Tuesday, 30 June 2015

TUESDAY, 30 JUNE 2015

TUESDAY, 30 JUNE 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2015—Support for Families

1. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What Budget policies will soon take effect and help to distribute dividends from the growing economy to New Zealand families?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: All seven of the National-led Government’s seven Budgets have included measures to help New Zealand families get ahead. From tomorrow, 1 July, children under 13 will have access to free GP visits and free prescriptions; paid parental leave payments will increase, with the maximum weekly rate for eligible employees and self-employed parents going from $504.10 to $516.85 gross; and the average ACC levy for a private motor vehicle will fall by around $130 a year, which is part of a $440 million levy reduction across the New Zealand economy. These are just three of the policies that this Government is introducing to support families, on the back of our strengthening economy.

Andrew Bayly: What other recent Budget measures are already in place to help New Zealand families and children?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government included a number of other measures in Budget 2014 that took effect from 1 April this year, just under 3 months ago. These include paid parental leave increasing by 2 weeks, to 16 weeks, and that will increase by another 2 weeks from 1 April next year. The parental tax credit rose from $150 a week to $220 a week, and the entitlement will increase from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. The Government’s new HomeStart scheme will help around 90,000 Kiwis into their first home over the next 5 years. Average ACC work levies paid by employers and self-employed people fell to 90c per $100, and New Zealand superannuation increased by another 2 percent, meaning it has increased by 31 percent since April 2008—more than double the inflation rate over that period.

Andrew Bayly: How does this year’s Budget build on the policies of previous Budgets, particularly in the area of support for families and children?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Budget 2015 included a number of measures in a $790 million package of support for children living in hardship. The following will apply from 1 April next year: benefit rates for families with children will rise by $25 a week after tax—this is the first time that core benefit rates have been increased since 1972, apart from inflation adjustments—extra support for low-income working families, with both the minimum family tax credit and the base rate of the in-work tax credit increasing; childcare assistance for low-income families will increase, reducing barriers for parents moving off welfare and into work; and there will be increased work expectations for parents on a benefit. The package targets around 160,000 families—300,000 children—with incomes of less than $36,350 per year.

Andrew Bayly: How did Budget 2015 build on the Government’s wider programme to support more jobs and higher wages for New Zealand families?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the most important things we can do for vulnerable families is to help get the parents into work. Treasury’s Budget forecast shows there were 194,000 extra jobs since late 2010, and another 150,000 jobs are projected by 2019. Unemployment is expected to fall below 5 percent in 2016. Average annual wages have increased by $5,700 in the last 4 years, and they are forecast to rise to around $63,000 a year in 4 years’ time, which is an increase of a further $7,000. So a growing economy, supported by the Government’s responsible economic plan, is working for New Zealanders and their families.

State and Social Housing—Sale of Housing Stock and Social Housing Providers

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “Locally-based providers can be closer and more responsive to their community” in relation to the Government’s policy to sell State houses to private providers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and registered community housing providers will need to have a local presence and a strong capacity to meet the needs of their tenants.

Andrew Little: How would a company based in Brisbane be “closer and more responsive” to the needs of Kiwi families in social housing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because they will have to be not only registered in New Zealand but have a presence in New Zealand and be subject to the community housing provider regulatory authority. If the head office of a company or an organisation rules somebody out from doing anything, then I suggest the member never go and have another Big Mac, because, and this will come as breaking news, the head office is in America. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am wanting to call the Leader of the Opposition.

Andrew Little: What lessons can a company that provides housing on the Gold Coast teach New Zealand about running social housing in Invercargill?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, this organisation would have to be, if it bought those properties, registered in New Zealand subject to the Community Housing Regulatory Authority, be subject to regular engagement with its tenants, be a responsible tenancy manager, have routine inspections, and be responsive when it comes to repairs and maintenance—so it would have to run a New Zealand operation. I am a little surprised that the New Zealand Labour Party hates Horizon Housing, because here is a press release from the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia when the Labor Government was in office saying what an amazing organisation it is and how good it is and what a great job it has done. I know that something Australian is very scary to the Labour Party, but over here we just want somebody who can provide a good service.

Andrew Little: What precise, measurable, provable benefits would be realised by selling these houses to an Australian company that cannot be realised by Housing New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking a wider question about what the benefits are of social housing. If Horizon Housing were to buy these properties, it would have to provide the same role as any other community housing provider. So what I can say in regard to that is that there is widespread support for community housing providers from all parts of this Parliament. In fact, one member of Parliament has gone on to say in relation to this area that there is “no controversy” and “I see huge benefits in this vision of a bigger, more diverse social housing sector.” That of course comes from Mr P Twyford of the Labour Party.

Andrew Little: Point of order. [Interruption]

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

Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very straight, and it was pretty concise—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I am going to ask him to ask that question again.

Andrew Little: What precise, measurable, provable benefits would be realised by selling these houses to an Australian company that cannot be realised by Housing New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The same as New Zealand ones.

Tim Macindoe: What support has the Prime Minister seen for the Government’s policy of transferring ownership of houses to grow the community housing sector?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen lots of support, including a good summary of the Government’s social housing reform legislation that passed last year. It says as follows: “What does this bill do? It shifts housing stock out of the hands of Housing New Zealand into the community housing sector. This is something that Labour is perfectly comfortable with.” It goes on to say: “The bill is extending—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week you made it very clear, and you have repeatedly done this over the last 2 weeks, that the Government should not use Government supplementary questions to attack the Opposition, which is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need assistance. That is a judgment that I make. But when I look at the question “What support has the Prime Minister seen for this change of ownership the Government is proposing.”, that is a legitimate question in my mind.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just urge you—your ruling is absolutely correct—to go away and consider what Mr Hipkins has just raised. What he is essentially saying is that it is impossible within a debate for the Government to point out in question time within a wider debate about social housing what has been said on all parts of this debate. That would be a ridiculous notion.

Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make in responding to Chris Hipkins. There will be questions that I think are put down that are no more than a cheap opportunity by a Government to attack another political party, and they are the ones that I will not accept. In this case I think it is quite a legitimate question to ask about what support is out there in the community. If that answer happens to refer to another political party in this Parliament, I cannot help. The Prime Minister can complete his answer if it is required.

Andrew Little: In relation to the Government’s announced proposal to sell State houses to an Australian owner, and given that the Salvation Army in New Zealand has backed out of the proposal to it to purchase State houses, and also that iwi in New Zealand only want the houses for free, so that he now resorts to Aussie buyers, will his Government press ahead with selling State houses, even if no New Zealand providers can afford to buy them and there are no tangible benefits to the families living in them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member’s question is incorrect.

Andrew Little: Is not the truth of it that this policy was always about the ideology of selling off State houses, whatever the cost, not about improving the lives of the families in those houses at all, and like all his policies it is now falling apart?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What was falling apart were the Housing New Zealand houses we inherited after 9 years of a Labour Government, because it failed to maintain them. What everybody knows, actually, is there is more demand, and has been under numerous Governments, than there is supply. In Australia, and actually in many countries, we see the equivalent of social housing providers or community housing providers adding to the overall stock, and that is why, in a place like Australia, the Labor Deputy Prime Minister gets up and celebrates this. This is the reality. The Labour Party in New Zealand is scared of an Australian charity coming to New Zealand. They must be incredibly scary, because—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer has gone on for long enough.

Tim Macindoe: What other support has the Prime Minister seen for the Government’s social housing reforms?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen a series of statements supporting the Government’s approach, including, for example: “The Minister’s vision is that Housing New Zealand should become just another tenancy provider competing in a contestable market with the community housing sector for both tenants and subsidies. We want to see a larger, more capable, empowered community housing sector. It is certainly a view that Labour shares.” That, again, was Phil Twyford.

Andrew Little: Given that the mass sell-off of State houses was meant to be his defining policy for the year, as outlined in January, what is left after 6 months of fiasco, and why does he not just give up on this failed experiment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: On the latter, because I actually care about New Zealanders who deserve some accommodation, and I am not going to be driven by a bit of mumbo-jumbo into not providing more social houses to New Zealanders. And, secondly, that was an important policy announcement at the start of the year, but also I have made a great many other policy announcements this year, and so far we are waiting for Labour to have one policy announcement, and, guess what? Mr Little has not announced a single one yet.

Paid Parental Leave—Increases

3. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How is the Government helping to support young New Zealand families through paid parental leave?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Good news. Tomorrow paid parental leave payments will increase across the board, with the maximum weekly rate for employees and self-employed—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: They do not like good news, do they? The maximum weekly rate for employees and self-employed parents is going from $504.10 to $516.85. This increase comes on top of changes that came in on 1 April this year that extended the provision of paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and increased the parental tax credit.

Stuart Smith: What further changes can New Zealand families expect around paid parental leave?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Last year the Government announced a $172 million—

Hon Annette King: It’s a Labour Party policy.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Shh!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection from one particular member is now unacceptable.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —a $172 million package over 4 years to boost paid parental leave. Another extension that will take place from 1 April next year will see a further increase to paid parental leave to 18 weeks. In addition, I will soon be introducing legislation to the House that will extend eligibility to include, other than biological or formal adoptive parents, a wider range of non-standard workers and primary carers such as permanent guardians, Home for Life carers, whāngai parents, and grandparents. More than 26,000 New Zealanders take paid parental leave. Tomorrow’s increase and the further extensions that this Government has committed to will further help families and carers to give our youngest New Zealanders the best possible start in life.

Sue Moroney: Will he honour his commitment to ACT leader David Seymour to introduce 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for babies born with disabilities, for those born prematurely, and for multiple births, in exchange for David Seymour withdrawing support for my bill delivering those outcomes?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will certainly honour all commitments that I have made to our confidence and supply partner. That was not it. I am corresponding with Mr Seymour about what is already in place and about the supports that are being provided by this Government to multiple birth parents and parents of prematurely born babies, and that is what we will do.

Building and Construction Industry—High-alkali Cement

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who’s your deputy?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it wouldn’t be somebody like you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption] Order! We are back to question No. 4—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes, and particularly my statement today welcoming the third consecutive year of 20-plus percent annual growth in residential building in Auckland and the record $9.7 billion spent on residential construction in the last year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he still stand by his statement on 19 February: “I have been assured by officials that imported cement must meet the New Zealand standard, that the Drymix product referred to does in fact meet that standard,”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, that is the advice that I continue to receive from appropriately qualified independent engineers. I have repeatedly challenged the member to provide me with some engineering advice that there is a problem with this product. I have asked him to do that three times. I have had zip.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he guarantee that the concrete used in the $40 million, taxpayer - paid for Manukau District Court does not exceed the alkali content for normal concrete as specified in New Zealand concrete standard 3104 of 2013; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it is not possible for me, as Minister for Building and Housing, to guarantee the millions of cubic metres of concrete that are produced every year.

Hon Member: Why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, actually, that is the responsibility of the commercial manufacturers of that concrete. There is a good system of quality control, and there were issues, as there were last month, with some concrete being manufactured that was substandard and had to be replaced. If the member has got evidence of that, then he should provide it—although, I would say that he should provide it not from parties with commercial vested interests but from technical engineers and about legitimate concerns.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about commercial vested interests, when such non-standard cement causes concrete to rot from the inside out, does he believe that he and the Cement and Concrete Association should have confidence in the supposedly independent report into this matter—this report here—when it was, in fact, paid for by Drymix; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For a very wide range of building products, it is the job of the person requiring certification to get a commercial company such as the Building Research Association of New Zealand and others to provide for it. I can assure the member that the advice I receive from my own engineers employed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—I have total confidence in their independence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he confident that cement imported from Vietnam by Drymix was brought up to New Zealand standards through blending with other cement, as Drymix claims and as he has said?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not have any specific reports on a particular batch of cement. My officials have assured me repeatedly that they are satisfied that both cement and concrete being produced in New Zealand meet the standards of 3104.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he defend, when Drymix claims to have blending facilities and it does not, that it would have blended the cement, when the only cement blending facility is Golden Bay Cement, which has never ever blended cement for Drymix? Why is he now repeating his argument that the cement was blended and that it was therefore satisfactory?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I had difficulty in deciphering that jumbled question. I have never made statements about blending—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If he finds it—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the point of order please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he was confused with the question, I am happy to repeat it. He started by saying that.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think the Minister has understood enough of it to be answering. He was in the process of it. [Interruption] Order! I will allow the Minister to complete his answer, and then if I am not satisfied with the answer, I may think about it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I made no claims about this particular cement being blended. Those claims were made by the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the claims in respect of blending are made in this report, which says that because of that they became satisfactory, and when Drymix never had the capacity to blend the cement, because only Golden Bay Cement has it, and it did not do Drymix’s concrete in that case, and there are 39,000 tonnes yet unaccounted for, why will he not actually take a simple core sample of the Manukau District Court to tell us whether or not it is safe in the future? Why would he not do that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply lay back the claim to the member that I have now given to him three times: give me a chartered professional engineer’s advice that the cement is unsatisfactory, and I will look into it. While he continues to peddle the arguments of other commercial interests, I will not take him seriously.

Cycling—Urban Cycleways Programme

5. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to support the development of urban cycleways across New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last week alongside the Prime Minister I announced that $333 million will be invested in urban cycleways. Forty-one projects in 15 centres across the country will see world-class cycling projects get under way, much sooner than may otherwise have been the case, bringing the total number of projects delivered under the programme to 54. This is the single biggest investment in cycling in New Zealand’s history and will change the face of cycling in New Zealand. I am really proud to be part of a Government that is leading the way on cycling in this country.

Jonathan Young: What centres are set to see new cycleways delivered through the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Many—many. The country’s three main urban centres of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch will see significant investment that will change the cycling landscape in these cities.

Ron Mark: What about rural New Zealand—the roads?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am excited that we have been able to deliver more than $87 million worth of projects, Ron Mark, in regional centres, including Whangarei, Hamilton, Tauranga - Western Bay, Rotorua, Gisborne, Hastings, Napier, New Plymouth, Whanganui, Palmerston North, Blenheim, Nelson, and Dunedin. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank all of the local councils and leaders for sharing the Government’s vision and partnering in this great programme.

Jonathan Young: How does the increased uptake of cycling benefit communities?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government’s clear goal here is to make cycling a safer and, therefore, a much more attractive transport choice. That is because cycling contributes to healthier communities, and safe and attractive cycling infrastructure can encourage people in urban areas to change their travel patterns. These benefits are why the Government committed to the Urban Cycleways Programme, and I look forward to seeing Kiwis around the country enjoying the multiple benefits of the cycleways as more and more are completed in the coming 3 years.

Denis O’Rourke: If the Government can find $333 million for cycleways, why can it not find the funds needed to assist councils to seal and maintain rural roads, to repair the damage done to regional roads caused by logging trucks, to restore rail links like the Napier-Gisborne line, and many other examples of transport neglect in the regions of New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member must have missed the most recent news, because this Government has been part of a $13.9 billion plan for the next 3 years—a 15 percent increase and the largest spend on land transport in this country ever.

Ron Mark: Point of order. [Interruption]

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

Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table a New Zealand Transport Agency document that shows that many rural provincial councils—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Is it available on the website?

Ron Mark: Not immediately, no. You have got to look for it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I am assured from my right-hand side that it is. I will not be putting the leave.

State and Social Housing—Sale of Housing Stock and Social Housing Providers

6. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he still intend to sell 1,000 to 2,000 Housing New Zealand houses by January 2016, and that “houses will not be transferred unless tenants get better services and taxpayers get fair and reasonable value”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Minister responsible for HNZC): In January the Prime Minister said: “These areas”—the areas where we will transfer the first houses—“will be determined after engagement and consultation, including with community housing providers and iwi, to ensure we understand everyone’s rights and interests. We’ll then look to sell between 1,000 and 2,000 Housing New Zealand properties over the following year for use as social housing run by approved community housing providers.” So it is unlikely to be by January 2016, but it is by the timetable that we had previously laid out. In answer to the second part of the question, yes.

Phil Twyford: Will he tell the public who the community housing providers are that the Government is considering selling to in Tauranga and Invercargill, or does he agree with Paula Bennett that his policy is now so toxic that it would be a “poisoned chalice” for them?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: On behalf of the Minister, I certainly think that any comments like that by Paula Bennett have been taken completely out of context. So what I will say in answer to the question from the member is yes—in fact, just in the last week we had more than 160 different people at meetings with Treasury about transactions. That will be made public on the website towards the end of the week.

Phil Twyford: Is forcing our most vulnerable New Zealanders—including the elderly, the disabled, and people with mental illness—to pay their rent to an Australian company part of the compassionate conservatism he was bragging about at Budget time?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I would say is that it seems that what the member believes is that the status quo for those very people is good enough. We do not think it is, on this side of the House, so we think we can provide them with better housing and better services around them. We want more of those, and that is the commitment that we on this side make to those people who want it.

Phil Twyford: What advice has he had that cashing up the State house portfolio in a fire sale to Australians, or giving them away free to iwi, will improve the Government’s books and better protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Neither of those things is happening. So let me make it very, very clear that neither of those things is happening. What we are looking at is doing what the very member himself has said, both in this House and publicly, that actually growing the community housing providers is better for vulnerable New Zealanders. That is the commitment that we make. Actually looking at building the asset base of some of those community housing providers, so that they can provide better services, is completely the motivation behind the work programme of this Government.

Phil Twyford: Which of his three excuses so far is the most credible: that the houses are in the wrong place and the wrong size, and that will be magically fixed by selling them; that the Salvation Army and iwi are keen as mustard to buy the houses; or that local groups can do a better job than Wellington, but he is now selling the houses to Brisbane?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think what needs to be clear is that there are a number of criteria that any purchaser would have to go through. One of them is having a local presence and the ability to actually look after those tenants better. So we have a number of community organisations that are actually already international organisations. They have branches throughout regional New Zealand and in our cities. That is exactly what it is. I know the member himself thinks that this is as good as it gets for those tenants; we believe that it can get better.

Phil Twyford: Is he aware that the Dominion Post has described his State house sell-off as bizarre and muddled; if so, will he follow Nick Smith’s example and set them straight by organising a magical mystery bus tour for the media to show them the houses that he wants to flog off to the Australians?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I do not agree with that. What I do believe is that we are putting the interests of New Zealanders and tenants first. That member can go on and get on the sort of muddled hierarchy if he likes to, but, actually, it is about providing better services for New Zealanders, and that is exactly what we are intending to do.

State and Social Housing—Social Housing Providers

7. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he stand by his statement that “Anyone that wants to have a go at this will have to show that they’ve got the capacity to manage the properties, to manage the finances, to look after the tenants and to help redevelop our social housing community”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Acting Minister responsible for HNZC): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister guarantee to New Zealanders that every State house property sold to a community housing provider will be retained for social housing indefinitely, so that vulnerable tenants are properly looked after?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As we have said previously, part of the contract will be that they have to be taking on the tenants. If they wish to sell—to redevelop, for example, so, where there are two or three houses, to build five or six—they would have to go to the Community Housing Regulatory Authority to seek permission to do that. We would then have to know that it was in the best interests of the tenants and not a reduction in the number of houses.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister, any of his officials, or any other Government MP told Horizon Housing, or other potential community housing providers, that they can sell the properties on for a profit in the future, as a sweetener for the deal?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can only really speak for the Minister responsible for HNZC and certainly for the Minister for Social Housing when I say absolutely not, and it is certainly not to our knowledge that anyone else has, as well.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister, any of his officials, or any other Government MP suggested to Horizon Housing, or other potential community housing providers, a time frame by which they can stop providing social housing and sell the properties on for a profit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, not to our knowledge, and if they were doing that it would not be at the direction of Ministers.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister guarantee that if the Government permits the providers to sell the properties on for a profit at a later date, the Crown will have the first right of refusal to buy back those properties and keep them for social housing purposes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are working our way through what that contract will look like as far as when the purchase is done and how we ensure that they need to go to the Community Housing Regulatory Authority for that, but the purpose behind it most certainly is to ensure that we are still providing services to tenants and housing for them. So we cannot predict every situation that might occur, but what we will be doing is ensuring that they are in the interests of tenants and not just a profit they are making for that.

Metiria Turei: Has Horizon Housing or any other potential community housing provider discussed with the Minister, his officials, or other Government MP that any purchase would be reliant on those providers being able to sell the houses on for a profit at a later date?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can speak only on the behalf of the Minister responsible for HNZC and the Minister for Social Housing and say absolutely not. If anyone else has, it has certainly not been at their direction.

Metiria Turei: What discount has the Government offered Horizon Housing or other community housing providers on the sale of the State-house properties, given that New Zealand State-housing providers have said that they would have to be sold at virtually nil in order to make long-term social housing financially viable for those providers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have received no bids, and we are not at the negotiation stage.

Dairy Industry—Domestic Milk Prices

8. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Is he satisfied that New Zealanders are not paying too much for their milk; if so, why?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Yes; the Government does not set the price of milk in stores. Our job is to ensure there is sufficient competition in the dairy market. The Commerce Commission looked at this issue in 2011 and decided that no inquiry was needed. I would note that the price of milk has actually dropped over the past 12 months.

David Shearer: Does he agree with the Ministry for Primary Industries, or the then Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, in 2011 when it stated that “As an exporting nation, New Zealand domestic milk prices are intrinsically linked to international prices which are trending upward.”; if so, why are New Zealand prices not reducing now with the fall of global prices?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I have seen that report. Yes, there is some linkage, but that is only part of the story. The retail price is affected by costs such as processing, production, and distribution, and the member should be aware of that.

David Shearer: Is the current price of milk too high for Kiwi families when families in Sydney and London can buy milk more cheaply there than they can here?

Hon NATHAN GUY: You could drive a milk tanker right through the middle of that member’s argument. What he has not thought about is the different pricing mechanisms overseas. In particular, GST is included here but it is not in the UK, and there is a price war currently going on between those two countries. The member should keep up to speed with what is happening.

Darroch Ball: Does the Minister not agree that attacks on farmers are unwarranted when this Government is creaming at least 42c in GST off a $3.19 2-litre bottle of milk while nothing is being done about the cosy supermarket duopoly?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I would refute certainly the second part of that question, and I would refer the member to the review of the Commerce Commission in 2011 to do with this issue.

David Shearer: Given that the Prime Minister said yesterday “If the argument is solely one of price in New Zealand you could drink water out of a tap, and that’s for free.”, would he encourage Wellington mother of two Amanda Gardner, who uses up to 5 litres of milk a week and can no longer afford to encourage her children to drink milk, to drink water instead?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I think when the Prime Minister was asked that question he was actually asked about Coke—nothing to do with water. And what I would say to that particular consumer is that there is a huge amount of competition in the New Zealand retail market, and consumers should continue to shop around for good deals.

Housing Market—Tax Reform

9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Revenue: What reports has he received about changes which will bolster the tax rules around residential property speculation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: Yesterday the Minister welcomed the release of a consultation document on the proposed brightline test, which will require income tax to be paid on any gains from the sale of most residential property bought and sold within 2 years. The brightline test will help clarify whether or not gains on the sale of residential property are taxable. Currently when assessing whether tax should be paid on a gain from a sale, the Inland Revenue Department relies on a seller’s intent to either live in the property or sell it for a quick gain. The proposed new brightline test makes it clear that property buyers, including overseas buyers, who buy and sell a residential property within 2 years will be taxed on those gains.

Barbara Kuriger: Will there be any exemptions from the brightline test?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Although most property bought and sold within 2 years will be subject to the test, there are some exceptions. In particular, property that is a person’s main home, including a main home held in trust, is exempt, as are property that is transferred after a relationship breakdown and homes that are inherited.

Barbara Kuriger: How can New Zealanders have a say on these proposed changes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Public feedback is important, and I would encourage everybody to have a look at the consultation document on the Inland Revenue Department website. We want to ensure that everybody pays their fair share of tax, and New Zealanders can help by participating in the process. The consultation paper proposes new definitions of “residential land” and “main home”. It also clearly identifies the dates a property is deemed bought and sold, so a seller and the department know whether a sale falls within the brightline test. The closing date for submissions is 24th of next month. Once enacted, the brightline test will apply to residential properties bought on or after 1 October this year.

Gaza—Prime Minister’s Statements

10. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the Prime Minister has said he wants New Zealand to champion peace between Israel and Palestine, will he condemn the Israeli boarding of the Freedom Flotilla yesterday, with two New Zealanders on board?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I will encourage both Israel and Palestine to continue to try to find a peaceful resolution to the problems in Gaza.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Prime Minister condemn Israel’s actions last year on the basis of the recent UN report on war crimes in Gaza, which criticises both sides—but especially Israel—for its excessive use of force in using “huge firepower of 6,000 airstrikes and 50,000 artillery shells”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think that it would be terribly conducive to the good relationship that New Zealand enjoys with Israel and Palestine to start throwing stones on either side in particular. I think the report underlines, as I am sure the member knows, yet again, the inescapable reality that reaching a negotiated and lasting peace agreement is vital for the future well-being and prosperity of the people of that region.

Dr Kennedy Graham: How can New Zealand even attempt to bring peace to the region, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated it will, when the Prime Minister is unwilling to condemn Israel’s war crimes and illegal blockade of Gaza—a clear indication that New Zealand has surrendered its impartiality?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is the opposite. I mean, New Zealand enjoys a good relationship with both Israel and Palestine. We are one of a relatively small number of countries that do. We are not going to resort to megaphone diplomacy, but we do encourage both sides to find a credible and constructive way through the issues, and we do think a two-State solution is the right long-term answer to the issues between Israel and Palestine.

Duty-free Limits—Tobacco

11. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Customs: What effect is the lower tobacco duty-free limit having on the amount of cigarettes and tobacco being brought into New Zealand at the border?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): In the first 6 months since the tobacco duty-free limit was lowered on 1 November last year, a staggering 2.5 tonnes of tobacco—that is a small truckload—has been abandoned by passengers at the border. But the message is getting through: the amount of tobacco abandoned at airports has dropped considerably, from about 100 kilograms a week to 30 to 40 kilograms a week. This drop in the duty-free limit works hand-in-hand with the great work that the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman, and Associate Minister of Health Sam Lotu-Iiga are doing to reduce harm caused by cigarettes.

Mark Mitchell: How has the Customs Service ensured that passengers are aware of the lower limit for tobacco?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The change was well signalled in advance and a public awareness campaign informed travellers of the reduction of the duty-free limit leading up to the 1 November change. Passengers can also use the website or the What’s My Duty? app to calculate their tobacco concession. I am very pleased that this change in the duty-free limit is working to reduce the harm from smoking in New Zealand.

Vehicle Registration—Levies and Risk Ratings

12. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Why will people with older cars pay $90 more per year to register their vehicle than those who can afford the latest model Rolls Royce?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): Firstly, I am happy to let the member know that everyone is paying less due to this National Government’s $440 million ACC motor vehicle levy reductions. Secondly, I disagree with the member’s question, because not all people with older cars will be paying more. As I have said before, a significant number of cars that are older than 10 years will attract the lowest levy, which will be the same as for some of those cars that she has mentioned.

Sue Moroney: Can she confirm the information tabled with the select committee last week that all motorists would have had their registration levies for petrol-powered vehicles reduced to $104.09 tomorrow if the Minister had stayed with the current system?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Obviously, I do not have those figures in front of me, but what I can say to the member is everybody would be worse off if it was not for a National Government whereby we have given $2 billion of levy reductions. That is because we have got the books in order, so everybody is better off due to a National Government.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the document tabled with the select committee showing that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing. I am going to invite the member to start that point of order again.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the information put in front of the select committee that said that the vehicle charges would have been reduced to $104.09 for all categories of motor vehicle registration—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Sue Moroney: Is it fair that under her new system, more than 1 million New Zealand motorists driving older vehicles will collectively pay $41 million more than what they would have under the current system?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I believe it is fair because we are interested in reducing the road toll. Under our Government we have seen the road toll decrease. That is saving lives. That is a combination of things from reducing speed, reducing issues like alcohol, but also bringing in things like vehicle-risk rating to actually save lives. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have a little less chatter going on, and it is occurring particularly on my right-hand side.

Sue Moroney: Does she think it is fair that a person on a fixed income like New Zealand superannuation who has never had an accident in her life has to pay $90 more a year than the business executive who has a habit of driving his Merc—his brand new Merc—after long, boozy lunches, just because she can afford only an older car?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, let me make a number of points. The first point is everybody is paying between $40 and $130 less because of our ACC motor vehicle levy reductions. The second point is that she has made a number of assumptions in that question about the kind of car that people drive, and the point that I would make to her, as I have already said, is more than a large proportion of cars that are over 10 years old will attract the safest bands and will then attract the cheapest levies. So I think she has made a number of incorrect assumptions.

Sue Moroney: Well, can she please explain why the 2009 Toyota Avensis achieved the highest safety rating from an organisation composed of seven European Governments and motoring organisations from every European country but is given the lowest safety rating in her system, requiring owners to pay $158.46 for car registration, rather than the $104 it would have cost them if she had kept the current system?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am making a number of points. The first point, which I have already made, is that people are paying less because we have actually managed the ACC accounts a lot better, so she has made an assumption in terms of the document that has been tabled at the select committee. The second point that I would make is that, obviously, I do not memorise all of the cars and their exact vehicle-risk rating. So for me to actually answer that question in the House, I think, is a bit unreasonable. And then the third point that I would make is, as I have said before, everybody is paying between $40 and $130 less—that is 2.7 million car owners getting notices in the mail showing that they are getting less levies under us.

Tim Macindoe: How will all New Zealanders with older cars be better off as a result of the ACC motor levy reductions?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The average motor vehicle levy, as I have said before, including the annual licence levy and petrol levy, will fall by an average of $330 to $195. All car owners will receive annual licence levy cuts of between $40 and $130 for petrol cars and between $80 and $170 reduction for diesel cars. Also, the ACC petrol levy falls to 6.9c tomorrow from 9.9c per litre. That is good news for New Zealand.

Sue Moroney: How many more motorists risk being charged the wrong amount for their car registration because of the data-matching error that ACC admitted to on Saturday, in the New Zealand Herald, and how much will it cost to fix that data-matching error?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I think she raises a good point in terms of ensuring that that issue is fixed. I can tell her that my understanding is there are about 9,000 people who have paid incorrect levies out of 2.7 million car owners—so that is way less than 1 percent—but what I can say to her is that we are working through to fix that and people will be getting a refund. So they may be getting another cheque in the mail.

Bills

Harmful Digital Communications Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 25 June.

JONO NAYLOR (National): When we concluded on Thursday afternoon there was a bit of humour in the House. There were references to The Castle movie and all sorts of things going on, but this is, in fact, a very serious bill, and one that we do need to look at very seriously. To slightly recap just in my first few minutes what I said before we had to adjourn for the end of the parliamentary week, we were talking about the very bad impacts that there are at times, on young people in particular, through online bullying and through social media that result in all sorts of terrible things like truancy, at one end of the scale, right through to depression, self-harm, and suicide, at the more serious end of the scale. So it is very important that we have legislation in place to ensure that our young people in particular can be kept safe.

There have been some people who have been a little bit concerned at the imposition on freedom of speech. Certainly I heard some members—or one in particular—talking about this during the Committee of the whole House. I just want to remind that member, and anybody else who is concerned that this is an imposition on free speech, that freedom of speech is something that we cannot just take for granted. It is not something that simply gives us the right to say anything we want, whenever we want to, whatever the consequences of that speech.

I want to draw people’s attention to the principles in clause 6 of this bill, because freedom of speech should still not give somebody the right to communicate in a way that discloses “sensitive personal facts about an individual”. Freedom of speech should not mean that their digital communication should be able to be “threatening, intimidating, or menacing.”; nor should it be “grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.”; nor should that communication be “indecent or obscene.”; nor should that communication be “used to harass an individual.” Freedom of speech should not be able to be used simply to make a false allegation about somebody. Free speech should not “contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.”, and it should not “incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.” Free speech should not “incite or encourage an individual to commit suicide.”, and neither should it “denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.”

Yes, we have got to have freedom of speech. Yes, we need to be free to be able to communicate, but the principles that are contained in this Act need to be absolutely upheld, and so I am very proud to be voting for this legislation as it goes through.

One of the other arguments I have heard as we have debated this at the various stages of the passage of the bill through the House has been that people are concerned that perhaps this is too heavy-handed in its approach. At the moment the only thing that is available to somebody is to take some sort of action through the District Court, which to me seems far more heavy-handed as an approach. This bill sets up an approved agency that will do what it needs to do to ensure that people are kept safe from harmful digital communication. For those who have said—and I have heard them speaking—that this is something that is too heavy-handed and we need to sit down and take a more softly softly approach, particularly where this is occurring with teenagers, I want to remind them of clause 8, in particular, and to look through what the functions of the approved agency are.

Clause 8(1) states that this approved agency will be set up “(a) to receive and assess complaints about harm caused to individuals by digital communications: (b) to investigate complaints:”—but here is the kicker—“(c) to use advice, negotiation, mediation, and persuasion (as appropriate) to resolve complaints:”. That is the benefit of having an approved agency that has the ability to delegate its powers to others, as well. That will ensure that we have the measured response that is most appropriate whenever a complaint is laid.

Finally, I just want to talk about a particular role that has been identified within this Act, and that is the role of the “professional leader” in a place like a school. I reflect on my own time as a school guidance counsellor. At times young people would often feel like they had been bullied and they would want to, perhaps, do something about it, but then when the push came to shove they did not want to have to front that for themselves. I think what is critical is that we have this ability for a professional leader to act on behalf of victims and to be able to take this complaint forward to the agency, so that the young person who may be affected by this is not having to front up on their own, and, perhaps, feel victimised all over again by having to face up to something within a system. So this particular role of a professional leader in a school who is able to act on behalf of young people is absolutely crucial.

This is a good piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that is moving forward. It is showing that we are keeping up with the times and that we are wanting to keep our young people in particular free from bullying, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to have an opportunity to use this third reading speech on behalf of Labour to rearticulate the difficult position that we, as an Opposition party, felt we were in when debating the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. We sometimes in this House talk about being wedged on issues, and what does that mean? Well, I think this bill is a reasonable example of that.

We have a situation where no one denies that cyber-bullying is very, very harmful. You know, we have had in the past the comparison as to the kind of bullying that happened perhaps in our childhood when things like notes, rumours, slanderous gossip were the kinds of things that were used as tools to hurt young people. Today what we have online is the equivalent of the old nasty note being passed in class now being broadcast for all to see, and we have to acknowledge that that has much wider ramifications that do need to be dealt with.

So, yes, there is total agreement that something needs to be done. The issue is what that thing is. The problem we have in this House is that when the Government puts up a proposal and says it is the answer to the problem we all agree on, if you then as an Opposition party say: “We’re not really sure that’s true.”, you end up being positioned as if you are not genuinely interested in dealing with the issue. That was part of the issue that Labour has faced with this bill. Yes, there are elements that we think we were worthy of discussion and debate from this House—there are elements that we could see some merit in—but there are other elements that were deeply worrying for us. So what do you do?

Well, we want to use this opportunity to highlight some of the issues that we do have and continue to have. On balance, our decision has been to vote in favour of the bill, but as a party we hope that this House will agree to revisit this legislation in 1 year’s time. If there has been a manifestation of any of the issues that have been raised, if the bill is not achieving what it set out to achieve, or if it is doing any of the harm we contest may happen, we would seek that this House be reasonable enough to come back and look at it again. That is our hope.

So let us go through some of the issues that we do think need to be revisited. The first concern we had is that the bill puts forward a new regime over and above some of our existing laws. We have harassment laws already. It was our contention that they could have been used to deal with some of these issues. But the bill puts in a new penalty regime that could potentially include imprisonment or fines. For some people that may be an appropriate response. We have seen some extreme behaviour along that line, which needs to be dealt with. But what about for children? When children are involved, is it the most appropriate response to criminalise them? You know, we are talking about kids as young as 14 here. It was our contention that that was not right. We wanted the bill to change so that we were considering only those considered adults in the law, which is 17 and above. The Government did not agree with that amendment, so that is one of the things we are deeply concerned about.

What would we have done as an alternative? We do think there are models within schools around restorative justice that many schools use, in place of expulsion and suspension regimes, that maybe would have been a thoughtful way to engage with this issue. We know, for instance, that the Post Primary Teachers Association in its latest magazine is talking about forces within schools aligning against bullying through movements like Pink Shirt Day, which is becoming much more widespread. Talking to the education sector about what we could do when children are involved would have been at least a good first step. So that is one of our first concerns.

Our second concern was whether or not the definition of “harm” in the bill was too broad. The bill basically set out that harm was “serious emotional distress”, but that is a very subjective measure, so the bill allows the approved agency that is meant to deal with the bulk of cases to determine for itself what “harm” might be. When you are dealing with something as serious as balancing freedom of speech with the issue of online bullying and cyber-based harm, our contention is that Parliament needs to play a greater role in determining where that line in the sand is. Freedom of speech must be jealously guarded by this House. Our concern is that this has been left wide open, and we still have concerns about the way that that might be interpreted and about whether the approved agency will have the resources and be equipped to deal with that significant issue. That is definitely one that Parliament must remain engaged in, because any threat to freedom of speech that goes beyond the tests that we put in place to make sure that freedom of speech does not become harm against others and harm against young people is the balance that we must continue to ensure we maintain.

As I say, we are also concerned that the proposed civil enforcement regime displaced the longstanding balance we already had in New Zealand law and replaced it with untested standards. So that was another concern.

Of course, there were opportunities for us to look at what overseas jurisdictions were doing. We are not the only Parliament tackling this issue. Australia has already tried, and so has the UK. In the UK we have seen horrific situations of cyber-bullying, where young people have taken their own lives. Its response has not been to legislate, but to use alternative methods. We really wanted to see those explored in more detail.

It was also our view that some of the provisions around having a safe harbour online were flawed. At the moment entities like Facebook and Google have their own policies—if something harmful is posted online, you have the ability to request that it be taken down. Some of those entities operate a function whereby they take down first, and check later. So they act immediately, in order to remove the potential harmful communication, and then decide whether or not that was the right course of action. So that can happen very, very quickly.

This bill, however, gives the ability to entities to remove potentially harmful digital communications no later than 48 hours. So, actually, we are broadening the window to make it a longer period of time than what might already be the practice of some of these entities. The harm of that is we know that in a viral digital age 48 hours is a very long time—it is a very long time—so we have the potential here that this legislation actually weakens what was happening as the status quo. We are very pleased, though, that the Minister of Justice did make some changes via a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage to provide an opt-out from these provisions for online content hosts, so that they can use their own terms and conditions. We are grateful for that. That does provide some leeway around that, but it was an issue that we have raised consistently, and we need to monitor whether those time frames are going to be effective.

We also debated—I understand it was debated at the select committee—the issue around whether there needed to be exemptions for the media. I accept that in the digital age there is a very broad range of views as to what media is, and much debate as to whether or not bloggers should be included in that official turn of phrase, but what I am sure we can all agree on is that this bill—as much as there is satire out there around MPs reading out mean tweets, this bill is not about protecting members of Parliament. That is not what this bill is about. You are not going to see MPs using the law to stop people criticising them. Of course not—that would be a blatant abuse of the freedom of speech. Nor is it about stopping trolls that affect members of Parliament. That is not what the bill is about. But nor is it about stopping satire—nor should it be. That again would also be a blatant breach of freedom of speech.

So perhaps it would have been useful to embed in this law—to be clear—a public-interest defence around the media, so at least it existed in law and at least we sent the message to the legal fraternity that it is not our intention to protect ourselves with this legislation, but rather to prevent harm to some of the most vulnerable. Let the record instead state—let Hansard instead state—that that is not what this Parliament’s intention is. Rather, it is a very different group that we intend to protect.

On balance, as I say, we do want to prevent harm. We have massive reservations about whether this is the right way to do it, but on balance we have agreed to see where it takes us. But let us, at least, as a Parliament, be wise enough to accept that this is new territory and that it would be wise of us to keep a very watchful eye on the way that this legislation works.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): That contribution by the member who has just resumed her seat, Jacinda Ardern, was a good and thoughtful contribution to what is a pretty serious subject, and it raised a couple of issues that have also been discussed quite widely during the passage of this bill—that is, the impingement on freedom of speech and the approach of this bill being, perhaps, too heavy-handed. I would argue that the structure of this bill caters for and ameliorates those concerns, and perhaps I will explain that a bit later as I go through it. Also, I think it is good to recollect that this bill came from a piece of work undertaken by the Law Commission, called The News Media meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age. So this bill has its foundation in some pretty serious work undertaken by the Law Commission. And it was brought to this House and to the attention of Parliament because of a number of very distressing and serious incidents that have happened, that are happening now, and that will continue to happen in cyberspace. Those incidents might manifest themselves as cyber-bullying. They might manifest themselves as inciting people to commit suicide or as just good old-fashioned bullying in the workplace—particularly, as has been noted a number of times while debating this bill, with regard to young people who are very vulnerable and very sensitive to people’s opinions and suggestions about them. We all know, and we all agree across this House, that it is time that this issue was addressed on behalf of young people.

The main provisions of this bill are to create a set of 10 communications principles. Those will guide the approved agency, which I will talk a bit more about in a minute, and also the courts, should that become necessary. For example, one of those principles might be that a communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing. As I have mentioned, there will be a new civil enforcement regime created, which will be an approved agency. That approved agency will receive complaints and, where appropriate, undertake an investigation into those complaints. The approved agency will have the ability to respond very quickly. The previous speaker was quite right in saying that the digital space moves incredibly quickly. In effect, there is no news cycle any more, just as there is no delay in digital communications, because they are incredibly immediate and their dissemination can be huge—push a button and many, many people will now see a message that can never be unsent or undone. So, hopefully, the agency will be able to resolve complaints pretty quickly and directly, with the most serious of those complaints that are not able to be resolved to be referred to the District Court, which can then, in turn, issue take-down, and cease and desist notices. What the bill does is provide a legislative mechanism for people to provide for the taking down of damaging and harmful content from websites easily, quickly, and efficiently. It also clarifies the law regarding website hosts, and that is in the safe harbour provision that I will talk about in a minute.

This bill also makes it an offence to send messages and to put harmful posts online—for example, where they are offensive, obscene, indecent, menacing, or knowingly false. And, you know, those incidents are all too common, unfortunately. This bill provides for a maximum punishment of up to 2 years’ imprisonment, so it is pretty grunty stuff at the higher end. It will also create a new offence of incitement to commit suicide, even when a person does not attempt to take their own life. Again, that is a pretty grunty measure in this bill. Again, that new offence will be punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment. This bill also amends the Harassment Act, the Privacy Act, and the Human Rights Act to ensure that they are up to date for digital communications. This is such a fast-moving space that this bill is bringing some other pieces of legislation along with it, because, of course, in many cases now, existing pieces of legislation were written before cellphones and the internet were even imagined.

Going back to the civil enforcement regime, this was one of the key recommendations of the Law Commission. This Government agrees that when it comes to digital communication, we do need better legal options for addressing complaints and for taking action on those complaints. Although I agree with the member Jacinda Ardern that there are existing mechanisms, particularly within the school environment and also in, perhaps, the Youth Court environment, I do not see that those existing measures, where they work well, cannot be utilised by this civil enforcement regime. In fact, I would like to think that as part of the mediation provisions that are enabled by this bill, those existing mechanisms could be utilised—diversion, perhaps, or Project Turnaround. Those sorts of good community-based options should be part of the suite of remedies available to people.

We acknowledge that court cases can take a long time, can be very distressing, and can be quite costly on occasions, and the reality is that the damage has already been done. And the victim, naturally—particularly if it is a young victim—just wants the matter resolved as quickly as possible. So for those reasons, victims may be very hesitant to lodge a formal complaint to the police. Again, it is often the case that younger people do not always enjoy a particularly close and trusting relationship with the police and may be reluctant to come forward. It is well-known that victims of bullies often find the hardest thing is to reach out for help. This, I hope, with this civil enforcement regime, will lower the bar and make it more possible for victims of cyber-bullying to reach out. So the approved agency, having received a complaint, can then decide whether there are grounds to proceed with an investigation or whether, perhaps, a complaint might be vexatious—it happens. It may be frivolous—it happens in this environment. It will advise people on steps that they can take to resolve a problem. Where it investigates substantial complaints, it will attempt to reach settlements between the complainant and the person responsible—so mediation, and, again, therein comes the utilisation, I would hope, of existing mechanisms in the resolution of disagreements. Where an agreement cannot be reached, then, of course, there are the provisions of the District Courts, which I have already mentioned.

I just want to finish by talking briefly about the safe harbour provision. So a content host could be anyone these days: anybody who has a blog, Facebook, Twitter, Vodafone. Most of our legislation was written before the internet was a consideration, so it is not always clear when a content host is liable for the content posted by its users. So we are proposing a safe harbour. What that means is that a host will not be able to be taken to court for comments put on their website unless they have been notified by the complainant that the comments are in breach of the law and they then do not follow the process set out in the bill. There have been many thoughtful contributions on this Harmful Digital Communications Bill. I do acknowledge that it is a legislative response that some view as impinging on freedom of speech and perhaps might be too heavy-handed. What I would say is that the protection of our young people in particular—their protection from cyber-bullying—is so very important that I think this bill is a very good step, and I commend it to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a final call on this bill to speak in support of this bill. As we go into the final reading it is worth noting, as others have done, the genesis of this bill, if you like. It was the original policy work that was done around this issue, which came from the Law Commission, which did three pieces of work that were linked. The final and most substantive, I think, challenged the adequacy of the legislative regime around offending of this nature, or nuisance of this nature, if you like. It found the legislative framework wanting, frankly, and proposed a series of options and possible remedies for that.

The bill, as it has evolved, does reflect some of the proposals contained in the Law Commission’s work. Others have been amended, but overall it does undoubtedly plug a gap in our legislative framework. In fact, that point was commented on by the Police Association in its very useful submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill, where it pointed out that the police could deal with sort of the very low-level nuisance offending, and they could deal with the very serious offending where actual physical threats or some sort of direct assault was made on somebody, but it also highlighted that there was a large and growing gap in the middle where they were finding it very difficult to actually bring any action against people who were undoubtedly causing grief and causing harm.

I think it is important. There has been some critique that we are creating a legislative regime or some statutory framework that is unique to online content, unique to the internet or to digital communications, and I think that is entirely appropriate. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the digital platform, if you like—the internet—is somehow not unique, not different. The reach of the internet is unique. It is pervasive. It is ubiquitous. The accessibility of the internet is unique. It is possible to inflict considerable harm over a great distance with very, very basic access to the internet, and I think that has to be recognised.

In a sense we have been here before. Clearly, in the 1950s and 1960s when television became more commonplace, there was a need to have some legislative response to that around censorship, around what we would now recognise as broadcasting standards—those sorts of things. I recall a famous quote at the time that TV was simply another home appliance—simply a toaster that happened to have pictures on it. Of course television did change the media landscape, in the same way that the internet is changing the way we do business, changing the way we trade, changing the way we educate people, and changing the way we interact socially. It is undoubted that it is a new medium and we need legislation fit for purpose to deal with that.

Support for the bill has come from many quarters, and I will quote the Human Rights Commission, which said: “In our view the bill strikes the correct balance between freedom of expression and access to the internet. A right cannot be interpreted so broadly that it allows others to be harmed.” We can take some comfort, given the degree of concern that has been genuinely expressed in some quarters that this bill maybe goes too far. I think the Human Rights Commission, among others, is a reasonably good judge, and in its view we have found that correct balance.

I would, just for the record, reiterate the points Jacinda Ardern made in respect of the intention of this bill being absolutely not to suppress satire. It is not intended to suppress robust political debate. Politicians need to develop thickish skins—that is taken as a given. Cartoons, satire—these are legitimate forms of expression, of critique, and there is no appetite, I believe, within the bill or from those who drafted it, who have looked at it, and who are supporting it to see any change to that environment. I am sure that the courts, in their turn, will understand that and rule accordingly.

I think it is important to note also that NetSafe, the organisation that is currently involved, I guess, primarily on an educative basis, made the point in its supplementary submission. It commented on the number of people coming to NetSafe having already spoken to multiple organisations and having found that there was nobody to assist them. I do think that speaks to the need for this bill to establish a dedicated agency with some authority—a limited form of authority, admittedly, but, nevertheless, some authority—and, ultimately, if a matter cannot be resolved there, for it to go to the courts.

I think it needs to be noted that this bill in a sense creates a three-stage approach. A primary function of the approved agency will be to educate, and one of the first steps taken at the select committee level was to ensure that very clear language was put into the purpose of the bill. Fundamental to the bill is the expectation, the requirement, that the approved agency will be heavily involved, and one would expect it to be equally well resourced to educate around these matters, not least of all with young people but also with people who are not so young.

On the occasion when something does occur that upsets someone, the next step, of course, after education, is the mediation and negotiation process, which the approved agency will seek to facilitate. Again, that is a good process—to endeavour simply to get these matters resolved without recourse to the courts, but, ultimately, having the confidence that if people are unreasonable, and if they cannot come to a negotiated or a mediated outcome, then the courts will step up. Again, NetSafe made the point that “You can’t have part of the process and expect the full effect.” The point it made was that the court process is required to make the approved agency process work. There needs to be a little bit of the threat of a stick hanging over the negotiation, if you like, just to focus people’s minds and to assure them that actually this is serious stuff and will be treated accordingly in the event that people are not able to come to some negotiated remedy.

To speak to a couple of points, again, in part to seek to allay fears or concerns that have been expressed, I think we have to be aware of the communication principles that have already been identified. There are, if my memory serves, 10 of them, and they do set the scope for the work that the court might be obliged to do and, indeed, that the approved agency will do. They set the criteria. They establish a framework for considering whether or not people could, and should, be genuinely understood as having been offended against and to put some pressure on people causing offence to remedy that situation. The digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal information, it should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing, it should not be indecent or obscene, it should make not make false allegations—these are fairly obvious criteria that anybody could understand and respect.

I am also given some comfort by the fact that clause 6(2) of the bill specifically states that “In performing functions or exercising powers under this Act, the Approved Agency and courts must–… (b) act consistently with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” That is an absolutely clear statement that nothing done in the name of this bill or under its banner can be allowed to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I think that is a significant defence and one that has been perhaps overlooked.

The threshold for proceedings—assuming the approved agency is not able to mediate an outcome and in the event a matter does go to the court, then there is a threshold set. It requires that the court must be satisfied that there have been threatened serious breaches, or have been serious breaches or repeated breaches, of one or more of the communication principles and that the breach has caused, or is likely to cause, harm to some individual. So it is already a reasonably high threshold to even get the case into the court. The court is able, on its own discretion, to reject anything that it perceives to be frivolous or vexatious or that does not meet that threshold.

Clause 19—again, it is not sufficient to say that harm was caused; it must also be proven that there was an intention to cause harm, that a reasonable person would expect that harm would be caused, and that, in fact, harm was caused to an individual. So I think we can be reasonably confident that this bill has been well thought through and does put in place some significant protections.

I will comment briefly on a matter that was brought up at a late stage, which was the concern that, in fact, you might get a counter-productive outcome. The take-down, or safe harbour, provisions will take at least a number of days, and the content that might otherwise have come down immediately would, in this case, actually persist for some time. There was an amendment made at the Committee stage—which we entirely support—to the effect that content hosts that receive a complaint can, at their own discretion, take down material that they in good faith believe is offensive or that conflicts with their terms and conditions.

Finally, I do indicate my support for this bill. We look forward to its implementation, and we certainly support the notion of an ongoing review to ensure it is achieving the outcomes we seek.

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, just to address some of the concerns that have been raised, can I just say that New Zealand First was the only party in this House with the courage of its concerns to make an attempt at the second reading to send this bill back to the Justice and Electoral Committee. That motion was certainly supported by other parties in this House, but at that time we were the only party raising those concerns that had the courage to actually move a motion to try to send it back. We also voted against the bill at the second reading. So I take particular umbrage with Mr Seymour, actually, and with the trivialising of the effect of cyber-bullying on our young people. I want to quote from the New Zealand Herald of 30 June, in which Mr Seymour said: “Other online behaviour like sexual grooming was already illegal. ‘What are we actually criminalising—kids being mean to each other?’ ”. Kids who have been mean to other kids have killed themselves. That is one of the reasons why we need to traverse this ground. So I take exception to the trivialisation of some of the trauma that is actually being inflicted—and I am talking particularly about our young people—by internet cyber-bullying. That is the reason why it is important that we address this issue—but appropriately; we have to address it correctly.

I want to take on board the comments about schools and whether the current anti-bullying programmes and mediation programmes inside schools are adequate enough to address this issue. The following is from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA). Predominantly—at the moment, anyway—the majority of the issues that we have inside our schools are focused at the secondary school level. The association said: “The Harmful Digital Communications Bill, currently before parliament, proposes to ‘deter, prevent, and mitigate the harm caused to individuals by digital communications with a quick and effective means of address’. The bill attempts to provide a legal solution to the harm caused by cyberbullying and recognises harmful online comments as a form of harassment. It includes new penalties for causing harm through digital communication and creates a new agency with the power to assess and investigate complaints. The agency will also have an education role, similar to the Human Rights Commission … ‘Schools regard cyberbullying as a very serious problem especially because it often occupies the blurred space between home and school so it’s not always clear whose responsibility it is to deal with it,’ ”.

This comes down to the current ability of schools with regard to the discipline procedures inside the Education Act 1989. When children leave the school grounds, they are in an interesting space. Are they still in their school uniforms, and therefore still in school, and so the school rules still actually apply? And believe me, these are true cases and true conversations that I and other boards of trustees have had to have. Or have they removed their school shirts, and therefore are just in their school shorts? Does that mean that the school rules still apply? But when they are at home, in their civvies, texting another student in the school, it has been argued that they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the school, and, therefore, the school can do nothing about it. That is one of the problems that we are trying to address here. That is one of the spaces that we are trying to address here.

Another suggestion that has been made is that there is existing law and that we should just use existing law right now. I put up this example at the Committee stage. One of the suggestions was that we already have the Harassment Act. The problem is that the Harassment Act makes the assumption that there is a relationship between the person being harassed and the person doing the harassing. Before this bill passes, there is no room inside the Harassment Act, actually, to create a relationship wherein somebody can harass a person without even knowing them—without even knowing a person, they can harass them. They can do it without knowing anything about a person, apart from the fact that perhaps they are, say, a really good singer in the school production and they themselves cannot sing, and they have decided that they are now going to make that person’s life a misery. Inside that current Act, there has to be a relationship.

Misuse of a phone device—we went through that as well. Certainly, there have been photographs taken on a phone; they have then been posted up on a computer. And once it goes from the misuse of a phone, it becomes a whole other environment. You cannot take it down. You cannot deal with it. Certainly, to threaten somebody with bodily harm is also, I think, within the Crimes Act, section 306. Again, the current Act makes an assumption that there is a relationship between the person being threatened and the person doing the threatening. What we are discovering is that these threats are coming completely out of the blue for many people—for example, the young Sikh student who was on a bus. Not a single person knew him, but they threatened him, and there was nothing that the police could do about it. This is what we are trying to avoid.

I talked about freedom, and we have talked about freedom of speech. Freedom comes with responsibility. Freedom comes with responsibilities, and, obviously, there are some people out there who do not figure out what those responsibilities are inside this environment. I go back to comments, made at NetHui a couple of years ago, that the internet is a place. If the internet is a place, then we need to have some criteria in it. We need to have some rules in it, because there are people being hurt in this place, and part of the job of this Parliament is to stop people from being hurt. Also, Ms Ardern addressed the question of whether—there was conversation at the select committee—bloggers were really “media”. I would make this statement: media can certainly be bloggers; bloggers cannot, and should not, ever be considered as media. The media has actually taken training. They have criteria. They have boundaries that they work inside of, and they can be held accountable inside of them. Anybody who wants to set up a blog and just vent their opinion should not be considered media. So with regard to that, I would hope—and I know it was pushed by certain members of the blogging society at the select committee—that the line maintained by media, true media, is maintained.

In closing, I think that probably the only other thing is that we agree in this House—all people agree in this House—that something has got to be done. I would certainly endorse Ms Ardern’s comments about our needing to have a look at this in a year’s time. New Zealand First was concerned about the fact that we did not want to criminalise children when there were other options available to us. So we worked constructively with the Minister, and the Minister put in a Supplementary Order Paper that addressed all of New Zealand First’s concerns. We will watch, like everybody will watch, whether people can behave appropriately without Parliament stepping in and protecting those who are being attacked, those who are being affected. Take Yik Yak, for example. I do not know how many people in this House know what Yik Yak is. Yik Yak is an app on which people can actually make comments—just constantly “blah” their mind on this app. For university students, it is about missing a lecture or whatever the majority of the time. Down in Wellington, it is being used in a relatively constructive way. Go out of Wellington, and it is really interesting how vicious that Yik Yak is inside secondary schools—how absolutely, anonymously vicious it is. And yet what is interesting is the way that they hook people into it. When you have made five or 10 really nasty comments, you become famous. You become famous inside this app.

New Zealand First will support the bill. As I said, we did not support it at its second reading, but we worked constructively and the Minister has taken on board our concerns. The bill has been rewritten to a certain extent with the Supplementary Order Papers, and so, therefore, we will support it through third reading. Kia ora.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I just want to acknowledge the member who spoke just before, Tracey Martin. I think it is pretty clear from listening to her speech that she played a constructive role in the gestation of this bill, but also in the improvements that have been made to this bill through the select committee process and also through the Committee of the whole House stage. I think it is also clear from listening to her speech—and I know the honourable member serves on a board of trustees in Auckland, in Rodney—that she has some experience in the school system, so has some not unique but certainly useful experiences to bring to bear on this issue, which primarily, of course, affects the young. Although not completely: but primarily it affects the young. So I think some of the examples that we have just had mentioned by Ms Martin have been a useful contribution to the debate. It is not often that Tracey and I agree, so put that down for the record.

This bill was introduced in November 2013. Unfortunately, I did not have the privilege of being in Parliament then, or, indeed, of serving on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered the bill. But I have interrogated the bill and its principles pretty thoroughly over the last few weeks, and I am very glad to stand here supporting it. The driver of this bill is really technological change. It is one of the paradoxes, really, of modern society that privacy to individuals is becoming more important, whilst at the same time individuals feel free to place more of their lives online than ever before. They feel free to share photos. They feel free to put up photos of their cats, even likening them to politicians. They feel free to share their poetry online. They take Instagram shots of their food and place them online. They place their holiday snaps online. Previously you had to go around to somebody’s house in the evening to watch a boring slide show of their holiday snaps, whereas nowadays, if you are really keen on seeing somebody in Angkor Wat or in Burma or anywhere, you can just log on to Facebook and see them straight away.

Technology really is changing everything. The world’s biggest transport company, Uber, owns no cars. The world’s biggest accommodation provider, which is Airbnb, does not have any hotel rooms and does not own any buildings. So, really, the internet is changing everything. But with that comes new threats. If you read the regulatory impact statement on this bill, it rightly makes the point that there are new threats for harassment, for abuse, for threatening behaviour, for the publication of invasive photos, and for invasions of privacy that come with this new technology. If you read the regulatory impact statement, it makes the point that TradeMe has 2.8 million users. It is actually quite astonishing. That is about 75 percent of the New Zealand population, assuming that each user is an individual person. There are 2.8 million individual users, with 25,000 posts per day—and I think the regulatory impact statement was written about 18 months ago, so I suspect that figure is actually far higher now. If you look at Twitter, there are one billion tweets sent per week. Again, I suspect that figure is actually far higher now.

With these new technologies come new threats. In some ways, the traditional school playground has moved online. Growing up, I remember—you know, we did not have cellphones when I was growing up, or, certainly, they were a very nascent technology and they were too expensive. They were outside the realms of a chap like me. But I remember going home and logging on to MSN Messenger. That was the playground for abuse in my day, the famous MSN Messenger technology—now, sadly, retired. Microsoft has got rid of MSN Messenger, but that used to be the thing—

David Seymour: No!

CHRIS BISHOP: It has. It has gone. It is gone, Mr Seymour, it is gone. Mr Seymour is of a similar age to me, so he no doubt remembers, as well, going home from Auckland Grammar School—finishing rugby practice and all of the extracurricular pursuits he no doubt pursued at Auckland Grammar—and logging on to MSN Messenger to catch up with the very same people he had been talking to at school that day, but also people from other schools in his community. It is gone now, but MSN Messenger was certainly a hive of interesting and challenging behaviour.

Nowadays, of course, very many students at school have cellphones, and they have 4G or 3G access to the internet. They even have Wi-Fi at schools. The potential for students to bully, harass, and make life a misery for other students in the school has certainly been heightened. If you read the background work on this bill, something like one in 10 New Zealanders say that they have experienced harmful communications on the internet. That comes from the Law Commission. That figure rises to one in five for adolescents. The Minister, in her third reading speech, outlined some very sad cases, which I will not repeat, of harmful bullying and abusive behaviour that took place over the internet in New Zealand society. The question that confronts Parliament, then, is what is the appropriate legal response from the legislature to something that—I think there is unanimity on this in the House—is poor behaviour? What should be the legal response?

Well, the Law Commission did a review, and it concluded that, basically, the existing remedies that we have in our law, like defamation, harassment, and vilification, do not effectively address the potential for harm from these new technologies. So we have a lacuna in the law. There is an argument, I think—and it has been advanced by the some people—that we should just rely on defamation law and that we should just rely on the existing civil or tortious remedies in our law. I think, with respect—and I think Tracey Martin pointed this out, and others have as well—that it is a little far-fetched to expect that we could rely on a 13-year-old or even a 16-year-old to rely on defamation law to enforce their rights against those who seek to violate them. So I think that is a little bit far-fetched, and I think the Law Commission went through that and came to that conclusion as well.

So we have this bill put forward by the Government. So what does it do? It creates a new civil enforcement regime to quickly and effectively deal with harmful digital communications. That is its first major objective. Secondly, it creates new criminal provisions that deal with the most serious conduct. There was some debate, I think, about whether or not there should be a criminal offence included in the bill, but, as the Minister has made clear, I think it is correct to say that we do need that backstop provision for the most egregious, vile, and reprehensible conduct, and I think it is clear that that is required. Certainly, the United Kingdom has moved towards this; it has criminalised revenge porn, for example. Australia, I understand, has had a law similar to this for a decade, and there have not appeared to be many problems with that.

So how will this law work in practice? I regard it as a cascading series of options—well, not options, but a cascading series of things that the law does. Firstly, the law sets up this approved agency. It is very correct to say that the major priorities for this new approved agency are that it must have an educative focus, it must be well resourced, and it must be seen as a credible authority in this area. The Minister has given that assurance that that will be the case, and I, for one, will be inside the Government caucus making sure that that is true. So it sets up this new agency, and then what we have are mediated outcomes. The Minister has said that the vast bulk of the activity of the new agency and the vast bulk of complaints that take place under this new Act will be dealt with through these mediated outcomes, and I think that is appropriate. Then, of course, we have the ability to apply to the court for civil orders for take-down notices to remove material, and then, of course, the criminal sanctions that I have talked about.

Just in closing, I want to briefly talk about freedom of speech, because section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects that and it is very important. I was concerned that this bill would potentially impinge unnecessarily, unfairly, and unjustifiably on section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so I went and looked up the section 7 report—because, of course, the Attorney-General is required to report to the House if a bill is unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The legal advice is published, so I went and looked up the legal advice from the Crown Law. The legal advice from the Crown Law is that this does not breach section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or, to the extent that it does, it is a justified limit, because it finds that “expressions can be limited to the extent necessary to avoid or redress serious emotional harm or other harm or the incitement of harm:”. That is, according to the Crown Law Office, a justified limit on section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that is, in essence, what this bill is trying to do. So I was comfortable to conclude that this bill is acceptable and a justified limit on section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Because of that, I commend this bill to the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. Today Parliament finds itself at the complex intersection of rapidly changing technology and slower-changing legislation. I have no doubt there is not a single member in this House who does not want to reduce the harm that is caused by posting personal and private content online without permission, or the messages some poor younger Kiwis have received—a deluge of messages urging suicide. I have no doubt any member is standing for that. This bill, though, is a case of trying to do something, or trying to do anything, about a complex and serious phenomenon. The intent is noble—to try to reduce the harm of cyber-bullying—but this House should be measured by the content of our legislation, not just by our intent.

In my time here I have seen some very badly drafted tech legislation. We have seen the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act and the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act, or the “Skynet Act”, where badly conceived law came together with under-informed legislators, all with the best of interests, to pass terrible laws. So, for the first time in my parliamentary career, today I am casting a separate vote from my party, because I believe this law, this bill, is the wrong solution to the right question, which is: “What do we do about cyber-bullying?”. Ultimately, this bill is overly broad, it risks limiting our freedom of expression and the important role of the media in our democracy, and it introduces a precedent that one thing can be legal off-line but illegal online. I agree with the intent of the bill, which is to try to reduce cyber-bullying; however, I am opposed to the way it is achieved and currently drafted. I believe there are better ways to go about reducing cyber-bullying, such as the approved agency and funding education, without making a new criminal offence just for the digital world.

The bill comes out of some disturbing high-profile examples of online cyber-bullying and the Law Commission report, from which the Government has cherry-picked some of the recommendations. The idea of an approved agency is a good one, and one that I support, to help people who cannot currently access quick redress or support or advice from agencies such as the police, who, quite frankly, were incredibly poorly informed of how they could support victims to get hurtful material taken down under the current content providers’ terms and conditions. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge the good work of NetSafe, which is currently dealing with around 800 cases a year.

Likewise, the idea of a notice and take-down power with safe harbour protections for content hosts is a good one, and will give the remedy most desired by victims of cyber-bullying, where they just want to see the damn stuff get taken off the internet. However, I would note this take-down provision applies only to the District Court, not to the approved agency, which is going to be, most likely, the highly respected NetSafe, which will have to engage in a whole process of mediation before going to the court. Although the material, which I think any member of this House would want to see taken down, could be removed, the risk is we will see it there for longer than desirable.

However, it is the new criminal offences, and the offences for causing harm online by posting a digital communication, that I disagree with. This offence carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to 2 years, a fine of up to $50,000, and is under the minimum jury level limit. I believe this new criminal offence is a step too far. I agree with the UK House of Lords, which in its 2014 report said: “what is not an offence off-line should not be an offence online”. I see this as a worrying precedent that sees the online world as something different, something foreign, and somewhere where rules and laws and criminal offences can be different. It is just not the case. There is a rule for regulating specific technology, because it does have unique characteristics, and I understand that argument for the internet, but I do not support a technology-specific criminal offence, which, in this case, has different rules or standards for the content of speech or behaviour online and off-line.

The criminal offence for causing harm by posting a digital communication could, additionally, have a chilling impact on freedom of expression and the important role of the media. The values we share of freedom of expression and a free media are important to our country, and they should not be weakened lightly or, in this case, inadvertently. As technology expert Thomas Beagle has pointed out, causing offence by posting digital content is so over-broad that it criminalises public interest political speech such as, for example, exposing corruption or the dodgy dealings of a member of Parliament. Likewise, parody and satire have an honourable tradition across thousands of years, yet often do cause harm to the powerful or the rich, whom they seek to embarrass, satirise, or parody. There is no doubt these people are embarrassed, yet they do not have the protections applied.

As Tim Watkin has pointed out, this law applies not just to bloggers but to journalists as well. He points to the ludicrous situation that a public interest story of, say, the corrupt MP, as we have given the example of before, who is subject to harm by the story, would be perfectly legal if it were published in a newspaper but punishable if posted on that media organisation’s website or transmitted electronically. The Government, unwisely, has ignored the Law Commission’s advice to exempt the media, and it should have listened to the Law Commission.

“Harm”, which is the crucial word in this new criminal offence, is defined by the interpretation section as “serious emotional distress”, which is, I believe, irresponsibly broad. It would have been far more preferable to modernise and plug the existing gaps in legislation such as the Harassment Act and not introduce a new, vague “harm by posting online” offence. Now, there are factors—the defence and supporters of the bill will argue this—that the District Court must consider, including the context of the digital communication. But could any defence be broader or woollier than what is written in the bill, which is context? It is incredibly vague, incredibly subjective, and it would have been much clearer to protect the public interest or to protect parody and satire. Likewise, the truth of the online allegation can be taken into account as a defence, similarly to defamation, but the way we have gone about it in this bill circumvents 200 years of case law to get there. So a judge may interpret context as a defence in reasonable circumstances, but having such a broad, subjective view for the new criminal online offence is just inviting the powerful, the vexatious, and the litigious to use this to shut down legitimate comment.

There has to be some irony that a law to address cyber-bullying could be used as a tool to bully and take down different opinions. Internet service providers, the content hosts, who are often in a highly competitive market, working as hard as they can, are going to face the pressure of these applications coming in, and the, quite frankly, simple choice to maybe just take down the stuff to avoid a mess or avoid some work, which could reduce the information, the discussion, and the democracy in New Zealand.

In summary, I support the bill and some the measures contained within it to reduce the harm of cyber-bullying, but not the bill itself. It is too broad, risks limiting our freedom of speech, and introduces this new online-only criminal offence. This bill has sat on the parliamentary agenda for years and years. I urge the Government and members to take a bit more time to make sure we get it right. Thank you very much. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): It is an enormous privilege to live in a society that benefits from 800 years of common law, which has given us, among other rights and freedoms, freedom of speech. It started, perhaps most colloquially, as the simple idea that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. In actual fact, what has evolved is the idea that words can hurt sometimes. And over that long period of time, an intricate network of defences has evolved so that people can, for instance, defend themselves against damage to their reputation that was done deliberately, that was untrue, and where the audience might be led to believe that it was true. That is our inheritance: 800 years of trying to figure out how exactly to protect freedom of speech on the one hand and people’s right not to be unfairly maligned on the other. Another great privilege that everybody in this room has—everyone on the floor of the House, at least—is membership of this House of Representatives. To use the second privilege to destroy or, at least, to erode the first one—the way that this bill does—is something that I cannot support, and, therefore, I must vote against this bill.

This bill is a case study in bad lawmaking. All of the elements of bad lawmaking exist in this bill. Not since we microchipped dogs in the hope that it would prevent a particularly egregious dog event has there has been such a bad law before this House. First, you had the high-profile and really quite disgraceful event. Then you had the discovery that in actual fact the laws in place had not been properly used by the agency in place to prevent the harms that occurred there. Then you had the knee-jerk reaction from the politicians, who said: “We must do something. This bill is indeed something; therefore, we will pass this bill, and it must be the right thing to do.”

What exactly does this bill do? Well, the first thing that it does is introduce a set of communications principles that might be appropriate if we were about to embark on a school camp, but which are not appropriate for the governance of 4.5 million people, many of whom are adults—and the children among them are the responsibility of adults. It says that you cannot offend somebody. So, for instance, would Flight of the Conchords’ song Albi the Racist Dragon be offensive if it was communicated online? Well, we are told, in defence of the “badly burnt Albanian boy” from last week, that of course this law would never be used in such a silly and un-sensible way. That is the problem with the law: it gives no protection. We are supposed to rely on the beneficence of the enforcers. That is bad lawmaking. If you were to say: “Happy 31st Liz”, would that be giving away information of a personal nature about another person that you should not reveal? Would that be a bad example? How many of these bad examples will actually end up discouraging freedom of speech, in what you might call a “chilling effect”?

As I said in my maiden statement to the House, it is ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas. It is not just what is seen, but all of the unseen expression that will now not occur because of the chilling effect of the communications principles if the enforcement of it—even if not quite criminal yet, you understand; you are going to be OK—by the approved agency is brought to bear. Perhaps that is why Voltaire said: “I defend to the death your right to say what you say”, even when those are things he might have disagreed with. It is a sad day in this House when you have to rely on lots of dead Frogs to stand up for your civil liberties—and you probably will not be able to say that very soon either.

It might be worthwhile to have this law if we truly believed that it was going to reduce harm and protect people. But, in actual fact, as soon as you start to look at the contradictions, you can see that it will make little, if any, difference to reducing harm for people online. And there is genuine harm to be mitigated. You will find that there are much, much simpler, more straightforward ways to do that, with far fewer side effects. For example, we are concerned that children will bully each other. So the idea is to introduce criminal sanctions, but, of course, you understand, we are not really introducing criminal sanctions for children, because they will go through the Youth Court. So somebody might ask why you would make a law that you did not intend to be enforced properly. Or, for another contradiction, you might ask how quickly most viral phenomena on the web take place. Well, under this law, you have at least 96 hours of back and forth before any kind of order can be enforced. So you might ask yourself how this seriously addresses the problem that most people face. Well, I suspect that there is very little coincidence with the fact that it is the youngest members of this House who are most opposed to this bill. It is, fundamentally, a generational conflict—a law imposed by people who are not digital natives and who do not understand how the internet works on users of the internet who do.

The pace of development on the internet is so rapid that, in actual fact, the incentive for the hosts of content is to give good experiences. If it is true that harm is being done, then the one person who has both the incentive and the means to rapidly mitigate that harm is the host, whether that be Facebook, or Ask.fm, or Twitter, or whoever else hosts the website. For the same reason that harmful digital communication becomes exponentially greater, those people have the tools to mitigate it. But you do not hear that from the Government or from the supporters of this bill. There is a moralising tone from them: if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear; that these vague principles will not be enforced for silly reasons, you understand; that as long as you are sensible and you are doing nothing wrong, it will not be used against you. That is something that I cannot explain any further. Anybody who does not see the problem with that construction is incapable of having it explained to them, but for those who do understand it, that is why it is critical that this type of legislation becomes rarer and eventually obsolete, in terms of being introduced to this House.

Of course, there are real concerns. Nobody denies that revenge porn and incitement to commit suicide are serious dangers, and they are dangers that have come to some extent from technological advances. It would have been very simple—and I have to thank the Labour Party for supporting my Supplementary Order Paper last week—simply to say that in the Crimes Act it is a crime to make an intimate digital recording and to distribute it without the person’s consent, particularly if your aim is to do harm. That is the right way to do it. I have to thank Clare Curran, who approached me early on about opposing this bill, and I apologise that we were not more proactive. I think we might have been able to defeat it. Ditto to some of my colleagues in the Greens, who have bravely decided today that they will oppose this bill and support good lawmaking. I should probably compliment some of my friends in the National Government who have severe concerns about this bill, but I do not wish to get them in trouble, so I will not do that.

In conclusion, this is, fundamentally, about the quality of the laws that we make in this House. Do we wish to make laws that are fit for purpose and that address the problem, with the smallest possible number of side effects, or do we wish to make populist knee-jerk laws that will do very little to achieve their intended outcomes and yet have enormous unintended consequences and do great damage to the rights and freedoms that have evolved in our society over several hundred years? Do those of us who have the dual privilege of benefiting from 800 years of common law—and the freedom of speech that it has intricately delivered—and the privilege of being in this House want to use the second privilege to tear down the first one? Unfortunately, it would seem that far too many of my colleagues in this House do.

As a final thought, it will not escape members that we often have a reputation in public opinion surveys as being very untrustworthy. Can I suggest to members that we will be back debating this, discovering that we have overpromised in terms of our ability to reduce harm through digital communications and that we have under-delivered in terms of protecting rights and liberties. If we were to reverse that equation by opposing this bill, we might very quickly improve that situation. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I find myself agreeing with a lot of the detailed objections that the ACT member, David Seymour, had to the detail of this bill. The Labour Party, on balance, is voting for the legislation because it does think that there is a social ill that needs the push back of the law against—I see Dr Russel Norman is smiling at my exposition of our position, but this is the position we have reached. There is a social ill that needs to be addressed, which is the inappropriate use of the internet to bully people and to make their lives a misery, and this new technology needs a push back from Parliament to enforce the societal norm that disapproves of that sort of behaviour. On balance, because there is this need to push back against what is happening, we are voting for the legislation.

The reason that we backed David Seymour’s proposed amendment at the Committee stage was that the legislation is, in our opinion, too broad and would be better were it narrower. So I readily agree with David Seymour that this legislation is imperfect and could have been made better by this House.

What were our main three problems? Indeed, I asked the Minister to respond to these issues in the Committee stage and the Minister declined to do so, which I think is lamentable because I thought the issues that were being raised by David Seymour, and the Labour Party as well, were correct.

The problems fall into three main categories. First of all, you should always be wary where the Government is applying a band-aid to a subset of problems for a particular technology—in this case digital communications—rather than to all communications. This bill applies to harmful digital communications only, and, therefore, does things in respect of digital communications that are not being done in respect of non-digital communications. It is an unusual thing to do—to legislate in a way that constrains rights of expression for only one mode of expression. You would think that if it was right to do that for one mode of expression it would be right to do it for all modes of expression, and the fact that it is not across all modes of expression—you should ask yourself, why? The answer is, because if the Government was to make these proposals in respect of all modes of expression there would be a public uprising as to the limits of freedom of speech and whether we have got that balance right.

In respect of this legislation, there is no express preservation of the right of the media, for example. There is no express reference to rights of freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and, given that this legislation is passed after the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and is more specific than the general provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it is likely that where there is inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the provisions in this bill are going to be interpreted in a way that will constrain rights of free expression.

This could have been done in a way that is better than that and removes that ambiguity. The way it could have been done would have been to, for example, criminalise what is obviously and clearly wrong, which is what they have done in the United Kingdom where they have criminalised what is called revenge porn—where if someone has taken in a personal relationship situation something that is an intimate photograph, it should not be able to be put out there digitally for widespread utilisation after the relationship breaks down.

That is, essentially, what revenge porn does. It takes what was done in personal confines, perhaps unwisely but in a moment in a relationship, and then it is used for a purpose that was not contemplated at the time. It is not a misrepresentation—it is actually an image that is accurate—but it is being used for a wrong purpose, and so in the United Kingdom they have criminalised that. I can understand why, and I think the criminal provision in this should have been narrow like that, rather than broadly defined as it is, because it covers such a wide ambit of communications in an ill-defined way that it goes further than it needs to do. So the first point is that the criminal penalty here will amount to an infringement of free speech without being clear as to the limit on the limit, and I think it is poor legislation from that perspective.

The second issue is the safe harbours that we voted for. I asked the question of the Minister at the select committee whether we were in fact creating safe harbours that do not exist for internet providers or for intermediaries for these means of communication—to the people who make money out of it—where they do not currently have a safe harbour. My concern was, and the example I gave was, if you were a provider of some internet communication forum that was attached to something that you made money from—you were trying to attract business to your website that you make money from—and in order to do that you ran an allied service to people that was a communication forum, then currently you might face risks if you were publishing something that was defamatory.

It seems that the safe harbour that we are creating here will be conferring protections on the organisation that is the intermediary that are greater than their current protections. So we might be undermining the current law, which would place that provider at risk if they did not immediately respond to a complaint that something was defamatory and immediately take it down. I am not sure that that is good law because we could be making things worse rather than making things better, by creating a safe harbour where there may be none now.

I have not been able to get my head around that fully because the Minister’s refusal to engage with that issue in the chair means that I do not know whether that is correct or not.

Dr Russel Norman: Is this speech for or against the bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, it is a speech against this part of the bill, Dr Norman. So this legislation, for those reasons, is not nearly as good as it could have been because those sorts of concerns could have been dealt with if the Minister had been willing to listen—if the Minister had been willing to vote for some of the amendments that had been brought forward by the Labour Party and also by David Seymour on behalf of the ACT Party.

Will it work? That is the other question that we need to ask. Well, I suspect that it will not work completely but that it will have some effect really to heighten the stakes for inappropriate behaviour by some of those people who are currently deliberately promulgating harmful digital communications to the detriment of other people in society. So it will have some effect, but it also creates complexity in respect of our communication laws generally that could have been avoided through a more targeted piece of legislation.

Lastly, before I sit down, I just want to say again in respect of the definition of what amounts to serious emotional harm that it is very hard to tell because it is not defined, and I think that is undesirable as well. With those reservations, which are substantial and could have been avoided had the Government been more willing to listen to critics of its own legislation, the Labour Party supports this bill.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House as the last speaker in the third reading of this Harmful Digital Communications Bill. The bill is in the name of my colleague the Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, but, of course, it was originally introduced by her predecessor, the Hon Judith Collins, in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament I had the privilege to be chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee, where the bill was first sent—

Tim Macindoe: You did that almost as well as your predecessor.

SCOTT SIMPSON: —almost as well as my predecessor, Tim Macindoe says, notwithstanding that he was indeed my predecessor—so I had an opportunity, as the bill was introduced to the select committee, to hear the submissions and to take an active, participatory role in the select committee process until the end of the last Parliament.

This was always going to be testing legislation in terms of where this Parliament sits vis-à-vis its responsibilities to our society in terms of new, modern technology and the harms that come from cyber-bullying, harassment, and those sorts of things. It was always going to be legislation that was going to test the minds of MPs as to where the balance should lie in terms of our involvement and the State’s role and people’s right to express themselves freely using modern technology. So I have watched with great interest as this bill has progressed its way through the House. I have been encouraged by the quality of speeches that have been presented in this third reading, and I want to congratulate all members, even those who have, I think, used the opportunity to speak against the bill. I think they have made good points—some of them, in my view, a little misguided, but good points none the less.

It is all very well and good in this House to oppose for the sake of opposing and to do so sometimes on the basis of high moral ground, but actually there are times when this House needs to act and to do something and needs to take a lead. Often parliaments like ours around the world follow too far behind the innovations that come with modern technology, and this is a case where our Parliament, like other parliaments around the world, is trying to grapple with the negative impacts and the downsides that occur from so much of the wonderful attributes and opportunities that new technology brings us.

Jacinda Ardern in her speech earlier on this afternoon in this debate said that Labour members felt that they were wedged on this issue—that they were a little unsure about what to do and how to do it—and I think that she accurately summed up the position. It is probably not just Labour members who were wedged; it is probably all of us as parliamentarians that are wedged on this issue because we all come into this place wanting to profoundly enhance the rights of individuals to participate in an active, free democracy, where freedom of choice and freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all fundamental foundation stones of that democracy. But at the same time we are balancing, as we always must, the responsibilities that go with protecting those who are vulnerable in our society and in our communities, and there are none more vulnerable and exposed to these things in the digital age than young people, who do not have the ability to use the tools that existed prior to this legislation being enacted, such as taking defamation actions and doing all the sorts of tortious legal remedies that actually do exist already in our existing legislation. Those options simply are not practically available to them.

So this bill is a measured approach, a measured response, and a balanced response to try to juggle some of those difficult and hard issues. I note that the Greens are struggling with it as well and that some of those members are going to vote for and some are going to vote against.

This is a bill that will test not only us as legislators but our fellow country folk as well, because they are difficult issues. Here what we are trying to do is apply purely subjective measures to a whole range of challenging modern issues, so with that comes hard questions about trying to find where the balance should be in terms of determining and then remedying the harm. How do we measure that harm? How do we identify it? Who decides what that harm should or should not be? What are the sanctions once harm has been identified? Where does the responsibility for the intervention lie? And who is responsible for righting the wrongs? This bill attempts to achieve an answer, a resolution, to many of those hard questions.

Is it perfect legislation? Well, it might not be perfect legislation, but it is legislation that I think is much needed in this House. I have been heartened by comments made publicly by the Minister over recent times that if we have not got this quite right, we will look at it again. I think that is the responsible and appropriate measure for a Parliament to take, because on this issue there simply is not, in my view, a do-nothing option.

Our young people and their future is too important to allow us to just abrogate our responsibility and leave it to organisations such as NetSafe, or Facebook, or Google, or any of those other organisations to try to find their own way through it. Most of those organisations actually do already have their own rules, and I remember going with the select committee to have a look at the offices of TradeMe, where we saw how it tried to moderate the messages that were on its message boards and how it did it. But, essentially, it came down to a subjective, values-based decision of one person sitting at a desk at a computer screen somewhere in the depths of the TradeMe organisation and making a call as to what was harmful, what was right, what was wrong, what was offensive, and what was not.

If there is one thing we know as legislators around the world, it is that offence and harm and things of that nature are a bit like beauty. They are in the eye of the beholder. So one person’s freedom of speech is another person’s offence and harmful bullying tactic. There has been a lot of comment on various channels, on blogsites, and in a whole range of other media commentaries about the infringement that apparently exists because this bill seems to somehow remove people’s right to freedom of speech.

I listened carefully to the contribution of my colleague Chris Bishop a few minutes ago. He made mention of the section 7 report that the Attorney-General had presented when considering this bill and, in particular, he made reference to section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which, of course, guarantees to us all the right to freedom of expression. However, what is really important is that that is not an absolute right. It is not an absolute right of freedom of speech because freedom of speech does not automatically trump offences, and it does not of itself provide a way to evade the protections that are set out in other pieces of legislation. So the new proposals that are part of this Harmful Digital Communications Bill are consistent, in my view, with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and do not impose upon the freedom of expression that is set out in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

There will be clear criteria used to determine whether someone has broken the law. For example, the new communications offence would apply only where a person sending the communication intended to cause serious emotional distress to a victim. So there is this element of intent, and where the intention cannot be proved or is not shown, then the provisions of this bill, obviously, do not kick in. I think that is a sensible sort of process for this bill to be considering. The communication would not apply if the communication would not cause serious emotional distress to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim. So there is a test of ordinary reasonableness. Our common law clearly sets out—and has done for many, many years—a test and a strong foundation stone for testing what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.

This legislation, as I said, is a difficult area. It is a difficult area for us all as MPs, as parliamentarians, to get our heads around and to try to grapple with, but grapple with it we must because, as MPs, we are charged with making the hard and difficult decisions. We cannot simply say we are not going to take a role in trying to find a solution when our young people, particularly, are put in harm’s way by the use of modern technology.

I do commend this bill to the House. It is a good piece of legislation and Parliament has done well to consider it as it has done.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Harmful Digital Communications Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 116

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 10 (Clendon, Delahunty, Graham, Hague, Logie, Mathers, Roche, Sage, Shaw, Turei); New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.

Noes 5

Green Party 4 (Browning, Genter, Hughes, Norman); ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Environmental Reporting Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 23 June.

Part 2 Environmental reporting (continued)

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is an honour to take a call on Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill, and that will become a bit more apparent as I continue through my speech. I do want to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 92 under the name of Su’a William Sio, which seeks to make amendments to clauses 7 and 10 and, in a nutshell, that is by inserting within the bill provisions to include the state of New Zealand’s economic environmental activities and the impacts on the Pacific region, climate, ecosystems, and its people. I think that is a very important addition to this piece of legislation and one that I hope that the Government will consider, because it is not just the environment of New Zealand as we know it but also of our Pacific neighbours and some of those Pacific nations that New Zealand has responsibility for.

As I mentioned, it does include a responsibility for this nation to take into account the Pacific’s climate and its ecosystems, and I would like to take this opportunity, if it is OK, to pay tribute to someone from the Tokelau islands who passed away in the last week and who used to be the Faipule or leader of the atoll that my parents came from, Fakaofo—that is, Foua Toloa. He was, as I say, the leader of the Tokelauan atoll of Fakaofo. He also served on the Global Ocean Commission, and he crusaded throughout his life in dedication to the health and well-being of the Tokelau islands around the environmental, economic, and social stability of that nation. I think the measure that has been posed by Su’a William Sio will be very well looked upon by Foua, who passed away this time last week. To ensure within this Environmental Reporting Bill some kinds of measures to make sure that we can look after the Pacific is something that I think Foua would be very, very supportive of.

Can I take this opportunity to pass my condolences and the love of this House to his family: to Logo, his wife; to their six children; and especially to his brother Luther, whom we had been dealing with in the last couple of weeks as Foua fought the last stages of cancer and passed away. The health of the oceans was something that was very big to him and during last year he gave a very good speech to the Global Ocean Commission to make sure that not just this nation but all nations take action to make sure that the health of the Pacific Ocean and other oceans is there for not just our generation but generations to come.

I think we are seeing some things happen in the Pacific Islands and the Pacific Ocean that most New Zealanders, if they knew what was going on, would be very, very disturbed by. I think this Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio makes sure that this piece of legislation does not pertain just to what is going on here in New Zealand but also to its territories and the Pacific Ocean, and we have a big interest in what goes on there. So I would hope that members on the other side of the Chamber would take that into consideration because it does take on some of the responsibilities that this nation has to some of those smaller nations, and we have talked about them within another piece of legislation—the likes of Tokelau, the likes of the Cook Islands, and the likes of Niue, which we have a very special relationship with. So I would to like to commend my colleague Su’a William Sio for making sure that the environmental activities that we undertake and the economic activities that we undertake are taken into consideration when we look at what is happening in the Pacific and how that is affecting the ecosystems in the Pacific and, as I mentioned, especially the oceans.

This is going to be only a 5-minute speech but I did just want to again pass on this House’s recognition of the contribution that Foua made to the Tokelauan community here in New Zealand, and to that of the community, the very small community of around 1,500, on the three atolls themselves, especially when it came to ensuring the environmental future of the oceans around the Tokelau islands, and we wish his family all the love and respect that we afford them.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a call on the Environmental Reporting Bill, particularly on Part 2. Can I start by just acknowledging the comments from Kris Faafoi and, obviously, express condolences from this side of the Chamber on his loss—obviously, of an advocate for the Tokelauan community.

In respect, though, of the specific Supplementary Order Paper that he raised, I certainly hold the view that the priority of this bill is, quite rightly, New Zealand and should remain New Zealand. The various impact categories that the various synthesis reports and domain reports are to cover, as expressed by Part 2, should be focused, quite rightly, on New Zealand, so in that respect, I am not swayed that we should widen the scope at this point in time, in terms of the enabling legislation to the Pacific Islands and the broader South Pacific community. That said—I think, over time, as the various synthesis reports are produced every 3 years—who is to say that in the future those synthesis reports might not talk to the interrelationship between the New Zealand environmental position and those of our Australasian and Pacific neighbours? Into the future, that may well be a part of the synthesis report.

Specifically, in respect of Part 2, there are a couple of points that I would like to note. I appreciate that there has been some conversation on this already among members of the select committee. I think the changes to clause 7 were useful, particularly around providing clarity on the specific impact categories that came from our select committee deliberations. With regard to the previous clause 7(1)(c)(iii), which stated “economic benefits derived from utilising natural resources:”, I think it was quite right that submitters to our collective deliberations pointed out that this was the only category that referred to benefits, and the new wording that we have in that clause is more neutral. It specifically says that the economy just needs to be one of the categories considered.

Also, the introduction of Te Ao Māori—the Māori World—view, again, reflected significant feedback from the submitters to the process: that the language that the original bill used was perhaps not quite as comprehensive as it needed to be in order to capture that particular component, and, of course, we are all pretty comfortable with the new proposed wording.

I notice clause 8. It is very good to see the change there in respect of the first synthesis report now being required to be published not later than 3 years after the date of the first domain report. That makes sense. Further on, in clause 8(2), we have a clarification of the timing in respect of the first domain report, and then that triggers the requirement to have our first synthesis report within 3 years. So I think that is very useful. Under the domain reports in clause 9(2), I think the introduction of the requirement “As soon as is reasonably practicable after the Secretary and the Government Statistician have published a domain report, the Ministers must jointly present the report to the House of Representatives.” is also a very helpful addition, in terms of transparency and public awareness of the outcomes of these particular reports.

In terms of clause 13, we had quite a long debate and discussion, ably assisted by officials helping us through this particular challenge, on the roles of the Secretary for the Environment and, in particular, the Government Statistician, and on the requirement to ensure the independence of those two through the environmental reporting framework. We had quite a lot of debate about that. A number of submitters wanted to mandate explicitly that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment seek expert advice. I think that what we have here does enable the Government Statistician to be able to seek that advice. They are able to utilise expertise from other agencies. Certainly, I feel that they have enabled, through this proposed bill, the capacity to be able to get the information that they need. It is certainly my view that clause 14 and the rather explicit duty to act independently provide the adequate safeguards to protect independence for both the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment.

We had a significant debate over the original clause 16, “Disclosure of information”. As the select committee has deliberated, we have seen a significant change to that clause. Essentially, there was a long debate about the ability to be able to disclose information and analysis to the public and about whether that was an open right and obligation all through the process. Clearly, we felt that it would be appropriate to have in some part of that process—particularly around untested information that needed to stay protected, as they tested their methodology and tested the ultimate conclusions of the report—a requirement for that definition of untested information to stay outside the public domain as the reports were being developed. I think that is a sensible way through. It focuses just on data and statistics and findings that have not been published previously, and it does create, I think, the opportunity to protect the independence and the integrity of environmental reporting and does not hinder access. This untested information is, of course, time bound, and once the publication ultimately becomes public in the public domain, then, of course, the release of that background information is enabled. So this is a particular subset of information that is required to be kept out of the public domain, as it is part of pulling together that final report with the integrity and robustness that is required.

My last comment relates to clause 18. I appreciate that there has been quite a lot of debate about this, but I would like to add my voice to that. Clearly, a number of submitters opposed clause 18 as outlined. We have heard some very strong and impassioned views: that Ministers setting topics is incompatible with independent environmental reporting. I am not swayed by that view. I was not at the start, and I am still not swayed. In my view, it is absolutely appropriate for Ministers to be able to hold a view on the topics for these reports, within the tight parameters of the clauses that are listed in clause 18. The topics are outlined. The robust data and statistical methodology is outlined, plus there is a significant requirement for consultation. I am simply just not swayed by the view that somehow that is an environment for an overt politicisation of the process. If you move to the specifics, particularly around the topics, clause 18(2) states that the Ministers must be satisfied “that any—(a) pressure topic or impact topic affects significant areas, resources, or numbers of people: (b) topic can be measured with robust statistical methods: (c) pressure topic is closely related to any state topic…”.

In essence, what this is saying is that we have a framework that, in my view, materially constrains a Minister to be able to focus on signing off or proposing a topic within that framework. Bearing in mind that both the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics have an obligation under this to consult with the Government Statistician, the commissioner, the public, iwi authorities, and local authorities, that is a very robust obligation on the executive to consult widely on what those topics should be. I have a lot of confidence that, ultimately, we will get an outcome here that is sensible and that delivers a significant improvement to the reporting on the state of the environment in this country.

In conclusion, it is worth repeating that this is another step of reform in a Government that has delivered significant reform in the reporting of the environmental state of this country, enabling us to have a data-informed, data-enriched discussion.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I would agree with the comments of the previous speaker, Todd Muller, that the Local Government and Environment Committee did improve clause 16. But the fact is that it highlights one of the deficiencies in this bill—that it is the Ministry for the Environment that is going to be responsible for collating the state of the environment information, along with Statistics New Zealand. Of course, the Ministry for the Environment is primarily a policy agency. It lacks the technical capacity to do this work on state of the environment reporting. It is going to be relying very much on the information that is collected, the data that is collected, by other agencies such as regional councils, Crown research institutes, and the like. So that is why, in Supplementary Order Paper 87, which is in my name, we are proposing a further change to clause 16 that would ensure the information can be withheld by the Government Statistician only if it has been collected exclusively for the purposes of state of the environment reporting and this bill.

One of the problems that a lot of the submitters raised was that clause 16 potentially constrains the release of environmental information that other agencies collect. So although the clause has certainly been improved, it has not been improved enough and we would encourage Government members to support the Supplementary Order Paper. Given that the Government members voted down the amendments on Part 1, I am not encouraged to think that they will do anything different this time. I think that highlights one of the problems with this Government. It is a Government of “No”. It has rejected Supplementary Order Papers previously. It has highlighted the fact that it does not want to work collaboratively with other parties.

The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 87 were put forward in the spirit of compromise. They were not the major changes that the Green Party wanted to this bill, but they were put forward in the hope that across this Parliament we could get a cohesive, coherent agreement on this legislation so that it is less vulnerable to changes under future Governments, but the Government members have rebuffed that in the voting on Part 1. That is really disappointing when comprehensive reporting on the state of our environment is quite critical to a better understanding, so that we get good policy, and because the health of the environment contributes majorly to the health of the economy.

Another concern that we have about this bill is in relation to clause 18. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said in her 2010 report on state of the environment reporting: “The need for trust and transparency in state of the environment reporting is critical if it is to be taken seriously.”, and “In order [for it] to be trusted, [that] reporting requires independence, accountability, and technical capacity.” The history of state of the environment reporting under the Ministry for the Environment has been very stop-start in terms of progress. There was work done between 1996 and 2002 on developing some environment performance indicators, but that abruptly stopped in 2002. We have seen one nationwide report in 1997 and another one 10 years later in 2007 with a major chapter missing.

If the Ministry for the Environment is going to have responsibility here—rather than the Environmental Protection Agency, which has got much more independence and much more technical capacity—then it is going to have to substantially lift its game, because the work it has done to date has had major failings in it. That change in environmental performance indicators—the lack of consistency across the country—has been a major shortcoming.

One of the other areas of unease, and what we have seen when we have had Ministers being involved in agencies that do environmental reporting, is a failure to do that work. In Environment Canterbury, under elected councillors, a comprehensive, region-wide, state of the environment report was published in 2009. Under commissioners we have seen no region-wide state of the environment report, so Cantabrians and New Zealanders generally are kept in the dark about the state of water quality and the decline there. That is one of the other reasons we are concerned by this lack of independence in clause 18—by having the Ministers set the topics for environmental reporting and regulations, it lacks the independence required.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I would like to respond to some of the speeches made by the members opposite with regard to clause 18 of the Environmental Reporting Bill and especially the question of independence when it comes to the choosing of topics under that clause. In doing so I would have five questions that I think the people of New Zealand, some of whom may be watching this debate, should ask themselves in relation to that clause.

The first one is why it should be just two Ministers who should choose those topics, when, clearly, much better options exist. I think that is a question that those members on the opposite benches have not properly answered and that I have not heard answered yet. Fundamentally, there are two alternatives being put forward, both of which seem to me to be better. One is that proposed by Eugenie Sage, which would be for the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to jointly make those decisions. If that was the case, we could then guarantee independence and transparency. Alternatively, there could actually be a schedule to the Act, which would then have to be changed every 3 years. That would not be a bad thing because it would involve the whole of Parliament in doing that, and, after all, every 3 years is not so frequent that it would be impracticable. I think both of those would be superior to what is provided here.

The second question I would ask is why those members opposite feel that the regime set up in clause 18 is indeed a robust one. That is a word that they have used and that I have heard several of them use. When you look at clause 18(2), in particular, you see that the language used is, for example, in paragraph (a) of clause 18(2), that the Minister must be satisfied that “significant areas, resources, or numbers of people:” are involved, or that in paragraph (b), any “topic can be measured with robust statistical methods:” and so on. So it comes down to the personal opinion of the Minister as to whether those Ministers are satisfied with those things. How do we know? What will be the backup information provided so that the rest of us can tell whether the conclusions reached by the two Ministers are reasonable in respect of those issues? There is a complete silence as far as those matters are concerned.

The third question is whether consultation is a substitute for independent decision-making. I particularly remember Minister Smith commenting: “Don’t worry. It’s all OK because we have in clause 18(3) a provision for consultation.”, as though somehow that was a substitute for independent decision-making. Well, consultation is not decision making at all. It is simply an obligation to hear and to take into account the views of others. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is not, in fact, decision making and it makes no genuine contribution to the requirement that many of us are concerned about, which is genuine, independent decision-making. So I say to those members opposite and especially to Minister Smith: you have failed totally to convince me that consultation is in any way a substitute for independent decision-making. I think that the people in the public listening to this debate today would understand exactly what I mean.

The fourth question relates to one particular issue that I have not heard members opposite speak about at all. That is the point that this regime talks about which topics Ministers may choose. But they have not talked about the fact that under this regime Ministers could actually decide not to report at all on some topics and would have no responsibility to discuss them or tell people anything about them, and we would never know. That is not good enough. I think that one of the most dangerous parts of clause 18 in this whole regime would be for Ministers to simply decide that there is a topic here that they do not want discussed in public and to be reported on, and so they will make sure that it does not happen. I think that is one of the big defects in this. The final—

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): This sort of stuff is pretty important. Mr Bishop always has a go at me whenever I say this, but this whole thing plays into our global brand of “clean, green” and “100% Pure New Zealand”, and we need to get this right. The reason this is so important is that it is our unique selling point. It is what we take to the world. It is what allows us to get a premium for a lot of our products. That is why we have to be seen by the world into which we go forth to be getting this right. If it is seen as dictating or prescribing in a way that is not utilising the expertise we have outside of Government agencies, then it will just not be taken seriously. That is the real concern I have around this. It should not be hard to get this right.

There are a couple of points I would like to pick up on that some of the other speakers mentioned. One of the Government speakers said he felt that the spirit of the Act means that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment can go out there and utilise outside expertise. But the bottom line is that if the Act does not state that, then there is absolutely no mandate to go and do that. So instead of saying “Yes, well, this is all very well; they can do that because this is what we think the Act allows them to do.”—unless it is stated, then it will not be done.

I pick up a point that Mr O’Rourke made, and that is about consultation. There are a number of cases, and there is one I am dealing with in my electorate at the moment, where the need to consult is seen as a box-ticking exercise. What happens is there are a whole lot of requirements that have to be achieved before anything can happen, and they say “OK, we must consult.” and so on and so forth. They go out, they set up a meeting, you get a few stakeholders come in, and they tick that box and say “That is our consultation. Let’s move on to the next thing.” I do not mean to cast aspersions towards the Government Statistician or the Secretary for the Environment, and I am not in any way suggesting that they will be devious or they will be negligent in the way they do this. All I am saying is that the guidelines, in my view, do not provide a strong enough incentive or a robust enough mandate to use the sort of expertise we have out in our community.

Let us face facts: there are a whole lot of very, very well-educated and highly engaged people who are doing some superb work on our environment and have a whole lot to offer. They may be included in this process. They may be, but there is no requirement to include them, and I suppose that is where I get a little bit concerned. If I look at clause 13, it says “In producing and publishing an environmental report, the Secretary and the Government Statistician must utilise the expertise of the Ministry and Statistics New Zealand.” It would have been quite easy to say “and key stakeholders”, even if key stakeholders were listed in an appendix to the Act. Then it could have been done in a way that brought into the Act itself a whole lot of people who are as passionate about this as we are.

The other thing, as well, is clause 13(3). I just do not think that this is fantastic drafting. It says: “In deciding under subsection (2) what statistics will be used to measure topics, the Government Statistician must …”—so there is a legislative requirement—“follow what he or she believes”—that is a subjective term—“to be best practice principles … and … be satisfied”—which is again subjective—“that the statistics accurately represent the topic they purport to measure.” So you have got some subjective measures with objective requirements there. Again, I think that that just leaves things open to interpretation, and it is very hard to argue from a legislative perspective that someone has got this right or wrong. If it had been more prescriptive, then, in fact, it would be a lot harder to argue that either the secretary or the Government Statistician had done a role that was outside their mandate.

Again, clause 15, “Reports to be fair and accurate”: “The Secretary and the Government Statistician must, in so far as it is reasonably practicable, ensure that all environmental reports published give a fair and accurate representation …”. What happens when we have the term “as it is reasonably practicable” is that, again, it is just very open to interpretation. So what we may get is the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment saying “This is as much as we can do within the time frame we have got.”, and you are going to get others who are as engaged in this, if not more so, saying “No, you haven’t undertaken what we believe is a reasonably practicable process in arriving at your end result.” Again: “reports published give a fair and accurate representation”. I mean, again, who is going to be the chief arbiter of what is fair and what is accurate, especially in an area, again, like I say, where there are a whole lot of people doing academic research and real-life research? I just think there could have been—[Bell rung]—an ability to provide a lot more information on this. Mr Chair, I was waiting for someone else to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If you want to take a call, you must ask for the call at the time. Ruth Dyson went for the call.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Normally I am very pleased to be able to speak, particularly on a bill such as this one. But it is a really big disappointment to me that as we see New Zealand finally break through into the area of environmental reporting, the key issue that would give this reporting integrity—and that is the independence of the topics that are chosen—has been just cast aside by both Ministers, actually, who have been responsible for this bill, and we are left with this division in Parliament, which I think is unnecessary and could have been easily resolved.

It would have given a great message to New Zealanders that we were very clear about our responsibility in terms of tracking—deciding, you know, across the environmental impact area—what issues we were doing well in, what issues we were doing poorly in, and where we needed to make more progress, and how. But instead we are left with that key issue of division, which is that the Minister, regardless of whether it is a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government, is able to interfere and have political influence over what topics are reported. That totally undermines the integrity and the value of a really important system—what could have been an excellent system.

So I am really disappointed to not be able to support this bill, because I think the theory of it was excellent: that we would have environmental reporting so that we can see as a nation how we are doing on different environmental topics. But instead we have ended up with a reporting system that is very liable to be accused of being a jack-up. You know, a Minister will come under considerable scrutiny and I think New Zealanders will lack the confidence in the system that I wish they were able to be confident in.

We have had some interesting contributions during the earlier part of the debate, and I want to particularly refer to some of the earlier contributions that have been made around my colleague Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper 92, which I think is one that the Government should support, and I hope other parties in the Parliament will as well. It looks at environmental reporting and the impact on New Zealand, what difference different topics are making in terms of New Zealand, and it takes that one step further. For me this Supplementary Order Paper 92 actually sets a leadership goal for New Zealand in terms of our impact on our Pacific neighbours. It alters clause 7(2) by replacing “standards.” in paragraph (b) with “standards; and” and then inserting “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems, and its people.” Likewise in clause 10 it replaces “standards.” with “standards; and” and then inserts “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems, and its people.”

I want to first of all acknowledge the contribution Kris Faafoi made in this debate and add my condolences to those that he expressed. It is a very good opportunity for New Zealand to show other Pacific neighbours that we understand the impact of such significant issues as climate change, but of other impacts as well, and that we are prepared to stand up and take a leadership role and look at how our activities impact on our Pacific neighbours.

Paul Foster-Bell, who is a National list member of Parliament, said that he thought New Zealand’s economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change is negligible. I think that was a very interesting contribution to make. Therefore he dismissed my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper because, he said—he is now an internationally renowned scientist, apparently—our economic and financial contribution to Pacific Islands climate change issues is negligible, and therefore we do not need this Supplementary Order Paper. I think that was a really disappointing contribution to make on an issue that is not a passing one. It is not a minor one. It could affect the very life and livelihood of some of our Pacific neighbours, and I think we need to take the issue more seriously. I know that people in affected Pacific countries do, and they have always looked to New Zealand and to Australia for leadership on environmental—

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I will take that word “leadership” and acknowledge the leadership role this Government is playing in bringing in such a bill around an environmental reporting framework. And it is leadership, because all we are hearing from across the floor—it is really about guilt, I suppose, and embarrassment. Nine years Labour had to bring New Zealand up to an OECD standard of an environmental reporting framework—guilt, embarrassment. I mean, from the Green Party it is more about envy and resentment that we are—

Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you can probably predict what it is, but I do not think he has referred to anything in the bill yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. Look, this is a debate. I ask the member—and all members—to concentrate on the content of Part 2. If a member has not got anything to contribute, then there is no need for this Part 2 to continue. I would ask you to concentrate on the substantive matter of Part 2 and focus your attention there.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would just like to look at clause 7(2)(b). It looks at how we are going to compare New Zealand’s environment through this environmental reporting framework with national and international standards. I think that is right. We are very much in a system now—we are in a global system—and it is right that we are going to benchmark ourselves internationally against other countries. Clause 7(2)(a) is also about the synthesis report looking at the changes to the state of the environment.

I am sure many people around this Chamber have been involved in reporting in previous careers. Sometimes it is not exactly about the report at one stage, but about looking at multiples of reporting and looking at that variance between the state of the environment and what has changed. I think that measurement, that variance, will be very important. I think what we need to look at is a common theme as we thematically review the content of these clauses, and look at the content and the topics around the state of New Zealand’s environment and the pressures that may be causing or has the potential to cause, as well as the impacts that the state of the environment and changes to that state may be having on such things as eco-diversity, the economy, and public health. So when you look at those three key areas—the state of the environment, the pressures, and the impacts—it is good to see that that runs through this whole piece of legislation.

It shows up under the synthesis report. It also comes up under the domain report. When we hear about this being self-selection from the Minister or Ministers, I disagree. The domain reports will come up every 6 months, so within a pro rata time frame, they will all come up. The domain reports are of air, atmosphere and climate, fresh water, land, and marine. So those topics and contents of the state, the pressures, and the impact on the environment are also included in the regulations in clause 18. So it is great that we will be able to track those three topics throughout the synthesis and the domain reports.

I think Mr O’Rourke has touched on the independence, but I would disagree with that comment. I think it is very clear, and the consultation the Ministers will go through with the Government Statistician, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the public, iwi authorities, and local authorities is outlined in clause 18(2) and (3). It is quite right that they will think about the issues and the state of the environment to do with that domain, the changes in the state to do with that domain, the pressures that are being put on those domains, and the impacts of those domains on people’s public health, the economy, and the ecosystem. So those themes promote accountability and they promote responsibility. It is very much a merging of three quite separate disciplines, but we need the synergy, going forward, of the Secretary for the Environment teamed up with the Government Statistician—I think we all remember our t-tests from university days—as well as the Minister to drive this forward.

I also would like to highlight the reference to untested data, because I think this is important. We need some protection around untested data. New Zealand’s clean, green image and the economy was at risk of—

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): In my last contribution I said that there were five questions that I felt the public should ask themselves about clause 18 of the Environmental Reporting Bill and the regime that that sets out. The fifth one that I wanted to ask was about transparency. The first four had been, first, why it should be just two Ministers who make the decision; second, how robust this regime really is in terms of providing a comprehensive way of reporting on our environment; third, whether consultation can really amount to independent decision-making—which it obviously cannot—and, fourth, about the difficult issue of decisions not to report at all and whether anyone would ever know that. I think those are four very important questions that the public of New Zealand should ask about this section and about the Government’s motives in pushing it forward. What could they possibly be? What has the Government got to hide? What is it that it wants to do, other than just make sure that Ministers can secure even more executive power for themselves?

We have seen this Government year after year, bill after bill, issue after issue, coming down on the side of giving more executive responsibility to Ministers and having less democracy, less transparency, and less independent decision-making where it is appropriate in New Zealand. I have not heard any rebuttal of those arguments from the members opposite.

But I did want to just finish off with that fifth question that I said the public should ask themselves, and that is why we are not seeing much more transparency when it comes to regulations that will prescribe the topics to be covered in synthesis reports and the topics to be covered in domain reports. Of course that is very important because without transparency, you do not get public trust and you do not get the public feeling that we have a system with integrity. So it goes right to the root of this particular bill and why we need an environmental reporting system. It has to be one that the public can trust. It has to be one that has integrity. This bill does not deliver it and has not a hope in hell of doing so, quite frankly.

And what does transparency really mean? I will have to give the members opposite a little bit of a lesson in this because they do not seem to understand. In particular, Mr Doocey, when I heard his speech, did not seem to understand it. They use the word, but obviously do not know what they are talking about when they use it. So, first of all, it means that the background information upon which the decision is made must be clear. It must relate to the decision made. That should be set out and understood by everyone, and, of course, it has to show what the decision is in detail and it has to say why the topics selected were the highest in priority and why others were not. And, indeed, it has to say which topics that could have been reported on are, in fact, not going to be reported on. Finally, it has to set out what the discussion is and what the reasoning is that led to the decision being made.

Those are the sorts of considerations that add up to transparency. Those are the sorts of considerations that people want to know about when they look at what the Ministers are doing in their regulations, to decide whether they are the correct decisions or not. That is what transparency means. That is what this bill does not do. It gives executive power to just two Ministers to pass regulations, just giving the conclusion, just saying: “Here is what we have decided—full stop.” And, OK, there is consultation, and that is a step in the right direction, but it is a very, very tiny step compared with what is really required for independent decision-making, and a transparent regime of decision making. This is not what the public is going to see as a result of this bill.

The bill is going to be a failure, simply for those reasons. That is a shame, because we all want a good regime of environmental reporting. So I could compliment the Government for bringing legislation forward that actually creates a system of environmental reporting, but at the same time I would have to say this bill is so defective that there is no way that any responsible party in Opposition could possibly support it.

NUK KORAKO (National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 7 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 63.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 in the name of Su’a William Sio to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 63.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 63.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Eugenie Sage to Part 2 be agreed to:

insert the following new clause:

11A Greenhouse gas report

The Environmental Protection Authority must produce and publish a report no later than 6 months after the commencement of this Act and annually thereafter listing the 100 largest emitters of greenhouse gas in New Zealand.

The Environmental Protection Authority must present the report required by subsection (1) to the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after it is published.

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

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clauses 12, 13, and 18 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 63.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 14 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 63.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 16 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 63.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to add new clause 19 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 63.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I think that talking to the title of this bill is something that we do need to spend a bit of time on, because I would like to have thought that the Labour Party would and could support any piece of legislation called the Environmental Reporting Bill that came before this House—

Chris Bishop: So vote for it then.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: —given that New Zealand is one of the only countries in the OECD not to have this regime of environmental reporting in play.

We are having some calls from the opposite side: “So vote for it.” Well, we would dearly like to have been able to vote for this. We would have voted for this legislation if it had been truly independent environmental reporting. In fact, we put it to the Government, both at the select committee and in the Committee stage in this House, that we would indeed vote for this legislation if the Government would agree to the amendments to clause 18—if we would make the changes that meant that we did have independent environmental reporting in this country.

This is not any slur on any particular Minister, because it is strongly our belief that Ministers on whichever side of the House—Ministers will only ever come from one side of the House, I guess—Ministers from whichever party in this House need to have legislative constraints within our legislation to ensure independence. We do not want to be legislating and allowing the potential for political interference.

So, rather than the Environmental Reporting Bill, I think this bill should more rightly be called the “Opportunity Lost Bill”, because this is a huge opportunity lost. It is a good thing that New Zealand did turn its attention to putting in place an environmental reporting regime, but we did lose the opportunity to do this properly. We have not done this in a way that is going to ensure that we have a robust and independent reporting regime in place that is going to report on the state of the environment and that is going to allow for better environmental outcomes. And for that reason, to us it is a huge opportunity lost.

I have been sitting in the Chamber throughout, I think, all of the Committee stage of this bill, and I have heard some contributions—some of them more thoughtful than others. One that I thought was a thoughtful contribution from the other side of the House this afternoon was from Todd Muller, who sits on the Local Government and Environment Committee. This was in response to the opportunity that my colleague Su’a William Sio put up in terms of New Zealand taking leadership in this region in terms of considering how what we do impacts not only on our environment but on our broader regional environment as well. Su’a and my colleague Kris Faafoi have made compelling cases around what the impact is on the Pacific. Todd Muller said that, perhaps, this is something we could consider later on in terms of synthesis reports—that this is something we could delay.

Here is another example of how this is an opportunity lost. We cannot delay considering the impacts of what New Zealand does in New Zealand on the broader environment of the region and what the impacts are for our Pacific neighbours. We do not have time, actually, to think: “We’ll put this off until mañana. We’ll put this off until another day.” This is something that we have to confront now. This is something that we do need to take a leadership position on. This is something about which we cannot simply say: “We’ll look at that in the future.”

Then we had some quite extraordinary contributions on this. My colleague Ruth Dyson has touched on the contribution from Mr Foster-Bell where he made some extraordinary comments around what the impact is of what New Zealand does on its environment and what its impact regionally would be. So, once again, we see examples of opportunities that are lost and how we did have the opportunity to do something much better.

We also could suggest another name for this bill, and it could be the “Not Independent Environmental Reporting Bill”. That is a topic that has been canvassed at length at various stages—at the Committee stage and in the earlier stages in this debate. It is in clause 18, where we sought those amendments around that, where we could have fixed this legislation. We could have made this a piece of legislation, I believe, that did have support across this House. We could have come to a consensus around what good, independent, robust environmental reporting looked like, and we could have had all parties—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, just before we continue—you have the call—the question before us is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part, and those are the title and commencement clauses. I am making the point that it is not just the title; it is the title and commencement.

Hon Ruth Dyson: That might be her last two calls.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is right. The commencement is something I am planning on addressing in subsequent calls on this piece of legislation.

Chris Bishop: Well, that’ll be a cracker. Can’t wait for that one.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: I know. Everyone will be eagerly anticipating it. I think that the title of this bill does deserve our consideration because, as I was saying, this is the “Not Independent Environmental Reporting Bill”. We have canvassed that, and we have also indicated how this is a bill that could have had cross-party support and how we could have got there with, actually, I think, some substantial but not huge tweaks.

Unfortunately, we have a Government that has not been willing to listen to this and that did not listen to the petitioners who came to the select committee and made their very good submissions, and we are talking about some people who think long and hard about these issues. We are talking about the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We are talking about the Resource Management Law Association. We are talking about the Environmental Defence Society, Fish and Game, and Forest and Bird—substantial bodies in New Zealand that give a great deal of thought to these matters. They came to us and said: “Please make sure that this is truly independent environmental reporting, because the bill you have in front of you”—and the bill we are now about to pass through its Committee stage—“is not independent environmental reporting.”

It saddened me that Government members refused to listen to that and that at every stage of this legislation they have not listened to very good advice about how we could have had a much better piece of legislation. It would have been wonderful to have all parties in this House able to support it and to have all parties in the New Zealand Parliament able to say: “I think it is a good thing that we put in place a robust environmental reporting regime, like the rest of the OECD, and that we join the ranks of those countries that do that.” But instead what we have here is a dim piece of legislation. It is a dimmer version of what it could have been.

When National first came to power, it offered us a brighter future. Well, here is the dimmer future in this piece of legislation. This is a shadow of what we could have had. This is not a brighter future. This certainly is not living up to that. The Minister in charge of this legislation, Nick Smith, has been in charge of a lot of things that are not really living up to the brighter future. We could, perhaps, rename this the “Nick Smith Blunder No. 323 Bill”. That could be another name. The number keeps rising, so unless we pass this quickly we will probably be looking at No. 512 in only a few days’ time.

What we are seeing is a Minister shepherding this through who should have been listening to the very sage submissions. It was started by Minister Amy Adams, who introduced the bill, and was then finished off by her successor, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who should have listened to those submissions. He should have listened to what the substantial bodies were saying and what their advice was, but that was not something he was willing to listen to. Maybe that is because he is quite preoccupied in other portfolios. We do see that particular Minister having to put out fires in other portfolios that he has, and that is why I suggested that title. That title is something that I suggested, and that is the reason for it.

It saddens me that we are in this Chamber debating the Environmental Reporting Bill, a bill that is called the Environmental Reporting Bill, when it is not everything that it could be, when it has not lived up to that name, and when, really, we still have the opportunity for it to become a political instrument of this Government or of any Government. Whoever is in power, this legislation allows environmental reporting to become a political instrument.

It saddens me that we have the Minister being both poacher and gamekeeper. That is something I think we should avoid in any legislation that we pass in this House. It should just be part of good practice that we set up robust processes so that we do separate out those functions and that we do have someone else making the decisions for solely environmental reasons.

If we look at the title, the Environmental Reporting Bill, that should be the primary driving force around what we choose to report on, not what serves the Government of the day, whoever that Government may be, and what it wishes to report on. The Environmental Reporting Bill is not living up to its name. It is not going to adequately report on the environment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think that that was an exceptionally wise choice. I look forward to hearing my colleague Stuart Nash’s contribution on the conclusion. I am speaking to clauses 1 and 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill. Clause 1 is just the title of the bill, and clause 2 is the commencement.

I want to pick up on the proposal that Dr Megan Woods made in her contribution, and that is to replace the name of this bill, the Environmental Reporting Bill, with an alternative. In my view, the “Lost Opportunity Environmental Reporting Bill” would be appropriate, and I say that for three reasons. The lost opportunities in this bill actually sadden me because it is a bill I would have been very enthusiastic about supporting.

The first lost opportunity is the one that has been predominant in the conversation in regard to clause 18, and that is the lost opportunity for independent environmental reporting. That key element in the division in this Parliament about the nature and progress of this bill should be reflected in the title of the bill. I know that independence in the reporting of the Government’s achievement and of the country’s achievement is a risk. I note that the current Minister in charge of this bill recently used that exact term, “a risk”, in relation to democracy in Canterbury when he talked about the possibility of his twice-broken promise and commitment to the people of Canterbury to restore democracy. The Hon Nick Smith said: “I won’t restore democracy in Canterbury because it’s too much of a risk.” Actually, the risk in independent environmental reporting is accepted, but I think that it is a risk that a Government that is courageous and wants to demonstrate leadership should take. This Government did not take that risk and did not take the opportunity, and therefore the phrase “lost opportunity” should be properly reflected in the title of this bill.

The second lost opportunity is not as significant in terms of integrity, but I think it is a lost opportunity in terms of a message that this Parliament could have sent. If the whole of our Parliament had agreed and supported the Environmental Reporting Bill because it had independent topics set, then we could have sent a very clear message to New Zealanders about the values we hold in terms of our environment and the standards we want to see progressed. Instead, we have a divided Parliament and, unfortunately, a very closely divided Parliament on this bill. Again, therefore, it is a second lost opportunity, which I think should be reflected in the title.

The third lost opportunity, which, again, I think should be reflected in the title, is the opportunity that was provided to this House by the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio. That is in terms of our recognition of the impact that New Zealand’s activities have on our broader neighbours in the Pacific, and our interest in supporting our neighbours in the Pacific by saying we are going to recognise not only environmental progress in New Zealand but the impact that has on our Pacific neighbours. Many of our Pacific neighbours look to New Zealand and to Australia—and, hopefully, New Zealand ahead of Australia—in terms of the support we can give them, particularly against the impact of climate change. I know that the recently highly regarded scientist Paul Foster-Bell, a list MP from the capital, sees himself in a different aspect in the review of his scientific capabilities. He goes against the entire scientific community. He said that our contribution to climate change—economic, social, and financial—was negligible in the Pacific. That is what he said—“negligible”. I think we have lost an opportunity to provide leadership in this space, and that is why I think that that lost opportunity should be reflected in the title of this bill.

In terms of the commencement date, the current bill says: “This Act comes into force on the earlier of the following: (a) a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council”—then it goes on to say—“(and 1 or more orders may be made bringing different provisions into force on different dates):”, and that really hides what is one of the key elements of this legislation in that the Ministers can bring in by Order in Council the actual topics that are going to be determined under this bill.

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek leave to correct the votes on behalf of the Māori Party on Supplementary Order Paper 87—all clauses—and Supplementary Order Paper 92—two votes in favour for each.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought to correct the votes. So what would those votes be, please?

Joanne Hayes: The votes are for Supplementary Order Paper 87, all clauses—two votes in favour—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just one moment. Leave is sought to correct the Māori Party vote on all the votes that were taken on Part 2. Is that correct?

Joanne Hayes: Correct—it is just the Supplementary Order Papers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, there are a number of Supplementary Order Papers. There is No. 92 and there is No. 87, and there is an amendment to insert clause 11A as well.

Joanne Hayes: No, just the Supplementary Order Papers 87 and 92.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Supplementary Order Papers 87 and 92. Right, leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Therefore, the votes on those amendments as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 and Supplementary Order Paper 92 will be Ayes 60, Noes 61. The amendments are still lost.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I back up a lot of what my learned colleagues were saying, and I think that it is quite rough, actually, to have a go at Ruth Dyson. She has been a valuable member of the environment caucus in the Labour Party for a hell of a long time, and she knows a lot more, I suspect, than the vast majority on the other side of the Chamber could even hope to know. When we are talking about the commencement date, it is slightly unusual, I must admit. Normally, a bill says “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” But this, actually, gives a 9-month lead-in period.

Dr Megan Woods: Gestation.

STUART NASH: A gestation period—is it 9 months on purpose? Do they need to think about it? Do they need to give birth to this bill? The analogies are quite staggering. As Ruth Dyson said, the commencement is “by Order in Council”. Therefore, Ministers can determine when they are going to do this, which, again, just plays into this whole argument about a lack of independence.

When we talk about the name of this bill, some very good names have been suggested, but I would like to throw a couple more in there if I may. The first is the “Environmental Bitter Pill Bill”. Really, this just does not acknowledge that there is a huge depth of competency and expertise in this country, which absolutely could have been utilised in terms of making this bill so much better than it is. It would have been very easy. Labour offered a compromise to one clause, which would have seen us support this bill and get it on the road and make it happen. Even that was turned down. One clause and we would have got across the line; we would have had the vast majority in Parliament supporting the bill.

Another name that I think is quite apt is the “Brand Damage to the Wider Global Environment Bill”. By this I mean—and I talked about this in an earlier speech—that this is what we go to the global market place with: our clean, green, “100% Pure” image. If we are not seen to be playing that, walking the walk, then we can actually devalue our global brand to the point where we are not getting the premium on our products that we should be getting. This bill is the sort of thing that goes along that way of devaluing the brand, because it is seen by outsiders as not being independent. This is seen as driving a Government agenda, as opposed to providing a really objective report on the state of our environment. I suspect that there will be some parts of the environment that will come up with fantastic reports, but, as we know, there will be other parts of the environment that will be a damning indictment of how we have allowed things to drop away over the years and of how we need to fix them. So this really does cut into what it means to be New Zealand and what that brand means, and it is a missed opportunity. That is the thing that is so disappointing about this.

Another title, perhaps, could have been the “Government Agenda (Environmental Mismanagement) Bill”. As a number of my colleagues have spoken about, this bill is about the Government’s agenda, as opposed to what is the right thing to do for New Zealand. And we could have got that across the line if only we had worked together in the way that the people of New Zealand expect us to. This is how legislation is supposed to work in this House: we go into a select committee and work together to come up with a bill that meets the requirements of everyone. Labour put a compromise, an alternative, on the table, and it was rejected. I just do not think that is a great way to work together for something as important as the environment in a country like New Zealand.

Another potential title is the “Government Knows Best (Bugger the Rest) Bill”. Again, the reason I say that is that I do not think this title, the Environmental Reporting Bill, does this piece of legislation credit. As mentioned, this is the Government’s agenda. This is what the Ministers want to see; it does not necessarily reflect what the wider New Zealand wants to see or needs to see—and that is the important thing. If this is not seen as being objective, then it loses a lot of its power and it loses a lot of its credibility, and this is where we are going to get into trouble.

Another name that this bill could have been called is the “What Could Have Been But Is Now Unseen Environmental Bill”. Again, it comes down to the whole notion of independence. I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee, even though I would like to have been for this bill because it sounds like it was a fantastic process and there was a fascinating list of submitters that came in. I have looked at some of the submitters, and these are experts in their field. This is the thing about MPs: we can never be experts in absolutely everything, so we rely on those outside of Parliament to give us advice.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I think the title for the bill could certainly be the “Opportunity Lost Bill”, when you have all the other parties in the House supporting a Supplementary Order Paper that will make some constructive changes and the Government rejects it. But I think another potential title is the “Environmental Reporting (Maintaining the Clean, Green Myth) Bill”, because of the provisions in clause 18 for regulation-making powers. The only reason these regulation-making powers exist in the bill is to enable Ministers to set the topics for environmental reporting. When you have a Government that is promoting agricultural intensification and more irrigation, that means that it will be interested in ensuring that our brand, the “100% Pure” brand, is maintained overseas. The reality of what a lot of the expansion in agriculture and the expansion in irrigation is doing to our waterways in terms of declining water quality, real stress on native species that depend on our braided rivers, loss of riparian wetlands, and loss of tussock grasslands and shrub lands in the Mackenzie as those areas are converted to pasture—the Government will not want that reality to be made known. So that is why the substantial flaw in this bill, in clause 18 with the loss of independence, I think would justify the title of the “Environmental Reporting (Maintaining the Clean, Green Myth) Bill”.

Another of the reasons for that title is in clause 18(2). The thresholds that the Ministers have to consider before establishing topics are very high, and they will potentially constrain the topics that can be reported on. Just looking at clause 18(2) it says that “the Ministers must be satisfied that any—(a) pressure topic or impact topic affects significant areas, resources, or numbers of people:”. So it has got to be established that the topic actually has that impact on significant areas. That means that if there is an issue that might affect only a rare species that is found in only a small part of New Zealand, then that aspect of biodiversity cannot be reported on.

These thresholds also mean that issues that might potentially affect a large area cannot be reported on. That is a major flaw in the bill, because we need comprehensive and robust state of the environment reporting so that we understand the health of the whole of our environment, so that we can identify the causes of environmental problems, and so that we can look at whether the policies that are being put in place are actually working. This quite strong constraint around the topics and the fact that it is a political decision, rather than an independent decision by senior public servants, will, I think, constrain the environmental reporting, and will mean that it is dominated by work to actually ensure that New Zealanders have an impression that we are a clean, green country when the reality is very different, particularly in terms of the declining water quality with agricultural intensification. We have already seen that with the limited reporting that is done at the moment—things like the monitoring of recreational swimming sites and the fact that two-thirds of monitored sites are unfit for safe swimming.

So there is a major opportunity lost in the bill, and my concern is that it is a bill that just encourages complacency in terms of environmental reporting. It does not actually get to the nub of where the harm is occurring, and that is particularly in terms of water quality and our biodiversity crisis. We have a large number of threatened species—over 2,000—and I am not confident with the Ministers setting the topics that we will get a comprehensive suite of indicators. That is partly because of the stop-start nature of the work by the Ministry for the Environment in developing environmental performance indicators, and we do not have good performance indicators for the state of biodiversity in our country.

This bill would have been a good opportunity to get cross-party support. The Government has rejected that, and there are major flaws in the bill. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on clauses 1 and 2 in this debate on this very important piece of legislation, the Environmental Reporting Bill. This is a very aptly and appropriately named piece of legislation. In the style of the National Government, it is named simply, clearly, and efficiently, and it does what it says on the box. If we were less gracious, as some of the members of the Opposition are, we could give it a less suitable title. We might call it the “Correcting 9 Long Years of Labour Woeful Mismanagement Bill”. We might call it “A Bill to Fix Up 9 Years of an Impotent Green Party Propping Up a Labour Party that Did Nothing for the Environment in this Country”, but luckily, we are not a petty and small-minded Government. We are a Government that is focused on the issues that are important to New Zealand, unlike the members opposite. The commencement clause, clause 2, tells us that this bill comes into effect in 9 months’ time—not 9 long years. For 9 long years New Zealand sat in that very small minority of countries that did not have an effective environmental reporting bill in place, but we are bringing this in in only 9 months, and I think that is a very, very positive thing.

Some of the contributions from the members opposite show how little they actually care about the environment. The Hon Ruth Dyson just wants to have a go at me for not being a scientist—and I freely concede I am not a scientist. I have been educated at the very fine institution of the University of Otago, in the noble art of archaeology. So although I may not know about nitrous oxide levels or other scientific matters, I am well versed in the excavation of old fossils, and that is why I understand the members opposite.

I will wrap up by saying that this is an appropriately named piece of legislation. It will make a big difference to our environment in New Zealand. It will report on matters to do with the atmosphere, the water, the ground, and environmental ecosystems in this country. It will bring us into line with the rest of the OECD, and it is another very good piece of legislation from this excellent Government. I commend it to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is always a pleasure to go after Paul Foster-Bell. I am sure the technicians are very thankful to him for saving them some time in doing their annual check on the speaker system here in Parliament.

There have been a number of alternative titles put up for this bill, and I would like to, again, go for a simple alternative. We should change the name of this bill to the “Environmental Responsibility Reporting Bill.” I am a big fan of acronyms for bills, and that would change this bill to the “ERR Bill”—or err, as in mistake—because that is exactly what this piece of legislation is.

This Government has erred in this piece of legislation. It has taken away a large degree of independence in the reporting that needs to go on here in New Zealand. We need to make sure that the current state of affairs with the monitoring of our environment is independent and that we are looking at the things that need to get looked at. This Government has erred in that, because in this piece of legislation it is giving some of that responsibility to the Minister, and that leaves that process open to political interference whereby things that should be looked at might not get looked at. In my opinion, and in the opinion of this party and the Opposition, the Government has erred with the “ERR Bill”, as I would like to see it called. There needs to be independence when we are dealing with the reporting and the monitoring of the environment.

Another instance where this piece of legislation has erred is in the fact that the Government did not take up the opportunity to support Supplementary Order Paper 92, which was in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio. That would have inserted a clause to include consideration for New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities and how they impact of the Pacific region’s climate, ecosystems, and its people. That is a huge error.

I do not see anything hugely controversial about that, because we do not live in isolation at the bottom of the Pacific. What we do here in New Zealand and what the Australians do in Australia affects all those small nations in the Pacific. The likes of Tokelau—which my parents came from—with only 1,500 people living on three atolls, very much relies on the activities of other nations for its future. The highest point above sea level there is something like 50 to 75 centimetres. So I think we do have a responsibility to those Pacific nations to make sure that we include them in the monitoring of how what we do that affects them. I think, especially with regard to some of those that we do have an official relationship with, that we should be doing more to make sure that we are monitoring what is happening to us as well as what is happening to them. That is an error, or an “ERR”, on behalf of this piece of legislation.

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

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. This bill went through the select committee with considerable scrutiny from members across the House, and I would like to have been able to say, when I took this first of several calls that I would like to take during this Committee stage debate, that the committee came to some broad agreement about the bill. I could have said that, because that is exactly what happened inside the committee.

We were debating, as members who have been following this bill will know, the establishment of fund investment vehicles for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. These are a new type of investment vehicle for the Superannuation Fund to enable it to take advantage of investment opportunities, for New Zealand to enable the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to structure their investments in such a way as to maximise the returns, provide efficient returns, and also get some cost savings in terms of the management of funds.

The issue that I want to spend a little bit of time on in this call, and perhaps another one, is around what was included by the select committee during our consideration of this bill, and that was effectively the changes to the new section 59A, which is covered by clause 7 of Part 1 of the bill. This was the bit where the committee took advice, as we do, from officials about what we should do in order to ensure that a new and innovative idea such as this is well managed.

On this side of the Chamber we have no difficulty with the idea that the Superannuation Fund—a very successful fund; JP Morgan’s pension fund of the year, we note—should be given some latitude, some opportunity, and some flexibility in how it makes its investments, so that is a good thing. It is a mature fund now. It has reached a point where we believe this is a reasonable exercise. But in discussing the power to create these new fund investment vehicles, we got into a discussion about what would occur if it was not what is described in the bill as a passive holding entity. So if it is a passive holding entity, essentially in layperson’s terms that means that the guardians of the fund have very limited involvement in how it is actually run.

But the opportunity is there for there to be another type of entity, one that is more active in the style of investment that it might undertake. In order for the select committee to be comfortable with that kind of vehicle, we as a committee agreed unanimously to include the idea that the Minister of Finance’s approval would be required, not if it was a passive vehicle but if it was any other type of fund investment vehicle. So what would have been under new section 59A(1B): “The Minister’s approval under subsection (1A)(b)—(a) may be given for any class or classes of investments or entities; and (b) may set conditions as to the governance framework for the implementation and operation of the entities and as to the application of this Act to the entities.”

What this was about was providing some security that, as we entered this brave new world of fund investment vehicles—

Chris Bishop: Ha!

GRANT ROBERTSON: —that we should actually have—thank you, Mr Bishop—some more security. Well, Mr Bishop might, as he laughs, like to answer the question why, when he was in the committee, he was all in favour of the Minister being involved—he was all in favour of the Minister being involved.

Chris Bishop: I wasn’t in Parliament.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Ah! He is now saying he was not in Parliament. We know he was manipulating the members of the committee from behind the scenes. No, I do not mean that—I do not mean that. I would like Mr Bishop, then, to ask the National Party members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who were on the committee last time—perhaps David Bennett might be an example of that—why they were happy and in fact proposed the introduction of this clause, because that is what happened. The committee, on advice from officials, agreed that this was a protection that should be included in the law when we are trying out a new type of funding mechanism for the fund. But magically on the Table tonight appears Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the Minister’s name removing that section. It removes the section that the committee put in.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Unanimously.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. We need to track this through.

The committee, working in a very collegial manner, in a manner that is responsible, said: “We want to give the Superannuation Fund the opportunity to make use of a new mechanism for its investments, but if it is going to be anything more than a passive entity, then”—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Grant Robertson.

GRANT ROBERTSON: There was such competition! “If it is going to be anything more than a passive entity, there should be a mechanism by which the Minister of Finance now may have some say.” Mr Bishop, when he gets up, will say that compromises one of the core aspects of the fund when it was initially established, so that it should not have ministerial involvement in the fund. We continue to support the fact that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have done a very good job of managing the fund, but it is also important to note that this type of fund investment vehicle was not envisaged when the fund was set up. The idea that actually the guardians would have any active role themselves in investment was not envisaged when the fund was set up. When the fund was set up it was all to be arm’s length, and the fund has done a very good job in terms of managing that investment.

But the time has come, and the guardians came to us and said that they wanted this change, and it was accepted by the committee. But it was accepted by the select committee on the basis of a series of checks and balances that are now proposed by the Minister of Finance to be removed. On this side of the Chamber we are very disappointed that that is the situation that we have come to now, when a committee can go through a piece of legislation and as a House we can come together and say that these are the appropriate protections that would be put in here. So that is to be removed under the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 89.

I need to indicate at the outset that the Labour Party, although remaining very supportive of this bill, finds it hard to go against a consensus decision of the select committee on this matter, because we do believe that this is an important change and we do believe that this is one that the guardians themselves were not uncomfortable with. That is my recollection. I was on the committee only briefly when this bill was being discussed, but I do recall that the guardians themselves remained comfortable with the idea that this vehicle would work well with the ministerial oversight in the way we have suggested. It is important to note that allowing the guardians to run fund investment vehicles is an exception to the general rule proposed in section 59 of the original Act. What that said was that the guardians should not be controlling any other entity. They are there to invest, they are there to do their best on behalf of the taxpayer, but they are not there under section 59, as it currently reads, to control any other entity.

The committee, when we discussed this, agreed that the prohibition on control does not preclude the fund from 100 percent ownership of assets, and there are examples of that where they might own a forest but they do not manage the forest. So that is fine. We understood that and that the guardians wanted to work to increase the proportion of the fund invested in the New Zealand assets, and that they realised that in doing that they may have to take a more active role in the way in which these fund investment vehicles were driven. That is fine, but what is not fine is when the select committee comes in and says: “We believe there is a way of managing this that will give confidence to the electorate that we are maintaining the integrity of the fund, that we are maintaining the independence of the guardians. We are not giving them carte blanche to run and manage investments; we are putting in place a way in which the Minister of Finance will have some say on a very, very limited class of investment.”

I think that members on the other side need to get on their feet and tell us why it is that they are going against what was put in as an agreement by their members at the select committee. It is pretty extraordinary, actually, for a Minister of Finance to come to this House with a Supplementary Order Paper that contradicts what National Party members in a committee have agreed to. It may be that time has elapsed and those committee members were not able to convince the Minister when it went back to the National caucus, but I would have hoped that they would be able to do that and ensure that New Zealanders could have continuing confidence that these new fund investment vehicles will be used in such a way as to be appropriate.

One of the key elements that the Minister of Finance was to be involved in was in the question of what kind of governance arrangements there would be around these fund investment vehicles. So again, this is not saying that the Minister of Finance will make any specific decision on a specific investment. It is about the Minister of Finance having some say in the governance arrangements around that, some say in the role that the guardians will play, and some say in the role that perhaps an independent investment manager might play in an investment that is, effectively, 100 percent controlled by the guardians of the fund. That is a very useful and important check and balance.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to agree with my colleague Grant Robertson. I have come to the Chamber to speak on the bill that went through a select committee process. As Grant said, on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, by and large—I was on it in my first term and I am on it again—we get some contentious bills, but how it works is that we work very closely together to come up with consensus. Very, very rarely in my experience do we disagree on anything or put a minority report in. A lot of work goes into this because we understand how important the bills are.

But we also understand that the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is under directions from the Minister of Finance. Of course we know this. It is the reality of the situation. So, again, it is a most peculiar situation that the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who is no doubt in direct communication with the Minister of Finance on a regular basis in terms of the work of the committee and the bills before the committee, would not have discussed this. I am not too sure where this has come from, and I suspect the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries, has no idea either because he is not a finance Minister at all—

Chris Bishop: Not yet.

STUART NASH: I was going to be rude but, no, I will not go there. But maybe Mr Bishop does know this because he was in the office. But let us get back to the purpose of this. He wrote a lot of this. You probably wrote this, did you not, Mr Bishop? You know the reason behind this. In fact, I have no doubt that Mr Bishop said to Mr English: “This is how it should be done, Bill.”—wink, nudge—and it was done. That is how it works, is it not, mate? Well done.

Dr David Clark: When you’ve finished ordering those hair straighteners.

STUART NASH: Ha, ha! Yes, exactly.

The thing they do not quite understand is that there will be a reason behind this. There will be a reason behind why the Minister of Finance has said that he does not want to have ministerial approval as was set out in this. I am not too sure whether it is because he thinks there may be some sort of liability or conflict, as Mr Robertson has pointed out. As we all know about the Superannuation Fund, one of the fundamental principles behind it was that it was politically neutral, so we did not want to have any political interference, and I suspect that is why it has run so well. In fact, it is just a shame that the contributions have not been put back into it, because its rate of return has been astounding since the global financial crisis—around about 18 percent, if I am not wrong.

But the reason why this piece of legislation, which is reasonably technical, I suppose, in nature, is before the House is because the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation were in a situation where they effectively controlled an asset but they did not have control of the business entity. It has always been part of the rationale of the fund, I believe, that if it can invest in New Zealand assets, so be it, and that is a good thing. It is a way to boost our capital markets and, actually, control ownership of a lot of investments. In fact, they have invested widely in this country. I think they invest in Z Energy and Kaingaroa Timberlands, but part of the reason for this is that, effectively, they did not have control of the business entity itself.

Where I would like to see some of this being exercised, for example, is this. We are selling a lot of our farmland, our sensitive New Zealand assets, offshore. If there is a good business model where the Superannuation Fund could actually justify the purchase of that, I think that is a preferable option. In fact, since 2005 when the Overseas Investment Act came into play, there have been over 1,000 consents for the purchase just of sensitive land that have been granted. It would be good if the Superannuation Fund was actually an investor in here as opposed to the Americans, the Canadians, the Chinese, the Austrians, and everyone else. But, as has been said, I am not too sure of the reason behind this Supplementary Order Paper 89 or the reason behind the changes. We really do need the Minister down here to explain these, because it is a fundamental change in the way this whole thing is done, and it would be good to know.

But I come back to the purpose of the bill. I do not think that anyone doubts the veracity and the competence behind the guardians and the job they have done. In fact, it has been fantastic, and part of the reason for that is that—well, I was going to say that part of the reason for that is that there has been no political interference; in fact, that is not one of the reasons—they are incredibly competent and they do a magic job of doing it. But we all acknowledge that they cannot have any political interference except in very, very specific circumstances, which is what this bill was actually trying to put into place. But we also recognised that there were some instances where they did actually need to have a measure of control over the operating entity that they were buying into, and that this was to do with the governance arrangements, and in this day and age when there is a lot more focus on governance arrangements—

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): This bill is one that has been in front of Parliament for some time now, and there has been a change at this level of the debate. One of the fundamental purposes of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and one of the requirements of how it is managed is to make sure that there is a sense of independence from the Minister of Finance in the way that that fund is organised. It is a very fundamental point of policy in regard to the setting up of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee did, in its great wisdom, consider the issues around the Superannuation Fund at that time, and one of the issues was in regard to land ownership. As that last speaker, Stuart Nash, spoke about, the Superannuation Fund does—contrary to what he says—own considerable amounts of farmland. That farmland is predominantly in the South Island, and those farms are, effectively, businesses in their own right. The issue the Superannuation Fund has is that as an owner of farmland it effectively controls that business entity.

Under the rules of the Superannuation Fund it cannot have control of a New Zealand entity. So, effectively, the Superannuation Fund was engaging in those kinds of purchases in a roundabout way to enable it to get land purchases, to give it that diversity in its book. In doing so, there then comes the issue of where you take it to the next level, around control and management. So it was considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the select committee felt at that time that the Minister may have the ability to do an approval process for such investments. That was the original intent of what came before the House in the original bill.

Subsequently, that policy agenda of independence, that policy driver that is fundamental to the Superannuation Fund, has been decided to be the predominant policy rather than to look at how that control aspect may work. So to provide for that independence, Supplementary Order Paper 89 takes away that test of having the Minister of Finance as the overall approver or disapprover of an investment, so it maintains that independence.

The other part of the bill, which is a substantive change that was sought, is in regard to investment through passive mechanisms for the Superannuation Fund. Effectively, when you get to the scale of investment that they are at in the market, and the rule is that they are not allowed to control the New Zealand business, it becomes very difficult for them to invest to a significant level. What this bill does is it enables them, through a passive investment vehicle, to hold larger stakes. They will not actually be controlling those enterprises as such, but they will have that passive ability to be a large-scale investor. Basically, the thing we have got to look at in this bill is that giving them that ability to do so, through the fund investment vehicles, basically enables that passive investment by relaxing the control restriction that was section 59.

Taking into account the fundamental principle that you want independence for this body as well, there was no need for the Minister of Finance to have that other test on top of those investments. So that is the rationale behind why the bill is in its current state. It makes sense when you look at the fundamental principles of the legislation and why the Superannuation Fund was set up. It also enables the Superannuation Fund now to have much more flexibility in its investment portfolios and to take advantage of assets that it can actually invest considerably in, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. We do have a small capital market and we do have a small number of significant players in that capital market. The Superannuation Fund is one of those significant players. We would not want to have them limited in their ability to fund the New Zealand market and to assist in the growth of the New Zealand entities by having unnecessarily controlled restrictions. The aspect of the change in this bill, to enable those passive investment vehicles to make substantial holdings, is for the benefit of all New Zealanders and the Superannuation Fund going forward. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to say from the outset that fundamentally this is a good bill. It is nice to stand here, on this side of the Chamber, and be able to congratulate the Government on taking this step forward and approving some changes to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill.

Here we have some positive changes happening, particularly in respect of superannuation in New Zealand, which we know is a big issue that does need to be tackled. This is a Government that in the past has shied away from dealing with this problem. We know John Key has said, for example, that he would not tackle the superannuation age while he was Prime Minister. He has been very clear about that. He has not suggested any other ways to tackle the fact that currently we have five New Zealanders in the workforce supporting one person in retirement, but in a few decades’ time we will have only two New Zealanders in the workforce to fund one person’s retirement. We have got, as a country, to have a mature discussion about this and come up with really sensible suggestions as to how we can tackle this particular issue.

Part 1, of course, is the substantive part of the bill, and so it is good to see that the Government is tackling this issue in at least one respect here by making changes to the Superannuation Fund that are positive. I am sure that they will all be leaping to their feet shortly. I can see Chris Bishop penning some notes, so he will certainly be a contributor who will have something to say about the good things the Government has done.

But also let us not forget that at its outset Bill English called the Superannuation Fund a dog, and it has proven to be an incredibly successful fund. We know that if the Government had continued with the contributions, as was done previously, in fact, it has been estimated—and this is a 2013 estimate—that there would be $10 billion more in the fund, and that is from the forgone contributions. The Government has not been particularly wise in the way it has handled the fund up until now.

On the Finance and Expenditure Committee, of course, we did discuss the fund investment vehicles. What Grant Robertson has said about the nature of the debate is absolutely true, from my experience on the select committee. There was a consensus around the kinds of changes that needed to be made in the bill in order to ensure the correct protections were in place. Because the Superannuation Fund is doing an active type of investment on all taxpayers’ behalf, to give the Minister of Finance some oversight of those decisions on behalf of the taxpayer was part of the conclusion of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that was agreed across the select committee. We did debate long and hard the minutiae of the bill because this is New Zealand’s future. This is our Superannuation Fund that has got huge returns, that is internationally respected, and that is generating wealth for New Zealanders.

We found it our duty to find out more about the nature of the proposed changes. The officials were fantastic. They supplied us with the information we needed to work through those decisions, and to come up with the best recommendations back to this House. I want to put on record my thanks to the officials who served the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Some of them are sitting here in Parliament, ready to advise should we need technical advice now. Thank you to those officials who helped us through that process and helped us work out what the tweaks needed to be to make sure that this Parliament’s oversight was protected, to make sure that we had the right kinds of policies in place that would ensure that this new opportunity was grasped with both hands and taken into the future.

It was a constructive process across the select committee, as it usually is. That constructiveness is rarely seen in the media of course, but I think it is worth commenting on it here. We know that it is a wise move, and we have agreed that it is a wise move. The advice is that it is wise move to have these more active investment vehicles.

Bill English is now proposing an amendment that would remove his oversight of this spending. Part of the reason that this oversight was suggested, of course, is the limits of the Official Information Act. That was part of the discussion that we had. Where was the Official Information Act in all of this? So we went back to look at the first principles. The Official Information Act gives Parliament the protection and the oversight of the spending decisions. Would these new fund investment vehicles be subject to the Official Information Act? Well, actually, no they would not be, in their entirety. However, the fund investment vehicles would be, in so far as the Superannuation Fund itself is subject to the Official Information Act.

The Superannuation Fund, in recommending who the people were who were controlling the projects, would have overall accountability, and we could see that Parliament or any member of the public who had access to the Official Information Act—which is all members of the public—could ask legitimate questions about the oversight of these vehicles via the Official Information Act. Of course, a good deal of material, we would expect, would be withheld for commercial reasons—certainly, for a period of time when these investments were in place. But the principle remains that the public can request information about the governance arrangements, to be sure that these new vehicles are being used in an appropriate way and in a way that benefits the taxpayers of New Zealand.

So we had comfort that these new vehicles had sufficient oversight in place, barring the suggestion that perhaps the Minister of Finance should also have some oversight on behalf of all taxpayers for these new investment vehicles. That seemed a perfectly reasonable point to reach on the evidence that we were given as a select committee, and after the lengthy discussions that we had, so that was what we settled upon and brought back to the House. So it is somewhat surprising to find that the National members on the select committee now support, we are told, an amendment that goes in quite the opposite direction and removes the Minister of Finance from that picture. So I think that people at home watching this debate will draw their own conclusions about what is happening here.

Hon Ruth Dyson: They got rolled.

Dr DAVID CLARK: They got rolled, my colleague says—they got rolled. There is political expediency at play here. Perhaps the Minister of Finance did not wish to be caught in any fund investment decisions that went wrong. Maybe he was trying to remove himself one step further. We think that is abrogating a responsibility that the Finance and Expenditure Committee, after seeing the evidence, thought was a sensible step to take.

This current Government does, of course, have a philosophy of allowing—it will tell us; and I am sure Mr Bishop will correct me if I am wrong—the market to have its way. So a part of that is, of course, having the fund at a distance, at arm’s length, to allow it to make wise investment decisions. We, of course, support that basic principle. That is why it was, in fact, Labour that introduced the bill that brought the Superannuation Fund to life, a fund that has attracted international recognition for being a superior fund and producing superior returns. It has been set up that way.

The changes that were proposed by the select committee were modest but they were there for a good reason: to preserve the oversight of that decision making; to make sure that there was accountability for this new direction that the investments are going to take. So we find it surprising, of course, to come to the Committee and find that the Minister has moved an amendment and that those very same people who argued on the select committee for the merit of a particular proposal now find themselves in the somewhat awkward and embarrassing position of arguing the opposite. I very much look forward to some of the logical contortions and the debates that will follow. We might have a bit of fun in the Chamber tonight as we hear some of those MPs stand up and say that black is white and that, in fact, white is black, and that they knew that all along. I am sure Mr Bishop will have a contribution along those lines. He can be an entertaining speaker, and I hope that we can all enjoy his contribution as he now explains to us why these fund investment vehicles should no longer have the oversight that the select committee agreed that they should.

This is a great fund. The bill is, overall, one we would like to support, because it is a small step towards taking the savings question seriously—a question that this Government has shied away from in so many instances in its seven cuts of the KiwiSaver scheme, in its failure to put contributions into the Cullen fund, and in John Key’s ruling out of tackling the issue of retirement savings costs going up, without a plan to address it. In so many ways it has failed on retirement saving. This bill is actually a positive step, overall, in the right direction, barring this one very unusual contortion, which I am looking forward to members opposite explaining for our entertainment. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to take a call on Part 1. The purpose of the amendment to the bill that came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and that was recommended by that committee, to insert new section 59A, was not to allow the Minister of Finance to interfere in any one investment decision by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation but was to exercise some control over what class or classes of investments or activities ought to be allowed through a fund investment vehicle, which overrides the original protection that was set out in the legislation that the guardians ought to be passive rather than active managers of investments.

The reason for the insertion of that provision in the original legislation was sound. It was overseen by Dr Michael Cullen. He was concerned that the fund would come under the influence of politicians—an investment fund that would invest in the sorts of classes of investments that ought not be funded by a superannuation fund, but ought to be funded by a Government. The reason for that—

Chris Bishop: Protecting the fund from his own party.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That deserves a response, actually. No, that was not the intention at all. This side of the Chamber, generally, properly funds things that ought to be funded off the Government’s balance sheet by collecting enough taxation to fund the things that ought to be funded—things like roads, things like—

Eugenie Sage: Schools.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —schools, things like hospitals, none of which would be privatised by this side of the Chamber, but those are things that would be privatised by the National Party’s side of the Chamber. If the National Party privatised them, in order to get its seedy little plans off the books, it would actually be encouraging the superannuation fund of the day to effectively underwrite its mismanagement by paying for some of the things that the Government had not funded through the appropriate collection of taxation.

Dr Michael Cullen foresaw that as a problem because he was, and is, a historian who has seen these things go down in the past. Where that comes unstuck at some future date is when the superannuation fund is wound up and the money is realised from their investment, at a time when New Zealand will be cash-strapped in meeting the increasing costs of superannuation in the future. It is a nonsense if the Government is effectively asking for money out of the economy, to put back into the economy at a time when the economy may be stretched to find a replacement investor. So the reason we had these underlying controls on what the superannuation fund could and could not do was to avoid that eventuality.

Since then we have had a number of changes made by the National Government. It came to power, remember, promising to increase the proportion of the superannuation fund that was invested in New Zealand. How has that gone? I am surprised we did not see any reference to it in this bill, because if there was a place for it to be, it would be in Part 1, where the objectives are for the superannuation fund and what the restrictions are would be restated. The Government has not actually achieved that objective. The reason it has not achieved that objective is not the inability to use fund investment vehicles but that the idea was not sound in the first place.

Dr David Clark: Another broken promise.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Another broken promise by the National Government. In any event, we come to the change that is proposed. There are instances when controlling interests are held in New Zealand - based investments. In order for that to be done more practically, it is good that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation will be given the ability to use fund investment vehicles. But it is, none the less, a departure from what was originally intended and lets us get closer and closer to the guardians becoming an active manager rather than a passive manager. That is why the control that was provided for unanimously by the select committee in new sections 59A(1A) and 59A(1B) was appropriate, because it said that for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing the investments of the fund, a fund investment vehicle could be used, and the guardians were allowed to exercise that power in respect of passive entities and in respect of any other entities only with the approval of the Minister of Finance.

So to go beyond passive investments required the approval of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance could come back and say: “Having thought about it, I’m going to approve this for a class of non-passive investments.” Now, because the Government is stripping out this provision, it is actually departing further from the original intention, which was to leave the guardians as a passive investor rather than an active manager.

I do not know whether many people can remember as far back to the old superannuation fund that the Muldoon Government—

Grant Robertson: Crashed.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —crashed, after the election; the Kirk fund that was designed by Roger Douglas. The advertisements that were used to knock over that particular attempt at decent New Zealand savings were Cossacks marching across the screen in cartoons, because the Government, through the Superannuation Fund, was going to own and control so much of the New Zealand market place that it would somehow be communism, in the way that these Cossacks were marching across the screen.

Now what are these guys doing? They are allowing, in a general sense, the Superannuation Fund to become an active manager rather than a passive manager. I am looking forward to the day when we see Steven Joyce using his control of the media, as he has through his old linkages, to actually bring back those advertisements to advertise the fact that in this amendment—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I want to see Steven Joyce in one of those advertisements.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually, those people did not have much hair. They had furry hats, but there was not much under them.

So that is why the Labour Party is opposing the Minister’s amendment, and I want to hear the justification as to why we should, holus-bolus, be allowing active management through these fund investment vehicles without the Minister of Finance keeping an eye on it, because that is what is happening here. Of course, I do not trust the Minister of Finance on this, because he has got it wrong from the start. He called it a dog. He stood up in this Chamber and said that this should be opposed because it was a dog. I do not trust the Government, because it has under-invested in the fund, and we know because the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation measures how much wealthier we would be in New Zealand if the Government had continued the contributions to the fund. I think I will leave it there—

Hon Paula Bennett: Oh!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually the Minister in the chair now, the Associate Minister of Finance, who has now taken on finance roles—I would be very pleased for her to stand and say why we should allow the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to have this holus-bolus right to actively manage what was meant to be passively managed.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): This has become quite an interesting debate tonight—

Hon Members: Here comes the “Professor”.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —quite apart from the fact that I have stood up to contribute to it, by the sounds of it. What has been interesting in terms of this debate—and New Zealand First, for one, was grateful to hear it—is that the Minister of Finance, with Supplementary Order Paper 89 there, amending new section 59A under clause 7 in Part 1, wrote himself out of these decision-making processes. We rejoice in that, because in our interpretation of this bill, at the moment, what we see is new section 59A(1A) and (1B) ensuring and reinforcing that the fund investment vehicles are actually passive investment vehicles. The debate has been interesting in that it would seem that from parts of the Committee, including from members on the other side of the Chamber there, that was a relaxation of control in terms of allowing these fund investment vehicles as an investment fund, but that is not my interpretation, and that is not New Zealand First’s interpretation, of this legislation.

So I put it to the Minister in the chair tonight that some clarification on this issue would be incredibly important in order to get some consensus in the Committee. We understand that at this moment there is no relaxation of controls. The fund investment vehicles are an investment vehicle, and we applaud them as a tool and, particularly, as a means of allowing the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to invest in New Zealand, for example.

It was expressly stated in the interpretation of this legislation and in the analysis of this legislation, which New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports, that these fund investment vehicles give the guardians an opportunity to invest in capital or actual machinery, for example, without—and this is the important part—taking control. That is an important distinction. The guardians, to our knowledge, are not taking control. So the fact that the Minister has written himself out of the decision-making process is to be very much applauded. The less the Minister—especially this Minister of Finance—has to do with the control of our New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the happier New Zealand First will be.

It is unfortunate that there was not some provision in the Act originally that said that the Government must contribute to the fund. As was noted previously, we have forgone $11 billion in investment returns because this Government has opted out of contributing to this fund. Again, Minister, I would ask that in the analysis of Part 1, new section 59A in clause 7, we actually do look at that definition of control and at what the guardians are effectively now able to do. Our interpretation is such that they are not taking control of their investments, which would be incredibly important, because then we could easily support the Supplementary Order Paper.

What we would also positively note is that the same amendment and the existing changes to the legislation will, very importantly, not only give them access to new investments but what is also quite significant is that it will actually lower the cost of the guardians’ participation in those investments. So not only are we now positively allowing our guardians to invest in New Zealand, which we applaud, but we note that with the fund investment vehicle tools we now bypass quite a convoluted process that had become, and is currently, quite a costly investment process for the guardians. So these tools are to be applauded, certainly in that instance.

Actually, that is all I have got. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call the much-awaited Chris Bishop.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): This speech has been very hotly anticipated. I do not think I have had a speech more anticipated since I spoke to Todd Muller’s SuperBlues group in Tauranga. It is good to see that members opposite are so looking forward to this. Quite to the contrary of the assertions from Mr Robertson, I was not on the select committee that considered this bill, although the Finance and Expenditure Committee did do a good job of considering this bill.

I want to make a couple of prefatory remarks. The first is that this is clearly a sensible bill. Despite the heat and the sort of venom from members opposite, there is actually support for this bill. It is a prudent bill that will allow greater flexibility for the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to improve the returns of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which it governs on behalf of all New Zealanders.

The other prefatory remark I want to make is that the Superannuation Fund has done a good job. I think that, you know, some time ago that would have been controversial to say in National Party circles. It would have been somewhat controversial to endorse and praise the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, or the Cullen fund, as members opposite like to talk about, but it has done a good job. That does not mean that we should have borrowed money during the global financial crisis and put it into the Superannuation Fund. That does not make much sense. The Government took the view that it was a prudent and considered use of taxpayers’ money not to do that. It does not make much sense to borrow money in order to invest it on risky sharemarket exchanges, because at the end of the day you cannot beat the market in the long run, and that was the view that the Government took. I know that members opposite disagree with that, but I think that most New Zealanders agree that that was a sensible thing to do.

The second thing I would say, and this speaks to one of the issues that has come up in the Committee tonight, is that the independence of the fund is vital. That is exactly why the Minister of Finance is moving, as I understand it, the Supplementary Order Paper in his name to remove from the bill the clause that allows ministerial approval of investment classes. Members opposite, you know, are saying we are tying ourselves in knots on this. I would just point to the Minister’s second reading speech on this, which was when he acknowledged that this issue is a finely balanced one. It is a fine line. There is a diversity of views on this issue, and I acknowledge that the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I was not a member of, did consider this issue in some detail. But in the passage of time I think that the Government has come to the view that the independence of the Superannuation Fund is so paramount that we should not have Ministers involved in the approving of particular asset classes or particular investment classes. It is very important that we maintain the independence of the fund and we do not have politicians involved in that. It is a finely balanced issue. Members opposite have a decent argument on it, but I also think that Government members have a good argument on this, too, and that is the view that the Government has come to.

I just want to briefly mention the substantive change that the bill makes in this part, which is to allow fund investment vehicles. As members have noted, that was sought by the guardians. This is a useful change, and it is the most substantive change the bill makes. It brings the Superannuation Fund into line with global best practice, which allows it to fund the entities that are formed for the purpose of holding or facilitating or managing investment of the funds. As has been pointed out, this will increase the efficiency and the flexibility of the fund. This will not allow the Superannuation Fund to hold a substantial controlling interest in the underlying operating entity. That is appropriate.

The other change I want to point to is the change in clause 5 of the bill that prevents the guardians from being challenged legally by way of judicial review by dint of the argument that their actions are ultra vires. Again, this was considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This is a prudent and sensible change.

I think that in the past the National Party has been somewhat critical of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, or the Cullen fund, as members have called it. But I think there is now consensus and unanimity across the Chamber that it is a sensible fund that prefunds the cost of superannuation in the future. As a Parliament we have a duty to try to make sure that the fund operates in the best way possible so that it maximises returns for New Zealanders. The measures that this bill advances will do that.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak. I think I am the first female speaker in the Committee stage of the bill. The reason I raise that is because, actually, when it comes to superannuation, women disproportionately rely on superannuation payments. During the course of our lifetimes, on average we earn less than men do during the course of our working lives, and we live longer. So this bill is of particular importance to the women of New Zealand, so on that basis I am very pleased to take a call. I am a little disappointed in this bill because I thought the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill may well have been the bill that saw the Government fix up its mistake of stopping contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I had hoped that that was what this bill would do. Unfortunately, it does not amend that particular big and costly mistake from the National Government. It does not reinstate the contributions.

Christopher Bishop, when he spoke, gave an excuse for that and said it was because it would be remiss of the Government and wrong of it to have borrowed money to keep those contributions going in the midst of a recession. Well, Mr Bishop, why did your Government borrow for tax cuts in the midst of a recession? Actually, what we know about the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is that the sorts of benefits coming from it, the wise investments that were being made, and the return on that investment would have been a better thing to borrow money for in the midst of a recession than to have tax cuts that simply went nowhere, built no increase in our economy, and did not create any jobs or do any of the things that they said it was going to do.

Chris Bishop: Rubbish. You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about.

SUE MORONEY: Well, the member might well say “Rubbish.”, but he is here debating a bill where National—I think that is the sound of National confessing that the Labour Party gets future planning better in this country that what National can. National said 15 years ago that the Labour Party was wrong to do this and that Dr Michael Cullen was wrong to implement this fund. Fifteen years later, here they are saying yes, it was a dog all right—it was a greyhound. It was a fast-running dog, and it was one that got this country ahead of many other countries—many, many other countries, indeed. I think that is the sound of the National Party saying: “Sorry, we are too focused on short-term gains and can’t see what the future looks like.” It is, in fact, the Labour Party that gets this right consistently, time and time again. I am sure that is what the sound of that speech was.

Part 1 of this bill sets up these fund investment vehicles and what the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation can do to take some more control of those fund investment vehicles. I cannot stand today in this Chamber and talk about superannuation and vehicles without pointing out to the Committee that one of the reasons that New Zealanders are going to rely so heavily on the outcomes and the proceeds of the investment that this bill talks about is because superannuitants are going to be paying the highest level of vehicle registration under the changes that that Government is going to bring in tomorrow. Most superannuitants are going to be paying $158 for their car registration.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Come back. Come back.

SUE MORONEY: So that is why Part 1 of this bill is so important. I am going to disagree—as I quite frequently do, actually—with David Bennett. When he spoke he said the reason why we have this and why we have the Superannuation Fund is all about Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. Actually, no, Mr Bennett, the reason why we have this fund is for people. It is so they can live in some level of dignity and respect when they retire and when they reach their older ages. It is something that I am very proud of and that the Labour Government put in place against vehement opposition from the then Opposition, the National Party. But we did it because we knew that this was going to be something that would see New Zealanders looked after in their older age. The great pity of this bill is two things, really: the National Government has not used this opportunity to reinstate the contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund that us baby boomers are going to need in our older age, and, secondly, it has demonstrated the chaos that National is still in—the day-to-day chaos when the National MPs on the committee recommended one course of action but the finance Minister has done them over.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to make a brief contribution on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. I want to respond to one or two of the comments that Chris Bishop made—the great hope of the National Party. I have to say that if he is the best debater in the National Party, it has got some very tough times ahead given the lacklustre performance we saw from him this evening. Chris Bishop did understate somewhat the performance of the Cullen fund, as it is colloquially known—the best sovereign wealth investment fund in the world.

Let us actually talk about that. There has been a return of 19.6 percent per annum over the last 3 years. That is a fantastic rate of return that we all, as New Zealanders, should be proud of. That is a fantastic rate of return. But let us look at it from the beginning of the fund, in 2003, when Michael Cullen set it up. Of course, the National Party used all sorts of colourful language about how reckless it was for the Labour Government to be setting it up. But right the way through the entire period, including through the global financial crisis, the average return was 10.3 percent a year. That is a very, very healthy level of return. It does show just how short-sighted the Government was in stopping making contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in response to the global financial crisis. In June 2013 the fund itself estimated that up to $10 billion had been forgone as a result of that decision.

Why do we have this fund, and why are we making these changes to the fund? The reason we have the fund is that we have a massive retirement boom coming and we need to prepare for it so that we have some savings set aside. This superannuation fund, contrary to what some people might believe, was never intended to cover the entire cost of the baby boomers’ retirement, but it is designed, and intended, to be a contribution to that cost. It is not covering the entire cost; it is covering only a small portion of it. But the question remains: if we have not been contributing to this what is the alternative plan for paying that bill further down the track? The Government does not have one. It is happy to kick it for touch because it knows that the crunch point does not come for another 10, 15, or 20 years further down the track.

So how does that relate to the changes that this bill makes? The changes that the bill makes change the nature of the ways the fund can invest so that it can become a more active investor rather than a passive investor, as was originally envisaged when Michael Cullen first established the fund. Why was it established as a passive investor? I guess, basically, Michael Cullen, I am sure, envisaged that he wanted the best return with the least risk. That would probably be a fair comment. But there are some good reasons why the fund would want to be investing in a different manner.

The question that I have got for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paula Bennett, asks whether the fact that the fund is now being given the power to be more active in the way that it manages its investments creates an opening for the fund to be investing in services where the Government itself is retrenching. So could we find, for example, that the Superannuation Fund is buying assets that the Government is otherwise selling? Public-private partnerships, social housing—

Sue Moroney: State houses.

CHRIS HIPKINS: State houses. Buying up—or being given—the State houses that the National Government is trying to give away. Are the areas that the Government is exiting areas that the Superannuation Fund—

Andrew Bayly: No.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —could start investing in if it deemed those areas to be sufficiently profitable? One of the members over there says: “No.” How could they stop it? Bill English is actually removing the clause that would give the Minister of Finance the ability to direct what types of investments the fund could make. Therefore is there anything—this is a question for the Minister—that would prevent the fund from starting to invest in areas where the Government is retrenching? And if it can do that—and let us think back to the overall goal of the fund, which is to increase New Zealand’s wealth, the Government’s and the Crown’s wealth, so that we have a provision here to deal with the baby boom coming—how does basically transferring assets from one arm of the Government to the other, which could now happen, help with that situation?

So it is an open question. Is there anything to stop the Superannuation Fund, the Cullen fund, from now investing in those assets that the Government is selling? I am not getting any response from the Government, so I am looking forward to the Minister’s contribution. She is reading intently. I am sure she is looking it up so that she can give a nice, detailed answer to the questions I have been raising, because there is no doubt that this fund is essential. It is required. I hope that the Government will take every step to make sure that we maximise the return out of it, because we are going to need that money when the big retirement boom comes—and it is coming.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Labour supports the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. This is one of those little bills that make a fairly minor change. It provides for the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to be able to be exempted from liability as they take on the management of passive or active investment vehicles, and it complements the portfolio investment approach so successfully undertaken by the fund to date.

This bill does throw us back, however, on the why, the what, and the how of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Now it is commonly accepted by members across the House. This was an initiative of the previous Labour Government and the then finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen. It has been, in anybody’s book, a spectacular success—a spectacular success. Recent returns averaging around 20 percent per annum is unbelievable for a fund of that size. Average return since inception: 10.3 percent. Cost of Crown capital: around about 4 percent. This is an extraordinary win for every New Zealander, because it means that we will be paying less in our taxes to support Kiwis in their retirement, because of the prudent investments, the spectacular investments, that have been made in this fund.

What did National do? National stopped contributing. National is such a party of short-sightedness that when times got at all tough it stole from the future to bail itself out in the present. And independent advice confirms that that bad decision has cost New Zealand taxpayers—wait for it—over $10 billion in lost profit; $10 billion. And I am taking the conservative numbers. The bottom end of the range is at least $10 billion. So here is the question, members. Members across the Chamber: can any member tell me a single worse financial decision in the history of New Zealand Government? Can anybody tell me a decision by a Minister of Finance that has cost more—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Scrapping the Kirk superannuation.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: OK, I agree with you, actually, my two colleagues—you have topped this one. And it was Rob Muldoon—this is the worst decision since Rob Muldoon killed the last great superannuation scheme. Fortunately, National did not quite kill this one; it just stunned it. But that stun gun cost $10 billion, and here we are, back, now trying to get this back on its feet.

Now, we agree with this limited bill. It simply provides for the independent guardians of the fund to have a little more liability protection to cover a slightly broader range of passive and potentially active investment vehicles. Reasonably unexceptional, provided that the structure of governance of the fund holds true, and that is as designed by Michael Cullen: a double-blind system where the Government has a hands-off role in appointing the guardians, who are then by law completely independent of Government policy, so there is no way any Minister of Finance, or any other Minister, could possibly influence the investment decisions of the fund. Nobody told John Key, because he campaigned on breaking the law. He campaigned on twisting the arms of the guardians so that they would put a certain amount in certain different asset classes. However, in New Zealand—and, of course, we want to see more stuff going into New Zealand, but that is not the point. The point was that, really, the Government needed a law change to do that, and it did not bring it back to Parliament.

Is that governance model still valid? Is it still worthy? Of course it is. Is the aim of the fund, which is to smooth the cost of financing superannuation for our children and our grandchildren, still valuable? Yes, it is. Is the fund successful? Yes, it is. It is incredibly successful: 19 percent return over the last few years, 10.5 percent since inception, more than double the average cost of the Government’s own borrowing. This is a spectacular success.

I think this debate points us to a deeper truth: Labour does long-sighted change; National manages from day to day. So that is why the public of New Zealand say: “Oh, yeah, she’ll be right. Things are going OK, can have that lot back again.” But whenever New Zealand is up against it, whenever New Zealand has challenges to rise to, New Zealanders vote for a Labour-led Government, because they know that we have the far-sightedness and the insight to achieve major change for New Zealand. We have done it in foreign policy, with the anti-apartheid movement and the antinuclear movement. We have done it by carving out an independent role in foreign affairs, which has now seen us appointed to the Security Council. We have seen it—

Chris Bishop: Under a National-led Government.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Oh, OK. Those members say it happened under a National Government; so it did, with the Labour Party’s support. But we would not be there if we were not seen as an honest broker, and the reason we are there is because Labour Governments, from Kirk onwards, have championed our independence. But back to the bill, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Oh, thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you. I knew you were going to drag me back, so I thought I would get in first, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I was distracted by the humour.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: So this superannuation bill tells us something very, very important about Labour-led Governments: we do change. We do major change that results in New Zealand being better off. What is the problem at the moment? Those clowns on the Government benches have been happy to follow along behind dairy prices, the earthquake rebuild, and a housing bubble, and they think that is an economic strategy. That makes about as much sense as not paying into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. It is policy that reinforces old advantage and does nothing to create new advantage and the smart jobs of the future.

So we support this bill, because this allows the fund to play a greater role in the smart jobs of the future by investing actively in New Zealand businesses. But if the Government is going to do this, why will it not touch the tax system? Why will it not touch the banking rules, so that we get more capital where it will do the most good, creating jobs around our regions? Why is it just reinforcing traditional agriculture and giving foreign banks a free rein? Why will it not address the core problems that we all know are hamstringing the New Zealand economy? Well, it does not have either the vision or the courage to get us there. And New Zealanders, as they see Greece up against the wall, as they see dairy prices going down the toilet, as they see Christchurch starting to stutter, and as they see the Auckland property bubble ready to burst, are rapidly coming to the conclusion—the feedback we are getting is—that it is time for a change. The tipping point is coming—the tipping point is coming. The tipping point is coming, and the same far-sighted courage that brought a 20 percent return to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will be available to future generations of New Zealanders, because the same team that brought New Zealand the Superannuation Fund can bring them the next generation of positive policies for the future.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I would like to speak to the bill for a few minutes—just for a few minutes. It is pleasing to see that in supporting the bill, we are, generally, in agreement. I would also like to pick up a point that Mr Tabuteau talked about and to clarify—

Hon Members: Professor.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: —“Professor” Tabuteau—whether this bill does anything to change the activity or passiveness of any investment that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation make. The way I read this bill, there is no change. This fund investment vehicle does not allow any change to the activity of investment or to the type of investment that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation are able to take. If you think that the power to grant a power of attorney is more activity, if you think that the power to appoint an investment manager is a more active fund, or if you think that the power to appoint a custodian is increasing the activity of the fund, then you are wrong. This does not increase the active management that section 59 has, and will continue to have, to guide the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation.

I would like to discuss and clarify a couple of issues around the reasons why the Minister of Finance should not be involved, and will not be involved, in the interference of the management of this trust. It is interesting that Labour Opposition members, particularly, talk about Dr Cullen’s plan to have totally independent governance of this fund, and I totally support that notion, but then I am surprised that the Labour guys want interference from the Minister of Finance. As soon as you have got that foot in the door, how is a Minister of Finance to react if—assuming that was he given the authority—as an example, he or she is asked to approve an investment and the investment goes bad? Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation or of the Minister of Finance? If the investment goes well, who takes the credit? Is it the Minister of Finance, who approved this investment, which was not passive, or is it, again, the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation who should take the credit?

This fund, as has been noted already, is performing outstandingly. It is the top State-funded superannuation fund in the past 5 years. If we were to allow Mr Robertson or Mr Nash or Dr Parker as a potential Minister of Finance, what would we have? What would we see? What investments would be approved by these people? Well, for a start, I can tell you that there would be a hell of a lot more going straight into their $100,000 house project, because these guys have talked about investing more into the New Zealand Exchange. That is not the purpose of this fund. The purpose of this fund is to have a diversified global fund, across different equity markets, across different countries, and across different instruments, without interference from any Minister of Finance, and that is why this Supplementary Order Paper, which removes the suggestion given by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, must be ruled out. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for giving me the call. I want to help out my colleague Mr Scott, and I think the best way of being able to do that is to work through a little basic statutory interpretation exercise for the member. I want to refer him—

Chris Bishop: Here we go. Grant the lawyer. Grant Robertson QC.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you very much. That sounds like a good name for a TV programme. I think I may do that—reality TV. Clause 6 of the bill talks about section 59 being amended, and what is really important is what section 59 of the Act currently does.

Hon David Parker: “No controlling interests”.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It says that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation of the fund can have “no controlling interests”. That is the whole thing we have been discussing tonight: the fact that the fund, when it was established, allowed for this complete arms-length relationship. The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation was there to have the overall control of the fund, and what a good job it has done of that.

But if we look at what clause 6 is, it is a new subsection (5)(a) and it reads: “This section—(a) does not apply to a Fund investment vehicle referred to in section 59A …”. So it is changing things, Mr Scott. That is the point of the law. Why would the law be proposed if we were not changing anything?

Hon Member: Wasting our time.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it could be. It would not be a big surprise if the National Party came here to waste our time on a piece of legislation, but, actually, this one clearly says it does not.

And then section 59A goes on to establish the fund investment vehicles and describe what they can do: “All or any of the investments of the Fund may be held in an entity that is formed”—for Mr Scott—“or controlled by the Guardians for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing the investments of the Fund (a Fund investment vehicle).” So something new is being created here. Something new that is different and requires us to amend the section of the law that says that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have no controlling interest—

Hon David Parker: So they can have it.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —which means it can have controlling interests. It goes on, which is why sections 59A(1A) and (1B) were added by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I want to refer members to the words the committee used in its report. The committee considered these amendments would “provide a suitable balance between allowing the Guardians access to new vehicles to invest the Fund efficiently and effectively as it grows, and complying with the Act’s intention that the Guardians not be involved in the business operations of the entities in which the Fund is invested.”

The select committee “considers it desirable to reinforce the intention that FIVs be passive holding entities, but we also accept that considerations of diversification and risk management might make some classes of asset a desirable investment for the Fund, so the question of effective control of an operating entity might arise.”

So to help reassure the member on one count, subsection (1B) of section 59A, which the Minister is now seeking to remove, talks about the Minister’s approval being required for classes of investments or entities, not the specific investments themselves, not the specific entity that may be created, but classes of them. It is to give a little bit of reassurance that the fund is not going off in a direction that taxpayers would be uncomfortable with, but it is not about the Minister specifying a specific investment or controlling whether or not a specific investment would be made.

That is exactly why those words of the committee that I have read out were unanimously endorsed by the committee, because this does fundamentally change an original premise of the bill.

Chris Bishop: It does not.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, it does—of the Act. Yes, it does, Mr Bishop. Why would section 59 be changed? Why would it be changed if it did not do that? Why would it say: “This section does not apply to a Fund investment vehicle …”? Because the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation came to the select committee and said: “This is now a mature fund. This is now a fund that we believe can do more to invest in New Zealand.” I think one of the things they said when they first came to us was the possibility of using these fund investment vehicles for investing entities for real property assets, e.g. timber, farming, and investment property assets.

Andrew Bayly: You are so confused.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I am confused? Mr Bayly says I am confused by this law. Mr Bayly should turn round and ask Alistair Scott whether or not anything changes, because he got up and assured the Committee that nothing is changing—nothing is changing here; we should be completely reassured. Well, what is the point, then? Mr Bayly, tell us what the point is.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call in support of this New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. To be fair, it is not something that I was part of in the select committee, but it has taken only 5 minutes for me to pick up on the fact that this makes common sense.

David Bennett: Sit down, Clayton.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: To be honest, Mr Bennett, you remind me of the theme song from Team America: World Police—“I am so lonely!”—sitting over there, so far away from all of your team mates. You are not making a lot of sense, and like Alistair Scott and Mr Bayly, you do not make a lot of sense either. In actual fact, I am supporting your bill, so what are you yelling at me for, anyway? You are a very lonely and confused man, I have to say.

To be fair, there is a serious need, and some investment required, to get the right people looking after the hard-earned money that we are investing for our future. Many of us put aside 4 percent to 8 percent of our money—sometimes more than that—to go into the Cullen fund, which was created by Dr Michael Cullen to look after the future of New Zealanders. I have to say that this bill uses a language that, in my opinion, is very easy to grasp, although there is an ambiguous term in clause 4—amending section 38—which says the explicit purpose is that “(2) The fund is not an entity separate from the Crown.” You have to say that over in your head a couple of times. That has to be probably the most ambiguous part of the whole bill. What it is actually trying to say is that that fund is very much part of the Crown, and a very, very important part of the future of New Zealand. So we support that as well.

The bill talks about FIVs and other acronyms that we all love and hate back home. If anybody is watching, and I am sure that many of you are, an FIV is a fund investment vehicle. That is just a pretty way of looking at the way the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, the people looking after those funds, can get better returns for those hard-earned Kiwi dollars going into investments. When we heard Russel Norman speak about this initially, when it was first discussed at the first reading, he talked about his concerns about the Government’s interference in where those investments were going to go. To be honest, the reality is that he does not want it to go into exploration or gas or mining, but the reality is that we should be looking seriously at putting it where we can get the best investments for the future of New Zealanders. We are getting some fantastic returns on investment—around the 19 percent mark. That is absolutely fantastic, and we hope that continues. Obviously, with the Greece debacle at the moment, interest rates and share prices have dropped, along with our Kiwi dollar, and I hope that the Kiwi dollar can come down some more yet.

The purpose of the fund is a fund protection and to return as much as we can to those superannuitants. One of the things in this bill that I commend the most is the Supplementary Order Paper that takes away the Minister’s ability to interfere with that fund and to decide when, or whether, it is a good investment or not. In reality, you need to put a firewall up to create some separation from those Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation—those investors; the people who are looking after New Zealanders’ hard-earned money and are putting it in the right location. So I commend the Minister for putting forward Supplementary Order Paper 89, deleting that subsection completely. This is a bill that we would like to see progress. We think that it sits well for the best part of all New Zealanders, despite the confusing remarks we have had from over on the other side of the Chamber.

Ron Mark: They don’t understand their own bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: They do not understand their own bill, and, clearly, they have not read it. To be fair, it does make sense, and those people sitting at home can rest assured that their investments are being looked after and are getting very good returns. As Porky Pig famously said one day: “That’s all, folks.”

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member Clayton Mitchell while he was speaking. The member referred to viewers at home. I am still a relatively new member, but I believe that that is out of order, and I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. I have often heard members talking about drive time, when listeners are driving home in traffic in places like Auckland. I have never heard that that is out of order. It is certainly not a ruling that I have made in the past, and I am not going to uphold it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a wonderful opportunity to speak to the Committee and to those at home listening on their crystal sets to the debate this evening. I think we might have got to the bottom of why the Minister of Finance overruled the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the National MPs on the select committee. I think he thinks the National MPs’ scrutiny of this bill was a bit dodgy. We have heard from Alistair Scott that the bill basically does very little. I was not on the select committee. This is not my area of expertise, but after a 30-second conversation with my colleague David Parker I think I understand clause 6 and clause 7 considerably better than Alistair Scott does. It is clear to me that clause 6 does introduce a new subsection stating that section 59, which says that the fund can hold no controlling interests, does not apply to the fund investment vehicles referred to in new section 59A, and those are new fund investment vehicles that are created by this legislation. That appears to me, as a layman in these terms, as quite a significant change to the original legislation. So we have been wondering tonight why it is that after a lengthy period of scrutiny by a select committee, which, I assume, has a majority of National MPs on it—

Grant Robertson: It does.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —it does, I am told by my colleague—and after the committee unanimously deciding to include new section 59A(1A) and (1B), in clause 7, to give the Minister oversight in certain circumstances, the Minister has come in and said not only that he does not agree with the position the National MPs took but that these bills, after the select committee has considered them, have to go back to the caucus. The National caucus actually said that this was OK when it scrutinised it closely. And I know it scrutinises these bills closely because it certainly looked at the Health and Safety Reform Bill very closely. In fact, Mr Scott and his colleague Mr Bayly must be getting a little sick of being overruled by their caucus and their Minister, with the work they do at the select committee then being overruled by their caucus colleagues because they have been looking at the Health and Safety Reform Bill as well. We know that the caucuses look at them closely, and they would have looked at this bill closely. They agreed with the select committee that new sections 59A(1A) and (1B) should be included in the bill.

So where was the Minister for that conversation? Surely that would have been the point at which the Minister, if he had concerns, should have raised those concerns with his caucus colleagues and sent the National MPs back to the select committee with a flea in their ear. But, no, obviously the left hand did not know what the right hand was up to, which seems to be the usual state of affairs for the National Party at the moment, and it was only after the bill was reported back to the House that the Minister decided to overrule his own colleagues on the select committee.

We know that the National Party does not have an astonishingly good track record on these matters. Chris Bishop raised some issues around this. He said there was a time when the National Party MPs did not really agree with the Cullen fund but they have grown to love it. In the same way, they did not agree with KiwiSaver but they have grown to love that as well. They did not agree with interest-free student loans, and they did not agree with paid parental leave—all the ideas that were generated by the Labour Government alongside the Superannuation Fund to secure the financial future of New Zealanders. They were all things that the National Party opposed, but that it now says it agree with.

I think that just underlines the fact that, actually, the Labour Party is the party of ideas, the party of the future, and the party that thinks about the financial security and the future of the people and the citizens of New Zealand, and the National Party is just the party of “No”. It is no to superannuation, no to KiwiSaver, and no to paid parental leave. It is the party that repeatedly says no to the new ideas. But that is OK, because, being conservatives, those MPs eventually come round to the idea and about a decade later they realise that, actually, Labour was right all along and not just on superannuation, and not just on the matters addressed in this bill. Maybe in 10 years’ time the National MPs will look back on tonight and say: “You know what? Labour was right and we were wrong.” Do not do it to yourselves, National. Get on the right side of history now and vote against that Supplementary Order Paper.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): What a fascinating night. I have sat here and listened intently. I have listened to lawyers. I have listened to accountants. I have listened to political people, and I am just staggered that people cannot understand a relatively simple piece of legislation. Let us just go back to first principles. This bill is obviously dealing with a good piece of what has gone on with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, set up by Dr Michael Cullen, as we all know. It seeks to address superannuation for the future and to have a forward fund to be able to pay for it. We all know that it was set up in 2003 and has achieved outstanding results, but what I want to remind you about are the two key underlying principles that Dr Cullen had for the Superannuation Fund. One was that the fund was going to grow to a size and we wanted to make sure that it did not have control of markets in New Zealand. To put that in context, we have now got a fund worth $29 billion—

Grant Robertson: Could have been more.

ANDREW BAYLY: —and we know what the New Zealand Exchange is worth, do we not, Mr Robertson? It is worth about $100 billion. So at roughly 29 percent—if we applied it all to the New Zealand Exchange—it would mean we would dominate the New Zealand Exchange. So, quite rightly, we put into place some clauses to make sure that the Superannuation Fund could not control direct investments—right—other than real property.

The second thing is we wanted to make sure it was free from political interference, right? Part 1 of the bill deals with three key issues. Let us just deal with the first one, which is about permitting fund investment vehicles as an appropriate investment vehicle. It is interesting, right? I do not think that many people actually understand what they are. They are actually a very common vehicle for fund managers, particularly if you use a “fund of funds” approach. I am sure many of you know what that means, but for a large fund like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, you will use professional fund managers to manage certain assets.

What this bill is doing after all those years since the fund was set up in 2003 is trying to modernise the situation at the behest of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. These usual investment vehicles called fund investment vehicles are now going to be established, right? The change permits them to be used to hold non-controlling equity stakes in direct equities or investment funds, and, secondly, to hold stakes or to have influence over managed funds—that example I gave you before—that subsequently invest in equity or debt instruments like Treasury stock, Government bonds, and commercial bills.

The third thing it permits is to hold investments in real property. This is where there is that little nuance I spoke about before—for instance, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund does hold real property in the form of forests and stuff like that, but the Act precludes it from holding directly the shares, or having control over the entire equities, like a company. So there is a difference between having control of the shares of a company as opposed to having control of the real property like forests, land, and all those other good things that the Superannuation Fund is entitled to invest in, and should be investing in. So this deals with this.

The other thing I heard early this evening was all about the passive fund and active fund. Well, can I just correct you on that fault. This bill does not enable it to particularly become an active fund. The purpose of this bill does not address that issue. This is about putting an intermediary between the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, managed by the guardians, and what it has ultimately invested in, right? So we are all on the same page, hopefully, on that aspect. Related to that, at present, the guardians cannot delegate or grant powers of attorney, they cannot appoint an investment manager, and they cannot appoint a custodian. I have got to say to you that it is absolutely unusual for funds not to be able to do this, so what this bill does, again, is to provide normal operating rules for a fund such as a massive, successful fund like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

The second thing that Part 1 deals with is protecting the guardians against ultra vires acts that they may undertake. This means that if, for instance, the guardians, through the fund manager, enter into deeds, contracts, or agreements, and all the normal things that you expect them to do, and for some reason those acts are deemed to be ultra vires, this part deals with this, under new section 49A, in clause 5, to permit those activities and transactions to take place and not be subject to a court challenge, provided—and this is the overriding thing—that those transactions were all entered into in the normal course of events and there was nothing unusual about the extent of the activities that were undertaken.

The third thing that Part 1 does is to confirm that the fund investment vehicles are not subject to the Official Information Act 1982 and the Ombudsmen Act 1975. Again, we have heard a bit about this earlier on from the Opposition. Just to be clear, what this bill provides for is that the fund investment vehicles are not subject to the scrutiny of both the Ombudsman and the Official Information Act, but—but—the guardians still are.

Again, what we have got here is a comprehensive set of measures that will mean that these fund investment vehicles can be put in place, like virtually any other fund in the world, and that they can invest in a range of equities, debt instruments, and real property, albeit they cannot control the equities that they hold because, as I noted before, they would have a huge, dominant effect. Just to give you the context in that final point, if you look at the range of New Zealand investments that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is currently invested in, the highest investment that it has got is Z Energy at 20 percent and Metlifecare also at 20 percent. All the rest are at about 10 percent and 8 percent of the New Zealand stock market.

I think that this is a very good piece of legislation. It brings the New Zealand Superannuation Fund up into modern standards of practice, and for that reason, I commend it to the Committee.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I just want to respond to the points that Mr Bayly made, and the point that the prior speaker—I am sorry, I have just got memory loss—

Andrew Bayly: Mr Scott.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —Mr Scott made in respect of controlling interests. I agree that the effect of clause 6 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill, which adds to section 59 the new subclause (5), says that at the first level, if you have got a fund investment vehicle that is wholly owned by the guardians, then that in itself is allowed, despite the fact that it is a controlling interest in the fund investment vehicle. But then it says—you look through that—it does not allow the guardians to have a controlling interest in respect of the underlying investment that is made by the fund investment vehicle. I know that; I understand that. But the point that we are making on this side is that through these vehicles you are getting closer to the point where you are going to turn the fund manager from a passive investor into an active investor. It might not have a controlling interest, but it is getting closer, in these new vehicles that are being allowed, to actually moving from being a passive investor to an active investor.

Across both sides of the House, that was why the amendment was proposed by the Finance and Expenditure Committee—to reinforce that although we are going to allow these fund investment vehicles, we were not going to encourage the guardians to move from a passive investment role to an active investment role. So we said, therefore, in respect of the power being exercised by the guardians, ministerial approval would be given or withheld in respect of some of those classes of investment. That was the reason, and so we are still waiting to have a contribution from the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Education, as to whether the Minister thinks that the select committee was wrong to say that this was actually moving along the continuum allowing more active investment than has been the case to date. That is a different issue from controlling interests. We still have not heard from members from the other side as to why it was wrong to actually have that greater level of control exercised in respect of investments that are not passive.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 46

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): There is so much competition for the call, Mr Chair! Part 2 of the bill relates largely to amendments to the Income Tax Act that are consequential on the establishment of fund investment vehicles under new section 59A in clause 7. It is a relatively non-controversial part of the bill and one that the Labour Party will support.

A couple of points arise when we look at section HR 4B, which is being substituted by clause 13 of the bill, around the way in which the activities of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are considered within the Income Tax Act. What it really does raise when we look at that—and it is a relatively straightforward application of those rules to the way in which these funds will be created. It is important for the sake of the transparency of the fund that fund investment vehicles are now specifically noted, because they have not existed before, and that all activities that the superannuation fund undertakes are currently noted within the Income Tax Act. So it is a sensible and transparent way of establishing that these are here. But it does raise the issue of the question of the payment of tax by the Superannuation Fund.

We have had some conversations in the Committee tonight about what size the Superannuation Fund might have been, had the Government continued to invest in it and make contributions to it. Mr Bishop in one of his earlier contributions was bemoaning what stupidity it would be to borrow money in order to invest in a fund such as this. I would, perhaps, put the question to Mr Bishop as to what he would do if offered the prospect of, I do not know, a return of around 20 percent when he could borrow money at—oh, I do not know—around 3 percent or 4 percent. What would he do in response to that? That would be, I would have thought—from a layperson’s point of view—quite an important and useful thing to be able to do because of the ability of the Crown, particularly, to borrow at such low rates and because of the impressive performance of the fund thus far.

The way that this relates to this part of the bill is that the Superannuation Fund is the biggest taxpayer in the country. That is right, I think—is it not, Mr Bishop? It is the biggest taxpayer in the country. Although we can concern ourselves with the amount of money that the fund might have earned for itself as it went through this, it is also a question of the amount of tax that it might have paid had contributions been restored. There is a debate, of course, about whether or not the Superannuation Fund should be a payer of tax in that, but, certainly, if we think about the levels of forgone revenue that the fund would have got, we are talking about billions of dollars of tax here, potentially, not being paid, as provided for under Part 2 of this bill. It is just another reason to contemplate the folly of this Government in not having continued to build this fund.

We have already heard in this Chamber tonight that the history of National’s interaction with the Superannuation Fund is a very sorry one because it played politics with it when it first arrived in Parliament. Michael Cullen’s whole mission as the Minister of Finance was to help establish long-term supports for the core Government provisions that were needed. You know, that is why he left KiwiSaver to this House as a legacy. That is why he left the Superannuation Fund to this House as a legacy, because he could foresee that we needed a stronger base for an ageing population. We needed a stronger base to ensure that we had our own money, which we could invest. We have heard the story many times in this Chamber of what would have happened if the then National Government had not trashed the Kirk fund. Around $285 billion worth of investment potential in our country was taken away in an election bribe many, many years ago. So National’s attitude has been poor around this fund.

We have now got a situation where we have seen losses. We have had a number of figures thrown around the Chamber tonight, but more than $10 billion—quite a bit more than $10 billion, actually—could have been added to the fund that was not added to the fund because the National Government made a political decision. It decided, in its words, to “borrow” money for tax cuts. It decided that was the priority, rather than making an investment in a fund that will pay out in the future for superannuation and rather than making an investment—

Andrew Bayly: The tax cuts were fiscally neutral.

GRANT ROBERTSON: “Fiscally neutral”! Andrew Bayly says that the tax cuts were fiscally neutral. He is still working off the 2010 talking points. They were not fiscally neutral, I can let Mr Bayly know. That is not what happened. They were tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited those on the highest incomes. They were given at a time when the Government told us there was no money to do anything. It had to cut back on all kinds of measures, but there was money to do that. But the point I was making to Mr Bayly was that, actually, if you apply the rhetoric of not borrowing money for the Superannuation Fund, you cannot then suddenly dispense with that rhetoric for what the Government did do with the money that it had, which was to give tax cuts.

But the point that I am bringing back to Part 2 of the bill—which we do support—is to say that this is the part of the bill that relates to the interactions with the Income Tax Act. This fund, had the National Government actually committed to making the contributions it could have made, would have been paying to the Crown, I would venture to suggest, at least $1 billion in tax that has now been forgone. That just typifies the attitude of the National Government to this fund.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I just want to take a short call to respond to Mr Robertson’s remarks. This deals with Part 2 of the bill, which, of course, is clauses 10 to 14, dealing, primarily, with the Income Tax Act 2007. I just want to rebut the idea—the proposition that Mr Robertson made—that, basically, if someone can borrow at 3 percent or 4 percent, the Crown’s cost of capital, and invest and make a 20 percent return, then it is lunacy not to do so, OK? On the face of it, that is true. But let us take off the rose-tinted, rear-vision mirror glasses and just think the other way, which is that we had done that—that somebody had gone out and borrowed at 3 percent or 4 percent, or maybe even higher than that, and had lost 20 percent; not gained 20 percent, not improved the asset value by 20 percent, but actually lost. That is a conceivable scenario at the time of the global financial crisis, when global equities were tanking. It is highly conceivable that the Crown would have lost money. So it is all very well, 8 years on, to look back and say “Well, we would have made 10 percent. We would have made this. If only the dastardly National Government had not done that.”—that is all very well. I can understand why the Labour Party wants to run that line as a political attack, except for the fact that it is equally plausible that the Crown and the Government would have lost 20 percent, or even more perhaps.

You will remember that this was at a time when the global economy was in total turmoil. Global equities were tanking, and to say that the New Zealand Government should have borrowed money at a time of great global uncertainty in order to invest in risky assets that were extremely volatile is naive. Why do we know that what we did as a Government was the right thing? Well, Michael Cullen, the Svengali of the left, the social democratic paramount chief, when he set up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in 2002, said that it was only going to be invested in by the Crown at times of surpluses. It was his attempt to squirrel away the money so that the National Party at the time would not spend it on tax cuts. That is what he said. Right? We can argue about whether or not that was right or wrong, but what he said was that it was to be used only at a time when we had surpluses, not when the Crown was borrowing to invest in the share market. So the very man whom the Labour Party has spent the last 2 hours lauding, and to whom it continues to bend the knee all the time—go down to the Auckland Fabian association to hear from him about how Labour needs to reclaim the political momentum, and all of the advice that he gives—that guy, the guy who set up the fund that the Labour Party has benevolently named after him, at least in the vernacular, he himself does not support what the Labour Party is advocating now.

Actually, the Labour Party has form on this, because at some point the Labour Party members had a road to Princes Street conversion and they decided that what National had done with the Superannuation Fund was a good idea. It was David Shearer, in 2012, who turned up at the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce—and I think Grant Robertson was deputy then; he may not have been; at least he was a senior strategist inside the leadership team—and he said: “We’ve decided that until we are back in surplus, any new spending will have to be paid for out of existing Budget provisions, new revenue, or by reprioritising.” That was David Shearer in 2012, when he was leader of the Labour Party. I know that they have changed their position now and that they have gone back to the typical left-wing orthodoxy that was the case under Phil Goff, that was the case under David Cunliffe, and that presumably is the case under Andrew Little—and quite possibly will be the case under the new leader of the Labour Party, Carmel Sepuloni. I know her time is coming. She is making a run from the second benches, from the whip position and the sterling work that she is doing in social development, railing against vouchers, social development, and the National Government’s investment approach of trying to get people back into work. I know that she is making a run, but anyway—the Chair is asking me to shorten it up—I just want to make the point that the Labour Party members are all over the place on this issue.

Actually, when it comes to superannuation policy more generally, they are in the middle of a review. Grant Robertson is rampaging around the country with the amusingly titled Future of Work Commission, and we have got Andrew Little musing about raising the superannuation age or maybe even means-testing it. David Clark just about 1½ hours previously in the debate on a previous part of this bill—

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Thank you, Mr Chair—oh, what a relief! Well, the future of work—I was wondering where that member, Chris Bishop, was going with that. The Future of Work Commission, I am happy to inform the member, is proving to be a great boon to our engagement with the public. It is very popular. Everybody has a view on the future of work. I suspect that member was about to expound some more, had he had the time to do it, because, actually, everyone has a view on where work is going. Work affects everybody and, of course, no matter where you come from politically it is something that people want to engage on. So I thank that member for raising that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back.

Dr DAVID CLARK: —but the Chair rightly draws me back to the bill at hand, and I am only too happy to speak to Part 2 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill, if I could only jolly find the thing, because I am told it contains a number of amendments to the Income Tax Act. If somebody does have a copy of the bill, I had a couple of things I wanted to say, but I wanted to jog my mind just to see what they were. Thank you very much, colleague. I was distracted by that member opposite—and laugh well he might—but I was distracted by his comments on the future of work, which, of course, are entirely relevant, although not to this debate.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act—ah, yes. The amendments that could have been in here but are not are the ones that I wanted to look at. We know that there are many things, as I said in my earlier contribution on Part 1, that could have been done on retirement savings that this Government has not done, and right here is a paucity of vision, again, in Part 2, because what we have here are the minutiae of how this bill affects the Income Tax Act. There are sensible things in here—do not get me wrong. There are sensible things in here that we should be doing, which we on this side agreed to. Of course we agreed to all of it in select committee, as did the members opposite, who are now backtracking on one or two matters. But in here we do not see, for example, provisions relating to the Income Tax Act in respect of resuming contributions to the fund, because the Government has not done it. It has not done it. It has forgone $10 billion in revenue—$10 billion it would have got had it resumed those payments—but here we do not see any kinds of amendments in that respect. We do not see any amendments that plan for a future where we have secure retirement savings, because it is not the Government’s priority, and this is what we are faced with over and over again in this House.

We do see the fund investment vehicles affecting the Income Tax Act, and that is recorded here in subsection (3) of section HR 4B in clause 13 of Part 2—the various changes that are being made there—and they are sensible changes. Of course—

Andrew Bayly: What changes are those?

Dr DAVID CLARK: The member opposite asks what those changes are, and I invite him to read the bill right here. They are right here in black and white. It is a very short bill, and I invite the member to read it. He is welcome to make a speech if he feels passionately about these technical amendments, but the broader point must be made that we are not arguing about the resumption of those payments to the Superannuation Fund, which would have seen New Zealand so much better off.

It would see us in so much better a position had Government members not been so short-sightedly focusing on borrowing instead for tax cuts—borrowing and borrowing. It is a Government that has borrowed more money than Muldoon, opposite there. I see those members hanging their heads. They have gone quiet, and well they might. They have failed to resume these payments, which would have increased the savings available to future generations, and that is because they are failing to have a plan for the future. On that side of the Chamber they are failing to plan for the future. We on this side would have liked to see some more dramatic changes in this part of the bill that reflected the resumption of savings to contribute to the most successful scheme in the world—we are told one of the best schemes in the world, if not the best scheme in the world. The Cullen fund, the one that Bill English called a dog, that has been hailed from Antarctica to Zimbabwe, is a superb fund, and something that does the job that we would hope it to do, if they would only let it.

Here in this bill—as I said in my previous contribution, we do support the overall intention, but we note again that it lacks the broad vision. The Government members lack the plan, they are not making the big steps that they ought to be making, and that is why we see in this part of the bill no big changes in respect of resumption of those payments or any tax implications that might be coming from that. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Part 2 of this bill clarifies a few issues around the tax status of the fund investment vehicles, but I would also like to comment on the comments made by the previous speaker, David Clark, regarding a guy—well, he is talking about a guy I know indirectly. His name is Harry—“Harry Hindsight”. He is the most famous trader on the planet. He is a guy who was around when I was trading on the markets, and we always thought he was such a great guy because he just got it right every time.

Unfortunately, “Harry Hindsight” does not exist, and I ask the member: “How would you have reacted? In hindsight, would you have sold the Shanghai Stock Exchange Index in the last 10 days?”. Well, yes, you would have, because it has dropped 22 percent in the last couple of weeks. In hindsight I would not have bought that Shanghai Stock Exchange Index, and this is the issue—the rose-tinted spectacles that the Opposition members see through.

Borrowing and investing is what is known as leveraging your position and that increases the risk for the investor to something that could wipe you out—completely wipe you out. So imagine if you have got a 20 percent deposit on something and you buy it. You are up, you have leveraged 80 percent, and you have a movement that we saw in the last week on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, and you are out of business. That is why—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you, Mr Chair. That is why you do not borrow for investing in something that is a risky asset, and that is why we have not borrowed to continue the Cullen fund through times when the funds were simply not available.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): “Harry Hindsight” is always right. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but even better than “Harry Hindsight” is people admitting when they have made mistakes. Not once has anyone on that side of the Chamber stood up and said: “Yes, you’re right. We should have put money back into this because it has earned 18 percent.” Since the global financial crisis it has been one of the best performing funds in the world, actually. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund does not have to consider whether it is going to sell or buy the Shanghai Stock Exchange and “Harry Hindsight” has nothing to do with reality.

The reality of the situation is that this is—

Alastair Scott: It absolutely does. It is absolutely invested in the Shanghai exchange.

STUART NASH: Let me outline the situation we have got at the moment. First of all, superannuation is going to become unaffordable. We all know this. The second point is that Michael Cullen set up a fund to mitigate the risk to the Government finances around an unaffordable superannuation burden. Thirdly, it has billions of dollars in it at the moment. Fourthly, this National Government—and Bill English admitted this—stopped contributions because he wanted to give tax cuts to the people of New Zealand, because that is what he promised. He did not have the wherewithal to say: “I made a mistake. We need to plan for our future. We need to plan for the future.” The fifth thing is we are still in a really bad position in terms of an affordable superannuation fund. Alastair, you must know this. You were a trader. You know how these markets work. You talk about leveraging. This is all about managing risk.

If I ask the question: “If we look at the risk 10, 12, 15 years out of a massive, unaffordable burden on the taxpayer or the risk of breaking an election promise and not giving money back, where do you think the New Zealand public would have sat?”. I firmly believe that they would have said: “We want certainty in our future. We want certainty in the future.” The Prime Minister could have managed that risk, but he did not. He chose not to take that risk at all, and as a consequence of this short-term thinking we have a superannuation fund that could be worth maybe $15 billion or $20 billion more. The Kirk superannuation fund, which I have heard members on this side of the Chamber talk about, would be worth $240 billion now. That is just predicated on an average rate of return from an average year. It could well be worth a hell of a lot more. So this is the difference between that side of the Chamber and this side. We like to plan for the future because we know “Harry Hindsight” is always right, but we do not want to second-guess “Harry Hindsight”. We want to ensure that, in fact, when we look back we can say that we did what was right, and this is the right thing to do.

I come to Part 2 of the bill, which is the part we are talking about. It is quite technical. But what it does do is it amends sections of the Income Tax Act 2007 so that these investment vehicles or companies in which an interest is held by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation will not be subject to exemption for public authorities. There are a number of clauses in Part 2 that are actually quite technical. We have been through them, to a certain extent. If we were to get really technical, I think it would send everyone to sleep, not just my colleagues who were yawning but even those who are unfortunate enough to have to watch this on television. But it deals with things like activities relating to the Superannuation Fund itself. It deals with amendments to the Income Tax Act, which cut to the very essence of the Superannuation Fund. It talks about when the sections apply and how it is going to deal with these. It talks about the activities of the Crown, relating to the fund. We have done that to death when we have talked about the rights of the Ministers and the Crown to intervene—when they should and when they should not, and why they would or would not, etc. We have also talked about fund investment vehicles. This is about the consolidation rules, continuity provisions, and other rules relating to groups of companies that apply to the Crown as owner of the funds, when an investment fund vehicle is referred to, etc.

You have heard members on this side of the Chamber say that this is actually an important piece of legislation. You have also heard them say that we actually supported Part 2 when it went through the select committee. You had no argument from us there. Where you do have an argument from us, where you do have a massive bone of contention, is how we manage the fund, what we do with it, how far we look out, and the sort of expectation we create for New Zealanders, who are now looking forward and asking “What does the future look like? Where am I going to be? Am I actually going to be entitled to superannuation?”, which has been the fundamental right of Kiwis ever since it was introduced by the first Labour Government.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want an assurance from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Hekia Parata, that Part 2 is not going to effect a change to the principle that the fund should pay tax. It should pay tax like any other investor, despite the fact that it is Government-owned. That is the underlying principle that we currently have, and that is the principle that should continue. From time to time we hear claims—and I have even heard people who are very close to the Superannuation Fund questioning whether it should pay tax. The reason that it should pay tax is that otherwise it will be advantaged relative to other investors in the New Zealand market, and it would also be encouraged to weight its investments to investments in New Zealand where it would have a tax advantage on those investments investing in New Zealand, because it would not have to pay tax on those investments compared with investing overseas. That would cause it to weight its investments more into New Zealand than overseas, for the wrong reasons.

I want to have an assurance from the Minister in the chair that these amendments to the Income Tax Act 2007 and the amendments to sections CW 38 and CX 55 of that Act, made by Part 2 of this bill, do not affect the current status quo, which is that the Superannuation Fund should pay tax as other taxpayers do. For some people that is counter-intuitive because it is a Government entity paying tax, which decreases the amount that is left in the Superannuation Fund for the meeting of future superannuation, and means more going into the Crown coffers because it is paying tax. But none the less I think that is an important point in principle that was imposed in the original design of the principal Act. As we know, the Labour Party and Michael Cullen had more foresight—

Brett Hudson: Dr Cullen was preparing it for privatisation, clearly.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Dr Cullen was preparing the Superannuation Fund for privatisation, clearly! I mean, I have heard some brain-dead comments from the Government on occasions, but, really, that takes the cake. You should be brought forward to the front bench. You would be very comfortable on the National front bench. Of course, this fund was created by the Labour Party and opposed by the National Party, so how that member could say that this was preparing it for privatisation—fact is stranger than fiction sometimes, is it not? No, that is not correct.

Indeed, that gives me licence, I think—responding to that interjection from the Government—to recount the fact, ad nauseam, really, which we have heard before, that we should take care in respect of the Superannuation Fund that we do not actually cause it to aid the privatisation agenda of any Government. Indeed, because some of New Zealand’s largest listed entities now include energy companies, one of the things that has happened through the Superannuation Fund since the Government privatised those entities is that we have cause to go from the Government balance sheet through direct ownership to the Superannuation Fund investments in privatised assets, if the Superannuation Fund has invested in either Genesis, Mighty River Power, or Meridian. That, of course, was one of the things that Dr Cullen was trying to guard against when he set the fund up, and he gave pretty clear directions that he did not want this fund to be weighted towards investing in New Zealand, because he knew that one way or another there was always a risk that National Governments would plunder the fund in order to achieve their other objectives.

Chris Bishop: Oh, ha, ha!

Hon DAVID PARKER: We hear Chris Bishop laughing about that, but if there was a subscription by the Superannuation Fund in those privatised companies, it will have increased demand for those shares, and will therefore have had some effect on the price that was able to be achieved on the sale of those shares. It may well be that it did not invest in those shares, in which case that would not have happened, but if it did, it must have had an effect on demand and therefore an effect on price. And as Mr Bayly has already said, this fund is already the largest investor in New Zealand. It is far bigger than any KiwiSaver fund, far bigger than any private superannuation fund, and far bigger than any other investment fund of the Government, including the ACC fund. It is the largest investor in New Zealand. Therefore, it does have the ability, because of that size, to influence price.

So I invite the member opposite who interjected, Brett Hudson, to hang his head in shame and resile from those rather silly comments that he made at the start—

Brett Hudson: Clearly he was more our side than your side, Mr Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Say that again? Clearly—

Brett Hudson: After all, Dr Cullen was the one who said: “Don’t borrow to invest money in the Super Fund.”

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, he did not say that.

Brett Hudson: He said: “Only make contributions when you’re in surplus.”, Mr Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, Dr Cullen did not say that. No, Dr Cullen thought, indeed, that contributions to the Superannuation Fund should continue. Again, he is a very poor student of history, this particular member. I was here after the global financial crisis hit, after we lost Government; so was Dr Cullen. That member was not. And you will recall that we were critical of the Government for making that short-sighted decision. I think it is actually testament to the independence of the guardians that, despite the embarrassment to the Government caused by the guardians measuring the loss that the Government has caused to the Superannuation Fund by ceasing contributions, they have continued to calculate what would have been in the fund had those contributions continued.

That brings me to an inane contribution from one of Mr Hudson’s colleagues, who said it was always stupid to borrow to invest. Well, that is true if you are capital constrained, but the current Government has not been capital constrained, because it inherited very low levels of Government debt—zero net debt—and gross debt having been reduced from 38 percent to 18 percent of GDP. The member said that you can never beat borrowing rates—it would be silly. Well, of course, the Government’s stock rate is generally the lowest long-term rate to invest in, and you get higher rates of return if you invest in security or balanced portfolio bonds, as Mr Bayly knows well. So it should be no surprise to members on the other side that if they had borrowed, they would have achieved a rate of return—

Alastair Scott: If, if, if—“Harry Hindsight”.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Actually, you know, the trouble with these guys is that they have got no foresight. I mean, it would be nice if occasionally they got one of these decisions in advance right. We are not saying that you should judge everything by hindsight, but it would be good if occasionally they got one right with foresight. They called it a dog; they were wrong. They now admit that they were wrong. They stopped investments when they should not have stopped them, but they cannot bring themselves to admit that, even though it was always obvious that the investment rate over the medium term exceeds the Crown cost of funds. They have not been able to acknowledge that that was a stupid decision, too.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I have found the debate this evening very interesting—quite fascinating—and a lot of it has revolved around the question of whether it would have been appropriate to continue to make contributions to the Superannuation Fund during the period when the Government was borrowing in order to carry out a range of activities, actually. I love the way that the National Party tries to sort of reduce this down to borrowing in order to put money into the Superannuation Fund. The Government has borrowed to an astonishing level, actually—to levels that no other Government ever has before—but in order to do a range of things.

One of the things that the Government borrowed to do was to provide tax cuts. There are really good arguments why you do not provide tax cuts, especially tax cuts to the wealthy. There might have been an argument for it during the period of recession and then the very slow period of growth after the global financial crisis. There may have been an argument for tax cuts if the majority of the money returned to the citizens of New Zealand had gone to those with the least, because those with the least have to go out and spend that money, because they are struggling to make ends meet as it is, and that would actually have provided the economic stimulus that was the argument the Government made for providing tax cuts while it was borrowing heavily just in order to keep the ship afloat. But no, the Government did what National Governments do. It was true to form and it gave tax cuts to the most wealthy, which was wonderful for the people who were most wealthy but did very little to stimulate the economy.

During that period of time it may well have been prudent—and, in fact, looking back, it would have been incredibly prudent—to carry on contributing to the Superannuation Fund. But, actually, the point I want to make is this: it is that achieving surpluses is actually incredibly important for the Government, because if you are in surplus you remove that debate. It is actually a really simple decision to make, if you are in surplus, making a contribution—what the size of the contribution is might be a question for debate, but making a contribution to a superannuation fund then is an easy choice to make. I accept that it is a more difficult choice to make when you are having to borrow for a range of things, but if you are in surplus, it is an easy choice to make, and that is why achieving surplus is important. Alistair Scott is nodding away.

The Prime Minister is not so sure about whether achieving surplus is quite so important. It was important—it was a very important—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, it is relevant to this bill, because what we are talking about is actually saving for New Zealand’s future—putting contributions into the Superannuation Fund in order to ensure that universal superannuation is actually available for future generations. That is actually one of the great issues facing this nation at the moment and should be facing that Government: how do we make sure that universal superannuation remains available not just today, not just in 10 years’ time, but in 20 years’ time, 30 years’ time, 40 years’ time? How do we ensure that it is still available? In the face of an ageing population, in the face of a growing number of superannuitants in comparison with the working population, in the face of all those challenges, what do we have to do to ensure that universal superannuation is still available? That is why the Cullen fund—

Todd Barclay: Keep National.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, not keep National, actually; the exact opposite of keep National, because if the National Party had been in Government in 2002, there would be no Cullen fund. There would be no Cullen fund, because members opposite are obsessed with hindsight, and they have got absolutely no foresight. That is classic National Party thinking: always thinking about the past, never thinking about the future. So actually, if you want to ensure that New Zealanders in the future will be able to rely on universal superannuation, what we need more than ever now is a Labour-led Government, a Government that can actually look into the future, a Government that actually believes in sovereign wealth funds and believes in putting money aside now to save for the future. That is not what the National Party wanted to do—not what the National Party wanted to do at all. It wanted to blow it all on tax cuts for its mates here and now, not worrying about the future.

Members opposite have gone quiet now, because they know I am right. This is an important piece of legislation because it will help make the Superannuation Fund—

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just while the Clerk is adding these up, there can be no discussion, no noise whatsoever, when votes are being taken. I will ask you to respect that.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 75.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill

In Committee

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Land dealings

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on Part 2 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—a bill that I remember fondly. Six and a half years ago when I came into Parliament I was given the portfolio of land information, and one of the very first bills that I got to speak on was, indeed, the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Here we are, 6½ years later, and the bill has only just reached the Committee stage. Clearly it is not a major priority for the current Government. I must admit I have not been watching it terribly closely in recent years, but I understand that there may have been some matters of controversy around this legislation. I do hope that the Primary Production Committee has been able to traverse those controversial matters and has been able to land on some decisions that please all the people who are involved in these particular pieces of land, because, ultimately, a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill should not be particularly controversial. It should be the sort of thing that addresses matters that really have a fairly strong consensus around them. So if there have been matters that have been a struggle for the select committee to consider, then hopefully it has been able to make some sensible decisions.

The majority of the submissions that the select committee received were in relation to the Albert Park Auckland Art Gallery development—actually, this is ringing a bit of a bell. I do recall that there was a bit of controversy around this back when we were first considering the legislation. In fact, some of that controversy was around the fact that the city council had proceeded with a development on the land in question under the assumption that this was a non-controversial piece of legislation and, essentially, that the changes would be rubber-stamped by Parliament. There were a number of submitters who took considerable exception to that. I understand that the select committee received legal advice on the matter that indicated that commencing construction had not involved any alienation of the park land under the Act because the Auckland Council continued to own the land for recreational and amusement purposes. Most submitters, however, and some members of the committee actually believed the land has been alienated from Albert Park, which is at odds with how the public believe reserve land should be treated. Although it was the council’s view that it had followed due process in gaining approval for the development, a number of concerns were raised at the select committee about the way that the council had gained the necessary legal consents.

So, in a way, I suppose what the council was expecting this legislation to do was to retrospectively approve development that it had undertaken on that land. It is never ideal for Parliament to make changes to legislation that apply retrospectively. Interestingly, we have done it a number of times in the last couple of terms of Parliament in order to rectify errors that have been made by local councils. I guess it is arguable whether or not this is an error that has been made. It certainly seems as though the Auckland Council made the case to the select committee that it was perfectly within its right to carry out the developments on Albert Park, and that seems to have been the centre of much of the debate and consideration at the select committee—and, indeed, there was considerable debate at the select committee. Some of the committee members, in fact, believe that the clauses relating to the art gallery should have been deleted from the bill for the very reason that reserves and other lands disposal bills should be non-controversial, and, clearly, there has been quite a lot of controversy around this matter.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Environmental Reporting Bill without amendment, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into two bills, progress on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, and no progress on the Standards and Accreditation Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 30 JUNE 2015

(continued on Wednesday, 1 July 2015)

Bills

Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill be now read a second time. Before I give my speech, can I simply record as chair of the Privileges Committee how much I have enjoyed working with the Clerk of the House over the last couple of years. I know that others are going to have their say later in the day, but as a humble worker in the vineyard I will not get that opportunity, so I simply want to record what a tremendous Clerk of the House she has been and wish her all the very best for the future.

Stuart Nash: But when have you ever been humble?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There is evidence of it this morning, Mr Nash; do not be cruel.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill implements the Government’s decision to establish a statutory body called the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. The establishment of this committee gives effect to the commitment made by the Government in the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement and recorded in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū deed of settlement to work with iwi and hapū in the Hawke’s Bay region and with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to agree on details of this planning committee in order to introduce legislation. The bill ensures that the relevant iwi post-settlement governance entities and Crown-mandated entities are entitled to appoint representatives on the planning committee.

At the third reading, I am told, we can expect representatives of all iwi involved in the bill, together with representatives from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. I look forward to that very important occasion.

The Māori Affairs Committee received and considered eight submissions on the bill. The strong support for the bill from iwi and hapū and from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was evident in those submissions. The bill has been developed collaboratively and in close consultation with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the nine iwi in the region over a period of 5 years. I want to thank both the council and the iwi for their vision and dedication in developing a planning committee that reflects the interests of all parties.

I also want to thank and congratulate the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. The bill had its first reading on 4 November 2014, and the committee reported it back to Parliament on 30 March 2015. This is less than 5 months, which is very impressive given the Christmas break, but not surprising given the hard work of the chair and the committee, and I am very grateful to them.

The bill has now its second reading, and I have to say that the committee felt it necessary to recommend only technical amendments to the bill that reflect the repeal of clause 30(9) of schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, and some correct referencing that needed to follow from that. I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E ngā mema o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to rise and lead the Labour contribution in support of the second reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. Can I first pause just to acknowledge ngā mate o te hau kāinga, a Reta Hawaiki Rangi, Auntie June Te Moana, kua wehe atu i te pō, haere, haere, haere atu rā [the deaths from back home, Reta Hawaiki Rangi and Auntie June Te Moana, who departed to the void, go forth, travel on, farewell]. In endorsing this bill, I too want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee for giving due diligence to what is a vital piece of legislation for the wider Hawke’s Bay region. It does celebrate the fact that we have hapū and iwi representatives at the table with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and what I hope is going to be an enduring relationship in overseeing the protection and development of our natural resources. And we do have many of those natural resources in the Hawke’s Bay.

For me, this bill talks about and legislates for a co-governance arrangement. As the Minister has acknowledged, its origins have come from a Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty settlement and it is also endorsed by the Maungaharuru-Tangitū deed of settlement. It is important, though, that I do take some time to acknowledge the submitters. Quite rightly, and as the Minister said wholeheartedly, of the eight who made submissions, six clearly did support it. I want to go on record—particularly for our whānau at home, who do not get the opportunity to attend the select committee and hear what is said—because I think it is important that we acknowledge the contributions made by submitters to the select committee, once I find the piece of paper. Is that not always the case? We had Ngāti Pāhauwera endorsing the bill, represented, obviously, by Toro Waaka. Maungaharuru-Tangitū endorsed the bill, represented by Tania Hoffman. I do want to acknowledge that Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa endorsed the bill, headed by Tāmati Olsen, but that they wanted to keep the door open to ensure their own co-governance arrangements, particularly around the resource management of their natural resources, given that they have not completed their negotiations. The other submitter, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, clearly sees the value in it.

I want to acknowledge my first contribution to the bill, around representation, and skills and capability. Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation’s chairperson also submitted to the select committee. I note that the submission was discussed by the select committee. The officials have come back and have noted the concerns that Ngāhiwi put to the select committee, namely around representation and the coverage of this legislation, in terms of the Hawke’s Bay boundary and also ensuring that there is adequate resourcing for specialist advice. This arrangement is not a new arrangement. We have precedence, particularly around the Waikato-Tainui river accord, which gives the legislative power to make decisions over the Waikato River.

It is also quite a costly exercise to ensure that your governance over precious natural resources is fulfilled. In reading the submission proffered by Ngāhiwi Tomoana on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu, he does raise, and did offer, some amendments, particularly around the provision of specialist advice. I know the select committee has considered that, and perhaps the contribution from the chair will give us some comfort that that specialist advice will be provided. We all know the technicality that is required around overseeing natural resources. We want to ensure that independent advice is fulfilled, particularly to the hapū and iwi representatives on that committee.

Our people have huge expectations of our folk when they are on those particular committees, and I want to ensure that those representatives at the table of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are fulfilling their expectations. I note that it has been dismissed, but I have also read that approximately $100,000 has been put aside for the co-governance arrangements. Can I just make the comment that in my previous role, in terms of engaging specialist advice to do an economic analysis of the nine rivers through the Kahungunu rohe, I tell you that you would not have got much change from $100,000. I just say that because specialist advice is not cheap, and so my point about ensuring that specialist advice is available to this committee is that I encourage the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to resource it adequately so that that specialist advice is available to them.

The other point I made in my first contribution to this bill was around representation and the rohe of Kahungunu. The rohe of Kahungunu extends from Paritu in the north, which is just north of Mahia, right down to Turakirae, which is the very southern coast of the Wairarapa. In noting that we have nine representatives at this table from iwi, hapū, tangata whenua, I noted that we have two non-Kahungunu iwi representatives at the table. I know that maybe, Mr Deputy Speaker, where you come from, everybody gets on well, but when you have a situation where one particular iwi may have a say over the management of the natural resources of another iwi, that is going to lead to some contention, as I am sure you will know. [Interruption] Yes, we all know that, and I note that for a lot of the supporters of this bill, the paramount tino rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi over their lands, their waterways, is paramount. But here we have a particular situation where for an issue pertaining to the heart of Ngāti Kahungunu, we have both a Tūhoe representative and a Tūwharetoa representative at the table. Look, all I want to do is to raise this as a cautionary note to the committee: that when they are sitting, that that is well managed. The last thing we want here is for this bill to unravel when it comes to implementation. So I do make that point, and I encourage the committee to work away to ensure that mana whenua, which is the basis from which this is derived, is exercised to its fullest extent.

When I hear about this bill passing, I do want to commend, like I said, all the select committee members and the participants to this process, which has been, I understand, happening for the past 5 years, to marry out and iron out those implementation challenges. Hawke’s Bay has some clear challenges coming upon it, particularly around natural resources. I want to note all of the contributors to this bill who have gone before me. Gladly I stand again and support the second reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. Kia ora tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): E te Kaiwhakawā, tēnā koe. E mihi atu ki te mana whenua o Te Waha o Te Ika, e Te Āti Awa, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei hoki te mihi atu ki a koe, e te Minita o Ngā Whakataunga e pā ana ki Te Tiriti, Christopher Finlayson, ā, huri noa i te Whare, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the mandated tribe of the land at the Mouth of the Fish, Te Āti Awa; salutations to you all. I acknowledge you as well, Christopher Finlayson, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and all of you throughout the House.]

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. This is one of the first bills that we considered at the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament. A lot of hard work had gone into this bill before it was introduced, which meant that the select committee process was quite straightforward. The only amendments we have made are small and administrative.

We received eight submissions on this bill and heard five of the submitters in person. Seven of these submissions supported the bill, and one, from the upper Mōhaka kaitiaki collective, asked that they be represented on the regional planning committee. Although we were certainly sympathetic to the collective’s desire to have its voice heard on the regional planning committee, changing the bill to give them representation would not have been consistent with the way the other groups are represented on the committee. This committee is a form of Treaty redress for large natural groups that have negotiated, or are negotiating, Treaty settlements. The upper Mōhaka kaitiaki collective is affiliated to Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāti Hineuru, and these iwi are represented on the committee by the Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum and Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc.

One thing that I did note when reading and hearing the submissions was the strong working relationship that has been forged already between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the various mandated iwi and hapū groups. It is clear that there has been a strong focus on the shared goals of Māori and Pākehā in this region and a desire to work together towards these goals. To quote from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council submission, these goals include “the common goals and aspirations of iwi and the wider Hawke’s Bay community”. What they aspire to—and this will really be part of what this bill will do—in partnership is a “clean healthy and economically strong environment”. Much has been said, and much has been written about, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and what the Treaty relationship means in modern New Zealand. A lot of work has gone into the Waitangi Tribunal, the identification of breaches of the Treaty, and the negotiation process that follows here at central government level, but it is arrangements like this—true partnerships based on trust and understanding between the parties—that are the cornerstone of our Treaty relationships as we move forward.

This is why when I first arrived in Parliament I told anyone who would listen that I wanted to be involved in the Local Government and Environment Committee, because it is at this local government level that so many of the day-to-day Treaty relationships actually happen. The details of how the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee works are specific to this region and this collection of iwi, but I believe the way in which these relationships have been forged, the respect that all parties have earned for each other, and the strong commitment they have to continuing an open and positive relationship in the future provide a great example for other iwi and other local authorities around the country. Nobody expects that iwi and the regional council will always agree on environmental issues in the Hawke’s Bay. Likewise, there is no expectation from iwi that every outcome will be the one they actually recommend, but the regional planning committee provides a framework for differences to be resolved respectfully.

I want to reiterate something I have said in this House before when speaking on bills related to the environment. Last night was a really good example, particularly when we were debating the Environmental Reporting Bill, particularly Part 1, clause 4A around Te Tiriti o Waitangi references and principles, and then moving into the second part, which actually acknowledges iwi being an important part of that Environmental Reporting Bill. What I say now, and said even before, was that Māori have a significant, important role to play in New Zealand environmental management.

It is easy to look at this sort of co-governance arrangement and see it as only redress for past wrongs. There is an element of that; this committee was set up as part of the Treaty settlement process and forms a part of the redress for the Hawke’s Bay iwi. But to think of this as only redress suggests that the regional council and the wider community it represents are giving up something here—that they are making some sort of sacrifice. There are those who see this as giving iwi something extra, whether they think this is more than iwi are entitled to or they see it as an appropriate redress for past wrongs. I am here to say that the opposite is true. Yes, this community came about as part of a package of redress, but I believe that everyone in the Hawke’s Bay benefits from this. Every New Zealander who values their environment, who enjoys outdoor recreation, or who draws economic benefit from our pristine conservation estate will benefit from improved management of the environment in this region.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee is an excellent example of local government and iwi working together in partnership. It provides a model of co-governance that may be a useful template—not “may be”, actually: that will be a useful template—in future Treaty settlements. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I stand in support of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. First of all, let me offer an apology to Mr Finlayson. I did not mean to be churlish. I have been very appreciative of the inclusive way that he has handled this. Whenever I have asked him for a briefing on what is happening in Hawke’s Bay, he has always been very amenable to that. So thank you, Mr Finlayson, for your cooperation in making this sort of thing happen.

I just want to mention to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, who has just spoken—it is semantics, but it is actually Hawke’s Bay, not the Hawke’s Bay. We do not talk about the Wellington or the Auckland; we talk about Auckland or Wellington. So it is actually Hawke’s Bay, not the Whanganui.

The other thing I would like to say, also, is that it is great to be speaking with Meka Whaitiri. Meka and I are backing the Bay in a way that no other political party has, and I just think that we have a great team. We have a cross-section of everything and we are working in a way that no other party has for a long time. I will tell you what: the people of Hawke’s Bay really appreciate it. I have been back in the Bay now for, I suppose, 7 or 8 years, and for the first time in a long time the Labour Party in the Bay is absolutely united in the way we do things. It is really good to see, actually, because there is not a Tukituki response, a Napier response, an Ikaroa-Rāwhiti response—we are all working together and coming together. So I suspect it will not be long before once again Hawke’s Bay is held by Labour. Mr Foss knows this; I suspect that is why he is going to retire.

This is a good bill. The purpose of the bill provides for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee to oversee the development and the review of regional documents under the Resource Management Act. There is a tension in local government around how to incorporate the provisions in the Treaty of Waitangi and how to incorporate the provisions in the Local Government Act to give them effect in, actually, a meaningful way. Let me give you an example. As we know, Hawke’s Bay is going through quite a destructive debate on amalgamation at the moment. It will not go ahead—but that is OK—but one of the things that the Local Government Commission has tried to do is to ask: “How do we give effect to the Local Government Act?”. So what it has done, apart from an amalgamated council—this is their proposal; Alistair knows it will not go ahead—is include a Māori statutory board and a natural resources board in a sort of a tack-on to say: “This is how we address the issues.” But that amalgamation will not go ahead and that is what makes this bill so important, because there is that tension between how we incorporate what needs to be done under the Resource Management Act but also give local iwi a say in the management of natural resources.

Let us leave the amalgamation debate aside. There are a couple of other big debates going on in the Bay at the moment that are really important and will affect the future: the economic future, the hip pocket of rates, and all this sort of carry-on. The level of consultation that has gone on is not sufficient, in my view, to come up with a robust result. The first one is bottled water. Hawke’s Bay sits on two massive aquifers, and at the moment what has happened is that there are two companies that have been given resource consent to draw water from these aquifers. It is actually the best water in the country. It has been tested. That is not just me being a Napier boy saying that; it has been tested. But they are drawing this water out and they are going to sell it. The issue I have around this is that, sure, they have gone through the resource consent process, but they are not paying a cent for the water they take out and sell. There is something wrong with that, when people can use a natural resource to make economic gain and not pay for that. This is an issue that is resonating around the Bay. I have brought it up a lot and people are shaking their heads and saying: “Things need to change.”

The other thing, of course, is the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, known as the Ruataniwha Dam. There is going to be a cost to the Government, to the local council, and also to the landholders, if this goes ahead, of around $500 million. There is a lot of debate and contention about whether this should go ahead, but, in my opinion, I do not think that the voice of Ngāti Kahungunu has been heard in a way that gives it meaning. I do know, speaking to the Ngāti Kahungunu representatives, that they have a level of disquiet about this, but at the moment they have been what is called “consulted” in a way that I do not think gives true effect to their purpose, and certainly not to kaitiakitanga.

The thing, also, about this bill is this: let us hope it is a model for co-governance going forward. Let us hope it is a model that does give true effect to the partnership that—we must move together in this country if we are going to get things done, because the last thing we want in any area, and certainly in resource management governance, is continued infighting and acrimony. We have got that in the Bay at the moment, over a couple of these processes I am talking about. It is not healthy and it does not breed trust in the way the processes are being undertaken.

But Meka Whaitiri is right. We can legislate for this. It will pass through the House because we all support it, but the thing about this is how it is actually operationalised. If it is not given effect, if it does not have the mandate to actually give effect to the legislation, then it will not be successful. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I can tell the people in the House that Meka Whaitiri and I will certainly be backing it. We will absolutely make sure, within our powers, that it does have the mandate to have a strong voice around the table when it comes to these resource planning and management issues. We do support this bill, and let us go onwards and upwards into effective co-governance of the resources of the Bay. Thank you very much.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. I am pleased to stand to take a short call on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. I want to acknowledge our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who tirelessly works on these bills, pushing through over 45 into legislation and over 75 altogether working on these bills. He is a good Minister, a good Minister for the Treaty of Waitangi settlements, and a very good Minister overall for this Government.

I want to acknowledge also the submitters on this bill—the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Mana Ahuriri Inc., Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc., Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust, Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, and the Upper Mōhaka Kaitiaki Collective. These submitters put in a lot of work over time to end up bringing this bill in its form back to us, after the select committee had taken all their discussions and submissions and came out with the bill in the form that it is today.

I also want to acknowledge our select committee, the Māori Affairs Committee, and its members. We work in a collegial way. We are the only select committee in Parliament that does this. Therefore, we are able to debate the issues respectfully with each other and still go away as whānau ki whānau.

This bill is a stand-alone bill, and it gives effect to the Crown’s commitment to introduce legislation to establish the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. The Crown’s commitment was given in the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement, and recorded in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust deed of settlement, to introduce legislation to set up the regional planning committee. The Crown’s commitment to the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement would see an equal number of council numbers and iwi representatives having input into the planning processes of the natural resources that affect the region—something that my colleague Nuk Korako so eloquently described in his kōrero just recently.

I just want to talk a little bit about the membership of the regional planning council and the tangata whenua members. One member is appointed by the trustees of each of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust, Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua, Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum Trust, Mana Ahuriri Inc., Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc., and Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa; two members are appointed from He Toa Takitini; and one member is appointed by the appointer for Ngāti Ruapani ki Waikaremoana. I just wanted to talk about the appointers, because in order to disestablish the regional planning committee it has to be a unanimous agreement by the appointers, so the appointers have a very key role in the regional planning committee.

This legislation is necessary. It overcomes certain provisions in schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. It allows the regional planning committee to become a permanent committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

This is a good bill. It is a stand-alone bill. It is a bill that demonstrates that this National-led Government stands by its commitments. It is a Government that listens to what the people are saying—the people whom the bills stand for. It is a Government that says what we are going to do, and we do it. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. He mihi nui ki te Whare Paremata ko tēnei rā. I would also like to start my contribution by acknowledging the Clerk of the House for her wonderful work over many years and for her dignity and mana, appropriately during this particular extended Treaty sitting. Dignity and mana is not exclusive to anyone, but it is always magnificent when it is seen. So kia ora to you, Mary Harris.

The Green Party is supporting the bill. It is essential that we do so because we supported the settlement bills that it came out of. Therefore, we have to acknowledge that these settlement bills created this particular bill.

I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee and I found it extremely interesting, but, actually, I found it quite complex. I do not think it was as simple as some of the speakers have implied. Certainly, the support from the nine hapū that were represented was very clear, but there were some interesting debates and interesting submissions that, when I read the detail of the bill and the functions of this committee, I do want to touch upon.

So, although supporting the effort that was made and the flow-on from the settlement process that has created this, I do think this is one of the weaker regional planning committees in terms of co-governance that I have ever seen because if you read the bill, there is no reference to co-governance. There is no reference to decision-making power. If you look at the 10 functions and powers of this committee—which already exist, and I have been reading its minutes—they are to “consider the RMA documents and recommend to the Council”. So this is not comparable with Waikato-Tainui or Maniapoto and co-governance.

We actually need to be upfront and say that these are not words that we can just float around and play with. Co-governance is not article 2, and co-management and co-governance are not reflected through recommendations, but through shared power. This is not a decolonising piece of legislation. Laudable as it is that we give statutory recognition—and it is important to do that for an existing committee—we actually need to talk about what co-governance is.

Ngāhiwi Tomoana’s submission on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu, although they ended up supporting the procedure of this bill and their relationships locally—which are not business in the sense of this House but the business of Ngāti Kahungunu me iwi katoa o te rohe—actually raises some really interesting points about this. Ngāti Kahungunu raised some concerns that true partnership frameworks reflecting tangata whenua’s kaitiaki are not the same as just having the ability to recommend on natural resources. To quote the letter they wrote to the select committee: “Ngāti Kahungunu is concerned that the opportunity for the best and most meaningful sustainable and robust co-governance and/or co-management arrangement will be missed and tangata whenua will be left with something weaker than what other iwi and other people have in the region, including Ngāti Kahungunu’s relationship with the Greater Wellington Regional Council.” They ask how this is different from a glamorised Māori Authority committee, and, I mean, painful as that question is, I think it is a fair question to ask when you look at the statutory powers that are there.

Regional planning committees are important, but not if they have no real power. When we look at the issues in the rohe around water, which is one of the hot topics on the regional planning committee, it was Ngāti Kahungunu that had to take the regional council to court for its failure to sustain the aquifer’s future. An existing committee is now being confirmed for legislation, but that existing committee was unable to do exactly what is required in terms of kaitiakitanga in section 6 of the Resource Management Act.

It does make the point that Ngāti Kahungunu are already worried that they have to use an instrument—an expensive instrument like the Environment Court—rather than being able to resolve these things through the regional planning committee. So, much as I support the bill in terms of the aspirations of iwi and hapū katoa across the rohe and the need to fulfil the agreements in the settlement, I have to raise these issues in terms of those two points.

What is co-governance? It is not a woolly, fantasy term where we just say: “We will put some people on a committee.”, and that is co-governance. That is not robust co-governance, and it is not meeting the ability of people to be kaitiaki if they have to then take the regional council—the very body that they have now got this committee with and have had for some time—to court over issues to do with water.

Water is a central issue in this field, and if you look at Ruataniwha—or the dodgy dam, as we call it—and if you look at the stresses on the aquifer, not to mention the nitrate issues in the rivers, and if you look at Tukituki and the other awa in the rohe, it is a huge challenge that faces the whole region, and ideally it faces it collectively. But the concern of the Greens remains that in this bill the functions and powers of the regional planning committee is to implement a work programme for the review of Resource Management Act documents. Having spent, I do not know, maybe 20 years of my life on Resource Management Act issues, it does really concern me that there is no power to do more than recommend, when water is at a crisis point and when, supposedly, no one owns water but a water-bottling company is allowed to export it out of the aquifer in the rohe.

Also, it does concern me that at the bigger picture level we should play with terms like “co-management” and “co-governance” and “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” without being clear. I am not from the area and I do not like to hazard a guess, but maybe it is because the Pākehā community—and I have received a few emails from them—does not understand. That would not be a first. It does not understand and, therefore, once again, tangata whenua have generously allowed what they might hope to be a first step towards a transition towards article 2, but the problem is you do not get that many shots in legislation, and this is their shot. I can see why Ngāhiwi Tomoana and Ngāti Kahungunu raised the concern, not to oppose it, but to ask: “Is this a glamorised Māori advisory committee?”.

We would like to see this bill be stiffened in its strength, be more explicit in its acknowledgments, and be more directive to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council that it actually needs to accept the recommendations of the committee, rather than have the option of not accepting them. This is about all the planning instruments that will affect all the resources, not just water, but all the resources that te Tiriti guarantees very strongly in terms of the rangatiratanga of iwi katoa, to become something that can only be recommended about.

So I am glad to see that the people of the rohe want the bill to go forward and that no one has come back to us at the select committee and said: “Don’t support the bill.” The Greens were approached earlier on not to, but that position has changed. I am glad to be able to say we have not heard that. But at this second reading stage, I am asking whether this is the best we can do in terms of the functions and powers of this. Are we actually handing this community a real understanding of change, a real direction in terms of article 2—a real co-governance—or are we actually setting this up for, yet again, a disappointment for the nine hapū and iwi involved, so that they will be at the table and will hear: “Thank you very much, we really appreciate that you’ve travelled through the rohe to come to this meeting, but we’ve decided not to take any notice of what you’ve said because other vested interests in the community are just as important to us and, therefore, you are not going to get your ability to exercise section 6, section 7, and section 8 of the Resource Management Act.”?

I would love to be proved wrong, but when the legislation is as weak as this, I am not quite sure that we are going to be proved wrong. It is disappointing, because I recognise the work that everybody has put into this and that the select committee has put into this. It is an important bill, but the Greens will not muck around. We are not interested in recommendations as a substitute for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. When we look at the other bills that other iwi have negotiated through this Parliament and they have explicit co-governance—and co-governance is already a compromise—our doubts remain. But more of this to come at the third reading. Kia ora tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te ata nei. Ēngari i mua i te haere tonu o aku kōrero, e hiahia ana au ki te tautoko ngā kōrero, ngā mihi hoki a te tuahine, a Meka, ki a rātou mā i wehe atu ki tua o Paerau. Ēngari, korekau kē e hiahia ana au kia waihotia ngā mihi ki a rātou nahe ēngari, ki ngā mate katoa, puta noa. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to us as well sitting here in the House this morning. But before I continue with my speech I want to endorse the sentiments expressed by the sister colleague Meka to the ones that have gone beyond the veil. But not to them alone: to all the deaths throughout the nation. Leave the dead there to themselves while we remain here amongst ourselves; acknowledgments, salutations, greetings, and thank you once again to us all.]

I want to join with those who have stood before me to acknowledge the Clerk of the House. Although I did express my sentiments in another forum, at least my sentiments in this forum will be recorded in Hansard. Therefore, I want to acknowledge the work that you have done not only for this House but, as a consequence of what emanates from this House, for our country. Like the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said, we are so far down in the pecking order that we probably will not have this opportunity again, so on behalf of my party, New Zealand First, I want to again extend our appreciation and offer best wishes for the future. Tēnā koe.

Getting back to the kaupapa for the day, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill, it is my pleasure to stand on behalf of the New Zealand First Party. Can I say that although I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and New Zealand First supported the bill up to that point, we do have some reservations, many of which have been articulated by the previous speaker, Catherine Delahunty.

I note that this bill will confirm in legislation a committee that already exists and that has been operating for the last 4 or 5 years. Members may recall that during the first reading of this bill, I queried whether or not the decisions already made by the committee would still have the same standing as if it had been established by way of legislation. The concern we have—although the committee is a consequence of a Treaty settlement—is how the members of that board are selected. That is where New Zealand First has some issues. We have always believed in one franchise and that any decision or appointment to such a body as is proposed in this bill should be subject to an election—an open election, not just by particular groups. So therein lies the nub for us.

The second part is that I want to query the effectiveness of the committee. If this bill had been passed, would the committee have made any difference to the two recent resource consent applications that were granted to two bottling companies? I suggest that it would not have. So I ask myself how effective this proposed committee would be if the committee that exists cannot even watch what is happening in its own area at the moment. It is really a concern for iwi in that region to see two groups be granted consent for 364,000 cubic metres of water to one group and just over 400,000 cubic metres a year to the other group. That is a lot of water, but the crux of the matter is that these companies are actually selling this water offshore. Where is the benefit to the local people, whether they be iwi or non-iwi?

Marama Fox: Corporate welfare.

PITA PARAONE: Yes, corporate stuff, but are we not talking about protecting the rights of not only iwi but the local people as well? Where do the benefits of that export go to? Certainly not to the people of Hawke’s Bay. We know they go offshore. The profits end up offshore and are of no benefit to our local community. So we in New Zealand First query the effectiveness of the establishment of this bill.

Another issue for us is that not all iwi supported this bill. They have concerns about representation. We should not be surprised that when there are so many hapū within iwi, some will feel disenfranchised. I just want to have that on record on behalf of those iwi who feel they are not represented, to have their view noted.

The other point is that the Labour spokesperson Meka Whaitiri mentioned that the proposed Māori group included two representatives who were not of the hau kāinga—of the home tribe. Although we might think that it is good that we include all Māori who are living in the Hawke’s Bay area, I know for a fact that even in my own tribal area that is a major issue. You cannot talk about tangata whenua if you are not tangata whenua. I just want to pick up that point.

I do not need to go on any further other than to say that the concern that New Zealand First has is that this bill certainly does not support the notion of a single franchise, and New Zealand First believes, as one of its principles, in a single franchise. Nā reira, kua nui waku kōrero mō tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Therefore I have said enough for now, so thank you and us collectively once again.]

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I rise in support of this bill, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill, alongside many others in the House. I support this bill for a number of reasons. This bill formalises the deed of settlement that was signed on 17 December 2010. It ensures that the committee, which we have talked about already, is guaranteed not to be dissolved, which currently, today, the regional council does have the ability to do. This formalises the role of that committee. I support the make up of the committee as well.

Tangata whenua has a unique position in our community, in the catchment that we are talking about in the Hawke’s Bay, and it is only right that the tangata whenua contribute in equal number to this committee on the natural resource planning issues.

I hear what the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, talked about as far as the representation, and Meka Whaitiri also talked about representation. We know that in all situations, in all committees, in all groups, in all subcommittees, and even in select committees we cannot all be heard all the time. We cannot please all the people all the time. But it is important that we are included, that there is collaboration, and that there is listening, which I think was the point that was made earlier.

I also appreciate this, and support this bill because it talks about the Hawke’s Bay region—the regional planning involved in the Hawke’s Bay. It does not talk about the Napier planning, or the Tukituki electorate planning, or the Central Hawke’s Bay planning. It talks about the region’s plan, and it works with the regional council.

Although Mr Nash has always talked about amalgamation as being a bad thing, I take the opposite view. It is a view that I share with my colleague, Minister Foss, that the Hawke’s Bay should be united. It should be united, as this committee relates to the region. So this committee will look at all things in the Hawke’s Bay. It will not prejudice Napier or prejudge Tukituki or Central Hawke’s Bay. It will take the place as a whole. That is a very important and, in hindsight, a very interesting angle that it has taken, because it could have taken a much narrower and exclusive view of the role of this committee.

This bill is also important because it talks about natural resources and we have got a big project in the Hawke’s Bay, or in Central Hawke’s Bay—in Hawke’s Bay, not the Hawke’s Bay, Mr Nash—that relates to the Ruataniwha Dam. Again, Mr Nash was a little ambivalent around whether he supported that project or not. I say, categorically, that I do support this infrastructure project because it will create jobs, it will improve productivity, and it will increase exports out of the Bay. This is where this committee can contribute, and I am sure has contributed, to the debate that has been going on around the Ruataniwha Dam and the effect that it has on the waterways.

I see the tangata whenua input into this committee, the committee input into the regional plan, and the regional plan dictating or governing the issue around the Ruataniwha Dam as being inclusive and collaborative and necessary, so that the community does buy in to the water quality, because that is what we are talking about, at the end of the day—the quality of the aquifer, mentioned by a member of New Zealand First, Pita Paraone, and the quality of our waterways above ground and below ground.

There has been a pretty vicious and strong debate around the issues of water. We talk about the ownership of water; that has been on the table. The Prime Minister has said categorically that no one will own water, and I support that. For a number of reasons, a number of threads that are in the public domain at the moment, this bill, despite the fact that it has been ongoing since the deed was signed in December 2010—the timing of it is quite unique, if you like, in that it draws together in the second reading today all of those things that are on the table. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call—Su’a William Sio.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I will take a very short call and rise to support the decision of the Labour Party in supporting the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill at its second reading. I want to commend, firstly, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the parties to this, because this is really a follow-on from the commitment made at the Treaty settlement of 2010. I also want to commend the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. I think it was an important step that it came on board and that it be consulted on this, and I commend it for its commitment that this regional planning committee be formalised. That is really important going forward. I then want to turn to my colleagues here, Meka Whaitiri, Rino, and my Māori members in the Labour caucus, who have been vigilant in driving this and in voicing the concerns expressed by Māori in that region, the iwi and hapū concerned, and say that although we are sort of patting each other on the back at this stage, we have got to acknowledge that the pathway for iwi and Māori, particularly those concerned with this Treaty settlement advancement, has not been easy one. Although we are moving forward and asking that we embrace this regional planning committee, I have also got to acknowledge that the voices and concerns raised by the Green Party and New Zealand First need to be raised, But we have got to still move forward and accept the fact that Māori do have a say. That is important, or even more important, in regional development when it comes to the environment.

If we look at the Resource Management Act, a lot of what that incorporates in the various sections is as a result of the contribution of Māori and the recognition that our indigenous people do have a significant say in how to protect our environment and protect this land. It was the Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk who, 40 years ago, recognised that one of the unique features of New Zealand and one that he was proud of, and we ought to be proud of, is the existence of Māori, their culture, their traditions, and their language, which make us unique. He used a phrase, which I refer to: a bleeding thread in the fabric of our society. That recognises the hardship, the pain, and the blood that Māori have given up. They have been constant in their pursuit not only of addressing the wrongs that have been committed against them in the past, but also of addressing that we have only one land and that when we recognise land as mother Earth and we dig up that land, we are actually creating scabs in the land. When we drill the land, we are hurting the land for future generations. Therefore, I think the establishment of this committee and the involvement of tangata whenua in this committee is an important aspect of New Zealanders recognising that their input is critical if we are to ensure that we pass on the land and its environment to the next generation for them to be able to have a sustainable life in the years to come. That is my contribution, acknowledging all of those who have participated but more so those who have gone before us who have been involved in those discussions and those debates, and on whose shoulders we stand today. Tēnā koe.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā. Tuatahi, e hiahia ana au ki te tautoko i ngā mihi kua mihia ki a rātou kua wehe atu ki tua o te ārai, i ngā wiki, i ngā rangi, i ngā mārama, kua pahure ake nei. Kua mōhio, kua kite mātou i te hinga ō ērā o ngā kaumātua, ngā kuia, ngā hākoro o te rohe o Ngāti Kahungunu. Nā reira, e tika, me mihi atu ki a rātou kua wehe atu ki te pō. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want endorse the tributes to those who have departed beyond the veil in the days, weeks, and months just past. We know of and have seen those older people, elderly men and womenfolk of Ngāti Kahungunu, who have passed away. And so it is appropriate that we pay a tribute to those who have departed to the void. Allow the dead to remain there amongst themselves while we the living remain here; thank you to us all.]

I am proud to stand to speak on this bill. It is a bit of a mixed bag, actually, but there are a few reasons why I am proud of it. Tuatahi: “Kua āta tirohia e Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori Te Pire a Te Komiti Whakatakoto Mahere ā-Rohe o Te Matau-a-Māui, ā, ka tūtohu kia whakamanahia me ngā whakatikatika kua oti te whakaatu.” Now I will translate that, just in case we did not catch up. That is the very first sentence in the report from the Māori Affairs Committee. In essence, it reflects the collective view of the Māori Affairs Committee that the House should support this bill. And we do. I think that has been clear here today, but there are a couple of other reasons why I am proud to support this bill. That is because today we put into law a statutory body called the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. I would have liked it better if it had been called the Heretaunga Planning Committee, but then we might miss out Wairoa, Ahuriri, and Waikaremoana. It is a little hard to put a name on something that includes such a vast area.

The second reason why I am proud of this bill is that it allows iwi and hapū to have representation. Is it as much representation as we would like? No, I do not think so. I do not think it goes far enough. There are no voting powers here, but there is the opportunity to advise, and it is not just a portion of an opportunity; it is a fifty-fifty split. Some people have made a lot of that.

The third reason why I am proud of this bill is that we have taken the opportunity to have this legislation written in Te Reo. At the end of this month, the nation will celebrate Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. The theme for this year is “Whāngaihia te reo Māori ki ngā Mātua”—supporting the language development of our parents so that they can feed their children. Having the Māori Affairs Committee report in Te Reo is just one way the House can encourage and promote Te Reo as a universally acceptable means of communication, and as a taonga and resource for our nation as a whole. So that is why I am proud of it.

I am also proud of the members who have come together to support this development in regional council and the planning committee, our mana whenua. I am going to read out the trustees because I want to make sure I do not miss anybody—the trustees of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, the trustees of Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust, the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua, the trustees of Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum Trust, Mana Ahuriri Incorporated, Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Incorporated, Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa, He Toa Takitini, and Ngāti Ruapani ki Waikaremoana. So together all of these collective groups have put their trust and their faith in their representation as mana whenua, in this regional planning committee.

I have had emails in the last couple of days, as many of us may have had, from people saying that this is indeed separatism, that this is undemocratic, and that this is a race-based piece of legislation. I want to say to those people who call this separatism that actually that is rubbish. It is absolutely rubbish. This is not separatism. This is unification. This is two people coming together. [Bell rung] One minute, no way! I will cut straight to the point, then.

Let us talk about some water rights, because it seems to me you are damned if you do and you are damned if you do not. The Ruataniwha Dam is not fiscally responsible. There is not the ability to put money and a value on water. When they say that water cannot be owned I say that is rubbish, because regional councils across the country act as owners of the water when they allocate that water. And how have they allocated it? They have allocated it 100 percent to farmers and corporates all over the country. That is called corporate welfare. In fact, that is a benefit. When those people then go on to pollute our waterways I think we call that benefit fraud, and then we use taxpayer dollars to pay for the clean-up of those waterways. I am going to get that in, right at the end, because I think we need to acknowledge that unless we have voting rights we cannot say that this is a perfect piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. As has been discussed already by the Minister and other speakers, this bill fulfils an undertaking given by the National-led Government in the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement, and it is recorded in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū deed of settlement, to introduce legislation to establish the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee.

I suppose the only point I could make is that this is a Government that makes clear what it sets out to do. It makes agreements in good faith, and carries out those agreements through legislation. It does what is says it is going to do, and that is what this legislation achieves. It is about setting a framework for the committee, which is necessary to ensure that, post-settlement, iwi in the Hawke’s Bay region are entitled to appoint representatives on this committee. The committee is to oversee the development and review of the regional policy statement, and see that the regional plans in the Hawke’s Bay region are prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act.

The bill before the House is the outcome of a great deal of hard work and cooperation amongst all the parties involved, and it represents a positive approach for future engagement between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and iwi and hapū in the Hawke’s Bay region. On that basis I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou ngā rangatira o te Whare. Ka huri tū, ka huri ake ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, haere, haere koutou, haere koutou. Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you esteemed ones of the House. I turn my attention now to those who have passed away: farewell, depart, and go forth. And back to us all now the living: greetings, salutations, and accolades.]

I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill. Having been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, we listened to a range of submissions, which were all very supportive. I know that we have had other things that have been brought up in the debate today, but there has been a lot of support for this bill and for the establishment of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. I think we need to go back to the foundations of this bill, which are in Treaty settlements. So we are here today implementing Treaty settlements that have been agreed between tangata whenua groups, iwi, hapū, and the Crown. This is merely following through on those commitments.

I had the honour of being involved with the Ngāti Pāhauwera legislation when that came through the House, and that of Maungaharuru-Tangitū as well—all in the Hawke’s Bay region. I am looking forward to the Ngāti Hineuru legislation, which has been introduced into the House. Again, that is another hapū group or iwi group that is a member of this planning committee. I think we do need to acknowledge the fact that this committee has been established with the agreement of nine groups, plus the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Crown. That is no mean feat.

It has had a long history in the making. It started over 5 years ago, and to have that broad range of groups in support to all come together and to have this group functioning—it has actually been in place and in operation for the last 2 years. So I think we should not be quick to put over disparaging remarks and say “Oh, it is not as good as it could be.”, or, you know, it could be doing more, or it should be doing this or should be doing that. The fact is that this is based on Treaty settlements, and all the tangata whenua groups involved have been supportive, and they came before the committee to acknowledge that, as did the Crown and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. I do think we need to acknowledge the uniqueness of that.

Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach for Treaty settlements around the country. We know that there are different types of arrangements in terms of integrating iwi views in the natural environment, through things like co-governance and co-management arrangements, which probably is the top type of arrangement you could get at the moment, to a planning committee arrangement. So there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Every iwi, every takiwā is different, and I think we just need to go back to the fact that this committee has been formed for the implementation of undertakings that have been agreed with the various groups and the Crown, and the regional council. That is why we are here today.

I know that there have been a lot of comments around the fact that Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc. has not been given a seat on the planning committee. I do acknowledge that it does support the bill. It made some very valid comments in its submissions, but I think—and I mentioned this in my first speech, and it came through in the submissions as well—that Ngāti Kahungunu is represented because it is represented through all its hapū. It is represented from up in Pāhauwera and all the other hapū of Ngāti Kahungunu as well. So there is representation there. You know, as Māori, we like to think and we like to speak in metaphors—

Peeni Henare: But never unclear.

RINO TIRIKATENE: No, no, never unclear—never unclear. Because this is the natural environment that we are talking about in terms of this planning committee, if the river is an iwi, then it is the streams and the little creeks that flow and feed into that river that make the iwi, and the big, lofty mountain is made up of the hills, and they all hold up that lofty mountain. Likewise, the great kauri tree—well, there would be no great kauri tree; it is nothing without the branches. Those are the hapū that make up all the great iwi around the country. That is evidenced through this bill and in the creation of this planning committee. All of the hapū of Ngāti Kahungunu are there to hold up the mana of Ngāti Kahungunu through their participation.

Let us not forget that it is the people—the hapū—who have been leading these settlements and have entered into these settlements with the Crown. There is an egregious history that has taken place. I recommend that everyone read the Waitangi Tribunal reports and read the settlement legislation just to get a sense for the loss of all of the hau kāinga groups and their connection to their ancestral landscapes. So this is an important step, as my colleague Su’a William Sio mentioned in his speech before—it is a very important step. The fact that these hapū groups, having had lands taken away and slashed and burned, and having had the degradation of their environment over generations—to have had that inflicted upon them—now have the opportunity to be part of a permanent body, a permanent committee, on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, is a significant step. I know that they are really proud of that opportunity and they are making a contribution.

So let us not sort of be critical in terms of saying that they have no power and that they are a toothless type of committee, because they are not. It is a very important committee, and it is made up fifty-fifty with representatives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. It even has a dual chairmanship, which I think is a another gesture of the partnership between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the tangata whenua groups in the Hawke’s Bay.

This is a very good piece of legislation. We are implementing the solemn arrangements that have been put in place through Treaty settlements, and I acknowledge Minister Finlayson and the work that his team does in putting through these important settlements right across the country. Let us give these planning committees and other co-governance bodies that are created under these settlements time to actually bed themselves in and do their mahi. I know that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was very aware of the importance of this committee and I certainly hope that it will be resourcing the committee adequately to do its important work in reviewing all of the important planning documents under the Resource Management Act 1991 that they are responsible for putting in place. I commend this bill and I also acknowledge the work that all of the representative groups on the committee are doing at this time. I am looking forward to passing this legislation so that that undertaking, which was made in the Treaty settlement, is complete. Kia ora tātou.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e te Whare. I wonder whether the House would indulge me for just a few seconds if I might announce some very happy news, and that is that there is a new member of the Government whips’ office after Lucy and Jami-Lee Ross welcomed their daughter, Charlotte, into the world at 10.53 last night. I know that she is a very welcomed sister for big brother, Henry, and that she will be a dearly loved member of the family. I am sure that all members of the House would like to join me in sending congratulations to Lucy and Jami-Lee.

Meka Whaitiri: Did you give him leave?

TIM MACINDOE: I have given him leave, yes, I am delighted to say. Even though I am not known for being overly generous, on this occasion I have given him a whole 2 days until the adjournment, and then he can do with the adjournment what he likes.

In the spirit of goodwill, could I thank all who have contributed to the debate on this bill in its second reading. I do have a Hawke’s Bay connection in that my wife was raised for some of her childhood in the Hawke’s Bay—or Hawke’s Bay, as Mr Nash would prefer I should say it—and was educated at Karamu High School. In fact, Anne and I—

Meka Whaitiri: Woo hoo!

TIM MACINDOE: Oh, so I see that Meka Whaitiri obviously was there, as well. My wife and I were married in Hawke’s Bay and, in fact, my parents-in-law still live in retirement there. So I do always take an interest in the items affecting Hawke’s Bay that come through the House.

I just want to say that, as previous speakers have noted, this is a bill that fulfils undertakings that were negotiated in good faith. It is the outcome of a great deal of hard work and cooperation between all the parties that were involved, so I want to acknowledge the serious consideration given to the bill under the leadership of the very worthy Māori Affairs Committee chair, Nuk Korako. In particular, I want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe he will go down in history as one of the finest Ministers in this Government. His work in this area is truly historic and it is something that I am very proud to support.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This omnibus bill represents the culmination of a huge amount of work over many years by some very, very dedicated people. The bill is going to give legislative effect to four deeds of settlement signed by the Crown and Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāi Takoto, and Ngāti Kurī. The bill also establishes arrangements to preserve financial benefits from accumulated forest rentals for the fifth of Te Hiku iwi, Ngāti Kahu. The omnibus bill will see one of the largest returns of land to Māori ownership. It was drafted as an omnibus bill because shared redress between the four settling iwi required the bills to be passed into law at the same time. The bill is expected to be divided into five bills prior to the third reading.

At the third reading we expect a large delegation of Te Hiku iwi representatives, and I very much look forward to that historic occasion. That will be the time for full speeches and acknowledgments. For now I acknowledge the excellent work of the Māori Affairs Committee over the past 6 months the bill has been considered by that committee. I appreciate its examination of the bill and the very careful attention it has paid to all submissions. Given the sheer size of the bill I congratulate the chair and members on their tremendous work. I also want to thank other Ministers and departments who have worked on this bill. It was no mean feat.

I am grateful to those who took the time to make submissions on the bill. It was very encouraging to hear submissions from those who support and are looking forward to the opportunities these settlements will bring for the empowerment of the hapū and iwi of Te Hiku o te Ika. Those who opposed the bill raised some important issues, and these have been very thoroughly and carefully considered by the committee. The committee received 25 submissions on the bill, and it heard 19 oral submissions in hearings in Kaitāia. It has recommended a small number of minor amendments to the bill, and I want briefly to address some of the issues the committee outlined in its report.

As anyone who has worked on this settlement knows, the complex whakapapa relationships and highly overlapped interests of Te Hiku have at times made settlements difficult for both Te Hiku iwi and the Crown. Some submitters expressed concern that their iwi or hapū was inappropriately named or included within a settlement. These issues have been addressed at length by the Waitangi Tribunal, by Ministers, and now by the Māori Affairs Committee. Te Ihutai and Kōhatutaka hapū have the opportunity through the settlement to benefit significantly from their association with Te Rarawa.

The Crown and Te Rarawa also acknowledge the Ngāpuhi whakapapa of the these hapū. Both hapū will also have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the future Ngāpuhi settlement. The committee recommended a wording amendment to clarify this important matter. It also noted the letter of commitment from Te Rarawa undertaking to support Te Ihutai aspirations in future with regard to Kohukohu Police Station, and I want to thank Te Rarawa for that commitment.

I need to say something about Ngāti Kahu. Ngāti Kahu is not settling with their whanaunga at this time, but this bill protects their interests. It provides for Ngāti Kahu to participate in the co-governance arrangements over public conservation lands and Te Oneroa-a-Tohe and establishes the Ngāti Kahu Accumulated Rentals Trust. The trust preserves the Crown’s ability to honour the 2010 Te Hiku Forum agreement, and it provides 20 percent of the accumulated rentals associated with Aupōuri Forest to Ngāti Kahu in the future. Once this legislation is enacted rentals will be held on trust with interest accruing for Ngāti Kahu, and I very much look forward to the day when either present or future Ngāti Kahu negotiators will be prepared to come to the table to settle the grievances of their iwi. One has only to visit the rohe of Ngāti Kahu to see that there is much to be done there. Adopting an ivory tower approach to negotiations is not the way forward in my view, and I hope that a spirit of cooperation breaks out in Ngāti Kahu in the not too distant future.

In the third reading I will speak to each of the four settlements. I very much look forward to seeing Te Hiku iwi move into a positive future. In fact, I am very much looking forward to meeting with them in the far north in the next couple of days with my colleague the Minister of Conservation as we give effect to the settlements and meet with them to discuss how things are going in relation, for example, to Te Oneroa-a-Tohe. I commend the bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi māku e mihi kau ana ki wērā o ngā iwi nō rātou tēnei pire me ngā mema o aua iwi e noho ana kei roto i tō tātou Whare. Nā reira, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e Rick—[Interruption]—e te rangatira Rangitāne aroha mai, koutou katoa mā, tēnā rā koutou. Harikoa ana kei konei koutou e whakarongo ana ki tēnei pānuitanga tuarua.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me is to particularly acknowledge those tribes this bill belongs to and the members of those tribes sitting here in our House. And so I acknowledge you, Rick—[Interruption]—my apologies to you, the relative Rangitāne, and greetings to you all, too. I am really pleased that you are here listening to this second reading.]

I would just like to acknowledge the four iwi who are being settled and also our whanaunga up here in the gallery. I just apologise to Rangitāne Marsden from Ngāi Takoto, for momentarily forgetting his name, and Rick Wītana from Te Aupōuri. It is great to have them here. Although other members of the other iwi are not necessarily here in body, they are certainly here in spirit.

It is great to see Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill progress through the House, because living in Te Hiku area, I agree entirely with what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has just said, which is there are needs up here that need to be met, and the sooner that we can complete this process—get through this second reading and on to the Committee stage and the third reading—the better and the sooner Te Hiku area will benefit from this settlement. I also would like to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. I am not a member of that committee. I did sit in on the hearings in Kaitāia to hear those submissions. I am told that this is the second-largest bill ever to come before the House, and if that is the case it is an absolutely superb undertaking by the Māori Affairs Committee to get to the stage where it is at now. As the Minister has said, this is an omnibus bill that provides settlement of historic Treaty of Waitangi claims, signed by the four far north iwi, Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa, between 2012 and 2014. It is drafted as an omnibus bill because there are shared aspects in the redress that will be passed into law at the same time. However, it will be broken into its separate bills in the Committee stage.

Just some items to note from the select committee scrutiny of the bill—and this is getting into a few specifics. The Kōhukohu Police Station, the land that it sits on, is contested between Te Ihutai and Te Rarawa. If it should ever be declared surplus by the Crown—i.e., should that station ever close—Te Rarawa will have the first option to purchase that land. I believe that the police station at the moment is currently looking for an officer. Whether or not that vacancy is filled may actually mean that this land may be declared surplus by the Crown in the next little while. I am not quite sure what the police’s intentions are for that station. Te Ihutai oppose this and say that it is Ngāpuhi land and it should be included in Te Ihutai’s Ngāpuhi claim. Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa support Te Ihutai’s claim to the police station land. The Māori Affairs Committee was of the view that if the police station is withdrawn from Te Rarawa settlement, there would be no guaranteed protection over it before the Ngāpuhi settlement is negotiated and provided for in the legislation.

So if the police station is declared surplus, in the meantime Te Ihutai could apply for the land to be land-banked, but there are no cast-iron guarantees the application would be successful or that redress would be negotiated in a Ngāpuhi settlement. Therefore, as the Minister has stated, Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa have undertaken to support any changes that would be taken in what would be known as Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Bill to accommodate any preferable form of redress through any future Ngāpuhi settlement for Te Ihutai. The Māori Affairs Committee did not agree with Te Ihutai’s preferred approach, and Te Rarawa have, as the Minister said, provided a letter of commitment to support Te Ihutai, and I thank Te Rarawa for that. There was also some clarification needed to make it clear that Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Bill does not settle any claims of members of Te Ihutai and Kohatutaka through their Ngāpuhi whakapapa. That was just an important clarification.

I would like to touch on the name Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. I am a direct descendant of Tōhe, the tipuna. Many people in the north who do not know their history, who do not know whakapapa, who do not know the significance of that name, say: “Well, why would you want to name the beach Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe?”. Most people up there these days cannot even say it or pronounce the name. Māori do not like to give out their whakapapa just willy-nilly, but let me say Tōhe begat Te Kuranga, who begat Rāninikura, who begat Rahingahinga, who begat Rāwheao, who begat Te Au, who begat Te Hinaki, who begat Waikanae, who cohabited with Hinepapa, who had Puhi, who married Tu Whangai, who had Haki, who married Tautoro, who had Whetu Pōmare, who married Ranginananga, who had Tiaho, who married Henry Davis, who had Hēnare, who married Ngarui Harawene, who had Uru, who married Maora Pānapa, who had Te Wātene, who married Maki, who had Pānapa, who married Glenys, who had me. That is 17 generations from Tōhe. Let me say that for maybe the three generations from me up, my father, and my grandparents, and maybe a fourth generation, may have known Te Oneroa, or have predominantly called Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Ninety Mile Beach. But I can guarantee that for the 13 generations above us, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe was known as Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. I fully endorse the name Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe and the fact that a board is being set up with the name Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board.

I was quite annoyed but not surprised to see that there was a headline in a local paper saying that this new board was going to open a can of worms. What that can of worms may open in particular, I am not sure. It did not say in the report, other than that some people are anxious about the fact that Māori are going to have co-management opportunities for Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe and that the board will be made up of one representative from each of the four iwi as well as four representatives from the community. I believe that four community representatives have been selected, one being Monty Knight from the Northland Regional Council, another being Dave Collard from the Far North District Council, and two other names that, when we hear them, we will know we have not got anything to be concerned about–one being the Hon Dover Samuels and the other being the Hon John Carter. Those of us who know those two gentlemen ask what we can possibly be concerned about.

Just to finish off, the role of that board will be to provide governance and direction in order to promote the use, development, and protection of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe/Ninety Mile Beach management area and its resources in a manner that ensures the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, and cultural well-being for present and future generations. There is scaremongering that this is a way for iwi to close off the beach and to charge for access. I can assure people that there is no way that is going to happen and that they will still be able use that beach for fishing, gathering of seafood, and just for plain recreation, and that those people on that board are going to make sure that it ensures the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, and cultural well-being for present and future generations. It is something that is going to improve and enhance the beach—its health and its wairua—for all of us for generations to come. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i te Whare e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou ngā iwi o Te Hiku, Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri. Nau mai me ngā wawata mō tōu iwi, kia whai hua, kia whai tika, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to you all throughout the House, and to you, the tribes of Te Hiku: Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri. Welcome with your aspirations for your people in terms of securing outcomes and justice. Therefore, I congratulate you all.]

It is indeed my pleasure to rise to speak in the second reading of Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. When I look at this bill, there are 562 pages including translations. The incredible thing is that it is probably also a reflection on how complex it has been and in some ways still is.

This is actually the last stage in which we will be considering this bill as one bill. At the Committee of the whole House the bill will indeed be divided into five bills, which will give effect to the deeds of settlement between the Crown and the four Muriwhenua iwi. This is a hugely important settlement, as they all are, but this one particularly because it concerns four iwi whose past and present are actually very much entwined. That is why the five bills that will follow have been combined into one for most of the process.

As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee it was indeed an honour to actually preside over the consideration of such an important bill. I want to acknowledge the whakawhanaungatanga and the manaakitanga that was extended to my Māori Affairs Committee when we visited Kaitāia to hear the submissions.

When the settlement bill concerns four different iwi, it also affects multiple surrounding iwi. So it is not surprising that there were various issues that arose. I want to cover the issue again—because it was one that has been touched on, but it was one that I think was a very important take, or issue, that we did discuss, and it just shows, I think, the collegiality of the Māori Affairs Committee. This concerns the Kohukohu Police Station. Te Rarawa deed of settlement gives them the right of first refusal over this asset if it is ever declared surplus by the Crown. This inclusion has been opposed by Te Ihutai, who intend to negotiate with the Crown over this land through their Ngāpuhi claim. Te Rarawa are fully in support of this land eventually ending up with Te Ihutai, and have provided a letter of commitment to this effect—a letter of commitment to this effect. That reflects to me and to the Māori Affairs Committee that immense form of kotahitanga that is working there to see this bill through. There are really honest negotiations and discussions and goodwill from all parties.

One of the issues at play here is that withdrawing the police station from Te Rarawa settlement would remove any guaranteed protection over it for either Te Rarawa or Te Ihutai. The Māori Affairs Committee was not entirely happy with the approach to this issue, preferring that Te Ihutai’s interest be included in the legislation. We noted that Te Rarawa do not wish this to be included in the legislation but we were happy with their assurances and the letter of commitment. Therefore, we have not recommended any changes to this arrangement. We have recommended a change, though, to what will become the Ngāti Kurī Claims Settlement Bill to extend the Pines Block—that is, the 1.58 hectares of the Pines Block. This change reflects the further agreement reached between the iwi and the Crown to address the concerns over the road access.

The other point, or take, that was highlighted by the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, was the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board, which is a permanent committee on which all four iwi will be represented equally. This board will develop a beach management plan that will influence resource consents and planning in that area. Again, kotahitanga—working together for a common cause.

Also, we have the Te Korowai redress conservation land included in the settlements, which will be co-governed by the Crown and Te Hiku iwi. The various forms of cultural redress provide also for the vesting of certain properties in the trustees of each iwi and statutory acknowledgments of the cultural, historical, spiritual, and traditional associations of each iwi, with certain statutory areas and protocols for Crown minerals, fisheries, and taonga tūturu.

The commercial redress is a very important part of any settlement. The redress does not try to make up for every wrong that has occurred in the past because, as we all know—and particularly in this one—the dollar value of what has been taken from these iwi would be impossible to repay. But what is important about the commercial redress is that it represents a change in the iwi’s future. It provides an opportunity for an iwi to shape its own future, to look after its people.

When I was in the north—I did a sabbatical, actually, for a few weeks earlier in the year—I had the opportunity to visit a number of these marae of Te Hiku. When you look at this magazine here, Te Kukupa, and when you look through this, and then you look at these incredible rangatahi—

Peeni Henare: Touchy subject.

NUK KORAKO: —all of that, education graduates, tertiary education; when you look at environmental things that are going on there, particularly with rangatahi; when you look at kaumātua and their days and their health and all of that; and when you look through, you know, with new wharenui being built, this tells you that this is actually on the cusp. And maybe it was, on the other side of the House, around this, a bad example—I do not know—but at least this is a reflection on what is happening and what will happen and what will cause a catalyst with this legislation of that development of our people. That is what this is about: Māori regional development.

So, in looking at this particular claim, it is the second-largest and it is in the far north, which we have heard a lot about. But this is definitely something where we see iwi working together, where the consensus across the country is that they cannot work together. Well, this here, this legislation, this bill actually shows that the far north—Ngāpuhi–can actually work together. We are really all very excited about this, and this is only the second reading.

I have really enjoyed considering this bill, the fabulous people in the north, and working with them. I just want to acknowledge those who have passed on who had a great lot to do with this bill and that their dreams, their moemoeā, will be realised. I have no hesitation in recommending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, Reo Māori. Kāti ake te urunga tū, te urunga tapu, te mauri tū, te mauri tapu. Te mauri i whiwhia, te mauri i rawea, te mauri nō hea, nō runga, nō rangi-nuku-tū. Tēnei te mauri ka whakapiki, tēnei te mauri ka whakakake. Te mauri o ngā tupua, te mauri o ngā atua, kia puta ake ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama, tīhei wā mauri ora!

Ka tīkina āke ahau i ngā mihi ki ō tātou tini aituā, ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō, anā, kotahi tonu te kōrero mō rātou, he rāngai maomao, ka taka ki tua o Nukutaurua, e kore a muri e hokia. Nō reira, koutou ki a koutou, kia whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou katoa kua tāmia nei e te taimaha o rukiruki, tātou katoa ngā mahuetanga iho nei e te hunga ora, tēnā koutou.

Anā, ka tautoko ahau i ngā kōrero o te Whare ki ō tātou manuhiri. I te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire, kī pai tō tātou Whare e ngā uri nō Muriwhenua, nō Te Hiku o Te Ika. I te rā nei, ko ngā kanohi ō rātou mā kei roto i ngā tūrū, anā, ko te mea nui, e ai ki te kōrero ā tōku tuakana, a Kelvin, ko te wairua e rere tonu nei. Ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki te Minita me ōna āpiha katoa, nā rātou te tino kiko o tēnei pire i whakarite mō te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori kia aro haehaengia e mātou, kia āta wetewete mātou i tēnei pire mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. No reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a Minister Finlayson me ngā mahi katoa i oti i a ia.

Ka tikina ake ahau i tērā mahi a te Taraipiunara, e meangia ana, ko Wai 45. Koinei hoki te pūtaketanga o tēnei pire e pānui nei tātou i tēnei ata. Nō reira, ka tangi tonu ki a rātou, nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i kawe. Ka mihi atu ahau ki ngā waka katoa kei roto i Te Hiku o Te Ika, arā, ki roto o Muriwhenua. Arā, ko Moekākara, ko Kurahaupō, ko Tinana, ko Mātaatua, ko Ruakaramea, ko Māmari, koutou e ngā waka o te kāinga kē, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker; my speech will be in Te Reo Māori. I enter in an upright and sacred stance, with a life principle that is upright, sacred, received, cherished, from whence, from above in the inseparable heavens and earth. It ascends upwards. It is a life principle of the supernatural and deities from whence I emerge into the world of natural life and of understanding; behold the sneeze of life!

I am physically enhanced by the tributes to the myriads of our misfortunes and to them who have gone and merged into the void. There is only one aphorism for them: a shoal of blue maomao that roams beyond Nukutaurua reaches a point of no return. Therefore, you the dead remain there among the dead while I realign my address to all of us here, the living oppressed by extreme responsibilities. I acknowledge you all the ones left behind, greetings!

Therefore, I endorse the tributes accorded by the House to our visitors at the second reading. At the first reading of this bill our House was filled nicely by the kinfolk from Muriwhenua, from the Tail of the Fish. Today their representatives occupy the seats, but the main thing, according to the statement of my elder kin Kelvin, is that the spirit is still here. I endorse the acknowledgments of praise to the Minister and to all his officials, because they considered the main outcome of this bill for the Māori Affairs Committee to consider and for us to critically discern and examine from its first reading to this point in time. So I commend Minister Finlayson and the work he has done.

I refer now to the work of the Tribunal, namely Wai 45. This, in fact, is the real reason why we are reading this bill this morning, and so I continue to lament them. They were the ones who brought this policy here. I acknowledge all the waka at the Tail of the Fish at Muriwhenua there, namely Moekakara, Kurahaupō, Tinana, Mātaatua, Ruakaramea, and Māmari. You are really the waka back there at home, I salute you.]

It is not a coincidence that this particular bill has come just after the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. It may interest the House and the public to know that the far north and the Hawke’s Bay, or Heretaunga, are inextricably linked. I offer to the House this brief whakapapa, or genealogy, to give weight to my kōrero there. Muriwhenua married Rongokākō. From that marriage came Tamatea Pōkai Whenua, or Tamatea Ure Haea. From Tamatea Pokai Whenua come Kahungunu, who married Hinetapu. From that union come Kahukuranui. From Kahukuranui come Kahukuraariki. So Muriwhenua and the Hawke’s Bay are inextricably linked, because we argue in the far north that the Hawke’s Bay finds its genesis in amongst the people of Te Hiku o te Ika. So I say to my relations, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

I will return to Ngāti Kahungunu, whose whakapapa I have just mentioned, very shortly, but I want to point out that the first reading of this bill in November was my first opportunity to see a bill from the beginning. When I say “from the beginning”, I do not mean just the first reading; I mentioned briefly Wai 45 and the claim taken by our leaders from the far north to the Waitangi Tribunal. So this matter has been in front of our people and, indeed, on the notes of the House for some time now. I want to acknowledge that. It seems, whether by good fortune or proper planning, that I stand here today to speak as a descendant of all of the iwi mentioned in Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill: Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Kahu. So it is an absolute honour to come from the first reading to, now, the second reading.

As mentioned by the Minister, there were 25 submissions officially, but I can tell this House that there were plenty of other submissions made to us as we travelled around the different marae around the far north. Everybody had an opinion, from the pubs of the far north all the way down to the marae. So there were 25 official submissions, but I gain heart from the engagement of the people in the far north on this particular kaupapa in this particular bill.

So, back to Ngāti Kahu. As a descendant of Ngāti Kahu, I am pleased that the interests of my people are given regard to in this bill. The Minister spoke about protecting the interests of Ngāti Kahu moving forward. At this point in time, they are not at the table when this bill is being considered and in the negotiations, despite numerous attempts from the Minister and his officials to ensure that on this bill, the many waka of Te Hiku o te Ika, or Muriwhenua, would move forward on one waka. I want to commend the Minister for his patience there. My people of Ngāti Kahu—ivory towers, as the Minister pointed out—I want to encourage them to move forward. I want to encourage them to move forward so that the people of the far north can experience the benefits that have already been mentioned by this House.

I, for one, go back to my marae, which belongs to Ngāti Kahu, in a place called Waimahana. My mother would argue it is the centre of the universe, but it is a place where we do not even have power, and the marae and the whare there are in a poor state at the moment. We hope that, as mentioned, the benefits from this bill will flow down to the people.

But, you know, I am not surprised by this kind of contention between Ngāti Kahu and the other members of Te Hiku settlement, as well as the legislation. It is clear to me, sadly, that the restrictions of legislation do not give weight or consideration to our genealogy, and it is our genealogy that allows us to make links across all hapū and iwi. The beauty about genealogy is that it is borderless. In a small place such as Te Hiku o te Ika, it is important to remember that our genealogy is inextricably linked across all iwi, all hapū, and all marae.

Can I pick up the point made about Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board, a joint committee to look after our taonga. I am encouraged by this. If I can echo the words of Kelvin Davis, my tuakana and colleague here, on the matter, scaremongering in the far north is not uncommon. Sadly, it has been in the community for some time now. I visited one of my grand aunts in the far north not too long ago. She has a photo above her fireplace of what looked like thousands and thousands of people all lined up along the beach at Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe, spade and a bucket in hand, and they were pulling out toheroa the size of a size 13 shoe—absolutely huge toheroa. One would fit in one bucket. I am encouraged that these types of initiatives will allow the protection of our taonga. Although we may never see size 13 toheroa again—certainly, I know where some are, but I am not about to explain to the House where spot X is—it is important that we look after our taonga moving forward.

Furthermore, I am encouraged by the establishment of Te Hiku o Te Ika Conservation Board. I picked up what the Minister spoke about earlier. Very soon he and the Minister of Conservation will be travelling around the far north. It is important to acknowledge the relationship that tribes of Te Hiku have with the land and the precious taonga in the north. I look forward to seeing what comes from that roadshow, as well as any of the policies that will encourage the protection of the environment.

The commercial redress has already been mentioned. More important, with regard to the commercial redress, is to ensure somehow that the pathway of those benefits is direct to the people of Te Hiku, to the descendants. I mentioned in the first reading of the bill that I mourned the loss of a young man by the name of Luke Tipene. It is with those people in mind—our young people—that these particular bills come through the House. Kāti ake i konei, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a tātou e hui tahi nei, e ōku tini whanaunga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Enough, I end here and applaud you assembled here collectively: my many kin, congratulations, acknowledgments, well done, and my thanks to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. I am pleased to stand and take a call at the second reading of the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge the four far north iwi—Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Kurī—and the work that they have done to advance this bill, the negotiations. I acknowledge the kōrero we have heard from the other speakers in the House, the to-ing and fro-ing, and especially the kōrero from Peeni Henare, who gave us a good insight into the submissions that we never got but that everybody heard and had an opinion on, and that is what our people are all about.

As my colleagues have said, this is an omnibus bill and does result in four settlement bills—separate bills for each of the iwi—as well as a provision in the legislation to preserve the interests of the fifth Te Hiku iwi, Ngāti Kahu. I too am saddened that Ngāti Kahu are not part of this and that they have not indicated when, or whether, they want to settle with the Crown, because this legislation is about coming together as one group, and you are very strong when you are one group. I can tell you now that you can dictate quite a lot when you are a large group of people negotiating deals.

As my colleagues have said, this is the second-largest settlement bill of land going into Māori ownership coming through the House. I just want to talk about the area, or the rohe, of Te Hiku. Te Hiku means “the tail of the fish”. Obviously, it is steeped in a lot of historical, cultural, and spiritual significance, considering that Te Rerenga Wairua, the leaping place of our wairua, is at the very tip of the rohe. When you walk up on to the land area, it is very significant. I remember taking my children there and explaining to them about the leaping place of our wairua. They looked out into the sea, and we saw over to the Three Kings Islands. They said: “Can you see them, Mum? Can you see them?”. And I said: “Oh, no, darling, but, you know …”. They said: “Is this where we’re going to leap off into Hawaiki?”. And I said: “Yes, it is.” So it is about all of those traditions that come down, are passed down, and you do not have to be a member of Te Hiku iwi to know these traditions—I am Ngāti Porou, Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi, and Rangitāne ki Wairarapa. I was brought up with these ideals, as well.

I want to talk, also, a little bit more about Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. As the member Peeni Henare was talking about the toheroa, I was thinking how I missed out on having a feed of those. It was most probably because my parents could not get hold of that, or there was a rāhui on that, on the beach at the time. But that is a significant place. I have been there, as many have, and it is a very good place for a lot of recreational activity, as well as for customs and spiritual sustenance.

This bill will actually provide to Te Hiku, as I have said before, some decision making, not just over conservation land but also over their economic development. With the commercial redress vesting the Aupōuri State Forest and five farms across the rohe to be returned to iwi ownership, that is actually a powerful position to be in. I come from a farming background, and I know that if you are together as a big group, you can negotiate your land prices, your meat prices, and that is with the works and the agents. That is very powerful to have, especially if you are not part of that group.

There are many aspects of this bill, and I do not want to go on any further on this. I want to save my korero for our third reading. So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kei te mihi o te rā ki a koutou. And may I also acknowledge, as others have, the representatives of ngā iwi o Te Hiku who are in the gallery, although I cannot see them. Like the Minister, I do look forward to the day of the third reading—when I suspect that it will be standing room only, and even more full than that in the gallery—when we do finally resolve this very difficult, very complex settlement. I am very pleased to take a call in support of this bill, with considerable enthusiasm. It is a large bill. It is a complex bill. It deals with the overlapping and, no doubt on occasions, conflicting interests and claims of multiple hapū and iwi. It is clear that the Minister, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the Māori Affairs Committee are to be congratulated on having brought matters to the point where we can have the second reading, and to indicate that there is considerable opportunity to progress this matter.

The particular issue that has been mentioned already about the relatively small piece of land in Kohukohu that is, to some extent, disputed between Te Rarawa and Te Ihutai, and the fact that the matter has been resolved, essentially, based on trust is, I think, indicative of the quality of the negotiation that underpins this bill, because if trust is built and maintained, trustworthiness and mana go hand in hand. If we can negotiate in good faith and get outcomes based on trust and mutual respect, then those are the agreements and the settlements that will endure over time.

As is the case for these bills, there is, of course, commercial redress, and there is also an apology from the Crown for the multiple breaches of te Tiriti that occurred virtually from day one after the Treaty right through the 19th century and into the 20th century. I think it is important to acknowledge that the harm done by those breaches takes a long time to heal. I believe the disadvantage experienced to this day by Māori communities in the north can be sheeted back, to a large extent, directly to the harm done in the course of the breaches of the 19th and 20th centuries. The loss of the economic base for iwi and hapū, the loss of the cultural knowledge of the language, the separation from manu whenua—all of these, I believe, are the disadvantage still experienced by Māori in the north. And, indeed, the inability to realise the potential of the society generally—the Māori and Pakeha communities—can be sheeted home to some of the breaches of the 19th and early 20th centuries. So to the extent that these bills contribute to resolving that, they open up the opportunity to realise a potential. I routinely visit schools around the north. You see those kids who are growing up in some pretty tough social and economic environments, but you also see the potential. In returning some of the resource to iwi and hapū, we will contribute, I think, to making sure that those kids have better futures. And for that reason alone, I think these bills would be worthy of support.

Again, as has been noted, one of the provisions of the bill establishes Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board, a permanent joint-committee with equal numbers of local councillors and representatives of Te Hiku iwi responsible for preparing a beach management plan. I think that is a very promising step forward. It is unfortunate, as others have noted also, that it has—inevitably, perhaps—resulted in some outcry. One that does concern me is that an elected councillor who should, arguably, know better has come up with a notion that this board: “effectively giving responsibility for management of the beach to iwi would likely see public access restricted, and not only on 90 Mile Beach.” He goes on to complain about the fact that Ngāti Kurī, apparently, are benefiting financially from the transition of tour buses up and down Te Paki Stream. I mean, would that not be a terrible thing if people with a long and enduring right to that site were getting some financial benefit from a commercial operation using their land! I fail to see the indignity in that, I have to say. It is unfortunate that this councillor chooses to see that management of the beach ought to be retained by council, by the community board, with no engagement with the iwi. I think that is a very short-sighted, very narrow view, and I hope it is a view that over time we will see much less of.

I think the management plan is a wonderful opportunity to take a very hard look at the ecology of that beach, because we know that it has been degraded in terms of the kai moana—the toheroa, particularly—and that has to be sheeted home to mismanagement, to overuse of the beach, and certainly to the impact of vehicles on the beach. I do think that through a survey of the beach that combined mātauranga Māori—Māori knowledge and understanding built up over generations of time–and allied it on an equal footing with Western science, we could find a position where we could restore that beach to the point where you would walk past a size 13 toheroa in order to get a bigger one. Here we look forward to that day.

Marama Fox: Past that to Peeni’s freezer.

DAVID CLENDON: Indeed, yes. I do not think he would get as far as a freezer, either.

It is good to note too that the commentary made by some rather short-sighted people has also been opposed in the local papers and in comments around the place. One comment noted that in 1957 some Muriwhenua rangatira took a claim—as far back as then—noting the degraded condition of the beach and the fact that it no longer had the richness, either ecologically or culturally, that it once had. So these things take a long time to come around, but, ultimately, good sense and common sense will prevail.

I would also note the establishment of Te Hiku o Te Ika Conservation Board—again, a co-governance board that will look to the governance of the conservation land in the area. I do think that is very positive; I do like seeing that word “co-governance”. Co-management is a fine thing, but it is important that iwi and hapū are represented alongside other interests at the decision-making point, not just in the management or at the point of implementation. So I do think that is a very positive step. It is one we commend, and we look forward to seeing that produce very good outcomes over time.

The final comment I will make is to acknowledge again the assigning of official geographic names that reflect the traditional names—dare I say it, the real names—of some of those places. We heard a very eloquent contribution from Kelvin Davis about the significance of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe. I mean, once one understands what these names represent, they give an incredible richness to the people living there today—dare I say it, both Māori and Pākehā—not only culturally but also economically. In my own experience with the tourism industry, it is utterly compelling for visitors to the north and elsewhere if the names are explained to them, to the extent that they do reflect an extraordinary history, some remarkable people, the actions of those people, and their time. It does give a unique quality and flavour to the experience of the manuhiri, and that is something that we do seek, not just for the economic benefit—not least of all for that, it has to be said. There is enormous potential there to reveal the richness of the past, present, and, indeed, the future of Northland. On that note, I think I will bring my contribution to an end and look forward to the third reading. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā tēnā anō koe, Mr Speaker, ā, tēnā anō hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te wā nei. E tū ake tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e waku tūākana mai te Rōpū Reipa. Tautoko hoki i ngā mihi ki ēnā o ngā rangatira o te hau kāinga, e Rangi, e Riki, nā te mea, kei runga i a kōrua i taka mai tēnei rākau i kawea atu i te wā kua tau kē tēnei kerēme. Nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki a kourua. Tino koa te hari o te ngākau ki te kite atu i a koutou e noho tahi nei ki ngā kaimahi o te Karauna. He tohu pai tēnā! Nā reira, e pā ana ki tēnā kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e ēnā o ngā kaikōrero ki te Minita nā reira, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you once again, Mr Speaker, and acknowledgments to us once again seated about in the House at this point in time. I rise to endorse the tributes that were accorded by my elder colleagues of the Labour Party. I also acknowledge the tributes to those two esteemed ones from back home, Rangi and Riki, because the responsibility in regards to this claim has fallen upon you two now. And so I acknowledge you two as well. My heart is absolutely full of joy to see you collectively sitting alongside the officials of the Crown. That is a good sign! As a consequence of that I endorse the accolades that were accorded by those speakers to the Minister, so thank you.]

I acknowledge the presence of a couple of representatives from those iwi that this particular bill affects. We heard from the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, that this is the second-largest bill to come before the House in terms of the number of pages—almost 600. I am just hoping that the quantum equates to that as well. I am not quite sure whether, in fact, it will.

I have to put in a plug for my relatives of the far north. We have heard about the poor socio-economic status of the far north, and this settlement will go a long way to addressing that, but, having said that, I hope that this settlement is not seen as an opportunity for the Crown to not meet its responsibilities to its citizens. It does concern me a little bit when we read about the comments that are made in the local press about how good this will be for the economy and all that. I just want to make the point that people should not see this as being the panacea of solving the economic problems of the far north.

This bill does embrace claims from a number of iwi, and, although reference has been made to one iwi who have yet to settle their claims, I just want to say to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that comments like “standing or operating or viewing this settlement from their ivory tower” certainly will not help the road to resolution between the Crown and that particular iwi. I say that because I know of the personalities involved, and I say that with respect.

But having said that, and seeing representatives of the north, I am mindful of those people, those elders, whom I had the privilege of meeting and whose counsel I had the privilege of listening to when I started out in my Public Service career. As I talk in this House at this time I can see them, and I know that they are very happy to see that we have come to this stage in the history of this claim. When the Māori Affairs Committee met in Kaitāia we heard from every submitter without exception that they wanted to settle, not because the quantum was right, and not because the terms of settlement were what they agreed to, but because it had taken 30 years to reach this stage. I just want to place on record on behalf of the claimants that in getting to this stage of the history of their claim, although they are frustrated about not getting their full entitlement, they do accept that given the time it has taken to get to this point in the history of this claim, they need to move on. I just repeat, on behalf of them, their concern that was articulated at those hearings.

No doubt the people of Te Hiku have extended their arm, their hand, to the Crown. I made reference to that during the first reading when I referred to a waiata that is synonymous with the people of the north, “Toro Mai Tō Ringa”—extend your arm. And they have certainly done that in accepting this bill, knowing full well that this settlement will go nowhere near to fulfilling what a lot of us would consider their entitlement. Just in reviewing some of the submissions and the issues that were raised, the submitters felt that the settlement process was unjust. Treaty partnership had yet to be realised. Of course, the process was unnecessarily long. They thought that the co-governance and Treaty-based partnership may be under-resourced.

Clause 577, “Meaning of Te Rarawa”, as defined by the bill does not reflect changes believed to have been made by the Te Ihutai hapū in the Te Rarawa settlement. We have heard references to that particular hapū and their claim for the Kohukohu Police Station to be returned to them. We should not be surprised at the position that Te Ihutai took on this matter, and we should not be surprised by the position that Te Rarawa took on this matter, because it really is a case of mana whenua. It is the land upon which the police station stands that is the defining matter that determines which tribe has mana whenua. I can understand Te Ihutai wanting to acknowledge their Ngāpuhi ancestry, and seeing the possible return of the police station to them under the Te Rarawa settlement may indicate to generations to come that that part of the Hokianga is, in fact, Te Rarawa land.

I just want to make a comment about the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Board. I think it reflects and represents the people of the north, and any criticism that may have been levelled against it by a sitting councillor I think was just politicking on the part of that particular councillor.

I cannot say enough in terms of commending this bill to the House. I say that we will certainly be supporting it to the next stage, towards legislation. Kia ora rā.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā. I stand to support this piece of legislation—this bill, I should say—as it comes before the House, because the bill gives effect to a deed of settlement in which the Crown, Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa agreed to what we have often called in the past a “full and final settlement”, but what I would like to think of as cementing an ongoing partnership for long-term engagement between iwi and the Crown. In doing so, once again Treaty settlements are leading the legislative way in terms of breathing life into this omnibus bill format.

It used to be that omnibus bills were reserved for a specific set of circumstances—that they would be used as finance bills or confirmation bills, or to validate authorised action and regulation. They might be used in form for Māori Purposes bills—one or more Acts relating to Māori affairs—or they could be applied to statutes amendment bills or Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills. But Treaty settlement legislation has given a whole new meaning to omnibus bills. As we have heard, it has taken some 30 years to bring these four groups together, and for some who have not taken the opportunity to get involved, the provision has, as noted by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, been left there for them to do so when they are ready.

The bill is expected to be divided into five parts in the Committee of the whole House. Beyond those technicalities, these four iwi have come together, and that must be appreciated. E te Mana Whakawā, you have often heard or you may have heard me speak about my relationship to Papawai Marae. Through Papawai Marae, my ancestor the kuia Niniwa-i-te-rangi was able to stand on marae around the country to progress something called Kotahitanga, or the coming together of peoples to speak up for the causes of Māori. Also in my maiden speech I spoke about the confederation of Ngāpuhi chiefs. Those rangatira congregated 180 years ago at Te Hiku o te Ika to literally fly their own flag, to declare independence, and to celebrate this land as an independent nation in its own right—a nation rich in our own customs, language, culture, and systems of social and economic support. That is rangatiratanga.

I referred to the late Ērima Hēnare in my maiden speech. He spoke of that declaration. He said the words of the declaration come right from the heart of Māori, from the eyes, from the mind, the face of Māori. I chose to repeat those words today in respect of my colleague, to highlight that his words may in fact have been prophetic in the coming together of these groups in Te Hiku at this time. If ever we are able to advance in this land, the spirit of partnership must be realised, not just in terms of this legislation but for culture, integrity, and moral, political, spiritual, social, and economic independence as Treaty partners.

I want to refer to one particular aspect of this bill as highlighting the unique demonstration of kotahitanga between Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa. That is the commitment under the korowai to the respective partners establishing, maintaining, and strengthening their positive cooperative and enduring relationships, guided by some principles. I want to refer to those principles here. First and most fundamental is the intent to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The second principle is to respect the autonomy of each party and its individual mandate, role, and responsibility. I think this is a really important acknowledgment—that unity can be achieved through diversity. That means standing side by side and not one on top of the other.

The third commitment is that the four far north iwi and the Crown will actively work together, using shared knowledge and expertise. This active working relationship will be facilitated through the fourth principle, which is to cooperate in partnership in a spirit of good faith, integrity, honesty, transparency, and accountability. The fifth principle is a timely reminder to us all that respectful relationships do not allow space for conflict to grow. That principle is to engage early on issues of known interest to any other parties.

The sixth principle consolidates the importance of cultural capital, enabling and supporting the use of Te Reo Māori and tikanga Māori. This set of principles concludes with an acknowledgment that the parties’ relationship is evolving and provides room for those who are yet to come on board. I want to acknowledge this. Te Hiku o te Ika has in fact gifted a set of unique principles to the legislature and indeed to the nation.

Finally, I want to mention the importance of the customary materials plan and wāhi tapu framework, which has been set out in Part 4 and Part 5 of schedule 20. It is beholden on all New Zealanders to appreciate the significance of the protection laid out in this bill for the spiritual and cultural integrity of Te Rerenga Wairua as a reserve. This bill recognises the significance of Te Rerenga Wairua, meaning the leaping place of the spirits, if you want to give it a translation—I would rather not. It is from here that the spirits of the dead are believed to depart, and as we tread carefully we must always acknowledge the mana whenua in guiding us on how we are to act in these times. The coming together and the unity that has been displayed by these groups, these iwi, this mana whenua, who have come together in supporting this piece of legislation, is indeed an example for the rest of this nation to follow. We can do things together, side by side, not one on top of the other, whilst respecting each other’s diversity and mana at the same time. That is my contribution to today’s debate. Everybody has highlighted the importance of this, and I want to stand and support it. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e te Māngai o te W’are, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki ngā iwi nei o Te Hiku o Te Ika, a Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa. Anei ahau e tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou i ’ara mai nei ki te w’akarongo ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ka nui te mi’i atu ki a koutou e kaha ana kia tae ake ki tēnei rā. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so thank you, Mr Speaker. It is fitting indeed that a welcome is accorded to these people of the Tail of the Fish, Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa, and I do so by welcoming you who have come here to listen to the address about this bill. Your efforts to be here today are greatly appreciated, and so congratulations, indeed, to you collectively and to us all.]

It is a real pleasure to speak on this bill, and indeed on any settlement bill that comes through this House. To get to the second reading or to get to the stage of processing legislation through this House is without a doubt a huge journey. It has been a long journey for these particular iwi, and I want to acknowledge them again today. I also want to acknowledge the negotiators from the iwi and the Crown officials as well who have helped put this bill together. I want to acknowledge the Minister for his work on creating these enduring settlements so that our iwi can move forward after going through some traumatic experiences—historical and traumatic events—that have happened over a very long time. These settlements are instruments to recognise that and give the opportunity to move on, and I will speak further on that later on.

I want to focus on two particular areas. The first is cultural redress, and in particular statutory acknowledgment, and also the elements of the deeds that do not appear in this bill. I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for the work it has done on this omnibus bill. As I understand it, the reason for having this omnibus bill is that much of the redress across the four packages is shared. It overlaps, and I have seen the maps of the areas of interest. They are huge overlapping areas, and some of them are entirely overlapping.

These claims settlement bills have been put together as omnibus legislation to ensure that each bill is enacted on the same day. The four elements will therefore be implemented at the same time, allowing the provision of shared and overlapping redress to happen at the same time. I think it is important for the House to note that that is the reason why. Then, of course, this particular bill will be split into five different Acts of Parliament. The other area that I want to speak about is the elements of the deeds that do not appear in this bill.

So statutory acknowledgments are where the Crown will consider giving a statutory acknowledgment over defined sites or features on Crown-owned land that are of high significance to the claimant group. They may include rivers, lakes, wetlands, mountains, forests, islands, coastal areas, and other such areas traditionally of high importance to iwi in that group.

What is the purpose of these statutory acknowledgments? They give the opportunity to participate in such things as the Environment Court and to cite the statement of association for any individual whānau, hapū, or iwi as part of their submission to such groups as the Environment Court and Heritage New Zealand, and to have that recognised or considered within those processes. That is what the statutory acknowledgments in all settlements are about.

In this settlement Ngāti Kurī have four statutory acknowledgments, Te Aupōuri have six, Ngāi Takoto have nine, and Te Rarawa have areas of significance, as well, within these bills. For me, that gives a really important acknowledgment within those authorities to have that importance recognised when dealing with those pieces of land, and I want to acknowledge that redress mechanism as part of the cultural reconnection that is evident throughout this particular bill.

I want to spend some time also on the elements that are not in the bill. First of all, I want to look at the financial redress and the social—I will do the financial redress first. We have a settlement here with a value of more than $97 million. It is a huge amount of money—more than $21 million for Ngāti Kurī, $21 million for Te Aupōuri, $21 million for Ngāi Takoto, and almost $34 million for Te Rarawa.

These are significant amounts, but like all settlements—and it has been said before in this House—it is but a fraction of the value of what was lost. It is not compensation; it is redress, and there is a significant difference between redress and compensation. If it were compensation it would bankrupt our country, probably, and, having said that, why would you do it? Having been in that position myself before, I suspect that every iwi claimant negotiator asks themselves: “Why would you settle for a fraction of what we have lost?”. It is an important question to ask oneself. I think the answer to that is that it provides opportunities for future generations to move from a place of grievance and of historical and intergenerational trauma to a place of being able to address all of those things that we bear because of the breaches and because of the omissions of the Crown. So I want to congratulate all of the iwi in this settlement bill, Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, and Te Rarawa, on having the courage to go to this place and to take this pathway to settling these historical grievances.

Nō reira, e ngā iwi o Te Hiku o Te Ika ngā mi’i ki a koutou katoa, kia ora rawa.

[So my acknowledgments to you, the people of the Tail of the Fish; it is appreciated very much.]

JONO NAYLOR (National): Tuatahi, he mihi ki Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kurī, e te iwi ngā mihi ki a koutou.

[First of all, I acknowledge Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto, Te Rarawa, and Ngāti Kurī, greetings to you the people.]

Today is an important day. It is a significant day. I was just hearing other speakers reflecting on the 30 years that have gone into this process. It must feel like a really long car trip with the kids in the back saying: “Are we there yet?”, and today it feels like it might be the day that it might be OK to say: “OK, tell me, who’s the first who is going to see the ocean?”, because we are almost there. We are at the second reading of Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill and there are only a couple more stages to go before this is settled. So it is an important day. It is a significant day, as it has been for 46 other claimants over the last 7 years, and it has been great to see so many of these outstanding issues being settled. I think that what it does is it allows each of these parties to be able to find a place from which to move on and—as Adrian Rurawhe, the previous speaker, has talked about—there is a significant financial component to this settlement that will, in part, allow, I guess, the iwi of Te Hiku to be able to start to move on and be able to invest in Northland again. I think that is a positive thing for Northland. It is a positive thing for the whānau and the hapū and the iwi of Te Hiku.

But what is also critically important is the cultural aspect of these settlements. It is not just about money; it is, for some, about the restoration of mana. It is about restoration in order to put right some of the things that have been wrong over a long period of time. So, without wanting to repeat all of the words that have been said so well by so many this morning, I do just want to commend the great work that has been done by the Hon Chris Finlayson. I think it is fantastic to hear the acknowledgment from all around this House today of the great work that he has done. I just want to commend this bill to the House, and I wish the iwi of Te Hiku the very best for the rest of this process and for your future once settlement is reached. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): E ngā iwi o Te Hiku o Te Ika, tēnei e tāpiri atu aku mihi ki ērā i whārikihia i mua i tō koutou aroaro i tēnei wā. Kua tae ki tēnei wāhanga ki te whakamārama ētehi o ngā tīnihanga e pā ana ki ō koutou tutukitanga, ahakoa he iti, tēnā pea he wāhanga anō hei whaioranga mō ētehi o ō koutou nei hiahia i mua i te aroaro o te komiti whakahaere, e tika ana me mihi atu ki te Minita, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To all the people of Te Hiku o Te Ika, I add my acknowledgments to those accorded before you at this point in time. We have arrived at this stage to explain some of the amendments relating to your settlement, and although they may be minimal there may be a part, as well, of benefit to some of your aspirations before the select committee. It is fitting that I acknowledge the Minister, and us all as well.]

It gives me great pleasure to follow my colleagues and support the comments that they have made in relation to this particular settlement bill, Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. I was on the select committee that travelled to Kaitāia and listened to the submissions. I thought I would share some insight into how we deliberated over the issues that were brought to us—this is a second reading, not a third reading. It will explain some of the reasons why the changes that have been made were made, but it will give a context to the limited extent to which the Māori Affairs Committee can, in fact, change settlement legislation, and we are quite acutely aware of that around the select committee table.

We are also aware, as we go out into the rohe to listen to the Treaty settlement claims interests within iwi of hapū and of whanau, that there are a number of things that it would be wrong for us to try to address. We cannot address internal whānau disputes that have often arisen as a result of this type of process, we are not there to arbitrate on whakapapa, and we have a limited ability to make extensive changes to a negotiated outcome between the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the respective iwi. Once we have got that out on the table when we go around through the submission process, I have found that the response may not be altogether tolerant of the role of the Māori Affairs Committee, but submitters are understanding in terms of how we could add value, and this is one way that we have been able to achieve the intent of what is in the legislation being reflected in the deed.

My colleague Adrian Rurawhe actually highlighted it quite subtly, but he did a very good job at identifying that our role is to ensure that what is intended in the deed is reflected in the legislation. If we feel through either the submission process or the information coming back from the advisers that that is not sufficiently clear, we will ask questions and we will seek to ensure that what is in the legislation that protects the interests of those iwi who have got their settlement is actually what is being expressed.

With that said, the submissions that came to the select committee were, on the whole, very supportive. Nobody from any other iwi is going to make comment on how challenging this task is and how difficult this road is to walk.

I listened with a significant sense of not knowing the full circumstances of the relationships and whakapapa to the interests to Te Ihutai, for example. In fact, when we pursued some of their concerns around the Kohukohu Police Station, we did ask questions of the officials as to whether it would be easier to put this particular property out of the settlement and wait, or to leave it in the settlement. We asked Te Rarawa: “Have you consulted sufficiently enough with Te Ihutai and assured that their interests will not be prejudicially affected?”. We gained information that gave us the level of confidence to say that the manner in which the Minister has negotiated and proposed a way forward around Kohukohu and the amendment that we were able to achieve around the definition of historic claims do give that level of protection. But also there was a letter of confirmation from Te Rarawa around the prospective interests of Te Ihutai that might be addressed in another claim. These are quite complex issues and we are kind of skimming through them in the second reading process, but it does underpin the level of detail with which the Minister, his negotiators, the advisers, and the respective iwi have to try to work these types of things through.

I also want to make a point around the Ngāti Kahu submission. We got a very strong submission to say that those interests in themselves should be left separate from this particular claim for a number of reasons. When we, again, distilled through what was actually being preserved in Part 14 of the bill in relation to the Wai 1695 claim, we felt that the way in which the interests in the accumulated rentals have been preserved was the right way to go and, in fact, that does not prejudicially affect the comprehensive interests of Ngāti Kahu. I suspect that some of us may be criticised for continuing down this process, but again, on judgment and on balance, we felt that there had been sufficient consultation to be able to preserve those types of interests.

We made minor amendments in the bill in relation to the change of names and things like that with regard to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act. They did not change the substance of the intent of the bill.

Where I want to focus my contribution in this second reading is actually on the mechanisms to make this particular settlement work in its entirety. There are a number of interlocking bits of legislation that would have regard to what is being achieved in each of these settlements: the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, the Conservation Act, the Fisheries Act, the Land Transport Act, the heritage Act that I referred to earlier, the Reserves Act—to name just a few. It is absolutely critical for those iwi under Te Hiku claims settlement that those interlocking bits of legislation are able to help achieve what is intended in their respective Acts.

The reason why I comment on this is that the proof is always in the pudding. We are debating the legislation, but not its application. When we have the third reading and then we will go away and celebrate what iwi have achieved, they are left with having to work with Government departments, local government, and officials in ways that do not give them direct access at a ministerial level to ensure that the intent and the integrity of the agreements are being delivered in these other areas.

I think, Minister, one of the innovations that you have been able to achieve in your time in this particular portfolio is the post settlement commitments unit within the Office of Treaty Settlements. I am sure, certainly from when I have heard you speak about the review of how the legislation is being implemented and things like that, it is in this space that the integrity of what has been agreed to in the legislation can be monitored, and I welcome the ongoing role of that.

So, not to be too trite, but I have to say that events in the last couple of weeks have made me look at the right of first refusal clauses with a lot more diligence. Minister, this is no reflection on you personally—you have been absolutely robust in your efforts to continue with Treaty settlements. But can I foreshadow in the Committee stage that it will be of some interest, I think, to pursue the intent of what is written with some of the realities of its application, and I will give just one example. In Hamilton East, Housing New Zealand onsold a particular house that was under right of first refusal back to Tainui. There has been court action around that particular process. This is not a reflection on any one Government; this is a reflection on a process where, although it was protected in legislation, it became the subject of court action. That is because, I think, at that particular time people just were not aware that they had other obligations under other bits of legislation.

So I am foreshadowing that in the Committee stage—if it is not going to be too onerous for you, Minister—some questions on the right of refusal may just come up. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā tātou.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to be the final speaker and the last humble voice in this debate on the second reading of Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. It is for me to sum up and just thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, as most of the speakers have, for his mahi, his work, on bringing this bill to the House. I also thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Debates like this are a real privilege to listen to, because as a Parliament we are almost speaking with one voice, unified in addressing the wrongs of the past and the grievances of the past. I just want to acknowledge the select committee members.

I also acknowledge the 25 submitters who took the time, the effort, and the energy to submit on this bill. Thank you for helping with this process. It makes you proud to be a New Zealander when you see this process come to fruition, especially after the struggles of getting this bill to the House.

Finally, may I just add that we cannot really address the grievances of the past, but this bill and the resources that will flow from it will be for the rangatahi, for the kids, the children, and future generations. It is for the cultural, spiritual, and social development of the four iwi that are represented within this bill. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This is an iwi with customary interests in Tāmaki-makau-rau, particularly in Hikurangi and in the Waitakere Ranges. The settlement is very important. It settles the longstanding grievances of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, an iwi whose land was gradually alienated from tribal control until its members were rendered landless. The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and has submitted its commentary to the House. I want to thank the chair and the committee for the work that they have done. I also want to thank other Ministers, departments, and officials who have worked on this bill.

The committee has made a number of recommendations for amendments to the bill, and these include an amendment to the timing of the shared right of first refusal between Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Marutūahu iwi, and Ngāti Whātua; the change of name of the Historic Places Trust, amended to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, in line with the 2014 legislation; the increase in size of cultural redress property, and I particularly refer to Te Hēnga site B, from 7 hectares to 11 hectares; and a couple of technical amendments as well. As these amendments are, I hope, uncontroversial and technical in nature, they should be adopted in their totality.

The committee heard submissions in Auckland and Wellington. Most submissions supported the bill. However, some submissions sought recognition of informal interests in Te Hēnga site B, which is a site located near the Waitakere Ranges. The submitters were representatives of families whose private properties adjoin this site. Te Hēnga site B is to be vested in Te Kawerau-a-Maki as a historic reserve, to recognise the customary interests of the iwi in this area. I note the committee’s assessment of the longstanding connection between the neighbouring families and Te Hēnga beach area. I intend to address this issue in a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill, and I will progress that in the House during the Committee stage. The Supplementary Order Paper will make changes to reflect the agreement reached between Te Kawerau-a-Maki and the families, to recognise and formalise the informal interests in Te Hēnga site B. The Supplementary Order Paper will also make necessary technical changes for clarification and consistency with the deed of settlement.

Let me say something about rights of first refusal, because, as is passably obvious to those who have been following this place in recent times, there has been some media coverage and debate in the House about rights of first refusal, and I refer particularly to the affordable housing initiative in Auckland and the rights of first refusal negotiated through Treaty settlements. Rights of first refusal are a vital part of Treaty settlements, and have been ever since the 1995 settlement with Waikato-Tainui. They recognise the importance of an iwi or claimant group rebuilding their landholdings and their relationship to the land as tangata whenua. Sometimes Crown land that is significant to an iwi is not available for immediate use in their settlements, and that is why rights of first refusal are negotiated—to give the iwi the opportunity to buy the land if it becomes available in the future. A right of first refusal is not valued in financial terms or counted against the settlement quantum, but it is simply the right to purchase certain Crown land at market value if it becomes surplus in the future.

Rights of first refusal are reasonably straightforward, but a number of things have to be borne in mind. First, rights of first refusal are subject to existing third-party rights and statutory requirements, the most well-known example of which is the provision relating to offer-backs in the Public Works Act. Secondly, not every right of first refusal is the same, so the provisions of specific rights of first refusal must be examined carefully before the Crown disposes of the land. So, for example, I say to Nanaia Mahuta that she will be aware of the terms of the right of first refusal in the Waikato-Tainui legislation, which is very similar to the right of first refusal in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, in very broad terms. More recently, that needs to be compared with, for example, the right of first refusal in the Tāmaki Collective redress legislation, which is of a different type altogether, and then one has to look at the right of first refusal in this legislation. The fact of the matter is that you have an arm’s length negotiation in relation to these—there is no boilerplate provision. They need to be negotiated carefully and stepped through carefully so that people do not trip over themselves.

The bill provides Te Kawerau-a-Maki with three different rights of first refusal. It sets out an exclusive right of first refusal over certain land—for example, Clarke House and Te Onekiritea Point land. Then there is a shared right of first refusal with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara in relation to the Auckland prison land. Finally, there is a future shared right of first refusal with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Marutūahu iwi in relation to Crown-owned land within a certain land area. Te Kawerau-a-Maki are also part of the Tāmaki Collective, which has rights of first refusal under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. So in relation to any particular piece of land, the first issue is going to be: is it covered by a right of first refusal; if so, what are the terms of that right of first refusal? Do not assume that the terms of that right of first refusal will be the same as that for adjoining land, because they may not be. That is why it is important to pay close attention.

As I have said on a number of occasions to the Tāmaki iwi, and I say it again, I am keeping a close eye on this matter through the post settlement commitments unit because these rights of first refusal—for example, in the case of the Tāmaki Collective—are very valuable. That one will last for 172 years, so it important to make sure that we get things right at the start. This Government is utterly committed to meeting its Treaty obligations, including ones relating to rights of first refusal, and very much wants a positive and constructive relationship with its Treaty partners.

I want to thank Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Te Hēnga families for their goodwill and their engagement through this process. I think that there has been very useful engagement. It is one of those things where informal arrangements may be able to be formalised as a result of this Treaty settlement, and I would have thought that that would suit Te Hēnga families very well indeed. I also want to thank Marutūahu and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua for their engagement on the shared right of first refusal issues. I commend the bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise to address Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill in its second reading. Initially I would just like to thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his explanation around the right of first refusal. I think it is informative for all of us to know that not all rights of first refusal are created equally, and the Minister did explain that very well. Although I had read in the bill about the different rights of first refusal it just did not really click until he explained it then—such as the exclusive right of first refusal, the shared right of first refusal, or the future shared right of first refusal. So thank you very much, Minister.

Te Kawerau-a-Maki is an iwi, as the Minister has said, with customary interests that extend around the Tāmaki isthmus area and through to the Waitakere Ranges and even further north. It is often thought that Ngāti Whātua were the exclusive iwi of that area. The reality is that there were other smaller groups who also had interests, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki is one of those groups. So in 2008 the Crown recognised the mandate of Te Kawerau Iwi Authority to represent Te Kawerau-a-Maki in negotiating a comprehensive settlement of their claims, and the Crown signed terms of negotiation with Te Kawerau-a-Maki on 7 August in 2008. In June 2009 Sir Douglas Graham delivered a proposal to the iwi and hapū of the Kaipara, Mahurangi, Makaurau, Hauraki, and Coromandel regions that all iwi and hapū in those regions, including Te Kawerau-a-Maki, enter direct negotiations with the Crown.

In February 2010 the Crown and Te Kawerau-a-Maki negotiated an agreement in principle that formed the basis of this settlement. On 12 December 2013 Te Kawerau-a-Maki and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. The deed was then ratified by Te Kawerau-a-Maki community and signed on 22 February 2014.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the circumstances around Te Kawerau-a-Maki are a great case in point in that if you could write a manual that you could send back to the colonial forefathers of what not to do and how not to treat an iwi, this is one of them. Some of the summary to the historical background to the claims by Te Kawerau-a-Maki is this. In the 1840s Te Kawerau-a-Maki had little direct contact with the Crown. However, there were pre-Treaty land transactions between other iwi and early European settlers, and that saw the alienation of certain Te Kawerau-a-Maki lands.

From 1841 the Land Claims Commission investigated these pre-Treaty transactions. There is no evidence Te Kawerau-a-Maki chiefs were involved in these transactions, and when resolving them the Crown failed to consider Te Kawerau-a-Maki’s interests, it granted settlers the land, and it even retained surplus land. Not many people understand the whole surplus land policy. Basically, say someone said that they had a hectare of land and it was eventually surveyed out. It might have been 10 hectares. Instead of the 9 hectares being given back to the tribe, the Crown kept it for itself, and so dispossessed the iwi of the land.

In 1841 the Crown purchased an extensive area around Mahurangi and Ōmaha. Ōmaha, we know, is a very exclusive sort of seaside spot these days. It included land in which Te Kawerau-a-Maki held shared interests with other Kawerau groups. They were not consulted on that sale. The Crown did not conduct an investigation of customary rights when it purchased these lands, nor did it provide adequate compensation in reserves when it later learnt of Te Kawerau-a-Maki’s interests in the area.

In 1848 the Crown commenced a systematic programme of land purchase in the west and immediate north of Auckland to provide land for settlers, and that included 100,000 acres of the Waitakere Ranges. I think it is important to remember that figure—100,000 acres—and that this is in the heart of Te Kawerau-a-Maki’s land. The Crown did not conduct an adequate investigation of customary rights in this area, and dealt with Te Kawerau-a-Maki only after purchasing land from other iwi. So no reserves were set aside for Te Kawerau-a-Maki in the large Hikurangi block. Hikurangi is an area around west Auckland, and it is not well-known that that is the actual name. Also, the Pīhā and the Waitakere native reserves, which were created for Te Kawerau-a-Maki, were not protected from later alienation.

The reason I ask members to remember that figure of 100,000 acres in Waitakere itself, in the ranges—and this is just the ranges; it does not include other areas of land that were alienated from Te Kawerau-a-Maki—is that if we go to some of the cultural redress and some of the sites transferred to Te Kawerau-a-Maki through this bill, it says that nine sites will be vested in Te Kawerau-a-Maki, totalling approximately 31 hectares. So if we consider that 100,000 acres was taken in the Waitakere Ranges alone—we are not counting Mahurangi and Ōmaha and all the other areas—and that nine sites are going to be vested, totalling approximately 31 hectares, we can see, actually, the generosity of the people of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. They are not saying: “We want all that land back and we want everyone who is squatting on our land to pay us rent and to make millionaires out of us.” All they are saying in terms of the cultural redress is that they want recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations Te Kawerau-a-Maki has had with the places and the sites owned by the Crown within their areas of interest.

Just imagine the generosity of that. They are just saying they want cultural recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations. They are not saying: “Give us back all the land.” They are not saying: “Pay us rent.” They are not saying: “Back-pay us rent back to 1841.” They simply want something that will cost New Zealand very little—that is, recognition of their interests. I can only thank the generosity of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and other iwi who have also said similar things, because there is a great conversation out there that Māori are just money-hungry, land-grabbing people who need to get over themselves. I think that this proves that that is absolutely not the point.

There are other lands as well at Muriwai, Parihoa, Opareira, and Wai Whauwhaupaku that will be vested in Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Many of these areas are Department of Conservation lands, and they will come with some covenants and reserve status. So even though they are saying that these lands belong to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, there are covenants and Te Kawerau-a-Maki does not necessarily have full say over what goes on in those lands.

I would just like to mention briefly Te Hēnga Block, which the Minister has also mentioned. There are some families that have lived adjacent to Te Hēnga Block, and they wanted to have some sort of formalisation of land access on to the blocks as well as the delivery of utilities. They have had informal access and utility delivery for a number of years, but they just want that formalised. It is my understanding that the Department of Conservation, which currently administers the public land as a reserve, has offered to grant concessions in the form of easements under the Conservation Act to authorise existing utilities for a term of 30 years, with a right of renewal for another 30 years.

In relation to the vehicle access we understand that Te Kawerau-a-Maki is prepared to grant a right-of-way easement for a term of 60 years. So although the Crown initially proposed that any grant of a vehicle easement be unregistered, given the potential shifting topography of the area it was later agreed, after the request of all parties, that it be registered to provide certainty. Again, I think that is a really nice tidying-up of that particular block for those adjacent landowners.

Once again, I would just like to acknowledge Te Kawerau-a-Maki, the Māori Affairs Committee, which has overseen this bill, and the Minister, of course, for his fine work in making this all happen. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ka mihi e te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i te Whare Mīere nei, ka mihi ki ngā mema katoa, ngā mihi.

[I appreciate that, Mr Speaker, and greetings to all the members throughout this Beehive, my thanks to you all.]

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 22 February 2014. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge two stalwarts who were very much responsible for really being the pouwhenua of this claims settlement bill. They were Te Kawerau-a-Maki kaumātua. Haere atu rā e Maryanne Rāpata. Haere atu rā e Eru Thompson. Nō reira, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai.

Looking back at the history of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, I want to cover it just generally, because there have been some specifics already given here. I am sure that the members of the Māori Affairs Committee will actually talk specifics about various parts of the bill. I want to give an overview first of all because the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, did a very good overview. I just want to sort of concentrate on a couple of points there. I want to move into an area, particularly around Te Hēnga sites, particularly Te Hēnga site B and the whānau of Te Hēnga, and also the goodwill shown by Te Kawerau-a-Maki.

Looking back at the history of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, we see that they have been a very disenfranchised people. This iwi, beginning very soon after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, had all of its land systematically stripped from it. The alienation of their land has had a devastating effect on Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Previously they were an iwi secure in their lands, with food resources so plentiful that they invited their neighbours to come and share and stay during the time of seasonal fishing. But after the alienation of much of the land and the death of their chief in 1912, most members of the iwi moved into the settlements of related iwi.

For some time, historians considered Te Kawerau-a-Maki a lost tribe, although that was an assumption born of ignorance. Te Kawerau-a-Maki remains an iwi without a marae, but it is pleasing to see that the plans are in place to establish a marae at Te Hēnga. I hope for that for Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and I am sure that they can see that happen.

Eru Thompson was a good friend of mine. We travelled a lot, particularly internationally. Looking at the vision that he had, along with other kaumātua who drove the settlement process, that vision was actually the fact that they wanted it recognised, first of all, that they were the mana whenua of Waitakere—that was really important to them—and that they soon wanted their marae on their own lands. Looking at those two points, this is what is actually very much in this bill, in this legislation. The final part of it was that they did want to build a financial future for their people.

But moving to the next point, I want to cover off one of the major issues that we looked at in the Māori Affairs Committee during the consideration of this bill, and that is actually around the submission process. We heard the main submissions in Auckland. We heard submissions from the families who have owned land adjoining the land affected by the settlements for a long time. Their issue arises because they historically have used Department of Conservation land to access their own. They have used some of the services and infrastructure on that Department of Conservation land.

The interesting thing about meeting those families during the submission process was we found that there was very little engagement that they had ever had with Te Kawerau-a-Maki. So at the submissions process that, to me, was a catalyst for those engagements to happen. What happened was that it was the officials whom we then asked to be able to facilitate those ongoing engagements with those families from Te Hēnga, the non-Māori, engaging with Te Kawerau-a-Maki. So in doing that, that actually did happen, but we still have to look at what the issue was within it. They had a longstanding arrangement that had never been formally or legally allowed by the Crown. Now that some of this conservation land will be transferred to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, the families involved are seeking to have these access rights formalised.

Representatives of the family, as I said, came to the committee to ask that we build into the legislation a legally recognised right for them to use the land for vehicle access and to continue to use some of the utilities on the land. They explained the longstanding attachment their families have had to this land through their long-term use of the land through several generations and the fact that they scattered the ashes of whānau members there.

It seems, though, that when the land was originally subdivided in 1947, the intention was that access to the sites be by way of the beach. However, this is no longer seen as adequate. So the families, as I said, have asked that they be granted permanent easements for vehicle and utility access. However, the Conservation Act 1987 does not provide for permanent easements. The Department of Conservation has offered to grant concessions for the use of utilities for 30 years, with a right of renewal for a further 30 years. This is the basis of the ongoing discussions with those families and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. These arrangements are not actually included in the bill, and, as the Minister said previously, the fact is that this negotiation of terms is still ongoing and will be picked up, hopefully, in a Supplementary Order Paper.

Since 1840 the story of Te Kawerau-a-Maki has been one of great sadness. So much was taken from them. In every iwi we lost something in the tragic period after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, but there are few who can look back on such annihilation of their assets, their land, and consequently their mana.

The deed of settlement and this bill, which gives effect to it, seek to restore some of what was lost and to provide an economic base for Te Kawerau-a-Maki to move forward. I look forward, in the next stage, which is the third reading, to really welcoming those rangatira of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and their whanau members to this House for the third reading, hopefully to be able to see that the economic, social, and cultural success that they are destined to achieve will be theirs in the future. I commend this bill to the House. Huri noa i tō Whare, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā, tēnā tātou e te Whare, e tika ana me mihi atu ki a koutou rā o Te Kawerau-a-Maki, ā, e tika ana anō me whakaaro ake ki tērā o ngā kaumātua ki a Matua Eru, nō reira e te pāpā tēnei e whakaaro ake ana ki a koe i tēnei wā. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so greetings to us the House. It is apt indeed that I welcome you, those of you of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and just as fitting that we think about that one of the elderly, Mr Eru, therefore I consider you at this moment oh fatherly figure. My appreciation to us all.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to join in and support the second reading of Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill. Often when we speak on settlement bills, we think: “Now, what salient piece of information can we pass over that gives relevance or a connection to a particular settlement?”. Well, here is mine: when I was around about 12 or 13, we used to have wānanga within our iwi, and we got taken to Te Hēnga for wānanga to learn about our history and to learn about the northernmost iwi that protects the border of Waikato—enough said. There are a lot of competing interests in Auckland, but my salient memories are of going to places in west Auckland and hearing about the connections that Waikato-Tainui have to this particular area, to the tūpuna there, and, more important, about our relationship to the people of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. In fact, Te Wārena Taua used to run those particular wānanga, and one thing that was impressed upon me at such a young age, and continues to impress upon me, was the passion with which he would hold on to those stories of old, and to the places. There were things that he shared with us—that in a place like Auckland you actually have to visit places and get a sense of how our ancestors lived to really gain an appreciation of what it took for those tūpuna of ours to traverse this land, to settle where they decided to settle, and, more important, to live a way of life accustomed to their own environment.

I love the west coast of New Zealand, right from Te Hēnga all the way down to Mōkau. It is my favourite part of the country because it is rough, wild, and ready. It speaks to the resilience of New Zealanders.

Coming back to the bill, when we listened to the submissions—

Pita Paraone: That’s why you won’t go further north—too rough and too wild.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes. When we listened to the submissions up in Auckland, there were a few things that absolutely had to be highlighted. I have to say that the chair of our committee, Nuk Korako, should be commended for this particular Treaty settlement bill. He managed, I felt, to steward through the committee some useful discussions on making the recommendations that you, Minister, will be introducing to the House as a Supplementary Order Paper.

One of those discussions that we had was around Kōpironui. It is an area where there is a common interest between Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. The mechanism in the bill enables the Māori Land Court to determine between the two iwi, or across the two iwi, their level of interest, and then to make a determination to a relevant post-settlement governance entity. The submission that we heard was a representation of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, upon the recommendation of the Māori Land Court: was it possible to transfer the ownership interest to the actual whānau rather than the post-settlement governance entity? We erred on the side of caution. We felt that the issue of determination absolutely had to belong to the Māori Land Court, and to try to say, as a select committee, that a third-party interest should therefore have a right as a result of that determination was probably not a prudent course of action to follow. We believe, Minister, in this interest, that your officials gave very good advice around that particular issue that we considered. And this has not been the first time that we have done that. In the Tūhoe settlement bill, the Māori Land Court had to determine levels of interest around the lake, I think, and the mechanism was there to be able to transfer those interests to the ahu whenua trust. What it does, I think, in the reality of the competing interests, is provide an opportunity for a space-saver—for the Māori Land Court to play a useful role in these types of decisions.

The other issue, which the chairman spoke to very well, was the representations that we received from three families: Mr Bellamy’s family, the Lusk whānau, and the Harre whānau. Mr Bellamy had his interests in Te Hēnga area conferred under the Conservation Act, and the Harre family had longstanding interests in Te Hēnga area. We spent some time as a select committee deliberating over the nature of their interests and the covenants that they had enjoyed, in terms of access to the property and the way in which they perceived their connection to the land. It almost felt like that was their tūrangawaewae. There was a lot of empathy in the committee for the way in which they had some natural heritage values that were being practised. I did get a sense that they felt somewhat left out of the settlement process, and their interests had not been taken into account through the negotiations. I am pleased that the select committee was able to address that and make some useful recommendations for the Minister to consider.

Some of those recommendations were around representations we heard that they wanted to have access for vehicles. They had walkway access to their property; they wanted vehicle access, and we had to determine what the extent of that vehicle access was. Was this one vehicle, or was it 50 vehicles? What is the nature of their property? Is this one house, or do they intend to build a few mansions on the property? After considering everything within context, here is a family that has a very small homestead that is visited by members of the family. They buried their mother there—this is the Harre whānau. They are not intending to have infrastructure access beyond what is currently on the property. We considered all of this and we determined that although they wanted permanent easement rights to be granted—we utilised the access provisions addressed in the Conservation Act and discussed the matter with Te Kawerau-a-Maki, who were very reasonable on this front—they had a 30-year occupation-type interest that could be renewed for another 30 years. We thought that was entirely reasonable.

It falls short of their representation; there is no doubt about that. We felt that what would keep their interest alive in Te Hēnga area, and keep their relationship with the whenua and that particular coastline active, is their relationship with Te Kawerau-a-Maki. And, in fact, Te Kawerau-a-Maki agreed as well that when this issue comes up in another 30 years, we would hope that the descendants of those who made submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee will have a mature enough relationship to revisit that discussion, to continue that live relationship with the whenua—the local tangata whenua, Te Kawerau-a-Maki—and then to be able to move forward. This is a practical outcome. I do not know whether it is an approach, Minister, that you have encountered in other settlement legislation, but I think it is a valuable one. I hope you feel that the select committee was being constructive towards an outcome that reflected a Treaty settlement that could benefit everybody and have, at the heart, a settlement that could work to the objectives of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and their longstanding interests in the area, and for other families who have longstanding interests in the area. It will not negatively affect public access to a very popular part of Auckland, and it does preserve the ongoing importance of a relationship with the whenua, with the moana, and with that particular area.

Nō reira, taku kōrero māku hei whakarāpopoto i ngā whakaaro o tō mātou komiti.

[So that is my contribution from me as a summary of our committee’s views.]

Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill. I am pleased to stand here to do this, because it gives effect to the deed of settlement that Te Kawerau-a-Maki signed with the Crown on 22 February 2014.

Te Kawerau-a-Maki are descendants of the youngest son of their ancestor Maki, named Tāwhiākiterangi, who also took the name of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Te Kawerau-a-Maki, an iwi from Tāmaki-makau-rau and also an iwi that is part of the collective of Tāmaki-makau-rau, have a number of historical grievances. This is because the extensive Crown land purchases after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 left them landless. Even the reserves that were supposed to have been set aside for Te Kawerau-a-Maki were never protected, and so that also added to the alienation of this iwi from the land, their whenua. This is an important bill because it is settling the grievances for Te Kawerau-a-Maki and is a significant step towards settlement of these historical claims. We acknowledge here that the Crown can never fully compensate for the wrongdoings done to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, but we are making steps towards that and we are helping to develop for them strong cultural and economic futures through this bill.

To do with the cultural and financial redress: there is $6.5 million that will be used to assist Te Kawerau-a-Maki to purchase Riverhead Forest, which is land at Te Onekiritea Point, or Hobsonville, as well as a contribution of $300,000 for the establishment of Te Kawerau-a-Maki marae. Other cultural redress will include vesting of significant cultural sites to the iwi. This is a very good start for Te Kawerau-a-Maki, because with this they will be able to grow their economic base and, again, contribute towards the number of iwi that have already been settled and contribute towards economic development not only for themselves but for the region, or the rohe, that they are in, and that contributes to the economic development of this country.

My speech is going to be very short. I am going to finish off very shortly because we have a third reading on this bill. Time is of the essence. We need to get this very good bill, sponsored by the Hon Chris Finlayson, our outstanding Treaty negotiations Minister, passed. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou e te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a call for the Greens on the second reading of Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill.

I am not a usual member of the Māori Affairs Committee, so I feel incredibly privileged to have sat on that committee to hear the submissions on this bill and, in fact, to speak on this bill as well. It is a committee like no other committee in Parliament. I want to pay tribute to Nuk Korako, the chair of that committee, and to the members, who took great care to listen very carefully to the submissions that came through and to the advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements and our officials, so that we could come back to the House with a bill that we can be proud of and that the iwi can be proud of.

I went with the committee up to Auckland and listened to most of the submissions that were heard up there. I think there were a total of nine submissions that were heard orally and there were about 16 that were received as written submissions. I want to use my speech to acknowledge some of the issues that were raised during the submission process.

I want to start off by acknowledging the issues that others have spoken about already that were highlighted by the Lusk family, the Harre family, and the Bellamy family in relation to the return of the land known as Te Hēnga site B to Te Kawerau-a-Maki. It is fair to say that the select committee really did consider the issues around the families’ requests for easements to access their service utilities and to access their land, and others have spoken about this. I support the conclusion that the select committee reached, which was summarised in the report that came back to the House. I am going to read from it. It says: “We have empathy for the families concerned and recognise the family ties with the properties; however, we consider a 60 year duration for the vehicle access and a 30 year duration with a right of renewal for the services access to be reasonable, in line with similar provisions in the Conservation Act, and to provide for future-proofing.”

I would like to add that this provision enables the families to engage with Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and other speakers have talked about this as well. We would like to see them develop a relationship, and this provision allows that. It would be similar to the relationship, I guess, that some of the submitters talked about having with previous landowners whom they had these informal agreements with—they were farmers, for example. But I would certainly hope that as a result of this settlement, they would develop a neighbourly relationship with Te Kawerau-a-Maki as the new landowners, and I would say that that would be a very sensible approach. We also note that there will be amendments put through that sort of formalise the informal arrangement, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said.

Like others, I also want to touch on the aspects of the bill that talk about the right of first refusal. In my first reading speech on this bill, I outlined my concerns about competing claims between iwi. The Greens have an ongoing concern that settlement bills may set up iwi against iwi and hapū against hapū, and I have commented before on the Crown’s role in potentially creating new Treaty breaches as a consequence of settlement processes. But I think it is also important to note that we did receive submissions from other iwi. Some, like the submissions of Waikato-Tainui and Ngāti Manuhiri, were submissions of congratulations to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, but others—like, for example, the submission from Tracy Wīremu Rēweti on behalf of her whanau—outlined their concerns about their exclusion from the Kōpironui Block in Woodhill Forest. That was from the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara settlement.

Our colleague Nanaia Mahuta has already explained the restrictions that the select committee has and the fact that this was an issue that we felt needed to be dealt with, and should have been dealt with, by the Māori Land Court. We did receive good advice from our officials on it, so we do have to accept that it was outside the scope of the Māori Affairs Committee. But I did want to highlight that there is the potential for more grievances to be established as a result of these processes.

The Māori Affairs Committee, in the report back, has also tried to clarify other aspects of the bill. I note that the bill returns to the House with some small amendments in an attempt to clarify the issue around the right of first refusal over land and properties in those shared areas with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara in relation to the Auckland prison property and the periods for when that right of first refusal will apply. A similar clarification has also been sought for the shared right of first refusal with Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and the Marutūahu iwi with regard to the area of land on the Mahurangi coast.

At this point, I also want to mention the submission from the Auckland Council about Te Onekiritea Point and the return in the deed of settlement of what is actually only 2,800 square metres of land at the place that was previously known as Bomb Point, and that is for building a marae for Te Kawerau-a-Maki. The balance of the land on this peninsula is Crown land, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki have the right of first refusal to buy that land, although Auckland Council has the option to buy it first. So if Auckland Council does not want it, it has to put it up for sale, with the right of first refusal going back to Te Kawerau-a-Maki. I guess what makes me nervous about the right of first refusal in this instance is that the land is right next to the housing development by Hobsonville Land Co. Ltd. The council, in its submissions, said that it has had some discussions with the company and the iwi over the future development of Te Onekiritea Point, and we are already seeing issues where the right of first refusal over housing land is being challenged in the High Court. So I just wanted to get on record my nervousness about this, but others have stated previously their nervousness about rights of first refusal, as well.

It was good to hear the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations say in his statement that his Government does have a commitment to ensure that these settlements go through—including the right of first refusal provisions—and to ensure that they are upheld, so I take some comfort from that. I appreciated his explanation that not all right of first refusal provisions are the same.

We look forward to seeing this bill progress through the House in its final stages. We look forward to the fact that this does actually settle the claims for Te Kawerau-a-Maki. We do have to state for the record that we never see these settlements as being full and final. However, having said that, we will of course be supporting it. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi nui ki ngā iwi o Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā anō koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā anō hoki tātou e te Whare.

[And so greetings once again, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings once again to us the House.]

It gives me pleasure to stand in this debate, the second reading of Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill, and to signal that as with most settlement bills New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this. The bill gives effect to the deed of settlement that was signed in February last year. I am not quite sure whether there is some form of record, given the point that this bill has reached in less than 12 months, but suffice to say that we certainly welcome it. I want to also thank the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his explanation of the right of first refusal. Until my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta had mentioned it, I thought that I would wait for the Committee stage. But given that she commented on it and her response, I thank her for that clarification, although I have no doubt that during the Committee stage comment will certainly be made about that issue, for obvious reasons.

The bill makes reference to part of the quantum going towards the establishment of a marae. From my experience, particularly on my home marae, just to build a wharekai costs almost a million dollars so I am not quite sure whether $300 is going to go very far to the establishment of a marae for Te Kawerau-a-Maki.

Hon David Cunliffe: Flash kai.

PITA PARAONE: You get that, but you do not get pigeons. And you do not get size 13 toheroa either, but you certainly get size 13 tuna. But I digress.

Coming back to the bill, I notice that the bill does vest nine cultural sites to the iwi, and I think that is good for Te Kawerau-a-Maki. They could have been described as the lost tribe, given all the land transactions that were happening around them—yet they were ignored. I think that this bill goes a long way to re-establishing Te Kawerau-a-Maki on the landscape of iwi development, iwi location, and everything iwi in Aotearoa. I think part of that is due to the efforts made by one Te Wārena Taua. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta alluded to his knowledge of the history of his people, and in one so young—I must say that in him you see the benefit of people spending time with their grandparents and Te Kawerau older people. As a consequence the history of the tribe gets transmitted through them, and it is incumbent on them to ensure the transmission of that information to the next generation. I really believe that the consequences of this bill are as a result of the teachings that Te Wārena Taua was raised on.

The Māori Affairs Committee—as has already been referred to—looked at it, and I must say personally that one of the issues that I was quite surprised about was the issue surrounding what we have come to know as Te Hēnga families. The process of settlement had gone so far that this particular land, albeit conservation reserve land occupied by a number of families who had a contract between themselves and the Department of Conservation, had been overlooked and their first notice, or awareness, of this bill was as a result of an advertisement in the local paper. I listened with great intent as to their position, and although initially they may not agree with the findings of the committee, I think that it does cement in concrete for them over the next 60 years their right to occupy that part of Te Kawerau-a-Maki claims settlement. I have no doubts that they should not fear any repercussions from this settlement, and their following generations will certainly be able to continue to enjoy the benefits of their present contractual arrangements, not only with the Department of Conservation but with the iwi of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Can I say that the ongoing right of access to the three holiday homes will certainly be more secure for them, and the families will find comfort in the arrangement that has been reached.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations does intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that will address a number of the issues that came up during the select committee process, and I look forward to seeing that. If I have read the Minister correctly, that will certainly get support from this quarter. There is not much that I can add that people have not already referred to. I do not think I need to repeat what they have said, other than to say that I commend this bill to the House, and look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading of the bill. Kia ora.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my great pleasure to commend the Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill to the House.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora. E te Mana Whakawā, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou ki te Whare.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, here is my acknowledgment to you, the House, collectively.]

In the interests of time, because we want to ensure that this bill passes into law with due haste, I am going to cut my comments short. I just want to touch on a few things. One is that the Māori Affairs Committee did work very hard to ensure that the views of all the submitters were taken into consideration, especially those of the families, as has been mentioned well and covered off well by everyone here. I do want to say, though, that is it very hard when you consider the amount of land that has been taken by dubious means, leaving this people virtually landless, and to give up one more inch, one more metre, or one more centimetre becomes very difficult for us to agree to. So I am actually very pleased with the outcome that has come about from the select committee process and I look forward to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is going to bring forward.

Also, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations often has lots of praise heaped upon him for his tireless work and the work of his officials—well-deserved, I am sure—but I do want to actually just quote, if I might, from Te Wārena Taua: “There were many elders who fought hard to retain our ancestral taonga. They fought hard to see our grievances brought before the Crown and now today it is all about them and our grandchildren to come, I’m happy.” So I want to remember those people who actually, for 175 years, have been trying to bring their grievances in front of a body that will listen to them, and finally we are able to do that. This is the second reading and I am sure that there will be plenty of time to articulate exactly what those grievances have been.

I look forward to the future, when Te Kawerau-a-Maki are able to set out their pathway and their plans to put their redress package to good use. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mana whenua o Te Waitakere ki Kawerau-a-Maki; te pō ka awatea, whiti ao, whiti ao, whiti, whiti ao! Ngā mate rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou.

[Greetings, accolades, and acknowledgments to you all of Te Waitakere Kawerau-a-Maki with the mandated authority over the lands there; listen, light comes to the night, it increases, increases, and increases ever rapidly, and behold, it is daylight! Allow the dead to be with the dead while we remain here in each other’s company.]

I would like to acknowledge the passing of our tīpuna of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Te Wārena Taua, Eru Thompson, and many others. I want to register the honour that I have been given, as one of the Pākehā members of the Te Kawerau rohe, along with my colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Phil Twyford, to acknowledge this proud, small iwi, and to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his work, and that of his officials and the chair, to bring this bill to the House. Can I also acknowledge the work of Sir Bob and Lady Harvey, who, in Waitakere City, gave great impetus to this settlement and to a new generation of Te Kawerau leaders like Rewi Spraggon and others, and of the urban marae Hoani Waititi Marae, which has been greatly supportive of this bill. Can I also acknowledge my colleagues Peeni Henare and Kelvin Davis, who have been instrumental in their support for this.

My tūrangawaewae, my new home, is in Titirangi, and as I look in the morning eastwards I see land that was gifted to Auckland by Ngāti Whātua in great quantities. When I look west out of my other window I see land that was confiscated from Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and we are here today to acknowledge the redress in cultural terms, the restoration of the mana relationship, even if much of that land remains vested in what is now the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and Auckland Centennial Park. We do recognise those areas that are acknowledged by statute all through the Waitakere area—set out in schedule 1—places as important as the Waitakere and Kūmeu Rivers and the Whatipū scientific reserve, which are of historic significance. I will not belabour it, but I was once walked around the Karekare area by Sir Bob Harvey and shown the caves where Te Kawerau sheltered during some of the tribal conflict of yesteryear, and I know how sacred those sites that we are now recognising in this legislation today are to them.

As others have said, there is economic redress conveyed through parts of the Woodhill Forest and a range of other sites set out in schedule 3. Time does not permit us to register them by name. I will say this, on behalf of our colleagues: we acknowledge the great importance of providing a home marae, and the provision of Te Hēnga land for that marae base will, I think, be of enduring significance not only to Te Kawerau-a-Maki but to the other iwis of the Tāmaki isthmus, and nationwide, as this part of the broad fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand is woven back into its place to the benefit of us all. I suppose it is with that feeling of satisfaction that the spirits of our tīpuna can now rest more in peace. I acknowledge the Treaty, I acknowledge our Kāwanatanga, I acknowledge our tīpuna, and I acknowledge the future that is for all of us in this beautiful shared land of Aotearoa.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama, tīheiwā mauri ora! Ka haere tonu ngā kōrero i te ata nei mō te āhuatanga o ngā take Tiriti kei mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tēnei wā.

Nō reira, kei roto i taua kōrero ko ngā tangi tonu ki ō tātou tini aituā, nā, kua whakawaha nei i tō tātou Whare mō tērā kaumātua rongonui ki roto i a tātou, i ngā mārama kua pahure ake nei, arā, ko Eru Thompson tēnā. I takoto ki runga i tōna marae o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki roto i te wāhi e kiia nei ko, Ihu Mātao, te Ihu o Mataoho. Nō reira, e tangi tonu ana ki a rātou, nā rātou tēnei huarahi i takahia tae noa mai ki roto i tēnei taima, anā, ko tātou tēnei e hui tahi nei.

Te mahi nui, kia kawea tonu i tō tātou kaupapa ki mua tonu i tēnei Whare. Nō reira, kāti ake ngā mihi tonu ki a rātou, ngā mihi tonu ki a tātou, āta orooro ahau i ngā mihi ki tō tātou Minita, te hōnore Minita Finlayson, mō āna mahi katoa ki te whakatutuki i tēnei āhuatanga, i tēnei take Tiriti kei mua i te Whare i tēnei wā, nō reira, ka haere tonu ngā mihi ki a ia me ōna āpihā katoa. Kāti ake ki a tātou katoa e hui tahi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[So thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, let the essence of life come to the natural and enlightened world, behold the breath of life! The contributions continue this morning in regards to Treaty matters before the House at this time.

So embodied in that statement are the laments that continue for the myriads of our misfortunes, which were expressed in the tributes in our House for that well-known elder there amongst us, Eru Thompson, who passed away in the last months. He lay in state on his Auckland marae, at a place commonly referred to as “Ihu Mātao”. Its correct name is te Ihu o Mataora, the Nose of Mataora. Therefore, I continue to lament for them. They were the ones that walked this path that has finally arrived here at this moment, and behold, here we are assembled together.

The important thing is that we continue to address this issue of ours that is at the very forehead of this House. So the accolades going backwards and forwards to them and to us should cease, as I want to pay a tribute to our Minister, the honourable Minister Finlayson, for everything he has done to bring about an outcome to this situation in regards to this Treaty issue that is before the House at this point in time. So accolades to him and to all his officials. Therefore enough about us assembled together here, greetings and accolades to you collectively and congratulations to us all.]

In the previous bill I mentioned the link between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill and Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. It should now be of no surprise to the House that it is only fitting that this bill be considered on the same morning as Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill. Why I say that is because Ngāi Takoto genealogy comes from the waka Moe Karaka, which I mentioned in my last speech in the House. It just so happens that on board that waka was the tupuna we know as Kawerau. Of course, right now we are discussing the Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill. I am encouraged to know that all of these bills were considered on this one morning, and I would like to thank the House for its patience on the matter.

To the bill. We are encouraged by the cultural and commercial redress in this bill. Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā, or the Waitakere Ranges, is a place of historical significance to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and in more recent times the rest of Tāmaki-makau-rau. I point that out because we want to make sure that these types of taonga are for all the people, while acknowledging the special place and historical significance of these areas to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and I want to touch briefly on the Hillary Trail—it is legendary. If you come from Auckland, or certainly from west Auckland, you will know of the Hillary Trail. The famous athlete of our past Arthur Lydiard would run those hills and he trained Olympic champions such as Sir Peter Snell. I wanted to say that, so that I could point out the significance of this place to all of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and indeed the country, while still acknowledging its historical significance to Te Kawerau-a-Maki.

It has already been mentioned in the House about the goodwill shown from all sides on this bill. The other tribes that are involved in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Marutūahu and, of course, Ngāti Whātua—it was fantastic to listen to their submissions in support of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and their pursuit of settling Treaty grievances. That is important because what I think it does is it shows the willingness and goodwill to work together, and we will see further on in the bill, when it comes to particular points of contention, where Te Kawerau-a-Maki are able to sit down and discuss them with the Office of Treaty Settlements and, of course, with Ngāti Whātua, and that is to be commended.

I mentioned the combined efforts, but it is also important to acknowledge—and it is fantastic to have the member the Hon Maggie Barry in the House at the moment—the work that the conservation board and the Office of Treaty Settlements have done on this particular bill. There are sites of a lot of significance, as I have already mentioned, to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and indeed all of New Zealand, and it is all incorporated in this bill. It is fantastic to see that cross-ministerial responsibility working together for the betterment of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and indeed all parties concerned. So I want to acknowledge her and, of course, Minister Finlayson for their work on the matter.

My colleagues Kelvin Davis and David Clendon spoke on the last bill about the importance of a name, and therefore the work with the Geographic Board to realise a long-held dream of Te Kawerau-a-Maki to call the Waitakere Ranges by their proper name needs to be noted. What we do know in the Māori world is that when there is a personal connection like that—and Mr Davis spoke recently about his genealogical link to Tōhe, which Ninety Mile Beach is named after. He feels a significant sense of responsibility and duty of care for a place like that. So I applaud the Geographic Board and Te Kawerau-a-Maki for changing the name of the Waitakere Ranges to Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā in the hope that, of course, like Mr Davis and many of us in this House, we have that personal affinity and duty of care and responsibility to such an important place.

I want to touch briefly on the right of first refusal issue. It is an issue, and I do thank the Minister for his explanation. It certainly cleared up some of the questions I have, but there remains, internally, some questions with regard to the right of first refusal. I want the House to cast its mind back to the Ngāti Apa settlement, where the right of first refusal was extended for only 50 years, and now, in this particular bill, I know that for Te Kawerau-a-Maki it is for 171 years. Possibly there could be some further questions, but we look forward to exploring that as this bill progresses through the House.

So, from one grey area to a place of shifting sands—and this has been mentioned in the House—in the submission by the families who have property out at Te Hēnga. It is important to mention the submissions by the Bellamy, Lusk and Harre families. I do not want to labour the point too much, but what I do want to point out is that—and this is actually a congratulations to the Māori Affairs Committee on dealing with the particular incident I refer to—at the time of the hearing of the submissions in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the families who made their submission, and, of course, Te Kawerau-a-Maki and other tribal interest groups, were all sitting in the same room and did not know that they were. And I want to point out that perhaps this was an oversight by officiating officers or in administration, but that is a concern, because to make this settlement a robust one for all parties concerned, I would have thought that at least those groups would have had the opportunity to meet before those submissions came to the Māori Affairs Committee. But I do want to congratulate the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, and the committee as a whole, on the way that they dealt with that.

Finally, in my previous contribution to the House I spoke about whakapapa—genealogy—and how it is all-important in the Māori world. My grandfather Sir James Hēnare used to say that without your whakapapa you are nothing, and that if you do not have tamariki—children—you are of no consequence. Although that may sound really harsh, if you listened to my contribution about the importance of whakapapa, you will see how it is relevant not only to yesteryear but also, of course, to today and to the bills in front of the House.

Sadly, the framework of legislation—and this has been the case since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi—forces us as Māori to limit our view of our ancestry. It forces us to pick one eponymous ancestor and group under that particular ancestor. And although I acknowledge, as a descendant of Rāhiri and, in this case, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, that they group under one eponymous ancestor, it is important to remember, for the descendants of Kawerau, that he had more than just one child. So I want to lay this challenge before the House and, indeed, Te Kawerau-a-Maki: to acknowledge all of the descendants of Kawerau and to make sure that all of the descendants of Te Kawerau-a-Maki are looked after as the bill progresses through the house. Kia ora.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Ā, tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā; tuarua, ngā mihi ki ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa.

[And my appreciation to you, Mr Speaker; secondly, acknowledgments to the members of the New Zealand Parliament.]

It is a great pleasure to rise and take a very brief call on the Te Kawerau-a-Maki Claims Settlement Bill in this second reading debate. As a member of a very small iwi, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, I take great pleasure in seeing some of the other smaller tribes in New Zealand receive the settlements to which they are entitled.

This bill contains $6.5 million worth of commercial and financial redress, but also, and more important, the cultural redress and the re-establishment of mana, which I think is incredibly important. For these reasons, I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to thank members for their contributions and for their collegiality. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Wednesday)