Wednesday, 9 March 2016

WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH 2016

WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Tax System—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties

1. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Revenue: Is he satisfied with all legislation regarding tax on property sales to foreigners?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): Yes.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Given that satisfaction, with the recent array of tax legislation, why are so many foreign buyers speculating in the Auckland housing market yet again?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would be very interested in the information the member uses to frame that question. I do not believe there has been any material change in that. In fact, if there has been, it has been a slight damping on the interest of overseas buyers in Auckland.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Will the Minister not concede that foreign speculators have seen through the puffery, have dismissed the ineffectual tax legislation, and are now already back in force, with evidence—3,000 foreigners a month being issued Inland Revenue Department (IRD) numbers for the purpose of buying and selling property?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, I would not. There are many reasons why people from overseas require an IRD number, and, if anything, the process has become more challenging in order to fulfil our obligations under anti-money-laundering legislation and the brightline test that the previous Minister brought in last year. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask that when the question has been asked and the answer has been given, could I have a little less interjection, particularly from New Zealand First members?

Fletcher Tabuteau: Will he at least acknowledge that he will need other, more substantive measures to clamp down on this problem, as Auckland has had a high rate of properties being flicked for quick financial gain and, actually, money-laundering purposes?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: What that demonstrates is that an irrational rant from a New Zealand First member does not a fact make. There is absolutely no substance—

Fletcher Tabuteau: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply take offence at the statement from the Minister. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was asked with quite a lot of—the question was asked in a way where I am not surprised with the answer being given, put it that way.

Phil Twyford: Why has he rejected the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, who want a ban on foreign buyers, given that his tax rules already, in the words of Colleen Milne of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, seem to be having limited effect and the effect is transitory, and in the words of Jonno Ingerson of Quotable Value, saying that foreign buyers are back in the market?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There are three threads to that question. I will start with the middle one first. There is no evidence yet that the policies that have been put in place, which have just commenced, are going to do the things the member claims. The chief executive of Quotable Value did not say what the member has just claimed. To the first part of the question, this party—this Government—appreciates foreign investment. It does not reject people with Chinese-sounding surnames, and it has very balanced policies on investment.

David Seymour: In light of the scandalous influxes, why will the Minister not cut the crap and build a wall?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: To the question of scandalous influxes, I remind the member that the number of residencies gained in New Zealand last year was about 15 percent lower than when the New Zealand First leader was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I see no reason to build a wall.

Fletcher Tabuteau: On behalf of all New Zealanders, whether they were here last year or—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member knows the rules. Simply ask a supplementary question. I am quite happy to move on if the member wants us to. Ask the question.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What measures does the Minister have in place to clamp down on money-laundering, given that financial transactions suspected of being linked to terrorism have almost doubled in the past 2 years, with the Auckland property market expected to go haywire yet again?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That goes well beyond the primary question. It is a question best asked of the Minister of Police, I would suggest. But I am satisfied that she has very good policies in place with New Zealand First to deter, detect, and prosecute money-laundering.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What specific legislation does the Minister have in mind to keep dairy land in New Zealand hands, given that the New Zealand Government cannot act to prohibit sales under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), accepting—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a question to the Minister of Revenue. The question must, therefore, relate to the portfolio of revenue. I give the opportunity for the member to rephrase his question to include something of relevance to the revenue portfolio.

Fletcher Tabuteau: May I speak to your ruling?

Mr SPEAKER: No, you cannot; you can ask your question.

Fletcher Tabuteau: I asked the Minister of Revenue to outline what legislation—revenue legislation—he has in mind, considering we cannot prohibit—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given the member a chance to rephrase his question. He has rephrased it now, asking about revenue legislation.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am satisfied that tax policies and tax administration legislation are fit for purpose. I am also aware, although it is not within my area of responsibility, that the Overseas Investment Act provides very strong criteria and hurdles to be met before sensitive land, such as dairy farms, is purchased.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Has his Government abandoned farmers to the whims of Fonterra management, thus exposing all New Zealanders, but especially our farmers, to the foreign buy-up of high-quality New Zealand land?

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is absolutely no revenue responsibility in that question.

Dairy Industry—Milk Price

2. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Grant Robertson: How did he get it so wrong in November 2014 when he advised farmers not to worry about the dairy price and that it would bottom out soon, given that he had been told in July that year that there was a 5-year global milk glut?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: How did the member get it so wrong when he thought he would be the leader twice and lost?

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will hear from Chris Hipkins.

Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister has to at least make some attempt to get vaguely close to the question that was asked. That answer came—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that this is a point of order. It will be heard in silence. Could the member please continue.

Chris Hipkins: The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister has to at least get somewhere near the question that was asked by the member. He did not even come close even to addressing the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Prime Minister responded to some very direct remarks made by Mr Robertson, and it simply serves to point out the vagaries of prediction.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think on this occasion—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion there must be some attempt to answer the question. I am going to invite the member to repeat the question.

Grant Robertson: How did he get it so wrong in November 2014 when he advised farmers not to worry about the dairy price and that it would bottom out soon, given that he had been told in July that year that there was a 5-year global milk glut?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I remain of the view, as I did back then, that the long-term and medium-term outlook for dairy is very strong. But as we always know, it is always possible to not be able to count and to get your numbers wrong from time to time.

Grant Robertson: Does he not think farmers are owed a response from him to serious questions that is better than juvenile politicking when they are facing 44 percent of them defaulting on their loans and farm prices dropping by 40 percent by 2018?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Offering a serious view about what I think are the long-term prospects for dairy, it remains that you have got a global opportunity out there emerging in Asia, and the changing markets are very relevant. But if the member now wants to say that he is supporting the dairy farmers of New Zealand, here are a few suggestions: vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because by far the largest beneficiary is dairy; reform the Resource Management Act, because that affects those farmers; take a constructive view to a range of different issues around tax; and do not whack a massive emissions trading scheme on farmers. Coming into this House and claiming that he is the friend of the farmer when he does everything he can to put them out of business is not going to fool anyone.

Grant Robertson: Supplementary question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting.

Grant Robertson: Does he accept the Reserve Bank’s severe scenario for a payout of $4—10 cents above the current forecast—which would mean 44 percent of farmers defaulting on loans and farm prices dropping by 40 percent in 2018?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is actually misrepresenting the Reserve Bank. He says that if that was the payout—under $4, and I would point out that, actually, the total payout is still predicted to be above that, at $4.35—those loans would be non-performing. That is quite a lot different from defaulting.

Grant Robertson: Does he think that farmer shareholders should be satisfied with the performance of the Fonterra chief executive officer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have any responsibility for the performance of Theo Spierings, any more than he has any responsibility for the performance of Andrew Little.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Prime Minister still stand by his previous publicly stated position of supporting the opening up of Fonterra to share trading on the NZX as a way of bringing outside equity into the company?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Those comments were made a long time ago, but what I did support was trading amongst farmers, and I think, from what I can see, it has worked pretty well.

Grant Robertson: Does he not think he should offer a view to farmers about the performance of the chief executive officer of Fonterra, given Fonterra is having a debt to equity gearing ratio of 49 percent, demanding 90-day terms from its suppliers so that it has actually got some working capital, and changing its payout forecast three times in 7 weeks? Does he not think he owes it to farmers to say what he thinks about that performance?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it is not my responsibility whether Theo Spierings does a good job or not. I do not have that responsibility, any more than I have the responsibility for whether a bank chief executive is doing a good job, or the chief executive of Telecom is doing a good job.

Economy—Stability and Growth

3. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to support resilience and growth in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): A range of steps. We can have some confidence in the economy’s ability to manage through future uncertainty. For instance, the Government is supporting directly innovation through investment in research such as the $170 million Primary Growth Partnership, where primary production industry contributes, and we work together to create new products and increase on-farm activity. Despite the fall in dairy prices, the outlook for the economy is for continuing moderate growth of 2 percent to 2.5 percent, which compares well with most other countries.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is the ongoing expansion in manufacturing helping to support economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Earlier this week Statistics New Zealand released its survey of manufacturing for the December 2015 quarter. It shows manufacturing volumes up by 1.3 percent in the quarter and up by 5.1 percent in the year to December. The value of manufacturing was flat over the same period, reflecting in part the fall in dairy prices. This is consistent with the performance of manufacturing index, which has now been expanding for 40 consecutive quarters. Recent indicators also show increasing manufacturing employment. Overall, this suggests that despite difficulties in the dairy sector, the economy is continuing to grow moderately and is rebalancing.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What are some of the consequences for the wider economy from the downturn in dairy prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, there are consequences for the farming operators and farming families themselves because some of them certainly will come under considerable pressure if they have a combination of high debt and high production costs, or, in some cases, investors who are not as committed as they were before. There is no doubt, though, that the industry is capable of adjusting and that it will work constructively with the banks, which continue to be supportive. The Government has long-term confidence in the outlook for the dairy industry.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will increased access to international markets, alongside new initiatives by the Government, support the dairy industry as well as build resilience and diversity in the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This next period is going to be one where the dairy industry will be looking for support where the Government can provide it. We will certainly be supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), because one of the principal—in fact, the biggest beneficiary of the TPP—is the dairy industry. We would expect the support of the whole Parliament because it is the single biggest thing this Parliament can do to support, particularly, those regions that will be hardest hit by the downturn in dairy prices.

Payments to Small Businesses, Timeliness—Fonterra and Government Departments

4. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Small Business: Does he agree with the statement made by Hon Bill English in the House yesterday regarding Fonterra’s policy of paying small businesses up to an additional 61 days late, that “these are freely transacting people doing business. Any party to the transaction is able to choose whether the terms are suitable for them, or not”?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Yes. I also agree with the Minister’s statement in the House yesterday that it would be unacceptable if it was outside the current legislative requirements. But I note for the House that although Fonterra may be meeting its legislative and contractual commitments, it is my expectation that Fonterra and all New Zealand’s large businesses deal reasonably and fairly with New Zealand small businesses.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he believe, as Bill English does, that small businesses currently contracted by Fonterra are genuinely in a position to choose the terms that are suitable for them, without risking losing the work that they have?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am not sure whether that member correctly understood what Mr English was saying yesterday, but I do note that companies in New Zealand—Kiwi businesses, large companies—I am sure, value their reputation as fair and reasonable Kiwi businesses. The court of public opinion will, I am sure, judge those businesses on their behaviour in the market.

Jacinda Ardern: Would it be acceptable for a Government department to pay a small business 61 days after receiving an invoice, when in 2009 the then State services Minister, Tony Ryall, directed departments to pay their bills on time or earlier?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am sure that that would be the exception, because, across Government, post the 2009 commitment from Mr Ryall, by and large the payments from the Crown to small businesses have improved markedly over that period.

Jacinda Ardern: What action, then, will he take against the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—his own department—responsible for small business, which in 2014-15 paid a whopping 24 percent, or 11,158 of the invoices it received, late?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is not my department, but I understand the member’s question. What is actually more important for New Zealand businesses is the cost of the cash flow that they fund. If the ministry is, in fact, paying some invoices late, it should address that; it should look at that. I am sure that the Minister responsible will be quite interested in that. But what is most important is that the cost of funding cash flows for New Zealand small businesses is probably half of what it was just in 2008, when that member’s party was in Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did the Leader of the Opposition set a good example—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question is not in order.

Jacinda Ardern: What specific action will he take as the Minister for Small Business against the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, ACC, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which have all had significant records in late payment, including the State Services Commission, which issued a letter to all chief executives instructing them to pay on time and model prompt payment?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: As a Minister, as a taxpayer, and as an advocate for small business I would encourage all participants—Government, ministries, agencies, State-owned enterprises—to pay in a reasonable and fair time.

Dairy Industry—Outlook and Debt

5. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tāna tauākī mō te ahu miraka kau, “is an industry that’s going to be under pressure”?

[Does he stand by his statement that dairy “is an industry that’s going to be under pressure”?]

Hon Member: I don’t think that’s right.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I listened to the translation. It was as recorded. Would the Minister of Finance like to answer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. Clearly, many farmers are doing it tough and there is a lot of uncertainty about the future of milk prices. Farms with high levels of debt and high production costs will come under real pressure. Whereas 6 months ago they may have thought that they could hold on until prices had bounced back up, that looks much less likely now. So it is appropriate that the dairy industry is thinking about reducing production costs, adapting to capital scarcity, rather than waiting for prices to rise.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister take any responsibility for the enormous pressure dairy farming families are under, given that his Government has encouraged them to convert to dairy, to take on more debt, and to intensify their farms, and now 5,000 families could lose their farms because of it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would be very surprised, if the member spoke with any of those families, if their business decisions were made by what they read from press releases from the Government. These people are capable, competent people who weigh up the business risks and decide what risks they take. Some of them might have overextended themselves, and I would be surprised if they blamed anyone else for that.

Metiria Turei: Does he accept that the Government’s goal of doubling food exports by 2025 and subsidising irrigation was an encouragement to farming families to increase their debt and intensify their farms?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. One would only have to look at the range of debt across farms in the dairy industry, or any other industry, and you would find that some of them have no debt, some of them have moderate debt, and a few—probably a very few—have levels of debt that are now turning out to be higher than is comfortable. The Government has made no apology for supporting primary production through its investment in science and innovation, its investment in biosecurity, and getting alongside them in the development of large-scale irrigation schemes into which we have actually put only quite small amounts of money.

Richard Prosser: Will the Minster’s Government support New Zealand First’s Receiverships (Agricultural Debt Mediation) Amendment Bill, which will provide our dairy farmers with a similar level of regulated debt mediation support to that enjoyed by farmers in Australia and Canada; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, we will not, because we believe that the parties involved in that debt are capable of working their way through it. The large banks have lent money to the industry in full knowledge of all the risks and with a deep understanding and history in the industry. We believe they are committed to the long-term future of the industry—that it is in their interests that, for instance, the land price is maintained at reasonable levels and does not drop rapidly, and therefore they and the farmers will be able to work through whatever stress there is.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister received any advice on how many families in the wider rural communities, not just farm owners but farm labourers and contractors as well, will have financial problems because of his Government’s failed dairy strategy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. It is a bit galling to hear from the Greens concern for people whom they have branded for the last decade as reckless capitalist polluters—suddenly they are very worried about them. I find it a wee bit hard to find that the Greens are serious.

Richard Prosser: Given his previous answer, what contingency plan does his Government have, in the likely event of widespread farm foreclosures, to support unsecured creditors and their staff and families in the heartland communities who support the dairy industry and rely on it—feed suppliers, fencers, silage and hay contractors—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion. [Interruption] Order! The question is too long.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no evidence—no good reason—to believe that there will be widespread farm foreclosures. The Government believes that the industry is resilient and the financial services sectors that support it have an interest in its ongoing success. If that member wants to do what farmers would regard as showing strong support for them, then he and his party would vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and vote for Resource Management Act reforms—and I am sure if they went around the regions saying that, they would be welcomed with open arms.

Metiria Turei: What will the Minister do to prevent more of our productive land being sold off to overseas buyers when farming families are suffering huge debt burdens and are forced to sell their farms?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Any offshore buyer who wants to buy the farms has to go through the Overseas Investment Act process, which includes, I think, 15 separate tests. It has been subject to court action in recent years that has raised the thresholds, and the Government has every intention of leaving that in place. The member needs to keep in mind that those families who do have higher levels of debt probably incurred that from paying fairly large amounts for the farm that they have moved into recently. I think the industry would expect that they have the opportunity to work through their stressful situation with the banks.

Metiria Turei: Given that the Minister has no advice on how many farming families will suffer as a result of this, does he think he ought to go and get that advice, and does he intend to act on any advice he is given about projects or initiatives to support those farming families who will be—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a—[Interruption] Order! It is question time, not speech time.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: You do not need to get advice to know that there will be a significant number of farming families distressed. This is not a new kind of phenomenon in farming communities. I myself recall a number of years, actually, of fairly intensive stress in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the sheep and beef industry over the same sorts of issues. We have a lot of confidence in this farming community to be able to adapt to difficult circumstances and to get through those on the basis that the outlook for the dairy industry is quite strong in the light of ongoing global demand for protein.

Rt Hon John Key: Does the Minister believe that actions speak louder than words, and, if that is the case, would the farmers of New Zealand expect political parties that claim to be standing up for them to vote for the TPP that would reduce hundreds of millions of dollars of tariffs against them, or will they see through all of this—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, the question was too long. The first part can be addressed.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought you would probably rule the question out of order. The Minister of Finance has no responsibilities for how other parties vote in the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The first part of the question, in my mind, was in order, in that it simply asked for—it did not talk about Opposition parties; “other political parties’ support: wouldn’t that be the best thing for farmers?”. I think, in view of the circumstances of where the discussion has been, that the question is in order. It can be addressed by the Minister.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that distressed farming families would take some notice of the outpouring of sympathy they are getting from Opposition parties, but, knowing farming people, I think they would regard actions as more telling. They will be surprised to know that those expressing the strongest sympathy today have said they will vote against Resource Management Act reforms that will assist that industry and vote against the most recent free-trade agreement, of which the dairy industry is the biggest beneficiary. They might be surprised, having heard the words today.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement promise of a tariff reduction of just 1.3 percent by 2030 is not going to help the 5,000 farming families who are facing the loss of their farms today, because of his Government’s failed dairy strategies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I disagree with that. The dairy industry, I am sure, would be pleased to see any expression of real economic support from this Parliament and, secondly, that agreement includes significant benefits for other members of their communities—people in the beef industry and in the horticulture industry. Actually, dairy farmers care about those people and they care about their communities. They would expect the Greens to change their mind and vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

David Seymour: Does the Minister agree with the following quote from the valedictory speech of outgoing Green MP Russel Norman: “Let’s just say it—we have too many cows.”?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think there is any need for that question. I am going to rule it is out of order.

Rheumatic Fever—Rates

6. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that rheumatic fever rates have dropped 45 percent since 2012?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, and it is encouraging to see this latest significant drop in the rates, which continues progress towards the Better Public Services target of reducing rheumatic fever rates by two-thirds by the end of June 2017. This shows that the Government’s $65 million investment to prevent rheumatic fever is making a real difference to the children, families, and communities most at risk.

Simon O’Connor: What progress has been made in reducing rheumatic fever rates in Māori and Pasifika communities?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Rates for Māori have more than halved since 2012, down 54 percent. There has also been a drop of 27 percent for Pacific people. More than half the national reduction was in the Northland District Health Board and the Counties Manukau District Health Board. Part of the success can be attributed to the Pacific engagement service, which has engaged with more than 39,000 Auckland and Wellington Pacific families, through home visits and community events, to raise awareness of rheumatic fever and what can be done to prevent it. However, there is still much left to do.

Simon O’Connor: What initiatives has the Government put in place to tackle rheumatic fever?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Healthy homes initiatives in all high-incidence areas are offering packages of housing-related interventions to more than 3,000 families each year. There are over 300 drop-in clinics, and more than 40,000 high-risk young people have accessed these sore throat drop-in services. Children are also being assessed and treated for sore throats through school-based services in 200 North Island schools. There is also a national rheumatic fever awareness campaign aimed at young people, as well as the parents and caregivers of children and young people most at risk.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Literacy and Numeracy Requirements

7. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that students completing NCEA qualifications have the basic functional literacy and numeracy skills they will require for further study or employment?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes.

Chris Hipkins: Was the recent Tertiary Education Commission report, which found that up to half the students meeting National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) literacy and numeracy requirements are not functionally literate or numerate, based on a student sample who had predominantly attained the literacy and numeracy requirements for NCEA, under the new rules?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: My understanding is no, because the new rules were implemented in 2012 and therefore the results of those new rules were not taken into account by the Tertiary Education Commission report, which was based prior to the introduction of those. So when you say “recent”, although it was published in December last year, it used data from 2012.

Chris Hipkins: In light of that answer, why does the report specifically state that the vast majority of students within the sample completed their NCEA literacy and numeracy requirement under the new rules?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot speak to that, because I am not at the Tertiary Education Commission and I did not write the report, but given that the strengthening of the literacy and numeracy requirements and the increasing of the credits from eight to 10 became compulsorily implemented from 2013, it is by definition impossible for a 2012 report to use those results.

Chris Hipkins: Was the report wrong when it stated that under the new rules it is possible to obtain the 10 achievement standard credits required to meet the literacy requirement for NCEA by completing standards where “the focus … is varied and there is not necessarily any direct assessment of students’ literacy and numeracy skills”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, the report is not wrong in that literacy can be assessed in subjects other than English, and that the quality assurance of those assessments is overseen by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. I stand by its process, as opposed to an incidental report from the Tertiary Education Commission.

Chris Hipkins: So how can parents, employers, and anybody else be confident that students who obtain NCEA have basic functional literacy and numeracy, when it is possible to meet the literacy and numeracy requirements without ever having their literacy and numeracy actually assessed?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: That is not what I said. Literacy is assessed, but it is not assessed only in English. It is assessed in a range of subjects, whether it is physical education, whether it is science, or whether it is maths. Literacy is required across all of those subjects, and assessments occur in all of those subjects. As to the second part of your question, which is how parents and employers can have confidence, they can have confidence because a number of reports have been published on the quality of NCEA. They include the 2012 report by the Auditor-General, the 2013 report by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, and the 2014 report by an independent panel of academics, principals, and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. I am happy to table, for the member’s ease of reference, references to all of those reports, which are publicly available.

Chris Hipkins: Can a student meet all of the literacy requirements for NCEA solely from studying physical education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not absolutely sure about that, but I can—

Chris Hipkins: Yes. The answer is yes.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —get that report. Well, the member is asking questions that are redundant.

Chris Hipkins: When employers are saying that students with NCEA do not necessarily have the literacy and numeracy skills they need, when Business New Zealand is saying it, when universities and polytechnics are saying it, and when even school principals are saying it, why will she not take action to review the system to ensure those getting NCEA actually have functional literacy and numeracy, or is she worried that doing so means the Government will not hit its 85 percent target?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I can point to specific reports that are in the public domain that attest to the robustness of our NCEA. The member using general references to general people who may or may not have a view does not stack up against the robustness—

Chris Hipkins: Pretty specific study.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, the member is referring to one principal, and there are a few, but what the New Zealand Council for Educational Research said in its report of 2013 was that 95 percent of all principals are confident in the NCEA. It would be helpful if the member actually shared that confidence in our national qualification system.

Rheumatic Fever—Housing Conditions

8. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: Following the recent release of the rheumatic fever statistics, what steps is he taking to address the rate of rheumatic fever amongst whanau living in overcrowded housing conditions?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): This Government, with support from the Māori Party, has invested $65 million in the Rheumatic Fever Prevention Programme over the last 6 years. A feature of the programme is Healthy Homes services, working in all 11 high-incidence district health board regions, and it is making good progress delivering a range of different interventions to families. We are now seeing real results, with rheumatic fever rates for Māori down 54 percent since 2012. I would like to acknowledge the work and support of the Māori Party in championing this cause.

Marama Fox: Given the prevalence of rheumatic fever amongst whānau living in overcrowded, substandard homes, what is the Minister doing with his colleague the Minister for Building and Housing to build larger, warmer, safer homes to further reduce the rates of rheumatic fever?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Ministers are working together on these important issues, including the housing Ministers, and they are best placed to answer questions relating directly to the building of houses. The Healthy Homes services have a number of initiatives to reduce overcrowding and make houses warmer and safer.

Marama Fox: What further specific measures will the Minister take to ensure the 75 percent reduction by 2017, identified in the Māori Party initiative in 2013, is achieved?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We will continue with the initiatives that are delivering success: the 300 drop-in clinics, the 200 school-based services, and the national awareness campaigns, to name but three of them.

Marine Protected Areas—Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary

9. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What new details of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary have been announced and how will these help protect the 620,000 square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean covered by this initiative?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yesterday the Government announced the details of the bill to create the sanctuary that was announced by the Prime Minister at the United Nations in September. The bill provides for a new conservation board with responsibility for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, as well as the existing Kermadec Marine Reserve and the nature reserves on the five Kermadec Islands. This integrated approach makes good sense, and given the size of this area being twice that of New Zealand’s land, it makes sense, with its unique challenges for management, to have a dedicated board. The second change is that we have tightened the dumping prohibitions and adjusted the scientific research provisions to maximise the protection, while also making sure that it is compliant with New Zealand international law of the sea.

Scott Simpson: What feedback has he had, both domestically and internationally, to the new Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The sanctuary has been widely welcomed, and the Prime Minister’s announcement was noted very positively in both the European and the North American media, partly because of the sheer scale of it being an area larger than the land area of France. The Pew Charitable Trusts, which has advocated for ocean sanctuaries globally, has noted that New Zealand has set the gold standard with the Kermadecs and it is a powerful international example. I have also welcomed the support of key organisations like Forest and Bird and World Wide Fund for Nature. They have acknowledged that it is a very significant global initiative and an extraordinary achievement for nature. The sanctuary increases New Zealand’s area protected from 0.4 percent of our ocean space to 15.4 percent—i.e., this single sanctuary is 35 times larger than the existing 44 marine reserves that we have.

Scott Simpson: What particular species and special features will benefit from the protection of this new ocean sanctuary?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The sanctuary is home to 6 million seabirds of 37 different species; 35 species of whales and dolphins; three species of sea turtle—it is the only area where sea turtles are found in New Zealand waters, all of which are endangered—as well as 150 species of fish. The extraordinary nature of the area is due to it being deeper than Mount Everest is tall, and having the longest chain of underwater volcanoes anywhere in the world. The combination of the undersea volcanic activity and the extreme depths means that there are life forms and ecosystems found nowhere else on the planet, but that will be protected in perpetuity by this bill.

Clayton Mitchell: How does the Government plan to feasibly protect the 620,000 square kilometres of proposed Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary effectively when there is only one frigate and three Orions, which, at best, could fly over once a week, not to mention the one lonely Department of Conservation worker working on Raoul Island?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, the member is incorrect about the number of Department of Conservation staff who are on Raoul Island and in the Kermadecs. Secondly, this is a Government that has actually, under Gerry Brownlee’s leadership, invested in the sort of defence capability that enables New Zealand to be able to secure an area of protection like the Kermadecs.

Marama Fox: What consultation has there been with the two iwi with a statutory acknowledgment over their interests on the Kermadecs, and what changes have been made to the proposals as a consequence?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had extensive discussions with both Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri, who have for many years supported the establishment of the sanctuary. Both with their input and the input of the Māori Party, we have provided for both those iwi having direct representation on the conservation board. I have also had representations that there are other iwi in New Zealand who have an interest in the Kermadecs, and so, with the work of the member’s colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, we are providing for him to be able to also appoint someone to ensure that that broader and very deep historic interest that Māori have with the Kermadecs is also provided for in the way in which we are putting this unique area into permanent protection.

David Seymour: By what quantity will this announcement change the total allowable catch under New Zealand’s quota management system?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that there are about 20 tonnes of fish per year that are taken in the Kermadecs area. Obviously, that will be banned from the time—it will be an area of full protection from all forms of fishing. Secondly, there was an application for deep-sea mining in the area, and the Government’s view has been that the area will also be fully protected from mining activities.

Business, Innovation and Employment, Ministry—Payroll

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): My question is to the Minister: on what date did he first become aware of payroll problems at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and what action did he take?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the first part—was it addressed to the Minister concerned?

Hon Steven Joyce: He didn’t address it to anyone.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, would the member just do the question again.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): To the Minister of Business, Innovation and Employment—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Sorry, I am just making sure the member is given due consideration. He can start again.

Dr DAVID CLARK: To the Minister of Business, Innovation and Employment—[Interruption] Would you like me to go again, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

10. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: On what date did he first become aware of payroll problems at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and what action did he take?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Firstly, I have been updated a number of times on payroll as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has been brought together, particularly with the four payrolls being brought into one. With particular regard to the issues that have been publicly discussed in recent days, I was first advised on 5 October last year that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was establishing a payroll team to identify and address non-compliance and historical issues associated with entitlements to holiday pay. I supported the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s actions at the time, and I have asked to be kept fully updated on its progress, along with expressing the expectation to the chief executive that this issue be resolved as quickly as possible.

Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that the issues that he first became aware of in October last year around the Holidays Act and payroll compliance were known to his Government in 2010?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot. In relation to this particular payroll the time line is as I described last year. The labour inspectorate has had broader concerns about public and private providers complying with the Holidays Act, going back some time, possibly back to 2010, but the issues in relation to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment were identified to me in 2015, in October last year.

Dr David Clark: The Minister didn’t know.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, you are wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Dr David Clark: During the 2012 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment merger, did his Government ensure the payroll system complied with the law?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment merger in 2012 a decision was taken to merge the four payrolls together, including the former Department of Labour payroll, which had been used right back, I believe, until around 2000. It was, of course, anticipated that that payroll, which had been in place for many years, would meet the requirements, particularly given that the Holidays Act had been passed with its changes in 2003. Unfortunately, from the period 2003 onwards there had been no attempt within the Government to ascertain that the payrolls were actually following the Holidays Act as it was laid down in 2003.

Dr David Clark: Is he confident that his department has been providing correct advice to the private sector, given that his department has failed to implement its own payroll system correctly?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For the member’s benefit, the labour inspectorate operates at arm’s length from the operation of the agency, particularly in relation to payroll matters, because the labour inspectorate has a responsibility to monitor the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s payroll as well as other public and private sector payrolls. As I said to the member in answer to an earlier question, the inspectorate has had concerns for some time about payrolls generally, and that matter has been discussed with the State Services Commission. This particular issue, though, was raised in 2015.

Dr David Clark: Why did he fail to follow the advice on his ministry’s website about “calculating annual holiday pay”, which appears under the tab headed “Get the basics right”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a question that could be asked right back to 2003, I believe, because the holiday pay calculation is recognised as a complex calculation, because it requires providers to assess the greater of the average wages of the person and the regular-time wages of the person. Just because you are a bad Opposition MP who yells all the time does not mean you cannot just listen to the answer to the question.

National Science Challenges—A Better Start

11. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government using science and research to help the development of children and young people?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Recently I launched the tenth in a series of National Science Challenges. A Better Start is a challenge using science to tackle some of the biggest issues facing New Zealand young people. A Better Start is receiving funding of up to $34.7 million over 10 years for research aimed at solving some of the complex problems that are faced by New Zealand children and young people as they start out in life. It focuses on predicting, preventing, and treating mental health issues and obesity in children, as well as improving how children learn. It will work to develop new methods for detecting and supporting young children with developmental and behavioural disorders. This work and other research taking place across the research sector will have a significant impact on young people’s well-being, employment prospects, and of course, ultimately, on the New Zealand economy and society.

Dr Jian Yang: What research projects will the A Better Start National Science Challenge be supporting?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The proposed initial research for the A Better Start National Science Challenge is about understanding biomedical conditions and social behaviour that influence how children grow up. The challenge will bring together medical researchers to work with educationalists on projects like investigating the way environmental factors and biology influence child obesity and what can be done to help children achieve and maintain a healthy weight, trialling interventions to help children at risk of literacy problems succeeding in their first year at school, and developing new tools to detect common mental health problems like depression and anxiety in teenagers. The A Better Start challenge is hosted by the Liggins Institute at the University of Auckland, in collaboration with the universities of Otago, Canterbury, and Waikato, Auckland University of Technology, Massey University, Victoria University, and AgResearch.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers and Lakes

12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Has he received any advice that New Zealanders would prefer to wade rather than swim in our lakes and rivers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): No, and it is Government policy for as many water bodies as practically possible to be swimmable. When we came into Government in 2008 there was no national freshwater policy or standards, and we have been systematically strengthening those. These requirements do not stipulate that every water body be swimmable all the time but they do require councils to maintain and improve water quality and to identify those rivers and lakes that should be swimmable.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that answer, will the Minister commit to the goal of making New Zealand lakes and rivers swimmable, with exceptions for issues that he has previously stated, including during high rainfall events, areas where birds colonise, rivers tainted by volcanic ash, and other natural phenomena that may prevent swimming?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We are doing a consultation at the moment, which I started last night, about improvements in the national policy statement. I am open-minded about strengthening the provisions around swimmability but it is my view that we need to ensure that they are practical and that in that process of setting the standards we do take into mind the issue of costs. I give the member a practical example in Auckland: Lucas Creek would cost $150 million to bring it up to a swimmable standard—a cost that would translate to about $10,000 per household for a stream that nobody has ever wanted or tried to swim in. So, yes, we want more water bodies to be swimmable but we also want to make sure that the provisions are practical.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that Landcorp can cut the proposed Wairākei dairy conversions by 50 percent to protect the environment, will he include in his Next Steps for Fresh Water document a moratorium on dairy conversions in sensitive catchments?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed, that has taken place. So, for instance, in an area like Canterbury, where there were no limits on expansion of dairying, the commissioners have done a very good job of actually creating red zones and of setting limits on nutrients, and that is happening right throughout the country. What I would welcome from the Green Party is support for that national policy statement and the requirement to set limits. I would remind the member that prior to this Government coming to office there were no limits anywhere in New Zealand on nutrients.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically on whether the Minister would include in the Next Steps for Fresh Water a moratorium on dairy conversions.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to go back and rehear the answer. The Minister said they were achieving it in another way, and addressed the question for the benefit of the member.

Catherine Delahunty: What rivers has the Minister waded in recently and did he enjoy it as much as actually putting his head under the water?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I regularly swim—only at the weekend, I was swimming with my family in the Maitai River. But I would point out to the member that, actually, contrary to the Green Party view that this is all farmers’ problems, if you take the Maitai River, the key swimmability challenge there is actually the standard of our town sewerage scheme in Nelson. Like in many urban areas of New Zealand, some of those pipes are old and need upgrading and there is a significant cost for ratepayers in upgrading those systems, and that needs to be taken into account.

Voting

Correction—Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Mr SPEAKER: On 3 March when the House was considering the Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a first time was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 63, Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 63, Noes 58.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I just want to correct an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: You need to seek leave to do so, then.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I seek leave to correct an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to a supplementary question on question No. 3, I said that the performance of manufacturing index had been positive for 40 consecutive quarters. It was actually 40 consecutive months.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2016. It is great to be able to talk about the Budget Policy Statement, a document that shows the future of New Zealand going forward into 2016 and beyond. It draws on Treasury forecasts in the half-yearly update, it looks at how we are managing public finances to responsibly deliver a surplus to New Zealanders and reduce debt, it makes sure that we get a productive and strong economy, it delivers better value for public services, and it supports the rebuild of Christchurch.

It is a Budget that shows prudent economic management in the most difficult of international times. It shows that this Government can deliver the best environment for New Zealand businesses to succeed and prosper. We are delivering the stable conditions for economic prosperity in New Zealand. The Government made a surplus of $414 million in the 2014-15 year. We made this surplus after the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression and rebuilding our second-biggest city. With a debt of an $18.4 billion deficit in 2010-11, we have now turned that into a surplus of $414 million. That is a great achievement for any country, and especially the small country that the New Zealand economy represents.

There is a weaker outlook going forward due to lower commodity prices and the international situation, and I will come back to that later. But let us have a look at some of those statistics. Real GDP growth was 3.2 percent in 2015, and it is forecast to be 2.1 percent in 2016. We are running slightly higher now, at 2.5 percent. That is great news for New Zealand. The unemployment rate—the actual rate in 2015 was 5.8 percent and the forecast in 2016 is 6.5 percent. We are running below last year’s actual rate, at 5.3 percent.

If you look at the Consumers Price Index and the inflation rate, 0.3 percent was the actual rate for 2015, and it is forecast to be at 1.4 percent. Low inflation means low interest rates for New Zealanders, and we have record low inflation in New Zealand. Wage growth is going up. It has gone up by 2.1 percent in 2015, and is forecast to go up by 2.6 percent in 2016. The current account balance is at negative 3.5 percent, and is scheduled to go up to minus 4.8 percent. That may sound bad, but when you consider the current account deficit under Labour of 7.9 percent, that is an improvement for the New Zealand economy. The total Crown operating balance before gains and losses, at 0.2 percent, is forecast to go to a negative 0.2 percent. And net Crown debt, at 25.2 percent, is forecast to go to 26.9 percent—still keeping New Zealand’s debt at reasonable levels for this country, going forward.

We need to compare this with the country that we inherited—a country in recession, a country that had interest rates at around 11 percent, a country with a current account deficit of 7.9 percent, and a country that had permanent deficits and debt rising to over 60 percent of GDP under the figures that Labour would have delivered for New Zealand. The Opposition members over there will talk endlessly today about agriculture in their speeches in this debate. They will say that they care about farmers.

Speaking as a farmer, it hurts us to see the Opposition members actually come into this Parliament and say that they care about farmers. Not once have they ever supported anything for farmers in this Parliament in the last term, and they have no intention of supporting anything in the future. To all those New Zealand farmers who are listening today—do not believe what you will hear from the other side. Do not believe those members’ rhetoric about how they suddenly care about farmers and they are there for farmers in their time of need, because, believe me, Labour never has been, never will be, and never can be there for anybody who is in the rural sector or in any economy that is based around the rural sector.

Let us have a look. There are lower payouts coming to dairy farmers this year—nobody is denying that. It will be extremely tough times for New Zealand dairy farmers—they will be extremely tough—and New Zealanders will face greater impacts from this as it flows through into our economy. But, as the Minister of Finance said today, similar things happened in the sheep and beef industry in the late 1980s. Every industry will go through ups and downs, and they have to be able to reconcile that with their debt, their income, and their ability to service that debt, going forward. All businesses do face challenges, and this is a time of immense challenge for the New Zealand dairy industry. Let us not forget that at all.

It is not just a Fonterra issue. A lot of people will blame Fonterra and say that this is a Fonterra issue—it is a problem of having a structure around Fonterra. It is not a Fonterra issue. Open Country Dairy suppliers will have the same problem of lower payouts coming to them, as well. In fact, they have got a bigger problem than Fonterra shareholders because at least Fonterra shareholders have a shareholding in that company, which gives them a greater asset. Open Country Dairy farmers are probably the most at risk because their only asset is their land and their cows. They have no shareholding asset in the company and they do not have that buffer, should the banks be looking at their properties, and I think that that is something that we need to take into account. It is a whole dairy industry issue, not just a Fonterra issue.

In saying that, Fonterra is the biggest player and New Zealand dairy farmers do look to it for leadership, and this is a time when Fonterra can step up and show that leadership. It has done that earlier in the season by providing some extra funding through a capital mechanism for its shareholders and it is indicating that it will have another capital mechanism later in the year to help farmers as well, or some other mechanism through using its assets. So it is time for Fonterra to actually help and deliver to its farmers, but it is not just solely a Fonterra issue.

New Zealanders need a Government and a Parliament that understand and support farmers, not a Parliament that tries to take advantage in their time of weakness and their time of difficulty to make political capital, but that is what is happening on the other side of the House. I ask the members of this House, and I ask the public who are watching here today: when was the last time that the Opposition parties supported the Government’s actions on water reform? When was the last time the Opposition parties supported our reforms of the Resource Management Act? When was the last time the Opposition parties supported the free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement? And when was the last time that the Opposition parties actually supported New Zealand dairy farmers by voting for them in this Parliament, rather than saying one thing and doing another? Farmers do not want that. They do not want Opposition parties saying one thing and doing another, because they can see through that and see the reality of the situation.

Let us look at what would happen if the Opposition parties were in power. There would be no free-trade agreements. There would be no trading with the TPP agreement—

Clayton Mitchell: There would be three trade agreements.

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, no. The New Zealand First Party wants to do trade with Russia in dairy products, but it does not want to do a TPP agreement. So let me understand that one. The Resource Management Act reforms would be off the table. There would be no chance of having Resource Management Act reforms from the Opposition. The Opposition parties would not support the Government on Resource Management Act reforms. The Opposition parties would have higher taxes on farmers. They would be taxing farmers to a higher level to pay for unrealistic election promises that they have already made around payments to students, for example, and there will be more to come during the election campaign.

That unrealistic spending would mean higher interest rates for New Zealand farmers. The biggest problem coming out of this room that New Zealand dairy farmers would face would be if there was an incompetent Government here delivering a poor economic situation and a poor Budget, which would lead to higher interest rates. That is exactly what the Opposition would deliver. New Zealand farmers are smart, they are hard-working, and they will deliver for this country, as they have in the past.

We do not need a patronising Opposition that does not care about farmers to come into this Parliament and suddenly show that it has some ambitions. The Opposition members over there will yell and scream all they like, and in the next speeches you will only hear from the Opposition members about how, under Labour, there would have been a diversified economy, and how, under Labour, there would have been none of these problems. Well, I say to you—and I say to the members of this House—New Zealand farmers would have been worse off with those guys. New Zealand farmers deliver, and will deliver in the future, and we do not need the patronising attitude from the Opposition at this time.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I congratulate the member David Bennett, who has just resumed his seat, on his ability to retain some numbers in his head—

Hon Damien O’Connor: No, he read it.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, he did read; that is true. He had a number of numbers in his speech. Let us start by talking about that, and perhaps raising some of the other numbers that the Budget Policy Statement draws out for us. For instance, in the last year, per capita GDP: nothing. No growth, zero, flat—absolutely flat. How about debt—because we know that the Government, in the past, has been very proud of its record around debt.

David Shearer: Surely that has come down?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, no, you would think so, would you not? Net debt in 2008 was $10 billion. In 2015 it was $62 billion—an additional $52 billion. There is another number for David Bennett—$52 billion. In the spirit of my colleague Dr David Clark, the Government has borrowed more than Muldoon; that is what it has done. But it is all right, because we had a promise from the Government. We had a promise from the Government that exports as a percentage of GDP would be up at 40 percent—that was the promise. I will admit that this is not going to happen in a day; it is the kind of thing you need to take step by step to improve exports. So they were 32 percent of GDP when the Government came into office—it will take steps forward and they will reach 40 percent by 2020.

David Shearer: What is it?

GRANT ROBERTSON: So you would think now they would probably be in the mid-thirties somewhere?

David Shearer: On the way.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yeah, on the way—28.4 percent—going backwards. Exports as a percentage of GDP are going backwards. But what about the stuff that really matters—the numbers that really matter to working New Zealanders, like whether or not they got a pay rise? That is an important thing covered here in the Budget Policy Statement—New Zealanders working hard, adding to the productivity of their companies, hoping for a pay rise. What number would David Bennett want us to have there? In 2015, 46 percent of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise—46 percent of New Zealanders. So there is a number for the Government.

Chris Bishop: You are getting the wrong stats, Grant.

GRANT ROBERTSON: What we also know is that the labour force participation rate—something that the Government has wanted to crow about and say that is why we have to be careful about the unemployment numbers—is actually coming down. It is actually coming down. People are giving up on the labour market, Mr Bishop. They are giving up, because the jobs are not there for them.

Chris Bishop: It is the third-highest in the developed world.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I would have thought Chris Bishop would get it—the trend matters, Chris. It is the trend that matters. It is going the wrong way. They are the numbers that perhaps David Bennett might have wanted to focus on when he was looking at the Budget Policy Statement.

But what I think is really missing from the Budget Policy Statement is the vision of the Government to create the economy of our future. What this Budget Policy Statement is really about is a Government that is stuck. It is a Government that does not really have any new ideas about what a new economy might look like, about how we can—as David Bennett said—support and invest in diversification of the economy. The Government was very keen, Mr Bennett, to crow about dairy prices when they were high, to take the credit, to have the Prime Minister charging his glass with Theo Spierings, to say “It’s all on.”, to make the best of his trip to China to start a new export line in there—so, credit was being taken. But now, on the downturn—we have farmers who are facing, potentially, what they themselves are calling a catastrophic situation. This is not the Opposition saying this; this is the farmers themselves.

There was the performance by the Prime Minister today, who decided that it was more important to throw political insults than to actually recognise what farmers are calling a catastrophic situation—the possibility that there would be a drop in land value of more than 40 percent—the fact that, potentially, we could have 40 percent of farmers in a position where they are not meeting the terms of their loans. This is tough stuff. Those communities are having a tough time. It is not right for the Government to suddenly say it does not matter anymore, because we have got tourism now. It is not actually a diversification strategy to let one industry collapse in the hope that that means another one looks better. The only reason tourism is now larger is that dairy has gone down. That is not diversification. That is not a Government in the 21st century being a partner in the economy—being a partner in the economy—and that is what regional New Zealand is calling out for.

I absolutely accept that farmers are not looking to be bailed out by the Government; they do not want that. What they are looking for is a Government that will be a partner, that will get into those communities and work with local Government, work with businesses, and help to establish the kinds of industries, the kind of economy that can ride out the waves in the commodity cycle. Because in the end, that is what this Government is leaving us with—an economy and economic growth that has been built on an over-inflated dairy price, the Christchurch rebuild, and the Auckland housing bubble. You could not get a less secure basis going forward from here, for the New Zealand economy.

This Budget Policy Statement misses the trick of planning an economy for the future. When we discussed this in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it was quite clear when the Minister of Finance came in that his vision for the spending allowance for the future, which is here in the Budget Policy Statement, was to look at tax cuts. That was the only plan—not to invest, not to create opportunity for future generations, but to squirrel that money away for 2017 and the election, and for tax cuts. We know, from what happened in 2010, where the National Party’s focus for tax cuts will go. It goes to the top earners—the top 10 percent getting 40 percent of the value of tax cuts. That is the focus for National and that is what it wants to do with the money that is here in new spending allowances.

Well, I can tell you is that on this side of the House we are proud to say that what we want to do with Budgets of the future is use them to create opportunity for New Zealanders. That is why Labour has proposed, as a direct alternative to National’s tax cuts, our Working Futures Plan, which says “Let’s use that money to earn”—

Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

GRANT ROBERTSON: Chris Bishop laughs. He does not care. He does not care whether or not when people leave secondary school they have got the ability to go on and get the qualifications that—

Chris Bishop: I do.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —that they need to add to the skill base that they need. “I do”—I hear a high-pitched squeal from across the aisle. What we need is a policy like the Working Futures Plan that actually means that every single New Zealander will go on and get more qualifications, will be the skilled workforce that employers tell us time and time again they need, but there is no sign of that in this Budget Policy Statement. The Government thinks it can get away with 20th century approaches in the 21st century. That is not how we are going to grow the economy.

What we want to see in the future is the Budget Policy Statement being used to define the kinds of measures that would make for a good society. By all means, we keep measuring GDP. Of course it is a very good way of measuring activity in the economy. But let us start measuring some other things in the Budget Policy Statement. Let us start measuring how we are doing in creating jobs, in lowering unemployment. Let us set as a goal that wherever you live in this country you should be able to get a decent job. That should be a goal of any Budget. Let us make it a goal to have targets in the Budget to reduce child poverty. Let us hear about them. The Government is so scared of that that it will not even set a target for child poverty, let alone use the Budget to actually measure it. Let us use the Budget to actually be honest about expenditure in health, because we heard David Bennett tell us that health expenditure as a percentage of GDP has gone up. It has not; it has gone down—it has gone down.

We need to have a Budget that says we will set up the building blocks of society strongly: education, health, decent work, and getting kids out of poverty. That is what the Budget Policy Statement should be saying today—a vision for how we will create opportunity and how we will create an economy that is based on diversification and on giving people an opportunity for decent work in the future. We are facing huge change in the workplace—technological disruption, globalisation—and we have got a flat-footed Government looking in the rear-view mirror. What is needed is a Budget Policy Statement that says today: “We will work with business, with local government, and with the community to create the jobs of the future, to give every New Zealander the dignity of a decent job backed up by a decent home, good education, and good health—not allowing one child to grow up in poverty.” That should be in the Budget Policy Statement. That would be in a Budget Policy Statement from a Labour Government. It is, sadly, missing today.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I do not know what planet Grant Robertson has been living on for the last few years, because just at the tail end of his speech we heard from him that the Budget Policy Statement should do other things than talk about GDP—that we need to measure things like jobs and we need to measure things like wages. Well, we do measure those things, and the good news for Grant and the good news for the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

CHRIS BISHOP: —is that jobs are up by 175,000 over the last few years, unemployment is down to its lowest level in 7 years, at 5.3 percent, real wages are up over the last 7 years, and just in the last year they are up 3.1 percent compared with inflation of 0.1 percent. We do measure those things, and those measures are heading in the right direction for this economy and, more important, for New Zealand families.

What else did he say? He said: “We should have targets. Let’s set some social targets.” Well, again, we do do that. In 2012 we established the Better Public Services results programme, which sets the Public Service to measure itself against targets to reduce recidivism, to increase the number of kids getting National Certificate of Education Achievement level 2, and to reduce youth crime across a whole range of measures. Again, the good news for Grant and the good news for the House is that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It is not acceptable for a member to continue to refer to another member by just a Christian name. If it happens again, I will stop the member’s speech.

CHRIS BISHOP: I apologise, Mr Speaker. The good news for Mr Robertson is that those numbers are heading in the right direction. I want to talk, in my contribution today, about three things that are reflected in the Budget and reflected in the response from the Opposition. The first is fiscal strategy, the second is about our attitude to the outside world, and the third is about the tertiary policy, labelled the Working Futures Plan, of the Labour Opposition.

I want to start with fiscal strategy, and I want to take members back to late 2008 when National inherited the Treasury benches. Members opposite often turn up in the House and they often skite about the fact that the Labour Government from 1999 to 2008 ran 9 years of surpluses, and that is false. The 2008-09 accounts, when they were produced, produced a $3.9 billion deficit. When we came to office, Treasury was forecasting never-ending Budget deficits and debt to blow out to 60 percent of GDP. These are not National’s numbers; this was the fiscal reality we inherited from a profligate Opposition. Michael Cullen was gleeful.

Hon Annette King: Was it a reality or a prediction?

CHRIS BISHOP: Mrs King’s best mate, Michael Cullen, was gleeful. He went around Parliament saying: “I’ve spent the lot. The money’s gone; I’ve spent the lot.” He used to crow about that—about how there was no money left for anyone to spend. Government spending between 2003 and 2008 increased 50 percent in 5 years. It was simply unsustainable, and we had to spend 7 years getting the books back in order. That is reflected in the Budget Policy Statement presented before the House, and it will be reflected in Budget 2016. So this Budget Policy Statement reflects the considered fiscal discipline of the Government. New operating allowances for Budget 2016—there is just $1 billion. There is $2.5 billion for 2017, and it is lower again in 2018 and 2019. These are well below the massive new operating allowances under the Labour Government. Labour used to say that we would never get the books back into the black. In fact, Andrew Little said that it was the biggest political con he had ever seen. It was pretty embarrassing for him when the 2014-15 Budget accounts showed a small—albeit small—but very definite surplus.

So what is Labour’s latest strategy? Labour’s latest strategy is to turn up here and complain about debt. We have David Clark over there, and every day without fail—you can set your watch by it—he turns up here and says that we have borrowed more money than Muldoon did. Well, I put it to the House that that is a little hypocritical, because Labour spent 2009 and 2010 saying “You’ve got to go on a massive deficit spending. You’ve got to go on a debt-fuelled, Keynesian stimulus package to get the economy going.”—all of which involves borrowing. Then it left the Government a fiscal mess, it called for more borrowing, and then it had the temerity to turn round and criticise the very borrowing that is maintaining social entitlements and the social welfare safety net. That is, of course, without considering Labour’s current fiscal plans, which is a massive spending blowout on wasteful and ineffective programmes such as subsidised macramé classes and Moroccan cooking.

Secondly, I want to talk about what this Budget Policy Statement demonstrates about our attitude towards the outside world, because that is now a major fault line in New Zealand politics. Budget 2015, which is reflected in the policy statement that we considered in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, contains support for a range of measures to support an outward-facing, confident New Zealand competing hard in a rapidly globalising and changing world. Our prosperity depends on increasing our global competitiveness, expanding our markets overseas, and building on those international connections. But, sadly for New Zealand, Labour has spent these past 7 years becoming more and more hostile to free trade, foreign investment, and now even migration to New Zealand.

I do want to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, because this is the apex of foreign and trade policy of New Zealand for the last 30 years, and it is truly sad that the Labour Party that started the TPP programme—the Labour Government that started it—will not back it now. Phil Goff knows it is good for New Zealand. Helen Clark knows it is good for New Zealand. The Labour members’ heads are down; they do not want to engage with this point. Helen Clark knows it is good for New Zealand. She says it is unthinkable that we would not be a part of it. David Shearer knows it is good for New Zealand; he is just not allowed to say so publicly, because he is not running for the Auckland mayoralty. Phil Goff knows it is good for New Zealand. Mike Moore knows it is good. In fact, there is barely a Labour leader still alive who does not think it is a good deal for New Zealand, other than Andrew Little. So the reality is that it is unthinkable, as Helen Clark says, that we would not be a part of it. Their arguments on this are hopeless.

I will tell you what happened today. The Government ratified a thing called the Maritime Labour Convention. Do you know what this convention does? It is an international agreement, and it commits the New Zealand Government to introducing measures to address the health, safety, and welfare of seafarers on commercial vessels. It is an international agreement, it is binding international law, it commits the New Zealand Government to doing various things under international law, and it means that we have to bring our domestic law into compliance with it. It is the Maritime Labour Convention. Have we heard a word from the Labour Party about this “terrible international agreement that affects our sovereignty”? No. It wants to focus only on the TPP agreement, which is exactly the same in principle as the Maritime Labour Convention: it is an international agreement, it commits New Zealand to doing things on the world stage, and it means that we have to change our laws. So the Labour Party’s major argument about the TPP is that it affects our sovereignty. Well, so does the Maritime Labour Convention, so I am looking forward to the outraged press releases, the questions in Parliament, and the roadshows up and down the country about this “outrageous, flagrant breach of our sovereignty”, which is an international agreement.

The reality is that the Labour Party is giving into its worst instincts. It is backsliding to a 1970s Fortress New Zealand, nostalgic view of New Zealand, and the sad reality is that half the caucus actually knows it, but they are just so frightened of the hard-core left of the political spectrum losing support for them. We know the Greens can never be relied upon for free trade; Labour used to be able to be relied upon, but not anymore.

Lastly, quickly, just on tertiary policy, this Budget Policy Statement continues this Government’s strong support for tertiary education. We just heard Grant Robertson skite about Labour’s Working Futures Plan. Labour is desperate for a big-bang start to the year. It is desperate to grab the public’s attention. So what did it do? It went right back to its student union roots—the Labour Party leadership went right back to the things it knows best. What does it know best? What do Grant Robertson, Andrew Little, and Chris Hipkins know best? They know all about spending on tertiary education. Is it not indicative of their political priorities? After carping for 5 years about child poverty, they materialise—they magic up—$1.2 billion to spend. What do they spend it on—child poverty? No. Social housing? No. They spend it on the things that they know best: money for students. Now, I am the first to defend support for students, but not the policy that the Labour Party is promoting. It would be ineffective—it is ineffective—it would be inequitable, and it is regressive. The Labour Party, which started the student loan scheme, should be defending it as one of the most progressive and successful public policy achievements of any party, of any Government—it should not be trying to destroy it. This was a great Budget, and it is reflective of a country that is ambitious and confident and heading in the right direction, led by an ambitious and confident Government.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Chris Bishop, the last member of Parliament who spoke, is spouting the same lines that we have heard from this Government for 8 years. We are hearing the mantra, but no one believes the mantra any more because it cannot back it up with evidence. This Government has borrowed more than Muldoon—the member referred to that, and it is true—and that is because it has not managed the economy well. Sadly, it has not done what is best for New Zealanders. It has not taken the opportunity to diversify the economy. It inherited zero net debt, and now it is up to around $86 billion—$86 billion in debt. That is thousands of dollars for each and every New Zealander that the Government has borrowed. That is debt that will hang round the necks of future generations.

The last Labour Government grew the economy. I was not there, so I cannot claim credit for this, but it grew the economy by 25 percent—25 percent—and that is by two different measures. I have done the analysis myself—25 percent—and that is a quarter bigger than it was before that Labour Government came in. It is possible to support health and social spending when you are growing the economy at that rate. Unfortunately, this Government has had the worst economic record of any Government at all in the last 50 years. Inequalities are growing—inequalities are growing. The homeownership rate in New Zealand is the lowest it has been since 1951. Since 1951 the homeownership rate has not been so low in this country, and it is little wonder that the OECD just over a year ago came out with a study that said that the New Zealand economy has been held back by 15 percent—a whole 15 percent—because of growing inequalities in this country over recent decades.

Members opposite know very well what contemporary economists are saying—that, indeed, if you have all of your citizens contributing to the economy, it grows. It is not rocket science. If you have kids going to school hungry, they do not then turn up and learn at school. In fact, they are more likely to end up in the justice system because they are antisocial, because they believe society is against them. Well, actually, it probably is—it probably is—if they go to school hungry. Their opportunity to learn and contribute is inhibited by growing inequalities. We know, also, that when there are great inequalities, people make choices that are about maximising their own lot rather than about contributing to society because they are worried about the prosperity and well-being of those around them. So they do not necessarily make the choice to follow career paths that are best for the wider society, and that is disappointing.

We also know, on top of that, that infrastructure spending gets neglected by Governments that are growing inequalities, because the wealthy can afford the infrastructure they need through the private sector. And hang their heads they might—those members have all got their heads down. I can understand that, because they know it is true. They know that inequalities are growing under this Government. We can look around the regions. Almost every region in New Zealand has an infrastructure for broadband below the national average. All of the regions have New Zealand Transport Agency spending below the national average. That Government is focused on building holiday highways in wealthy areas, and it is not focused on what will actually grow the economy.

The OECD—the West’s economic thinktank—says that investing in the regions is the way to grow the economy. That is where the big gains lie because you have got underutilised infrastructure. I bet that the member opposite for Waitaki appreciates that investment in her electorate would be a good thing but, instead, her Government is neglecting investment in the regions. It is cutting funding to hospitals. Her own local hospital is under threat for its funding, and that is a shame, in my view.

The opportunity lies in the regions. Investment in the infrastructure in the regions has a more productive and larger return for less cost, and still most of New Zealand live in the regions. We cannot afford a two-speed economy. Ask Aucklanders whether they want more people to move in there, and most of them will say no.

David Shearer: No.

Dr DAVID CLARK: Actually, there is one right behind me backing me up on that. That is because of overcapacity. The infrastructure is there in the regions and it is good for the whole economy if we invest in the regions, and yet the Government continues to neglect them. This Government continues to neglect those regions. It ignores the OECD and ignores contemporary economists, and instead it is focused on an ideological centralisation campaign that is straight out of a 1980s textbook and proven not to work. It is off-track, and that will result, of course—as we have seen—in increased borrowing, in a sluggish economy, and in a managed decline. Sadly, that is what this Government is going to be known for when history reviews its progress. It started with such aspiration and promise, and New Zealanders are now disappointed when they see Budgets that are focused on managed decline.

The next Labour Government will restore the Kiwi Dream. It will enable ordinary Kiwis to get ahead. We will make sure that ordinary Kiwis can earn decent wages again. We will be focused on diversifying the economy, on generating higher incomes, and on generating jobs. We are the party that is looking at the future of work because we are forward-looking. We are an intergenerational party. We are not interested in short-term returns. We are interested in what is good for New Zealand in the longer term.

Those people opposite are more interested, it seems, in getting re-elected. They borrow. They borrow for pet projects like holiday highways and they neglect the basic infrastructure that we need as a country—the broadband implementation, and so on—to get ahead. They are behind the eight ball, and history will find that to be true.

We back an economy that works for all of us, but those members are distracted as well—I guess that is the other point I would like to make. We have seen it in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment today. Minister Joyce confessed that he had known about payroll issues that have been specifically brought up since last October, and when asked about the 2010 review, he fudged an answer. These issues that the ministry has with its payroll have been known about for a very long time. The private sector knows about it. There are payroll companies that advertise, as their point of difference, that they are compliant with the law. There are payroll companies that advertise, as their point of difference, that they are compliant with the law and the Holidays Act. This Government has known about the issue.

In fact, most Government departments have been compliant on Holidays Act payments. Only Mr Joyce’s agency, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Holidays Act, has failed, and also the police. The police have already addressed their issue. Mr Joyce is dragging his toes again, and that sends an obvious signal to the wider public sector that it should not have to fix up its problems either. But this is of Mr Joyce’s making, because this should have been fixed early. National has been in Government for 8 years, and yet it is dealing with the distraction of payrolls within Government departments that do not even pay their employees what they deserve.

This is going to be an issue that is worth tens of millions of dollars—and is likely to be hundreds of millions of dollars—to New Zealanders. They have been denied the correct back-pay for Holidays Act entitlements. That is the kind of issue the Government ends up dealing with because it is not focused on what matters to ordinary New Zealanders. It ends up fixing problems, and not looking to the future and looking to how it can grow the economy like the last Labour Government did.

Labour has forward-looking policies. We will back the Kiwi Dream. We will back New Zealanders who want to get opportunities through the tertiary education sector. We will provide fees-free post-secondary education for 3 years. A plan has been laid out to achieve that. It is an affordable one.

Alastair Scott: Tax and borrow—that’s the way.

Dr DAVID CLARK: The member opposite brings up tax. His Government has borrowed—has borrowed—$86 billion, as I said earlier. I find it deeply ironic. It borrowed $86 billion to fund the 2010 tax package, which gave a huge tax break to the top 1 percent, while ordinary Kiwis got a smaller tax break, which was more than swallowed up in a GST increase of 15 percent. That was a broken promise from Mr Key. Those members are focused on making sure the 1 percent are looked after and again and again and again the rest of New Zealand is neglected, and that, unfortunately, is also those in the middle.

This Government is distracted. We know it is focused on hair straighteners, barbecue sundecks, and Christmas parties with blow-up sheep. It is focused on doing deals with Skycity that the Auditor-General called neither transparent nor even-handed. It is distracted by all of these issues and not focused on the future.

Research and development tax credits—around the world they are the gold standard for encouraging innovation. What is the Government doing about that? Absolutely nothing. There is silence from the other side.

What is the Government doing about curbing property speculation? Well, we have just seen with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that the Government did not even ask for non-resident foreign buyers to be banned from buying houses, as a right for future Governments to legislate about. Singapore, Australia, Viet Nam, and plenty of other countries asked to look after their own economic interests. This lot were asleep at the wheel.

So it is blatantly obvious that those members are focused on sorting out the problems that they have. They have got some trouble within their own ranks and some disagreements. They are starting to position because they know that Mr Key’s popularity is fading, and they are not a Government focused on the future. A Labour Government will ensure that the Kiwi Dream is restored, that people can own their own homes once more, and that New Zealand preserves its sovereign right and acts in the interests of ordinary New Zealanders, not just the 1 percent.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is a little dispiriting, listening to Labour members’ contribution after contribution, because they clearly have not learnt the lessons of the previous Labour Government. The big elephant in the room, which Labour never, ever refers to, is the entrenched level of Government spending that was on an upward track, which was going to for ever—for ever—saddle New Zealanders with unproductive debt. They never want to talk about that, but that was the prime legacy Labour left New Zealand when it went out of Government. Through all those 9 years of good economic times, what did Labour do? It entrenched Government spending. What did Bill English do when he took the Treasury benches? What did this National Government do? It determined to turn that round.

I am so pleased to be speaking in this Budget Policy Statement debate because the fiscal projections show that this National Government has tackled that issue over successful Budgets, and once again promises to do that in Budget 2016. I just want to go briefly through the Government’s fiscal strategy. What New Zealanders have appreciated about this National Government is that it has had a constant message to New Zealanders, and that is about managing the economy. We have turned round that entrenched Government expenditure that Labour so lavishly—tax and spend; that is Labour. Labour has not learnt the message. It has taken us 7 years to achieve a surplus, but we have done it. It is so dispiriting to hear Labour members. They just do not understand economics, and they keep peddling the same story—more subsidies for students, as if that is going to fix the economy. They are simplistic, and their arguments certainly do not stack up.

I want, for a moment, to go through the fiscal priorities: No. 1 is maintaining an operating surplus “over the forecast period”, which is the period under question, “so that cash surpluses are generated and net government debt begins to reduce in dollar terms”—tackling Government debt. No. 2 is “reducing net government debt to around 20 per cent of GDP in 2020 and, in the medium term, reducing net debt to within a range of 0 per cent to 20 per cent of GDP”—reducing net Government debt. No. 3 is “implementing a new funding policy for the Accident Compensation Corporation”, and that follows previous levy reductions. New Zealanders have benefited from significant and substantial ACC levy reductions. I know that in my part of New Zealand, people certainly appreciate that. No. 4 is “if economic and fiscal conditions allow, beginning to reduce income taxes from Budget 2017”, and that is income tax reductions for all New Zealanders. No. 5 is “using any further fiscal headroom—including from positive revenue surprises—to reduce net debt faster.”

So that is the constant message, the constant economic direction, that this Government has shown. Our priorities for this Budget are the same as they have been the whole time we have been in Government, except maybe for the last one. “Responsibly managing the Government’s finances”—we have done that. Bill English has returned a Government surplus. “Building a more productive and competitive economy”—it will give me great pleasure, in a minute or two, to talk about my part of New Zealand and how the economy is doing in regional New Zealand, in the South Island. No. 3 “delivering better public services within tight financial constraints”—that is something Labour simply does not understand. To Labour, all you need to do to fix something is throw more money at it. That is a recipe for economic disaster, and the last Labour Government certainly showed us that. “Rebuilding Christchurch”—it is so easy to forget Christchurch. I believe Labour has forgotten Christchurch. I believe Labour has forgotten the extraordinary economic impact that the Christchurch earthquakes have had, not just on the country’s economy but also on individuals. It is so heartening to see our own members of Parliament supporting Christchurch people through the last 3 terrible years that they have experienced with the rebuild. It is so good to see—it is so good to see—that this Government still has as a major priority the rebuild of Christchurch.

Have we heard that from Labour today? Have we ever heard that from the Greens? No, this House has not heard that as a priority, because those parties have simply forgotten Christchurch. It is so important to New Zealanders, it is so important to people in my constituency, that we do not talk ourselves down, and what do we hear from the other side of the House? A constant talking-down of New Zealand. I do not believe that that does New Zealanders or our economy or the way we are viewed in the world—we are a trading nation—any good. I do not believe that that benefits us at all. Luckily, this Government understands well and truly its place in the world, and we will be unrelentingly positive. We will be unrelentingly optimistic for the future of the New Zealand economy and for the future of New Zealanders. That is why we are focused on issues that matter to New Zealanders.

This Government continues to keep a tight rein on spending. It is so important that we deliver those Better Public Services, health, education, welfare, and law and order, of course, and we are continuing to build businesses through the Business Growth Agenda. New Zealand is experiencing growth: 2.3 percent economic growth in 2015, and growth is expected to average more than 3 percent over 2016 and 2017. These are not rates of growth that are experienced by other countries that we trade with, and we should celebrate that rate of growth and support the strategies that support that growth.

The previous speaker for Labour decried the fact, in his view, that there was little investment in the regions, so I am just going to take a moment, with the indulgence of the Chair, to talk about my region, the beautiful electorate of Waitaki. Dairying is a very important activity in the Waitaki electorate. We are very fortunate that our farmers in Waitaki, particularly those who are involved in dairy, are resilient. Many of them have been through the fluctuations of commodity prices in the past. They understand farming through commodity price changes, and they are prepared for the lean years that are ahead, much assisted, I have to say, by the introduction in South Canterbury, North Otago, and Central Otago of irrigation. Whereas before, drought years—and we have had many and they have been severe—have had a bad economic impact on those areas of Waitaki, the direct investment by this Government in something as simple as irrigation has had a profound effect on our local economy. Wine exports are now worth $1.5 billion, and that is up by 14 percent in the last year. A portion of that can be attributed to Central Otago wine growers, which is an industry that, again, is contributing to our GDP. Tourism is a huge growth area in Waitaki. Growth is 10 percent year on year on year.

Investment in our regional economies is very strong under this Government. We have Primary Growth Partnerships—there are a number of initiatives in our region. Free-trade agreements—of course, cherries through the Korea free-trade agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership—dairy will benefit, beef will benefit, sheep meat will benefit, wine will benefit. It is hugely exciting to those people in South Canterbury, North Otago, and Central Otago. There is the regional investment attraction programme; there is more science and technology investment; there are regional growth studies—that is going to point the way to future investment in our regions. We have ultra-fast and rural broadband. We are so connected—we are one of the most connected regions in New Zealand. There is potential in our regions that is being realised by this Government. This is a good Budget in the making, and I am very pleased to have made a contribution to this debate.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to speak on the Budget Policy Statement. This document has a whole lot of areas that I would like to speak to, but I want to start by focusing on the second Budget priority of this Government, which is called “Building a more productive and competitive economy”. Who could disagree with this objective? It is like motherhood and apple pie.

The Green Party does not take issue with a competitive or productive economy; we would just say National’s policies are not actually going to deliver that, and even if they were going to deliver that, being competitive and productive is not sufficient to create good lives for New Zealanders. The Green Party would also like to prioritise a fairer and cleaner economy, because that is what is going to make us better off in the long run. An economy that protects our precious natural environment and makes all people in New Zealand able to live healthier, happier lives is one that we should all be aspiring to.

In the eighth year of this National Government we are starting to see just how short-term and unsustainable National’s approach to the economy is. Its approach has seemed to boil down to an oversimplified and incorrect assumption that more is always better—in particular, doing more of what we have already been doing. We should keep doing more of that, according to National. Anyone watching at home probably knows that more is not always better. We like that piece of chocolate cake. It is delicious, right? So if one piece of chocolate cake is good for us, metaphorically more is even better. But each piece of chocolate cake we eat in a row will bring us diminishing pleasure, until eventually it makes us sick. So how does this play out in the economy? New Zealand had a successful dairy industry, and in the last decade we were making some decent money off it. Well, National thought: “Great. We’ve got it. The best way to get richer is to convert more land to intensive dairy, make twice as much milk powder, and sell it overseas. So we are going to set a target of doubling primary exports and put in place a bunch of policies that favour increasing the volume of primary exports.”

I heard finance Minister Bill English say today something to the effect of: “Oh, it’s got nothing to do with us. Individual farmers weighed up the costs and benefits themselves and made the decision to jump on the dairy bandwagon.” But they did not make that decision in isolation from Government policy. Let us just look at the facts. National’s Business Growth Agenda target is to double primary sector exports by 2025. It does not specifically mention dairy in the primary industries policy, but dairy contributes just over 40 percent of New Zealand’s primary industries export revenue. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the policy aim is for the dairy sector to double by 2025.

I think it is fair to say that National has been encouraging farmers to go for volume rather than value. For example, it has provided a whole lot of subsidies for irrigation schemes, which encourage farmers to take on more debt to fund dairy intensification. The Government has allocated $120 million to Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd, out of a potential $400 million in funding. Total Government spending on irrigation to 2016 will be $160 million. Another policy that National had: Landcorp, the Government’s farmer, was engaging in one of the biggest dairy conversions in the southern hemisphere. Of course, in the wake of the dairy price fall Landcorp has subsequently wound back this plan by half, and its chief executive officer was saying this week: “The days of New Zealand continuing to expand its dairy footprint are largely coming to a close.” So there is some acknowledgment amongst people in the industry that more is not better, and it is not anti-farmer to say that there are costs and risks in expansion.

In fact, it would have been better for the original farmers—the existing farmers, especially the ones who are looking after the environment, trying to use water well—if the National Government had put a price on the commercial use of water, had put in meaningful water quality standards to uphold the quality of our rivers, and had put a moratorium on dairy conversions. All of that would have protected existing farmers from having to compete with new farms for water and having to deal with increased pollution pressure on our waterways. And, of course, the lack of a meaningful price on carbon and the lack of the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading scheme meant that there was even more pressure or incentive to switch from forestry to dairy. This was under the National Government’s watch.

Debt soared during the dairy boom, when the payout in 2013 and 2014 jumped to over $8 a kilogram. People leapt on the bandwagon then to buy dairy farms at inflated prices or paid high prices to convert forest and other pastoral land to dairy. That would not have happened if we had had a different set of policies that were encouraging a more balanced approach to both farming and to economic development. So those conversions are actually a big part of the problem that we are facing today. They happened when we did not have a price on water or a meaningful carbon price, and that made forestry less economic than it would have otherwise been.

I will give the Government this: the National members have been masters of rhetoric over the past 8 years—

Chris Bishop: Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Ha, ha! And that continues in the speeches from the Government members. Its MPs have been very disciplined and consistent in using their slogans to assert the values of strong economic management and to distract from any legitimate criticism or debate of its policy.

Chris Bishop: Oh, you’ve been very loud in your criticism.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, National does not want to engage in a constructive debate about whether or not its policies are going to achieve the stated objectives, so its members always resort to the straw man argument. So when the Green Party has said there are costs and risks in dairy expansion, in the next conversion from forestry or pasture to intensive dairy, the National Party has said: “The Green Party hates farmers. The Green Party is anti-farming; they want to shoot all dairy cows.”

Obviously, that is not what we are saying. We are saying that, probably, doubling the production of dairy is not the best way to protect existing farmers and ensure that they are doing well, nor is it the best way to develop our economy if we want to have a long-term, sustained prosperity that protects our environment and adds value to those goods that we are selling overseas.

But National says: “If you criticise our policies that are encouraging the expansion of dairy, then you are against all dairy.” That is not what the Green Party has said, and it is certainly not what we are saying now. We see some things similar with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement—if anyone raises criticisms or questions about the costs of the TPP agreement to the New Zealand taxpayer and the New Zealand economy in the medium term, the National Party asserts: “Well, you must be anti-trade. The Green Party hates trade.” That is what we hear from the National Party. That is a straw man argument, because National has failed to address the serious questions and concerns about the costs of the TPP agreement, as compared with the benefits.

And if we say today that National’s failed policies promoting the expansion of dairy has not served farmers, has not served our environment, and has not served our economy—and we need to learn some lessons from that—its response is “Well, if you actually care about farmers, then, one, you won’t support the protection of our waterways, you shouldn’t.”, but also, we should, therefore, sign up to all of the provisions in the TPP agreement, even those ones which we know are going to cost the New Zealand taxpayer and the New Zealand economy in the medium term.

Let us have a real debate about policy. The Green Party is not opposed to reducing tariffs, but I do not think it is anti-trade to acknowledge the fact that the gains for our economy as a whole, from the TPP agreement, are marginal at best. And for dairy, it is a reduction in costs of only $102 million, by the time it is fully implemented, on exports of $4.6 billion. So that is only a 2 percent gain. Is that going to make up for the big drop in global dairy prices? Certainly not. The Green Party is pro-trade, and we want trade agreements that level the playing field, just like we want meaningful environmental standards that level the playing field here in New Zealand so that those responsible farmers can thrive and the other farmers are forced to clean up their act. That is how we get a thriving economy. And we want the same thing on a global scale; we want trade agreements that level the playing field by protecting environments and people, not by protecting the ability of multinational corporates to maximise their profits at the expense of taxpayers.

The Green Party supports policy that will protect the things that matter most: our pristine natural environment, our most vulnerable people. By doing that first—by putting people and the planet first—that is how we can create an—

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

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I do have to admit that I was listening to David Bennett when he first got up to contribute to the debate this afternoon—and I regretted it as soon as I started doing it. I regretted it because, once again, the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee had nothing to contribute to the debate. He simply added to the rhetoric and he added to the spin. He simply repeated what the rest of that party over there has been telling New Zealand for the last couple of years. I will give him the concession, at least, that he is in good company on that side of the House. So I stopped listening to Mr Bennett. I did stop listening.

Not that far through the debate—

Pita Paraone: Here was Mr Bishop.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes, that is exactly right. I thought: “Here’s Mr Bishop. This guy—he’s got some nous.” But let me qualify that as soon as I say that. All he did was attack the Labour Party. All he did was talk about policy that is over a decade old. He talked about what the Labour Party had done, and he said nothing, contributed nothing, to what this Government has to contribute in terms of the Budget Policy Statement.

He did allude to better trade; in fact, it seems to be a common theme. Mr Bishop did talk about the fact that we need more trade and better trade. New Zealand First and the caucus with me here this afternoon could not agree more with that sentiment. This country needs trade. We need better trade. But the reality is—

Ron Mark: Smart trade.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes, smart trade. The reality is that that is not what Mr Bishop was talking about when he rose for his contribution this afternoon.

As rampant immigration grows, it places—and it has placed—a temporary band-aid on the GDP figures of the New Zealand economy at the moment. What that rampant immigration—especially going into Auckland, which clearly cannot cope with it—has done is increase the consumptive economy of New Zealand, thereby kind of hiding the reality that this Government has contributed nothing of substance, in terms of a Budget or in terms of policy statements; nothing substantive to grow this New Zealand economy.

New Zealand First agrees that GDP has increased. But when I talk about a band-aid—if you break the numbers down, what you see with the increase of new people in New Zealand is that, actually, when you look at it per person, GDP either, arguably, remains the same, or, some of the numbers suggest, it has actually gone backwards. GDP per capita is going in the wrong direction, and that is an indictment on the very real reality that that Government has done nothing meaningful to grow this economy. The only meaningful thing that it has contributed is to the media, in terms of spin and rhetoric—

Tim Macindoe: “Rhet-oric”.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thank you for the qualification, Mr Macindoe.

This country is going backwards, so although the members opposite speak publicly of prudent and sensible fiscal management, the reality is that behind closed doors, Ministers are panicking. They should not blame Labour any more, but they did it this afternoon. They cannot blame the global financial crisis any more, but they actually did that this afternoon as well. They cannot blame Christchurch any more, but, what do you know, they did that this afternoon as well. But although they spin these numbers, the country goes backwards. All the while, as they talk about prudent financial and fiscal management, this country’s debt has climbed from what some argue was zero but what I would suggest was $18 billion, which is negligible in the scheme of things, to—let us put this in perspective—$100 billion. There is $100 billion of debt under this Government’s so-called prudential management.

The people on our farms and the people in our regions are looking on, and they are looking at this Government confused and, I daresay, disappointed by the spin and rhetoric. Although Steven Joyce, the “Minister for Everything” and the Minister who can fix everything—except a by-election—creates regional strategies, which are dismissed by the very people who contributed to them and by the very people who wanted to contribute to them, the Government has lost an opportunity to actually grow our regional economies. “Mr Fix-it” can say something is being done, but the people of our regions can see through the veneer, and, all too soon, the people at home will be able to see through it. They will be able to see through the spin themselves—but it will be all too late, I suggest.

Recently, and perhaps not surprisingly, the Prime Minister has gone on an attack campaign, pre-empting any discussion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). He has been saying to New Zealand that dairy farmers, in particular—and his trade Minister has actually been including wood processing in this argument, for some bizarre reason—will get better under the TPP. He keeps talking about those 800 million people, that customer base. He says it as if we are not exporting to them already; as if, somehow, if we do not sign this agreement we are going to miss out.

Let us put that into perspective and let us get some facts straight, right at the moment. Prime Minister, there are no tariff reductions for dairy in the TPP. Let us be very clear: the world price will continue to be the world price, no matter whom you trade with—$3.90 will continue to be $3.90. Let us not ignore that reality. Further, in terms of the TPP agreement itself, let us not ignore some of the detail. Let us acknowledge the fact that the US, for example, has a side letter with Japan that enables them to have preferential treatment in terms of US dairy exports into Japan—it completely sidelines New Zealand. Where is the benefit in that for us? That is actually ignoring, also, the fact that Japan, Canada, and the US are the most heavily subsidised nations on earth when it comes to their farming and dairy industries. This is what John Key and Bill English say our farmers will be competing with? That is farcical. It will not happen, and our farmers will be losing out.

As for the 800 million people, the Prime Minister implies that we will miss out if we do not sign the agreement. I quote his trade Minister, who talks about wood processing: “Industry exports to TPP members already total a whopping $1.5 billion.” We are already there, Prime Minister. We are not missing out. But then, to be fair, Mr McClay talks about those huge, gigantic tariff savings—he is on record, it is in the media. He is quoted as saying “these gigantic savings”. He keeps talking about them. To the Minister of Trade: let me put that into perspective for you. The tariff reductions total $11 million in an already $1.5 billion industry. That is less than a 1 percent gain on those tariff reductions, and fluctuations in our currency will have an infinitely greater effect than this measly reduction could possibly hope to achieve.

In fact, the reality is—I have gone out to industries; I want to talk with them and engage. I have asked them: “What does the TPP mean to you?”. The wood processing industry in particular, for example, has said: “It means nothing to us. We haven’t even processed what the Government is talking about.” Do you know why? What they are worried about is the fact that all of our logs are being bought up by foreign companies and are being shipped directly offshore. Our local processors are finally in a position to make money out of logs in New Zealand; they have got the technology, they have leveraged themselves, they are there, and they are ready. But the logs are being shipped overseas, because clever foreign corporates have bought up our entire forestry. It does not make sense. Then you talk about “wood first” policies, and the Government does not want to know about it. Encourage the development of wood industries in New Zealand, and the Government does not want to know.

This Budget Policy Statement needs to be talking about the future. Mr Bishop has a wonderful head for the history of this kind of thing, but nowhere in his contribution did he talk about how we move forward and what needs to be done for the people of New Zealand. New Zealand First cannot support any of this Budget Policy Statement; it is a spin document that holds no meaning for the people of New Zealand in our regions, in our farms, and in our homes. Thank you.

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): The previous speaker, Fletcher Tabuteau, was very interesting—well, maybe for 30 seconds. I just note that the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on the Budget Policy Statement, unless I find a minority report in here—actually, I am sure that member sits on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, or one of his party members does—is a unanimous report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement. So what the member has just said here—I cannot quite see, perhaps I missed it. I welcome the member to point me to that bit where New Zealand First says it does not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), where New Zealand First says it is not supporting Christchurch, where New Zealand First, essentially, says it is putting New Zealand last. I will come back to that in a minute.

This is a very good report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it is almost as good as the glory days of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, 2008-11—they were the days. They were the glory days, and I see the members are working hard to bring themselves up to that awesome, awesome level we had not too many years ago.

The Budget Policy Statement is part of a series of documents, of papers, in and around the financial settings for the Government, the BPS that we have here—not to be confused with the Better Public Services, of course, which is very strongly linked in here. The Budget itself, the half-year update, the full-year update—of course, which is the Budget—and, of course, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, which is also one of the very important series of documents in the transparency of the Government or taxpayers’ accounts across the country.

The reason I raise the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update and the half-year update is that the member the Hon Annette King earlier seemed to be somehow dismissing the validity of some of the numbers that the National members were using in their speeches. There were examples such as endless debt, debt going to 60 percent of GDP, ongoing—a peeking out of revenue, but an ongoing, almost exponential growth, in expenditure. Perhaps, some members are forgetting something from a few years ago or, perhaps, they are new—just go have a look, members, at the pre-election update of October 2008. Have a look at that document, which actually makes the half-year update not long after that more sober reading.

That was a document that described and noted that New Zealand had been in recession, as we all knew, for 1 year prior to the global financial crisis—and, of course, the global financial crisis, the rampant inflation, and the rampant interest rates caused by prolific spending and out-of-control Ministers and ministries across Government resulted in a chaotic economy, which National did inherit. Admittedly, yes, that was a good few years ago now, but we are still dealing with the consequences of it.

When small businesses talk to me—or even just households, New Zealanders talk about their mortgage. Many floating mortgages are now sub-5 percent. It does not take much to remind them of the cost to them, their family, their home, their business. A 10-plus percent mortgage was a devastating cost for their family, for their confidence, for their business. Just imagine, listeners and those watching, if your mortgage suddenly went to about 10 percent, because that is what it was not that long ago. The policy settings still favoured by the Opposition resulted in 10-plus percent mortgages for you and your family.

Another member was talking about GDP growth over the Labour term. I am not sure whether he was talking net, real—I think he was talking gross, because when you have got 5 percent inflation, which we had under the Labour Government, and we are in recession or near recession for a good few years, I am not sure how we would get to the astronomical figures that he was describing.

Other members have talked about Christchurch, and Christchurch has been blamed, or something—this Government does not blame Christchurch for one thing, one iota. This Government stands beside Christchurch; we continue to stand beside Christchurch, be it economically, morally, fiscally, and we are doing all that we can to rebuild that city. Members opposite seem to think: “Well, because the earthquakes weren’t last year, therefore, Christchurch—it’s all over.” Actually, in these documents we are debating, in the Budget Policy Statement, page 6 has a table called “Net earthquake expenses”. Members may be interested in that. The total half-year update net earthquake expenses that this Government has stood beside Christchurch are $17 billion.

So when members opposite are rattling off emotional debt numbers, etc.—yes, much of that has been borrowed to fund that. That is absolutely right. Go down to Christchurch, members opposite, and tell them that no, if you were in Government, you would not have done the same. Go down and look at those people in Christchurch and tell them you would not have done the same.

The half-year update in October 2008, which was the last time we could test the Opposition’s policy settings, was not a pretty picture, nor was it good reading, at all. The National Party is the party for jobs. The National Party is the party for growth, with our partner parties in Government, helping drive better medium to long-term prospects for all New Zealanders, regardless of their circumstances.

It is for those reasons we are so supportive and so driving of free-trade agreements. It is for those reasons that we stand on the free-trade agreements negotiated by Governments before us and previous National Governments. It is for those reasons we proudly used to have bipartisan support in this House across the two major parties, National and Labour, for job-enhancing, growth-enhancing, and opportunity-enhancing agreements for New Zealand. It is so sad for this Parliament, and it is so sad for New Zealand’s opportunities and prospects that the Labour Party has walked away from that. It does not stand any logical test.

My colleague Mr Bishop pointed out the agreement that we signed just the other day for international shipping. Labour’s arguments do not stand any logical test. They do not stand any historic test against, say, the China free-trade agreement, which Labour so proudly—and good on them—initiated and signed, which was ratified under this Government. It does not stand any test in comparison with another agreement, because if we follow Labour members’ logic through, we would tear up CER. Are they arguing that? Are they arguing that we should tear up other free-trade agreements?

They seem to be supportive of the European free-trade agreement initiative, but not this one. Why? Why is Phil Goff the only Labour MP to be given a dispensation to come out publicly and say he is supportive of the TPP? Why have the members opposite, in the party that used to call itself the party for workers—when 40 percent of the jobs are in export regions around the country; they depend directly on exports—not been given dispensation to say they support their region, they support they families in their region, they support jobs in their region, and, therefore, they will be supporting the TPP, as they, inherently, know it is the right thing to do?

Those who were in Government with the Rt Hon Helen Clark know it is the right thing to do. Those who are true to their convictions and are true to what they say know, inherently, it is the right thing to do. I challenge them to come out and actually stand and say why they are unable to support job-enhancing, prospect-enhancing, opportunity-enhancing agreements that they once, along with most other parties in this Parliament, stood and supported.

The Opposition has recently come out with this thing called the Future of Work Commission. I was very interested recently to see that someone else had done this quite a long time ago. Mr Bishop will help me here. Mr Bruce Beetham—was it in 1981—came out with the original “future of work”. It makes interesting reading. I guess we are now in the future from 1981; not much of it has really turned out.

So Mr Robertson and his colleagues are busy working out the future of work. Perhaps, one of their colleagues over there will do a copy and paste job again and just pick up what Mr Beetham forecast back then.

David Seymour: It wasn’t in digital format.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes, it may be in a different format—perhaps a typewriter.

The TPP, political rhetoric from some members aside, protesters aside—we all know and expect them to do their usual stuff; they are perfectly entitled to do that. But the moment they get in the way of other people’s democratic process, the moment they try to shout down other people who are expressing their democratic desire and opinion, they have lost the debate—and they have lost the debate.

So I go back again. I ask, I challenge, New Zealanders and all MPs across New Zealand, particularly those whose areas totally depend on the export prospects of this country, to stand up, to follow the lead of Phil Goff, and to get a dispensation to be able to say to their people that they truly support the jobs and, therefore, the free-trade agreement. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. National’s economic strategy is looking increasingly tattered, and this year’s Budget will be against a very different backdrop from recent years. National can no longer crow about a brighter future for New Zealand, because even in its rural heartland things are looking increasingly grim. It is all because the National Government and Bill English have bet the farm on dairy expansion, and the problems with that apology for an economic strategy are becoming increasingly clear.

We have had a goal, set by the Government, to double primary sector exports by 2025, and it certainly encouraged the dairy industry to be the major player there. That, of course, as the Green Party has been saying for some time, has had huge environmental impacts, in terms of water quality—it is doing enormous harm to our rivers, lakes, and aquifers—and major damage with greenhouse gas emissions increasing and the climate pollution that is associated with that.

But now we are seeing the economic and social consequences for farming and rural businesses of that failure to diversify, of that focus on the primary sector, and particularly dairying. Just recently, Fonterra’s move to extend its payment date to 90 days, asking suppliers to slash their costs, and the crash in dairy payout prices shows the real strain that the sector is under. It is the Government’s strategy of focusing on one product to one market—milk—and its failure to commit to sufficient investment in innovation to diversify our export base that is the major cause of the problems we are having today. The Government has sat on the sidelines while manufacturing has struggled with a high dollar, and it has just failed to invest in innovation.

And now we have got heartbreak for a lot of farming families. It was distressing listening to Northland farmer Ben Smith on Radio New Zealand National this morning talking about selling his stock and half his land. I have met Ben Smith. He is an innovative farmer. He featured on Country Calendar for the way he was using surplus fruit and vegetables to feed his stock. He cares about the state of his local rivers, and now he is being forced into this position because National has led farmers like Ben up the garden path.

It has pushed dairying as the route to economic success, both for individual farm businesses and for New Zealand Inc. It has focused on production, production, production—increasing production rather than adding value, rather than diversifying, and rather than investing in innovation. It has not cared enough about the profitability for individual farmers, nor has it cared enough about the economic and environmental cost of that focus on dairy.

So now, when milk is no longer the white gold that National thought it was, when the payout prices have crashed, and there is no sign of a sharp pick-up any time soon, because of the glut in milk and because of the reduced demand from China and Russia, we would expect the Government to have a plan. Yet what did we hear from Bill English this morning? He hopes that farmers will “get through”. And again, in question time today, he recognises that there will be a number of farming families that are distressed, but he just hopes that they will adapt and get through. There has been a total failure by the Government to recognise that we are not like the rest of the OECD. New Zealand invests roughly half of what other countries in the OECD do in research and development, and significantly less than other small advanced economies.

So instead of investing more in innovation, we have had the Government tag $400 million for subsidised handouts to irrigation, and $120 million going to Crown Irrigation Investments. Those sorts of subsidies—the Government’s handouts to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company, to Central Plains Water—mean that farmers are encouraged to convert from dryland farming to dairy, to expand dairying on to lands that are inappropriate because they are drought prone, and to think that dairy farming can happen anywhere. Those sorts of handouts have encouraged farmers to intensify, to move to much more expensive, high-capital-cost models where we are importing feed and there are high costs for production. That means there is no buffer, no resilience when dairy payouts fall. So it is a spendthrift model that the Government is applying across the country. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call David Seymour—5 minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I have greatly enjoyed tracking the Green position on dairy throughout today, and, in fact, throughout this afternoon. First, we heard from Metiria Turei that the current levels of farming need to be steeped in and subsidised by the Government, then we heard from Catherine Delahunty, who, as it turns out, hates “Old McDonald” after all and wants him to farm fewer cows. And now we come back to the member who has just resumed her seat, Eugenie Sage, who believes that the level of farming has been overly subsidised, which makes me wonder why Metiria Turei wanted to subsidise it to remain at that level in the first place. It has been a very confused afternoon for the Greens on dairy.

I want to direct my comments to a long-suffering, long-forgotten, and much-neglected group of people in the Budget Policy Statement, and that is the taxpayer. Without a taxpayer, we would not have a Budget, we would not have Government revenues, and there would not be much to debate about today. Have they not been neglected, because what we see in the Government’s fiscal strategy is very clear: from $65 billion in taxes up to $85 billion in taxes in just 5 years.

Is it not interesting to look at the new spending allowance—that is, we are going to spend this much more money before we have identified a particular purpose. It is $1 billion in 2026; $2.5 billion in 2017, which just so happens to be an election year; $2 billion the year after that; and I think it was back to $1 billion for the mid-term of the electoral cycle the year after that.

This Budget Policy Statement says that the taxpayer is going to be neglected and is going to pay and pay and pay. I asked the Minister of Finance just a couple of days ago how big the surplus needs to be before he will start cutting taxes. He could not give an answer. National members like to say that they will cut taxes, but the truth is they have not really thought about it. They have not really committed to when they are prepared to start offering tax relief to New Zealanders who work, New Zealanders who have families, and New Zealanders who have businesses.

If the Government was to deliver some ambition for giving relief to the taxpayer, I could make a couple of minor suggestions. These really are quite modest, but let us just have one. Time after time, the Minister of Finance says that there is not enough revenue coming in because there has not been enough inflation to push people into progressively higher tax brackets. Well, since when did a centre-right Government support fiscal creep as a means of raising revenue? This Government should be indexing tax brackets to inflation, and there is no better time to do it than when inflation is low and fiscal creep is having a lower effect than usual.

What indexation would do is ensure that this Government and future Governments, if they want to take more money, would have to be honest and go to the taxpayer and say: “We want to raise your taxes, not creepily allow them to drift into higher thresholds due to inflation.” That is the first thing they could do and the cost to the household is real. The average household in New Zealand has paid $1,500 in additional tax over the past 5 years just because of fiscal creep—just from being pushed into higher tax brackets by inflation. That is the average household; not even high-income households who have paid far, far, far more than that due to fiscal creep.

The next thing that the Government could do, if it got really ambitious about looking after the taxpayer, is that it could examine the fact that we have one of the highest effective tax rates of capital in the OECD. It could actually make a conscious decision to reduce extra spending by just $120 million a year. When it is planning to increase spending by $1 billion to $2.5 billion a year, it could set aside $120 million of extra spending to knock a point off the company tax rate and make Kiwi businesses competitive with the rest of the OECD.

Finally, if the Government is worried about debt, it has got $28 billion in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund that it could get rid of tomorrow, because I do not know anybody in New Zealand who would borrow money on their mortgage to play the global equity markets. That is what this Government is doing and for the taxpayers’ benefit it should wind up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, pay off debt, and, finally, reduce risk so we can start actually cutting taxes for the people who make this Budget Policy Statement possible. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Melissa Lee—5 minutes.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the Budget Policy Statement debate, and I think it is important for this House to note what an amazing level of dedication and service our Minister of Finance, Bill English, has given to this country and our Government. New Zealand’s books are back in the black for the first time since the global financial crisis. As of last week, the Government is running a $934 million operating balance before gains and losses, and that is an increase of $724 million—higher than noted in the 2015 half-year update.

This is an excellent achievement by our Government—a Government that is working hard to support our economy and promote better businesses and deliver key outcomes for all New Zealand. Unemployment is now sitting at 5.3 percent and wages are up by 3.1 percent in the past year. We on this side of the House are supporting the needs and aspirations of our country and we will do our very best to continue this fine work through 2016.

Regional growth, which our earlier speakers have talked about as well, is up as well. Our Government has been developing the economy all over New Zealand. Although I am based in Auckland it is clear that the entire country is actually benefiting from well-balanced management by this Government.

Earlier, another member was talking about the tourism sector—I think it was the my learned colleague from Waitaki, actually, who talked about the tourism sector—and I have to say that tourism is booming. This Government in the last 7 years has spent $700 million promoting New Zealand tourism overseas and in the last year alone, in 2015, we had international visitors spending $9.7 billion. So that $9.7 billion spent in New Zealand is a humungous benefit, I would have thought, when you are spending $700 million over 7 years and gaining $9.7 billion.

While members were speaking I had an opportunity to actually check Facebook—often members do—and I was checking the Facebook of the New Zealand Embassy based in Seoul, Korea. The embassy was actually celebrating tourism—New Zealand tour operators are visiting Korea to promote more tourism from Korea. Tourism from Korea last year, in 2015, was up 21 percent year on year. With the free-trade agreement, which was signed by this Government and came into effect in December 2015, lamb and beef duties have actually gone down and now, apparently, restaurants are selling lamb. They are putting lamb on their menu because the import duty to Korea has actually dropped from 22.5 percent to 18 percent. Restaurants are celebrating New Zealand lamb and beef and they are putting it on their menus. What a fantastic thing that is.

Today a 9.6 percent increase in retail spending was noted for February compared with the same period last year, as well as a 5.7 billion increase in the GDP for the Auckland region. This is coupled with a 3.7 percent increase nationwide, which shows what a great state our commercial sector is in.

Also, since I was talking about the free-trade agreement, I just want to commend the work of our former trade Minister and now ambassador Tim Groser. He should be fully commended by this House because he did a fantastic job for New Zealand not only for the Korea free-trade agreement but for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as the European Union trade negotiations, which the new Minister, Minister McClay, is currently at the helm of. The agreements will grow our economy and put more money in the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders.

I know that across the House there are some members who often talk about Auckland house prices and say that the reason why the situation happens is because of people with Chinese-sounding names—and mine happens to sound like one. So I think we need to recognise the role that migrant New Zealanders actually have in this country. How long are migrants going to be called migrants in this country? I have spent three-quarters of my life in New Zealand and I think I deserve to be called a New Zealander. Over 30,000 Korean people have actually moved to this country and call this country home. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I want to hear what the member is saying, and this barracking across benches is unacceptable.

MELISSA LEE: As I was saying, over 30,000 former Korean residents—Korean-born people—are now calling New Zealand home and are very proud New Zealanders. As part of our diverse commercial and economic practice, not just Korean people but 25 percent of all New Zealanders are born overseas—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired. I call Alistair Scott—5 minutes.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I am going to talk about two of the four pillars of our fiscal strategy. I am going to be talking about the tight rein on spending that we demonstrate and the way we look to return excess revenue to taxpayers, but before I do that I would like to comment on a couple of the sanctimonious comments that were made by the Green Party. To start with, Eugenie Sage said that the Government had led dairy farmers up the garden path. Well, dairy farmers are not stupid. They have their own sense of business and they have their own sense of ability—these guys are smart. These guys run their family businesses to large corporates, and to say that they have been led up the garden path is offensive, quite frankly. There was no complaint from that party when grape prices halved, when cherry prices dropped, or when kiwifruit businesses had their difficulties. Those members talk only about dairy farmers being led up the garden path—that is offensive and sanctimonious.

I am going to talk about the pie. Julie Anne Genter talked about the Greens not wanting to eat chocolate pie. Well, she did not want a chocolate pie and she thought it was because it made her feel sick if she ate too much. This side of the House is interested in growing the pie and in making it chocolate, banana, fruit, nuts—everything that is able to be jammed into that pie—because we want a larger pie so that we can all share that pie to raise the standard of living for all New Zealanders. The pie that the Green Party wants would be sugar-free, wheat-free, chocolate-free, and butter-free. There would be no cake. There would be no economy. The economy would be destroyed. That party wants to go back to the horse and cart. That is just ludicrous and really is a thing of the past.

I would like to turn my contribution to the tight rein on spending that we have in this Government. We will be heading to—the target is 20 percent of GDP for net debt by 2020. That is a very good result, given the global economy and the global situation as well, of course, as our domestic situation here, particularly around Christchurch. Minister Foss talked about $17 billion going into Christchurch. That is a big number, and a number that is unavoidable, unless, of course, one was to ignore Christchurch, which would be totally unacceptable.

Members on the other side talk about supporting farmers and talk about supporting small businesses, but they are not willing to vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). They are not willing to get on board with Resource Management Act reforms. They are not willing to support our exclusion of agriculture from the emissions trading scheme. The Green Party wants to tax farmers up to the eyeballs so that—to ensure, in fact—they go out of business and so that they are uncompetitive with our international competitors, and, of course, without those people earning a living by exporting our products, there is no tax. There is no tax to be taken. There is no tax to spend on health and education and the police, for example.

I am looking forward to the Opposition members voting for the TPP, but, of course, they are not going to. Instead, they are going to increase their handout policies by giving away free education. They are wanting to give, in fact, to the top 1 percent. They are going to give more money to those who are already earning more money than the average. The Opposition members say: “Well, yes, that is fine. We want to give them more money because they are going to be paying more taxes when they get into the more highly paid jobs.” People are willing to borrow to be educated in the tertiary sector, and to have a policy from the Opposition that simply gives more money to those who do not need it is just a waste of taxpayers’ money. Those members are not concerned about the use of taxpayers’ money. They forget who is going to be paying for that handout. It will be the person—

Carmel Sepuloni: It’s not a handout; it’s a hand up.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is a handout to people who do not need it, and they are going to be taking money—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): First of all, I want to start on a serious note. I understand that there have been two police officers shot in the Bay of Plenty. I understand that they have not been shot dead, but news is still coming in. I hope like hell that they are fine, and we send them all our best wishes—there is no doubt about that.

One thing I must say is that I love it when Mr Scott paraphrases Marie Antoinette—he said to the poor “Let them eat pie.” Mr Scott, that comment cost Marie Antoinette her head—be careful. And, I must admit, David Seymour is always great for a laugh, is he not? He comes in here, and he is even dressed in character. He has got that woollen knit tie on and the pink shirt. He says “Sell the superannuation. Sell this. Do that. Do this.”, and he wonders why there is only one MP from ACT and it is not even polling above 1 percent. Well, just look at the Hansard and you will find out why.

I am here to speak about the Budget Policy Statement. What this does is set out the Government’s broad plans and goals and fiscal strategy. First of all, I would like to say, let us see how this is going to play out between 2015 and 2017 according to the Government’s numbers. First of all, real GDP drops by around a quarter—this is between 2015 and 2017. Second, Consumers Price Index inflation increases from 0.3 percent to 2.1 percent. Third, employment growth is down by about 50 percent. Fourth, the unemployment rate increases to 6.1 percent. Fifth, wage growth drops to 1.8 percent. Sixth, the current account percent of GDP goes from 0.35 percent to negative 6 percent.

Are those the figures of a Government with a plan, with an aspiration, and with a vision? Absolutely not at all, and these are the Government’s figures. You know, I actually do not know what this Government stands for any more. I just have no idea what it stands for, because it seems that what it is doing is leading this country down the garden path when there is such a much more attractive, viable, 21st century option. There is an alternative. I have heard from every single National speaker that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the way forward. Those members are putting all the eggs in the TPP basket. That is their only plan for the future—the TPP. I wonder who they would be voting for—Trump or Clinton?

When we read that the Government’s focus is on improving public sector productivity—which is one of the pillars that Mr Scott did not talk about—this is its philosophy of “Let’s do more for less”. Well, what are the outcomes? Let us have a look at one of my portfolios, the portfolio of police. Where are we at the moment? We have these really hard-working police officers on the front line, of whom 86 percent—86 percent—believe that the front-line cops are under-resourced. We have burglaries at record highs. We have resolution rates below 10 percent. Is that more for less? Not at all. That is no way to run a law and order system.

We also have police budget underspend. In Auckland alone, in the three districts that make up the Greater Auckland region, where burglary resolution rates are below 7 percent, we find, in fact, that the police have underspent their budget by $14 million. There is a difference between fiscal prudence and mismanagement, and at this point in time, when we are saying that 93 percent of burglaries in this country go unsolved, I would have thought that more money and more resources would be put into resolution, because this is what our public wants to see. Doing more with less is not working in the police force. Do you know what? The Commissioner of Police says he has enough money to fight crime and solve crime. Well, 86 percent of his staff disagree with him. I think that what he perhaps needs to do is sit down and look at those results and figure out what is going on.

Let us have a look at another one of my portfolios: forestry. The main difference between Labour and National is that National believes that you just stand back and you let the market take control because the market knows best and the market will deliver optimal outcomes, whereas Labour believes that where we see behaviour that is not in the best interests of New Zealand society and our communities, the Government has a role to play there. Forestry is a classic case.

I have four examples of cases where New Zealand sawmills cannot get the logs they want, and we are talking about sawmills that employ a whole lot of people in areas that are usually deprived. We are talking about Northland here, and we are talking about the East Coast, and these foreign log buyers are coming in and they are not providing our sawmillers with logs at export equivalent log prices. Our sawmillers are not asking for anything else. They are not asking for any sort of deal. All they are asking for is a fair go. They will pay the export equivalent log price, but they cannot get it. That is not right.

Let us have a look at something else—Government debt. You know, when that Government took over the books—when Mr English became the Minister of Finance—it had a gross debt of $31 billion in 2008. It is now $86 billion.

Peeni Henare: How much?

STUART NASH: It is $86 billion. The net debt was down to $10 billion. It sounds a lot—but in the scheme of things $10 billion is what net debt was down to. It is now $62 billion. That is a substantial amount of money. What tends to get forgotten about in this is that that $62 billion has to be serviced. That is a significant amount of taxpayer money that is going to overseas institutions to service that substantial debt—and it is expected to get a lot worse.

Let us have a look at another measure. We hear Government members say they are aspirational for New Zealand. They are going to grow—what was it, Mr Scott? They are going to grow the pie. Well, let us have a look at a measure that I think determines how well we are doing—exports as a percentage of GDP. In 2008 it was 32 percent. Now it is 28.4 percent—28.4 as a percentage of GDP. As we a trading nation, the Government should be incredibly concerned about that. As a person who was involved in trade for a number of years, I look at these figures and think “Goodness me!”. We have a whole lot of New Zealand companies here that should be doing a whole lot better, but the Government has not put in a regulatory or a legislative environment that has allowed that to happen.

There are three members sitting over there at the moment who were on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when we talked about research and development help for our companies. They all know—because they are businessmen; they are shrewd guys—that it was not the package needed by our small to medium sized businesses in order to really drive growth, to scale up and go international, which is what we need in this country. There is no doubt about that.

Labour believes in governing for those who work hard. We believe in giving all Kiwis a fair go. We believe in First World early childhood education. This Government gutted what was acknowledged as one of the world’s leading early childhood education systems. We believe in providing education all the way through. This Government cut night classes, and it gave the most pathetic excuses, but every single reason that people undertook a night class was the right reason. We will reinstall them, because we understand that community is at the heart of every single country. If you had wandered around my electorate you would have seen that Napier Boys’ High, Tamatea High School, Taradale High School, and Napier Girls High were hives of activity after dark. Now the lights are out.

Chris Bishop: Back subsidised crochet classes.

STUART NASH: It does not matter, Mr Bishop. If someone wanted to go to a night class and learn crochet, then they could gather with 12, 15, 20 other people and learn crochet, because, you know what, it was not necessarily about the crochet; it was about people interacting with those in their community. It is about community. It was about these people, who do not have many other interests, gathering for 1 or 2 hours a week—that is all—with those of a like mind. It is about building communities. What that Government did was to destroy the communities.

There is no vision with this Government, there is no plan, and it has lacked aspiration. It seems, yet again, that in 2017, it will take a Labour Government to restore the settings and restore and build communities, as it did in 1935, 1957, 1972, 1984, and 1999. Anyone who knows their political history will know that after a National Government it takes a Labour Government to come in and restore the settings and rebuild the Kiwi Dream.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Before I start, I just want to acknowledge the passing of Tahuna Minhinnick, who was a leader of Ngāti Te Ata in my electorate. He played a pivotal role in leading that iwi, and he has been cut down in his prime. I want to share my condolences and sympathy with not only the family but also the iwi.

It was interesting listening to that speech by the previous speaker, Stuart Nash. Sometimes you must wonder whether we are actually in the same place. I just do not even know where some of those figures came from. I have been trying to find out where he even dragged up some of those figures from, which, I think, in some cases are totally wrong. What I am going to talk about today is that this Government has four key things that it is trying to achieve. One is returning—

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! There is a point of order.

Stuart Nash: Page 4, Budget Policy Statement—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not a point of order; that is wasting the House’s time.

ANDREW BAYLY: The second thing we are trying to do is make this economy much more productive and competitive. Thirdly, we want to deliver better value from the Public Service—and, again, we are going to pick that point up—and, fourthly, we do, and have, continued to support the efforts in Christchurch. I note that we have spent $17 billion over the last few years trying to get Christchurch back into shape.

I will just deal with the first point: returning this country back to surplus. Well, guess what? We have already achieved that. We have taken this country from an $18 billion deficit in 2011 back to a surplus of $414 million. From here—even with the Treasury forecast—we are going to be around budget, but continuing to grow those surpluses over time. Mr Nash, I suggest you stay and learn something before you take off. Of course we just reported in the last 7 months to the end of January, Mr Nash, that we have achieved an even higher Budget surplus than we were projecting, which is close on a billion dollars.

So what does this all mean? Every year this Government spends $6 billion on new infrastructure: roads, rail, transport, education, and new schools. What it does is it creates the opportunity for new spending. This year we have an extra billion to spend, and next year $2.5 billion. What that does is help to fund that continued building of an infrastructure network for this country to enable all New Zealanders to grow and prosper, whether they are working as employees or whether they are running a business. The second thing is that running a surplus means that we can reduce debt. Contrary to what Mr Nash said, the rate of debt to GDP is actually 25.4 percent. We have got a projection, an intention, to get it down to 20 percent by 2020. I have spoken previously in this House about how we compare with countries like Australia, which, in 5 years’ time, is projected to have close to twice our level of debt—i.e., just under 40 percent. England and Europe are projected to have four times our level of debt, and the US five times our debt levels. We have modest debt levels, and we want to see them come down. The only way to do that is to deliver surpluses.

The other thing that is leading to these surpluses is growth. Somehow, everyone from the Opposition has been very silent on this. It is 2.3 percent—

Todd Muller: How much?

ANDREW BAYLY: It is 2.3 percent in the year just gone, and it is projected to be averaging 2.7 percent over the next 3 years. Of course what does that all mean? It means that we can actually start to see wage growth, and see people getting paid more and families earning more.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: To pay your public services.

ANDREW BAYLY: So it is interesting that when we look at the wage growth in 2015, it was 3.1 percent, Mr Cosgrove—3.1, compared with one of our lowest inflation rates of 0.1 percent. That means a 3 percent real increase for all the working people in New Zealand—even for you, Mr Cosgrove. Also, what that means is that they are also continuing to benefit—our households, our working people—from low interest rates, because we have low inflation; also, fuel costs and all those other things. So we are starting to see some real benefits coming to our hard-working New Zealanders. Then, when you overlay that with those recent policy announcements around our social initiatives—not only the free access to health care for under-13-year-olds, which was brought in last year, but also the recent Budget announcement of nearly $800 million that is going towards people who earn less than $36,500 getting a $25 increase per week. That is a real increase for those people. That is about sharing the gains with all New Zealanders. This is what this Government is about: sharing the gains and recognising that everyone has a part to play. Everyone should be participating in the upside.

I now want to turn to the second one of our initiatives, which is about making our economy more productive and competitive. By running a good economy it means that we can start to help businesses in an even more meaningful way. We are limited, and this is where the Opposition, I find, starts to stray into saying that the Government should be doing these things and this and that. Often we do not have jurisdiction over them. We cannot influence what goes on in the business sector. What we can do is make sure we have got the right policy settings. So it is interesting, what we can do.

What have we done? ACC—we have basically written off $2 billion of levies, reduced them by $2 billion, and I note in the last Budget that we cut them by $430 million. The Hon Nikki Kaye is doing a great job, seeing the levies reduce for employers, for the workers’ account, and also for motor vehicles. Secondly, we continue to invest in research and development, and I note the previous speakers on this. We want to get research and development up to 1 percent of GDP, but we put $80 million in in the last Budget to further increase the level of investment in research and development, and we do agree that research and development is vital to our economy.

Thirdly, we are continuing to invest in skills training, and we have got a target of getting to 60 percent of all people aged between 25 and 34 into skills training. People seem to have glossed over it. We have opened up 21 new trades academies. I note in the February 2016 report that there are over 40,000 people now doing apprenticeship schemes in New Zealand, or the equivalent—40,000 people working. And I hear it all the time that we do not put people into apprenticeship schemes. That is very meaningful.

Then what else can we do? The main thing we can do for businesses is to create a marketplace. From a Government perspective that is about free-trade agreements. We have already done the Korean one. We have done the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and, of course, there is a lot of debate about it, but what cannot be debated is that even on today’s figures, there is a $102 million benefit for the dairy industry. I heard it all during question time about what we are doing in the dairy industry: there is a $102 million immediate benefit once that agreement comes into force. So those are really important things. We are also going back over the China free-trade agreement. We were the first to get that, but we are going back now that the Australians are doing one, seeing whether we can leverage that position and to further improve our trade links. I think that is great. It is a meaningful thing when you take $200 million - odd and give it to businesses in the form of reduced penalties that they have to pay at the border.

Then there are other initiatives—for instance, with iwi. I think the passage of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which enables iwi to better use their lands, is a very important economic step in terms of helping them drive their own investments much more productively. Then there is the roll-out of broadband. I do not want to labour that point, but everyone is well aware of that—what a significant investment it is, just on $2 billion.

But I just want to say that with the better value for services that we have been trying to drive out of the Public Service, we have reduced the extent of the investment that we have made in public services from 34 percent to 30 percent of GDP. That is, effectively, $9 billion of savings. That is $9 billion of savings that can be applied to new schools and new investments in road and in transport. I think that during that time what we have also done is we have made sure that our Public Service is working much more effectively and getting better value for money. So it is not just necessarily about cutting back the number of people involved in those activities; it is about getting better results.

The other thing that I think is most important about the way this Government is operating is it is setting clear targets—sometimes even uncomfortable targets to try to achieve, whether it is social policy, whether it is in the environmental sector—and trying to measure ourselves against those, as opposed to just simply spending money, which is always the way that Governments are operated. So this approach towards a real outcome focus, I think, is a most important factor towards driving better Government. I think all those things around social developments, around our environmental policies, around our economic management are all about rebuilding the Kiwi Dream.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2016.

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.

Bills

New Zealand Business Number Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 March.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on this New Zealand Business Number Bill in this reading. I had the fortune to serve on the Commerce Committee, which looked at this bill. We returned it with some small amount of changes.

I have listened to the debate in this reading and I would just like to cover a couple of points, first, about what the bill is meant to achieve, and then I would like to address a couple of the concerns that were raised. The bill supports the Business Growth Agenda of this Government, helping to make small and medium sized businesses more efficient and helping to reduce the cost of compliance, particularly the cost of doing business with the Government. We have this odd situation, of course, where for ever businesses have had to have separate representational credentials with every Government agency they have to do business with. So a change of address, a change of any matter of detail, a change of phone number, and that business has to take a great deal of effort to update any number of agencies it may do business with individually and repetitively over the course of its business lifetime.

The New Zealand Business Number Bill will provide a central way of maintaining some basic company information—the information that is already public—but will do so in a way where a business will have to give that information only once, and every Government agency, over time, that it does business with will be able to draw from that source of information. It will also mean that not only is it easy for the business to do its business with those agencies, but if it should need to change something—an address detail, a phone number detail, some small amount of material change—the business will need to make the change in only one location. It will be with the agency of its choice and that information will, effectively, filter through to all the other agencies.

This, of course, means that the small or medium sized business can spend more time focusing on what it does, which is providing products or services to its customers, and spend less time actually dealing with New Zealand Government agencies, which is exactly the way things should be. I think it is a very commendable objective and I am very confident that, if enacted, this legislation will achieve that.

There are a couple of concerns that were raised that I just want to touch upon. One of them was the pace with which agencies may adopt the business number. The reality is that in order to participate, the agencies will have to adjust their IT systems and applications to be able to make reference to this new 13-digit New Zealand Business Number.

We could just have every agency immediately drop what they are doing and immediately undertake a project—in some cases quite a small one; in many cases quite a comprehensive one—to ensure that their systems can interface with this New Zealand Business Number. That is as simple as having a call centre application, with a human being on the phone being able to draw upon that business number to identify a business that has called into them, or a web application being able to call upon it, or any other agent or employee within that agency being able to look up and verify and use that business number information. We could have just demanded that they all do it at once and they all drop other priorities, things that are more pressing on their programmes of work, and spend a great deal of money to do something right now. So it appears to me a very sensible approach that there will be a small number of agencies—about seven, I think, in total—that will come on quite rapidly, but others will join this as they go through making system updates over time.

The second point was around why we cannot just use a number that already exists today—like your IRD number, for instance, because virtually everyone has got one. It sounds good at face value, but if we think about the reality of this, if an agency surrendered its ID number as the number for all other agencies to use, that would actually constrain the way, on its internal systems—not the ones that are actually the source or the look-up point for this business number information, but its own internal systems—that it could then use that number, adapt it over time, and how its applications could call upon that.

By using a new and separate number, it gives the agencies the freedom to do what they need to do inside their own activities with their existing identifiers and for them to all then call upon this new number so that the customer can continue to benefit from a range of services that will be developed over time but to do so in a way where they can all still benefit and make use of the New Zealand Business Number Bill. So I think it would be a major mistake to have picked a single agency, to have taken its unique identifier, and to have used that as the identifier across every agency. It would create more problems in the future than it would solve right now.

In concluding, I would say that this is a very pragmatic, sensible bill. It will help to reduce expense, time, and effort for New Zealand small and medium sized businesses and, over time, for all businesses across New Zealand, and I commend it to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): In my colleague David Clark’s contribution in the second reading of this bill he made it clear that Labour would be supporting this bill but with some quite strong reservations. Although we support—and have supported right from the very beginning—the intent of this bill, and continue to support the intent of this bill, along with pretty much all of the submitters who came before the Commerce Committee, our reservations have only really got stronger, particularly as each day goes on, about this Government’s capability to introduce a new system in a way that is not going to end up turning into a bungle and creating a whole lot more cost when it was set up to save money. I will certainly be speaking to those remarks throughout my contribution.

We thought that this was a relatively uncontroversial bill. We thought that there were probably some things that needed to be teased out in the select committee, and they certainly were. But as we went through the select committee process and listened to what some of the submitters were saying, we became more and more concerned. We remain supporting this bill, as I have said, with quite strong reservations, because ultimately we support the intent. We support the intent of having a number system for business, whether that is in the private sector or across the public sector, to enable there to be more efficiencies and efficient, easier interactions for business in New Zealand.

In his remarks in the second reading the Minister said that this would enable easy and more efficient interactions and it would do so by allocating a unique number to corporate and public entities and to unincorporated entities that are in business such as sole traders, partnerships, and trustees of trusts. Well, that sounds great, but, in practice, particularly in the short to medium term, that is just not going to be the case, because the Government is not ready. The Government did not do its work. The Government agencies—there is a very small number of Government agencies that will actually be prepared for this new system when it comes in; the rest of them are not. As we went through the select committee process, more and more submitters became concerned. They became concerned about this and they became concerned that there was not a requirement for Government agencies to get their act together.

This has the hallmark of what we are seeing as a pattern of half measures, a halfway house, and possibly a shambles of a new system that is being introduced. I think that what we are looking at through this bill—if it gets pushed through its third reading—in the short term is the making of another major and another embarrassing IT blunder by this Government in terms of its implementation of something that is not a bad idea. As I have said, we support the intent of it, but there is no plan and there is no indication of the resources that are going to be needed to make this actually work as a system across Government. There were too many red flags starting to be raised during the select committee process that we have some real concerns about.

Of course, as we know, this Government has a track record of making these shambolic, embarrassing IT blunders. We have seen one in just the last couple of days with the payroll scandal within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which is affecting a huge number of employees, which is, essentially, exposing the Government’s mismanagement. It is exposing the Government’s mismanagement and the incompetence of having a merger of departments—a great big merger creating a great big ministry that needed to create a payroll system right across that. What did the Government do? It created a system and we are now starting to see the real problems emerge around that. Not only that, but we have also heard today that it has been revealed that the ministry is paying a quarter of its invoices late—it was my colleague Jacinda Ardern who revealed this today—and that over 11,000 bills have not been paid on time. It is a breach of the payment rules that it publishes.

The relevance to this legislation going through the House is quite clear. This is actually about a Government that makes these decisions, decides to think big, merges a whole lot of departments, comes up with an idea, puts a system in place—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Stuffs it up.

CLARE CURRAN: —and then stuffs it up—quite right. It is struggling with the payment system. So if it is struggling with the payment systems—and let us remember Novopay and let us remember the $40 million - plus—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That was Steven Joyce.

CLARE CURRAN: That was a Steven Joyce special. Let us remember just exactly the impact of that, which is still being felt in schools. I was in a school just on Monday where I was being told of the continuing issues. Of course, our schools are run by competent people, who have adapted to this shambolic system, and, because they are committed to what they are doing, they are managing to get on with the job. But it has taken massive amounts of time and energy, and wasted time and energy, within each of the 2,500—is that right—schools throughout New Zealand to actually adapt to the shambles that the Government hoisted upon us with the Novopay debacle. And that is not all in terms of mismanagement. We have also seen another major piece of mismanagement this week within the Ministry of Health with a refurbishment cost of $24 million from reserves that did not even exist, with the Minister of Health describing it as a forecasting error and diminishing its importance.

What this points to is a pattern. It is a pattern of making decisions, putting forward legislation—and it is not always a bad idea that the Government comes up with. The idea of having a New Zealand Business Number is not a bad idea, but has the work been done? Has the work been done to work out, before the legislation came to the House, how it is going to be implemented and what the impact of that is going to be? To display to the House that it is not just Labour saying this, in its submission to the Commerce Committee, the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand—an eminently sensible organisation—noted that it was in favour of the bill and its intent but felt that the New Zealand Business Number “would need prompt and broad integration by government agencies in order to capitalise on these so-called benefits to businesses.” It said its “views in this regard have not changed …” throughout its process of being associated with the bill. It said: “We are, therefore, disappointed to note that the current Bill no longer mandates government agency recognition of the NZBN, as it did in section 34 of the initial Bill.”

In clause 34 of the initial bill that came to this House, which was tabled in this House at the beginning of this process, there was a mandate for Government agencies to be a part of this process. During the process, as the Government realised that it did not have all these agencies ready to go through the processes that they needed to, it withdrew that mandate. The Government withdrew it, and as a result we are left with a bill that, if it is passed, will be piecemeal. There is likely to be a shambolic approach by Government agencies that are not prepared for a New Zealand Business Number. It will, in the end, create a more complicated system. It will not deliver the efficiencies, certainly in the short to medium term. This Government has brought a bill to the House that it is just not prepared for.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the New Zealand Business Number Bill in its second reading. You can tell that this is a very good bill because after its first reading it got referred through to the select committee. It has been kicked around a bit. It got only 14 submissions and five of them were heard orally. We know that when you get very few submissions—look at the social housing reform legislation, which got only eight submissions; this bill, with 14 submissions—you can tell that people are generally happy with it. There have not been any major changes—very small changes—so we know it is a good bill. It is getting the support of the House.

When you look at the detail of it, not only it is effective but it is efficient and it is economic. We know, around the effectiveness of it, that businesses will get a unique number. It will go on a register. Ultimately, that will enable business to engage with New Zealand Government agencies a lot easier. That is what this bill is about—making things easy. It is also efficient because what we will have is, instead of businesses dealing with multiple numbers with Government agencies, they will have this one unique New Zealand Business Number. I think that needs to be supported.

But, most of all, this bill is economic. It is saving around $60 million a year for New Zealand businesses. I think that is fantastic, on a day when regional GDP rates have been published. Look at Canterbury. There is great GDP growth. In fact, my electorate of Waimakariri is going really well, with small and big business. On this side of the House we know that tools like this legislation support business, ultimately, to provide jobs and good incomes and improve the well-being of the people. Thank you very much.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Business Number Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill

Second Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, e Te Kaikōrero o Te Whare. E mōtini ana ahau, Kia pānuitia Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori mō te wā tuarua. Hai tīmatanga kōrero māku me pēnei te kī, “Tuia i runga, tuia i raro, tuia i waho, tuia i roto, tuia i te here tangata ka rongo te pō, ka rongo te ao. Tuia i te muka tangata i takea mai i Hawaiki nui, i Hawaiki roa, i Hawaiki pāmamao. Te hono i wairua ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Koia rā e rongo, whakairia ki runga tūturu o whiti whakamaua kia tinā! Tinā! Hui-e i tāiki e!”

I a tātau e kōrero nei mō te mana o Te Reo Māori, me whai wāhi au ki te tuku kōrero ki te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi i ngā rā tata kua hipa ake. Kō tākuta Ranginui Walker tērā, ko Tāhuna Mihinnick tērā, ko Roger Aranui tērā, arā noa atu wētahi. Ēngari, me whai wāhi au anō hoki ki a Ērima, Te Toihōu o Te Taura Whiri i te wā i a ia. Haere koutou ki tua o Paerau whakangaro atu rā! Ki a tātau te hunga ora tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa!

I roto i tāna kauhau ki Te Whare Pāremata, nō te marama o Hōngongoi te tau 2014, i te wā i mōtinihia ai te pānui tuatahi i te pire, nā taku rangatira, nā Hōnore Tā Pita Sharples, arā, ko Te Minita Whakawhanaketanga Māori i taua wā, te kōrero mō Te Reo Māori me tana kī ake: “he taonga mā ngā iwi, mā ngāi Māori hoki, he āhuatanga whakahirahira o te ahurea o Niu Tīreni”. I kōrero ia mō te heke haere o te ora o Te Reo rau tau rua tekau. Mō te tau 1900, he tata ki te 100 ōrau te tokomaha o ngāi Māori i kōrero i tō rātau ake Reo. Hoi anō, i ngā tau 70 ka whai i muri mai i tino heke iho tēnei ki te āhua 20 ōrau. I taua wā, he kaumātua te nuinga o te hunga kōrero Māori, ā, i te tāmatemate haere rātau. I whakapaetia, ka mate Te Reo Māori. I ohorere a ngāi Māori. Ēhara mō te āhua mamate o tō rātou Reo anake ēngari, mō tō rātou āhua anō hoki, me kī, ko tō rātau tūranga, ko rātau nōhanga, tō rātou mana hoki, i runga tonu i tō rātou ake whenua. Arā hoki te āhua o te mimiti haere, ā, haere ake nei, māna ka mahia ētahi panonitanga nui, whakaharara.

Ko te puāwaitanga Māori te urupare i tīmata ai i taua wā, ā, ko pērā tonu tae noa mai ki nāianei. Ko te whakaora me te whakarauora i Te Reo Māori tētahi wāhanga whakahirahira o tēnei puāwaitanga, nā Te Māori Language Act 1987, i whakamanatia ai e Te Karauna Te Reo Māori hei taonga mā ngā iwi, mā ngāi Māori hoki, i whakaū ai hoki Te Reo Māori hai Reo whaimana ā-ture mō Niu Tīreni. Kua kitea e tātau te whakatūnga, te tipu hoki o ngā Kōhanga Reo, o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori, o ngā Whare Kura, i nāianei hoki o ngā wānanga kei te taumata mātauranga matua. Kua wātea ake te ako i Te Reo Māori i roto i ō tātau kura auraki, i ō tātau whare wānanga me ngā kura mātauranga matua kē atu. Arā hoki ngā reo irirangi ā-iwi, ngā reo irirangi Māori hoki, ko Te Pouaka Whakaata Māori i whakatūria hei whakarato, hei whakapāho hōtaka i Te Reo Māori.

Hoi anō ahakoa wā tātou karawhiunga hei whakarauora ake i Te Reo, he āhua tokoiti tonu te hunga e uru ana ki roto i ēnei kaupapa. He urupare te whakapuakitanga o tēnei pire i te tau 2014, ki te whakaaro, he mea whakatīna Te Māori Language Act 1987 hei tautoko i te whakarauoratanga o Te Reo. Ko te aronga o te pire, i whakapuakina atu ai, he whakaū i te mana o Te Reo hai taonga mā ngā iwi, mā ngāi Māori hoki hai Reo whaimana ā-ture mō Niu Tīreni. Ka whakatū tēnei i a Te Mātāwai, hei hinonga ā-ture motuhake kia tū hai kaiārahi mā ngā iwi, mā ngāi Māori hoki i roto i tā rātou mahi hai kaitiaki mō Te Reo Māori.

I nāinanei ka huri au ki te pire i whakahokia pūrongotia ai e Te Komiti Take Māori. He pēnei te kī kāore i tere mārika te rerenga o te pire mā te tukunga komiti kōwhiri ēngari, arā noa ētahi tino take i pēnei ai. Tuatahi, nō te marama o Hōngongoi tau 2014 i whakapuakina, i tukuna atu hoki tēnei ki te komiti, nō mua tata mai i te pōtitanga ā-motu i te tau 2014. Nō muri mai i te pōtitanga, nō muri hoki i taku whai haepapatanga mō te pire, i pīrangi au kia mārakerake anō taku titiro ki te pire. Nā tēnei i whakatū ai au i tētahi Rōpū Tohutohu Reo Māori ki te whakaaroaro mehemea, me whakapai ake, me pēhea rānei te whakapai ake i te pire. Kai konei wētahi e noho nei ki runga ake nei. Nā te tāpaetanga i tukuna mai mā te tukanga komiti kōwhiri rātau i whai pānga ai i roto i taua mahi. Inā rā i pīrangi au kia tūturu te kitea o te haepapatanga o Te Karauna ki te whakamarumaru ki te toko ake hoki i te whakarauoratanga o Te Reo Māori.

I tuku pūrongo mai te rōpū tohutohu ki a au i te marama o Pipiri i tērā tau, ā, i mārohitia ai tētahi tauira hou. I takea mai i tētahi ngātahitanga ā-mahi i waenganui i Te Karauna me Te Iwi Māori. I tēnei wā, me whai wāhi au ki te mihi ki taua rōpū, otirā, ki ngā kaimahi o Te Puni Kōkiri, ā, hei te pānuitanga tuatoru pea au, whakawhānui atu i taku mihi ki a koutou. Kei aku rangatira koinei te mihi o te ngākau koinei te mihi o te ngākau ki a koutou katoa, mō te papai o ngā mahi kua oti nei i a koutou, i a tātau. I tūtohu tana pūrongo, tā taku komiti tāku e kōrero nei kia āta whakamāramatia ngā mahi motuhake a Te Karauna, a Te Iwi Māori hoki, kia whāia ngātahitia ai he putanga pai ake mō Te Reo Māori. Nō te marama o Whiringa-a-nuku i whakaaetia e Te Rūnanga Kāwanatanga ngā whakahounga i takea mai i tēnei pūrongo ki te pire, i whakaurua ēnei hei tūtohutanga ki Te Komiti Take Māori. Kai te harikoa ahau ki te kī atu kua taunakitia e Te Komiti Take Māori ngā panonitanga ki te pire, ā, he ngākau tapatahi tā rātau mō te whakauru i ngā whakahounga katoa. Ka mihi ki a koutou ka tika e hoa mā! Ki ngā mema o Te Komiti Tāke Māori mō tā rātau mahi, tā koutou mahi i te roanga o te tau kua taha ake nei. E hoa mā, ka nui te mihi.

Ko te hua o tēnei, kua whakakahangia te pire i whakahokia pūrongotia atu ai. Ka whakatau tēnei i te tāpaetanga, me te ū tonu o Te Karauna ki Te Reo Māori. Mā tēnei Te Karauna, ngā iwi, a ngāi Māori hoki e herea ai ki te mahi ngātahi. He haepapatanga hoki tā tēnā, tā tēnā mō Te Reo Māori. Hei tuatahitanga whaiwhai hītori, kua whakahokia pūrongotia atu te pire nei hai pire reorua. Koinei te pire tuatahi ka whakamanatia i roto i Te Reo Māori, i te reo Pākehā hoki, ā, ki te ara he tohe, he raruraru rānei i waenganui i ngā whakaputanga e rua, ko te whakaputanga Māori tērā ka tino whāia! He mahi tika, ko Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori te pire tuatahi o tōna momo, kia kawea pēnei i roto i tēnei Whare, tae atu ki tōna whakaturetanga!

Ka paku kōrero mō ngā whakapanonitanga. Tuatahi, ka tū a Te Mātāwai hei rangatōpū ā-ture motuhake, e mahi ana mā ngā iwi, mā ngāi Māori hoki, kia tū hai kaiārahi i roto i te mahi toko ake i te ora Te Reo, me te mauri o Te Reo Māori mō ngā iwi, mō ngāi Māori, mō ngā hapori hoki. Hoianō, mā te rerenga aronga kai roto i te pire e tohu kaha i tōna hononga ki Te Karauna. E tutuki ai tēnei mā te āta tohu ki ngā aronga hoki o Te Mātāwai, he tautoko, he whakamōhio atu, he whakaaweawe hoki i ngā kaupapa Karauna, hei whakamarumaru, hei toko ake, hei whakarauora ake i Te Reo Māori.

Ka whakamana ā-ture te pire i ētahi rautaki Reo Māori hōu e rua. Nō Te Karauna te haepapatanga mō tētahi, arā, ko te Maihi Karauna, e hāngai atu ai ki ngā tāke ā-motu. Nō ngā iwi, nō ngāi Māori hoki te haepapatanga mā Te Mātāwai mō tērā atu, arā, ko Te Maihi Māori. Ka hāngai tērā ki ngā whāinga, ki ngā kaupapa here whai pānga ki ngā iwi, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapori hoki. Ka tū tonu Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori me Te Māngai Pāho hei hinonga Karauna ēngari, tokotoru ngā mema o ngā mema poari, tokorima o ia hinonga ka tīkina mai i ngā tautapanga a Te Mātāwai.

Kei te hari koa au e pā ana ki te pire i whakahokia pūrongotia ai. Kua whakaritea hoki tētahi pepa Ōta tāpiri mā Te Komiti o Te Whare katoa. Ko te whāinga o tērā, ko te whakatika i ētahi āhuatanga rerekē i roto i ia whakaputanga reo o te ture. He take iti nei ēngari, he whakahōunga, he take mātanga hoki te āhua o aua whakahōunga. Hei whakakōpani i taku kōrero e Te Kaikōrero o Te Whare, ka tāpae atu au i tēnei pire ki Te Whare Pāremata hai wetewete me te mihi anō rā ki tēnā, ki tēnā o tātau i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Māori Language Bill be now read a second time. I preface my contribution with a traditional proverb: “Fasten above, fasten below, unify and bind, join the connections of people departed and living. Weave together the threads of humanity woven over vast distance and time from ancient homelands. Bind us into this world of light, let peace prevail, let us be steadfast and resolute!”.

As we are discussing the value of Māori language, it is appropriate that I begin with acknowledging the recently departed, who leave with us cherished memories: in particular, Dr Ranginui Walker, as well as Tāhuna Minhinnick, Roger Aranui, and many others. Special mention should also be made to Ērima, former chair of the Māori Language Commission. May you all join those who have already gathered beyond the distant horizon. And to us, the living, warm greetings, one and all.

In his speech to the House in July 2014, when moving the first reading of this bill, my predecessor, the Hon Sir Pita Sharples, then Minister of Māori Affairs, declared: “it is a treasure of both traditional tribes and Māoridom; it is an integral part of the cultural fabric of New Zealand.” He referred to the decline in the health of the Māori language over the past 120 years. In 1900 Māori was spoken by practically 100 percent of the Māori population. Within 70 years this had rapidly declined to approximately 20 percent, most of whom were elderly, themselves a declining population. It was predicted that the Māori language would die out, which caused alarm among Māori, not just for the loss of the language, but also at their own general situation, including their position, social status, and authority within their own country. Such was the state of decline that it would continue without significant, auspicious change.

The response was the Māori renaissance, which continues to this day. Māori language survival and revitalisation is a fundamental component of this renaissance. The Crown officially recognised the Māori language as a treasure of both traditional tribes and Māoridom through the Māori Language Act 1987, which also declared Māori a national language of New Zealand. We have seen the establishment and development of Māori language immersion preschools, primary schools, high schools, and now tertiary level institutions. Study of Māori language is now available in mainstream schools, in universities, and in other tertiary settings. We now have tribal-based radio stations, pan-tribal radio stations, and Māori Television—all services established to broadcast programming in the Māori language.

Despite our efforts for Māori language revitalisation, there remains a low uptake of people entering these domains. The introduction of this bill in 2014 was a response to the view that the Māori Language Act 1987 had become less effective in fulfilling aspirations for Māori language revitalisation. The purpose of the bill as introduced was to affirm the status of the Māori language as a treasure of both traditional tribes and Māoridom, and as an official language of New Zealand. Accordingly Te Mātāwai would be established as an independent statutory entity to provide leadership for both traditional tribal groupings and Māoridom in their role as custodians of the Māori language.

I now turn to the bill as reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee. It can be said that the bill has not had a swift passage through the select committee process. However, this is due to a number of important factors. First, it was introduced in August 2014 and sent to the select committee just before the 2014 general election. After the election, having taken on responsibility for the bill, I wanted to take a fresh look at it. Accordingly, I established an independent Māori Language Advisory Group to consider whether the bill could be improved and, if so, how. Some of them are present here in the gallery. They benefited from the submissions received through the select committee process. I also wanted to emphasise the role and responsibility of the Crown to protect and support the revitalisation of the Māori language.

The advisory group reported to me in June last year, and proposed a new model based on a working partnership between the Crown and Māori. It is appropriate for me to acknowledge that group now, as well as the Te Puni Kōkiri staff, and perhaps at the third reading I will have the opportunity to expand on some of these acknowledgments. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to each of you for the substantial contributions; indeed, from each and every one of us. The advisory group report recommended clarifying the distinctive roles of the Crown and of Māori to collectively pursue improved Māori language outcomes. In October Cabinet approved amendments to the bill based on this report, and these were included as recommendations for the Māori Affairs Committee. I am pleased to announce the Māori Affairs Committee has endorsed the changes to the bill and members have unanimously adopted all the amendments. It is only right that I acknowledge and thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the significant undertaking throughout this past year. Members, thank you.

The result is that the bill as reported back has been strengthened. It recognises the contribution and ongoing commitment of the Crown to the Māori language. It requires both the Crown and Māori to work in partnership, each with roles and responsibilities for the Māori language. For the first time in history a bill has been reported back as a dual language bill. This is the first bill to be enacted in both Te Reo Māori and English, with the Māori text taking precedence in any inconsistency between the two versions. It is only appropriate that the Māori Language Bill is the first of this kind to proceed through the House to enactment.

A few brief comments regarding the amendments. First, Te Mātāwai will be an independent statutory entity, acting on behalf of both traditional tribes and Māoridom to provide leadership in promoting the health and well-being of the Māori language at tribal, at Māori, and at community levels. However, the purpose clause within the bill still strongly emphasises its relationship with the Crown, which will be achieved through the focus of Te Mātāwai to support, inform, and enhance Crown initiatives to protect, to promote, and to revitalise the Māori language.

The bill makes official two new Māori language strategies. The Crown has responsibility for one—namely, the Maihi Karauna, focusing on national level issues. The other—namely, the Maihi Māori—is the responsibility of both traditional tribes and Māoridom, represented through Te Mātāwai. It will focus on objectives and policies and related matters at tribal, sub-tribal, family, and community levels. The Māori Language Commission and Te Māngai Pāho will remain Crown entities; however, three of the five board members of each entity will be Te Mātāwai nominations.

I am pleased with the bill as reported back. A Supplementary Order Paper has also been prepared for the Committee of the whole House that seeks to address any drafting inconsistencies in the respective language versions of the bill. The amendments are minor and technical in nature. In concluding, I commend this bill to the House, and wish to thank once again everyone on this occasion. Greetings, greetings, one and all.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini.

[The question is that the motion be agreed to.]

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tuku mauri ora ki te wheiao ki te ao mārama, tihei wā mauri ora! Ka wehi tonu ahau ki tō tātou Kaihanga, nāna Te Reo Māori i hōmai, nāna Te Reo Māori e kaha tiaki ki roto i ngā tau, nāna anō hoki Te Reo Māori ka hāpai ki roto i ngā tau katoa kei mua i a tātau. Ka tautoko ahau i ngā kōrero me ngā tangi poroporoaki atu ki te hunga mate, ngā mate kua wahaina mai e Te Minita ki roto i tana kōrero.

I a au e rangahau ana i tēnei kaupapa Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori, ka pānui ahau i ngā kōrero totohe o tēnei Whare i ngā tau waru tekau i whakatū, i whakamana te Pire Tuatahi mō Te Reo Māori. Mehemea e whakaae ana e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka pānui ahau i tētahi paku kōrero ka kitea ki roto i ngā totohe o aua waru tekau tau. E ai ki te mema e kīia nei ko tōna ingoa ko Mervyn Wellington: “… I suspect merely respond to the demands of the radical intellectuals, having identified the fact that it is the young university trained radicals coming out of the hands of Ranginui Walker.” Kāti, ka tangi atu ahau ki tērā tupu ao ō tātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō, rātau ki a rātau, e Te Minita, kua kōrero mai nā e koe i te ngākau o Pāpā, kāti, e tangi tonu ana ahau, otirā, te kāinga o Te Tai Tokerau, koutou te hunga wairua ki a koutou, e moe, e moe, okioki!

E tautoko ana ahau i ngā kōrero o te motu whānui, e mihi atu ana ki Te Minita me tana ngākau nui ki tō tātou Reo Māori. I hāpai ake i tēnei Pire Reo Māori, i mahue mai nei e Te Tākuta Tā Pita Sharples ki roto i tana kōnae mahi. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana au ki a ia, ki ōna āpiha katoa i whakapau werawera mō Te Reo te take. Ka mihi atu ahau ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, anā ko Te Heamana kai roto i Te Whare i tēnei wā, e Tūtehounuku, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe, me ngā mema katoa o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri. E tautoko ana ahau ki ngā rōpū i awhi i tēnei kaupapa, mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō Te Rōpū Tohutohu Reo Māori. Ko tana kōrero e kī ana, ko ētahi kai roto i Te Whare i tēnei wā, e mihi atu ana.

E mihi atu ana ki tētahi atu rōpū e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa, arā, ko Te Paepae Motuhake mō ngā mahi katoa, mō ō rātou ki te hui ngātahi me te iwi Māori. Ko wai hoki, ko te motu whānui. E mihi atu ana au ki a rātou. E mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā kōrero a Te Minita e mea ana, ko te kākano o tēnei pire nā tērā rangatira o tātou, arā, ko Tā Pita Sharples. I manakohia ai kia whakahoki atu te mauri me te mana o tō tātou Reo Māori ki ngā iwi, ki ngā whānau, ki ngā otaota o te marae. Ki roto i te roanga ake o ngā totohe e pā ana ki tēnei pire, ka whakamātautau tātau mehemea ka tutuki taua hiahia. Ka whakamātautau tonu tātau mehemea kai roto i te roanga ake o tēnei pire me ōna whāinga katoa, ka tutuki i taua hiahia a Te Minita, a Tā Pita Sharples. Kāti, ka mihi atu ahau ki a ia me te whakaaro nui.

Kua roa rawa Te Rōpū Reipa e tautoko ana i Te Reo Māori. Kua kōrero ahau mō taku mahi rangahau i ngā kōrero me ngā totohe o ngā tau waru tekau kua pahure ake nei. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki tērā tupu ō tātau a Te Honore Koro Wētere, me tana kaha ki te kawe ake i tō tātou Reo Māori ki roto i tēnei Whare. Ka whakaaro ake ahau e Te Māngai o Te Whare, mō te tūnga o Te Taura Whiri i taua tāima, me te whakamana i tō tātou Reo Māori ki roto i ngā ture, ki runga hoki i te mata o te whenua. Nō reira kai konei mātau e tautoko ana, kai konei mātou Te Rōpū Reipa e tautoko ana.

Ki roto i te roanga ake o taku kōrero me ngā kōrero o ōku hoa mahi, ka rongo i wētahi pātai kai roto tonu i a tātou, ka rongo i wētahi nawe, wētahi āwangawanga, ēhara i te mea he maunga ka kore e taea tātau te eke, kāhore! Ēngari, ka mea atu ki a koe e Te Minita, otirā, ki a tātou e Te Whare, koinei hoki ko ngā kōrero a te iwi Māori ka hoki mai ki a au, otirā, ki a mātau ki roto i wā mātau mahi.

Nō reira, kāti; ka huri atu ahau ki te pire. Ka huri atu ahau ki tēnei pire e mihi atu ana ki te whakaaro nui, ka whakamanahia tēnei pire ki roto i Te Reo Māori me te reo Pākehā. Āe mārika, ka mihi atu ahau ki te hunga whakamāori; i whakamāori i ngā kōrero Pākehā. Kātahi au ka pānui i te pire ki roto i Te Reo Māori me taku papakupu hei whai atu i ngā kōrero katoa kai roto, kātahi rā te ātaahua ō tō tātou Reo Māori. E mihi atu ana au ki Te Minita me tana kaha ki te whakarongo ki te iwi, ki ngā pahupahu o tēnei ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei.

Kua roa rawa au e mea ana, kai hea Te Reo mō te hunga noho tāone? Kai hea Te Reo mō te mātatorutanga o Te Iwi Māori ka noho ki roto i tōku wāhi pōti o Tamaki-makau-rau? Nā, kua rongo i Te Minita, e hari koa ana. E hari koa ana ahau, ka whai tūranga te hunga noho tāone ki runga i Te Poari o Te Mātāwai. Nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā āhuatanga. Ka mihi atu anō hoki tēnei ki te whakaaro nui o tōku pāpā, me tōku tuakana a Pita Paraone e noho mai nei. Ka pupuri tonu tātau Te Iwi Māori, otirā, te motu whānui o Aotearoa i Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Māori. Kia kaua e motuhia i aua taura, kia tuku pai, kia tiaki pai i tō tātou Reo Māori me ōna nekehanga katoa, nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā whakaaro nui e Te Minita.

Ko ētahi o ngā take ka puta mai ki roto i wā mātou whiriwhiri i te take nei ko tētahi, kua roa rawa mātau e mea atu ana, he aha te take o te kākahu Pākehā ki runga i te taonga Māori? He aha te take kia whakatūngia i ētahi atu peka o te Kāwanatanga hai whakahaere i tō Tātou Reo Māori? Ko te hiahia me te whāinga matua o Tā Pita Sharples, i a ia e kōkiri ana i tēnei take, kia whakahokia atu te mana ki ngā iwi, ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapū. Ko reira te oranga o te iwi Māori. Nō reira, he aha te take o tētahi atu peka hei arataki, hei tiaki i tō tātou Reo Māori? Ko tēnā te kōrero, ko te kākahu Pākehā ki runga i te taonga Māori. Ko tētahi atu, ka pātai atu mātau i te āhuatanga o Te Mātāwai, e kīia nei, ā, ka tukuna mā te tokoiti hei whakahaere, hei kawe ake i Te Reo o te tokomaha.

I a mātou o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori e noho ana ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, i puta mai tētahi kōrero ātaahua rawa atu, ā, e ki atu ana ki a tātau, nō Ngāti Hine tēnei kōrero, ko wā rātau, anā, nā Te Waihoroi. Hei tāna, e mōhio ana tātau katoa ki ngā kau kai roto i te pāmu o Te Reo Māori, i tēnei wā tonu. E mōhio ana tātau, he aha ngā kau kai roto i te pāmu. Ko te hiahia, ā, kai hea ngā kau e hiahia ana kia uru mai ki roto i te pāmu hai whāngai i tō tātou Reo Māori, hei kawe ake ki roto i ngā tau kai mua i a tātau. Anā, ko ngā ingoa o aua kau, ko Te Tāhuhu o Te Mātauranga. Anā, ko te ingoa o aua kau ko ngā tari Kāwanatanga kua roa rawa e aukati, kua roa rawa e pēhi ana i tō tātou Reo Māori ki raro. Kāti, he kōrero tēnā i kohia e mātou ki roto i wā mātou mahi whiriwhiri kōrero mō te take o Te Reo Māori.

Ko tētahi atu take, he aha nei te whāinga matua? E mōhio ana tātau i te hiahia o Te Minita tawhito, a Tā Pita Sharples, mō Te Reo Māori ēngari, ki roto i te pire, e ka waihona atu mā tātau anō ngā whāinga matua e tohutohu, e kimi, horekau he raru mō tēnā. Ēngari, e mōhio ana tātau katoa ki roto i ngā whakatipuranga e toru tātau ka kite he aha nei ngā hua. Nō reira, ka whakaaro ake, me kimi tonu tātau he aha nei te whāinga matua mā tātau hai kawe ake ki roto i ngā tau kei mua i a tātau.

Ko tētahi atu, e pā ana ki te wāhanga tuatahi o te pire, e mea ana ko te mahi arotake i te pire nei. Ka tukuna atu mā te toru tau, ā, ka mutu te toru tau ka arotakengia e tātau te mahi o Te Mātāwai me ngā hua katoa o tēnei pire. Kai konei mātau, e aro haehae ana i ngā nekehanga o tēnei Kāwanatanga mehemea, ka tutuki pai ngā moemoeā me ngā hiahia o Te Iwi Māori mō Te Reo te take.

Hai whakakapi ake, ka hoki atu ahau ki tērā kōrero mō ngā whāinga matua o tēnei pire. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā whare tupuna ka tū ki runga i ngā marae puta noa, ko reira ngā maihi o ngā whare. Nā, kua kōrero mai te pire nei, ko te maihi Māori, ko te maihi Kāwanatanga, i a au e mātakitaki atu ana ki ngā whare e noho wahangū ki runga i te motu whānui, ka whakaaro ake ka pēhea wēnei maihi e kōrero? Mā te tangata ngā maihi e kōrero, kāti, ka waiho anake tēnā whakaaro hei whakaaroaro mā tātau katoa ki roto i te roanga o tō mātau totohe i te pō nei. Ka rongo koe i ngā kōrero a ōku hoa mahi, kāti, huri tua atu ki a tātou katoa, e Te Minita, e Te Māngai o Te Whare; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Let the breath of life come from the dawn to the world of the light; behold the breath of life. I pay homage to our creator, who gave us the Māori language; he carefully nurtured the language over the years and he will assist in its maintenance in the years to come. I support the words and lamentations expressed for the deceased, including those deceased mentioned in the Minister for Māori Development’s speech.

While I was researching this matter, the Māori Language Bill, I read the various debates that occurred in the House in the 1980s, when the first Māori Language Act was enacted. If the Assistant Speaker approves, I want to read a little excerpt that I found in those debates of the 1980s. According to a member called Mervyn Wellington: “… I suspect merely respond to the demands of the radical intellectuals, having identified the fact that it is the young university trained radicals coming out of the hands of Ranginui Walker.” Enough, I grieve for that genius of ours who has vanished into the night. Minister, you mentioned my father and his inclinations; alas, I still grieve for him, and, indeed, so do the people of Northland. May all the deceased abide with the deceased; sleep and rest in peace.

I support the acknowledgments from all around the country directed to the Minister for his passion for our Maori language. He continued with the Māori Language Bill left by Sir Pita Sharples in his portfolio. So I want to thank him and all of his officials, who expended a lot of effort for the language. I want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee and the chairman who is in the House at this moment. I salute you, Tūtehounuku, and all the members of the select committee. I support all the parties who embraced this matter from the time of the first reading until now. The Minister has spoken of the Māori Language Advisory Group. He mentioned in his contribution that some were present in the House; I acknowledge them.

I want to pay tribute to another group that supports this matter, and that is the Paepae Motuhake, for its great efforts in meeting with the Māori people; indeed, with people from all around the country. I congratulate it. I want to acknowledge the words of the Minister when he said that the seeds of this bill were planted by that esteemed leader of ours, Sir Pita Sharples. It was his desire to return the responsibility for the life force and authority of the language to the tribes, to the families, and back to the arena of the marae. For the duration of this debate, we will be examining if indeed this will come about. We will still examine throughout the duration of this bill and its aims the question of whether the will of the previous Minister, Sir Peter Sharples, will be realised. So I thank him for his great idea.

The Labour Party has supported the Māori language for a long time now. I have talked about my research on the discussions and debates that took place in the 1980s. I am reminded of that other genius of ours, the Hon Koro Wētere, and his perseverance in bringing the Māori language to the attention of this House. I am also reminded of the establishment of Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Maori at that time, and the enactment of legislation that made our language the official language of this country. Therefore, we are supporting this bill. The Labour Party supports this bill.

Throughout the period of my speech and from the comments of my work colleagues, you would have realised that we have questions. You would have heard some concerns and some complaints. It is not as though it is an insurmountable mountain for us; indeed not. However, I would say to you, Minister, and to us in the House, that these are the thoughts of the Māori people that I hear; indeed, what we all hear in our work.

Therefore, I return to the bill. I turn to this bill and acknowledge an important aspect, which is that this bill will be given effect to in the Māori language and the English language. Yes, indeed, I want to thank the Māori translators who translated the English version. When I read the Māori version of the bill, I needed to have my dictionary alongside me. What a beautiful language we have. I want to acknowledge the Minister and his tenacity in listening to the people, and their commentary on this matter over the years past.

I have for some time now wondered, where does the language feature in terms of those who live in the cities? Where is the language for the majority of Māori who live in my electorate of Auckland? The Minister has heard, and I am pleased. I am satisfied that the urban dwellers will have a position on the board of Te Mātāwai. So I acknowledge that point. I want to also acknowledge the great thought of my father and my elder cousin, Pita Paraone, who is present here. We, the Māori people, indeed the whole country, retain the Māori Language Commission, so that we do not sever those connections that deliver and care for our Māori language and all related aspects. So I acknowledge that very important gesture, Minister.

Other points that came out of our discussions on this matter, and we have been saying this for some time now—why throw a Pākehā cloak over a Māori treasure to run it? The desire and primary goal of Sir Pita Sharples during his research was to return the mandate to the tribes, families, and sub-tribes. Its well-being is there! Therefore, why have another branch to lead and look after our Māori language? That is what “a Pākehā cloak over a Māori treasure” is on about. Furthermore, we question the situation concerning Te Mātāwai, which states that this minority group will administer and be responsible for the language of the multitude.

When the Māori Affairs Committee was convened to listen to the submissions in regard to the bill, there was a poignant remark made—and I must say it emanated from Ngāti Hine. It was made by Te Waihoroi, and he said that we all know about the cows that are on the Māori language farm at this very moment, and we know why those cows are on the farm. Is there a need for more? Where are the cows that are willing to enter the farm and impart our Māori language, and take it into the future? Well! One of the names of those cows is the Ministry of Education, and those cows are all Government departments that have been suppressing our language for a long time now. Anyway this was a contribution that was taken on board in our deliberation on the issues of the Māori language.

Another point that we are all aware of is what is the main goal? We know what the previous Minister, Sir Pita Sharples, desired for the Māori language, but in the bill it is left for us to take advice on and to seek. There is no problem with that. We all know there will be three generations before we will see what the benefits are. Therefore, I think that we are still trying to ascertain what the main aim is for us in taking our language into the future.

On another matter regarding Part 1 of the bill, where it mentions the review of this bill: at the end of 3 years the work of Te Mātāwai will be reviewed, along with all the other outcomes of this bill. We empathise with the undertakings of this Government and hope that the wishes of the Māori people in regard to the language are realised.

In conclusion, I go back to that comment about the main goals of this bill. I think of all the ancestral houses that stand on all the marae around the country. That is where you will find the maihi of the ancestral houses. Now this bill makes reference to the Maihi Māori and the Maihi Government, and I reflect on all the ancestral houses that are sitting in silence around the country. I wonder how these maihi will speak; humans are required to make them talk. Anyway, I will leave that thought for all of us to consider over the course of further debate this afternoon, when you will hear from my colleagues; so enough from me. I turn now to face us all, Minister and Mr Assistant Speaker; greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you and to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): E mihi atu ki koe e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, tēnei te mihi o te mema o Te Whare Paremata, e huri noa i Te Whare me mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. He hōnore tēnei mōkū ki te tū ki konei hei Heamana o Te Komiti mō ngā Take Māori, he tūraka kua noho au ina tekau mā ono mārama kua hipa. I roto i te wā kua wānaka tā mātou komiti i ētahi pire, he nui tonu. Ki a mātou, he mea nui rāwa atu ngā pire whakatau kerēme, Tiriti. He whakatikatika i ngā mahi o mua, hei awhina ki te whakatipu i te ōhaka o Te Iwi Māori. E whakapono ai au ko tēnei te pire nui rawa atu kua wānaka mātou. Mā tēnei hanganga ture ka rerekē ngā kawenga mō te ora o Te Reo Māori. Kia tae ki te pānui tuatoru o te pire, ka kōrero whānui au mō ngā painga, hoia, i te rā nei, ko taku hiahia kia kōrero mō ngā āhuataka o te pire, me te huarahi i whāia kia tae ai tātou ki tēnei pānuitaka tuarua.

Ko tētahi tirohaka o te pire nei, he mea auaha i te wā o Tā Pita Sharples. Nāna hoki i mau mai ki Te Whare i te rā i puta tana kauhau mutuka. I taku kuhunga mai ki Te Pāremata, ka eke hei heamana o Te Komiti mō ngā Take Māori, kite tonu au i te nui o te mahi nei me te mea kia tika tonu. Kua rongo ki ngā tohetohe nei mēnā ko te pire nei te huarahi tika, kāore rānei. Ahakoa he aha te kaupapa, ka tohea tonutia te huarahi tika hei whāingahia, ko te mea ki ahau kia whānui, kia hōhonu ngā whiriwhiringa i te pire nei.

I te hui tuatahi ake o Te Komiti mō Ngā Take Māori o tēnei Te Pāremata e rima tekau mā tahi, ka puta tā mātou pānui kia tukua mai he kōrero tāpaetaka. Ka tono āwhina mātou i Te Puni Kōkiri mō ngā tono i whiwhi rātou me ngā whitiwhitinga kōrero i tū. Waihoki, ka hoki Te Minita mō ngā Take Māori ki te titiro anō i te pire nei. I te mārama o Tīhema i tērā tau ka whakatū e ia Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i Te Reo Māori. Ko te mahi a tēnei rōpū he whakatakoto whakaaro motuhake mō te pire, me ngā rerekētaka ka taka mai. I noho motuhake Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i Te Reo Māori i ngā mahi a te komiti. Hoia, i puritia e mātou ā mātou whiriwhiringa mō te pire kia mutu rā anō ngā mahi a Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri. Nō te mārama o Hune i tērā tau, ka tae mai te pūrongo a Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri ki te aroaro o Te Minita, ā, nō te mārama o Oketopa ka whakaaetia ngā panonitaka e Te Rūnanga Kāwanataka. I wānaka, i tautoko te komiti i ēnei panonitaka.

E whai iho nei ko ngā whakarerekētaka matua: tuatahi, kua takoto ki te pire he kōrero i Te Reo Māori o ngā kōrero Ingarihi. He mea tino nui rawa atu tēnei, kotahi anake te pire kua takoto katoa ngā kōrero i Te Reo Māori me Te Reo Ingarihi, hoia, ko tēnei te wā tuatahi me te pire tuatahi, ka noho rite te kaha o tēnā reo, me tēnā reo. Ki te tohea te tikanga o waenganui i te tuhinga ā-Reo Māori me te tuhinga ā-reo Ingarihi, ka arongia ko te tuhinga Reo Māori. Tuarua, tērā tētahi atu whakarerekētaki nui, ko te whiti e mea ai he taoka Te Reo Māori o ngā iwi me Te Māori, ko te reo taketake ia o Aotearoa, he mea nui rawa ki tēnei whenua. Tuatoru, i te tuhinga tuatahitaka o Te Ture, e mea ana kia tangohia Te Taura Whiri me Te Mangai Pāho tā rāua tūraka hei hinonga Karauna, kia noho mai hei hinonga ā-ture noa iho. Ka tūtohu mātou kia kuhuna he panonitaka ki te pupuri i te tūraka o ēnei hinonga, hei hinonga Karauna. Mā tēnei ka noho tonu rāua i raro i Te Ture mō Ngā Pūtea Tūmatanui. Ko ngā mahi me ngā whakapaunga putea, ka noho tonu i raro i Te Pāremata.

Tuawhā, ko tētahi atu mea kua tūtohu mātou kia panonitia, ki ahau, he mea nui tēnei, ko te whakatū kia rua ngā rautaki mō Te Reo Māori. Ka noho a Maihi Karauna ki raro i ngā kawenga o Te Karauna, ko tāna he titiro ki ngā kaupapa ā-motu. He kōrero nui tēnei kei roto i te pire. E ai ki ētahi, mā tēnei e whakakapi te whāwhārua i te tuhinga tuatahi o te pire, arā, kei Te Karauna te kawenga kia whakatairangatia, kia tiakina Te Reo Māori. Ko tērā atu o ngā rautaki kīia ai ko Maihi Māori. Kei Te Mātāwai ōna kawenga mō ngā iwi Māori me Te Maori. Ka noho ēnei rautaki e rua hei whakaatu atu, he mea nui kia rite, kia tika te pire ki ngā taha katoa. Ka whakahokia e te pire te tūraka o Te Māori hei kaitiaki o te taoka kamehameha.

Hāunga tērā, he mea nui tonu kia kaua te pire e unu i te kawenga o Te Karauna nāna nei Te Tiriti i waitohu, ki te tiaki me te hāpai i Te Reo. Whakapono au nā runga i ngā whakahounga, ka noho te pire ki te wāhi tika e rite ai ēnei whainga nui e rua. Kei te whakapūmautia te kawenga o Te Karauna mā tētahi whakahounga ki te kaupapa a Te Mātāwai te wāhi e mea ai, “Te Minita mō ngā Take Māori” ka hurihia ki “Ngā Minita o Te Karauna.” Mā tēnei e whakaatu atu, ēhara i te mea, ka noho ngā kawenga o Te Karauna ki runga i ngā pakihiwi o Te Minita kotahi ēngari, kei runga i Te Kāwanatanga katoa.

Tērā anō whakahounga kei pōhēhē ētahi he mea iti noa, hoia, ki ahau he mea nui te kake ake i te tokomaha kei runga i Te Mātāwai atu i te tekau mā rua ki te tekau mā toru. Nā te tapiritanga o tētahi māngai mō te hunga Māori i ngā tāone, ka piki te rahi ki te tekau mā toru. Ahakoa te nuinga o ngā tākata o Te Mātāwai kei reira hei kanohi mō ngā iwi, me aro tonu tātou ki te nui o tātou tae rawa ki te hunga rakatahi, kei te noho ki ngā tāone. He nui rātou kei te noho tawhiti i ō rātou iwi kua motu rānei te here ki te iwi. Ahakoa tērā, kia whai wāhi tonu rātou hei kaitiaki o Te Reo Māori.

Me kī, ko ngā reo o te rakatahi nui rawa atu i roto i tēnei mahi. E kore pea, e nui ngā rerekētaka i roto i te wā poto. Ēngari, ki te tika tēnei mahi, ko ā tātou tamariki ka whiwhi i tētahi reo ora, reo kaha, reo kōrerotia. E mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[This member of the House acknowledges you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and all of you throughout the House. It is an honour for me to stand here as chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, a position I have held for the past 16 months, during which time our committee has considered some very important bills. Treaty of Waitangi settlement bills are of great importance to us, as they address past grievances and assist the economic growth of Māoridom. I believe this to be perhaps the most significant bill we have considered. This new legislation will alter responsibilities in regard to Māori language revitalisation. When it reaches its third reading, I will elaborate on the benefits. Suffice to say, today I will simply discuss aspects of the bill and the process we followed to bring it to second reading stage.

One perspective is that the bill was created during the time Sir Pita Sharples was here, and he introduced it on the day he gave his valedictory speech. When I entered Parliament and was elected as chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, it was obvious to me that this was a big piece of work and we had to get it right. There was already dissent about whether the approach was right or not. Regardless of what approach would be followed it would be debated, so it was apparent to me the consultation on this bill would have to be wide and comprehensive.

At the very first meeting of the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament we called for submissions. We sought advice from Te Puni Kōkiri on the submissions it had received and the consultation it had undertaken. In addition, the Minister for Māori Development decided to take another look at this bill. In December that year he established the Māori Language Advisory Group. The purpose of this group was to provide independent advice on the bill and on any changes that emerged. The Māori Language Advisory Group work was independent of the work carried out by the committee. However, we did put our consideration of the bill on hold until the advisory group had completed its activities. In June 2015 the advisory group reported back to the Minister, and in October the changes were approved by Cabinet. After careful consideration the committee also supported the changes.

The key changes are as follows. Firstly, a Te Reo translation of the English has been inserted in the bill. This is very significant, as there has been only one other bill where the text is in both Māori and English; however, this is the first bill where both languages are of equal validity. If the meaning between the Māori and English is contested, it is the Māori version that will take precedence. Secondly, another significant change is the line that refers to the Māori language as being a treasure of Māori tribes and of Maoridom; it is the indigenous language of New Zealand and valued by the nation. Thirdly, in the first draft of the bill it stated that the Māori Language Commission and the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency would lose their status as Crown entities to become statutory entities only. We recommended that the entities retain their status as Crown entities and, in so doing, remain under the Public Finance Act, where their activities and expenditure would remain under the Crown.

Fourthly, another thing we recommended, and which I believe is significant, was the establishment of two Te Reo Māori strategies. The Maihi Karauna—Crown Strategy—will remain the responsibility of the Crown and focus on national-level issues. This is prominent in the bill, and some say it covers the gaps in the first draft of the bill in terms of the Crown being responsible for promoting and protecting the Māori language. The other strategy is referred to as the Maihi Māori, which will be the responsibility of Te Mātāwai on behalf of Māori tribes and Māoridom. These dual strategies represent the important balancing act that is required in this bill. The bill reiterates the role of Māori as guardian of the great treasure.

That aside, it is important that the bill does not allow the Crown to relinquish its responsibility as one who signed the Treaty to protect and promote the Māori language. The responsibility of the Crown is reinforced in an amendment to the purpose of Te Mātāwai, where “the Minister of Māori Affairs” is replaced by “Ministers of the Crown”. This ensures that the Crown responsibilities are not left on the shoulders of one Minister alone, but on all of the Government.

One further amendment, which some may consider minor, but to me is quite significant, is to bump up the membership of Te Mātāwai from 12 to 13. This change results from the addition of a representative for urban Māori. Although most of Te Mātāwai membership will represent traditional tribal groupings, credence still needs to be afforded to the broader urban and youth population, many of whom are displaced from traditional tribal regions and populations. Despite this, they still have a stake as guardians of the Māori language.

It could be said that the voice of the youth is perhaps the most important throughout this process. Dramatic changes are not expected overnight; however, if done correctly, our children will inherit a thriving, strong, spoken language. I acknowledge you all.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ko te wā kai tēnei; ka hoki mai ā te 7.30 p.m.

[This is the dinner break; we will come back at 7.30 p.m.]

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

NUK KORAKO: He roa te wā kia hoki mai te pire nei ki Te Whare, heoi, ka whakapono au ka hoki mai he pire pakari, ko te mutuka iho ka hua anō, he rua pakari. Ka whaiwhaitia e au tēnei pire ki te aroaro o Te Whare. Nō reira, e koutou mā, he mihi, he mihi, he mihi atu ki a koutou. Kia ora.

[This bill has taken a long time to come back to the House, but I believe it comes back a robust one and, at the end of it all, a fruitful one too and sturdier twice-over. I will follow this bill that is before the House. So to you at large, I acknowledge, commend, and applaud you collectively. Thank you.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā tātou katoa, tuatahi e tāpiri ana i aku whakaaro ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, rātou nō te kāinga, tēnei ka tukuna aku mihi maioha: ki a pāpā Matua Dick Rākena nō Ngāti Tamaterā, ki tērā rangatira rongonui o Te Whakatōhea, a Ranginui Walker. Tērā kuia o tō mātou nei rangatira nō Waikato a Vivien Tapa, nō Ngāti Korokī, arā, ki a koe Tāhuna, ko koe tētehi o ngā māia hoki, ngā toa kei waenganui i a Ngāti Kīato, e moe, e moe!

E tū ana ki te whakatakoto i ētehi o ngā whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei pire, ki tēnei wāhanga o te pire. E tika ana, e tautoko ana a Reipa i tēnei wāhanga me ngā momo kōrero kua puta mai i mua i te aroaro o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri. Mēnā ka whakarāpopotohia ētehi o ngā whakaaro, ka penei te whakaputa atu. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe Minita. I whāia e koe te rori pikopiko, nau i whakatinanahia tērā rotarota, a Robert Frost. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe nā te mea, i te tīmatatanga o tēnei wāhanga, ka whakaaro ake te komiti me waiho. I tukuna te pire tuatahi kia mutu taua wāhanga, ā, tīmata anō koe ēngari, nā runga i tō hiahia ki te whakapūmau, ki te whakaū ki tērā hiahia o tō rangatira a Tā Pita, ka haere tonu tēnei mahi, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke, ahakoa te roa rawa o ngā āhuatanga ki tēnei pire. Heoi anō, he wāhanga anō mō te komiti hei āta wānanga i ngā nawe i puta mai i mua i tō mātou aroaro, me te wawāhi i ngā kōrero kia āta whakaarohia, ka pēwhea, ka pēwhea, anā, kua kite koe i ētehi o ngā whakaaro o te komiti. Kua kite mātou ētehi o ngā whakaaro kua whakahokia mai e tō komiti motuhake ki waenganui i a mātou, ā, ka pai! Kua titiro ake ki te painga o tērā mahi, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe. Ko ēnei take, kāre ano i tutuki pai i tā mātou komiti.

I whakaaro mātou, nā runga i te ngākau nui ki Te Reo Māori, me kuhu tētehi wāhanga hei whakapāha atu a Te Karauna ki Te Iwi Māori mō ā rātou ture patu i tō tātou Reo Māori. Ahakoa i wānangahia tērā, kāre i whai wāhi ki te whakatinana i tērā o ngā hiahia. Nō reira, kāre i uru mai tētehi whakapāha mō tērā tūāhuatanga. Ko tētehi anō e pā ana ki ngā mahi a Te Taura Whiri me Te Māngai Pāho. Kua tae mai ētehi me ō rātou nei whakaaro me tū motuhake tonu aua tari, me ā rātou nei mahi hei noho whakaruruhau ki te hāpai i ngā āhuatanga o Te Rautaki Reo Māori. Kei te pai, kua kite i tērā!

E pā ana ki ngā maihi. Kua whai whakaaro mātou ki tēnei tūāhuatanga mēnā ka tū Te Maihi Karauna me Te Maihi Māori ki te taha, me kī, ki te whakaatū atu ki Te Karauna me ngā iwi, anei ngā pou o Te Whare, ka pēwhea te whakatinanahia? Kei roto i tēnei pire ētehi o ngā wāhanga hei tuitui i ēnei rautaki kia whakatīnanahia tēnei tūāhuatanga mō Te Mātāwai. Ū, kua tae mai ētehi o ngā tāngata nō te tāone me ō rātou nei hiahia, me whakawāwāhitia tētēhi tūranga mō rātou, nā, kua tutuki tērā wāhanga. Koinā ētehi o ngā whakarāpopoto mō ngā tīnihanga hei whakamanatia, me kī, ngā nawe i haria mai i mua i te aroaro o te komiti. Ka tika, me kōrero atu ki tērā!

Ki roto i a au, mēnā, kei roto i tō whatumanawa Te Reo o ō mātua tūpuna, kei reira te tīmatanga o tō tātou nei Reo Māori kia ora ai. Ahakoa ka whakaturengia tēnei pire, ko te tino whakatinanahia o tēnei wawata o ō tātou nei mātua tūpuna, kei waenganui i te whānau, kei waenganui i tō iwi hei hāpai i tērā tūāhuatanga mō ngā whakatupuranga. Nō reira, i tēnei wā ka nui te mihi atu ki ērā momo, a Te Rangihau, arā, a Heikōkō Mataira, a Ngāhina Teuira, me Mīria Simpson ērā tangata e kaha ana i ō rātou wā i waenganui i ngā whare wānanga, ki te kawe i ngā kaupapa pēnei ki mua i te aroaro o ngā tāngata ahakoa ko wai, ahakoa nō whea. Kia kore ai au e noho tonu ki roto i Te Reo Māori ki te whakawhānui ake i ēnei kōrero ki te nuinga, ka huri au ki te reo Pākehā.

[Greetings, everyone, but first of all I add my thoughts and tributes to those from back home who have departed: to the father figure Uncle Dick Rākena of Ngāti Tamaterā, and that widely acclaimed academic from Te Whakatōhea, Ranginui Walker. To this matriarch of ours from Waikato Vivien Tapa of Ngāti Korokī, and indeed to you, Tāhuna, one of the capable and bold ones amongst Ngāti Kīato, rest, sleep.

I rise to express some views that relate to this bill. It is fitting that Labour endorse this part and the various thoughts that have been put before the Māori Affairs Committee, which considered this bill. If these views were summarised, this is how they would be expressed. I commend you highly, the Minister for Māori Development. You chose a path that meandered this way and that but, in doing so, brought the world of Robert Frost to life. I really commend you because at the start of this process the committee had considered abandoning it, but because of your commitment to ensure that the goal set by your former leader, Sir Pita, was fulfilled, this process continued despite the ups and downs, and regardless of the lengthy delays in regard to circumstances that concerned this bill. Nevertheless, there was a part that came before the committee that had to be considered, analysed, and examined by the committee until a way forward was found. You have seen some of the conclusions the committee arrived at. We have seen some of the views expressed by your advisory group that it sent back for our consideration, and that is fine. We have looked at the positives that came out of that collaboration and acknowledge your high input into those benefits, Minister. Some of these issues have yet to be resolved by our committee.

Because of the enthusiastic attitude towards the Māori language, we considered that an apology from the Crown to Māoridom should be inserted because of the detrimental effect that its laws had on our Māori language. Despite the debate over it, that one of our wishes was not implemented. Another issue concerned the roles of the Māori Language Commission and the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency. Some came with their views that the independent roles of these agencies should remain so that they can continue to foster and support aspects of the Māori Language Strategy. That is fine; we have seen that.

Now, in terms of the maihi. We have considered this situation: if the Crown and Māoridom maihi are placed on the side, let us say to demonstrate to the Crown and Māoridom that here are the pillars of the house, how will it be implemented? Contained in this bill are some sections that can be drawn together to manifest these strategies as far as Te Mātāwai is concerned. And so some people representing the interests of urban-based groups have arrived with their hopes that a position be brokered for them. This has been done. These are some of the summarised modifications, shall we say, to be mandated in terms of the grievances that were brought before the committee, and which rightfully need to be addressed.

In my personal view, if you have the language of your ancestors in your heart, that is where the revitalisation of our language will begin from. Even if this bill is mandated, the manifestation of these aspirations of our ancestors is really within the family and the support of the tribe for future generations. Appropriately, at this time, I too would like to acknowledge the likes of Te Rangihau, Heikōkō Mataira, Ngāhina Teuira, and Mīria Simpson, who worked tirelessly in the universities to bring policies like these to the attention of all people, regardless of who they were and where they were from. In order that I do not remain speaking only in Māori, I do wish to elaborate on these statements to the wider audience in English.]

This Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill is an opportunity for us to, I think, ensure that its aims and intents reflect the highest aspirations of what we would like to see for this country, and that is that Te Reo Māori is the flourishing language for every New Zealander. It is by no coincidence that just this morning we had two young women come before our Māori Affairs Committee with their aspiration to have a national day of significance—Māori and Pākehā coming together. We asked the question: in 20 years’ time, if we were to have a day such as this commemorated, what would New Zealand look like? Two words—proud, united. As well, Te Reo Māori is one of those types of issues that can ensure that every New Zealander is proud about where we come from and the place of our language in this country.

Many changes were made to the bill. As I said previously, we did try to encourage the Minister to actually dismiss the bill and start again—to give himself free rein, so to speak. But the Minister was absolutely sure that notwithstanding the challenges of the imperfect bill that was tabled in this House, he wanted to maintain the essence of what was trying to be achieved, which is a new way forward for upholding our ambition to see Te Reo Māori as a language that all New Zealanders can draw from, draw strength from, and draw identity from but also uphold in a way that reflects the type of country that we are. It was not easy. It was not easy because there were a number of craggy issues, and I have outlined some of them. In the Committee stage, we will probably highlight in more detail some of those aspects, but can I say that in terms of the substance of the changes, they give us, as the Māori Affairs Committee, enough confidence to believe it is a starting place. It is by no means a finishing place.

My colleague Peeni Henare identified that the review will be very significant because this is a new way forward. It is the first significant piece of legislation that will be written in Te Reo Māori, and the status of Te Reo Māori within our legislative system will be elevated. It will be an opportunity for the Crown to think in a very uniform way about how it upholds its obligations to have targets and achieve some more uniform ways to embrace Te Reo Māori.

More fundamentally than that, it is an opportunity for New Zealand to consider its ongoing commitment to the indigenous language of this country. With that, I still regret that the committee was not in a position to be able to come up with the type of apology that the Crown could make on Parliament’s behalf for the systemic destruction of our identity through the loss of language, through the institutionalisation of the Native Schools Act, and through English being the only language heard. All of us can tell a story about our grandparents being beaten for speaking Māori, but I tell you what, it did not beat it out of their hearts that they had to uphold their language. It is with regret that we could not do that as a very important gesture to show that we have moved on, that this country is moving on, and that Te Reo Māori should be a language that is normalised in the lexicon of every New Zealander, no matter where they come from to stay here. This is a language that belongs to everybody. Nō reira, ki a tātou katoa, tēnā tātou. [And so, thank you to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. I stand proud to take a short call on the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill, in its second reading, sponsored by the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. I want to acknowledge, before I start my contribution, the late rangatira and Māori Language Commissioner Ērima Hēnare for his leadership and his contribution to the health and growth of the Māori language in our country. Moe mai, moe mai, e te rangatira [rest and sleep, esteemed one.]

I also want to acknowledge the former Minister for Māori Affairs Tā Dr Pita Sharples for the work that he began and for leaving so much of the hard yakka, really, to our Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who has done, I think, a fabulous job and a challenging job.

I want to take a brief walk down memory lane a little bit, mainly because we must not forget the hard work that has taken place to get us here today. I want to talk a little bit about my father, because my father was a fluent Te Reo Māori speaker. He hailed from Te Araroa on the East Coast and, as the Hon Nanaia Mahuta explained towards the end of her contribution, he was one of those kids in the 1930s and 1940s who got whacked for speaking Māori at school. He brought us up in a little place called Rangiwāhia and did not encourage us, his children, to speak Te Reo Māori at all. At times when we went to our school, which was predominantly Pākehā, the only Māori that we got was Māori Day, where we got to sing a few Māori songs. So as we grew up as adults he was not surprised that his children pursued the learning of Te Reo Māori. There are four of us in our family. Two speak Māori fluently and two do not.

I want to note some dates in my contribution. As I was preparing myself for this very important contribution tonight, I took a little bit of a look down at whereabouts we have come from. I started with 1980 when Television New Zealand opened up, for the first time in broadcasting history, a Māori production unit. It was a very good start, and 2 years later, in 1982, the first kōhanga reo was set up, and now we have over 450 kōhanga reo. But that came because in 1930, 90 percent of our Māori children—tamariki—spoke Māori, but by 1975 it was only 9 percent who spoke Māori.

At that time, there was a strong view that perhaps our Reo was dying. We all know that the power behind indigenous peoples is our Reo. It is the basis of where we come from. It is our heart.

Then, following on from the kōhanga reo movement, was the first kura kaupapa Māori, at Hoani Waititi Marae. It was interesting that our former Minister Dr Pita Sharples was the one who set that up, and from then many kura have blossomed. By 1987 Te Reo Māori had become an official language of New Zealand, and then, 3 years after that, we had the very first Māori radio station, which was established in Pōneke here, called Te Upoko o Te Ika. That was run by Piripi Walker and Tama Te Huki.

I am saying all these things because I think that in order for us to go forward and in order for New Zealand to go forward in acknowledging Te Reo Māori and participating in our language, we have to know where we have come from. We have to know where we have come from before we know where we are going to. In 1989 we saw the emergence of Te Māngai Pāho through the Broadcasting Act, and in 2004 Māori Television went to air.

Carmel Sepuloni: All these good things under Labour. Kia ora, Labour.

JOANNE HAYES: They are good things. It does not matter who did them—they are good things. In 2006 a survey of the health of Te Reo Māori was conducted, and we realised that more needed to be done. We might have moved from the 9 percent, but we had not moved far enough. By 2013, 19 percent of New Zealanders spoke Te Reo Māori, so it is no wonder that action is needed today, and action needs to be taken fairly quickly to be able to reverse that percentage.

My speech is a short speech. It has focused on the past and on my personal perspective. There is a lot of progress that has been made and there is a lot more to go. This bill repeals the Māori Language Act and also repeals Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act. Importantly, it establishes the entity Te Mātāwai, which has had a lot of discussion out amongst iwi in terms of how it is going to move forward. But the bill also gives to iwi and Māori organisations a pivotal role in shaping the revitalisation of Te Reo Māori in this country, and it is right that iwi and Māori should be at the centre of this and not the Government.

I believe that it is not how fluent one is in Te Reo Māori but how often we speak it, whether it is in total immersion or intermittently with English, because as confidence grows, the more you speak it—and that is exactly my story. In closing, I commend the bill to the House. I strongly encourage all people of Aotearoa, where possible, to have a go. We should be speaking it, singing it, praying it, and playing it because that is the only way. We can have every bill this side of the black stump, but unless we actually do it, we will get nowhere and it will go. I know that from this bill and forward, it will happen. E Te Mana Whakawā, ka mutu tāku kōrero. Kia ora.

[My address ends, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai, huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatahi, rawe te whakarongo atu, rawe te kite atu i a mātou ngā kaitōrangapū ahakoa te pātī, e kōrero ana i tēnei Whare, e aroha ana i tō tātou nei Reo. Kikī ana te ngākau me te aroha mai ō tātou katoa o tēnei Whare Pāremata, me tō tātou aroha mō tō tātou Reo Māori ahakoa nō wai, ahakoa nō hea. Nō reira, tuatahi e Te Māngai, pirangi au ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei. Āna te hōnore nui māku ki te tū ki roto i tēnei Whare, tautoko ai i tō tātou Reo Rangatira.

Ka pōti whakaae ana Te Rōpū Kākāriki i Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori, ahakoa ki a mātou he mea paku raru tonu ki roto i te pire; ka pōti whakaae ana mātou. [Interruption] Āe, āe. Ka haere tonu te kōrero me te mahi ki te whakakaha i te pire nei, ki te pupuri ki ngā moemoeā mō Te Reo. He rā whakahirahira tēnei mō tātou Te Iwi Māori, mō Te Reo hoki, nō reira, ahakoa taku wiriwiri, taku werawera kua maringihia, ka tū au ki te kōrero i roto i Te Reo mō te katoa o tōku kōrero mō tēnei pō, hei māngai mō te Ropū Kakāriki i roto i tēnei, te pānuitanga tuarua o te pire nei. Kia ora.

Mārama te kite atu i te wero Reo kei mua i a tātou katoa. Te maha hoki o ngā tāngata pēnei ki a au, ngā tāngata ihu hūpē tonu ki ngā take Reo Māori. Kāore ano mātou kia tino whiwhi. He wero tāku, tā mātou ki te patu i tērā whakamā. Nō reira, tēnā hoki koutou katoa ngā tohunga Reo mō te awhi mai. Ko tērā te tino kaupapa o Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori nei. He pire tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā wawata o tātou Te Māori.

E tika ana ka mau Te Kāwanatanga ki ētahi o te mahi whakakaha i Te Reo i te mea, nā Te Karauna te hē tuatahi. Heoi, he tika hoki te whakahirahiratanga o tātou Te Iwi Māori e ārahi ana i tēnei mahi. Me noho rangapū ana Te Karauna ki Te Iwi Māori hei whakamana i tō tātou Reo me Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Hoki aku mahara ki ngā kōrero nō tōku kuia. Nō Te Rarawa ia. Ko Patricia Broughton, née Hansey, tōna ingoa. Nā te patu o Te Kura Māori, arā, ngā native schools, tōna whakamā ki te kōrero i Te Reo ki āna tamariki. Pēnā tērā ki a mātou, nē? Nā rātou ngā kura, tōna mana i tūkino, nā ngā ture kino i takahi tō tātou Reo Rangatira, nō reira, kua ngaro Te Reo i aku mātua, i tērā whakatupuranga katoa. Āna, e tika ana mā Te Karauna e tautoko te whakatikatika.

Ki a mātou nei, he mea pū raruraru i roto i te pire ēngari, he maha hoki ngā whakarerekē anō i te pānuitanga tuatahi kua whakakaha i te pire. He pai te kākune o te pire nei kia whakatika ai i ngā mana whakahaere o ngā rautaki whakaora i Te Reo me te whakawhiti i ētahi o ngā mana whakahaere ki a ngāi Māori me ngā hapori. [Interruption] Āe.

I muri i te panuitanga tuatahi, i whakatūria Te Rōpū Tohutohu Reo Māori e Te Minita. Tēnā koe, e Te Minita. Kua kōwhiri ētahi tohunga Reo o Te Motu mō tērā rōpū, arā, a Ahorangi Rāwinia Higgins, rātou ko Tākuta Ruakere Hond, ko Tākuta Wharehuia Milroy, ko Charisma Rangihuna, ko Charlie Te Pana hoki. E whai kupu ana rātou i ētahi rerekētanga nuinga kia whakakaha ai i te pire. E whakaae ana mātou Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, no reira, i uru atu ērā rerekētanga ki roto i te pire, tēnā hoki rātou.

Ko tētahi o ngā tino rerekētanga, ka whakatū te pire i ngā rautaki Reo Māori e rua, ko Te Maihi Karauna me Te Maihi Māori. Ko te hiahia o Te Maihi Karauna, kia noho haepapa ai mō Te Karauna me te whakahāngai i tōna arotahi ki ngā take ā-motu. Ā, ko te hiahia o Te Maihi Māori, ka noho nei te haepapa ki Te Mātāwai mō te taha ki te iwi, mō ngāi Māori ki te whakahāngai i tōna arotahi ki runga i ngā take iwi, take hāpori hoki. Ki a mātou nei, he pai hoki kia noho tonu a Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori me Te Māngai Pāho hei rōpū motuhake o Te Karauna. He tino pai ēnei āhuatanga e rua ki ahau, kia whakatūturu ai me kore Te Kāwanatanga e whakataka ana i a rātou takohanga ki Te Reo hei taonga o te whenua. He take Te Tiriti o Waitangi tērā.

Ko tētahi o ngā tūraruraru i roto tonu i te pire, ko te mahi ngātahi o Te Mātāwai ki ngā whānau, ngā hapū me ngā iwi pīpī. Nō reira, me arotake tātou i ngā piki me ngā heke o Te Mātāwai e pā ana ki tēnei āhuatanga. Ko ētahi atu mea, ko te putea moni mō Te Mātāwai, me te mahi kōwhiri i ngā mema mō Te Mātāwai. Me arotake tātou i ērā mea hoki. Ko tōku nei hiahia, kia mahi ngātahi ai ngā mema o tēnei Whare ā ngā pānuitanga kei te haere mai, kia whakakaha anō te pire, pērā i te tuhi i tētahi rārangi arotake.

Kāre tēnei pire i te tino whakataunga mō te whakaoratanga o tō tātou Reo Māori—e mōhio ana tātou katoa i tērā, āe. Ka mate, ka ora Te Reo i roto i te kāinga, arā, ngā whānau me ngā hapori o Te Motu. E tika ana te kōrero a tā Royal Tangaere, ko te kāinga te ūkaipō o Te Reo, āe, ko te kāinga te ūkaipō o Te Reo. Nō reira, me tino tautoko tātou i ngā mahi hapori, me whakaako ngā kura katoa i Te Reo, ki ō rātou tauira, āe. Ēngari, ko te tino painga o tēnei pire, ka whakatū i te anga whakatakoto i te ara, kia whai ai i ēnei mea whakahirahira. Nō reira, ahakoa ngā āwangawanga e pā ana ki ētahi āhuatanga o te pire nei, kua kōrerohia e au, ā, e ētahi hoa mahi hoki, ka tautoko tā mātou o Te Rōpū Kākāriki mō te pānuitanga tuarua nei. [Interruption] Kia ora. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all throughout the House. In the first instance, it is great to listen and to hear us politicians, regardless of party, speaking in this House with passion about our language. The heart is filled with benevolence from all of us in this House of Parliament for our passion for our Māori language, regardless of who it belongs to or where it comes from. So the first thing for me is that I want to speak about this. It is a huge honour for me to stand in this House and endorse our esteemed language.

The Green Party votes in favour of the Māori Language Bill. Even though there is still a minor flaw in the bill, we will vote in favour. [Interruption] Yes, yes indeed. Discussions and work to strengthen this bill will continue to hold on to the dreams about the language. This is a wonderful day for us in Māoridom and for the Māori language as well, therefore despite my nervousness and the perspiration oozing out of me, I stand to deliver my entire address this afternoon in the Māori language as spokesperson for the Green Party in this, the second reading of the bill. Greetings.

The challenge before us all in terms of the language is clear to see. There are a significant number of people also who are like me, and really inexperienced when it comes to Māori language matters. We have not fully grasped it yet. My challenge, our challenge, is to overcome that embarrassment. Therefore, I also commend all the language exponents for embracing us. That is, after all, the real purpose of this Māori Language Bill: to support our Māori aspirations.

It is appropriate that the Government has a role in strengthening the language, because it was the Crown’s fault in the first place. Accordingly, it is apt as well that we as Māori have a prominent role in guiding this work. The Crown must work in partnership with Māoridom to give effect to our language and the Treaty of Waitangi.

My thoughts go back to the conversations of my grandmother. She was from Te Rarawa. Patricia Broughton, née Hansey, was her name. Her embarrassment to speak Māori to her children was the outcome of corporal punishment at State native schools. That is what happened to us, did it not? Schools violated her dignity—they did. Harmful laws walked all over our esteemed language and, as a consequence, my parents and all that generation lost the language. Accordingly, it is only appropriate that the Crown support any restorative action.

To us, specifically, precisely this is a problematic area in the bill but there have also been many changes since the first reading to strengthen it. The intention of this bill is to amend formal responsibilities in regard to revitalisation strategies for the language, and transferring some of those to Māoridom and communities is meritorious. [Interruption] Yes, indeed.

Following the first reading, the Minister for Māori Development established an independent Māori Language Advisory Group. Thank you, Minister. Language experts Professor Rāwinia Higgins, Dr Ruakere Hond, Dr Wharehuia Milroy, Charisma Rangipunga, and Charlie Te Pana make up that group. They made some crucial changes to strengthen the bill. We, the Māori Affairs Committee, concurred and those modifications were inserted into the bill, and for this I acknowledge the contribution of that advisory group as well. One of the significant changes made to the bill was the establishment of two Māori language strategies, one for the Crown, and one for Māoridom: Te Maihi Karauna—Crown strategy—and Te Maihi Māori—Māori strategy. The intention of the Crown strategy is for the Crown to have responsibility for, and focus on, national-level issues. The intention of the strategy for Māori is for the Te Mātāwai entity to have responsibility on behalf of Māori and to focus on issues at both tribal and community levels. We consider the retention of the Māori Language Commission and Te Māngai Pāho as being a good one. These two entities in my view are very good in that they ensure the Government will not deviate from its responsibilities in regard to the language being a treasure, a possession. That is a Treaty of Waitangi matter.

A problematic area in the bill relates to Te Mātāwai working in unison with families, subtribes, and smaller tribes. Therefore we must review the ups and downs that Te Mātāwai might experience in regard to this. Other concerning matters include Te Mātāwai funding and membership selection. We need to review those things as well. My desire is that members of this House work in unison on future readings to strengthen the bill, such as writing up a review agenda.

We are well aware that this bill will not be the panacea for all Māori language restoration—yes, we know that for sure. The language lives or dies in the home: in other words, within families and communities of the nation. Royal Tangaere is right in saying that the real source of sustenance of the language is the home. Indeed, the home is where the language is nurtured. So we must support what communities are doing; all schools must teach Te Reo Māori to their students—yes. But the real plus for this bill is that it establishes an infrastructure which sets down a pathway to these inspirational things. Therefore, notwithstanding the concerns relating to some aspects of this bill that I and some of my colleagues have alluded to, we the Green Party support this second reading. [Interruption] Good luck. Therefore, greetings and acknowledgments to each of you and to all of us throughout the House. Thank you.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, e Te Kaiwhakawā Matua o Te Whare, tēnā tātou ngā mema e noho nei i runga ake i te putanga mai o ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ā, ki te korero: “Tiwha, tiwha i te pō, ka rararau i te pō. I a au i te pō tangotango ka haratautia, takawiri ngā papa o Māui, ka puta te here tangata ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama; ā, tihei wā mauri ora!” E tika ana kia mihi hoki ki tēnā o ngā mate maha kei waenganui i a tātou, o ngā hunga i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi i tērā atu wiki, tae noa ki te rā nei, nā, i whakahuangia ngā ingoa, ko Ranginui Walker tēnā, ko Tāhuna Minhinnick tēnā, ā, me Roger Aranui. Nā reira, e tika ana kia mihi kau ki a rātou, e ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi.

Ahakoa ko rātou tata ake nei i hinga atu ēngari ka hoki ngā mahara ki tēnā o ngā tino kaikawe o te kaupapa nei kia kite mai te rere o tā tātou nei Reo Rangatira i runga i te motu nei. Nā, ka hoki atu ngā whakaaro ki tēnā a Te Aniwaniwa (Hone) Rangihau, me te tupuna a Tā Hēmi Hēnare, tae atu ki tana tamaiti, toku matua a Ērima, a waihotia ngā kōrero ki a ia ēngari, me te whaea a Heikōkō Mataira me ētahi atu, mai i Te Rōpū ā Sid Jackson mā, i kawe atu tēnei kaupapa kia whai i te tautoko o Te Karauna kia whakamana i tō tātou Reo Rangatira, ā, e rere nei. Nā reira e tika ana kia mihi kau ana ki ā rātou. Ka hoki mai ki a tātou i te rā nei, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

E tū ake tēnei mō Te Rōpū Aotearoa Tuatahi, ahakoa i runga ake i te wā e noho tonu Te Komiti whakawhiriwhiri o ngā Take Māori, ahakoa kāre kau kē i puta mai tō mātou whakahē ēngari, i muri mai i tō mātou hui i nanahi, ka kī mai tō mātou rōpū ki a au: “E Pita, haere ki roto i Te Whare kia whakahēngia ēngari, ka whakahēngia tēnei wāhanga.” Kia mahara i a tātou, i muri mai i tēnei wāhanga ko te wāhanga tuatoru, nā reira, ko wēnā te wāhanga te mea nui, mēnā e whakahē, kia ahatia?

Ēngari, ko tetahi o ngā mea e āwangawanga i ā mātou, e aha ana te take kia waihotia ki ngā iwi katoa o te motu kia tohutohu mai ko wai ngā tokowhitu e kawe atu i te kaupapa mō Te Mātāwai? Ahakoa kei a rātou Te Reo ēngari, he aha te take kia tukuna atu ki a rātou kia tohetohe kei waenganui i a rātou? Ko wēnā tētahi o ngā kaupapa kāore mātou i whakaae. Ko te mea tuarua, i te wā tuatahi i puta mai te pire, ē, ko te kaupapa kia whakakāhore Te Rōpū Te Taura Whiri. Ahakoa i roto i tēnei pire kei te tū hoki te mana o Te Taura Whiri, nā reira ka mihi hoki ki a koe, Te Minita. Ēngari, tā mātou āwangawanga, te āhua nei kua tangohia te nuinga o ngā pūtea mai Te Taura Whiri kia tukuna atu ki Te Mātāwai. Ki a au nei, ki a mātou hoki o Aotearoa Tuatahi, e tika ana kia whai pūtea hou mō Te Rōpū Te Mātāwai, kaua e tangohia ngā pūtea a Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo. Koina te tino take i whakahē nei i a mātou i tēnei wā!

[Interruption] Kia aha tia? Kia aha tia? Ēngari kia mōhio mai koe e Te Minita, i te wā e noho ana koe ki tērā taha, kei a koe te mana! Ēngari, ā te tau e tū mai, ā, ka whakawhiti mai koe ki tēnei taha, ki a au nei te mana. Kia aha tia? He kōrero noa iho tēnā! Ēngari i te mutunga o te rā, ahakoa te nuinga o ngā kōrero i roto i te pire nei ēngari, koinā te take kāre mātou o Aotearoa i whakaae i tēnei wā.

Kei te tautoko ngā whakaaro e pā ana ki te rua o ngā mahi: ko tētahi kia riro ki Te Karauna kia whakahaerengia, tētahi anō kia riro ki te ao Māori ēngari tā mātou tino maharahara, me pēhea ngā iwi Māori e tohu ko wai tā rātou kaikōrero? Ahakoa ā te wiki e tū mai nei kei te tū te hui i roto i Te Tai Tokerau kia whai kōrero, e aha ana te kaupapa kia rapu tā rātou tangata, wahine rānei hei kaikōrero i runga i te kaupapa o Te Mātāwai. [Interruption] Āe, tika ana, tika ana tēnā! Ēngari, mena e mōhio ana koe te āhuatanga i a mātou o te hau kāinga, kia pau kē ngā hoariri ki waho, ka huri ngā pū kei roto. Nā reira, ko wēnā te take i kōrero mai i a mātou i roto i a Aotearoa Tuatahi, ēhara i a mātou e hiahia ana kia kite atu i tō tātou iwi e haere pēnā ana. [Interruption] Āe, tēnā pea, tēnā pea! Ēngari i roto i te pire nei, ā, koina te āhuatanga.

Ēngari, kei te mihi hoki ki Te Minita mō te kaupapa, kia whakauru mai tēnei pire ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Ā, tino hari ana au mō tēnā. Tua atu i tēnā, nā Te Reo Māori tana mana kei runga i Te Reo Pākehā, nā reira kei te tautoko i tēnā! Ēngari, kia aha tia? Kia ahatia? E mihi hoki ki a tātou ngā mema o Te Komiti whakawhiriwhiri Māori me tēnei tāke, ahakoa ētahi atu kāore i a mātou katoa i tautoko, ēngari i te mutunga o te rā, ka puta mai te āhuatanga o tātou Te Māori. Ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke e pā ana ki ngā mahi tōrangapū i te mutunga o te rā, he Māori tātou. [Interruption] Kāo, kāo, ko au te kaikōrero i tēnei wā. Koinā te mea pai, te maha o mātou ngā mema o Aotearoa, ngā mema o Aotearoa Tuatahi ki a kōrua o Te Pāti Māori. Kia ahatia? Ēngari, ahakoa i tautokona e au nei te āhuatanga o tēnei pire ēngari te tū o Aotearoa Tuatahi, kai te whakahē ki tēnei wāhanga mō tēnei wā, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us members seated here in regard to the speeches emerging on this bill. And so to the saying: “The conspicuous night, the auspicious night that settles down, the intense dark night from whence I emerge as Māui braces, twists, writhes, and trembles, and behold, the strands of humanity emerge into the natural and enlightened world; it is the breath of life.” It is appropriate, indeed, to acknowledge those many deaths in our midst and lost from sight last week to this day. Names like Ranginui Walker, Tāhuna Minhinnick, and Roger Aranui were mentioned today; it is timely, therefore, that a tribute is accorded to those, the recently departed, who are no longer seen.

But we reflect on those earlier ones who advocated that our chiefly language be heard and spoken throughout the nation: those such as Te Aniwaniwa (Hone) Rangihau; elder Sir Hēmi Hēnare, including his son and my uncle, Ērima; tributes to him I put to one side as I pay tribute to Heikōkō Mataira, the matriarch, and others from Sid Jackson’s group. All of those people picked up this matter and relentlessly lobbied the Crown to officially recognise our chiefly language that flourishes today. So it is fitting that we recognise them. I come back to us today to acknowledge, commend, and applaud you collectively.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Despite the fact that we did not oppose anything during the Māori Affairs Committee debate, following our caucus meeting yesterday I was told: “Pita, go into the House and oppose it, but only this part.” We must not forget that after this reading, the third one will follow, so that is the vital one. Therefore, what must be done to avoid it being opposed? What?

One thing that concerns us is why leave it to all the tribes throughout the country to say who the seven should be to carry out the functions of the Te Mātāwai entity? Even though they have the ability to speak Māori, why leave it to them to debate and argue the issue among themselves? That is one matter that we oppose. The second one refers to the first time the bill was introduced and, in particular, the proposal that the Māori Language Commission be disestablished. However, we note in this bill that the status of the Māori Language Commission has been restored and confirmed, so we acknowledge you for that, the Minister for Māori Development. But our concern is that it seems that most of the funding for the Māori Language Commission has been taken and transferred to Te Mātāwai. To me and to us of New Zealand First, the new entity Te Mātāwai should be funded as of right, and not have funding taken from the Māori Language Commission. That is the reason why we oppose it at this point in time.

[Interruption] So what can you do about it? What exactly? But you must understand, Minister, at this moment you are sitting on that side and have the mandate. But next year you might cross over to this side, and the mandate will be with me. So what will be done about it? However, that is just pure postulation. At the end of the day and despite the majority of what is in this bill, that is the reason why we of New Zealand First oppose it at this time.

We do, however, support the idea of having a dual strategic approach: one for the Crown to be responsible for and the other by Māoridom, but our main criticism is about how Māori tribes are to appoint a representative for them. Despite the fact that there is a consultation meeting next week in Northland for tribes, what is the selection criteria when choosing a male or female representative to meet the requirements of Te Mātāwai? [Interruption] Yes, indeed, quite true. But if you understand our situation back home—until all the opponents have been ejected from within, then the guns will be turned inwards. That is the issue we discussed amongst ourselves in New Zealand First; we do not want our people going down that track. [Interruption] Yes, I agree; I totally agree with that. But that seems to be the situation in this bill.

However, I acknowledge the Minister with regard to the Māori language being included in this bill. I am really pleased about that, and, furthermore, that the Māori version has precedence over the English. I really endorse that. But so what? What indeed? I also applaud us members of the Māori Affairs Committee in regard to this matter, despite the fact that we were not unanimous. At the end of the day, we resolved this as our Māori side came to the fore; despite the political ups and downs, at the end of the day we are Māori. [Interruption] Not all, not at all. I am the representative at this point in time. The great thing is that there are many of us in the New Zealand First Party, as opposed to you two in the Māori Party. So what about that? Even though I support what this bill is about, the New Zealand First Party opposes this part at this point in time. And so I acknowledge and commend you collectively, and thank us all once again.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Kei hea taku reo karanga ki ōku tipuna?

Hoki mai hoki mai e taku reo rangatira.

Ko wai rā hei arahia tātou e

Ngā kohikohinga, ngā uri o te motu e?

Ā, tēnā koutou. Harerūia, harerūia! Kua tae te pire ki Te Whare. Tēnei rangi whakahirahira, kua tae tēnei pire ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei whare, Te Whare Mīere. He rangi whakahirahira tēnei. He aha ai? Ā, i roto i te hītori o tēnei whenua, kāre anō kua tū tētahi pire pēnei, mā Te Reo Māori te mana, Te Reo Māori whaimana kei roto i te pire, kei roto i te ture o te whenua, nā reira, harerūia, harerūia, nāku e mihi kau atu ki tēnei pire, ki tēnei rangi.

Anō nā ka tāpirihia ngā mihi ki a rātou kua mene atu ki te pō, te hunga wairua. I tēnei wiki, ko Roger Aranui tēnā, i tērā wiki ko Ranginui Walker tēnā. E hika! Maha kē atu ngā kaumātua ngā mate kei runga i a tātou i tēnei tau. E tika ka mihi ki a rātou. Engari, ka huri anō ki a tātou te hunga ora, ko tātou te hunga tūtuki i ō rātou nei wawata; nā reira, tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou, kia ora mai tātou Te Whare.

Ngā kupu kei roto i taua waiata e whakararu nei i ahau, engari nā Whirimako taua waiata. E whakanuia te āhuatanga ō tō tātou reo. Kei roto i te ngākau o te tangata. Koia nei te reo, te wairua o tēnei reo i tēnei pire. Nā reira, kei te tū whakahīhī au ki te whakaaetia ki tēnei pire; tēnei rangi kua whaimana tō tātou reo.

Tuatahi, me huri ano ngā whakaaro ki ngā tau kua pahure ake. I aua tau rā, ae, kei te hinga haere tō tāua reo i runga i te whenua. I patupatu haere Te Reo Māori, te reo tauiwi, me ngā kōrero taupatupatu i runga i te whenua. Heoi anō rā, he maha kē atu ngā take e tautokohia tēnei pire. I roto i tō tātou kōti, ko ngā tiāti tēnā i ngā tau kei te heke mai. Mehemea he raru ki tā te pire nei, ko rātou tēnā me whakawā me pēhea te huarahi whakatikahia engari ko Te Reo Māori te reo whakahaere i ō rātou na whakaaro. Nā reira, kei te tautoko ai i te kōrero o tērā o ngā tuahine a Māmari Stevens, ki tā te reo tauiwi i kī nei: “Māori has been reduced to a language of describing Western law,”.

[Where is my language that calls to my ancestors?

Return to me my chiefly language.

Who will guide us,

The assembled, the descendants of this land?

Greetings to each and every one. Hallelujah; rejoice! The bill is before Parliament. It is indeed an auspicious day, the presentation of this bill to the House. Why is today so auspicious? This is an historic occasion for our nation with the first bill of its kind where the status of the Māori language is enhanced, and the Māori language is officially incorporated into the bill and the legislative process. Hallelujah, hallelujah; I commend this bill here today.

I also join in acknowledging the recently departed, and indeed all those gone before us. I would like to make special mention of Roger Aranui, who passed away this week, and also Ranginui Walker, who passed away last week. Alas, too many elders and loved ones have left us this year alone. It is only appropriate we acknowledge them, and in so doing we also acknowledge the living—we the living are now left behind to continue the legacy and fulfil the aspirations of those before us; therefore to each and every one, greetings and warm wishes throughout the House.

The words in that song tripped me up while singing them, due mainly to the fact that it was composed by Whirimako. It celebrates the phenomenon of our language; that is, the heart of the person. This indeed is the voice, the spirit of this language in this bill. So I stand proud to authorise this bill; our language has a right to be validated.

First of all, we must cast our minds back to the years that have gone by. In those times, yes, our language was slipping back across the land, and the English language continued to overcome the Māori language, plus it was being called into question and being debated across the nation. Be that as it may, there are many, many other reasons for this bill being endorsed. In our courts, according to this, if there is an issue in terms of this bill, the judges will make a ruling, and they will do this in the Māori language. So I endorse the statement by the sister Māmari Stevens, who said in English: “Māori has been reduced to a language of describing Western law,”.]

She goes on to say, not only Western law—we have been reduced to commenting on it, protesting on it, and we express suffering under it. But this bill takes a significant step forward, so that in our lifetime—rather than Te Reo Māori really being a language of making law within our general legal system, it shows that it has the capacity to be a fully functional legal language in the legal system of our country. Nō reira e, te tuahine Māmari, mena kai te whakarongo koe, kei te tautoko pai nei au i tō kōrero, he rangi whakahirahira tēnei mō Te Reo Māori i roto i te ture.

Ā, ka huri anō ki tērā o ngā tangata rongonui, a Tā Pita Sharples. Ko ia tēnā i te 2014, i whakatau i tēnei pire ki runga i Te Whare, kai mua i te aroaro o tātou. Ā koia tēnā i hiahia kia whakahokia tō tāua Reo ki roto i te ringa o te mana whenua, ki roto i te ringa o Te Iwi. Nā reira, e tika me mihi atu ki a ia me te wairua o taua whakaaro. Ēngari, kāre tēnei pire i te utu mō ngā take katoa o te ao, ēngari he tīmatanga. Tika rā te kōrero a Nanaia e kī nei, he tīmatanga tēnei, hei whakatikahia te whatu, te wepu o tō tāua Reo i roto i ngā kura, nā Te Karauna tēnā i whakarite i ō rātou pire, native schools i te tau 1867. Ko taku whaea tētahi, kua wepuatia nei e tōna kaiako i a ia e kōrero Māori ki ngā hoa i roto i tana kura.

Nā reira, ka huri ano ki tēnei wā, tēnei wā kai te mihi atu ki ngā iwi e hiahia nei te whakahouhia tō tātou reo: ā, ko Ngāti Raukawa tēnā, Taranaki, Ngāti Kahungunu, Tūhoe, Ngāi Tahu, ā, i tēnei wiki kua pahore ake nei, ko Tainui anō tētahi whakarite nei i tō rātou rautaki Reo Māori. Nā reira, e tika me mihi atu ki a rātou. Ā, kai te hiahia rātou kia tō mai Te Reo ki roto i te ngākau o te tamaiti, te mokopuna o te motu. Ā, ko Ngāti Raukawa tēnā atu i ō rātou ake uri, ka purua Te Reo, ka whakatō Te Reo ki roto i te ngākau o te tini me te mano e tae atu ki Te Wānanga o Raukawa. Nā reira, kai te mihi, kai te mihi atu ki a rātou.

Ā, ētahi e taupatupatu nei i te ao tōrangapū nei mō te pire. Māku e kī atu ki a rātau, ā, kua tau ki Te Whare waiho te ao tōrangapū ki te ao tōrangapū, ēngari anō kia hoki atu ki Ngāti Hine, ki Ngāpuhi, ki ngā iwi—[Interruption]—kia ora—o te motu. Hai aha te whakatōrangapū i te kōrero i waenganui i a rātou, kia rapua tētahi Māngai mō Te Reo kia uru atu ki Te Mātāwai. Ā, koirā te kōrero o Ruakere i ngā rangi kua pahore ake nei i te hui whakanui i Te Ātārangi i te wikene nei. Toru tekau tau rātou i whakahoutia tō tātou Reo ki roto i Te Wairoa, ā, Te Ātārangi tēnā, Te Kōhanga Reo tēnā, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori tēnā e tautoko pai nei i tō tātou Reo, hoi anō me mihi, me mihi ki a rātou.

Ā, kai roto i te pire, kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki te rōpū whakahou nei i tō tāua Reo, nā te whakaaro nui o Te Minita nei me tōna kaha, me tōna whakaaro nui, ā, me tōna tirohanga whakamua, i hoki anō ki te mana o ēnei e whakapau kaha ki te whakatikatika i tēnei pire. Ā, ko Te Reo Tukutuku tētahi o ngā wāhanga e rārangi nei i ngā rōpū Māori, hai rapu i ētahi māngai mō Te Mātāwai, tautoko i ngā mahi o Te Iwi. Ā, kai roto i Te Whare o Te Reo Mauriora ka kite mātau i te tirohanga whakamua.

Nā reira, kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki ērā kua whakapau kaha. I ngā tau kua pahore ake, i tae mai ki Te Pāremata nei me tā rātau petihana a Tamatoa, a Koro Dewes, Cathy Dewes, Hannah Te Hēmara, Rāwiri Paratene, Lee Smith, Sid Jackson, Joe Te Rito me Rāwiri Rangitauira, e tika me mihi atu ki a rātou. I tēnei wā, ka hoki anō tō tāua Reo ki roto i te ringa o te rōpū o Te Minita nei, a Rāwinia Higgins tēnā, ka mihi ki Ruakere Hond, Te Wharehuia Milroy, Charisma Rangiponga, Charlie Tepana i whakapau kaha ki te tutuki i ngā hiahia o tātau katoa, kia whakahouhia tō tātau Reo.

Nā, ko taku kōrero whakamutunga nei, mai i tērā o ngā koroua a Te Wharehuia: “The Māori language is seriously threatened, and at danger of being lost. When I say that a language becomes endangered, I am actually referring to when the speakers’ conditions around them have altered. … Whānau, hapū and iwi play a critical role in ensuring that young ones are exposed and engaged regularly with the language so that it is relevant and a living language. But this cannot be done in isolation. We also need to have some material and moral support from the Crown in order for some of these things to take place. This forms the basis of the proposed Te Whare o Te Reo Mauriora” ki roto i tana pūrongo, ā, ko taku mihi whakamutunga ki roto i ngā kupu o Te Kooti: “Āe, e hoa mā, ka pai tō koutou whare, oti anō te raruraru, e titiro ake nei ahau kai te whawhai tētahi o ngā pakitara ki tētahi o ngā pakitara, te whatitoka ki te tuarongo, te teina ki te tuakana, te tamaiti ki te matua, ā, titiro ake hoki ahau ki ngā kai o te whare nei, he kōhatu, he kirikiri, he tātaramoa ēngari, te one matua!” Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tenā koutou! Tautokohia nei tēnei rangi, harerūia, harerūia, ngā mihi.

[If you are listening, sister Māmari, I truly endorse your statement. This is a great day for the Māori language in law.

I turn now to one of those prominent people, to Sir Pita Sharples, who placed this bill before the House in 2014. It was his specific desire that our language be returned into the hands of mandated tribes and Māoridom. As a consequence, it is apt that he and the spirit of that gesture be acknowledged. But this bill is not the solution for all worldly matters; it is but a beginning. The statement by Nanaia is right; she said this is the start to addressing the harm and hidings incurred in schools since the Crown introduced the Native Schools Act 1867. My mother received corporal punishment from her teacher for speaking in Māori to her friends at school.

So I come back to the present. I acknowledge the tribes today wanting to revitalise our language: Ngāti Raukawa, Taranaki, Ngāti Kahungunu, Tūhoe, Ngāi Tahu, and Tainui, who have just considered their Māori language strategy in the week just past. It is only appropriate that I acknowledge them. Their desire is to draw out the language from within the heart of the child and grandchild of the nation. Ngāti Raukawa is an example of one who does that with their own kin in terms of revitalising and drawing out the language. They do that with the vast numbers that attend Te Wānanga o Raukawa. And so I commend and acknowledge them.

In regard to some engaged in any political dissension over this bill, I say to them that the bill has landed in Parliament, so leave those political dissensions to be addressed there. But I do want to go back to Ngāti Hine, Ngāpuhi, and the tribes—[Interruption] thank you—of the country. Do not politicise the discussions amongst you when seeking a representative on Te Mātāwai. That is what Ruakere said in the past days at a weekend conference to celebrate Te Ātaarangi. They have been revitalising their Māori language for 30 years in Te Wairoa, and Te Ātaarangi, Kōhanga Reo, and Māori-medium schools in the area have supported our language. I cannot thank them enough.

In regard to the bill, I want to acknowledge the language advisory group brought together through the foresight, tenacity, and vision of the Minister here. He went back to the integrity of these ones in this group who were working hard on modifications to this bill. Te Reo Tukutuku was a cluster going through Māori organisations to seek out representatives for Te Mātāwai who are to support the work of Māoridom. We saw the vision going forward in the House of Te Reo Mauriora framework.

I would also like to acknowledge those who worked hard over the years and arrived finally at Parliament with their Tamatoa: Koro Dewes, Cathy Dewes, Hannah Te Hēmara, Rāwiri Paratene, Lee Smith, Sid Jackson, Joe Te Rito, and Rāwiri Rangitauira. It is apt that they be acknowledged. At this point, our language is in the hands of this Minister’s advisory group: Rāwinia Higgins, Ruakere Hond, Te Wharehuia Milroy, Charisma Rangiponga, and Charlie Tepana, who worked tirelessly to meet all our aspirations to revitalise our language.

My concluding statement comes from that one of our esteemed elders, Te Wharehuia: “The Māori language is seriously threatened, and at danger of being lost. When I say that a language becomes endangered, I am actually referring to when the speakers’ conditions around them have altered. … Whānau, hapū and iwi play a critical role in ensuring that young ones are exposed and engaged regularly with the language so that it is relevant and a living language. But this cannot be done in isolation. We also need to have some material and moral support from the Crown in order for some of these things to take place. This forms the basis of the proposed Te Whare o Te Reo Mauriora” in his report. My absolute final comment is contained in Te Kooti’s words: “Yes, friends, what a beautiful house you have, but the only problem as I look up at it is that one wall is fighting against another wall, the door is fighting the back wall, the junior is fighting the senior sibling, and the child the parent. And so I look at what is inside and see stones, sand, brambles, and, primarily, earth.” Therefore greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations. I endorse this day; hallelujah, glory, and glad tidings.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Denise Roche.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Kia tau te rangimārie o Te Rangi ki runga i tēnei a Papatuānuku e takoto nei me te taiao e awhi nei i runga i a tātou; tīhei mauri ora! E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, huri noa ki a koutou katoa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou. He hōnore nui mōku ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuarua o Te Pire Reo Māori mō ngā Kākāriki, tēnā koutou katoa.

[May the peace of the Sky Father alight upon Mother Earth lying here, and upon the environment that embraces us; behold the breath of life. I acknowledge you, Mr Deputy Speaker; and to you all throughout the House, greetings. It is a great honour for me to speak in the second reading of the Māori Language Bill on behalf of the Greens; my appreciation to you all.]

It is an honour, indeed, to speak on this, the second reading of the bill. It was my honour to speak for the Greens in the first reading, but the lead on that has now been taken by our Māori affairs spokesperson, Marama Davidson.

We initially voted against the bill, and our objections, to some extent, have been addressed through the select committee process, but I want to just go through what they were because they have been raised by others in this House. They were concerns about the limited scope of the consultation before the bill was introduced—and there were particular concerns from hapū up north—concerns about loss of the independent Crown entity status for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori and Te Māngai Pāho, and concerns about methods of funding and how it is not tied to need or based on what the research suggests, but based on negotiation. We were very concerned about that.

The reason, though, that we are changing our position and will be voting for the bill in the second reading is that there has been a more robust consultation that the Minister for Māori Development has undertaken, it is being led by experts in the field, and there is more willingness on the behalf of the Minister to work with the community, and that has also been the result of the Māori Affairs Committee pressuring for that. We are now aware that there will be two revitalisation strategies, one led by the Government and the other led by Te Mātāwai on behalf of Māori. This is, of course, in addition to the work that iwi katoa are already doing. Te Taura Whiri and Te Māngai Pāho will no longer lose independent Crown entity status and will remain autonomous, and that was of major concern. These changes help ensure that the Crown does not abdicate its responsibilities to protect Te Reo as a taonga.

Te Mātāwai’s representation has also been changed slightly to include one extra Te Reo Tukutuku member to represent urban Māori, and this was a direct result of the select committee submissions that came from that group. We do remain concerned about the sidelining of some hapū and iwi voices due to Te Mātāwai’s iwi representation consisting of only one member from each of the seven geographical areas, but we know that what they have come up with so far does sort of reflect the different dialects.

This is the second dual language bill in modern politics. Te Reo Māori and English texts will hold equal status, and if there is an issue, then it is the Te Reo version that will take precedence. And we all know what happens when you get stuck with translations—it happened in 1840. The revitalisation of the language is essential to improve the health and well-being and the standing and the mana of Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the strategies are crucial to this.

I want to acknowledge, like others before me, the passing of the many kaumātua who have gone beyond the veil. I am particularly thinking about Dr Ranginui Walker, whose tangihanga I was at on Friday. I took my daughter to that, and the reason I took her to that was not only to honour this wonderful man and his amazing achievements but also so she could hear her Reo around her. My daughter is the only student in year 13 at her high school learning Te Reo Māori—the only senior student.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Which school?

DENISE ROCHE: At Waiheke High School. She has 1 hour of face-to-face contact per week.

I also want to acknowledge that Metiria Turei spoke for the second time in Te Reo in public in a speech, and I was so proud of her. She said the words “Too many of us have grown up, and still live in, the crack—the crack between Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pāhekā. It is hard and it is confusing, never quite being anything enough in a racist society”, and she thanked Dr Ranginui Walker for giving Māori the language to speak truth to power.

I want to finish with a whakataukī: “Ko taku reo taku ohooho, ko taku reo taku māpihi maurea.” Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[“My language is my awakening; my language is the object of my affection.” Greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you all.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata. E tū taukoto ana ahau i tēnei pire mō Te Reo Māori, kia whakahouhia ake te kaupapa mō Te Reo Māori. “Āpiti hono, tātai hono, rātou te hunga mate ki a rātou, āpiti hono, tātai hono, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou”, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, members of the House of Parliament. I stand in support of this Māori language and the renewal of the policy relating to the Māori language. “The lines are joined, they the dead to the dead, and we the living to ourselves.”, so greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you collectively, and to us all.]

I am delighted to be able to speak in support of this very landmark piece of legislation that is having its second reading right now. We have heard in the House tonight “E Te Māngai” [Mr Speaker] and I have heard “harerūia, harerūia” [hallelujah, hallelujah], and I thought I was in a whakamoemiti Rātana Church service. But certainly it is worth celebrating thus far that we have come to this point to have the second reading of this bill.

It has had a long passage. There has been a lot of work that has gone into getting it to this stage. I have only got a short call, but I do want to acknowledge the Minister and the ministerial advisory group, the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, and in particular my whanaunga from the lofty southern mountain Aoraki there, Tūtehounuku Karako, who led our committee. I was on the committee but only intermittently, so I was able to sit in and hear certain aspects as this bill progressed, but I know the good work that was put in by the committee as well to ensure the passage of this bill.

Can I also acknowledge the specialist translators who have been working tirelessly behind the scenes to give a full Te Reo Māori translation to this bill. It is of extra significance, as has been mentioned, that this is a dual language piece of legislation. If there ever is any raru or doubt or conflict between what translation will prevail, Te Reo Māori will prevail. That is very significant. It is only the second piece of legislation in the history of Aotearoa Niu Tīreni that we have had a Te Reo Māori piece of legislation. I support this bill because I support our Reo Māori.

Sure, there are aspects that were of concern when we did the first reading, and I could go into the details but, ultimately, I think, a big issue was around the nexus between the Crown’s relationship—it is the Crown’s obligation to protect our taonga and to promote the Crown’s obligations versus empowering te iwi Māori to champion and to foster and to grow our Reo Māori me ōna tikanga [Māori language and its conventions].

So I think that the changes that have been made have improved and clarified that relationship. We have got certain new bodies and strategies that have been set up. I think, ultimately, this legislation, like any new creation, takes time to bed in. I think we will ultimately see the hua—the fruits—of this legislation by giving it time. We need to give it time. We need to let Te Mātāwai assemble, the old guard and the new, for all of them to come together to do their important mahi. We need to let the Crown strategies and all of the aspects of its role, and who will be doing that—we need all of that to be teased out. But, ultimately, we do support this bill, and it lays a very good foundation for the next chapter of the fostering of our Reo Māori.

Ultimately, that is what it is all about. We want this legislation to really be a huge boost to the amount of Māori that is spoken among Māori whānau and right across our whole country. So I do tautoko this piece of legislation, I do acknowledge all of the work that has gone into it before, and I am looking forward to progressing it through the further stages that we have left in the House. I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe, e ngā mema o Te Pāremata, ka mihi ki a koutou, e te iwi noa, e Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, to members of Parliament, to the tribes in general, to this House, and to us all.]

You will have to forgive the accent. I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee, but it gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government in regard to the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill and to acknowledge our coalition partners who have done such fine work, especially the Minister for Māori Development, in making this bill happen. Over many years the Māori Party has delivered for the Māori communities of our country and for our wider community as well, and I think that is shown through the practical things that have come through in legislation like this today—I am getting a photo! I would like to congratulate and thank all members of this House. I think that the way everybody has spoken has been a credit to this Parliament and to the traditions of this House.

As a European, I never learnt Māori. In the 1970s and 1980s we were never taught it at school, and I think that is a great disservice to our people of all backgrounds. We do not feel as comfortable as we should in the Māori communities because we do not know the language. We should know the language a lot more. Every New Zealander, Māori or European or Asian or Pasifika, should know more Māori than they do know. That is something that this Parliament should do something about, because our generation missed out. Hopefully, future generations do not have that problem and they will actually grow up in a community where they can actually partake in it as full members of the community, understanding the language, because language is so vital to any community.

The stories of the past, I think, are tragic and should never have happened. That shows ignorance and misunderstanding, and I am sure all members of this House are very sorry for anything that has happened to the language in the past.

But I want to take a step forward, looking forward to the language in, say, 100 years’ time. If you look in this House in 100 years’ time it will not be the same people in here necessarily representing the same demographics. You will have a much bigger population from an Asian base. You will have a much bigger population of mixed European and Māori heritage who maybe do not have the opportunity, or have not had the opportunity, to learn the language that they should have. I think we need to look at the Māori language in the future, because in 100 years’ time we will look back at the Māori language as one of the defining parts of being a New Zealander. If we do not have that in all aspects of our society, then we will be a lot poorer as a country and will lose the language—in essence, preventing it being what it should be, which is a treasure for all people, not just a treasure for Māoridom.

I think this bill is a great step in that process. I wish all the best to those who will be involved in making the language a reality. It is something that is important not only for Māori but also for all parts of our community to make sure the Māori language is treasured and also enhanced, so that we have a better understanding going forward. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. E tautokongia ana ahau i ngā mihi kua mihia ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, ngā tini mate o te wiki kua pahore i te mārama. Rātou ki a rātou, te hunga wairua, ko tātou ngā kanohi ora, tātou ki a tātou anō.

Tuatahi, māku e mea atu ki a koe, Mārama, horekau anō ahau kia harirūia i a āe mō tēnei pire i te mea, ka taihoa ake ahau kia kite ai i ngā hua te whakatutukitanga o ngā moemoeā, ngā wawata o tēnei pire, hei mua i taku harerūiatanga o tēnei pire. Mehemea ka kite ahau i te tutukitanga o aua hua, ko ahau te mea ka arataki i a tātou katoa, ka piki ake i ngā puke, ngā hiwi, ngā maunga, kia harerūia i a ia! Nā reira, taihoa ake rā mō taua wā i te mea i nāianei, he kupu noa iho kei roto i wēnei pepa o tēnei pire, he kupu noa iho!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I endorse the tributes accorded to those who have been immortalised as a star; the many of the week in the month just past. Let the dead remain there with themselves, the dead; and we, the living, among ourselves as well.

Firstly, I say to you, Mārama, that I will not sing a hallelujah for this bill yet, because I want to wait and see if the outcomes fulfil the aspirations and dreams of this bill before I rejoice in it. If those outcomes are achieved, then I will lead us all and climb the knolls, hills, and mountains and hallelujah it. Therefore, let us wait up a bit for that moment, because this bill is just mere words on paper—nothing but words.]

I just said that I will wait until I sing hallelujah in regard to this bill—the reason being that, at the moment, these are just words in a bill. But when the dreams and aspirations that are inside this bill are actually realised, I will be the first person to lead anybody up the nearest hill, the nearest mountain, and sing hallelujah.

This bill is very important. Labour will support it. We did have reservations, but we will support it. The reason I will support it is that I love Te Reo Māori. I grew up in a monolingual house. We spoke only English. David Bennett said that he did not learn Te Reo Māori at school—he did not have those opportunities. Imagine what it is for a Māori child to grow up and not have those opportunities to speak Te Reo Māori—to go on to your marae and know absolutely nothing about what is going on on that marae, feeling totally inadequate, and seeing your father feeling totally inadequate as well. Imagine the shame that we felt. That is one of the reasons why, when I hit the third form, I took Te Reo Māori. I was lucky to have a fantastic teacher by the name of Charles Berryman, who started me on the path. For some reason, his method of teaching clicked with me. Going from somebody who at the age of 13 was entering high school and barely able to say kia ora to getting only one Bursary subject and that was Māori, 5 years later, is a testament to the fact that it can happen—that we can go from being monolingual to bilingual.

We do want to see Te Reo Māori thrive and prosper. Te Reo Māori is as unique to New Zealand as the kiwi, as Tāne Māhuta, as Prince Tui Teka, and as green pāua. We want to see this taonga of ours grow and thrive.

I came late to the Māori Affairs Committee. I was brought on to it right at the very end of the deliberations on this bill. The first thing I noticed was that there was not an apology. I believe that is something we need to change in the Committee stage. There needs to be an apology for the fact that our aunties, uncles, and grandparents were caned and beaten for speaking Te Reo Māori. I have to say that my father, to my knowledge, was never caned for speaking Te Reo Māori because he just could not speak it. It was especially tragic because both of his parents were fluent Māori speakers. In fact, I am told that my grandmother’s Māori was better than her English, and yet their five sons, my father being the youngest—not one of them could throw a sentence together in Te Reo Māori.

Another criticism I had, coming into the select committee, was the purpose of the bill. I looked at it and I thought: “The purpose of this bill must be that we are going to increase the number of Te Reo Māori speakers and increase their fluency. That must be front and centre.”, and it was not. The purpose of this bill was mainly, may I say, administrative. It was about structures like Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori and Te Māngai Pāho—all those Government structures. I thought, yes, when the Minister for Māori Development goes to review this bill in 3 years’ time he can tick things off—“Yep, Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori has had whatever happened to it.”—and everything else. But, really, I want to know: are there more Māori speakers in New Zealand, and has their fluency increased? That is what I want to know.

The other thing I want to know is whether Māori is being spoken in more contexts throughout New Zealand communities than it is now. At the moment Te Reo Māori is spoken mainly on the marae and on ceremonial occasions. We are lucky up north that we get a number of people who still speak Māori in the street, and it is beautiful to hear. But non-Māori speakers take for granted the fact that they can walk into any shop, any supermarket, any dairy, or any post office and they can conduct their business in the English language. They take it for granted. But has anyone ever thought that, as a Māori speaker, I cannot walk into Pak ’N Save, the Caltex station, or the post office and conduct my business in Te Reo Māori?

I believe that that is a Treaty right, and until we hear our language spoken everywhere, in all contexts, our Treaty right is not being lived up to. We cannot legislate for Pak ’N Save to go and employ somebody on the counter so that, if I choose to, I can go up and do my transaction in Te Reo Māori. But, certainly, the Maihi Karauna strategy or the Maihi Māori strategy could work with businesses and encourage them to have Māori speakers. We need to not just to be able to speak our language; we need to be able to hear our language, we need to be able to see our language, we need to be able to read our language, and we need to be able to write our language. We need to have our communities immersed in the language if we are actually going to make a difference to Te Reo Māori.

Up until now we have relied on traditional methods of language transfer: the marae, talking to our kaumātua and kuia, and school, I guess. Just while I remember, Denise Roche’s daughter is the only student studying Māori in her class. Will this bill change that? That is something we really, really have to ask ourselves. We need to be able to read, write, and see our language all around our communities. We cannot rely on the traditional methods of language transfer any more. We actually have to look at non-traditional methods, and it is going to seem really strange. It is going to feel really awkward at times. On my marae the time we mainly hear Te Reo Māori is when we welcome manuhiri on to our marae. We are going to have to look at things such as holding a Trivial Pursuit night in Te Reo Māori, where we conjure up these contexts where we can have a lot of fun and games, speaking in Te Reo Māori. We need to hope that every newspaper, maybe once a week, has all the news stories on one page dedicated to Te Reo Māori, and magazines such as Woman’s Day, Woman’s Weekly, the Listener, or whatever—just one page a week. These are the things that we need to see and we need to ask for in order for our language to actually just become normal again. Let us remember that the word “Māori” actually means normal.

Louisa Wall: Ordinary.

KELVIN DAVIS: Ordinary. So we just need to make our language ordinary and normal. Actually, we should be careful about making it tapu, because then it scares people. It should just be so natural and normal that we do not blink when we hear it or when we see it.

We support this bill. We believe it can be improved, but, at the end of the day, if it lives up to the promise that is in it, then, as David Bennett said, this country is going to benefit. It is just going to be the greatest thing for all of New Zealand and all New Zealanders. So we support it. We want to improve it. We want to make it live up to all the potential that is in it, so that it is not just a bill, words on a sheet of paper; it is actually the future, here, for Te Reo Māori. Kia ora.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to us all throughout this House.]

I just purposefully asked my colleague to step aside for a second because I just came down to the House to find somebody, realised that this was the conversation that was going on, and wanted to participate. I think this is a vitally important bill for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Reo Māori has been in the back seat for too long, being ignored by many people—and, I guess, too many people—for such a long time.

My journey with Te Reo Māori started when I was at intermediate school. It did not start at primary school, because no one ever spoke it, but at Hiona Intermediate School in Masterton I was one of the two skinny white boys who were a part of what was known as the Māori Club, because that is what it was called back in 1978. We learnt a few tunes and a few dances and a few whatevers, and it was kind of a fun thing to be a part of.

But, actually, as I grew older, I realised that this language was an important thing, so I disciplined myself along the way by practising looking at road signs as I went past, and practising and teaching myself with the “AEIOU”, wondering how this word would be pronounced in order for me to be able to at least pronounce Te Reo Māori as well as I possibly could—because I felt that was the least that I could do. Then when I was doing my social work degree I had the opportunity to study Te Reo Māori for 1 year. The frustrating thing about that is that I do not remember everything I learnt, and so there are a lot of things to go back and relearn.

A couple of years ago my wife came home one day and said: “You know what? I think I’d like to learn some Te Reo Māori.” She said this to my daughter, who had been going out with someone who is now her husband. She had been going out with him for about a month or so. My wife said “You know, I’m thinking of learning Te Reo Māori.”, and my daughter turned around and said to her “Well, you’d better, Mum, because your mokos are going to speak it.”, which was a little bit frightening. But it is OK. She married him, and I have no doubt that my mokos—my grandchildren—will grow up to be bilingual because that is important to their father and, actually, it is going to be important to their mother and it is going to be important to me. Not that there is any hurry, if you are listening, guys! They have been married for only a year. But it is going to be important, and suddenly this language is going to be a part of our family. So I think it is beholden on many of us to be able to do that.

I guess what I want to say is that this bill is really important. It is really important for what is contained in it, but it is really important for the message that it sends to everybody in Aotearoa New Zealand: that Te Reo Māori is an important part of who we are as a nation. It is a treasure for us to make sure that we continue with, going forward.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development for the great work that he has done with this bill, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee for bringing it to this House. This is an important thing. It is an important thing for all of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I consider it a great privilege to be a part of this Parliament in bringing it forward. I look forward to seeing it progress through further stages in the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 109

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Bill.

Bills

Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Housing: I move, That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 to make sure that the options available to homeowners under the Act, and in particular the Financial Assistance Package, keep operating effectively. In 2011 this Government amended the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act to set up the Financial Assistance Package. This is an important part of the help that the Government has been providing to owners of leaky homes. Instead of money being spent on litigation, the Financial Assistance Package focuses on getting on with the repair of leaky homes by offering funding from the Government towards the repair costs.

As at 31 January 2016 there were 1,198 claims, representing 4,177 homes that had been assessed as qualifying for the Government contribution of 25 percent towards the repair costs. The estimated future cost to the Government in the financial assistance contribution is estimated at about $105 million. That is expected to generate an estimated $420 million of repairs via this assistance package. As well as the Financial Assistance Package, the Act provides other alternatives to court action, such as mediation or adjudication by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, for eligible owners of leaky homes. All of these measures are aimed at providing alternative routes for homeowners, in suitable cases, to costly and lengthy court litigation. The bill does not change any of the substantial provisions of the Act. It simply refines some aspects of the Act to provide clarity to claimants and remove doubt and uncertainty. It does this by amending the Act in three important areas so that the options available to owners of leaky homes under the Act continue to operate validly and effectively.

First, the bill removes the possibility of a legal challenge to the validity of some criteria for the Financial Assistance Package for leaky homes. This risk concerns two of the contribution criteria that homeowners have to meet before they can be eligible for the Financial Assistance Package. The bill lifts those criteria out of a Gazette notice and places them into the Act. The bill does not change the wording or the meaning of the criteria in any way, but puts the validity of the criteria beyond any doubt by relocating them into the Act and amending the Gazette notice accordingly.

Second, the bill addresses the consequences on a small group of claimants of the 2014 decision of the Supreme Court in Osborne v Auckland Council. In that decision the Supreme Court interpreted the term “built” differently to the way that it had been interpreted by the lower courts. The built date of a house is important because, under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Act, claimants must make their claim within 10 years of their house being built. The Supreme Court decision meant that approximately 70 claimants may have missed out, because the old interpretation calculated the 10 years starting from the date that the physical construction of the house was actually completed. Under the Osborne decision, the relevant date is the date that the code compliance certificate was issued, which is usually later. The bill brings those approximately 70 affected claimants back into the system, so long as they have not sold their house. The claimants will still need to meet the other eligibility requirements to be able to proceed.

Finally, the bill deals with claimants who are actively progressing claims through the Financial Assistance Package. The process to get approved for funding under the Financial Assistance Package involves a number of steps, such as getting an assessment of the damage to the house and getting quotes for repairing the damage, before a homeowner can formally issue a notice to proceed. The Financial Assistance Package is a time-bound measure that is due to end on 23 July 2016, and, under the Act, claimants would need to have issued a notice to proceed by that date. The bill provides that claimants who are actively progressing their claims will not be shut out of the Financial Assistance Package, even if they have not quite reached the stage of issuing a notice to proceed by 23 July 2016.

Taken together, this package of three areas of change will ensure that the Financial Assistance Package will continue to be available to eligible claimants. I would like to conclude by thanking all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their careful consideration of the bill and the enhancements made to the bill during the select committee process. I would also like to thank the submitters who contributed to the development of the bill by providing their views to the committee. This bill is about providing more certainty and clarity to leaky home owners, and making sure that no one is arbitrarily excluded from the remedies available under the Act. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call a member, I just want to draw the Minister’s attention, and the attention of the Government whips, to Speaker’s ruling 53/4, which involves the Review of Standing Orders: Report of the Standing Orders Committee as to the reading of speeches. There is normally a dispensation given to Ministers in the early stages of bills, and especially where there are technical matters in bills. I realise the Minister is not the Minister in whose name the bill is, but I think it is incumbent on the Government to have a Minister at least familiar enough with the material they are presenting to the House that they can make a speech without just reading it out. Otherwise, it becomes a pro forma exercise, and, I think, it does not show due respect to the House.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, it was not really a point of order, but the member might like to make one.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will take that up with our whips. I noticed the Clerk handing you a note there to that effect, so I do wonder where that direction did come from. But I take your point. I think it is a valid one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, actually, one, of course, never refers to the Clerk when one is referring to a ruling. And, I will say—and I probably should not respond to the member in that—the Clerk handed me no note.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I was just listening to the Minister Jonathan Coleman read his speech earlier, and it struck me that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill is a rather poignant—I was going to say postscript, but it is not really a postscript, because, as we all know, the leaky homes catastrophe is not over; it continues on. But it is poignant nevertheless. This bill, the problem that it seeks to address, and the story of this bill’s development through the House really says a lot about major intractable problems in one of our country’s most important industries, and, I believe, the failure and neglect of this National-led Government to take those problems seriously and do anything about them.

The construction industry is one of the most important industries in our country. It is responsible for one in 12 jobs. It generates 8 percent of our national wealth, and it comprises 10 percent of all businesses in New Zealand. It is a huge employer; it is a huge generator of wealth. And, more important than that, it creates the built environment; it creates the very places where we live and work and play. And, as anybody who has followed the horrendous saga of the leaky homes disaster knows, the poor quality of building in this country has been a blight on the lives of so many people, and it is a drag on our country’s prosperity. The construction industry is incredibly important for the reasons I spelt out, but it is beset by low productivity, and it is wracked by a boom-and-bust cycle, which regularly cleans out the skilled workers who are so important in that industry. And those are some of the core factors behind the leaky homes crisis, which this bill seeks to address.

This Government—and, in fact, successive Governments—has struggled to get the regulatory framework right in the building and construction industry and find the right balance between protecting consumers and holding accountable the construction companies and all the other construction trades and professions. And, worst of all, the industry has subjected New Zealanders to a problem that PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated has cost the country in the region of $22 billion, and that is the leaky homes catastrophe.

We support this bill, and we have supported it all the way through. I will talk a little bit more about the three key measures of the bill. But the main point that I want to make is that this bill is symptomatic of so much that this Government does. This Government has made tinkering into an art form. When there are so many pressing problems and challenges that the Government should be addressing—and I will talk about some of those—it seems to focus its attention and the resources of this House on small measures that barely scratch the surface of the problems that the Government should be looking at.

What does this bill do? Only a few months out from the expiry of the Act—only a few months out—this bill basically gives some clarity and seeks to refine some of the provisions of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. And it will have the effect of extending the provisions of the Financial Assistance Package, which is a scheme that gives homeowners who are affected by weathertightness problems access to the funding provisions that would see the Government and councils stump up with 25 percent each of the repair bill. So it gives them an alternative to going through expensive litigation. But the effect of this bill is to extend that benefit to approximately, according to the Government officials, 70 homeowners—70 homeowners. And, yet, what we know from PricewaterhouseCoopers is that there are about 42,000 homes in New Zealand affected by weathertightness problems. Approximately 80,000 New Zealanders are affected.

This is in stark contrast to Maurice Williamson, when he was the Minister for Building and Construction, who, with great fanfare, announced what he said was a billion-dollar funding initiative—a billion-dollar initiative. Well, actually, what we do know is that, up until a year ago, which I think are the most recent figures that are publicly available, there have been only 1,147 claims made under this package, and yet there are more than 42,000 homes affected by weathertightness problems. So this is tinkering at the margins, and it is so typical of this Government.

There are three key things that I think we need to mention. The first is that the bill aims to remove doubt regarding the validity of a couple of clauses in the Gazette notice published pursuant to the main Act. These clauses cover claimants who had applied for adjudication under the Act, or have applied for or are involved in other civil proceedings. Basically, it brings those provisions that were included in the Gazette into the Act for the purposes of removing any uncertainty.

The second thing that the bill does is that it responds to the Osborne v Auckland Council case, which went to the Supreme Court. It is all about the use of the term “built” and the definition of “built” in regard to the 10-year limitation that is built into this Act: 10 years after, as the Act said, the house was built, and that was interpreted as—well, it was unclear as to what it meant. But the courts had until then interpreted it as—what the Osborne case did was it ruled that the definition of “built” was when the code of compliance certificate was issued, and that ruling allowed a significant number of other claimants to come under the Act.

The third thing is about widening the definition of “qualifying claimant”, which, again, is about claimants who are actively progressing claims but have not yet become eligible to be covered by the funding assistance package. This, basically, just creates a clearer line and a clearer definition about their coverage.

As I said, this bill will extend the benefits of this legislation to another 70 claimants. It is tinkering at the margins of this problem, and it is so typical of a Government that has neglected and ignored a number of problems in this vital industry that have, basically, I think, caused a drag on the country’s growth and prosperity, and have created a situation where ordinary Kiwis are paying the price for this and are being ripped off. The leaky homes problem is the most well-known example, but we still see an epidemic of shoddy building: the Auckland Council recently said that it was failing between 25 and 40 percent of building consent applications because of shoddy building.

The reason for that is that this Government has failed to invest in skills in the building and construction industry. It has imported large numbers of migrant tradespeople to fill the skills gaps. Those skills gaps are endemic to this industry and they are one of the core factors behind the leaky buildings and weathertightness problems. Yet they continue today, and Paula Bennett, who was the then Minister of Local Government, with her loopy Rules Reduction Taskforce—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK, I am now going to interrupt the member to remind him that we are doing a third reading debate, which is a debate on the bill as it has emerged from the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is relatively tight, there are plenty of rulings on it—around pages 136 and 137 of Speakers’ Rulings—and, although the member has, generally, been quite good, having been fairly tight on the Minister I am now reminding the senior Opposition member that he should stay within the rules.

PHIL TWYFORD: The argument that I was trying to make is that this bill is a small bit of tinkering right at the end of this Act’s lifespan—we are only 3 or 4 months away from the expiry of this Act. A lot of time has been spent debating this bill, taking it through the House. It is going to have an effect that will, obviously, have significant value for the people who will get the direct benefit of being covered by this bill, but we are talking about 70 claimants when there are some 42,000 homeowners around New Zealand who have been affected by this, at a time when this Government has ignored massive other problems with the building and construction industry.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

PHIL TWYFORD: Instead of this kind of superficial tinkering that does not even scratch the surface, we need a Government that takes the issues and this vital industry much more seriously.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has considered and guided this bill through the select committee process, it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this third reading debate, particularly following Phil Twyford, who has come to this third reading debate ill-prepared, ill-informed, and trying to fluff and fill 10 minutes on a range of subjects to do with all sorts of things other than the bill.

This is a small bill, but it is an important bill, and to discount with such arrogance, really, the impact that this bill has on the people affected is to discount their situation in a way that I find appalling and shameful. I would have expected better from that member. This is a bill that will amend the principal Act, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, in a way that gives certainty resulting from a court case that created some uncertainty, and will also help those people who have already spent too much time and too much energy on long and expensive litigation to try to get their leaky home situation fixed.

This is a bill that provides an alternative to a litigation pathway, and I think that is a good thing. I think there have been far too many lawyers involved in expensive litigation in many leaky home matters. This is a Government that has decided that enough is enough, and it was this Government that decided to take action on the whole leaky homes issue in a way that the previous Government sought not to do. Given that a major commitment to the Financial Assistance Package was made by this Government during a time of incredibly tight economic hardship, it is an indication of this Government’s commitment to supporting those people who are confronting leaky home issues around the countryside.

This bill, admittedly, as Mr Twyford said, may impact on only a relatively small number of homeowners, but it is important to them and it is important that this House duly considers their situation, because we would like to take a pragmatic and sensible approach to solving those people’s issues and providing them with some certainty. This bill amends the principal Act to remove doubt and to sort out the validity of two criteria that determine eligibility for the Financial Assistance Package, and I think that is a very good thing. This bill does not actually change anything about the Financial Assistance Package itself as set out in the principal legislation; it simply removes doubt and provides claimants with access, for those who want to take recourse to the Financial Assistance Package and use that methodology to advance a resolution of their leaky home situations.

Clause 2 of the bill relates to the commencement, and it has been amended so that only the amendments made by clause 7 are brought into force on 23 February 2015—that is the date on which the bill was introduced to the House. That is important because the rest of the bill will now come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. There was a further amendment made during the select committee consideration, and that involved clause 7, which amended the bill to remove those provisions in the clause relating to the insertion of new subpart 9 of Part 2 into the principal Act. Those amendments are now moved to a new clause 8. This was necessary to avoid new subpart 9 coming into force on the date on which the bill was introduced.

This may sound all a bit technical and a bit pointy-headed, but it is actually quite important, because the courts are sometimes inclined to interpret the legislation that gets passed in this House in a narrow way. Indeed, it was that matter in the case of Osborne v Auckland Council that led to a significant issue in the Supreme Court where they interpreted the word “built” differently to the way that that word and that term had been interpreted previously by High Court and Court of Appeal decisions. The meaning removed from the point of final council inspection to the point at which a code of compliance certificate was to be issued.

That is why in this bill we are moving to clarify that definition. The new meaning of “built” can be applied not only to future decisions on eligibility but also to make sure that the position for these people is found to be based on a past interpretation in other courts. This bill clarifies the position for past claimants and is a further indication that we are a pragmatic, sensible, and good Government in terms of tidying up these matters.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is a small piece of legislation, but it is important, and this is a Government that takes these matters seriously. I commend it to the House, and I want to thank the committee members for their work in guiding it through to this third reading stage.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Can I preface my remarks tonight by saying that having a home that one can call one’s own is a significant part of the Kiwi Dream—it has been for many, many years. It also shows one’s commitment to the community they live in. It is a sign to the rest of us that they are prepared to be responsible in our community. I say those things at the outset of this debate because this was supposed to be a very simple act of just tidying up the Act and ensuring that those who were affected by the leaky homes syndrome, whose homes were affected, would be compensated—that is really what it was. We on this side of the House said at the outset that we would support this bill right through its passage through this House, and we have done so. We said at the outset that we would support it in the hopes that this Government would take getting this problem fixed up seriously so that those people with their homes affected would be able to move on.

Having a house that you can call your own, or having that “castle”, means so much to so many people. It has also become a tradition in the Kiwi psyche that this home becomes an investment for your children and for others in the family. But for those families who have been affected by the leaky homes syndrome, they are unable to move on. Those affected, those eligible for the financial aid package, have been waiting for this Government to get on with it. I do not know, for the life of me, why this Government has dragged its feet on signing this piece of legislation and getting it out of the House. We have held urgent sittings in this House on a number of occasions, and not one time has the Government attempted to try to ensure that this bill was passed as quickly as possible in this House. I feel sorry that the 70 families who have been waiting for the financial package that this bill will provide have not been able to move on, because of the way that this Government has dragged its feet on this particular bill. You see, the bill will expire in June of this year, and only now are we getting to it.

The leaky homes saga, as many in this House will know, has been an ongoing issue since the 1990s. People in this House who have been around during that time will know that this started as a result of the National Government of the 1990s deregulating the market and, essentially, allowing the use of untreated timber in the framing of building structures during that period. As a result, many of those timber-framed structures became unsafe, unsound. That is what has happened. I am gutted that the families affected have had to continue waiting. Some of the homes became unhealthy when the damp timber framings picked up mould and spores. This was supposed to be a simple tidying up of the legislation, and that just has not happened.

The bill addresses three matters, and I just want to refer to the information that is here. First, “the bill aims to remove doubt regarding the validity of clauses 1B and 1C of a Gazette notice published on 28 July 2011”. Second, the bill “provides that certain claims determined as ineligible on the basis of the meaning of the term “built” in Sections … are to be deemed to be ‘eligible’ claims”. It simply extends the eligibility for claims. Third, “the bill aims to widen the definition of ‘qualifying claimant’ ” as a result of the financial aid package that expired in July 2016. I do not know why it has taken the Government so long to get this out of the way but, as I said, the bill, essentially, was to tidy up the Act and ensure that those who deserve compensation get that compensation. Hopefully, once this Government can get this out of the way, those people will be able to do so.

Claimants have been fighting for many, many years simply to have their warm, dry homes, which are part of the Kiwi Dream that all of us have aspired to. It is an issue facing, as my colleague Phil Twyford said, 42,000 families who have been affected as a result of this, and this bill extends compensation to only 70 additional members. It is worthy to note that when the leaky homes syndrome was first raised, the former building Minister, Maurice Williamson, came out and championed it and said that the Government was going to get this fixed, and he promised that there would be a billion-dollar scheme that would be made available to fix this problem. You sort of wonder, as we are dealing with only 70 families, why they have dragged their feet on this.

This is also an example of why the deregulation of the building market, or the deregulation of our economy and reliance on the market, is not a good thing. It is interesting that during the Committee of the whole House debate, here we were, raising an issue that has arisen because of deregulation in the 1990s but we had a Minister of this present Government who was also at the same time talking in the media about allowing the building industry to self-regulate. I do not believe—I accept what you are saying, Mr Assistant Speaker—that going back to the old ways is going to fix this problem, when it was the old ways that put us in the situation that we are in now. When you think about the fact that far too many families have lost their homes and their livelihoods as a result of the leaky homes saga, I just think it is crazy for any Minister of the Government to start talking about deregulating the building industry, when it was deregulation in the first place that has gotten us into the situation that we are now in here.

Given that the legislation expires in June 2016, it just feels that this is a last-ditch attempt to get a fair outcome for those affected. Right from the very outset, we have said that we would support this because we wanted to see those families affected get the compensation that they are due. I started my remarks by saying it was most Kiwis; it was their dream that they wanted to own their own homes—something that they can call a “castle”. This is an example where, again and again, New Zealanders are seeing that that dream seems to be slipping away, when people have had to put their lives on hold waiting around for this Government to get its act together. There have been other examples that have arisen this week to show that despite this Government trying to profile itself as if it was a master of the universal economy, despite its trying to do so, we have seen time and time again that it mismanages the economy, because it does not care about people—it just does not; it just does not care. Because if the Government did care about the small number of people who will be compensated as a result of this bill, 70 people, it would have gotten this out of the way a long time ago, but it has not—it has dragged its feet about it.

I have to say that you sort of wonder, given the debacle over the Ministry of Health funding, where there was $80 million missing, why it is the Government is dragging its feet on the compensation for these families affected here. I do not have the answer for that, but I suspect that the families who are waiting for the compensation would be happy once this Government gets its act together and gets the compensation that those families need.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. As my colleague Scott Simpson has already informed the House, it is a good sensible bill that fixes up an anomaly that had been brought to our attention, and, as is typical of this Government, if there is a job to be done, we will get it done and make sure that we deliver for people who need our support.

But I do have to start, if I may, with a retort on the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, particularly on what appears to me is an immense amount of crocodile tears. I would just like to remind him, perhaps, of some of the history here. He talked about the 1990s and into the 2000s when we had a number of houses—some in Tauranga and, obviously, many in Auckland—that were impacted by the leaky home syndrome, and he talks about, in his view, the lack of speed with which our Government has responded. Well, I would like to remind him that it took 7 long years of the Labour Government before it put up a bill to get this sorted. Then, once it got the bill passed in 2007, it took the National Government to actually pass the Financial Assistance Package to start ensuring that people who needed some financial support got it.

So to stand here and cry crocodile tears about the fact that this Government does not care or does not know how to put a proper solution in place is nonsense and does not get borne out by the facts, Mr Sio. This Government was the Government that acted. This Government is the Government that stood beside the people of Auckland and Tauranga who needed financial assistance. And when the courts said that there were a couple of anomalies that needed to be fixed, it was this Government that put this bill up and has put it through the select committee process, and now, tonight, it has a piece of legislation that is actually going to deliver for those homeowners.

There are 70 homeowners who are going to benefit from this bill once it passes. What is interesting is that, under the Financial Assistance Package, since it has been in place, there have been 1,200 claims representing over 4,200 homes that have already been assessed as qualifying for the Financial Assistance Package. What I think this bill shows is that there were 70 homeowners who had some potential opportunity to miss out in that process and we have identified what those anomalies are, and this bill seeks to address those.

We have already heard tonight about the two—I guess the two real key—components that needed clarification through this piece of legislation. The first relates to the term “built”. I think that most people in this House would understand why the view of the various agencies and the initial view of the courts was that “built” would be classified as the point of final council inspection. That was largely intuitive, so you could understand why that was perceived to be the point of eligibility. But, of course, the court case that came through resulted in a different interpretation, which is that “built” now sits at when the code of compliance is issued, and it is appropriate, therefore, that we make this amendment. It might sound small, it might sound very technical, but it is an amendment that enables those particular 70 homes to now be included in this process, if, of course, they meet all the other eligibility criteria.

I think it is appropriate that while we are having this conversation we look at the merits of extending the expiry date. It makes sense. Clearly, when this was first promulgated, 23 July 2016 sounded a fair way away. We are obviously pretty close to that now so it makes sense that we actually make that adjustment—as we have done and will do so through this particular change in the expiry date clause.

It has been an interesting process. It has had a lot of support through the select committee. There were not a huge number of submissions but it had pretty strong support. It was very technical and, despite the rhetoric that we have already heard from a couple of the Opposition speakers, when you strip it all back they know that this is good law, and they know that this is law that their constituents in their electorates support.

It is what this Government is doing and continues to do. When sensible things need to be done we do them. If issues and anomalies need to be clarified we sort them, and the people of New Zealand benefit from such an approach. I thoroughly support this bill and commend it to the House.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to adjourn at the conclusion of this current bill in the event that we conclude the bill prior to 10 p.m.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to us finishing early if we finish this bill before 10 o’clock? There appears to be none. Leave is granted.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. We have just heard from the previous speaker, Todd Muller, that if there is a job to be done then this Government will do it—conveniently forgetting that the history of this, I think, is that when there is a mess to be made a National Government will create it, leave the market to fail and the people to suffer. Then there will be an inadequate response given by the Government—which we will all agree to because at least it is something and the people will get something, and then the Government will realise it made a few mistakes in that bit of a fix-up that it put to the House—and then it will bring the job to the House and, yes, this House will do it.

And this is the history of this. We have had an absolute crisis in this country from the removal of regulations around housing standards, and 42,000 homes in this country were affected—80,000 people. I have had friends who have been directly impacted by this, and I have seen the stress, the financial stress, the emotional stress, the physical stress as a result of having a house crumbling around them and threatening their lives and their children’s lives. This is no small matter.

However, this bill at the point we are debating now is, in itself, a small bill. It is a minor fix-up to provide clarity to those people who have claims in, as some clarity was removed due to a court ruling. So this is to ensure there is clarity for them, and it is also to ensure that those people who are working on putting in claims but have not got the process to the point that the legislation required by 23 July 2016 would still be able to have their claim considered. That will cover about 70 people, we understand.

I think that there are just over 1,000 New Zealanders who have put in claims for financial assistance to this Government. Even though 42,000 have been affected, there are fewer than 2,000 altogether who will benefit from this financial assistance. This equates to the Government putting in 25 percent of the repair costs—which, when you think that the costs of the repair and the damage was not those people’s fault in the first place and was a failure of regulation, does seem slightly miserly. But the Greens are happy to support this legislation because it is fixing up mistakes that were made, ensuring clarity, and helping those few people to get through the process and get it happening quicker, and we wish them luck in that process. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, it is interesting. I am going to start by saying that I think the issues around this bill—the backdrop to this bill—have been very well canvassed. I have got to say, though, that sometimes one wonders whether we in this House are really in touch with the reality—the effects at the coalface—of the matters that we are discussing. I say that because a couple of the speeches I heard from the Government’s side would have everyone believe: “Oh, there was a little problem and there was a court case, and Auckland Council lost, and so we’ve got the bill before us now, and we’ve tidied it all up, and it’s all better and it’s all going to be fine, and we’re all going to vote in favour of this—so it’s all sweet, it’s all great, and there is not a problem.”

I think it is probably a good thing to touch on a couple of issues. I will talk about a property in Onehunga, which is a complex that has 25 owners. That property was built in 2000 and it was built at a time when the market was deregulated, when the building standards and the building codes changed under the Government of the day. We know the problems from the Local Government and Environment Committee, where eaves were not built and we had Mediterranean-type houses and complexes built; where the building code changed; and where the council responsible signed off on the work.

But that problem has not gone away for those 25 owners today. Today, as I speak, there are some young couples listening to this debate right now, because they are still embroiled in the legal actions, trying to get the work started. I mean, 16 years later, they are now starting to work on this—and this legislation will enable that work to go ahead.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, I want to thank the member for the assurance at the end there. I got—

RON MARK: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): —the impression that he was talking about something not in the bill.

RON MARK: So this legislation is good in the sense that this work will go ahead, but we need to remind ourselves that this is not a simple matter. There are human lives involved here. There are people who have separated through the stress. While all of these court actions have taken place and this legislation has dragged on in getting to a select committee and dragged on in getting out and dragged on in getting to a third reading, couples have separated and couples have divorced—and we need to remind ourselves that those matrimonial settlements have still not been settled because this legislation has not been completed.

So couples who might have separated 5 years ago or 2 years ago are still unable to settle for themselves in respect of the property that they jointly own because of this. This is not a small thing. People have left the country. Some of the people living in this particular block in Onehunga were actually scared—and I am just getting some texts through on the matter right now—into selling their properties for ridiculous money: $100,000. “You could be free of all the stress. You do not have to carry the mortgage—quit it and sell now and be shot of it.”

Other couples have had to carry two mortgages over all of this time—16 years of carrying two mortgages. This is not a small thing, I would say to the National MPs who stood up and sort of said “Oh, it’s OK. We’re passing the legislation.”—16 years of carrying two mortgages and of the stress. For some it has caused marriage breakdowns; for some it has not been concluded because one of the partners has died in the process. People were not able to get on with their lives—16 years later, we are now doing this and passing this legislation in the House.

The whole issue of work being done and signed off by the council, of changing the requirements, and of owners doing work only to find that that work should not actually have been done and that, therefore, they cannot get the 25 percent—they are not eligible for the 25 percent. People who cannot actually raise the first 25 percent—and under the current rules in legislation, everyone in the body corporate has to sign off. Three people hold it up, which requires those remaining owners to go to the High Court for a section 74 scheme to actually get control of the situation.

So we pass this legislation, but that, ladies and gentlemen and members of the House, is not the end of the matter for some people out there. So any MP in Auckland right now, think of these people in this complex in Onehunga. Think that for them this journey is just going to start now. It is going to take 26 to 32 weeks, I am told, to complete the work in this complex, and in that time those people are going to have to move out, and they are going to have to fund all this themselves. We can sit here and pat ourselves on our backs and say: “Oh, we’ve done wonderful work. We’ve passed legislation. It’s all going to be better. Take a little pill—it’s all going to be fine.” It is not fine.

We need to remember that when we pass legislation such as that which occurred in the deregulation in the market, which actually led to this situation, and which has resulted in this piece of legislation being before the House, there are downstream consequences for people. They are young couples, young couples with babies, and young couples who have struggled with the health issues of living in a mouldy home for 16 years whilst at the same time lawyers have argued and battled to get them the right to have the compensation that this House now says that they are entitled to.

I just want to send a little message to the Government: do not get so cocky and confident that everything that one is doing is fine and that there are no human consequences. None of us sitting here tonight will have any idea of the long-term consequences for the health of those children raised in those houses, and in this complex in particular; consequences of the last 16 years of living in a property in an apartment that was mouldy. None of us will understand that. But we will all pat ourselves on our backs and say: “Oh, well, it’s great. We’ve got free health care for children under 13. They’ll be right, mate. We’re looking after them.” Well, it ain’t right. We have not been looking after them. Parliament has failed them. Successive Governments over the time have failed them. The only people who have actually done them a good service is the court, in the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, and the select committee process in the last few months.

We would do well to remind ourselves that at the end of legislation are human beings—people. It is not something to be laughed about—Mr Jami-Lee Ross. It is serious—human beings and children, and leaky homes full of mould. Young couples who struggle to pay the mortgage on a property that is devalued and on which they cannot get a loan because the value of the place has plummeted because it is a leaky home. Young couples who have to take on extra work because now they have had to move into another place, where they are able to bring up their children in a healthy environment, but they are still carrying the two mortgages: (1) at the leaky property, which, hopefully, will now get fixed; and (2) at the home that they are living in and raising their children in. Sixteen years, and this is the success? Sixteen years, and Parliament sits here and congratulates itself and pats itself on the back? Yeah, right!

It is good to finally see this legislation pass tonight, and if we get to rise early and all go home and feel comfortable about that, well, whoop-de-doo. But I just want this House to remember that in a complex in Onehunga, with 25 apartments, there are young people right now whose journey is only just beginning.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I just want to respond to a couple of points made in the contribution by the previous speaker, Ron Mark, on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. I do not think this is an arrogant Government. I do not think this is a complacent Government, and I for one—and I know all the other Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee—have the utmost concern for those who have been affected by living in a leaky home and who have had their dreams of homeownership impinged upon by some of the faulty building that has been done.

This is a very narrow bill. It does not purport for a moment to resolve all those wide and varied issues suffered by the thousands of people who have had leaky homes. It deals specifically, and is in direct response to, a court case where we had a ruling from the Supreme Court that differed from previous definitions of the built date of a building, as given in Court of Appeal and High Court cases.

Ron Mark: How did it arise?

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: So it responds specifically to that issue, Mr Mark, and not to the wider issues. That court case actually only dates back to 2014. It also deals with a technical issue raised in that court case around where the legislation sits, and it is right and proper that we clarify, in this House, that this is in the Act rather than sitting in the Gazette.

This is not a bill that solves everything for everybody, but it makes, I think, a practical change that will impact upon those 70 or so claimants in a favourable fashion. For that reason I commend it to the House.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I rise in support of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. I just wanted to pick up on one of the points that my colleague Jan Logie made about the scale of the problem: the notion that 42,000 homes were affected; that 80,000 people, in many cases, lost the entire value of their home; and that the cost to the country of this was something in the order of $12.4 billion.

As the previous speaker, Paul Foster-Bell, said, this bill here is a pretty narrow bill that deals with just one aspect of the problem. But given that this problem really started in 1991, which is more than half my life ago, this just shows how the Government is easily able—when it is attempting to do sensible things—to do extremely insensible things and create colossal failures. That $12.4 billion was 2014 dollars as well, so I imagine it has inflated marginally since then.

By comparison, the Christchurch rebuild cost is something in the vicinity of $40 billion, which is one of the greatest challenges that this country has faced in recent times. The economic cost to the country—direct cash costs to the country—were more than a quarter of the entire Christchurch rebuild to date. So this is a colossal failure of Government. This is a Government-created problem, so I think, as my colleague Jan Logie said, we need to be very mindful that when Governments seek to do sensible things, occasionally they create colossal problems.

I do commend this bill to the House. I think it is important that when the Government creates a problem like this, it seeks to clean that problem up, even if it takes 25 years to do so—and we are dealing with the tail end of it now. But it does raise the question: what does it really take? New Zealand is actually starting to get a reputation for building quite poor houses, and we have got no excuse. We are not short of materials, there are not that many people here, and we have extremely talented builders and tradespeople and architects, and so on. I think, again, that it is just a sign that in our zeal for the free hand of the market and deregulation, what we end up creating is generations of very poor-quality housing. We are in danger of doing it again now, of course. Adam Smith, actually, in addition to referring to the “invisible hand”, did actually refer to a well-regulated market as well. And so the idea that the Government is a partner in the economy and can help prevent these problems—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to—having waved the bill at the member—draw his attention, as I have to previous members speaking on the bill, to the fact that the third reading is a very narrow debate. One thing I am sure of is that Adam Smith did not make a submission on this bill.

JAMES SHAW: He would have been welcome to, though, Mr Assistant Speaker, I am sure.

Hon Member: They had leaky homes back then, though.

JAMES SHAW: Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In that case, I will conclude my comments by saying that the Green Party does support this bill, that we fully support the victims of this colossal failure, and that we hope that the Government learns from this kind of failure. I commend the bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): In this country we have an expectation about our homes. We do have an expectation that they will be warm and dry, but we also have an expectation that they will be built properly. We spend a lot of money, we invest a lot of money, in our homes. We expect them to be fit for purpose so that our children are well and that, you know, as an asset, homes grow in value.

The leaky homes saga, as my colleague Su’a William Sio called it, really knocked our faith and that belief that our homes were our castles. It did, actually, cause us to stop and think about all of those processes that we put in place to ensure that things go as well as they can do—the regulations, the legislation, the building codes, and the like. We were failed as a country when the market was deregulated in this case: when the treatment of timber was compromised, where construction methods were not fit for purpose, and where the inspections of those properties caused what became a massive failure. I am giving you some background to the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And the member does not need to give me background; she needs to address the bill. We are on the third reading.

POTO WILLIAMS: OK. When we find that, in fact, we have made a mistake, we need to put it right. Have we done so in a timely way for those people who have been impacted by the weathertightness of their homes? It has taken a long period of time for those people to feel as though they have had the remedy that is required, which this legislation actually provides. But it does not provide for all the people who are impacted by weathertightness issues in their homes.

The bill has only three major components. Of course, the first is really around who will qualify for the Financial Assistance Package. Those 70 or so families who will qualify for the package only have until the end of June or the beginning of July to ensure that they get those applications in. The second component of this bill is around determining the time that the home was built, because knowing when your home was built and actually having that defined puts into play the period of time in which you can then apply for the financial assistance. The last component really deals with the claimants who will come under this bill, who may already be taking civil proceedings. They will no longer be able to take those proceedings because they will be covered under the Financial Assistance Package in this bill.

This bill is a bit of a cautionary tale. There are aspects of it that resonate with residents in Christchurch around some of the rebuild and repair, and the different applications of codes that are occurring in Christchurch. I just want to make that note, because it is important that we do not come back to this House seeking to pass legislation that will then fix up what could be dodgy repairs in Canterbury. Thank you.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my intention to take a short call here. I think that much has already been said on what is an incredibly important but very small piece of legislation, and I would not like the not-so-invisible hand of the Assistant Speaker to intervene to keep me on track on this debate for traversing material that has already been traversed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is risking it already.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: Ha, ha! There are a couple of things that I would just like to draw the House’s attention to. Some of these have been discussed. The first is the definition of “built”. The definition of “built” is incredibly important, because at the moment it is relying on the statutory definitions and the court cases that have come around that. I think that by enacting this legislation, and cleaning it up in this bill, what we are stopping is a great deal of litigation that would go through our courts, not only clogging up our court system but also imposing an immense cost on the homeowners.

When there was the prospect of a class action by 500 potential claimants who were grouping together with the law firm Parker and Associates around the James Hardy Industries products that were used—what this case did draw attention to was, actually, the paucity of law that we have in this country around group or class actions. I think that is something that we are finding, in a very similar way, in the case of Christchurch and group or class actions there. So it is good to see that cleared up in this legislation so that it is not going to need to be redressed.

The other point that I would like to draw the House’s attention to is the third change that this piece of legislation makes—one of the three changes. That, of course, is aimed at removing any doubts about the validity of the eligibility criteria for compensation as they were published in the Gazette notice. Of course, these were criteria that were developed under regulation in the primary legislation.

I think this does serve as a cautionary tale to the House: that we have to be very, very careful when we are giving delegated regulatory powers to other bodies and tertiary instruments in a piece of legislation, because we may have to come back and do a fix-up. That is one of the changes that this piece of legislation is needing to make. It sounds very technical, the fact that you are coming back to fix the eligibility criteria, but, as other members have talked about, if you are one of those people who have a leaky home—where your security and your investment and your future really has been eroded—having the eligibility, your eligibility to compensation, and the ability to get that fixed is incredibly important.

So when we are enacting tertiary instruments, as parliamentarians we do have to think very carefully and examine very closely—both in this Chamber and at the select committee deliberations—the blowback and the unintended consequences that they can have. This is a saga that started in 1991, my last year of high school. So this is a saga that has been going on for quite some time in this country.

It is a pleasure to be taking a call on this legislation tonight, and with Labour supporting this bill, because we do need to provide a remedy for the people who have been caught in this saga, and for their inability to get on with their lives. We know the kinds of strains that this puts on people’s lives, and it is good to have this amendment bill and to clear up some of the ambiguities in this legislation. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Pursuant to leave that was granted earlier in the evening, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.