Thursday, 24 July 2014

THURSDAY, 24 JULY 2014

THURSDAY, 24 JULY 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Leader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday, 29 July the Government intends to progress the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Veterans’ Support Bill. On Wednesday afternoon a number of members will make their valedictory statements to the House. With the agreement of the Business Committee, on Thursday morning the House will enter extended hours to make progress on a number of non-controversial bills and the Standing Orders debate.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I wonder whether the acting Leader of the House could advise which door it is appropriate for the Leader of the House to enter the Chamber from—the entry or the exit door.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that will help the order of the House.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Cost of Living—Consumers Price Index, Inflation, and Alternative Approaches

1. Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Finance: What measures is the Government taking to help control inflation for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Among a number of sensible economic measures, the Government has maintained practical and predictable monetary policy in the hands of an independent Reserve Bank. This assists to control the cost of living. Among the policies, the Government is working hard to get back to surplus this year, and to ensure existing spending is focused on programmes that make a real difference to New Zealanders rather than going on a large spend-up, which puts pressure on interest rates and the cost of living. We are supporting businesses to invest and create jobs, and incomes are rising faster than inflation. Consumer prices rose by 1.6 percent in the year to 30 June, and food prices were up by 1.2 percent for the year. That compares with overall inflation of 5.1 percent in 2008, when annual food prices jumped by 11 percent rather than by 1.2 percent.

Hon Phil Heatley: How did consumer price inflation for the last June year compare with market expectations, and what were the main components of that annual result?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The quarterly Consumers Price Index increase of 0.3 percent and the annual rise of 1.6 percent were slightly below market expectations. Annual inflation remains in the lower half of the Reserve Bank’s 1 to 3 percent target zone, which is good news for households and businesses. In the June year the strong exchange rate was reflected in lower prices for audiovisual and computing equipment, lower vehicle prices, and a fall in prices for telecommunications services. These falls were offset by slightly higher prices for housing and household utility prices, and increased costs for cigarettes and tobacco after an excise duty increase in January.

Hon David Parker: Is he aware that Consumers Price Index inflation does not incorporate interest rate increases, therefore hiding the significant increases to mortgage rates that have occurred over the past year because of his Government’s failure in Auckland housing policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think any interest rates increases have been hidden. People have been getting notifications in the mail for the last 3 or 4 months about their interest rates going up. I would point out to the member that at 3.5 percent the official cash rate is less than half what it was when his Government left office in 2008, when it reached a record 8.25 percent. The interest rate that he is claiming is too high is 3.5 percent; when he was in charge it reached 8.25 percent.

Hon Phil Heatley: What recent reports has he received on likely future trends in the cost of living?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In its review of the official cash rate this morning the Reserve Bank said that, overall, “Inflation remains moderate, but strong growth in output has been absorbing spare capacity.” Its independent decision to raise the official cash rate to 3.5 percent is expected to keep future average inflation near the 2 percent target and ensure that the economic expansion can be sustained. I am sure the House understands just how significant the Reserve Bank’s statements are. With the official cash rate at 3.5 percent the Reserve Bank is indicating that we can sustain growth around 3 percent. That is in sharp contrast to the interest rate structure under the previous Labour Government, when the official cash rate never fell below 4.75 percent in 9 years. When Labour left office it was at 8.25 percent, inflation was above 5 percent, floating mortgage interest rates were almost 11 percent, and house prices had doubled in the previous 7 years. It looks like we will be able to avoid all of those mistakes this time round.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Minister compares interest rates with the USA, China, Japan, the UK, and nearly all of Europe, is it not a fact that, comparatively, we are paying the highest interest rates in 50 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand is paying the lowest interest rates it has had in 50 years, or just slightly above. Of course, if the member wants long-term recession and enormous Government debt like they have in the UK and Europe, then of course we would have zero to 1 percent interest rates. But, actually, this Government chooses more jobs, more investment, and more growth, and that is why we have higher interest rates than they do.

Hon Phil Heatley: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to monetary policy and economic management, and what impact would they have on the cost of living for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have just seen one alternative approach from the leader of New Zealand First, who is suggesting that we have large deficits, enormous Government debt, and low growth rates, and that, therefore, we would have low interest rates.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is out of order. He cannot say that and speak for another party, particularly one that knows what it is doing.

Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters raises a reasonable point. It is inappropriate for any member to ask a question that is simply a means of attacking another party. Does the Minister want to add further to the answer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course I do.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the Minister can, but it had better not be an attack on another political party.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports from parties that are so worried about the cost of living that they are going to put a $25 carbon tax on, which, of course, will raise the cost of living, not lower it.

Members’ Conduct—Government and Support Party Members

2. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon David Parker: Does he stand by his statement that “My style is to be open and transparent …”; if so, why will he not be open and transparent and tell New Zealanders what Claudette Hauiti used her parliamentary charge card for and how much she spent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is the most open and transparent Prime Minister we have ever had, which accounts for why 70 percent of New Zealanders prefer him as Prime Minister and, I think, less than 7 percent prefer the Leader of the Opposition. In respect of Ms Hauiti, she has, of course, explained her expenditure this morning in some detail.

Hon David Parker: Why will the Prime Minister not disclose to New Zealanders what his office and chief of staff must have found out after investigations into this matter, especially when the Prime Minister has said of his chief of staff: “When they talk to him, they talk to me.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: My understanding is that the member in question has taken up the matter with the Parliamentary Service and with the Government whip, and believes, as she has said today, that as of this morning all matters are resolved. The Prime Minister will not be aware of the details of that.

Hon David Parker: How is it open and transparent of the Prime Minister to refuse to read the police report about John Banks’ declaration of electoral donations, which allowed the Prime Minister to pretend that John Banks had done nothing wrong so that he could keep Mr Banks’ vote and prop up his Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong on his description of those events. As I think Parliament is aware, Mr Banks has faced due process. There have been consequences for him and, actually, as far as Mr Banks, the courts, and Parliament are concerned, the matter is resolved.

Hon David Parker: How is it open and transparent to reinstate Peter Dunne as a Minister without first requiring Mr Dunne to state whether or not he did leak the Kitteridge report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has been completely open and transparent about those matters. Everyone knows Mr Dunne’s point of view about the events that he is referring to. Everyone knows what the Prime Minister has done. There is nothing secret about it. I just wish that the Labour Party would not try to keep secret how few people in its caucus support its leader.

Hon David Parker: Is he concerned that his pattern of behaviour is now so clear that newspapers today reported, in respect of this latest instance involving Claudette Hauiti, that “… Key’s promise of greater openness is looking threadbare.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Absolutely not. This is the most transparent, most accessible Prime Minister New Zealand has ever had. I can recall Helen Clark, as the previous Prime Minister, fighting the Ombudsman for 2 years to prevent transcripts of the post-Cabinet press conference being released. No one could imagine John Key doing that. He is very open and very transparent. That is one reason why even close to a majority of Labour voters now prefer John Key as Prime Minister, and, of course, we know why that is.

Education System—Public Achievement Information

3. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on Public Achievement Information?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Today, I was delighted to release the latest public information from the Ministry of Education on participation and achievement across the education system, including at national, regional, territorial, local authority, and school levels. The information enables all New Zealanders to chart the progress of all children and young people at critical times in their educational journey. The Public Achievement Information released today shows we have more kids starting earlier, staying longer, and gaining better qualifications.

Dr Cam Calder: How is the reporting of achievement information useful?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is useful to parents who tell me they like to see how their kids are doing in relation to others, teachers who tell me it helps them to accelerate student progress, and principals who tell me it helps them to know how their school is doing as a whole and in their community. It is useful to kids who tell me they like being successful, to councils that tell me they like knowing how the schools in their areas are doing and about the link to their local economy and employment. It is useful to businesses that tell me this helps them identify opportunities to work more closely with their schools. Armed with this Public Achievement Information, we can all work together to help our kids succeed.

Dr Cam Calder: What progress is being made on national standards across the country?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We have seen some good progress all over the country over the last 2 years. Fifteen of our 16 regional council areas had increases from 2011 to 2013 in achievement against national standards, including gains for Māori students in 14 of those 16 areas. In the Auckland region, we now know that around 100,000 children are reported as being at or above the national standards for reading, writing, and maths in the 426 schools involved. In the West Coast region over the last 2 years we have seen a 6.5 percent point increase in reading and writing. The reporting of this information involves more than 30,000 teachers in over 2,100 schools assessing the progress of over 400,000 primary kids. The overall consistency of the professional judgments made by these teachers gives us confidence we are improving, but we have got more work to do. I want to thank each and every one of these teachers. I seek leave—

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may have finally been coming to the end of her answer, but I do support the notion that she has got more work to do, though.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a useful point of order in any way whatsoever.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I seek leave of the House to table an email exchange between a staff member of the Ministry of Education and the principal of Valley School Pukekohe from May this year. This exchange clearly shows that there was a fuller exchange—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —than the selective email tabled in the House yesterday by Chris Hipkins.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The rules of Parliament mean there is a chance to describe the document, not to read out the content of the document. It is an email exchange between a principal and a Ministry of Education staffer. Leave is sought to table that exchange of emails. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise with you the issue around how that point of order was conducted. There were two things. One is that the Minister was seeking leave to table an email exchange, which she is perfectly at liberty to do. The second is that she appeared to be clarifying answers she gave in response to my questions yesterday, at the same time. There is a process to do both of them, and the Minister is perfectly entitled to do both of them, but she cannot do the second part as a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an easy matter to resolve. The Minister is perfectly able, as is any member, to seek leave to table a document. If the document is something that is considered informative to members of the House, I will then put the leave to the House. It is then over to the House to decide whether that leave will be granted or denied. In this case the leave was granted. The document will be tabled.

Chris Hipkins: What confidence can the New Zealand public have that the national standards data she has just referred to are reliable measures of student achievement when a report released by her own ministry in September found that national standards had incorrectly measured the achievements of four out of every 10 students—40 percent?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: On that member’s record I would have to see the actual report that is being referred to for its reliability. What I can you is that the information we are releasing is based on schools’ own judgment, their own reporting, and their own data, and I am backing those teachers, unlike that member.

Roading, Bay of Plenty—Tauranga

4. BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to the Minister of Finance: Is he still of the view that a Hamilton to Tauranga route would have to be considered alongside three other projects?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): If the member is referring to some comments I made in the Waikato, I told the Waikato Times it was the Government’s approach to give long-term commitment to the regions so they have the security of knowing that there is an infrastructure plan in place and that there is long-term funding to match those plans, not just empty promises. I commented that we are doing a large building programme in Christchurch; Wellington will see Transmission Gully; in Auckland the largest project, the Waterview Connection, is well under way; and the Waikato Expressway is well under way. I also said that once we get through that programme, which is some years away, looking out to the mid-2020s is when you would get a debate about other large projects. I told the newspaper there is no detailed planning about that yet, but it is good that people are thinking ahead.

Brendan Horan: Why should anyone believe National Party talk of plans when 6 long years ago John Key promised to four-lane the Tauranga central link—3 short kilometres—and not one dollar has been spent to do that work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot comment in detail on that particular short piece of road, but I must say as a regular and recent visitor to Tauranga that the scope of new road building in Tauranga is such that you start wondering whether it does not exceed the growth in traffic. Because of the lobbying of local members and because of some robust analysis, there has been extensive expenditure in Tauranga. I am sure that if there is anything else there that warrants serious consideration, it will get it through the New Zealand Transport Agency process.

Brendan Horan: Has his Government not taken the people of Tauranga for granted for long enough, and will he advise the Prime Minister to apologise to the people of Tauranga tomorrow for this Government’s failure to fulfil an election promise made 6 long years ago?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: My colleague advises me that we said we would do it after the four roads of national significance were completed—four of them—and we are on track for that. I have noticed in Tauranga, though, that when the current member was elected, energetic advocacy for Tauranga rose significantly. It had already been much improved after Bob was elected, after the previous member, and with Simon Bridges’ election it has improved even more, and that accounts for the very substantial investment that is going on in Tauranga now. But for years before that, the advocacy was pretty hopeless and not much money was spent there.

Welfare Reforms—Initiatives Targeting Young People

5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent reports has she received about the Government’s Youth Service initiative?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Youth Service, which is about reaching out early to young people on or at risk of going on a benefit and engaging them in education or training, is already producing great results. The latest evaluation report shows that four out of five young people enrolled in Youth Service are now in education or training, and 63 percent of 16 and 17-year-olds on the youth payment achieved National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) credits in their first year on the Youth Service, compared with just 24 percent of young people who were on the old independent youth benefit. Fourteen percent of those on the youth payment achieved NCEA level 2, compared with 5 percent before the Youth Service. Achieving NCEA level 2, of course, makes someone far more likely to be able to support themselves and be financially independent.

Melissa Lee: What evidence has she seen that the Youth Service is working to stop young people becoming dependent on the benefit in the long term?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is early days but I am pleased that we are already seeing a drop in the number of young people on the youth payment who go on to a main benefit when they turn 18. Seventy percent of young people on the youth payment did not go on to a main benefit when they turned 18 in the year to March 2014. These are young people who have often come from very difficult backgrounds. Wrapping support around them early and ensuring that they are not on a lifetime of welfare is what our Youth Service is all about.

Better Public Services Targets—Participation in Early Childhood Education

6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: What was the split, if any, by percentage, of enrolment into private, public and home-based ECE in the Better Public Service targets “Result 2: Increase Participation in ECE”, and what was the relative increases/decreases, for each, from the previous year?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e te mema Pāremata o te Rōpū Kākāriki. Ko taku whakahoki ki a koe, kāre e tika ana i roto i tō pātai te papa mō tēnei Better Public Services ēngari, me whakapākehātia pea kia mōhio mai koe he aha taku whakahoki.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to you, the member of the Green Party. My response, in terms of the reference in your question about the basis for this Better Public Services, is that you are not correct, but perhaps I should respond in English so that my reply is understood by you.]

We do not use enrolments in specific early childhood education centres to measure the Better Public Services goal. Instead, we use the prior participation rate, which measures whether or not a child participated in early childhood education before starting school. The Government is strongly committed to getting more kids into early childhood education in whatever kind of provider those parents choose, so that they are much better placed when they get to school.

Catherine Delahunty: Given her public service figures show an increase in the number of children in home-based early childhood education, does the Minister accept that the only way she was able to meet her Better Public Services targets was by forcing children to enrol into low-quality home-based early childhood education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No. Enrolments in home-based services made up 9.37 percent of total enrolments in both 2012 and 2013, while community-based services in 2012 were 53.1 percent and in private services it was 46.9 percent. In 2013 it was 50.8 percent for community-based services and 49.2 percent for private services.

Catherine Delahunty: Is she confident that all children who account for the increase in enrolment figures are enrolled in quality early childhood education services; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am confident that children are enrolled in the early childhood education provision that is the choice of their parents. These can be parent-based and home-based. They can be teacher-led and centre-based. They can be in Te Reo Māori, te reo o Hāmoa, te reo Pākehā, te reo o ngā tāngata e tohu ki a rātou [the Māori language, the Samoan language, the English language, and the languages of people being taught to them]. It is up to the parents as to where they enrol them and to make those determinations.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer but my question was about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I heard the question and I heard the answer. The question was addressed. If the member wants to take the matter further, use further supplementary questions. In fact, I will allow the member an additional supplementary question.

Catherine Delahunty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister canned the review of home-based early childhood education and refuses to set a requirement for 100 percent qualified teachers, how can she guarantee that children in the early childhood education services are getting quality education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: 95.1 percent of teacher-led centres are funded at a rate of 80-plus percent for the qualified teachers. We have now 6,500 more qualified early childhood education teachers than there were in 2008. In terms of the home-based education, we continue, through a working group, to work with the home-based providers to determine how quality can be assured in that area. So the member is quite wrong in both her assertions.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that in 2011 the Minister of Education promised a specific review into home-based early childhood education because of the concerns about the sector, why is she saying that that is not going to happen?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have not said that that is not going to happen. What I have said—and just a few minutes ago—is that there is a working group on home-based provision in train now. Secondly, I have indicated that with the significant investment into ELI, the Early Learning Information System, which will give us more accurate data on both child places and hour placements—that will give us a better basis for making a determination. Thirdly, we are engaged in a funding review. By the confluence of all of this work, we will be in a better position to determine the contribution that the home-based services make to the early childhood education sector.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E te Minita, tēnā koe. E hāngai tonu ana tēnei pātai ki a koe.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to you, Minister. This question relates to you directly.]

Has the Minister seen any reports on progress in increasing Māori participation in the early childhood education area in regions where participation is low, which addresses one of the milestones set out in the relationship accord with the Māori Party?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, te Pāti Māori. Thank you for that question. Yes. I am happy to tell you that in the past 2 years we have seen a 3 percent increase in Māori participation in early childhood education, which brings the overall total to 93 percent, and our target is 98 percent. So it has risen significantly. We have more work to do. Region by region it is also rising. Happily, our Public Achievement Information framework will provide us with the story, by 16 regional councils and by territorial local authority, and therefore in terms of ngā rohe o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi, o tēnā; he whakamihi tēnei ki te Pāti Māori. [to the regions of each and every tribe. This is a compliment to the Māori Party.]

Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister agree with the National Health Committee when it said that poor quality early childhood education can do more harm than not participating in early childhood education at all?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, I have not seen that particular report, but the reports that I have seen have told us that the opportunity—

Chris Hipkins: She doesn’t read many.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I read a lot of reports, not always the Sunday Star-Times, though, and what I do know is that quality is made up of a range of things. It includes the qualifications of the teachers. It includes the involvement of parents. It includes the ratio of participation. It includes the affiliation to Te Whāriki, te marautanga o tērā rāngai [the curriculum of that sector]. All of those together make up quality. Of course, the other members of the House are not interested in quality.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table the National Health Committee findings on the quality of early childhood education being dangerous if children do not receive—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify. Is this not a document—[Interruption] Order! Is this not a document that was distributed to all members of Parliament?

Catherine Delahunty: Well, the Minister has not seen it and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not prepared to—[Interruption] Order! That document has been distributed to everybody. It will not be tabled.

Catherine Delahunty: Why has the Minister been so intent on driving the numbers of enrolments up without focusing on quality, as the Green Party is proposing to do by committing to having 100-percent qualified teachers in teacher-led early childhood services?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yet another question that is an assertion and has no fact. I am interested in how we get more kids involved in early childhood education, how we raise the diversity of choice for parents to decide for themselves where they want to send their children, and how we invest in quality. I have just told the House that 95 percent of teacher-led centres are funded at 80 percent and above. This Government has also nearly doubled the spending into early childhood education from $800 million to $1.5 billion. It is now 32 percent more affordable than it was in 2008. For every dollar a parent spends, this Government spends $3.45. Next year, for the first time, this Government has already funded a postgraduate qualification for teachers. We do what we say, rather than—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. By sitting down the Minister has answered my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: It probably was not an appropriate point of order then.

District Health Boards—Resourcing and Service Delivery

7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that resources in Budget 2014 “will help us continue to improve frontline health services for New Zealanders”?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes. The best example of this is free doctor visits and prescriptions for under-13-year-olds from July next year, with 400,000 children benefiting. The member will be interested to hear that we have been able to afford this because we have turned around Labour’s district health board deficit of $200 million to just $20 million.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, why, then, are orthopaedic patients referred to the Hutt Valley District Health Board being told that only urgent cases can now be done, and is that the improvement New Zealanders would get under a National Government?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In respect of orthopaedic services, a lot of work has been done to ensure that only the most urgent cases are referred to orthopaedic specialists. The general practitioners with special interests programme has been a very good strategy for making sure that there is an appropriate filter through which patients are referred. Indeed, as a consequence of smart thinking by this Government, significant increases in elective surgery, including orthopaedic surgery, have been achieved.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, then, have orthopaedic operations increased or decreased per 100,000 of population under a National Government in the following district health boards: Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, Capital and Coast, Northland, Tairāwhiti, Wairarapa, West Coast, and South Canterbury—in other words, half of the district health boards?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Obviously, that is a very detailed question for which I do not have the answer to hand, but I would be very happy to reply if the member would put it down in writing.

Hon Annette King: I could answer it all if you like, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member might have to wait for the luck of a general election to have the opportunity.

Hon Annette King: If there is sufficient funding in Budget 2014, why is the Waikato District Health Board telling health professionals that services involving psychologists have increased beyond their capacity to deliver, and children with autism spectrum disorder, learning difficulties, and intellectual disabilities will have to wait longer for appointments, and is that an improvement for kids in New Zealand under a National Government?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Obviously I would have to go and fact-check the paraphrasing that the member has included in his question, but what I would say is that under this Government, district health boards—

Hon Members: Her.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Did I say “his”? I do apologise—her question. But I can say that under this Government, district health boards have been innovative in ensuring that they can produce much more output for a moderate increase in budget, and they have been spectacularly successful in doing so.

Hon Annette King: Was Treasury correct in its recently released Budget report when it said “The funding package requires a very real challenge to district health boards, and given the fiscal environment there is a risk of longer waiting times for patients and unforeseen health consequences.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Obviously, the calculations of an appropriate budget increase to meet the changing needs of New Zealanders, including an ageing and different geographic and ethnic mix, is always a very complicated process. Nevertheless, we have been able to achieve significant increases, and I should point out that doing the same thing year in year out would have got us the same result, which is why, under this Government, we have been innovative in investing in things like increasing childhood immunisation, investing in rheumatic fever management, and warming up our homes, so that we prevent those conditions from occurring in the first place.

Hon Annette King: Were district health boards told that Budget 2014 funding was for demographic pressures, with “a contribution to cost pressures”, and has that led to district health boards offering a 0.7 percent pay increase to staff, while inflation is predicted to be 2.2 percent in 2014-15, according to Treasury?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In respect of the first half of the question, although I cannot verify the quote, I have no reason to suspect that it is incorrect, because, indeed, that was what the budgetary increase was designed to achieve. But as I say, we have been very impressed with the manner in which district health boards have been able to do a lot more with a little more.

Primary Sector—Response to Flooding in Northland

8. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding Government support for the primary sector in Northland?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Last week I declared a medium-scale adverse event for the primary sector in Northland. This declaration provides the overarching framework for any Government support. This includes more funding for the Northland Rural Support Trust, which plays a coordination and emotional support role for farmers and growers. The Inland Revenue Department is offering tax flexibility, and the Ministry of Social Development is providing Enhanced Taskforce Green to help with the clean-up.

Mike Sabin: What impacts has the storm had on the primary sector in Northland?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The storm impacted around 80 percent of the Northland primary sector. With spring calving already under way and avocados close to harvest, the storm could not have come at a worse time. However, farmers and growers are extremely resilient and the majority are coping well. The Northland community, assisted by local MP Mike Sabin, has done a great job of pulling together and supporting one another as they move into the recovery phase.

Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill—Adherence to Treaty Principles

9. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: E whakamanawa ana a ia kei te hangai Te Pire Reo Māori ki ngā mātāpono o Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

[Is he confident that the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?]

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Āe. Ka riro mā tēnei pire e whakaū te rangatiratanga o ngā iwi me Ngāi Māori nui tonu ki Te Māori. Atu ki tēnā, māna anō e whakaū te wāhi ki te Kāwanatanga ki te āwhina i ngā kaupapa Reo Māori.

[Yes. This bill will affirm the autonomy of the tribes and Māoridom at large in terms of the Māori language. And, further to that, it will establish the role of Governments as well, in relation to providing assistance for Māori language initiatives.]

Clause 12(c) notes that Te Mātāwai will “give effect … to the relationship of the Crown with iwi and Māori contemplated by the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to the Māori language.”

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What advice did he receive from officials to assess whether the bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: As I have just explained, it is the advice that came through all the way. This whole thing is about the Treaty relationship between Māori and the Government. We have an iwi in all Māori. We have got letters here from six iwi—the biggest in the country—supporting the bill.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Will he support my motion to have the bill referred to the Waitangi Tribunal in order for the tribunal to report on whether the provisions of the bill are contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; if not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Kāhore. Kei te whakarongo au ki ngā rangatira Māori me ō rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa. Ko rātou ngā rangatira i runga atu i Te Reo, ēhara mā tēnā Taraipiunara. Nā reira, kāre au e pīrangi kia tuku ki mua i a rātou. Āna, i kite koe i tēnei ata ko tēnei Whare ka taea e tātou ki te whiriwhiri i ngā kaupapa taumaha, uaua kei roto i tēnei Whare.

[No. I am listening to Māori leaders and their views in regard to this matter. Beyond the language, they are the leaders, and the onus is not with that tribunal. Therefore, I will not allow it that responsibility. Yes, indeed, you saw this House, and how we were able to deliberate matters of a serious and difficult nature in the House this morning.]

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: In light of that response, can the Minister direct the House to the submissions that support the proposals in the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: You will find right throughout the bill the references to the Treaty, what it stands for, and how it is represented there, but particularly in clause 12(c), where it explains it.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice I raised the point with the Minister whether he could identify exactly the advice that he received—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. With regard to the first question, when the member sought information as to where the advice came from, that was satisfactorily answered. I think, to be fair to you, on the second question regarding whether the Minister can point to any submissions, the Minister may not have accurately heard that question, so I am going to ask you to repeat that particular question.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister advise or direct the House to the submissions that confirm the detail of the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill and the clauses that he is pointing to?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: What I will refer to are the 21 hui that were held throughout the country and the letters from people like Rāhui Papa, chief of Waikato-Tainui, Ngāhiwi Tomoana from Ngāti Kahungunu, Sonny Tau from Te Tai Tokerau, ā, me ērā atu, Api Mahuika me ā rātou kōrero e tautoko ana i tēnei pire nā te mea, e kawe nei i te kaupapa o Te Tiriti o Waitangi [and others like Api Mahuika, with their supporting statements about this bill, because it addresses the matter relating to the Treaty of Waitangi].

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister consider that the bill takes away the ongoing responsibility of the Crown to actively protect Te Reo me ngā tikanga Māori; if not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Kāhore; kei reira e rua ngā mema kua tohua e te Minita mō ngā Take Māori kia hono tonu te Karauna ki te Mātāwai ēngari, ko te tikanga ko Māori ngā kaitiaki o Te Reo, waiho mā rātou e whakapuāwai, kai te pīrangi rātou. Koinā te tautoko o ngā iwi leaders group me ērā atu. Nā reira, Māori mā ahakoa kei konei koutou i roto tērā pāti, i tērā pāti, kaua e whakakorengia nā te mea, ko au te Pāti Māori. Kaua e whakaporotiti i tēnei. Ēhara tēnei i te takutai moana ēngari, titiro ki te pire. Hoki atu ki ō koutou rangatira, kōrero tahi ki a rātou.

[No; two members are there, appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs, to maintain Crown connection to Mātāwai, but in practice Māoridom are the guardians of the language. Allow them to ensure that it flourishes. They want to do it. That is what the iwi leaders group and others advocated. And so, for you Māori at large, even though your presence is in that party and that party, do not, for goodness’ sake, oppose it, because I am the Māori Party. Do not protest this. This is not the foreshore and seabed situation. Examine the bill. Go back to your leaders and discuss it with them.]

Public Transport—Funding, Priority, and Auckland Issues

10. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Will he increase investment in better public transport infrastructure in light of the poll this week showing Aucklanders favour public transport spending by a four-to-one margin over roads?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Mr Speaker—

Hon Member: Roadrunner!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I will try to run through this question if I can. The answer to the question about whether we will invest more is yes, because that has been our record over the last 6 years—to continue investing in public transport—but in reaction to the poll, the answer would be no, because our record speaks for itself.

Julie Anne Genter: What specific new public transport infrastructure projects has his Government committed to funding over the next 3 years, excluding rail electrification and the Developing Auckland’s Rail Transport projects, which were committed by the last Labour Government?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member would need to look at the draft Government policy statement on transport to see that there are numerous intentions for spending there that relate to public transport. But I would also say that we are about to enter a period where parties are going to compete for votes from electors, and the member should stand by to receive some of the policy information from the National Party that I am sure she will be willing to support.

Julie Anne Genter: Does he consider his budget for new infrastructure in the Government policy statement, which he just referenced, shown in this graph I am holding, to be the balanced spend and better public transport infrastructure that most Kiwis have said that they want?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the member needs to recognise that about 3 percent of all kilometres travelled are undertaken on public transport by New Zealanders. The member might also like to reflect that buses, and often bikes, need roads to run on.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister acknowledge that people cannot take public transport that does not exist or is not reliable, and that is why they would like his Government to invest in better public transport, so they will not be forced to clog up the roads with their cars?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The problem we have is that the public transport services that are available now are very expensive. The subsidy rate on those trips is enormous. If someone is taking a train trip from Papakura into Britomart, the subsidy is in excess of $24 each way. Along the way there will be other stations where there are similar sorts of subsidies but at lesser levels. It is also worth noting that if you were to take a bus trip on motorways, a bus trip on roads, the subsidy gets down to about $2.22 on average across the country. So to simply say to stop building the infrastructure and put it all into public transport denies the fact that public transport needs roading infrastructure to operate.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table research showing the average public transport subsidy across the country—

Mr SPEAKER: The source of the research?

Julie Anne Genter: It is a research report completed for the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave, on the basis that it might be difficult for members to obtain. They can make their choice. Leave is sought to table that particular research document. Is there any objection? It can be tabled.

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

Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to start the City Rail Link on time next year if rail patronage growth, released tomorrow, shows 13 percent growth on last year and thus on a path to achieve the patronage target set by his Government; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Because the question is self-evident. If it is on a path, then it will reach a point where we would have that agreement. But “on a path” is not reaching the point.

Julie Anne Genter: Given the Minister’s distaste for queuing, which was demonstrated today, why is his Government pursuing an unbalanced transport policy that will lead to more New Zealanders being stuck in traffic queues?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not think we are doing that. We are spending an enormous amount on infrastructure throughout the country, including in the regions, and in the particular case of Auckland, which was the basis of the question today, the Government is spending on average about $190 million on public transport.

Denis O’Rourke: Why does the Government have no plans for further rail electrification, such as Papakura to Pukekohe, in its land transport plans?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think it would be helpful to the member if I were to give him some information about the level of subsidy that is required over and above any infrastructure costs that might be required in those services. As I said before, if someone is travelling from Papakura into the city of Auckland, the subsidy each way is about $24.90, which is $50 per trip. It does not matter whether or not the subsidy is less because the distance is less; the cost of providing the service remains the same. So what has to happen for public transport to get bigger and better investment is usage, and that is not something that we are seeing at the moment.

Denis O'Rourke: Does the Minister agree that bigger penalties are needed to ensure public compliance with airport security requirements?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can only say that I do respect the laws. When they are broken by people, then they should be very sorry for doing so.

Phil Twyford: Why does the Prime Minister’s leaked announcement of an accelerated time frame for Auckland’s second harbour crossing not include rail and road as recommended by the Auckland Plan?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would not speculate on the contents of a leaked document.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can he confirm that the Government’s walking and cycling policy has now been extended to include the Minister of Transport himself undertaking a pilot project into running, which he launched at Christchurch airport today?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would recommend to anybody the opportunities to either run, cycle, or walk for its health benefits but, frankly, not for its political benefits.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave, for the edification of the House, to table two documents. One is entitled “How to Go Through Airport Security Smoothly”, by a publication called wikiHow.

Mr SPEAKER: And the second document?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: And the second document is entitled “Idiot’s guide to The Airport”, by a publication of Victoria University. I think it is called Salient.

Mr SPEAKER: The documents have been described—it is Thursday. I will put the leave to table those two documents. It is over for the House to decide. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? They will be tabled.

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

Financial Services—Registration of Providers, Dispute Resolution, and Consumer Credit Reforms

11. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What changes have recently come into force that strengthen financial service provider registration?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Consumer Affairs): This month a range of new measures to strengthen the financial service provider registration and dispute resolutions regime came into effect. We have made improvements to the financial service provider registration rules and we have introduced new powers to allow the Financial Markets Authority to block the registration of financial service providers if needed. These registration changes help to protect New Zealand’s international reputation as one of the best and most trusted places to do business. These changes are part of the recently passed Credit Contracts and Financial Services Reform Bill, which brings in tougher laws to target loan sharks and help consumers, New Zealanders, make more informed decisions.

Dr Jian Yang: What other changes were made to consumer credit contract legislation to ensure more informed borrowers and more responsible lenders?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: We have improved protections for borrowers and targeted unscrupulous lending practices by, first, requiring lenders to comply with lender responsibility principles and requiring more timely and complete disclosure of loan terms so that consumers have the information they need to make informed decisions, and strengthening repossession rules, including prohibiting some essential household items such as beds and heaters from being repossessed, and boosting enforcement powers and penalties to crack down on those lenders who breach the law. These changes are good for consumers, they protect New Zealanders, and meet the objectives outlined in the National Government’s Business Growth Agenda.

Local Government Amalgamations—Commentary

12. Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Local Government: Did the Deputy Mayor of Napier, Mrs Fay White, raise with her recently at a public meeting that the issue of local government amalgamation should be taken seriously by National during this general election; if so, what were her specific concerns?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government): Yes, she did raise the issue of amalgamations at a public meeting. I do not have notes about her concerns, but they were broadly about how Labour has politicised the amalgamation process in Hawke’s Bay.

Su’a William Sio: Did the Deputy Mayor, Mrs Fay White, say to her that the amalgamation issue could very well lose the election for National in the seat of Napier?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: She certainly did identify that she felt it was an issue in the Hawke’s Bay. I made the point to her that I felt that her anger with the process was actually stopping Hawke’s Bay from thinking about the bigger picture of what it is as a region and how it moves forward.

Su’a William Sio: Is it not true that Mrs Fay White was trying to warn her and her Government that pursuing a forced amalgamation agenda for local government would lead to National losing the Napier seat to Labour’s Mr Stuart Nash?

Mr SPEAKER: In as far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I reject completely that there is any forced amalgamation for Hawke’s Bay. It is a process where it will certainly see itself voting for what it wants for the region. I also reject that there is any chance that Stuart Nash will take the seat.

Su’a William Sio: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member, he must just make sure that his questions are suitable to address to the responsibility of a Minister.

Su’a William Sio: Is it not true that in 2009 her Government amended the Local Government Act 2002, effectively clearing the way for the forced amalgamation of the local government sector?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.

Question No. 10 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): I have been made aware that I misused a place name in the answer. I seek leave to correct an answer I gave earlier.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Two mistakes in 1 day?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Everyone has a bad day. When you are having a bad 3 years, it is something—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister just correct his answer so that we can move forward.

Hon Annette King: Hey, but that’s you, Gerry. You’ve had 3 bad years.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, that is right. In my answer I said that the subsidy rate for travel between, I think I said, Papakura and the city was $24.80. It should have been Pukekohe.

Questions to Members

Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill—Report Back

1. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: When will the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill be reported to the House?

Maggie Barry (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The date by which the committee must report back to the House is 14 August 2014. The bill is still before the committee and subject to the usual rules around select committee confidentiality. I refer the member to Standing Orders 236 and 238.

H V Ross Robertson: Will the chairperson direct the committee to issue an interim report before the election, as has been done previously by the former chairperson, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and, if not before the election, when will she do that?

MAGGIE BARRY: As the member is aware, that matter was discussed and voted on at this afternoon’s meeting, and there is not going to be an interim report.

Bills

Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill be now read a first time. Tēnā anō koe Mr Speaker. E Te Kaihautū o Te Whare, tēnei au ka mōtini kia pānuitia tuatahitia Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori. Ka whakaingoa hoki au i Te Komiti Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori māna hei tirotiro tēnei pire. Hai te wā rite ana, e mea ana au ki te mōtini i tērā me whakahoki mai taua komiti i tāna kōrero mō te pire ki tēnei Whare a te 20 o Poutū-te-Rangi, 2015, ā, kai taua komiti hoki te mana ki te hui i ngā wā e hui ana Te Whare hāunga i te wā mō ngā pātai ā-waha, i te pō rānei o te rā e noho nei Te Whare, ā, i te Paraire rānei o te wiki e hui ai Te Whare ahakoa ngā whakaritenga a Whakataunga Tūroa 188 me 191(1) (b) (c).

Hai tīmatanga kōrero, kōrerohia Te Reo. He tāonga Te Reo Māori nō ngā iwi o te motu me ngāi Māori nui tonu. He wāhanga nui hoki Te Reo nō te tuakiri ahurea o ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa. Hai Te Kaihautū. Kai te mōhiotia whānuitia ngā kōrero mō te tāheke o Te Reo Māori i te tau 20 kua hori nei. Ā, i te tīmatanga o tērā rau tau, e 100 percent te katoa o ngā Māori e kōrero Māori ana. Eke rawa atu ki ngā tau e 70, kua tāheke tēnei kaute mā te 20 percent ā, kua kaumātua noa te tokomaha o ērā tāngata. I poropititia e ōna ake tōhunga āhua reo pāpori teitei rawa, tērā ka mate Te Reo Māori i roto i te whakatipuranga kotahi. Ka tahuri ngā iwi ki te akiaki i te kāwanatanga i ngā tau e 70 kia whakaakona Te Reo Māori i ngā kura; kia whakaritea mai he wāhanga motuhake mō Te Reo Māori ki roto i Te Kaporeihana Pāho. Kāre i roa, ka whānau mai ko Te Ātaarangi hai kaupapa whakaako i te hunga pakeke ki Te Reo Māori.

[Thank you once again, Mr Speaker, I move that the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 March 2015, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).

As an introduction, speak the language! The Māori language is a treasure of tribes and Māori people and an important part as well of the cultural identity of all New Zealanders. Mr Speaker, it is well documented that the health of the Māori language declined over the course of the 20th century. At the start of that century, 100 percent of our people spoke Māori. By the 1970s, this had declined to about 20 percent and these people were mainly the elderly. Its own leading sociolinguists predicted that the death of the Māori language would be within one generation. In response, tribes began to urge government in the 1970s to teach the Māori language in schools and to set aside a special Māori language unit within the Broadcasting Corporation. Before long, the Cuisenaire rods method of teaching the Māori language was born and used as a basis to teach the Māori language to adults].

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, he kaupapa nui tēnei mō te Minita o Te Reo Māori. Kai te hoihoi rawa ngā taha e rua nō reira, kai te īnoi atu māu rātau e whakatika kia āhua ngāwari te kōrero.

[Mr Speaker, this is an important matter for the Minister of the Māori language. Both sides are making just a little too much noise and so I am begging you to tell them to modify the volume of the discussions somewhat.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to uphold that point of order. Members need to show a little more decorum. I know that this is a time when members traditionally leave the House and organise the afternoon’s activities, but we do have a member introducing a bill, and I would just ask for decorum. Thank you.

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, is this an extension of what I have just dealt with?

Tracey Martin: I just want to alert you to the fact that there is no translation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Right, I understand there are some difficulties with translation. It is coming through quite clearly in my headset and, yes, the Clerk has it as well, so I am not sure what that member’s problem is. [Interruption] Look, let me just say, irrespective of whether or not people have a translation, there is no reason for the disorder that is currently continuing.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kāre i roa ka whānau mai ko Te Ātaarangi hei kaupapa whakaako i te hunga pakeke ki Te Reo Māori. Kātahi ka hua mai ko Te Kōhanga Reo i Te Wānanga Tū Tangata, nō muri mai ko Te Kura Kaupapa Māori, ko ngā Kura ā-Iwi, ā, ko ngā Wharekura, ko ngā Wānanga hoki. Tērā anō ngā piki me ngā heke o te kaupapa nei ēngari ia, kei wareware tātou ko te tino kaupapa o ngā mahi katoa nei, ko te tuku i Te Reo o ngā mātua tīpuna ki ngā mokopuna. Kāre i kō atu, kāre i kō mai.

Nō te tau 1987, ka whakaturetia Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori. Koia rā te whakaaetanga atu a Te Karauna he taonga Te Reo Māori nō ngā iwi me ngāi Māori. Ā, ko te whakature hoki tērā he reo whai mana ā-ture Te Reo Māori ki a Aotearoa nei. Nō ngā tau o nā tata nei, tērā ētahi arotake e rua o Te Rautaki Reo Māori: ko Te Reo Mauriora (2011) i whakaputahia e taku Paepae Motuhake, ā, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (2011) te pūrongo a Te Rōpū Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi mō Wai 262.

Nā runga i te āhua o ngā whakakitenga nei, ka tono au ki Te Uepu Minita kia whakaaetia aku kaupapa mō te whakahou i Te Rautaki Reo Māori. Nō te Hui-tanguru i tēnei tau, e whitu ngā hui mō Te Rautaki Reo Māori hou ka kawea ki ngā tōpitotanga o Aotearoa. I taki taetae mai hoki ngā tāpae ā-tuhituhi nei a te takitahi, a ngā rōpū reo Māori anō hoki. I tae ā-tinana ahau ki ngā hui e ono. Kei te āta whakapono au i rangona ngā reo o te hunga e hiahia ana ki te tuku kōrero mai, hei aha wā ētahi atu. I tātarihia ngā tāpaetanga katoa e Te Puni Kōkiri. Nō te Haratua o nā tata nei, ka whakaaetia Te Rautaki Reo Māori 2014. Ka riro mā tēnei pire e whiriwhiri nei tātou i tēnei rā, e whakatutuki ētahi wāhanga nui o Te Rautaki Reo Māori nei.

Nā, mō te pire nei, e rua ngā whāinga a te pire mō Te Reo Māori; ko te whakapiki i te whai mana tangata ā-ture o Te Reo Māori; ko te whakaū hoki i te rangatiratanga o ngā iwi me ngāi Māori nui tonu ki tō rātou Reo. Mō te rangatiratanga o ngā iwi me ngāi Māori, i tō rātou reo, ko Te Mātāwai tērā, arā, ko tētahi whakahaere motuhake ka whakatūria ki roto i te pire nei. Ka noho here a Te Mātāwai nei ki ngā iwi me ngāi Māori, ā, ka riro māna e whakatinana te kaitiakitanga o ngā iwi me ngāi Māori i tō rātou Reo. Ka riro anō mā Te Mātāwai e ārahi, e tohutohu a Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori, a Te Māngai Pāho. Ka mahi tahi ia i Te Minita Māori me Te Minita Pūtea ki te ārahi i Te Whakaata Māori. Ka tukuna te rangatiratanga o ēnei whakahaere katoa e Te Karauna ki ngā iwi me ngāi Māori nui tonu.

Heoi anō, māku e kī atu ki Te Whare nei, ēhara rawa i te mea, ka motua e Te Karauna ōna herenga, ōna kawenga ki te tautoko i Te Reo Māori. Ka mahi tahi kē te Karauna, arā, ko Te Minita Māori me Te Mātāwai. Ka tekau mā rua ngā mema o Te Mātāwai. Tokowhitu o rātou ka tohua e ngā kāhuinga iwi e whitu. Tokotoru ka tohua e ngā māngai o ngā rōpū whakahaere Reo Māori, ngā kaiako me ērā atu. Ka kīia tēnei rōpū ko Te Reo Tukutuku. Ā, tokorua ka tohua e Te Minita Māori mō Te Karauna. Kia oti te whakatū i a Te Mātāwai, me whāngai ki tētahi pūtea āwhina ka tīkina atu i Te Pōti Take Māori ā tōna wā e tika ana. Hai Te Kaihautū, tēnā koe.

Ka whakarerekē tēnei pire i te Māori Television Service Act 2003, arā, ka whakakorea Te Pūtahi Paoho. Ka whakawhitia katoatia āna mahi, kawenga, hua, taunaha ki a Te Mātāwai. Mā tēnei ka kotahi te waka mō ngā iwi me ngāi Māori nui tonu. Me mihi au ki ngā mema o Te Pūtahi Paoho mō tō rātou tautoko i Te Whakaata Māori i te tekau tau kua hori nei. Ka whakarerekē hoki tēnei pire i te ture mō ngā Hinonga Karauna 2004 mā te tango atu i Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori me Te Māngai Pāho i Wāhanga 2 o Te Āpiti 1 o tēnei Ture nō te mea, ka mutu te noho a ēnei whakahaere hei hinonga karauna. Ka mau tonu rāua ki ō rāua āhua o tēnei wā. Ka mau anō hoki ki ā rāua mahi, ā rāua whakahaere o te wā nei me ō rāua kawenga.

Ka noho mai ko ngā mema o ngā poari me ngā kaimahi katoa i runga i ngā kirimana me ngā whakahaere o tēnei wā ēngari ia, ka noho here a Te Taura Whiri me Te Māngai Pāho ki a Te Mātāwai. Mā konei, mā Te Mātāwai nei e noho here ai rāua ki ngā iwi me ngāi Māori nui tonu. Kua whakapakarihia e tēnei pire a Te Māngai Pāho. Ka whakapakari hoki i a Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo. Ka hikia te pūtea āwhina ki a rāua mō ngā reo irirangi, mō ngā kaupapa kei roto i te hapori Māori whānui hoki. Nā reira, kei te koa katoa ahau ki te kōkiri i tēnei pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire me te tuku i a ia ki Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori. Kei te pōuri ahau, kāre au i te noho mai kia tutuki rā anō ngā wānanga, ngā wāhanga katoa o te pire i roto i Te Whare nei ēngari ia, ko te kaupapa te mea nui, kaua ko te tangata kotahi. Me āwhina tātou i tō tātou Reo, ā, me whakapau kaha ki te tautoko i a ia i te ao, i te pō. Koirā au ka tono kia whakaaetia te mōtini, kia whakahokia mai ngā kōrero ki tēnei Whare a te komiti whiriwhiri mā te 20 o Poutū-te-Rangi 2015.

Hei kōrero whakamutunga, harikoa au ki te mau i ngā kōrero a ngā kaiārahi o ngā iwi e tautoko ana, me ngā kaiārahi o Aotearoa nei, ā, me te huinga o ngā iwi kaiārahi. Nā reira ahakoa he wā poto, ka mihi au ki a koutou katoa e kawe nei i Te Reo ahakoa ki whea, kōrerohia ki roto i ngā kāinga, ki hea rānei. Nā reira tēnā tātou, kai raro.

[Before long, the Cuisenaire Rods method of teaching the Māori language was born and used as a basis to teach the Māori language to adults. Language nurseries which sprung up from a Stand Tall Humans tertiary institution came next, and later Māori medium schools, Tribal schools, and later still Māori medium secondary schools and Māori medium tertiary institutions. This philosophy has had its ups and downs, but without a doubt we must never forget that the enduring commitment behind all these programmes is the transmission of our ancestral language to grandchildren. No more, no less.

The enactment of the Māori Language Act took place in 1987. That was the acknowledgment of the Crown that the Māori language is a treasure of tribes and Māori people. It enacts the Māori language as well as an official language of New Zealand. In recent years, there have been two reviews of the Māori Language Strategy: The Language and a Living Life Principle (2011) produced by an independent panel I commissioned; and This New Zealand (2011), the Waitangi Tribunal report for the Wai 262 claim.

After consideration of these findings, I sought Cabinet agreement to revise and modernise the Government Māori Language Strategy. In February 2014, seven regional consultation seminars were held across New Zealand. Written submissions were also received from individuals and groups. I attended six of the consultation seminars, and I am confident that interested New Zealanders had ample opportunity to have their say. All the oral and written submissions were assessed by the Ministry of Māori Development. In May of this year, Cabinet approved the Māori Language Strategy 2014. The legislation that we are considering today will give effect to some important elements of the Māori Language Strategy.

The bill itself, the Māori language bill, has two aims. It seeks to strengthen the recognition of the Māori language and the leadership roles of iwi and Māori. Te Mātāwai will be responsible for providing direction and oversight of the Māori Language Commission and the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency. It will undertake certain functions with regard to the Māori Television Service jointly with the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance. In short, the authority for these Māori language entities will be transferred from the Crown to tribes and Māori people.

However, I want to be clear in what I say in the House, that the Crown will not divest itself of its responsibilities and commitments for the Māori language. Rather, the Crown, through the Minister of Māori Affairs, will undertake its roles in conjunction with Te Mātāwai. It will consist of 12 members, seven of whom will be appointed by regional clusters of tribes, three members appointed by a Māori language stakeholder group, and two members appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs on behalf of the Crown. When established, I anticipate that Te Mātāwai will require an operating budget which will be sourced from within Vote Māori Affairs at an appropriate time.

This bill amends the Māori Television Service Act 2003 in order to disestablish the Māori Television Electoral College and transfer all its functions, duties, assets and liabilities to Te Mātāwai. This will ensure that tribes and Māori people are represented by a single, coordinated entity. I acknowledge the contribution by members of the Māori Television Electoral College to the Māori Television Service over the past decade. This bill also amends the Crown Entities Act 2004 by removing the Māori Language Commission and the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency from Part 2, Schedule 1 of that Act as these two organisations will cease to be crown entities. They will retain their current functions and responsibilities and all board members including staff will be retained under existing employment terms and conditions.

The significant change is that the Māori Language Commission and the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency will be accountable to Te Mātāwai in the first instance. Through it they will ultimately be responsible and accountable to tribes and Māori people. This bill will strengthen the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency and the Māori Language Commission. Funding for both will increase for Māori radio and projects within the wider Māori community. And so I am totally pleased to advance the first reading of this bill and refer it to the Māori Affairs committee. I am disappointed that I won’t be remaining here until all deliberations, stages and readings of this bill through the House are completed. But the task is the most important thing not the individual. We must help our language and support it day and night. Hence I urge this motion to be agreed to and the bill reported back to the House by 20 March 2015.

In conclusion, I am delighted to take up the supporting discourse by tribal leaders as well as leading figures here in New Zealand and the tribal leaders’ group. Therefore, despite the time being brief, I acknowledge all of you who have taken up the language, and regardless where you use it, speak it in the homes or wherever. Thank you, I resume my seat.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): He mihi mahana, he mihi matariki ki a koutou katoa. Kua tau tēnei pire i mua i te aroaro o Te Pāremata. Ki taku mōhio ko te tino whāinga he whakatū i tētahi poari whakahaere hei ārahi i ngā rautaki, arā, ngā kaupapa e pa ana ki Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori, Te Māngai Pāho me Te Pouaka Whakaata Māori. Heoi anō, i tukua tēnei kaupapa ki mua i te aroaro o Te Taraipiunara me taua hiahia kia ora ia tō tātou Reo Māori. Ki a mātou nei o Reipa, he taonga Te Reo Māori mō ngāi Māori, arā, mō ngā tāngata katoa.

[A warm, be it small, acknowledgment to you all. This bill has alighted before Parliament. To my understanding its principal objective is to establish a governance body to drive strategies—namely, matters for discussion that relate to the Māori Language Commission, the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency and Māori Television. However, this matter was sent before the Waitangi Tribunal with that very desire that our Māori language remain a live one. To us of Labour the Māori language is a treasure for all Māori and for everyone.]

The first reading of the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill during Māori Language Week provides exactly the right context to assess its purpose and consequences for our indigenous language. First and foremost, Labour considers Te Reo Māori to be a taonga for Māori and for all New Zealanders. The recognition of Māori as an official language in 1987 gave licence to its use in Māori settings in addition to the freedom of expression and its use in public places, in schools, and on official occasions. That has resulted in greater acceptance and normalisation of Te Reo Māori.

This House is well attuned to the chequered history prior to the language revitalisation movement. Indeed, in my grandparents’ time they carried lucid memories of being forced to speak in English. This in turn had a consequent impact on the next generation, which may have had access to Māori in the home but not in the wider society they were engaging in. I count myself fortunate to have been a child on the cusp of the language revitalisation movement in the 1980s. Although bilingual education became a reality in my community in 1981, it gained momentum fully as a result of the Wai 11 claim and the subsequent Māori Language Act 1987. Those brave ambitions were championed by Māori leaders and language experts past and present, who understood the significance of language, culture, and identity for Māori to prosper and survive in our country. Our greatest respect is accorded to all those who led this charge. Minister Sharples, you are amongst that cohort. Tēnā koe.

I draw the attention of members to that point in history because the 1987 Act was not a creature of Government policy. It was a direct response to a Waitangi Tribunal claim where the rights of Māori and the responsibility of the Crown were juxtaposed on the status of Te Reo Māori. The bill we are considering today is a creature of Government policy. It should pass one simple hurdle, in my mind, to assure those champions of Te Reo Māori that its provisions are consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Inherent in this test is the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to consider the extent of the Crown’s ongoing fiduciary obligation to protect Te Reo as a taonga for Māori.

At the completion of this first reading debate, I intend to move a motion to send the bill to the tribunal for that exact purpose and for no other reason. This is a matter of principle and not a question about who allocates resources or who sits on boards. This would allow the House to consider the full implications of transferring responsibility and oversight for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori and Te Māngai Pāho from the Crown to Te Mātāwai.

Ki taku mōhio, pai kē te tuku i ngā mana whakahaere ki ngā iwi, kia kawe i te kaupapa mō tō tātou Reo ēngari, he mahi anō tā Te Karauna kia tiaki i tō tātou taonga hoki. Me āta whakaarohia, kia kaua Te Karauna e huri tuarā ki tōna tiakitanga mēnā ka noho te mana whakahaere ki ngā iwi.

[To my understanding, the governance structure would really be better placed with the tribes, being responsible for our language. But the Crown will have a role to play in terms of ensuring that our treasure is looked after as well. This has to be deliberated over very carefully to ensure that the Crown does not turn its back on its guardianship responsibilities, should the governance structure remain with the tribes.]

It appears to Labour that there is not a strong enough expression in the bill to make clear the nature and extent of the Crown’s ongoing obligation to protect Te Reo Māori in light of the transfer of responsibilities to Te Mātāwai. As far as I can make out from clause 7, the principles guiding a Government department are specified in the bill. The unintended consequence of this provision may well be a narrowing of how the public sector participates in its role to grow and sustain Te Reo Māori if the overarching obligation of the Crown is not clear. Minister, today in question time you pointed to clause 12(c) as another expression of what the Crown’s obligation might be. I might say simply that the responsibility sits with the Minister of Māori Affairs but one might ask the question why it is not the Minister of Education, when the education system is critically responsible for the way in which all our children have access to Te Reo Māori.

The bill also expresses that the Crown, iwi, and Māori responsibility for Te Reo is managed through a purchase agreement. This is a concern because purchase agreements are guided by Government policy, whereas the Crown’s obligation is to recognise Te Reo as a taonga and that it should be protected under the Treaty of Waitangi. The title to the Māori Language Act 1987 stated that “Whereas in the Treaty of Waitangi the Crown confirmed and guaranteed to the Māori people, among other things, all their taonga: And whereas the Māori language is one such taonga.” It seems to me that there was a clear intent in drafting the 1987 legislation that the Crown retained an ongoing obligation to protect our taonga. That description is no longer in the bill that we are considering today.

This bill is about the role and function of a governing body; it is not about Te Reo Māori. It is not about how the grassroots up have greater access to Te Reo. If it was, there would be more obligation on the Minister of Education to play a greater role in this process, because every Māori language strategy that exists amongst iwi is, critically, about their memoranda of understanding with the Ministry of Education. The bill does not recognise the important role that iwi and Māori play in revitalising Te Reo at a local level in our homes, amongst our whānau, hapū, and iwi, and the relationship that they want with the education institutions in their area.

It is not so clear from supporting documentation where fiscal responsibility for achieving these shared objectives rests—one might presume, equally between those iwi represented on Te Mātāwai, other stakeholder groups, and the Crown, but clearly it remains a question to be answered. There is a mechanism available to the Crown to appoint Crown advisers and statutory managers if Te Mātāwai struggles to achieve its objectives or if accountability and transparency reporting falls short of expectations. In some regards, this is not the full transfer of powers and responsibility that may have been anticipated—the devil is in the detail.

Labour remains vigilant about the way in which Te Reo Māori can grow and thrive as a working language for all New Zealanders. This requires iwi Māori and the Crown to share an obligation for its future—an ongoing obligation. As a country we have made significant gains in language revitalisation—kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, wharekura, Te Ātaarangi, and Te Panekiretanga o Te Reo exemplify the extent of our progress that is recognised across indigenous communities around the world, yet we have so much to do. Labour does not want Te Reo Māori to be a political football based on who did what and when. This is not a lolly scramble for money or policy recognition. It matters to too many people for us to diminish the take like that.

How we in this House determine a way forward for the growth, promotion, and protection of our language is of the utmost importance. We hesitantly support the bill going to a select committee; however, we urge the Minister to consider the motion, which is an opportunity, at the very least, to allow the Waitangi Tribunal to assess the purpose of the bill against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

My speech is devoid of any type of political posturing. My children go to te kōhanga reo. I want them to have a lifetime of opportunity learning their language and being well educated to participate in the global community that they are living in.

He maha ngā pātai i whakatō kia mārama pai ngā mema o Te Whare i ū tonu mātou, he taonga tō tatou Reo Māori mō ngā tāngata katoa, arā, mō ngā whakatipuranga. Ko te mea nunui me pēwhea e tiaki Te Reo, ka pēwhea te tuku haere i Te Reo, me pēwhea Te Karauna e hāpai, e tautoko i tēnei whāinga? Ko te take, kia ora ai Te Reo mō tātou katoa. Tēnā tātou.

[Many questions were conceived to ensure that members of the House are well informed that we were resolute in terms of our Māori language being a treasure for all people, and, indeed, for generations. The most significant thing is how the language should be looked after, how it should be offered about, how the Crown should take it up, and how it should support this objective. The issue is that the language be a living one for us all. Thanks to us.]

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei rangi. Kātahi te rangi ātaahua ko tēnei! I te tuatahi, i tae mai a Ngāi Tūhoe, ā, i tutuki pai tērā kaupapa. Ko te mahi tuarua, ko tā Tāmaki-makau-rau. Kua tutuki pai tērā. I tēnei wā, ko Te Minita mō ngā take Māori e kōrero nei, e kōkiri nei i te pire mō Te Reo Māori mō ngā rā kei mua i te aroaro, ā, ka mutu ā kō ake nei, ka puta te kupu whakamutunga a ō mātou kaiārahi, a Tariana rāua ko Te Hōnore Pita Sharples. Nō reira, kātahi te rangi pai ko tēnei!

Tēnā, ko tēnei pire i hangaia mai ai e Te Minita mō ngā Take Māori, e whai nei i ngā huarahi e hia kē nei kua oti i a mātou Te Ao Māori te kōkiri i te take mō tō tātou Reo, arā, ko te tiaki i tō tātou Reo. Ēhara i te mea ka tāea e au te whakarārangi i ngā kōrero katoa ēngari, arā anō ngā petihana kua tae mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata. Arā nō ngā hikoi. Ko au tētahi i ārahi nei i tētahi hīkoi i waho ake nei, ki Te Whare o Bowen i ngā tau kua hipa ake. He aha te take? Ko Te Reo Māori te take. He aha tā Te Ao Māori ki te whakapakari ake i tōna Reo? Ko Te Kōhanga Reo i ara ake, ā, nā wai, nā wai, ka puta ko Te Kura Kaupapa Māori. Arā nō tētahi rōpū pakupaku nei ēngari ā, he māia. Ko te hunga e kōrerohia ake nei, ko Ngā Tamatoa. Ā, ko tērā o ngā tuāhine, ko Hana Te Hēmara kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Ēngari nā rātou te huarahi o Te Reo Māori i kōkiri ki mua i te aroaro o Te Whare Pāremata, otirā, o te motu. Nō reira, anei tētahi kaupapa hōu, hei whaiwhai haere i waua kōrero rā.

Ka mutu, i a au e tū nei kei wareware au, ko te kōrero mō te Minita i ngā rā o mua ko Te Hōnore Tau Hēnare, ko ētahi, otirā, ko te nuinga o Te Ao Māori kāre i te tino mōhio, nāna te pūtea o Mā Te Reo i whakarite i ōna rā. Kāore te nui o Te Ao Māori i te mōhio ki tērā ēngari, me mihi rā ki a koe e bro. Ko koe tērā i kōkiri nei i tērā take. Kai te ora tonu a Mā Te Reo i tēnei rā. Nā te aha? Nā tōu angitu! Ko koe te mea i whakariterite i tērā pūtea. Kei reira tonu Te Puna, ā, kei te unumia Te Puna e Te Ao Māori, mō Te Reo te kaupapa. Ka mihi rā ki a koe i tēnei rā, kua tata ki te wā ka tō te rā ki runga i a koe tēnei Whare Pāremata ēngari, anā, kua tuhia ngā kōrero ki roto i Te Hansard.

Nō reira, kai te whai tēnei pire i aua kōrero anō hoki. Ko tāku, ko te tautoko ake i ngā kōrero a Te Hōnore Nanaia Mahuta. Āe, ko Te Reo Māori he taonga o tēnei ao. Kāore Te Reo Māori e kōrerohia ana i wāhi kē, kei konei, kei Aotearoa nei. Kei ētahi paku wāhanga o Te Arawa, paku wāhanga nei. Nō reira, i ngā rā tata kua hipa ake, kua rongo nei tātau ko te ngoikore o te hunga, o te iwi ki te haere ki te tono i wā rātou tamariki ki Te Kōhanga Reo. E pērā anō hoki ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori. Ko tāku e kī nei, mēnā ka whai tonu i tērā huarahi ka heke haere anō rā te āhuatanga o te hiahia o Te Ao Māori ki tōna Reo. Koinei te pūtake o tēnei take. Me titiro ki tētahi huarahi hōu. Ki te pērā anō hoki te āhua, ka pērā ōna hua, ko taua āhua anō. Nō reira, kei te mihi ki Te Minita, ā, māua tahi ko Te Pāti Māori e kaha tautoko nei i tēnei pire.

Nā, he aha kei te pūtake o te pire nei? Ā, kua oti kē i a ia te kī atu, ka whakaritea mai ai, ka hangāia mai ai i tētahi rōpū hou, kai i a rātou te mana o Te Reo, ko Te Mātāwai te ingoa. Ka whai wāhi ngā iwi katoa o te motu, ā-rohe nei ki taua rōpū. Ka mutu, me whakahē i te kōrero o etahi e mea ana, ā, kua turakinatia a Te Māngai Pāho. Kāo! Kātahi te rūkahu ko tērā! Ko ētahi kei te kī ka turakinatia a Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori. Kāo! Kei te hē tērā! Kātahi te rūkahu ko ērā kōrero! Ka whai wahi ngā iwi katoa ki Te Mātāwai ēngari e tika ana tā Te Minita, arā nō ngā wāhanga mō ngā mea e rua mā te kāwanatanga kia kore e whawhati ai te āhuatanga o te here o te kāwanatanga, me kī, ki te iwi Māori, me tōna i raro i te korowai o Te Tiriti o Waitangi e kōrerohia ake nei e Te Minita.

I kōkirihia tēnei take mō tō tātou Reo ki Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i ōna rā, ā, ko tā Te Taraipiunara, āe, he wahi anō rā tō te kāwanatanga ki te tiaki i tō tātou Reo. Ko tā tēnei o ngā pire e mea ana, āe, kei reira tonu tērā here ēngari me whakahoki te mana o Te Reo Māori ki roto i ngā ringaringa o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi, o tēnā iwi. He aha i pērā ai te whakaaro? Māmā noa iho tērā. Mā wai kē atu Te Reo Māori e tiaki? Kaua mā te kāwanatanga. Māku, mā Te Ao Māori! Nōku Te Reo, māku e tiaki! Koinā kei te pūtake o tēnei o ngā pire! Ā kāti, kua kōrero kē ia mō te hanga o tēnei o ngā rōpū. Whai wāhi anō rā ngā iwi, whai wahi anō rā ngā mea pēnei i Te Kōhanga Reo, Te Ataarangi, a wai ake, a wai ake. Mā rātou tērā e whiriwhiri, te hunga ka noho nei te poari, ka mutu ko te kāwanatanga.

Nā, mō te hunga whakahē, mō te hunga whakahē! Ko ētahi kai te kī atu ka kore pea ētahi iwi e whai wāhi ki runga i tēnei o ngā poari. Hoi anō, mā te iwi anō rā tērā e whakarite! Nā te iwi anō rā tērā e whakarite! Ka mutu, ko etahi kei te kī atu kāre he paku take o tēnei pire ki te whakarauora, ki te whakapakari ake i te āhuatanga o te kōrero o Te Reo Māori i Aotearoa nei. Kua oti kē i a au te kī atu, āe, ka pērā! Ko te tino pūtake o tēnei, kia huria, kia tangohia mai ai te mana o Te Reo mai i te ringa o te kāwanatanga, ē, ka whakahoki atu anō rā ki ngā iwi, mō ake nei te tūmanako. Ko ētahi ka kī atu, kāore i tino kōrerohia te take nei. Tērā rūkahu tērā! Tērā rūkahu tērā! I ngā tau e toru pea kua hipa ake, nā te Minita anō rā i whakakao mai tētahi rōpū. He mātanga anō rā i roto i te āhuatanga o Te Reo Māori. I haere rātou ki te mata o te whenua. I rongo nei rātou i ngā kōrero pai mai, kino mai, ā, ka mutu i tuhi pūrongo, ka whakahokia mai ki roto i ngā ringaringa o Te Minita. He aha tā Te Minita? He whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te kāwanatanga. He aha tā te kāwanatanga? Karekau! Tae rā anō ki ngā rā tata kua hipa ake me tana whakaae atu, āe, e tika ana! Mā ngā iwi anō Te Reo Māori e tiaki, kaua mā te kāwanatanga!

Nō reira, ko ētahi kua rongo ake i te kōrero o Nanaia Mahuta e mea ana ka whakatakotohia tētahi mōtini ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata, kia tonoa tēnei pire ki Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Kāore he paku take o tērā! Ā kō ake nei ka pāhingia tēnei wāhanga, ka haere te take nei ki te mata o te whenua, mā ngā iwi anō rā e kōrero ēngari, i te wā i huri haere te ropu i te mata o te whenua, i rongo nei rātou i ngā take. Ā, tērā haerenga tērā, ka mutu, pēnei i tā Te Minita e kōrero nei, i haere ia ā-tinana nei ki ngā hui katoa i whakaritea mai ai, ki te rongo i ngā kōrero. Nō reira ko tāku ko te kī atu, mō te hunga i kī ana he poto noa iho te wā, kātahi te pōhēhē ko tērā!

Nā, e ai ki tā Reipa, nā Te Ao Māori te hē mō te heke haere o te hunga e matatau ana ki Te Reo. Kāo! Ko ētahi kai te kī, e kore e tāea e ngā iwi te tiaki i tō rātou Reo. Kātahi te hē ko tērā! Arā nō ngā wānanga o Raukawa kua tipu ake. Ko Te Reo o Taranaki tērā. Arā nō ngā kāinga, Arā nō te kaupapa a Te Wai Pounamu, a Kotahi Mano Kāika. Kua oti! Kua oti kē e te iwi te whakarite mā rātou anō e tiaki tō rātou Reo. Nō reira, tērā, tērā.

Ko Te Rōpū Internet kei te kī atu, kāore Te Rōpū Māori i te tautoko, te aroha nei, ki tō rātou Reo. Kātahi te pōhēhē, kātahi te pōrangi, kātahi te heahea rawa atu o tērā kōrero! Anei te tangata! Anei te tangata e tū atu nei! Nāna anō rā Te Kōhanga Reo i hanga i ōna rā me Te Kura Kaupapa Māori. Anei anō te tangata! Nō reira, āna! Pēnei i a au nei me te reo irirangi! Kua oti kē i a mātau te whakariterite i ngā kaupapa mō Te Reo. Ēngari ka pātai i te pātai tērā rōpū? E kī, e kī! Kai te whakahē i a mātou? Ēngari he aha tāu mō te ora o Te Reo, Kim Dotcom? He aha tāu mō Te Reo? Ko tāku, ko te kī atu, kāore he paku aha! Kāore he paku aha! E pōhēhē ana rātou he kaha ake tō rātou mōhio mō Te Kōhanga Reo i tērā? Arā, ko te hunga e noho nei! Tērā rūkahu, tērā! Nō reira kāti. E tautoko ana i ngā kōrero a Te Minita. Arā nō ngā kōrero kua tae mai ki a mātau e mea ana, āe, kei te tautoko ake ngā iwi i tēnei o ngā pire. Tukuna te pire kia haere i tana haere, kia haere ki te mata o te whenua, kia kōrerohia anōtia i roto i te hātepe a Te Komiti Whāiti. Kia riro mā ngā iwi anō rā e wetewete ki te hōhonutanga o tēnei o ngā pire. Kāore mātou i te mataku ki tērā. Me kōrero ka tika! Nō reira, kai te pai tērā. Kati ake!

Hei whakakōpani i te āhuatanga o taku kōrero, anei te kōrero a Tā Hemi Hēnare i te kerēme ki Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Ko tana kōrero e pēnei ana: “Ko Te Reo te mauri o Te Mana Māori”. Anei anō: “Ko Te Reo te mauri o Te Mana Māori”. Mēnā koinā te kōrero a tērā o ngā rangatira o Te Tai Tokerau, me titiro tēnei Whare Pāremata, otirā, Te Ao Māori ki ētahi atu huarahi, he huarahi hōu hei whakaora, hei whakamana i tō tātau Reo. Ko tēnei o ngā pire te rongoā mō tērā huarahi. Ko tāku ko te kī atu, anei Te Pāti Māori e noho pokohiwi nei, ki te pokohiwi i te taha o Te Minita e whakatakoto nei i tēnei pire hei painga mō Te Reo Māori, tukuna kia haere. Tēnā koutou, kia ora.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and salutations to us all today. What a great day this has been! First of all the tribe of Tūhoe arrived and that matter was dealt with well. The second task was that related to Auckland and it was completed well too. And now at this point in time it is the turn of the Minister of Māori Affairs speaking to and extolling the attributes of this bill about the Māori Language for the future and as well as that, the valedictory speeches later today by our Hon Tariana Tūria and the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. So what a wonderful day this is!

Now then, the Minister of Māori Affairs created this bill from goodness knows how many procedures completed by us of Māoridom to advance the matter relating to our language and to look after it. It is not possible for me to detail everything but other petitions, several of them in fact, have arrived here at this House of Parliament. And there were several marches too. I was one that led a march out there years ago to Bowen House. And what was the purpose? For the Māori language, that is what it was about! And what did Māoridom do to strengthen their language? The Language nest movement emerged and eventually over a period of time, Māori medium schools emerged too. There was another small but very bold movement called Brave Warriors and it included Hana Te Hēmara one of the sisters who has since passed on. But they thrust the procedure relating to the Māori language forward before Parliament House and, indeed, before the nation. So here is a new initiative to address that discourse.

Furthermore, while I am standing here before you all, in case I forget the former Minister of Māori Affairs the Hon Tau Hēnare, some, indeed in fact the majority of Māoridom, are not really aware that the funding for Mā Te Reo was his consideration in his day, but I acknowledge you bro, I really do. It was you indeed that thrust that matter forward. Mā Te Reo is still alive today. And why may you well ask? Because of your success! You were the one who considered that funding. The pool is still there and Māoridom is still drinking from it in regards to this language proposal! I salute you indeed today as the sun is about to set on your time here in this House of Parliament but the discourse will be etched into the Hansard for posterity.

And so, this bill follows that discourse as well. For me particularly, I support the sentiments expressed by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. Yes, the Māori language is indeed a treasure of this world. It is not used anywhere else, just here in New Zealand and in some small parts of the Te Arawa tribe, just a wee part of it. So recently we heard how some groups, some people have made feeble attempts to send their children to language nests. The situation is the same with Māori medium schools. My contention is that should we continue to follow that tendency then the desire by Māoridom for its own language will dissipate also. This indeed is the root of this matter. We must look for a new method. If that is how the situation is looking its outcomes will be the same as well. And so I and the Māori Party jointly commend the Minister and support this bill strongly.

So, what is at the source of this bill? He—the Minister—has already outlined, considered and created a new body called Te Mātāwai which will have effect over the language. All tribes of the nation and regions will be represented on that body. Furthermore, I reject the discourse by some stating that the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency has been disestablished. No! What a fabrication that is. Some are saying that the Māori Language Commission will suffer a similar fate. No! That is not correct! What utter fabrication! Every tribe will be represented on Te Mātāwai. However, the Minister is correct, government will have two seats on it. This is so that its obligation under the cloak of the Treaty of Waitangi to the Māori people, shall we say, is maintained as previously mentioned by the Minister.

This matter relating to our language was thrust forward before the Waitangi Tribunal in its day, and the response from the tribunal was yes, government had a part indeed to play in terms of looking after our language. This of the bills asserts that the obligation exists still but control over the language should be returned into the hands of that tribe, that tribe and that one. It may well be asked, what brought about that thinking? That is really quite simple! Who else should look after the Māori language? Not the government that is for sure! I will, Māoridom! The language is mine! I will look after it! And that really is at the source of this of the bills! Enough! The Minister has already spoken about the make-up of this of the groups. Iwi will have representation, so too will organisations like the Language Nursery movement, the Cuisenaire Rods method of learning the Māori language by adults and so on. Those groups will decide amongst themselves who will actually sit on this board alongside the two government representatives.

Now, with regard to those who hold opposing views, who are totally against it! Some are saying that this bill has absolutely no value in that it will not revitalise or strengthen the use of the Māori language here in New Zealand. I have already asserted, yes, that will happen. The real nub of this is to turn it around. Take control over the language away from government and return it once again into tribal hands, forever, hopefully. Some are saying that this matter was never discussed widely. That is really not true at all! That is an utter fabrication! In the past 3 years the Minister gathered together a panel of experts in terms of the Māori language. They travelled the length of the country and widely. They heard submissions, some positive and some negative. They compiled a report and put it back in the hands of the Minister. And what did the Minister do with it? He placed it before government! And what did government do with it? Nothing! Right up to the past recent days when the Minister eventually came out and endorsed the report, saying it was the right thing to do! It is for the tribes to look after the Māori language and not government!

Now, some have heard how Hon Nanaia Mahuta intends to put forward a motion in the House of Parliament to send this bill before the Waitangi Tribunal for consideration. That would be an absolute waste of time! Very shortly this part will be passed and will go before the country for tribes to once again discuss, but they heard the reasons when the panel moved around the country before. However, that was that journey, and in the end, like what the Minister stated here, he was present physically at all hearings that were considered for him where he listened to the discourse. And so I say unto those of you who assert that the time provided is far too short, that assertion is an absolute fabrication of the truth!

Now, according to Labour the trouble for the drop in numbers who are proficient in the language lies squarely at the feet of Māoridom. No! Not at all! Some maintain that tribes cannot look after our language. That is a fallacy! Take the Raukawa tertiaries, for example. They have grown! Other examples of growth are the language of Taranaki, languages in the homes and let us not forget Kotahi Mano Kāika, the language initiative of the South Island. It is being achieved. Tribes have already succeeded in how they will look after their language. Now that is that dealt with!

The Internet-Mana Party accuses the Māori Party of not supporting our language and having any empathy with it. How fanciful, crazy and idiotic talk that is! The man is here and standing right before you! He created the Language Nursery movement in his day and Māori medium schools! Here is the man again. So there you are! Just like me and radio! We have already determined the language proposals! And so that party poses the question about us? I say that’s being a bit rich! Is he finding fault with us? But what are going to do to ensure that the language survives, Kim Dotcom? What is yours for the language? I say to you, absolutely nothing! Not one morsel! They are of the mistaken view that their understanding of Language nursery is greater than that? There, that person sitting over there! What a sheer fabrication that is! And so enough! Not true. I am really endorsing the sentiments expressed by the Minister. We have received other feedback saying, yes, tribes are supporting this of the bills. Let the bill go forth on its journey for the nation to discuss in due course through the Māori Affairs Committee process. Let the people disseminate this of the bill to its depth. We do not fear that. It is only right and proper that it be canvassed thoroughly! So that is wonderful! Enough!

In concluding my address, here is Sir James Hēnare’s quote at the claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. It goes like this: “The language is the life principle of Māori status.” I repeat: “The language is the life principle of Māori status.” If that is the word of one of those leaders from the North then this House of Parliament, and indeed Māori, must examine other methods to achieve it, a new method to revitalise and give effect to our language. This of the bills is the remedy for that method. I say unto you, sir, the Māori Party remain here shoulder to shoulder beside the Minister who is introducing this bill for the well-being of the Māori language; allow it to run its course. Good wishes to you collectively, and thanks.]

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Kaihautū. Ahakoa tēnei pire he pire Reo Māori te nuinga o aku kōrero ki roto i Te Reo Pākehā kia mōhiotia, whānuitia te motu i ōku moemoeā e pā ana ki tēnei o ngā reo. Ēngari tuatahi, tautokongia ana ahau i ngā kōrero i rongo ahau i roto i te Whare i te wā nei. Ki ngā kupu a Tā Hēmi Hēnare, ko Te Reo te mauri o te mana Māori, e tika ana kia kōrerohia, kia tautokongia wēnei kupu i te mea, me whakatikatikangia tēnei āhuatanga. Tēnei pire He oranga mō Te Reo Māori tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Although this bill is a Māori language one, most of my sentiments will be in English so that the breadth of the nation understands my aspirations for this of the languages. But firstly, I support the sentiments that I have heard to this point in time in the House. According to the words of Sir James Hēnare, the language is a vital essence of Māori status. Therefore it is right that it is spoken and that these utterances be supported, because this trait must be rectified. This bill is a lifesaver for the Māori language.]

I just wanted to say that what I have just heard from Te Ururoa Flavell is correct—that Sir James Hēnare said that Te Reo Māori, the Māori language, is the life-force of being Māori. It is important. I am glad he said that, because we need to make sure that the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill is correct, that it is right, and that it does what it is meant to do.

I also say that although this is a bill about Te Reo Māori, I am going to say most of my speech in English because I want people to hear about my dreams for Te Reo Māori. I have a dream that one day I will able to walk into any bank, service station, Pak ’N Save, post office, chemist, or store and conduct my transactions in Te Reo Māori if I should choose. I dream that Te Reo Māori and English become interchangeable languages so that they can be used confidently by Māori and non-Māori alike in the home, in the street, in shops, in service stations, and in supermarkets.

Māori were guaranteed all the rights and privileges of British subjects in the Treaty of Waitangi. Article 3 states “… Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Right and Privileges of British Subjects.” That should include the right to read, write, and conduct business and transactions in Te Reo Māori, just as non-Māori can read, write, and conduct their business and transactions in the English language if they choose.

I am one of those lucky New Zealanders who could and would conduct my business and transactions in either language if I had the opportunity, but that opportunity does not exist because, despite Te Reo Māori being an official language of New Zealand, its true status or lack thereof means that the only way I can conduct my business or transactions in Te Reo Māori is if I am fortunate enough to stumble across a Māori speaker at any given supermarket, service station, bank, post office, or chemist. Te Reo Māori may have official status in the law books, but it has second-class status in reality out there in the community.

I would like to think that the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill will change all that. I would like to think that the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill will increase the numbers of New Zealanders who can speak Te Reo Māori, so that even if the majority of Māori cannot speak Te Reo, at the very least we have a critical mass of Te Reo Māori speakers. My fear is that the bill will create just another bureaucracy that makes plans, makes decisions, and distributes contracts, but that no measurable increase in the number of Te Reo speakers will occur.

Unless our people can apply Te Reo Māori in their daily business and lives, Te Reo will be learnt in isolation and be seen to be largely irrelevant in everyday life. Te Reo Māori is seen as a ceremonial language, used mainly on marae and in mostly exclusively Māori contexts, when language actually needs to be seen, heard, and woven throughout our lives, our communities, and our places of work and recreation as we go about our daily business. Daily use of Te Reo in all contexts will give the language relevance and encourage more people to speak it. We have to stop treating Te Reo Māori as a tapu thing and allow it to become common like it once was. It will always be our language and it will always be a taonga to us, but we need to bring others on board, and one way is to stop being so precious about our language.

The mere survival of Te Reo Māori is too low a target; we must strive for Te Reo Māori to flourish. We need all New Zealanders to buy into the belief that Te Reo Māori is a language for all New Zealanders. There will be those who say that Te Reo Māori is a waste of time, but let us forget about those critics. If more New Zealanders spoke Te Reo Māori, the world would not end, the sun would still rise in the east, the sky would not fall in, but maybe—just maybe—we would move a little bit closer to becoming a more culturally cohesive nation.

Māori can no longer rely solely on our traditional contexts for language transfer. We need to create non-traditional contexts that to many will feel pretty forced and unnatural, but without them the language will struggle. Amongst other things, we need to set up Māori-speaking happy hours, Māori writing clubs, Māori-immersion Trivial Pursuit evenings, and Māori-immersion sports teams. We need to support businesses that have Māori-speaking staff, write Māori letters to the editor in newspapers, and have Māori writing for newspapers. We need to make a plea to Television New Zealand that when it hires the next presenters for the Breakfast show, it hires at least one Māori who can engage with tangata whenua in our language, even just occasionally.

I have concerns about Te Mātāwai. If Te Mātāwai cannot make Te Reo a working language, a transactional language, and a language that New Zealanders of all backgrounds have opportunities to speak daily, then Te Mātāwai will be a waste of time—a bureaucratic organisation that fails to affect what is going on at a flax-roots level. The Minister of Māori Affairs said about Te Mātāwai that “The new strategy takes the spirit of Te Hui Whakatauira and frames it in a model that is proposed as Te Matawai: iwi/hapū and te reo Māori practitioners working in partnership to govern these entities. It also empowers these entities with stronger policy and evaluation roles and improves the legal status of te reo Maori.”

The claim that Te Mātāwai puts control of Te Reo back into the hands of iwi is laudable but possibly inaccurate, and I doubt Te Mātāwai will achieve the romantic notion that the Minister describes. I attended a hui in Ngāpuhi at Te Kotahitanga Marae. There was not overwhelming support for Te Mātāwai; in fact, there were a number of concerns about it. I question how Te Mātāwai and the chosen representatives will be able to represent such a diverse range of Te Reo Māori interests. For starters, there is one representative for all iwi from Tāmaki—that is Auckland through to Cape Reinga. Those iwi are listed in schedule 3 of the bill and they number 16 in total. One of those iwi is Ngāpuhi, which is our largest iwi. It has many fiercely independent hapū, some as large as other iwi listed. They proclaim that the Treaty of Waitangi was not signed by iwi but by hapū, and those hapū want to speak for themselves.

Before my return to Parliament I worked for the Ministry of Education with most of the iwi listed in schedule 3 on their education and Te Reo plans. Those iwi Reo plans were diverse, and I have difficulty in seeing how the Te Reo interests of all of those iwi will be recognised and uplifted. I fail to see how the individual hapū will have their voices heard. Take the Bay of Islands hapū of Te Kapotai in Waikare, which is in the valley over from where I come from. They have their own kōhanga reo, a special-character Māori immersion school, and their own plans for Te Reo Māori. My question is how a representative possibly based in the middle of Auckland will be able to represent the Te Reo interests of my whanaunga in Waikare, miles from the nearest town, or represent the interests of hapū in Whangaruru, or Mitimiti, or Waimamaku, or Te Hāpua, or Poutō, or of any of the other many hapū in villages around Te Tai Tokerau, for that matter, let alone the interests of the 16 iwi listed in schedule 3, so that Te Reo Māori can be read, heard, and spoken in the home and on the marae and, just as important, given relevance in daily life by making it a working, transactional, and business language.

I am concerned that establishing Te Mātāwai is a way for the Crown to distance itself from its obligations to protect Te Reo Māori. I would be very concerned if a Minister of Māori Affairs in the future said: “Look, Māori, iwi—you guys look after that. Use the Treaty settlement money to lift your Te Reo Māori plans and goals.” Māori need an assurance that in the future the Crown will continue its obligations to revive Te Reo Māori, and will not, for example, as I have said, tell iwi to prop up Te Mātāwai with Treaty settlement money.

The Labour Party supports this bill in its first reading. We really think it is important that hapū, iwi, and community members all have an opportunity to have their say around this bill. We have concerns. This is not to say that those concerns cannot be ironed out. Before I finish: E hiahia ana ki te tū i tēnei wā ki te mihi atu ki a koe e te Minita, e Pita. Tēnei taku wā mutunga kia mihi atu ki a koe, ki a koutou ko Tariana, ko Tau hoki. Nā koutou i whakapau ō koutou kaha ki te hāpai i a tātou te iwi Māori. Nā reira, ka nui ngā mihi atu. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora.

[At this point I want to make a stand in paying a tribute to you, Minister Pita. This is my final opportunity to acknowledge you, Tariana and Tau as well collectively. You collectively have expended your efforts to lift up our Māori people. And so I applaud you all immensely. Salutations, well done and thank you.]

DENISE ROCHE (Green): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā waka, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou e Te Whare i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[Acknowledgments to you authorities, voices, canoes and esteemed ones, tributes and salutations to you all. In regards to the week of the Māori language, huge greetings to you, the House.]

It is right to be speaking on the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill, I think, in Te Wiki o Te Reo, and also, I think, at the end of the month of Matariki, which is, of course, a time to reflect on the past and a time to plan for the future. So I salute the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, for his efforts in bringing this to the House today, so that Parliament can actually speak about Te Reo—the importance of Te Reo, and the legacy that we want our children to have in the future with having access to Te Reo.

We understand that the purpose of this bill is to implement the Government’s Te Reo Mauriora Māori language strategy. The bill proposes to replace the Māori Language Act 1987, to amend the Broadcasting Act 1989, and to amend the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003. The bill establishes a new agency, Te Mātāwai, as an independent statutory entity to provide leadership on behalf of iwi and Māori in their role as kaitiaki of the Māori language, and for the roles of Te Taura Whiri, the Māori Language Commission, and Te Māngai Pāho, the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency, to continue under the leadership of Te Mātāwai. Te Pūtahi Paoho, the Māori Television Electoral College, is disestablished under this bill, and its functions are also transferred to Te Mātāwai. The membership of Te Mātāwai is proposed to be seven appointed people who are geographically determined across clusters of iwi, three by Māori language stakeholder Te Reo Tukutuku, and two by the Crown.

Although the bill’s aspirational objective of affirming and strengthening Te Reo Māori as a taonga, of which iwi and Māori are kaitiaki, is laudable, there are considerable concerns among iwi and Māori that the bill will fail to achieve this. I will outline those concerns in a moment, but I should be clear that the Green Party is opposing this bill. We are not convinced that the changes proposed will improve access to, or development of, Te Reo. I note that this concern is shared in other parts of the House too. There is very little evidence to show that a change in the leadership body is the answer to the real and serious concerns about the strength and development of Te Reo. We are compelled by the concerns that were raised from the Te Puni Kōkiri consultation process. The consultation process on the draft strategy that led to the bill was a small number of hui over 11 days in February and we consider that that was inadequate. I note the point that Te Ururoa Flavell made that by passing this bill through its first reading it will go to a select committee, but we believe in appropriate decision-making, and we believe there should have been fuller consultation before the bill came to the House.

A Waitangi Tribunal claim, Wai 2441, which is being brought by the New Zealand Māori Council, claims that it should have been consulted on the strategy but was not. We are also concerned that some iwi wish to assert their Tiriti relationship with Te Reo with the Crown directly, not through an agency such as Te Mātāwai, which is seen by many as a pan-tribal agency. I note the concerns that the speaker before me, Kelvin Davis, has outlined in terms of the hapū up north. We are also concerned that the appointment process to Te Mātāwai involves artificially clustered geographical groups of iwi, who, in some cases, will have considerable difficulty working together to appoint a member that is acceptable to all iwi in the cluster. We have said before, during the progress of the legislation for Treaty settlements, that we have had concerns about the fact that the Crown chooses whom it will negotiate with and whom it will not by clustering iwi and hapū together and choosing some who are in and some who are out, and that it is divisive. We have the same concerns with this bill.

We are further concerned about the funding for the promotion of Te Reo, which will be negotiated between Te Mātawai and the Crown, rather than provided on a basis of evidence. We are concerned that this means that the Crown will actually not base its judgments on evidence but base it on whatever it chooses as its criteria at the time. Using pūtea, using money, as a way to determine outcomes is another form of control.

We are also concerned at the loss of the independent Crown entity status for Te Taura Whiri and Te Māngai Pāho. This may make them more subject to political influence. We have already seen the politicisation of our Public Service; we do not want to see it happening to the agencies that are set up to save, protect, and promote Te Reo Māori.

So how, then, does this reorganisation resolve the core concerns about the promotion and the development of Te Reo? Where is the commitment to the resources and the prioritisation of the reo by Government, given that the Government will maintain financial control of this? We too look forward to a time when all our tamariki Māori are fluent in Te Reo Māori, when all New Zealanders can use at least some Te Reo, where we can arohatia Te Reo. It is the birthright of our children to have clean rivers and beaches to swim in, and it is their birthright to have the language of Aotearoa New Zealand accessible to them. We can have a smarter, cleaner, fairer New Zealand where Te Reo can thrive and flourish, and we agree that Parliament can be doing much more to facilitate that. But, unfortunately, this bill is not it.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Mea tuatahi, ki a koutou aku rangatira, tēnā koutou. E matua, Pita, nunui te mihi me taku aroha ki a koe me tō hoa a Tariana mō tō kōrero whakamutunga. Nō reira, nunui te mihi ki a koutou me ō koutou whānau.

[Firstly, acknowledgments to you, my esteemed ones. A huge tribute to you, father figure Pita, and my fond regards to you and you co-partner Tariana in terms of your valedictory speech. So a huge tribute to you and your family.]

This Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill formally recognises what most of us in the House have always known, and that is that the status of the language is a taonga, is a treasure. So what it really does is formalise that. In terms of control, in and of itself it is not going to create any more Māori speakers on 31 August or whenever. It does not do that, but what it does do is give the ability to Te Mātāwai to put a few things in their places so that there is a development of a strategy that not only keeps the language alive but goes from strength to strength. What was seen as a great day by Māori language enthusiasts 27 years ago was really a piece of legislation forced on the then Government. I think, looking back on it, that what the Government tried to do with the Māori Language Act 1987, the Broadcasting Act 1989, and even the Māori Television Service in 2003 was to push things along.

The percentage of people speaking the Māori language since that establishment 27 years ago has not actually increased a hell of a lot. It just has not. In fact, of the number of people who speak Māori, more of the people who are speaking Māori today have actually come from initiatives outside of those pieces of legislation, namely the kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori. If we need to turn to anybody with a hell of a history in the establishment of those two forms of language education, we need to turn our heads and mihi to Matua Pita for all of his work, and to all of the whānau who have been involved since those days.

With any organisation you have to keep up with technology. You have to keep up with the times. You cannot just sit there and expect that because it was a good idea in 1987 or a good idea in 1945 that it is going to be a good idea in the year 2014. We have seen that with the change of technology. I think that the new technology—and I have heard people talking about the use of technology—is just around the corner if we let it happen, if we get in behind it, and if we make it happen. I think Te Mātāwai is one of those bodies that will play a major part in enhancing new technology. It is also about taking TV and radio and going to the next level, not just a box in your living room or a wireless on the bench in the kitchen. We are talking about 4G. We are talking about the apps that are available to all of our young people out there.

Now I am going to deviate away from Government policy. It is my personal point of view that the only real way we are going to have what my whanaunga and colleague Kelvin Davis says that he wants is by having compulsory Māori language in schools. I know it is a thought that most New Zealanders do not wish to think about, but have a look at the success of the Welsh language. Have a look at the success of countries that are bilingual. I am not talking about from nought to whenever you leave. I am talking about nought to 16, which is exactly the way the Welsh do it. I am not talking about introducing it tomorrow. What I am saying is why do we not use this as a catalyst to come up with the plan so that in 10 years’ time, in 2024, we are ready to go. We have done all the work before. We have nutted out how many teachers we are going to need, what sorts of resources we are going to have, what we might need, and then in 2024, or whenever—but there has to be a date in the future to work to—we can introduce compulsory Māori language in schools.

It would do wonders for this nation’s belief that it is a bicultural nation. It would do wonders for race relations. It would do wonders for our ability to talk to people of other cultures. When you learn a second language or even a first language, it is easier to learn the next one and the next one. In my 15 years of being a politician, an MP, I have met children around the world who can speak six or seven languages. They are so comfortable with jumping from English to Arabic to French. It is just amazing. I firmly believe that this is where the nation should go.

The last point I want to make concerns the motion put forward by my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. I cannot support it, but what I can support is giving it to the select committee. The first submission that the select committee should hear is from the tribunal. In fact, you could actually eventually see the tribunal playing a bigger part in all legislation that goes before the Māori Affairs Committee, just as we ask the Office of the Auditor-General to give us a steer on the number of financials that come before us in the financial reviews. Let us not cut off the ability of the select committee to do its work. Call for the initial submission to be from the tribunal itself, and let that be part of the process of seeing this bill through—if it ever goes through. My major disappointment is that the Minister who has introduced the bill, the Minister of Māori Affairs, is not going to be here, and nor am I, to see the whole process work out. I think it is going to be a good one, and I think we should take it on board. We should not be scared. Let us really have a crack at this as a nation. Kia ora.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First): First of all, I want to apologise to Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia for not being able to hear, later on, their valedictory speeches. As a matter of respect I would have liked to be here but unfortunately we got caught up in a double-booking for a charitable fund-raiser and cannot get out of it, so our apologies.

On this bill, the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill, let me say that over a long period I have watched the growth of Māori language education. I can recall when Rob Muldoon was in a meeting with a group of Māori men. They were too scared to confront him and got Whina Cooper, later on Dame Whina Cooper, to head the delegation to go and ask him for $1 million to support the launch of kōhanga reo financially. They got in the room and had hardly got going, when Muldoon said to them: “Yes.” It was a big shock to everybody concerned, because they did not know what to do. They never expected that reaction. They left the room. Then, Whina could not help herself. She put her head back in the door and said: “But Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, what would you have done if I had asked you for $2 million?”, to which he famously said: “But you didn’t, Whina.” It just goes to show you. That is going a long way back. It was in 1980—a long time back.

I just want to say that New Zealand First has serious reservations about the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill. We want to say, from the outset, where we stand. We support the Māori language. As other speakers have said, it is a national treasure. It is not, of course, unique to New Zealand because its origins are in the Cook Islands. But at this particular time it is here, and, as I say, there is a certain uniqueness to it. It is an intrinsic and vital part of our nation and our culture. It is something to be cherished and celebrated, and to those who have said that second and third languages are intellectual muscle builders, I say that for young children they seriously are. They have the greatest ability to be able to acquire knowledge of them and use them with great fluency.

We have every wish to see the Māori language thrive. The Māori language should not be a political plaything—an excuse to grandstand and posture, as some might wish to do. But we have serious reservations about this bill because it includes the following concerns. It is being rushed through without proper consultation with Te Reo experts, in the dying days of this National Government.

The bill gives greater control to iwi, and the concern here is the dilution of expertise and the growth of difference. Most Māori live in urban areas, and in that context resources should obviously be targeted towards young Māori in the cities. The bill is full of assertion, but where is the evidence? It is very similar to the report on Whānau Ora, which did not contain one empirical, analytical fact. It was all anecdotal. If that is what we are going to predicate public policy on, then the poor Māori are not going to make any advances as a consequence. There is just not the degree of rigour going into the policy making. You will recall that we have now got two flags. We have got a Māori flag, which was the result of 21 hui, financed by the taxpayer, to which fewer than 1,000 Māori turned up, nationwide. And now we have got a second flag—just like that. The party I lead does not like that sort of policy.

We are as pro the long-term interests of Māori and the fundamental things as any other party. That is why we stay on housing, health, education, and First World jobs and wages. That is what Māori want. But this bill is full of self-assertion and little evidence, and accountability for spending needs to be strengthened, not weakened. Revitalisation of Te Reo needs to be wider than just from iwi.

There are those who take the view that some iwi have to an extent allowed Te Reo to decline. There are many respected Māori who believe that had iwi done more to retain the language it would not be faced with the situation it is in now in terms of the number of speakers. Revitalisation of Te Reo does not stop and start with iwi. Many Māori who are well-versed in Te Reo have great reservations about this bill. They believe it will be a backward—not a forward—step. I am saying to young Māori out there that if you hear that somebody is not supporting the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill it is because they prefer as an alternative what is in place already rather than what we seem to perceive is serious experimentation.

The question has to be asked: what is the real agenda of the Minister of Māori Affairs? Do I expect to see him shortly heading up Te Mātāwai? It is quite possible. It is quite possible. [Interruption] Oh, yes—no, no, I am not casting aspersions here. But, you know, you have to be concerned, because I know this for a fact: Tariana Turia, his fellow former leader, is taking up a position as a trustee on her retirement. That is in Te Pou Matakana. The Minister will know what that trust is. It has just got a $1.3 million administration fee, a trust grant—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment used to do that with amounts between $200,000 to $600,000—just like that. I would like the media to ask if that is the fact.

In addition, her Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment private secretary cum political adviser has been approached to work at the trust as well. And what are people saying as to this question? Did this go to tender? They are told: “Get on board. It is a done deal. Don’t question it. You’d better support it.” This is a fair series of questions to ask. When I see policies coming out of thin air I would like to know who is behind them and where the level of accountability is. Perhaps Mr Sharples can tell me. Is he heading out to be heading up Te Mātāwai?

Hon Dr Pita Sharples: I head it now.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He heads it now; that is right. But he heads it under a different establishment. And if he looks at the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991, every department is charged, including the Māori affairs department, with ensuring that the issues of Māori, be they health or language or education or employment, have to be responded to. For example, when you get an assurance that says “Oh, we are not affecting the Māori Language Commission or the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency,” well then, why are those two agencies coming out of schedule 1 of Part 2 of the Crown Entities Act? That would cause me to think they are not going to be there in the future if they are no longer included in the schedule of funding. It is axiomatic that something is dramatically changing here. I would like to know what it is. What is going on? Who actually stands to benefit—the Māori language or certain sectional interests?

Everyone acknowledges that there are real issues facing the Māori language, as there are for many indigenous languages in our rapidly changing world. The language, as you know, is either growing or it is declining. There is no cause for complacency. But whatever problems face Māori and the future of the Māori language, the question is whether this bill really addresses them and whether it has brought a greater actual—in terms of sound policy—chance of working than that which is there now. If you look at the education department right now—well, in fact there is only one political party that is saying that it will support teacher education and will resource teachers of Māori. Only one political party is saying that. Have a look at all the manifestos right now. So if people are paying serious attention and were genuine about this issue, why is that not one of the primary objectives to be looked at?

Whatever the problems are, we have concerns about this bill. We think it may be seriously counter-productive. It will not, in our view, lead to the revitalisation of Te Reo. I thought when I listened to the Labour members’ speeches that they were not too far away from thinking that as well. That is why they have come up with another idea; that is, let us go to the Waitangi Tribunal. Well, with respect to them, educationists are the best people to ask this of, and those in the Māori world, in particular. That is why we have serious reservations about this bill. Therefore, we cannot support it. Kia ora tātou.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. E ngā reo, e ngā mana, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill. I look forward to the work that the committee will be doing. I would like to commend the Hon Pita Sharples for his work and his leadership as the Minister of Māori Affairs over this last Parliament. I am very happy to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e ngā rangatira i roto i tēnei Whare. E hari ana ahau ki te tū ki te kōrero mō tēnei pire. Mihi atu ki a koe e te Minita, e te rangatira, me ō mahi awhi mō tātou te iwi Māori. Huri rauna i Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to esteemed ones in this House. I am pleased to rise and address this bill. A tribute to you, Minister, esteemed one, in respect of your supportive actions for us the Māori people. Acknowledgments to you collectively throughout the House and to us all.]

I too am joining our colleagues on this side, in the Labour Party, to offer our support for this Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) bill at its first reading. But, in saying that, we do have many concerns and reservations around certain aspects of the bill. First and foremost, I do want to commend the Minister for his mahi in supporting and promoting this bill and the intent behind the bill. Affirming Māori as the kaitiaki of Te Reo Māori is a great achievement. I believe the intent is well made. I believe, though, that the execution within this bill fails to meet that goal, that lofty aspiration.

I am one of those Māori—and there are quite a few of us—who did not grow up with the reo in our home. I was around it a lot, particularly in church and at other ceremonial occasions, but I was of that generation that just missed out before the kōhanga reo took off. Various attempts have been made, and I am one of those ones who can sort of get by and get a basic conversation going and hold my own in certain settings, but, you know, I really want to take it upon myself to improve the quality of my reo, and I definitely will be working on that. So I get a real joy when I am at my children’s sports games—netball games, basketball—and I see the kura kaupapa teams that are playing and the parents who are supporting them. When you see these little tamariki all speaking the reo and cheering themselves along, it is really heart-warming, and I like to go over and get beside them and have a little bit of a kōrero myself. I think that that is what we want to see.

I do acknowledge my colleague Kelvin Davis and his dreams and aspirations. We all share those dreams and aspirations that te reo can be a transactional language that can be just used naturally in or interchanges in everyday life in Aotearoa. We do want to achieve those lofty goals, and this bill is a step in that direction. I would like to see, though, some improvements, which can be made.

As with any conversation, there are two parties, and the best way, I believe, to really up your reo is to converse with somebody in Te Reo. Likewise, with this bill there are two parties. There are Māori and the Crown, and that is the basis of the foundation of our country—Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So there are two parties to the transactions—two parties to a conversation.

My concern regarding this bill is that the Crown is abrogating its responsibilities to protect and uphold the reo. That duty, which is a legal and a Treaty responsibility, was hard fought for by those great rangatira, Huirangi Waikerepuru, and the like—those great kaumātua who fought those cases to get the reo recognised. But what we have through this bill is that the Crown is basically reducing its commitment to the reo under the guise of saying: “But we are installing Māori as a kaitiaki.” I will give an example. It is great to say that the reo is a taonga—yes, it is—but the Crown needs to put in black and white its commitment and its responsibilities to Te Reo, and that should be spelt out within this bill.

The bill talks about this Act binding the Crown, which is the law, but then what does it bind the Crown to? It does not bind the Crown to much. If we just look at some of the opening provisions in the bill, where it talks about the principles, those principles that will apply to Government departments are meaningless, in effect, because it just says “as far as practicable”—when it suits or when they are able to do it. There are no firm, hard and fast responsibilities that the Crown is owning up to in its role as the Treaty partner to protect and promote Te Reo Māori. So that is a major concern that I have about this bill, and I definitely believe that the Crown’s responsibilities need to be clearly articulated as to what it will do.

It is all very well and good to create a new governance body for Māori, but if it is not backed up and if all the Crown is becoming is a contracting partner through Te Puni Kōkiri to Te Mātāwai bodies and the entities that will sit underneath them, then that really is a huge reduction in what the Crown’s responsibilities are.

Let us remember that the renaissance in Te Reo Māori and the recognition through the 1987 Act are really only recent enactments. I am talking about the past 30 years, but we are talking about a Crown-Māori relationship that goes back for over 170 years. For a long period of that time the Crown showed no commitment. In fact, for over 100 years it was not really too fussed about what happened to the reo. So I believe that the Crown needs to be more specific in terms of what its responsibilities to Te Reo will be.

Briefly, I just want to go on to some other issues that I have. Although there is this 12-member body of Te Mātāwai, seven of whom will be drawn from all the iwi around the country—and that seems to be the model these days; they have it in fisheries and in other settings; we have these big electoral colleges—I do query how effective those bodies are. They are there to appoint a person, but there is really nothing spelt out in the bill in terms of the quality or the mixture or the gender balance or the skills and experience that will be the outcome of all of these separate elections that will form this Te Mātāwai body. So it is all well and good to put representatives of 11, 14, or 15 iwi into one room and get them to decide on one person, but how will that translate into a really effective, strong, and highly skilled governance body, which is what we really need? We have seen examples of poor governance. I need only refer to Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust and Te Pātaka Ōhanga, its subsidiary, and the issues around there. The fact is too that we remember that the Minister of Education tried to sort of say: “Oh, there’s no responsibility because it’s a contracted party. We can’t really look behind there.”

Those are the sorts of issues that you will get when you create these bodies that have no clear accountabilities but are ultimately funded through the public purse. So I think greater thought needs to be given in terms of making sure we get the best, most highly qualified, and experienced individuals that will come up through these election processes and ultimately be the governance body on Te Mātāwai.

There are many regional examples of grassroots iwi initiatives that have produced outstanding results. I need only to look to my relations up in Taranaki, and Te Reo o Taranaki, and what they have done up there to really strengthen their reo and hold on to their mita. I think those sorts of examples need to be embodied into Te Mātāwai, and those revitalisation—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E rau rangatira mā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. I stand to take a very short call in supporting the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill in its first reading. My mokopuna, who goes to that great kōhanga reo, Little Wonders, in Timaru, said to his mother the other day: “Kei hea te lunch, Māmā? He kai, he kai!”. And I thought: “Good on you, my mokopuna. Tino pai.” So I just want to say to this House that I commend this bill to the House. I thank Minita Pita Sharples for the work that he has done. Kia ora.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Ka noho ā-rangirua Te Rōpū Reipa ki Te Pire Reo Māori. Ka tū au ki te tautoko i ōku hoa. Nā Ngoi Pēwhairangi i tito o te waiata ā-ringa rongonui mō Te Reo Māori, arā, ko ‘Whakarongo’ te ingoa. Anei tētahi whiti, ‘Whiua ki te ao, whiua ki te rangi, whiua ki ngā iwi katoa. Kaua rawatia e tuku e, kia memeha e, whakarongo!’

[Greetings to us all. The Labour Party remains uncertain about the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill and I rise to support my colleagues. Ngoi Pēwhairangi composed a famous action song called Whakarongo. Listen; here is a verse from it: “Cast it to the world, cast it to the heavens, cast it to all the people. Never, ever allow it to wane, heed this, listen!”]

I stand with all members of the House to acknowledge the importance of revitalising Te Reo Māori in Aotearoa. Like members on this side of the House, particularly, we support this bill, the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill, going to the select committee. As previous speakers have mentioned, we too have reservations on the intent of the bill. So let us look at what this bill is about. “The Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill seeks legislative changes to update and strengthen the Māori Language Act in relation to recognition of Māori language;”—no problem there—“the establishment roles, functions, powers and membership of a new independent statutory entity to be known as Te Mātāwai;”—we have some reservations there—“the roles, functions, powers, and membership of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, Te Māngai Pāho, and the board of the Māori Television Service; the transferral of the roles, functions and powers of Te Pūtahi Pāoho to Te Mātāwai; the disestablishment of Te Pūtahi Pāoho; and consequential amendments to other enactments.”

So what does the bill do? The bill will make significant changes to the Māori Language Act 1987 to establish Te Mātāwai. The bill will replace the Māori Language Act 1987 and amend the Broadcasting Act 1987 and amend the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003. The bill will also establish Te Mātāwai. The purpose of Te Mātāwai is to act on behalf of iwi and Māori. Te Mātāwai is charged with providing leadership through its oversight in direction of Te Taura Whiri and Te Māngai Pāho in conjunction with both the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Finance.

As I mentioned earlier, the Labour Party is committed to the revitalisation and building capacity of Te Reo teaching throughout Aotearoa. We too announced our Te Reo policy, where we put down the challenge of ensuring that we commit to building good-quality teachers of Te Reo and that we ensure that Te Reo becomes what we consider a working language—a language that everyone can embrace, ahakoa where you come from. The ability to speak Te Reo is, I believe, an opportunity for all New Zealanders to embrace not just our language but our culture as Māori tangata whenua. It is my pleasure to stand and acknowledge the importance of Te Reo in our nation, not just in its cultural context but definitely in its social, environmental, and its economic context as we forge relationships internationally with potential trading partners, many of whom have more than one language. So it is about relationships with people whom we deal with on a daily basis in overseas countries.

My contribution really was to support the contribution made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in that we too want to ensure that legislation as important as this is not being rushed, it has followed due process, it has been widely consulted on, and what comes out of the other end, be it a structural change, is going to meet the needs and aspirations of revitalising our reo. That is why we have made the suggestion that it should be sent to the Waitangi Tribunal so it can get a thorough examination of the intent of this bill. Twenty-one hui around the motu is what the Hon Pita Sharples mentioned. When I look at the legislation that will change under this one if it passes, I know many, many, many more hui have been held to get to that outcome. So I want to leave it there as a small contribution to this bill.

I want to take the remaining time that I have to acknowledge the Hon Pita Sharples. As a fellow kinswoman of the Hon Pita Sharples, I stand—because it may be the only time I get to do this—to acknowledge your contribution, Matua Pita, and the mahi, the years, and the commitment you have given not only to our reo but to our education. The way that you have conducted yourself both in the House and around the motu will be sorely missed, and I wish more than anything that I could spend more time sharing this House with you and learning from you as you go on to other deeds. Matua Pita, I feel quite sad that you depart in this way, but I did want to go on record acknowledging the contribution you have made to this nation. Nō reira e tōku pāpā, e Pita, anei ōu wiki whakamutunga, ā, ka tū te mihi poroporoaki ki a koe ā te pō nei ki te Whare Pāremata. Ka haere mai te tini me te mano o te hau kāinga, ō ngā hau e whā ki te whakanui i a koe me āu mahi. E kōrero ana tērā pāpā ōku a Ngāhiwi Tōmoana ki ahau, e Meka, he uri nō Kahungunu koe tua atu i tērā, he mema Pāremata. Ko taua pire tērā e Pita. Ka mihi hoki ahau mō āu mahi huhua mō Tamaki-makau-rau, mō te motu whānui. He mea harikoa tērā ki tō tātou Whare nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Therefore, my fatherly figure, Pita, with your final weeks at hand, a farewell tribute to the House will be held for you this afternoon. The very many and the infinitely very large number from back home and the four winds will come to honour you and your achievements. That fatherly figure of mine, Ngāhiwi Tōmoana, commented, Meka, you are a descendant of Kauhungunu and a member of Parliament furthermore. That’s a reference to that bill Pita. I recognise your many accomplishments for Auckland and the nation at large as well. That is an ecstatic thing to our House and so acknowledgments and accolades to you collectively and a thank you to us all.]

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Me whakanui e tātou Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We must acknowledge Māori Language Week.]

I too support the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill, and I also wish to pay my respects to Minister Sharples and Minister Turia as they take their leave of this House this afternoon. They have served this nation honourably and well, and we on this side of the House have enormous respect for them.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to amend the vote. We wish to call for a party vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. Look, I have actually announced the result, and that is the end of the matter. The Clerk has declared the vote. I cannot go back and ask for a vote to be reconsidered.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I seek leave to move members’ notice of motion No. 14 in my name to refer the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill to the Waitangi Tribunal.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I seek the leave of the House to amend the vote. New Zealand First wishes to vote against it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. I have already announced the result. The member will sit. I have already called for the votes, and no one objected to the votes. I have declared the result on the votes, and that is the end of the matter. The member was sitting there. He had the opportunity to cast a vote at the time, and that is the end. We are moving on to the next piece of legislation.

DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that if a member requests the leave of the House, then that should be put to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will just seek some advice. I am advised we cannot change the vote, but what you can do is to seek leave that the Journals be amended. You have to seek leave for that purpose.

DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I seek leave for the Journals to be amended to show that New Zealand First voted against.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does this not create a little bit of a difficulty, in so much as what you would be doing is asking the House to amend the Journals to report something that did not happen?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Seeking leave to amend the Journals is only recording that a party had a different view, and by seeking leave any member can object to that course of action. Leave has been denied for that purpose.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to have the record amended, to show that the Green Party opposes the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is that opposed to the whole bill? So you want the Journals corrected, as well?

Catherine Delahunty: Yes, thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, we have actually passed the reading. We cannot do anything about that. Is it about the referral to the select committee?

Catherine Delahunty: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The whole bill?

Catherine Delahunty: The bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, you need to seek leave for the Journals to be noted. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3)

Recommittal

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) be recommitted for consideration of the amendment to provide that referenda for local government amalgamation be conducted on a territorial local authority basis and that the result of such referenda be binding.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Third Reading

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. On behalf of the Minister it is my privilege to say that with this bill the Government has taken the final major step in delivering the Government’s Better Local Government programme announced in 2012. In the last 2 years this Government has delivered two bills to this House to reform local government. That is a testament to the dedication and effort of all of those who have been involved. Local government reform was needed to make sure that all public services, not just those in core public sector departments, are delivered in a cost-effective and efficient manner. The council infrastructure, on which we all depend, needs to be built and maintained to a standard that supports the current and future needs of New Zealand communities. That means making far-sighted decisions and careful financial management. This bill helps deliver the tools to do the job.

With housing pressures on the rise, even more focus is needed to make sure that all the costs of building new homes are kept under control. Development contributions were introduced in 2002 and, despite being an important funding tool for councils, they had not been reviewed for 10 years. Through this bill the Government has worked hard to develop and enhance the scheme so that it benefits ratepayers, councils, and property developers, all of whom have a stake in the growth of our communities. Most important, it is fair to new homebuyers. This bill puts measures in place to ensure development contribution fees are charged for infrastructure only where the need for that infrastructure was created by new developments. Contributions should not be used by councils to fund those “nice-to-have” amenities that the rest of the community would benefit from and should therefore contribute towards. The new definition of “community infrastructure” in this bill places limits around what types of infrastructure can be funded by development contributions. This change does not mean that councils will stop building and maintaining community infrastructure. Community infrastructure was being built by councils in the many decades before development contributions came into existence. If anything, the change should incentivise councils to deliver community infrastructure in more cost-effective ways.

Getting a balance between supporting existing communities and ratepayers, while encouraging the growth of communities and the economy, is vital to the future of New Zealand. I believe that new provisions in this bill help to achieve that balance. New provisions for participation in council meetings via audiovisual link for both the public and council members recognise that the local government sector must evolve with the times. For this, future-focused and prudent management of council-owned community infrastructure is vital. Council-owned infrastructure can often have a 50-year to 100-year lifespan. The current 10-year long-term plan provides an inadequate time horizon to manage these types of assets. The introduction of a 30-year infrastructure strategy will go a long way to enhancing the strategic management of those assets. The Government and the Local Government and Environment Committee took on board council suggestions to improve the proposed infrastructure strategy. The amended provisions of the bill anticipate that the 30-year infrastructure strategy will focus on each of the first 10 years and then the remaining 20 years in 5-year blocks. This will allow councils to think ahead to plan for likely scenarios without imposing an unnecessary administration burden by requiring detailed year-by-year financial and circumstantial estimates.

This bill allows a balance to be achieved by providing good strategic planning tools without placing an unnecessary administration and cost burden on councils. Good strategic planning is an important ingredient in the success of any organisation. However, it is also important for stakeholders to understand what is planned without being overloaded with detail. It is with this in mind that changes have been included in this bill to streamline the way in which councils consult with their communities. This Government is not removing obligations to consult; we are providing for more efficient consultation. Councils will have the flexibility to consult at an appropriate level for the topic that is being consulted on. This creates a better balance between cost-effective decision-making and good community consultation on the things that really matter. Specialised consultation documents will summarise councils’ plans and make it easier for the public to understand the critical issues and projects in their community.

The bill lays the legislative framework to encourage and facilitate council collaboration to deliver more effective and efficient public services. Councils are increasingly working together to keep service delivery costs down for ratepayers. This bill takes that positive work one step further to clarify accountability, risk, and liability surrounding joint agreements in order to realise the full potential of this type of collaboration. This legislation has stayed true to the goal of the Better Local Government programme to create a more efficient and more cost-effective local government sector. It assists with the wider suite of programmes aimed at improving housing affordability. It will ensure that New Zealanders are provided with quality public services and it will make sure that councils and their infrastructure are well prepared in supporting our communities for decades to come. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): Bula vinaka. Namaste, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. Tēnā koe. I am a lucky migrant and am privileged to have received as much as I have from this country for over 50 years. I received an excellent education in New Zealand and married a Kiwi, who has put up with me for 46 years now. She is in the gallery today with our daughter, Indra, our son-in-law, Ronil, and our grandchildren, Shalina and Shaam. Thank you, Prem, for those 46 years. Thank you, Indra, for the grandchildren. Thank you also, Ronil. My son, Pramen, and daughter-in-law, Alini, will be watching in New York. My 96-year-old mother in Vancouver will be watching with the rest of my family. My 90-year-old mother-in-law is watching in Auckland. We are going international today.

Over the years I have been very fortunate to have worked with so many New Zealand families and children, taught many university students, and travelled widely to make a contribution to the international community on New Zealand’s behalf. However, it almost did not happen. When I was being denied a visa, it was the advocacy of a number of prominent west Auckland educationalists and leaders who convinced Immigration New Zealand to change its decision. The main person behind that advocacy was Nigel Langston, the principal of Freyberg Community School in west Auckland, where my wife was a teacher. Nigel has travelled down from Auckland today. I owe you an enormous sense of gratitude, Nigel. I cannot repay that. Thank you. I do know how a constituent feels when an adverse immigration decision is made, and then when it is reversed.

I have trained many of New Zealand’s now prominent social work practitioners, child and family advocates, and policy analysts over the years. I have been entrusted with roles like New Zealand’s Race Relations Conciliator, Human Rights Commissioner, adjudicator in immigration cases, and Chief Families Commissioner. But nothing prepares you for your life as a politician. In the eyes of many I became useless, self-interested, untrustworthy, and “just a bloody politician” overnight. Such is the contempt in which we are held, but that reputation is neither accurate nor deserved. I have the utmost respect for all my parliamentary colleagues across the House. I have never worked with a more hard-working group of individuals dedicated to providing 24/7 for the nation and for their constituents.

Yes, we are ambitious for what we believe in and we argue vigorously for our policies and programmes, but no one should ever underestimate or doubt the dedication to serve and the sheer determination to make a difference as members of Parliament, whatever their colour. I believe the media could do better to portray this more fairly. Instead, politicians are fair game and we dare not even reflexively pick our noses in public, for fear that that might be reported in the wrong way as a negative action.

I have been asked to speak directly to Mrs Macindoe of Hamilton, Tim’s mother, who wants to know why I am always mean towards her son when debating in the House. Tim has been unable to convince her otherwise. Mrs Macindoe, I am speaking to you. I count your son as a friend, and we have travelled together through China and Mongolia with our partners. Tim is a perfect gentleman, and on every occasion outside this House we act as friends and we always inquire about each other’s health. It is the nature of life in this Chamber to debate vigorously when our values lead to different policy prescriptions, but we remain civil, we remain supportive, we remain friends, and I count you as one of them and, through you, everybody else.

My time in Parliament has coincided with the Government’s welfare reform programme and Tim is a strong advocate of that programme. Along with my colleagues I am a strong critic of many parts of that reform agenda. My life’s work with many of these families tells me something different. Tim usually spoke before me in many of those debates and he always left himself open for a full frontal attack. I had to put him right, Mrs Macindoe. My good friend Melissa Lee—I could say the same things to Mrs Lee about Melissa. So this is what you saw, Mrs Macindoe, and other Mrs Macindoes around the country, not the many more occasions when we represent our country well and we do that with pride and we get on well. If anyone else has been offended in this House by my passionate debates, then I apologise. Report that!

My time in Parliament has been taken up by my portfolio responsibilities in ethnic affairs, social development, and immigration, and in my work on the Social Services Committee, where we have enjoyed ourselves with members across the other side of the House. I want to make a few comments about ethnic affairs and immigration. But first I want to acknowledge the current ethnic members of this Parliament: Raymond Huo, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, Melissa Lee, and Jian Yang. Although we come from different sides of the House, we collectively understand ethnic issues and the demands of our communities. However, I wonder whether the nature of these demands is fully understood in the various courts of this Parliament.

There are 500,000 members of ethnic communities in New Zealand, and this is our constituency. These communities have come to see ethnic MPs as their link to our formal systems. In addition, they have a not unreasonable expectation that we will be their advocates, their advisers, and their champions. We are required to be present at all their major events and functions, to speak at all of them, and to act like their electorate MPs. So for ethnic MPs the country becomes our electorate, and there is no end to the constituency matters that we have to deal with.

I have already acknowledged the huge demands on all MPs in this House. For ethnic MPs this is something else. Family life for us is even more non-existent. We upset as many of our constituents as we satisfy, by not being able to be at all their major events because we just simply find it impossible to service their needs adequately. This is neither any criticism implied here of ethnic communities, nor any complaints about the demands on us.

But what I want to register is that the standards by which we are judged do not make any allowances for our pattern of work. It is different for our other colleagues and in some ways closer to what Māori and Pasifika MPs experience. The frame that is applied to ethnic MPs is the same as that which is applied to other MPs, and yet the nature of our work is different. We all also come from cultures where promoting yourself is frowned upon and where obligation has a particular meaning.

I have seen a suggestion that all MPs should prepare an individual annual report on what work we have done, as a way of informing our people. This is a sensible idea and could be useful in reaching over the media to inform people more widely. Instead, what is reported is how many press statements we put out, how many Official Information Act requests we lodge, or how many questions for written answer we ask. These have become the measuring stick, never mind the fact that most of them are never published, and that many are binned immediately after they have been received.

Our Parliament is largely monocultural, notwithstanding the fact that there are some concessions to tangata whenua. Pasifika MPs would have similar demands put on them, and their frustrations are probably akin to those of ethnic MPs. It is noteworthy that all the ethnic MPs in this Parliament are backbenchers with fairly low conventional profiles. Those who report on us and judge us are never present where we do the bulk of our work, and all they rely on is what is in the mainstream media or this House. I say this not with any acrimony towards those who make these judgments, but more with a sense of sadness.

In my 6 years, I cannot recall a substantive debate in this Parliament on a significant issue that was particular to ethnic New Zealanders. Here, we ethnic MPs play a mainstream role, which is not why we came into Parliament. I believe it is time for political parties to reflect in the business of the House the importance they place on ethnic communities outside. Other than the celebration of Diwali, Chinese New Year, and Eid with invited members of the public, there is nothing that this Parliament does that reflects our growing ethnic diversity and the political challenges that entails.

If Parliament could consider how that diversity might be reflected in the business of the House, I am certain our ethnic members of Parliament would be able to add greater value to the business of this House, and thereby involve their constituencies in the political life of the nation a lot more directly.

I believe New Zealand has to deal more effectively with our growing diversity. We have an immigration programme that increases our diversity almost daily. We have no long-term plans about how we will grow the population base of our country. The impact of these policies on everyday communities is inexorable, but they are never involved in any discourse about those policies, their impact, or how they might adapt to them. We take diversity to be inherently good, but we do not know its full impact or how to manage it in a positive way.

Diversity is more than food, music, and art. It is about how we live and adjust to our new homes. It is about how New Zealanders adjust to us as well. I believe the time has come for a proper conversation about our growing diversity: how big we want to grow to and how that should be determined, how we manage its implications, and how do we engage with the communities that are affected.

Currently, our approach to diversity is ad hoc. Our immigration policy and diversity management are not dovetailed into a powerful strategy. We do not involve New Zealanders in its design, and it has unintended consequences. For me, it all starts with understanding our diverse communities, and our ethnic MPs should play a central role in this and thus become an integral part of this Parliament. At the moment, although MPs carry that label and have been placed on party lists for their ethnicity, they do not have any strategic impact on this Parliament and probably not even in some caucuses. Our communities expect more from us, and political parties should think this through in more detail.

My journey through the last 50 years of service and public life has an uncanny symmetry. My experiences with immigration helped me understand the needs of migrants. In the Race Relations Office I kept an eye on our country’s overall interests and those of our ethnic communities while we were diversifying at a rate of knots. As an adjudicator I got to understand the gaps in the immigration system. As an MP I have had my share of immigration cases. Thus when I was given the immigration portfolio I focused on a future-looking policy in which New Zealanders were also involved, because they are the most affected.

In our policy, we will not leave applicants in suspense for long periods, and world-leading settlement programmes would be the order of the day. We have to find a better way of meeting the immigration implications for cultural marriages rather than the current approach to forensic interviewing about the genuineness of their marriage. My life with children and families over many years has got me to question why is it that we are so unsuccessful at devising a system that really places children at the centre of everything we do. Why is it that despite knowing about cases early, we are unable to avoid the disaster that was predicted, but are happy to pick up the pieces? Why is it that we have not managed to change vulnerable communities for more 40 years, in some cases? Why is the real potential of the school site not used to develop them into hubs of our communities? I am pleased that some of these policies I have worked on reflect those sentiments.

I have had an opportunity to participate in one of the most stable democracies in the world. Our systems, structures, and checks and balances—our transparency is the envy of the world. This Parliament has given me the opportunity to assist the little South African kingdom of Lesotho, which has an MMP system like ours bequeathed to it but with little expertise on how to run it effectively. This has led to my appointment a few days ago as a special envoy for the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to the Kingdom of Lesotho. I very much look forward to that role. The sense of purpose that I came with to Parliament will now transfer to the sense of mission I feel about my next role.

I have a number of people to thank. I want to acknowledge the privilege it has been to be a member of Parliament. I want to say a special thank you to Nina Sudiono-Price, who is a legend in these parts. We have worked together for 6 years and she has not only taken care of my office but also my interests. Nina has a special ability to solve problems, maintain calm, and carry on as normal, and that I have appreciated. Thanks, Nina.

I want to acknowledge all of our executive assistants and thank them for their support over the 6 years. Our parliamentary staff are very special. They ensure all our systems are run well and that MPs are able to do their work efficiently. Our messengers work imperceptibly behind the scenes, and in the Chamber they get to know us well and keep up a healthy banter with us, although I am still waiting for that supply of gin and tonic rather than water. They have promised they will deliver.

To my caucus colleagues, I have enjoyed working with you. I shall watch your fortunes, because they will be mine as well. To you, Mr Speaker, and the Clerk, and your whole team—thanks, and my special appreciation for the recent hosting of the Lesotho delegation. I want to especially acknowledge the superb quality of the work of our Parliamentary Library. They are truly the unsung heroes in this place. To my wife, Prem, my daughter, Indra, and my two little darlings—hi, Shalina; she has gone to sleep, hi, Shaam—and my son-in-law, Ronil, who has scrubbed up well today, my special thanks for your support and patience over 6 years. See, these are the bookends. You have a go at your son-in-law at the front, and you have a go at the back, at the end. That is how we do it. I learnt this from the Pākehā world. I have many friends and family in the gallery. They have travelled a long way. I thank them all for coming, and I thank you all for being here. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Waiata

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui, kia koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I want to first of all acknowledge my buddy Rajen Prasad, and tell him that I have still got the photos from our trip to Taiwan and that I am planning to divulge them before I leave. I also want to acknowledge you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, because you will make your valedictory next week. I am looking forward to that, and it has been a pleasure working with you. I want to acknowledge all members of Parliament whom I have served with, and I do so without rancour or criticism, because, much to my surprise, over nearly 9 years in Parliament, I have found that despite furious debate about political difference, most MPs come here with sincere intent.

Since I was elected in 2005, five of my much-loved whānau have passed away. I mourn them all. Five children have been born in my close family; sadly, all overseas. My kids Aish and Anna have moved to San Francisco, where they are now doing awesome IT things with Netflix and Apple. I am proud of them both but I do wish they were here. Back in 2005 Twitter had not been invented, and nor had iPads and iPhones. Maurice Williamson jumped the queue and got an iPhone early, but it took years for Parliamentary Service to allow Apple to enter the building.

Parliament has been opened up with digital TV and online streaming. I have heard from Parliament viewers over the years, and I have enjoyed their conversations and correspondence, even the man who often wrote to me telling I needed to do something about my hair hanging in my face. As you can see, I did not take his advice—or that of the former MP who told me he had been watching my parts and that it was important to get them straight. It took me a while to figure that one out.

The extraordinary events that shook Parliament and our country to the core in recent years will always be with me—the shattering Christchurch earthquakes, with the shocking and tragic death toll. For many, life continues to be a struggle. The needless loss of 29 men killed at Pike River mine will go down in our history as a disgraceful failure of deregulation. There has been no closure or justice for those families, and that is wrong. I also want to acknowledge the families of the forestry workers who have lost loved ones, and who grieve still, but who have bravely come forward to challenge the awful death and injury toll in that industry. I stand with you. The death of more than one worker and countless injuries in our workplaces every week shames us all but it shames this Parliament the most. It has to stop.

I know that some people think I was born a devil beast - trade unionist, but my apprenticeship to the labour movement and this Parliament was forged in many different experiences and some very tough jobs. I grew up in a family where war and politics cast a long shadow. My grandfather Frederick Frost fought and was injured at the Somme in the First World War. That man started his first job at the age of 12 as a pit boy in a Northumberland mine. So if I am a bit rough around the edges, I think you probably get it now. He was elected the Labour MP for New Plymouth in the wartime Labour Government led by Michael Joseph Savage and then Peter Fraser. My father Verdun Frost was a navigator in World War II and patrolled the Pacific. Like his father he was a declared socialist. My mother, the very staunch and Catholic Patricia Mary Te Rata Mahuta Kerr, came from an ancestry of Irish rebels. She was very stroppy. I was scared of her. Tau Henare descends from that line, so you kind of know what I mean. You cannot help your relatives.

My parents instilled in their two sons and two daughters the hope of a better and fairer life for all in New Zealand. My generation profited from their sacrifice and hard work. Early Labour Governments meant that I, along with John Key, grew up in a State house and benefited from State-funded health and education. That gave me choices that younger people do not have today. I had the freedom and security to be different and to challenge. With my troublemaking heritage, it was inevitable that I would be drawn to the anti-war and nuclear movements and the remote hippy generation of the 1970s. It led me on a journey that was both good and bad.

I dropped out of education. I had a range of interesting and boring jobs. I travelled through dangerous countries, and I did some silly things. Some will have read the story of my drug addiction when I was a younger person in the 1970s. Despite treatment and recovery years ago, I reluctantly agreed for my story to be published this year. It is still such a taboo topic, so hard to talk about. It was one of the hardest things I have ever done.

I blame no one but myself for my mistakes, and I have made plenty. Drug taking was a means of defiance against the establishment and seemed cool at the time. I know that the threat of lawbreaking or addiction did not stop me, and the opprobrium of society made no difference. I want to say that smoking a joint did not lead me to other drugs; criminals selling drugs did. That is why I believe that the war on drugs has been a total failure. That is why I think it is time for this Parliament to treat drug abuse as a health problem, not a criminal offence—and that means properly funded addiction treatment. I also believe it is time for politicians in this House to decriminalise personal marijuana use and take the crooks out of the business. For me, the difference was treatment, a loving partner, and the birth of our quite exceptional son, Aish.

I found inspiration in the union movement, where my rebellious heart could be turned towards something real and meaningful. I owe the labour movement everything. It made room for me in a cause that has never been more important than it is today. I thank my comrades; in particular, my wonderful union—the Service and Food Workers Union Ngā Ringa Tōtā. One of my proudest achievements is to be a life member of a union that seeks to build, not destroy; draws its strength from the real experiences of workers at the hard end of the labour market and society; and gives them the courage to speak out.

When I came to Parliament in 2005, I claimed as my constituents the workers of New Zealand who clean, cook, and care for others. I came with only one ambition, and that was for them to be heard in this House and to make life better for them. In my first term I was part of a Labour Government. We did make a difference for those workers. Hospital cleaners, food service workers, and orderlies gained their first ever national agreement, and the Government funded millions of dollars to increase their pay and improve the wages that had been devastated during the 1990s. School cleaners followed close behind. Aged care workers were funded $1 an hour extra. Protection for vulnerable workers, like the cleaners in this place, was strengthened, as was collective bargaining.

I am not going to claim sole credit for those achievements, but I will admit to quite a lot of badgering of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. To be fair, those amazing Labour leaders did not need a lot of persuasion to do the right thing. Although I have always considered myself working class, my mother was very class conscious. She used to say to me that we were either upper-middle class or lower-upper class, and there we were living in a State house—bless. Class mattered then. However we describe it today, it still does, because the fundamental hopes of ordinary working people for a decent job on fair pay remain elusive for many.

The 40-hour week, 8-hour day is a joke. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers are now affected by insecure work that is more casual, part-time, temporary, contracted, or fixed term, and there is a growing number of workers outside the protection of employment and minimum wage legislation. During my time in this Parliament I promoted several member’s bills to guarantee basic protections for all New Zealand workers and to deal with the new reality of work in the 21st century.

These protections included a minimum wage for contractors; temporary and labour hire workers receiving the same pay as the places they go to work in; providing child workers under 16 years with protection by requiring them to be employed, not contracted; and ensuring that those laid off through no fault of their own have basic redundancy pay. That is not too much to ask, I would have thought. However, all of these bills were ridiculed, voted down, or discharged by National. I leave these bills as a legacy to an incoming Labour Government, because this is the reality of 21st century work and it needs to be dealt with.

No one will believe it but my grandfather was much more radical than me. He called for compulsory unions for all workers throughout the entire world. I could have written his Address in Reply speech in 1943. He told the House about a view of what he called old Toryism, which was that the more workers got, the more they wanted, and that any agitation for more rights was seen as interference in natural economic laws.

What is really so different today? Work is the foundation of our economy, yet we still often treat workers like commodities who should just be grateful to have a job. We talk a lot about child poverty, yet what about the poverty of their parents, many of whom are working? Risk and uncertainty has been transferred to individual workers, who cannot afford it. The notion of the social wage has been weakened. We blame people when they cannot find jobs, we despise them when they join unions to try to get ahead, and our social safety net is now seen as a form of failure and an opportunity for punishment. This will continue as long as we let it. The old fights, now perhaps rebadged, perhaps no longer couched in the terms of class and socialism, still exist. We just call it the 1 percent versus the rest.

My working experience is probably unique in this House. I worked as an extra in Bollywood films in Bombay, and for the Master of Armouries at the Tower of London—the Royal Armouries in London, would you believe—but I have done some very unsafe and challenging work as well. I do not have a completed tertiary education, except in music. I celebrate our amazing musicians, our extraordinary artists, and the talent that makes us unique in the world. But I was dismayed, when film and video workers dared to call for the recognition and rights that other workers have, how they were pilloried, and still are to this day.

This Parliament cannot be representative if it is peopled only by the privileged. When I chose my Youth MP last year, I did not go for the prominent academic achievers or the prefects. I did not set an essay competition. I chose Peniata Endemann. I asked Peniata because I knew he would never dream of volunteering as a Youth MP. He is smart and intelligent, but he will struggle to pursue a university education because he supports his mum and his sisters by cleaning at night, after school. I chose Peniata and he rocked this Parliament. He rocked the Youth Parliament when he called for a living wage for cleaners like himself and his mother and his sisters.

I hope this Parliament and my party will make room for working people like Peniata. Labour must not get too far from its roots and whom it represents. After all, two of our most celebrated Labour Prime Ministers were a miner and a train driver, and look at their achievements in changing this world. This Parliament must lead the way in becoming a living-wage Parliament. MPs talk in this House about wages and poverty and people, yet the current majority seem content to let many workers in this place earn hardly more than the minimum wage. Surely we, the privileged and well-paid elect, of all people, should set an example.

Some will say a living wage will ruin us. Those in charge of the wealth, and the market worshippers, always do. Their handiwork has resulted in New Zealand being one of the most unequal societies in the world. That is not what my grandfather imagined, and it is not what I want for my country and my children and grandchildren. But there is change afoot. Inequality in this country is causing unease, and the neo-liberal dominance of the last three decades is being questioned in a way that I hope will lead to real change.

I owe thanks to my party and my colleagues. I start with a big shout out to the wonderful people of Labour, North Auckland, for their support, hard work, and dedication. To our leader David Cunliffe, the hopes and dreams of our people are with you to lead a better way for New Zealand, and you have my support. I thank previous leaders Phil Goff, Annette King, David Shearer, and Grant Robertson, who trusted a diehard trade unionist like me to take on the labour portfolio and develop Labour’s policies. I know it gave Phil O’Reilly and Business New Zealand conniptions, but that is no reason not to implement the fundamental changes needed to bring better wages and fairer work for all New Zealanders.

To my special colleagues, both MPs and staff, you know who you are. Thanks for your friendship, solidarity, and laughs in this sometimes lonely place. Gina and Jess, my awesome workers, stick with the cause. The movement needs you. I owe my family much—my sisters, Linda and Joyce, and my simply brilliant kids, Aish and Anna. My deepest love and thanks to the wonderful, loyal, ever-tolerant, and loving John, my life partner—thank you. You inspire me, and you always have. You are going to have to share the music with me now, as well. Those jazz clubs—you are not going on your own any more. To my friends the parliamentary cleaners, and all staff who have made my job in this place just that little bit more bearable, thank you. I will not ever forget you.

I brought to this Parliament the experience of working in manual, low-paid jobs, and the privilege of representing workers on the margins. I brought values to Parliament that I have never denied or turned my back on, and never will. I leave this Parliament content with that. My grandfather returned to work in the Huntly mine when he lost his seat of New Plymouth. I will not be doing that, but I will be returning to the coalface. There is much to be done, and I have never sat back and left the hard struggles to others. I wish you all solidarity. Good night, and good luck.

Waiata

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I call on the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to make his valedictory statement.

Karakia

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Kai ngā mana, kai ngā reo, kai Te Whare, e ōku hoa o Te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou. Ki a Ngāti Kahungunu, mōhio ana au kei konei koutou i hara mai ā-pahi, nā koutou au i whakatōkia ki roto nei nā reira, tangohia ahau kia hoki au ki te kāinga, ā, tēnā koutou katoa. He rau aku whakaaro i tēnei wā.

[To the powers, voices, the House, and my fellow colleagues of the House of Representatives, greetings to you. Ngāti Kahungunu, I know you are present and came on a bus, you planted me here, and so remove and take me home. My thanks to you all. At this point in time I have a hundred thoughts.]

I am really full of different thoughts today—pretty mixed—as I think back over the last 9 years of my life. You know the history of us: foreshore and seabed, the hīkoi, Tariana did not know where she sat, crossed the floor and made history—that was really brilliant—and then we had a whole lot of hui up and down the country and we formed the Māori Party, and we came. In our first election we won four of the Māori seats, Tariana, myself, and—where is he; what is your name again? And Te Ururoa, and Hone somebody—Hone Harawira.

So we were very vocal over 3 years. We sat on the cross benches over here and we threw stones at everything that Labour put up. We got a lot of following from outside. People said: “Yeah, you’re doing a good job in there.” We did not win anything, we did not do anything, but we just made a lot of noise and we got a lot of press. And that got us an extra seat at the next election. So then Rahui—kia ora, Rahui—joined us, and then there were five.

Then we had a major row and then there were four and the Mana Party as a result of that. So that is what happened—that split. Also, he and others mounted a campaign about being in Government with National and they invited us in, we went back, had 30 hui up and down the country, and every hui said: “Yes, go into Government. Give it a burst.” So we did. I would like to acknowledge John Key and the whole structure of the National Party that explained why they would like to go with us. There were good reasons, and an opportunity for us to have a chance at the table. We were honoured by that. Thank you very much, and we joined up with you.

Over the next period we got a lot of goodies for our people both in terms of passing bills but also in terms of pūtea—money—to allow projects to go ahead and so on. It was a really good experience, though, for us to do that. But the reality is our popularity slipped right down with the conflict between Mana and the Māori Party. But also there was a campaign against us being with National. It was painted as the bad guy by this Māori lobby, in particular. So at the last election, although National did all right, with Māori Labour did all right. I think that was the backlash on us being in that Government.

So what do you say to that, you know? I just tell you straight that I go up and down the country talking to my people and I say to you—and I say it again now—that Parliament is a Westminster system. It is all about the vote. If you are able to secure the vote, you are able to secure change and progress for you and your party. It is not just how loud you protest outside or the issues you bring up; this is about sitting at the table. You have got to be at the table. That is why parties go to extraordinary lengths to try to do deals and be at the table and so on, and that is great—that is the system. But just know that that is the system.

I really feel strongly that there should be a programme introduced in schools. This is what we did with Te Reo Māori. It was slipping away—gone burger. Then, suddenly, we brought in kōhanga reo and started teaching the little ones. Now they are reading the news in Māori. Now they are working for companies. Now they have got their own companies, kōrero Māori ana. And it works. So what about if we had some lessons in schools about our system of government: what it is, what you do there, how you make laws and you get rewards and things for your people? So that is my big thing at this time. I really feel our people are so far away from understanding that. The fact that they do not vote is testimony to that too. You ask them “You voting?”. “Nah, not really, what for?”.

So, people, I would like to say thank you to a whole lot of people at the outset, so you get that one going. To my tribe Ngāti Kahungunu—I know many of you are here, kaumātua and stuff—Hoani Waititi Marae, Manutaki, Te Whare Tu Taua, kura, all these organisations, thank you for coming and being here on my last speaking day. It is a great day because I have had three speeches already and one question, and I did not have to correct any records. It is embarrassing coming back and “Oh, point of order.”—but I am an expert at that anyway.

So, Tāmaki Makaurau, you have got to be the best committee in the world. You have done good by me. We have won every election we have gone for, and we are going to win one for Rangi there—he is sitting up there—this time. You are a great, great committee—all our branches and, of course, the voters of Tāmaki Makaurau, which is most of Auckland City there, or the natives in there, anyway.

I had an A-team who doorknocked, and they doorknocked just about every weekend on our first election. They went out, it rained and they got wet, and then they went out again, it rained, and they got wet, and they went out, every weekend. Every weekend they had a karakia and then they went out, and I want you to know that the baby of the group was aged 65, and there was a whole group of them. They were dedicated, because they said: “At last, our time has come. We have a Māori party.”

And, you know, that was inspiration for us to bring our Māori kaupapa in here. Do you know that every time you put a bill up to us, we put it down here and we say—this is a good criterion, and our team has to go through this—“Kotahitanga: does it unite us and does it unite New Zealand? Manaakitanga: is this a caring bill? Will people be hurt by this bill?”. With every single bill, whether it is about crossing the road or whether it is about a new building law or a new security law or whatever, we put it through that test. We have stuck to our kaupapa and voted accordingly. So I just wanted you to know that. We go by that kaupapa, and I know that most Māori in here would like to do that, too. So maybe there is something there that the big parties can think about—to understand that these are real tikanga and not just made-up rules to go by stuff.

So thank you, Tāmaki Makaurau. Our current president, is up here—kia ora, Naida, thank you for being here, lifelong friend. Vice-presidents, Ken and Donna, thank you. Past presidents, Pem Bird and Whatarangi Winiata—amazing man, a really amazing man. He was great on the tāngas. He had a tānga for everything. And, of course, our past MPs, Rahui and—what is his name? Oh, Hone. That is right—Hone. [Interruption] No, do not laugh. He sent a message and he said I am cool. How is that? I wonder what he said to his wife.

Anyway, what an adventure we have had. It has been a great adventure being together. I really did not know Tariana personally until all this stuff happened, and then suddenly we were joined at the hip for 9 years. And if you are joined at the hip with Tariana, it is quite an experience. [Interruption] Why are you laughing? OK, I thought I had better check that out—OK.

So, National Party, I have got some things to say about you, but let us just move down the list a bit. To the parliamentary precincts staff, thank you very much. We cannot operate without you guys. The VIP car drivers—I really have to thank you, and so do you, Tariana, because you and I and the Prime Minister always have the highest expenses on the cars. You know, with those cars and the odd flight, I can do four cities and five meetings in 1 day, so it really, really works. I mean, if you have got a portfolio like mine, where you have got to get out with the people, it really helps, so do not stop that one.

The cleaners—thank you. The messengers and staff around Parliament, who make this place tick over and who look after all MPs, are really, really good. My electorate staff, my staff here, and my personal staff and private secretaries—awesome. I have had nothing but good staff. They are really, really good. So Veronica, Martin, Kymberly back there, and my big team here—I will not name you all tonight, but there are so jolly many of you that I must say that I really appreciate you all. You have made my life here very easy.

So Te Puni Kōkiri, you get the rough end of the deal many times, and everybody seems to have a sort of love-hate relationship with you. Do not stop working—you are doing a great job. You do stuff, you clean up after everybody, and you hold the mana for us. When things Māori go wrong in this place, you are asked to fix it and so on, and there are some beautiful people in there—thank you. I would like to acknowledge Leith and Michelle, the leaders, and others in that department.

Corrections officials—always good. That is because, as I used to say, I have been in and out of prisons all my life. But I have been working in prisons all my life, so it is really easy working with them. Education people—I had a few drinks last night for anyone who sort of works for me, and education came en masse because they have been great. Tātaiako—I said: “You know, we need this thing about culturally understanding your Māori student.”, and they wrote it. They got it written and produced. Māori history in schools—it is now there. You never knew about Te Whatu i apiti or Te Kikiri o Te Rangi, but you knew about Sir Walter Raleigh and you knew about one or two of those other people—the Magna Carta and all that stuff. You see, you are not related to Sir Walter Raleigh. I am related to Te Whatu i apiti. I am related to Te Kikiri o Te Rangi, and he did far more than Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Drake. And yet you do not know him, and that is not fair. You should know him and share in our history before Cook, and then we can enjoy each other and where we come from and where we are going. So I really respect my education officials, who have done heaps of stuff for me.

The iwi leaders and community leaders—it has been great working with you. We have all met each other over the years, and they change and so on, but I really enjoy working with you, iwi leaders, and I will continue to do that. Then there are the committees that I have set up, which you have been on. Te Paepae Motuhake, thank you very much to Tāmati Reedy and your team. Constitutional review, thank you very much—some heavies on that one. Māori Economic Taskforce—some of them are here tonight. Te Puni Kōkiri refocus group—there are many committees, and I would like to thank you all.

I would really like to thank my family. I am like, here and I am not here. “Shall we go somewhere tomorrow night?”. “Oh, I have got to go to Wellington.” “Again?”. I said: “That’s where my job is.”, and this is how it goes. Well, now they will probably say: “Aren’t you going to Wellington?”.

I am really happy that we were able to effect some things. The things I have enjoyed were the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. One of my first tasks I decided as a Minister in 2009-10 was to negotiate New Zealand’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, knowing that New Zealand, Australia, USA, and Canada were not involved in that at the time I went with New Zealand and presented it, chanted my way up, did the Māori thing that we do. I finished it, they all cheered, and my New Zealand team was just going to sing our waiata, and the Hawaiians jumped up, and the Sami jumped up, and the whole place erupted in different cultural dances. So they were really pleased. The next thing I knew, the President sent down Senator Price from the White House group to start negotiating what they were going to do. Canada called us to a meeting and said they were going to do something, so it was really good that we were able to trigger that off.

We have got a wall in the United Nations. It is all shabby, but it is rimu—it is a beautiful wall but it is really, really paru. So we asked whether we could bring some tukutuku and stuff in here, and they said no, we have got too many. So I said: “Well, we’ll do our wall up.” So we had some beautiful tukutuku panels made—really lots of them, and they have been measured to suit there, and I am looking forward to joining Toi Māori Aotearoa and Te Puni Kōkiri taking those over and presenting them in the near future, so that is going to be good.

Māori language strategy—we had the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill today. It has been passed to go to select committee, so that is good. I was pleased to hear Nanaia say that this is not to be to be a political football. It is not. I did not cover all the things in my speech today, but those things can be answered, so please find out from your leader, or I am happy to meet with you and talk about that and so on.

Our Māori economic strategy has grown into He Kai Kei Aku Ringa, a department now shared between the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Te Puni Kōkiri. We foster Māori trade overseas and economic development in New Zealand of all kinds—small to medium enterprises and so on. We started the review of the Māori economy. It was said to be $16.4 billion and now we found out actually it is $37 billion; it is more likely $40 billion now. So we are worth a bit, and we have done many excursions into Asia and to China to build up those relationships and sales.

The Auckland super-city—thank you, Government, for that. Although we lost the fight, we had a march, eh, Willie? We had a march up Queen Street and we had meeting after meeting honouring the royal commission, which wanted three designated seats for Māori because they do not normally make the committee, and that was going to be a big super-city. We needed them on there. Rodney was not in favour of that. Rodney was in charge of the whole thing—we could not just exchange him, he threw his toys all the way out of the cot, and so we lost that one and we did not have any after many arguments. God, he does not listen. Because of that, we went to another meeting to decide what the Māori advisory committee should do. We piped up and said: “Ah, it should be statutory.”

It was passed, and now it is doing such a good job, and I hope that that is a model other cities will use—to have a stand-alone, statutory Māori committee with its own budget that can sit alongside at the top meetings and so on.

Well, you think you know your Prime Minister. I am going to just give you the real Prime Minister. You are a strong, forceful leader, albeit with a strange sense of humour. I do not know how you are going to get on at Waitangi pōwhiri without me to look after you. Do you know the whole of New Zealand watches the Waitangi Day TV report just to see what happens to you at the pōwhiri? There was “nanny-gate”. The “nanny-gate” pōwhiri held up the whole proceedings for an hour while Titewhai with her daughter, Hinewhare, in tow, conducted a public dispute with another nanny about who would escort the Prime Minister on to the marae. Many of you were there on this occasion. Naida dived into the scrum trying to sort it out and there they were, waiting, waiting. Finally the Prime Minister arrived but they were not ready, so they had another fight. I was worried about my wife getting knocked over because she had a crook leg at the time. Suddenly I see her in the middle of the scrum, arms going flat out like this. I said: “Oh, my God! They are both her aunties. What is going to happen?”. And so on. So I was worried about her. “Nek minnit” there she was right in the middle of the scrum. Anyway, I think they all had a piece of you that day, Prime Minister. You are a warrior.

Then there was the “lock-up - gate” pōwhiri where we were lured into the wharenui and we were told the door would be locked and we would not be allowed to leave until you agreed to their local requests. We eventually got out of there. And then there was “speech-gate” pōwhiri. While I spoke, there was complete silence on the marae. Either they were mesmerized by my wisdom or they could not care less and were just waiting for you. Anyway, as soon as you stood, your old friends, the brothers, began drowning you out on their megaphones from behind. In order to be heard, you walked on to the marae and the noise followed you and got louder and louder. You walked further and further and you almost sat down on the other side. You were right there on the other side. I thought: “Hmm, I am sure that is not a rule on the marae.” Yep, so that is OK.

The last pōwhiri was “fish-gate”. Some disgruntled ex-fan of yours, Prime Minister, decided to share his lunch with you. He tossed a whole fish at us. But the pōwhiri of pōwhiris was “tussle-gate”. To explain, Hone’s nephew’s security just came in and decided to have a piece of the Prime Minister, and they just dived into us. Security was everywhere. I got pushed backwards with a post behind me, and over I went. Next minute, there were feet all around my head. I was looking up and they were all looking after the Prime Minister and tramping on me—I was just lying there, shoes against my head while I was lying there trying to get up. Then they finally pulled the bros off and, unaided, I staggered to my feet—your most loyal Minister. As I said on the day on Breakfast, I would have taken a bullet that day.

Minister English—Tariana and I have a loving relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English. We love both him and his cupboards full of money. Minister English made an unreasonable assumption about us. He said we came to our meetings armed with psychological tactics to relieve him of some of his pūtea, his money. He said Tariana attacks first, leads the charge, and bombards him with statistics and surveys about Māori communities’ needs. She goes on and on until he feels guilty or afraid, and after some time, out comes the cheque book. Just take a note of that formula. Then, he says, I follow on with my magnetic charm, making him feel relaxed and comfortable and asking how his wife and children are. His sore back—is it getting better? I compliment his aroha ki te iwi Māori, and—boom—out comes the cheque book with a signature. Well, that is his story. I do not think it quite goes like that, but thank you for all the assistance you have given our projects that we have put before you.

Minister Finlayson—we received our ministerial portfolios in November and December 2008. That Christmas summer holidays, Minister Finlayson was out amongst the iwi of New Zealand, making initial contacts—before Christmas, before dinner. We had just got appointed, and he was out doing settlements and assessments over Treaty settlement issues. He probably had Christmas breakfast at Ruātoki, lunch at Mōhaka, and Christmas pudding in the Hokianga. Your relationship with iwi is always rangatira ki te rangatira, and you lead and inspire your field teams with the same dignity, and me and Tariana as well. Thank you, Minister, and thank you also for your Māori affairs work on freeing up the Māori land for production. I am waiting.

Hekia—she comes from that tribe where kāhore te kūmara e kōrero mō tōna ake reka [the sweet potato does not boast about its sweetness] does not apply. In fact, it is almost compulsory in that tribe to talk about yourself. But she is the only Minister to karanga and pōwhiri me into her meetings that we have every week, singing “Haere mai rā …” or some Ngati Porou song that has about eight verses or something. As a Minister, Hekia is strong. She has inherited enormous projects like fronting for the Novopay debacle, the schools earthquake recovery in Christchurch, Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust difficulties, and a large education portfolio generally. I think she is “mean, Māori mean” and is a great example of tū Māori mai. Kia ora.

And just the last one—I would like to acknowledge Nick Smith. Tēnā koe, Nick. Te noho koe ki a au i ēnei tau kia pahure ake. [Thank you Nick. You remained with me through these past years.] Thank you for your friendship and for educating me on climate change—how you sell nothing for something, or is it something for nothing? I do not know whether I have got that one worked out properly. Anyway, you always made time to explain stuff for me, particularly in the information communications technology world.

Ki ngā mema Pāremata i mahitahi i ahau, tēnā koutou. [To those members of Parliament who worked with me, thank you.] Everybody and the Speakers in this House, thank you very much.

Tari and Te Ururoa—I would like to acknowledge my companion MPs, Tariana and Te Ururoa. For a decade we have worked together and lived together, creating a Māori presence in the House, in our committees, and in our ministerial and leadership roles. One day Tari and I were having a scrap in caucus, and she was getting really vocal, and I was sort of being cool, you know, like that. We both looked at our president, Whatarangi. “Whatarangi?” And he goes “Ah, yes. Tariana is showing rangatiratanga. She’s leading out and being strong about her project. Pita—he’s showing manaakitanga, caring and so on.”, like this. We are looking at each other—so? Then he goes “What we really need here is kotahitanga.” Because that is the kaupapa, we had to accept it. So we got on.

We have had a good relationship, eh, my bro. Where is he? At the back, taking my seat. He is the only MP who goes out on the road with two right shoes. We get to the whare and he goes “Take your shoes off.” “No, they said leave them on.” “No, take them off.”—because he had two right shoes. Sorry for that. We have followed the advice of the late colonel Sir James Hēnare, who said to the Māori Battalion when they arrived back from the war: “Go home to your marae. Go home to your mountain. Go home to your river. Go home to your land. Go home to your whanau. Ēngari, i ngā wā katoa. tū Māori mai. [But remain a Māori at all times.] But at all times, tū Māori mai—remember.” That applies to anyone, not just Māori. Be strong, be yourself, and carry on and change the world.

So thank you very much. I have gone over time, but it has been a real honour to work with these two and to live with these two over the time. I would just like to abuse the system. I have got a lot of mokopuna. They are all here—downstairs, I guess—but I have got one great mokopuna. He is 1 now, and his name is Kanohi Tuhanga, and I want to speak to him now. E moko, in 30 years you can become the new co-leader of the Māori Party. You will have more than 20 Māori caucus members and be deciding which ones should be in the House of Representatives—in Parliament—and which ones should be in the Upper Treaty Senate, which, 30 years ago, began with our constitutional review. Moko, in 30 years’ time you will be dealing with a superministry called Whānau Ora. In my time, they had separate ministries—social development, education, employment, and so on. Moko, in 30 years’ time you will be dealing with the chief executive officers of Māori statutory boards all around the country. In my time we had to have a hīkoi, we had to have lots of hui, a scrap in Cabinet to get the first one up and running in Auckland. In 30 years’ time you will be dealing with a Minister for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Negotiations. Yes, that is right—that is the one who replaced the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations after all the settlements were completed. In my time, when we got the declarations signed they said it would not mean anything—oh, by the way, that is what they said about the Treaty as well. Moko, in 30 years’ time you will be dealing with all the Whare Ōranga Ake units that have been created. Back in my time they were called prisons and did not provide any rehabilitation programmes. Oh yes, moko, keep up with your English language, because in 30 years’ time Te Reo Māori will be the official language of New Zealand, spoken by all. And so, mokopuna, grow strong; you have much to do. Tēnā tātou.

Waiata

Haka

Waiata

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, te Kaiw’akawā o tēnei W’are.

Mr SPEAKER: Tēnā koe.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Rere kau Te Awa Nui mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au Te Awa, ko Te Awa ko au.

[The great river flows from the mountains to the sea, I am the river and the river is me.]

There is nowhere that I feel more at peace than in the still tranquillity of the W’anganui River, Te Awa Tupua, our lifeblood, our tribal heartbeat, the sacred umbilical cord that unites us from the mountain to the sea. Every year our iwi come together to connect as one through the journey that we call the Tira Hoe Waka. In many ways the last 18 years in this place have been like that same journey that we take: a journey of hope, hope for a better future for our mokopuna. Our hīkoi always starts in the spirit of those who watch over us. Today I remember those who paved the way before me, to restore our right to see Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the first relationship agreement between tangata w’enua and with the Government representing the Crown. I am proud to have upheld the Treaty of Waitangi, the kaupapa and tikanga of our people, in all that I have done in this environment.

My tūpuna have walked before me. They have walked beside me, and my mokopuna will carry those philosophies on as we build nationhood in this country that we all love. I am genealogically linked to Ngā Wairiki / Ngāti Apa, Te Awa Tupua o W’anganui, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, and Ngāti Tūw’aretoa. It is to these people whom I will return when I leave here at the end of my parliamentary term—those who have grounded me, those who have reminded me of my place, and yet have loved me despite.

I was raised by my grandmother Hoki Waewae, my aunt Mihiterina and Tariuha Manawaroa Te Aweawe, my precious dad, who was my dad although he was not my father. When I was 8, I became a whāngai to my wonderful aunts at Pūtiki. My Auntie Wai and Auntie Paeroa had huge expectations of me. I was brought up to believe that doing what was right was more important than doing what was popular. They instilled discipline and strong w’ānau values in me—to love unconditionally and to be the best at whatever I did.

When I came to Parliament with Labour in 1996 I followed in the footsteps of w’ānau: Tokouru Rātana, Matiu Rātana, and Iriaka Rātana. They came here to honour the kawenata their papa had with Michael Joseph Savage of the Labour Party. Today I ask as an uri of their iwi: what happened to that kawenata? When will the mōrehu and the iwi of our country see the outcomes that Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana sought for us all yet have never been honoured?

To Chester, Nathan, Jonathan, and Ian, those of you who are part of my electorate too, I want to mihi to you all and to say to you how proud I have been to walk alongside you, and for your friendship, and I have so appreciated that. There are others who have watched over me too and I will for ever cherish the memories that I carry with me.

My cousin the late Sir Archie Taiaroa supported me all the way through my political career, and I would call him for his wise counsel. Archie stood with me when I resigned from the Labour Government at Rātana, and I will never forget that. When I was thinking of leaving, he talked to me about the experience of Matiu Rata, whom he himself had encouraged to leave, not realising at the time that our people would forget his sacrifice and not vote for him. Archie worried that the same thing would happen to me—that our people would forget. I was able to reassure him that I would always be political whether I was here or outside of Parliament, that in the end I had to live with myself, and there is no greater challenge than to be true to one’s own self. I think about my cousin Rangitihi Tahupārae, who worked for many years here at Parliament, the most distinguished and eloquent orator in either language. He taught me to love all that we are and to walk with pride in the knowledge of our w’akapapa.

The late Dr Irihāpeti Ramsden, a wonderful friend and w’anaunga, was another one who when I found myself in trouble here, which seemed to happen a bit, would always appear in the public gallery—so beautiful, so gracious, and so principled. And my beloved friend-in-arms Parekura—I miss him so much. Whenever I think of Parekura, I think of how important he has been to my family. My baby, my mokopuna whom I have raised, Piata, who would have given anything to be Ngati Porou, used to come home from school and say to me “Māmā, can I just say that I am?”, because she wanted Parekura to be her real pāpā. I have carried those people who have shaped me into the person I have become, and I will love them and my extended w’ānau for ever. Because of them our tira has a strong foundation.

Today is my chance to acknowledge all those who helped to keep our waka afloat to ensure that our tira moves forward. So I stand to honour so many amazing people in this complex, who give so much and so freely. The security teams, the VIP drivers, the messengers, the library staff, and the travel team—all of these people constantly go out of their way to make our lives easier. The cleaners who restore order in our offices and on our floor, the Bellamy’s team, the Clerk of the House, our interpreters, the conscientious team in the Cabinet Office, Parliamentary Service, and Ministerial Services, your sacrifices were many and your dedication has been appreciated. On the many sides of this W’are are those whom I have served alongside of, whether at the Cabinet table or in a select committee, or being held to account at question time or in political panels—all of you who work so hard for what you believe in.

I would not have come to Parliament if it was not for the endorsement of the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the Hon Maryan Street, and I will never forget that it was your trust in me and your advocacy that got me here. I will always remember that. There were other people in Labour whom I value working with, many of you. I will not name you all, but there were some whom I learnt so much from. I think of Tim Barnett and that when I used to go to caucus, I could never get a paper through until Tim took it off me and worked on it for me. Annette King was an amazing Minister and taught me so much. I want to mihi to you today, Annette. And Darren Hughes—that amazing young man Darren Hughes—who I thought would one day be the leader of the Labour Party and who, in fact, would end up being the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I miss him so much; he was a great young man, a beautiful young man.

I mihi to my colleagues who were foundation members of the Māori Party, because you have shaped a new horizon for this country. You have imbued this Chamber with the beauty and force of Te Reo Māori, you have established cultural competency as a norm, and you have ensured that nobody gets left behind. We are stronger because of your influence, bolder because of your integrity.

Dr Pita Sharples—I hate following him in speeches! I said Mr Nice Guy, but I should have said “Mr Funny Guy”. He is always Mr Nice Guy. He is never one to look for the problems. He is always positively focused. Te Ururoa, the steady hand on the rudder steering us on the right course, the general manager of everything, the ideal member of Parliament who understands process so well, a great leader. Hone Harawira, my great friend who has also been my great foe. How do you really love the essence of someone and yet be so frustrated by them at the same time? Rahui Katene, the hardest-working paddler in our waka—always willing, always there. I was so sad because you deserved to win. You put in the hard yards. You were just so great.

I have an all-encompassing love for our founding president, Matua Whatarangi Winiata. When we were having arguments in the caucus—not only with Pete would I argue, but often get into stoushes with Hone. Matua would look at us and I would say to him: “Matua, what do you think?”. He would say: “Yes, I am just trying to work out which kaupapa is operating here today.” I want to thank Pem Bird and Naida Glavish, who have been two incredible leaders, for the vital role that you have played not only in our first 10 years but in getting us to where we are today. I want to say thank you to Heta Hingston for gifting us our very first constitution. As much as we have often struggled to keep to the rules, we have tried so hard.

I am indebted to the people of Te Tai Hauāuru for your generosity and support to both me and my w’ānau. You have worked tirelessly. I mihi to you all because you believed in the kaupapa of our tūpuna and saw the vision of the Māori Party. There are many others who have helped along the way of our journey.

I mihi to Rob Cooper and Sister Makareta Tawaroa, who politicised me—probably much to everybody else’s dismay. I mihi to Professor Sir Mason Durie for your exceptional leadership, to Nancy, to Doug, to Merepeka, to Suzanne, the various departmental heads who comprised the original governance group that set out W’ānau Ora and set us on the right path. I have valued the enormous support that I have received as a Minister from officials of various agencies who have provided me with support and advice. I know that I have not been an easy Minister for you to serve. I can acknowledge that, as I am sure officials and others across this House will say so also.

How can I ever put into words the love that I have for our parliamentary staff, who have been exceptional, working always beyond the call of duty, with one or two of them working almost through the night? I have expected you all to put the people you serve before your agencies and your careers. I know that that has been a huge sacrifice.

And, of course, my w’ānau. A wall plaque was given to me by Pati Umaga, somebody whom I just so love. He gave it to me, and it read: “W’ānau: we may not have it all together, but together we have it all.” I believe this implicitly. Every journey along our river inevitably faces the churning waters of the rapids, the turmoil and the chaos of the reporepo that we find ourselves swirling within. In this place I have felt profoundly the pain of the entrenched inequities too many Māori and Pasifika families face in terms of the lack of equitable access to health, education, housing, employment, and economic opportunity. I have at times been devastated by the institutional racism that continues to limit our potential as a people. We should never be silent on the things that matter—the barriers that block our ability to be the best that we can be—and we must never be afraid to talk about anything that we know to be true and that we know to be right. It is only when we let fear take over and when we do not speak up that we let people down.

I recall being really nervous when I accepted the role of Minister for Disability Issues. I felt so inadequate to fulfil this position and I realised very quickly that my job was to listen carefully to the many voices and to translate that into actions with support from the excellent officials and people in the sector. The disability sector has had an enormous influence on me, with their brave audacity to tell their own tale: “Nothing about us without us.” They asked me to have the confidence and the trust to believe that we can do whatever it takes, to believe in our abilities, not our disabilities, and the words continue to reverberate in my heart and mind. I will always be indebted to the disability communities for their ability to lead with so much dignity and inspiration.

In my time here I have challenged officials that we must not be fixated by a focus on deficits, looking at everything that is wrong. It is so much better to look for the potential in people to change. It is in our attitudes, our ability to think differently, that the key to transformation lies. In this regard I mihi to those peoples of the Pacific who let me share their journey, Nga Vaka o Kāiga Tapu—one of the most revolutionary frameworks that I have ever known. I thank the people of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, who have been so generous in sharing their vision with me—people like Peseta Betty Sio, Tino Pereira, Judge Ida Malosi, Yvonne Crichton-Hill, and many others.

I acknowledge, too, the leadership of the Pacific advisory group and the Māori reference group for your proactive work on family violence. I mihi to Judge Peter Boshier and to Judge Paul von Dadelszen for your leadership and trust in people-led solutions. If ever it is possible to form a really strong relationship with a community, it must be the one that is being established for me in the Chathams. Their resilience, their absolute belief in themselves—probably to the detriment of their own growth, as they were overlooked by funders—has been totally inspiring, and I thank them for their manaakitanga towards me and towards Chris also.

Even the steadiest waka can be overturned, and it was that way for me in the early months of 2004 as we reeled to the decisions made in haste around the foreshore and seabed. In those moments of despair I have always gone to our river, to our awa, to reclaim a sense of being—the blessing of the water that heals—and in that quiet space I find the answers that lie within me. And so it was for our w’anau, hapū, and iwi as we considered how we would respond to the denial of due process and access to justice, the belittling of our status as tangata w’enua, which will always be for ever recorded as a modern-day Treaty breach. The advent of the foreshore and seabed legislation created the tensions that led to me leaving Labour and in the same breath gave birth to our indigenous political movement, the Māori Party. I am not sorry today that that happened and that I left.

I have the utmost respect for Georgina Beyer, who sacrificed her political aspirations to stand alongside of me at Rātana. Ten years on, those days are still vividly written in my mind as a milestone moment in the story of our nation. Through the anguish and the pain as the people came together in solidarity, we knew that we were part of an incredible juncture in our history as we witnessed a powerful uprising of the spirit. It was the most evocative moment of my life—to feel the will of the people, the calling of our tūpuna to reclaim the essence of who we are, and to stand up for what we knew was right. It was self-determination in action. As I think of that sea of flags and placards that filled the foreground of Parliament, I am reminded of the image that we see at home every summer when our collective fleet of waka glide into Pūtiki, an amazing expression of pride, of strength, of power, and of peace. The Tira Hoe Waka is a journey of rediscovery, in which we literally fall in love with ourselves again.

In many ways, for me so too is the Māori Party. Put simply, this is the dream of W’ānau Ora—to know ourselves, our strengths, and our challenges, and to plot our futures. We cannot talk rangatiratanga and not be self-determining. We know the call from Pūao-te-ata-tū, Matua Whāngai, kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, kura-ā-iwi, w’are wānanga, local-level solutions, direct resourcing, even closing the gaps, He Korowai Oranga, and Māori and Pasifika health and social services. They are all models where the people have put forward a framework for tomorrow. We stand on the shoulders of the past to look forward to a greater future.

I want to take this opportunity to mihi to somebody in the House for whom I have huge respect and regard, and that is Hekia. Tēnā koe ki te Minita. I have absolutely loved your passionate belief that all of our children have a right to succeed in education. Second-best is not part of your vocabulary, and only excellence will do. You know that we are preparing the next leaders of this nation. I believe totally in what you are doing and I want to say that today in this House.

One of the most exhilarating experiences of my life was to travel throughout the country, meeting with Māori and Pasifika communities about a w’ānau way forward. Often the halls were crowded to full capacity—600 people crammed together, standing room only. It was a buzz and I will always remember it. W’anau Ora resonated with them because they understood completely what collective responsibility and obligation was and how it needed to be restored to those who had been affected by the many losses that they had suffered. They did not ask what the Government could do for them. They asked instead that we trust them to develop their own solutions, to take them forward, and to trust that they knew better than anyone in the huge bureaucracies that we have here in Wellington.

This hīkoi that we have been on, then, is a hīkoi for all time. What we have represented with the growth of the Māori Party is the possibility of a strong and independent Māori voice, for ever able to sit in Parliament. We were not content to sit on the sidelines and to watch from afar as the lives of our people waited in the queue for the time to be right. We have never been about the rhetoric of the right or the left, and I am so grateful to those members of the press gallery who actually got that, who have asked searching questions and been prepared to reflect our philosophies, rather than regurgitating their own. We are driven by kaupapa and what unites us rather than what divides us.

Being in the Māori Party has been the greatest opportunity to sing our songs and to tell our stories. We have had the freedom to focus on what is right for tangata w’enua and would also be right for our brothers and sisters from Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, and we knew it would be right for this country. It is the first time in our history and of the world that an indigenous political party has been truly part of Government in a coalition arrangement. It has been exciting, liberating, invigorating, inspiring, and occasionally challenging.

I have so enjoyed the respectful, honest, and upfront relationship with John Key and Bill English, a relationship that has allowed both of us to be direct, acknowledging our different constituencies and agreeing to disagree. It has been a relationship that is based on mutual cooperation, and we are pleased with what we have achieved. We are also proud of what we have managed to change or stop, and we are not going to talk about the disappointments. I have been driven by a determination, passion, and desire, and, as Bill English would say, a stubborn resolve to make a difference. I always wanted to be in relationship where what we had to say mattered, to be part of the solution, and not limited to picking the problems apart. Although we were unable to achieve all the aspirations of our people, I know that we have made a difference in the lives of whānau, whatever their circumstances, and in that respect I leave with a feeling of peace, that we have always tried to do our best and to do what it is that is right for them.

I cannot leave this House without recognising a real friend, Chris Finlayson. Chris is the greatest Treaty settlements Minister that we have ever had in this country. In our iwi we have had the longest litigation in the history of this country over our river. It is just around the corner, and I want to say thank you to you so much for working so hard alongside our w’ānau, hapū, and iwi of W’anganui.

I have tried to live up to the legacy and the expectation from so many of our iwi leaders who have sacrificed so much to let the stories of our w’ānau, hapū, and iwi resound, not just in books of history but in the throbbing heartbeat of a nation that knows. I come then to a turning point in my journey, as I prepare to steer our waka homewards. I say to you all, to be led by the people you serve, it is the greatest opportunity that any of you could ever have hoped for. I have been humbled by the trust that has been placed in me, and there are so many people who have helped me throughout my lifetime—too many to name individually—but I want you all to know that I can be for ever thankful for the influence that you have had on my thinking. Your lessons will continue to inspire me, and your advice and your challenges will no doubt occupy my mind. But now it is time to return home, to give back to those who place their trust in me, to rest a while, to be with my darling George, who has put up with me for 51 years—it has got to be a record—and with my great children, and my 26 grandchildren and 26 great-grandchildren. I had to say that, Pete, because you only have one! I was trying to work out how I could beat him at something.

And then on Saturday I will start thinking about my next project for transformation. To everyone who has given me the strength and the support to promote possibility and belief for every w’ānau to grow, I thank you. Your vision, our vision, will be evident in the nation that we create together tomorrow. To the three W’ānau Ora commissioning agencies, I want to mihi to you all for the great opportunity and the great direction that I know you will take us in. E te iwi, kia piri, kia tata whakamaua kia tīna (tīna), hui e (tāiki e)! Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa

[O people, close up, fasten on to it firmly (it is) gather together (it is done)! So accolades and acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all.]

Waiata

Haka

The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.