Tuesday, 11 August 2015

TUESDAY, 11 AUGUST 2015

TUESDAY, 11 AUGUST 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Pursuant to Standing Order 56(1)(a), I move, That the business for the extended sitting of the House to be held from 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 12 August 2015, as agreed by the Business Committee, also include the Committee stage and third reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill, in my name, on extending the licensing hours for the sale and supply of alcohol for the duration of Rugby World Cup 2015, to be set down for first reading tomorrow as members’ order of the day No. 1. To allow the legislation to commence prior to the start of the Rugby World Cup, I also seek leave for the bill, following its first reading, to be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for 2 weeks and for the bill, once it is reported back, to be given its second and third readings forthwith on the following members’ day, 26 August 2015.

Ron Mark: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Is it to do with this?

Ron Mark: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear the point of order from Ron Mark.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could we ask that the member consider putting this proposal forward tomorrow?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is seeking leave. The member Ron Mark knows what to do. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. [Interruption] Order! There is objection.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Trade Agreements—Saudi Agri-hub

1. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement that although dairy prices are experiencing some short-term volatility, the medium to long term outlook for the sector is still very positive indeed.

Ron Mark: In respect of his statements around the Saudi farm issue, can he explain why his predecessor and the then Minister for Primary Industries, the Rt Hon David Carter, met with Mr George Assaf of Awassi New Zealand Ltd on 21 January 2009?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I am unfamiliar with what details and discussions were had between those various parties at that time.

Ron Mark: So is the Minister telling the House that he has no idea whatsoever as to what was so important that Minister Carter had to meet with Mr George Assaf during the parliamentary adjournment, just following the formation of Mr Key’s Government; if not, why not?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member should realise that Ministers meet a variety of people and they discuss things that are appropriate in their different ministries and portfolios.

Ron Mark: Why have the venue, duration, and substance of this meeting not previously been disclosed?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] No, I have not called the member yet. I just want silence for this point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The primary question is: “Does he stand by all his statements?”. We are now getting into some sort of forensic consideration of a meeting that took place during the long 7-week parliamentary adjournment. There is nothing unusual in that.

Mr SPEAKER: And it will be for the Minister, in answering the question, to decide how he answers it. [Interruption]

Hon NATHAN GUY: Can I hear that again?

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask that the question be heard again.

Ron Mark: Why have the venue, duration, and substance of this meeting not been disclosed?

Hon NATHAN GUY: This is a ridiculous question. I cannot believe that this member is even asserting that. As I mentioned in the answer that I just gave previously, Ministers meet a variety of people. When something is appropriate in their own portfolio they should indeed meet. I do not have the specifics of what went on at that meeting with a former Minister, and neither should I carry that around. If the member wants to put a detailed question on the sheet, then I am happy to answer it.

Ron Mark: Is not the real reason taxpayers’ money is being wasted on the so-called Saudi agri-hub, which he has been supporting, that this Government is being blackmailed over what David Carter and the National Party and Michelle Boag promised in Opposition?

Hon NATHAN GUY: No. That is a pathetic question and I refute that question.

Economy—Reports

2. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?

Hon Member: Ha!

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): A rather more thorough report than that. I have seen reports where Fonterra has revised down its forecast payout from $5.25 to $3.85 per kilo of milk solids. This reduction will clearly have a significant impact on the dairy industry and dairy-intensive parts of the economy, but it is not a particularly surprising downgrade, as it reflects the ongoing reduction in the international dairy price. Fonterra has at the same time announced higher earnings per share of 40c to 50c and an optional interest-free support payment of 50c per kilo of milk solids. It is clear that for dairy farmers times are turning out tougher for longer than forecasters previously expected, but the additional measures announced by Fonterra on Friday will offset that to a certain extent.

Tim Macindoe: What effect will the fall in milk prices have on the wider economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will certainly have a big effect on the dairy-intensive parts of the economy. A drop in revenue of this magnitude in the dairy sector will have flow-on effects to the wider economy because the dairy sector makes up about 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports and around 5 to 6 percent of the total economy. The automatic stabilisers, though, are providing support to the dairy industry and to the benefit of other industries. For instance, the New Zealand dollar is down 25c against the US dollar for the last 12 months, and this underpins the returns of all exporters, not just those dealing with low prices. The Reserve Bank has cut interest rates, the overnight cash rate, to 3 percent and indicated this may fall further. The Reserve Bank’s most recent forecasts of the economy show that the economy is growing around 2.5 percent a year, which is solid, sustainable growth.

Tim Macindoe: What other reports has the Minister seen on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In its Monthly Economic Indicators released last week Treasury said that most indicators remain around their long-run averages, with the exception of dairy prices, and they are consistent with an economy growing around its trend rate of 2 to 2.5 percent. Statistics New Zealand also released the latest employment figures last week. Unemployment increased from 5.8 percent to 5.9 percent. At the same time, the average wage increased by 3.2 percent in the last year, to over $57,000, considerably faster than inflation of 0.3 percent. Of course, there are a number of risks to the economy—well-known risks, such as the uncertainty around Greece and some uncertainty about China’s growth prospects. So there is some chance that we could move away slightly from the 2 to 2.5 percent growth rate that we are seeing now.

James Shaw: Has the Minister of Finance received any reports that show that the New Zealand economy will face a $7 billion hole as a result of low dairy prices, and what specific measures is he putting in place to ensure that distressed dairy farmers are supported through this commodity price crash?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have seen those reports and I am pleased the member asked about them. In order to understand the context of this, that $7 billion reduction is a reduction on nominal GDP of over $220 billion. When you look at it that way, you can see that it is going to have a negative effect on the economy, but a containable effect, and we can continue to grow at moderate rates. In respect of dairy farmers in distress, Governments have had in place for some time measures for those families that are in severe financial distress, but generally the Government would not be looking to financially support dairy farmers because of low prices.

James Shaw: Does he regret telling Radio New Zealand in March that the concentration of capital in dairying was “not a bad thing”, and how will he now ensure that this over-allocation of resources into one sector does not now put out of work thousands of farm labourers, retailers, contractors, and suppliers who all rely on dairy farms?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The flow of capital into the dairy industry has been based on a longer-term confidence that across the Asia-Pacific region the fast-growing class of middle-income consumers will show more demand for dairy and other protein products. That is a view of the world that is not really disputed by anyone in particular. In the short term, however, the reduction in income will of course have an impact on employment directly on dairy farms, but also in the supporting towns and services. The measures announced by Fonterra last week and the positive indications from the banks that they will finance cash flow for dairy farmers over the next 12 months mean that it will not be as bad as the straight drop in income indicates, because dairy farmers have to spend $4.50 a kilo just to get the milk on the truck.

Tim Macindoe: What implications do recent developments in the international economy have for New Zealand’s economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Although there are risks in the global economy, it is evident that growth in our trading partners is holding up reasonably well—in the range of 3 percent to 4 percent. When we look back through the history of New Zealand’s growth patterns, it is reasonably clear that when our trading partners are growing at that kind of rate—3 to 4 percent—that is a positive indicator for sustainable, moderate growth in New Zealand of around 2 percent to 2.5 percent, which is our long-term trend growth rate.

James Shaw: Given his previous answer that investment in dairying was based on a long-range view of the sector, what work has he done to understand whether the dairy price collapse is actually a structural long-term change in the market rather than a cyclical short-term change?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We try to make an assessment about that, the same as everyone else. It is pretty evident, though, that no one is quite sure. It is likely that dairy prices will not go back to $8 a kilo. In fact, it may well be not a bad thing because what is evident is that the price going that high has stimulated not just positive supply but probably excess supply. No one quite knows the answer to that question, but talking to the people whose capital investment is at stake and whose livelihoods are at stake, they maintain confidence that prices will rise from where they are—in fact, they have to, because they are below the cost of production—and they maintain a positive view about where they put their investment.

Grant Robertson: Has the Minister of Finance seen this report about the economy under his watch, which features a boat that has run aground?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have, and I thought how similar it is to the fate of the Labour Party. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just complete the answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the interest of assisting the vice - great helmsman, as I understand it, that is the Westpac Economic Overview, and I note that its forecasts are for between 2 percent and 2.5 percent growth over the next 3 years, despite the fact that it says there is going to be a recession.

James Shaw: Will he stop subsidising the expansion of high input - cost dairying by spending $160 million on irrigation when that money would be much better invested in capturing more of the dairy value chain to escape the boom and bust of commodity price cycles?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I could not verify that number. What I can tell the member is that the irrigation investment fund has actually paid out around $8 million or $9 million, much as some people would wish it is $160 million—

Hon Nathan Guy: $6.5 million.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —$6.5 million, sorry. So, look, the Government spreads its support for infrastructure around the country, whether it is roads or public transport, and in the case of irrigation schemes, dealing with some of the short-term demand issues that enable those schemes to get up and running, and we do not have any plan to change that. I do expect, though, that the low dairy prices mean that there will be less willingness among farmers to finance the overwhelming share of the development that they pay for.

James Shaw: Is he aware that organic milk powder commands up to six times the price premium of conventional milk powder on international markets, and will he turn this crisis into an opportunity by helping move more dairy farmers into organic milk production?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member is correct that farmers can earn six times as much by selling their milk as they earn from organic milk, then I am quite sure they will.

James Shaw: When he says that this is not a crisis and that dairy is just 5 percent of the economy, is he saying that when the All Blacks lose, it just does not matter because they are one of thousands of sports teams playing over the weekend, many of which are winning?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Clearly, the Greens like New Zealanders being able to watch the All Blacks lose, but they do not want them to be able to watch them win in the Rugby World Cup. I mean, when people use the word “crisis”, well, the Opposition should explain what that means. If those members think it means that dairy farmers are sitting around with their heads in their hands, paralysed by low prices, then they are wrong. Actually, they are getting up every morning, going out into the cold, wet weather, doing the calving, milking the cows, and spending the money they need to get their production moving and get their product to world markets. Calling it a crisis seems to me to be particularly useless. In fact, it downgrades the resilience and the responsiveness of not just the dairy sector but households right across New Zealand to a bit of economic pressure, which they can handle.

Prime Minister—Unemployment and Dairy Industry

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is on the “cusp of something special”; if so, was that “something special” rising unemployment along with plummeting dairy prices?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by that statement, for two reasons. The first is that I am positive and aspirational for New Zealand—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —unlike some people who are always talking the country down. But, actually, the second reason I stand by that statement is that I made that statement on a couple of occasions during debates in the 2014 general election, and we were on the cusp of something special: the worst pounding the Labour Party had ever had—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Andrew Little: Given that the number of people who are unemployed has risen by 13,000 and that unemployment in Taranaki alone is now at 7 percent, and there are hundreds set to join them due to major job cuts announced recently, is it not the truth of it that he is sending more and more families to the cusp of poverty?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Government has created—along with the people of New Zealand, of course—148,000 jobs over the last 2 years. But I note that the Labour Party has an interest all of a sudden, apparently, in farming. So when prices go up, it is nothing to do with the Government; when prices go down, it is everything to do with the Government! Those members are not asking: “Why are beef prices high? Is that the responsibility of the Government?”. But I make this simple point: the Labour Party wanted to put a huge number of costs on farmers. That was its policy during the election.

Andrew Little: Given that Westpac says that there will be no more job growth this year, and the economy has grown at just a quarter of the expected rate, has he not driven the economy to the cusp of a recession?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member goes and reads the Westpac report, the glimpse that I had a look through, it showed that growth will be between 2 percent and 2.5 percent over the next 3 years.

Andrew Little: Why has he failed to invest in diversifying the economy, neglected regional infrastructure, and turned a blind eye to the 35,000 jobs lost in manufacturing since 2008?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to get out a bit more—it is as simple as that. If you go around New Zealand and have a look at what is happening around New Zealand, you will see just how diversified the economy is. Tourism spending alone is up over 20 percent from last year, at over $8 billion. The information and communications technology sector is doing well. Kiwifruit growing is back from the lows of Psa. Beef farming is doing extremely well. Horticulture is doing well around New Zealand. Manufacturing—for 33 months in a row the performance of manufacturing index has been expanding. The services sector, export education—the only people who think the economy is solely dairy are in the Labour Party, and it wanted to tax those people—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Andrew Little: Did he receive any official advice to back up his claim that a new flag would add billions to the economy, or was he making it up, just like usual?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do think that changing the flag has, over time, very significant economic benefits for New Zealand. The reason for that is that if you go and have a look on the New Zealand Herald website today, you will see New Zealanders voting, and I notice Mike Hosking’s column today actually talking about genuine debate about the flag—[Interruption] Oh, that is right. Just remind me: it is Labour Party policy to change the flag, but it does not want it. Oh, and Andrew Little was on his live chat 10 months ago supporting change, but today he does not want to do it. When we have a flag that is of the ilk that we see today, actually, it will be on our goods that are sent around the world, and that will have huge economic benefit. But the bottom line is this: if the Labour Party is telling New Zealanders, it simply misleads them with its policies—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is long enough.

Ron Mark: To the Prime Minister, in terms of helping the economy—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the supplementary question.

Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the Prime Minister knows about trading halts, why does he not agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Federated Farmers Waikato’s Chris Lewis that Fonterra should temporarily suspend participation on global dairy trade?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, that is a matter for Fonterra. It is a private organisation, and it makes up its own mind. But that is akin to saying: “When things are going well, we’ll have a global dairy auction. When they’re going badly in the world market, we won’t.” In other words, when the poll results are high we will listen to them, and when the poll results for New Zealand First are bad, we will turn our eyes away. It is a ridiculous way to operate.

Ron Mark: When dairy stock and land values fall in line with the falling commodity price and pay-out, as they always do, and dairy farming couples are forced into negative equity, and the foreign banks move in to foreclose—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question, please.

Ron Mark: —what will he do?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I will just pick one basic point, and that is that there is no great evidence, actually, that when pay-outs go down, as they have, you will see a massive amount of foreign investment in dairy farms. They are far more likely, actually, to come in when they can make an economic return. At the current returns, as the member will know, most dairy farmers are either breaking even or not making money, and on that basis it is very unlikely that foreign investors are going to come in and buy those farms.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I ask through you, Mr Speaker, whether the Prime Minister can comment on the particular part of my question that says—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption] No. Order! The member will resume his seat. If he can make his questions concise and to the point, then I can help him, but when it is a question as long as that one—to the extent that I have got to intervene to ask for the question—then, in my mind, the Prime Minister addressed it.

Economy—Diversification

4. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in diversifying the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Very good progress. There has been very significant diversification in the economy since 2008, and many sectors of the economy are growing significantly in proportion. In fact, there are 199,000 more people employed now than there were 4½ years ago, with 24,500 more employed in manufacturing in the past year alone. Sectors as diverse as the information and communications technology sector, which has grown at a rate of 9 percent per annum since 2008, now contribute 1.7 percent of GDP. International education is now worth nearly $2.85 billion and supports more than 30,000 Kiwi jobs. The wine industry’s exports were $1.37 billion last year, up 8.2 percent in 1 year. High-tech manufacturing has grown from a $139 million industry a few years ago to a $1.4 billion one now. The tourism industry is, of course, worth 7 percent of GDP now. Although the dairy industry is struggling at the moment—and that will certainly have an impact on the New Zealand economy—other parts of the economy are growing strongly and are helping to counteract that.

Andrew Bayly: What is the Government doing to further diversify the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Encouraging the economy to diversify and grow in different sectors is a very important part of the Government’s comprehensive Business Growth Agenda. Initiatives contained in the Business Growth Agenda include Callaghan Innovation, and we are investing more and more in research and development for New Zealand’s high-tech companies in order to develop new products and services. As part of Budget 2015 we invested an additional $80 million, bringing our total contribution to science and innovation to around $1.5 billion a year—70 percent more than 8 years ago. We are establishing information and communications technology grad schools to train more young people for this industry. We are lifting greatly the number of people in engineering disciplines; we are investing more in critical infrastructure like the roads of national significance and ultra-fast broadband; and, through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, we are encouraging more New Zealand companies to grow offshore.

Andrew Bayly: How is the Government encouraging New Zealand companies to grow their offshore businesses and to expand into new and developing markets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a very important part of the task, and that is why we have increased the number of companies that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise works closely with by an additional 200 companies, to 700, helping more companies to boost their global reach and to open doors in new markets. We have added new New Zealand Trade and Enterprise positions in countries as diverse as Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Papua New Guinea, and Abu Dhabi; we have increased our presence in the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, the UK, Germany, the US, Spain, Chile, and China; and we are further growing our international footprint. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is working with more New Zealand companies up and down New Zealand in order to make the most of the free-trade agreements with Korea and also the new World Trade Organization government procurement agreement.

Dr David Clark: Why is export growth going backwards?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate that the Opposition members do not like it, because it does not fit with their lines, but their lines are rubbish.

Dairy Industry—Milk Price Forecast and Sale of Land to Overseas Investors

5. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that dairy prices are likely to be low for “a little bit longer”, given the latest auction was a record low?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Andrew Little: Given that dairy farm prices have already fallen by 18 percent since peaking last October, what preparations has his Government undertaken for dealing with increased sell-offs by insolvent farmers who cannot make ends meet with dairy prices so low?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What we have done over the course of the last 7 years, after straightening out the mess we inherited from Labour and with our very strong economic management, is to make the economy more efficient and more productive. Here is a bunch of things that we have not done: we have not brought the emissions trading scheme in straight away, we have not put a large tax on water irrigation, we have not put a capital gains tax on every farm, we have not increased the minimum wage to two-thirds of the average wage, and we have not taken money out of the Primary Growth Partnership. We are in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Labour Party—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —is claiming it is the farmers’ friend. They were the policies it took to the election.

Andrew Little: What is the Government’s response to the reports that, contrary to Bill English’s claims, the banks are already forcing mortgagee sales on indebted farmers, and what is to stop more of these farms being bought by overseas investors?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I am sure that the banks will work closely with farmers, as they typically do, because there is approximately $35 billion worth of debt, I think, sitting on dairy farms. One of the things the bankers will be sitting there and looking at is they will be looking at the policies of the National-led Government, which has supported the farmers; they will be looking at the proposed policies of Labour, which is anti-farmers; and they will be saying “Thank goodness National is in Government.”

Andrew Little: Given his Government has rubber-stamped 296 sales of sensitive land to foreign buyers since the start of 2012, how much more land is he prepared to sell overseas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is important to note that the Government, for the most part, does not actually sell land; land goes through the Overseas Investment Act and the Overseas Investment Office. As we know, the percentage of sales overseas is relatively small, and, actually, New Zealand is not seen as necessarily the easiest place to buy land. If you look around the OECD, we have as many restrictions as most other countries; in some cases, more.

Andrew Little: As a lot of his Government voted down a Labour bill that would have protected farms against being bought up by foreign investors, what steps is he prepared to take to ensure farms that are sold during this downturn will not end up in offshore ownership?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is what would have driven farmers off the land: going into an emissions trading scheme straight away, whacking a massive new tax on irrigation, putting a capital gains tax on every farm, increasing the costs of wages on every farm, having less money in science and innovation, and being opposed to trade. It is pretty simple. Farmers in the dairy sector are subject to an international commodity price, which is clearly on a bit of a downturn at the moment. Last year it was in quite a big upswing. In fact, if you look between 2002 and 2006, the on-farm forecast was about the same as what it currently is today. It is not new. Apparently, in all those years when Labour was in office, it was fine.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Today it is not.

Andrew Little: Can he confirm that there is a late entry in the flag referendum: a map of New Zealand with a “For Sale” sign over it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member really needs to sort his game out, because either he wants to go on to his website and change his policy, which is to change the flag with a referendum, or he should realise that he is playing stupid politics with something that could actually seriously benefit New Zealand. That is why Labour continues to poll very poorly, because, in the end, it is just opposed to everything that the Government is in favour of, not because it is a good idea or a bad idea. Otherwise, Labour members must be misleading New Zealanders, because this is their policy. And when you were on your little chatroom a wee while ago, you were telling people you were in favour of it. Were you misleading them deliberately? I do not think so.

Primary Sector—Export Forecasts

6. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the outlook for primary sector exports?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries for 2015 highlights that the medium to long term outlook for our primary sectors is indeed positive. Although the outlook forecasts that some sectors, like dairying, will experience short-term volatility, overall primary sector exports should increase by 17 percent to $41 billion by 2019. Importantly, the outlook highlights the long-term trend of global income and population growth, particularly on our Asian doorstep. This will provide an opportunity for New Zealand to continue growing its customer base with sustainable economic growth—indeed boosting the regions.

Ian McKelvie: What does the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries 2015 highlight about the short-term volatility in the dairy sector?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The outlook highlights that large price peaks are often followed by price falls and then recoveries. At the moment the world is pretty much awash with milk. China has taken longer than expected to come back into the market. The removal of the European milk quotas is expected to increase the world supply of milk. The Russian sanctions are also having an impact on some of our traditional markets. However, as this report highlights, the medium to long term outlook for the dairy sector is very positive. Just one example: a 1 percent increase in income is estimated to increase the demand for dairy products by 0.8 percent. As the incomes of developing countries increase, so will the demand for New Zealand dairy products.

Ian McKelvie: What is the outlook for our other primary sectors?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. Strong growth in the meat, horticulture, and seafood sectors has helped to partially offset any decrease in the dairy sector, and these sectors have very strong outlooks. In the meat sector, beef export revenue is up by 30 percent, and we are likely to fill our US quota for the first time ever. Total meat and wool exports are expected to increase by almost 11 percent to $9 billion by 2019. Strong growth in kiwifruit and wine exports is driving horticulture export revenue past $4 billion, and it is forecast to reach $4.6 billion by 2019. Seafood export earnings are forecast to reach $1.8 billion by 2019, driven primarily by aquaculture planned expansion growth.

Economic Outlook—Milk Price Forecast and Employment

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Dairy is 5% of our economy. So yes dairy prices are down and it’s tough on those dairy farmers who are resilient people, but 95% of our economy is not involved in that”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, if 95 percent of people are not affected, how does he explain retailers in Taranaki who say that the downturn in the dairy market is seeing sales decline between 10 and 20 percent, including one retailer who said that the situation was as bad as it was at the height of the global financial crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because that seems to be a natural consequence of the fact that dairy farmers in Taranaki are earning less, so they are spending less.

Grant Robertson: What explanation does he have for the following reports on economic confidence: the July Colmar Brunton survey that shows economic pessimism outweighing optimism for the first time in 6 years, the Reid Research Services poll that says that 64 percent of people think we are heading for a downturn, the ANZ business confidence survey that reports a 6-year low in business confidence, or today’s Westpac quarterly economic survey, which features a boat that has run aground—symbolising his management of the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the reason for that is pretty obvious. People have been adjusting to a stream of what they regard as pretty negative news: first, about Greece, then about China, then more recently about a steadily dropping dairy price, and a few other indications that the economy, which was growing at 3 to 3.5 percent, looks like it is growing at 2 to 2.5 percent. So given how high the levels of confidence were, it is not surprising that they dropped somewhat.

Grant Robertson: Does he expect to meet forecasts in his Budget for reducing unemployment to below 5 percent, or after three quarters of increasing unemployment is he prepared to admit that Westpac is right and unemployment is heading back to over 6 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There will always be differences between forecasts. What has been positive about the labour market has been the continued growth in new jobs and the continuation of a record high participation rate—that is, a bigger proportion of the working-age population available for work than has ever been the case. So in light of those positive trends it is still possible that unemployment could rise. We have yet to see. What we do know is that we have an economy that is producing a lot of new jobs and has slightly more New Zealanders showing up for them than there is growth in jobs.

Grant Robertson: Why was he so keen to take credit for the state of the economy when it was going well, but at the first sign of a downturn it is everyone else’s fault?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should go back and have a look, because, actually, this Government has always given credit for the stronger economy to New Zealand households and businesses, which, in the face of a recession and an earthquake, rearranged the way they operated, became more efficient and leaner, and got themselves through a very difficult period. We have always attributed the strength of the economy to the people who are the economy.

Waste Management—Plastic Bags

8. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Why has he announced a plastics recycling initiative rather than a levy when recycling will only maintain the volume of plastic in the waste stream, whereas a levy will reduce the number of plastic bags in circulation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Plastic shopping bags actually make up only about 2 percent of plastic waste. Focusing only on these ignores the large volume of waste from plastic bread bags, plastic frozen food bags, plastic vegetable and fruit bags, and actually dozens of other types of plastic packaging. The strength of the Government’s approach is that it enables recycling of all soft plastic packaging. The Government has introduced a levy on waste going to landfill.

Denise Roche: Given that there are less harmful alternatives for the 1.6 billion plastic bags used in New Zealand every year, why will he not introduce a levy to reduce their use?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Plastic shopping bags make up only 0.2 percent of waste that goes to landfill. I would also point out that in the scientific surveys of amounts of litter, these plastic bags are actually only about 1 percent of New Zealand’s litter problem. So they are such a small proportion that it seems somewhat unusual to target all our waste efforts on this single product. I note that some supermarkets are tempted to introduce a levy. It was not at all popular with consumers.

Denise Roche: Why, then, is he spending $1.2 million from the Waste Minimisation Fund on a scheme that does not actually minimise waste?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am somewhat surprised to see the Greens criticising recycling. What the Government is doing is saying that by recycling those plastics, whether they are plastic shopping bags or frozen food bags—all those soft plastics that are often collected by New Zealanders and currently end up just going to landfill—as in Australia, if we can recycle them, this enables us to reduce the amount of petrochemicals that we are importing from overseas to make new plastic bags.

Denise Roche: Will the Minister listen to the 89 percent of Local Government New Zealand delegates who are calling for a levy on plastic bags because a levy would lead to fewer plastic bags being used and ending up in the environment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I noticed that in 2009 a number of supermarkets took the Green Party’s advice and did introduce a levy on shopping bags. It went down very badly with consumers, and, actually, this Government is more focused on the general public than we are on what general councils or others want to think people want to do. There are also large numbers of perfectly responsible New Zealanders who use those plastic shopping bags to dispose responsibly of their other wastes. My advice is that that poses little harm to the environment.

Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, your question has been addressed by the Minister.

Health Services—Elective Surgery

9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the number of patients benefiting from elective surgery has increased by 5,030 in the last financial year, and that 49,234 more patients are having surgery now compared to 2007/2008?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, I can. When National was elected in 2008, increasing the number of elective surgeries every year was a top Government priority. These new figures show that a record 167,188 New Zealanders received elective surgery in 2014-15, a remarkable increase of 42 percent on 2007-08.

Barbara Kuriger: What is the spread of these increased numbers across the types of elective surgery, and what is his expectation for the future?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This continued growth in elective surgeries—over 5,000 in the last year—has been spread across the specialities. It includes more than 690 orthopaedic operations, 1,300 general surgeries, and 150 more cardiothoracic surgeries. It is my expectation that the district health boards will continue to deliver increases averaging 4,000 more surgeries a year over the next 3 years, which is why the Government invested an extra $92 million into elective surgery in the last Budget. This Government is committed to protecting and growing public health services, and the extra 50,000 surgeries over the last 7 years is evidence of that commitment.

Hon Annette King: What impact will the prediction of deficits by 11 of the 20 district health boards have on their ability to provide services in a timely manner?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member does not need to worry about that because we have reduced those deficits from $150 million under the last Government to around $50 million and dropping over the longer term under this Government. In actual fact, there is nothing to worry about. It will not be like when Mrs King was Minister and the budget doubled, but there were 2,000—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was a straight question. It had no political inference in it. I asked what the impact of deficits was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the Minister was—[Interruption] Order! The question was answered in order. It was describing what impacts—which, in the Minister’s mind, were relatively minimal.

Trade Agreements—Saudi Agri-hub

10. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Did he chair the Cabinet on 18 February 2013 when Cabinet noted the initial $4m payment to a “Saudi investor”, and did he ask why Cabinet approval was not being sought?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I did chair Cabinet. In answer to the second part of the question, no. Cabinet was asked to note the payment. It was within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s appropriation and did not require Cabinet approval.

Hon David Parker: When he was chairing that Cabinet meeting was he aware that Minister McCully had told the Saudi investor and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials that he would “not want any financial contributions to be treated as compensation as this would involve a plethora of lawyers and bureaucrats.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have been aware the whole way through that Mr McCully has never viewed this as compensation, because it is not.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, it was your question, and it has been answered.

Hon David Parker: No—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Hon David Parker: Why did the contract for the $4 million payment make no reference to the settlement of the long-running dispute, when Cabinet noted this as part of the payment’s purpose?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You really have to refer that to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade put the contract together. But everyone is aware, in reading the papers, just where the responsibility started. It was with the Labour Government, and, yes, National cleaned it up.

Hon David Parker: Did Minister McCully tell him and his Cabinet that the Auditor-General had made a written complaint to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about the ministry misrepresenting its advice about the Saudi sheep deal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot recall discussions about the Auditor-General, but I think it has been quite clear that there was some early dialogue. Ultimately, actually, the officials are very happy with the way the process went.

Hon David Parker: What can his Government show for this dodgy deal other than a sullied international reputation; a failed farm in the desert, where the lambs died in a sandstorm, according to his own Minister; and the waste of over 11 million of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars—and still no free-trade agreement?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know that the truth is inconvenient, but it is worth actually having a look at the papers because it was Labour that imposed the ban. It was the Labour Government that said it would reverse the ban, and it was Labour that dispatched the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time, Phil Goff, who told the Saudi Minister that they would restart, and it was the Labour Government that actually did not tell the Saudis until it had publicly made the decision. It is very inconvenient but this all started with Labour. That is what I call dodgy dealings—it is the Labour Party’s actions.

Andrew Little: In light of the dump of 900 pages of documents last week that failed to prove a single word of the claims made by the Prime Minister about the Labour Government and the fact that it is the National Government that twice continued the ban on live sheep exports, is it not time that he finally cut through all that crap and was straight with New Zealand? What is the real reason he paid off Al-Khalaf?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Being “Angry Andrew” worked the first time he was in Parliament. Now it just looks like bad language and the inability to actually front up and be honest. Phil Goff went to Saudi Arabia and misled them. The rest is history.

Education—Asian Language Learning in Schools Fund

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made that supports the learning of Asian languages in schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I am delighted to announce that 22 programmes, involving 129 schools, will receive a total of $3.3 million over the next 3 years in order to establish new Mandarin, Japanese, or Korean language programmes and to expand existing ones. This signals the first phase of the Government’s commitment to spending a total of $10 million over 5 years to increase the provision of Asian languages in schools. The first round generated such enthusiasm for Asian languages in classrooms that for the second round we are extending funding eligibility to include all Asian languages. Applications for that round open today, and schools have until 25 September to register their interest.

Tracey Martin: Does the Minister believe that New Zealand students learning an Asian language is more useful or has more value than New Zealand students learning Te Reo Māori?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The decision as to which languages a school wishes to provide to its students is a discussion between that school and its board of trustees. What this Government does is fund and support the availability of Te Reo Māori, English, and sign language, and, in addition, this wonderful announcement that I am making today about Asian languages.

Melissa Lee: What benefit will the Asian Language Learning in Schools (ALLiS) fund bring to New Zealand children?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: International evidence shows that learning a second language can also contribute to the development of a student’s literacy skills in their first language. Also, in addition to supporting our official languages—English, Te Reo Māori, and sign language—and Pasifika languages, we need to provide young New Zealanders with opportunities to learn the languages of countries that we have strong cultural, economic, and trade relationships with. As our international and trading links grow, particularly with Asian countries, future generations of kids will need to be able to work in different cultural environments and to communicate in different languages. Easy access to learning an Asian language is a real benefit to the young people of New Zealand.

Tracey Martin: Will the Minister be making a similar announcement that her Government will also provide the additional funding required in order to increase the number of resource teachers of Māori, thereby supporting the delivery of Te Reo Māori in both English and Māori-medium schools; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I can refer that member to successive Budgets within which we have made those commitments already. There are scholarships available for kaiako—that was announced in Budget 2013.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about an increase in the number of resource teachers of Māori.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no—the question started with “Will the Minister be making similar announcements”. The Minister was talking about previous announcements that she has made. Does the Minister wish to complete the answer? Then the question has been answered.

Point of Order—Leave to Ask Question

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders allow for 12 oral questions each day. I understand that the Māori Party was unable to lodge a question by the deadline this morning. I therefore seek leave for it to be able to ask its oral question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! You cannot. The member knows the rules of this House very well. He cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.

CHRIS HIPKINS: In that case, I seek leave to ask a question myself, seeing as there is not an additional question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I just need to deal with this first. That is certainly within the Standing Orders. Leave is sought by Chris Hipkins to ask one additional question. Is there any objection? There is.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of the Māori Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. It is very unusual. I need to know—I think you also need to describe whom you are asking the question to.

MARAMA FOX: I would like to ask the question to the Minister for Social Development. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am going to allow the member to put the leave, in view of the fact that we have done it before. If the House decides it is in order, so be it. If the House—[Interruption] Order! The leave was put without us knowing where the question was going. I am going to put the leave again. It will then be over to the House to decide. Leave is sought by Marama Fox to ask a question of the Minister for Social Development. Is there any objection? There is none.

Marama Fox: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies to the House for the administrative error.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.

Child, Youth and Family—Review

12. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Social Development: Has the Minister provided, through the Child, Youth and Family review, opportunity to ensure that children are not being alienated from their whānau throughout the process of the modernisation in the review?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): The Child, Youth and Family review, of course, is still ongoing, and I have only just received the first report from the panel. But we have, throughout the review to date, taken great lengths to ensure that the voices of children are heard, and I have set up an advisory committee consisting of eight young people who have experienced care under the current Child, Youth and Family system. I have also made two appointments to the review panel who have extensive experience in Māori, as Māori make up more than 50 percent of the numbers of children in care.

Urgent Debates Declined

Trade Agreements—Saudi Agri-hub and Release of Information

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of documents pertaining to the Government’s dealings with a Saudi businessman. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. There must be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. The proper use of taxpayer funds is an important issue. The question is whether the release of documents is an issue so urgent that the ordinary business of the House should be set aside to address it. I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. However, I note that the Auditor-General has been asked to investigate the matter. Should she do so, then the findings of that investigation may warrant a debate in the House at that time. The application is, therefore, declined.

Bills

New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 29 July.

Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): When we were last debating this bill, the Committee was debating Part 3 and Stuart Nash had the call. He has 20 seconds remaining.

Hon Member: Make it good.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I will make it good, because this bill is a very, very poor bill. We know this. It has been reiterated. In fact, the vast majority of New Zealanders know this. When I speak to New Zealanders in my electorate, they say to me: “What about employment? What about job opportunities? What about economic development?”. They ask the question: why is the Government wasting money on a flag referendum, when there are—

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take my call on this particular bill. I am just turning to Part 3, the part that we are debating. Of course, the major issue that the people in my electorate want to know about is why on earth the Government is spending so much money on this referendum at this given time. They simply cannot understand it when there is no appetite for change. Why has the Government not made the decision to firstly test the will of the public towards the need for a change or the desire for a change before it then goes and has another expensive referendum asking people to choose the option they wish to have? The issue here is why we would have a run-off competition to choose the preferred design if it is ultimately going to be voted down in the end anyway. Why bother going through that particular part of the process if it is going to be voted down anyway? That is the question that everybody has been raising with me, and I think it is a very legitimate one.

I have yet to hear anyone from the Government—anyone from the Government—provide a comprehensive answer.

Chris Bishop: Wasn’t it in my speech?

CHRIS HIPKINS: No, not at all—not at all. We have not had an answer as to why not ask yes or no before asking people which option they would prefer if the answer was yes. There has not been a good answer from the Government on that. It is trying to do everything it possibly can to generate as much interest in the referendum, but what is interesting is that the more interest the Government generates in it, the more opposed people are becoming to the idea of changing the flag.

I think that says everything about where the current Government’s priorities are. It is more interested in talking about the flag than many of the very important issues that face New Zealand at the moment, and I think—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are currently in debate on Part 3, which is a very narrow part of this bill—essentially, dealing with regulations and validation of irregularities. The member has had nothing to say yet on either on those topics, and I would invite him to either speak to Part 3 or cease his call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point of order is well made. I am listening closely.

CHRIS HIPKINS: While we are on Part 3, if we turn to the highlighted section 5, as inserted by clause 69, which describes the New Zealand flag, I think that this might be a good place for me to address some of the comments that I have been raising. The New Zealand flag is described as “the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land within New Zealand and, where appropriate for international purposes, overseas; and … is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships, and by such other New Zealand ships as may for the time being be authorised to wear the New Zealand Flag by or under the Ship Registration Act 1992.”

One of the reasons that I am interested in that is I made the suggestion at the beginning that if New Zealand were to adopt a new flag, why would it not do something similar to what was done with the national anthem and actually have for a period of time two New Zealand flags so that those who wished to continue to fly the existing flag could do so? That is the arrangement that we have in place for the national anthem. We actually have two national anthems in New Zealand. “God Save the Queen” is still our national anthem. It is very, very seldom used in New Zealand but those who wish to use it can still do so. The definitions of the New Zealand flag in this bill make provision for there being only a single flag.

I thank my colleague Tim Macindoe for providing me with the opportunity to read that particular section while he raised his point of order, because the issue here is why the Government did not allow for the possibility that, in fact, although there may be some desire on the part of some New Zealanders to have a change of flag, the vast bulk of people would prefer to stick with the existing flag. Why did the Government not make provision for that within the legislation? It would actually have been perfectly possible for the Government to make provision for there to be two flags just as we have two national anthems, so that those who are, for whatever reason, very attached to the current flag—and I have to say that I am not one of them but I note that the vast bulk of my constituents are. So I ask why the Government would not make provision for people to continue to use that flag.

It may be that there are some occasions when the use of the current flag would be more appropriate than the use of a new flag. I note, for example, that much of the feedback in this debate is about why we are doing this when we are commemorating the First World War and that, in fact, people would rather have the existing flag—the flag that New Zealand soldiers fought under in the First World War—on display at those events. That would be a legitimate reason why, potentially, we might have a definition that allowed there to be more than one official flag of New Zealand. At those events where it is more appropriate and that are of a commemorative nature, it may be more appropriate to have a definition in the bill that allows there to be another official flag, which is the existing flag, even if New Zealanders voted to change.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is a pleasure to speak on what is, I guess, an important issue, but not an important piece of legislation. If that sounds somewhat contradictory, I think the fact is that we are putting the cart before the horse here, in my view.

In speaking on Part 3, “Miscellaneous provisions”, including validation of irregularities, I will refer to clause 69, which inserts new section 5. It is about the New Zealand flag. The reality here is that we have not yet decided what the flag should be, so I am putting before the Committee one of the options that was certainly brought to my attention. If the New Zealand flag is as described here in new section 5—“… the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land …”—then I guess the inclusion of a sea mammal is probably outside it. Although that might seem a little too cute, the reality is that the interpretation of this piece of legislation and of this part is really important. It must reflect the objectives, I guess, of New Zealand having a flag. What it says in paragraph (b) of new section 5(3) is that the New Zealand flag “is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships, and by such other New Zealand ships …”. The point is that the colours that will be chosen for the flag will end up being the colours that each and every New Zealander should identify with. I am not sure what they should be.

I think black is a good start. I will put before you again this quite innovative flag design here. I do not think it is one of the 40 being put up—I have not, to be fair, gone through and had a detailed look at all 40—but it does cover a few things. For the current National Government, I would suggest, it is a perfect representation of what is about to happen, because we have the whale above the water with the kiwi and the lamb on it, about to do a big dive—about to do a big dive—as is this economy, taking with it the sheep and the kiwi. It is a perfect representation of the National Government in power, because the National Government is taking this economy into a deep, deep dive. It is ignoring all the warning signals showing that we are facing recession, particularly in dairy, for some time, and probably longer than even the whale can hold its breath.

I will come back to Part 3 here. It is important that there is widespread support for this legislation and all the details included in this bill. I do not think that is the case. I think that what the Government is trying to do here is pass a piece of legislation that does not have the full support of Kiwis and that does not have the support of New Zealanders who are looking forward and who are asking the questions about the colours that should represent us and the flag design that should represent us. Indeed, if the Government is so determined to go ahead, then put up the flag and then come to us with the legislation that may allow us to utilise the flag in the way that should be intended, to ensure that if we insist that the national colours, as is stated here in Part 3—“proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships”. If the flag design is not the right one and the Government, as it has done in most areas, just bulldozes through with that intention, we are all lumbered with it, as is the navy, as are New Zealand ships, and as is every part of our economy.

This is not a good piece of legislation and Labour is raising concerns that I hope Minister Bill English will get up and answer. I hope he will get up and explain himself as to why the National Government is determined to push ahead with this waste of money, come up with a design, and a new focus that the vast majority of New Zealanders see as unnecessary and certainly as untimely. We have bigger issues that the Government and this House should be focusing on, not just a flag design. Perhaps the Minister can explain to me why we should not put this design up as a design, given that it is such a great representation of the National Government as it is at the moment: taking this economy into a deep, deep dive that is going to leave a lot of Kiwis drowning—and, indeed, a lot of sheep—because they do not have the proper support.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to look at clause 68, “Validation of irregularities”. Clause 68(1) says: “In the circumstances described in subsection (2), the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, do any of the things described in subsection (3).” That sounds to me like the Governor-General has quite broad scope, actually, to act and to do a variety of things: to extend the time lines that are included in the legislation and to validate any things that have or have not been done. Basically, my reading of this—and, again, I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee, so if members who were on the select committee could give us a little bit more information about this, that would be helpful—is that the Governor-General has quite a lot of scope to be able to do things by Order in Council.

I wonder whether one of the circumstances in clause 68(2)(b)—“if anything cannot be done at the time required by or under this Act;”—is if one of the things that cannot be done is for the Government to run a surplus or, maybe, to get the country’s debt below $101 billion, which might actually be a step in the right direction towards being the time when you would spend $26 million on a flag referendum. If that were not to happen, I wonder whether the Governor-General might be able, by Order in Council, to do one of the things under clause 68(3)—that is, subclause (3)(a): “at any time before or after the time within which the thing is required to be done, to extend that time;”. So, in other words, what I am getting at is, if the Government cannot get us back to surplus, or at least get the debt below $100 billion and actually get us a step towards the point where you would spend $26 million on a vanity project for the Prime Minister, maybe the Governor-General might be able to say: “You know what? Let’s extend the time before we have the first referendum, and let’s just wait until a time that is a little bit more appropriate for this referendum to occur.”

I think what we have heard loudly from the public—whether you are for or against the idea of changing the flag—is that people have made it quite clear that now is not the time, and one of the reasons that they are quite clear that now is not the time is the fact that we are not in surplus and we are at such a deep level of debt. OK, fine, pass the legislation now if we must, but set this up as a process that will occur a bit further down the track. I think that here, in clause 68, in Part 3, we may actually have the mechanism for that to happen. Cabinet could decide to listen to the people of New Zealand—that would be a first. It could decide to do that, and it could instruct the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to extend the time before which the referendum actually occurs.

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, I draw your attention to the question of relevance. There is nothing in clause 68(2) that is remotely relevant to the comments that this member is making. He is attempting to bring in ludicrous matters that are totally extraneous to a very, very tight and technical provision.

Chris Hipkins: The point that I would make to you is that the Speakers’ rulings are very clear that the question of relevance is a matter for only the Chair and that it is, in fact, disorderly for anyone other than the Chair to interrupt a member’s speech to question them on relevance. The senior Government whip has done that twice now, when, in fact, the only person who has the prerogative to do that is you, as the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I invite the member Iain Lees-Galloway to continue with his speech. We will all be listening closely to what he has to say, relevant to the particular clause.

Hon Bill English: Except me—I’m not listening.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I could tell that you were listening, Mr Chair. It is a shame that the Minister in the chair has just admitted that he is not listening. He may as well just go out there and say that to the public of New Zealand: “I’m not listening.” The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, has just admitted that he is not listening. He is not listening to this debate, and that is exactly what the Government is doing. It is not listening to the people of New Zealand, who have overwhelmingly said: “This is not the time for this debate. This is not the time to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well exploited, but get back to the clause.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I was very happy talking about the clause before I was interrupted by the senior Government whip and before the Deputy Prime Minister interjected that he was not listening, and I was quite happy to respond to the interjection from the Deputy Prime Minister that he was not listening. But, honestly, I know that the senior Government whip is very keen to shut this debate down, but those were serious questions. I was not on the select committee. I am reading this clause—I am doing a close reading of this clause—and I want to know, either from the Minister who is not listening or maybe from one of the members opposite who was on the select committee, whether that is possible. Is that possible under clause 68? Could Cabinet, through the Governor-General, by Order in Council, extend the date, or perhaps delay the date, for the referendum to a point in time that might be more acceptable to the public of New Zealand? That is my reading of clause 68, and I would be very happy to have that clarified either by the Minister or by any member opposite.

I would like to touch on clause 69, “Amendments to Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981”, which replaces section 5, regarding the New Zealand flag. This is an interesting thing that is going on with the current flag—which is called the 1902 flag—which would be “recognised as a flag of historical significance to the Realm,”. I find new section 5A(2) really, really strange. New section 5A(2) allows people, in the event that the flag changes—

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to speak to clause 69(4) in Part 3 and, in particular, its reference to section 5 because this, in many senses, is the most important part of the bill. It is the part of the bill that actually describes what our national flag does. What it says in section 5(2) is: “The New Zealand Flag is the symbol of the Realm, Government, and people of New Zealand.”

I do not think there is anybody in this debate who does not think that the flag is an important symbol of our country. I know that for my father’s generation it was the flag that they fought under and that their mates died under. For many contemporary New Zealanders, it is the flag that is flown—I saw it fly, sadly, on Saturday night at the Bledisloe Cup and, much more happily, in terms of the Silver Ferns—and it is a symbol of a country that people are really proud of.

If it is the symbol of the people of the nation, it makes sense that the people of the nation should have the power to change the flag, and not 121 elected representatives. So in one sense I support the process that not Parliament but the people make the decision, but there are things in the way that this is being done that have undermined the consensus that is necessary in order to maintain a flag that is widely agreed to by the people of this country as representing their independence, their sovereignty, and their pride in the nation.

I think that what the purpose of the flag is, as set out in section 5(2), is undermined by the process that we have actually taken. The first thing that any Government that was contemplating changing the flag should have done was try to work across parties so there was a consensus around the process by all the parties in this country, and, clearly, that has not happened. That has undermined the credibility of what we are trying to do in the Committee today. It is the Government’s failure in that regard that disappoints many of us who would contemplate a change in our flag. I do not think I have any more right than any other New Zealander to determine what the symbol of our people should be, but I personally would like to see a change in the flag. But what the Government has done has undermined the consensus by which an appropriate way of changing the flag might have been adopted.

You see, by holding two referenda that are outside an election, you are likely, on best estimates, to get maybe a 30 or 40 percent turnout. You cannot change the symbol of the realm and the symbol of the people on a turnout in a postal referendum that maybe only a third of the people will vote in. So my question to the Minister is: why not hold this referendum at the time of a general election, when you will get an 80 percent turnout, and then the result will have some credibility about what New Zealanders want as the symbol of the realm and a symbol of us as New Zealanders? That is the way that this process should have been followed.

The other thing when you are talking about the symbol of the realm—and the bill goes on to talk about the symbol of us overseas. The last thing, surely, that a Government wanting to follow proper process would do is introduce a bill to change the flag on the eve of the centenary of the start of World War I, when so many of our surviving veterans, not from the First World War but the second one, are focused on the flag that they fought under. You would almost think that the Government has deliberately undermined its own intent of wanting a change of the flag and wanting New Zealanders as a whole to accept an alternative as the symbol of our country.

So the timing was awful, the process was appalling, and the lack of bipartisanship or cross-party support has been appalling. One of the reasons for this, I have got to say, is that the Prime Minister has talked about this change, not as a change by New Zealanders of their flag, but as a matter of his pride and his project. During the question time we have just had, he quoted Mike Hosking. He said—

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak to Part 3 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I do think there is a strange irony or tension in, I think it is, the changes to section 5(2) and (3) in clause 69(4). I will read it out, as my colleague Phil Goff did, because I think section 5(2) and (3) really does talk about the significance of the flag to our nation. Section 5 says: “(2) The New Zealand flag is the symbol of the Realm, Government, and people of New Zealand. (3) The New Zealand flag—(a) is the national flag of New Zealand for general use on land within New Zealand and, where appropriate for international purposes, overseas; and (b) is the proper national colours to be worn by all New Zealand Government ships,”. So that sets out just how significant the current flag and any possible new flag may be.

But the select committee process that this bill went through treated the submitters as though they were insignificant. I believe that there were close to 750 submissions from people who did not get the chance to make a submission in person at all. Those who did submit got 5 minutes on an issue of such national significance. I believe the only organisation that did get more than 5 minutes was the Returned and Services’ Association, and I think that is appropriate that it did get more, but you would think it would have got more than 10 minutes for something that is of such huge significance to this nation.

There is also something within this section that talks of the significance of the timing of this. We have just come back from a 1-week adjournment. I did not have anyone knocking down my electorate office door saying: “Kris, can you please make sure that we change the flag.” I had a lot of people come to me to talk about domestic violence, and I had a lot of people come to me to talk about housing and about making sure they have jobs, but no one came and knocked down the door to ask us to change the flag. In fact, the Government turned away as many people at the select committee process as the number of those who actually attended all the meetings right around the country to say: “This is a good idea.”

This is a significant issue, and I think that section 5, inserted in clause 69(4), does talk about the significance of what we are doing. But it is clear to see from the lack of uptake with the Government process, with its engagement with meetings, and that cost a hell of a lot of money—I think a lot of the feedback that the Government would have got at the select committee process that it turned away would have been negative about this change. The general feeling amongst the community—I think it was the New Zealand Herald that said that 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want this change and that this is the wrong thing to do right now.

A lot has been made about the cost that is involved with this—$26 million is not chump change. There are plenty of other things that this Parliament could do with $26 million rather doing than something that New Zealanders do not want done right now. There may be a time and a place to change the flag, but it is not right now. My personal feeling is that I do not want to change the flag. I have changed my mind on the flag. When I was young, I said: “Yes, let’s have a new flag.” In fact, over time I have become much more aware—becoming a bit more mature and having travelled overseas—of the significance of the New Zealand flag.

We can talk later when we come to schedules 1, 2, and 3 about the process the Government is using to ask the questions of the public, which is a bit skew-whiff, about changing our flag, because it has got that round the wrong way, but right now New Zealanders do not want this. Section 5, which is inserted by clause 69(4) of this bill, shows just how significant what we are doing is. It is not just a symbol that we throw away; it will go on the arms of people who will fight for this nation. So if we are going to do it, let us do it because the people want it changed, and they choose what they want to choose. And if they do not want to change the flag right now, then let us not do it.

But we are not even asking that question first. We are asking what you would like if the flag were to change. I do not think that any kind of sane person would use that process. Any person outside this Chamber would think that that is arse about face. We want to know, first, whether you want to change the flag, not what do we want to change it to if we get the chance to change it.

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Yet again we have a member straying far into a version of irrelevancy. I would point out that under Speakers’ ruling 86/1, there is no reason why I cannot draw that to your attention, and I do so now.

Carmel Sepuloni: This was raised by our senior whip earlier. It is not the role of the National Government senior whip to point out the relevance of our speeches, and we trust, Mr Chair, that you will use your discretion and advise us if you think there are any problems with relevance.

Tim Macindoe: Speaking further to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need to continue taking points of order. If there was to be some spat over who can raise what when, take it somewhere else. Do not soak up time in the Committee, because it undermines the point of order that the member is making that the Committee should not muck around with this particular line of debate. The member has the floor and I invite him to continue.

KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I go back, for the benefit of the senior Government whip, to clause 69(4), which is about the significance of the decision that we are putting in train. This is not something that we want to do just because the Government wants to do it. It is of significance. It is a symbol of this realm.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I move, That the question be now put.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to talk about section 5A(1) in clause 69. What it actually says is that the “1902 Flag”—what they are calling the current New Zealand flag is the “1902 Flag”—“is recognised as a flag of historical significance to the Realm,”. I do not know why the word “historical” is in there. It seems that by legislation we are already consigning the current flag to the past.

Remove that word, I would suggest, because this flag is still of huge significance to a whole lot of New Zealanders and a whole lot of New Zealand groups. As has been mentioned, those from the RSA in particular are affronted that this flag has already been consigned to historical significance. It is of huge current significance to the people of New Zealand. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. In fact, I think that for the first time ever I disagree with Mr Goff on something. I actually like the current flag. I would like it to remain. But when Mr Goff talked about the fact that this was not put at a referendum in a general election—actually, this was highlighted in the regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement actually said that one of the main risks around this is that there will be disengagement. The way to really get engagement from Kiwis is to have this at a general election, but we are not going to do that.

The other point I would like to make is in respect of section 5A(2). It says: “Any person or body (other than a government department) may use the 1902 Flag, except where required by law to use the New Zealand Flag or another specified flag for a particular purpose.” I would have thought that if the Prime Minister was spending so much political capital on this—and he is, according to the polls, because the vast majority of New Zealanders do think this is mistimed and is a huge waste of money, considering all the issues we have got—then this legislation would actually be very, very clear that the New Zealand flag must be flown at all times.

Part of the reason, we are told, that we need a new flag is that there is confusion between the New Zealand flag and the Australian flag. Well, what this legislation actually does is nothing to alleviate that confusion at all. In fact, what it does do is it adds to the confusion, because this legislation says that anyone apart from a Government department may fly the New Zealand flag. This gives them a legitimate right to fly the New Zealand flag at any time. It does say: “except where required by law to use the New Zealand Flag or another specified flag for a particular purpose.” I am not too sure what the definition of “a particular purpose.” is. I can make some assumptions, but I have absolutely no idea what the definition of “a particular purpose.” is. So this just creates a whole other level of confusion.

In section 5A(7)(d) it talks about “the days or occasions on which and the times during which the 1902 Flag, or any other flag of historical or national significance, may be flown:”. Again, I have looked through the schedules and I could not find a list of days that this section relates to. I would love the Minister in the chair to stand up and just let us know. Is it all statutory holidays? Is it every Sunday? Is it only Anzac Day? Is it a day when people are allowed to wear their relatives’ or ancestors’ medals? I am not sure.

The main aim of alleviating confusion about our national identity seems to have been taken away by this legislation, because this legislation legitimises the right of every New Zealander to fly the 1902 flag. I think that what we will find, probably as an element of protest, is that there will be more New Zealand flags—i.e., the 1902 flag, the current flag, the one on my lapel—flown around this country than we have seen for a generation, as people say: “I reject this whole process. I reject the fact that the Government is spending money at this point in time on a worthless cause when there are so many more important issues that we could be spending $25 million on. We will go out there and we’re going to fly that New Zealand flag.” In fact, at my house in Napier I have a 100-year-old kauri flagpole, and the flag that flies from that pole will be the 1902 flag. It is at the moment and it will be, going forward. My house is not a Government department, so according to this legislation I am allowed to fly that flag whenever I want to.

But the other thing is that anyone can fly that flag—a Government department, a Government ministry can. In fact, the confusion that will be created by this is something that I think is a real anomaly in this legislation, and I would have liked to see it disappear. I would have liked to see the Government have the courage of its convictions. If it is spending this amount of political capital, then be clear. You fly the New Zealand flag or you do not. This bill says you can do whatever you want, except on a couple of occasions, and we have absolutely no idea of what they are.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move, That the question be now put.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, about how he interprets parts of new section 5A in clause 69. When I read parts of that new section I get a little bit confused about what it is actually trying to achieve, because we have in new section 5A(2): “Any person or body (other than a government department) may use the 1902 Flag, except where required by law”—except where required by law—“to use the New Zealand Flag or another specified flag for a particular purpose.” Then I go down to subclause (8), which creates new sections 10(2) and (3) in the Act. It says: “The Minister may, either in any notice issued under subsection (1) or otherwise, set out for general information and guidance rules of conduct and the etiquette to be followed in the flying or other use of any of the following: (a) the New Zealand Flag: (b) the 1902 Flag:”. But then new section 10(3) says: “Any rules set out under subsection (2) do not have the force of law.”

So we have in one provision reference to “except where required by law”, and then further on we have a provision that empowers the Minister to set out rules of conduct and etiquette to be followed in regulations. However, the rules do not have the force of law. So I am a little bit confused about how we interpret the words “except where required by law” in new section 5A(2), and the other provisions to which I have referred. I actually think that if anybody was to read this legislation, they would not know whether or not, really, they were actually allowed to use the 1902 flag or not, with or without regulations, or whether or not they had the force of law for the purposes of new section 5A(2) or not.

So I think there needs to be some answer given to how we should look at all of this, and, in particular, think about people who would look at this legislation and say: “OK, maybe we have a new flag. I hope there is not, but maybe there is a new flag—one of those gormless symbols that we saw in a list the other day. Maybe there is one of those, but am I still entitled to fly this current flag or not?” If you look at all of that legislation, I think you would be pretty hard-pressed to know what position you were in with regard to that—I really do. I think that needs to be answered and the position clarified, and if it cannot be clarified, then the bill should not proceed, because it is just not clear enough.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 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 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 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.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 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.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 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.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 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.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 5 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.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 1 Title

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Before I take a call, I would just like to point out to members that those in the Chamber and those listening at home will no doubt be able to recite, in this very wide-ranging debate around clauses 1 and 2, virtually every point that has been made so far in the course of the debate. It is also important to note that repetition is a trigger for the Chair to call the end of a person’s call. So I encourage people to be interesting and creative in their debates.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Clause 1 is, indeed, the clause I wish to speak about, because this bill’s title clearly is not appropriate, and this has not been referred to so far in the debate. It is not appropriate because it does not actually state what the bill is really about. It is not fundamentally about referendums—and that is what the title says. It is actually about replacing New Zealand’s historic and well-respected national flag. But the title does not refer to that at all. The current name reflects only the means, which are the referendums, and not the end, which is the replacement, or not, of the current flag with an alternative. And it is about the legislation that puts that into effect, because the most important part of the bill is the part that replaces the current flag with a new one, should that be the result of the two referendums. This is not reflected at all in the name of the bill, and so I am very disappointed in the name for that reason. It really should be changed.

Some name such as, for example, “New Zealand Flag (Replacement With a Gormless, Meaningless, Modern Symbol) Bill” would be a lot more relevant to this particular legislation than the name that has been given, for the reason that I gave. I have seen the long list of flags already published, and I do not think that my term “gormless, meaningless, modern symbol” is entirely out of place when you look at those possible alternative flags. That name would be totally appropriate and much better than the name that this legislation has been given. That list is a patchwork of gaudy and ugly designs, and that needs to be referred to, and reflected in, the name of this bill. None of them even slightly represents New Zealand’s heritage in any way like the current flag does. Another point—

Tim Macindoe: How ridiculous.

DENIS O’ROURKE: The member opposite says: “How ridiculous.” But it is absolutely true. The current flag, this flag that I am holding, actually does represent New Zealand’s heritage, and none of the rubbish—absolute rubbish—that I saw in that gaudy list could possibly compare to it on those grounds.

Furthermore, the title is not truly representative of the actual referendum process. The name would be better as something like the “New Zealand Flag (Gerrymandered, Back To Front) Referendum Bill”, because that actually is what this bill is. It is not just the New Zealand flag referendum bill; it is a gerrymandered, back to front referendum bill, and therefore the name should say so. It is gerrymandered because of the fundamental flaw in the first referendum, which is that people wanting none of the alternatives have no way to vote in the first referendum, because the New Zealand flag is not there. So they can participate only by casting a vote with none of the options chosen—just leaving the voting paper blank and putting it back into the ballot box, or perhaps writing across it: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” That would do it, because they are now currently disenfranchised from participating in the first flag referendum.

If those people want none of the alternatives, how can they participate? They cannot. The only two ways that I know of that they could participate are by drawing a vote and then putting it back with nothing written on it, or by writing: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” on it. There is no provision in the first referendum allowing them to express their feelings. That is wrong, and that is why I say that it is gerrymandered and that that should be referred to, and reflected in, the title.

New Zealand First does call on people to do one of those two things, because they have been disenfranchised. New Zealand First says to those people who want the current flag: “Go along and vote, but don’t choose any of the alternatives if you want the current flag, or write across it ‘I want the current New Zealand flag.’ ” I think that is a perfectly valid thing for them to do, and New Zealand First says that they should feel free to do so.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Timing is everything and I suspect that if the Prime Minister had brought forward this idea at the start of his time as Prime Minister he might have carried the country with it. He could have used some of his popularity at the time to turn this into a positive experience and he could have used his influence to get the outcome that he wanted. But, of course, he was not willing to do that. He delayed 8 years and, of course, people see the somewhat cynical timing of the flag by then as being a flag of diversion—a flag of convenience to take the eye of the public off more serious issues. Of course, that coincides with a downturn in the New Zealand economy and so perhaps people are more willing to think ill of this move to change the flag than they would have, had the Prime Minister used his political skill to bring this forward at an earlier time.

I want to say why I agree at one level with the last speaker, Denis O’Rourke, in terms of the name of this bill. It is called the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, but in the first referendum there is nothing in it about the New Zealand flag. There is no option presented in the first referendum to answer the question as to whether you want the New Zealand flag to change or not, and that has been one of the main complaints that has been made by Opposition parties. It is not too complex. Most people can get their head around whether they want a change to the flag or not, and if that had been included in the first question, then the second referendum would have been stayed. If the majority did say that they wanted a change to the flag, you could proceed, but if the majority said that they did not, then you would not waste any more money on it.

Tim Macindoe: Did this member support the policy he campaigned on last year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I did. I did, but I also see this for what it is. It is something pulled out of the bottom drawer. You know, Paula Bennett’s excuses or another bit of benefit-bashing or another attempt to blame criminals for every ill that we have in society—those sorts of excuses were running thin, so the Government said: “Oh, we’ve got to pull another one out of the bottom drawer. How about we resurrect this old flag idea and bring it in.”

Of course, circumstances change. You know, Fonterra has responded to the circumstances changing in the dairy sector by making 500 people, or so, redundant and trying to cut its cloth. That is going to have flow-on effects for the Government’s books. It is now unlikely it is going to make surplus, or its surplus will be smaller, and it is time that the Government responded to the effect that that will have upon its books as well. So that is why, responding to the interjection from the whip for the National Party, I say that it is appropriate that you cut your cloth, and when things are not going as well, you should not waste $26 million on a process that, obviously, is unpopular now anyway and is not going to succeed. Secondly, even if you are going to proceed, you should do it in the most cost-effective method possible, rather than have two referenda when one would have sufficed.

The next point I would make is to ask why we are doing this through a special postal referendum. The cost of that will be higher than if it was just tacked on to another election. It does not seem to me to be an appropriate thing—to go the more costly route. As my colleague the Hon Phil Goff has already said, because postal referenda have a lower turnout than a general election, you do not get the same mandate, if you like, either for change or for retention of the status quo, if that is the way people want to go.

You have heard that the Government members at the Justice and Electoral Committee blocked an amendment proposed by the Hon Trevor Mallard to try to fix this problem with the referendum, which has no question about the current flag in the first referendum. There is a rather barren question: if we were to change, which of these flags would you like? It would have been very simple to make that better by including the option of retaining the flag in the first referendum. That is described in the minority view of the Labour Party in the select committee report, which said that there is a balance to be struck in questioning—

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I want to start with the title of the bill and then I will go through to the commencement clause. But, firstly, I want to make the point that this bill should be renamed the “Tricky New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill”. The reason I say that is—and much discussion has been had about this—that the order in which the questions have been asked in the two referendums is back to front. The first question that New Zealanders should have been asked is “Do you want to change the flag?”, but, instead, the first referendum that is being done is presenting New Zealanders with a range of options when they have not even had the option to say whether or not they want to change the flag.

This referendum is back to front and it is back to front because the Government has done that deliberately. It has its own agenda. It wants to change the flag. Government members do not really care whether New Zealanders want to change the flag; they want to change the flag. So to mitigate the chances of New Zealanders in the first referendum saying they do not want to change the flag—like 70 percent of them did during a New Zealand Herald poll—the Government twisted it round, turned it upside down, and provided only the option to choose between the current New Zealand flag and an alternative in the second referendum. It is back to front and it is tricky—tricky like the National Government.

I also want to say that the other name this bill could have that would be appropriate is the “John Key’s Vanity Project Bill”. Let us be honest. This bill is not about New Zealand, it is not about progress, and it is not about being progressive. It is about John Key and the National Government wanting to have some sort of legacy when their term is over—and it will be over. And because those members have achieved nothing else for New Zealand—nothing else—they are clutching at straws and they are asking what they can do. All they can think of is forcing New Zealand to change the flag so that in 20 years’ time, if they were in the position where it worked, then they could say: “We were responsible for changing the flag. We were responsible for changing the flag.” So that is an alternative title—“John Key’s Vanity Project Bill”.

I want to talk to the commencement side of this. What we have here in clause 2(3) is: “If, in the second flag referendum, the current New Zealand Flag gains a greater number of votes than the alternative flag design, then sections 69, 70, and 71 do not commence.” So those sections would not commence at all. What I want to point out is that because of the back to front way in which these referendums are being done, we will have wasted millions of dollars in having public meetings that people did not turn up to and in collecting designs from people and putting them out there in the first referendum because of the fact that it says here: “If, in the second flag referendum, the current New Zealand Flag gains a greater number of votes than the alternative flag design, then sections 69, 70, and 71 do not commence.” How many millions of dollars will we have wasted at that point?

I guarantee that there will be at least twice as many people participating in that second referendum as there will be in the first. There are so many New Zealanders out there who have already indicated not only that they do not necessarily want to change the flag but also some are saying that this is not the time to change the flag. Many are saying that given the pressures that this country is under, under that National Government, given the bad job that the National Government is doing, and given the other priorities that we have as a country, why would we waste $26 million on two referendums about a flag?

Hon Nicky Wagner: Because we believe in democracy.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Many New Zealanders are saying—it is about democracy, Nicky Wagner said. She said that it is about democracy. If it was really about democracy, then the Government would have got the referendum round the right way and first asked New Zealanders: “Do you want to change the flag?”. But Nicky Wagner knows, as well as we know, that this is not about democracy; this is about the National Government and John Key and their vanity project. Nicky Wagner knows that.

Let us go back to alternative titles for the bill. Let us go back to alternative titles that really suit the mood of New Zealanders and the way they are feeling about this bill. We could call this the “Money That Could Be Better Spent Elsewhere Bill”. Actually, where could we spend $26 million—some worthwhile places that $26 million could go to? Perhaps it could go to the child poverty issue that we are facing as a country, which the Government has done nothing to address. Perhaps it could go to the housing crisis that the Government—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): We are a Government that does what we say and, what is more, we actually do what we say. What is extraordinary in the contributions I have heard from Labour members is that—only 9 months ago they campaigned at the election saying they wanted to change the flag. They then come to this House less than 9 months later, and I hear speeches from Stuart Nash saying that he loves the New Zealand flag and that we should never propose to change the New Zealand flag. There is a very simple message to New Zealand from this debate: you cannot trust a word that Labour says to you during the election. Its message is that whatever it says in the election it will, regardless of principle, change its position as it suits itself. It lacks integrity, it is untrustworthy, and it is duplicitous, and that has been so heavily reinforced in this debate.

There have been questions about the process by which the two referendums will determine New Zealand’s flag. It is interesting that I have gone back and checked the record and found that both the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party absolutely supported the two-referendum process around the choice of MMP. At that time those parties said that it was the right process. They said that people cannot make a choice—and I quote Winston Peters, who said: “People can’t make a choice about changing from first past the post unless they know the alternative.” My question to New Zealand First members is how can people make an intelligent choice about changing the flag without knowing the alternative?

This bill, appropriately named the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, is about National doing what it said it would do, unlike other parties, which are all over the paddock and which are duplicitous and untrustworthy, and that is why we should put this bill through this Committee stage.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): It is great to be in a very engaging debate this afternoon, particularly with Mr Macindoe, who reminds me of a pit bull chewing a wasp, with his references to frustration. I look at his face and I understand the frustration that he feels, because the people back home—the vast majority of New Zealanders—feel exactly the same way about the nonsense that is going on in relation to this flag referendum.

I have a great name for the bill, and it is better than everything I have heard so far. I think it is a name that should be seriously considered; in fact, it may even be worth putting in a Supplementary Order Paper. It has got to be called the “Clayton’s Flag Referendum Bill”, because this is the flag referendum you have got when you have not got a referendum. Let us be honest: the way we are doing this is absolutely back to front. This is about not asking the people of New Zealand: “First and foremost, do you want a flag change—yes or no?”. The polls can do it. The newspapers can go out there and ask the question. We are largely hearing, from the rank and file New Zealanders, that they do not want this referendum.

What we are also hearing is that it is an absolute waste of money. This bill may be better called the “Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Flag Referendums Bill”, because that is exactly what it is. Putting $26 million into a flag referendum is an absolute waste of time, dialogue, and money, because the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want it.

Tim Macindoe: Two main parties promised it at the last election.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: We have got New Zealanders out there with faces like twisted sandshoes in frustration with the Government, because it will not stand up and listen to them, Mr Macindoe—and you are one of those people not listening. Anyway, he is giving a lot of this and not a lot of that.

I have to say that the amount of money that $26 million takes up would be around about 10 percent towards a better ferry system for those commuters travelling from Wellington across to Picton. Ten percent—that is a hefty deposit for a new, reliable interisland ferry transportation system, for example. What $26 million would do is upgrade around about 900 houses in our underfunded social housing stock around the country, and yet this Government says we cannot afford to do all of these things—we have got no money for it. Yet it can find $26 million, pull it out of its pocket, and throw it on the table. It is absolutely disgusting. It is a disgrace that we are allowing ourselves to get into this debate because we have got a legacy that this Government wants to leave behind, particularly what John Key wants to say he delivered for this country. We are seeing a lot of depression, and we are seeing a lot of frustration out there from people in small businesses, and it is costing New Zealanders not only in their well-being and their mental state but in their pockets as well.

This is nothing but a vanity fair. If this Government were serious about putting a referendum forward it would first and foremost ask the question: “Do you want it?”. If the answer was yes, then we could go into the whole discussion about which one of these flags the public would like to see put forward. The flags that I have seen today and the comments that I am hearing on social media and seeing in the newspaper are a disgrace. It is a debacle. With an open mind I cannot see one of those flags jumping out and me saying: “Well, being objective, that might work.” They just do not work. I would like to go back to this one, Gareth Morgan’s winning flag. That makes a little bit of sense. You have got Labour on the left, National on the right, and you have got New Zealand First in black and white coming up through the middle and separating them. That is exactly what is going to happen. The polls will show it. They are starting to tell it now. This Government is getting concerned about the movement.

Mr Macindoe, you were saying that New Zealand First has supported this in the past. We have not supported it. We have been dead against it. We have not been standing up there saying: “Let us have a referendum.” prior to now. We have been the only party standing fast on our position of leaving New Zealand’s flag as it is and not wasting taxpayers’ money. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Before I address the matters to do with the title that I had already planned to address, I would just like to respond to both the Minister in the chair and some of the irate and frustrated interjections from the senior Government whip. First, about the matter of what exactly Labour’s policy on this is—the National Government is always quite obsessed with Labour’s policy. It never wants to talk about its own policy, but it—

Tim Macindoe: Because we read it and we thought you meant it. You can’t rewrite it. It’s there—it’s there.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Calm down, Tim. Tim, chill out and I will tell you—just be cool. Certainly, Labour’s policy at the election was to have a referendum on the flag, but we did not say that we would do it when the country was $101 billion in debt. We did not say that we would prioritise it over trying to get the country back into surplus. So when New Zealanders spoke out loudly and said that this was an interesting debate but not a thing to blow $26 million on when we are deep in debt and we are not in surplus, I tell you that we would have listened to that.

Jono Naylor: Read us the first line of the policy.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: We would have listened, Mr Naylor. Just calm down and listen to me. We would have listened to that and we would have introduced the referendum at a time that was appropriate. The other strange thing that Nick Smith, the Minister in the chair, did was he compared this process with the MMP referendum. That is actually quite a good comparison to make, except that the Minister got it wrong when he made the comparison, because the first question in the MMP referendum was: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. And we agree that that would be the way to go—question No. 1: “Do you want to change the flag?”. That was not the point that Nick Smith, the Minister in the chair, was trying to make, but we actually agree. Yes, use a process analogous to the two-referendum process that was used for the shift from first past the post to MMP. Question No. 1: “Do you want to change?”. That would be the place to start with the referendum.

Just so that Tim Macindoe and co. can relax for a second, I would like to talk about something that I hope is not too contentious. In the bill—the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—we have this interesting thing, the word “referendums”. That word has caused a bit of consternation and quite a bit of confusion. In fact, one of the members opposite who was on the Justice and Electoral Committee actually interjected on one of the members on this side, saying that it was “referenda”, not “referendums”. I was a little bit concerned about that, because if a member was on the select committee—

Tim Macindoe: The interjections say we believe that the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public. That’s your policy.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Tim, chill out. If a member on the select committee is scrutinising the bill closely, then he should know what the title of the bill is. If he was listening to the submissions and was actually paying attention in the select committee hearings, he should know what the title of the bill is, and the title of the bill is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I must admit that when I first saw that, I thought: “That doesn’t sound right to me. I would have thought it should be ‘referenda’.” So, just like the member opposite, I was a bit confused about that, but I have looked it up, and it turns out that, actually, there is a really legitimate reason why the title has the word “referendums” in it, not the word “referenda”. It turns out that this is all a matter of going back to the origin of the word “referendum”, which comes from Latin. My Latin pronunciation is a bit rusty, but I think it is the verb “referre”, meaning “to refer”.

Scott Simpson: A good King’s education.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, actually, I did do Latin in the third form at King’s College, but it was a long time ago and I cannot recall exactly how the pronunciation goes. Anyway, the first problem is that this is a verb—this is a verb, not a noun. So that is why. What has happened is that we have anglicised a Latin verb. The word “referendum” did not start to be used until relatively recently. In the old days, the word was “plebiscite”, which is also derived from Latin, based on the word “plebiscita”, which comes from the Roman-era word “plebeian”, meaning “commoner”. In fact, the Concilium Plebis—

Hon Member: Is this really related?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —was the Roman Parliament. It was the house of the common people. This is to do with the derivation of the word “referendums”, which is a word that is in the title of the bill, and we are debating the title of the bill. It was only in the mid-19th century that the word “referendum”, which is a derivation of that Latin verb, came to be used, and it is because of the fact that it is a verb and not a noun—

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e te Heamana o te Komiti o te Whare nei, tēnei te mihi atu.

[So thank you, Mr Chairperson of the Committee of the whole House, I greet you.]

I think the title of this bill ought to be the “Change the New Zealand Flag and Related Matters Bill”, and I say that because there are many related matters within this bill that have not yet been spoken about. In particular, I want to mihi out to all the millions of New Zealanders who actually carry a flag around with them every single day. I am one of them, and I bet that there are many in this Chamber who are too. This is a New Zealand driver’s licence. It has the New Zealand flag on it.

Within this bill, in clause 70, the driver’s licence is one of the related matters, and that is why I say that the title ought to represent what is actually in the bill. It is not just about referenda; it is also about related matters. One of those related matters, of course, is changing the legislation so that the flag that appears on your New Zealand driver’s licence can be changed. If the New Zealand public decides that we will change the flag, then there will be a 6-month period when you can have one or the other. My point, in speaking to the title, is that it should accurately reflect what is in the bill, and I do not think that the current title, the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, is sufficient to describe the totality of what is in this bill. The bill has many other things, and that is why the “Change the New Zealand Flag and Related Matters Bill” ought to be its title.

I think also that in respect of the commencement there have been many interesting points made. My point about the commencement is that we should make it at the next general election. That is because it will be more inclusive of the wider New Zealand public, and I will tell you why. Only 65 percent of Māori in my electorate voted. That probably reflects a systemic problem within wider New Zealand. However, it is important that everyone’s view is reflected within the first referendum regardless of all of its faults, and they are many and they have been well canvassed in this debate. So I want to put my hand up to say that that is not good enough.

I reflect on another point that was made in this debate, and that is that if only 30 percent of people turn up for this vote, then I think we could do some urgent legislation, put it through the House, and cancel the final vote—cancel it altogether. If there is such a low turnout—and I suspect there will be—and if it is less than 40 percent, really—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is the title and commencement debate, and this member has not addressed either of those at any stage of his contribution.

Carmel Sepuloni: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need any further instruction. Adrian Rurawhe.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the point around the commencement is that it ought not to be as it is drafted in this bill. It ought to commence to coincide with the next general election. That would be a lot more democratic, and if we are talking about democracy and what is right—and I have heard that word used in this Chamber in this debate by one of the members opposite. He is sitting there right now, actually, saying this is about democracy. Well, if it is about democracy, then make it available to all people at the next general election. An alternative is that maybe we could call it the “Tīnihia te Haki Bill” [“Change the Flag Bill”]. Two weeks ago we had Māori Language Week, but I am going for a month. Kia ora.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to talk on the title and commencement clauses of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I take great pride in being creative sometimes, as you requested, Mr Chair, at the beginning of this debate on the name of this bill. This particular bill, with the title of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, is one that I am not going to propose any amendment to, because I believe it is appropriate. Having two referendums is the mechanism that this Government has chosen to start the process of changing the New Zealand flag. But I believe that the referendums and the way that they are being sequenced is symbolic of the way that the Government has got this whole process for the changing of our flag, the timing of it, and the cost of changing our flag absolutely and utterly wrong.

I believe that the bill is aptly named, but I do have an issue with the referendums themselves. The bill, helpfully in schedule 1, points out the options, or the questions, that the New Zealand public will have. I am holding here, from the bill itself, a copy of roughly what New Zealanders will be asked. The first question is: “If”—if—“the New Zealand flag changes, which flag would you prefer?”. New Zealanders are given four options, on which they will put their preference. So the question is: “What would you prefer if”—if—“the flag is changed?”. That is the first question that New Zealanders will be asked: if it changes, what would you prefer it to change to? Schedule 2 points to the question that we on this side of the House believe should be asked first, and that is: “What is your choice for the New Zealand flag? Would you want it to stay the same or would you like to have something different, which you have been asked for in the first referendum of the referendums that are being held here?”.

There is a lot of heat in this debate, or in these potential referendums, because it is a flag. So let us take that out and just say that we are choosing a car. If you wanted a new car or if you were being asked whether you wanted a new car, would you first ask the question “Which car would you want?”, or would you ask “Do I need a new car?”. Any logical, sane person out there would ask the first question, “Do I need a new car?”, before asking “Which car would I like?”. That is the simple stupidity of the sequence of these two referendums that are being proposed in this bill. The second question should be asked first—“Do I want a new car?”—and the first question should be asked second: “If I want a new car, which car would I prefer?”. You should be asked whether you prefer the car that you have got now—the status quo—or whether you would prefer, potentially, four other new cars that are being offered up.

In any other logical situation, that is the way you would do it, but not here in the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I think that points out for everyone at home the simple yet elegant stupidity of this piece of legislation. Not only do people not want our flag to change right now—not right now—they do not want $26 million to be spent on this. This referendum is just plain-out stupid. It is asking the second question first and the first question second. That is why this piece of legislation should not pass. If the Government really wants to have a meaningful process around changing a flag of significance to every New Zealander, let us get it right. Let us not have this mickey mouse process that people have not bought into. Only 700 people turned out to the flag referendum meetings right around the country. It has cost us millions of dollars already. The Government turned away from the select committee process over 700 people whom it blatantly, obviously did not want to hear from because they would have said the same thing that we have said too, which is we want to change the flag at some stage, but not right now.

The cost is wrong—$26 million. It is not what we need right now. The question is wrong. The timing is wrong. So if you are going to have referendums, do not ask the second question first; ask the first question first. Ask whether you want to change the flag first, and if the country says yes, then we will buy that. But at the moment the country says no.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the title and commencement debate for the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have been thinking quite seriously about what the title of this bill should be, based on how this bill has appeared before us here in Parliament today. Actually, I would like to quote from one of the designers, a guy called Pax Zwanikken. He is a Kiwi who lives in Sydney. He contributed 25 designs, and two of his designs actually got through. So he has been shortlisted in terms of the 40 flags that have been shortlisted. What he said, which I find really interesting, is that he does not hold much hope for the flag change being supported—it does not matter what kind of flag—because, from his perspective, this has not come out of a groundswell of public desire for a new flag. So from his perspective, the title of the bill should be the “No Public Desire For a New Flag Bill”.

The reason I want to highlight that point is that if you actually go back and look over time at the call for change and whether or not the New Zealand public has wanted change, we can go back to 1973, when there was a poll. Of New Zealanders in 1973, 75 percent of them said no, they did not want to change the flag. So I acknowledge that this conversation has been around for a long time. Then, again, in 1984, 86 percent of New Zealanders said no when they were asked whether they wanted to change the flag. In 1999, 64 percent said no. In 2008, 62 percent said no. In 2011, 72 percent said no. Actually, the latest poll shows that 70 percent of New Zealanders are saying no, they do not want to change the flag. So that particular quote from Pax is actually incredibly relevant.

I think the other title that this bill could have had was actually published on 30 January 2014. It was a heading by Isaac Davison, actually. It could have been the “Keep It Or Flag It Bill”. That was his report after John Key actually announced this idea about changing New Zealand’s flag—he had this brainstorm: “Let’s change New Zealand’s flag.” So, actually, the title of this bill could be the “Keep It Or Flag It Bill” because of what the Prime Minister thought on 29 January 2014—“Let’s change the flag.” Actually, we could look at the National Party website. We could call this bill the “PM John Key Believes It’s the Right Time to Change the Flag Bill”, which is what the National Party promoted and has been promoting. This bill—let us get real—has come about because the Prime Minister had this brainstorm.

But a title that I think is really interesting—and this was actually part of the open letter that the flag review panel put out itself—is the “Open Call, No Criteria New Zealand Flag Bill”. What I find really interesting is that we got 10,292 submissions—new designs, where people decided that they would participate in this process, some of them from overseas—but what we did not do, actually, was have a set of criteria for what the flag should represent. So we talk a lot—and this bill has talked a lot—about New Zealand’s identity, but the reality is that that has not been part of the conversation at all. It was not in the criteria to make sure that our indigenous people were represented. There were no criteria to make sure that the Southern Cross was going to stay, because for us that is part of our national anthem. There was not a call to make sure that the koru was in the flag. In fact, there was not even a call to make sure that the silver fern was, even though the Prime Minister said, when he announced it on 29 January 2014, that we must ensure that the silver fern is in there.

Now, apparently, this is all part of some tourism boost and some economic boost, because we are going to be recognised globally as a country because we are going to have this amazing new flag that represents our identity. So I find it really interesting that, actually, we did not do that. The call went out far and wide, and we did not care what people submitted, we did not care who they were, and we did not care about the context of their design. We just put out this open call. So that is why I think our title could be the “Open Call, No Criteria New Zealand Flag Bill”. It now seems that those criteria are actually really important, because we have picked flags that have got a koru, we have picked flags that have got the Southern Cross, and we have picked flags that actually represent New Zealand. So when you think about it—

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): We have had a bit of conversation about the title, and my last contribution was on the title. I would like to move now to clause 2, the commencement. Actually, the commencement of this bill when it becomes an Act is probably one of the areas of most contention. This is all to do with the timing of the referendums.

My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has offered an amendment that would amend clause 2(1) so that it reads: “This Act (except sections 69, 70, and 71) comes into force five years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I guess 5 years is somewhat arbitrary, because you cannot put things in a commencement clause like “when the Government can run a surplus” or “when we do not have $101 billion worth of debt” or “when we can get the cost of running these referendums down”. So I guess what Mr Mallard is attempting to do here is to project into the future and make a couple of assumptions. One, and I think it is an important one, is that we will have a Labour Government, because that leads to the second one, which is that we will actually have some decent economic management and we will have a fair chance of the Government heading back towards being in the black again and being in a position where people might see holding a referendum, or two referendums, on changing the flag as something that is more relevant and a more appropriate use of the money that is needed to run those referendums.

These things do cost money. Democracy costs money. I appreciate that the Government has proposed a democratic approach to this. We have some questions over the order of the referendums, but at least it is being done by referendum, not by fiat, and that costs money. But we really do question whether this Act should be commencing, should be coming into force, on the day after it receives the Royal assent, which is what clause 2(1) provides for, or whether it should be put off to a date in the future when the Government’s books might be in a better state, and in a state where this could be more of a priority. This is what a lot of the opposition to the Government’s process comes down to: when exactly the legislation should come into force. I do not actually think most members of the public would be too concerned about the fact that we are debating this legislation now. They might have a view that there are other, more pressing, issues to be debating in public, but the debate now is not as big a problem as holding the referendums this year and next year. So I support Trevor Mallard’s amendment to clause 2(1) because I think, arbitrary as it is, 5 years from now is probably a more appropriate point in time for us to have those referendums and the expenditure that comes with them.

There are some other aspects to the commencement clause that are certainly appropriate for this legislation, but they are somewhat unusual. There are various sections of the legislation that may or may not commence, and, of course, this relates to what the result may be of the second referendum. Obviously the first referendum has no bearing on the commencement of any of the clauses in this legislation because whatever happens there will be two referendums, with all the costs that come with that. But the second referendum does have a bearing on whether or not certain parts of this legislation do actually commence, and those parts are clauses 69, 70, and 71. Of course, those clauses would not need to commence in the event that the public voted to retain the current flag. Another interesting matter with the commencement of clauses 69, 70, and 71 is that there are two triggers for the commencement of those clauses, which is a little bit unusual in legislation as well. The first trigger—

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I have listened to a number of contributions in respect of clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement clauses of this bill. I want to propose, perhaps, a different title that more aptly deals with the content and the fiscal issues associated with this bill. I think it is very apt to be called “The $26 Million Bill”. If you look at the document, it has got a bit of weight to it. I am not sure how much paper is going for, per pound or per kilogram, in the international price, but given the relevance of the figure $26 million, which I will explain in a moment—I know other colleagues have—I think it may well be relevant, as the bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, to call this bill “The $26 Million Flag Bill”.

That is what it has cost the taxpayer, budgeted to date—$26 million—to conduct this exercise, which opinion poll after opinion poll suggests no one wants. It has not only been opinion poll after opinion poll, but given that so very few people, some 700 people, turned out to the public meetings on the flag consideration project—these meetings cost $208,500 for venues and a further $200,000 for panel members and fees and whatnot. There must have been some very good scones and sausage rolls, or whatever, at these meetings. The average cost per person who turned up was $550 each, or $2,300 each once advertising is included. So in terms of the title, this whole exercise is estimated to have cost $26 million. In respect of this it is very apt and the Government should be upfront and call it what it is. It is a $26 million waste of time.

The New Zealand public have demonstrated through opinion polls and by their turnout—some 700-odd people—that they do not see this as a priority. I suspect there are people who have turned out to those meetings who may want to see a change. There are thousands of others who may want to see a change indeed, but those people do not view this as a priority in their lives. They view health, education, their kids’ welfare, and other things as a priority in their lives. I suspect, speaking again to clause 1, the title, that those people who did not show up to those meetings can probably think of 26 million reasons, to go along with a $26 million budget for this thing, as to how that money could be used in a better way. Or the title could perhaps be “The Prime Minister’s Legacy Project That Has Cost New Zealanders $26 Million”.

I put this to the Government. If it were serious about changing our constitutional arrangements about some of the lofty things that the Prime Minister and others have said, it may want to consider this. The Government has put the cart before the horse. Surely you would look at our true constitutional arrangements. Should we have a written constitution? Should there be a head of State who differs from the current one? Should that person be elected or appointed, or whatever? You would deal with all those heavyweight constitutional arrangements and work that through the community and bring the communities with us. And then the last thing—with no disrespect to the flag, but probably the smallest component of true constitutional reform is to change the flag, which is one of the symbols of your country. People will be for and against that, but I think that is the heavyweight process, dealing with heavyweight issues, that leads—if the Prime Minister were of a mind to look at that—to a heavyweight debate and possibly a heavyweight legacy.

But to have a bill that changes the flag, at a cost that is just incredible to most people—you know, I have been to public meetings during election campaigns. Election campaigns generally are not that popular, where you have had—and I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, has had more people turn up to many of his meetings. In fact, there may be more people in his prisons—and I suspect there are—than the 700 people who turned up to the flag meetings.

In terms of the name, it could be called “The Prime Minister’s $26 Million Legacy Project Bill”. It could be called “The $26 Million Flag Bill”. It could be called a number of things. But I think what is going to be sad in this, because I suspect it will not get through—not the bill, but the actual change, because people are just not for it—is that lost in amongst all of this bunkum and the silly process, and a process that is about the Government’s legacy, or the Prime Minister’s legacy more than anything else, we actually lose the grit and the substance of the issue, which is a debate about our constitutional arrangements—

JONO NAYLOR (National): I move that the motion, the question, be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, you have got to get it right when you move closure motions. I will call Carmel Sepuloni in a moment. The member must go back to Standing Order 136 for the specific wording that you need to use—nothing else; just focus on that.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I think that we have had some great alternative options offered today for the title of this bill. I do have some other alternative options, but I will discuss those later in my speech. I just want to talk about Part 3 of this bill in relation to the title and commencement clauses. I think that that is allowed at the Committee stage. In Part 3, what we have is two clauses that give quite wide powers to amend the process by Order in Council. These may be standard but they read as the Government being able to correct errors in the legislation without coming back to the House.

So I want to talk about that part in relation to this, because if the Government is going to have power, because of Part 3, to correct errors in the legislation without having to come back to the House, I want an answer from the Minister about what errors it is anticipating in this bill and about whether or not there are any anticipated problems or potential errors that may come out of the title or commencement provisions of the bill. In the commencement clause, for example, could there be an error in relation to, say, clause 2(2), which says: “If, in the second flag referendum, the alternative flag design gains a greater number of votes than the current New Zealand Flag, then sections 69, 70, and 71 commence on whichever of the following dates is earlier: (a) a date set by the Governor-General by Order in Council: (b) the day that is 6 months after the date on which the result of the second flag referendum is declared.”

With that in mind—and we are talking about the date here, and also we are looking at the amendment put up by my colleague Trevor Mallard, who has asked to remove “on the day” and replace it with “5 years”—does that mean that the Government could actually decide that that is an error and change the time frame without bringing the legislation back to the House? We are hoping, actually, that it will support the amendment in the Committee here today and that it will remove the wording “on the day” and replace it with the words “5 years”. That is the amendment put up by Trevor Mallard. Does that mean that if the Government does not support this amendment in the Committee, it could still do so later on, once it discovers the error of its ways, and that it has, in fact, got it wrong in terms of the time frames that it has put around implementing this bill? If the Minister could respond to that, it would be good.

In terms of what it says in Part 3 about the Government being able to correct errors without bringing the legislation back to the House, I wonder whether or not—when the Government members leave the Chamber and if this does manage to happen in terms of a change of flag and if we proceed with the resulting Act, in terms of the rest of it—the Government could then change the actual title of the bill later on without bringing it back to the House. Is that what it means in terms of Part 3 and how it applies to the title and commencement clauses of this bill? I have those questions for the Minister, and if he could respond, it would be greatly appreciated.

JONO NAYLOR (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 62

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

Noes 58

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

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

Noes 58

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Can I just remind members that votes are taken in silence.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to:

in subclause (2), replace “on the day” with “5 years”.

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

Ayes 46

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; 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.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Bills

Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 30 July on the .

Justice Sector (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we now turn to the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. When we were last progressing the estimates debate, we were debating the votes in the justice sector—volume B.5, volume 7—Vote Attorney-General, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Police, and Vote Serious Fraud. David Clendon had the call, and he has 2 minutes and 5 seconds remaining should he wish.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): The point that I was making at the earlier sitting was that it is not that we are spending too little on the suite of portfolios—across police, corrections, courts, and so on—but that we do not spend the money wisely and that we need to reinvest in a different manner and spend money on solutions. In that sense, I think the obvious gap in this year’s appropriations is around the police. The police budget has been flat for a number of years. In effect, it has suffered a funding cut over a number of years.

The police have found efficiencies in their operations, and they are using technology well and wisely to the extent that they can. Nevertheless, if they are to deliver on the Prevention First strategy, for example, they will require well-resourced officers of good morale to do that hard, grinding work to prevent crime in the communities. We will not achieve that if we continue to underfund the police, as we are undoubtedly doing this year in these appropriations. The solution is not to turn the police into a user-pays force, which is the intent of a bill before this House—the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill—that effectively, would have police running around with an invoice book to charge people for vetting, initially, and later, potentially, for anything from search and rescue through to educating businesses on how to make their premises secure, and to public education about crime prevention. That is an intolerable proposition and one that we should not entertain at any level. We need to fund the police force properly in order for it to do its job well, and we know that it wants to do its job well. We should enable it to do that.

In terms of corrections, we know that privatisation is not the answer there. That might appeal initially as a cost-saving measure, but over time, as we have seen quite recently, it is, in fact, a false economy, and the public sector can provide corrections services. There is a moral imperative that only the State should manage the incarceration of people. There is also a major economic imperative. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a great pleasure to rise and talk on these issues in this debate because, actually, this is an area that, as a Government, we can be really proud of in terms of the progress that we are making. It is an area in our country that we can be really glad of—that our crime is at a 35-year low. I think, as we look over the last 7 years, there have been some things that we can be happy about in terms of the things that we are achieving.

The Better Public Services target of crime being down by 20 percent by the year 2017 is on track. We have already had a 17 to 18 percent decrease over the time period that we were aiming for, so we are absolutely on target to reach that. We have identified a number of ways that we can, in fact, make some improvements. There are some things that this Government has done over the last number of years that are helping us to make some of those impacts. We have been very much at the forefront of ensuring, for example, that we are putting victims first. For a long time in New Zealand our justice system was very focused on the criminals, as, to a certain degree, it needs to be. We need to make sure that we are addressing criminal behaviour and the like, but we have not always done the best that we can by victims, so this Government has been absolutely committed to ensuring that we are mindful of the needs of victims.

This is a Government that in the 7 years it has been in power has put through 94 pieces of legislation across the justice area. In particular, I want to point out the work that has been done with the victims of crime reform legislation and also the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which are, as I said earlier, very much focused on delivering for victims. But there have been a number of things introduced, and I want to highlight those things as we look at this sector, particularly when we look at the establishment of a Chief Victims Advisor to the Government. This is the first time this has been put in place. It was advertised last month, and we are hoping to make an appointment by the end of this year. Again, it is something that will ensure that we are going to have victims’ needs very much at the forefront of what we are doing across this sector.

We are creating a National Home Safety Service, which is aiming to assist up to 400 victims of family violence a year, as well as up to 600 children. We are improving judges’ access to information to ensure that they are the best informed that they can possibly be. They will have more information about the history of the perpetrators of family violence and that kind of thing, so that they can make better decisions to keep victims safer.

We are speeding up court cases. We are getting things going through the court system in a timely way. Again, we are not drawing that out, because, as we know, victims have that time frame of the justice system, and when the wheels of justice move slowly, victims face the issue of perhaps being revictimised all over again and having to live with that, and not being able to move on from the trauma that they have suffered. So speeding up that court process is another important aspect of what we are doing.

There are a number of other things that have been introduced. If we look at the $50 offender levy, which was scoffed at by a lot of people, what we have actually seen is that this has generated more than $16 million since its introduction. That has gone towards funding at least 15 new grants and services to provide key victim support services that were not previously available. If we look at this kind of approach to justice, it makes a whole lot of sense. Yes, perpetrators and those who have been found guilty need to be held to account. They need to be punished at different times, but we all know that restitution and restoring things is a very important part of it, particularly for victims. So that offender levy is a critical part, going forward, of what we are going to see, ensuring that victims will be helped out.

We are seeing an increase in the number of in-court victims’ advisers. They are being contacted by 35,000 victims a year, and we are seeing that sort of service increasing. We are starting to see people engage with it, and I think it is providing long-term benefits for the victims of crime.

It was interesting that the previous speaker, David Clendon, brought up the police. Well, we have put more police on the beat.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to start off by talking about the police as well. I noticed that Jono Naylor, the speaker who has just finished, said that the National Government is putting more emphasis on victims. Let me tell you now that the resolution rates for high-volume crimes such as burglary and car theft are below 10 percent. If the National Government were really serious about the needs of victims, the first thing it would do would be to address those low resolution rates. You cannot tell me that any criminal or burglar would be put off from committing those crimes if they knew they had a greater than 90 percent chance of getting away with it successfully.

One of the reasons, though, that these resolution rates are so low is that the police are being continually asked to do more with less. There is a $15 million cut to the police budget this year. I know that the Minister of Police denied that, but the first thing in the Attorney-General’s report in the Finance and Expenditure Committee was to confirm that there was a $15 million decrease in the police budget, and in real terms over the last 4 or 5 years there has been about a $300 million decrease in the police budget. So, continually, the police are being asked to do more with less.

I believe there is a police wage round going on. General duties constables have had an increase in their salaries over maybe the last 4 or 5 years of about $5,000, while at the same time in the period since, I think, 2009 to 2013, the Commissioner of Police has had a $100,000 rise in his salary. I would like to think that the men and women on the ground, who are doing the hard work and who are putting themselves in the front line there and in harm’s way, would get a wage increase relative to what the police commissioner gets. But, that said, if they were to get a substantial salary increase, which I believe they deserve, then that would mean there would be further cuts in other areas such as police cars or maybe some of the technology that is being rolled out. There has been an 18 percent drop in the number of general duties constables over the last little while, as well.

Sexual assaults and violent assaults are areas on the rise. In fact, the statistics say that only 5 percent of sexual assaults are reported and, of that 5 percent, only 1 percent will ever see a conviction, and that is just simply unacceptable. We need to have a greater emphasis on the investigation of sexual assaults. We need to take it a lot more seriously, and violent assaults as well.

The policing budget has an emphasis on revenue-gathering policing, such as intersection behaviour and lane-changing compliance, the use of mobile phones, and warrants and certificates of fitness. We can understand that there is some emphasis on that and that people can be killed, and are killed, by vehicle violations, but the reality is that we also need to have an equal emphasis on those high-volume crimes such as burglary, sexual assaults, and violent assaults, as well.

I would just like to also talk about the speeding up of court processes, which the previous member spoke about. It is a nice segue into the corrections debacle. One of the things that we are hearing about the botch-ups at Serco, with all the lockdowns that are going on, is that lawyers are having difficulty getting access to their clients. In fact, instead of being able to spend 2 or 3 days preparing cases with their clients, lawyers are having to spend 2 or 3 days just trying to track down where their clients have been transferred to. There is a lack of communication. So when lawyers finally get in touch with their clients, they have a very short time to actually prepare a case, and that is basically causing a logjam in the courts. So the whole corrections episode with Serco shows that the Government’s privatisation agenda is a complete and utter failure.

One of the main issues around Serco is the fact that it is a business and it wants to make a profit. So it cuts corners, and one of the main corners that it is cutting is staffing. So in terms of the lack of staffing, in the contract Serco does not actually have to have a ratio of prisoners to corrections officers, which is outrageous. The general rule of thumb is that there should be one corrections officer for every 20 inmates. If it is higher security, then it should be one to about 15. There are stories emerging from Serco that at times there is one corrections officer looking after up to 55 inmates. You can understand how those Serco guards would be hesitant to get out into the general population. If there were some sort of fracas that broke out, their lives would be in danger, and they would not have their colleagues there to help them get out of it.

I have also been told that most of the contraband that comes into Serco is via guards, who, because there are not enough guards to check other guards coming in, are able to bring in contraband. If you go to Department of Corrections - run prisons, anybody who goes through is searched. The other day I was down at Otago Corrections Facility and we were led around by the head of the facility himself. When he came out to greet us and he had to go back in, he had to remove his belt, his keys, his watch, his shoes, and everything. Apparently, in Serco there is just not enough staff to be able to monitor other staff coming in. When you are as poorly paid as the Serco guards, it is quite tempting to bring in contraband and to actually get paid for it. So what actually happens is that the inmates have access to cellphones, as we all know, because they have been taking videos of themselves in the fight clubs. They are also able to ring outside and make arrangements for payments to guards who have brought in contraband.

I spoke to a Serco guard, who did not want to be named, obviously, because his life would be in jeopardy if he was named, and he was telling me this outrageous figure. In fact, it was so outrageous I did not believe him. I said: “Well, how much can a guard get? What’s in it for him if he brought in a packet of cigarettes?”. He said: “If a guard brings in a packet of cigarettes from the outside, he can get $1,000.” I actually did not believe him, but the very next day I met with an inmate who had been released the day before, and I said to him: “Look, I’ve heard this outrageous story about the value of a packet of cigarettes. You tell me, because I just want to confirm this.” He said: “Actually, for a 50-gram pack of tobacco, a guard can get $800.”—for 50 grams’ worth of tobacco. If you are a guard and you can get $1,000 for bringing in one packet of cigarettes, you may as well bring in 10 packets of cigarettes and get $10,000. It sounds outrageous, but that is the black market value within prisons for this type of contraband.

A cellphone is valued at over $1,000, and those cellphones are not only being used to organise a meth ring from the inside, as we know, but also being used to intimidate families. There was an inmate whose mother got a phone call saying: “If you don’t put money into a certain bank account, well, then your son will get the bash.”

The review of Serco, to me, is going to be a whitewash because it is Serco reviewing itself and the Department of Corrections reviewing Serco, and there is the Ombudsman floating around somewhere. Because we know Serco is such a mess, it is interesting that the Minister of Corrections has got Serco to review itself. But when we come down to Tony Robertson, we know that the Department of Corrections actually did a good job in monitoring him while he was on release. But it is interesting that the Minister has gone and got an independent person to review it, knowing that the review will come out well because the Department of Corrections Chief Probation Officer, Darius Fagan, actually did a review a couple of weeks back and said that it did a very good job of it.

So I ask the question: why is there an independent review of one aspect of the Department of Corrections when it already knows that it has done well, and yet, when it is looking at Serco, Serco gets to review itself and the Department of Corrections gets to review Serco? The first term of reference around Robertson is the management of Robertson prior to and following his release. Well, that has already been done by Darius Fagan. Then the second term of reference is the way the Government—

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to talk about legal aid, because access to justice is becoming more and more difficult. Costs are very high, even for relatively minor matters. Legal aid was, of course, designed to provide legal representation for people who could not afford it by themselves. It was never a grant, except to parties who could not afford to repay a Legal Services Agency grant. Originally, the qualifying criteria made it possible for people at the lower end of the socio-economic scale to access legal aid, and that worked very well. But now the criteria are so tough that very few people actually qualify.

I want to refer specifically to the Legal Services Regulations as they now are, because they specify that the maximum levels of income for the purpose of determining an applicant’s eligibility for legal aid in respect of a civil matter are: “(a) $22,366 per year for a single applicant: (b) $35,420 per year for an applicant with—(i) a spouse or partner; or (ii) 1 dependent child: (c) $50,934 per year for an applicant with—(i) a spouse or partner, and 1 dependent child; or (ii) 2 dependent children:”. So that is a pretty low level. It is even tougher when it comes to the maximum levels of disposable capital for the purposes of eligibility for legal aid. It specifies for a civil matter that the maximum is $3,500—an incredibly low figure, in my view. However, if the applicant has a spouse or partner, or one or more dependent children, the maximum level of disposable capital for that applicant is calculated by adding an allowance of another $1,500, but even then it is an incredibly low total.

The income and capital thresholds for qualification for legal aid are now so low that many people will simply go unrepresented. And these are not wealthy people. They are ordinary people who find it too tough to pay legal costs without some assistance. So the capital and income thresholds need urgent revision upwards so that people can get legal representation. Far too many are now forced, for economic reasons, to represent themselves. That leads, of course, to poor-quality justice. It leads to a greater burden of time on the courts, it leads to greater use of appeals, and it leads to more injustice than would be acceptable in a modern society.

To make matters worse, the Legal Services Commissioner now must refuse legal aid if the applicant is in arrears for repayments on previous legal aid grants, subject to an interests of justice test. Nevertheless, the commissioner’s assessment about what is in the interests of justice can be very difficult, especially for unrepresented parties, to argue successfully. In addition to that, I actually do not personally trust the commissioner’s discretion on the interests of justice test in those circumstances.

This provision concerning arrears is intended to encourage legally aided people to start repaying their debt. There is nothing wrong with that objective, but there is actually very little evidence to show that it is likely to have any positive effect on that objective at all. The reason for that is perfectly obvious, and it is simply that the people in that position actually do not have the money to do the repayment of debt that is required of them. So it cannot really have a positive effect in those circumstances. What it does do is cause injustice by making legal aid unavailable in far too many cases so that people either give up or have to represent themselves, and I have already spoken about the results of that.

The Legal Services Act saying that the amount owing is collectable as a debt and that that should be enough is not sufficient in my view. That needs to be reviewed as well. In addition, we should be deleting the $50 user-charge. That is wrong. Many lawyers simply pay that on behalf of their client. It really is just penny-pinching on behalf of the State and really is not much more than a blatant attempt to try to suppress demand. That, of course, is wrong in terms of what the Act is all about and what legal aid should be for. The money lost by the Crown would be very small if that user-charge was abolished, but the effect on low-income people would be disproportionately high and very positive.

I would like to turn next to the issue of charging interest on legal aid debt. It is absolutely wrong in principle, in New Zealand First’s view. It is true that interest could be written off under the existing provisions in the Act, but it does require evidence of serious hardship, and the definition of serious hardship shows that it is a very high bar to reach. As a result, of course, it will again be low-income people—not people at the very lowest rung, but people just above it—who will suffer and be badly affected by this particular provision, which I think is Draconian. The State should not be a banker in these matters, seeking interest at the rate of 8 percent. It should be seen as a public service, and there should be no interest charged on legal aid debt.

The Government has lost its way as to what legal aid is really about. It is really about access to justice. That is what we are losing, and it is a very bad trend. Legal aid must be fair for people unable to afford a lawyer, so that they can get sufficient assistance to take legal proceedings that have a reasonable prospect of success and to ensure assistance to people who have no choice but to defend proceedings brought against them. Many of them simply cannot afford to do so because they cannot get legal aid. So in the end, in its quest to move into surplus, this Government, through its Budget cuts over recent years, has limited access to justice for lower-income people. The very people who need legal aid the most are the ones who are going to suffer.

The restrictions in legal aid have gone far too far, and combined with the increasing expense of the legal system and legal costs generally, the result in far too many cases is that many, many people will be effectively priced out of the justice system. I think that that must change. This is a very serious issue, and I call on the Government to look at legal aid again, especially those thresholds I referred to but also the whole system. It really is not working any more for low-income people, and it is an urgent matter. It is an urgent matter that has not been addressed in this Budget, and it needs to be looked at in the very near future.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to take a call in the estimates debate on the justice sector this evening, particularly in response to the recent initiatives from this Government in response to the crisis we have in this country around domestic and sexual violence. It is nice to stand up and offer unequivocal support for the actions of this Government. It is a very rare event for me to be able to do so, and I do. I commend the Minister of Justice for making domestic violence her priority, and I acknowledge that she said in the media that she could have gone for easy wins and that this probably will not provide the easy wins. But it is addressing an absolute crisis in this country and I commend her. It is not going to be simple. We are not going to get quick results, but it is worth doing.

She has rightly noted that there are 100,000 family violence call outs to the police every year. That is one call out every 5 minutes, and this work accounts for 41 percent of the police’s work. Yet we know that only around 10 to 20 percent of the incidents of domestic violence are actually even reported to the police. We know that although the number of cases reported to the police is going up at the moment, the number of cases being resolved has dropped by 10 percent since 2008. There is something going wrong if the number of reported cases is going up and the number of cases being resolved by police is going down. So we need desperately to have a very comprehensive look at this problem. This is one in three women in this country who over their lifetime are likely to be victims of domestic violence.

We also have an epidemic rate of sexual violence, where one in three or four girls is likely to be a victim of sexual violence in this country and one in six to 10 boys is likely to be a victim of sexual violence in this country. We have a conviction rate for sexual violence of around 1 percent and of less than 2 percent for domestic violence. So this Government is doing the right thing in making this a priority. I would just like to offer it some advice and some encouragement to have the public participate in the consultation.

I do think the Government is going to have to review its Better Public Services target to bring down the crime rate. The target is to reduce the crime rate by 20 percent by 2017, and what I am hearing from the community and on the ground is that that reduction and police resolution of family violence cases is a result of that Better Public Services target to reduce crime. We need to have all of the incentives lined up, going the right way, and when we know that only 10 to 20 percent of cases are coming to the police’s attention, we need to be encouraging them to resolve things. That, in the short term, is going to result in an increase in recorded crime. That is just going to be part of the process and we have to go through it if we are going to get on top of this problem as a country.

I also want to point out that the Prime Minister has noted that it is possible that the Government may need to spend a little bit more money in this area. Well, from speaking to so many organisations on the ground, hearing about the situation around legal aid, and knowing the pressures on police, there is no doubt that we are going to have to spend more money. The majority of funding in this area is going to the corrections system, our prisons. We have a 1 to 2 percent conviction rate, so we know that that money is not actually doing anything to resolve the issues in the long term when it is touching only a tiny little part of the problem. And prevention—the amount of money that is being spent in this area is 1.5 percent of the Government’s spending. A similarly small—not quite that small, but inadequately small—amount is going towards counselling and support services and wraparound services for offenders and people who use violence, as well as towards victims. If we want to be able to break these patterns and get people to change their behaviour and help women and children to get to safety, we actually have to resource those efforts in a complete, wraparound way.

The third point I just want to touch on is that I do hope that the Minister is not dropping sexual violence as her priority, though the discussion document is focused on domestic violence, because the Law Commission has a comprehensive body of work to look at.

ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to speak in the estimates debate about law and order. I follow Jan Logie and the comments that she has made in regard to domestic violence. I know that in the last term we too were involved with the inquiry into the funding of sexual violence social support services. And, also, just recently there was a hīkoi that Kelvin Davis led and was part of. Again, it addressed the issues around men against sexual violence. The whole issue is something that I think is of concern across parties and across Government. Prior to entering Parliament, I was also on the task force for family violence under the previous Government, so this is an issue that has been there for such a long time. It has been a critical issue. It is an issue that has raised both awareness and also, along with that, a number of systemic areas of concern that we have to deal with, and I believe that that has been part of this Government’s focus as well.

Violent crime has been rising—we know that. The criminal justice system has needed accountability and focus on victims, and that has been the key driver for this Government in the direction of the justice sector. It has been our belief that our having a tough stance on law and order means that New Zealand’s recorded crime rate is falling and is at its lowest level since 1978. Although we can applaud the fact that we now have one of the lowest crime rates in 30 years, we know that family violence, domestic violence, and even sexual violence are still areas of concern, and we do not shy away from that. In fact, as the previous speaker did, I want to applaud again the comments of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, who has taken a lead in a direction and area for us to be able to champion that. And, actually, the way that she has been able to do that is that National’s focus is on getting the key justice sector agencies to work together—that is, justice, police, and, yes, even corrections—in this regard. That is really important.

One of the areas that I think has not been addressed or touched on, either, in the debates so far, in regard to law and order, is some of the focus and priority areas, especially those that impact on both our Māori community and vulnerable children. Several challenges remain, and we know that the incidence and impact of crime is unevenly spread. In fact, research shows that 6 percent of adults experience 54 percent of the crime. But an area of concern for this Government is the over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system, both as offenders and even as victims of crime. Māori are in prison at six times the rate of non-Māori, and it is estimated that 22 percent of Māori males born before 1975 had a corrections-managed sentence before their 20th birthday and that 44 percent had such a sentence by the age of 35. This is an area of concern for this Government. It is an area that we want to address as well, because the rate of offending for Māori youth has fallen by 53 percent from 2008 to 2014. However, there is still much work to be done, and we know that these are critical areas for us.

One of the areas of focus for this Government is in putting victims first. We have introduced the $50 offender levy, which has generated more than $16.6 million since its introduction. This has gone towards funding 15 new grants and services to provide key victim support services that were not previously available. The ministry funds victim support, and it provides nationwide, 24/7 crisis response and ongoing support services, so that more than 34,000 victims were supported in 2013 and in 2014. The Victims Centre manages funding for victims of serious crime through the $50 offender levy. In 2013 and in 2014 the centre funded $5.9 million of grants and services that was provided to almost 5,500 victims of serious crime and tailored to their specific needs. During the court process, the ministry had 84 in-court victims’ advisers. It contacted about 35,000 victims a year, and there have been 24,000 using the service since 2013-14, as well. There has also been an increase in funding for restorative justice programmes, which are available to courts as an option for pre-sentencing and to provide an alternative way of responding to crime and addressing harm to victims. The increase in the penalty for breaching protection orders to 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment has also made a difference.

National passed the Victims of Crime Reform Bill in order to improve the rights and services for all victims, and we passed the Harmful Digital Communications Bill to protect victims from cyber-bullying as well. What we are also doing is strengthening sentencing, parole, and bail. We have passed the Bail Amendment Bill in order to tighten up on bail and to introduce electronically monitored bail.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I would like to speak to Vote Corrections. There are some interesting figures in this document, the Estimates of Appropriations. Although the overall increase in the vote for corrections goes up 2.7 percent, the total amount paid in the next 12 months to Ministerial Services, which the Department of Corrections uses for responses to ministerial correspondence, and for the Parliamentary Service actually goes up by 6.5 percent, by my reckoning. I wonder what that is in aid of. Why is there the 6.5 percent increase for ministerial correspondence and parliamentary questions? I would hazard a guess and say that corrections is receiving a lot of attention from the Opposition. I think that is probably the reason why that has gone up 6.5 percent, and overall the budget has gone up only 2.7 percent.

But the key thing that I want to talk about, actually, is the absolute failure of prison privatisation. We have got the report of select committees on the estimates and, according to the Minister of Corrections, the department’s public-private partnership with Serco was proving beneficial to both parties, as they could share and model best practice for the most effective use of taxpayers’ dollars. Well, I would challenge that. I think the evidence and the information that has come to the attention of the House quite clearly says that it has been an absolute, dismal failure. I think that the vote, the amount of money put aside within this Budget, may not be enough to run the prisons, because, as we know, there are a number of reviews being carried out as we speak, the result of which may have implications upon this budget. So I would question that.

I also question the statements made in this Chamber by the former Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley, who said: “the privately run prison in Mt Eden is exceeding the record of our State-run prisons.” Well, I do not think that is correct, either. I think that is part of the hospital pass that she has made to the current Minister of Corrections, and this experiment in privatisation of prisons is not working. I think that the New Zealand public deserve some assurances that the people who are sent to prison are well looked after and are rehabilitated, because eventually they are going to come back out into our communities. So the appropriation should reflect that, and I do not think it really does.

I do not think there is enough being done, particularly in the privately run prisons. I think the numbers that have been used, which the former Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley referred to, in particular to Mt Eden prison, are definitely skewed, because that is a remand prison. So the majority of the people in there—those ones on remand, of course—are going through the court system. It is the minority who are in there who are going through programmes for rehabilitation.

The issue that we have been hearing, time and time again, is that the most difficult inmates are transferred to other prisons, to State-run prisons. That is a huge problem, because when you are looking at the statistics around how well that particular prison is doing, quite clearly those numbers are skewed. I think we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I would like to highlight the lack of taxpayer funding being allocated to one of the most important sectors of our law and order machinery, and the most important of our public services, which is the corrections system. We need prisons to be safe for both staff and prisoners, and we need them to function in a way that they will deliver the services they are being paid for. At the moment it is not happening.

Serco has been given the contract for some years now to run the old Mt Eden Corrections Facility, and Serco was branded by the Minister of Corrections as having the most successful and the highest-performing prison in the country. Well, that is not a fact, because, time and again, Serco has proved that it is not up to the game. There were the infamous fight clubs. There have been extortion calls going out to community members. There has been drug taking and home brew being used by those prisoners in Serco’s prisons, and the reason for that is that Serco does not maintain the same staff-to-prisoner ratio as the Department of Corrections has. And Serco does get away with it.

With the $30 million - odd Serco gets every year, its aim is to save the maximum and send it overseas as profits, because that is what it is—a profit-making corporate. It does not have the safety and the security of prisoners and officers in mind; what it has in mind is its profits, and it has been able to achieve that. But what we have not been able to achieve is getting the service that we pay for. The taxpayers are not getting their money’s worth from Serco, and that has been proved beyond doubt, starting with the fight clubs, the extortion calls that have been going out to the community, the use of banned cellphones inside the prison, the weaker prisoners being stood over, as they call it, and the weaker prisoners being thrown off balconies, being injured, and then being passed on to other Department of Corrections - run prisons, just to cover that up. So there is a real danger to the safety of prisoners and staff.

Now, after the so-called fiasco, the Department of Corrections has posted 20 staff from the corrections system to assist with the management of the Serco-run—or, rather, the Serco-mismanaged—Mt Eden Corrections Facility. Those 20 staff are actually filling in for the shortage of staff that Serco has been making money on. So now our question is: what will happen after the dust has settled? Will they be called back to corrections prisons, and, if that happens, what will happen to the staff-to-prisoner ratio in Serco prisons? That is a question we need to get answers for. Serco-run prisons do not have the rehabilitation programmes that Department of Corrections - run prisons have. Serco had cut funding to that also, just to make profits.

It is a shambles at the moment. We have got prisoners absconding to Brazil, we have got offenders killing women while on electronic monitoring, and we have got them cutting off bracelets so they can have some free time on the outside. That is really concerning. We cannot have it and we cannot have prisoners organising fight clubs, bullying prisoners, or injuring prisoners and even killing them. We just cannot have it. This Minister is letting this slip by on his watch.

So why are we even thinking of funding such a public-private partnership? Serco has proved time and again that it is not capable of running a prison like the Mt Eden Corrections Facility, and yet it is being rewarded, which is a double whammy. It does not deliver, and yet it gets rewarded. Recently, the Department of Corrections chief executive officer declared that he is going to fine Serco half a million dollars. Well, that actually is not a fine; that will be deducted from the bonus it would have otherwise got had it performed to standards—and clearly it has not.

What we have suggested is that instead of putting our own staff at risk, our own people at risk, and our prisoners at risk, we should withdraw Serco’s contract altogether.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): It is an honour to take a call on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. I just want to touch on some of the areas of corrections that members across the Chamber have alluded to. We will agree across this Chamber, firstly, that the safety and security of staff, of the New Zealand public, and of prisoners is paramount—it is paramount. Secondly, as has been alluded to by colleagues across the Chamber, the rehabilitation of offenders is also really important. It is important because most of the offenders who go to prison ultimately get out and we have got to get them reintegrated and rehabilitated so that they can take part meaningfully in our society once they return to civil society.

I just want to touch on a couple of points that members across the aisle talked about today. It is about justice for people, and I, like many across this country, was appalled at some of the footage around the fight clubs that were allegedly happening at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility. That is why we put in place a review by the chief inspectorate, overseen by the independent office of the Ombudsman, which is really important. I urge members in this Chamber as well as the general public that if they have any evidence of the allegations of violence and of corruption that have been bandied around this House, and of the accusations loosely made against different people in Serco and people across the prison estate, to bring it forward. Bring it forward to the chief inspectorate, bring it forward to the investigators who are currently going through all the issues that are being bandied around in society, because what we need is a thorough review and investigation of the facts, we need a report that will look into these matters, and then we need to sensibly make decisions that affect not just Serco but the prison estate right across this country.

I just want to touch on the estimates in terms of what we are doing in corrections and how we are doing in corrections. The reoffending rate since 2011 has come down 9 percent—just over 9 percent—so it is currently just over 27 percent. I was in Australia recently for the Ministers’ conference, and when you look at reoffending rates in Australia, you see that for New South Wales it is over 42 percent—over 42 percent—so that is 50 percent more than in New Zealand. In Queensland it is in the high 30s—high 30s.

So when we look at our system and how we are doing compared with our Australian neighbours—who are the most important neighbours we have, the most important partners, with a jurisprudential system that is very similar to our own—we are actually doing far better in terms of reoffending and we are doing far better in terms of rehabilitation. It is one of the reasons why the South Australian Minister visited me last week and asked what we were doing around rehabilitation and what we were doing around reintegration, because they want to know what we are doing that we are doing well.

So although some members will bash the corrections system, there is actually a lot that is going on in our system that is really good. There is a lot that we are doing with Māori around tikanga Māori in our prisons to get Māori men, particularly, connected with their culture, connected with their whānau, back into society, and doing well again.

There is so much in our system around employment: a goal of every prison in this country is to be a working prison by 2017. Why is that important? It is because we know that jobs reduce dependency on welfare, we know that jobs reduce hardship, and we also know that jobs reduce reoffending rates. Jobs keep people out in our communities; enable them to look after, feed, and house their families, their whānau; and enable them to be better citizens in this country. That is why we are going for a full complement of working prisons across the estate—that is, both within Serco and within the public prisons.

We are also increasing numeracy and literacy in our prisons with programmes. We know that two-thirds of those men, predominantly, who turn up to our prisons cannot read or write. They are functionally illiterate and that is why we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Tertiary Education Commission and we are now running programmes, numeracy and literacy programmes, to get these men back learning, growing, and in jobs.

Finally, I just want to salute the 8,000 men and women in both private and public prisons who are out there every day making this corrections system the best that it can be.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Justice, Vote Attorney-General, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Police, and Vote Serious Fraud be agreed to.

Ayes 62

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

Noes 58

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

Votes agreed to.

Māori, Other Populations and Cultural Sector

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we now come to the votes in the Māori, Other Populations and Cultural Sector—volume B.5, volume 8. The question is that Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples, Vote Sport and Recreation, Vote Statistics, Vote Treaty Negotiations, and Vote Women stand part of the schedules.

NUK KORAKO (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): Kai te Kaiwhakahaere, tēnā koe, ā, huri noa i te Whare e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. The Māori Affairs Committee considered the estimates for Vote Māori Development and for Vote Treaty Negotiations. On Vote Māori Development we heard from the Minister for Māori Development and Te Puni Kōkiri, and we received advice from the Office of the Auditor-General.

I want to briefly cover the key findings of our report. We questioned the Minister and the ministry about Whānau Ora, particularly on the implementation of funding transfers from Te Puni Kōkiri to commissioning agents. The Minister explained the clear lines of accountability that are in place to ensure this money is spent in the way that it is intended. The commissioning agencies have expectations written into their contracts, and these will be monitored and refined in the future.

We discussed also the inclusion of non-Māori in Whānau Ora. We consider this to be important as Whānau Ora represents a Māori approach to dealing with whānau, but it is a programme for all New Zealanders. We questioned the Minister about Māori Television. The Minister assured us of the continuing independence of Māori Television and the rigorous protocols he is putting in place to prevent any appearance of improper influence.

The appropriations for Vote Māori Development have been increased by 12.56 percent for the 2015-16 year, from $221 million to $249 million. As well as the usual operational funding that is needed to keep Te Puni Kōkiri operating and providing policy advice to the Government, there are many great initiatives that Te Puni Kōkiri is leading that will continue to grow Māori capability, support our most vulnerable whānau, and grow the Māori economy. There is $16 million to fund Māori potential through community investment programmes and the rangatiratanga grants as well, and $4 million is going to specific Māori potential programmes such as the Māori Wardens Association and the Māori Women’s Development Fund.

We know that one of the biggest issues for our most vulnerable people is housing, so $7 million is going to provide practical assistance to Māori housing projects and another $7 million is going to Māori housing development. One million dollars will be spent on strengthening and promoting tourism, which is a cause very close to my heart. Over $82 million will be going towards the promotion of the Māori language and culture. That $82 million will fund organisations that are actively promoting Te Reo Māori, such as Te Māngai Pāho, Māori Television, and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. One of those great initiatives organised by Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori happened last week. Of course, I am talking about Māori Language Week.

Moving on to Vote Treaty Negotiations, we heard from the Minister for Treaty Negotiations and from the Office of Treaty Settlements. The great work that this Government is doing in the Treaty negotiations area is very, very well-known. The Minister told us that 85 of the settlements are now completed, and there will be further agreements in principle and deeds of settlement in the next year. The estimates for 2015-16 put aside a multi-year appropriation of $1,400 million to cover the costs of those settlements and put $88 million towards the operational costs of continuing the settlement process.

One thing that we were particularly interested in when the Minister appeared before our committee was the post settlements commitments unit. The Government has made over 7,000 commitments to iwi through Treaty settlements. As we come closer to having settlements signed with all willing and able iwi, the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements will diminish, but the role of the post settlements commitments unit will grow. It is good to hear that the Minister is planning for this transition.

The 2015-16 estimates represent a good balance of funding to grow the Māori economy, support our most vulnerable whānau, and strengthen Te Reo Māori. I wish Te Puni Kōkiri, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the other organisations that will be putting these goals into action all the best for the year ahead, and we look forward to seeing the results that they have achieved when they report to the Māori Affairs Committee next year. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): It gives me great pleasure to speak to Vote Māori Development. The chair of our committee has aptly summarised the report. However, if one was to look in further detail at the issues confronted by the Māori Affairs Committee, and, indeed, throughout the country in relation to the most important factors affecting Māori development, then we would simply hinge this particular discussion around the framework that the Government has used to address Māori development.

In He Kai Kei Aku Ringa—The Crown-Māori Economic Growth Partnership there are six goals. Those goals in part align to what one might expect Te Puni Kōkiri to be doing. However, we question only the significant areas that the vote affected. I raise the issue of He Kai Kei Aku Ringa because goal one of this is probably one of the most fundamental elements of what is going to help propel Māori development, and that is the education of our people, our kids—lifting skills in training. I was somewhat disturbed by the lack of contribution by the Minister for Māori Development, certainly in the estimates debate, about how he saw the contribution of Te Puni Kōkiri going forward in this period towards lifting Māori participation and education, especially in the early childhood area. I raise this also because one of the most topical debates right now is around the reorganisation and restructuring of kōhanga reo, which is a significant contributor to the positive advancement of our children on a Māori-medium language pathway into education. The Minister was absent in terms of his contribution in this space before the select committee.

Secondly, the committee spent some time investigating the issues around Whānau Ora and, more particularly, with regard to the Office of the Auditor-General’s report. Whānau Ora commissioning agencies have had $43 million transferred to them in this vote. The questions of the select committee were quite simple: was the Minister satisfied under phase one that enough had been done to evaluate Whānau Ora as an initiative, in order to make that substantial decision to transfer the funding obligation to these Whānau Ora commissioning agencies?

The Auditor-General’s report helped with the questions at select committee level. We were concerned about a number of areas. Firstly, it is very difficult to define what Whānau Ora is. So if it is difficult to define what it is, how can you evaluate the outcomes? People who are well versed in this particular area will point to a whānau outcomes framework and a shared outcomes model. But the question is quite simple: did Te Puni Kōkiri have confidence that the phase one evaluation gave it sufficient confidence to be able to make the transfer to the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies? When I asked the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri whether it raised any risks with this decision, the chief executive nodded her head and said: “Yes, risks were raised with the Minister.” We will come back to that particular point.

The second point is that in the Office of the Auditor-General’s report one of the insights that the Auditor-General observed—noting that there were innovations in this particular model—was that shifting the funding framework model currently adopted and used by the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Education from individual to collective outcomes was going to be a significant challenge. In fact, Te Puni Kōkiri recognised that as well. It remains an issue for the Government to confront. If the aspirations of Whānau Ora as an initiative are to work towards shared outcomes, whānau-based outcomes, then that would require those other ministries to change their funding framework model. That was highlighted in the report.

The other aspect was the success of the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund (WIIE) plans that were in the phase one stage of the model. Those members who have travelled throughout the country and have visited with various of these Whānau Ora providers will have heard numerous bits of feedback about how successful this particular part of the Whānau Ora initiative has been because it allowed whānau themselves to identify some of the outcomes they were seeking at a very small level. So being able to coordinate services and collaborations around whānau in order to address the issues in the WIIE plans became fertile ground for learning about how to improve service delivery. Interestingly enough, in the phase one evaluation and the transfer to forward funding in these estimates the WIIE initiative was actually not picked up. It was only the navigator component of the Whānau Ora funding.

In so far as that is concerned, here is a question that remains for the Minister to respond to: in respect of those Whānau Ora providers that were successful in phase one but have not been funded in phase two, can the Minister explain why that has occurred and whether he is satisfied that the network of services, especially in rural areas, can be achieved despite the inequity of funding towards navigators in this space? The Minister for Māori Development is, I think, putting his mind to this particular challenge, because he knows, like we know, that the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies have not addressed this issue and that there are significant gaps, especially in rural areas, about how Whānau Ora providers can significantly meet the obligations of their whānau when they are not getting the same flow-through of funding through the navigator fund.

I will come to the issue of Treaty settlements. I agree that the post settlements commitments unit provides ample opportunity to assess the positive implementation of a number of Treaty settlements throughout the country. Notably, just last week the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group announced a high-level memorandum of understanding with Local Government New Zealand, which I think foreshadows just how beneficial some of the mechanisms within Treaty settlements will be at a local government level and that they will have a positive impact in their area. However, can I say is this: it is probably salient at the front end of the discussions, if co-governance and co-management with local government is going to work, that local government is included in some of those particular discussions. Given that we have some hefty issues around water, around representation, around procurement of services at the local government level, and also around the funding for utilities infrastructure, if there were a front-end participation role for Local Government New Zealand in that space, then co-investment strategies with iwi could be a really new opportunity to help support regional development.

I know that the Minister is aware of all these issues. I am looking forward to the Māori Affairs Committee monitoring further the role of the post settlements commitments unit to ensure that an even-handed application of the mechanisms within Treaty settlements, in so far as local government is concerned, can happen in the way that it is intended to.

The last part of my contribution is in the space of housing. There was some $7 million appropriated to the Māori housing development initiative and $4 million to the rural and Māori housing component of the role that Te Puni Kōkiri currently undertakes. It seems to me that at a local government level there is still an uneven response to the way in which papakāinga development can continue. Also, the whole resource consenting and planning process can make better provision for this. I know this because I submitted to the Hauraki District Council on its papakāinga development plan, as well as on the Waikato District Council development plan. There are exemplars throughout the country, but it is not even-handed. Here is a really easy space for the Minister for Māori Development to send a signal to councils that best practice is actually the real opportunity if we want to ensure that Māori can build on their own lands to be able to provide housing at a low cost, and to be able to meet some of the real challenges of homeownership amongst the Māori population. Again, the Minister was silent on that.

My last point: both Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform and Te Reo Māori bills have been an absolute shambles. The Minister has had to delay and defer the report back of the bill for Te Ture Whenua Māori because he knows that it does not meet the needs of those Māori landowners to be able to move their land into a productive space. My colleague Meka Whaitiri is championing that particular issue for our team. In the Te Reo Māori space, the poor old Minister is having to do a bit of backwash to save face for the previous Minister, who made an absolute kibosh of the issue. He introduced the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill into the House at the eleventh hour, and with, I think, very little robust consideration around the proposals there. We have had to revamp that. It is going back to Cabinet for further consideration. Poor old Minister Flavell has made a wee mess of it—

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to take a call on Vote Treaty Negotiations and thank the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, for her helpful comments on the post settlements commitments unit. She raised some very interesting issues. I agree with her that early engagement, particularly with local government, provides opportunities and also enables issues to be clarified at an early stage, and that is exactly what I want to do on the harbours negotiations that are coming up. I also want to pay tribute to the Office of Treaty Settlements for its excellent work over the past 12 months. It is a very dedicated bunch of people, and I am very proud to work with them. Some of them also act as Treaty negotiators. So, for example, the deeds of settlement for Ngāti Hauā and Heretaunga Tamatea were negotiated in-house, and that is my plan with Ngāpuhi as well.

But I do want to say something about the money expended on external Treaty negotiators because of what I think was a vulgar, crude, and intemperate attack on them by the Rt Hon Mr Peters earlier in the day, when he said that the fees were colossal and, somewhat bizarrely, said that I was giving jobs to my mates. I am very fond of both Paul Swain and Rick Barker, but I do not know that they would want to be called my mates. Unlike that honourable member, I do have great respect for them.

I asked Mr Swain some years ago whether he would like to work with me on the Ngati Porou matter, and he did such a very good job that I asked him whether he would work on some others. So in recent times Paul Swain has negotiated the Taranaki settlement, which will, hopefully, be signed in September; Mana Ahuriri; Ngāti Hineuru, which we are going to debate for the first time tomorrow; and Maungaharuru-Tangitū. Mr Swain is an excellent negotiator and, if anything, I do not think he charges enough. I have huge respect for him.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: We’ll tell him that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, you tell him, but do not tell him too loudly. The second person that Mr Peters insulted was Mr Barker. I approached him after he left Parliament in 2011 and asked whether he would like to do a few negotiations for me, and he is doing a great job—for example, Te Ātiawa, and Ngāruahine, which we are debating for the first time tomorrow. So I am very happy to say that these external negotiators are very good value for money, are providing excellent service, and are achieving results.

I say to New Zealand First members that their tendency to personalise things and attack the individual, as they have done with my Treaty negotiators, is something I resent and something I think is quite simply disgusting. As I said this afternoon to a journalist, Mr Peters is nothing more than the Donald Trump of New Zealand politics, who wants nothing more than a cheap headline. These people are good people, and I am very proud of the work they are doing, regardless of party and regardless of background.

Another person that the right honourable member attacked this afternoon was John Wood. John Wood, who is the chancellor of Canterbury University and has been doing an excellent job there, was twice our ambassador in Washington and is an outstanding public servant who has negotiated two extremely difficult Treaty negotiations and done phenomenally well. I refer to his negotiation with Tūhoe and his landmark negotiation in respect of the Whanganui River.

These are the sorts of people I have had working with me over the years, regardless of party and regardless of background. They are dedicated to achieving just and durable settlements for the benefit of New Zealand, and if the New Zealand First speaker Pita Paraone—who obviously wants to stand up next for his penny’s worth—has any decency, he will apologise to those people because his leader’s statements were unfair and were simply disgusting.

The final point I want to make is in relation to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform, because I do think that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was a little unfair on that issue. This is the first comprehensive rewrite of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act for well over a generation. The 1993 Act was never really fit for purpose, and so what we are seeking to do is take a fresh look at it. There has been an exposure draft put out to enable proper discussion. There are lots of issues, and we make no apologies for the fact that there is a lot of work to be done there, polishing the jewel so that everyone benefits from the reform.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Tēnā koe. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member—you can go for dinner. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Tēnā koe te Whare. Kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa. Members, before the dinner break we were debating Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples, Vote Sport and Recreation, Vote Statistics, Vote Treaty Negotiations, and Vote Women, and matua Pita Paraone had the call. All but 4 seconds of it was cast in the pre-dinner break, but he has 4 minutes and 56 seconds remaining should he wish to avail himself of the opportunity.

PITA PARAONE: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I ask for the 4 seconds to be added on to my—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No. I am sorry there is no discount.

PITA PARAONE: —lot because I had difficulty understanding from your predecessor his pronunciation of my name and I took time to correct him.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, I hope that you have not had that problem with me. You have 4 minutes and 56 seconds remaining.

PITA PARAONE: Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Reluctantly I will have to accept that. Before the dinner break, the speaker before me, Chris Finlayson, had a bit of a hissy fit at the comments that my leader had made. Quite clearly he took them out of context, because reverting to diversions and straw men in some vain attempt to avert attention from cross-expenditure items to individual Treaty settlement negotiations simply will not do. What Mr Peters was referring to—and he did not name any names other than to say that two of the negotiators had received in excess of $1 million during the period of their tenure as negotiators. That was the only comment that he made. If people want to know the details of what each negotiator got, I am quite prepared to table that, but that is public knowledge so I do not need to do that.

I want to focus particularly on the area of Whānau Ora. That was some discussion during the review of the Māori affairs portfolio. Right from the outset New Zealand First has had some doubts about the programme and how that fund has been used. I want to say that in the 2015-16 Budget $50 million was added to the Whānau Ora programme. The question that I am asking this Committee, and perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paula Bennett, may be able to give me some answer, is that in terms of receiving that $50 million for this programme, no evidence and no application was actually made for the funds. If I was an operator in another ministry, I would certainly be asking: “Why is it that if I want extra money for my ministry, I have to put up a case for it, and, yet, for Māori development they get that extra money without any evidence as to justifying the need for that extra money?”.

The other thing that came out during the review, when asked of the officials what the major task was in order for Whānau Ora to progress onwards, was the answer that they needed to inform the public as to what Whānau Ora was all about. We found that quite surprising, given that this programme has been around for some time, and here we have officials having to tell us that the public are not quite sure of what Whānau Ora is all about. I just want to have it on record that this is, I think, pandering to the wishes of a particular political party, rather than looking at the issues and whether or not Whānau Ora is a programme that justifies extra funding without a proper case being put to have that extra money.

I also want to say that in advancing Whānau Ora, I note that the Ministry of Health has put together some comparisons in terms of some of the programmes that the health ministry is responsible for. I need to say that Whānau Ora providers compare very well with general providers, so in some respects that is a good point for Whānau Ora to carry on. But, at the end of the day, what our concern is from New Zealand First is whether or not the funding that has been allocated to that programme is properly administered. As we in this Committee all know, if funds are not properly administered, then the whole programme falters. We certainly do not want to see that under our watch.

In terms of the Treaty settlements, I just want to make the comment that although a number of settlements have been made—

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government): I stand to speak to these votes, which are wide ranging at the moment on internal affairs, Māori development, Pacific peoples, sports and recreation, statistics, Treaty negotiations, women, and arts, culture and heritage. I do stand up, though, right now and just say that one sees the changes we have made in Vote Māori Affairs, turning it into Vote Māori Development, and the actual progress that is being made in regional development with the Business Growth Agenda and having the Minister of Māori Development working alongside that.

I actually stand and take umbrage with the last speech, where someone said that there is no evidence to support funding for Whānau Ora. Well, how about the evidence of Māori being disproportionately in our jails? How about the evidence of Māori disproportionately doing poorly in our education systems? How about our health sector, where they have more health needs that are not identified? How about our education sector, where Māori are not doing as well? If one stood up and wanted evidence, I would simply say that what has been done in the past is simply not good enough for that population and what their needs are.

We do have to be brave and work differently with Māori, and alongside them, with them being stewards of what is best as far as their social and economic development goes. So as part of this National-led Government I do stand beside our coalition partners, with the Māori Party and with the Minister of Māori Development, and see that, actually, Whānau Ora is working. As always with a new initiative, if you like, that is out there in the communities and working differently, and it needs to be worked alongside to see the level of support and expertise.

But even today—if we are being negative—I read in the paper that the nurses who are working in Whānau Ora are being paid less than those who are in other areas. Quite frankly, that is where we say that they are not sitting there wasting money; they are actually in their communities and in those homes working alongside people to help them reach their aspirations and their goals. Unlike other members, I get alongside those people in their communities and get alongside those Whānau Ora navigators. I hear the challenges that they have and I certainly hear how hard the work is, and we acknowledge that. So we will be putting more money in, and quite proudly, to stand across those who are disadvantaged and more vulnerable and who actually need more support, and in a different way than has been done in the past.

I also want to touch on Vote Women and, certainly, where that is at and what we are doing. We should be incredibly proud in this country that 64 percent of our university graduates are women—are female. When we actually look at the statistics of how they are going, how they are in education, and how the education system is delivering for them, we can see the difference. I want to stand here and acknowledge the significant reduction in the number of women on benefits. Sole parents who are on benefit have gone down by literally tens of thousands. That is women and their children actually being independent and having a better go at life than they would have had on the lifetime of welfare that they have led in the past.

I want to acknowledge the huge reduction in the number of teen pregnancies. I say “teen pregnancies” on purpose, because it is not just births to teens; we have also seen a mass reduction in the abortion rate in this country as well. So unwanted pregnancies to our teens have dropped by over 40 percent in the last few years, and that is giving those girls opportunities. Hey, I am the biggest proponent of babies and more of them, and a teen mum can be incredibly successful in life, but equally we want them to have opportunities. There is plenty of evidence that says the best opportunity that you can give to a young woman is for her to be educated and for her to be in a stable home, in a warm environment, and to have some work experience behind her before she starts a family. So I am backing them in that. So I want them to have babies, and I want them to have fantastic families and be full of aspiration, but if we can actually back them to be planning that so that suits them and their home, then that is certainly something that I stand proudly by.

You can see the significance of the difference that that will make for them in their lives while they are still teens, but, more important, for when they do go on to be mums in the families that they raise. I do not think we acknowledge that enough, in this country—the kind of family planning that is now going on, the differences it has made in our health system for those girls. But, more significantly, I think the educational achievements that they are able to get to—

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I am pleased to speak in this estimates debate. I would like to stick with the Māori development sector, which is spearheaded by Te Puni Kōkiri. Te Puni Kōkiri, as we know, means in Māori “a group of people moving forward”. If you could think of Te Matatini—think of our kapa haka teams—and the precision and the power with which they move, that is really what we should envisage from Te Puni Kōkiri.

Alas, it is very much not that. Te Puni Kōkiri in 2015 is in a shambles. It is in disarray because there is a lack of leadership from the Minister over his ministry. It is evidenced because we had the chief executive and her senior team come to the Māori Affairs Committee earlier in the year. There has been a never-ending restructure happening within Te Puni Kōkiri during the current chief executive officer’s tenure. When we asked the question as to when this restructuring will be completed and when it will have its executive team in place, the chief executive said: “Oh, by the end of this year.” By the end of this year, to get an executive team in place? Prior to that, the restructuring had taken 2 years already.

What we have is really inept leadership. It goes further than that, because we know, we understand, that there is a breakdown in the relationship between this Minister and the chief executive. It is widely known around town that there is a dysfunctional relationship there, so much so that this Minister is now going directly to staff and interfering. He has gone rogue in terms of trying to get his projects done.

We have very real concerns about Te Puni Kōkiri. There is no great group moving forward. This is a shambles. It is evidenced by asking what the Minister has actually produced. We have rising unemployment in this country. We have plummeting dairy prices. There is a great deal of concern out there. Families are on the cusp of poverty. This is a very real concern. So what has this Minister and his ministry come up with? Well, the first piece of legislation that we have waited for, which has come through to this House, is a Māori Purposes Bill that updates a private whānau trust in the Gisborne area from last century. It updates it for the 1993 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which is going to be amended next year. That is the priority that this Minister has set in terms of his legislative programme. That is absolutely appalling.

We have also seen the debacle around the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill. Mr Chair, I will not bring you into this debate, but members of our select committee are well aware that we have been very charitable, I would say, to this Minister. We know that there were deep problems with the bill that was sent to us at the Māori Affairs Committee. We have been very accommodating of this Minister, to give him every opportunity to try to resurrect the bill and address some of the deep flaws that are contained therein. We are not through the woods yet. It rests on our select committee to complete the job, and hopefully we can get there and come up with a workable piece of legislation. But as it stands, again it is a failure by this Minister and a lack of leadership. He should just have scrapped it and started again, right from the start, which is what all of Māoridom was talking about and telling him to do.

Can I go on to Whānau Ora. The Minister who just resumed her seat, the Hon Paula Bennett, said that Whānau Ora is working. Well, I would hope that Whānau Ora is working, because in the first 4 years of Whānau Ora there was $137.6 million spent on it, a third of which, over $40 million, was spent on administration and research and evaluation—$40 million. So I would really hope that Whānau Ora is working, because that is an incredible amount of money, which the Auditor-General actually pointed out should have been going directly to whānau in need, which is what the kaupapa of Whānau Ora is all about.

I could go on to Treaty settlements. I am looking forward to progressing the first readings of some settlement legislation that is coming through the House tomorrow. That is a positive piece of work that we are doing as a select committee. We are not all negative. We do actually work cohesively together to progress that very important work. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I will start by just saying that I agree with the Minister on two issues—one is that Whānau Ora is working, and we know that from all of the stories. Even the Auditor-General set out some really clear stories of how the approach, which is long term, wraparound and about the whānau as a whole, is making appreciable, major differences to how whānau are operating and to their wellness. There are issues with other parts of Whānau Ora—the evaluation, how the money is being spent, and the administration—but the concept itself is working. The worst thing that we can do is attack it, such that we lose the advantage of the great outcomes from this rethinking about how we deal with whānau as a whole.

Also, I would agree with Minister Paula Bennett about education being such an important part of a young woman’s way out of poverty. I would urge her to reconsider then the benefit that both she and I received as young women on our own with small babies, from what was then a very full training incentive allowance grant, which allowed us to have more resources to pursue our educational dreams. In my case, it was law school. Under the current situation with the training incentive allowance, women are simply not in the same position that I was in 20 years ago to be able to access that level of education because resources are so tight. I am absolutely, 100 percent supportive of investing in the education of young women in order to improve their life outcomes. I wish that we could do more. I think that we could do more if it were a genuine priority.

What I want to address tonight, in just a few minutes, is Vote Māori Development, particularly with regard to housing. The Māori Affairs Committee asked about housing when the Minister came before it, because we know that housing is such a major issue for Māori, and the Minister agreed with that. The Minister agreed that Te Puni Kōkiri was preparing to take on more responsibility in leading housing initiatives for Māori. He assured us that the ministry would be making all possible efforts because housing is so closely tied to poverty. I agree with this. We need to make sure that we have secure housing, both rental housing and also homeownership for Māori, and that that is a core way of making sure that whānau are secure and healthy in their own homes, so that they can then pursue their dreams for themselves and their kids. But we have to be aware of the facts. We now have the lowest Māori homeownership rate in this country in decades—decades and decades—because of an erosion of support, with a particular focus on the needs of Māori whānau when it comes to housing. According to the 2013 census, only 28 percent of Māori own a home now. That is half of the Pākehā rate—the Pākehā rate is around 57 percent. It is at the lowest end. It should not be getting any worse, but, in fact, it is eroding over time. The number of Māori in homeownership is declining.

When we asked the Minister about homeownership, he also recognised these critical issues. He said there was more money for Te Puni Kōkiri to help whānau towards homeownership, but there were no firm plans by Te Puni Kōkiri for any house-purchasing initiatives, it says here in the report. But, in fact, there are some significant programmes, and I just want to mention two of them, which are the Kāinga Whenua programme for infrastructure grants, and also the individual loans that are available. The Kāinga Whenua programme has enormous potential. It enables whānau to build homes on, or to move homes to, collectively owned Māori land. So it is a way of our using land that we may not be able to put into productive use for housing in rural areas, where it is so essentially needed—and good quality, properly insulated housing; housing that has good heating and that is safe for whānau to live in. We need more of that, but at this time of highest need, we are seeing these funds—these programmes—just not being promoted in such a way that whānau are accessing them.

In the years between July 2011 and August 2014 there were only 10 individual Kāinga Whenua loans—10 in those 4 years. There was only one in the previous year. Only three of those 10 have been this year—three individual loans to whānau looking to build on Māori land. It is not enough. There have been Māori organisations getting involved with the social housing fund and with the Kāinga Whenua infrastructure grants, but they are still too few.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I am very privileged to stand up on behalf of New Zealand First for our estimates debate on the Māori, other populations, and cultural sector. I am going to talk specifically about the internal affairs section.

Before I get started I just want to bring everyone’s attention back to just before we went on our dinner break. There are a number of fine men and women in this Chamber, and one whom I consider to be one of those fine gentlemen is Chris Finlayson. So I was as perplexed as many other people in the Chamber when he was completely off-base and off-tangent in some of his remarks when he was referring to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. It got me thinking that perhaps the problem was that he was just a little bit “hangry”—a little bit hungry and angry prior to dinner—and so I have brought him along a Snickers bar, which we could perhaps put in a little wee glass box out the back and break it in case of emergency, so that next time he gets angry in the Chamber he can go out the back and relax himself. I hope he returns well rested and ready to fight.

Specifically, what I would like to talk about this evening is the Fire Service. Yet again we see another review in the Fire Service. This is the 17th review in the Fire Service in the last 21 years—17; this is the 17th review. It begs the question: what is going on? When I trawl through the Budget that was released this year there is not a single, solitary cent, not a dollar, being put forward for our Fire Service, and yet the Government is sitting down and spending more money, yet again, to review the system. It is not fit for purpose, it does not work, and there is no funding allocated to allow this very crucial organisation, which supplies so much for our communities, to move forward.

Let me just go through some of these statistics. We have got 17,000 career firefighters around New Zealand currently. We have got 8,300 urban volunteers giving up their time, risking their lives, in helping out in those communities, and another 3,500 rural volunteers. At the moment we have an absolute state of disrepair in a number of the buildings that are actually housing our Fire Service equipment. We have got 79 career stations, 360 volunteer stations, and 187 rural fire forces, and the buildings they are operating out of are barely fit for service. I mean, we are seriously putting our Fire Service people in some perilous situations if this Government does not come up with a better funding model.

Let us talk about that funding model, because what we are currently hearing from the Minister of Internal Affairs—the “Minister of Reviews” is what we should be retitling him—is an idea that we are going to put search and rescue and the urban search and rescue into the Fire Service. Well, that does make sense. Accolades are to be given where credit is due, and credit is due there. However, the silos in which this Government places all of our emergency service providers are not fit for purpose. We have got the likes of Surf Life Saving New Zealand providing safety, education, and saving lives, and which is also doing the job of search and rescue, and working hard and volunteering its time, efforts, and energies on the beaches around New Zealand—77 surf clubs around the country. Then, of course, you have got Coastguard, which does another fantastic job of rescuing people at sea—search and rescue, looking for them—and yet there is very little correlation, or an organisation that can be put under a single heading that enables it to be funded as a whole and to be taken seriously as an emergency service provider.

When we look at whether it is a fit for purpose issue and what the Fire Service actually provides with its urban search and rescue and with its search and rescue around the country—it puts out fires. Who do we call when the rain comes down and the floods come in, Mr Muller? That is right—your local fire brigade. The number of times it has been out there on the streets, pumping water, clearing out people’s houses—when your cat gets stuck in a tree, who do you call? The local fire brigade, Mr Muller—that is correct.

And, of course, as we go on, the Fire Service is the first port of call when we have an issue relating to emergency service providers. Who do we call when there is a car accident? Who comes along and issues and administers first aid? It is the Fire Service. Yet we have got these silo situations where the Government is putting these organisations into various blocs and underfunding them and there is complete and utter under-investment within this service.

Let me just bring your attention—I am speaking quite quickly because 5 minutes goes so fast when you are in the Chamber—to an Official Information Act request. It was the Minister’s briefing, so it was officially released. It says: “There is an under-investment in rural fire reduction and readiness, and the changing service scope is making it difficult for the commission to adapt to new demands.” We need to be fit for purpose; we need to be up and ready for the 21st century. I doubt that this review is actually going to do much with regard to what the Government is going to do to put funding into this absolutely vital—

JOANNE HAYES (National): I am pleased to stand to take this 5-minute call on the Māori development area of this theme. But before I do that I just want to make a few comments about a previous speaker. It does sadden me, and kind of makes me really angry, that people can stand in this Chamber on the Opposition benches and have a go at our outstanding Minister for Māori Development. The great work that he has been doing—

Sue Moroney: It’s called accountability.

JOANNE HAYES: —listen, listen—he has taken on the challenges, and he is coping very well with the work that he is doing.

I want to support Te Puni Kōkiri and the restructure there. This is a senior executive manager who knows what she is doing. She is doing a marvellous job there, and I do take umbrage at the fact that people can stand in this Chamber and have a crack at her after the good work that she is doing. The work that she does is not easy—it is not easy when you are restructuring a ministry as complex as Te Puni Kōkiri—but I believe that the work that she is doing is going to be of great value to Te Puni Kōkiri in the future.

My next kōrero is about Whānau Ora. I worked in Whānau Ora and I helped in its development on the ground—on the ground. I have seen the whānau, I have talked with the whānau, and I have interviewed the whānau that Whānau Ora has helped. When Whānau Ora first came about, yes, it was a new concept, but many Opposition members thought it should just start off like it had been going for many, many years. It takes time for good things to mature, and Whānau Ora is one of those programmes that will take time. It is developing the goods. You just need to talk to some of the whānau whom it has helped over the 4 to 5 years that it has been operating.

We talked a little bit, I also heard, in the Committee about homeownership and Māori homeownership. The Minister for Māori Development has done the most amazing thing, which has never been done by any Government before but which has been done in coalition with the National Government, and that is being able to build houses on Māori land. In the past that was never able to be done. They are able to actually access loans to do that. I am very proud of what he has done.

When we start to look at other areas within the Māori development portfolio under Vote Māori Development, we can look at Healthy Families New Zealand. This is a project that Jonathan Coleman launched in the East Cape just recently, in April. It is the Healthy Families East Cape project, which belongs to the lead provider Te Whare Hauora o Te Aitanga a Hauiti. They established—hello—a Whānau Ora collective called the Horouta Whanaunga Collective, a collective that comprises 17 providers and nine iwi groups. It is a collective that has come together to address health issues at a local level. At the end of the day, where we are the most effective is with helping our own, working with our own, and coming up with the decisions and the outcomes at a local level.

So when I look at Māori health, I see that over 50 percent of Māori are now enrolled in these low-cost, accessible primary health organisations. I was there at the start of all of that time when primary health organisations were being developed, and at one stage we thought that Māori were going to miss out on that. But low-cost Māori primary health organisations came about, and so we have 350,000 Māori enrolled in them, paying up to $18 for a GP visit, which is great for Māori whānau, as is the new announcement on 1 July of free GP visits for under-13s. That has never been done in the history of this Parliament, and it was the National-led Government that pulled all of that together.

Education, as I have said many times, is freedom. It is freedom to make choices, and the tertiary education area for trades academies is one area that Māori have shone in. I want to talk just a little bit about the Ngāi Tahu He Toki ki te Rika. That is pre-trades training that was developed post-earthquake in 2011, and it has over 800 students enrolled in it. Just recently, in April, the Prime Minister was hosted by Ngāi Tahu, where he launched He Toki ki te Mahi Apprenticeship Training Trust programme, and that has 10 to 15 apprentice carpenters. This is great news for Māori. It is great news for iwi because of the steps, the benchmark, and the power that iwi can have within the tertiary sector.

I am very proud to stand here and speak on Vote Māori Development. I am a Māori; I support all Māori things—it does not matter what colour the politics are. I support Māori achieving, and everybody in this Chamber should be looking at that and at every which way we can help. Kia ora.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise and take this call in this debate with such wide-ranging topics. As we have heard, they include Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples, Vote Sport and Recreation, and Vote Women. I think it is really important, and it is a pleasure to say, as the lead National member for the Government Administration Committee—as I acknowledge Nuk Korako, the lead National member for the Māori Affairs Committee—that these disciplines require attention. They do encompass a richness that is New Zealand, and it is wonderful to rise and speak about it.

I am actually going to focus on sport and recreation, and change tack here. I will talk about some of the wonderful things that sport and recreation does. Of course, sport is in our blood as New Zealanders, and we usually use sport to signal our prowess on the world stage, but it is more than that. Sport and being active means having a healthy lifestyle, and it is through Sport New Zealand that $7 million is taken from Vote Health and put into Kiwisport, which is a fantastic programme. It recognises the importance of getting children involved in sports. It designs games for little people. It educates them about the needs of health, and sport as part of that. Obviously, sport helps them with their cooperation and teamwork, builds their self-esteem, and adds to an all-round healthy lifestyle. So I want to acknowledge that that is a great programme that Sport New Zealand is involved in, and certainly it adds to the healthy lifestyle that we need in New Zealand to tackle some of those problems that we see in our community.

I had the pleasure on 7 July of actually stepping in for the Hon Dr Coleman and launching the Healthy Families New Zealand initiative in Invercargill. That is an initiative that is based on the Victorian model that has seen significant improvements in health and it creates a platform for getting people involved in an active lifestyle. Invercargill was one of the 10 communities that were selected. It was selected on a range of different factors, but mainly because, unfortunately, in Invercargill there is a prevalence of some diseases that can be prevented through having a healthy lifestyle.

Hon Member: It’s cold.

SARAH DOWIE: It is not just cold, but sport plays a really big part in Invercargill. So it is important to get that initiative going and to start auditing the community and looking at the wins that we can create by getting people involved in sport and understanding the drivers of what creates a healthy lifestyle, along with eating plans and just getting people active.

That involves stakeholders coming together, all within the health field, and they audit, basically, the community and look at the different health organisations that are out there. The sporting organisations come together and they look at what they are doing already so that they can look for easy wins to educate those people who are at risk of different diseases that can be prevented, like diabetes. They come together and look at establishing programmes.

One of those programmes is through Volleyball Southland. It was my pleasure to meet some of the people who play volleyball through Sport Southland. It has community teams, school teams, ethnic teams, and teams through the Southern Institute of Technology. Again, it is a great way to meet people, to engage in your community, to make friends, and to build self-esteem, but, obviously, it is also about getting active and learning about being healthy. So through that initiative, we are encouraging families to live healthy lives, and obviously Sport New Zealand is part of that.

I want to touch on Vote Women, and one of the wonderful initiatives that is the brainchild of the Hon Louise Upston. That is the research into family violence and violence against Māori women. I had the pleasure of going—

Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Māori Development, Vote Pacific Peoples, Vote Sport and Recreation, Vote Statistics, Vote Treaty Negotiations, and Vote Women agreed to.

Primary Sector

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members, we come now to the votes in the primary sector—volume B.5, volume 9. The question is that Vote Lands and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety stand part of the schedules.

IAN McKELVIE (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): What an interesting time to chair the Primary Production Committee and to lead the discussion in this estimates debate. The committee considered the estimates for Vote Lands and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety, and, of course, those are the areas of Ministers Guy, Goodhew, and Upston. I think we need to look back a little to look forward at this time. Looking back at the ministries that merged to create the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the Ministry for Primary Industries as it has moved through that process in the last few years, there have been some very testing times faced, but there have been a couple of factors that I think have emphasised the value of that merger. The fruit fly outbreak in Auckland earlier in the year has been very successfully combatted by an extremely strong team. The 1080 contamination threat was also, in my view, very well handled in a very difficult environment by a very strong and capable ministry performing cohesively.

The recent Budget provided some $179 million for border control and domestic biosecurity risk matters, and $24.9 million more has been allocated to border security in increased dog and X-ray - based facilities. I myself witnessed this in action last Wednesday on returning through Auckland Airport with the New Zealand Special Olympics team from the Special Olympics World Summer Games, and a very successful team it was, too. But it was really quite impressive to watch the performance of the—[Interruption] thank you—biosecurity team at Auckland Airport and, in fact, the things that I suppose you could call hounds, really, and I guess that if you are a member of the hunting fraternity, they most certainly were hounds. But they were very impressive and I think the system is working really well.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill passed through this Parliament some 3 or 4 months ago, and more money has been provided for this critical leg of our productive sector. The money will ensure that the very high standards we have in this area are maintained and improved, which is a really important factor for New Zealand agriculture.

Food safety is the second critical leg of our No. 1 industry, and some $103 million will be spent on ensuring that this most important area remains secure. It is quite a challenging area for us, and, of course, when you think of our place in the world food industry, and our place in food supplies generally, it is absolutely critical that this sector of our economy is maintained and maintained very strongly.

The Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, has faced some challenges in this role—some pretty significant challenges: the whey protein concentrate scare; the 1080 threat, which Minister Goodhew, of course, was very strongly a part of as well; and the fruit fly incursion, and the way they have handled those just shows the strength of our biosecurity system. The Rangitīkei, Wanganui, and South Taranaki flood event just recently is going to make a significant dent and cause some significant impact on our economy—our local economy in my electorate, particularly, and, of course, in Mr Chairperson Borrows’ electorate as well.

The downturn in dairy prices is certainly a testing issue for us, but not one that we in agriculture find unusual. We have gone through these things many times in my lifetime in farming, and we will go through many more of them. It is just the cycle we go through in agriculture and food supply, and I think it will always happen. It is very difficult to protect us from it. We have never achieved that in 150 years of farming in this country, and I do not suppose we will in the future.

Has not Fonterra, which is so often criticised in this House, done such a great job in the last few days of supporting its cooperative members, with its 50c announcement last week pointing very strongly to the value of a strong cooperative? It is something the kiwifruit industry is benefiting from right at this minute, and something that the Meat Industry Excellence group would dearly love the meat industry to achieve as well. It really does point to the strength of having a cooperative in a very small economy. I think it is most important that we have this kind of strength and that those cooperatives and the companies that operate in New Zealand have the confidence in the Ministry for Primary Industries—and in the various ministries, I guess—to ensure that our industry stays in the prime position it is in.

I want to touch on building capacity through investment in the Primary Growth Partnership and people, and three aspects of that in particular. I want to talk about the Precision Seafood Harvesting Primary Growth Partnership project, which is really, when you think about the potential it has got, going to achieve some hugely exciting opportunities for New Zealand and for the New Zealand fishing industry. If it can achieve what it certainly looks as though it will achieve, we are going to see our fishing industry restocked.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): If ever there is an area of Government responsibility where there is failure, it has got to be in the primary industries. The farmers’ friend—that is the National Party, the farmers’ friend.

Well, well, well, let us have a look at what we have got facing the agricultural sectors at the moment. My colleague Stuart Nash will talk about forestry, but I will just focus on a few things. I welcomed the speech from the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, because he has pointed out fruit fly and 1080 contamination, a $100 million tax on travellers to pay for biosecurity, WPC80, and failure after failure to carry out what the farmers would consider friendly policies.

We have a superministry that is responsible for so much it is failing in almost every single area of its responsibility. The dairy industry is a classic example of an outcome of a Government that has failed to lead as it should have. The Government facilitated the capital restructure of Fonterra because John Key wanted his mates in the stock exchange to have a few units to play around with. What that has done is left the company distracted, to the point where it has had its eye off the ball.

The National Government and its friends have been happy to trade in Fonterra units, and the company is now floundering around. Yes, there is an international challenge, but ask Tātua what it is doing and ask the suppliers of Fonterra in Australia what is happening with payment for their milk. They are being paid considerably more than poor old Fonterra and Westland Cooperative Dairy—dare I say it, as well—as suppliers.

I have to say that the Government has made lots of noise, but it has not done much. The Primary Growth Partnership, referred to by the previous speaker, has been a failure. The Office of the Auditor-General investigated six of the schemes and found no real economic benefit, and many of those schemes were over halfway through their completion—no real economic benefit. It said that it could not identify “additionality”, which was its polite word for saying: “This should have been business as usual, and the Government spent money, and we haven’t really seen any additional benefit.”

Biosecurity is the Minister’s No. 1 priority, and in the first year of the National Government it slashed funding and it has been playing catch up ever since. This year’s proposal is a tax of $100 million on New Zealanders and foreigners flying in and out of this country to pay for biosecurity because the Government does not want to commit real money to it.

Today we had some indication—but not a promise—that there will be 100 percent baggage screening, or a trial of it. We in Labour implemented 100 percent baggage screening, and we had no fruit fly incursions. The Government removed it, and we have had four incursions, with potentially huge and damaging results for our economy. If it was the Asian fruit fly, not the Queensland one, we would be in a desperate situation.

There has been no leadership in the meat sector. We have at the moment a temporary beneficial situation for the beef industry. The lamb and sheep industries are still floundering around. Meat Industry Excellence and the farmers themselves are asking for leadership from the Minister, and it is nowhere to be seen. Although the previous speaker talked of the cooperatives—and I support them too—the Alliance Group and Silver Fern Farms have not been serving the meat industry and all the players as they should have been, and indeed their suppliers have not been served that well, as well. They want leadership, they want vision, and they want a clear direction that will provide a better alternative than in the dairy industry, which, at the moment, is floundering around. Although people may say it is not a crisis, go and ask a farmer who is facing the banks and negotiating their way to a future.

It is a tough situation brought about by a Government that is laissez-faire and is prepared to accept market signals. The member at the back there, Todd Muller, the ex-Zespri employee, was nodding his head about the wonderful management from Government. Zespri is there because of the Labour Government and its legislation, discipline, and leadership, which we were prepared to show in Government, but this Government has not been prepared to show that.

The farmers out there want better leadership, they want some direction, and they want a vision. They have failed to get any from this Government from the expenditure that they have seen through the primary industry sector.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Well, there we heard a very interesting speech from Damien O’Connor. What we did not hear when he was talking about the border levy was that when he was the Minister of Tourism he proposed the exact same thing. He is nodding now. Did you see him nodding? He just said, for the Hansard record, that he did. So he did propose a border levy when he was the Minister of Tourism in the Labour Government. Now he stands up and says it is terrible that the National Government is indeed implementing, in part, what he was proposing. So he has forgotten what he was proposing in several speeches when, indeed, he was the Minister of Tourism.

I was so disappointed that that member would not support the border levy when we proposed it on the back of the Budget. In fact, we did not hear a squeak from that member. He could not get on a plane to the West Coast quickly enough and he hoped that no one would discover the fact that he proposed a border levy in the dying days of the Labour Government, and now he has forgotten. Looking at his face over there, we know that he proposed it—and look at that grin. It tells you a thousand words.

We should indeed be supporting the primary sector. We support the primary sector on this side of the Chamber. We celebrate the success of an industry and a sector that generates around $4 million an hour in terms of export earnings for this country. I am the first one to acknowledge it is tough times for the dairy industry right now. It is very tough times, but I will also acknowledge that the medium to long term outlook for the dairy industry is extremely bright, and our farmers know that. Our farmers know that this is a period of short-term volatility.

The doomsayers on that side of the Chamber just want to talk it down. Yet again we hear Andrew Little and Damien O’Connor and others saying: “It’s a crisis! It’s a crisis!”. Well, we had the manufacturing crisis the day that all the parties, pretty much, on the other side of the House proposed that. Actually, manufacturing has started to grow and has never looked back. So the dairy sector will get through this.

Of course, what is not acknowledged—and I was talking about it earlier in the House today—is that our red meat sector, particularly beef, is going incredibly well. That is also happening with our viticulture and our kiwifruit. Kiwifruit has, from memory, got up to $1.42 billion in export earnings. Zespri has blown through the high level of $1 billion and is almost back above pre-Psa returns, which is fantastic. Also, our forestry sector is starting to grow and is waiting for new opportunities in the US. I know that Minister Goodhew will make some comments about that.

What we also should not forget, importantly, is the future of seafood. It is great to see in the outlook for primary industries that seafood is forecast to grow to $1.8 billion by 2019 on the back of aquaculture growth. Not a lot happened in aquaculture when Labour was in Government. There is a lot of potential under this Government for aquaculture to grow and prosper, more so than under the Labour Government. So this Government has a focus on supporting our exporters through the tough times, and, actually, a big part of the primary sector is growing incredibly well.

The No. 1 priority for me is biosecurity. That is why we invested $27 million in this year’s Budget. We made an announcement just last week that there will be 20 more detector dog teams, more X-ray machines, more people on the front line, more auditing of in-country audits and import health standards, etc. There will be a real focus on biosecurity because you cannot grow exports unless you focus on the “protect” part, which is biosecurity—and food safety, where Minister Goodhew is doing an outstanding job.

Also, trade is hugely important—new market access opportunities—and that is why we are very optimistic about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is going to be interesting when those negotiations land, just to see where political parties across the House actually fall. Who will actually support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? It will be very interesting to see whether Mr Little can support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I imagine that Labour’s caucus is split. I imagine its caucus is split down the middle. You will have Sue Moroney there talking out of one side of her mouth. You will have David Shearer and Phil Goff and the guys like David Parker, who have a bit of an outward focus, realising that New Zealand is not going to grow our wealth unless we sell things to the world, and we sell 45 percent into those 11 countries that are involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There are huge opportunities there. I am delighted that Minister Groser landed a free-trade agreement with Korea, and Taiwan is also proving to be a very important, new, and emerging market for us.

We should not forget about irrigation, particularly in North Canterbury, where they are still battling through very dry times. I know the local member will no doubt comment on that this evening, because he has been in touch. I am looking forward to visiting North Canterbury in the next week or so. It is going to be hugely exciting when stage one of Central Plains Water storage opens. That is a massive project on the outskirts of Christchurch City. Everyone is talking about the Christchurch rebuild; no one actually realises that just out there on the Canterbury Plains hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in farming, improving water quality, improving the environment, improving productivity, and growing our exports. We should be backing water storage projects. This Government has a real focus on water storage. We collect and store only about 2 percent of the rain that falls in this country. The rest roars out to sea. There are huge opportunities to do more.

In the final couple of minutes I have got I also want to talk about the regional economy. We have got four studies under way in East Coast - Hawke’s Bay, Northland, the Bay of Plenty, and the one that was announced recently, Manawatū-Whanganui, which covers the whole Horizons Regional Council area. What these studies show is that there is a huge amount of potential and upside in these regional economies, particularly in the primary sector—particularly in red meat, sheep and beef production, dairy, and also horticulture expansion. So the Ministry for Primary Industries with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Te Puni Kōkiri, will be working with regional leaders to lift the performance of these four regions. These four regions—Mr McKelvie talked about it before, and he is well in touch with the potential of his region, as is Chester Borrows, the other local MP there, and Jono Naylor—are all linked in with the opportunities of this regional growth study for the lower North Island.

Also, we have got a real focus on skills, because we know that we need to attract about another 50,000 into the primary sector over the next 10 years or so. About half of them will need to be tertiary qualified or have level 4 qualifications. So they will be your food safety scientists. They will be your robotic engineers. They will be your environmental planners. Agriculture is actually becoming a lot more sophisticated. So we have got to attract the youngest and brightest into a big part of the New Zealand economy. We have got to celebrate success. We have also got to retain and upskill our primary sector capability. Of course, we cannot do that here in Wellington, and the Government should not be doing it on its own, so we are reaching out to industry. And when I say “we”, we have got some work under way with the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Education working closer together, looking at pilots in the likes of Ashburton, Picton, and Kerikeri.

There is huge potential in Ashburton for sheep and beef production, and also dairying and arable, and we are bringing in the local principals so that they understand that there are jobs in their local communities. In Picton it is about viticulture and it is about aquaculture. In Kerikeri it is about sheep and beef and dairying and horticulture. So it makes sense that we wrap our arms around industry and get in touch with the principals of those local schools to make sure that they understand there are jobs in their local economies.

Finally, we should be backing the primary sector. The Committee this evening should stand up and say that the primary sector matters. We back it, more so than the Opposition parties, because we know it is hugely important to the New Zealand economy.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. This year the 2015-16 appropriation for the Primary Growth Partnership was $69.8 million, almost $70 million. I want to discuss tonight a recipient of Primary Growth Partnership money, PGG Wrightson Seeds, and touch on the national policy statement on plantation forestry, which the Ministry for Primary Industries has been road-showing recently, and the very unfortunate direction that this Government appears to be heading in with agricultural research, biotechnology, and loss of community choice. As I point out the toxic direction of current AgResearch in New Zealand, we must be mindful that there is a fantastic opportunity in organic agriculture that can be very profitable for “New Zealand Inc.”, while mitigating much of our greenhouse gas emissions and reducing nutrient leaching. It will be hundreds of percent better than conventional methods in product value in dairy alone.

PGG Wrightson has said that it wants to compete with GE giant Monsanto, and it has been on that path since Dr Allan Freeth, the next chief executive of the Environmental Protection Authority, set it on that path when he was chief executive officer and managing director of PGG Wrightson. He also got PGG Wrightson to buy into Genesis, which was experimenting with GE grasses and was working with ArborGen on GE trees, an unusual appointment for the arbitrator of GE in our environment. PGG Wrightson developed herbicide-tolerant swedes with Dupont and a couple of failed GE scientists—scientists who had happily broken the important conditions of the previous GE field trials that the Environmental Protection Authority had set and had assured us that those conditions would deal with any risks. But those scientists happily broke those conditions.

PGG Wrightson and the scientists thought that they were really clever and used chemical mutagenesis instead of GE. They did both, actually, but they popped the other ones out in the market so that they could avoid regulatory oversight and avoid safety tests and the apparently irksome conditions of use. The unexpected happened, as can occur with GE and other DNA-disruptive technologies such as that chemical mutagenesis. Hundreds of cows and sheep died, and many more were sick because, in part, it appears that there was an unexpected increase of up to 16 times the natural toxin. A dangerous and unexpected result from a non-regulated technology that is based on the use of three herbicides and DNA disruption—nothing sustainable. That is PGG Wrightson’s direction, and this Government is funding Chinese-owned PGG Wrightson for more of the same, but funding almost zilch for the organics.

I want to touch on the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry. I note that somehow the Government wants, through the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry, to bring in GE trees if the Environmental Protection Authority, headed by PGG Wrightson, a promoter of GE trees and grasses—it wants to allow GE trees to be decided by only that arbitrator, the Environmental Protection Authority, and it has made loads of mistakes in the past. I can go through every one of them, if necessary. In every field trial that the Environmental Risk Management Authority, now the Environmental Protection Authority, has done in recent years, the major condition of consent for approval has been breached, and yet this Government says, through that national environment standard, that local councils and local communities will not be able to decide for their own region whether the Environmental Protection Authority should grant genetically engineered trees. It looks like a cook-up.

Our communities want to be able to sell top-notch product overseas as GM-free and from areas such as Hawke’s Bay. Pure Hawke’s Bay reckons that $100 billion—sorry, $1 billion—[Interruption] Yes, yes, I am getting my figures. One of the producers is working on $100 million on its own, but $1 billion of product from the Hawke’s Bay is going out as being from GM-free Hawke’s Bay. How can that carry on if this Government—

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): What an extraordinary speech from the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy. Is there a Minister in this House who is more out of touch with his portfolio and heartland New Zealand—[Bell rung] Mr Chair—second call, Mr Chair? Can I start again?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No.

STUART NASH: OK. Is there a Minister more out of touch? First of all, he stands up and talks about the value of the regional economy. Well, those of us who are regional MPs know this. I am sick to death about hearing that the regions are failing, because they are not. Regions like Hawke’s Bay are doing well in spite of this Government. In fact, you have got two mayors who are saying: “Where is the plan? Where is the strategy from this Government around regional economic development?”. The Government has not got one. Then we get a Minister who stands up and says: “You’ve got to concentrate on primary industries.” Really? There are three major variables for success in the primary industries: one, climate; two, exchange rate; three, commodity prices. And do you know what? We have no ability to control any of those three.

So why should we concentrate on an area where we have no ability to control? Sure, we are the first to admit that primary industries are the backbone of the Hawke’s Bay economy. They provide around about 45 percent of the revenue into Hawke’s Bay. It is an incredibly important part of our local economy. But let me inform the Minister: there is more to primary industries than red meat and dairy, especially in Hawke’s Bay. There is the wine industry, which the Minister for Economic Development had the nerve to stand up and tell this House is doing really well, as the Government whacks an excise tax on it. The wineries are so annoyed with this Government because it taxes them more. These guys cannot get a break.

The apple industry is finally doing really, really well in Hawke’s Bay. But do you know what? We do have a problem with labour supply in the regions, and the Government’s response to this is Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme workers. I have a philosophical problem with the RSE scheme, because what we are doing is we are bringing workers in from overseas when there are a whole lot of unemployed people in Hawke’s Bay. The problem with it is that we actually need them at this point in time. We need them because getting these unemployed people off the dole and into work is proving close to impossible.

What we really would like this Government to do, what the industry would like this Government to do, is come up with solutions. It has not had a solution in 7 years, so, yet again, it is up to Labour to provide solutions for the RSE scheme, and we have got solutions. Meka Whaitiri and I have been working with the industry. We have the answers. All we need is to get into Government and implement these, and what we will do is drive the sort of growth that we need to see in Hawke’s Bay.

In terms of the Primary Growth Partnership—I will tell you, this is a very interesting thing. I am hearing more and more as I go around. It is a little surprising, actually, but the, sort of, catchcry is out there. What I hear is: “We don’t bother with the Primary Growth Partnership—this is just a Minister giving money to his mates.” And I have heard—even the Chair is nodding. Even the Chair is nodding in agreement—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Do not bring me into that in the way that you have. You have been here long enough; you know how this place operates. Do not muck around like that with the Chair. Thank you very much.

STUART NASH: I was at a conference just yesterday, and a speaker stood up—we were talking about the Primary Growth Partnership—and this speaker said: “We don’t even bother. It is the Minister and his mates.” We were at our regional economic caucus. Our economic caucus did a Hawke’s Bay visit last Tuesday. One of the largest employers in the Bay said exactly the same thing: “Oh, we don’t even bother these days. It’s corporate welfare. It is money for the Minister’s mates.”

Then there is forestry—a very, very important part of this local economy. There was a policy workshop for the New Zealand Institute of Forestry yesterday, and the Minister did not even turn up. Not only that, the Minister did not even send anyone along at all, and the word from the forestry sector is that this Government does not care about the forestry sector—this Government does not care about the forestry sector. It does not understand the forestry sector and, as a consequence, the New Zealand Institute of Forestry is trying to develop policy on its own because this Government is not providing anything for it at all. Minister, if you had been there, you would have heard exactly the same as I said.

So when I hear this Government talk about the primary industries, all it talks about is dairy—which it has done nothing about—and red meat. What I would love the Minister to do is to start coming up with a strategy around the wine sector, around the apple sector and employment opportunities, around the forestry sector—

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we debate the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. Before I start berating the Government and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, I would like to just take the opportunity to hand out a bit of a bouquet along with the brickbats.

I want to say a word in support of the Primary Growth Partnership scheme. It is a bit of an anomaly. I really cannot understand why colleagues on this side of the Chamber are so opposed to the Primary Growth Partnership scheme. It is pure socialism. It is absolutely wonderful venture capital from the Government into the primary sector. There is certainly more that can be done with it, and, over time, I have no doubt that there will be more that is done with it, and the Primary Growth Partnership will be extended through other schemes. But notwithstanding Mr Nash’s passion, I do not accept that criticism of the Primary Growth Partnership. I think we have barely scratched the surface of what we can do with it.

But I do want to pick on a couple of areas, a couple of line items, in the estimates. The first is in the multi-category section of the appropriations for primary industries, which includes safety, and it is the appropriation allocated to border and domestic biosecurity risk management. That stands at just under $179 million. As we examined through the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill, which was one of the enabling pieces of legislation for the appropriations for the primary sector in this Budget, we discovered through that process that that amount includes the revenue forecast to be collected from international passengers arriving in New Zealand on airlines and cruise ships. And I say “forecast” because it will take a while for the levy to be designed and a while longer for it to be instituted, and then a while after that for the money to start coming in. Then over a period of time that money from the levy will replace the funding that is currently allocated to biosecurity from general taxation.

We know this because the Minister very slowly and grudgingly admitted, quite tortuously over a period of some time, through gritted teeth—he finally admitted that this new levy was not actually going to amount to any increase in funding for biosecurity, but in fact was only ever going to be a replacement for the current funding arrangements.

So this appropriation is not actually doing any favours for biosecurity. We are not going to see a return to 100 percent screening of all incoming passengers, we are not going to see the implementation of 100 percent screening of incoming mail and freight, and we are not going to see an improvement on the present rate of about 25 percent, as far as the inspection of shipping containers is concerned. We are not going to see an increase in resourcing for border security officers so that the green lane can be done away with. In fact, this Government is increasing the number of SmartGate entry points rather than reducing them. So we have no more money for boots on the ground, no more money for additional sets of human eyes, and the brains and intuition that goes with them, but we do have more robots—and SmartGate is not a clever robot; it is just a passport reader. It is quite a dumb robot, in fact. This robot is not the “Six Million Dollar Man”.

So we do not have the “Six Million Dollar Man”, but we do have the $3 million possum. I say that because there is a line item in the non-departmental output expenses column of the appropriation for primary industries that relates to TB vector control. TB vectors are animals that can carry and spread bovine tuberculosis. We need to eradicate bovine TB and keep it out of our cattle and deer herds, and that is a good thing, and the single most important TB vector, we are told, is the possum. Feral deer can carry and spread bovine TB as well, of course, and so can ferrets and pigs and hedgehogs. No one in officialdom seems all that worried about hedgehogs just yet. Rather, it is the humble possum that is tarred with being the single most important TB vector, and this appropriation allocates $30 million to controlling it.

Well, we know from answers that the Minister has given in reply to written questions that over the past 10 years TBfree New Zealand has autopsied more than 124,000 possums in its search for bovine TB. Of those more than 140,000 possums, 54 were found to have TB, so that is 54 out of more than 124,000—0.04 percent—or to put it another way, an average of five and a half possums per year. So going by the averages of the last 10 years we can reasonably expect that this year there might be another five or maybe six possums out there with TB. And they are not the only vector, as I mentioned—TBfree New Zealand has autopsied a number of feral deer as well. Since 2007 it has autopsied a total of 1,751 deer and found that 34 of them had TB.

So we have had 54 possums over 10 years and 34 deer over 8 years. That works out to an average of a little under 10 wild animals a year that we might expect to be carrying TB, and this Government has allocated a nice, round $30 million in order to control them. That is $3 million per animal. We cannot have our shipping containers inspected, but we can go chasing the $3 million possum. I am sure—I am absolutely certain—that if the Government were to announce a bounty of $3 million a head on any possum, dead or alive, found to be carrying TB, it would get knocked over in the rush of trappers and ground control operators wanting to take on the job. Instead, we are going to carpet bomb thousands of hectares of bush with airdrops of 1080 and kill thousands of native birds and insects and pollinators and lizards and snails—

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): It is great to rise and speak on Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety. In particular, I want to cover off on my responsibility for forestry, and also for food safety, within this sector, which is so important to New Zealand. We would not necessarily know it from some of the comments that are coming from the Opposition, but it is.

Let us start with our $4.5 billion forestry sector. This is a sector that is attracting capital from within New Zealand and from overseas at the moment, because if we think about engineered timber, this is the way that this sector can grow to what it has set as a lofty target of $12 billion by 2022. The sector is going to be able to do that only if the much more valuable products are, in fact, put together, and engineered timber is the way for that. What the Government is doing to support this sector is we are getting in place plans for skills development and for the review of New Zealand standard 3603, which allows engineered timber to be used in a standard measure, in a standard fashion, by the sector. It is getting those barriers out of the way that will see that sector continue to grow and reach towards its potential.

I want to touch on the Afforestation Grants Scheme, which was a Budget 2015 announcement—$22.5 million over 6 years. That will see an extra 15,000 hectares planted—but, you know, every week I hear about more businesses going out and planting more. I believe that the tide has turned, and there is much more confidence in the sector.

Let me address some of the ill-informed comments from the member from Labour who was on his feet before, Stuart Nash. You see, yes, there was an Institute of Forestry conference yesterday, followed by the DANA Ltd forestry conference this evening. I have just left from the dinner at the DANA conference, and I have been hearing about the Institute of Forestry’s conference yesterday. Back in 2013 the Institute of Forestry asked the Government to put together a forestry sector policy, and I said to it: “Why doesn’t the forestry sector put it together? Get the politics out of it.” And that is what it has decided to do. Had I been able to attend yesterday, had I not already committed to doing other things yesterday, I would have done so, but instead, in fact, I sent three Ministry for Primary Industries people rather than, as Stuart Nash said, no one. So, in fact, the Opposition members are out of touch on forestry, and they are out of touch on food safety and many other aspects of the primary industries sector as well.

You see, the Recognised Season Employer scheme was mentioned before. Well, the onions do not get packed and the apples do not get picked in my district, in the Rangitata electorate, unless we have workers under the scheme, so that would be millions of dollars out of New Zealand’s primary production sector because we have low unemployment in South Canterbury and cannot get people to pick those particular products. So the scheme is doing a particularly important job down there.

The wine industry—well, apparently, it needs help! It is going better than ever before, at $1.42 billion in the last year, and is getting really excited about getting geographic indicators from this Government, which will be very important for that sector. The wine industry is having one of its best years, as is kiwifruit. There are great prices for beef—actually, there are lots of things going well, but you would not know it if you talked to the Opposition.

I want to briefly mention a trip that I had to Viet Nam, because from this Government’s perspective not only are we trying to get free-trade agreements and understand the benefit that they would be to New Zealand—the Green members could well listen to this—but at the same time we know there are non-tariff barriers that we also need to be out there trying to reduce. On the forestry, and also food safety, front, which was the reason for my visit to Viet Nam last week—it was the week before, in fact—those sorts of non-tariff barriers going into a market that is for the very first time seeing $1 billion of two-way trade will put money into the pockets of New Zealanders. So New Zealand needs to reach out and work out what these non-tariff barriers are, work on them with the politicians and with the officials in the countries like Viet Nam, because, far from just $443 million worth of export produce into Viet Nam, we can do so much better. People in Viet Nam trust us. They trust our food safety systems. They trust our honesty and integrity in exporting products to their nation. They want our technology transferred. They appreciate the fact that we have supported them in aid projects, as well.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to take a call on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill on primary industries. Before I do that can I please acknowledge the passing of the last 28th Māori Battalion veteran from Awatere Valley of Te Wairoa, Te Hei Mauroa Ben Hook; e te rangatira o te Pakānga Tuarua, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

I come from a long line of freezing workers and it is from that perspective that I am going to contribute to this vote that we are discussing today. Can I acknowledge Rose White, an auntie of mine, who, after 40 years and 328 days, has finally hung up her apron and knives after working for Silver Fern Farms in Whakatū. I want to acknowledge my auntie and wish her all the very best in her retirement.

As a product of our being freezing workers, my auntie often told me that freezing workers were the backbone of our economy, and I will work with anybody in this Chamber in fit for purpose primary policies that enable opportunities for all New Zealanders. I am happy to be a member of the very hard-working Primary Production Committee, and I want to acknowledge both our chair and the Minister for Primary Industries for coming to the select committee when we examined his vote—and it was a very big vote that we had to examine. But my contribution tonight is going to be on the Primary Growth Partnership and there have been a lot of speakers speaking about that tonight.

For the benefit of those who may not have been there, I will just quickly remind members that the Primary Growth Partnership was established in 2009. Its purpose is to increase investment and innovation, and to achieve economic growth and sustainability for multiple industries in the primary sector. It is responsibly administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries. The partnership meets equally or exceeds the investment made by the Crown with private investors, and it has an investment advisory panel that assesses all the proposals and business plans before it makes a recommendation.

In the last Parliament the Primary Production Committee requested that the Office of the Auditor-General examine the Primary Growth Partnership. The committee was specifically interested in the transparency and management of the programme—hence my reason for making this contribution. On 30 November 2014 the Crown committed $322 million to 18 programmes, of which just under $120 million has been spent. The Auditor-General’s office undertook a performance audit of the Primary Growth Partnership and it reviewed six programmes with a combined investment of $491.3 million.

So what were the findings of the office? Basically, the Auditor-General said that the Primary Growth Partnership was set up too quickly. It encountered some challenges in its early stages—for example, the definition of funding, conditions, and criteria in the early funding rounds appeared to be “loose”. The office expressed concern about the concept of additionality—which my colleague Damien O’Connor talked about—to ensure that the Crown was not just paying for something that should have been just part of the normal process of some of these larger industries.

The Auditor-General’s report also identified that given that the size of our country of New Zealand is quite small, there were going to be times that you could have conflict in terms of having limited core expertise in the primary sector. The Auditor-General noted, however, that the limited scope of the audit did not determine whether the investment advisory panel or the programme steering groups had a potential conflict of interest that should have been declared. That is not saying that a conflict of interest was not there; it was just not part of the scope of the investigation.

What were the overall findings in relation to the Primary Growth Partnership according to the Auditor-General? Clearly, transparency and accountability issues were identified, and that was something that the select committee took on board and we are undertaking to investigate it again in about 6 months’ time. I want to just make sure, for my colleagues on the committee, that we uphold the findings of the Auditor-General, ensuring that all Crown money is going to what is intended.

I know that this is rushed because we have got only a few minutes, but I want to turn your attention now to Crown Irrigation Investments. I want to acknowledge the Minister again for coming to the select committee and for his commitment that we will not be investing—

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): The Green Party supports forestry, particularly permanent canopy, sustainable production. We need very good forestry, rather than—as we are seeing—conversions to unsustainable and intensive dairying. But forestry must be located without impact on the indigenous habitats and it must be done right, and, at the moment, in too many cases, it is not.

We are very concerned about the direction of the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry, which the Ministry for Primary Industries has been driving. It will not protect our indigenous habitats, our streams, and erosion-prone land from the impacts of forestry, as we have been seeing lately. In my own area, the estuary was seen as the worst of 32 in the country. The Marlborough Sounds has just been shown to have had an area of habitat the size of Blenheim destroyed by either dredging or forestry sediments, and it was only a fraction of the Sounds that was measured. So we are worried about it.

I went to seven of the consultations, or hui, around the country about this. I am optimistic that the Ministry for Primary Industries will tweak the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry a bit, but I am not confident that it will go far enough to protect our fisheries, fish nurseries, and habitats from more sediment, because this national environmental standard is for industry. Councils have been submitting—submissions finished today—because they realise that they cannot protect their local environments adequately under this national environmental standard. Once it is finalised and gazetted, it will replace councils’ existing district and regional plan provisions for managing plantation forestry across New Zealand, unless the national environmental standard specifically says otherwise. When it is a permitted activity there is no chance for further public comment. People will not even be able to comment ahead of a forestry harvesting that will destroy and wreck their water supply for a period of time.

The Ministry for Primary Industries said: “Hey, you can use the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and you can get in the collaborative process and deal with things.”, but even just 2 weeks ago, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was talking about that process and said that there are gaping holes. One of the biggest ones is that estuaries are not covered, and so our fisheries are still at risk. And that collaborative process is often not quite as effective, being dominated by industry all too often, with a result that is an increase in pollution rather than a decrease. So we need major changes to the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

I will go back to the issue I spoke of earlier around genetic engineering. This national environmental standard is being used not only as a Trojan Horse to take communities out of looking out for erosion and looking after their fisheries, their awa, and their kai moana—it is a Trojan Horse to get GE trees in, because the Government lost its ability to do so through Resource Management Act reforms. The Environmental Protection Authority, which the Ministry for Primary Industries is saying should be the arbitrator, has consistently failed. It has a long history of failure and shortcomings in relation to genetic modification, and this Government carries on giving money to those fiddling with it. Crop and Food Research’s brassicas were planted and illegally flowering even when the decision to allow the field trial was being appealed to the High Court. It was ultimately stopped and a foot-deep of soil was removed from across that site and deep-buried at Kate Valley because of potential contamination. Crown research institute AgResearch has GE animals—it has breached its conditions. The Environmental Protection Authority can do nothing about that.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would really like to start by refuting some of the comments made by one of the earlier speakers about getting in and managing all sorts of industries. I can say, as a former leader of the wine industry, which was one of the industries that he spoke about, that the last thing we would have wanted as an industry when I was in charge—and I am sure it is the same today—was to have the Government get in and try to run the industry. What industries want is a Government that runs efficient services, that minimises the tax burden as much as possible, and, most important, that runs a good framework and, particularly, takes care of trade by negotiating really good trade agreements and free-trade agreements. I am really delighted to be a part of a Government that is supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership at the moment, which will be such a fantastic opportunity for this country. It was disappointing, I would have to say—although perhaps not surprising—to hear the uninformed comments coming from the other side of the Chamber.

I want to move on to talk about the drought in North Canterbury, which the Minister for Primary Industries alluded to. The drought is a really significant drought, particularly around the Cheviot-Hawarden area. It seems to be a horseshoe of land on the east coast of the South Island that is missing out on the rain that comes from the north, and missing out on the rain that comes from the south and the west. It is unfortunate; this drought has been biting really hard for quite some time. There are reports of about 100,000 breeding stock that have been shifted out of the area to go for grazing, some of which will not come back on to the farms to lamb because there simply will not be the feed there. Although it looks green to the uninitiated as you drive by, it is what is known as a “green drought”. There is a green tinge with, really, no feed underneath it, and not many root reserves to really kick anything away. The soil moisture is so low at the moment that it will need significant rainfall to really turn that round.

I really want to acknowledge the $200,000 of additional funding that has gone to the rural support trusts. That will make a big difference. It is gratefully received by those people who are affected—and also the $500,000 that was announced at the Fieldays by Minister Guy and Minister Coleman. That was a great initiative—it really is. That is where Governments can get in and make a big difference with, actually, a relatively small amount of money, and I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge the team that is doing a great job in North Canterbury—Winton Dalley in particular, the mayor of Hurunui, who is heading up the drought committee along with Doug Archbold, the rural support guy for that area, who is doing a fantastic job. Sometimes it is a pretty tough job to get out there and do that, and I want to acknowledge him tonight. I think that we should really all encourage those people and the job that they are doing.

These things will improve. It will rain again. All those things happen, and people will adapt their systems to deal with it as best they can. But that segues quite well into my next point, which is irrigation. I acknowledge the $25 million towards the Irrigation Acceleration Fund. There has been a lot of talk about funding from the Government and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety towards irrigation and what that amounts to. But that money is to fund storage, and storage is about, actually, the community benefiting and the environmental benefits from irrigation.

The Ōpuha scheme in South Canterbury is, I think, a wonderful example of how the whole community and the environment benefits from storage. At Ōpuha Dam the irrigators voluntarily reduced their take as the drought really started to bite hard in that area, to allow more water to flow and to keep the instream values up in the Ōpihi River, which flows out of the Ōpuha Dam. That enabled Fish and Game, which was a very vociferous opponent of the irrigation scheme, to capture the fish that were in the streams that were drying up and take them and put them into the Ōpihi, and then, when that finally got to the point where it was drying up, to take the fish and put them in the Ōpuha Dam.

So we have now, certainly, a group of people from Fish and Game in South Canterbury who were opponents of the scheme, but now very much fans of the scheme, because they can see the benefits to the environment from storage for irrigation. So I think the Irrigation Acceleration Fund is very important. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to be speaking in the Chamber and taking a call tonight. I am very proud of the primary industries, and the expectation for the year to June 2015 is that $35.2 billion would be brought in by primary industries. I know that at this point in time we are looking at a volatile situation in the dairy industry, and I just want to shout out to my fellow farmers tonight. The falling dairy prices have been a concern, but they are temporary. They will come through, and we do know that we are looking for a bright future in this industry.

I also want to mention, and my colleague here, Stuart Smith, talked about it, the funding that is going out to help farmers at this time—the $500,000 that was actually delivered at Fieldays, which has been used to train more people. There are going to be another 100 people out there working with DairyNZ and working with Beef and Lamb and encouraging those farmers to come forward. Although the industry itself is very resilient, we just want to be quite careful about talking too much about individual farmers being resilient, because we want them to stand up and ask for help when they need it—and they will. If they do that, if they work with their banks, they will be resilient and they will come through.

But I want to also acknowledge that there is a whole lot more to the primary industries. We focus on dairy, and I am very proud of it, but over recent weeks I have had the opportunity to visit Zespri with the Primary Production Committee. You know, that is an industry that has come through some very tough times. It had the disease Psa unexpectedly come in with the gold kiwifruit variety that it had at the time. It put in a huge effort around getting people through, and now that is an industry that is really thriving.

What was impressive to me was when we talked to those horticulturalists about what they were growing in their kiwifruit, they were talking about the dry matter content, the sugar content—everything, to those people, was important about the taste of that kiwifruit and the experience of that kiwifruit from the time it left the farm until it went to the pack-house. The people at the pack-house we visited were absolutely focused on keeping that quality all the way through to the market, so that they knew that the person who picked up that kiwifruit and had it at the end of the day on their plate was having a fantastic experience and will continue to buy the kiwifruit.

I have also been to Tegel, which is a fast-growing chicken industry in Taranaki. What is really interesting for me, and I also note, is that in our estimates there is another $10 million going towards animal welfare. Often the chicken people get targeted when it comes to animal welfare. Well, actually, I can tell you that there are no meat chickens kept in cages. There are no hormones used. There are a whole lot of rumours out in our society about what goes on with chickens, and I can tell you that when I was in one of those newly developed sheds on that particular day, with 35,000 13-day-old chickens, it was 27 degrees Celsius inside that chicken shed, and it was actually 10 degrees outside. If I was a chicken I know where I would make the choice to go—because it was very hard to go back out into the cold.

I also want to acknowledge that if you come into Taranaki - King Country on the way from Taumarunui—which is our esteemed select committee chair’s electorate—across in Te Kūiti, just after you leave Taumarunui, there is a wonderful little alpaca shop. We do not often think a lot about alpacas when we think about primary industries, but these people have very, very selective breeding. They have white ones, they have black ones, and they have brown ones, keeping them very pure. They are selling the products in their shops. The wool that actually comes off these alpacas is of a very, very high quality. So there it is a combination of the primary industries combining with the tourism industry and providing a product that people want to see. I can tell you that those alpacas are very, very cute. They do spit, but they are very, very cute.

I am also very impressed with the extra $7.5 million over 2 years that is being put into developing key skills and systems. I was very pleased when the Minister for Primary Industries talked before about the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Education working together. Prior to coming into Parliament, I was involved with a group called the Primary Industry Capability Alliance. As part of that group—its role is to encourage new talent to come into our industries. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Lands and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety 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.

Votes agreed to.

Social Development and Housing Sector

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now come to the votes on the social development and the housing sector—volume B.5, volume 10. The question is that Vote Building and Housing and Vote Social Development stand part of the schedules.

ALFRED NGARO (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): I rise as the chair of the Social Services Committee to take the first call on this estimates debate. The Social Services Committee recommends the appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2016 for Vote Social Development be accepted.

It is an honour to be able to speak tonight on this. The Budget for 2015 delivers a $790 million package to help children living in some of New Zealand’s poorest families. It is a commitment that was made by the Prime Minister, and he clearly made it in his state of the nation speech, that we are firmly focused on helping those children who, through no fault of their own, have been caught in a cycle of hardship. As the Prime Minister has set that vision, I also want to acknowledge that the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley has taken on that role to ensure that we deliver that package and that vision as well.

One of the things that we often think is the key area of concern, and this is also the judgment from those in the sector who provide the service—and I know that my colleague Mr Matt Doocey will be reading from the state of the nation booklet called A Mountain All Can Climb, but before he does that I too want to sort of comment on that. In February of this year this was a report that actually talked about it, and often it is a state of the nation report that judges the performance of the Government in regards to the social sector. They have 22 indicators by which they judge the Government on its performance. I am happy to say that 14 out of the 22 had the thumbs up out of those social indicators of change during 2014, which gives us the lead that it is a good foundation for us to build on.

Just a couple of those to mention—child poverty, for instance. The percentage of children living in benefit-dependent households has reduced by 2 percent to 17 percent. We know it is a small change, but it is a significant change. It is moving in the right direction. We talk about children at risk, and it is a reduction of 15 percent down to 19,623. So, again, it is a small change, but the number of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect has also reduced.

Darroch Ball: How many reported? Don’t answer that one!

ALFRED NGARO: Educational achievement has increased by 0.2 percent. These are key indicators, social indicators, that are making a change. If Mr Darroch Ball was there, he might have read this. He might have seen that 14 out of the 22 indicators have shown that this Government is heading in the right direction.

Let us, then, look at the Budget of 2015 and what it is delivering for us and for New Zealand as well. We know that Budget 2015 delivers a $790 million package to help children living in some of New Zealand’s poorest families. We know employment is the best way to lift families out of difficulty and hardship, and the incentive to work will ensure their children who are living in poverty are supported. This is focused on helping 60,000 to 100,000 children who through no fault of their own experience material hardship. There has been widespread reform throughout the welfare system over recent years aimed at increasing independence where possible. This is working well, with 42,000 fewer children living in welfare-dependent homes since this time 3 years ago. I think that is a significant number—42,000 children in 3 years are now actually in situations where they can thrive and their outcomes can be improved.

This Budget’s announcements continue National’s plan to deliver better services to vulnerable children and New Zealanders who rely on them, and to deliver better value for money for taxpayers. Inside of that package, I want to talk about a couple of things that I think are quite important. One of the ones that was significant in 2015, which I know was celebrated even on the other side—I know there was acknowledgment—was the fact that under this Government, a National Government, the benefit rates for families with children will rise by $25 a week after tax. It is the first increase, other than inflation adjustments, for 43 years—43 years.

Darroch Ball: What did you do in 1991, Alfred? What did National do in 1991 to benefits?

ALFRED NGARO: I do not think you were even alive in 1991, Mr Darroch Ball. It is the first increase, other than inflation adjustments, for 43 years, and there will be extra support for low-income working families, despite Labour voting against both these measures. That is significant because even when there was a time of surplus under the previous Labour Government there was no increase, but under this Government there is an increase.

Some speculators on the other side said: “What will $25 do?”. Q+A went up to the far north to some of the most deprived communities up there—Māori communities up there—and the question that was asked to Dr Lance O’Sullivan was this: “Will this budget of $25 extra per family that is eligible make a difference?”.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak to this. I sat through what was actually a really painful estimates hearing in the Social Services Committee with the Minister for Social Development present. I want to talk to a little bit of what was discussed in that meeting and challenge a little bit of what the former speaker, Alfred Ngaro, spoke about.

There are three issues that came up in the estimates hearing that I really want to discuss today. First was that child hardship package, so let us talk a little bit about that today. Second was from benefit to employment—is that really happening? Does the Government have an emphasis on that or not? Third are the Ministry of Social Development dealings with Relationships Aotearoa—it fronted at that hearing, so I will speak to that as well.

Firstly, the member Alfred Ngaro touched on this, the Government’s child hardship package. It made this announcement that an additional $25 will be going into the pockets of families who are on benefits. What it did not give when it made that announcement was the detail. So let us look at this Support for Children in Hardship Bill, what that entails, and what it really will mean for families. The Government said $25 per family—not per child; per family. But, actually, there are going to be a lot of families who do not get that entire $25 because they are getting access to a disability allowance, temporary additional support, and a whole lot of other things. So they may not get the $25. They may not get anything. They may get $12.50.

The Government is looking to extend the work obligations alongside this additional $25 a week, expecting parents or sole parents to go back to work when their youngest turns 3 rather than 5. We asked the ministry for documentation or evidence to support why it might make that call. All of the reports that we got back did not support that move at all. In fact, there was no New Zealand evidence to support what it was doing. All of the evidence was overseas evidence, and the overseas evidence said that when you impose these types of work obligations on sole parents, then you are likely to have the adverse effect where you drive them further into poverty. Was any of that advice or research taken on board? The Minister and the ministry chose to ignore that.

We have seen recently that there are real issues in New Zealand with early childhood education in terms of access to quality early childhood education, yet with the extension of these work obligations, these—primarily—women are going to be expected to go back into part-time work and put their children into early childhood education. The standard of early childhood education available has been questioned recently by experts, by New Zealanders, and by the general public. It is something that the National Government still refuses to address.

I want to bring up the fact that we have been told that with the legislation the Government is introducing there will be an extension of childcare subsidies. Well, there is a problem there too because where is there a serious overspend every year? It is in the accessing of childcare subsidies. So the Government is saying that it is going to extend it. The Government is saying that it is pushing people into work and that it is providing more opportunities in terms of childcare subsidies. Well, then, why are there 1,800 fewer people in the most recent year compared with the last who are accessing childcare subsidies? Why has the number of people accessing childcare subsidies over the last 5 years dropped by 2,500 people? They are not accessing it, because the Government is making it difficult.

This Government is not aspirational for people, and I want to make that point. It is pushing primarily women, these women, out into jobs that are any job. I just talked to a woman yesterday who has taught for the last 13 years in Samoa and has come back. She is a qualified teacher. She did her training here. She thought: “OK. Yes, I will do this Ministry of Social Development course.” Sixteen weeks she has to do this course for. She goes along. She is a qualified teacher. She is sitting next to a woman who ran an airfield, for goodness sake, and the person taking the course that they have to attend for 16 weeks is saying: “And at the end of this you might get a job at McDonald’s.” How aspirational is that for these women?

I want to move from that over to whether or not people are going from benefits into jobs. When asked in the select committee whether or not it was a primary concern that people were coming off benefits and going into jobs, the Minister said: “It is not necessarily about employment; it is about independence.” How independent can you be if not only are you not getting an income from work but you are not getting any support from the State? When we continued down that line of questioning, her Ministry of Social Development chief executive said “Well, those people who are not in work and are not getting a benefit have other means.”, and the Minister sat there nodding her head.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): It gives me great pleasure to take a call tonight to talk about Budget 2015 because, as we heard from the chair of the Social Services Committee, my colleague Alfred Ngaro, of course this is a huge year for those who are the less well-off in our communities. In Budget 2015 a $790 million package was announced by this Government, focused on reducing hardship for children in some of our poorest families.

It was a 43-year watershed when this Government announced a $25 a week increase in the benefits. No other Government in 43 years has actually focused on those receiving a benefit, and lifted that benefit. This Government did it. They hate it, on the Opposition, because in the very best of economic times that Labour Government did not lift the benefit. It ignored the people who are on a benefit. This Government has announced that, as from 1 April next year, people will get a $25 increase in the benefit.

Brett Hudson: The first increase in real benefits in 43 years.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, 43 years. Not only that, we also looked at those who are working hard. We know there are many families in New Zealand that are working hard but are still on very low incomes, and their children are still experiencing hardship. We have lifted the minimum family tax credit and the in-work tax credit, so that the families that are eligible for those also receive an increase of anything between $12 extra a week and $25 extra a week.

And we have increased the subsidy for childcare. We have done that because, contrary to the previous speaker, we know from experience what is working well, particularly for parents reliant on the sole-parent benefit. We know what support is needed to help those people out into work and independence. Independence of the State is extremely important. We know, from experience, what is working, what support is working, and we know the determination of many of those people to be independent. From 1 April next year it is interesting that a sole parent now working 20 hours a week, on the minimum wage and receiving the minimum family tax credit and the in-work tax credit, could be $190 a week better off. That is the difference that it makes—helping people and supporting them into work and supporting their families. They could be $190 a week better off and independent of the State. That is the ambition that this National Party has for those people.

We know that the outlook for those children in families that are reliant on the State for a benefit is not great. Their lifetime expectations are not great. The statistics tell us that those children who are born into homes that are included in the main benefit within the first 2 weeks of their life, 48 percent of them will have a Department of Child, Youth and Family Services notification. Almost half of those kids will have a referral to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and 48 percent of them will not attain NCEA level 2. We know that that is the minimum qualification that a young person needs to go on to get a good job, to go on to further tertiary education, or to go into an apprenticeship. Almost half of those kids—we know that if nothing changes in their lives they will not have that, and then 45 percent of them will go on to receive a youth benefit. Again, the outlook for youngsters going on to a youth benefit is that they are most likely to still be on that youth benefit in 20 years’ time.

So the absolute imperative is to help people become independent of the State, able to stand on their own two feet, able to support themselves and their families, and therefore we have put into play these benefits.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I did have a whole speech written, but I do feel compelled to respond to some of the comments from the Minister, who talked about this being the first benefit raise in 43 years. She has conveniently ignored the fact that it would have required a 45 percent increase in benefits to be able to return them to the pre-1990 level, when the previous National Government slashed them, to the point where we now have the unemployment benefit being worth 24 percent of the average wage, where people are consciously being left in poverty. And for children to be in our hospitals and dying because of the policy of this Government—we should be celebrating that in this Budget? Well, I am sorry, but I am not going to celebrate that.

We are being told by this Government that it knows what works. It is these sanctions, it is beating people over the head to be able to get them into work, because that is how you make it happen—that is how you encourage independence! You cut people’s incomes! That leads them to a life of independence! Well, why are more people being sanctioned now, in the last year, than were being sanctioned previously? If it was working, there would be fewer people being sanctioned. But it has been increased by 30 percent. More sole parents have been sanctioned in the last year. That is a sign of this policy failing, not succeeding.

We know that when benefit levels were set at a higher rate, we had lower rates of unemployment. Poverty does not drive people into work—it keeps them stuck in poverty. It puts them into fragile, precarious work that is actually not better for them or their family.

I really think that this Government, with the Better Public Services targets that it has set—of reducing benefit levels by 25 percent, and reducing the liability and the pressure on the Government—really shows the lack of awareness in its thinking. That, to the Government, is what is most important for this country. It is not about the well-being of our society. It is not about getting people into work, into decent jobs. It is not about eliminating child poverty. It is not about ensuring that families where women and children leaving violent relationships are able to re-establish themselves with a minimum of trauma. It is not about people who are sick—getting treatment for cancer or any other number of illnesses, or even donating organs—to be properly supported and not forced into debt or made homeless; so that they are so stressed out and unable to get the medical attention that they need, because of the financial stress on them at the moment, which is what is happening now. People are being made homeless while suffering and getting treatment for cancer, because this system no longer provides a safety net.

We are being told in this House by this Government, in response to this Budget, that we should be celebrating the fact that there will be an average of maybe $20 a week to families, no matter how many children they have. This Government was told in the policy documents that that amount of money would make no difference to the child poverty levels in this country, and the Government presented this to the public of New Zealand as a child hardship measure.

The New Zealand public cares about our children. We want our children to be well and healthy and able to thrive and live up to all of their potential. Instead of actually creating the environment to enable that for our children, this Government has presented a piece of window dressing that is leaving those children in hardship. It is refusing to address the core foundation of poverty in this country.

Carmel Sepuloni: She can’t even look up. She’s just texting on her phone.

JAN LOGIE: And the Minister is texting—really engaging with the issue!

So the impact of these policy decisions is the increasing number of people being trapped in poverty. We are being told by the community organisations I am seeing around the country that they are dealing with a lot of people now who are not even wanting to go into Work and Income because they are finding the situation and the environment in those offices so traumatising.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I am going to talk about housing. The really intriguing thing about this Government’s handling of the housing issue has been that, in the face of a crisis that has got worse and worse over the last few years, all we have seen from the Minister Nick Smith since he became the Minister for Building and Housing 2½ years ago is a series of grudging half measures. The standard operating procedure for this Minister on housing has been denial, trivialisation, complacency, and refusal to acknowledge the extent of the problem until the focus groups showed that people are starting to get concerned. Then what do we see time after time after time? He tosses out some grudging half measure as a sop to public opinion.

Last week the Prime Minister made his most revealing comments yet on this issue, in an interview with Leighton Smith on Newstalk ZB, where the Prime Minister said that Aucklanders like their house prices going up because it makes them richer. This was very interesting and very significant. It was the most candid that the Prime Minister has been, and it explains why we have a non-housing Minister and a non-housing policy.

He is a Minister whose job is to look like he is doing something—to provide political cover for a Government that has made such a cynical political calculation, a calculation that there are sufficient numbers of Aucklanders who own their homes and who will feel wealthier and happier because of rising paper wealth that they can never cash in unless they move out of the city, giving up their job and moving away from family. That does not happen. The Government knows that, but it is content to make that calculation—that there are enough homeowners who feel that they are getting wealthier because of skyrocketing house prices. In doing so, it will throw under the bus the 50-plus percent of Aucklanders who do not own their own home—who rent. It will condemn Generation Rent to a lifetime of renting—the very tenants in their own land whom the Prime Minister talked about only a couple of years ago.

Nick Smith talks a big game on supply—the supply of houses. His diagnosis of the housing crisis in Auckland is simply that there are not enough houses. It is all about supply and nothing about demand. But he has singularly failed to deliver supply. In 2½ years as the housing Minister, there is such a shortfall in houses that the Productivity Commission—his policy touchstone on housing; the Government’s pet thinktank—predicts that at current rates that shortfall is going to go from 32,000 now to 60,000 houses in 2020. That is a failure by anyone’s reckoning, from a Minister who made it his ambition to increase the supply of houses. It is getting worse by 5,000 every year.

That is why house prices in Auckland are skyrocketing and that is why the New Zealand Herald reported that they have been going up by $511 a day, on average, for the last year—$511 a day. You can make more money under this National Government’s policy by owning a house than by working. There is only one way to get rich under this Government, and that is by speculating in residential property. That is its policy. The National Party is the party of property speculators, foreign and domestic. That is whom it stands for, and the Prime Minister’s comments revealed very clearly that the Government is selling out New Zealand, and selling out young Kiwi first-home buyers, because it does not care. It has made a cynical political calculation that it would rather count on the votes of Auckland homeowners who think that they are getting wealthier. It does not give a damn about the lost generation that will never ever have the Kiwi dream of affordable homeownership.

The crowning glory of Nick Smith’s tenure as housing Minister so far has been his Auckland Crown land fiasco—

Carmel Sepuloni: I thought it was him lying on the road.

PHIL TWYFORD: It is hard, actually, to choose which one is the real fiasco. Documents released under the Official Information Act the other day revealed exactly what everybody knew. His Budget policy on developing vacant Crown land for Auckland housing was rushed. Treasury said that it was almost too late. It was past the deadline, and we know why—

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on Vote Social Development. I would just like to concentrate on the Limited Service Volunteers programme and its—

Brett Hudson: Great programme.

DARROCH BALL: Is it? Oh, why did you cut it, then? Why did you cut the funding, then?

I would like to talk about the funding, or the lack of it and, actually, the reduced funding, for a couple of reasons. One is that youth is one of the most important age groups that we have in our country, but it is also one of the most underfunded and, actually, neglected by this Government. A second reason is that I was actually a platoon commander in the Limited Service Volunteers programme. I know the actual benefits and that it is a great course, the Limited Service Volunteers course.

I would just like to start by quoting the previous Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, and her explanation before the Government actually bolstered up the numbers from around 800 to about 2,000 positions for trainees there. Paula Bennett said: “It’s not always easy as a young person to know what direction you are taking. Self confidence is sometimes lacking and the courage to take risks and open yourself to new opportunities is sometimes missing. I have seen first hand the light that switches on for young people while on LSV. They gain confidence, they learn about themselves and what they are capable of. They come out with a plan. Sometimes it’s not just an employment or study plan, but a life altering direction that they will take.”

Actually, they have got some statistics and results here in this release, and it says that they have shown that of all those who have completed the course since 1993, 45 percent gained employment and a further 30 percent entered trade-related training within 3 months of the course finishing. But apparently if you fast-forward just a few years, the New Zealand Herald says that “The Government has quietly scaled back boot camps for young beneficiaries and Treasury has advised that they should be scrapped altogether because they are not effective.” But not effective about what? And how is the Government measuring the success of the Limited Service Volunteers courses, and why should it be cutting the funding to the Limited Service Volunteers?

In fact, a spokeswoman for the Minister for Social Development, Anne Tolley, said that the previous rise in funding was because of high youth unemployment during the financial crisis, which was around the 2010-11 year. Well, that is a load of rubbish, because if we actually look at the statistics, in the third quarter of 2010 there were 33,000 15 to 19-year-olds who were unemployed—around 23.8 percent. If you fast-forward to 2015, when the Government wants to cut it from 2,000 to around about 800 trainees, there is exactly the same number of youth who are unemployed—33,000—and it is around just over 21 percent. So there has been no change whatsoever in unemployment, but apparently in 2010 that was a cause to increase the numbers of Limited Service Volunteers and increase the funding, and in 2015 that was a cause to cut it. In fact, if you want to look at the age group from 20 to 24, which does include positions for Limited Service Volunteers, in 2010 there were just 26,000 and in 2015 there are 30,000. It has remained at 11.9 percent.

So where is this Government getting its statistics from? It is making them up. What it wants to do is cut costs, and it wants to do it by any means necessary. It is an absolute cop-out. It is letting these kids from this successful programme—the Limited Service Volunteers, which the New Zealand Defence Force is running—go towards yet another youth benefit scheme. We have got a bill going through the House at the moment about extending the Youth Service. The Youth Service is actually fully focused on just one thing, and that is education and National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. So how can you compare that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no—not me.

DARROCH BALL: Sorry, Mr Chairman. How can members in this House and how can the Government compare that with the self-confidence, the courage, and the new opportunities that these trainees gain in the Limited Service Volunteers programme? They cannot.

I would just like to finish with this. In the Treasury report, it says that “The package does not include funding to continue the Limited Services Volunteer programme. There is limited evidence of its effectiveness in achieving [its] outcomes.” Well, in 2010 the Government had the evidence to increase it, and now it does not. What I would like to say is that I say, and everybody else who has been involved with the Limited Service Volunteers says, that you cannot measure the confidence, the courage, and the self-realisation that these individuals gain.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): For a number of years the Māori Party has come into Government and decided to work with the National Government. It is something that we are willing to do, because, actually, it is easy to sit and throw stones, but we are actually more interested in providing an avenue for working collaboratively together. The increase, this year, of the benefit rates—for 43 years, no matter who had been in Government, nothing had been done about it. Nothing had been done about it. So there has been an increase, but I agree that, actually, that increase is not going to eliminate poverty. That increase is relief for hardship. We must commit to having ongoing measures that will eliminate poverty, eradicate poverty.

This year, in September, the Prime Minister will be attending the UN General Assembly for a sustainable goal agenda, where the No. 1 goal is eradicating poverty by our own country’s measurement. There is a whole lot of debate about how we do measure poverty. Well, if we look at the one that the Government likes—the severe hardship index—by that measure, 100,000 children still live in poverty. That is 10 percent of our children. I want to say to the Committee tonight that it is within our grasp, right now, to do something about it, so that we can eliminate and eradicate poverty in this country. If we stall any further measures to do something, it will soon be outside our capability and our capacity as a country to do that and to realise the actual goal of eliminating poverty.

The No. 6 goal on that agenda in September is to set a target to halve and eradicate poverty by our own measures. I want to call on our Prime Minister and our Government to sign up to that goal agenda, to continue to work together. I am willing to work together with the Ministerial Committee on Poverty to do just that: to find ways where we can take a purposefully targeted approach to eliminating and eradicating poverty in this country before it is outside our ability to do so. We can do it through a number of simple measures that do not actually cost a lot of money—it is not about putting an extra $500 in everybody’s hand and, therefore, making it impossible for us to do. But we can do some things, like indexing benefits to the median wage—why have we never done that before? Because in a few years the small gain that we have been able to make will, again, be widened, we could index our benefit rates to the median wage so that they continue to keep pace and not widen the gap.

Another thing that we can do is we can ensure that we extend the—what is it called; it has gone out of my blinking head—the paid parental leave. Extend that to the full 26 weeks; allow mothers to be with their babies in those formative first months so that they can give greater input into their lives and into growing and developing the brain, which needs to happen. One of the factors for poverty and keeping ourselves in the poverty cycle is actually poverty of the mind.

The other thing we can do is have security of tenancy. It does not cost much at all, but it guarantees people that they can live in a home for at least the life of their children in school, so that their children are not transient, so that they can stay in one place, and so that they can have a secure, warm, and safe home to come home to.

We can do these things, and I call on the Ministers on the Ministerial Committee on Poverty to work with us, to work with me. I am willing to do that. That is why this party—the Māori Party—goes into a coalition agreement of confidence and supply with the National Government. It is so that we can make some changes and have some influence.

The Prime Minister can commit to this in September. We can set targets for reducing poverty and eradicating it, and we can continue to build on the good work—because it is good work, because nobody had done anything for 43 years. The Hon Dame Tariana Turia will tell you that nobody talked about poverty in this country until the Māori Party came in here. Why? Because we know poverty.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh, come on.

MARAMA FOX: That is what she says, and I hold her to it, because it was in our relationship agreement, the very first one, in 2008. It was in the next one in 2011, and it was in the next one in 2013. Because of the Ministerial Committee on Poverty, we have seen benefits to our people.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I firstly want to acknowledge Marama Fox and the work that the Māori Party has done with this Government that has enabled us to deliver things like a $25 increase in benefit payments—the first in more than 30 years. I want to acknowledge its work that has enabled us to provide for free doctors visits for those under the age of 13.

An area I want to particularly acknowledge the Māori Party on, in which we are also making progress, is improving the quality of housing. Let me talk about this area, because we have provided in this Government’s term for the insulation of 290,000 homes through the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes initiative. We have also insulated 30,000 State houses, and we have also set down a programme, just announced with tenancy changes, for 180,000 other homes to be insulated. That is 500,000 homes—1.2 million people living in warmer, drier homes. I challenge the Labour members who are interjecting: how many did Labour do in its 9 years?

Hon David Cunliffe: Resign.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We did 500,000—Mr Cunliffe—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry. Order! The continual barraging across the Chamber is unacceptable. Tone it down. I actually want to hear what the Minister is saying, and I am sitting right beside him.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to compare the record: 500,000 homes are warmer and drier under our Government. Under the 9 years of Labour it insulated not 500,000 but 15,000, and Labour members have the gall to stand up in the Chamber and to pretend that they are the only ones who care.

I want to talk about HomeStart, because this Government is providing the most generous support for first home owners in more than a generation. Some of the older grey hairs may remember the State Advances Corporation loans. They may remember the capitalising family benefit. What we are doing in this Budget is putting $430 million into helping young New Zealand families get over that hurdle and be able to buy their first home. There is only one problem that we have had in the last 3 months, and that has been dealing with the tsunami of applications of new first home owners, from Invercargill to Kaitāia, who are picking up on that scheme and getting themselves into a home.

I want to challenge Phil Twyford, because never have I faced such a duplicitous Opposition spokesperson who is all over the paddock. He challenges us to put loan-to-value ratios in place, and when they are put in place, he opposes them. He is a spokesperson who when interest rates go up complains and says it is bad, and when interest rates go down complains and says that it is bad. When I first became Minister for Housing he demanded that I not interfere in the Auckland Council. He organised for my hoarding to be put up all over Auckland, and then he has got the gall to say: “Oh, but the Minister’s not doing enough in Auckland.” Well, let me give the numbers. Every year that I have been Minister, since 2013, the number of new houses being built in Auckland has grown by 20 percent. There has never been a period, in the last 3 years or in any time in Auckland’s history, when there has been as fast a pick up in the rate of house building.

But here is the really embarrassing bit: never have I seen a spokesperson tear up the heritage of a party that I thought stood for inclusion, as he did with his cynical attack on those with Chinese-sounding names. You only need to see the reaction of spokespeople in the Labour Party, who now cringe every time Phil Twyford gets to his feet, because, in one of the most clumsy manoeuvres we have seen in this Chamber this year, Phil Twyford has burnt up 50 years of hard work where people thought the Labour Party stood for racial equality and stood for inclusion. Now we know that the Labour Party is out to cynically target one ethnic group with this housing challenge.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): That last speech was from a Minister, Nick Smith, the Minister for Building and Housing, who has done such a poor job at housing that they had to put three people in his place. That is appalling.

Let us start with the Housing New Zealand rebuild in Christchurch, shall we? The new builds—700 new homes in Christchurch. When is the deadline? The deadline for that is December 2015. How many of the 700 houses have been built?

Carmel Sepuloni: How many?

Hon David Cunliffe: How many?

POTO WILLIAMS: It certainly ain’t 700; I can tell you that. We are closer to 300. The last time I got the answers to our written questions we were at something like 296. Now, how many does that mean need to be built by the end of the year?

Hon David Cunliffe: 402.

POTO WILLIAMS: That is right. How is that going to be done? I will tell you how it is going to be done, Minister. How it is going to be done is that we will have a deadline that National puts in place, which was going to be December 2015 and now it is going to be March 2016. So at the estimates discussion we hear: “No, it’s not December 2015.”, even though over the last 2 years the ministry has been saying that yes, it will get these houses built because the people in Christchurch desperately need them. What did we hear at the estimates discussion? March 2016, at the earliest. Do you think that is good enough? I do not think it is good enough, and I have been talking about this for a long time. I knew that that was ambitious at the beginning and I was right.

Oh, boy, it makes me wild to know that this Government does not care about the people in Christchurch and their housing concerns. Let us talk about the housing accord in Christchurch, shall we? Let us talk about the case of the disappearing $52 million. There has been $22 million spent on the housing accord for affordable housing in Christchurch, and what has happened to the other $52 million? Well, I will tell you what has happened to it. It has gone to Auckland. It has gone to Auckland to deal with the Auckland housing crisis. How do you think people in Christchurch feel about that, Minister? They do not feel very good about that. On top of that, let me quote from one of the city councillors, Glenn Livingstone. What did Glenn Livingstone say? He is the chairman of the council’s housing task force and he said this was the first he had heard that the money was to go to Auckland. So this Government could not even front up to the council in Christchurch and tell the council that it was taking $52 million out of the housing accord to send to Auckland. It could not front up to it. The council got that information from this news report. How is that for relationship building with the Christchurch City Council—that the council had to find out from a news report that that $52 million was going to Auckland? I think that is pretty appalling. How did we find out about that money? Did the Government front up and say: “Hey, we think Christchurch is actually doing OK. We’re going to send some money north.”? No, it did not. This cynical Government left it to a backbencher to find the information in the Treasury dump of documents. That is what it did. Did you get up here in the Chamber, Mr Smith, and say to the people of Christchurch: “You are doing so well in your housing issues. We’re going to send this $52 million up north.”? No, you did not.

Let us see what reaction we had in Christchurch to that, shall we, from the Salvation Army? “From a Salvation Army Christchurch perspective, it’s very alarming. There is still a major need and major issue [with affordable housing]. The impact that will have on all agencies is significant.” And let us see what the City Mission has said—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill without amendment, and progress on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill.

Report adopted.

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

TUESDAY, 11 AUGUST 2015

(continued on Wednesday, 12 August 2015)

Bills

Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Earlier in the year I had the pleasure of welcoming many of the community of Hineuru to Parliament to sign their deed of settlement, and I am really pleased to welcome back to the House a number of them this morning as we put legislation into the House that covers their settlement agreement—reached, if I may say so, through determination, pragmatism, and willingness.

I want to say something about the history of Hineuru’s interactions with the Crown. In the mid-19th century the tīpuna of Hineuru lived and cultivated land in the mountainous inland region between Hawke’s Bay and Taupō Moana. They had few interactions with the Crown until 1866. In that year Crown forces attacked a group of Māori who were camped at Ōmarunui near Napier after the expiry of an unreasonable ultimatum calling on the group to surrender. On the same day Crown forces also intercepted, surrounded, and then subsequently attacked another group, led by the Hineuru rangatira Te Rangi Hīroa further north near Pētane. Crown forces killed Te Rangi Hīroa and other Hineuru people during their attacks and then pursued Hineuru and other Māori into the rohe of Hineuru and plundered their kāinga.

By the end of 1866 Hineuru had abandoned nearly all of their kāinga and cultivations due to conflict with the Crown. Thirty-four individuals from the iwi were among 86 prisoners captured by the Crown. The Crown transported most of the prisoners to the Chatham Islands and detained them without trial in harsh conditions for almost 2 years. In 1868 the prisoners escaped and became embroiled in a war with the Crown. During this war Crown forces summarily executed a number of prisoners captured at Ngātapa in January 1869.

In 1867 the Crown proclaimed a large confiscation district in Hawke’s Bay that included many of the lands of Hineuru. In 1870 the Crown concluded an agreement to retain some of the confiscated land in the core of the Hineuru rohe and return the remainder to individual Māori. This arrangement excluded a number of Hineuru from the titles for the Tarawera and the Tataraakina blocks and reduced the Hineuru interests in the Tarawera block to that of a minority. After years of protest, in 1924 the Crown promoted legislation that allowed the Native Land Court to award land in Tarawera and Tataraakina to Hineuru individuals who were descended from those excluded from the 1870 titles. Then in 1952 the Crown promoted further legislation that overturned the titles that were awarded in the 1920s. For Hineuru, these changes resulted in decades of tenurial uncertainty, significant financial burdens, and social dislocation.

Fortunately, the northern part of the Hineuru rohe was not included in the confiscation. However, after 1877 the Crown and private purchasers acquired large areas of Hineuru land, and so today, as we have so often heard in this House in debates on Treaty legislation, Hineuru are virtually landless. In the late 19th century, Hineuru re-established a community at Te Hāroto, where their marae and wharenui, Rongopai, stand today. However, in the 20th century Hineuru faced economic insecurity, which was accompanied by widespread poverty, poor housing, disease, and the subsequent migration of many Hineuru from their traditional rohe. It goes without saying, as I always have to say, that it is not possible to compensate Hineuru fully for the loss and prejudice they have suffered as a result of the Crown’s acts and omissions. It really is a testament to their generosity that in agreeing to this settlement Hineuru have forgone full compensation so as to contribute to New Zealand’s development. As the history suggests, their journey to settlement stretches back many decades indeed.

Although I acknowledge those members of Hineuru here at Parliament today, I also need to mention those who are no longer with us. This includes the tribunal claimants who carried the claims of their tīpuna but who were unable to see their efforts and their aspirations recognised in legislation. Hineuru settlement negotiations began in October 2009 when the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc. to negotiate the settlement of all their historical Treaty claims. Settlement negotiations began in 2010, and I asked our former parliamentary colleague Paul Swain to be the Crown negotiator. I acknowledge Mr Swain and the tremendous work that he has done. I regret that certain people in this House have been attacking Treaty negotiators in a very personal way in the last few days, because they do an excellent job, and Paul Swain is one of my closest confidants in this area. On behalf of him I reject everything that has been said about Treaty negotiators, and I notice that no apology has yet been forthcoming.

The Hineuru negotiators then provided me with a set of pou representing Hineuru’s settlement aspirations. These included the restoration and protection of Hineuru’s cultural heritage and their health and well-being; the recognition of Hineuru’s mana and the restoration of their relationships with neighbouring iwi, a very, very important consideration for the iwi; the reassertion of Hineuru presence throughout the rohe; the ability to rebuild an economic base for the iwi; and the revitalisation of Hineuru’s role as kaitiaki of the environment and its resources. These pou have guided Hineuru through their negotiations and have ensured they have obtained a settlement package that achieve these goals, resulting in a stronger and more prosperous future for the iwi.

In August 2012 I signed a letter of agreement, and on 2 October 2012 I signed an agreement in principle. Intensive negotiations followed. These are not superficial negotiations, as one member of this House seems to think. The Crown and Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc. initiated the deed of settlement in July 2014, and then, as I said earlier, we were very lucky to have Hineuru present in the precinct a couple of months ago when the deed of settlement was signed.

The redress package recorded in the deed, which will be given effect to by this legislation, includes an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments of its breaches of the Treaty and its principles, and a Crown apology to Hineuru. These are not negotiated in 5 minutes; they are complex and carefully crafted documents that deal with important matters of history—I say that for the benefit of some members of this House. Then we have financial and commercial redress, including a quantum of $25 million. Then, thirdly, we have cultural redress, including the vesting of six significant sites, overlay classifications, statutory acknowledgments, deeds of recognition, and place name changes, all of which require careful, thorough negotiation, as Mr Swain would tell us. I am confident that this package fulfils the objectives of the pou presented to me by negotiators in 2010 and provides Hineuru with a strong vehicle for the development of their people in the future. I understand the trustees have already begun their strategic planning and have already made important decisions concerning the future of their iwi. I commend the trustees for their leadership and I acknowledge their decision to purchase both blocks of Woodstock Station at settlement date.

The journey of this fine iwi now moves into the final stages as we look to implement the settlement legislation in the next couple of months. I say to the trustees of the post-settlement governance entity and to this House that this bill should proceed to the Māori Affairs Committee without delay. As we know, that committee does a great job in processing these bills and getting them back to the House as quickly as possible. I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā, tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. “Tīhei uriuri, tihei nakonako, whakatau hā, whakatau ko te rangi i runga nei. Whakatau hā, whakatau ko te papa i raro nei. Whakatau hā, whakatau ki matuku mai i Rarotonga. Ko ia i rukuhia manawa pou roto, ko ia i rukuhia manawa o pou waho kia whakatina te more i Hawaiki, e pupū ana, e wawau ana kia tārewa tū ki te rangi, eke, eke panuku, eke Tangaroa, hui e, taiki e!”

I te tīmatanga ko Te Kupu, ko Te Kupu, ko Te Atua, ko Te Atua anō taua Kupu! Anā, korōria ki tōna ingoa tapu i tau mai tōna ringa manaaki, tōna ringa atawhai ki runga i a koutou kua tatū mai nei i raro i te tuanui ō tō tātou Whare. I mauria mai e koutou i te kaupapa whakahirahira o ngā mātua tūpuna, koia nā te take ka korōria, ka wehi tonu tēnei ki tō tātou Kaihanga, kia tiaki tonu e ia ngā manako, ngā wawata ō koutou o Ngāti Hineuru, otirā, mō ngā mokopuna o ngā uri whakatipu, korōria ki tōna ingoa tapu!

Nā, ko ngā maharatanga ki ngā tini aituā, i whakawaha mai te Minita i ētahi ō koutou, otirā, rātou kua ngaro atu ki tua o te ārai, rātou i kawe ai i tēnei kaupapa, rātou i kawe ai i te mamae mō te roanga o te wā, mai i te tūkinotanga o te Kāwanatanga i a koutou, otirā, i a tāua Te Māori, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Ka tangi tonu te ngākau mō rātou kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō. Haere mai, haere! Ka tāpiri atu ko ngā aituā maha kei runga i a tātou e hui tahi nei i raro i te tuanui o tō tātou Whare. Kotahi tonu te kōrero: “Te rāngai maomao ka taka ki tua o Nukutaurua, e kore e hoki mai ā muri.” Kāti te wāhanga ki te hunga mate!

Kia whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou. Ko tāku i tēnei wā e tautoko ana i te kōrero o te Minita mō tēnei take, mō te pire e tatūnga i ngā kerēme, i ngā take e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Wāitangi, arā, ki a Ngāti Hineuru i tau mai i te rā nei. Ka tautoko i ngā mihi ki ngā āpiha, ngā āpiha nā rātou wēnei kōrero me te kiko o tēnei pire i whakaritea, ka tae mai ki roto i tēnei Whare mō te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire, nō reira, e mihi atu ana ki te Minita me ōna āpiha katoa. Ka tautoko tēnei i ngā kōrero ka tukuna atu tēnei pire ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori o Te Whare nei, ka tukuna atu ki roto i ngā ringaringa o te heamana ka noho mai ki tērā taha o te Whare me ngā mema kei runga i taua rōpū hei whiriwhiri i ngā take, hei whiriwhiri i te pire kei mua i te aroaro i tēnei wā, tēnei ka mihi.

Ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki te ngākaunui, ki te manawa ora, ki te manawanui o Ngāti Hineuru, mai i te takahanga o tēnei kaupapa i ngā tau 1990, i tatū ai wā rātou kerēme me ngā take e pā ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Kia mōhio mai te Whare e te Māngai, ā te Oketopa e tū mai nei, ka whā tekau tau Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Nō reira, ka whakaaro ake ki te nui o ngā mahi i oti i a rātou, nā, e pā ana ki ngā iwi puta noa, nā, me Ngāti Hineuru i tae mai i te rā nei, tēnei ka mihi.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero hītori me ngā kōrero whakapapa i kōrero mai, i waha mai e te Minita ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare i te rā nei. Nā, ka kōrero mai te Minita mō te pakanga nui ki runga o Ōmarunui ki roto i ngā tau tini kua pahure ake nei. Kia mōhio mai te Whare, e te Māngai, kia mōhio mai koe, ā te Oketopa ā te tau e tū mai nei, ka 150 tau ka mahara tātau ki taua pakanga te pakanga i Ōmarunui. I taua pakanga rā, ka kōrero mai te Minita mō ētahi o ngā uri o Ngāti Hineuru me iwi kē i whakaherea i roto i ngā whare herehere ki runga o Wharekauri.

I taua tāima, ka whakaaro ake ahau mō tērā tāima. Ka whakaaro ake ahau tā te mea, i taua tāima, i runga o Te Motu o Wharekauri tētahi tupuna rongonui ki roto i Te Ao Māori, kāti, ko Te Kooti tērā! Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki wētahi o ngā kōrero a Te Kootī. Hei tāna: “Ka whakaorangia e ahau te toenga o te tangata i hanga e tōku ringa i te tīmatanga, āke, āke! Ka pei ahau i te hunga kino! Ka whakahau ahau i ngā rohe o Rēneti.” Ko te ngako o taua kōrero e pā ana ki te ao i kitea nei e Te Kooti i a ia e mauherehere ana ki runga o Wharekauri. Nā, ka whakaaro ake ki ōna whanaunga, ki a ngāi tāua te Māori, i tūkinohia ai e te Kāwanatanga ki roto i ngā tau i kōrero nei te Minita i nāianei tata ake nei. Nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki a rātou nāna i peia mai i ō rātou tūrangawaewae tae noa atu ki ngā kāinga e mōhio nei tātou i tēnei wā, arā, ko Te Hāroto, arā ko Tarāwera, ko ngā awa rangatira ka tohua nei, ka kōrero nei, ki roto i te pire, tēnei ka mihi, tēnei ka tangi.

Nō reira, kāti, ka huri i te titiro iaianei nā ki te roanga ake o ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei pire. He nui ngā kōrero! He nui ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā mamaetanga i pā ki runga i a Ngāti Hineuru i roto i ngā tau. Nā, ka tukuna atu tētahi kōnae pūtea ki a Ngāti Hineuru kia whakatinana ai rātou i ō rātou moemoeā, i ō rātou wawata ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātau. Nā, ko ētahi atu wāhanga kei roto i te pire, ka whakahokia atu wētahi o ngā wāhi kāinga o Ngāti Hineuru ki a rātou. Nā, ko tētahi atu wāhanga kei roto i te pire, ka āhei a Ngāti Hineuru ki roto i ngā komiti me ngā poari whakahaere o ō rātou rawa. Ā, ko tētahi anā ko Te Awa o Te Rangitaiki, ā, ko tētahi atu ko Te Awa o Te Mōhaka. Kua kite tātau i tēnei Kāwanatanga e whakarite nei i ngā tatūnga kerēme pēnei i tēnei. Ka mea atu, āe, ka whakaae kia uru mai a Ngāti Hineuru ki roto i ngā mahi whakahaere o ō rātou rawa. Kāti! E mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā whakaaro rangatira! Pai ake tērā i te kore! Pai ake tērā i te noho wahangū o Ngāti Hineuru ki roto i ō rātou mahi whakahaere. Nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā āhuatanga o te pire.

Tētahi wāhanga kai roto i te pire i kapohia nei i te whakaaro o Peeni e tū mai nei, ko tētahi e mea atu ana, ko ngā taonga tūturu kei roto i te pire nei. I te āta wānangahia te kōrero kai roto i te pire, nā, ka titiro anā, koia rā ēnā ko ngā rawa ka puta mai i te whenua, ka puta mai hei oranga mō te katoa. Kāti, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki tērā kōrero te taonga tūturu! Ko te taonga tūturu o tāua Te Māori, he aha rā tēnei? Ēhara i te mea, nō te whenua anake! Ēhara i te mea nō te rangi anake! Ka pupū ake ko ngā taonga tūturu o ngā mātua tūpuna ki roto i te whatumanawa o te tangata, ki roto i te mauri i kawea ai e te tangata, nā, ko Ngāti Hineuru kua tae mai i te rā nei.

Hei whakapakinga ake, kia mōhio mai koutou e Ngati Hineuru, kua tae mai tēnei pire ki roto i tana pānuitanga tuatahi i mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare, i roto i te roanga ake o tōna haere ki roto i tēnei Whare. Kei konei mātou katoa e tautoko ana i te pire, e āhua āta titiro ana ki roto i wāna kōrero kei roto hei totohe, hei tutūnga i te puehu kia whakahoki atu te mana motuhake ki a koutou mā roto i ō koutou whainga ā tae hoake nei. Nō reira, kāti! E te Māngai o te Whare, tātou e hui katoa nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker of the House. “Behold the descendants, behold the recollections, welcome indeed the sky above me, welcome indeed the reef heron from the north, perform the ritual, place the sacred red stone inwards, conclude the ritual by placing it outwards. Firm up the Hawaiki origins here, secure it. For that which wells up, suspend it from the sky above, secure it. Oh to be triumphant and to overcome Tangaroa; so join and be united; it is done!”

In the beginning the Word was the Word, God was God, who was also that Word! That is it! Glory to his Holy name and that his protective and benevolent hand was upon you who arrived under the roof of our House. You brought the magnificent proposal of the ancestral forefathers, and that is the very reason why I glorify and stand in awe of our Creator, and that he continues to look after your hopes and aspirations of Ngāti Hineuru, but at the same time for the grandchildren of future generations; glory to his Holy name!

And now the thoughts go to the myriads of deaths. The Minister mentioned some of yours indeed, those who have gone beyond the veil, they who bore this proposal and hurt for a very long period, from the time the Government violated you, and us Māori indeed, to now. I continue to grieve within for them who are lost to the void. Welcome, depart! I add the many deaths that are upon us assembled here under the roof of our House to those who are gone. There is only one aphorism: “The shoal of Scorpis violaceus that passes beyond Nukutaurua will never return after that.” Enough about those who have died!

I want the address to come back to us. I am supporting the Minister’s address in regard to this matter about the bill settling the claims concerning the Treaty of Waitangi and Ngāti Hineuru, who arrived here today. I endorse the acknowledgments to the officials. They considered these statements and the substance of this bill and are here in the House for the first reading of the bill, and so I commend the Minister and all of his officials. I support the sentiments that this bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee of this House and into the hands of the chairman seated on that side of the Chamber, and into the hands of the members on that committee, for them to consider the bill that is before us right now; I commend this.

I endorse the accolades in regard to the passion, aspiration, and persistence of Ngāti Hineuru since the transgression of this matter in the 1990s, after the settlement of their claims relating to the Treaty of Waitangi claims was referred to the Waitangi Tribunal. It should be noted by the House that this coming October marks the 40th anniversary of the Waitangi Tribunal. And so I reflect on the vast number of settlement referrals that it has dealt with relating to tribes throughout, and to Ngāti Hineuru, who have arrived here today. I really commend them.

I reflect on the historical and genealogical accounts that the Minister related and brought before the House today. Now, the Minister related the major battle upon Ōmarunui many years ago to us. The House and you, Mr Assistant Speaker, should note that this coming October we will commemorate the 150th year of that battle in Ōmarunui. The Minister told us that at that battle some descendants of the Ngāti Hineuru and of other tribes were imprisoned in the prison buildings on the Chatham Islands.

At that time my mind went back to that period because there was another ancestor of note in Māoridom on the Chatham Islands, but enough—that was Te Kooti! I mulled over some of Te Kooti’s proclamations. He said: “I will save the remainder of the people that my hand created in the beginning for ever more! I will banish the wicked! I will protect the borders of Rēneti!” The essence of that proclamation relates to the vision that Te Kooti witnessed when he was in prison on the Chatham Islands. So I thought about his relatives, to us Māori, mistreated by the Government during those years that the Minister alluded to just moments ago. And so I commiserate with those who were banished from their places that they had a right to stand on, including places that we know of today, namely as Te Hāroto, Tarāwera, and the revered rivers that are recognised and referred to in the bill. I commiserate with them and mourn for them.

So enough! I focus immediately now on the substantial details in this bill—which there are a lot of! There are references to the hurt that has impacted on Ngāti Hineuru over the years. Now, there is a reference to a financial compensation that was granted to Ngāti Hineuru to realise their future aspirations and expectations. In some parts of the bill there are references to some places belonging to Ngāti Hineuru being returned to them. Now, in one part of the bill, Ngāti Hineuru is able to participate in the committees and boards that administer their resources. One such is the river of Rangitaiki, and the other one is the Mōhaka River. We have seen this Government making considerations in settlements similar to this one. I say, yes, I agree that Ngāti Hineuru participate in the administration of their resources. Enough! I commend that noble thought. That is better than nothing at all. It is far better for Ngāti Hineuru to have a part to play in the administration of their resources than to remain silent. So I commend that aspect of the bill.

Another part of the bill that captures the mind of Peeni standing here is the one that refers to the original treasures here in this bill. I examined that statement in the bill thoroughly, and I suddenly realised that they were really resources from within the land that emerge as sustenance for everybody. So I pondered over that statement about anything prized that is original. What is anything prized that is original to us Māori; what in fact is this to us? It is not really something from the land alone, neither is it from the sky! And then it emerged that anything original that is prized by the forefathers is within a person, it is the very essence of life that each of us has; now there are Ngāti Hineuru, who have arrived here today!

In closing, I want you, Ngāti Hineuru, to be cognisant of the fact that this bill has arrived before this House for its first reading and for the entire duration of its journey through it. We are all here supporting the bill and being somewhat analytic of its statements at times, debating and stirring up the dust a bit to ensure that your absolute independence eventually returns to you collectively through your aims. Therefore, enough! Mr Assistant Speaker of the House, I acknowledge and commend you and all of us gathered here; thank you.]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa e te Whare. Hei tīmatanga kōrero māku, hei whaiwhai haere i te ia o te kōrero, me pēnei rawa te kī: “Tēnei te ara kei runga ko te ara o tēnei tipua, ko te ara o tēnei ariki, ko te ara o tēnei matua a iwi, ko te ara o Ranginui e tū nei, o Papatūānuku e takoto nei kia rarau iho rā ngā tapuwae o Tāne, tēnei te pō, nau mai haere mai te rā! Koia rā e Rongo whakairia ki runga, tūturu ōwhiti whakamaua kia tina! Tina! Hui e, tāiki e!”

Ko tāku e hoa mā Ngāti Hineuru, tēnā koutou, haere mai. Ko te wāhi ki a au e tautoko i ngā kōrero a te Minita, ka tahi, ā, tēnei o māua a Peeni, ki a koutou kua tatū mai. Ehara i te mea he tawhiti rawa ngā korero ki tērā i kōrerohia nā e Peeni, e tika ana tāna! Anei a Te Ururoa e tautoko ake ana i a ia, anei Te Pāti Māori e tautoko ake ana i ngā kōrero kua puta, anei māua ko Strepsils e raruraru nei, kua pāngia e te maremare, nō reira, e kore au e kōrero mō te wā roa.

E hoa mā, ka mihi rā ki a koutou kua tatū mai! E tika ana tā te Minita, otirā, tā Peeni mō te hunga kua ngaro atu. I a au e tū nei ka hoki ngā mahara ki a Whetū Tipiwai. Ko ia tērā i haere ki te mata o te whenua i raro i te korowai o Ngāti Hineuru te wā i a ia. Ka tangi ki a ia me tērā kāhui kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi nō reira, waiho rātau ki a rātau. Anei tātau i tēnei rā huri noa i tō tātau Whare me ngā mema katoa, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

Kai aku rangatira, ko au tētahi ka haere i roto i tō koutou rohe ka puta i Rotorua, ka tae atu ki Taupō, kua mōhio tonu ahau ka tae ana ki Taupō, kotahi hāora me te toru hauwhā hāora pea, ā, ka tae atu ki roto o Ahuriri. Ā, ka tae atu ki Tarawera kua mōhio, ā, kua āhua tata atu ki tērā o ngā takiwā ki Ahuriri. Ka tae atu ki Te Hāroto, ā, wā poto, ā, ka tae atu ki Ahuriri. Ka mutu, ka tata atu ki Ahuriri kua mōhio, kei reira tonu te Iron Māori e tatari ana ki te hunga pakari. Nō reira, kua waia kē au ki tērā rori, ki tērā takiwā, ka mutu, e hia kē nei ngā wā kua haere au i tērā huarahi me te mōhio anō hoki, arā anō te rohe pōtae o Ngāti Hineuru.

Kua oti kē i te Minita nei te whakatakoto te hītori. E kore au e whakatōwai i ērā kōrero, ka mutu, he pērā anō hoki a Peeni, kāo, e kore au e hoki ki ērā kōrero. Ko te kaupapa nui ki a au i tēnei rā, ko te kī atu, ehara i te mea he nui ngā rerekētanga o tērā o ngā hītori i pā ki a koutou o Ngāti Hineuru ki ētahi atu iwi o te motu. Arā, kua kite i ētahi atu kanohi o Ngāruahine rā kua waia kē rātau ki te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te muru me te raupatu. Pēnei i tā Peeni e kōrero nei, nā wai ngā whenua i whānako? Ē, nā te Karauna! Ka puta i roto i ngā kōrero ā kō ake nei. Ka puta nā runga i te aha? Ā, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te whawhai, o te tohe, ka tahi. Ka rua, nā te āhuatanga o ngā mahi tinihanga a te Kōti Māori, tēnei Kōti Nātive e tū tonu i tēnei wā. Nā reira, ka tangi ake! E tika ana te kōrero, i noho kore whenua nei koutou, i raro i te korowai, i raro i te tirohanga o te Kāwanatanga! Ēngari, kua mōhio tonu koutou ki tō koutou ake rohe.

Ā, ka mutu, i rongo anō hoki au i te kōrero mō Te Kooti. Ki tāku mōhio, ē, āhua ōrite a Te Kooti ki ngā poropiti o roto o Taranaki, a Te Whiti o Rongomai rāua ko Tohu Kākahi. He aha tā rātau kaupapa? Te rangimarie me te rongomau! Ā tōna mutunga mai, he aha te kaupapa i puta? Ko whawhai, ko pakanga! Nō reira, ka raruraru i reira! Anā, pēnei i ngā mea o roto o Taranaki, ā, i heria ngā tāne ki Ōtepoti rā anō. Te āhuatanga ki a Te Kooti me āna tāngata kua heria atu ki Wharekauri rā anō. He aha te mahi? Mauherehere nei i roto o Ōtepoti, mauherehere nei ki roto o Wharekauri. Ēngari, ko te mea pai i puta ko te rongopai. Ko tēnā o ngā whakaaro ko te rongopai, ko te whakapono ki Te Atua. Mā Te Atua anō rā ngā mamaetanga, ngā pēhitanga e whakatau. Ēngari, kei konei tonu tātau e kōrero nei mō ēnā uauatanga. Nō reira, ka tangi ake ki te āhuatanga o ngā mamae i rangona nei e te ngākau, e te wairua e te tinana o te tangata, ō koutou Ngāti Hineuru. Ka tangi ake ki te mamaetanga i utaina ai e Te Karauna ki runga i a Ngāti Hineuru, otirā, ngā iwi o te motu. Kei konei tonu tātau e tohe nei mō ērā kōrero!

Hei whakakōpani i taku kōrero kua rata atu au ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero mō ngā pou e whā i whakaritea mai ai e koutou. Tuatahi, kia whakaora anō rā i te ara whanaunga ki ētahi o tērā rohe, o tērā takiwā. Ā, ka pai hoki kia pērā rawa te āhua. Tuarua, ko te whakaora i te oranga tonutanga o Ngāti Hineuru, ā-wairua, ā-tāngata, ā-ngākau. Tuatoru, kia whai tūranga a Ngāti Hineuru i roto i ngā take katoa o te takiwā. Me pērā ka tika! Tuawhā, kia noho a Ngāti Hineuru hei kaitiaki i runga i ō rātau ake whenua. Koinei te tikanga, me pērā ka tika! Nō reira, ehara i te mea he nui ngā kōrero i tua atu o tērā.

Ēngari, mēnā he kupu kōrero hei whakakōpani i taku mihi ki a koutou i tēnei rā, mēnā ko te tino rangatiratanga tā koutou e whai nei, ehara i te mea, ka kitea mai ai i roto i tēnei pire, kāo! Ēngari, koinei tētahi paku wāhanga o te huarahi kia eke ki tērā taumata! Nō reira, kua puta te kōrero mai i a Hineuru mō Hineuru. Mēnā koinei te whāinga matua, ka pai hoki! Ko tāku, he tautoko ake i te mahi nui a te Minita, he whakatinana i tēnei o ngā kaupapa ko te pānuitanga tuatahi. Arā anō ētahi mahi nui hei whakaoti ā ngā marama tata kei mua i te aroaro. Ēngari, ko te ngākau o te Whare e tautoko ake i ngā keremē katoa.

E hoa mā, kia kakama ki te whakatutuki i te kaupapa nei! Kua roa mātau e kī ana, kaua e kī atu kua mutu te huarahi i tēnei rā, kāo! Tonoa mai wā koutou tamariki, tonoa mai ā koutou tamariki, ka kore e mutu ēnei āhuatanga ki konei ā ngā marama tata kei mua i te aroaro! Ēngari, ko te mamae e kore e mutu! Kei roto i ngā tamariki, kei roto i a koutou! Nō hea mai? Nō te mahi a te Karauna ki ō koutou tūpuna, ki ō koutou mātua! Nō reira, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, ki a tātau e te Whare huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia kaha, kia toa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us all in the House. To begin my address and to follow up the tenor of it, allow me to say: “This path upwards is the path of this deity, this firstborn, this father of the tribe, this Sky Father above, this Mother Earth below, for man to place his feet upon this night, welcome the day, welcome! That is it; Rongo, hang these words up there and fix it firmly! Firmly and permanently! Join, gather, entwine!”

Welcome to you my friends of Hineuru, welcome. Firstly, I endorse the Minister’s statements, and those of the fellow member Peeni Henare, to you who have arrived here. My sentiments are not too far away from those expressed by Peeni, and what he has stated is correct. Te Ururoa is standing here supporting what he said, as is the Māori Party, and so are my Strepsils, as I am troubled somewhat by a cough, and as a consequence will not be speaking too long.

Friends, you have arrived and I really welcome you. In regard to those who have passed away, the tributes by the Minister and Peeni are so appropriate, and as I stand here my thoughts go back to Whetū Tipiwai, who travelled the country under the cloak of Ngāti Hineuru during his lifetime. I mourn him and those who are lost from our sight, and so allow them to rest there in their own company. And here we are today throughout our House with all the members; I acknowledge us all.

I am one who, my esteemed elders, when I leave Rotorua to go to your region, once I get to Taupō I know that I will reach Napier in about an hour and three quarters. So when I get to Tarawera I am cognisant of the fact that I am getting closer to one of those Napier boundaries. When I reach Te Hāroto I know that in a short while I will get to Napier, and also, just before I get there, the place for the Iron Māori event is still there, waiting for the fit ones. Therefore, I am accustomed to that road, that area, and so I have travelled that highway several times, knowing full well that it is Ngāti Hineuru territory.

The Minister has already outlined the history. I will not add anything further, and besides, Peeni did the same. No, I will not go back to those historical accounts. My major platform today is saying to you, Ngāti Hineuru, that there is not a great deal of difference about that history that relates to you as it does to other tribes. I see the face of others like Ngāruahine especially; you are accustomed to this thing about plundering and confiscation, as Peeni said in his address. Who stole the land? Er, the Crown stole it! That will emerge in accounts to follow. Based on what? Based on the circumstances of warfare and disputes is one; two, the deceitful actions of the Māori Land Court, this Native Land Court that continues to exist today. And so I grieve. It is true that you were left landless under the cloak and watchful eye of the Government. But you know your region well—very well.

Furthermore, I also heard about the stories about Te Kooti. In my opinion, Te Kooti is a bit like the Taranaki prophets Te Whiti of Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. What did they advocate? Calm and peace. What was the outcome? Conflict, warfare! And so it broke down there. In the case of the ones in Taranaki, the men were taken all the way to Dunedin. In Te Kooti and his followers’ situation, they were taken all the way to the Chatham Islands. What did they do there? The ones who were taken to Dunedin were imprisoned there, and the ones taken to the Chatham Islands were imprisoned as well. But peace was the great thing that emerged. In regard to that thought, it was the peace and belief in God that emerged from the imprisonment. Only God can settle the hurt and oppression. But we are still here talking about the circumstances of those hardships that the heart, spirit, and body of those of you of Ngāti Hineuru experienced. I grieve for the hurt that the Crown inflicted upon you, Ngāti Hineuru, and indeed upon the tribes of the nation. And here we are debating those accounts.

In conclusion, I warm to the four milestones that you came up with for us to consider. The first one is to restore familial relationships with others in that region or district. It is wonderful if that is the situation being sought. The second one is to restore the very spiritual health, bodily health, and welfare of Ngāti Hineuru. The third one is for Ngāti Hineuru to have a position in all matters relating to the district. That must occur as of right. And the fourth one is that Ngāti Hineuru remains a guardian over its own lands. This is the custom, and it must be so. Aside from that, I do not have much more to add.

However, if there is a comment to close my welcome to you today, it is this: if self-determination is what you are seeking, you will not find it in this bill—absolutely not. But this is a small step towards attaining that level. And so the story from Hineuru about Hineuru has emerged. If that is the main aim, then that is absolutely wonderful. My role is to support the great work of the Minister in implementing this first reading. There is much more work of importance for us to complete in the near months ahead. The heart of the House is really set on supporting all the claims.

Colleagues, we need to make haste to complete this matter. We have for a long time said that the road has not ended here today; no, it has not at all. Send your children, your youngsters here; these circumstances will not finish here, in the near months ahead of us. And the pain will not end! It is in the children; it is in you. Where is it coming from? From the actions of the Crown, to your ancestors and your parents. And so I acknowledge you and us in the House collectively throughout; well done, congratulations, be strong, be staunch!]

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe; e ngā mema o te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngāti Hineuru whenua, Ngāti Hineuru mana, Ngāti Hineuru tangata, tēnei te mihi maioha ki a koutou. Tēnei te mihi maioha i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira. Āe, kua tae mai te wā kia hōnore Te Kōrōria o Te Atua. Nō reira, e te iwi, nau mai, nau mai, hara mai.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you all, the members of the House. To you, Ngāti Hineuru land, authority, and people, my affectionate welcome to you in regard to this great proposal. The moment to honour the Glory of God has arrived, and so I bid you, the tribe, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

It is indeed an honour to stand, to acknowledge, and to support unreservedly the passage of this historic bill, the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. Like previous speakers in the House, I too want to acknowledge those who are no longer here with us both to witness today the first reading of this important bill but also to see the conclusion of what I understand has been a real struggle in getting to this point. So I mihi, in their honour, to those who are no longer here.

In the short time I have it is important to acknowledge those who have been instrumental in bringing this bill to this House today. I do want to acknowledge the negotiators of Ngāti Hineuru and to commend them for the tenacity they have shown and the commitment and the generosity—using the words of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—in getting to an acceptable settlement here today. As a former negotiator myself, I understand the commitment that being a negotiator requires—it requires a commitment of character when you have to travel home to your people and you get called all sorts of things; a commitment to make sure that you are doing the absolute best for your people. So I do want to commend and acknowledge the negotiators for getting us here today.

Of course, we would not be here unless we had the support of the Crown. I want to acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements officials for their role. I also want to acknowledge the Minister, Chris Finlayson. He has overseen a lot of Treaty settlements and I want to support and acknowledge his support in getting us here. Of course, as this bill goes to the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to acknowledge the chair and the members of a very hard-working select committee that does the best for our people, and I want to acknowledge them in support of the work that they get. Hopefully we will get this bill back in quick time.

I do not want to go through it in detail because there is too much to cover in the short time I have. There are two parts of the historical account that I want to draw to the House’s attention and make note of in my contribution. One is about the 34 Hineuru individuals who were among the 86 prisoners of the Crown captured at Ōmarunui and the conflict near Pētane. Most were transported to the Chatham Islands, which the Minister acknowledged, and detained without trial for 2 years in harsh conditions. In 1868 the prisoners escaped and became embroiled in a war with the Crown. During this war, the Crown forces attacked Ngātapa in January of 1869. After the attack a severed head, reported to belong to Nikora of Hineuru, was brought back to the Crown camp. The Crown forces similarly executed a number of prisoners captured at Ngātapa.

With that record of Ngāti Hineuru’s historical account, I draw the conclusion that it is one that is similar to that shared with my father’s people of Rongowhakaata, who, along with Hineuru, lost many lives at Ngātapa. In fact, women and children were shot and thrown over the hill at Ngātapa. I feel the hurt that Ngāti Hineuru have, particularly for those people who were executed at Ngātapa. Kei te mihi ki a koutou.

The second point that I want to raise in the historical account is what I have also seen in many other Treaty settlements. The Minister referred to the taking of land and the returning of land in 1920 to those descendants—to the individual Māori—and how that was overturned in some other forms of legislation in the 1950s, when Ngāti Hineuru again became landless. There have been many settlements where we have seen the actions of the Crown reward those who either fought or enabled the Crown to take the actions that it did on our people by the gifting of land, and then the taking away of land. I just want to draw attention to that particular point because right in front of this House we are dealing with a bill around Māori land, which is ngā ture whenua. I wanted to draw a comparison between what the current Government is doing and some of these historical Acts that have breached the rights of the people of Ngāti Hineuru. I want to make the point that when we are passing legislation in this House that impacts on the rights of Māori landowners, we have to do that very, very carefully.

That is my message today in celebrating this first reading of this important bill: we cannot bring legislation in here that further alienates Māori from their whenua. When we read the historical account of Ngāti Hineuru, they, like many, many iwi, were left landless. It is upon us, as parliamentarians, as members of this House, that the property rights of iwi katoa need to be protected. I want to acknowledge this in the support of this bill.

With the minutes I have left, my closing comments—and I support the Minister—are around the generosity that Ngāti Hineuru have displayed in getting to this final settlement. They have been subjected to atrocious breaches of their rights as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi. Therefore it is important and incumbent on all members of this House that we not only acknowledge those breaches but we support what has been negotiated, like the Minister said, under trying times to ensure that we can at least, in a very small part, accord a form of compensation, of remedy, that will ensure that the aspirations of Ngāti Hineuru are strong as we go forward. Therefore, I stand with all members in this House in commending the first reading of this bill, the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. Kia ora tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Ka mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui i Te Raki me te tīmataka me te tautoko o Te Ao katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi atu hei hōmai ngā mea katoa. E ngā manuhiri a tuāraki, ka mihi ki a Ngāti Hineuru, Te Kura Mouka, Te Mōhaka Awa, Rangi Hīroa te tangata, ka mihi. Ngāti Hineuru e mihi nei, e tangi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The most important thing is to acknowledge our Almighty Father in Heaven and the beginning and the support of the whole world, and so I give thanks to all things given. I welcome you, the visitors from afar, Ngāti Hineuru, the mountain Kura, the river Mōhaka, and the man Rangi Hīroa. I mourn and bid you welcome, Ngāti Hineuru; greetings, and salutations to you all.]

I want first to acknowledge the representatives of Ngāti Hineuru who are here today, and, through you, I want to acknowledge all of Ngāti Hineuru and the pain and loss that have been caused to you by the actions of the New Zealand Government over many years. I also want to acknowledge the many years of hard work that successive generations of Ngāti Hineuru people have put into seeking redress for multiple breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The iwi have sought fulfilment of six pou whenua, or milestones, within this agreement that reflect the nature and the scale of the losses that Ngāti Hineuru have sustained. These include, tuatahi, restoration and protection of their cultural heritage and history for the future generations. This reflects the severe impact on Ngāti Hineuru’s culture and traditions of the loss of land and identity they suffered.

Past New Zealand Governments had labelled the iwi as rebels to justify a tax on them and the confiscation of their land. The Waitangi Tribunal concluded that Hineuru were not in rebellion, but the labelling of the iwi as rebels persists in some historical accounts. This treatment of Ngāti Hineuru as rebels also led to much of their land being given to other iwi who were allies of the Crown.

Tuarua is the restoration of the health and well-being of their people. Unsurprisingly, the confiscation of such large amounts of land had a detrimental effect on Hineuru’s living conditions, particularly housing. The poor health and state of poverty that resulted still affect Hineuru to this day.

Tuatoru is the recognition of the mana of Hineuru and the restoration of the relativity Hineuru had with other iwi. Over the years the Crown had systematically undermined the mana of Hineuru and failed to acknowledge it as an iwi in its own right. The classification of Hineuru as a hapū of other iwi in the region has held back its ability to develop a partnership relationship with the Crown and to maintain its relativity with other iwi in the area.

Tuawhā is the reassertion of the presence of Hineuru, through their rohe. Before the intervention of the Crown, Hineuru were a key iwi in a strategic position in the Hawke’s Bay. Following the mass confiscation of their lands Hineuru were left in the position of being considered a minor iwi, to the point where they have often been left off lists of iwi in the region. This has included also not being listed as an iwi in census material.

Tuarima is rebuilding an economy base for Hineuru. As well as the devastating effect on their culture, health, and mana, massive land confiscations have prevented Hineuru from building any sort of an economic base.

As with any Treaty settlements, this one will not try to compensate Ngāti Hineuru fully for the land and the subsequent economic opportunities that have been lost. But we must acknowledge that every iwi that reaches this point of the settlement process has shown a great generosity of spirit in accepting that full compensation for past wrongs is not possible, accepting instead an apology for past wrongs and a small investment in their future.

Tuaono, revitalisation and restoration of Hineuru’s role as kaitiaki of their resources and their environment. Hineuru will be given a greater role to play in the management of resources within their rohe. This may be recorded in the deed of settlement as a form of redress, and, indeed, Hineuru’s exclusion from the management of these resources is wrong and is indeed in need of correction. But it is also very easy to see this as another form of generosity on the part of Hineuru. Since the Crown took responsibility for the management of these natural resources, they have been degraded. The iwi are now once again becoming involved in the management of these resources, which have been degraded on the Crown’s watch.

At the risk of becoming repetitive, I want to reiterate what I have said in this House many times before: involving iwi in the management of the environment is a win-win. New Zealanders, whether Māori or non-Māori, are people who value our natural environment and who derive all sorts of benefits from it, be it our enjoyment of our beautiful national parks, our mahinga kai, our enjoyment of outdoor recreation, or the economic benefits of tourism. Māori have a unique perspective and a valuable contribution to make to the management of our natural environment. We already know that the Hawke’s Bay will benefit from this settlement through the increased economic development that will come out of the financial redress, but it will also benefit from Hineuru’s involvement in the economic management of their region.

I want to reiterate to the people of Hineuru—I say this: your many years of struggling to right the wrongs of the past are nearly over. You have signed your deed of settlement and soon this bill will give legal effect to that agreement that has come to fruition with the Crown. When that day comes and this bill is passed, it will be up to you to turn this small settlement into a brighter future for your people. The struggles are behind you, but a different type of challenge lies ahead for you. I know that your rangatira will already be preparing for that challenge. As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to considering this bill and welcoming the people of Ngāti Hineuru and any others who come to our committee hearings to make submissions on this bill.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. We work in congeniality as a collective, and we work for our people. This is a true reflection of the work that still needs to be done. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou te Whare Pāremata. He mihi nui ki a Ngāti Hineuru me Te Kōpere trustees o te Iwi o Hineuru Trust i nā ahikāroa o ō rātou whenua, he mihi nui.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you collectively, the House of Parliament; a huge one to you Ngāti Hineuru; and a great gesture by the trustees of the Te Kōpere o te iwi o Hineuru Trust, who are promoting the continuous occupation of their lands.]

The Green Party is very pleased to stand in support of the first reading of this settlement bill. I think we feel very deeply that what has been “invisible-ised” must be brought into the light through this process. This iwi has been through more than most people in this country could possibly imagine—more marginalisation, more violence, and more land loss—with the added hurt of being “invisible-ised” right up to relatively recent times. Saying their name, acknowledging their mana, recognising their place, and recognising their work and their tenacity to get to this point is a very important part of it, as is recognising their tūpuna and those who have gone before, and those who have gone before in the negotiation process to get to this point.

The story of the historical account is, indeed, a profound experience to read. It is a heavy story, much like many others that we have heard in this House, but with the added pain of so much of it being unknown to many others and so much of it being marginalised. So many other names are known, but the story of Ngāti Hineuru has to come to light so that this nation can move forward.

Like my colleagues, I want to acknowledge that there is too much to cover in the first reading, but it is a beginning, and I want to acknowledge, as Meka Whaitiri said, that there is so much in the historical account to acknowledge and so much that needs to be talked about. I just want to touch on, perhaps, my whakapapa as a Pākehā, requiring me to acknowledge the role, which needs to be examined, of people like Donald MacLean and Whitmore—

Meka Whaitiri: Hard.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Yeah—General Whitmore. Streets are named after these men all over the country, particularly on the East Coast. Streets are named after these men, and they are regarded as the founding fathers. But where is the street that is named after Te Rangi Hīroa? Where is the street that is named after the tūpuna of Ngāti Hineuru? So I think that it is very important that we actually examine the behaviour of all of our tūpuna, including those of the Pākehā culture.

We look at the historical account and we can see that Donald MacLean decided without a really clear explanation that the people were a threat. The Crown, under Donald MacLean, decided that the party at Ōmarunui was a threat to the security of the regions surrounding Napier. It could be argued that in the context of the wars that were taking place that Donald MacLean was acting in the interests of the Pākehā community, but what he was doing was acting in the interests of colonisation. So too was General Whitmore acting in the interests of my culture to take over the whenua of many peoples—particularly this people, Ngāti Hineuru. So this is, indeed, a dishonourable story, which is really important to acknowledge, and we need to acknowledge the death that took place.

After all of the negotiations and the mana of people like Te Rangi Hīroa and after all of their attempts to negotiate in fairness and justice with the Crown, what happened at Ōmarunui and Pētane in those days tells another story: a story of dishonour on behalf of my people, my culture, and the Crown. That needs to be acknowledged in order for us all to move forward. There needs to be acknowledgment of those things because it is tragic to read that halfway through the 1860s the men were either dead, had retreated to other parts of the motu, or had been transported to Wharekauri. And so the women at Tarawera lamented their losses every morning and evening with customary mourning practices, scoring themselves with pipi shells “with the effect of making them weep most naturally.” There is much to weep about when all of your men have been taken, when your land has been taken, and when your people are on an island offshore with Te Kooti without trial and without justice.

And so the story continues to be intertwined with the story of Te Kooti, Pai Mārire, and the Hauhau movement, and the story of the people returning to Whareongaonga, a place I have been to, where Te Kooti and people from Ngāti Hineuru, the whakarau, landed in order to return to Aotearoa. But that was just another round of tragedy and another round of marginalisation. I think that it is really important to acknowledge that the whakarau should never be forgotten; that story should be taught in every school in this country. People need to understand what it is to be imprisoned without trial, to escape peacefully, basically, and to come back to your home country, and then to be hounded by the Crown throughout the motu. I think that we have already touched on what happened at Ngātapa—an appalling story of Crown culpability.

So it is really important that we acknowledge that the end of the war meant that Hineuru could maybe return finally to their rohe, but, of course, that was not the end of the instruments of colonisation. So then comes another hundred years—another hundred years—of rip-offs, manipulations, individualisations, and destruction through the wonderful instruments that the Crown had created in order to continue the colonisation process. So we might debate how much is being spent on Te Tiriti settlements, but we need to remember that we have got more than 170 years of the rip-off and that we need to invest in the healing. We need to do that properly, and we need to invest in that healing. So it is really important that we actually understand what happened.

I support the fact that the historical account is very, very clear that the 1951 royal commission report raised more issues and acknowledged that the Crown should not have interfered with the titles that were provided in 1870, but still it goes on. Still there was more marginalisation and loss. So today we are beginning a more positive moment, as my colleague Nuk Korako showed when he took us through the settlement aspirations and the response. Still the people have held on and they have very clear aspirations. They have the six pou, and those six pou are very, very strong.

I was in Tai Rāwhiti this week with another iwi who have had their settlement, and one of the things they said to me was: “Yes, it’s very awesome to be focusing on the rebuild, and we must, but one of the tragedies is so many people have left. How do we bring our people home?”. So I am sure that that will be part of the plan, but it is not an easy plan because to bring the people home, you have to have work for the people. You have to have mahi, and to create mahi, it takes more than a one-off settlement. So I honour the pou because I can see the vision, but I think that it also behoves the rest of the motu and the Crown to actually facilitate not just a settlement but also a genuine opportunity for regional development that will allow those settlements to be what they can be, and not just to leave it to the iwi involved to find a way, because there is so much to rebuild—there is so much to rebuild. It is not only the reconnection to the whenua and the whakapapa but also the reconnection to the taonga and the reconnection to the relationship with awa and with maunga—all of those things—and then to be able to survive in their own rohe, on the terms that the people have defined in their settlement aspirations.

So there is much work to be done, and in the first reading all that we can do is say “Fantastic work.” to the negotiators and honour what they have created here as a first step—as a platform—but also recognise how much more there is to be done. The Green Party does need to say, as we always do, that settlements are not full and final; they are the first step. There is always more negotiating to take place, and there is a need for more investment by the Crown because so much was destroyed and taken. The miracle is that the vision of the people—the kaupapa that we face here today—was not destroyed and taken. That is something that we need to honour here today. That is something to be proud of. But, again, I say to my own people, to Pākehā tātou, as well as to the Crown, that we need to learn the history. When we drive down Whitmore Street and we look down MacLean whatever, we need to recognise that, actually, those men did things in our name from which we have benefited at the expense of an iwi such as Ngāti Hineuru.

So in order to move forward together as a nation—kotahitanga, unity, mana motuhake—we as Pākehā have to face those things and say that there are other names. There are other people who stood strong and whom we should honour. Whether it is Te Kooti or Te Rangi Hīroa, we need to stand up and honour those people. We need to know why we own all the whenua and why we control the resources today, so that redress can be understood by Pākehā and so that there will be a generosity of spirit on our side of the culture, as well as a generosity by the Crown, and instead of expecting all of the generosity that has been given today by Ngāti Hineuru in a settlement that does go some way to restoring the people but that will still take a lot more work. So I guess we are very happy to support this settlement. We are very happy that the “invisiblisation” of Ngāti Hineuru is over and that this iwi will not only be seen but also be able to begin to be strong again. Kia kaha. Kia ora tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā anō hoki tātou. E tū wāhi tēnei ki te tautoko ngā mihi i mihingia e aku tuākana me te tuahine hoki ki a koutou a Hineuru, kua tae mai nei kei waenganui i a tātou ki te ‘hakarongo te ‘hakatakototanga o tā koutou pire. Aroha ana au ki a koutou. He aha ai? Ko te moata o tēnei take i haere mai ki mua i te Whare nei. Taku kitenga mēnā he take Māori, ā, tukuna atu i tēnei waha. Ēngari mēnā he take Pākehā, ā, waihotia ki te ahiahi kia mōhio mai te motu whānui e aha ngā take, e aha ngā kōrero ēngari mō ngā take Māori, waihotia ki te ata, he iti noa iho ngā tāngata e mātakitaki pouaka whakaata, ‘hakarongo ki ngā reo Irirangi, nā reira, aroha ana i a koutou kia moata, kia haere mai ai koutou ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero. Kia ahatia? Ēngari, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou.

Tua atu i tēnā, kei te kaha taku pūhaehae ki a koutou hoki! He aha ai? Nā te mea, e’hakaae ana te Karauna ki a koutou, he iwi! Ki ahau nei, horekau he raru ki tēnā! Ēngari, ki a mātou o te hau kāinga, tōku whānau anahe, tata kē ki te rima mano, ēngari, i kite atu i ngā kōrero i roto i te pire nei, e tahi mano, rima rau i a koutou, nā reira, ka nui taku mihi. Ka nui hoki taku pūhaehae i a koutou nā te mea e ‘hakaae ana te Karauna ki a koutou he iwi. Kia ahatia? Ēngari, korekau e mimiti te kōrero ki a koutou me pēnā o ngā hunga korekau i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei ēngari, nā rātou i tīmata mai te kawetanga o tēnei kaupapa, tae noa ki tēnei wā, tae noa ki tēnei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us all once again. I stand to endorse the tributes that were accorded by my elder male colleagues and my female colleague to you, Hineuru, who have arrived here amongst us to listen to the reading of your bill. I sympathise with you all. Why? Because of the early hour this matter has come before this House. When I saw that it was a Māori matter, I said allow it in this instance. But if it is a non-Māori matter, leave it for the afternoon so that the public can become aware of the issues and what was said. But as far as Māori issues are concerned, leave it for the morning, as only a small number watch television or listen to the radio, and so I feel sorry for those of you who came early to listen to the addresses. What can be done about that? But I admire you greatly.

Further to that, I am also envious of you all! Why? Because the Crown recognised you as a tribe! I personally do not have an issue with that. But for us back in our home area, just our family alone, we are close to 15,000, but according to the detail in this bill I see that there are nearly 1,500 of you. I applaud you greatly. I envy you greatly too because the Crown accepts you as a tribe. So what? But like those who are no longer amongst you today, we cannot say enough for the part they played at the start, when they took up this proposal to where it is this moment, at this stage; so congratulations to you collectively.]

As I have just said in my introductory comments, I support the words of welcome extended by colleagues in the House. But I also want to have it said in English that although I cannot congratulate Hineuru enough, it is with great envy that I acknowledge them. In the bill, it talks about the iwi numbering approximately 1,500 people, which, compared with the settlement that has been granted them, as individual recipients, makes this one of the most generous settlements that we can see in terms of per person. Be that as it may, having said that, my envy is really about the fact that my own family is almost 5,000 and, yet, my iwi is still considered a hapū. However, having said that, it does not detract from the rationale that this bill has given to this settlement.

I just want to say that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations alluded to and acknowledged the generosity of iwi, and particularly of Hineuru, given that, as we well know, any settlement will not be a complete settlement. Again, we have here today an iwi that is prepared to go into settlement, accept the negotiations, and know within themselves that this will not completely compensate them for the things that the Crown has done to them. But I have no doubt that during the Māori Affairs Committee process we will certainly learn more about it, and we will also learn from those who are not satisfied with this settlement. That is one of the beauties about the select committee process; it gives everybody the opportunity to express a view.

I do not need to reiterate the history that has led to this settlement bill, other than to say that it is to the Crown’s credit that it has acknowledged that, and this is part of the process.

I also want to say that although this is a time of joy, particularly for Hineuru, I just want to make a comment that is really about politics. The Minister made reference to an apology being required—not an apology to Hineuru but an apology from a political party that produced the facts. If any apology should be given, it should be given by the Minister to those whom he appointed as Crown negotiators, because we did not name any Crown negotiator, and then when he started doing that—

Hon Louise Upston: Don’t spoil it.

PITA PARAONE: —then, in our mind, he has to take responsibility for issuing that apology. And do not tell me about not spoiling things. If the Minister had not said anything—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to say that the Minister did make some comments that were not strictly within the ambit of this bill. The member has replied, and the member will now come back to the bill.

PITA PARAONE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—the point is taken.

The financial redress is $25 million, and includes interest and, of course, the return of culturally significant properties, particularly the Tarawera hot springs scenic reserve, and quite clearly that meets the needs of Hineuru. There probably were other properties that Hineuru would have liked included. Hopefully, they will let us know during the Māori Affairs Committee process and we will bring it back to the House—rest assured of that.

Of course, there is the erection of a pou whenua, and I think that is one way of ensuring that the claim of Hineuru is well known not only to this generation but also to generations to come. So the total compensation is roughly $50 million, and, as I alluded to earlier, divide $50 million by 1,500 people—but hei aha? That will never ever fully meet those transgressions that the Crown did against Hineuru.

I am particularly interested in the cultural redress. It officially recognises Ngāti Hineuru as an iwi. They were regarded as a hapū of Tūwharetoa, and I would be very interested to learn from them how they were able to do that, so that Ngāti Hine might have the same recognition as an iwi too. Mr Deputy Speaker, I see that you are giving me the signal—other than to say that we will support this bill and look forward to hearing from the claimants during the Māori Affairs Committee hearings. Kia ora.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Ka huri au ki te Whānau o Ngāti Hineuru, nau mai, haere mai, ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I turn to the family of Ngāti Hineuru and welcome you all, welcome.]

I am humbled. I am very humbled to be standing here today to take a call on the first reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. I am humbled because your journey has been a long one, and as I have read about your history and heard about your history I am saddened within my heart that all of those things have happened to you. So when I stand here today to take this call on the first reading, I stand here and I look at a people who have lost their land, who have been attacked, who have been imprisoned—enough hara that will send a people away for good. But through the strength of your tīpuna and of the people who have kept on fighting for Ngāti Hineuru—I just want to say that I am humbled. I am very humbled to be standing in front of you today.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I am looking forward to the whole process of this bill coming back to the select committee. We on the select committee do a lot of work around the claims process, listening to the submissions etc. In respect of this particular one I am most interested, because up until today it was the first time that I had heard of your iwi. I can tell you that now, and I feel a lot of whakamā about that. So, therefore, I will be looking with much interest at the process from here on in, and through to the fruition of your claims process.

I know that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said that the amount that you are being given within the redress may not be as much as what everybody thinks it should be, but it is a start. It is a start towards your economic future, the economic future of your mokopuna—the mokopuna who will lead you all into the future. Ngā tāngata, the people of today, have done all the work, along with educating your mokopuna in the process that has happened, and your mokopuna will lead where you are going to go into the future. I believe that through this process you have a very bright future. It is not how much you get; it is what you do with it that counts. It is like Ngāi Tahu and what they got back then. People would have said “Oh, that wasn’t a lot.”, but they took that little bit and they turned it into a multibillion-dollar business. I can see that happening for you as your iwi grows past this point. So without any further ado, I want to say thank you. Thank you for taking on the Crown process, thank you for accepting the work of our Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson. He would be and will go down in history of this Government and of future Governments and Governments of the past as one of the best Treaty negotiation Ministers to ever walk the halls of our Parliament. Kia ora.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Hineuru, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I stand here filled with much emotion. I found my Uncle Nick’s submission. It was delivered during the hearing period of 27 to 31 January 1997.

What I want to do is acknowledge Peter Kahukiwa and others who, on 27 July 1992, lodged their claim, which is Wai 299. Part of that lodging and part of the resolution of that particular Treaty claim also has relevance to other Wai claims, and I want to acknowledge the people who lodged those claims. The Wai 299 claim was consolidated, and it included Wai 119, which is Ariel Whai Aranui and others; Wai 168, which is Anikānara Te Haipō Hadfield and others; Wai 191, Tamihana Matekino Nuku and others; Wai 216, Moari Karaitiana and others; Wai 400, Hoani Hōhepa; Wai 436, Wī Te Tau Huata and others; Wai 488, Terry O’Sullivan; Wai 491, it says “Niger”—I will not say the other pronunciation—Baker and others; Wai 598, David Kinita and others; Wai 599, Tuhiao Kahukiwa and others; Wai 600, Te Rina Sullivan and others; Wai 601, Winifred Kupa and others; Wai 602, Willie Bush; Wai 608, Lyndhurst O’Donnell; Wai 627, Albert Eden; Wai 692, Hana Loyla Cotter and others; Wai 731, Kevin Te Taka Kupa and another; and Wai 732, Albert Edward Eden. I have read the names of the people who started this process 23 years ago.

I also want to acknowledge the board of Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc. That board is chaired by Tūhuiao Kahukiwa. The deputy chair is Karauna Brown, who is also the lead negotiator. Other members are Ivy Kahukiwa-Smith, Toi Tāwhai, Tirohia Bridger, Rēnata Bush, and Te Reo Spooner. Today is a great day for the iwi of Ngāti Hineuru. I must admit that growing up—and actually, in my Uncle Nick’s submission he said that Ngāti Hineuru was a hapū of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. Actually, what I want to do is acknowledge that many years ago when I was contacted about Ngāti Hineuru being an iwi, and while going through our claims settlement, I said: “No; I was always told that I am Ngāti Tutemohuta and Ngāti Hineuru, and that we are part of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.” But what I do want to acknowledge, obviously, is our whanaungatanga—our close relationship—and I want to acknowledge Ngāti Hineuru in their own right. Obviously, I have to sort out my pepeha now and claim not only Tūwharetoa, Hineuru—

Meka Whaitiri: You can register.

LOUISA WALL: I think my Uncle Robbo has already registered in part of the process. It is really interesting reading my Uncle Nick’s submission. He made this, as I said, in 1997. He went to Te Hāroto School, and my nanny, Wāriti Te Pohe, and, obviously, my great-grandfather Ngāhiri Te Pohe. When I look at my Uncle Nick—and I will have to save Uncle Nick’s submission for the second reading—and his children, so Ngāhere Te Pohe my cousin, and my other cousin Ngātoru Mahupuka, they obviously got the names from Ngāti Hineuru. My Uncle Nick, who went Te Hāroto School—in 1946 my dad was only a baby. Growing up we went to Te Hāroto when I was a kid, a lot. So I want to acknowledge all the whānau. I have not had as close a relationship as I should have had over the years but I am very proud to represent our iwi here in the House. I am very proud of the settlement that our iwi have managed to negotiate, and I wish you all the best for the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā, e kī ana te kōrero Apa-hāpai-taketake nāna a tāpiki te takiritanga o Te Ata, ā, tihei mauri ora! Nō reira, anei a’au tētehi uri o Apa-hāpai-taketake kei te mihi atu ki a koutou o Hineuru. E mi’i ana ‘oki au ki Te Maunga Titiokura, Te Awa Mōhaka, ki ngā Whare Rongopai me Piriwiritua ki Hāroto Marae me kī, ki a koutou katoa ngā uri o Hineuru, tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki te Whare nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, but at the same time the saying goes that Apa-hāpai-taketake rises before the break of dawn, and so behold the breath of life! So here I am, a descendant of Apa-hāpai-taketake, welcoming you, Hineuru, paying a tribute as well to Titiokura mountain, the Mōhaka River, and the meeting house Te Rongopai and dining hall Piriwiritua at the marae of Te Hāroto. Let us say to all of you, the descendants of Hineuru, welcome, come hither to this House.]

It is a great pleasure for me to speak at the first reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. Hineuru is a descendant of Apa-Hāpai-Take-Take, as I am also. I mihi to the people of Hineuru. I have read very carefully, like I do, all historical accounts. This historical account is a story that needed to be told. In this historical account I would summarise the actions of the people of Hineuru as being full of perseverance. We have a saying in Ngāti Apa—it is taken from the bible—īnoia, rapuhia [request it, seek it out]. I think that I could easily apply this saying to the people of Hineuru for their perseverance in getting to this stage, the first reading, in the House today. I acknowledge all of the people involved in getting to this stage. It is not an easy thing to negotiate any settlement, and I acknowledge those Hineuru people—the negotiators—for bringing, from my point of view, a settlement that will deliver a vastly better future for the coming generations of Hineuru. So I acknowledge them.

The cultural redress aspects of this bill and the settlement deserve some discussion in this House. The very first item within the bill is te kawenata, a partnership agreement between the Crown and Hineuru. I have read through that carefully, and I do not think that I have read or seen in any other settlement a partnership agreement quite like this one. The Crown will have responsibility for and will be held to account in this agreement, and I think that that has taken settlements to another level through this particular bill.

Within this bill, there are also a number of statutory acknowledgments and deeds of recognition. I wanted to speak briefly on the deeds of recognition. They are an instrument that is used when a statutory acknowledgment has been given to a certain piece of land, and then a deed of recognition overlays the statutory acknowledgment in order to give the iwi some responsibility and rights in terms of the management of that land. So it lifts to another level their connection to those particular pieces of land. I like to think of it as: in the absence of being owners of that land, they have rights that are tantamount to being owners but without the responsibility of paying for it, which I think is a good thing. That responsibility should be on the Crown.

I also want to mention the commercial redress. As has been pointed out by other speakers, this settlement is, per capita, the largest settlement that has come to this House so far. That needs to be acknowledged purely and simply because it provides a pathway forward for the iwi of Hineuru to address those wrongs of the past and to give opportunities for the future generations, who will be the true beneficiaries of this settlement.

I acknowledge the iwi once more for their tenacity and for their perseverance, and I congratulate each and every one of them. I look forward to this bill progressing through the House to its third reading. It is not an end, the third reading; it is a beginning. Nō reira, ki a koutou ngā uri o Hineuru, tēnei te mihi ake anō ki a koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, to all the descendants of Hineuru, I once again salute you and all of us.]

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great honour to take a short call on this Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. Before I begin, I would like to apologise just in case my pronunciation is terrible. I am reminded of my maiden speech, when I actually talked about how I arrived in this land in 1988, in a waka. The waka was slightly different from the one that the ancestors arrived in. This waka that I arrived in had wings, and it was slightly faster. I would like to say: ka mihi atu ki a Ngāti Hineuru. I hope that means that I acknowledge the Hineuru tribe—iwi, sorry.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Tribal nation.

MELISSA LEE: That is right. It is a great honour even to take just a short call. I am just so touched that I am actually involved in this debate. I have heard Opposition members and Government members talk about this settlement and what a fantastic opportunity it is, not just because of the great amount of money that we are bestowing upon the Hineuru iwi but also because it is an acknowledgment of the wrong that has actually been done. For a Korean girl who was raised in a country that has a 5,000-year history, which was annexed for 36 years by another country—I will not name which one it was—and has never received an apology, this is a fantastic country that we live in, New Zealand. We actually acknowledge the wrongs of the past.

I am also a recipient of the bestowment of the Māori Battalion, or K-force—the Māori people who served in Korea. They taught the Korean people a song, and I grew up thinking that it was a Korean song. I insisted, stupidly, that it was a Korean song, because I was raised believing that it was a Korean song. Imagine the strange feeling that I got when I arrived in this land in 1988 and listened to people singing “Pokare Kare Ana”. I was thinking: “Oh my goodness! These people in New Zealand have learnt a Korean song.” In Korea, we call it “Yeon ga”, which means love song. Imagine that!

You know how Korean people have learnt that Korea was devastated in 1950 by the Korean War. It was utterly flattened. For 3 years they fought, and it is still in a state of war. But the Korean people are a resilient people. Since 1950 we have—everybody probably has—Samsung telephones or drive a Hyundai or Kia car. We have even funked up the “Pokare Kare Ana” song. You know how it goes, really beautifully, “Pokare Kare Ana”; well, the Korean one is “Yeon ga”, and it is really, really fast: “Bi Baram I Chinun Bada…”

As the recipient of the—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is very entertaining, but we would rather you spoke to the bill.

MELISSA LEE: I shall wrap it up. It is an honour for me to actually say that I commend this bill. It is an absolute pleasure.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. E tāpiritia atu ana āku mihi ki ērā i waihotia ki mua i tō koutou aroaro. Nō reira Hineuru, tēnei te tino mihi rawa atu ki a koutou. Kua riro ki tēnei te whakatōpūtanga o ngā kōrero o tō mātau nei tīma, e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa mō te pānuitanga tuatahi. Ka whakaaro ake, māku pea hei whakamārama ērā o ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te whakapāhā, ā, e tika ana kia kuhua ki roto i ngā rārangi kōrero o ngā pukapuka o tēnei Whare Pāremata.

“(a) Tēnei te Karauna te tuku whakapāha atu nei ki a Hineuru, ki ō koutou tīpuna, ō koutou whānau, mokopuna anō hoki.

(b) Kua roa rawa te wā kīhai te Karauna i aronui atu ki te mana me te rangatiratanga o Hineuru, kīhai hoki i tutuki āna here i raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi me ōna kaupapa matua.

(c) E kore e taea te whakapuaki i te pouri nui o Te Karauna mōna i tuku ope tauā ki runga o Ōmarunui, i te takiwā hoki o Pētane, i hinga ai tō koutou rangatira a Te Rangihīroa me ētahi atu, me te tūkinotanga, te aitua nui hoki i pā ki a Hineuru nā runga i te mate o te tangata me te peinga i te whenua tupu. I raru nui anō koutou i te kōkiritanga a Te Karauna ki tō koutou kāinga, te mauheretanga o ō koutou tīpuna kāore he whakawā, kāore he aha, me te patu i ngā mauhere kia mate, he mahi weriweri ka titiro mai a te ao, i a Ngātapa. Mō ana mahi, me ngā pouritanga nui kua utaina mai e te Karauna ki runga i a koutou ko ō koutou tīpuna, tēnei te Karauna te tuku whakapāha atu nei.

(d) E pouri ana te Karauna mō ngā wharanga nui, wharanga mauroa i ara ake i ana raupatutanga i te wāhi nui o ō koutou whenua tuku iho. Mō tēnei mahi raupatu, mō ngā ngahuru tau o te raruraru me te pōkaikaha, ngā tau i ngaro ngā painga mō te iwi o Hineuru i runga i ngā mahi hē a te Karauna e pā ana ki Tarawera me Tataraakina, e whakapāha ana anō hoki te Karauna.

(e) Mai o te wā o te raupatu, i hē kē atu te kino mō Hineuru i ngā mahi hokohoko atu a te Karauna i ngā whenua i toe mai ki a koutou. Tēnei te whakapāha noa atu a te Karauna mō ana kaupapa matua, mō ana mahi, me ana hapanga i noho whenua kore tonu a Hineuru, i ngahoro ai ngā pou o tō koutou noho hei iwi, o ō koutou pūmanawa ki te whai i te oranga, ki te tupu hei iwi, ki te kimi oranga ā-kikokiko, ā-ngākau, ā-wairua anō hoki mō koutou.

(f) E mihi ana te Karauna ki te pakari me te mana o Hineuru, me tō koutou whāinga roa i te tika i roto i ngā whakatipuranga maha.

(g) Rā roto i tēnei whakatau e mahi nui ana te Karauna ki te utu mō ana hara o tau kē, me te tahuri ki te hāpai i a Hineuru kia hīkina ai ngā taumatanga o te whakamauāhara, kia whakawhiwhia anō te iwi ki te toiora, tae atu ki ngā taonga tuku iho o te iwi. E titiro whakamua ana te Karauna ki tōna whanaungatanga hou ki a Hineuru, i runga i te whakapono, tētahi ki tētahi, te mahi tahi, me te whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi me ōna kaupapa nui.”

E tika ana kia kuhua ai ēnei kōrero ki roto i ngā rārangi kōrero mō ngā whakatupuranga mā roto i ō koutou tamariki, mokopuna kia rata atu ai rātau ki te takenga mai o tēnei kaupapa i waenganui i a tātau, ā, e tika ana kia whakaotia. Nō reira, i roto i tērā paku whakaaro mō tēnei pānuitanga tuatahi, ka waihotia ki reira. Nā, mō ō koutou tutukitanga, ō koutou whakaaro ki te Karauna ka waihotia ērā ki reira mō ake, ake tonu atu. Tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau.

[Greetings, Mr Deputy Speaker. I add my acknowledgments to those that were expressed and left before you collectively, and so I really acknowledge you, Hineuru. I have been given the task of consolidating our team’s contributions in terms of the first reading. I thought that perhaps I might explain those sentiments about the apology so that they are recorded as of right in the official record of this House of Parliament.

“(a) The Crown makes this apology to the iwi of Hineuru, to the tipuna, whānau, and descendants.

(b) For too long, the Crown has failed to respect the mana and rangatiratanga of Hineuru, and to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(c) The Crown profoundly regrets its unjust attacks at Ōmarunui and near Pētane that took the lives of your rangatira Te Rangihīroa and others, and the devastation and grief Hineuru suffered through loss of life and exile. You suffered further prejudice when the Crown plundered your kāinga, detained your ancestors without trial, and carried out dishonourable summary executions at Ngātapa. For its actions, and the immense hurt the Crown has caused you and your tipuna, the Crown apologises.

(d) The Crown deeply regrets the enduring prejudice it caused by confiscating so much of your ancestral whenua. For the confiscation, and for the decades of title disruption, dislocation, and lost opportunities Hineuru have experienced as a result of the Crown’s actions in relation to Tarawera and Tataraakina, the Crown also apologises.

(e) Since the confiscation, the Crown compounded the prejudice to Hineuru by purchasing significant parts of your remaining lands. The Crown unreservedly apologises for its policies, acts, and omissions that have left Hineuru virtually landless, and undermined your tribal structures, your capacity for economic and social development, and your physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

(f) The Crown pays tribute to the resilience and the mana of Hineuru, and your long pursuit of justice over many generations.

(g) Through this settlement, the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs, and to assist Hineuru in lifting the burden of grievance and restoring the well-being of your people and cultural heritage. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Hineuru based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

It is appropriate that these sentiments be included in the records for our children and grandchildren so that they are satisfied with the origin of this proposal that is amongst us, and it is fitting for it to be completed. And so in regard to that diminutive thought about this first reading, I will leave it there. As far as your achievements and thoughts through the Crown are concerned, I will leave it there, as it will go on forever. My appreciation to you and to us all collectively; thank you.]

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e te Whare—and in particular very warm greetings to those from Hineuru who are here this morning for the first reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill.

Because of the large amount of business that the House needs to conduct on these occasions of extended sittings it is necessary for those who speak at the latter end of the debate to speak for a very short period of time, but I do want to assure all who are listening that that does not in any way signify a lack of respect or appreciation for the very important work that we are doing today.

I, in particular, want to endorse the comments of all my colleagues from across the House who have spoken today in a way that I think has been both enlightening and, as my colleague Jo Hayes said, very, very humbling. We—or at least many of us—have today been taught things we never knew before. They are things that should trouble all of us and should certainly not only weigh heavily on our heart but stiffen our resolve to ensure that we take whatever steps we can to put them right. I am very proud to be part of the modern generation of parliamentarians who have the privilege and the opportunity to do just that, and it is on occasions such as this that I feel particularly proud to be a member of Parliament and accept that responsibility.

So could I simply say to the iwi thank you for your generosity of spirit and for the good faith with which you have entered into the negotiations. I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of the Crown negotiators and to say this is very important work that this Parliament acknowledges and I am delighted to see that we will all be united in supporting it. May I wish you all the very best in the future as you at long last see significant grievances at least redressed, no matter how inadequately. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora. E te iwi o Ngāruahine tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora mai tātou.

[To you the tribe of Ngāruahine, greetings, salutations, and welcome to you all. I appreciate you greatly, and thank you to us all.]

There is a convention in the House that the Speaker in the Chair is not allowed to make a speech. It will not be lost on my friend John Hooker that I intend to pussyfoot around those rules. Some of us live by the mantra that it is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. You will not hear me speak for very long about the travesties of the past—Te Ngutu o te Manu—the travesties of the confiscations around our rohe, and you will not hear me acknowledge the leaders of the past or acknowledge the travesties of those confiscations and where they have left you today, or wax lyrical in congratulations to Daisy, to Pita, to John, and to others—the familiar faces of those sitting in the gallery. You will not hear me say any of that, because it is against the rules.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. First and foremost, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker—of course, you did not do it—I want to extend a warm welcome to the people of Ngāruahine who are here today to witness the first reading of their settlement bill. Nau mai haere mai.

Today is a day for acknowledging Ngāruahine tūpuna, as well as their descendants. It is particularly important to acknowledge those who have been part of the Ngāruahine journey, working tirelessly over the many years to have those grievances properly addressed. Sadly, many of these people are no longer with us and cannot be part of this important occasion today, but it is important to read their names into Hansard for ever more. I speak of Tohe Pakanga Ngatai, Rawa Tarawanuku, Margaret Kahupūroko Olley, Eric Whakataka Taha, Pue Barry Whakaruru, and John Kata Luke. They unfortunately passed away even before the settlement was realised. I want to read into Hansard the names of Stephen Hēnare Toki, Jean Teira Nuku, and Cyril Rangiwaiwaitomo, who have passed on since.

I want to acknowledge those who are still with us and who were, and are, absolutely committed to making sure that the Ngāruahine voice, their concerns, and their interests were heard. I refer here to Matekitawhiti Carr, Hine Toki, Hinewaitou Josie Bingham, and Ronald Boyd Hudson, some of whom are sitting amongst us today. Of course, special acknowledgment goes to that great New Zealander Tihi Anne Daisy Noble, who has driven the Ngāruahine negotiations from the outset with mana, with class, and with determination, along with the other negotiators. Attending the many Waitangi Tribunal hearings and court sittings in Wellington, in addition to the countless negotiation hui, shows the extraordinary commitment of all these people to the Ngāruahine kaupapa. This unrelenting dedication is the reason we are here today.

I want to acknowledge particularly the Office of Treaty Settlements. I want to acknowledge all departments of State for the work that they have done, particularly the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and there are so many others. I want to say something about the chief Crown negotiator. Yesterday I said that after the 2011 election I approached my parliamentary colleague and friend Rick Barker and asked whether he would be prepared to be chief Crown negotiator. He worked very hard on this settlement, and like all settlements, it had a lot of complexity.

Yesterday there was some unfortunate criticism of my negotiators by one member of this House, without really understanding the complexities and without really understanding how difficult these negotiations can be. I do not want to belabour the point, but all I want to say for the benefit of the House is that it is so easy to criticise from the sidelines; it is much harder to study a settlement, to understand the complexity, and to understand the historical gravity and the need to put things right. Rick Barker did that very well here indeed.

But every country has the type of politician who snipes from the sidelines. Take the United States, for example. Just yesterday Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said of Donald Trump: “We’ve got an empty suit here, full of bravado but not full of anything really meaningful for the country.” Enough said. I do not want to dwell on that particular MP—until the next debate at least—but I do want to acknowledge Mr Barker and thank him for his wonderful work, not only in this settlement but in plenty of others as well, and I am going to continue using him regardless of the criticism.

I now want to highlight some key moments in the history of the relationship between Ngāruahine and the Crown, which provide the bleak backdrop—and I emphasise the bleak backdrop—to this settlement. In the 1840s and the 1850s Ngāruahine people engaged in trade with Europeans. They were prosperous. They were successful. During this time Ngāruahine consistently opposed the sale of their lands to Europeans, and they retained control over their land and resources. What unfolds after that is a truly sorry history of Crown land purchasing that led to war in Taranaki, the devastation of Ngāruahine settlements and cultivations by Crown forces, the indiscriminate and the unjust confiscation of every acre of the Ngāruahine rohe in 1865, and the loss of control over the few lands that were returned.

By the late 1870s large numbers of Ngāruahine people were among the many people from Taranaki and elsewhere who relocated to Parihaka and supported that settlement’s leaders in their movement for independence and peace. Ngāruahine people were among those who were arrested, transported to the South Island, and imprisoned in harsh conditions for long periods without trial, and were also among those who were displaced from Parihaka when that settlement was invaded and dismantled by the Crown troops in 1881. These events remain among the lowest points in New Zealand’s history, which is why we have been doing so much work in recent times with Parihaka, and that is work that I can talk about on another day.

Earlier this year we were welcomed—I say this to my friend Mr Korako—so kindly by Ngāi Tahu at the beautiful Arahura Marae near Hokitika, and then up the road I was honoured to deliver the Crown’s apology to the people of Ngāruahine at the very site of a memorial for those of the iwi who were transported to the West Coast. This was at the conclusion of their recent hīkoi to the South Island to visit places where their tūpuna were taken from Parihaka and held captive in caves, forced to build stone embankments around Otago Harbour and many of the roads in Dunedin. This was a fitting conclusion to a very emotional and spiritual hīkoi.

I now turn to the settlement itself. Following the signing of the terms of negotiation in October 2010 Ngāruahine signed an agreement in principle at the end of 2012. The deed of settlement was initialled in June 2014, signed a couple of months later, and now we have the bill before the House. Of course, the members of the Māori Affairs Committee are going to take a good look at it. They will see that key elements of the package include $67.5 million, a right of deferred selection over 10 sites, the vesting of four culturally significant sites, overlay classification over six sites of particular importance, statutory acknowledgments over 51 sites of significance, and deeds of recognition over 23 sites.

There is so much about this settlement that I could talk about, but it is important to get this bill away to the select committee today. So, in closing, can I simply say that it truly is a privilege to be the steward of this portfolio, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and to have negotiated this settlement with this great iwi. It certainly is a privilege to be opening the debate on this very important occasion. It is a day for reflection on what Ngāruahine have lost, but it is a day of optimism as well—optimism for the future that lies ahead for Ngāruahine. The bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and so I commend it to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te W’are, oti noa, “Piki mai, kake mai, hōmai te wai ora ki ahau e tū tehu ana te moe o te kuia i te pō, hoi ka raru, ka papaki kau ana ngā tai ki Te Reinga, ka pō, ka ao, ka awatea, ā, tihei mauri ora!” E tuku mi’i atu kia koutou Ngāruahine, ā, ki ngā hapū Kānihi, Umutahi hapū, Ōkahu, Inuāwai hapū, Ngāti Manuhiakai hapū, Ngāti Tū hapū, Ngāti Hauā hapū, Ngāti Tamahūroa Tītahi hapū. Anei ahau tētehi uri o Ngā Wakatauroa tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. Ka mi’i atu anō ki ngā mate, ngā mate katoa i runga i a koutou, i a mātou, i a tātou katoa. Ka nui te tangi o te ngākau te wehenga atu ō rātou mā i tīmata tēnei kaupapa, nō reira, e ’oki, e moe, e moe.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, and so, “Come up, ascend here, give me living, giving waters, for the lady sleeps in eager anticipation, but there was deception as the tides broke at Te Reinga and the night, and, alas, the night set in, then came dawn, and behold the breath of life!”. I welcome you collectively, Ngāruahine, and the subtribes Kānihi, Umutahi, Ōkahu, Inuāwai, Ngāti Manuhiakai, Ngāti Tū, Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Tamahūroa, and Tītahi. I, a descendant of Ngā Wakatauroa, stand here to welcome you collectively; come hither, come forth, welcome. I also acknowledge the dead: those upon you, us, and everyone. There is much grief within me to those ones who started this proposal, and so rest, sleep, slumber on.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak in the first reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. Ka tāpiri atu taku mihi ki te mihi ka tukuna atu e koe ki te iwi nei [I add my tribute to the one that you accorded this tribe here]. I want to join my acknowledgment to the one that you gave first, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I think it is appropriate, as you are in the Chair, that you ought to have done that. So I acknowledge that you did that, and I join my acknowledgment to yours.

This settlement has been a long time coming, like all settlements that arrive here. I talked about perseverance in the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill, and I could equally apply that to the Ngāruahine people—their perseverance in coming through all of the historical issues that have happened in Taranaki whānui and, in particular, in this case, to Ngāruahine; the likes of which are still carried by the people of Ngāruahine to this day.

I have spoken on these settlement bills on previous occasions, and I have talked about historical and intergenerational trauma. If there was a historical account that I have read that describes the historical and intergenerational trauma, then I would point to the historical account that is included in this bill. It is not easy for a generation to carry such trauma and then to address it with the perpetrators of the trauma that has been inflicted upon them. It takes courage to be able to do that, so I acknowledge the whole iwi, and I want to acknowledge, in particular, the negotiators and, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has pointed out, Daisy Noble, who has been absolutely tenacious in getting Ngāruahine to this point today. I think that she ought to be mentioned for the very fact of carrying the hurt and the trauma of past generations so that it can be addressed appropriately through this settlement. And so I acknowledge that.

This settlement is a significant one. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has outlined all of the parts that are included within this deed of settlement. I want to acknowledge his work in bringing this settlement to the House, and also the Crown negotiators and the officers at the Office of Treaty Settlements. The kaitiaki instrument in particular drew my attention. It talks about the natural resources, which are, of course, very important to Ngāruahine.

I also wanted to spend a bit of time on the financial redress. I believe that the financial redress looks fairly significant, of course, but we all know that it is but a small proportion of what was lost. The total area lost in Taranaki was 1.2 million acres, which includes all of the land of Ngāruahine. This gives an opportunity for the iwi to move forward, to use that settlement asset to grow the economic base of the iwi, so that the generations of today and the generations to come, which bear the effects of those things that impact the iwi today, will have a base from which they can restore, or begin to restore, their place within, and on, their lands.

I think it is important that we acknowledge—and we have heard about this—the generosity of spirit. We have heard of it a number of times during debates on settlements, but when an iwi has lost completely everything—absolutely everything—and then still survives today and finds it within itself to negotiate with the perpetrators of the hurt that has been inflicted upon it, that generosity certainly needs to be acknowledged. The financial redress, as I said, provides a way forward for the iwi. I think that through this financial redress future generations will be in good stead.

I have to acknowledge also that through this settlement the iwi of Ngāruahine will eventually be—and I am sure that they are well on their way to being—full participants in everything that goes on in their rohe. I point to the relationship mechanisms within this Treaty settlement and also to the letters that the Crown will write to ministries in order to encourage those relationships to move forward. I always think that those letters could be a bit more. I think that there could be more obligation on the ministries and departments to ensure that that relationship happens. It is something that I think should be discussed at the select committee, and hopefully we can make sure, through submissions, that those letters are not just pieces of paper, and that when there is engagement between the iwi and those ministries it is at the level where the decisions are made, and not with officers—middle management—of those ministries.

Nō reira, koinā taku kōrero, ā, ka mihi atu anō ahau ki a koutou ngā uri o Ngāruahine. Ka nui te mi’i atu ki a koutou, ko te tūmanako kia ūhia mai ngā manaakitanga ki runga ki a koutou katoa mō ngā wā katoa, ā, tihei mauri ora!

[That is my address, and I acknowledge you collectively once again, descendants of Ngāruahine. I admire you greatly, in the hope that all that generosity will spread over you all the time; so behold the breath of life!]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): “Titiro, titiro ki Te Maunga Tītōhea i runga o Parihaka, Waitotōro, Ngāti Moeahu, Ngāti Haupoto. Ko te takiritanga i te kahu o Wikitōria kaitoa, kaitoa! Ko Tohu, ko Te Whiti nga manu e rua i patu i te hoariri ki te rangimārie, ksss auē, ksss aue! Ahakoa te pahū o Tanga, o Parihaka, uē, uē, uē, hā!”

Kai ngā taokete, Te Maunga Tītōhea koutou e kawe nei i te raukura, ngā tūmanako o te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, e rarau! Nau mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata nāna koutou i tūkino i ngā tau kua hipa ake, i tēnei rā kua hara mai koutou ki raro i tōna parirau me ngā mate huhua kua pā mai, kua kōrerohia nei e te Minita i tēnei ata. Ka tangi ake, he kitenga kanohi ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hunga kāore i konei, ēhara i te mea nō roto i a koutou ēngari hā, ka huri tika tonu ōku whakaaro ki a Te Miringa mā, ko rātou i āki nei i ēnei kaupapa mō Taranaki whānui tonu i te wā i a ia. Ēngari, anō koutou i tēnei rā te hunga ora, e Daisy, ko koe tērā e ārahi nei i ngā kaupapa. Ka tangi ake, ka tangi ake mō ngā pakeke kua ngaro. Hoi anō, kai konei koutou, kai konei koe kua eke ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai kei aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau!

I puta i a au tētahi kōrero i Te Marae o Tūrangawaewae i te kotahi marama pea kua hipa, i tērā o ngā hui i whakanuia ko te āhuatanga o te kirimana i waenganui i a Waikato-Tainui, me te Karauna. I reira a Hēmi Bolger rāua ko te tangata nā a Sir Doug Graham. I kī atu au i te marae rā, ē, kua āhua raruraru a Te Ururoa ki te noho i Tūrangawaewae, i a rātau e whakanui ana i te kirimana i waenganui i a Tainui me te Karauna i te mea, i ngā 25 tau kua hipa, i tērā taha o te taiapa kē au e porotēhi ana. He pērā anō taku aronga ki a koutou i tēnei rā, e kai ōku taokete! I ngā wā roa mō ngā toru tau kua hipa ake, i reira tātau, ētahi o tātau, ā, tukituki nei te rae i runga o Waitara!

Ā, he aha te kaupapa? Ko te kōpaki o te Karauna! Ko tana Kiriona, ē kī, ē kī! Ko tā tātau i tērā rā ko te kī atu, tō hamuti! Whakahokia atu tō kōpaki, ā, ki tua o tāwauwau! Ēngari anō, a, kai konei tātau, ā, ko tōna whakatinanatanga, ā, kua āhua tūreiti te kōrero mō tērā i tēnei wā. Nō reira, haere mai rā i raro i te āhuatanga o ēnei whakaaro. Ka tangi ake ēngari, ka hari harikoa i te mea, kua eke koutou ki tēnei taumata. Nō reira, e tika kia noho au ki roto i Te Reo Māori ēngari, kua koropupū ake te whakaaro, ā, me whakatakoto ētahi paku kōrero i te reo Pākehā kia mārama tonu te whānuitanga o ngā mea e whakarongo nei ki ēnei kōrero. Nō reira kai aku rangatira o te Whare, kai te Kaikōrero o te Whare, tēnā koe, me tō kore kōrero mō tō rahi.

[“Look, look at the Barren Mountain over Parihaka, Waitōtara River, and the subtribes Ngāti Moeahu and Ngāti Haupoto, and the loosening of Victoria’s cape; good job, good job! It was Tohu and Te Whiti, those two birds, who slew the enemy with peace; ksss, oh, the pain, ksss, oh, the pain! Despite the eruption of Tanga and Parihaka, it shook, shook, and shook to no avail; what a delight!”

To the in-laws, to Barren Mountain bearers of the feather plume and aspirations of those who are lost from sight, I greet and acknowledge you; welcome, come hither, settle in! Welcome to Parliament House, that which violated you in the years gone by and today, you have come under its wing with your many deceased, who have been mentioned by the Minister this morning. I mourn them, and, after seeing you, memories of those who are no longer here are recalled, even though they are from within you entirely. My thoughts go directly to Miringa and them, the ones who really urged these proposals along for Taranaki at large in his time. As far as you are concerned today, Daisy, you and the ones who are alive are leading the proposals. But I do mourn and grieve for the elders who have passed away. You as a collective, however, are here; you have arrived in the House of Parliament; come hither, welcome, draw closer, and acknowledgments to you, my esteemed elders; salutations, congratulations, and well done to us all.

I made a statement at Tūrangawaewae Marae about a month ago, at one of the meetings to celebrate the circumstances around the signing of the deed of settlement between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown. Jim Bolger and Sir Doug Graham were there. At that marae I stated that I, Te Ururoa, had become somewhat troubled to remain there at Tūrangawaewae while they were celebrating the deed settlement, because 25 years ago I was on that side of the fence protesting instead. My inclination to you, my in-laws, is still similar to what it was then as it is today! In that lengthy period, about 3 years ago, we were there; some of us were there up at Waitara, at loggerheads with each other! And what was the proposal? The fiscal envelope of the Crown! Its billion dollars—well, well! Our response that day was: “Your faeces! Take your envelope away to beyond the wherever!”. That aside, we are all here—its fulfilment? Well, today it is a bit late now to talk about that.

And so welcome here, indeed, under the circumstance of these views. I lament, but at the same time I am very happy because you have reached this pinnacle. It is apt, therefore, for me to have remained speaking in Māori, but the thoughts well up from within that I should express a few thoughts in English, so that the vast number listening in can have some clarity about these sentiments. And so, esteemed ones of the House and Mr Deputy Speaker, my appreciation to us all, and to you in particular, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, for not making any reference to how well you have been put together; thank you.]

It gives me great pleasure to stand in front of Ngāruahine today. I say that because it was about 30 years ago that I arrived with my whānau back in Taranaki. My wife is from Taranaki and became involved in many of the things. As I said earlier, I was on Tūrangawaewae Marae a couple of months ago, actually, celebrating 25 years, I think it was—

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: 20.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Twenty—20 years since the signing of the Waikato-Tainui agreement, and there was James Bolger and—

Tim Macindoe: Doug Graham.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Sir Doug Graham. Sir Doug Graham referred to a protest that happened to be outside of Tūrangawaewae at the time, and I said: “Well, Sir Doug, you were on this side; I was actually on the outside protesting about that fiscal envelope that was touted around by the National Party at the time.” It brings back memories because for many of the people I see up here it is exactly the same. It was about 30 years ago when I went to Taranaki and—I will admit to it—we sort of led a few protests now and again, caused a bit of havoc now and again, but had some fun.

Pita Paraone: Led by your heart.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ha, ha! It was very much led by the heart, and I just think about those times and the many people, because I did attend many of the first discussions. We are talking about 30 years ago—holy cow; 30 years ago. Here we are 30 years down the track and not everybody is through the gate yet, but some are. I remember the Waitangi Tribunal hearings, where absolutely everybody said: “No way. Do away with that blimmin $1 billion. You’re not going to buy us off for that amount of money.” Well, history is history. We know what has happened since then.

But I think about many of those who have passed on, and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations mentioned some of them, but I think very much around Te Miringa Hohaia, whom you may remember, but one of the korero that came out was Taranaki, kia kotahi te kōrero [Taranaki, be of one voice]. We know what has happened is that people have split off, and that is fine. But I think about nā koutou who have come today, because it has been a long journey. So to Daisy, I congratulate you and you whānau and your team. Wīremu, ki a koe anō hoki i kite au i tō ingoa i runga i ngā rārangi ingoa [to you too, Wīremu; I noted your name on the list of names]. So congratulations to you for being here.

You may not have been here earlier, but we made mention—a couple of the members have talked about a few things this morning that I think are important to put on the radar. One of our members, the Green member Catherine Delahunty, in fact, talked about the fact that although we celebrate so much the various people in our history—people like Paris and Grey and Whitmore are celebrated in history; I know they are celebrated, because they are street names in New Plymouth, for goodness sake—but ko te hunga Māori, ā, kāore i kitea [as for the Māori people, they were not sighted]. And I know that one of those protests was to get rid of those posts, but I did not—I did not touch those ones. It was other ones—no, no it was not. So I think that is an important point that those names have huge ramifications for our people, because they are symbols of a history that many people do not talk about.

I just want to raise a second issue that others have spoken about, which is that the history of people like the people of Taranaki—I lived there for a couple of years, and I have got to say there are a few people who I know feel so deeply and strongly about confiscation. These people are one of them. Tūhoe is another; Tainui is another. There are others, obviously. But, you know, because they live on that same land that was confiscated from them—and, as a teacher of Treaty education, I have seen the books that show the confiscation line. For somebody who came out of a Parliament of New Zealand to draw down the page one squiggle and draw to the right and say “All of that is now confiscated.”, you know, that is a part of our history that not many people talk about. Here we have an opportunity to put that sort of stuff in front of our Parliament, and I think we should take that opportunity all of the time.

I take the point of the “Ngāti Paraone” tribe. He said: “You know, maybe these debates should be in the afternoon so that they open up for the general public.” It is all very well for us sitting here and for those watching on TV, but actually the history that is spoken about in these Treaty debates is hugely important. We never get it out—we have got 10 minutes to put everything out there. We never do it justice, but the mere fact of some of the key points that all of us make, for the purposes of being united about giving opportunities for people to move forward, I think, should be given consideration. Maybe we will take that up in the Business Committee of the House.

These are the thoughts that sort of come to mind, and the hope is, of course, that although the journey is not over, because there are a couple of stages—I was looking for one certain man from Ngāti Tū to come to the door, but I cannot see him here today. So I am suspecting that he will want to have an audience with me and to have a talk. I gave a commitment to that Ngāti Tū kaumātua that I would come up and see him. It may be a little bit later. I may have a phone message on my phone, which I will get to this afternoon, and we may have a talk on Facebook. But these are the things that we go through. Some of our people say “Let’s go.”, some of our people have certain issues that they still want resolved, and some of our people are so passionate—and there is nothing wrong with passion. There is nothing wrong with passion, especially if it is in the best interests of our people.

E hoa mā, koinei te mihi o te ngākau ki a koutou i tēnei rangi, kua eke ki tēnei taumata! Ē harikoa ana ko koutou tēnei kua noho nei hei hoa haere mō ngā iwi kua tae kē mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata. Taihoa ake nei ka eke Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori ki runga i a koutou ki reira wetewete ai, te tikanga ia i mua o te paunga o tēnei tau. Ko wai ka mōhio, ka hoki mai koutou? Ā, koirā te rā waiata, te wā ngahau, te wā e tutuki ai te kaupapa, e taea ai tō koutou haere i runga i te huarahi whakarite mai ai. Nō reira kai aku rangatira, e ngā taokete, kai ngā uri o ngā manu e rua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Colleagues, I really acknowledge you from the heart today; you have reached the pinnacle. I am absolutely thrilled that you remain here as ones for tribes arriving here in the House as ones to engage with. The Māori Affairs Committee will shortly prevail upon you to critically analyse with you there, and hopefully before the end of this year. Who knows when you will be back? And that will be the day to sing, entertain—and when the proposal is settled and you go off on your way to make plans. And so, my esteemed colleagues, in-laws, and descendants of those two birds, I acknowledge, commend, and congratulate you and us all collectively; thank you.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Māku e whaiwhai ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i te ata nei, ā, nō reira ki a koutou Ngāruahine, kei te mihi maioha ki a koutou. E hoki ngā mahara i tēnei wā ki a rātou katoa, ka whakaaro ake ki ngā mātua tūpuna me ngā kupu kōrero i waihotia ki ngā whakatupuranga hei kawe i tēnei kaupapa te toimahatanga o te raupatu, me te hiahia kia whai oranga i roto i ngā āhuatanga mō ngā whakatupuranga. Nō reira, ki tērā kīwai o te kete nei e Tihi, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Nāku te waimaria kia tuitui i ēnei kōrero ki ērā i waihotia i roto i Te Whare nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will follow up on the contributions expressed this morning, so an affectionate greeting to you collectively, Ngāruahine. At this moment my thoughts go back to all of the departed, and I reflect on the words uttered by the ancestral forefathers, which they left behind to the generations, about this matter of extreme depression relating to confiscation, which was for them to bear, with a desire that benefits accrue from within the circumstances for generations. Therefore, on the other handle of this basket, Tihi, I acknowledge you all; greetings, well done, and congratulations. It is my good fortune that I am able to stitch these comments to those that were left in this House.]

It gives me some pleasure to be able to contribute to this particular Treaty settlement. As I said in my opening mihi, you cannot help but be reminded of some of the historical facts of the country and locate yourself in some small way to some common interest. When I read through the historical accounts for Ngāruahine and the impact of confiscation in the area, there was so much that was similar to the experience in Waikato—1.2 million acres were confiscated in Taranaki, which is the same amount as in Waikato.

In terms of the inability of the Compensation Court to adequately address the issues, because those who had fought hard to hold on to their lands were classed as rebels, and in terms of the dislocation that people had as a result of raupatu of their land—how that turned relationships around, often, within hapū and within whanau, those who fought with the Crown and those who remained loyal to the aspirations of their people—all of this kind of gets churned up as a result of combing through the historical facts and the events that occurred. I grew up as a child who heard only stories of people who had remembered their tūpuna who had fought during particular times. But can I say this, as a child of a raupatu area, he rongoā i roto i te mamae [there is a medicine in the pain], because we were very well assured that despite the burden of obligation that the generation above me—my parents’ generation, my father’s generation—had to address the issue of raupatu, it was so that the next generation had the ability to look forward.

In some small way the settlement process enables that to happen. It is not a complete redressing of all those wrongs, but it is a window and a door that you can choose to walk through so that things can be better for the next generation. It is so as not to forget the past, but to be able to walk confidently into the future and say: “This is who our ancestors were and what they believed in. This is who we are now. This is how we choose to be going forward into the future.” For all that, I acknowledge Ngāruahine. I acknowledge everything that is in this particular settlement and what you have tried to achieve.

I had a look at some of the aspects of this settlement. Can I say that at the select committee level I am particularly interested in the local government level, the instruments that enable your participation in the planning and regulation aspects of what happens within your particular region. I will take a particular interest in that because I know that so much of what can happen going forward into the future will require your own determination of your development aspirations and being able to locate that within your own area, working with local government, working with business, and working with all those groups you have to work with to give full effect to what you want to do. I also note that there are relationship accords with key Government agencies. We have just had a debate yesterday in the House with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations noting the Post Settlement Commitments Unit and how that unit can be a really key part of ensuring that these accords are monitored and evaluated and are operating in the way that the settlement intends it to operate, because if it falls short of that, it falls short of your aspirations contained in the settlement.

Although it may not, on the surface, be appropriate for certain matters to be relitigated, Minister, I anticipate that even though the Wai 552 issue has gone to the High Court and has had a determination, it may well come back to the Māori Affairs Committee through a submission. Often I have noticed, through the Treaty settlement process, that people use the select committee as a way to be able to tell their story and have it recorded and heard in some way, shape, or form. The select committee gives a lot of respect to anybody who presents submissions to us in earnest, in order to try to understand the nature of their concerns. We are somewhat constrained in being able to address this, because once it gets to the settlement phase and the legislative phase our strongest role is to ensure that the deed reflects what is contained in the legislative mechanisms, and we can kind of really scrutinise some of that aspect. But to revisit matters that have already been determined elsewhere, we are a little bit constrained in that respect. I do want to mention that because I anticipate that that will be an issue.

I also note the matters with regard to the conservation estate. You know, the conservation legislation is still, in itself, one of those Acts of law that have the strongest references to giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. So the Treaty settlement process has enabled us to really have a high level of expectation on these accords and these instruments through the conservation estate, to be able to make sure that they are working to their full extent as well.

Do you know what? Over time I have considered in this House—and I have been here as long as the Waikato raupatu settlement, 20 years next year—that the conservation lands might be the last bastion of New Zealand lands solely held for our people in the public estate, and Māori are inserting themselves right in there, saying: “We’re going to partner how these lands are going to be managed, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.” That can only be good, because more and more we are seeing so much of the New Zealand estate sold elsewhere out of our hands, and the next generation is quite fearful about that. So New Zealanders owe a huge debt of gratitude to iwi who, through their good nature, have said: “We can do this with the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders.” It gives me great heart, the Tūhoe settlement with Te Urewera. That will radically, I think, transform the way in which people will look at co-management and co-governance of a beautiful estate like that, as does the Ngāruahine settlement.

There is so much more to this Treaty settlement that, again, as the Minister himself said, there is not enough time in 10 minutes to be able to do it adequate justice. But you can rest assured, Ngāruahine, that the diligence of our select committee chair and his good nature enable us to investigate any matter that we require—

Pita Paraone: And members.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —and members; that is right, the member from New Zealand First—and to investigate those matters that are really important, to give you an assurance that we are doing the best job we can do to steward through what has been a huge and long effort of a number of people. But, most important, the total sum of that effort is courage—courage and conviction. Nō reira, i roto i ērā kupu iti, ka waihotia i roto i ēnei pito kōrero mā koutou hei hari, hei whakahoki ki te kāinga, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So in those brief words, I leave these brief statements for you to enjoy and take home; so acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, ā, “Ko te hau mua, ko te hau muri, ko Te Hau Tamawahine, ko Te Hau Tamatāne, e tū mai rā Te Tokotoko a Tāne-nui-a-raki, e tutū mautia whakamaua ka tīna, tīna, haumi e, hui e, tāhiki e!” Ā, tēnā rā koutou ngā pōua o Waitaka o tō tātou matua tipuna. Ngāruhine ka mihi, Taranaki Mauka ka mihi, nō reira e ngā manuhiri o te Whare Pāremata nau mai, haere mai, piki mai, kake mai, hōmai te wairua.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And so: “It is the winds to fore and aft, those of Tamawahine and Tamatāne, and yonder stands the walking stick of Tāne-nui-a-raki, hold fast to it securely; join, gather, and entwine; it is done!” And so acknowledgments to you, the aged from Kaikōura to Waitaki; I salute you. To you, Ngāruahine and Taranaki Mountain, visitors of Parliament House, I therefore bid you welcome; draw hither, mount, and climb aboard, give me the spirit.]

I want first to acknowledge the people of Ngāruahine who are here today and those who could not be but may be watching or listening to this, which is a momentous occasion for the people. I am Ngāi Tahu, and I know the history of these people. I come from Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa and I also come from Kāti Waewae Arahura o te Whare Tūhuru. As children we were told these were the stories of these people, these prisoners, who came to our marae, and who actually, at Rāpaki, they were interned on Ōtamahua, and a lot of them perished. My tīpuna brought them from Ōtamahua te Rāpaki. And then those who were taken to the Tai Poutini were also interned where they suffered and died. So I want to acknowledge this incredible people and what they have gone through.

The history here of Ngāruahine is one of the great ironies of the New Zealand Wars. Despite the fact that it was the Crown that violated the recently signed Treaty of Waitangi, it was the iwi who were branded as rebels both by the Government of the day and by many subsequent historical accounts. Ngāruahine was one of these iwi. This was a prosperous and successful iwi that had been trading peacefully with Europeans, but for many years they opposed the sale of their lands to Europeans, and that was their right. When the end of Ngāruahine’s success as a prosperous and peaceful iwi came, it was not to protect their own lands but that of neighbouring iwi.

It should be a mark of pride to the people of Ngāruahine that their ancestors put at risk their financial prosperity to go to the aid of others. When the Crown declared war on North Taranaki iwi, who were resisting forced sales of land, some Ngāruahine entered the war to support their neighbours. When the Crown confiscated 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land, it included all of the land belonging to Ngāruahine. Crown forces then entered the Ngāruahine rohe, destroyed villages, stores, and sources of food, and took a lot of Ngāruahine as prisoners. Eventually small percentages of land were nominally returned, but even then there was uncertainty about the control the iwi had over its land.

As I said before, many displaced Ngāruahine relocated to Parihaka and joined the peace movement there, only to be arrested and transported to jails in Te Wai Pounamu. It was highly appropriate that the apology for the Crown’s wrongs committed against Ngāruahine should be delivered on the Tai Poutini at Hokitika earlier this year, at the site where many Ngāruahine ancestors were jailed. Over the years since these breaches of the Treaty took place, Ngāruahine has been forced to suffer the injustices of so-called redress through the wholly inadequate west coast commissions.

The Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act of 1944 claimed to provide a full settlement of claims, with no evidence that Ngāruahine had agreed to the settlement. What we have here today is a full and final settlement that has been agreed between the Crown and Ngāruahine. It acknowledges the wrongs that the Crown perpetrated against the iwi and offers an unreserved apology. What it does not, and, indeed, cannot, do is fully compensate Ngāruahine for what the Crown stole from them. Instead, the commercial redress of $67.7 million provides a way for Ngāruahine to begin developing an economic base for their future and for these tamariki who are here today, and for their tamariki after them. The iwi’s relationship with their lands is also recognised through various means such as deferred selection, vesting of culturally significant sites, statutory acknowledgments, and deeds of recognition.

I want to reiterate the Minister’s acknowledgment of Ngāruahine’s generosity in accepting the settlement. I want to also acknowledge the work of the many people who have brought the iwi to this point. These include the tūpuna who first began seeking redress for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty over a hundred years ago. There are also many whom the Minister has already acknowledged by name—the two Ministers, actually—who have worked on this current settlement. I acknowledge those who have passed on, those who could not be here today, and those who are here to see the first stage of their settlement process through this House.

This bill will now move on to the Māori Affairs Committee, which I am honoured to chair. I look forward to considering this bill in detail. I look forward to welcoming those Ngāruahine people and others who wish to make submissions on this bill. I want to acknowledge the work of Minister Finlayson as our Treaty settlements Minister. I also want to acknowledge the tautoko from the Minister of everything else Māori—Te Ururoa Flavell, my colleague from “Tīpene Kura”. Finally, to my colleagues the members of the Māori Affairs Committee—we try to park our political affiliations at the door and then we enter that room, and then we try to do things that are in the best interests of our people. Nō reira, Ngāruahine, ka nuinui te mihi, te aroha, e mihi, e mihi, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[And so huge greetings and empathy to you, Ngāruahine; I acknowledge, salute, and congratulate you all.]

I would like, without any reservation indeed, to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, tuarua, ki ngā mema ō tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, tuatoru, ka mihi atu ki a Ngāruahine me ngā hapū katoa, ka mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House; secondly, acknowledgments to all members; and, thirdly, I welcome you, Ngāruahine, and all the subtribes.]

Last year John Key responded to the Waitangi Tribunal claim on Te Paparahi o Te Raki by saying that New Zealand was settled “peacefully”—that was the word he used. And he went on to explain that Māori would have been grateful for the injection of capital that early Pākēha brought with them when they settled Aotearoa New Zealand—Māori would have been grateful for the capital! The history of Ngāruahine puts John Key back in his place—someone who is, sadly, ignorant of his own history, of his own country, and of the efforts of his own Government to respond to that history with some restitution.

This morning I want to set out some of that history, as John Key’s own Government has described it in its own legislation before us today, and to suggest that perhaps he might want to reflect on both the inaccuracy and the offensiveness of his earlier comments. Before 1860 Ngāruahine were prosperous and economically successful and retained ownership of their lands and resources after consistently opposing the sale of land in their rohe to Europeans.

In the late 1850s some Ngāruahine provided assistance to northern Taranaki iwi who were also resisting Crown efforts to acquire land. The Crown declared some Māori who were preventing the surveys elsewhere in Taranaki to be in rebellion and commenced hostilities against them. Some Ngāruahine entered the war on the side of the non-sellers. Following the occupation of the Tataraimaka Block by Crown troops, conflict in Taranaki resumed in 1863, and Ngāruahine people again travelled north to engage with Crown forces.

In 1865 the Crown proclaimed 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land confiscated, including all of the Ngāruahine rohe. The confiscations were indiscriminate, depriving both “loyal” and “rebel” Māori of their lands. The war continued, and in early 1866 Crown forces entered the Ngāruahine rohe and used scorched earth tactics, which devastated several Ngāruahine villages, along with associated food stores, livestock, and crops. As a result of the Crown’s military campaigns, Ngāruahine people were forced to abandon their former homes and food-gathering sites, suffering severe hardship. Some Ngāruahine people were taken prisoner during the war, and a number lost their lives.

The process that was established to compensate “loyal” Māori for the confiscation of their land began in the 1860s, before the fighting had come to an end in South Taranaki, and this made it very difficult for Ngāruahine people to participate in the hearings for that compensation. By 1880 none of the compensation court awards to Ngāruahine had been implemented.

So, the settlement legislation says, the Crown acknowledges that the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions in purchasing land in Taranaki created tensions that led to the outbreak of war; that it conducted a bush scouring campaign and used scorched earth tactics in southern Taranaki to reduce the ability of Māori, including Ngāruahine, to fight; that these campaigns resulted in the devastation of a number of important Ngāruahine kāinga, including Māwhitiwhiti and Ahipaipa, and forced Ngāruahine to flee their settlements, causing severe hardship for them; that Ngāruahine suffered loss of life during the Taranaki wars; and that the Taranaki wars constituted an injustice. It does not sound like peaceful settlement to me.

The settlement bill goes on to describe that in the early 1870s many Ngāruahine returned to their lands on the Waimate plains. Through the 1870s the Crown attempted to secure nominally confiscated Ngāruahine land for European settlement by making formal and informal payments to Māori and by promising to provide reserves and protect significant Ngāruahine sites. These promises were not fulfilled. By the late 1870s many Ngāruahine people were uncertain about the status of their lands. By this time many Ngāruahine had relocated to Parihaka in central Taranaki, and were supporting its leaders Te Whiti and Tohu Kākahi and their movement for Māori peace and independence.

The Crown acknowledges that Ngāruahine provided material support to the Parihaka community and that large numbers of Ngāruahine people were residing at Parihaka when Crown forces invaded the settlement in 1881. It inflicted serious damage on the prosperous Māori village of Parihaka and the people residing there, forcibly dispersing many of the inhabitants, and assaulted the human rights of the people. These actions caused great distress and were a complete denial of the Māori right to develop and sustain autonomous communities in a peaceful manner, and its treatment of Ngāruahine people at Parihaka was unconscionable and a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Crown also goes on to acknowledge that it detained members of Ngāruahine and other Māori of Taranaki for their participation in the peaceful resistance campaigns initiated at Parihaka, that legislation was enacted that suspended the ordinary course of law, and that as a result most prisoners, including many Ngāruahine people, were detained without trial. The detention of those prisoners without trial for an unreasonably lengthy period assumed the character of indefinite detention, and the imprisonment of Ngāruahine and other Māori of Taranaki in South Island gaols for political reasons inflicted unwarranted hardships on them and their whānau. The treatment, the Crown acknowledges, of these political prisoners was wrongful, a breach of natural justice, and deprived them of their basic human rights.

There is much more of this history—this demonstrable, proven history—in the settlement legislation. I would urge all New Zealanders to take the opportunity, while this bill and other settlement bills are going through the House, to look at those histories, to learn what those histories are, especially in their own areas, and to understand what happened in their own country, so that we may learn from those lessons, understand where we come from, and present a much brighter vision for how we might proceed in the future. The history set out in the Ngāruahine legislation shows just the first decade after Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, and it is a history of violence, racism, and theft, all of which characterise the colonisation process. It was not peaceful; it was not about fair exchange. It was about greed.

Treaty settlements have many problems in the Green Party’s view, but one of the things they get right is the setting out of our collective history. We need to make more of these accounts—to understand them, to learn them, and to learn lessons from them. I want to wish Ngāruahine all the very best for the future of their settlement. I look forward to talking with them more about this in the select committee. Tēnā koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ā, tiheiwa mauri ora, tuku mauri ora ki te wheiao, ki te ao mārama! Ngāruahine, nau mai haere mai. Tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e aku tuākana i whakatau i a koutou kua tae mai nei i runga i te kaupapa i karangahia tātou i te rā nei. Kei te tautoko hoki i ngā mihi ki tēnā o ngā whanaunga karanga maha nā rātou i ‘hakatīmata mai tēnei kaupapa, ka harekau kē kei waenganui i a tātou. Ahakoa horekau i waenganui i a tātou ā-tinana ēngari, mōhio ana au kei konei rātou a-wairua, nā reira, e tika ana kia mihi tonu ki a rātou. Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā rātou, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

Kei te tautoko mātou o Aotearoa Tuatahi i te pire nei ahakoa, e mōhio ana au e horekau e tino tatū, e tino tau kē tā koutou kerēme. Tika ana te kōrero a te Minita ahakoa me pēhea tō rātou whakaaro, ka horekau kē e tino tau ēngari, ko te mea nui i tēnei wā i raro i te kirimana i hainatia i a koutou i waenganui i te Karauna, kua tau kē. Ēngari, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou, tā koutou manaakitanga ēhara ki te Karauna anahe ēngari, ki te iwi whānui o Te Motu nei, nā reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

I mea atu au ki wā tātou whanaunga mai i Hineuru i te ata nei, āhua pūhaehae ana au ki a rātou nā te mea, kua tau kē te whakaaro o Te Karauna, he iwi kē rātou. Horekau i hē ki tēnā! Pēnā i a koutou e tū i te rā nei hei iwi! Horekau ahau nei e raru ki tēnā! Ēngari, i roto i a mātou o Ngāti Hine, tōku whānau anahe tata kē 10,000 ngā tangata ēngari, kīhai te Karauna i ’hakaae i a mātou, ē, tū hei iwi. Kia ahatia? Ēngari te mea nui i raro i te kaupapa o te pire nei, pai kē ki a koutou i te Whare nei. Nā reira, ngā mihi hoki!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So “Behold the breath of life! I give life to the natural and the enlightened world!” Welcome, come hither, Ngāruahine. I stand briefly in support of the tributes of welcome expressed by my elder colleagues to you collectively who arrived because of the call of the proposal that brought us all together here today. I also endorse the tributes to those relatives of many callings who started this proposal and are no longer amongst us. Even though they are no longer amongst us physically, I am cognisant of the fact that they are here spiritually, so it is apt that we continue to acknowledge them. Therefore the part for them has been satisfied, and so we come back to us the living; greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you collectively.

We of New Zealand First support this bill, even though I know that your claim has not really been settled properly. What the Minister has said is correct; regardless of what their thoughts are, it will never really be settled, but the main thing at this point in time is, under the mandate of agreement that you collectively signed amongst the Crown, it has been settled already. But I do appreciate you greatly for your hospitality, not just with the Crown alone but with the public of this land; so well done, wonderful, and congratulations.

I said to our relatives from Hineuru this morning that I was somewhat envious of them because the Crown had already made up their mind that they were already a tribe. Nothing at all wrong with that. It is much like your standing today as a tribe! Absolutely no problems at all with that. I do not have a problem with that! But within us in Ngāti Hine, in my family alone, there are nearly 10,000 people, but the Crown will not agree that we stand as a tribe! So what? But the important thing is, under what is being proposed by this bill, it is better instead for you really in this House, and so congratulations as well.]

I just want to say that we certainly support the bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. Like all other settlements, there will be other people within the tribe and outside of the tribe who will have some reservations, a contrary view perhaps, about this settlement. I think that the Māori Affairs Committee process allows the opportunity for those people to come and air their views.

The bill provides that Ngāruahine may nominate members to the Taranaki Regional Council’s standing committee. On that particular issue I must say that I know that there are people out there who oppose this view. I have no problem with them having a different view. In fact, this is one of the good things about this whole process. The actual history is recorded, so that if people have any doubts as to the merits of iwi claims, then it is documented there. It is documented in a way that is acceptable to the Crown as well. The fact that the Crown has tendered its apology to Ngāruahine is testament to its acceptance of the history that has been recorded. I want to have that noted in the Hansard. Āe, nā tēnā pea ka rongo i a mātou mai ngā hunga i tautoko, ‘hakahēngia te kaupapa i roto i te pire i mau mai i mua o te aroaro o Te Komiti mō ngā Take Māori. Tēnā pea kei te mōhio mai i a mātou, he aha te tino ngako ō ō rātou whakaaro.

[Yes, and they might hear about us through those who agree to or oppose the proposal in this bill before the Māori Affairs Committee. Perhaps they might know about us in respect of what is the real substance inside their minds.]

As a previous speaker alluded to, there is some concern about Wai 522, the Āraukuku hapū claim. Again, I think that, through the Māori Affairs Committee process, that will certainly be a point of discussion, and it will give the committee some clarification as to what is the actual situation. It is important that this legislation actually reflects what is in the deed of settlement. We will certainly have that confirmed again in the Māori Affairs Committee.

This whole process of Treaty settlements does provide an opportunity for this country to have recorded the actual history of what happened to Māori when the European came to this country. Today we are discussing a settlement bill that concerns a tribe in the Taranaki area. I can remember when I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee to look at the Ngāti Mutunga claim. I must say that I thought that the quantum was very small given the history and the impact that the arrival of the Crown had on that part of our country. Perhaps it could be argued that the quantum for this one could be similar, in that it is not big enough considering the course of history that impacted on this iwi. However, we will certainly hear more about that during the Māori Affairs Committee deliberations.

I just want to conclude by saying that we do not have any concerns about the quality of the negotiators. We do have some concern that the Crown negotiators get compensated very well, but I wonder whether or not the Māori negotiators got something similar. I would suggest not. Really, if there is any criticism it is in that respect. I just want it on the record, Minister, that it is not against the individuals, but against the unfairness, I would suggest. However, having said that, I just want to conclude by again commending the bill to the House. Kia ora.

JOANNE HAYES (National): E te Mana Whakawā, kia ora. E te iwi o Ngāruahine ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, nau mai, haere mai i tēnei rā.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and a huge appreciation to you all, the tribe of Ngāruahine; welcome, come hither today.]

I stand very humbled again. Each time I stand for these claims settlement bills, I am very humbled to speak in support of them. I stand because a little while ago I watched on television the hīkoi that Taranaki iwi and members of Ngāruahine made down to the South Island, following the tracks of those who were imprisoned wrongly over the confiscation of land in Taranaki, out at Parihaka. My heart sobbed for all of you. I was in Dunedin in 2011 and I went and visited those caves. I can almost tell you that I could feel the mamae and the tears that were flowing through the whole process that you have endured over time.

Today is a special day for all of you, and it is also a very special day for the Māori Affairs Committee. We are humbled to be able to take your bill to the select committee. And, yes, not everybody will agree with the findings inside the bill, and there will be lots who will agree, but I have yet to stand in this House and hear of a smooth ride of any claims settlement bill coming through this House. This is the reality of what we go through. Under the leadership of our Minister here, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the leadership of the chair of our select committee, Nuk Korako, I believe that we will be very expeditious with the rest of the process for your bill. I wholeheartedly support it and commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou rau rangatira mā, Ngāruahine, Taranaki Maunga, Taranaki tangata, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei nō koutou tēnei rā whakahirahira. Ka huri ngā whakaaro ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, haere koutou, haere koutou, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, e rau rangatira mā. Huri rauna i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings, esteemed ones of a hundredfold, Ngāruahine, Taranaki Mountain, Taranaki people; salutations, welcome, welcome. Come hither to Parliament House in readiness here; this momentous day is yours. My thoughts turn to those who have passed away, farewell and go forth to you collectively, and so I come back to us the living, esteemed ones of a hundredfold. Therefore I commend, acknowledge, and salute you collectively and us all.]

It is a great honour to be making a small contribution to the first reading of this settlement bill. I acknowledge Ngāruahine, my whanaunga who have travelled this long distance to finally be here in Parliament—not only physically but also over the many, many years of mamae and anguish and pain that have transpired—for the first reading of this settlement bill. I do acknowledge the whanaunga, just like the chair of our Māori Affairs Committee, my whanaunga Nuk Korako, through our connections with Poutini Ngāi Tahu, but also through Ngāti Toa up to Taranaki. I am your pōtiki here and I do mihi to you today.

I just acknowledge that we have heard a lot of the history. It is a dark, bloodstained history, and I was thinking that there is no need for me to traverse that. This year we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Great War, the First World War, as we rightly should do, and the sacrifice that was made collectively as a nation—Māori, Pākehā, everybody—in that Great War. But I think that too often we overlook our own history and our own conflicts and wars that took place in our country. There is no better example of that than the wars that took place in Taranaki in the 1860s and all the way through the 1880s. Our manuhiri here today were front and centre in the thick of all of that, and I think that as a nation we need to reflect on and make sure that that history is taught and carried on. I know this definitely happens at our hapū and our whanau levels, but I think that collectively as a nation we need to do that.

These are special days. It is about remembering those who have put through the petitions and the commissions—everything that has taken place in the past. It is about reflecting on that and it is also about acknowledging the work that has gone on with Te Korowai o Ngāruahine as well. I do acknowledge all of the hapū who have come under Te Korowai who have completed this settlement. We know that not all hapū are, perhaps, supportive of this settlement. We get that in every settlement piece of legislation that comes through this House. There will always be some disappointed or disaffected hapū—a hapū with whakapapa in both camps, of different pā—so we will have the opportunity to hear that kōrero and I think that is important too.

But let me not detract from the fact that this is a momentous day for Ngāruahine. I was just reflecting on the Crown labelling you, as a Māori, as being either “a loyal” or “a rebel”. I find that really staggering. Regardless of where Ngāruahine were—as a loyal or a rebel—actually, they were just helping their whanaunga of Te Ātiawa a lot of the time, getting behind them, because of the Crown’s insatiable appetite for land. As anyone will know, when you go over the Waimate plains, these are beautiful plains, green lush plains, which stretch right out to the great maunga; obviously, green is gold. It is just a great sadness that this great iwi has been denied their lands, and at least there is some measure of compensation that is taking place here. Reserve lands—yes, they were set aside, but most of them are locked up in perpetual leases so that they still cannot get access to their actual whenua.

It is a long history, and today, I think, is just to celebrate this first reading. I am looking forward to being in the Māori Affairs Committee where we will continue the kōrero, so all I can do is commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

BRETT HUDSON (National): E te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. It is a privilege to stand in the House today to support this bill in its first reading. I do not profess to understand either the pains of the injustices inflicted upon Ngāruahine in the past or the generations that it has taken to reach this point, but I come to this House and stand resolute in the belief that the New Zealand society that we want to deliver is one that provides opportunity for all our people to contribute to a growing economy—one that is creating more and higher-paying jobs—to participate in an education system that creates opportunities for our young and leads to greater prosperity in their futures, and where we can lead long and healthy lives and live safely in our homes and across our communities.

As my colleague Mr Korako said earlier, with this settlement and the economic redress that it includes, we cannot right the wrongs of the past, but we can provide an economic base for Ngāruahine to participate in the future and in the partnership of the New Zealand that we all wish to see. I commend this bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. “Te tai rā, te tai rā, e tumu ana, e pari ana ki tawhiti nui, ki tawhiti roa, i Hawaiki rā nō—he tai tapu nā Tangaroa! Tērā whaitiri, Te Waka o Mātaatua, i haere mai i te nuku roa. Ko te ngaru whatiwhati hoe he kura tongorere wā taku ika poutapu, nā Te Oro, nā Puhikaiariki. Ko ngā hoehoe o te pō, te whetū rere ata, ko Tāne Mahuta i whakairihia, whano, whano, haere mai te toki, haumi e, hui e, tāiki e!”

Kāti ake rā e te Whare! E te Māngai o te Whare ka tāpiri waku kōrero, tāu nā kōrero i horaina ki runga i ngā manuhiri kua tae mai i te rā nei—ka mea atu, he manuhiri? Ēhara tēnei i te whakaae! Kua roa rawa a Ngāruahine, kua roa rawa ngā iwi Māori e takahia nei i ngā ara poutama i mua i tēnei Whare. He aha te take i takahia nei rātau i te nuku roa ka tae mai ki runga i a tātau i te rā nei? Nā, mō ngā take Tiriti, mō ngā tūkino a te Karauna ki a tātau Te Iwi Māori, tēnei e whakatau nei i a koutou, tēnā koutou!

Ka huri ngā whakaaro ki ngā tini aituā. E te pāpā, e Hone, i kawea mai ngā puna roimata o Taranaki Maunga ki runga i Te Marae o Ōtīria ki roto, i ngā marama kua pahure ake nei, koutou Ngāruahine! Kia mōhio mai koutou i a au e tamariki ana, ko tōku pāpā tērā i āwhina i a koutou me ngā mahi rangahau mō ō koutou take Tiriti. I a au e tamariki ana, ia marama i taraiwa mātau ko pāpā, mātau ko tōku whāea ki roto i a koutou. He aha ai? Hei āta wānanga i ngā take! Hei āta kōrero i ngā tūkinotanga! Hei whakatuituia, hei whakawhanaunga i a tātau ki roto i ngā whakapapa e puritia nei e tātau Te Iwi Māori. Nō reira, ka tangi tonu te ngākau mō pāpā kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō! Ka tangi tonu mō ngā mate, mō ngā aituā maha i mauria mai e koutou ki runga i te tāhūhū o tō tātou Whare.

Nā, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā ingoa kua wahangia nei e te Minita. Ko ahau tēnā e oro ana i ngā ingoa, me ētahi atu i mahue atu, i roto i ngā rārangi ingoa o te Minita i te rā nei. Ka whakaaro ake mō te pāpā, a Tohe Pakanga Ngātai, ka whakaaro ake mō te papa, a Harry Hikuroa, me tērā o ngā mātua, a Jack rāua ko Peggy Toro. Ka whakaaro ake ki ngā mātua ki a Lawa rāua ko June Nuku, ki a Hōne Luke, ki te pāpā ki a Eric Taha, anā, me te whāea a Rose. Ka whakaaro ake ki a Cyril Tāmau, ānā, me tōna tuakana a Sonny. Kai roto i waku whakaaro, ko te whāea a Mīria Rangi, anā, ko Richie Luke, ko Bill Kātene. Ahakoa ngā totohe kei waenganui i a koutou e Ngāruahine, e Taranaki Maunga, ngā au piki me ngā au heke i roto i ō koutou haerenga, hei āta whiriwhiri, hei āta totohe i tēnei take e pā ana ki ngā tūkinotanga a te Karauna, ēnei ka tangi, ēnei ka mihi! He puna wai e utuhia, he wai kei aku kamo! “Te pua kōrau e ruia, e tipu i te waru!” Kāti te wahanga ki te hunga mate!

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau e te Whare. Hei whakataki ake i te kōrero: “He toa tauā, he toa pāhekeheke. Ko te toa ngaki kai, e kore e pāheke!” E mihi atu ahau ki a koutou e ngā ringa raupā, koutou e ngā waha kōrero, e ōku apa whatukura, e ōku apa māreikura. Ko koutou rā tērā e kawea nei i ngā moemoeā, ngā mamaetanga o Ngāruahine i roto i ngā taumaha, tae noa mai ki te ata nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Kai āianei, ka huri tū atu ngā whakaaro ki ngā kōrero kai roto i te pire, ā, kia mōhio mai tātou ka noho ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki te wāhanga tuatahi. Kai roto i taua wāhanga he wāhi whakapāha ki a koutou e Ngāruahine. Ā, e mōhio ana tātau kua tae ki te wā me whakapāha. I āta wetewete e tātau i ngā kupu kai roto i te pire nei, kia tirohia i te hōhonutanga o te whakapāha ki a koutou, kia kaua e tuku mā te ngutu anake te whakapāha ēngari, ka puta mai i te whatumanawa o te tangata, otirā, o te Karauna e whakapāha nei. Nā, ka whakaaro ake ki ngā hītori kua kōrero mai nei e te Whare. E kaha tautoko ana ahau i ngā kōrero o tēnā, o tēnā o tātou. E mea atu ana i tūkinohia e te Kāwanatanga i a Ngāruahine. E mea atu ana kua wareware, kua roa rawa te Kāwanatanga, i wareware i a Ngāruahine ki roto i ōna whiriwhiringa mō ngā taumaha kua pahure ake nei. Kāti, he pai, he manawanui te kite atu i tēnei wāhanga kua tuhia nei ki roto i te pire.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō tētahi atu wāhanga: tētahi wāhanga ki tāku nei titiro, ki te titiro o ngā kanohi Māori nei! He aha nei ko ngā kanohi? Anā, ko te whakapapa! Ko wai te Kāwanatanga, ko wai te ture ka tohu atu, anā, ko Ngāruahine koutou? Kei te pupuru koutou i ō koutou whakapapa, hei tuituia ki ngā iwi katoa puta noa i te rohe whānui o Taranaki, Ngāruahine, tae noa hoki ki a au i Te Tai Tokerau. Ko wai rā te Karauna te tohu, ko wai koutou? Kāti, e mihi atu nei!

Ka huri tū atu ahau ki te wāhanga tuarua o te pire. E toru ngā pū wāhanga kai roto i tēnei wāhanga, te wāhanga tuarua. Tuatahi hai whakarite i tētahi mahere hei tiaki i te taiao, kāti, ko Papatūānuku kei raro, ko Ranginui kei runga, tēnei ka mihi. Ko tētahi atu pū wāhanga e mea atu ana, te tikanga mō ngā hao ika. Kua roa rawa tēnei Whare e totohe ana mō ngā mahi hao ika o te motu whānui nei. Pai te kite atu ki roto i te pire, ka whai wāhanga a Ngāruahine ki roto i ngā kōrero hao ika tā te mea, he iwi takutai koutou. Nō reira e mihi atu ana, tēnā koutou! Anā, ko te pū wāhanga tuatoru kei roto i te wāhanga tuarua, ko ngā taonga tūturu kei a koutou. Ko ngā rawa o te whenua, o te hau e pupuhi mai nei, anā, koia rā tērā, ko te hau i purea nei i ō koutou mauri, ō koutou wairua ki roto i ngā tau, anā, he taonga tūturu tērā—[Bell rung] Anā, kua tangi te pere!

Ka huri atu ahau ki te wāhanga tuatoru, arā, te wāhanga whakamutunga o te pire nei, te taha ki whakatika hapa arumoni me te kōnae pūtea hei whakapāha atu, hei whakaea ai i te mamae kua roa rawa koutou e hīpokina, kāti! He aha nei nā te pūtea ki a tāua Te Māori? I te ao o ngā mātua tūpuna, ko te oranga te mea nui! Ko te kōrero o ngā mātua tupuna pērā i a Tā Apirana Ngāta e mea atu ana: “Mā ngā rākau a te Pākehā ka whiwhi oranga.” Nā, tēnā! Ka tukuna atu i tēnei kōnae pūtea ki a koutou, hei whakatinana ake i ō koutou moemoeā, i ō koutou moehewa mō ngā uri whakatupu, mō ngā mokopuna e haere ake nei, kāti!

E mihi atu ana ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori āianei ka tau te pire ki mua i a koutou, otirā, ki mua i a tātau. Ka noho tātou ki te āta whakarongo. Nā, he taonga te whakarongo! Kauwē e tohutohu ki a Ngāruahine ki roto i te pire anake! Te mea nui, kia āta whakarongo tātau katoa ki ngā kōrero ā tēnā, ā tēnā, ā-tēnā, kāti!

Ki a tātau katoa e te Whare mō ngā mahi katoa kua oti nei i te ata, e mihi atu ana. Ngāruahine! Ka, waiho ngā kete kupu nei a te tupuna kei roto i a au a Te Kāwiti e mea atu ana, “me titiro ki ngā taumata o Te Moana”, tēnā koutou, tēna koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House. “It is the tide, it is the tide, it ebbs and flows in from the far and great distance, from way back to the homeland Hawaiki, it is the sacred tide of Tangaroa. That thunderous canoe of Mātaatua traversed the great distance, the wave that splinters paddles and heralds the sacred fish of Te Oro belonging to Puhikaiariki. The night paddles, the dawn star are Tāne Mahuta personified; proceed, go forward, come forth the adze, join, gather, entwine!”

Enough of that for now. Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, I add my tributes to yours that you cast so lavishly upon the visitors that have arrived here today—but I ask: visitors? I do not agree! Ngāruahuine, and indeed Māoridom, have for a long time tramped the well-worn red stoned paths before this House. And what is the reason why they have tramped the great distance to be seated there above us there today? For Treaty matters and transgressions of the Crown upon us, indeed the Māori people, that I and every one of you as a collective have considered—hello there!

I turn my thoughts to the myriads who have passed away. To you, the elder Hone, you took the pools of tears of Taranaki Mountain up on to the marae of Ōtīria in months just past; you, Ngāruahine. You must understand, Ngāruahine, that while I was a toddler my father was that person who assisted you and the research that was done on matters pertaining to you under the Treaty. While I was a child, each month we would drive down with my dad and mum to be amongst you. Why? To critically analyse matters, to speak about the wrongdoings carefully, to weave our connections and relationships with each other through the genealogies that we as Māori keep. Therefore, I continue to grieve inside for Dad, who has gone to the void, and for the deaths and the many misfortunes that you as a collective have brought upon the roof of our House.

Now I think about the names that the Minister mentioned. I was one who heard them, but others who were left out in the list of names by the Minister today come to mind: elder Tohepakanga Ngātai, elder Harry Hikuroa, and the parents Jack and Peggy Toro. I think about parents like Lawa and June Nuku, Hone Luke, elder Eric Taha, and, yes indeed, Dame Rose. I recollect Cyril Tāmau and his elder brother Sonny. In my mind is dear Dame Mīria Rangi, and then Richie Luke, plus Bill Kātene. Despite the ongoing internal debates within you, Ngāruahine and Taranaki Mountain, the ups and downs in your journeys to carefully consider and debate this matter relating to the transgressions of the Crown, we mourn and acknowledge you. As a spring gushes water, so do tears that well up in my eyes. “The young fern shoots grow unto maturation when summer is upon us!” With due respect to the dead, enough for that part.

I bring the comments back to us in the House. To preface this part of the address, an aphorism: “A warrior’s life is full of uncertainty, but the life of one who is an expert at tilling crops for food is not.” I acknowledge you, the providers of secretariat services, the advocates, the providers of expert and specialist advice; you are the ones who have carried the aspirations and pain of Ngāruahine through the hard times, right up to this morning. I say well done, congratulations, and good on you all.

I turn now to the contents in this bill, but you must all understand that I will remain speaking in the Māori language. I reflect on Part 1, where there is an apology to you, Ngāruahine. We know that we have come to where an apology must be made. We analysed the wording very critically to assess the depth of the apology offered to you, so that it was not coming merely from the lips alone but from right inside the very core of the individual; in other words, this apology was coming from right within the heart of the Crown making the apology. Now, thinking about the historical accounts that the House presented here, I strongly endorse the sentiments expressed by each and every one of us. The sentiments are saying that the Government violated Ngāruahine. It is saying that the Government has absolutely forgotten about Ngāruahine for a long time in its own considerations about the seriousness of these in the past. Well, it is good and really reassuring to see this part that has been written into the bill.

I think about another part, one that in my perspective reflects a point of view from these Māori eyes! Why the eyes now? Well, it is the genealogy! Who indeed is the Government, the law, to say that you are Ngāruahine? Hold fast to your genealogy, to thread to all tribes throughout the broad region of Taranaki and right up to me, as well, in the north! Who indeed is the Crown to say who you are? But, enough; I acknowledge you.

I stand and turn to Part 2 of the bill. There are three Subparts in this section of Part 2; firstly, to consider a plan to protect the environment. Now then, there is Mother Earth below and Sky Father above; I applaud this. Another clause sets out protocols for fisheries. This House has been debating fisheries operations throughout this country for far too long. So it is good to see a part included in the bill for Ngāruahine to have a place in the discussions around fisheries, because you are a coastal people. So I applaud you; well done. And now for Subpart 3 in Part 2 of the bill: things of value handed down that you have, Ngāruahine, resources of the land and air, the very wind that has been removing impediments from your life and spiritual principle for uncounted years. Now then, those are treasures handed down—[Bell rung] And there goes the bell!

I turn now to Part 3, to the concluding part of this bill, which relates to commercial redress and a component of the apology—the financial package to alleviate the pain you have borne for so long. Enough said! What exactly is funding to us Māori? In the world of our forefathers, livelihood was the most important thing. In a statement by one of them, Sir Apirana Ngata had this to say: “Livelihood will be achieved through the tools of the non-Māori.” And there you are! A financial package is offered to you to manifest your aspirations and dreams and those of the generations and grandchildren to come. Enough said!

I acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. The bill is about to come before you—in other words, before us. We will sit down and have a good listen. Now then, listening is a thing to be prized. Do not just give counsel to Ngāruahine solely in the bill. The most important thing is that we must all give our ear to each and every one who gives an account. Enough said!

And so I thank all of us in the House for what has been achieved this morning. To you, Ngāruahine, I leave these words within me from my ancestor Te Kāwiti for you: “Look to the peaks of the ocean.” Greetings and acknowledgments to you and to us all, collectively; thank you.]

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā; tēnā koe, e te Whare; and particularly warm greetings to all who are here today representing Ngāruahine. I made the point earlier today that, unfortunately, because of the significant amount of business that the House has to conduct in a fairly short space of time, some of us speaking in the latter stages of this debate will have to take very short calls. But I do want to assure you that that does not, in any way, suggest that we do not fully appreciate and endorse the great significance of this occasion.

I want to begin by thanking those who have spoken in today’s debate. I think that most have made very thoughtful and insightful contributions. It is certainly not an occasion to be mean spirited or petty. The significance of this occasion deserves much more than that, and I want to acknowledge the outstanding work that the Crown negotiators have done and, particularly, the goodwill that has been shown by Ngāruahine in engaging with the process. You could never be adequately compensated for the wrongs that have been done. It is a privilege to be one of the modern-day parliamentarians who has an opportunity to be part of trying to redress these great wrongs. As others have said, we could never adequately do that, but I think that by acknowledging the wrong and by being absolutely determined to ensure that we do our level best to try to ensure a much brighter future for the iwi, that is, I hope, in a small way, an indication of goodwill.

The other point that I would make is that this is a process that began more than two decades ago, under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the outstanding work that was done by his Treaty negotiations Minister Sir Doug Graham. The greatest progress of all has been made under the determined leadership of the Rt Hon John Key and the outstanding stewardship of this portfolio by the Hon Chris Finlayson. So to those who wish to be demeaning of that effort, I simply make the point that actions speak louder than words. It is this Minister and his team who have been getting on with the job. I am immensely proud to be supporting them in their endeavours. I thank the select committee for the outstanding work that it is doing. I wish the iwi all the very best for what I hope will be a bright and prosperous future.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Bills

Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is my understanding that leave has been given—or I will now seek leave—for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill to be considered as one question, but for votes to be taken separately.

Preamble, Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I will take just a brief call to explain to members what Supplementary Order Paper 104 is about. All it is is that, since this bill had its first reading on 2 November 2014, two of the iwi in the “tāngata whenua appointer” definition in clause 4, Ngāti Hineuru and He Toa Takitini, have actually formed their mandated post-settlement governance entities. This has happened, obviously, before the legislation has passed, and that is why an amendment to the definition of “tāngata whenua appointer” in clause 4 is required to reflect this. Minor subsequent amendments to clauses 5 and 11 are also required.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Preamble, Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third 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 third time. I acknowledge the iwi from the Hawke’s Bay region involved in developing this legislation and welcome some familiar faces to the gallery. I acknowledge that it has taken a long time to reach this very important milestone. I also acknowledge those who are representatives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. They too, like their iwi counterparts, have travelled a long way to be here in Parliament to listen to this, the third reading of the bill. To those of you who have worked so hard to make this possible, I offer you my very, very sincere thanks. It has been more than 5 years since Cabinet agreed to establish a planning committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council through legislation. The committee is the outcome of a significant amount of both careful and creative thinking about how best to manage the diverse and complex nature of the natural resources in the Hawke’s Bay.

At the beginning of this process we considered a number of existing models around New Zealand to see whether any of those would be suitable for the situation in Hawke’s Bay, and I acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta here. We actually had a good look at the Waikato model and whether that could be transplanted across, for example. But because of the sheer number of rivers and waterways within the region we actually found that none of those models would work. Having one board for each of the rivers in their catchment areas would result in clumsy administration as well as being very difficult and uneconomic to manage. So a completely new approach was required, and who better to do it than Fran Wilde, who at the relevant time was chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and there is a considerable body of opinion, including me, that she should still be the chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council. She had been the chief Crown negotiator for Ngāti Pāhauwera, and she had the inspired idea of devising a committee that was tailored to the Hawke’s Bay situation.

It is a committee that takes an overarching, collaborative, and unified approach to resource management, so I acknowledge Fran’s meticulous work. It is not the sort of once-over-lightly, superficial exercise that some may expect Crown negotiators to get involved in. If you adopt that approach in the interests of saving a few thousand here and there, then you fail—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, of course; I am talking about one. It is certainly not a recipe for success in Treaty negotiations, hence the need for hard-working, dedicated Treaty negotiators. In practical terms this committee, which comprises equal numbers of council and iwi members, has already been successfully working in interim form—since at least 2012 the committee has been operating—and it is demonstrating the benefits of a coordinated and a collaborative approach from elected representatives from both the council and iwi in the Hawke’s Bay region. By improving iwi participation and governance on natural resources, costs in resource management processes for local authorities, businesses, and the public will be reduced over time.

This bill gives effect to the Crown’s commitment made in the Ngāti Pāhauwera deed of settlement, and again recorded in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū deed of settlement to work with iwi and hapū to introduce legislation to establish this committee. The bill ensures that the relevant iwi post-settlement governance entities are entitled to appoint representatives on that committee. It sets out a framework for the committee, but it does not specify all its operating provisions. These will be discussed and agreed by committee members.

What is the purpose of the bill? Well, the purpose is to improve the involvement of iwi in the region to oversee the development and review of a regional policy statement and regional plans for the region prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991. It does not mean that the committee will make actual decisions on behalf of the full council. The committee has strong recommendatory powers. An important feature of the committee, moreover, is that it is a permanent committee and can be discharged only by unanimous agreement of all members—iwi and council members alike. The rationale behind this is that the committee is involved with resource management issues that span a much greater time frame than local body elections. Under schedule 7 of the Local Government Act, committees are deemed to be dissolved at or following triennial general elections of members. In order to function effectively and ensure continuity of planning, the committee needs to span local body election cycles, so the bill needs to provide for this section of schedule 7 to be overridden.

There are many people who have contributed to this legislation, both within iwi and within Crown agencies. As I have already noted, I particularly want to acknowledge Fran Wilde. She is unable to be here to mark this occasion because, I think, she is in Oslo, but it was her creativity and drive that contributed significantly to the formation of this committee. She and other Crown negotiators do a great job.

I also wish to acknowledge the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Its efforts and its willingness to engage with the hapū and with officials have been vital to the ultimate success of this legislation. The council has shown a real commitment to having an ongoing relationship with iwi in its region. In its approach to its obligation to consult with iwi on resource management matters, the council actually had two options. It could make separate arrangements over seven separate catchment areas or it could work with all the iwi in the region to cover the whole of the region, and it chose the latter. The resultant legislation is a good example of a strong co-governance model that is well resourced.

Most important, I want to acknowledge the tireless work of the iwi leaders involved in the development of this very important legislation.

The bill has taken time, energy, diplomacy—at times—patience, and pragmatism so that we could all arrive at a piece of legislation that satisfies all parties that are involved. The legislation is the basis of a new and an on-going relationship between the regional council and the iwi of the bay, and I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mema o te Whare nei tēnā tātau katoa. E te hau kāinga kua tae mai nei, nau mai, hoki mai ki ō tātou Whare i tēnei wā i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira o te wā nei. Nō reira, hari koa ana te ngākau ki te kitekite anō i a koutou, tēnā koutou!

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker. To the members of this House, greetings to us all. And to the people from home who have arrived here, come hither and welcome back to our House at this moment, on this inspiring proposal of this time. Therefore, it is so heartening to set eyes on you once again—congratulations!]

I stand with members on this side of the House in wholeheartedly welcoming the third reading of this bill, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill. Can I please acknowledge those who have travelled long distances to be here to hear the passage of this important piece of legislation. Can I acknowledge the origins of this bill, being the Ngāti Pāhauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Act. Can I mihi to my whānau of Ngāti Pāhauwera, Toro Waaka—good to have you here in the House. Also, I acknowledge our whānau from Maungaharuru-Tangitū, Tania Hopmans. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe ki a koutou katoa. I also see our chairman of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Fenton Wilson. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe, Fenton. It is lovely to have you here again to witness the third reading of this important bill.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee. There was mention that we had eight submissions presented to the select committee. Six clearly supported this bill. Some had some reservations, but I do want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and our chair and our members here in bringing this bill back to the House. I want to say, just in terms of the select committee process, that I know that although there were only eight who actually submitted, the importance of this bill was well discussed back home in terms of unlocking the co-governance arrangement, which is clearly, I think, going to benefit the Hawke’s Bay region. When I see eight submissions I can almost triple that to know that the people at home have a very, very keen interest in this particular bill and what it will enable. So I want to commend those who did submit.

I also do not want to shy away from some of the points I raised in the second reading, because if you are going to raise an issue then you want to stand by that. There were a couple of issues that I did raise in the second reading. One was around representation, and I acknowledge all the iwi who are currently at the table. I wanted the issue around coverage—and I will, again, welcome all the iwi who are at the table. We still have a major entity back in the Hawke’s Bay, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc., which, through the Maori Fisheries Act, does have some responsibilities that will probably extend what we are passing through this bill. So the cautionary note I made at the second reading, which I say again at the third reading, was that it will be something that needs to be managed between the iwi at the table and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, simply because we do not want anything coming unstuck over what we are starting to pass through this House here. Kōrero is definitely a better proposition to have than to be litigating in the courts, so I just wanted to make that point.

The other point I raised was one around skills and capabilities. I acknowledge the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s commitment of $100,000 to help with the resourcing of this committee, but, again, as we get into the technical areas of the Resource Management Act, that requires quite a bit of investment, particularly if you have got iwi at the table to unlock the intricacies, I guess, of the legislation that surrounds the Resource Management Act. Again, I just raise that point to ensure that what we are setting up here is well resourced—well resourced—so that it can do the job that we all want it to do.

I also want to acknowledge that in working out a co-arrangement that would best suit the Hawke’s Bay, we did reference a similar arrangement in the Ngāti Awa and the Ngāti Tama claims to ensure that this particular arrangement was fit for purpose. So I want to acknowledge the research that went into that.

I am glad to stand here to say that I am from the Hawke’s Bay. Our primary industry is critical to the survival of our economy. Having good governance and good decision-making ensures not only that our land and our water are protected but that they are allowed to grow the opportunities that we very much have become accustomed to in Hawke’s Bay and we also want to protect. So in accepting and supporting this bill I see it as a continuum of both iwi and local government having a say in the future of the Hawke’s Bay. I want to acknowledge the Minister’s introductory point around this committee’s role as being purely recommendatory, and say that the final decision sits at the local government level. We have local elections coming up in 2016 and we will be encouraging as many people from the Hawke’s Bay—hopefully, we will see more iwi at both the regional council as well as the city council.

So I really want to support this bill coming through the House. I can see the potential and the fortitude that the negotiators of Ngāti Pāhauwera have set. I have shared my cautionary notes about ensuring that this is an ongoing arrangement. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the Napier MP, my colleague Stuart Nash, who I want to say works really tirelessly for Napier and for the people of Hawke’s Bay. It is a pleasure to work with Stu and his absolute commitment not only to making us the best region in New Zealand but also to holding on to that log of wood when another colleague of ours hopes to be travelling down with the Northland team on Sunday to try to take it off us. So—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to warn the member against irony.

MEKA WHAITIRI: I again want to assure the House that I look forward to the passage of the final reading of this bill. I can see the potential, like I said, that it will unlock in Hawke’s Bay. I wish that all the iwi who have come today and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council let it be a model for all co-governance arrangements in Hawke’s Bay, because I can see the opportunity that it will unlock there for our people, whom we represent. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora anō tātau katoa. Kai aku rangatira, tēnā koutou katoa i tēnei ata, kua mihia a Ngāti Hineuru i tēnei ata, ka mutu, nō nā tata nei i puta atu ai a Ngāruahine o roto o Taranaki, tēnei wā ko koutou ēnei kua tatū mai, ko tāku ko te whaiwhai haere i ngā kōrero a te Minita, ā, ka mutu, o taku tuahine ki a koutou, e ngā rangatira i roto i te Whare Pāremata. E kui Āwhina tēnā koe, he oranga ngākau te kite atu i a koe e whakakorikori nei i tō iwi, ka mutu, e hari koa ana kua tae mai koe, koutou i tēnei rā ki te whakaotinga mai o ngā mahi kua roa e haere nei i tōna huarahi, nō reira, hara mai me ngā mate kua kōrerohia, ka mutu, ka huri ki a koutou katoa ngā kanohi ō rātou mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all once again. I acknowledge you all collectively, my esteemed elders. This morning we welcomed Ngāti Hineuru, and, furthermore, Ngāruahine of Taranaki left just moments ago, and now you have arrived here. My part is to follow up the Minister’s sentiments and, after that, those of my esteemed sister’s words to you collectively, the esteemed members of Parliament. Madam Āwhina, greetings to you. How heartening it is to see you mobilising your tribe, and, what is more, it is pleasing to see you arrive, with you others today, to finalise tasks that have been on their way for a long time. So welcome, with the deaths that were alluded to, and, furthermore, I turn to address you, the representatives of all those who have passed away. I acknowledge, commend, and congratulate you and us all collectively; thank you.]

Can I just add to the comments made by the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Meka Whaitiri, as well as by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations welcoming people here to this particular kōrero. I have not got too much to say in this debate. Suffice it to say that one great thing about this bill in particular—and there is only one point that I want to make—is that, finally, some of our boards and councils that have been set up have come and seen the light. They should not be scared of Māori input into decision making.

The scene was set, I think, by the Hon Mita Ririnui in the Labour Government back in the day, when it opened the door up to involvement in Waiariki, in my case, from Te Arawa people, the Mataatua people, to be involved in decision making at the regional council. Three members on, and no one else has taken up the baton since then. I want to congratulate the Hawke’s Bay region—congratulations on bringing together our iwi into the decision making. I am so pleased, albeit I hear: “Oh, a recommendatory body. Well, you know, I think our people are seeking a little bit more than that.” But that is OK—it is a step along the pathway. We want to actually be a part of the decisions that are made for our region. Why? Nō tātau te whenua, ka mutu he whenua Māori wētahi i raro i te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[The land is ours, and, furthermore, some are Māori lands under the situations that relate to the Treaty of Waitangi.]

I think it is important that we do have absolute say and are part of the decision-making processes, certainly around environmental issues. Why? Because, No. 1, it is a Treaty responsibility, and I think that the debate in respect of the Mayor of New Plymouth putting the whole notion around seats on to councils by right, as a Treaty right, as well as a representational right, is the right thing to do. I am so pleased, as I say, that this has happened today and about the involvement of all iwi that have been spoken about: Ngāti Pāhauwera, who opened the door up—ka nui te mihi ki a koutou—Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, which has been in this House before and I see some faces that are familiar; Mana Ahuriri Inc.; Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa; and He Toa Takitini. It is good to know also there are some other seats there for Ngāti Hineuru, whose legislation had its first reading today, Ngāti Ruapani, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and Ngāi Tūhoe—all the ones who live down that end, anyway.

So congratulations, our people, on taking up this challenge and putting it in front of the district council. Congratulations to the council on taking up the opportunity to work together, and I hope and pray that this is an example that will be set throughout the country. It has set the scene of working together. We have got a vested interest in our people being involved in the decision making, and I hope that we take up this opportunity with plenty of vigour and participate in the decision-making process. But keep pushing the boundaries—this is but a start. The test will be when it gets down to the crunch and we have to make a decision and somebody disagrees with the decisions that are made across the board by all iwi involved. That is the real test—to see whether the relationship in fact does mean anything. With that, I say congratulations again. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa, aroha mai mō te poto o tēnei kōrero kua āhua māuiui tēnei Māori, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou kia ora tātau.

[Much appreciation to you all, and my apologies for the brevity of this speech, as this Māori is getting rather weary. And so acknowledgments and congratulations to us all.]

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Tēnā koutou katoa. I must admit that Meka Whaitiri’s words were saying—I very much enjoy working with Meka. We work very closely together. Labour in Hawke’s Bay has never been stronger—onwards and upwards.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations made a very good point, actually, and that is that we should never be scared of working in a co-governance model. This is my third speech on this bill and I have outlined the reasons why I support this, but the main reason really is the kaitiakitanga model and philosophy that Māori have around land management. I have always believed, and I have tested this a number of times with my good colleagues, that Māori have more of a stewardship role than an ownership role when it comes to land, and therefore have the ability to look to future generations. As opposed to saying “I own this now and I’ll do what’s best for myself.”, they are saying: “This is here for future generations and we don’t own it. All we are is guardians for the future.” I love that model. I think it is absolutely fantastic and it is the way we should be managing all our native resources. But there is not a word in the English language that encompasses that philosophy and that is as beautiful as “kaitiakitanga”.

I tell you, I stand up here and I am fearful that one of the longest courtships is going to end in one of the shortest marriages. The Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, talked about how this had taken 5 years to get to where it is—extensive negotiations between affected parties. But the way that I read this piece of legislation is that once the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is gone, then this group falls over. What we are facing at the moment is an amalgamation referendum in Hawke’s Bay. On 15 September this year we will know what the governance arrangements for Hawke’s Bay will be. We will know whether there are still four local councils and one regional council, or whether the Napier City, Wairoa District, Central Hawke’s Bay District, Hastings District, and the regional councils are to be dissolved and merged into one Hawke’s Bay council.

The way I read the final proposal put out by the Local Government Commission is that what will be attached to this new amalgamated council is a Māori board and a natural resources committee. What it also says is that that Māori board will have a statutory limit of 6 years, and then it will exist only due to the largesse of the council. So I do not know where this committee stands in respect of the local legislation. Does it mean that there could be possibly two Māori advisory boards? Because that is the way I read it.

I talked to Wairoa District Council extensively about this and it has one of its advisory boards. The way it believes things is that its advisory board will once again disappear and be replaced by the advisory boards as outlined in the Local Government Commission’s final report. I might be wrong. I may be reading the legislation wrong, and if I am, then I am sure the Minister will correct me.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No, I can’t.

STUART NASH: No, no, personally—you will correct me personally and I will seek to address this in a newspaper article or something. But I do not understand how this fits in to the final proposal for Hawke’s Bay regional governance. The reason I say this is that I had a look through the final proposal put forward by the Local Government Commission before I came to speak on this bill and I saw no reference to this group at all. So I am unaware as to whether the Local Government Commission was even aware that this piece of legislation was going through the House, which would surprise me because, as we have acknowledged, it has been in the winds now—or more than the winds; it has been on the table—for 5 years. So it is a very important piece of legislation, and there are people who have put a lot of time and effort into it. As mentioned, I completely support it. So let us see what will happen there. Let us have a talk afterwards, Mr Finlayson, and see where we end up on this.

The other thing I would like to say is that these committees are fantastic in principle and they look really good on paper, but the real test is whether we can really make these work and whether there is the relationship with the council—not just the council but the body itself—to make sure that people are working in partnership with good faith. The way people tend to work in Hawke’s Bay, by and large, is in good faith. There is no doubt about that. That is my experience from being a member of Parliament for 3 years—being outside and coming back. But I just hope that that same good faith is transferred from this board through to the regional council and that we can make decisions in the best interests of Hawke’s Bay.

Obviously a big one that is coming up—a very, very big decision—is the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme. This is one that I know my colleague Meka Whaitiri has major concerns about. I have no doubt—well, I do know, actually, because I have been in a number of meetings where Meka has spoken about these concerns, and this is something that we are going to need to work through as a community to get the right outcomes for Hawke’s Bay.

I will leave it at that, but let us hope this works in the best interests of the Bay, because we are a province of immense potential. We are doing well in some areas. I must admit we did not get the boom times when the dairy sector was going hell for leather, but as a consequence we are not getting some of the bust times when the dairy sector is in the doldrums. We have got the wine industry doing incredibly well, we have got the apple industry doing incredibly well, red meat is doing well, and there are also a number of exceptionally innovative businesses from Hawke’s Bay that are taking on the world and winning. So all I can say is onwards and upwards. Meka and I are going to be here for as long as it takes to really drive meaningful change in Hawke’s Bay, and I will look forward to the next few years. Thank you very much.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, huri noa i te Whare Pāremata nei ngā mema e me mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi o te whanauka o Te Waka o Tākitimu ki a Ngāti Kahungunu me koutou rā ngā iwi katoa, e mihi atu ki a koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to the members of this House of Parliament, I acknowledge you all. I, this relative of the canoe of Tākitimu, acknowledge you, Ngāti Kahungunu, and all other tribes; greetings to you collectively.]

I am pleased to speak in support of the third reading of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill, and I want to acknowledge the representatives of both iwi and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council who are here today. I also acknowledge those who have worked so hard on this bill but could not be here today. The establishment of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee was mandated by the deeds of settlement with Ngāti Pāhauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū, but it incorporates many other iwi along with representatives of Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc., Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum Trust, He Toa Takitini, Mana Ahuriri Inc., and Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa.

The committee is already in operation and by all accounts is working very well. It was clear to us on the Māori Affairs Committee that there was a strong relationship between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and local iwi. The relationship developed through an understanding on the shared goals that Māori and non-Māori have for the Hawke’s Bay region. With the establishment of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee—the final step, as this legislation is passed, is to give it legal standing—that relationship will only become stronger.

Another thing that was clear to the Māori Affairs Committee when we considered the bill was the innovative approach to a very, very complex problem in some ways. None of the existing models of natural resource management would have worked for Hawke’s Bay, so a new approach was indeed needed. This is a new way of collaborating, a new way of putting into practice the relationship between iwi and local government, and it is working successfully. It is a great example of how iwi and local government can, and should, work together in partnership. This bill does not give iwi the right to mandate certain outcomes or overrule the elected council. Its purpose is not to move decision making away from the regional council but to bring iwi into the process.

Although the committee has been operating successfully without a formal legal mandate since 2011, the bill is important to the ongoing operation of the committee. First of all, it ensures that the committee is a permanent committee—just to address the previous speaker, Stuart Nash—of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and is, therefore, not dissolved before each local body election. This permanence ensures that the committee and its work continues regardless of election cycles, although some of the membership will change, depending on the outcome of the election. This enables the committee members, particularly the iwi representatives, to undertake long-term planning over multiple years and across election cycles. The bill also enshrines in law the entitlement of post-settlement governance entities to appoint representatives to the committee.

I would like to once again acknowledge the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Our Minister has acknowledged the many people who have been involved in the bill and the workings of the committee to date. I just want to acknowledge, though, the committee co-chairs, Fenton Wilson and Toro Waaka—tēnā koe—and everyone else who has served on that committee since its formation for the success they have had in the first years of the committee’s operation.

Finally, in a lot of ways there is not a lot of change with the passing of the bill because the committee is already in operation, but the bill enshrines in legislation what is already happening and ensures the committee’s future. This is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare tēnā koutou katoa, tēnei te mihi ki ngā tāngata katoa i te Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Secondly, acknowledgments to members of our House, and I pay a tribute to everybody in the House. Greetings to you all.]

I am speaking in the third reading of this bill, and I maintain that it is a privilege. But I am speaking on the bill for the Green Party in the place of Catherine Delahunty, who was the Green Party MP on the Māori Affairs Committee, which was hearing the submissions on this bill. She was spokesperson on the issues raised in this bill as it progressed through the House.

In the second reading of this bill the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, explained that this bill will establish the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, which implements the Government’s decision to establish a statutory body called the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee. The establishment of this committee will give 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 will be entitled to appoint representatives to the planning committee. We support the concept of the Treaty settlement process creating mechanisms for genuine sharing of decision making that respects the rights and responsibilities of mana whenua hapū and iwi—and the Crown, for that matter—as a Treaty partner.

We are supporting this bill but we are also compelled to point out, as others have, that this bill could have been more aligned with the settlements that commit regional authorities to more than simply allowing a regional advisory committee on Resource Management Act issues. We acknowledge that there are certainly complexities around Kahungunu Inc. and iwi katoa, but we maintain that the Crown has an obligation to lead the regional authorities away from advisory tokenism, and we fear that that may well be the result of this bill. So we say that the Crown should lead authorities towards a genuine relationship between the regional council and iwi based on the rights and the obligations outlined in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

My colleague Catherine Delahunty notes that this genuine relationship is a slow process. It is a gradual process of leading the horse of Pākehā dominance and resistance to the pool of water, as well as making that horse drink. Iwi Māori know this well, as do those who have spent decades teaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi to tauiwi katoa—that racism is rife and disquiet still exists from Pākehā around Treaty settlement bills and bills like this that try to give some effect to some aspects of Treaty settlement. If I were to hazard a guess—because I do not really understand it—I would suggest that that racism stems from a fear of sharing power. And it stems from a sad and widespread lack of understanding of the history of our land, where, really, few Pākehā actually understand the losses that were suffered by iwi and hapū in the Hawke’s Bay area and across Aotearoa. We maintain that, in the end, tangata whenua of the rohe deserve a whole lot more for their historical suffering—the raupatu, marginalisation, and the economic servitude and low-paid jobs on land that was stripped from their grasp. They deserve the full right to the things that they never handed over: rangatiratanga and mana motuhake.

We note that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee is a committee with powers and functions relating to the Resource Management Act. We note that iwi are already advisers to the council and that the advisory committee is, effectively, already operating. We would have preferred to see a co-governance, co-management model. I note, as would many in this House who have already had to deal with co-governance and co-management, that it is not an easy process. Those of us from Tainui and Raukawa and the other river iwi—we know this. The difference is that this committee will make recommendations, but it will not make decisions.

Having said that, may this bill be celebrated as a step—not as the final deal, but as a step—in the right direction. It is a tribute to the negotiation team and to the tenacity of that negotiation in a context where the parameters are frequently changing. We see this as a beginning. As well as the end of this process through the House, it is a beginning and, certainly, it is not full and final. We see it as the beginning of a permanent negotiation for decolonisation and justice. We note and we acknowledge that this should be, and is, a time for optimism for the iwi of the Hawke’s Bay area, and we look forward to seeing how this plays out. We sincerely hope that true decision-making and power will be handed to iwi in due course as a result of this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou aku whanaunga, pēnei i a au nō Te Tai Tokerau, mahara ana au i te wā tuatahi kua tae mai koutou ki waenganui i a mātou, wēnā taku karanga ki a koutou aku whanaunga mēnā he tuakana, tēina rānei ēngari, ko te mea nui he whanaunga, ēngari kei te tautoko i ngā kōrero i kōrerohia e aku tuākana, aku tuāhine, ki te ‘hakatau i a koutou i te rā nei. Kei te tautoko mātou o roto i a Aotearoa Tuatahi i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, my relations—like me, of the North. That is how I regarded you collectively the first time you came amongst us. I referred to you as older or younger siblings—you bet—but also, importantly, as relatives, and I endorse the sentiments expressed by my elder and female colleagues in welcoming you here today. We of New Zealand First support this bill.]

I just want to reiterate that we do support this bill and we recognise that this is part of a settlement process. I also want to say that it is the establishment of a committee comprised of iwi and members of the council. It is a committee. It does not provide for separate seats on the council, which is a different matter altogether.

The Minister for Māori Development did make reference to a former member of this House, the Hon Mita Ririnui, who introduced—I think it was called—the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Bill, which set aside two seats specifically for Māori. New Zealand First has never supported that approach. One of the reasons is that the example that I have just alluded to—at the time there were actually six Māori on that council. From the time that that bill became law, that council has had no more than two iwi members on it. What we are saying in New Zealand First is that we are no less than, and we are just as good as, those of the general public. However, I acknowledge the process that has been taken to get to this stage.

The bill puts into legislation an organisation, a committee, that has already been operating for a number of years. I am glad that the Crown negotiator saw fit to adopt that approach. However, the main point is that iwi have the opportunity to contribute to that whole process affecting the council.

I just want to take up the comments made by the honourable member for Napier, Stuart Nash. That is an issue as to whether or not this bill has the durability to overcome any possible amalgamation of the different councils at the moment. I think the proof will be in the pudding, if the people of the Hawke’s Bay agree to that amalgamation. However, from the comments that I have heard when I visited the Hawke’s Bay, people are certainly not in favour of it. However, time will tell whether or not that is going to be an issue.

I do not have too much to say, other than to say that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill because it gives the opportunity for iwi to participate in the process, albeit in a recommendatory process. So without further ado, I commend the bill to the House.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Ā, tēnā koe, ngā mema o te committee o Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou. Time is of the essence, and my contribution will be a short one. Everything that has been said has been heard. Everything that has been written has been submitted. Everything that can be debated within the Māori Affairs Committee has been debated and discussed. And all that is left for me to say, with some words borrowed from the great Barry White, is that this has been the committee’s first, it has been the committee’s last, it is the region’s everything. Congratulations. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is pretty hard to follow Barry White, but I do have that baritone, that bass, that I can roll out here.

I just want to make a short contribution to congratulate the members, the iwi, the hapū, the tangata whenua groups, and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on—actually, they have beat us to the punch, for we are just formalising the commitments that were made in the Treaty settlement. So Parliament is actually in catch-up mode. They are way ahead of the game. They have been working as a committee for over 2 years now. So it is really up to Parliament now to try to catch up with the mahi that has been going on.

I congratulate all the groups. Can I acknowledge my whanaungas, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Maungaharuru-Tangitū, we had Hineuru this morning, and all the other groups that are represented on the committee. It is an exciting time and I know that they have got a lot of money—mahi that is going on. [Interruption] I hope they are generating some money as well. But whatever the reorganisation or potential hypothetical situations that might be happening with local government reorganisation in the future for the Hawke’s Bay region, this committee is a permanent committee that has been established based on solemn agreements reached with the Crown. So, regardless of what future structures may come into being, this committee will continue. I am very certain of that, based on the commitments that have been entered into with the tangata whenua, with the hapū, and with the iwi of the Hawke’s Bay.

I do not want to prolong this debate, but can I just congratulate the groups once again, congratulate everyone who has been involved in this legislation, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Time is of the essence, and I too would like to rise in support of this bill. It is an exciting time for the principles of partnership and kaitiakitanga. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 12.49 p.m. (Wednesday)