to add the words “88(2)(b) or 88AD(2)(c)” in the heading, and in section 88AE(1) to correct the drafting error.

Some make unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions, including an amendment in clause 19 to the Copyright Act 1994 to allow the Copyright Tribunal to consist of a chair and between two and five members under the current wording. The provision has been interpreted to mean that the tribunal must consist of only six members. It is desirable for the tribunal to consist of different numbers from time to time where appropriate. Other clauses make technical amendments to facilitate functions of governance, such as the amendment in clause 47 to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to give Auckland Transport the functions and powers of an enforcement authority in relation to fare evasion offences on public transport in Auckland. Although Auckland Transport is responsible for managing and controlling the Auckland transport system, unlike local authorities it is currently unable to progress infringement notices for fare evasion.

Also, the amendment in clause 15 of section 21A of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 proposes altering the requirements for making name changes. The amendment is meant to address the concern that a fraudulent name change can occur currently. A person registering a change of name by statutory declaration is not required to provide evidence that he or she is the person to whom the name change application is related. I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on these matters, and I commend the bill to the House.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): In the nature of Statutes Amendment bills, we will, of course, support this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). It does a number of tidy-up jobs on various pieces of legislation—that much the Associate Minister of Justice has just said—but it is an opportunity to reflect upon those pieces of legislation that appear in the bill and see whether we can find a common thread, weave a common thread, or make some sense out of it. I have been through them in some detail and I am struck by some of the—admittedly minor—changes to some very important pieces of legislation. Some are to do with the judiciary, some to do with our judicial process, and some to do with other administrative process. I am just wondering whether, actually, through this Statutes Amendment Bill, this Government is setting up an escape path for a recalcitrant Minister. If you have a look at some of these provisions, there is a very unusual thread of commonality that goes through it.

Let me start with the judicial conduct commissioner and commission bill—let me just clarify the exact name, because I would not want to mislead and put wrong the tens of thousands of people who have tuned in specially this afternoon to watch the passage of this legislation. It is the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. This is a piece of legislation that allows those who are aggrieved by what has happened to them in court before a judge to take action. Indeed, the Judicial Conduct Panel has dealt with some justified complaints against judges. It is very difficult, of course, because most of the people who are aggrieved at the conduct of judges are usually those who have lost their case before a judge. But there are some who are treated peremptorily, unfortunately, and in an inappropriate way. They make complaints and they can have those complaints heard—a sort of second tier of justice delivered. Well, the changes in this Statutes Amendment Bill for the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act do two things. They allow the deputy commissioner to do what the commissioner can do once the commissioner has delegated it to the deputy. They also allow the commissioner to dismiss a complaint already dealt with.

I just make this point—and, of course, it would not be a matter for a Statutes Amendment Bill—but in reflecting on this piece of legislation and the processes that it enacts, is it not a pity that the judges themselves do not have a body to go to to complain about injustices done against them? They might well lay a complaint against none other than the Minister of Justice—not because of dinners she has had in Shanghai or her travel itinerary in all parts of the world on behalf of her husband’s company but because of her comments and her attitude towards our judiciary.

Her attitude is absolutely epitomised by the comments she made in the weekend in an interview on the prospective Victims’ Commissioner when she said of our judicial system that she agreed with the statement that “This is not a court of justice; this is a court of law.” She said of our judiciary: “This is not a court of justice; this is a court of law.” That came from our Minister of Justice. It was not Billy Bragg and his famous song about the appalling nature of the bail system in the United Kingdom; this was the New Zealand Minister of Justice talking about our system of justice on the 6 o’clock news on Sunday night on Television One. If I was a judge in this country of whatever court, I would be horrified and I would be looking for a process by which to complain about that Minister. Perhaps they will not have to look much longer if the present Minister of Justice meets her just deserts and is gone by the end of the week, because she certainly should do so.

Now I want to go to the Official Information Act. This is a very interesting piece of legislation because it allows for oral requests to be made and then for those oral requests, if they are not clearly understood, to be put into writing by whoever receives the request, including Ministers—including Ministers. It also allows a refusal of a document that cannot be found, providing a reasonable effort has been made to locate the document. Following our requests for information about, for example, Michelle Boag and her complaint about the Minister for ACC and her breach of privacy, well, we were told that it could not be found, and so this provision may well provide a mechanism by which to get information from that Minister.

I might say this about the Minister of Justice, who is the Minister responsible for the Official Information Act. She must have the most appalling record of responses to Official Information Act requests. I have not received a response to an Official Information Act request that has not been heavily redacted—that has not been concealment of information. But this seems to be the flavour of this Minister. Rather than be open, upfront, and transparent, she conceals everything, and it now turns out she has got a lot to conceal. There is a lot of conduct that she wants to hide, and so questions are now being asked, and we wonder whether this change to the Official Information Act in this Statutes Amendment Bill might enable us just a smidgen further in her door to find out what is actually going on and what it is that she is hiding.

I turn to the Ombudsmen Act, because there is a change to the Ombudsmen Act in this Statutes Amendment Bill as well. This allows an Ombudsman to refuse to commence an investigation if he or she judges it necessary to do so. That is quite a sensible provision—uncontroversial in any other way—except who is the Minister responsible for the Ombudsmen and the Ombudsmen Act? It is the Minister of Justice—the Minister of Justice. Here is the thing. When you cannot get an answer—a proper answer or a heavily redacted answer to your Official Information Act request—where do you go? You go to the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the same Minister is in charge of that office too. And what do we find? The poor old Ombudsmen’s office snowed under, predominantly because of Ministers who fail to answer their Official Information Act requests, and the Minister of Justice is the worst. So I hope that the Associate Minister of Justice, who has shepherded this bill into the House today, takes note, because he may have to step up very soon, and we want responsible people ready to step up and take up these senior roles. Perhaps the Associate Minister, when he gets the opportunity in a few days’ time to pick up the cudgels of the real job, the big job, will make a difference in this regard.

Then, of course, we have the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. There is no question, I think, that the current Minister of Justice will want to resort to her rights and obligations under this Act very soon—if she has not already. This provision under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) allows objections to licences that are limited to the suitability of the applicants. So the only ground upon which you can object to an application for a licence is the suitability of the applicant. Whether the present Minister of Justice, through this bill, is actually preparing her way for a career change, I am not sure, but if she is, she is in trouble. She is in trouble under this provision because it allows you to oppose an application for a licence on the grounds of character. That is to say, if you are not a person of good character, you cannot hold a liquor licence. So I just say to the present Minister of Justice to be careful, because that career option may be closed off, because we cannot have Ministers of Justice leaving that post who want to go off and sell alcohol when they have left that post under a cloud of suspicion of wrongdoing. We cannot have that.

Then, finally, there is the Sentencing Act. That is an interesting provision because it deals with what happens when an offence is committed in a car that is not your own. So if a Minister who transgresses commits an offence in a ministerial limousine, for example, the car can still be seized. The car can be seized and disposed of—

Dr David Clark: It could be crushed.

ANDREW LITTLE: Well, it may well be crushed. So I can foresee a Minister of Justice who has been recently pushed out of her role going off to apply for a liquor licence that she cannot get, sells liquor anyway, and has the car that she is in seized by the Crown. None of this is any good. But I just want to say this, finally. She has a resort. There are two parts of this bill that she can resort to. The first is the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act amendment, and if there is any place that the current Minister of Justice needs to go, it is surely a friendly society, because she is running out of them here. She is running out of her friends around here and she could go along to a friendly society and find that there are people who just want to be friends regardless of the character of the people they are dealing with.

But, finally, if all of that fails—if all of that fails—there are the changes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act in this bill. The provisions in this bill make it easier to change your name. So if the Minister of Justice leaves the post under a cloud because of very serious allegations of impropriety and misconduct, and she cannot get another job either as a retailer of liquor or anything else, then she can go along to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages and she can change her name. There will be a new form provided under the amendment in this bill and it will be easier for her to change her name. So she has prospects and she has a future. But after all of that, notwithstanding the apparent setting up of alternatives for the present Minister of Justice, we will support this legislation because these are good changes for the people of New Zealand.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): What a wonderful dissertation that was from our Opposition colleague Andrew Little! I am surprised that he could speak at such length without actually referring to very much in the bill at all. It was masterful, it was an achievement, but I am not sure that it was one he should be proud of.

I am, in fact, very proud to be speaking to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in the House this afternoon. This is a good housekeeping bill that points to the National Government’s continuous aim for increased efficiency in procedure and a completist’s eye for detail in making sure that the laws already passed move from adequate to excellent.

Just to take one example out of so many amendments—there are 33 sets of amendments, in fact, in this omnibus bill—we have the amendments to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. One of the reasons that New Zealand went into mainframe computers was to process animal records through our efficient herd improvement system, which is organised through the New Zealand Dairy Board. A large part of that was for animal identification procedures. The bill’s explanatory note states that Part 20 amends section 10 of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. This purpose of this modification, the explanatory note states, is to enable “the NAIT organisation to contract out its compliance and enforcement functions”.

Section 10 of the principal Act as it currently stands is about the functions, duties, and powers of National Animal Identification and Tracing organisations. By amending this section, the bill will support the work to be completed efficiently and effectively by the best people for the job, both in-house and contractors. So the National Government will again be supporting the continued growth, efficiency, and modernisation of this primary industry organisation by removing unnecessary red tape that may slow down the growth of this vital industry in New Zealand’s economy—and vital it is.

This is just one of the 33 sets of amendments—33 Acts are amended by this bill—that our verging-on-brilliant colleague and Associate Minister of Justice, Chester Borrows, has brought in with this bill. This example of the determination of this Government to promote excellence in our workplaces by cutting through red tape and supporting the most efficient road to get the job done shows what a contrast National’s priorities are with the Opposition’s, and thank goodness—thank goodness.

This bill is a really good example, albeit in lacking in drama, of one of National’s four priorities: to deliver better public services for New Zealand and New Zealanders. Part of that is in running an effective and efficient Government. It is another example of cutting through the labyrinthian and miasmic maze of legislative jargon to bring this into a more understandable lexicon, and it is a clearer and more transparent expression of the laws and regulations that we live by. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Chris Auchinvole, and say that the only point of disappointment I have with his contribution to the House is that he did not acknowledge, as deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee, our absolute delight that the Associate Minister of Justice—out of all the select committees that he could have chosen to receive this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), for consideration—chose our committee. As the chair, I am particularly delighted that he has done that. I have to say that my delight is enhanced by the fact that we have not got any other legislation before our select committee at the moment. We have got the obvious Budget-related reviews to go through, we have got an inquiry, and we have got a petition, but it seems like the Government has pretty well run out of work, which is amazing given that it is an election year. We end up with the highlight of this week’s debate seeming to be a Statutes Amendment Bill.

The member also noted that there is not much drama in this bill. Well, there should not be, because it is a Statutes Amendment Bill. Every party in the House has to sign off as agreeing that the material in it is appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill and therefore non-contentious in nature. But compared with the drama that we have had this week with the Minister of Justice when she was in China giving her anti-corruption speech at a conference, I do not think we need any more drama. I think she is providing us with more than enough drama to keep us entertained. This bill amends 33 statutes, a number of which come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I hope that she has been able to give them the sort of attention that they need, although I am not sure that she has, given how busy she must have been preparing her answers and her apologies in relation to that trip.

On a serious note, although we are debating something non-contentious in this legislation, which is being referred to the Government Administration Committee, the actions that Judith Collins has undertaken that have been the subject of many questions in this House are not just contentious but very unusual. It is unusual for any Minister in Parliament to be so much on the edge of a clear conflict of interest, to be denying members of the public access to information and answers to questions, as well as members of Parliament, yet to remain so aloof and arrogant about it. I suppose that is the bit that has surprised me. I know that the Minister concerned has a level of arrogance that is surprising in comparison with most other members of Parliament, but to be caught out so blatantly and then to say in her apology that what was surprising was that she was apologising—that is what the Minister actually said. She said that it was surprising that she was apologising. So I think that disconnect with how people feel about accountability and the need to be able to trust their Ministers is really surprising. We know that Judith Collins went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We know that this member has got a conviction for drink-driving.

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is right. We know that the Minister went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China. We know that her husband went with her. What we did not know before she left, and what we did not know until it was prised out of her because of public exposure, was the fact that she actually had a visit to Oravida, the company that her husband is a director of, and also had a private dinner not just with the directors of Oravida but also with—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Points of order will be heard in silence and there is no need to engage in unparliamentary language. I call the Hon Nick Smith for a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is that we are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). That is not a licence to give a general debate speech or a diatribe on any particular member of the House, but to speak about the bill and what it will do for New Zealand. The member is not doing that and I ask that you call her to order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I thank the member for his elicitation and say that I am actually looking through the bill and trying to find something along the lines—I will just ask the member to try to speak directly to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).

Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly will. I want to speak about the provisions in this legislation that come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. One of the amendments that is being made in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It is entirely appropriate that that Act is amended. I hope that the Minister is still in charge of that particular Act by the time this bill progresses to the select committee, but I think that it is not entirely likely.

One of the other amendments that is made in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—and my colleague Andrew Little referred to it in his all too brief contribution on this first reading—is the amendment to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. I think that that is an area that the current Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, will be very pleased to hear about. It was so obvious at question time today that a friendly society was something that she is desperately in need of, as she blundered her way through questions about her engagement with Oravida and her inability to answer questions. She then further blundered her way through the ACC questions, exposing her misrepresentations in the House yesterday in relation to the document that she tabled.

I just want to talk about the last Statutes Amendment Bill that we had referred to the Government Administration Committee. It was smaller than this bill. This bill amends 33 statutes, and our one was, I think, smaller than that but perhaps not by much. Our select committee unanimously took the quite unusual step of removing some of the previously agreed statutes amendment provisions because it was our view that, when they were taken as a whole, they comprised far too much to be legitimately considered in the Statutes Amendment Bill. I think that that was a very good position for the select committee to take—that the threshold of acceptance for amendments in a Statutes Amendment Bill should be quite high. We should not use it as a way of sneaking things through. I do not think that was the intention of the Associate Minister—let me make that clear. I think it was a genuine attempt to get something not very big and not controversial pushed through Parliament in a comparatively speedy way.

What our committee also did—and I think this was the good part, which I want to draw to the attention of the House because I referred to it only briefly, in passing, in the deliberation on the previous Statutes Amendment Bill—was not only remove those provisions but say to the Minister, and give the assurance at the committee, that we would ensure the speedy passage of those provisions when they were moved into a separate piece of legislation. I think that is a pretty respectful thing to do. We had no doubt that the Minister was not trying to trick us. He wanted to get those particular provisions passed quickly. They were not controversial; they were constructive. So I think we acted in a moment of multiparty common sense in an effort to make genuine progress on an issue there was not any debate on. I am sure we will do the same for this current Statutes Amendment Bill.

We will apply rigour to the consideration. We will be applying the same sort of rigour to considering this bill at the committee that we will be applying to the questions we will continue to ask Minister Judith Collins during question time. I have been surprised at the new standards in question time. It is a real shame there is no statute amendment in this bill in regard to the standards for question time. If a Minister is able to get up and say: “That’s quite a long question, and I really can’t be bothered answering it.”, they might as well say: “I’ve got a headache. I’m going to have a wee lie-down in the lobby. Could you just send something to me by email.” This is the only time in the day in Parliament that we have the opportunity to hold a Minister to account for a very serious responsibility they hold as the Minister of their particular portfolio. We get only half a dozen questions a day between the Opposition parties, and that is for only 3 days a week when the House is sitting and not under urgency, unless we have been given the opportunity to ask questions. So it is a very short period of time for us to get public accountability from the Ministers, and, frankly, we have been really short-changed by the Minister of Justice.

I have heard some answers from Ministers of the current Government that have made me think: “Oh, that’s frustrating, and I don’t think that’s quite right.” But I have never seen a Minister absolutely refusing to front up to their responsibilities. I certainly hope the Minister of Justice has taken up her responsibilities in the Statutes Amendment Bill in respect of the amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act, the Official Information Act, and the other legislation she is responsible for, such as the Ombudsmen Act, and all those pieces of legislation that are, quite rightly, the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I certainly hope that she has applied more consideration to them and will give the public more confidence in her actions as the Minister responsible for those amendments than she has been able to do in relation to her Oravida visit. There is a clear conflict of interest in the Oravida engagement, where the Minister has obviously promoted one company, a company of which her husband is a director, using her ministerial position. That is something New Zealand does not often get to hear about. I hope it is dealt with speedily by the current Government, because it does this Parliament a disservice. The Minister really needs to take that into account and vacate her seat.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thanks for the opportunity to speak during the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The purpose of Statutes Amendment bills is to propose minor amendments to existing statutes so that the laws and the statutes of the country are kept up to date.

Furthermore, with the changing times it is critical that the proposed laws and legislation of the country are helpful to its citizens, rather than creating impediments to the personal growth of the citizens of the nation. It is with some confidence that I can stand today in this House in front of my colleagues and say that ever since the forming of this Government, led by the National Party, it has proposed and implemented legislation that has made the lives of everyday New Zealanders easier, such as the renewal of passports online, which is getting easier with time with the new amendments being proposed by this Government. With these words I conclude, and I commend the bill to this House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First is satisfied that all the amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) are minor and suitable for a Statutes Amendment Bill, but I do have some comments to make on some of the parts. First of all, Part 11 has two amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act—quite a mouthful. The first one deals with the ability of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to delegate to his or her deputy. This was something we discussed in the Justice and Electoral Committee when we interviewed the commissioner. We felt that it was rather strange that such a delegation power did not already exist and that it was only a sensible use of the resource that is the deputy to assist the commissioner himself or herself in their work. We were concerned the commissioner might become overloaded, so I am very glad to see that this minor amendment is included in the bill.

The second amendment states that the commissioner must dismiss a repetitive complaint. We were also concerned in the committee that there were a number of time-wasters who made repetitive complaints that were not useful for anybody, so I am glad to see that that particular amendment is here, as well. With regard to Part 2, that deals with the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 and implements New Zealand’s obligations under the 2009 agreement to amend the Antarctic Treaty for the purpose of improving the regime for taking species from, or introducing species into, Antarctica—a very important provision indeed. It includes ice shelves and sea ice as well. It is a very welcome provision. It is one that is long overdue, and I am very disappointed that it has, in fact, taken 5 long years to implement this, so perhaps we could have some explanation from the Associate Minister of Justice why it took so long to do such an important thing.

I want to move on to Part 17, which deals with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. Clause 50 amends section 4 of that legislation, and “provides that the purposes of the Act include increasing progressively the availability of information to the public.” There is a high public demand for information from local authorities, and councils are notorious for, firstly, unnecessarily having meetings with the public excluded and, secondly, being highly defensive about keeping information to themselves that they do not want known. They have a culture of “It’s our information, not the public’s information.”, and that is a culture that has to change. So we actually need even stronger amendments than this. This is welcome for progressively improving the situation, but, in fact, what we need is something stronger, and I hope the Government will look at something stronger than this in the future.

Also, clause 56 clarifies that a local authority may refuse a request if the document alleged to contain the information cannot be found, despite reasonable efforts to locate it. That is actually a little bit dangerous when you think about it because it is very easy for a local authority simply to say “Well, we’re not going to give you that document, because we can’t find it.”, and nobody would be the wiser for it. So I am a little bit worried about that provision. It should really be just a defence rather than an authority to give that as a reason for refusing to give a document. I am a little bit disappointed in that provision. I do not think it is quite right, but it is not so serious that New Zealand First would vote against the whole bill because of it.

I want to move on to Part 23 because exactly the same issue arises there with the Official Information Act 1982. Clause 76 amends section 18(e) to refuse to give documents for exactly the same reason—that is, that the document has been lost. So I repeat the same concerns I have in respect of that provision as I did with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act matter.

Moving on to Part 24, I think this is quite important. It amends the Ombudsmen Act 1975, and New Zealand First approves very much of the amendment that gives the Ombudsman the ability to refuse to commence an investigation of a complaint if he or she is satisfied that it is unnecessary to do so. Again, I was present at the Justice and Electoral Committee when we talked to the Ombudsman about this very issue. It is actually quite a serious problem because a lot of time-wasting can happen when the Ombudsman has to set out to investigate a complaint when he or she is sure that it is actually unnecessary to do so. The Ombudsman’s time is very, very valuable, and I think we need to trust him or her to sift out those complaints that are unnecessary to investigate. This amendment actually makes it possible to do that. We in New Zealand First think that that is completely appropriate. We are a little bit worried about the high workload that the Ombudsman has to work under, so this is also just a common-sense way of making better use of the Ombudsman’s time.

So with those comments, some concerns, but there are also some very welcome new provisions, which although minor are nevertheless very important in their own way, and I think they are appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is a bill that is easy to gloss over but that we all need to take particular notice of. We in New Zealand First have studied it closely, and we think it deserves to pass, even with some of the reservations that I have expressed.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak at the first reading of this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), for a very specific purpose. The purpose is to give notice that I will be submitting Supplementary Order Paper 432, which will be available today, and writing to the chair of the Government Administration Committee to ask that in the submission process consideration be given to the amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper. That amendment is the inclusion of an amendment to the Human Rights Act 1993—in particular, an amendment to section 21(1)(a), of the Human Rights Act, which currently sets out the prohibited grounds of discrimination. It states as the first ground: “sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:”. My Supplementary Order Paper will be seeking an amendment that means section 21(1)(a) would read “sex, which includes gender identity, pregnancy and childbirth:”.

This is a technical amendment, which has its origins in Georgina Beyer’s member’s bill in 2004 entitled the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. At the time, the Human Rights Commission stated that it confirmed it would accept complaints from transgender people within the definition of “sex” under the Act. In response to Georgina Beyer’s member’s bill, the opinion of the Solicitor-General was sought. That opinion was clear that discrimination on the grounds of gender identity fell within the definition of “sex” in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. On that basis, Georgina Beyer withdrew her member’s bill.

In 2008 the Inquiry into Discrimination Experienced by Transgender People by the Human Rights Commission concluded: “there must be no doubt that trans people are protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993. Such a clear signal is necessary if society is serious about reducing the pervasive levels of discrimination against trans people. The Human Rights Commission accepts discrimination complaints from trans people under the ground of sex, but notes questions raised by international case law as to whether all forms of discrimination directed against trans people would be considered sex discrimination by New Zealand courts. The Inquiry considers that, for the avoidance of any doubt, section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993 should be amended to state clearly that sex includes gender identity.”

In the presentation of New Zealand’s national report to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly as part of the second Universal Periodic Review on 27 January this year, the Minister of Justice stated—and I quote from paragraph 65—“The New Zealand Human Rights Commission has received complaints from transgender people of discrimination on the basis of disability and sex. Its complaints process provides one way of addressing such discrimination. The Ministry of Health changed its guidelines on availability of gender reassignment surgery in 2011, but work still remains to ensure equitable access to health services and health outcomes for transgender people. The Commission considers that amendment to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to specifically include gender identity would help to clarify some of the issues. The Government’s view is that discrimination on the grounds of gender identity is already prohibited under the Human Rights Act as sex discrimination.”

That has been the position of successive New Zealand Governments since the Solicitor-General’s advice was received in 2006. The Cabinet Manual states: “Statutes Amendment Bills are designed as vehicles for technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a range of Acts.” The amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper is technical, as successive Governments have confirmed that gender identity falls under the definition of sex discrimination in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. It is a short amendment and it is non-controversial, as all parties agree that the proposed amendment will merely clarify what is understood to be the position. This has been confirmed by the Minister of Justice at the beginning of this year.

The amendment and inclusion of gender identity under section 21(1)(a) does no more than reflect what the Human Rights Commission does in practice and what Governments since 2006 have asserted is the position. What the amendment does, though, is make it clear that gender identity is included within the definition of sex discrimination. It therefore would not allow the possibility of an interpretation that is different from the Government position and the understanding of the Human Rights Commission.

The Cabinet Manual emphasises that legislation should be drafted in plain English, that it should be legally correct, and that it should give effect to Government policy. This amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper makes the law clear and does what legislation should do—that is, state clearly and directly that gender identity falls within the definition of “sex” in the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

MELISSA LEE (National): Ahn nyung ha se yo, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for chastising me for not actually getting up when I should have.

Tim Macindoe: You can blame the whip.

MELISSA LEE: I should actually blame the whip. As the whip rightfully pointed out, I did not realise that I was actually speaking on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).

Tim Macindoe: Don’t go too far.

MELISSA LEE: But it did, however, actually say that the duty MP was supposed to get up, so, ultimately, it is my fault.

It is a great pleasure to support this bill. It is an exercise that we go through every year, it seems, to confirm, validate, and authorise our bills that need to be amended in this House. To those members of the public who are listening in, they may not necessarily understand what is actually happening, but this is the exercise that we have to go through. I commend it to the House—with the qualification that I do not envy the Government Administration Committee members who have to actually do the committee work. Thank you very much.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), and would like to talk particularly to the recently tabled Supplementary Order Paper 432, in the name of Louisa Wall, to amend section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act to make sure that it includes gender identity under the definition of “sex”. I recognise that this is a very minor amendment that will confirm our common understanding of the law as it is at the moment. Currently, the Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex and clarifies that pregnancy and childbirth fall within the gambit of sex. The Human Rights Commission practises as if gender identity also falls under that definition of “sex”. As we have heard, the Minister of Justice has spoken internationally confirming her understanding that gender identity falls under the understanding of sex as a grounds for prohibited discrimination. Further, the Solicitor-General has given a legal opinion back in 2006 offering the same interpretation. So this Supplementary Order Paper would be a very minor amendment consistent with Government policy and what I believe is our shared understanding of the world.

I do want to just talk a little bit, though, about why it is important. I think the internationally groundbreaking report To Be Who I Am, which was commissioned in 2006 by the Human Rights Commission, gives us a very good steer about why this is important. This was a report that evolved out of a very long consultation with transgender communities within New Zealand, so that was with whakawahine, fa‛afafine, fakaleiti, ‛akava‛ine, and many different queens and queer people in this country about their experience of living in New Zealand. What the commission found through that consultation was that the level of discrimination these different communities experience is really extreme. In fact, I think the commission described how in some of the stories that it heard, as the report repeatedly demonstrates, trans people have had to triumph over severe—sometimes heartbreaking—adversities. Being trans is not a lifestyle choice; rather, it is a core part of a person’s identity.

What the commission found out through this consultation is that people are experiencing discrimination in our schools, in our educational institutions, in our workplaces, and in accessing pretty much most services in New Zealand. The Human Rights Commission will respond to complaints that people make, but people need to know that they can make those complaints. Clarifying this law and putting it on paper that we recognise them is an important step in that process of enabling people to make complaints and to protect their human rights in this country. The different trans communities are numerically very small, and so it is very hard for them to fight those battles publicly. There are not many of them to do that. So it does fall on us, I think, as political leaders, to speak on their behalf when we can and to make sure that our laws actually provide the leadership and open up the spaces for them to be able to claim their human rights and help us on that journey as a country to becoming totally inclusive and embracing of our differences. So, on that note, I am happy to be supporting this bill and, in particular, the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Louisa Wall. Kia ora.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a very interesting time in the parliamentary calendar when we consider a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is quite remarkable that the House has always found reliable methods with which to ensure that legislation is appropriate and dealt with in a way that is common and consistent with democracy.

If we look at this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), what particularly stands out, from my particular point of view, are the aspects in respect of the Biosecurity Act 1993, which we can all appreciate in a country whose economy is principally driven by the primary industries. Here, we find that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in clauses 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 asks that that Act be amended. No doubt the Government Administration Committee will give due consideration to all the parts that make up the bill but because of the contribution that the primary industry makes to this country’s economy will look particularly at the Biosecurity Act amendments.

This Statutes Amendment Bill addresses some 30-odd amendments. On that basis, I have great pleasure in supporting this bill going to the select committee.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): In response to the member who has just resumed his seat, Colin King, I am not sure that the words “very interesting” and “Statutes Amendment Bill” should actually go in the same sentence, but I am pleased that Statutes Amendment bills are what float his boat. That is good to know. In fact, these really are bills that are used to fix botch-ups, little mistakes. They are non-controversial, everyone in Parliament supports them, and so we put them all together in an omnibus bill to pass them through.

I have to say, it is not surprising that we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills in this term of Government and in the previous term of Government, given the complete disregard for due process that this Government has. A number of times when Labour members have been on our feet discussing various pieces of legislation, we have pointed out that we were rushing legislation through Parliament and rushing it through the select committee process. I think of the emissions trading scheme legislation. That legislation went through the select committee in 7 weeks, including the calling for, and hearing of, submissions. And then we are surprised that we have to pass so many Statutes Amendment bills to fix up all the mistakes! Those mistakes would have been picked up if the piece of legislation in question had been allowed to have a proper process through the select committee with a time frame that did not put the select committee under enormous pressure to return the piece of legislation before we had due consideration and before submitters had time to consider the legislation, put their thoughts on paper, and come before a select committee to discuss it.

We have had pieces of legislation where we have set a deliberation date the following week, before we have even seen a report, before we have even seen a revision-tracked version of what the bill would look like. It is just: “Oh, we’ll do that all next week.” Well, that is not good process. It is therefore no surprise that once again we are passing a Statutes Amendment Bill to fix up all those errors, which due process probably would have dealt with in the first place.

The second reason it is not surprising we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills—and I notice that in this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), there are a number of justice amendments in the name of the Hon Judith Collins—is that Ms Collins is a particular Minister who is under pressure. This is a Minister who tends not to read things. She tabled a report in the House on ACC in question time yesterday claiming that the decision to take away the payment of ACC entitlements to people who have refused to sign a document allowing the ACC to distribute their private details was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson. No, it actually was not—she tabled a document saying that that was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson in 2006.

But, interestingly enough, what the document showed was, actually, exactly the opposite of that, which was that the Hon Ruth Dyson said that in no way at all should conditions be applied to the entitlements of ACC claimants, and, therefore, if they choose not to sign that document, they should continue to receive their entitlement. So I am not surprised at all that there are so many justice amendments in this particular bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The Hon Judith Collins, as I have just described—and as we saw in response to the questions today by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway—does not read the documents that are put in front of her. She does not read the official information. If she had read the particular document that she tabled, she would know that it actually said the opposite of what she was claiming it said, that it was, in fact, a National Government that allowed that to happen on its watch, and that it was a Labour Government, under the Hon Ruth Dyson as Minister for ACC, that said that there are not to be conditions attached to the payment of entitlements to ACC claimants. So she does not read documents.

The second reason I am not surprised that there are so many amendments in the bill under the name of the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under a lot of pressure at the moment. She is under an enormous amount of pressure due to a very real conflict of interest that was carried out in relation to her husband’s company, Oravida, and a ministerial visit that she did to China. So given the pressure that has come on her to come clean and be transparent around who exactly was invited to a meeting and what exactly was discussed, I am not surprised that she has been making a number of mistakes.

I always apply the Occam’s razor principle in these situations, which is that the simplest solution is usually the right one, which is that they were in a room with a Chinese border official who is able to influence products going into China. Her husband’s company had written to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy and said: “Please help us get our products into China. Anything you can do would help.” She was sitting in a room with members of the Chinese Government, and we are expected to believe that they never ever discussed her husband’s company, that they never discussed Oravida. Well, I think Occam’s razor principle would tell us that that is highly unlikely and that, in fact, the simplest solution is usually the correct one, which is that that is exactly what that meeting was for; it was not private. I have a great respect for public servants. I do not tend to invite them to my private dinners. I do not know whether that is a failing on my part, but I do not tend to invite them—and if other members have, I apologise—particularly public servants from other countries.

So I am not surprised that the Hon Judith Collins has a number of amendments in this particular Statutes Amendment Bill. We have got the Judicial Conduct Commission and Commissioner Conduct Panel Act 2004, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, the Official Information Act 1982, the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Summary Proceedings Act—

Iain Lees-Galloway: 2012—that wasn’t very long ago.

MOANA MACKEY: No, 2012 was not very long ago at all. We have the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. That is a large number of Acts for one Minister, but, as I said, I am not surprised. In response to questions about ACC today, she clearly does not read documents. Actually, an even worse explanation would be that she does read them but she does not understand them—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Or she just misled the House.

MOANA MACKEY: —or she just misled the House, as my colleague said. The second reason we have got so many Acts being amended or being fixed up because of mistakes being made by the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under enormous pressure at the moment to be transparent, to come clean with the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand people about what exactly went on during a taxpayer-funded ministerial visit.

I want to come to some of the other legislation in the Statutes Amendment Bill. First of all, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 is being amended. The amendments that are being made are very good, but, again, it is disappointing that when we dealt with the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserve Bill, large tracts of that, particularly in the marine reserve, were withheld because the Government Ministers decided that in the future they might want to carry out some economic activity there that would be detrimental and opposed to the purposes of the Marine Reserves Act. So they just left them out.

So I am really disappointed that we do not see in here some protection for those parts of the Subantarctic Islands that were left out deliberately from the piece of legislation that this Parliament passed and the Labour Party supported. We support those marine reserves. We would like to see proper protection, not just partial protection, in areas where there is never going to be any economic activity—so it is easy, low-hanging fruit—and proper actual protection in terms of marine reserves in this country and in the subantarctic area.

I come to the next Act that is being amended, which I would like to comment on, and that is the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. Would it not be great if it was considered non-controversial to have in this part of the Statutes Amendment Bill proper protection for Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins? Would it not be fantastic if that was considered a no-brainer? It should be a no-brainer, as this is the most endangered dolphin species in the world. It should be a no-brainer that we put in place every single protection we can. No Government should sit by and watch a species go extinct on its watch when there is something it could do about it.

So we have got amendments here to the Marine Mammals Protection Act, which are clarifying stuff around a warrant being issued to more than one officer. Would it not be fantastic if this amendment to the Marine Mammals Act was introducing, non-controversially, proper protections for Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins? But, of course, we are never going to see that under this Government. What we are going to see are token gestures. What we are going to see are halfway measures that make it look like the Government is doing something when, in fact, it is likely to preside over the extinction of a native species, despite the fact that there are things that it could have done about it but chose not do.

I come next to Part 21, “National Parks Act 1980”. Again, would it not be great if in this part of the bill we saw the removal of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the say about consents for mining, or Department of Conservation concessions on conservation land for mining, which used to be the sole ambit of the Minister of Conservation and is now shared in a decision-making power between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources? Would it not be wonderful if in Part 21 of the Statutes Amendment Bill—and Kate Wilkinson is in the House.

I remember when the announcement was made, and there was Gerry Brownlee, the then Minister of Energy and Resources, sitting next to Kate Wilkinson. Kate Wilkinson did not say anything throughout the entire press conference as Gerry Brownlee was trying to convince us that this was an equal partnership, that they had equal say, and that this was not going to change anything. The optics, as Steven Joyce would say, really said it all. Kate Wilkinson sat there in the shadow of Gerry Brownlee, saying absolutely nothing.

Would it not be great if in this Statutes Amendment Bill we saw the removal from the National Parks Act 1980 of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the decision-making power, or, under a National Government, 100 percent of the decision-making power, to grant concessions on Department of Conservation land for mining activity? And would it not be great if we saw the removal of the economic benefit test, which applies only to mining and does not apply to any other economic venture in the Department of Conservation estate—for example, tourism? Those are things that it would have been nice to see in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Those are things that should not be controversial in a Statutes Amendment Bill, but, unfortunately, under a National Government they are.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Some of the speakers who have taken calls this afternoon have addressed matters relevant to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), and I thank those who have actually contributed to the public’s understanding of it. I support this measure.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Victims of Crime Reform Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 8 April.

Part 1 Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (continued)

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): The last time I was speaking on this bill, the Committee rose during my second call but I was saying that Labour was in support of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, which we still are. But, my word, what a difference a couple of weeks can make to the tenor of a debate. This is the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. We have seen before us in this House today the most extraordinary performance by the Minister who is the sponsor of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins.

There are victims of crime. There are people who suffer because of the crimes that are committed against them, and this bill seeks to address that. But one of the victims of this Minister’s actions to date has been truth. We see truth as a victim in this particular matter. I see that it is entirely apposite at this point to reflect on the sponsor of this bill because her performance in the House has jeopardised any understanding or any confidence that we might have about her ability to speak the truth to this Parliament. Her ability to speak the truth to this Parliament has been called into question by her own actions—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 1 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. That is not a licence—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Yes, the debate is just going through Part 1. When we are on the parts of the bill in the Committee stage, these are narrow debates focused on what is actually in the part. That is actually what we will now be focusing on. So we are on Part 1, and I would ask the member to come back to those provisions that are contained in Part 1.

Hon MARYAN STREET: In Part 1 of this bill there are, of course, all of the initial provisions that one would expect: the principal Act being amended, the interpretation, the treatment, and so on. One of the things that does come up here is the purpose of victim impact statements. This is something that members of the Justice and Electoral Committee turned their minds to quite substantially because there were a number of submitters who spoke to this point. This certainly is a matter of some debate. In the course of the submissions that we heard, there were comments made by members of the judiciary that it would be better if they still had the ability to control this in a way that allowed the court to proceed without undue delay but also without cutting off the victims’ statements too quickly, so that they would still feel that they had achieved something in making their victim impact statement available to the court and have that moment in court to address the concerns that they had and the injury that they had sustained through the crime.

This was something that is certainly a matter of balance. Supplementary Order Paper 424, which the Minister of Justice has put up in her own name, fundamentally rewrites parts of this bill and addresses the changes to victim impact statements in clause 11 and clause 12. I just want to say that victims should be allowed a chance within the safety and the control of the court proceedings to give voice to their concerns.

Where I was about to go in my last speech on this bill was to talk about a case that we knew so well from the media. That was the case of Sophie Elliot and the need for her family to be able to say what the impact had been on them and, at the same time, to address the kind of trial in absentia of their daughter by virtue of the defence’s ability to misrepresent her—in fact, to say things about her that the family felt were inappropriate, unreasonable, wrong, untrue, and in need of rebuttal.

This bill allows the victim impact statement to be presented to the court. Its purpose is to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending and to assist the court in understanding the victim’s view of the offending, and also to tell the offender about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective. This is a critical point. This is something that we support. Even though there had been submissions from members of the judiciary who felt that it could lead to some disorder or to some lengthy hearings that were not enhanced by victim statements going on for too long, I would err on the side of giving people the opportunity to have their say. So whether a victim impact statement is read to the court by the victims themselves or read on their behalf by somebody else, I think it is part of the process in this Victims of Crime Reform Bill that allows us to support this legislation.

We have got no doubt that the situation of victims in law and otherwise has improved greatly since Parliament first dealt with the issue in 1987, and we do not oppose that. We do feel that this bill represents another little bit of incremental change. The bill following this one this evening will demonstrate another piece of incremental change that could really have been done with a bit more boldness and a bit more of a comprehensive approach, and we could have got more in it.

I do not wish to incur your correction again, Mr Chairman, but I am concerned that the Minister who is presenting and sponsoring this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper that makes a number of changes to the bill has done herself and this Parliament damage. We would not wish to see this piece of legislation damaged by the irreparable harm that has been done by the Minister of Justice sponsoring this bill by virtue of her own admission—by virtue of her own words. This is an omnibus bill that addresses and changes four discrete pieces of legislation, and it should be able to proceed. Even if we do believe that it is incremental in its approach, it should be able to proceed unsullied in its passage through this House. But, quite frankly, everything this Minister touches now is sullied, and it is that reputation that is part of the shadow that now hangs over everything that this Minister touches. This bill is one of those things that she has sponsored, but it is a good bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First does support this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. We see the bill, and especially Part 1, as another very welcome step forward in the emerging movement to do more to support and consider the rights and needs of the victims of crime. That movement appears to me to have the support of all of the parties of Parliament because we all do want to see victims of crime better supported and considered than they have been in the past, so we especially welcome Part 1 of this bill. New Zealand First also supports the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 424 for the same reasons.

I especially wanted to commend clause 10, which concerns section 16 of the Victims’ Rights Act. It ensures that reference to all of a victim’s contact details, as are now listed in the bill, will be restricted, to ensure the privacy of the victim. That, of course, adds very greatly to a victim’s sense of security and privacy while allowing them the opportunity to take a full part in the process. It is a minor amendment, but it is a very important amendment for victims, for those reasons.

I also wanted to refer briefly to new section 17, inserted by clause 12, which actually requires a prosecutor to find out from any victim all relevant information about the victim’s injuries, property loss or damage, and other effects of the offence so that they can be taken into account for sentencing and, presumably, reparation purposes. The words used are that the prosecutor “must make all reasonable efforts”, and that puts the onus on the prosecutor to find out the necessary details so that they can be taken proper account of in the process in the court. That means, of course, that the prosecutor has to be proactive, which was not a requirement in the past. They relied on the victim themselves to make sure that those details were provided, and, of course, they not always were. So I think, again, that it is a relatively minor improvement, but it is a very important improvement to the legislation so that the necessary details actually do get before the court, and that is as it should be. So New Zealand First is very happy indeed to see that particular provision in the bill.

The information to be sought is actually set out in the new section 17(1A), and it refers to: “(a) any physical injury or emotional harm suffered by the victim through, or by means of, the offence; and (b) any loss of, or damage to, property suffered by the victim through, or by means of, the offence; and (c) any other effects of the offence on the victim; and (d) any other matter consistent with the purpose of victim impact statements …” as set out elsewhere in the legislation. I think that this is a particularly good provision. It is comprehensive and it does the job.

The value of these amendments is that they put the victims first, and that is what New Zealand First has argued for for a number of years. The rights and interests of victims have for far, far too long been secondary to the process of convicting the offender. Now we are seeing more and more this movement by which the effects on the victim are being taken account of more and more, and real and practical means are being put in place to make sure that they are supported and that their rights are protected. So, for all of those reasons, New Zealand First is particularly pleased to be able to support Part 1 of this bill, as it does the bill as a whole.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, it is a pleasure to speak during this Committee stage on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. The previous member, Denis O’Rourke, made, I thought, some very valid points in relation to the changes. But, first, may I speak for a moment or two on the contribution of the Hon Maryan Street, who, whilst indicating that Labour will support this legislation, indicated in her speech that this was by some way a small, little step of just not such significance that it would need to be anything other than a minor piece of legislation. Well, I take exactly the opposite view. I think that this is a comprehensive and innovative step that the Minister of Justice has brought to the House. In terms of the purpose of this bill, which is to change the law relating to the victims of crime and to give victims a much greater voice in our criminal justice system, this is an important and very significant step in our justice system.

We know that this is an omnibus bill. It amends the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989, the Parole Act of 2002, and the Sentencing Act of 2002, as well. As a Government, we on this side are absolutely unapologetic about putting victims first in our judicial system, and it is partly because the victims are not there in any way other than as innocent participants. They do not get involved in our judicial system by dint of wanting to be there; they are the innocent victims. So I think it is right and proper that as we consider the Committee stage of this bill we do keep a very clear sense of focus on the rights of victims.

I want to turn just for a moment to the provisions in the bill that relate to the information that is to be contained in the impact statements. The bill provides that information ascertained from a victim in a victim impact statement may include photographs, drawings, or visual representations. That is a new step, and it is something that I think is quite important. It is particularly of use where there are young victims who may not want to have a process where a formal document is written out, but they may want to prepare a picture, a drawing, or a diagram that is representative of the impact that the crime of which they are a victim has impacted them, their families, and their loved ones. So I think that is an appropriate step.

What it means is that it will enable the victim to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending as it relates particularly to them. Of course, it is going to assist the court in understanding the victim’s views about the actual offending. Further, it will go to informing the offender, who is actually the root cause of the proceedings in the first place, about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective. Too often, that victim’s perspective is not well founded in our judicial system, and it is something that has over past years been lost sometimes. So this change is, I think, an important one.

The bill further provides for the procedure relating to how a victim impact statement must be submitted, and so there are a couple of important changes that are featured in the new sections 21 to 22B, inserted by clause 15. They include that a victim impact statement may, upon request, be read to the court if the judicial officer sentencing the offender agrees. In some cases, victims are too emotionally distraught and overcome to be able to actually stand before a court—which, in many cases, can be an intimidating process in its own right—and then have to read out the actual statement. So this provision that allows in certain circumstances for the statement to be read by somebody else is, I think, a significant and useful step forward. The statement may actually be read by the prosecutor, the victim, or a person nominated by the victim. So the victim can actually choose, if you will, to have a voice other than themselves right in the courtroom, and I think that that will be a powerful vehicle for sending messages not only to the offender but to others who are involved in the court process. The legislation is good and I support it.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party will of course be supporting the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I think it has some worthwhile measures in it. There is a range of questions that I would like to ask about it, and I am curious that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration, is not the Minister who introduced the bill, the Minister of Justice, but I think we all understand the reason for that. With the controversy swirling around her, she would not be in a fit state of mind, actually, to manage this bill through the Committee. I would have to say, to be honest—and I am not going to dwell on this—that, frankly, there is certainly amongst many of the parties in this House a total loss of confidence in the ability of the Minister of Justice. The failure to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is surely fundamental—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This member, who is an experienced member, is now straying far from the bill and making allegations that are—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that, and I know that the member is coming back to the point.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Absolutely—thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I will just finish that point, which is that, of all people in the House, it really is important for the Minister of Justice—most particularly—to be seen as a person who can judge conflicts of interest, who is a person of full integrity, and one who tells the full truth.

I come to the bill. The bill is incremental in the changes that it makes, and I am not saying that hugely as a criticism. We have over time really strongly improved the provision for victims’ rights. It is fair to say that when I started studying law, there were only two things that were important in the courtroom. One was the prosecutor, who was prosecuting on behalf of society, and the other was the accused, who was trying to defend their innocence, and the victim really was not part of that. It was shameful that our justice system paid so little attention to the needs of victims.

The fourth Labour Government began the process with, I think, the Victims of Offences Act in 1987, if I recall rightly, and, as Minister of Justice in 2002, I was responsible for passing the Victims’ Rights Act. I have got to say that I picked up that bill from the National Party. I am not sure whether you were here at the time, Mr Chairman. If you were, you will recall that the Victims’ Rights Bill, which was on the table when I became Minister, was a very weak affair. It talked vaguely about the rights of victims, but it actually did not do anything to cast the vague principles as explicit rights. What we tried to do in 2002 was set out the explicit rights that victims had and the mandatory obligations on specific Government agencies to make sure that those rights were upheld. Victims had to be informed about the progress in the case against the offender. With regard to serious offences, I brought in provisions that victims needed the ability to have input into the decisions on bail. I think that was really important. The victim should be able to express their fears and concerns on bail decisions; that should be taken into account. We strengthened the victim impact statements. We promoted restorative justice processes.

The interesting thing about this Part 1 of the bill is that it builds on the things that we put in that Victims’ Rights Act of 2002. I think that from time to time we do need to come back and look at whether the Act is working as well as it should do. One thing that happened under Labour in 2007, if my colleagues will remind me, was that we set up the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into victims. Building on that material and subsequent material, we have these changes that I think are worthwhile in their own right. They are not revolutionary, but they are worthwhile.

I want to pick up a couple of points—probably four major points—in relation to the bill as it has been reported back. The first thing that I want to pick up is the question of funding adequacy. What I would refer you to is page 5 of the regulatory impact statement, where it says: “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas. If funding can not be re-prioritised to provide these additional resources then this may result in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” Well, that is vitally important. One thing we know is that it is one thing to have rights and people responsible for upholding those rights, but if you do not fund it properly, then how can we be confident that this will work?

A specific question to Mr Woodhouse in the chair tonight is what was done in response to that concern raised in the regulatory impact statement? Have the resources been provided? Are they reprioritised resources from other areas, in which case which areas have suffered cutbacks? Or has the money not actually been determined yet? Do we face the potential prospect of setting up some very good rights and processes but with inadequate funding to make sure those things are carried into effect, particularly if I look at the question of restorative justice? I put restorative justice in the original Act. I am glad to see that there is still an emphasis on that. But in the bill it talks about being subject to resources. I know that everything is subject to resources, but will there be adequate resources to ensure that restorative justice processes can be held and that they can be held properly? Again, if the resources are not there and it is not done well, restorative justice, instead of having the positive impact that it might, can actually have a negative impact. If the homework is not done and the support services are not there, then it can turn out to be negative for the victim when it could otherwise be a very positive experience.

There are other things that seem to be missed out in relation to this bill in this part because of a lack of resources. I know that the regulatory impact statement talked about setting up a victims’ centre that would give oversight to victims’ rights, and they talked about a victims of crime complaints officer. Both of those seem to have disappeared. They are not in the bill; I cannot find them anywhere. They were recommendations but they have not been picked up. We still do have the code and I think the code is a good idea to ensure that victims have information about their rights and the services available to them—the duties and responsibilities. That goes a little bit further but not necessarily a whole lot further than the original Act. The code itself is a good idea. Minister Woodhouse might like to answer this one too. Why were those other ideas dropped? Why do we not have somebody there who will give oversight? Why do we not have a victims’ centre, as was originally looked at by the Ministry of Justice?

I think the question of victim impact statements is central. I remember watching a programme where Gil Elliot was talking. He is, of course, the father of Sophie Elliott, who was murdered. He was expressing intense frustration. He was allowed to give a victim impact statement but somebody was censoring everything he wanted to say in it. I accept that there will be a need for certain restraints on victim impact statements. It cannot be offensive in terms of the language used. It cannot direct the judge what to do, but, within reason, the victim—or the family of the victim, in a murder case—has to be allowed to vent their feelings as part of their process of being able to put that crime behind them. There must be nothing more frustrating than a victim being told what he or she can or cannot say to the judge in the court and to the offender who is sitting across from them in the court.

So I hope that this bill when it becomes an Act is interpreted in a way that actually emphasises the rights of the victim. It might be uncomfortable for the offender to hear what the family of the victim is saying, but so it should be. It should be uncomfortable for the offender if that offender has been convicted and is guilty of sometimes a terrible offence—such as in the case of this family the taking away of their beautiful daughter and the extreme arrogance that the offender expressed in the court during that process, which all of us saw in the televised accounts.

I think the bill is basically right in that the victim, the prosecutor, or a person nominated by the victim can read out the statement. I like the wording of the language that the judicial officer must agree to the request made unless he or she considers it inappropriate to do so, and there are quite narrow and specific reasons set out. I think the emphasis here must be on this process serving the victim or the family of the victim. The person has been convicted at that stage and the judge is considering the sentence. The judge needs to know exactly what the damage that has been done to that family is, and what might be regarded by them as a way of, if possible, putting things right or certainly going in that direction. There is pretty free rein given to the judge—

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. In doing so, I want to note that this is a step forward for victims of crime, that it has taken a long time to get to this point, and that some of these steps probably do not go as far as this side of the House would like to see. But, along with my colleagues, we are speaking in support of this bill. I want to pick up in Part 1 and talk about the impact of crime and the importance of victim impact statements for a particular group of victims, and that is victims of sexual crimes. But, before I do that, I just want to make a couple of general points. There certainly is a need for victims to have a greater role in the criminal justice process and to ensure that there is more information and more weight given to their concerns and the impact of crime upon those victims. That is not just victims of sexual crime; that is all victims of crime.

One of the issues, though, is the particular needs of victims of sexual crimes. For me to be speaking this afternoon on this is quite important, having spent several hours this morning on the Social Services Committee dealing with submitters and dealing with the inquiry into services around sexual violence support. Can I acknowledge the member across the Chamber Melissa Lee, who I think is doing a very good job of chairing that inquiry. We have heard some terribly moving, traumatic information as part of that inquiry. It is an inquiry that is looking at a crime that in the end has very low conviction rates, a very low level of reporting in the first instance, very low levels of charging people who have committed those crimes, and then very low conviction rates of those who do get into the court system. In that case, the victims of sexual crime are in a particularly difficult situation because often they are the only witness to the crime.

Also, the impact of sexual violence is very, very significant. Today a number of submitters were talking about it as a form of trauma—that it was a deeply traumatic experience. Being able, then, to ensure a couple of the things that are in Part 1—first of all, information about the proceedings of the court system, and making sure that both the victim and their support person, where they have them, are fully cognisant of what is happening and how it is going to happen, are really important in a situation where they are talking about a crime that is so, so personal and so traumatic. Also one of the particular areas that has come up when looking at the issue of sexual violence is making sure that the support people are specialised people. Victim Support is a great service that is provided, but, actually, in this area, we need to have people who are specialist, and people who particularly understand the nature of this crime and how it is then going to play out through the court system.

We were given an example today by Louise Nicholas, who talked about having in her court proceeding situation a very helpful person from Victim Support trying to do their best, but, actually, all that person did for her was cause her further anger and grief because she was unaware of the trauma that had been suffered by Louise and was using language that, in fact, those who had perpetrated the crimes on her had also used to her. So there is a need for very specialist people in this space.

In terms of victim impact statements, in this bill it talks about the purpose of victim impact statements: “to enable the victim to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending; and assist the court in understanding the victim’s views about the offending; and inform the offender about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective.” It is particularly important in cases of sexual violence, where those consequences, the impacts, can be of a physical nature, can be around the person’s health, can be about injuries they have suffered, and can also be of an emotional and psychological nature. Those impacts can be around an inability to trust people, they can be around nightmares, and they can be around reliving—constantly reliving—a crime that is so fundamental, so invasive, and so personal that the level of impact at a psychological level is often very significant.

Of course, one of the particular aspects around sexual offending that is important to understand and why the victim impact can be so severe is that often these are people who are very well known to the victim—members of their own family, people they potentially were friends with, or even people they were in a relationship with. They are not people who are emotionally neutral to the victim. They are people whom the victim often knows well. Again, that can have a particular impact and can make that trauma more significant. Those are all important factors in what might be covered in a victim impact statement in sexual violence cases.

The bill goes on to talk about the information to be ascertained from victims, and goes through some of those things around physical injury or emotional harm; loss of, or damage to, property—again, that can be relevant in these cases—and any other effects of the offence on the victim. The information that we have been provided with in the Social Services Committee is that those other effects can actually be quite significant. They can be around drug and alcohol abuse and substance abuse. They can be around self-harm. Again, we were being given examples of that today. All of those things need to be out in the open, and the person who has offended needs to hear directly about the impact of their crime on that victim. I think, as Scott Simpson has said, the ability of others to read a victim impact statement in the court is an important provision. I think there would often be situations where it would be far too difficult for the person to do that themselves. Again, the need for specialist support in the court system is really important.

I note that at the moment there is a lot of effort going into raising concerns about better outcomes for victims of sexual violence. There is the inquiry. We have waited a long time to get improvements for victims of sexual violence. There was a task force under the last Government. It did report in 2009 over 70 recommendations, most of which have not been actioned. Some of those are around the support services, some of them are around prevention, and some of them are around the court system itself. We are talking in this part about court processes, but can I say something that would seem self-evident: preventing crime in the first instance is the best way to ensure that we do not actually have victims of crime. Every submitter to the inquiry—submitter after submitter after submitter—is saying that we can prevent sexual violence in this country. We actually have to decide that we are going to do that, and we have to resource that.

I will come back to court processes. The Minister Judith Collins—a Minister who is in a lot of hot water at the moment for her own behaviour—when responding to the Hon Phil Goff about issues for victims of sexual violence, talked about this particular bill and said that reforms in this bill would assist victims of sexual violence. Well, yes, they will, but certainly not enough. There is a need to ensure, as I have said already, that there is effective support in the courts. That is going to require specialist sexual violence support services of a greater extent than we have currently, and we need to look at a whole lot of processes around how the court is conducted.

MELISSA LEE (National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 64

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

Noes 56

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

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): As my colleagues have said in the earlier discussions on this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, at this very important Committee stage, it is absolutely crucial that this Parliament continues to recognise the important role that victims must play in the administration of criminal justice. They are the party who have been most overlooked.

We have inherited the administration of our criminal justice system from Britain, and we have adopted the principles that go with it—that is, the interests of the victim are subsumed into the interests of society at large as the court system addresses criminal wrongdoing. But that has not been good enough in the modern age, when getting through the requirements of a prosecution—and if there is a conviction, then sentencing and the disposal of the matter—has overlooked the impact of offending on a victim.

Over the last 20 years the rights of victims and the place of victims in our judicial system have changed significantly, and for the better. That is a good thing. It is right that we should gradually and over time improve and amend the way the place of victims is represented in court, and that their rights and the rights—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): 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.

ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you for the opportunity to resume what I was saying before I was interrupted by the ever so important dinner bell, and to say, as I was saying, about how this is a very important area of endeavour not only for lawmaking but for the conduct of the law in the criminal justice system. It is not an area that is taken lightly by this House and the members in it or by anybody whom I am aware of—not least, of course, the victims who are affected and who benefit from the laws and the improvements we make in them from time to time. But it is also an area of the law that requires a champion in the form of a Minister of Justice who is beyond reproach and conducts themselves with considerable integrity. The victims look to our criminal justice system for their share of justice, if you like, so that their interests and their cause are heard by the courts and are taken into account when criminal matters are being disposed of.

This is a very crucial area and we should ask the question: what if somebody holding public office were themselves to be convicted of a designated crime, a crime that the Commissioner of Police said ought to be one of those affected by this piece of legislation? Who is the victim of somebody who commits a crime in public office or who misconducts themselves in public office? It is the people of New Zealand. So we need to make sure that when we are making rules for every other citizen—for those who transgress the law and those who are victims of those transgressions—we are ourselves people of principle and operate with integrity.

With that in mind I come to Part 2 and these provisions here, and these relate to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act—at least, to those parts of that legislation that cover the administration of justice for young people and children who commit crimes, or at least have allegations of offences made against them. These changes extend victims’ rights to those who are victims of crimes committed by children, and that is right. So when the Youth Court is dealing with young people and when the issue of, for example, their being considered for bail is considered by the court, then it is right that victims of that criminal offending should know about it and should have a say on that, because they are the ones who have been affected. Even though it is a bail hearing and the issue of guilt or non-guilt is yet to be determined—there is no issue of a conviction being entered—nevertheless, generally speaking, by that time the issue is not whether the person before the court has done anything wrong. That is usually clear. It is, of course, whether or not they are guilty of the specified offence and that the elements of the offence have been made out and therefore a conviction entered. But even at the bail stage when all that there is is an allegation or a charging document laid, it is still appropriate for the victim of an offence in those circumstances to be heard and that their views and their interests are considered. We accept that and we think that this makes a reasonable addition to the rights that the primary legislation provides for.

The next significant change is the right to attend a family group conference. This allows the victim of an offence to attend or to be represented at a family group conference that is dealing with a young offender. Again, that also is an appropriate measure. For a Government that, creditably, has been doing good things in relation to restorative justice, this is effectively a restorative justice measure. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is not a fan of restorative justice, and there is a story about an offshoot of the Sensible Sentencing Trust meeting in a hotel last year at the same time as a national conference on restorative justice was being held. That offshoot of the Sensible Sentencing Trust approached the hotel management and instructed the hotel management that if the folks in the hotel who were meeting to talk about restorative justice were not evicted from the hotel and did not have their meeting shut down, then this offshoot group would itself leave the hotel and would not be paying its bill.

It is a bit sad that a victims’ advocacy organisation and its offshoot should take that attitude towards restorative justice. Our view is very clear: whether a victim participates in a restorative justice process is a matter for the victim, because it is not just about the perpetrator of the crime; it is about the victim having an opportunity to confront the perpetrator of the crime against them. It is an opportunity to come to terms with the offending and for them to understand. The victims I have spoken to who have been through a restorative justice process have said that usually their expectations are exceeded.

It is right that this process is available for the victims of adult offenders and that the victims of young offenders should also have the opportunity to participate in those processes that are about trying to get the young person back on track and, hopefully, avoiding a recurrence. And if there are underlying problems—social, health-wise, or other—then that is an opportunity, an early intervention, that can take place. Why should the victim not have something to say about that? Why should a young offender not be able to hear from a victim in a controlled setting about the impact of the offending on them? That is a worthwhile and good measure in clause 36 of this bill and we support it.

The other significant change is in relation to one other aspect—which I shall name shortly when I see it. It is the provision in relation to what happens when a youth offender or a young offender goes through the system and the matter is disposed of—ensuring that victims are kept apprised of that. If they are to be further processed in the criminal justice system, or if having been processed they are then to be released, or released on any conditions, then the victim of the young offender is to be notified as well. Sadly, also, if a young offender who has been detained in a facility—whether it is a prison or whether it is a youth facility—dies during the course of that, then the victim is to be notified of that as well. That is a tragic occurrence that happens occasionally and, hopefully, not too often.

My colleagues have said in relation to the other parts of the bill that this does make good and important changes for the administration of justice and for victims, and we support it. This particular part that deals with young offenders and young offending and the victims of them has useful changes that I think will go some way to addressing our criminal offending rate, helping the fate of young offenders, and stopping them graduating on to harsher offending through the involvement of their victims in the processes set up to deal with them.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call in this Committee stage for the consideration of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I want to focus on two particular areas of this part of the bill, Part 2, that I think will be of benefit to our most vulnerable and littlest citizens in New Zealand—the children of our country.

In particular, I think there is a very positive measure in this bill that will allow the submission of victim impact statements in a variety of formats and media. The ability for a child to depict their feelings and the consequences of the offending that they have either witnessed or been subjected to themselves, I think, is a very positive measure. This will allow people—and particularly children—to submit paintings or pictures or short stories that describe the sorts of consequences and impacts that the offending has had on them.

Another very positive measure, in my view, is the ability of those who have witnessed domestic violence incidents but who have not necessarily been subjected to them themselves to be considered as victims and to receive the support and the assistance that victims of crime get in this country. So, for instance, having a child or a young person seeing a parent or family member being assaulted or abused in a domestic situation would then deem them to be able to be in receipt of all of that support. Again, that is a very positive measure that will help our most vulnerable and smallest citizens. So I commend this bill for further consideration.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I begin by first expressing my disappointment that the Minister in charge of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, the Hon Judith Collins, is not the Minister in the chair. I thought that perhaps under the cover of darkness she might have snuck back into the Chamber through the back way—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member would say that he is not referring to the absence of a Minister but he is indirectly doing that, and I just caution him to not proceed down that line.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am sure you will not mind me saying that it is better, in the Committee of the whole House stage, to have a Minister in the chair who is the Minister in charge of the bill. When that Minister is here then she might be expected to answer questions.

Having expressed that disappointment, can I say that I acknowledge at least that in the chair is Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows is not only the Minister for Courts but also the sort of man who could recognise a conflict of interest and avoid it, and if he made a mistake, would tell the truth to the House about what he had done. So in that sense the Minister in the chair is a distinct improvement over the Minister who is in charge of the bill.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Totally washed up. What a hack—what a low-grade hack.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Can I just say, if the Attorney-General stops prattling on—if he wants to take a call, then take a call. Perhaps he could stand up and explain to us why Judith Collins did meet with an unnamed official, in a clear conflict of interest. If he does not want to take the call, then he should shut up, and I will invite you, Mr Chairman, to tell him to do that. Otherwise, I will continue to ask him questions about his colleague the Minister of Justice and why the Minister of Justice should not be relied upon to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am on my feet. Right, we will debate Part 2 of this bill from this point on.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am happy to do that. Can I say that I welcome this bill and the improvements that it makes, but express another disappointment—notwithstanding the importance that I am sure the Minister in the chair would say is attached to the provisions in this bill—and question why it has taken 2½ years to get this bill back to the Committee of the whole House when these rights are being denied to victims and when every party in Parliament supports this bill. This is the sort of bill that you would have thought would be facilitated through the House. We will not hold it up unnecessarily. We have indicated that we are showing support for it. Once again, we have a bill that took damn near 3 years from the point when it was introduced to the point when it goes through. There is no reason, other than the incompetence of the management of this House, that that should have happened with this bill.

This part of the bill deals with amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The purpose of the clauses in this part is to ensure that victims’ rights in the adult jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction, and I support that absolutely. It is also about increasing the participation of victims at hearings in the Youth Court and providing support for those victims. I want to come back to Chester Borrows to ask a question about the nature of the support that will be provided to victims who appear in the Youth Court. As the Minister for Courts will be aware, court services for victims are not currently available in the Youth Court. So I would very much like the Minister in the chair to take the next call and explain to us whether the court services for victims will now be available for victims appearing in the Youth Court. It is a valid question. I am sure that the Minister will have the answer to that.

The reason that I ask the question about whether those resources will be available—[Interruption] And still the Attorney-General prattles on. The reason that I ask about that is because in the regulatory impact statement it states: “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas.” The fact that the agencies say that suggests to me that no additional resources have been provided to ensure that the rights that we are supposedly giving to victims will be backed up by the services that are there, ensuring that they get those services and that those rights are upheld.

So it is a valid question to ask the Minister whether court services for victims will be available, and, if so, how they will be funded. If it is reprioritisation, can he assure us that those are not funds taken from another part of the justice system, diminishing the rights of victims in that part of the service? They say that if they cannot reprioritise, then this will result, quoting from the regulatory impact statement, “in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” That is bureaucratese for the fact that if there is no money there, they will not be delivering the services properly, and maybe they will not be delivering the services at all.

I think that those are valid questions to ask the Minister in the chair, and I invite Chester Borrows to take a call after I have finished and address those questions. Members on this side of the Chamber believe that that is the very sort of thing that the Committee of the whole House is here for and that the Minister should be prepared to answer them. Chester Borrows is one of the better Ministers. He will probably be willing to do that.

I want to say that the things that I think are really important here are, firstly, that we do get the recognition of the automatic right of the victim to attend a Youth Court hearing. That is not currently the case; it will become the case. Having said that, in the youth jurisdiction, family group conferences are perhaps the best area where victims can participate in the process and where the process is properly restorative. At the moment the victim is encouraged to attend a family group conference to have a say on reparation, to have a say on rehabilitation for the offender, and to express how the actions of the offender have affected them. In fact, under a Labour Government, New Zealand led the world in 1989 in making these sorts of provisions for restorative justice, for the family group conference, and for the victim to be part of the process and not excluded from it. That is great.

I am not sure why in the past we did not include the Youth Court jurisdiction in this. I can back up the words of the Principal Youth Court Judge, who noted that, sadly, under the status quo the court is often left without any information on the victim. That is plainly unsatisfactory. This bill remedies that. It makes sense for the judge to have complete information about the offence when sentencing a young person in the Youth Court. There is absolutely no reason why the age of the offender should reduce the rights that victims have under the Victims’ Rights Act. So we are supporting this part of the bill because those two areas are remedied. The Ministry of Justice has rightly recommended that victims should have the automatic right to attend a family group conference, that they should be able to provide a victim impact statement—that is really important—and that there should be amendments to clarify the application of the Victims’ Rights Act in the youth jurisdiction.

The clauses in the bill that I think are important are clauses 35 and 38. Clause 35 sets out the rights of the victim to be consulted when a hearing is being held on the custody or potential custody of a child or young person, and that the prosecutor must make reasonable efforts to ascertain the views of each of the victims. That is important. The Commissioner of Police must inform each victim of orders made by the court and any conditions, such as conditions on bail, that are applied. So this is a sensible provision. It is not a political party - orientated clause. It has been recommended by the Ministry of Justice. It makes sense and it has been supported by the Principal Youth Court Judge.

The other area is clause 38, which sets out the entitlement of the victim to be present in the Youth Court and also—I think the Justice and Electoral Committee made this amendment—to have a support person alongside the victim acting as their representative or as a support person for them. I think that that makes sense as well. Other clauses, like clause 38A and 38B, are about areas where the victim should be notified of certain things. When young people abscond from custody, of course the victim should be told about that. If the offender dies, then obviously that is a piece of information, however regrettable the death of the young offender might be, that the victim is entitled to. So I think this is a good area.

I just come back to the Minister, because I know he has been taking advice from the officials. It would be good to know why it took so long to get this bill back to the Committee. But it would be particularly good to know whether the resources are there to provide court services for victims, whether the resources are there to ensure that the rights of the victims will actually be delivered upon, and where that money is coming from. Was there any new money provided for the victim support services, or is it going to be stolen from another area, which will detract from the ability of the justice system to deliver elsewhere?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I rise in response to the comments made by the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Goff, and speakers previous to him. It is important to note the point that the honourable member Andrew Little made about restorative practices within the Youth Court and within our criminal justice system generally, which are being enhanced all the time. Obviously, as we all know, they are world recognised because, especially within the youth jurisdiction, they are world leading, and we need to be able to keep them up at that pace.

Comments have been made around, for instance, derogatory messages given by some lobby groups against such things as restorative practices and, in particular, restorative justice conferencing. People have been suggesting, for instance, that restorative justice conferencing is more about the offender than it is about the victim. What we know, of course, is that that is absolutely incorrect. When we look, for instance, at the reoffending rates of those who have been through a restorative justice conference, when tested against a control of those who were willing and able to attend a conference but it was withheld from them, what we found was that in community-based sentences where restorative justice was completed, there was a recidivism rate that was about 57 percent less, and where it happened behind the wire in prison, it was about 34 percent. That was a study by a young doctor, Heather Strang, of Cambridge University, a few years ago. So it is interesting to note that the complete opposite of what is being put about by the likes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is actually true. Another point is that, as I understand it—and I have been made aware of it on a number of occasions; I do not know whether the position has changed, but I doubt it—the president of, or the spokesperson for, the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been given the opportunity to attend a restorative justice conference anywhere, any time, and, although he said he would, he never has. I think it is a terrible thing when people operating within a sphere of ignorance put themselves out to be experts.

In respect of the matters raised by the Hon Phil Goff, I make the following comments. Firstly, about the time delay for the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, all I can really say—he will know as well as anybody else—is that this Government has been extremely busy. The amount of legislation it has passed through—all of it is important and none of it is blatantly out there to do things like win the next election, like the Electoral Finance Act was, which we had to put up with in years gone by. But I am pleased to see that the bill has finally made its way to the Committee.

In respect of youth within the Youth Court jurisdiction, victims wanting to be represented within the Youth Court jurisdiction, and funding, when this Government came into office in 2008, one of the first pieces of legislation we put through was the offender levy contribution—$50 for every offender appearing before the court to be paid, and that money to be used for victim services. That money was used to set up a number of different initiatives or to support a number of initiatives to support victims going through the criminal justice process. So it is that money used for those purposes that will now be extended to victims within the youth jurisdiction as well. But there are a number of specific rights that are extended pursuant to this part. The member will realise as I go through them that a lot of them are not expensive and will easily be met within the funding that has been set aside for those specific purposes under the offender levy.

The first right is to attend a family group conference. An invitation is made for all victims to come to family group conferences. Whether or not they make themselves available for that family group conference largely depends on their own feelings towards it and their feeling of safety or feeling of really wanting to be in the room. Of course, we are very sensitive about anything that could be seen as revictimising a person who is already a victim, but the ability to be able to attend a family group conference and take part in that along with their support people is a right that is extended. Another one is for victims to be informed about the services each agency provides and their ability to be able to access the support of those agencies. If the offender is a child or a young person, they also have the right to choose whether to be informed of the progress following the family group conference plan. That is progress through that family group conference rather than, necessarily, through the court process, which would also flow on automatically. There is a right to choose whether the victim wishes to express their views, and they have a wide range of abilities to be able to do that. They can make a victim impact statement. They have the right to express their views in other ways, as has been mentioned by my colleague Paul Foster-Bell, which may not necessarily be in writing. That may be difficult if that person is a very young victim, so they will be able to do it by way of pictures or speech or other ways. There is the right to make a complaint if any person from an agency does not provide the service consistent with the principles of this particular code that I am reading from at the moment.

There are also additional rights for victims of specified offences, which might be sexual offences or serious assaults, and they include to be informed of, and to express views on, bail and other orders that may be sought by prosecution or by the offender. There is the right to read the victim impact statement in court or, obviously, to have it read for them. There is the right to choose to become a registered victim so they go on to the victims register for continued notification. There is the right to appoint a representative to receive information on behalf of that victim. There is the right to receive after the sentencing information and notifications as to the progress of the offender through incarceration and future appearances before the Parole Board. There is the right to choose whether to make a submission to a parole hearing or in respect of extended supervision orders. And, obviously, there is the right to be able to attend and to speak and be heard in respect of those matters.

Just to allay the fears of the Hon Phil Goff, the cost of this will be picked by those services that already exist. In effect, it is extending down the services that are there within the adult jurisdiction. Obviously, if there is a higher volume of victims requiring these services, then there will be an increase of cost. It is expected that that will be met within the current funding arrangements, and there is no suggestion that those would not be met. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I also wish to join my colleague the Hon Phil Goff in acknowledging the Minister in the chair, Chester Borrows, and, in fact, to reflect on the point that our junior whip, Iain Lees Galloway, made that you would make a fine Minister of Justice. In fact, you may have an opportunity to be so quite soon.

Iain Lees-Galloway: There’s a vacancy coming up.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Yes, there could well be a vacancy in that area. So I wish you luck with that, Minister.

Getting on to the bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, we are speaking now on Part 2 of that bill. As others have said, this part is about ensuring that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. So that goes through Part 2, which amends the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. Part 2 talks about certain situations, including family group conferences, when a child or a young person is in custody pending hearings, and what happens in situations where children and young persons abscond. It talks about who can present at hearings in situations where there is a child or young person who is the perpetrator of the crime.

I just want to reflect here for a minute. When I spoke on Part 1, I talked about victims of sexual violence and the particular needs of that group and the particular impacts—very deep impacts, often—of sexual violence crimes. Of course, that would equally apply in Part 2, and, in fact, we have seen situations—quite troubling situations—in this country, with the so-called Roast Busters case in Auckland not that long ago, around young persons and sexual violence, where, I think, very troubling cultural attitudes were displayed by young persons around sexual violence. In that situation, in the youth jurisdiction you may well have both youth perpetrators and youth victims potentially affected by the changes in this part.

You can see in Part 2 that a number of changes have been made that I think strengthen the provisions here. In terms of better victim support at Youth Court hearings, an amendment is in this part—in clause 38, amending section 329—for victims to bring support people without seeking prior permission, while allowing, if necessary, the judge to restrict numbers. Also, clause 38A, amending section 385, means that victims of offences committed by a child or young person would be notified when the child or young person absconds from a youth justice residence. As the Hon Phil Goff mentioned, that would also apply—about being notified—when the child or young person dies in a youth justice residence. In terms of the definition of “victim” in schedule 1, amended by clause 39, that amendment aligns, then, the definition of “victim” in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act with that in the Victims’ Rights Act.

Those are some of the provisions in Part 2. I just want to pick up a point about funding, though, because in the regulatory impact statement it does clearly say that “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas. If funding can not be re-prioritised … then this may result in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” I am sure that none of us would like to see service delivery affected for victims of crime. It specifically identifies two of the provisions in this part as being within that category of the need to ensure there is adequate funding. That is the automatic access of victims of child and youth offenders to the Youth Court and also the proposals around victim impact statements in both the adult and youth jurisdictions. So I understand that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, did comment on that, but I would just like to ask him whether he would just, really, like to comment in a little more detail, given the very clear concerns that were flagged up around this issue in the regulatory impact statement. So, in concluding on Part 2, I will leave it there.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I would very much like to hear Raymond Huo.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you—

Carol Beaumont: Excellent decision.

RAYMOND HUO: Excellent decision—thank you very much, Mr Chair. Much has been said about the issues, the problems, and the situations that victims often find themselves in under the existing legal regime. Victims feel marginalised by the court system, and their anguish is often exacerbated by the justice process and the adversarial criminal justice system. Our adversarial criminal system is bipartite, and it attempts to recognise only the accused and the prosecution. Victims often feel marginalised, and it is not fair to the victims and their families.

Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill concerns amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The Law Society, in its submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee, raised concerns about the move to allow children’s pictures in court, saying that young victims should be protected from the judicial process. The proposals of this bill would enable the families of murder victims to attach photographs of their loved ones to statements presented to juries and allow child victims to show their drawings to the court.

The Law Society, in its submission, supported the move in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court, but its family law section chair told the Justice and Electoral Committee that the children who have been victims of crime should not be subjected further to the court process. He said he could not think the move to have them directly involved in impact statements would be an advancement for children’s rights.

Talking about the impact statement, the Chief Judges of both the High Court and the District Court expressed their concerns in their short but powerful submissions to the select committee. They are concerned that the proposed new section 17AB, inserted by clause 11, enlarges the purposes of the victim impact statements. That particular section is in Part 1, but the judges’ views are valid in terms of Part 2 as well. At present, section 17 of the Victims’ Rights Act limits those purposes to informing the court about the effect of the offending upon the victim, which is information the court must take into account when sentencing an offender. But the proposal under this bill—especially pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002—would create a certain kind of expectation on the part of the victims, which the court has no capacity to meet. So that was the reason the judges expressed in their submissions—that it would create a kind of expectation that the court has no capacity to meet, and that it would create a further confusion that could well be understood as entitling the victim to express his or her view about an appropriate sentence for that offending.

But under the Sentencing Act there is no provision that enables the court to take into account the victim’s views about an appropriate sentence, and, indeed, to do so would conflict with one of the underlying principles of sentencing—that similar offenders should receive similar sentences for similar offending in similar circumstances. So perhaps the most difficult, but arguably the most important, is the balancing exercise where all aspects of the issues, the interests, and the concerns of the concerned parties should be identified, acknowledged, and balanced.

Also, another concern expressed by the judges is related to new section 22, inserted by clause 15, because it would create a new right for victims. That particular provision creates a new right for victims of a specified offence to read his or her statement in court, unless the judicial officer considers it inappropriate to do so because of the existence of one of the conditions set out in section 22(2).

In cases where there are many victims of specified offences and many victims, they believed that a judge would be reluctant to pick and choose between the victim impact statements, to settle upon those to be read. The regulatory impact statement given in connection with the revised victims’ policy did not, in itself, quantify the likely additional demands upon the court system. But in the judges’ view, that will be significant.

As I said, the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge both expressed concerns in their submissions that it would be difficult for a judiciary officer to impose time limits on a victim reading a statement. They would be very unwilling to interrupt a victim, to avoid causing the victim further upset. They also noted that when there are many victims in a case, as I said previously, the judge would be reluctant to pick and choose, and the likely outcome would be all victims giving a statement. This, of course, would add considerably to the length of time that sentencing takes in the courts. The judges believed that additional demands on the court system would be significant. They said that the Victims of Crime Reform Bill could create expectations that a victim could express a view on sentencing that is not provided for in our law.

There is a genuine concern, and that concern relates to a certain kind of issue of how to strike a balance—on the one hand, the victims’ concerns and anguish are genuine, and on the other hand, the views expressed by the judges and the other submitters are valid. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill because this is the bit that tries to align the Victims’ Rights Act with the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. So this is the part of the bill that tries to capture the answers to the problem that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are different from those applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. That is—or was—a problem, and this part is the remedy. We support this part, as we have supported Part 1 of the bill as well, but there are a couple of things that I wanted to draw attention to in particular.

First, it has been noted, and I do not wish to labour the point unduly, but given that this was reported back 2 years ago, those of us who have found ourselves, as I have, on the Justice and Electoral Committee for only a comparatively short time—since the end of last year—have not been privy to the submissions because the report was presented on 27 June 2012. That means that going back and trying to capture the sense of what were the top-of-mind concerns for the submitters has been quite difficult. But I am going to refer to the regulatory impact statement in some detail. In the regulatory impact statement on page 14 it said that the current situation is that “the Victims’ Rights Act gives little guidance as to how its various provisions apply to the processes in the Youth Courts to deal with offending by children and young persons.” And so there was this disjunction, there was this gap, between the treatment of victims in the adult criminal jurisdiction and the treatment of victims of crimes committed by youth offenders and children. So, as a result of that disjunction, there was some confusion about the application of the Victims’ Rights Act to the particular circumstances that apply in the youth justice jurisdiction.

This bill is a good answer to that question. This is a reasonable remedy to that problem. It essentially means that victims should have the right to attend Youth Court hearings. It says that victims of children and young people—that is, victims of crimes committed by children and young people—should also be able to provide a victim impact statement to the judge, as is provided for in the criminal jurisdictions of the High Court and District Court. Amendments are made to clarify the application of the Victims’ Rights Act in the youth jurisdiction. This is particularly found in clause 39 in Part 2, where schedule 1 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act is amended. It is amended by inserting the relevant bits of the Victims’ Rights Act, tailored for this circumstance. So, for example, it says that the definition of a “victim” also includes “a person who, through or by means of an offence committed by a child or young person, suffers any form of emotional harm;”. It goes on simply to align those provisions in the Victims’ Rights Act—which this bill also amends, because it is an omnibus bill—with the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

People have talked previously in this debate about the relevance and the purpose and the usefulness of children being able to demonstrate through pictures or drawings or some other mode of communication the impact of a crime upon themselves or of witnessing a crime. This does allow those voices to be heard in the children’s and young persons’ jurisdiction. That has got to be an improvement. We are aware that the bill itself amends four pieces of legislation: the Victims’ Rights Act; the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act; the Parole Act; and the Sentencing Act. By making sure we have some commonality between those four amended pieces of legislation, we really are moving towards something that is consistent in its approach, recognises the impact on victims, recognises the rights of victims, whatever their age—in this case, whether they are the victims of offences committed by children or young people—and allows them the right to be heard and to have their voice heard in proceedings in the children’s and young persons’ jurisdiction. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins, and the following amendments in her name, to Part 2 be agreed to:

in clause 33, replace “section 2A” with “section 2B”; and

in new section 3A(f)(iii) inserted by clause 39, replace “section 2A” with “section 2B”.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Parole Act 2002

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 3 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill is a very straightforward part, so I want to take only a rather brief call on it. It is an important change. It ensures that victims are informed about an offender being considered for release on parole and that victims are well informed about how they can participate effectively in the parole hearing process. Actually, these were rights that were originally in the Parole Act but were inadvertently removed in the Parole Amendment Act 2007. It is a pity that no one on either side of the House picked it up at that point. So it remedies a gap. There are a couple of things to be said about that. A number of members in the last month have sat in on parole hearings. It is a rather unusual right for anybody who is not connected with the offender to be able to do that, but I think those of us who sat in on those hearings gained a much greater appreciation of how the parole hearings work and the consideration given by the Parole Board before an offender is released. I think that for many of us it was quite reassuring to see how that process worked and the common sense of the justices and the laypeople who serve on the Parole Board.

One of the interesting factors about this is that only about 7 percent of all victims actually apply to make submissions on whether the offender should be given parole. Perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, would like to suggest why he thinks that level of participation by victims in parole hearings is as low as it is, because one would think that the release of the person who offended against you in a serious way was an important factor in your life, and maybe there are still obstacles that discourage victims from participating in the process. Alternatively, I guess, Minister, you could say that a lot of victims just want to put this behind them and perhaps do not want to be revictimised by the process of sitting—although they do not actually sit in on the parole hearing, but they are heard by the Parole Board. It seems to me that that is quite an important right. I would like some assurances that the system is good enough to ensure that all relevant victims are informed about their ability to do that.

The other thing, Minister, that I think is really important because this bill has been around for so long—coming up for 3 years now—is whether this bill is consistent with another piece of legislation before the House, which has gone to a different committee, and that is the Parole Amendment Bill, which is currently before the Law and Order Committee. I wonder whether the Ministry of Justice officials—and I presume that they have, but because this is to repair a stuff-up that was made because officials and members of the House did not pick up a past inadequacy—have carefully gone through the provisions of this bill to see that they are consistent with the Parole Amendment Bill, which is before the Law and Order Committee, and vice versa. I think it is really important that there is that coordination and we have that assurance; otherwise, we may be back here in another 12 months because we are repairing something that officials had overlooked and members of the Committee had not picked up on.

So those are the two major issues. It is about the low level of participation of victims in parole hearings—having their voice heard by the Parole Board—and whether the Minister is absolutely convinced that victims are fully informed about their ability to participate in the process, and that they know, for example, that if they want to participate in this process, they do not have to go face to face with the offender, which most do not want to do, and know that they also do not have to go to the prison in order to be heard by the Parole Board. The Parole Board, in normal circumstances, will meet the victims outside the prison environment. So I think the Parole Board is doing a really good job. In fact, Minister, you mentioned the Sensible Sentencing Trust and its failure to follow up on the offer to sit in on restorative processes, but even the Sensible Sentencing Trust, with its sometimes rather extreme views, acknowledged that the Parole Board under Justice Gendall now, and under his predecessor Justice Carruthers, is making a real effort to make sure that the victims feel comfortable with the process and that they are treated with respect. I think that is worth putting on the record of the Committee—that our Parole Board is acting effectively in that way. I think members on all sides of the Chamber would be pleased to know that the Parole Board, which quite often comes under a lot of flak because occasionally, being human, its members get things wrong, consistently has been regarded as doing its job conscientiously and taking into account the concerns and the feelings of the victims that it is dealing with.

So the two things again, Minister, just so you have got them clearly in your mind—just briefly—are these. First, are we absolutely sure that this legislation is now consistent and vice versa with the Parole Amendment Bill, which is before the Law and Order Committee but not yet reported back? Secondly, is the Minister really assured that everything that can be done to make victims aware of the process and comfortable with the process is being done?

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): First of all, I was very patient with the Associate Minister of Justice answering the questions in Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. Unfortunately, he neglected to take any call at all to answer the questions on Part 3. Maybe that is because he did not feel he had enough time to do so. So perhaps you would give him the latitude, Mr Chairman, to enable him to answer the two very clear questions, which I think I repeated several times in Part 3 of the bill. So you have not missed out, Minister. There is still the chance to come back and answer a couple of questions, which I am sure members of your own party would like to hear the answers to, just as much as members on this side of the Chamber would. So talk to your officials, if you do not know what is going on because you are not the Minister, and the real Minister ain’t here and we all know why she ain’t here—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

Hon PHIL GOFF: Just in passing, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No. Order!

Hon PHIL GOFF: Just in passing. Can I come to Part 4 of the bill, which is “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002”. Again, the amendments that are proposed in Part 4 are, I think, sensible. They enable victims to be compensated by losses not covered by the Accident Compensation Corporation, and we would expect that to be the case. They provide more opportunities for victims to participate in the restorative justice process.

The interesting thing about this is that the Minister said earlier that restorative justice works and it improves outcomes—I think, Minister, you said in 37 percent of the cases. Restorative justice, which was in the Victims’ Rights Act, which I pushed through the House in 2002, is a good process, but, again, for it to work it needs to be properly resourced. It is not something we force on the victim. It is entirely in accord with the wishes of the victim. If the victim wishes to have a process, they should be able to. This is about the victim’s choice. If they do not wish to have that process, then that should be up to them. They should not be under any pressure to become involved in a restorative process. But if the evidence is that we are getting positive outcomes and it does provide choices for victims, I do want to be reassured that the resourcing is in place for the restorative justice process, because, again, if I look at the regulatory impact statement, it says that the current service provision is limited, so the court can be required to refer cases only where the services are available. So perhaps the Minister could tell us in what percentage of cases the services are available, and in what percentage of the cases the victim actually badly wants a restorative process but, because of under-resourcing, that victim cannot go through the process.

Can the Minister please quantify when the restorative process will be available to a victim who very much wishes to participate in it, and when it will not be available? And if the percentage of cases where the process will not be available is quite high, which I suspect to be the case, what is the Minister going to do to ensure that the resourcing is made available so that the victim’s right—in this case, once again, it is not a theoretical right but a right that can actually be put in place because the resources are there to allow it to happen? Minister, you have been involved in the court process; you know that this is really important. So we need to know that this provision is not a theoretical provision that says “Wouldn’t it be nice for victims to be able to participate in restorative justice, but, very sad but never mind, there are no resources to allow that to happen.”, because that is clearly the warning that the regulatory impact statement gives this Committee. Again, it is a vital question.

I will keep talking for a bit longer just so the Minister can get the answer from officials. I appreciate that he wants to answer this, as well as the questions—

Hon Ruth Dyson: He’ll probably know it.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Oh, he might know it off the top of his head. Judith Collins would know, but then Judith Collins is not available, apparently, to answer the questions, and we know the reason for that.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s partial answer to my question on an earlier clause in an earlier part of this bill, and he talked about the offender levy being there to help out, but all of us know that that offender levy is pretty limited. All of us know that the warning given by officials was “Hey, we can’t do these things unless we reprioritise.”—that is, take it from other areas. Again, I would like the Minister to address this question of resourcing. Are the rights that we are promising victims sincerely—all of us in this Committee—going to simply lead to disappointed expectations because the resources are not there to allow restorative justice to happen? Perhaps the Minister could indicate in how many cases—[Bell rung] Oh, well, I will let the Minister answer now, and if he does not answer it fully, I can come back and ask him again.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): It is encouraging to have this level of debate. I am sorry I did not get quickly enough off my butt to answer while we were discussing the previous part. The two questions were about the consistency between the bill currently before the Law and Order Committee, the Parole Amendment Bill, and this bill, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I can assure the member Phil Goff that there is no conflict between those two, and we will not be running back like we did under all Governments—let us be honest here—and doing little tart-ups later on down the track. So consistency is there.

The next question that the member asked was about why victims did not avail themselves of the opportunity to appear before parole hearings. He touched on one reason, which was that frequently the victim just wanted to put things behind them and did not want to re-engage. The other part of it, though, is that a lot of the way that people reflect on the criminal justice system is from a position of ignorance. It is not their fault. I do not mean any malice by saying that. It is just that people watch a lot of TV and they expect that what they see before them in the little square box is similar to the reality of dealing with our criminal justice system, and that just is not the case. To try to get around that, with the implementation of the code that we have been talking about over the course of this evening, all victims will be made aware and completely aware of what it will entail—for instance, the ability to be able to take part in a parole hearing without having to be confronted by, or sit in the same room as, the defendant. The fact that they can do that remotely, or that their evidence can be taken at a time that is much more convenient to them and put before the members of the parole board, I think is a very, very important thing.

I must say that people whom I know who have appeared in front of a parole hearing and made submissions have actually found an incredible gathering of strength from that process. I can recall that one of my constituents came to me wanting my assistance when an offender, who had tried to murder her, was coming up for parole. Unfortunately, although I was a member of Parliament, I was also the investigating officer in charge of preparing that file for court, so I was prevented from being able to go along and make submissions or make any representation.

Hon Maryan Street: Do you spot a conflict of interest?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Yes, we spied a conflict. What we managed to do then was draft a complete submission towards the Parole Board, and one of the things that she asked for was the ability to be able to have a restorative justice conference with both offenders who had tried to kill her. What she found from that process was an incredible strengthening of her resolve and of her ability to be sure that she did not need to maintain any fear of these people, and just the ability to be able to have her say. So I would encourage all victims to reflect on what they might gain from appearing before a Parole Board or any restorative justice process.

The next question that the member asked was about resourcing, and all I can really say there is that it is more good news. In our last Budget, the Government doubled the amount of money available for restorative justice conferences, made a priority of pre-sentence restorative justice conferencing, and got contracts to make sure that every court in the country was covered by it, so any victim of a crime right around New Zealand would now have the ability to access restorative justice conferencing without any cost to themselves. Also what we are extending, which we have not really done so much in the past, is restorative justice availability in prisons—so pre-release. Although that has been available on the request of the offender, we are in a bit of a bind here because you cannot drag the offender into a restorative justice conference and make him—usually him—sit there. In fact, there has to be an agreement from both parties to be able to do that. So the offender may well request a restorative justice conference, but the victim might not want it, so it does not take place, and vice versa. The victim may well want to have a restorative justice conference, but the offender may not want that to take place.

There are some places within prisons where it has occurred through the provision of the Sycamore Tree project, which made restorative justice available to people in prisons on a purely voluntary basis, and provided by prison fellowship. Here, if the victim of the offender was not prepared to take part in the restorative justice conference, then a victim of a similar crime—a surrogate, in effect—who was happy to appear before the conference would explain to the offender the similarities of the crime, the way that he or she felt having been abused, etc., etc. There has been some good that has come from that, albeit it is not the actual victim, and obviously there are times when it cannot be the actual victim.

So, yes, I can assure the Hon Phil Goff that there is consistency between the two bills, as he sought. I have explained why some victims do not want to appear before Parole Boards but encourage them to do so because it may well be to their benefit. I can assure him that there is sufficient resourcing for the extension of restorative justice conferencing, which is now available for the first time throughout New Zealand in every court.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I would just like to put on record, as I have on a previous piece of legislation, my thanks to the Associate Minister of Justice, the Hon Chester Borrows, for actually taking seriously his responsibilities in the chair. That is a refreshing change from most other Ministers, and certainly the Minister of Justice. I think his credentials for becoming Minister of Justice—a position for which there will soon be a vacancy—are getting better all the time. But I say very sincerely thank you for that.

There is just one thing arising out of that that I need a little bit of clarification on. I am aware that there is another, I think, $2.3 million that has gone into restorative justice. Nevertheless, the regulatory impact statement on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill still talked about the service provision being limited. Maybe that is because that regulatory impact statement is so old—because this bill has been around for so long and it does not take into account the money that went through in the last Budget—but the impression that I have got from talking to people who work in the justice system is that, nevertheless, it still helps, it is good, but it is not sufficient. Again, the thing that I guess I am asking the Minister—I require a very brief answer from him—is whether the assurance he is giving the Committee is that, with the extension of this, any victim in any part of the country has a good prospect of being able to have a restorative justice session if that victim chooses it. Although there is extra money there, it seems to me that there is still a shortfall in the funding that is necessary for this system to work better. If the results are as the Minister has said—you know, 37 percent better outcomes—then surely we would want this to be a universal service. I just need to get clarification about that one small point. Yes, there is more money, but is there still a significant shortfall that means that many people seeking a restorative justice process may be declined for it?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): Yes, I can assure the member that the regulatory impact statement was written well before the changes in the last Budget, when the budget was increased. Restorative justice conferencing is now universally available across the country. It is expected that there will be an uptake in restorative justice conferencing as a result of the passing of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. From a briefing I had only a matter of a couple of hours ago, there has been a huge decline in restorative justice conferencing, mainly because there has been a huge decline in crime and a huge decline in people appearing before the court. There are fewer people seeking restorative justice conferences and so there is a pool of money there available at the moment that is not being accessed and will be available.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4), the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 425.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a night for it. This is Part 1, and the most important clause in Part 1 is the purpose, clause 3, which acknowledges the ongoing serious effects of serious violent offending for victims, and, of course, everybody in the House would acknowledge that as a matter that we need to address. Secondly, it empowers the court, on an application by the victim, to make a non-contact order prohibiting the offender from having any form of contact with the victim. Both of those goals are worthy of support, and the Labour Opposition has supported the first reading of the Victim’s Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. But in the first reading of the bill we made it very clear that there were some fundamental flaws in the bill that needed to be addressed by the Law and Order Committee.

The first flaw was a huge flaw. It said that you could make an application for a non-contact order as long as the person who had, for example, raped you had been sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment or more. If, however, that person had been sentenced to only 4½ years’ imprisonment, you got no protection under this bill. Mr Chairman, you are the member of Parliament for Invercargill, so you will be familiar with the case that led to this legislation being introduced. It is worth mentioning to the Committee that the gap in the system was highlighted by the case of an unfortunate young woman who had been raped, and the offender had been sentenced. The offender had been sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. That offender, having served the period of the prison sentence he was required to, then moved in next door to his victim. Can you imagine how that young woman felt about that—to wake up every morning, knowing that you are likely to confront in the street outside your own home the person who had been jailed for raping you? That was not a fair go, and there was nothing that that woman could do about the situation that she was placed in. There was a clear gap in the system.

I asked in the first reading and raised in the select committee—and I think Kate Wilkinson raised the same question, actually, in the first reading—the question of why there should ever be a threshold set at 5 years. Where did the figure come from? I suspected that it was an arbitrary figure, and I think the evidence is that it was totally arbitrary. Then the select committee, listening to the submission that Labour made on this, said: “OK, let’s lower it to 3 years”. I said “Three years, fine. Where does that figure come from?”, and there was no answer. That, too, was an arbitrary figure.

Thinking back to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act, which I had been Minister of Justice for in 2002, I thought that, well, in the Parole Act there is a threshold level of 2 years that differentiates a less serious from a more serious offence. How does it differentiate it? For example, if the sentence is more than 2 years, the person will then come before the Parole Board before they can be released. There was a threshold that was already established in law. If you are sentenced to more than 2 years, you are likely to be on the victim notification register. So it seemed to the Labour Party that we needed a threshold of 2 years, not 5 years. The Minister of Justice, who introduced this bill, was saying that 5 years was going to solve it. The rhetoric was flourishing in the House about how important this was, but when the Minister was confronted with the fact that the legislation did not help the very person whose case had sparked the need for the legislation, basically, she had nowhere to go.

So I am happy to report back to the Committee that what we did in the select committee, on the instigation of the Labour Party, in reducing that threshold to 2 years makes a big change. The size of the change can be seen from the information that we elicited on it. At a threshold of 5 years, this non-contact order was estimated to affect 10 people a year—10 people a year. I do not have the figures for the number of people who have been the victim of sexual violation each year, but it would run into the hundreds, or maybe even more—maybe into the thousands. The legislation as the National Government introduced it was plainly inadequate, but that aspect of the legislation has now been repaired in the bill as reported back. To that extent, this is a better piece of legislation. It was a victory for the Labour Party, but, most important, it was a victory for common sense.

The second thing that we were concerned about with the bill as introduced by the Minister was that you could not apply for a non-contact order until after the inmate had finished his or her sentence and had been released. Before the select committee we heard evidence from people who had been victims of efforts by the offender to contact them from within the prison walls. Minister Borrows, the Department of Corrections should have dealt with that—it should have dealt with that—but this bill would have provided another protection if a non-contact order had been available for the victim. But, even more important, there was clearly the difficulty that when the person was released and before the victim could get a non-contact order, there was going to be a space of time when the victim might be confronted with that offender either close to where he or she lived or where he or she worked.

It made sense to us in the Labour Party that the non-contact order should be available not from the time of the release of the inmate into the community but from the time of sentencing the inmate to the prison sentence, in the first instance. Again, it was a victory for Labour and a victory for common sense that we were able to get that change. So in two really important ways, this legislation as reported back to the House has been strengthened, and it better meets the purpose set out in clause 3 of this bill.

On the third issue, I have got to give some credit for it to the New Zealand First Party, as well as the Labour Party. That is the question of where the offender used a surrogate to apply pressure to his victim—where the offender approached a third party and said “I want you to contact this woman and say such and such.” We needed to have a way in which a non-contact order could be made to apply in those circumstances to a third party. You have to be careful in the way that you do that, and we have set certain standards that have to be reached before a non-contact order can be applied. One is that the offender must have asked the third party to take this action involving the victim; secondly, the third party must have acted on that instruction or request; and, thirdly, that must have affected, in a negative way, the victim, and you could well see why it would affect the victim negatively. So the third change we were able to get was that a non-contact order can apply to a third party, and that is also sensible.

The last point that I really want to make is on the question that still worries me a little. It is that to get a non-contact order the victim has to file an application in the civil court. What worried me—and I know that when Andrew Little spoke on this at the introduction, he expressed concern about it as well—is what cost does that impose on the victim that might be unfair? Will there, for example, be a filing fee for a non-contact order? That is a question that perhaps you could just clarify, Minister Borrows. I do not think we have had an answer on that. If you could get an answer from the officials, that would be very helpful.

The second question is whether the victim will have to secure the services of a lawyer in order to get the non-contact order. We were told that, basically, the victim could file that order themselves, but there may be cases in which legal assistance would be necessary. If that is the case, Minister, my second question is this. Will there be legal aid available to the victim in every case, in order to secure necessary protection through a non-contact order? Or will there be cases where the victim—usually, herself—has to go to some expense in order to get protection against the offender? I think it is really important that we try to eliminate costs that might be imposed on the victim. The victim did not ask to be a victim. This is a way of providing protection for the victim, but I would hate to think that there were victims who were discouraged from seeking a non-contact order because there were financial barriers in the way of their getting that assistance. I hope you have got both of those questions, Minister. I know that in the last bill you made a real effort to answer those questions, and I would appreciate you addressing those two questions.

I want to finish with this. This bill is a better bill because the proposals made by the Labour Party were adopted by the select committee. I thank the select committee for agreeing to that. I even thank the Minister for agreeing to that.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is one of a number of moves needed to improve the rights of victims and to support them where they have been subjected to violence. Fear and anxiety about unwanted contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself and can impair the recovery and ability to enjoy a normal life. In this Part 1 debate I wish to comment only briefly on clause 5. Clause 5 defines a violent offender as a person who “has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years …”. In the bill as introduced, this was 5 years or more, and we regarded that as narrowing the field down far too much. I think that is what other parties have concluded as well. Instead of requiring sentencing to a period of 5 years or more, I suggested at that stage that it would be more appropriate instead to require sentencing only of offences punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment or more. That would have broadened the scope of legislation to capture offenders whose sentences were less than 5 years but who had committed an offence serious enough to enable a court to sentence them for 5 years or more.

The Law and Order Committee has now instead amended the definition to “more than 2 years”. That, of course, is the other way that would substantially widen the offences to which the section would be applicable. I agree with what the Hon Phil Goff said about that. The offences to which it would have applied were far too few; the scope was far too narrow. What is being done now, although my own suggestion was not adopted, is sensible and acceptable to New Zealand First. After all, if the offence was so serious as to attract a significant imprisonment term at all, then the victim should be able to use this new law. It is another step forward for victims and it deserves our full support. We support what is being done. Even though it was not New Zealand First’s own particular suggestion that was adopted, it has the same effect and, therefore, we feel able to support that particular provision in Part 1, which we had been previously concerned about.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill aims to stop violent and sexual offenders from living and working near their victims. The change has been prompted by a specific case where an offender who was jailed for rape in 2004 lived, upon his release in 2011, next door to his victim. Police at that time had no power to force him to move away. So there is obviously a gap in the protection available to victims of serious violent and sexual crime.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the submitters, and I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the concerns raised by the National Council of Women of New Zealand. In its submission it expressed concerns that the reference to physical injury was too narrow. It was suggested that the definition should include references to suffering, mental torment, torture, mental and psychological harm, emotional injury, and traumatic stress. It is also suggested that the definition should include close family members of the victim if they have suffered physiological or psychological trauma because of the violence suffered by the direct victim.

A number of the submitters raised very valid points and also questioned the bill being limited to violent offences that incurred a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more. As stated by the Hon Phil Goff in his earlier contributions, that has been reduced to 2 years by the Law and Order Committee. I commend the select committee for listening to the victims and listening to the submitters. Some respondents from Rural Women New Zealand were concerned that in rural, semi-rural, or smaller urban areas it is not always practical for the order to be made available to the police station nearest to where the victim resides.

The Law Society also recommended a number of minor changes to the proposals in this bill. The first was that the term “violent offence”, as defined in clause 4 and as used throughout the bill, should be replaced with the term “serious violent offence”, as that term is used in section 86A of the Sentencing Act 2002 and is identically defined. Secondly, clause 17 requires information on non-contact orders, including the making, varying, and discharging of a non-contact order, to be made available to the police. Clause 17(3)(c) allows for the order to be sent by ordinary post. Given the important consequences that can flow from the breach of an order, a more reliable method of informing police should be used. The Law Society believed that the mechanisms in paragraphs (a) and (b) seemed appropriate, but that if the postal service was to be used, then the documents should be sent by a traceable method. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I take a short call on the first part of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. Every now and then we pass pieces of legislation here that have the potential to have a really dramatic and worthwhile impact on people’s lives. I just want to go back to the original purpose of the bill, as was stated in, I think, the Bills Digest, actually. The essential purpose was that the bill “provides that a victim may apply to a District Court for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender, and that an application may be made at any time after the offender is released from prison. However, a victim may not apply for a non-contact order if there is in force a protection order against the offender under the Domestic Violence Act … or a restraining order against the offender under the Harassment Act …”. This really touches on the lives of many women, and I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to them for a moment.

In Nelson we have seen an increase in the instances of violent crime. In the latest statistics that were released recently there was much cause for celebration, as crime statistics were going down, but not sexual or violent offending statistics. Whether that is a function of more women being prepared to report violent crimes against them and sexual offences against them, whether it is, in fact, a greater level of assiduousness on the part of the police, who are very committed to bringing perpetrators of sexual and violent offences to book, or whether it is that there are indeed more offences occurring and there is more crime in this area, nobody is entirely sure. So out of those three possible reasons, nobody has sufficient evidence to say which is the dominant contributing factor. Are more crimes happening, are we reporting them more, or are the police better at dealing with and resolving these crimes?

I think the prospect of having somebody who has violently and sexually assaulted a person be released from prison and wash up in close proximity either to where the victim works or lives is a revictimising of the victim. Hopefully, and I believe that it will, this bill will address that issue and will give—and it is women I think of, in particular. Before anybody gets up and says that males are victims too, I know that, but predominantly it is women. And to the women whom I talk to who work with women’s centres, sexual abuse counselling services, Rape Crisis, and all of those chronically underfunded bodies that are out there in the community trying to assist women to cobble together again the fractured parts of their lives, I want to say that this bill will help; it will provide some protection from the revictimising that can happen in these instances. The case in Invercargill has been the one that has had attention drawn to it, in particular, but it is not the only one. Sometimes it does take a ghastly case of that nature before Parliament moves to take action and repair the wrong and fill the gap that exists in the legislation and the legislation’s authority.

One of the things that I particularly approve of in this bill—I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee, which this bill came to, and nor did I hear the submissions—but one of the things that I think is a positive outcome is that “victim” is defined in a way that I trust is consistent with legislation we have been debating just in the last hour and a half. The victim is a person against whom a violent offence is committed by another person, is a parent or legal guardian of a child or a young person who has had an offence committed against them, or is a member of the immediate family of a person who has had that violence perpetrated upon them. There is a caveat in that definition, of course, that says that, obviously, if the parent, legal guardian, or family member is, in fact, the one charged with such offences, then, clearly, they are not the victim in this instance. But it is good to see that there is a recognition that the shock waves of these sorts of crimes go through families and remain in place for a long time. And it takes a long time to recover, to regain and repair a fractured life, and to begin to approach the world again as a whole person. Having family and the impact on them recognised as well—with the proviso, of course, that they are not the perpetrators—is a useful supportive device.

I will take another call later on other parts of the bill, but as far as Part 1, up to the end of clause 6, is concerned, I think those are the most significant points. Thank you.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I would like to congratulate the way the Law and Order Committee and speakers have engaged in this debate, and have moved the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill through the process of the select committee. Comments made earlier by the Hon Phil Goff that indicated that both sides of the House—he singled out the Hon Kate Wilkinson as somebody who had been part of it. It is great to see that sort of across-House debate.

I guess that as much as I endorse fully the comments of the previous speaker, the Hon Maryan Street, I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a whole swathe of victims who will not be covered by this legislation here. What we know is that only about one in 10—and I would sort of tag on to the back of that “if that”—female rape victims report a rape, and what we know is that only about 33 percent of all rapes taken to court actually result in a conviction. So if we accept those rules of thumb—and I think we are probably being generous in the amount being reported—only about 0.3 percent of those people who are victims of rape, those female victims of rape, will actually be covered by this piece of legislation. So the challenge before this House is to have a reporting system, an investigation system, a prosecution system, and a sentencing system that actually encourage people to report crime, because it is specifically these matters that very rarely get reported.

It would be interesting to know—and I do not know of any work that has been done on it—how many rape victims who, having reported the rape against them to the police, and having gone through this process, actually would ever go on to report a second rape. I know a lot of rape victims, and I cannot think of any who, having been through the process, said that they would go through the process a second time.

I want to just also explain to the Committee, or acknowledge, the hell of a long way we have come in respect of the investigation and the reporting and so forth of rape crime. When I first became a detective, I was operating under the old detectives manual. The Committee would be absolutely astonished at the advice it gave to young detectives in those days about being very suspicious about females who complain of rape, and that they largely put themselves in a position where it is brought upon them by the clothing they wear or where they are late at night, and all those sorts of things. That was not rewritten till 1985. Prior to 1985 it was not an offence to rape your wife, for instance. Prior to 1985 what we would call rape with an implement was only an indecent assault and did not even amount to a sexual violation. That offence came into force only in 1985.

I remember investigating a rape in Nelson in about 1980, I guess—and this goes back to the comment made by the Hon Phil Goff, and, thankfully, I do not think this would ever happen today. Two young men had given a girl a ride home from a party. She was the worse for alcohol, and probably so were they. They drove her up the Maitai Valley. They both raped her twice. I remember the case well because I got in trouble for unlawful detection and made a bit of case law—if you ever want go and have a look at it. In any event, we arrested the two men. One of them got 3 years’ imprisonment for rape, and one of them got 9 months’ periodic detention for rape. Thankfully, we see now that there is pretty much a minimum tariff for rape of about 8 years and a 20-year maximum, so I do not think you would ever find somebody convicted of rape getting a 2-year sentence these days, let alone a 5-year sentence. I would like to think so, in any event.

So I just acknowledge that it was important to move that threshold down to 2 years. Also, the change that was made so that the application can be made on sentence, or any time after sentence, rather than release is important. But again I just acknowledge that there are a whole lot of victims here who will not be captured by this because there was not a conviction, there was not even a report, and in male rape I suggest that the figures are even less than 1 in 10.

It is important that the protection was extended to surrogates because people who are involved in family violence, crimes against family members, and particularly sexual crimes are in a class of people who are very good at manipulation. They are also very good at getting people to do things for them, and that would include using surrogates to contact victims.

There were a couple of points that were raised by the Hon Phil Goff. One of them related to whether there was going to be a filing fee in respect of this. I can assure the Committee that the District Courts Fees Regulations 2009 will be amended to ensure that there is no filing fee. What does filing entail? Filing entails filling in a form similar to what we do now in an application for a protection order. Most people would be able to do it without legal advice. If there was a need for legal advice, an application for legal aid could be made in any particular way, but I would suggest that people—friends and supporters of a victim, agencies such as Women’s Refuge or Victim Support, or the police themselves—would be in a position to be able to assist anybody filling in the forms, which would amount to making an application under this legislation. Legal aid could be available if that was required in the normal circumstances. In any event, making or filing an application amounts to completing a form. I know that some forms can be relatively complicated, but I also am sure that those people who need to fill in that form would be able to do so with the assistance of the agency if they chose to do that, their friends or supporters, or the people who are behind the court counter ready to receive the application.

The point was made by the member Raymond Huo about whether these services were available around the country and whether, for instance, the police would be able to access an order once it was made. The way in which the police are currently resourced, particularly electronically, would mean that a simple check on the name of either the offender or the victim would be able to easily identify whether there was such an order in place.

I just want to reassure the Committee, given the comments and the questions that were raised, that I believe that the bill goes a long way towards settling a number of issues. An aside was made by the member about the resources of Women’s Refuge. I understand the challenges of resourcing these social agencies, but in the end we are talking about filling in a form. I do not think that that would suck up a whole lot of resource from an agency charged with and taking on the vocation of helping and supporting the needs of vulnerable people. I will leave it there, but I hope that I have covered the questions outlined by those.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I cannot help but rise in response to the Associate Minister of Justice’s speech. Thank you, Minister, for acknowledging the very low conviction rate we have for sexual violence in New Zealand. I would like to acknowledge that it is the most conversational I have seen the Committee, and I think it is the character of the Minister in the chair and I appreciate it.

Hon Phil Goff: He’d make a good Minister of Justice, wouldn’t he?

JAN LOGIE: Yes, he would.

Hon Phil Goff: And he could recognise a conflict of interest and be honest about it.

JAN LOGIE: Well, I am not going to go there, Mr Goff. I am going to stick to the positive issues at the moment. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for acknowledging that low conviction rate and the low reporting rate. I want to pick up on that point and recognise that this bill is part of a much wider piece of work and thinking, which we need to be doing as a country in terms of what we need to do to improve reporting rates and disclosure rates.

I would note the Law Commission’s work, which hundreds of New Zealanders submitted on, on this very point around how we could change our pre-trial systems and trial systems to improve the conviction rate—and my utter, utter disappointment in that being taken off the work agenda for the Law Commission before it was able to be completed and after hundreds of New Zealanders had submitted ideas. There were very high levels of agreement around some of the points and recommendations within that report—for example, having the victims’ support workers being available to victims when they first disclose at the police station rather than just on the day of the trial, and to have advice and to have an agency brought in so that a victim is aware of their options at that first stage. There is a whole range of things in that commission report that would provide us with a pathway to improving those reporting rates. When we are looking only at answers like the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, which are important but are after the fact, I think we are not doing our best.

I think we can certainly do a lot better and we have been hearing through the Inquiry into the Funding of Specialist Sexual Violence Social Services, which, again, I thank all parties in this House for supporting. A number of those services have been bringing up concerns regarding the justice process. How harrowing that is, the need for support systems, and for them to be funded to walk through that process with survivors—they do not have that capacity at the moment—and to be able to be there with people afterwards. So we do have a lot of work to do in this country, and this bill is a very small part of the puzzle. That is not to dismiss anything that is positive. We have got to support all of the positive initiatives, but, really, it would be great to have a far more comprehensive view, where we could all come together based on the best evidence and the community’s experiences and really, really get a handle on changing our culture and making sure that all the victims and survivors are properly supported.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Non-contact orders

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): This Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, as other members have said in the earlier parts of the debate, is a very important piece of legislation addressing yet another small but significant gap in the growing raft of protections that we have in place for victims of crime—in this case, victims of very serious crimes. Indeed, the cases where we know that this bill, had it been in place earlier, would have had some effect are harrowing and distressing cases. These are cases where an offender, usually sociopathological in nature, not content with the violence they have inflicted upon their victim, some time afterwards wants to carry on victimising the victim, sheeting home the terror that they inflict upon them, and continue to remain in contact or in close proximity to them. So this bill provides a very important device that will protect those victims, in the way that we already have protection orders in domestic violence cases—for those who are victims of that type of offending.

We should note that we still have issues with enforceability—the extent to which the protection orders are enforced, the means we have to enforce them, or, at least, the resources we have to enforce them. So we do not want to create another important device to protect victims that is found wanting not because of the device itself but because we simply do not have the means in our enforcement agencies to provide proper and adequate enforcement. So I make the plea to the Associate Minister of Justice that, as he rises through the ranks of Cabinet and develops a louder voice beyond justice principles and into the allocation of resources, he makes sure that the administrative and enforcement requirements of matters such as this are properly met through proper resource allocation and budgeting.

Part 2 deals with the mechanics, if you like, of applying for an order that a victim can make against a violent offender under this bill and, indeed, the conditions or the contents of that order. There is a two-step phase, if you like. A victim can apply for an order without notice, and that can result in a temporary non-contact order, and there are conditions associated with that, which a judge can put into it. That, of course, needs to be eventually served upon the offender. Once an offender is aware of an application having been made, that then becomes an on-notice application. When an order issues as a result of the on-notice application, it becomes a final non-contact order. Again, there can be conditions attached to it, as, indeed, there should be. So that is all good. As my colleagues have said in the earlier part of this debate in this Committee stage of this bill, we welcome that particular change. That is important.

There is also scope, added in by the Law and Order Committee, for an order to be extended to other people—those who have aided and abetted the offender and those who have been party to the offence in some other sort of way. A victim who secures an order can have the order extended to those other people so that they can be afforded protection against all those who may have malicious intent against them. That provides a very well-rounded set of provisions for those orders. Amidst all the muttering on the Government benches at this highly animated time at the moment—there is clearly something going on that the thousands of people watching tonight will be interested to know and perhaps we will hear a bit about that. As we deal with this very important piece of legislation, and as members on the opposite side of the Chamber are distracted by some activity going on in their quarter, let us not understate, as we develop our rubric—indeed, our matrix—of victims’ rights and victims’ provisions, just how important this will be.

One of the important changes that I know was achieved in the select committee process was the threshold for the making of the order, so that the conditions under which an order can be made are now set at a slightly lower threshold. The offender has to have been subject to a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more, as opposed to 5 years, as appeared in the original bill. So that starts to make it a little more meaningful. But I cannot go past the point that if the provisions are to be truly meaningful—just as we want with protection orders and other parts of not only our criminal jurisdiction but the civil jurisdiction of the family court legislation—they have to be enforced. Those who are protected by the laws need to know that there are the means that they can summon up at short notice to provide them with enforcement and therefore the protection that the order promises.

On that basis these are welcome developments. The rest of Part 2 provides, as you would expect, for effective and sensible administrative procedures that allow for an amendment of the order or, indeed, a discharge of the order. We would hope that the nature of these orders and of proper enforcement is that victims get to a point where they are no longer fearful for their person and themselves, that they themselves can take control, that they can shed these orders under their control, get on and pick up their lives, put them back together, and be happy.

So this bill is welcome, as I have said, and I know that this Committee will be doing the right thing for those people who are affected, always against their choice in this sort of way, and who are subject to violent offending, and who, were it not for these orders, could be re-victimised time and again. This is a good thing and I look forward to supporting it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Denis O’Rourke.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): A very good choice, Mr Chairman. Regarding Part 2 of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, I firstly want to comment on clause 7. As introduced, this clause provided that a victim may apply to the District Court for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender, and that an application may be made at any time after the offender is released from prison. The requirement that an application must be made after the release of an offender from prison was, of course, too late. I said at the first reading that the victim should be able to apply for an order at any time after the conviction, so that the court could make an order to have effect immediately as from the date of release. My concern then was that there was likely to be a significant delay between the victim learning of the offender’s release and the making of an order and its service upon the offender, and that that would potentially be a period of high risk for the victim. That issue, I am glad to see, has been addressed by the Law and Order Committee, and the amended clause is now acceptable to New Zealand First.

Regarding clause 9, though, I am disappointed that this has not been amended in the manner that I suggested at the first reading. In clause 9, subclause (1)(a) says that the court may make a non-contact order if it is satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending for the victim. But I question why the court would have to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending. What would the victim have to prove to satisfy that test? It would have been better, I think, for that paragraph to have been deleted altogether. Similarly, subclause (1)(b) should also be deleted. It refers to the possibility of the contact between the offender and the victim being detrimental to any of the ongoing effects referred to in subclause (1)(a), which I have just mentioned. It should not be necessary for a victim to have to prove those things. Subclause (1)(c) and subclause (1)(d) are, I believe, sufficient by themselves. These provide that the order is reasonably necessary to avoid contact. I think that that is really what the issue is, and that would be sufficient for the victim to have to establish.

In my view, this is the only notable defect in the bill. It is therefore, as I have said, a little bit disappointing that the amendments that I suggested were not made. Nobody whom I know of has come up with a good explanation about why ongoing effects will have to be proved or why they have to be shown to be detrimental. It is sufficient that the order is reasonably necessary. That is nice and wide and general, and it is good enough for a victim to have to prove only that, in whatever the circumstances may be. So I am a bit disappointed that those amendments have not been made, but it does not detract from the value of the bill as a whole.

Clause 11 sets out the effect of a non-contact order—now amended to temporary non-contact order—and it prohibits the offender against whom it is made from having any form of contact with the victim, as we know. In addition, the court may prohibit the offender from entering, living in, or working in a specified area. The concern I had was that subclause (1)(c) should be qualified by the addition of an exception as to the entry into an area that is incidental to, or necessary for, the purposes of the offender’s employment. Although we need to make an order effective, we should also see that it does not unnecessarily cause problems for the offender in obtaining or maintaining their employment.

Subclause (1)(c), I am glad to see, has now been deleted, and instead we now have new clause 11A, entitled “Effect of final non-contact order”, which is much more comprehensive and has more refined powers for the court to specify so that the effects of the order will be no more than needed to properly protect the victim. I am very glad to see that that has happened. Similarly, new clause 11B is welcome. It deals with the need for a final order to be directed by the court to apply to specified other persons whom the offender may encourage to engage in the same kinds of behaviour as the offender’s. Again, I am glad to see that included.

Lastly, concerning clause 15, I suggested at an earlier stage that the court should be required in this clause, in considering whether a discharge of the order should be granted, to consider some specified matters, such as the record of the offender in complying with the order, the behaviour of the victim also—which may, of course, also justify a discharge—and, obviously, the places where the victim and the offender live permanently, amongst other things. I note that this clause has now been deleted and replaced with much more comprehensive provisions in the new clause 15, and that an additional clause, clause 15A, has been included to address the sorts of issues I had suggested be looked at.

So, again, the amendments sought by New Zealand First have largely been included, to our considerable satisfaction. For those reasons, with the reservation I expressed earlier, New Zealand First will be happy to continue to support the bill as amended.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I say that it is refreshingly honest of Minister Chester Borrows to acknowledge that, although useful, the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is relatively small in its effects and it does not tackle the wider and more serious underlying problems.

I concur broadly with the figures that the Associate Minister of Justice used that showed that, at best, 10 percent of those who are victims of rape report the crime and that, at best, 3 percent of those who are victims of rape get accountability through a conviction in the courts. Actually, the rape survivor groups say that the figure, Minister, is probably closer to 1 percent, but let us say 1 percent to 3 percent. When only 1 percent to 3 percent of those who suffer as victims of a horrendous crime get accountability and get justice, then it is time to change the underlying fundamentals of a justice system that is failing those who are such victims.

I want to contrast Chester Borrows’ attitude with that of the Minister of Justice, who wrote to me on 14 March. I have got the letter in my hand. I had raised—advocating on behalf of the rape survivor groups—that we actually need to take a more fundamental look at what is happening in the area of sexual offending. What I got was a reply that was full of excuses such as “We’re doing this minor thing, we’re doing that minor thing, and those bigger things that the Law Commission talked about, they’re just too big, and we can’t do it.” They are not too big. They are not too big when we are failing 99 percent of those who are victims of sexual offending. I just cannot wait for the day when maybe Mr Borrows is in the chair as Minister of Justice—perhaps as early as next week or the week after—

Hon Maryan Street: Tomorrow.

Hon PHIL GOFF: —maybe tomorrow, judging from the activity on the other side of the Chamber—because I think he would at least take an honest view of it. It is refreshing to have that level of honesty where somebody can tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which, unfortunately, is not a characteristic of the present Minister of Justice, and, hopefully, she is the outgoing Minister.

I want to look specifically at Part 2 of this bill. In Part 1 we addressed the fact that the major change that was necessary in this legislation was to have a threshold where a non-contact order could apply to those who had been sentenced to 2 years or more for their sexual offending, as against the 5 years that Judith Collins introduced this bill with. That is the most significant and the most important change in the bill. Otherwise, this bill would have dealt with 10 people a year when we are talking about literally thousands of victims. It was a nothing bill, and the Labour Opposition, supported by the other Opposition parties in the Law and Order Committee, got that essential change to lower the threshold to 2 years.

The other changes we got come within Part 2 of the bill, which we are looking at at the moment. Under clause 7, the application for a non-contact order can be made not at any time after the offender has been released from prison but at any time after the offender has been sentenced in respect of the offence. That is the second most important change in this bill. It means that the victims can get that order from the time of sentencing, before the offender has actually really got into the sentence in prison, not after the offender is released, with that gap after release and the threat the victim may feel from a person who ends up living near, or working with, them, despite the fact that that person is the victim and the other person is the offender.

The important thing in relation to these non-contact orders is that it does fill a gap. You cannot get a non-contact order if you are eligible for protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, as you can get a protection order under that Act. But, again, let us not pretend that a protection order means protection. We saw that in the tragic case down south where a maybe disturbed or angry person shot the two children of a woman who had a protection order against him. So a piece of paper does not actually necessarily provide real protection, but it is a way of warning a person off. If we really want to solve this problem, we have got to go much deeper than something as simple as that.

The other order that is available is, of course, under the Harassment Act, and that is a non-harassment order. That is available if the person is actively harassing the victim. There was this gap, and the bill is, at least, successful in closing that gap. That does not mean to say that the non-contact order will be made automatically. Clause 9 of the bill sets out clearly that the court makes a non-contact order when certain conditions are met, and I think they are reasonable conditions. There needs to be ongoing effects of the offending for the victim. That will not be a high threshold. For anybody who is a victim of sexual offence, there will be ongoing effects. That is part of being a victim. So that threshold will be easily met.

Clause 9 refers to the possibility of contact between the victim and the violent offender. Well, of course that is necessary for the non-contact order to be given, but there are cases—New Zealand is a small country—where the offender will end up living near to the victim or working close to where the victim is. In those cases the victim must be given a remedy that says to the offender: “You might be released from the prison. You might have done your time, but the rights of the victim are still more important than the rights of the offender.” That is why these non-contact orders should be given.

The making of the order must be reasonably necessary to avoid contact and must take into account all of the circumstances. All of that is common sense. The application can also be without notice if that is required, and it is important that that sort of protection can be provided immediately if it is required and if the person had not taken the step of a non-contact order while the individual was still in prison. The other thing is that the duration of the order will go for whatever time the court orders, unless the order is discharged or unless the court has set no time limit and 2 years have expired.

So I think that the bill that we have got now is a useful piece of legislation. It does provide assistance to victims in a narrow set of circumstances, but if you are the individual who is affected in that way—even if the figures are only in scores rather than hundreds—this bill is something that we should support, because those people do deserve protection.

I want to come back to where I began, and that was to concur with the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, and say that it is time—and I have made this comment before—that we look at alternatives that work a lot better. I have been approached by rape survivor groups that say, actually, in some cases, victims do not want a court process at all. They have no confidence in the court process. They do not necessarily want to see the offender locked up and the key thrown away. Often it is the case that they know the offender really well. They do not want a prison sentence. They do want a process where remorse can be shown or reparation or restitution offered—something that shows that the offender can be held accountable and that action can be taken against the offender that is meaningful to the victim.

What I am saying to the Minister—and seeking his concurrence, and the Committee’s—is that this bill is good in the very limited impact it will have, but let us give the Law Commission proposals a chance. Let us look at the possibility of an inquisitorial system rather than an adversarial system. An adversarial system simply does not work in the area of sexual offending. Let us get even more serious about restorative justice, and where the victim opts for that process, let us make that process available. There would at least be some accountability in a situation where 99 percent of rape victims get no accountability at all.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to speak a little bit more around the non-contact orders. We do absolutely support the lowering of the level to the 2 years’ imprisonment as opposed to the 5 years, as in this bill, when it was introduced. I spoke in the earlier stage a little bit about some of the challenges that we have to make this more viable or useful for the majority of victims of sexual violence in New Zealand. I would like to just briefly go through some of the changes that were recommended in the Law Commission process so far that would help make that possible.

In the Law Commission’s report—in what we have had so far from it—there were three proposals that received almost universal support. They were child protection orders, a specialist sexual violence court at the point post-conviction, and alternative processes for sexual offence cases, which the Hon Phil Goff has just been talking on, around restorative justice processes. Although the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, mentioned earlier some of the differences from the time when he was working as a police officer, when the sentences were very low for sexual violence, I personally still remember the public discussion we had at the time we raised the sentencing for rape. It was a very controversial decision, and one that I actually think needs reviewing, because it is acting—and we hear this back from people—as a disincentive for people entering the justice system. It is such a high level that people are going to be put away for that it is a disincentive to using the processes. Also, we do need to acknowledge that the majority of offenders are known to their victims. They are family; they are family friends. The thought of sending somebody away to jail for a very long time is a disincentive to actually holding that person accountable and getting the response that most victims and survivors want, which is having an acknowledgment of the crime, and knowing that that person is not going to offend again and that others will be safe. Sadly, we do not have that system yet. This bill deals only with those very rare cases where that conviction has happened and does put that measure in place, but it is not enough.

I would like to also just talk a little bit about how this may apply in a domestic violence situation and also acknowledge the extending of this out to what people are otherwise referring to as surrogates, which is usually the harassment of a victim by family or friends of the perpetrator. That is a very real dynamic in domestic violence in this country and everywhere. When I was working in Women’s Refuge, that was quite a common experience. We would be with a woman and she would be hiding because her abuser had friends and family out looking for her. It was not possible for her to feel safe walking in a public space because she never knew where they might be and whom she actually even needed to be looking out for. So it is very important that there is a provision in this bill to protect victims from harassment from other people when there is a concerted effort to harass them.

But, again, we also need to be looking at how our court systems are working to support this kind of measure of protection. The reality is that a lot of our Family Court decisions at the moment are working against this level of protection. We do not have a system in place that understands and ensures, in particular, that the people involved in custody decisions through the Family Court actually understand domestic violence. I was at a seminar last week organised by the Family Violence Clearinghouse. They brought out a US expert Dr Bob Geffner, who is an expert in custody decisions where there are accusations of child abuse or domestic violence. He is well known over all of the literature. It was very disturbing to hear that in New Zealand we have been getting people who have been thoroughly discredited in the US and who are not allowed to give evidence in the courts there coming out to New Zealand and training people in our courts on matters relating to the supposed best interests of the children in custody decisions through our Family Court.

We have no system of oversight to ensure that the counsel for the child, the lawyers, or the mediators in our systems actually understand domestic violence. Decisions are being made that are putting our children at risk and are taking children from situations of domestic violence where their mother, usually, has left the relationship and giving joint custody arrangements, putting that woman and child at risk because they are having to negotiate shared custody in the context of a violent relationship. As a country, we can put things like this in place but if we do not address the absolute fundamentals that underpin it all, we are not going to get the result that I believe in and I am sure that everyone in this Chamber wants. We want women to be enabled to get out of violent relationships, offenders to get the support and treatment they need to be able to change their beliefs and their attitudes and their behaviours, and children to be given back to healthy parents and have hope for themselves of a healthy life, free of violence, and living up to their own potential. Sadly, we do not have those systems in place as a country at the moment. This bill becomes just so piecemeal in that context.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Rising to speak on Part 2 of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, I join others in acknowledging that this is a small but significant step forward that does fill a gap. It will in part be recognising the ongoing effects of serious violent offending on victims by giving them the power to apply for a non-contact order. Part 2, of course, is the part of the bill that actually puts that in place and provides the mechanisms and the substance to those provisions of non-contact orders.

The non-contact order has been, I think, significantly improved by the work of the Law and Order Committee. Again, as others have, I want to acknowledge the fact that there is good cross-party support for this provision. It does, I think, reflect a concern that many have about the types of violence and intimidation that do exist and not solely but often are used against women. It has been good tonight to recognise across this Committee the understanding that there is about the problem of sexual violence—the fact that those who are victims and survivors of sexual violence often have extensive ongoing impacts of that violence that, in fact, as I described earlier this evening, having listened to the submissions to the Social Services Committee inquiry, have been described as a very traumatic ongoing series of impacts on health, on the ability to form relationships, and on a whole range of substantive issues. So this bill does provide assistance.

I guess one concern that I do have, and it is based on recent reflections on protection orders in domestic violence situations, is that of course there does seem to be a concern about the enforceability but also the way that breaches of protection orders have been allowed to happen almost with impunity in some cases, and we have seen some very significant consequences recently of that. So in establishing this new provision, I think we do need to make sure that looking at non-contact orders, what happens around breaching them, and how that is actually implemented is going to be important for us. As others have said, those non-contact orders can relate to the offender entering defined areas, residing in specified areas, and working in specified areas. Some of this is about the potential for psychological abuse, not just physical abuse, given the fact that somebody who has taken such a significant and abhorrent action against another person can then essentially put themselves in ongoing contact. So, as I say, that is good to see.

I think that the reflection of others on what we really need for victims and better outcomes for victims and survivors of sexual violence is important, particularly in terms of the criminal justice system. This bill is one small thing, and the fact of the matter is we need a comprehensive look at this area for the reasons that have been articulated about the low level of convictions and the actual experience that victims of sexual violence face going through the court system and seeking justice. So although these orders are useful, we should not kid ourselves that there is not a great deal more to do.

I have to say that the current Minister of Justice—and we do not know how long she will stay in that role—has brushed aside suggestions of better legal responses to sexual violence. In the letter to the Hon Phil Goff she refers, in fact, to a bill that we dealt with earlier this evening, the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. She talks about some of the provisions that are already in place, and essentially says that some of the wider reforms that you might expect in this bill that we are dealing with tonight around these non-contact orders and the Law Commission’s report on alternative trial processes were all brushed aside.

It is quite clear to those working in the area that there are a significant number of reforms that need to be made that will start to deal with some of the low conviction rates and also some of the brutalising experiences and difficulties that people face in trying to get justice in this area, and there are particularities around sexual violence that make it difficult. There are evidential issues where there often are no other witnesses, but there are things that can be done about that: prosecution guidelines about what needs to happen here, better support in court, and safety in court. Issues around court delays actually are a problem in this area as well, because when it is a very emotionally intense process, as it is in sexual violence trials, delays can just really make it worse for that survivor. Another issue is the adversarial process itself, which is really what the Law Commission deals with. The lack of boundaries and some of the behaviours of defence lawyers—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Victims of Crime Reform Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into four bills, progress on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, and no progress on the Vulnerable Children Bill.

Report adopted.

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

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

(continued on Thursday, 17 April 2014)

Bills

Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill

Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill

Third Readings

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill be now read a third time. I begin by offering warm greetings to the people of Ngati Toa Rangatira—to those in the public gallery and those out at Takapūwāhia Marae who have gathered today for the third reading of their settlement legislation.

Today, as well as progressing these bills on their way to enactment, we acknowledge those people who strive to make a Ngati Toa Rangatira settlement possible, despite what seemed at times to be very unfavourable odds. It is impossible to name all the individuals who have played a significant role. However, we must mention the negotiating team of Te Kaha, which consisted of Matiu Rei, and I am sure he will not mind my acknowledging him as New Zealand’s best bush lawyer; Iwi Nicholson; Tiratū Williams; Miria Pōmare—I am delighted to see her here this morning with her daughter—and Te Ariki Wineera Jr, who, in turn, was supported by many other individuals, including Jennie Smeaton. There are also the past and present chairs of the rūnanga Mrs Ruta Rene, Bill Kātene, Robert Solomon, Riki Wineera, and Taku Pārai.

We cannot go further without acknowledging the many people who championed historical claims filed with the Waitangi Tribunal and the people who gave evidence in the tribunal hearings and the inquiries. I am sure that Ngati Toa Rangatira would want me to mention two very special friends of the iwi over many years: Richard Boast, their historian, and Deborah Edmunds, their lawyer.

The third reading of these two bills is the start of a highly significant day for eight iwi—eight iwi with claims against the Crown, who between 2010 and 2013 have all signed deeds of settlement agreeing to settle those claims. Today is the culmination of years and years of work by many individuals to see some justice for their tūpuna and for future generations.

In many people’s minds the identity of this great iwi is synonymous with Te Rauparaha, a Ngati Toa Rangatira leader of the 19th century who has left a deep impression on the New Zealand psyche as one of our truly historical figures. The 19th century was a time of great upheaval for Māori across this land, and a formative time for what is now modern-day New Zealand. But Ngati Toa Rangatira were a people before Te Rauparaha, and continue to be a people today with a history and a future beyond that legacy.

This iwi are a people of the Tainui waka, who for many generations occupied the coastline around Kāwhia on the west coast of the North Island, and were kaitiaki of the resting place of the Tainui waka. In the early 19th century, due to increasing pressure from Waikato tribes and ongoing conflict, Ngati Toa made the decision to leave Kāwhia permanently and migrate south. They moved south to the Cook Strait region, with allied iwi settling principally around the shores of the Porirua Harbour and on that wonderful island Kāpiti Island. Further heke and taua with allied iwi were then undertaken across the Cook Strait from the Kāpiti coast. Following their migration south, Ngati Toa Rangatira established a very powerful position in the Cook Strait region. Their position was based on military victories, relationships with other tribal groups, and trade with Europeans.

The tide significantly changed for Ngati Toa Rangatira, with the increasing demand from incoming settlers seeking Māori land. This tension reached a climax when, in 1843, Ngati Toa Rangatira asked surveyors for the New Zealand Company to stop surveying their land in the Wairau Valley. Te Rauparaha had already asked Commissioner Spain to intervene and stop the New Zealand Company from undertaking this activity.

While awaiting the arrival of Commissioner Spain, Ngati Toa Rangatira told one of the surveyors he had to leave, and then set fire to the hut that the surveyor had built to temporarily live in. The survey party was not harmed. With the arrest warrant for Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata for the crime of arson, a group of people recruited for the purpose arrived from Nelson, and, as many know, the attempt to arrest Ngati Toa Rangatira leaders erupted into gunfire and, ultimately, the deaths of nearly two dozen Europeans and nine Māori.

I say all this because it is important to encourage all our fellow countrymen and women to read the historical account in the deed of settlement, as it sets out this detail in the deed of an incident that in the past has often been recounted from only one perspective. The deed contains an agreed account of this clash between the Crown and Ngati Toa Rangatira. The clash in the Wairau, which came out of the competing desires for land, was a turning point for the relationship between the Crown and Ngati Toa and had very long-term consequences for the iwi.

An important part of this settlement is the Crown’s acknowledgment that its actions since 1840 have ultimately left Ngati Toa Rangatira virtually landless and without resources in both the North Island and the South Island. As I have just mentioned in relation to the Wairau incident, the mid-1840s was a key period in the relationship between Ngati Toa Rangatira and the Crown. It was during this time that the Crown, through political and military means, sought to establish its authority in the middle of our land and reduce the power and influence of senior Ngati Toa Rangatira leaders.

During 1845 Te Rangihaeata and his section of Ngati Toa Rangatira supported the claims of their allies living on disputed land in the Hutt Valley. Te Rauparaha, for his part, took a mostly neutral stance, not opposing the actions of his nephew but not wanting to see conflict. These tensions led to several violent incidents. In July 1846 the Crown seized Te Raparaha and several other Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs at Porirua. The Crown detained Te Rauparaha without trial for 18 months. He was never charged or tried for any offence.

In 1847, whilst he was in captivity and Te Rangihaeata was in exile, the Crown purchased several extensive Wairau and Porirua districts from several younger Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs, who hoped to secure Te Rauparaha’s release. These purchases undermined the influence of other senior Ngati Toa Rangatira and left a sense of grievance among the iwi, who feel that the Crown’s actions violated the rights of other leaders of their iwi. So the history is very, very important, and that is why we have this settlement today.

I want to conclude by saying something about the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, which is a very important piece of legislation. It provides an attribution right in favour of Ngati Toa Rangatira in relation to the haka. It is novel legislation. It is very, very tentative, and that is why in 5 years’ time there will be a mandatory review of it. Through this settlement the Crown acknowledges the significance of Ka Mate as an integral part of the history and the culture and the identity of Ngati Toa, and, as kaitaiki of the haka, they have sought to protect the haka from culturally inappropriate and offensive use.

What we have here is, I believe, exciting legislation. It is the very first tentative step by the Crown towards recognition of traditional cultural expressions, and I hope we have more enlightened commentary on this legislation than we had in the Dominion Post when the agreement in principle was signed, because it had an article that said “All Black haka goes to Māori”.

So congratulations to all those who have been involved in this matter. I particularly acknowledge my Crown officials for the work that they have done and my chief negotiators: first, Ross Philipson, and that wonderful former Labour MP Paul Swain. Why more of his colleagues are not like him, I do not know.

This is a very hard-won settlement. It has been hindered for far too long by litigation and, at times, mindless opposition by other parties. I hope that people commemorate this day long into the night at Takapūwāhia. I feel very privileged to have been the Minister over the past 5 years working with this wonderful iwi, and today I can finally breathe a sigh of relief. As I always say about settlements, it is not the end; it is the end of the beginning, but it is the sign of what I hope will be a great relationship, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the development of the haka Ka Mate legislation that is going to occur in the next 5 years. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Te Reo Māori i te tuatahi. Tēnā tātou katoa e hui tahi nei i roto i te Whare Pāremata i roto tonu i te ana o te raiona, i a tātou e whiriwhiri, e rapu me pēhea rānei tō tātou kaha e whakatōpūngia ai hei whakatūturu i ngā ōati, hei whakatūturu hoki i ngā moemoeā kua herea ki te kapu o te pepa i roto i tēnei pire, o tēnei iwi rangatira e kiia nei ko Ngati Toa Rangatira. Nā reira, e ōku mātua, e ōku whaea nō tēnā pito o Aotearoa, tēnā koutou.

Tēnā koutou i runga i tō tātou waka i a Tainui, i roto i ngā kupu whakarite mō tērā hau tupua o Te Āo Māori, a Te Rauparaha, me te whare karakia i tū ai i muri mai i tana tukunga e te Kāwanatanga kia hoki mai ki tana kāinga tupu, me te rangatiratanga o ngā whakaahua, te rangatiratanga o ngā taonga, ngā mana tunga i kohia ki roto i tēnā whare karakia i oti i tēnā tupuna rangatira a Te Rauparaha. He tangata i haere ngātahi mē tērā matua ōku a Nene, i roto i o rātou haereretanga i wērā tau noa atu, otirā i tēnei rā, tēnei ahau te mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Māori language first. Salutations to us all gathered together here in Parliament, in the very sanctity of the lion’s den, to discuss and find a way to utilise our combined energy to ensure the promises and dreams that have been committed in writing, in this bill, of this noble tribe known as Ngati Toa. Therefore, to my fathers and aunts from that end of the country, greetings to you collectively.

Salutations to you on our Tainui canoe, and in regards to the words attributed to that illustrious person of Māoridom, Te Rauparaha, and, furthermore, to the church that was erected following his release by the Government to return to his homeland, as well as the ownership of photos, treasures, and precious items that were gathered together and placed in that church that was completed by that illustrious chief, Te Rauparaha. He was someone who accompanied that elder of mine, Nene, in their travels back in those times a long time ago. And today I, indeed, salute you collectively. Greetings, acknowledgments, and congratulations to you and to us all.]

It is often said that political parties need to brand themselves to ensure that the voters can distinguish who stands for what, but I want Ngati Toa in this House to know today that the Māori members of Labour, and indeed, Labour, stand solidly with the Crown to ensure that the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill achieves Royal assent without any delay. It is a piece of legislation that has come to the House prior to Easter, a time when a dwindling number of us contemplate and think about colonial origins, the role of the Church, and, in my case, the role of the missionaries in the north. When you think about the history of Ngati Toa and, in particular, Te Rauparaha, it is intertwined with that colonial part of New Zealand’s sad history, and that person, whom our mātua called “Wide-Awake”, otherwise known as Wakefield, and Octavius Hadfield, who in some way gifted Hone Harawira his name in a transliteration. After all, before he went down south, the man was at Waimate North. If anyone wants to know how indigenous the name Harawira is, just look at Octavius Hadfield, that well-known missionary.

But I digress. This should be a day of some celebration. I want to acknowledge a number of the identities who have come here to support Ngati Toa today. We will talk of the other iwi as well, but we are starting with Ngati Toa this morning.

One of Māoridom’s foremost orators, Mr Nicholson, whose son I had the good fortune to go to university with—who has, sadly, passed away—was a graduate of Te Aute College. I was a graduate of St Steven’s School. Mr Nicholson’s son Huata and I were at Victoria University. He was a fine rugby league player and demonstrated that Te Aute boys drank more beer than St Steven’s boys. But we should remember with some joy those who have passed on. Obviously, I should acknowledge Mr Rei, who is the current leader of Ngati Toa and also the chair of Te Ohu Kaimoana. I think of Mr Metekīngi, who when we were young university students was an identity.

I want to recite the names of a famous orator from this tribe whom I met when I was a lad at Tūrangawaewae. I went with my Ngāpuhi Aupōuri elders to Tūrangawaewae in the early 1970s. An old man gave a speech. Although we were very good at Māori, it was well beyond our capacity to understand, as young men going along with our mātua from the Anglican Church. His name was Rēnē. If I am not mistaken, it was Uenuku Rēnē, but they just called him Rēnē. I recall my grandmother telling me that that man came from the Cook Strait. Being from the far north, it was all a bit sort of blurry, just as the southerners call everyone from north of Auckland Ngāpuhi. I recall her saying that he had just demonstrated in his speech that to be a great navigator for Māoridom you have to see in the night; you have to be able to read the signs and translate in a form that modern people can understand. He aha ngā tohu o te pō mai i ngā whetū me ngā manu, tūtuki noa ki te moana?

[What are the night signs from the stars, birds, and down to the sea?]

As a youngster of 11 or 12, I have never forgotten the trip I took with my grandmother, who was born in 1892.

So let us come back to Ka Mate. I do not think there is a more valuable contribution that the Pākehā hoi polloi borrow from us on a regular basis when they go to Amsterdam, when they go to London, or when they go to wherever. Indeed, on my Tararā side I can assure Ngati Toa that my own son has done Ka Mate in Croatia on many occasions. He went there to play rugby. Unfortunately, I learnt that that was not all he was doing. He did ring and say: “Hey, Papa, I didn’t know the Swedish played rugby.” Kātahi au ka mea atu ki a ia me hoki mai koe ki te kāinga. He Māori koe, ēhara koe i te Tararā.

[Then I said to him that you should return home. You are a Māori, not a Croatian.]

This is now a key quality of our modern identity as New Zealanders. This bill, the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, ensures that its indigeneity is never stripped away. Who knows what the future holds for such contributions? But let it be known that it was Te Rauparaha and his flight in the various battles of the 1820s, and the assistance that he took from Te Whareangi who decided that he would assist him as he was fleeing, probably, some of his own relatives. That is where that haka originated from. The fact that this legislation has been used to provide a level of stewardship over the haka is, I think, reflective of how far we have come in terms of biculturalism, because this would never have happened in the time that I worked for Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I dare say it would have been very difficult to have got through in the time that Don Brash held sway in terms of the bicultural narrative. But those identities have moved out of politics, and today the current identities are here to salute Ngati Toa and to remind ourselves that these settlements will not avenge everything that happened in the past. They are the contribution of this group of parliamentarians and the Crown officials, and society being prepared to back the politicians to take these steps. That is what they are. Now it falls to the iwi to be the kaitiaki.

I want to ensure this. Mena e rongo ana koe e iwi, kei te pānui ahau i te katoa o tō haka, a Ka mate ka mate.

[If you the people can hear, I am going to recite all of your haka Ka Mate to you.]

I want to read into the record the entirety of Ka Mate. I will not go over my time. Ordinary Kiwis know five or six lines. It is probably the only opportunity that we will have to put this on the record. You never know, some of them might join me. It defies English translation, but there are a couple of rude words that in good time I will explain to you.

It starts:

Kikiki kakaka kauana!

Kei waniwania taku tara

Kei tarawāhia, kei te rua i te kerokero!

He pounga rāhui te uirā ka rarapa;

Ketekete kau ana tō peru koi riri

Māu au e koro e—Hī! Hā!

Ka wehi au a ka matakana,

Ko wai te tangata kia rere ure?

Tirohanga ngā rua rerarera

Ngā rua kurī kakanui i raro! Aha ha!

Ka mate! Ka mate!

Ka ora! Ka ora!

Ka mate! Ka mate!

Ka ora! Ka ora!

Tēnei te tangata

Puhūruhūru nāna nei i tiki mai

Whakawhiti te rā!

Ūpāne, ka Upāne

Ūpane, ka Ūpāne

Whiti te rā!

Let it lie on our record the day we came to salute Ngati Toa and agree to the legislation, protecting that haka for them in New Zealand. It now lies as a permanent record of this Parliament. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou Ngati Toa Rangatira kua hara mai nei i tēnei rā ātaahua ki te whakanui i te kaupapa e haere nei. Matiu, taku hoa, taku rangatira, nui rawa ngā mihi ki a koe kua tae nei ki tēnei rangi. Nā reira, nau mai, hara mai ki tēnei Whare kia whakaoti ai tēnei mahi, tēnei pire, kia tū rangatira ai tō tātou haka, a Ka Mate, anā, kia whakaoti ai ngā kōrero mō te kerēme hoki. Ki te iwi, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i ō koutou tini mate e tīraha tonu i ngā marae maha, rātou kua tukuna atu hoki ki te kōpū o te whaea, ā, tēnā koutou, haere, haere rātou.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to you collectively Ngati Toa Rangatira, who have come here on this beautiful day to celebrate the matter progressing before us. To you, Matiu, my friend and elder, there is much admiration for your arrival here today. So welcome. Welcome here to this House to complete this task, this bill, so that our posture dance Ka Mate will remain noble, and also to complete the talk about this claim. Acknowledgments to you the tribe. Greetings and salutations to you in regards to your very many deaths that continue to lie in state on the courtyards and those as well who have been committed to the womb of mother Earth, a farewell and tribute to them.]

Today we welcome the sons and daughters of Hoturoa, captain of the great Tainui canoe. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nearly two centuries ago the people of Ngati Toa Rangatira resided at Kāwhia, on Waikato-Tainui’s western coast, from Aotea to Huikōmako, ko Tainui te waka, ko Hoturoa te tangata, ko Ngati Toa Rangatira te iwi. Their incredible heke, or great migration south, is the stuff that legends are made of. In the early 1800s they faced conquest in their northern lands. The people of Ngati Toa Rangatira turned south. Led by the renowned chief Te Rauparaha, Ngati Toa Rangatira and their allies embraced technology armed with muskets. They waged wars with tribes across the southern North Island and the northern South Island. The Ngati Toa Rangatira heke included their women, children, and kaumātua. They too walked hundreds of kilometres. Many would die along the way from Kāwhia to their new homelands in Kāpiti.

By the time the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, Ngati Toa Rangatira were exercising tino rangatiratanga as mana whenua over the lands they occupied in the south-west coast of Wellington at Ōhāriu, Porirua, and Kāpiti Island and, of course, parts of the Horowhenua coast. In Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui their main areas of occuption were the Wairau Valley, Port Underwood, and Pelorus Sound. By the time the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, the global whaling industry was burgeoning, with whaling stations established across Ngati Toa whenua. The flax trade was also booming. Ngati Toa Rangatira were not just part of an emerging economy in this part of the country; they were actually leading this economy and they were the owners of it.

But the Tiriti o Waitangi, signed by Te Rauparaha, changed the ground rules for ever. The Crown’s military action, land confiscations, and land purchases were pervasive and unrelenting. Ngati Toa Rangatira’s economic power was ruined. Ngati Toa Rangatira’s political power was devastated. Ngati Toa Rangatira people were left virtually landless, without reserves or endowments. All those things that the Crown has taken from the people of Ngati Toa Rangatira can never be replaced, and yet they honour the Crown today with their generosity and their willingness to settle their historical grievances.

Most people have heard of the former whakatauākī “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata”—what is the greatest thing of all? It is people, it is people, it is people. New Zealanders often ponder about what things best define us in this country: our mountains, our artists, our rugby. But without someone to climb the mountain, without someone to write the book, without an incredible captain to lead that team, and without people we have nothing to define us.

The greatest thing of all about New Zealand is our people. It is our people, it is our people. They are fearless, ingenious, and straight-up. These are some of the words that help explain our No. 8 wire mentality. So it is not surprising that, before anyone else, our ancestors went where no man or woman had gone before, conquering one-third of the surface of this planet as we migrated south from island to island, writing a final chapter of human exploration and settlement. It is not surprising that the guy who decided to knock the bugger off and climb the tallest mountain on earth was from Tuakau. It is not surprising that the most successful sports team on the planet wears black jerseys.

When it comes to a unique defining cultural symbol that sets New Zealand out from the rest of the world, it is not surprising that the rest of the world thinks of one word: haka. And it is not surprising that the haka New Zealanders know and are known for above all others is a haka like no other. It is a triumphant, defiant celebration of life over death: Ka mate, ka mate ka ora, ka ora! Ka mate, ka mate ka ora, ka ora! It was composed by the warrior chieftain Te Rauparaha as he cheated death. Years later the words of Te Rauparaha resound through the generations. His words have come to define the human spirit: fearless, ingenious, straight-up. The haka Ka Mate is our most powerful icon and symbol of New Zealand’s most favourite pastime of punching above our own weight. Nearly 200 years later the words of Te Rauparaha resound through the generations.

From this day on the Crown acknowledges and recognises the significance of Ka Mate as a taonga, as an integral part of the history, culture, and identity of Ngati Toa Rangatira. I am proud to be part of a Government that honours, respects, and recognises the whakapapa of Ka Mate. Nā tēnei mahi, ka whakamanahia tētahi taonga Māori, ka whakamanahia te hītori o tātou ngāi Māori. He mea tuatahi tēnei ki ōku whakaaro nā te mea, ka haere ā tātou tamariki ki te kura, kāre he hītori Māori kei roto i ngā kura. Kāre rātou e whakaako i ēnei hītori i mua i te taenga mai o te Pākehā. Nā reira, nā tēnei haka, e whakaarahi te huarahi. Nā reira, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou mō tēnei taonga, Ngati Toa Rangatira.

[As a consequence of this work, a Māori heirloom and our Māori history will be enshrined in law. To my understanding, this is a first, because when our children went to school, there was not any Māori history in schools. They did not learn about these histories prior to the arrival of non-Māori. This posture dance will therefore lead the way. And so I thank you for these treasures, Ngati Toa Rangatira.]

What pleases me is not just the haka, its significance, and the place and the role it is playing in terms of putting our history back where it should be and inviting something that we have just started to embark on; it is putting our history into schools so the children can learn who we are, what mana whenua is, and the long history that goes back to the settling of islands in the Pacific Ocean right to this day. But as far as the haka is concerned, what pleases me is the impetus in this bill, the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, for those who perform Ka Mate to do it properly. In the immortal words of the great All Black captain Buck Shelford, who helped resurrect the correct performance of Ka Mate: “Do the fucking thing right or don’t do it at all.”

I am proud to be part of a Government that today stands alongside the whānau o Ngati Toa Rangatira. Today we resolve historical grievances with honour, with mana, and with the generosity of the sons and daughters of Hoturoa. From the house of Toa Rangatira to the New Zealand House of Representatives, it is a great day. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngati Toa Rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. E aku mātua, e aku whanaunga whakatau mai, whakatau mai, whakatau mai. Whakatau mai ki te Whare Paremata e takatū nei. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, ko te hunga wairua ki a rātou, āpiti hono, tātai hono ko te hunga ora ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to you Ngati Toa Rangatira, acknowledgments and salutations to you all. Welcome, welcome, and welcome to my elders and relatives. Welcome to Parliament House standing here in readiness. The lines of the spirits are joined to allow them to rest there among their own while the lines that join us the living allow us to live here among ourselves. And so salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to you and to us all.]

Let me start with a well-known pepeha of Ngati Toa. Ko Ngati Toa te tuatahi, ko Ngāti Kōata te tuarua, ko Ngāti Rārua te tuatoru.

[Ngati Toa is first, Ngāti Kōata is second, and Ngāti Rārua is third.]

This pepeha is to denote the mana of Ngati Toa and their two allies of Kōata and Rārua. It is a historical link to the way things were in the past, when Ngati Toa had to explain to the Crown their relationship to the land and hapū of Te Tau Ihu. We all know that they have all advanced to be the iwi that they are today, but that is the historical link.

With that in mind, let me declare my own personal stake in the history of Ngati Toa. Anyone who knows my family’s history will know me as a Poutini Ngāi Tahu, but not many people know the connection to Ngati Toa through my ancestor Niho, who was a chief of Ngāti Rārua and who, along with the other chiefs of the invading alliance of Ngati Toa, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa, crossed Raukawa Moana and fought with local Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Apa, and Rangitāne. From Te Tau Ihu, my ancestor pushed through the West Coast making war and searching for the highly prized pounamu.

My Kai Tahu ancestor Tūhuru was a clever man, and in an effort to protect his people he took the prudent step of negotiating a peace deal with the Ngāti Rārua by offering his daughter Nihorere as a wife for Niho. This was accepted, and so Tūhuru and his family spent 5 years at Tai Tapu as guests of Niho and the Ngāti Rārua. The particular branch of the union of Tūhuru’s daughter Nihorere to Niho are known as a takawaenga family, which, in times of raru, was used to remind the tribes of Poutini Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Rārua of that shared history.

If 6 February 1840 is this nation’s birth date, then the events of 1839 must surely be the conception and gestation period of our country. Before the Treaty and Governor Hobson, New Zealand was a lawless land with no real civil law and definitely no land courts. The country and its tangata whenua were susceptible to unscrupulous land deals. The arrival of the New Zealand Company in 1839 is the crux of the troubles in Te Tau Ihu.

In 1839 Ngati Toa were a powerful tribe situated on the northern side of Raukawa Moana, who also had interests in Te Tau Ihu. Ngati Toa signed the Kāpiti deed, which purportedly gave up their interests in 20 million acres between Taranaki and North Canterbury. The oral translation of the English deed did not convey its meaning and effect. More misunderstandings and shady deals were to occur: 1843 and the Wairau affair, Te Rangihaeta’s rebellion in the Hutt Valley in 1845 and eventual exile to Poroutāwhao, and Te Rauparaha’s illegal arrest and detention in 1846.

The arrest of Te Rauparaha was a master stroke for Governor Grey and the Crown. It was totally illegal and on trumped-up charges. Grey used the detention of Te Rauparaha as leverage to wrest land from the Ngati Toa estate. The remaining chiefs of Ngati Toa had little option but to offer up land at Porirua and Wairau and to have reserves set aside. Ngati Toa had interests at Port Nicholson, Wairau, and Whakatū, but their interests were not acknowledged in the likes of the Wellington Tenths and the Nelson Tenths. There were further, more modern-day mamae to add to the list of grievances. In 1948 and 1960 the Public Works Act stole hundreds of acres of land from families to build housing. Some of that land has never been used but is now tied up in the Crown’s hands.

In the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill the Crown will apologise to Ngati Toa for its failure to uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, apologise for Te Rauparaha’s illegal detention, and apologise for pressuring other chiefs of Ngati Toa to sign away the land in return for Te Rauparaha’s release. It will also apologise for failing to ensure that Ngati Toa retained sufficient land for their future needs. There are deeds of recognition and overlay classifications acknowledging areas of significance and association: Kāpiti Island, The Brothers, Thoms Rock, and the Wairau Lagoon, to name a few. There is, of course, also cultural, commercial, and financial redress.

There are many people who have helped to advance this claim to where we are today, but I would particularly like to acknowledge Tiratū Williams, who is the last of the original claimants for Ngati Toa and who, I understand, is in the gallery today.

I would like to move on to the haka. The Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill has been put in place so as to acknowledge Te Rauparaha, the composer of the haka, and Ngati Toa’s guardianship, or kaitiakitanga, of this taonga. The bill sets guidelines on how this haka can and should be used in a commercial and non-commercial world.

This haka, Ka Mate, is by default this country’s national haka. It is the first haka to be taught to children of school age. It is the first haka I was taught. I remember, when we first moved up from the South Island to Wellington, my father taking me out to Takapūwāhia, where Mark Metekīngi taught me as a 5-year-old. It is the haka of our national rugby team and of our Olympic and Commonwealth Games representatives. Other national sporting teams have used it at an international level. The haka has reverberated around the battlefields of the world not just during the Māori, civil, and land wars but also in places like Gallipoli and North Africa during World War I and World War II, and even in more modern theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been performed by ordinary Kiwis doing their OEs, sometimes in a drunken manner, and it has even been performed—poorly, I might say—by British pop stars.

But when I think of this mighty haka and I think of my whanaunga of Ngati Toa, what I think about is running up and down the basketball court with Taku Pārai and Donal Wineera, waiting for that pass so I could get the easy layup. I will tell you, it rarely came. It is hard to get a ball off a Ngati Toa hoopster, even if you are on their team.

This haka also reminds me of one of Ngati Toa’s greatest living exponents of the haka, none other than Uncle Nelson Solomon—surely one of this country’s greatest storytellers, truthful or not. Kia ora, Uncle. Uncle Nelson told me one night after a few drinks in Nelson of his exploits on the basketball court and how he and John Arthur were the best point and shooting guard combo that Ngati Toa had ever seen. He then reminded me of it again on the drive from Whakatū over to Waikawa, just to reinforce the point. When I think of the haka, I am reminded of the basketball mates I ran with back in the day, whether we were on the same team or playing against each other. I think of names such as Pārai, Wineera, Hippolite, Solomon, Kimi, and Parata. Let us not forget the Katenes, and I acknowledge Rahui Katene—it is wonderful that you are here—and the Arthurs, the Kohe Loves, and the Metekīngis. I would like to thank the many families of Ngati Toa that allowed Taku and Donal and some of the other whānau to join the Rātana Church, even if it was only for one midweek basketball game.

When I think of these wonderful people, I think about the everyday use of the haka—how it is performed every day by Ngati Toa at births, deaths, marriages, and 21st birthdays. If there is a meeting of Ngati Toa anywhere in this country or anywhere in the world, you can guarantee there will be a stirring performance of Te Rauparaha’s famous composition at the end of the speeches. Today the descendants of Te Rauparaha and Ngati Toa are here, and once the debate is finished I am sure we will be treated to a very special extended version of their, and this country’s, most famous haka. I commend these bills to the House. Kia ora anō tātou.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira, e ngā iwi e huihui nei, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the authorities, voices, leaders, and tribes assembled here, greetings to you. Welcome to Parliament House, welcome. Salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations to you all.]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Greens on these bills, the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, not just because this is the most positive experience of Parliament that I have ever had but also because for me personally, as I said in my first speech on the omnibus legislation, I whakapapa to the great warrior Te Rauparaha through his mother, Parekōhatu, and the Raukawa line. So I am grateful to have the opportunity, in my privileged position as an MP, to read the true histories of Aotearoa through these settlement deeds.

The story of Ngati Toa Rangatira is perhaps one that is more widely known than for most iwi, due to the famous ancestor Te Rauparaha and his fierce reputation as a warrior, and, of course, for his role as the composer of the haka Ka Mate. I note that as part of the settlement outlined in the claims legislation, the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill will also be passed today, to ensure that the intellectual property rights of the iwi are acknowledged and that the haka is recognised as a taonga belonging to Ngati Toa Rangatira and their ancestor Te Rauparaha as the composer, whenever their haka is performed.

The legislation has taken a long time to get to this House. The deed of settlement was signed in 2012. However, the legal action goes right back to the actions of the New Zealand Company in the 1830s, when the first dodgy dealings with that company resulted in the first large tracts of land in the South Island being alienated. Given their warlike nature, there is no way that Ngati Toa Rangatira were ever going to relinquish their landholdings without a fight. There have been many over the generations who have carried on that fight. The original claims for this settlement were made in 1986, and I want to also acknowledge the kuia Tiratū Williams, up in the gallery today, and also acknowledge those who have passed on—the other 13 claimants. It has taken 28 years to get to this place.

The settlement relates to the gradual alienation of nearly all of the original 4 million hectares that were in Ngati Toa Rangatira’s area of interest. That interest includes both the lower part of the North Island and the top of the South Island. It goes from the Rangitīkei in the north and includes the Kāpiti coast, Hutt Valley, and Wellington areas, as well as Kāpiti Island and Mana Island. It includes large areas of the Marlborough Sounds and much of the northern South Island. How Ngati Toa were alienated from that land is outlined in the legislation, in the deed of settlement. The methods used include the dodgy land sales, war, duress, the Crown awarding land to individual Māori, and exclusion. These tactics were used with many iwi across Aotearoa in the land-grabs of the 1800s. I use the term “duress”, in this case, to describe the dubious land sales that occurred while Te Rauparaha was being illegally detained by the Crown for 18 months and his nephew, the leader Te Rangihaeata, was in exile in the Horowhenua.

In this settlement, for the first time the Crown apologises for that wrongdoing, and I am going quote from the settlement deed the apology. It says: “The Crown unreservedly apologises for the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles which have hurt and caused prejudice to Ngati Toa Rangatira. The Crown is deeply sorry for its actions that intentionally undermined the mana and rangatiratanga of leading Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs. In particular the Crown apologies for its indefinite detention of Te Rauparaha, and deeply regrets that it has failed, until now, to acknowledge this injustice in an appropriate manner.” In light of the huge land losses and the loss of resources that Ngati Toa Rangatira had once utilised, like the whaling industry and the flax trade, the compensation package is modest, and that is also acknowledged in the settlement. The financial and commercial redress is about $72 million, and some of that is tagged for express purposes. By accepting this, Ngati Toa Rangatira are being generous.

They are generous with the cultural redress package as well. Ngati Toa Rangatira will have 20 sites vested in them, with another three sites that will be jointly vested with other iwi from Te Tau Ihu. That means that public access and conservation values will be maintained. In total, the amount of land comes to about 267 hectares, and I note that the area of occupation—the area that was originally occupied by Ngati Toa—was estimated at about 2 million hectares. Kāpiti Island will symbolically be vested in the iwi and then they will return it to the Crown after 10 days. They will return it to the people of New Zealand, and the iwi will work alongside others to develop the management plans for, and conservation of, that area. This is incredibly generous—to receive their rightful land and then to give it to the people of New Zealand.

I am mindful that with many settlements that come before the House, there is a lack of public understanding about the history—the history of the iwi and the breaches of Treaty of Waitangi that they have suffered. I am mindful also that this bill attempts to address some of them. Too often we hear, when these settlements are published, the racist comments that this is part of a gravy train. Whenever I hear that, I am enraged. We must do more to educate the people, and I support the Hon Pita Sharples in that call.

The Greens’ position is—and I must make this point—that this is not a full and final settlement, and we will say this in every speech on every settlement bill. Undoubtedly, the journey to this day has been hard-won and it should be celebrated. I want to acknowledge the Treaty negotiation team, who must be congratulated on the intricacies of the settlement and how they have maintained a delicate balance between overlapping claims and those different from others. But our stance stems from the fact that this is the best the iwi could possibly get at this time but the compensation, of course, is not full, and that is acknowledged. We do not believe it is final because we do not know yet how these historical claims will impact on the generations of Ngati Toa Rangatira yet to come.

One thing is for sure, though. Undoubtedly, Ngati Toa Rangatira will be on a surer economic footing as a result of this settlement and they can chart a future for their rangatahi and whānau. This is a day to celebrate. We offer our congratulations to Ngati Toa Rangatira and every success. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Te mea tuatahi, anei taku mihi ki a Ngati Toa Rangatira, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, a koutou i haere mai nei i tēnei rā, te rā whakahirahira mō koutou, mō mātou nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The first thing is my tribute to Ngati Toa Rangatira, congratulations. Acknowledgments to you and to those who came today on this important day for you and for us all. So well done to you all.]

There have been several platitudes offered up to various people. I want to start by saying that my cousin Shane Jones continues to give great speeches, continues to tell a story in his way and as only he can. I could listen to Shane all day, apart from when he talks politics. But I do want to make particular mention to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The feeling’s probably mutual.

Hon TAU HENARE: Sorry?

Hon Trevor Mallard: The feeling’s probably mutual.

Hon TAU HENARE: That is most probably right. I want to pay particular respects to a person who is not here now, and that is Pātariki Rei. I do remember when I became a member of Parliament having a couple of hui with him. I was astounded to find out that he has a Ngāpuhi link, like most of the country, and that is through Matauri Bay and through our tupuna Tametame. Ngā mihi nunui ki a ia, ki a koe Matiu.

[Huge greetings to him and to you, Matiu.]

If you read various Treaty settlement pieces of legislation, you will find that over a very, very short period, people starting out with thousands upon thousands of acres, a people with their own economy, a people who were highly regarded for their exploits, became landless. In this particular case, over a 20-year period from 1840 to 1860 you have what could only be classed as theft and genocide and all sorts of words that we are wont to use these days. In a matter of less than 100 years they became as other iwi have become, and that is landless. When you take that land away, you take away a whole part of a people.

I want to talk about the attribution of Ka Mate. When the bill was introduced to the House and it was called the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, I did not know what that word “attribution” meant. I am only from Ōtara. I am not a university graduate. So I looked it up. I looked up the word “attribution”. There is a whole whakapapa of this word “attribution”. Back in the day in England there was a kawa, a kaupapa, a way of doing things in the pub. If you did not have any money on you, you could go in and you could get a piece of chalk and put down on a slate what you were drinking. That is where the terms “chalk it up” and “put it on the slate” come from, as some of us have been wont to do over the years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In the back room here.

Hon TAU HENARE: In the back room here. But that is what attribution means. So we can chalk this haka up to Ngati Toa and Te Rauparaha. The first time I came across Te Rauparaha was when I was a kid at Hillary College. Bill Tāwhai was our Māori teacher. We got to know about who composed the haka. We got to know about who Ngati Toa Rangatira were and are. I will always doff my cap to Bill Tāwhai for being the sort of teacher whom New Zealand deserved, then and now.

I do want to say this, though, which is that we should not on these occasions miss the opportunity to talk about those sorts of people—you know, Te Rauparaha, Kawiti, Pōtatau; all the big names of our past, all the big players on the stage that was Māoridom—and to take up the challenge that the Minister of Māori Affairs has talked about today about our education system. It is now time, when this country has moved on so much, that we should make our history part of the curriculum.

I make this plea: that the next Government, whomever it may be, seriously investigates and puts into practice what most other countries do anyway—that is, have our own history as a particular subject in our schools, primary, intermediate, and college. We need to call it New Zealand history and talk about it all—not just the nice bits but everything. You know, you cannot have war without another side. In the Wairau affair, you could not have had a Wairau affair with one person—you know, you cannot have an affair with one person, anyway.

Hon Chester Borrows: Oh, you can.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, you could, I suppose, if you think about it. But with the Wairau affair, when the Māori Affairs Committee went to the South Island to hear submissions, we heard about this, that, and the other thing and about how terrible it was. We heard the Māori history. Let us not forget that there were a couple of dozen European settlers who perished and died in the affray—in the affair. We should not be shy to talk about the whole, rather than the part, of our history. So I do make that plea: that wherever we go, when we are talking about Te Rauparaha, we do not see him as only a composer, because there had to be an affair. There had to be a reason for—and I am not saying that the Wairau affair led up to the haka, but there has to be something that leads a man like that, or any person, to compose a verse that explains their situation. So we should not be scared of, or be shy about, talking about the whole, rather than just the part.

In this House, Thursdays are becoming the day when we talk about New Zealand’s history. Like I said before, I make a passionate plea for the next Minister of Education, whomever they may be—Chester? I make the plea that that is one of the first things we do.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Hey, Tau.

Hon TAU HENARE: Hi, Trevor. I want that to be one of the first things they do, because, I tell you what, it will bring our nation closer together, just as the passage of these bills brings the nation closer together. Hoi anō, taku mihi ki a koutou katoa e aku rangatira, e aku kaumātua, e aku kuia, tēnā koutou katoa.

[So congratulations to you all my leaders, elderly men and womenfolk. Thank you all.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tuatahi, tēnei ka tāpiri atu aku mihi ki a koutou katoa e uru mai nei ki roto i tēnei tō koutou nei Whare ki te whakarongo ki tēnei āhuatanga, te whakaturengia ā koutou kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te Pāremata nō reira, ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou. Me tuku mihi ki a koutou ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Toa. I kite i a koe taku kaumātua, iwi, kōrua ko Matiu, nei te mihi maioha ki a koutou e kawea nei ēnei kaupapa i tēnei wā.

[Firstly, I add my tributes to you all who have entered this House of yours to listen to this situation that relates to the enshrinement of your matters into law, which you have placed before Parliament, so congratulations to you all. I must acknowledge your presence, the relatives of Ngati Toa, both yours and my elder, Matiu. Fond greetings to you collectively who brought these matters forth at this point in time.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to support the third and final reading of the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill. With that, as members in the House have reflected on history, it is an opportunity for each member who has participated in the Māori Affairs Committee to reflect on their connection in some way to what has been considered at the select committee with the passage and consideration of each Treaty settlement. In this particular regard, I reflect on my own history and connection. In some humble way I consider that as I have grown up from childhood and tried to pursue and find out more and more about who I am, I cannot get away from the matrix of histories of our people within the Tainui waka region.

With that said, there are stories that you grow up with that are a part, I guess, of your identity and how you relate to people and places and events. You cannot grow up within the Tainui waka region without hearing about Te Rauparaha, whether it is his exploits as a mature man and his fighting prowess, or the nature of his departure from Kāwhia, or his illustrious birth and the significance of what the old people at that time had seen in the marriage that took place between Te Rauparaha’s parents, but, more important, the intent with which Te Rauparaha was raised and things that were foretold of his lifetime.

I reflect on my Maniapoto connection. Again, as I grew up, I heard about this man Te Rauparaha, who was strong, and when he departed from Kāwhia, all through Ngāti Māhuta, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngāti Raukawa, and right down to Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga—all the way down to the top of the south—you will hear a number of stories from families who recount how their tūpuna joined the heke, then connecting them to the exploits, the rampage, or however you would like to refer to it, but they were significant, from Kāwhia all the way down the North Island and into the South Island.

With some pride and trepidation I think to myself that Te Rauparaha has left more than a footprint, but a legacy, and it goes beyond Ka Mate. But the fact that Ka Mate is now reflected on by Māori and Pākehā alike, within New Zealand and outside of New Zealand, in our kōhanga reo, in our schools, and in our universities, certainly strengthens the way in which our stories and our connections can be told and retold. Many members have made the point better than I can, but I certainly want to recognise that.

For the purposes of this third reading debate, I want to set on record the apology of the Crown to Ngati Toa Rangatira, so that when their children come back to reflect on what their parents and grandparents did to settle, they will see why it was so important. Clause 426 of the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill reads: “The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement is as follows: (1) The Crown recognises that a number of Ngati Toa Rangatira, including Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata, signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The Crown profoundly regrets that it has not always lived up to its obligations to Ngati Toa Rangatira under Te Tiriti o Waitangi … Accordingly, the Crown makes this apology to Ngati Toa Rangatira, to their ancestors, and to their descendants. (2) The Crown unreservedly apologises for the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles which have hurt and caused prejudice to Ngati Toa Rangatira. The Crown is deeply sorry for its actions that intentionally undermined the mana and rangatiratanga of leading Ngati Toa Rangatira chiefs. In particular the Crown apologises for its indefinite detention of Te Rauparaha, and deeply regrets that it has failed, until now, to acknowledge this injustice in an appropriate manner. (3) The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for its actions that left Ngati Toa Rangatira with few landholdings by 1865, and its ongoing failure to protect their remaining landholdings, which has left Ngati Toa Rangatira virtually landless and unable to access customary resources and significant sites. (4) The Crown deeply regrets the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions which severely damaged Ngati Toa Rangatira social and traditional tribal structures, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, their capacity for economic and social development, and physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being. (5) With this apology and settlement the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs, restore its tarnished honour and begin the process of healing. The Crown hopes that this apology and settlement will mark the beginning of a new, positive, and enduring relationship with Ngati Toa Rangatira founded on mutual trust and co-operation and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and its principles.”

I set this on the record for the future generations of Ngati Toa Rangatira, to ensure that a Treaty settlement can be durable to the aspirations of their grandparents, their parents, their tūpuna, in coming to this day. I also set this on record as an opportunity for those members of Parliament who will often listen to these debates but not really grab the full intent of them, to know that the significance of a Crown apology can be huge—both reflective but prospective, when we think about how to make the settlement work and evolve in the way that it was intended to.

Coming to the substance of the bill, I had a look at the statutory areas that are included. It should be noted that there are a significant number of areas where statutory acknowledgments are made but, more important, where they intersect with local government, with the Resource Management Act, and with the Conservation Act. This is a real opportunity to evolve the settlement into a different working relationship. Some of that has already taken place. It has not needed to wait until the settlement to secure that. However, with statutory acknowledgments, the ongoing commitment of various local councils to improve their relationships with Ngati Toa Rangatira in relation to these sites will be greatly enhanced. I need only look at the Pāuatahanui Wildlife Reserve, Lake Rotoiti, Lake Rotoroa in the Nelson Lakes, the Wairau Pā—these are but some of those particular areas. The other unique part of the settlement is the ngā paihau sites, and there are three of them—Kāpiti Island, The Brothers, and Wairau Lagoons. Importantly, it ensures that there is an opportunity in the ongoing management and setting of plans for these areas.

I have come to the end of my contribution, and I would really like to say at this point that if children in kōhanga reo today grow up learning Ka Mate and stand with pride in knowing who they are and where they come from, and can share a little bit of the history of what connects them to the leadership attributes of Te Rauparaha, or the places he has been or the exploits he has undertaken, then New Zealand is in good stead. Tēnā koutou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koe. Ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa te whānau o Ngati Toa Rangatira. Ka nui te aroha ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you. Acknowledgments to you all the family of Ngati Toa Rangatira. There is much empathy to you all.]

On the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, I want to talk a little bit about the Māori Affairs Committee, which examined the bills and recommended that they be passed with some amendments. The intent of the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill is that Te Rauparaha must be identified as both the composer of the haka Ka Mate and a chief of Ngati Toa Rangatira, and that this obligation should apply whenever the haka Ka Mate is published commercially, communicated to the public, or features in a film that is shown in public or made available to the public. The committee recommended amending that clause to clarify exemptions to this obligation for educational purposes.

The Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill includes a summary of the agreed historical account, the Crown’s acknowledgments and apology, and the vesting of part of Mana Island and Kāpiti Island to Ngati Toa Rangatira, which will be gifted back to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. It includes a poutiaki package over the Cook Strait, comprising a Crown acknowledgment of Ngati Toa’s role as kaitiaki of the coastal marine areas of the Cook Strait, Porirua Harbour, Port Underwood, and Pelorus Sound. It also includes the establishment of, and participation of Ngati Toa Rangitira in, a strategic advisory committee, which will be involved in the preparation of a conservation management plan for the management of Kāpiti Island Nature Reserve, to control and manage the Queen Elizabeth Park campground site, and a board to manage Whitireia Park.

In the commercial redress, there is the right to purchase Crown-owned properties on the settlement date, some for lease back to Crown agencies; the right of deferred selection to purchase specified Crown-owned properties for a 2-year period from the settlement date; and the right to purchase some Ministry of Education properties for a period of 10 years from the settlement date.

The Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill is a separate bill being read as a cognate bill with the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill. The bill provides an acknowledgment of the significance of the famous Ka Mate haka as a taonga of Ngati Toa Rangatira and as an integral part of the history, culture, and identity of Ngati Toa Rangatira. The values that Ngati Toa Rangatira seek to uphold are ihi, wehi, and wana—the ihi being the spiritual force, and the wehi and wana being the emotions that emanate from the performance and understanding of this haka. The bill provides Ngati Toa Rangatira with a right of attribution. This is a moral right rather than a commercial right.

The legislation will require the composer of the haka, Ngati Toa Rangatira chief Te Rauparaha, to be attributed in certain circumstances. What this means is that the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill will require people who use the haka in a commercial context—for example, on commercial products or in films for distribution—to acknowledge Te Rauparaha as the author. The requirement of the attribution does not apply to public performances—for example, by the All Blacks—or educational purposes. I commend these bills to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā whānau o Ngati Toa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I am also aware that at Takapūwāhia Marae in Porirua many of the whānau have gathered to watch the proceedings in the House today. To all the whānau of Ngati Toa, I say congratulations. Congratulations on the third readings of your bills, the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Bill and the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill, which will provide, I guess, more assets for you to build on in terms of Ngati Toa moving into the future with confidence. So I congratulate you. I also want to thank you, particularly for the leadership of your tūpuna Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. because when I look at your history, like all histories your journey began in 1839 when you signed the Kāpiti deed. By 1843 your rangatira were fighting for the rights of Ngati Toa. I think that warrior spirit has to be acknowledged because it is that fighting spirit that endures today when we look at the performance of our haka that our All Blacks, who define us internationally within a sporting context, perform. So I hope when you see that haka, when you look at the All Blacks, for you now and into the future it is about your rangatira Te Rauparaha, who has created that platform for us.

I note, however, that in the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Bill there is no copyright to the haka Ka Mate. This is a very unique part of this legislation, because you do have formal acknowledgment. But because it is not contained within the Copyright Act, there are no royalties. So I say thank you very much to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for that 5-year review, because that 5-year review enables Ngati Toa to actually look at how the haka is used and whether or not formal acknowledgment is sufficient into the future in terms of how the haka Ka Mate is used. In fact, it clarifies and confirms the Wai 262 report that said there should be controls on the use of the haka. So I think the position of Ngati Toa going forward in terms of the control of the haka Ka Mate is something that ultimately should be in your hands. I acknowledge the very special and significant attribution of the haka to Te Rauparaha and to Ngati Toa, and I look forward, as we move into the future, to the safeguarding of the haka in terms of Ngati Toatanga.

I want to acknowledge, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, that you went to Ngāti Toa School in Tītahi Bay. I think it is special to acknowledge all the connections that we have. My role here today is to add support to our Labour voice. Our kaumātua, as I will call him, Shane Jones, kicked the proceedings off this morning. He and my colleagues Rino Tirikatene and Nanaia Mahuta sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. I was previously a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I am no longer, but as a proud member of this House and of Māori whakapapa—Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Waikato—it is always a pleasure to participate in these Treaty settlement debates.

For all of us I think the resolution of our colonial history and the resolution of our truth and reconciliation process, as I call it, is incredibly significant. Always we pay tribute to the people who have gone before—our tūpuna who are not with us any more—and our tūpuna and our rangatira here today, who will ensure that as we move into the future we do so always with our heads held high. So I want to acknowledge all Ngati Toa who have been involved in getting you to where we are today, because, yes, the Crown is the partner that you have negotiated with to get to where we are today, but we have a lot of resources on our side. Always it is the fortitude, persistence, and steadfast commitment to making sure that we, as tangata whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand, are for ever acknowledged as mana whenua, as tangata whenua. So these settlement bills are incredibly important in terms of moving forward as a nation.

I always like to look at either the statutory acknowledgments or the place names, and I see that within your legislation this settlement has provided for place name changes to 12 North Island sites and nine South Island sites. For me it is those names that actually mean a lot because they honour our tūpuna and they honour our specific relationships, so Ngati Toa’s relationship, to these geographical sites here in Aotearoa. For ever Ngati Toa’s footprint will be recorded formally within our country. The new geographic names are, for example, Taupō Point, Kapukapuariki Rocks, Mount Porirua, Haukopua Point, Motuhara Point, Te Ana-o-Hau, and Toka Potaka Rock. And there are altered names for Colonial Knob, which will be called Rangituhi; Goat Point, which will be called Tawhitikuri; Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour; Toka-a-Papa Reef; Te Rewarewa Point; Te Whanganui—with an “h”—which is to sit alongside Port Underwood; Te Hoiere, which is the Pelorus Sound and Pelorus River; Te Koko-o-Kupe, which is Cloudy Bay; Oraumoa, which is Fighting Bay; Pukatea, which is Whites Bay; Tokomaru, which is Mount Robertson; Waikutakuta, which is Robin Hood Bay; and Tōtaranui, which is Queen Charlotte Sound.

The significance of these renamings for Ngati Toa is incredibly important. It is incredibly important for us as a country as well. I will not contribute any more other than to again congratulate you on your Treaty settlement. I hope that in this process you have felt that there is a momentum within this House to settle these Treaty claims, and we move forward constructively in partnership with you. The statutory acknowledgments and the fact that you will have, for example, resource management governance authority over eight coastal sites and over 23 other sites means that for ever Ngati Toa will formally be part of the management and be the kaitiaki that you are of these sites. For me, that is the significance in terms of our acknowledgment of you as mana whenua, as first sovereigns, and the partnership opportunity that we have as a country going forward. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakahaere o tō tātou Whare, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou huri noa i tō tātou Whare. Hoi anō ki a koutou Ngati Toa Rangatira, tēnā koutou. Ngā mihi nunui ki a koutou i hara mai i runga i tēnei rā tino whakahirahira mō koutou ēngari, mō ngā iwi katoa o Aotearoa, i a rātou e rapa ana te tutukitanga pai ō ngā hiahia, moemoeā, hara me ngā hapa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ā, i runga anō i ngā tikanga o ngā tīpuna, ko te tikanga ko Toa Rangatira whenua, ko Toa Rangatira moana, ko Toa Rangatira taonga, ko Toa Rangatira mana, ā, ko Toa Rangatira tāngata, whānau, hapū, iwi. I runga i tērā, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou e waha nei i tēnei kaupapa mō tētahi wā roa. Kātahi anō ka tae ki te wā ka kite ā ākuni ka mutu, ka taea e koutou te whakapakari i ngā āhuatanga e tino pīrangitia ana e koutou kei roto i tō iwi, kei roto i tō kāinga.

Nō reira, ngā mihi nui, me ngā kanohi kei te mōhio ahau, ā, ngā kanohi kāre i te mōhio. Ēngari, i raro i te iwi, te mana o Toa Rangatira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson of our House, and to us all collectively throughout our House. Accordingly, salutations to you collectively Ngati Toa Rangatira. Huge acknowledgments to you who have come on this very important day—for you but for all tribes of New Zealand as they seek the accomplishment of aspirations, dreams, transgressions, and redress. And so acknowledgments, salutations, and congratulations to you all.

As with the custom of the ancestors, recognition is accorded to the land, sea, heirlooms, and authority of Toa Rangatira, and to the people, families, subtribes, and tribe of Toa Rangatira. A massive tribute to you collectively for bearing this matter upon yourselves for such a long time. At last it has reached the stage when an end can be seen as to whether you will be able to strengthen features that you have really desired for within your tribe and homeland.

Therefore, a huge tribute to you collectively, and to the faces within you whom I recognise as well as the unfamiliar ones. Furthermore, and under the status and tribe of Toa Rangatira, I salute you all.]

Good morning. It is wonderful to be able to have the opportunity to take a call to recognise the stage at which this long kaupapa has finally arrived, and to be able to see this part of the process of redress and of settlement imminently reaching this final stage, so that you might be able to move forward into the future of your making, having had recognised the historical breaches and grievances and the effect they have had on Ngati Toa Rangatira, with the opportunity to reshape the future in the way that you wish to for your people, for your uri whakaheke, and for the generations that are to come.

It is always a delight to be in the House when these Treaty settlement bills are being debated. For a start, they are debated as a Parliament because these are settlements between the Crown and iwi, not the Government of the day and iwi. They are intended to be enduring, to be sustainable over time, and it is wonderful to be able to share in this unusual experience, as a Parliament, of celebrating as one the work that has been done and the opportunity to see a strengthened New Zealand as a result of the particular parts that you will choose to play, based on the settlement of your claim.

Can I acknowledge, therefore, you and your negotiators. We are very much aware from our experience of other Treaty settlements that have gone on for quite some time how much of a toll they take on the people, how much times passes, how many of your kaumātua, kuia, and pakeke pass away during the course of these negotiations, and how taumaha this can be, although you will be able to see the light when it lifts. So we recognise that. Certainly our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, has since he became that Minister. He may well have told you, and it is true. I can attest to it from before we even came into Parliament.

It has been an absolute mission for him as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to ensure that these claims are approached with respect, seriousness, and comprehensiveness, but also are settled as quickly as possible so that you and the Crown might move on from a particular time in our history to a better place in our future. So, having acknowledged all of you, can I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He has worked hard not only on this settlement but, I think close to 50 settlements in the time he has been the Minister. He approaches that with seriousness and with commitment to all of the work and to that principle and practice of all iwi, kanohi kitea. He is one Minister who travels to know whom he is dealing with and to understand face to face what their concerns are, what the issues are, and how important the relationship is. He has been very involved in the appointment of the Crown negotiators—and I notice that we have the Hon Paul Swain and others in the House today—to ensure that the settlement can be conducted with dispatch but also with respect. He has been a tireless and committed Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and I acknowledge him for that work.

Can I also acknowledge our Māori Affairs Committee for the work it does. It is often unsung and unseen, but it is the absolute glue that makes these settlements possible. My friend and colleague Tau Henare has chaired that committee and has got through a huge amount of work, not only paperwork but hearings and travel around the country, going to the places that settlements require going to—in your case to the top of the South Island as well as just out to Mana Island. The Hon Tau Henare chairs that committee in his own inimitable fashion, as he does everything else in this House. He brings fire, humour, and passion to all he undertakes, and I think it is important in that role as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee that that be the case—that the full emotional range can be expressed and experienced by all of us. I think he chairs and leads that work with great style, commitment, and passion.

He also oversees a group of members of Parliament who are equally committed to getting this right, to getting your settlement to the place you are comfortable with, and that is why we have seen some changes and refinements both in the name of the bill and in the substance of the bill. The point of the select committee process is to put in front of you what it is that we think we have reached agreement on, and also to use that process to refine the detail, and that detail has been refined.

One of the things that, having grown up in Ngati Porou, I have been very conscious about is haka taparahi. Therefore, I am absolutely delighted that your haka, which you have allowed to become part of our haka not just here in New Zealand but overseas, is being legislated for to reflect its composer, Te Rauparaha. It reflects that time in history and its continuing significance not only to you as the direct descendants and how you carry that on into the future but to all of us who have had the privilege and the ihi and the wehi of experiencing and participating in Ka Mate, as we go through our primary school days into our secondary school days and, indeed, into our history. It is the experience of what it means both here and in the reflection of your ancestor—and, may I say, Te Rauparaha is a very striking figure in all Māori and New Zealand history in the kinds of events and activities that he led.

In more modern times the reflection of that in Porirua is the great Te Rauparaha Arena, which continues to draw people not only from the local community but from all over the country. Can I acknowledge Ngati Toa not only for this particular process but for the leadership you show through Porirua and up the Kāpiti coast into Paraparaumu. You have been an iwi that saw early the opportunity, the potential, and, actually, the responsibility of working with your local government as well as with central government. You have understood and carried out the responsibilities of governance beyond your iwi about how, together with the mayor and council of Porirua, we make the places we live in and the everyday operations better for all citizens of that area.

My colleague Kris Faafoi and I together benefit from Ngati Toa not only by your participation in governance but in the cultural authenticity that you bring to every event that occurs in Porirua and on the Kāpiti coast. That itself sits as a model for the rest of New Zealand. The debate goes on as to whether Māori representation should be legislated for or not, but you just get on with it and participate in that representation, and the greater Porirua area is all the better for it. As my colleague Louisa Wall has already indicated—I am afraid I have not heard all the other previous speeches—the fact that the cultural names of the places that are important and of significance and tell a story for the community will be restored to that community is also a gift, a contribution, and a cultural enrichment that you make to our places. Your ability to commercially participate in and grow the local, regional, and national economies is another contribution for which we thank you. We look forward to its growth not only for the local people of the rohe of Ngati Toa but for all New Zealanders. Nō reira, i runga i ērā kōrero poto noa iho, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, Ngati Toa Rangatira. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

[And so my huge compliments to you Ngati Toa Rangatira upon those somewhat brief comments. Well done, well done, and congratulations to you all. Thank you.]

Bills read a third time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand, honourable members, that permission has been given to Ngati Toa for a haka. Tēnā koutou e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngati Toa, the floor is yours.

Haka

Bills

Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau 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 Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, koutou kua hara mai nei ki tō tātou Whare i tēnei rāngi kia whakanuitia te kaupapa e haere nei. Nā koutou tēnei. Nā mātou e tautoko ana kei roto i ngā kōrero nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou. Kua mihia ngā mate, nā reira, rātou i waenganui i a koutou e tīraha tonu, rātou kua tukuna atu, haere, okioki pai ki te Kaihanga. Nā reira, kia hoki ki te tino kaupapa e hui tahi nei tātou, ā, tēnā koutou, nau mai. Whakapiri mai.

[Therefore, greetings to you collectively who have come here to this House of ours today to enhance the matter being progressed here. This is yours. We will endorse it through these speeches here. So congratulations. The dead have been acknowledged, so to those who lay in state among you, those whom you have interred, depart, rest well with the Creator. Let us return, then, to the real matter that brought us together here and to acknowledge you and to bid you welcome. Draw closer.]

Today we turn south across Raukawa Moana, past the resting place of Muturangi, to Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Māui, and we welcome the sons and daughters of the great Kurahaupō waka: Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau. Nā reira, tēnā koutou. Kurahaupō whānau have resided in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Māui mai rānō. Their tīpuna, stories, and whakapapa can be found in the maunga and in the awa, in the waters, of Te Tau Ihu. Tēnei au e mihi atu ki ngā uri o Ruatea, arā, a Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō. Tēnā koutou.

[I pay a tribute to the relatives of Ruatea, in other words, to Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō. Greetings to you collectively.]

Few New Zealanders know that the famous Heaphy Track should really be called Kehu’s Track. Kehu was a tohunga, kaitiaki, and knowledge keeper of the inland trails and lands of this rohe. It was Kehu who guided Heaphy along that trail—not the other way round, as history sometimes recounts. Ko Kehu te maunga, ko Kawatiri te awa, ko Rotoroa me Rotoiti ngā roto, ko Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō te iwi, ko Kehu te tangata.

[Kehu is the mountain, Kawatiri is the river, Rotoroa and Rotoiti are the lakes, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō is the tribe, and Kehu is the man.]

It is ironic that by 1900 a people known for the knowledge of their lands were left landless. Reserves were not set aside. Specific rights were not negotiated. Generations of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō have stood before royal commissions, land commissioners, Māori Land Court hearings, High Court hearings, Appeal Courts, and even London’s Privy Council. Generations of people have fought for this day of recognition. Their children and mokopuna are here with us today in the Whare. I am proud to be part of a Government that has worked alongside them as we settle these things. I am proud that from this day on the mana whenua and mana moana of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō will be recognised in the laws of this nation.

Ko Matua Hautere te tangata, ko Kaikai-ā-Waro te taniwha, ko Hōere te waka, ko Ngāti Kuia te iwi.

[Matua Hautere is the man, Kaikai-ā-Waro is the monster, Hōere is the canoe, and Ngāti Kuia is the tribe.]

There is an unforgettable image on the Ngāti Kuia website taken when iwi leaders signed their deed of settlement with the Crown at Te Hora Marae in October 2010. The photograph is of the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Charitable Trust close to tears. His face creased with pain, he stares at the ground. Behind him is a negotiator for Ngāti Kuia with tears in his eyes. The chairman’s son stands with his hand pressed into his father’s shoulder. In this single iconic image we get just a small bit of understanding of what Ngāti Kuia families have gone through and have overcome just to get to this day. People forget that it is a traumatic, difficult process settling these historical events to your satisfaction in order that the Crown can at least acknowledge and apologise for what has gone before.

The sons and daughters of Māui, Kupe, and Matua Hōtere, Ngāti Kuia families, have been standing on their lands at Te Tau Ihu mai rā anō. After generations of settlement, Ngāti Kuia survived musket raids as well as the arrival of tauiwi, or foreigners, to their land. By the mid-1800s the Crown was moving swiftly across the top of the south, and a deal guaranteeing Ngāti Kuia schools, hospitals, and lands was dishonoured. Colonisation and amalgamation—these policies saw the iwi left on small, uneconomic land parcels. The draining of wetlands for dairy farms also drained the economic lifeblood from the families of Ngāti Kuia. Their journey is etched in the faces of that koroua and his mokopuna in that photo.

Behind that koroua stand future generation upon future generation of Ngāti Kuia mokopuna, whose mana whenua and mana moana are from this day guaranteed by the laws of our nation. In front of that elder stand generation upon generation of his tīpuna, whose battle for their mana and for mana whenua and mana moana has been one of sacrifice, determination, and, finally, triumph today. Maranga e te iwi Pākohe, maranga mai e te iwi Ngāti Kuia, auē taukiri e.

[Rise up the tribes of Pākohe and Ngāti Kuia, oh dear, oh dear.]

I pay tribute now to the families of Rangitāne o Wairau, the people of the 100 waters of Ruatere—ngā wai-rau o Ruatere. Withstanding warfare, colonisation, and the alienation of nearly every acre of their whenua, Rangitāne families have retained their identity and their heritage and have secured their future in a rohe they settled generations before others who arrived at the lands of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Māui. Rangitāne families link us directly to Kupe. When ancient tīpuna remains were finally put to rest at Wairau recently, the media asked a Rangitāne leader for comment, and she replied with these words: “No matter what race or creed or colour you are, you don’t know where you are going until you know where you have come from. Today is a celebration for us all to live together.” Her kōrero captures the leadership, the humility, and the generosity of the families of Rangitāne o Wairau, whose mana whenua and mana moana from today will finally be recognised in the laws of New Zealand.

Te Rūnanga o Rangitāne o Wairau was set up in 1861 by rangatira concerned by the growing landlessness facing tangata whenua across the rohe. For 153 years, then, this rūnanga has continued to represent Rangitāne on social and political issues. Ko Tapuae o Uenuku te maunga, ko Wairau te awa, ko Raukawa te moana, ko Huatahi te tangata.

[Tapuae o Uenuku is the mountain, Wairau is the river, Raukawa is the sea, and Huatahi is the man.]

The footprints of Rangitāne families have fallen on the sands of Wairau. Their ahi kā occupation is ancient, unbroken, and hard fought for. Ko tini whetū ki te rangi, ko Rangitāne nui ki te whenua. As numerous as the stars in the sky are the people of great Rangitāne upon the land.

Today the Crown stands alongside Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau and acknowledges the social, economic, and cultural devastation caused by the Crown and endured by generations. In the face of incredible injustice, today we witness incredible generosity as these iwi honour every New Zealander by coming here today, by accepting our Crown apology, and by settling their historical Treaty of Waitangi grievances. All those things lost due to the actions of the Crown can never be totally replaced, and yet the people of Te Tau Ihu wish to settle their grievances with mana. Tēnā koutou. We remember those who have passed on but whose determination has led to the legislation this House will now consider.

Today we witness a milestone in a journey that is not just about the wonderful idea of Māori working together. Today we introduce legislation to resolve the historical grievances of eight tribes of Te Tau Ihu, legislation that strengthens the ability of future generations to carry on a proud legacy of economic and cultural rangatiratanga.

In closing, I would just like to refer to what we talked about with the haka Ka Mate and how it should be taught in all our schools, and all the history relating to it. I am really proud to say that we are producing a sort of framework whereby the history of every school area can be introduced into the school using the local mana whenua. We are bringing in the framework so that the children of those districts can feel proud and so that the people of the district can learn ko wai te rangatira, ko wai te iwi, ko wai te tangata whenua me ngā hītori ō taua iwi? Nā reira, hari koa kua tīmata mai tēnā mahi i roto i te Tari Mātauranga i konei i te Kāwanatanga. Tēnā koutou. Nā reira, ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui—

[—who is the leader, the tribe, and the home people with the historical accounts of that tribe? So it is delightful and joyful that work has commenced in the Ministry of Education, in the Government here. Congratulations to you. Therefore, to you the tribes of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui—]

—at the prow of the great voyaging canoe of Māui, at the helm of their own destinies and futures. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E aku rangatira o te waka o Kurahaupō, me kī, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Whakatau mai, whakatau mai, whakatau mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Nō koutou tēnei rā. He rā hariharikoa tēnei. Nō reira, rau rangatira mā huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To my leaders of the Kurahaupō canoe, namely of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne, greetings and salutations. Welcome, welcome, and welcome to Parliament House standing here in readiness. This is your day and it is a truly joyous one. Therefore, to the many leaders throughout the House, salutations and congratulations to you and to us all.]

I am delighted to be able to speak about these three iwi as part of this final debate today. Rangitāne, Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō are part of the wider collective of the iwi that we have all seen, and will be seeing, throughout the day today. In particular, they are all commonly descended from their waka, the Kurahaupō.

I first want to acknowledge that in this bill, the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill, the Crown will make full apology to all of these three iwi for their past dealings and for the breaches of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and all of the three iwi will receive forms of cultural, commercial, and financial redress, which is consistent across the board with Treaty settlements.

I want to focus firstly on Ngāti Kuia. Ngāti Kuia have occupied Te Tau Ihu of the South Island for many, many, many generations, primarily at Kaituna, Te Hora, Te Hoiere, Whangarae, Whakapuaka, Rangitoto, and Whakatū. In the 1820s and 1830s Ngāti Kuia were invaded by tribes from the northern side of the Cook Strait. Despite being defeated in battle, Ngāti Kuia still managed to hold on to portions of their tribal estates and, more important, managed to maintain their chiefly identity, whakapapa, and genealogical lines. More trouble was to arrive in the form of the New Zealand Company—an early colonial company, as we have heard in previous speeches, in the business of ripping off Māori from their land. Long story short—the New Zealand Company claimed to have purchased the top half of the South Island in 1839, but Ngāti Kuia were not consulted on that purchase, rather the invading tribes of Ngāti Toa and their allies who held sway with the company and Crown representatives. Ngāti Kuia suffered because of this. Even a commission of inquiry failed to recognise Ngāti Kuia’s mana over certain areas, and they were not allocated any shares in the Nelson Tenths. The 790 acres of reserves at Te Hoiere was insufficient for the tribe’s needs, and they received a paltry ₤100 for their whole interest in the South Island—₤100—and no share in the Nelson Tenths. Hardly a great deal.

By 1900 Ngāti Kuia were virtually landless. They petitioned the Crown for more land, claiming that they were the poorest tribe under the heavens. The Crown tried to alleviate the problem, with the South Island Landless Natives Act. The tribe shared in a share of land on Stewart Island, along with other iwi and whanaunga in the South Island—not only that but at the bottom of Stewart Island. But no land titles were ever issued. The South Island Landless Natives Act caused more trouble than good. All this mamae and more the Crown will apologise for. The financial and commercial redress package totals $24 million and includes a $12 million redress in lieu of Crown licensed forests and interest that has been accruing. Ngāti Kuia will be statutorily acknowledged as having mana over certain areas of Te Tau Ihu. They will also have the right of first refusal over Crown lands that may come up on offer.

I would like to turn to Rangitāne. Once again, the transactions of the New Zealand Company and its purported purchase of the top half of the South Island caused Rangitāne much mamae. Like Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne maintained their associations with the land and held mana in certain areas. Their chief, Ihaia Kaikōura, signed the Treaty at Port Underwood, and this underlies the fact that Rangitāne had their own autonomy. Rangitāne also suffered the ignominy of not being recognised in Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths. The commission set up to investigate the South Island purchase offered Rangitāne ₤100 to pay off their grievance. Rangitāne also complained to the Crown that the land reserves set aside were insufficient for them to make any sort of economic living off them. The Crown’s reaction, again, was the South Island Landless Natives Act—a law that caused more problems than it solved.

The financial redress here recognises the economic losses suffered by Rangitāne arising from the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. The financial and commercial redress package totals $25 million, including $12 million redress in lieu of the Crown forest lands and interest that has been accruing. The commercial redress will allow Rangitāne to have the right of first refusal for 169 years to Crown land that may become available. They will also have the right to buy and lease back certain Crown properties.

Finally, I want to talk to Ngāti Apa. Once again, the Crown will be apologising to Ngāti Apa for breaching its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown failed to recognise the rights of Ngāti Apa in its resolution of New Zealand Company transactions and its pre-1865 purchase of lands, excluded Ngāti Apa from the Nelson and Motueka Tenths, and failed to put aside enough reserve lands for Ngāti Apa. An overlay classification called a tōpuni acknowledges the spiritual, cultural, historical, and traditional association of Ngāti Apa with certain sites of significance, such as the alpine tarns in the Nelson Lakes National Park. An interesting feature of the settlement is the ability for Ngāti Apa to reconnect with their traditional eel fisheries at the Nelson Lakes. Also, Ngāti Apa will have a right to access conservation land to fossick and take off by hand any sand, shingle, or natural material from a river bed. The financial and commercial redress is $28 million, including $12 million from the Crown forest lands.

The iwi of Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne, and Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō suffered through the ignorance of colonial settlers and administrators who did not have a jot of interest in these three tribes. They assumed that the mana for the top half of Te Wai Pounamu lay offshore at Porirua, Kāpiti Island, and Ōtaki. To a certain extent that is true, but it is also true that these tribes still had their own autonomy by the time the New Zealand Company turned up in 1839. Some chiefs from these tribes even signed the Treaty of Waitangi. The taniwha amongst these tribes are the transactions of the New Zealand Company that pitted Pākehā law against Māori tikanga. It has been a generation and a half for these claims to finally come to fruition, and it is fair to say that the delay in settlement has cost lives. Some kaumātua and kuia who started this process back in the 1980s and 1990s are no longer with us. I know from the Rangitāne claim from the 1980s that only Richard Bradley and Judith MacDonald are still with us. It is lovely to see Richard in full health here in the House today. The same mamae applies to the original claimants of Ngāti Kuia and Ngāti Apa as well. I particularly make mention of the late Auntie Kath Hēmi, who played such a monumental role with Ngāti Apa. And I acknowledge her whānau.

As we acknowledge the history and the mamae of Rangitāne, Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Apa, it is time for these iwi now to strike out on their own or in alliance and forge a path that will lead to a more economic and prosperous future for themselves. I am pleased to acknowledge my own whanaunga here from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. We have got so many connections across all of the South Island, and I know that, collectively, working together, all the iwi in Te Wai Pounamu will take over the country. With those parting comments I mihi to the three iwi, and I wish them all the very best for the future. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau, especially those who have travelled here today from Te Tau Ihu and are here in Parliament to witness the third reading of their settlement legislation, the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. These are iwi who share common descent from the Kurahaupō waka. They have lived across the top of the South Island for many, many generations. They have preserved their identities despite the odds, despite the actions of the Crown, and despite external forces.

My good friend Mr Henare mentioned in the previous debate the importance of New Zealand history. People need to know what happened. As sure as anything, I am going to receive some sour emails today from various lovely people after the conclusion of these debates. I will go back to them politely—because that is my style—but in a very determined way to tell them to read the history, because there is nothing like knowing the facts. The facts are that in the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in the northern South Island. Although Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory, they retained their tribal structures, their chiefly lines, and their ancestral connections to the land. In 1840 the great Rangitāne chief Ihaia Kaikōura signed the Treaty of Waitangi near Port Underwood. But the history of the Crown’s relationship with these iwi since 1840 is one of consistent failure to adequately investigate and appropriately recognise the rights of these iwi at relevant times. I too was going to give what could have been only a potted summary of the history, but I think Mr Tirikatene has done a very good job in that regard, and so I am not going to repeat what he said here, simply endorse it.

But one thing I do want to say something about is the South Island Landless Natives Act, because after all this history of wrongdoing, after all this unfairness, the Crown attempted to alleviate the position of these iwi through the provision of landless native reserves. The reserves were, however, in isolated locations, they were of poor quality, and they were generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. So Ngāti Apa were allocated land on the West Coast. Rangitāne and Ngāti Kuia were allocated land on Stewart Island/Rakiura, a great distance away from their traditional rohe, and it was all landlocked. The Crown never granted members of those iwi titles to the land. The Waitangi Tribunal has described the failure to provide land to landless Māori as a cruel hoax. Well, I agree with the tribunal, and I say that the South Island Landless Natives Act lands were, in fact, and are, a sick joke, and they need to be resolved—I might add, not for want of trying on my part. But as long as I hold a warrant in this portfolio, I will continue to push for resolution of this issue. Mr Bradley knows that it is long overdue and it is time that the matter was resolved. So I give you, on behalf of the Crown, an undertaking that I am going to continue to work on that matter, because it is long past time that this blot on the South Island history was resolved.

The Ngāti Apa settlement would not have been possible without the perseverance of Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō ki te Waipounamu Trust. They spearheaded negotiations on behalf of their iwi. I acknowledge, in particular, Peter Mason, the principal negotiator; Brendon Wilson, who was the chair for many, many years; and Paia Rīwaka-Herbert. These are just a few of the people who represented this great iwi during this process and they deserve public recognition for their hard work. I particularly want to mention a wonderful, wonderful woman this morning. Her name was Kath Hēmi. She led the charge in the tribunal. It is very sad that she did not get to see this day—in fact, she was not at the Ngāti Apa signing. But I was really pleased to be able to take her the deed of settlement for her signature when she was in Wairau Hospital, and I am sure that she and her family were very pleased that that was able to happen. She now rests near Ōmaka Marae. She may be gone from this world, but she will always be remembered for her courage and her tenacity.

I want to say something about Ngāti Kuia. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia charitable trust, through its hard work and perseverence, made this settlement possible, and we signed the deed of settlement on Labour Day weekend 2010. That was a great day. I acknowledge Mark Moses, Raymond Smith, and Waihaere Joe Mason. They represented Ngāti Kuia in the settlement process and I really do praise their commitment and their dedication to Ngāti Kuia, which warrants mention today. I believe that their trust will lead this iwi into a very positive post-settlement era.

Let me say something about Rangitāne. The Wairau bar and the boulder bank within the Rangitāne rohe is considered by archaeologists to be one of the most important archaeological sites in the country. Exercising a kaitiaki role, Rangitāne o Wairau stopped the destruction of this site, which continues to unearth, to reveal, important information about our past. Through Rangitāne o Wairau’s collaboration with archaeologists, we are learning more and more about a place that may have been the first landing site of Pacific peoples on these shores. Through this settlement, the Crown aims to recognise the cultural association that Rangitāne has in Te Tau Ihu. I want to say how much I appreciated being invited down to the bar some years ago, when some of the co-iwi were re-interred. I will always remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch, because Mr Bradley gave me a shovel and told me that I should do some work as well.

I want to recognise those who have championed the work of this great iwi leading up to the time when we signed the deed of settlement in Blenheim on 4 December 2010: Joe Tukapua, Frank MacDonald, Ruanui MacDonald, Āmīria Hynes, Josephine Congdon, Mervyn Sadd, John Bradley, and Gary Wehipeihana. These people have worked so very long and hard on behalf of their iwi and I acknowledge them. I acknowledge, in particular, the efforts of that wonderful, optimistic, and warm human being Richard Bradley, and Judith MacDonald and Jeffrey Hynes—he wanted me to say that! I commend the trust as it champions Rangitāne’s interests into the future.

These are three very important settlements, and it is a sign of the generosity of these people that they were prepared in the interests of getting to the third reading and to have the three settlements read together. Once again, I thank you for that. Congratulations on reaching this significant milestone. It has been a long haul, but I am very relieved that we have now reached the stage of a third reading.

Finally, I want to pick up on something that Mr Tirikatene said in closing and utterly endorse it. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Sir Mark Solomon of Ngāi Tahu. I very much look forward to working with all of the iwi of the South Island as they promote their interests into the future. It is great that he is here. I recall his words when Rangitāne signed their deed of settlement with the Crown: “Together we can do so much.” I heartily endorse that. Whether in fact you will take over the world, as Mr Tirikatene said—well, a little bit of hyperbole is permitted. But you are certainly going to be a fantastic force for good and for economic strength in the South Island, and I endorse what Sir Mark has said.

With those few words—one can never say enough in a third reading speech—I thank the representatives of the three iwi and wish them all the very best for the future.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnei e tū ana ki te tuku mihi ki a koutou i tae mai mō tēnei āhuatanga. Nō reira, ki a koutou Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia me Rangitāne o Wairau, anei te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa.

[I rise to pay a tribute to you collectively who have arrived in regards to this circumstance. So fond greetings to you all Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairua.]

I am sure that the comments that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has made in relation to SILNA lands are well supported by those who have come to listen to the Treaty settlement legislation today. It got me thinking about the fact that I think it was the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee, who was Minister of Māori Affairs at the time, and I who are the members who were here when the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill was heard before the select committee. I am reminded of that time.

It is significant that you, Sir Mark, and members of Ngāi Tahu are here to witness the passing of the Te Tau Ihu legislation, the Ngāti Apa Ki Te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I remember, as a new member coming to the House, at the time when we were looking at the boundary of Te Tau Ihu, trying to wrestle from the infinite knowledge of Sir Tīpene what was happening in Te Tau Ihu, and getting a very long education on the relationships and how the boundaries came about. It got me thinking, now that some years have passed, about how Ngāi Tahu has matured in its settlement, post-settlement, and development opportunities. In terms of the relationship, I think that no boundary can stop opportunity. That is the point Minister Finlayson has made, which I too endorse.

Now that Te Tau Ihu iwi have settled, boundaries mean very little if relationships mean more. Those relationships can ensure that the opportunities that emerge out of Treaty settlements can be stitched together—weaved together to the power of 10, if you like—and create all sorts of unique and important commercial and cultural opportunities that will grow the full potential of what can happen in this House. So to those of Ngāi Tahu, to the Te Tau Ihu people, I want to recognise that today because I think it is very significant.

Comments have been made in the House that it has taken a long time to get to this point. One need only look at Part 1 of the bill to see the number of Wai claims that are included within these Treaty settlements to know that a lot of internal discussions and negotiations and sacrifice have got you all to this point. I look at Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō and the Wai claims that sit within it—Wai 102, Wai 785, Wai 1987—and can only reflect that the inclusion of those claims within the context of your settlement will mean so much more to those claimant groups. For Ngāti Kuia, Wai 561, Wai 829, and Wai 2092 include a range of claims that relate intrinsically to the Ngāti Kuia interests and your respective claims, as do, similarly, the claims of Wai 102 and Wai 785. For Rangitāne o Wairau there are three Wai claims: Wai 44, Wai 102, and Wai 785.

When people are taken into the settlement legislation, and they look at what those claims relate to and who were the claimants and how that is then included within the context of the intention of these claims, we need to satisfy ourselves as members of this House that so much more negotiation has taken place to get to this point. I want to acknowledge all of that hard work today.

There are some unique aspects of all the claims, and to go through them individually I do not think would do them justice. I do want to endorse the local member, Rino Tirikatene, and his recollection of each unique aspect of the claims. But can I say that when we, as members of Parliament, are newly coming to Treaty settlements and we are trying to understand how things are fitting together, we look to the various instruments within the settlement legislation. It is encouraging to see that in the context of statutory acknowledgments, the relevant consent authorities have to have regard to the various statutory acknowledgments that each of you, as iwi, have in relation to your special areas—like having the Environment Court and the Historic Places Trust having regard to your connection and association. That is really important because, as many of us know, when the rubber hits the road, it is at that level of local government and of what is happening in terms of resource management that we become intrinsically connected to the everyday decision-making that happens in our rohe. Those are really important, I guess, additions to the authority and voice that you have now as a result of this settlement.

In the schedules there is a range of sites where both the statutory acknowledgments and the overlay sites are identified. Not being that familiar with the region, to me, many of them sound significant and beautiful: Pelorus Sound/Te Hoiere, Maungatapu, Kaiteriteri Scenic Reserve, Te Ope-a-Kupe, Lake Rotoiti, and Lake Rotoroa. Then we have got the Maitai River, the Wairau, Ōmaka, and Ōpaoa Rivers, and the Waimea, Wai-iti, and Wairoa Rivers. They are all very significant parts of your rohe, all recognising the unique relationships that each of the three have with their particular areas.

I have often made my contribution in relation to Treaty settlements in the post-settlement space. It seems to me that the reason why people have taken a very brave step and made compromises along the way and carried a lot of injustice to get to this point is to enable others to look forward—those children whom you have, your mokopuna—so that they can tell their history with pride, share it with the people in their particular rohe and their community, but, more important, forge an intrinsic sense of self-determination about how they want to be going forward into the future, which is why the relationships matter so much.

In the post-settlement space the durability of a Treaty settlement does require an ongoing relationship check between you as claimant groups—as iwi who have settled—and the Crown. So it will not matter who is sitting on that side of the House. The health check of a Treaty settlement requires that every member of Parliament who in this day and age has, by and large, agreed unanimously to the passage of Treaty settlement bills remains fully accountable to the intent of its purpose that is captured in the legislation. I stand here as a member of Labour in Opposition to support Treaty settlements on that basis. Whether it is National in Government or Labour in Government, the responsibility of the Crown is to ensure that the five simple words “This Act binds the Crown.”, which are captured in the legislation, become durable and that people act with honour to ensure that these Treaty settlements are all that they are meant to be—something that the next generation can hold on to with pride and move forward on with confidence. Tēnā tātou katoa.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure to take a call for the Greens on this the final reading of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I am mindful that this is a historic day, and I feel absolutely privileged to be speaking on this occasion on the bill, while the people whom this affects are in the gallery.

Before I start, I also want to acknowledge the very many people who have worked on these claims over generations. I salute their tenacity and strength in persisting in bringing these injustices to light. Many who have started this journey have not lived to see the day, and I am mindful that they are not with us. We should be acknowledging them too. I recognise that these settlements are part of a healing of the past for the iwi, and that they are also proposed in order for iwi to create a better future. So for those who started this process, I acknowledge their faith and their foresight.

There have been many attempts by the three iwi in this bill to seek reparation. That goes as far back as straight after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, but it is only now that they have some acknowledgment. It is difficult to do justice to each iwi named in the legislation. Each has a distinct, unique history, although they are linked by whakapapa. I am pleased that in the deeds of settlement for each of these iwi those histories are told, so that their uniqueness cannot be overlooked. Ngāti Kuia signed their deed of settlement on 23 October 2010, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō signed theirs on 20 October 2010, and Rangitāne o Wairau signed theirs on 4 December 2010. So it has taken a few years to get to this final part. Having looked at the deeds of settlement and the historical accounts, it is clear that these iwi are not grouped just because of their whakapapa but also because of the common injustices that they endured.

Essentially, the alienation of these three iwi from their land and resources started when they were caught up in the dodgy land acquisition conducted by the New Zealand Company in 1839, when the company purported to have bought the entire top of the South Island with little or no regard to the iwi residing there. When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed a year later, land sales that pre-dated the Treaty were deemed to be unlawful and the Crown set up the Land Claims Commission to investigate the purchases. However, as we have heard, and as we have read in the historical accounts, only one Māori person was ever interviewed by the commissioner. He did not consult iwi, and after only 2 days the commissioner suspended the proceedings when the company asked for an arbitration process that had been used in other areas. As a result of that arbitration an additional payment was made by the company to different iwi, and the commissioner subsequently recommended an award to the company of 151,000 acres. This was the start of the alienation.

That alienation was continued by both the New Zealand Company and subsequently the Crown. Their tactics for alienating iwi from the land included pitting Māori against Māori, so as to break the collective ownership of the land. By the early 1900s iwi resources in that area had dwindled to almost nothing. That was from the Ngāti Kuia deed of settlement—the acknowledged history. By 1900 Ngāti Kuia were landless. Ngāti Kuia petitioned the Government for additional land and described themselves as the poorest tribe under the heavens. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of Landless Natives Reserves, and we have heard how little that meant as well. But to continue—the reserves, however, were in isolated locations of poor quality and were generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. Ngāti Kuia were also allocated land on Stewart Island, but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately, these reserves did little to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Kuia in Te Tau Ihu.

It was a similar situation for Rangitāne o Wairau and Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō. With few resources, the people suffered, and the iwi have been carrying this hurt for generations. The deed of settlement also contains the apologies that the Crown has offered to the iwi, which have been accepted. That is now in the legislation as well. It is obvious, with the acknowledgments by the Crown and the apologies for its actions and omissions, where the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi, that it is sincere. But it is an act of generosity by iwi to accept that. Here is an example of one of the apologies: “The Crown profoundly regrets its long-standing failure to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Rangitāne. The Crown did not recognise Rangitāne when it purchased the Wairau district in 1847 and recognition of Rangitane mana in the Te Waipounamu purchase was belated. The Crown is deeply sorry that its acts and omissions quickly left Rangitāne landless and this has had a devastating impact on the economic, social, and cultural well-being and development of Rangitane.” I think it is important that these words are on the record.

In the context of the losses, the compensation packages are quite small. In financial redress, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō has a package that totals $28.3 million, Ngāti Kuia’s financial and commercial redress package comes to $24.8 million, and for Rangitāne o Wairau the financial redress package is $24.3 million. I make the point here that even when you add that up, it is only a fraction of what a southern finance company got quite recently—and it did not lose its land.

Cultural redress includes small parcels of land and includes some symbolic vesting of significant land to iwi. Then, continuing that generosity, the iwi gift them back to the people of New Zealand. The alpine tarns and lakes Rotoiti and Rotoroa and the Nelson Lakes National Park will be vested in Ngāti Apa and then gifted back to the Crown. The cultural redress also includes enshrining the rights of iwi to some of their food resources. I had not seen this before, so I thought it was really interesting. So, for example, Ngāti Apa can apply to the Minister of Conservation to take eels from the Nelson Lakes National Park and Rangitāne for judicious hunting of tītī. This is the cultural redress as well. The purpose of it is to enshrine the status of iwi as kaitiaki in their rohe.

No Treaty settlement is without controversy, but I have not dwelt on that here. However, I do wish to state that the Greens do not ever, ever see these settlements as full and final—not while the Crown determines who is in and who is out and not when we cannot know the impact that these sad histories may have on those not yet born. Of course, it is not full compensation anyway. But, having said that, I recognise that there is a delicacy and a balance that these settlements represent, and the Treaty settlement negotiators from the iwi should really be acknowledged and recognised for that. I also recognise that this is a day to celebrate for the iwi that are here. Without a doubt, you will be on a better economic footing than you have been for 106 years. Your future is far more secure than your past has ever been, so we wish you well. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Ā, tēnā koutou e koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā. E whānau mā, e ngā whānau o te iwi o Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia me Rangitāne o Wairau, ngā mihi nunui.

[And so greetings to you the elder menfolk, the elder womenfolk, and the leaders. A really big tribute to you the families and those of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, of Ngāti Kuia, and of Rangitāne o Wairau.]

I am humbled to stand and support the third reading of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I extend my congratulations to the hard-working iwi negotiations team and the whānau tautoko for the many hours, the many days, and the many years that have resulted in today’s commendation of your bill.

In clause 6(2)(g), the bill: “provides for—(i) the effect of the settlement on the jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or other judicial body in respect of the historical claims; and (ii) a consequential amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975; and (iii) the effect of the settlement on certain memorials; and (iv) the exclusion of the law against perpetuities; and (v) access to the deeds of settlement.” The bill also provides cultural redress in Part 2 and commercial redress in Part 3.

This is a very good settlement bill. I commend it to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. To the authorities, voices, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau, greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all.]

I too stand to support today’s kaupapa, the third reading of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I congratulate you on getting to this point in time where we as the Crown can formally say sorry and give you the redress that you rightfully deserve—the economic packages that have been outlined and the cultural packages. As a House of Representatives, I think what we bring to today is a unified approach to Treaty settlements. Actually, that is really symbolic, because this place is a battleground sometimes. What you see on occasions like this is the coming together of not only us as members of Parliament across this House but us as a nation. I always thank our mana whenua, our iwi groups, for the manner in which you have conducted yourselves to get us to this point of truth and reconciliation.

This part of our country’s history forms the basis and heart of who we are. So when I stand to support a bill, it is always through a sense of pride—a sense of pride in being Māori but also a sense of pride in the fact that we were never erased. If we look at what happened to us historically, our lands were taken, but just because we had no lands it did not mean that our identity, our whakapapa, was ever eroded. In fact, through these settlements, our identity now is stronger than ever because of the place name changes—there will be 65 across these three iwi groups—that will for ever imprint us into our country. So I thank you for the manner in which you have conducted yourselves, because if it was not for your fight, we would never have got to where we are.

What I want to acknowledge are the people who have represented you through this process. For Ngāti Apa, it was the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust, which was chaired by Brendon Wilson. The day-to-day negotiations were led by Peter Mason. I want to acknowledge that the negotiations have meant that you have statutory acknowledgments over sites that are specifically relevant to you. It actually is the opportunity that those statutory acknowledgments provide that will provide the partnership that was always envisaged, I believe, within the Treaty. And so it is very interesting for me that you will create and publicise a set of principles with the Minister of Conservation.

I know that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has made reference to the phrase “having regard to”, but I actually hope that the Department of Conservation, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, and the relevant conservation boards will actually give effect to those principles—not “have regard to” but “give effect”, which means that you will sit around those tables as decision makers, as governors of those sites that are particularly relevant to you.

Again, I want to talk about the 65 geographic name changes. What is in a name? I guess, in the future, it is about Te Tau Ihu’s identity. Some of the work that needs to happen after the settlement is making sure that the dissemination of those names happens right throughout the Te Tau Ihu rohe and that everybody should be aware of the name changes and why. I think that really provides the platform for mana whenua to start having constructive relationships with our kura, with our schools and high schools, to enable our young people and all New Zealanders to understand the history of our country.

With regard to Ngāti Kuia, they were represented in their negotiations by the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust, chaired by Waihaere Mason, and the day-to-day negotiations were led by Mark Moses. I want to acknowledge you. Again, we will have that set of principles that you will jointly develop with the Minister of Conservation, but you also have a kaitiaki instrument that I wanted to highlight. This right to provide advice on key cultural issues relating to the management of specific flora and fauna, again leading into the future, means that you will have a day-to-day say in how those taonga are managed. Again, I think that is incredibly significant.

With regard to Rangitāne o Wairau, you were represented in your negotiations by the Rangitāne o Wairau Settlement Trust, chaired by Judith MacDonald, and the day-to-day negotiations were led by Richard Bradley. I congratulate you on, again, negotiating that the Minister of Conservation will develop and publicise a set of principles, but in addition you have a deed of recognition over Lake Rotoiti and Lake Rotorua in the Nelson Lakes National Park. These taonga, I know, will be looked after, because as kaitiaki you will ensure that those waterways remain healthy and that they will for ever be available to our mokopuna and our tamariki.

When I look at our settlements and the role that all of you will play in the future within the context of the rohe of Te Tau Ihu I feel reassured, actually, that our taonga will be for ever protected, and it is because we are always looking to the future. So when I look at the settlement and the opportunities that you now have, they add value to what you have already had and what you have created for yourselves. I wish you all the best in the future. I am not going to delay the passage of this bill any further, because I am aware that there is another Treaty settlement bill. So to all those involved in getting us to the point where we are today I say congratulations to you. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā rā koutou katoa te iwi o Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau. Ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa kia tū pakiri ai te whare o Apa ki te Rā Tō.

[Greetings, indeed, to you all the tribe of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, of Ngāti Kuia, and of Rangitāne o Wairau. You are all commended for your efforts that a sustainable house for Apa ki te Rā Tō be the vision for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō.]

The vision for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō is for a strong, vibrant, proud iwi that exercises and realises its rangatiratanga. Its vision is for effective, responsible utilisation of its resources to meet the needs and aspirations of the iwi while providing for future generations. Treaty settlements are about rangatiratanga. Whakahīa te ora tipu [raising healthy growth] is about improving the quality of lives by enabling Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō to create and take advantage of opportunities to better themselves. Maranga mai e te iwi Pākohe, maranga mai te iwi Ngāti Kuia.

[Rise up the tribe of Pākohe and of Ngāti Kuia.]

Ngāti Kuia and the Crown have made an agreement to settle, and in acknowledgment of the settlement, Ngāti Kuia have chosen to name it Te Whakatau. The iwi, from tīpuna and down through to today’s generations, have carried the burden of grievances caused by Crown action and inaction for over 170 years. Today Ngāti Kuia and the Crown will settle.

Rangitāne’s vision for the future is to be a dynamic, effective, successful, and profitable organisation working proactively and collegially with the Government, the community, and other iwi across the region and Te Wai Pounamu. Rangitāne will be committed to the development and promotion of honesty and integrity within the Māori context. Their ability to endure all manner of deprivation over the last century has been due to a strong belief in their ability as Rangitāne. The most precious asset that will require nurturing and developing in the future is that of its people.

Treaty settlements settle historical grievances, but today the Treaty settlements create a modern contextual framework for future development. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is indeed a great honour to be able to stand up and speak to a Māori settlement bill, the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Bill. I guess there might be many in the gallery asking what this white Pākehā boy from the West Coast is doing. I am the proud representative of the top of the South Island, the West Coast - Tasman electorate, and have been for some time, and I have had many dealings with Ngāti Apa and the other iwi groups over many issues for many years. I want to acknowledge and applaud the efforts to get to where we are today.

I would like to go back and acknowledge that perhaps it was these three iwi groups who, in fact, sparked the movement that led to, I guess, the existence of the Māori Party. That was around the seabed and foreshore. It was a difficult time, particularly for Labour, but the fact is that this iwi group had nowhere else to go and they then lay claim to the seabed and foreshore, something that was unfortunate. It is no good crying over spilt milk, but it has meant that we have moved on, the Māori Party is in Parliament, and we now have a settlement bill before us that is a just and fair settlement, although I am sure there will be people who perhaps think it could have been greater on behalf of the Crown.

Can I just acknowledge, as a farmer who grew up on the banks of the Kawatiri River—the Buller River, the third largest in this country—that Lake Rotoiti and Lake Rotoroa are the source of that great river. It flows through my veins, and the way that Māori speak of it I can understand. I have lived on that river, had a business on that river, farmed on the river, and can appreciate the need to protect it and protect the source of it. It is fair and just that the national park be handed back to Ngāti Apa and Ngāti Kuia along with, I think, some name changes. The good thing that might occur now is that people like me may be able to better pronounce the new names that may be put on geographical places in the top of the South Island.

But I know—and my colleagues have spoken of Labour’s support for the process—that it has been a long and a difficult process. I would like to acknowledge, I guess, that many of my constituents from the top of the South Island have been on and off planes for a number of years now, coming to Wellington to negotiate on behalf of their people. You have done a great job, and I hope that this settlement will enable the iwi organisations to use this money to grow opportunities for your people from now and into the future. It is very, very important.

Can I acknowledge that from a commercial perspective this will allow a new partnership going forward. The fact that now there will be an obligation for proper consultation with iwi is fair and just. There will be issues of aquaculture development, of water management, and of general development, because it is one of the most highly desirable places in the country to live. I accept that. People are drawn to the sun. They are drawn to the top of the South Island. But with that growth come dilemmas of water quality and dilemmas of land use, and iwi will now be rightfully consulted at every stage of that growth and development.

So it is indeed a great honour to speak, to say a few words, and to acknowledge the efforts of iwi getting here, and to acknowledge the difficult early process for Ngāti Apa and Ngāti Kuia in particular. As I say, the seabed and foreshore issue, which in hindsight will be recognised as a significant issue that brought Māori together, I guess has led to diversity in this Parliament and, regardless of our political views on issues, has brought Māori to be truly represented in this House. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): When the history books are rewritten, it will not be Ngāti Apa’s fault. The foreshore and seabed issue was a direct responsibility of the Marlborough District Council, and the council got it wrong—the council got it wrong. It did not trust or work with the local people. So let us get something straight right here—enough blaming Māori for this, that, and the other thing. Anyway, now I have had my rant. Ngā mihi nunui ki a koutou katoa e aku whanaunga, e aku rangatira, e aku tūākana, e aku tēina, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Huge accolades to you all, my relatives, leaders, elder and younger siblings. Well done.]

This is a very, very short contribution. I wish to confine myself to the Wairau affray, again, and mention and put into the record the names of those who lost their lives, because I think they deserve it. I have to start with Te Rongo, the wife of Te Rangihaeata, again because of somebody’s short wick. Yeah, it was an itchy trigger finger. So I pay my respects to Rongo. To the other Māori whānau who lost their lives in the affray, I am embarrassed that I do not know their names. The European settlers were Henry Augustus Thompson, Captain Arthur Wakefield, Captain Richard England, George Rycroft Richardson, W B Patchett, James Howard, Sylvanus John Cotterell, Thomas Maling, James Coster, William Gardiner, Edward Stokes, Eli Cropper, William Northam, Henry Bomforth, Thomas Tyrrell, Isaaq Smith, Thomas Pay, William Clanzey, James McGregor, John Brooks, John Burton, and Thomas Radcliffe. That is that.

Bill read a third time.

Haka

Karanga

Bills

Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui 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 Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Ka haere tonu ngā mihi ki a tātou, ki a koutou kua hara mai nei ki te tautoko i tēnei rā nui, tēnei rā whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou. Kua mihia ngā mate, waiho rātou ki a rātou. Ko te mea nui i tēnei wā, ko tātou, ko koutou e hui tahi nei, ā, kia whakaoti ai tēnei kerēme i mua i te aroaro o te Kāwanatanga, arā, te Whare Paremata i tēnei rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, whakapiri mai.

[The tributes to you collectively who have come here to support this important and great day continue. Greetings. Tributes to the dead have been accorded. Allow them to be there among their own. The most important thing at this point in time is us and you gathered here today to conclude this claim that is before the Government, in other words, before Parliament today. Salutations and greetings to you collectively, welcome, draw closer.]

Whakapapa connections developed over many generations and hundreds of years bring together the families and tīpuna of Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui. Tēnā koutou katoa. I stand to acknowledge the families and tīpuna of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga, four distinct iwi linked by whakapapa, by history, and by determination. Ko Aorere te moana, ko Tainui te waka, ko Hoturoa te rangatira, ko Ngāti Kōata te iwi. Ko Tainui te waka, ko Rāruaioio te tangata, ko Ngāti Rārua te iwi. Ko Tokomaru te waka, ko Tamariki te tangata, ko Ngāti Tama te iwi. Ko Taranaki Kōpiripiri ngā maunga, ko Waitohi te awa, ko Waikawa te marae, ko Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui te iwi.

[Aorere is the sea, Tainui is the canoe, Hoturoa is the chief, and Ngāti Kōata is the tribe. Tainui is the canoe, Rārua-ioio is the man, and Ngāti Rārua is the tribe. Tokomaru is the canoe, Tamariki is the man, and Ngāti Tama is the tribe. Taranaki Kōpiripiri are the mountains, Waituhi is the river, Waikawa is the courtyard, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui is the tribe.]

Nearly two centuries ago the peoples of Tainui and Taranaki ki te Tonga resided in Tainui, Kāwhia, and Taranaki lands on Te Ika-a-Māui. Facing hardship from the 1820s onwards, Tainui and Taranaki ki te Tonga tīpuna headed south. Wars were waged with the tribes throughout the bottom of the North Island and eventually across the top of the South Island. Those Tainui and Taranaki alliances and bonds remain strong to this day, as tīpuna established permanent communities across Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui.

By the time the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, the families of Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui exercised tino rangatiratanga over lands and resources in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui. However, we stand here today because the Crown has consistently failed to protect, failed to honour, and failed to guarantee the legal rights of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga families.

For Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga families back in 1840, the world was a different place to what we live in today. Te Tau Ihu whānau were a major part of a booming economy. They helped create it, and they owned much of it. Flax, wheat, potatoes, timber, and maize was grown, harvested, and processed on Te Tau Ihu lands by Te Tau Ihu families. It was then moved across New Zealand and shipped to Australia. The vessels that shifted it across were owned or leased by Te Tau Ihu families. This is what economic, political, and cultural rangatiratanga looks like. But when you take millions of acres off a people who have only ever known a life of enterprise and self-determination, you take more than land away. You remove a way of life, a culture, and an identity.

The Crown’s Governors and officials acted ruthlessly, sidelining the Treaty of Waitangi and deliberately giving new settlers advantage over Māori. As a result, the Crown’s purchases left Te Tau Ihu Māori in dire poverty. Much of this has been said in the other settlements leading up to this one, but clearly it happened, and clearly it happened in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka. Today the Crown stands alongside those families of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga and acknowledges the social, economic, and cultural devastation carried by generations of families. But through it all, the peoples of Tainui and Taranaki ki te Tonga remained steadfast. They remained at the prow of the waka of Māui, and they did not leave. Their identity was attacked, but was never destroyed. They lived in poverty, but they stayed. Their way of life was devastated, but was never wiped out.

All those things were lost due to the actions of the Crown and they can never be totally replaced, and yet the peoples of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga are here today. They wish to settle their grievances with the Crown with honour and mana. The journey to get to this day has not been easy or brief. We remember those who have passed on but whose determination has led to the legislation that this House is considering right now. Today we witness a milestone in a journey that is taking place right before our eyes. We introduced legislation to resolve the historical grievances of eight—eight—tribes of Te Tau Ihu. It is legislation that will strengthen the ability of future generations to carry on a proud legacy of economic and cultural rangatiratanga.

This is what has been the marvellous thing about settlements. Despite the fact that a settlement is a mere pittance of what was taken away—stuff that can never be made up for and opportunities that have been lost—our people have taken it with two hands and made something of it going forward. There are many instances of tribal success after settlements that we can look upon.

I wish the eight tribes of Te Tau Ihu the same success as they move forward now, taking life into their own hands and remembering that once they ruled the area and its economy and owned ships that took produce across the Tasman Sea. It is a long cry from when I went to school and they called us dumb Māoris. Prior to that, we were not so dumb. We grew the crops and we sold them, and we owned the transport and everything. Now, the tribes will move into that area again.

So it is an honour for me to stand here and open up this discussion. I would just like to acknowledge the iwi who have come here today. He maha o koutou whakaaro kia hoki nga mahara ki a rātou kāre i konei i tēnei wā, engari ko te mea nui kei konei koutou. Kei konei koutou, ka whai atu ā koutou tamariki kia kawe ai i te kaupapa me te mana o ō koutou iwi, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Your thoughts to recollect those who are no longer here are numerous, but the most important thing is that you are here collectively. Presently you are here to be followed by your children, who will take responsibility for the scheme in question and the integrity of your tribes. Congratulations to you all.]

This is legislation that will strengthen the ability of future generations to carry on a proud legacy of economic and cultural rangatiratanga. Ngā iwi o Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui, who are at the prow of the great voyaging canoe of Māui, are at the prow of their own destinies and future. I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E aku whanaunga, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama me Te Ātiawa, whakatau mai, whakatau mai, whakatau mai. Whakatau mai ki te herehere i ō koutou kerēme. Nā koutou tēnei rā. He rā nui, he rā whakahirahira. Hara mai, nau mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To my relatives, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama and Te Ātiawa, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome in terms of wrapping up your claim. This is your day. It is a great and magnificent day. Welcome here to Parliament House standing in readiness. So, greetings, salutations, and congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

Now this House turns to acknowledge the other parties involved in the story of the settlement of Te Tau Ihu: the four iwi of Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua, Te Ātiawa, and Ngāti Kōata. These four iwi were part of an invading force led by Ngati Toa that swept through Te Tau Ihu and further south.

I stated earlier, in my speech regarding Ngati Toa, my whakapapa interest to the people of Ngāti Rārua, who, in the time of Niho, Pikiwhara, Tākere, and Horomona, were part of a close but also distant collective of whānau and hapū that had struck out from the far northern reaches of Te Tai Hauāuru along that stretch of Māori highway between Kāwhia and the Poutama region of northern Taranaki as Te Wherowhero and his forces settled age-old enmities with Ngati Toa. The Ngāti Kōata at Pouwewe; the Ngati Toa at Taharoa, Te Maika, and Rākaunui; the Ngāti Rārua at Waikawa; the Ngāti Tama at Poutama; and the Ngāti Mutunga - Te Ātiawa of Urenui, Manukōrehi, and Ngāmotu were all tribes drawn into the conflict with Waikato-Tainui, either by choice or otherwise. The fear of reprisals from Te Wherowhero was reason enough to vacate virtually all of what we now know as the Taranaki province. My ancestors had no real choice but to throw their lot in with the heke of Ngati Toa and head to the Kāpiti region.

There were many reasons for this northern alliance’s raid down south. Insults were always guaranteed to get a chief’s hackles raised, and the chance to raid further south for the prized pounamu fuelled desire, but it was also a time for Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa to strike out for new lands and build new homes. For Rārua and Kōata, there was no returning to their ancestral lands, which were now in the possession of a new iwi. Ngāti Tama and Te Ātiawa held on to their ancestral lands with the might of the musket behind them. They crossed the strait, fought their battles, won most of them, and managed to hold their mana in the areas this bill now covers: Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui. From Whanganui Inlet right across to Wairau, up through Tōtaranui and on to D’Urville Island and Wakapuaka, these four tribes managed to achieve what they had started 10 years earlier.

Then, as we mentioned earlier today, that taniwha the New Zealand Company turned up, flashing its trinkets, blankets, and bank drafts, and ended up buying the whole top half of the South Island in what has now become Te Tau Ihu, which is part of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill.

We must realise these land transactions occurred at a time before the Treaty, Governors, and native land courts. They occurred during a time when two races were still sounding out each other’s cultures. It is fair to say, though, that Māori were diddled out of a lot of estate by dubious land-grabbers such as the New Zealand Company. To be fair, the Māori chiefs of old were not fools, and when it came to the ways of trade and barter they knew what they were doing. Indeed, it was a way of life for the Māori. They also had their own ways of dealing with the tribal estate and how individuals could use that piece of land, and that concept was something of a lease arrangement. But with the clash of cultures, there were to be inevitable differences, and conflicts soon arose.

Some of these iwi at the top of the south were granted reserves in tenths trusts, and others were not. Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa largely missed out on a share of tribal estate. The commission into the Te Waipounamu deed did little to alleviate the problem of the culture of the fractured and uneconomic land base for the four tribes. It is clear to me that the mamae caused by the New Zealand Company, as I said, is the taniwha in the story of Te Tau Ihu. If not for those dubious land practices, this whole sorry saga of Te Tau Ihu might never have happened. It may not have happened there, but it may have happened somewhere else. Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, and Te Ātiawa will all receive apologies from the Crown, which acknowledges that its part, its acts and its omissions breached the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown will apologise for its failure to adequately protect the interests of the four tribes during the process by which land was granted, for failing to provide adequate reserves in tenths reserves, and for the four tribes not being able to have control over the trusts and reserves. The Crown will also apologise for its failure to provide sufficient land for the future needs of the tribes.

What this bill does is it finally acknowledges every member of the aforementioned tribes, not just some. This rectifies some long-held grievances of those whānau who had a right to share in tribal estates but were left off the lists of beneficiaries. It gives those families who are left out of reserves, tenths, and iwi trusts an opportunity to have mana and to be included in the administering of their tribal estate.

It has been a long wait for these tribes. Throughout the history of these inquiries there have been many, many people who have helped progress these claims to this point. Mentioning names is always a tricky slope to negotiate, but we have come to the grand finale, encompassing all of the iwi of Te Tau Ihu. So what I would like to do is mention the surnames of whānau, in the hope that the whakapapa will bind all together. So today I mihi to these whānau and all of their uri whakatupu who are here today: Stafford, Luke, Joseph, McDonald, Hēmi, Wehipeihana, Bradley, Rūruku, Rene, Hippolite, Elkington, Tūpaea, Mason, Stevens, Te Miha, Ward-Holmes, Rōpata, and many, many, many more whānau.

It is a very proud day for me, for Te Wai Pounamu, for Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka, and especially for me as I am very privileged to hold the tūranga of the seat of Te Tai Tonga. Today we celebrate the final chapter in the historical land claims for all of Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island. My grandfather Sir Eruera Tirikatene, who was the MP for Southern Māori from 1932 to 1967, was no stranger to land claims. Right from his maiden speech in Parliament, he was advocating for resolution of the injustices and the grievances across iwi throughout the country. My late aunt, the Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan, continued that legacy. She gave her full support to every claim that was going on throughout Te Wai Pounamu.

But let me mention those MPs who felt the force, the pressure, from their own people to settle their grievances, and there are many. Our matua tūpuna Hōri Kerei Taiaroa; Ihaia Tainui; Tame Pārata and Taare Pārata—Hekia’s whānau; Tuiti Makitānara—McDonald’s tupuna; Tā Eruera and Whetu—my whānau; and then Tūtekawa Wyllie, Maharoa Okeroa, and Rahui Katene. They have all been proud members of Te Tai Tonga, formerly known as Southern Māori, who have been privileged to represent our whānau. On behalf of those tūpuna I salute the iwi of Ngati Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne. It is a pleasure for me to salute them all today, and I wish them all the very best. Nō reira, e rau rangatira mā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I welcome this opportunity to join with others in supporting the third reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill, which we are debating this morning. I want to acknowledge the presence of so many kaumātua and kuia here to note this historic day, and particularly some of the people whom I have been privileged to know over the long journey: Roma Hippolite, Priscilla Paul, Barry Mason, Janice Mason, Fred Te Miha, Reverend Harvey Ruru, and people like Glenis Payne. But I also want to acknowledge the research work from John and Hilary Mitchell in my own Nelson community. It was done a long time ago and it is founding this settlement.

I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Chris Finlayson and Pita Sharples, and their predecessors, and the officials who have helped us to get to this final leg of what has been a long journey. These settlements arise from grievances that are over 100 years old, and it is an important day, I acknowledge, for my colleague Rino Tirikatene across the House but also for all the people living in Nelson-Marlborough or Te Tau Ihu, the prow of the waka, that these are being resolved with these complex bills. I want to pay tribute to all of those who have laboured to bring us to this resolution.

This bill strikes at the core of who we are as New Zealanders. Most nations were born in a sea of blood. I am proud of our Māori and European ancestors, who founded this nation on a Treaty and, more important, on the notion that we can resolve our differences by discussion, with respect, and not by brute force and by violence. In a Nelson context our history is clear that our early colonial settlers were welcomed and were treated generously by local iwi. But it is also true that those settlers became arrogant, dominant, and disrespectful of Māori rights and of their culture and customs. Land agreements were not honoured, and this, combined with the effects of disease and economic dislocation, saw our local Māori left, by the end of the 19th century, in an impoverished state.

These Treaty settlements across Te Tau Ihu will be good for our region and good for our nation. They will be beneficial economically. Our eight iwi are more parochial than any of us Nelsonians and have a huge stake in our region’s future prosperity. The investment of the settlement funds into the regional economy will help jobs and growth in our community.

There is a second benefit I also want to acknowledge. This Treaty settlement process has helped bring local iwi together and that is a good thing. We are a small population in total across the top of the south, and Māori are a small proportion relative to many other parts of New Zealand. I recognise that each of our eight iwi has different whakapapa and histories, and that needs to be respected. But, equally, as we look to the future it makes sense as we face the challenges of education, of health, of economic development, and of natural resource management that our iwi work more closely together. I have seen this cooperation build up through the settlement process and I hope this momentum can be maintained. I also want to acknowledge the huge improvement in relations with Ngāi Tahu to the south and see that also as a positive development.

I also want to acknowledge the important new role iwi will have in so many of the special places across Nelson and Marlborough, and with me and the Department of Conservation. We have a treasured environment of stunning snowcapped mountains, golden beaches, pristine lakes, island treasures, rich estuaries, and beautiful sounds. The Department of Conservation was founded 25 years ago to play an important role in protecting those areas, but it has not been as engaging and as inclusive as it could be. The reforms that we have made to the Department of Conservation are about it being more able to partner with others, and they are part of this journey of Treaty settlements that we also celebrate today.

In conclusion, yes, these settlements are good for our local economy; yes, they are good for the management of our local environment; and, yes, they are good in bringing more closely together our local iwi, but the real reason we should celebrate today is the values that we recommit to: those values of justice, of mutual respect, and of the resolution of difficult issues—old issues—by negotiation and by goodwill. Having the courage in these bills to say sorry, the courage to put what was wrong right, and the courage to put that behind us and face the future together—that is what I really acknowledge and celebrate today. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā, tēnei e tū ana anō ki te tuku aku mihi maioha ki a koutou. Tēnei, he iti nāku hei tuitui atu ki ngā kōrero ō tō tātou mema a Rino, e kawea nei i ngā kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te Pāremata. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so I rise once again to extend my fond accolades to you collectively. This small contribution of mine is merely to thread with those sentiments expressed by our member Rino on matters before the House. So congratulations to us all.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution on this third and final reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill, and to endorse the comments of Rino Tirikatene, the local member for Te Tai Tonga, on this bill. It does take a lot of courage to apologise, and I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon Nick Smith. It is for that reason that I want to take the unusual step—if people look at my Treaty settlement contributions—of recording in Hansard the germane causes of each apology, and then I will make clear how I think that relates to looking forward.

Clause 199(3), the apology to Ngāti Kōata, states: “The Crown regrets and apologises for its failure to properly respect the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kōata. Crown actions, moreover, left Ngāti Kōata virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu and alienated them from many of their most sacred sites. For this too the Crown apologises. Their disconnection from their lands marginalised Ngāti Kōata in the economic development of Te Tau Ihu, and had devastating consequences for the social, cultural, and spiritual well-being of Ngāti Kōata. Those consequences continue to be felt today.”

Clause 202, the apology to Ngāti Rārua states: “(4) The Crown admits it did not include Ngāti Rārua in its purchase of the Wairau district in 1847, and only belatedly recognised Ngāti Rārua interests in its Te Waipounamou purchase. The Crown apologises for these failures to recognise the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Rārua and protect their interests. (5) The Crown is sorry that its actions rendered Ngāti Rārua virtually landless in their rohe. This had a devastating impact on the social and cultural well-being of the people of Ngāti Rārua that continues to be seen today. The Crown also accepts that the loss of their land and their restriction to inadequate reserves has significantly marginalised Ngāti Rārua from the benefits of economic development, and limited the autonomy and ability of the iwi to exercise customary rights and responsibilities through the Ngāti Rārua rohe.”

Clause 205, the apology to Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, reads: “(3) The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for its cumulative acts and omissions which left Ngāti Tama virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu. The Crown deeply regrets and sincerely apologises that it did not adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Tama and appropriately respect Ngāti Tama rangatiratanga when purchasing their land. (4) The Crown is deeply remorseful for the significant damage that the alienation of Ngāti Tama from their whenua and customary resources in Golden and Tasman Bays has caused over many generations to the traditional social and cultural structures, mana, and well-being of Ngāti Tama.”

Clause 208, the apology to Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Maui, states: “(2) The Crown is deeply sorry that it has failed to live up the obligations it accepted when more than twenty Te Ātiawa rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Totaranui (Queen Charlotte Sound) in May 1840. (3) The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for its actions, which left Te Ātiawa virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu. The Crown recognises that by 1860 Crown land purchases in Te Tau Ihu had largely restricted Te Ātiawa to isolated reserves and marginalised iwi from the new emerging economy. In particular the Crown regrets that when it arranged the purchase of Waitohi as the site of a town for settlers, this meant Te Ātiawa had to forsake their principal settlement of Totaranui. (4) The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to appropriately respect Te Ātiawa rangatiratanga. It is greatly remorseful that, over the generations to the present day, Crown actions have undermined your social and traditional structures, and your autonomy and ability to exercise your customary rights and responsibilities.”

I too believe that it takes great courage to apologise. I too believe that the effort with which Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui have come towards the negotiations is such that they have given much already and compromised much already, but they are wanting to go forward, as captured in the nature of these apologies. The text of the apologies is a clear statement of the Crown’s admission of its wrongs. But the apology itself becomes a reference point for future interactions between each of your respective iwi and the Crown as it points to the original intent of the legislation in your settlement but also as to the post-settlement expectation of how the Crown can act honourably to uphold its part of the settlement.

This really becomes important at this point, after we have heard eight of the Te Tau Ihu claims being resolved through today’s presentations in the House and in the passing of your legislation. I reflect again on the relationship comment that I made in an earlier contribution. Ngāi Tahu is here as well. It is probably by no small and insignificant chance that the relationships that can now be forged will hold future Governments, and certainly the Crown, to account on how they deal with you in the South Island.

I am reminded by the former honourable member for Te Tai Tonga Rahui Katene that it is significant also that the Whānau Ora commissioning agency comprises each of the eight Te Tau Ihu iwi as well as Ngāi Tahu. This, again, bodes well for how a post-settlement environment can uphold the recognition of what you have each respectively achieved in your Treaty settlements but also what you would like to achieve going forward in a range of interactions, whether it be health, education, housing, employment, economic development. They are the whole raft of opportunities that now exist. In part, you have your Treaty settlement, which recognises the extent of the historical injustice and the redress that has been reached but also the opportunity of a post-settlement landscape that now forges a new normal for the way in which a Government must extend its relationship in a more purposeful way with each and every one of you.

It gives me great pride and pleasure to be able to be here today and witness, I think, a very significant step, not just for Te Tau Ihu iwi but for New Zealand and for the opportunities that can be provided to ensure that this range of Treaty settlements that we have debated through the Māori Affairs Committee to today will remain durable and will uphold the intent of what was identified in the apologies, in terms of what the expectation is in the future. Tēnā tātou katoa.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill. I maintain that it is a privilege to speak on these Treaty settlement bills. I want to thank the iwi who are here today, because this was the first settlement bill that I have been involved with where I have travelled to the actual area where the land claims are from. I did that with the Māori Affairs Committee. It was the first time that I had actually heard from the people who lived there in the rohe, while we were surrounded by the beautiful lands, while we were surrounded by the losses that these people had endured. That was the first time that it happened for me. So the weight of those submissions actually carried much more for me because I was there and because it was kanohi ki te kanohi. So thank you for that.

I want to acknowledge that there are many people over the very many generations who have worked to bring these Treaty settlements into legislation today. I want particularly to acknowledge those who have passed away on the journey to here. I want to acknowledge their foresightedness and their tenacity to bring justice to their people.

This bill puts into legislation the settlements that were signed with each of the four iwi. Ngāti Kōata signed on 21 December 2012. Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui signed the deed of settlement on 21 December as well. Ngāti Rārua signed theirs on 13 April 2013. Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu signed theirs in April 2013 as well. Each of these iwi has separate and specific histories. However, they share a similar fate, and that is why they are here today. Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa, and Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui have areas of occupation and areas of interest that overlap, but they are distinct for each.

In 1839—and this is the common history—they were all caught up in the dodgy deal that was done by the New Zealand Company when the New Zealand Company purported to have bought the entire top of the South Island. After the Treaty was signed a year later—and leaders from these iwi did sign the Treaty—the Crown appointed a commissioner to investigate the company’s purchases. In Ngāti Rārua’s settlement it says that in Nelson the commissioner heard from only one Māori, and that person was Ngāti Rārua, before suspending the entire inquiry to enable the New Zealand Company to attempt to negotiate a settlement. Local Māori signed the deeds of settlement in return for accepting payments that were described as gifts, rather than as payments for the land. It is fair to say that the New Zealand Company, in its attempts to wrest land from iwi, negotiated with individual Māori for land ownership when, in fact, land was owned collectively. Breaking that collective ownership is basically how the land was alienated from iwi by both the New Zealand Company and also, subsequently, the Crown.

The Crown continued to do that. It used a variety of mechanisms, which are outlined fully in each of the deeds of settlement in each of the acknowledged histories that are contained in the legislation. To read those accounts and to understand the huge injustices that occurred when iwi were forced out of ownership of their resources, their economic base, is so incredibly sad. I just want to give an example of those acknowledgments from the conclusion of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui deed of settlement. It says: “Within three decades of Te Ātiawa rangatira signing the Treaty of Waitangi at Tōtaranui (Queen Charlotte Sound), extensive Crown purchases in Te Tau Ihu had left Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui virtually landless. The small areas of reserve land left to Te Ātiawa were insufficient for Te Ātiawa to participate in the new economy, and were subject to further alienation over the twentieth century. The loss of land has impacted on Te Ātiawa’s connection and access to many of their significant sites and resources. This has had a detrimental effect on the spiritual, economic, and cultural wellbeing of Te Ātiawa as an iwi.”

Iwi have carried these injustices and been hurt by them for generations, so I am aware that the apologies from the Crown are really important, and I acknowledge what the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, said there. The apologies are crucial to healing those hurts. When I read the apologies that are in the legislation, I can see that care has been taken. Maybe the words were crafted and debated by the negotiation team, but they have been crafted to ensure that the Crown’s apology is sincere and unflinching in accepting responsibility for its actions and its omissions that disadvantaged the iwi.

I am going to quote from the Ngāti Rārua apology, which I think the previous speaker may have already done, but I think that it is worth repeating as an example of that unflinchingness: “The Crown is sorry that its actions rendered Ngāti Rārua virtually landless in their rohe. This had a devastating impact on the social and cultural well-being of the people of Ngāti Rārua that continues to be seen today. The Crown also accepts that the loss of their land and their restriction to inadequate reserves has significantly marginalised Ngāti Rārua from the benefits of economic development, and limited the autonomy and ability of the iwi to exercise customary rights and responsibilities throughout the Ngāti Rārua rohe.”

I maintain that to accept the apology is an act of huge generosity from these people. To be sure, the redress has been outlined in the legislation, as well, and iwi have managed to secure from the Crown some financial, cultural, and commercial redress, but in no way are the losses that have been suffered covered by what is in the legislation and what has been negotiated. Ngāti Kōata will get financial redress of $11.6 million and the opportunity to purchase Waimea and Hira forestry land near Nelson, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu receive financial redress of $12.06 million, for Te Ātiawa the financial redress is $11.7 million, and for Ngāti Rārua the financial redress is $11.7 million. As I pointed out in a previous speech, this is a drop in the bucket compared with what this Government sometimes spends its money on, and I refer to South Canterbury Finance. All the iwi get small parcels of land back, but they get nowhere near what was lost, and they symbolically give some of that land back to the people of New Zealand. For example, Te Tai Tapu and Kākā Point will be given to iwi but will be gifted back to the people of New Zealand 7 days later.

The Greens do not agree that these are full and final settlements, and that is a political point that I need to make in every speech on every settlement. It is not full, because the compensation is obviously not full, and it is not final, because how can we know now how the histories of these iwi will impact on their people in the future? Without a doubt, someone out there in the public will say that this is a gravy train and that Māori are privileged. It is my incredible wish that those people will receive the true histories of the tangata whenua of Aotearoa New Zealand. That is the only way we will break down racism. Today is the day to celebrate. I join with the rest of the House in congratulating the people whose legislation will pass through finally. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa e te iwi o Ngāti Kōata. “Take tuku … take raupatu … take ahi kā roa”, and the “non-negotiable values” of Ngāti Kōata: whakawhanaungatanga, manaakitanga, and whakatūpatotanga. These underline their guiding principles: to protect rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kōata, to protect and preserve taonga, to identify and protect wāhi tapu, to promote and enhance Ngāti Kōata and its terms under the Treaty, and to support the social, economic, and cultural needs of its iwi.

Ngāti Rārua, nā tātou te wā. Ko te tirohanga rautaki o Ngāti Rārua he whakamana i te puna mauri ora o Ngāti Rārua kia kaha ai te pupuri i ngā hekenga ā muri ake tonu. Kia tū katoa rā te mauri me te ohaoha, me te hononga o Ngāti Rārua a te tau, 2014. Kei a Ngāti Rārua anake te tino mātauranga e pā ana ki a Ngāti Rārua mai i te ūkaipo, ka heke ki hea rānei.

[The time is ours, Ngāti Rārua. Te Tirohanga strategy of Ngāti Rārua confirms the healthy life force pool of Ngāti Rārua will be retained for the generations to come, and it ensures that the force, economy, and relationships of Ngāti Rārua in 2014 will be sustainable. Ngāti Rārua alone has the real knowledge about Ngāti Rārua relating to the source of sustenance from mother and down to wherever.]

Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu will determine its own rangatiratanga through education, skills training, and te reo me ōna tikanga. They will succeed in Te Ao Pākehā, me Te Ao Ngāti Tama, me Te Ao Māori. They have the courage, determination, and perseverance to withstand all the injustices, discrimination, losses, sadness, mamae, and pouritanga, and Ngāti Tama endures. Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, this is a day of celebration.

Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui are the people of Te Ātiawa descent whose whakapapa is Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui. In 1840 when Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Tōtaranui, they were a dynamic, robust society with their own lands and cultural customs that regulated their life both on land and at sea. Today, Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui are dynamic, robust, innovative, generous, and enduring people.

I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu me Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To the authorities and voices, to Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rāru, Ngāti Tama at Te Tau Ihu and Te Ātiawa of Te Waka-a-Māui, salutations, acknowledgments, and congratulations to you all.]

It has been a pretty special morning being part of this entire third reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill. I have decided to pick up on a theme that we seem to have started within this particular reading about saying sorry. So for me, when I look at our Treaty settlement legislation, I think of it as New Zealand’s truth and reconciliation process. When I look at the bills that have been before us, what it speaks about to me is truth. The definition of truth is the real facts about New Zealand’s history. So when I look at this settlement legislation that we have in the House, it is the truth from the iwi that have been involved this morning in the Te Tau Ihu settlement process—it is your truth. I hope that what you have recorded within your specific piece of legislation is a truth that you are satisfied with.

The other part of the process is reconciliation. Reconciliation is about a restoration of relations. It is about a shared view and it is also about the Crown’s role. We have talked a bit in this particular settlement kōrero about the Crown saying sorry and the meaning of an apology. I think what I really want to have recorded is that the Crown was not passive in what happened to Māori and to mana whenua and tangata whenua. The Crown actually colluded with the settlement companies that came here to colonise our country. So the Crown was not passive; it was active. So for the Crown to acknowledge its deeds in our history is significant, but for me it is significant because of the relations that happen after a reconciliation process. Those relations are actually about the geographic name changes, the statutory acknowledgments, and the deeds of recognition. It is now about how the Crown and Māori—the Crown and tangata whenua and mana whenua—work together as we move into the future.

When I look at the opportunity that the settlement legislation provides, it means that we will develop memoranda of understanding. It means we will develop principles about how we will work together. It is about how mana whenua and tangata whenua will take their rightful place in the administration of all the taonga that have been identified in the Treaty legislation. The challenge going forward is going to be about the reality of those relationships going forward, the reality of the memoranda of understanding and the principles, and everything that this piece of legislation now empowers. It is going to be incumbent on us as members of Parliament now and as MPs in the future to be accountable for these pieces of legislation.

I want to pick up on something that Denise Roche has said about the Greens not accepting that this is full and final. In fact, in a way she is right, because if things do not work practically in terms of the relationship, we can make amendments to pieces of legislation. So if you become dissatisfied in the future about how the Government is working with you—whether it be the Department of Conservation or whatever; it could be the Ministry of Education—actually you can come back to this House and say you are not satisfied with the relations that this piece of legislation has created for your working relationship in the future. So in some regards Denise Roche is absolutely right. I think what I want to put on record is that as members of Parliament here today and members of Parliament going forward the challenge is actually on us to make this legislation work. My commitment to you—and I know this commitment is across the House—is that if this legislation does not work, then we need to keep working at it. There are mechanisms within the House of Parliament to ensure it does.

As far as I am concerned as a member of Parliament, this is the beginning of a formal relationship and there is always an opportunity for you to come back to us and say it is not working, it needs to be clearer, or you need more mandate to actually give effect to the whole reconciliation and apology part of these settlements. Otherwise, they are not real, and they will not create the real, transformative change that we need in our society.

So I will not speak any more, other than to again congratulate everybody who has been involved in getting us to this point in time. I wish you wonderful celebrations, not only here but actually at home on the marae, where most of the whānau will be. So I hope that over this Easter period you will have gatherings and people will celebrate and be satisfied with this process. I again want to reiterate how privileged we all are to be part of this truth and reconciliation process for our country. I wish you all the best going into the future. I do hope that you disseminate this history within your rohe so that all of our tamariki and mokopuna understand for ever our place, the place of tangata whenua, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Ngā whānau o ngā iwi, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, me Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai.

[To the families of the tribes Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama at Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa of Te Waka-a-Māui, I have much admiration for you all. Welcome, welcome.]

I am very privileged to be standing here to take a final call on the third reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill. I have heard the many speeches that have been passed on today. I, along with the other speakers, want to congratulate you on all the hard work you have done in getting your bill here to the final phase of negotiation. It is a short call.

I know that previous speakers have talked about it being a drop in the bucket when it comes to commercial redress around finances, but I also stand here because I have seen many iwi that have gone before you that have received their settlements and have turned their small drop in the bucket into a great big ocean—a great big ocean. Ngāi Tahu is a very good example of that big ocean. They have produced that for the whole of Te Wai Pounamu. I take my hat off to them. I take my hat off to the iwi of Tainui, who have done the same. They have taken a small amount and they have grown it. They have grown it for the benefit of our mokopuna—of our mokopuna, who will receive everything that is due to them. We must celebrate that as Māori.

The Crown has apologised. We have apologised. I know that when a door opens, everything can happen for us. We are an innovative and beautiful people. We need to keep on celebrating that and take this process all the way through. I know that the Crown will do that. So without any further ado, congratulations thrice—congratulations to you all, to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and to the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora tēnei rā koutou katoa.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Although this bill, the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill, may be the last to receive a third reading today, it is not the least. It provides for four settlements for iwi who have historical Treaty claims in Te Tau Ihu, at the top of the south. Many people have sacrificed their time and well-being to achieve these settlements, but it is very, very sad indeed that Chris Atutahi, who worked for the Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga collective, is not here to see this day. We attribute his work at the commencement of negotiations to getting us here today.

The bill contains Crown acknowledgments and apologies made to each of these four iwi, and provides for specific redress. Understanding the history is critical, and I endorse what Mr Henare and others have said about the importance of history. I do not intend to repeat what he and Mr Tirikatene and others have so eloquently said about the history of these settlements. Mr Tirikatene, in particular, has spoken very well in this debate about these four iwi. I acknowledge their contribution. I endorse what they have said. But rather I want to make a few comments about each of the iwi represented here this morning.

Ngāti Kōata descended from Kōata of the Tainui waka, and for many years were a coastal iwi residing in Kāwhia. They came first to Te Tau Ihu through a tuku, or grant of land, from a Kurahaupō chief and then went through the subsequent invasion. They principally established themselves at Rangitoto Island, Croisilles, Whakatū, and Whakapuaka. They were a people with a close association to the coast, in terms of both navigation and fishing.

In recognition of the importance of certain sites to Ngāti Kōata, including part of Rangitoto, or D’Urville Island, this bill requires the New Zealand Conservation Authority to have particular regard to Ngāti Kōata’s values when considering management plans for these sites. Through the bill, Ngāti Kōata will be appointed as a conservation statutory adviser over Takapourewa, or Stephens Island. This island was traditionally used as a tohunga training ground, as well as being a valuable source of natural resources. Being appointed as a conservation statutory adviser provides Ngāti Kōata with the ability to give advice to the Minister of Conservation in relation to the restoration of native flora and the management of native fauna.

This settlement would not be happening today without the dedication of Roma Hippolite, who led negotiations with the support of Allen Hippolite. Api Hēmi united Ngāti Kōata, and previous chairs and original claimants Jim Elkington and Priscilla Paul guided Ngāti Kōata through the hearings, along with Pene Ruruku, Pūhanga Tūpaea, Ngārau Tūpaea, and the late Martin Dawson.

Let me say something about the late Martin Dawson. I am sure Shane Jones would endorse this. Martin Dawson was a lawyer in Wellington for many years. He acted for iwi long before it became the fashionable or popular thing to do. He was interested in these issues because he was a caring lawyer dedicated to justice, not because he was interested in the 6-minute units or fees. Without, of course, descending into personalities—that would be inappropriate—I simply say that he could teach some lawyers a thing or two about professionalism. We greatly miss him for the work he did on this and other settlements. May he rest in peace.

I want to say something about Ngāti Rārua. They originated from the western coast of the King Country region and descend from those tūpuna who migrated to New Zealand aboard the Tainui waka. The lands at Motueka, Rīwaka, and Marahau became a significant area of occupation for Ngāti Rārua in Te Tau Ihu, as did the Wairau district on the east coast and areas of Golden Bay and the upper West Coast. Despite being settled in Wairau, Ngāti Rārua were not party to the negotiations that led to the Wairau purchase. The reserves provided for Ngāti Rārua under the Te Wai Pounamu purchase had only a very small area of cultivatable land. They were isolated. They were of poor quality.

In recognition of the significance of certain sites to Ngāti Rārua, this bill requires the New Zealand Conservation Authority to have particular regard to Ngāti Rārua’s values when considering management plans in relation to these sites. I particularly want to acknowledge Barry Mason. He was the inaugural trust chair and a founding member of the committee that filed the Ngāti Rārua claim, along with Molly Luke, who has been a complete stalwart at the helm as chair until very recently. I acknowledge Lee Luke and also my old sparring partner Tim Castle, who were the principal negotiators for Ngāti Rārua. I am very kind to the lawyers today.

Then there is Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu. They trace their roots to the Tokomaru waka from Hawaiki. They take their name from Tamāriki, who came aboard that vessel. The Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu rangatira Te Puoho led their migration. He also led the last known taua by northern iwi into the Ngāi Tahu territory, in 1836, and was killed doing so. Ngāti Tama established themselves as tangata whenua in Te Tau Ihu with pā at numerous locations, including Te Tai Tapu, Wainui, Tākaka, and Parapara in Golden Bay, and also at various places like Wakapuaka in Tasman Bay. I think, without casting aspersions at all on other iwi, that they do have the best sites in the land.

Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu negotiators have consistently tried to re-establish their connections with their traditional sites. So one aspect of their settlement that is very important is Te Korowai Mana, which acknowledges the traditional cultural, spiritual, and historical association of Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu with certain sites of significance. Can I acknowledge Janice Manson, the inaugural chair, and Keri Stephens, another previous chair for Ngāti Tama. I particularly pay tribute today to that great warrior Fred Te Miha. I am so very fond of Fred. He says what he thinks, and he thinks a lot. He is going to be a force for this great iwi in the future. I also acknowledge Rob McKewen, Jo Westrupp, and John Ward-Holmes.

Then there is Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, and I do want to say some things about that great iwi situated near Anakiwa. By the 1830s Te Ātiawa were settled through Tōtaranui—Queen Charlotte Sound. They also established themselves in Tasman Bay, Golden Bay, and Te Tai Tapu. The Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, and Cook Strait were great highways for them. By geographical choice and necessity they were coastal dwellers, and they continue to place high cultural and historical values on the foreshore, the seabed, and the coastal and maritime waterways. Through this bill they are appointed as statutory kaitiaki over five islands in Queen Charlotte Sound, and this will provide them with the opportunity to provide advice in relation to the restoration of native flora and the management of native fauna.

There are so many people who have led the charge for Te Ātiawa. The Rev. Harvey Ruru and Sharon Gemmell particularly deserve a special mention. I wish Glenis Payne and the trust all the best as they lead this wonderful iwi into a post-settlement era.

Let me just simply say one thing about the post-settlement era. We have heard this morning, as we hear with all third readings, some wonderful sentiments being expressed, but the bipartisan view that comes from the Labour Party and the National Party needs to be emphasised—that is, for all the great phrases, what will make these settlements succeed in the future will be the Crown living up to its obligations. I am acutely conscious of that, and that is why we have set up a post-settlement commitments unit to make sure that the Crown holds fast to its promises, not just tomorrow, not just in 25 years, but for ever after.

So I congratulate these iwi on achieving this moment. I thank you for the work that you have done over so many years. With goodwill on both sides and with the Crown doing its bit, I believe it is the start of a renewed relationship with the Crown, one that will be based on trust, cooperation, and respect for the Treaty. The third reading of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Maui Claims Settlement Bill marks the end for Parliament of what is a momentous day—a momentous day, of course, not just for Parliament but for the iwi. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 113

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

Noes 7

New Zealand First 7.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Haka

Karanga

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)