Tuesday, 15 March 2016

TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2016

TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

Syria—Fifth Anniversary of Conflict

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I seek leave of the House to move without notice and without debate a motion to mark the 5-year anniversary of the start of the conflict in Syria, and to express—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave and see whether there is any objection. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I move, That this House express its solidarity with the people of Syria, who have been suffering for 5 years from brutal suppression, widespread war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and call on the Syrian Government and all other conflict parties to immediately end the bombing of civilian areas, including hospitals and other health facilities, as well as ensuring citizens have access to food, water, medicines, and other necessities.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Better Public Services—Progress

1. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its programme to get better results from public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): More good news. Yesterday we released the latest results of the Government’s Better Public Services programme, where 10 challenging targets were set in 2012. Benefit dependency continues to fall. We currently have the lowest crime rate since 1978. The number of children and young people experiencing physical abuse has reduced somewhat, and immunisation rates continue to grow, with almost 94 percent of 8-month-olds fully vaccinated.

Dr Shane Reti: What progress is being made against result 5, increasing the proportion of 18-year-olds with National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is focused on this measure because NCEA level 2 is the entry-level qualification for further training. Since 2011 the percentage of 18-year-olds achieving NCEA level 2 has jumped from 74 percent to 84.4 percent, just short of our 85 percent target, with 2 years to go. By way of comparison, in 2008 just 68 percent of 18-year-olds were achieving these qualifications. That means 7,600 more young people reach that threshold this year than was the case 7 years ago.

Dr Shane Reti: What progress is being made on other targets that aim to improve the outcomes for children and young people?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Significant progress because of the work of so many teachers, social workers, policemen, mentors, councillors, and advisers, and they are having a positive impact on our children and young people. It is good that the percentage of children who attend early childhood education has increased each year since 2000 and is now sitting at 96.4 percent. Ninety-four percent of 8-month-olds are fully vaccinated, and, as I said before, the number of young people achieving the basic secondary school qualification has leapt to 84.4 percent.

Dr Shane Reti: How does the Government’s priority of delivering better public services interact with its other priority to responsibly manage its finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason we have better public services is partly that we have been managing our finances tightly. In the past, when the Public Service wanted to show progress it would tell everybody it had spent more money, aided and abetted by politicians, whereas now we measure progress by whether we are changing lives—that is, changing the lives of young people who are less subject to abuse; prisoners who no longer reoffend; or young people who get the qualification they need for further training.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Outcomes and Dairy Industry

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and how does he do so?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and by standing here in Parliament and saying so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he reconcile his Government’s comments that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement will be worth $5 billion, year on year, by 2025 when no other proponents have made such extravagant claims?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member should table the quote where I said that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table two quotes, one from Minister Groser and one from Gerry Brownlee.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now resume his seat, and I will hear a point of order from the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Rt Hon Winston Peters just misled the House. He said that that was my quote. It was not my quote—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I need no further—[Interruption] Order! I need no further comment from either member. Standing Order 359 is the Standing Order the Prime Minister should refer to if he feels there has been a situation where a member has misled the House. As to the tabling of documents, I am not going to put the leave, because I do not think they will advance the order of this House. But I will invite the member to continue with his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order. I will hear—[Interruption] Order! I will hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters first.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am happy to table the question I asked, which began—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need to do that. Now I will hear from the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my opinion, the member said that I had said that the TPP, year after year, would be worth $5 billion. I did not say that thing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I need no further assistance from either member. I have advised the Prime Minister on a way forward if he feels he has been misrepresented. He needs to refer to the Standing Orders and follow that way. Now I am inviting the member—if he has a further line of questioning, he is welcome to follow it. I am happy to move to the next question if he would rather.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have dealt with the matter. I am inviting—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will hear it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have been accused of misleading the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. And, equally, if the member feels he has been misrepresented, he follows the same procedure. I will not entertain any more points of order on this issue, but I am happy for the member to continue his line of questioning.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that Tim Groser and Gerry Brownlee, being part of the Government, said that, why—

Hon Steven Joyce: Oh, ha, ha!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, you do not like facts, do you, sunshine?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now I am going to invite the member to start that question again and to complete the question without responding to interjections.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.

Hon Member: Come on, sunset.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, when asked for a response to the current plight of New Zealand dairy farmers, is his answer always the TPP agreement, when four of the countries involved have subsidies of over $110 billion as a barrier to New Zealand dairy farmer competition?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member goes and has a look at the TPP, he will see that the biggest area of reduction when it comes to tariffs is dairy. If the member wants to come into this House and argue that dairy farmers should pay higher tariffs, he is welcome to do so, but that just shows how little he knows. And he should stop making things up in this House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know what is wrong with the Prime Minister today—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am just making sure it is heard in silence, so I can hear the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I do not know what is wrong with the Prime Minister, but he cannot begin the first question today by attacking me, and he is back to it again, because around about now, and given your countless warnings in the past, he should be asked to apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! No. It is a robust debating chamber. Nothing at this stage has been ruled out of order, and question time can continue if the member wishes it to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Despite Tim Groser and Gerry Brownlee’s comments, how is his response that the TPP agreement is a financial relief for New Zealand dairy farmers, when US free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea took more than 4 years to receive congressional approval after signing? In short, how will the dairy industry in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 expect any relief at all from his flippant comments?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is going to come as a great revelation, but Panama, Colombia, and Korea are not part of the TPP.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Despite the fact that I never said they were, Prime Minister—and obfuscation and deviation will not work in this House—why is the Government blocking a free-trade deal with Russia and pouring massive taxpayer support into the Hollywood film industry, Skycity Casino, Rio Tinto, and now the TPP agreement campaign when the Democrat and Republican campaigns’ leadership in the United States thinks it is a real dog—

Hon Steven Joyce: What’s your question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —no, not you; the TPP agreement—and a big corporate protection racket against the interests of its workers and its farmers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Interestingly enough, if one looks at the comments from Donald Trump, the reason he thinks it is a bad deal is that he thinks that the United States has done a bad job of negotiating the terms, which, by definition, means that we did a good job of negotiating the terms, because we got a better deal.

Dairy Industry—Outlook and Debt

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is on the “cusp of something special”; if so, did he mean a thousand dairy farmers being forced off their land?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member is mistaken. As Dairy New Zealand said this morning, possibly around 5 percent of farmers right now are under pressure from having high cost structures and high debt; that is, around 500 farmers. That is quite different from being forced off their land, and a number of groups are supporting them through their current challenges.

Andrew Little: Is the 10 percent of dairy farmers that he said could soon be forced off their land part of the “something special” that he predicted?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not say that, and there is not a quote to support it.

Hon Members: You did.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I did not.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with Federated Farmers that banks should pass on the recent official cash rate savings to struggling farmers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course we encourage banks to pass on cuts in the official cash rate where they can do so, but, as we know, it is a very complex issue in terms of the way they fund themselves. But, by definition, if the banks are going to follow what Andrew Little is saying today, that would mean when the official cash rate goes up they forcibly will have to pass on those increased costs to every homeowner around the country. That just shows you how ignorant Andrew Little is when it comes to banking.

Andrew Little: In light of that answer and statement of the obvious, what action will he now take to ensure that banks pass on those official cash rate savings to help stop our farmers being forced off the land?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is what the Government is doing to ensure farmers can stay viable: reform the Resource Management Act, signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, ensure that there is irrigation schemes to support them, and support the Primary Growth Partnership. And this is what the Labour Party is doing: it is opposing all of those. It wants to have more tax on farmers through the emissions trading scheme, more water taxes, a capital gains tax—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition’s question was a relatively specific one. The Prime Minister has danced around it and has not got to it, and has instead launched a tirade of abuse against the Labour Party. Could he perhaps answer the question now?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not agree that the question has not been addressed in the answer that has been given, but where the answer was then leading to is not going to help the order of this House.

Andrew Little: In light of the Prime Minister’s statement about the TPP, can I just clarify: is he seriously saying that tariff savings worth less than 7/100th of 1 percent of current dairy debt is going to save the dairy sector?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Comparing subsidies that farmers have to pay with dairy debt is about as relevant as when Stuart Nash thought that the dairy farmers should have to pay tax on their revenue not their profit, which, by the way, when Labour was not trying to pretend that it was the friend of the farmer, was exactly what it was doing: charging them more taxes, charging them a capital gains tax, a water tax, more for the emissions trading scheme, worse for health and safety, and opposing everything that would help them.

Andrew Little: When offshore banks here are already making almost $90 million in profit each week, why should they pocket extra money while forcing farmers off the land?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member is saying that they are forcing farmers off the land. What I can see is banks are actually working constructively with farmers. It is not just my view; Dairy New Zealand has said exactly the same thing today. In fact, the chief executive officer of Dairy New Zealand said: “I have been speaking to farmers as you’d expect over the last few weeks. I haven’t heard one of them saying that there should be a bail out.” We know that the banks are working with the farmers, because, actually, it is not in their interests to force them off the land.

Andrew Little: Why should New Zealanders accept offshore banks hoarding interest rate cuts and forcing our dairy farmers off the land so those farms also end up in offshore hands?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is wanting to say that all banks operating in New Zealand should fund themselves solely on local deposits and should not use the international swaps markets to fund themselves, he is even more stupid than the public think he is.

Ron Mark: Reflecting on his earlier answer, is he seriously telling farmers who are in negotiations with banks and creditors and unsecured creditors right now, that this wonderful Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which will not come into force for what—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Ron Mark: —the next 5, 10, or 15 years, or reforms on their Resource Management Act are going to save them tomorrow; is that what he is saying?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is that there are certain things that the Government cannot control: the exchange rate, international commodity prices, the weather—these are three things we cannot control. What we can control are the direct on-farm costs, and this includes helping them through the Resource Management Act, making sure they have got irrigation to off-set droughts, and, actually, yes, when dairy farmers pay $100 million extra in tariffs it does affect them. When they pay potentially $100 million into Sri Lanka, it does affect them. If the member does not think so, he should go and speak to the management of Fonterra and see what they think when they get a reduction in the tariffs they pay.

Andrew Little: Will he just level with me for a moment and tell me whose side is he on, New Zealand dairy farmers or the overseas-owned banks?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am on the side of New Zealanders 365 days of the year. I am not on the side of farmers today, but, by the way, Stuart Nash wanted to tax them more. Others on that side of the House wanted higher health and safety costs. These are the people who do not want irrigation schemes, do not want the Resource Management Act reform, and do not want free-trade agreements. This is a joke. These people are not the friends of the farmer; these are the people who try to put them out of business. [Interruption]

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

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I raised previously with you the issue of misrepresenting Labour’s position you referred me to Standing Order 359. The Prime Minister just referred to the Labour Party being opposed to free trade, which is patently untrue. I am wondering—I have written to you on your advice and I am wondering when I might receive a response to my letter.

Mr SPEAKER: I am very surprised that you have not already received a response. It went from my office at about 11 o’clock on Thursday to say that there was absolutely no case of misrepresentation in this House on that particular issue.

Rt Hon John Key: I seek leave to table the TPP so that the Labour Party can sign it.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! Leave will not be put. The document is right in front of the Prime Minister. It is available to all members.

Dairy Industry—Debt and Farm Foreclosures

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 4, James Shaw. [Interruption] Order! I have called—[Interruption] To Mr Scott, who has a question later: if he wants to ask it, stop interjecting.

4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. I stand by the statements I make.

James Shaw: When he said on Radio New Zealand yesterday that he thought that between 5 to 10 percent of dairy farmers could fail, what specific advice, reports, or evidence was he drawing upon?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would ask the member to table the quote where I said that.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table a link to the Radio New Zealand website. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to help the member. It needs to be a bit more specific than that. If the member can table a specific—

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

Mr SPEAKER: I am actually dealing with a point of order.

Grant Robertson: I can assist the House.

Mr SPEAKER: That would be very nice.

Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House to table a printout from the Radio New Zealand website entitled “Low milk prices wiping farmers out”, at 7.18 p.m. yesterday—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described in this case because there is quite a lot of discussion about it. I am going to put the leave and it will be over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular transcript from Radio New Zealand. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a transcript, and Radio New Zealand corrected their story later on. I have never said that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty is—[Interruption] Order! Prime Minister, if you want to remain for question time, stop interjecting while I am on my feet. The difficulty here is I took it to be a transcript and I described it as such when I put the leave. I therefore think you need to re-describe the document and then I will put the leave, because the House has a right to know what it is agreeing to table.

Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House to table a report from the Radio New Zealand website, entitled “Low milk prices wiping farmers out”. Shall I give the time, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: You did earlier. It was 7 o’clock in the morning.

Grant Robertson: It was 7.18 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER: It was 7.18 p.m. It is a report from the website. On that basis I will still put the leave. It is over to the House what it decides. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection is far too high. When I am rising to my feet and calling for members to cease yelling at each other, they are not doing so. I am looking now for someone to make an example of, from anywhere in this House, and I will not hesitate to use that person for such a purpose.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that I did not receive an answer to the question, would you like me to rephrase my initial supplementary question?

Mr SPEAKER: It is so long past; I think that might be fair. I will allow the member to do so.

James Shaw: When he spoke on Radio New Zealand yesterday about the percentage of dairy farmers who could fail, what specific advice, reports, or evidence was he drawing upon?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The way the member asks is exactly the right question. The point I made yesterday is that I do not know the numbers. What I said was that the advice I had had from the bank chief executive officers whom I had spoken to indicated it was a much smaller number than the 25 percent that Radio New Zealand was presenting it as.

James Shaw: What number, not what percentage, is he expecting to fail from this dairy downturn?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would not have a clue. In the end, it is ultimately a matter between the banks and the individual farmers. There is no doubt that some farmers are likely to suffer and have foreclosure, because that happens, actually, in any one given year, even in very high payouts. But I suspect that the numbers will be less than what people think because the banks are going to work very constructively with them, as best they can.

James Shaw: How many small businesses is he expecting to fail as a result of this dairy downturn?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, I do not know directly. I do not think anyone would know that number. But what I do know is the economy is growing strongly. Actually, business confidence is strong. Treasury predictions are that growth will be between 2.5 and 3 percent. The Reserve Bank itself has indicated that they are growing more strongly. But I will say this. The member represents the Green Party. It wants to put a far higher emissions trading system charge on farmers. That certainly will make them go under.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was fairly brief and it was a factual question. It was not, I think, broad enough to invite broad insults from the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The question was brief. It was certainly answered in the initial part of the answer. There was no need for the Prime Minister to then drift into criticising Green Party policy.

James Shaw: How many rural retailers is he expecting to fail as a result of this dairy downturn?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, I do not know. But what I do know is that the economy is growing. It is creating jobs, unemployment is falling, regional growth has actually been strong around New Zealand, and it is a highly diversified economy. I mean, you have a record number of tourists coming to New Zealand going to small and regional New Zealand and, overall, actually, business confidence has been very high. If you have a look at the indicators of right and the indicators of wrong, indicative of where the country is going, it is significantly positive that the country thinks it is going in the right direction. So there are many factors in a highly diversified economy like we have. At the moment dairy prices are lower but beef prices are higher. Some years ago kiwifruit growers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is long enough.

James Shaw: What is the scale of risk to Fonterra and the banks in the financial sector as a result of this dairy downturn?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I again do not have that information but I do know that the Reserve Bank some years ago—I think last year, actually—did some modelling on a downturn in dairy prices where it looked at a 40 percent reduction in land prices and indicated that banks were resilient enough for that. We are seeing virtually no reduction in land prices at the moment.

James Shaw: When a Federated Farmers poll shows that 11 percent of dairy farmers are under pressure from banks, when farm consultant Peter Fraser warns that 25 percent of farmers are vulnerable, when the Reserve Bank advice predicts that up to 44 percent of dairy farm loans will become non-performing, and the accounting software company Mind Your Own Business says that up to 100,000 businesses will suffer does he now think that this is a threat to the whole economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not think that it is a threat to the whole economy. I think it certainly puts pressure on dairy farmers. But it is quite simple. If the member genuinely has concern for the dairy farmers of New Zealand, then support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, support irrigation, support Resource Management Act reform, make sure you do not put excess—

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not finished my answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the point of order.

James Shaw: Again, my question was not about Green Party policy. It was about the risk to the New Zealand economy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I consider the breadth of the question, it was a very long question. There was a lot of information that the member took the opportunity to put into the question. It gives the Prime Minister a wider gambit in which to answer the question. Does the Prime Minister have anything further—to conclude?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was listing a series of different things that would actually help dairy farmers. There are certain things that the Government cannot control, as I said earlier: commodity prices, the weather, exchange rates. But there are things that we can control as a Parliament, so if this Parliament wants to support dairy farmers let us do the things that actually can support them. But as long as political parties oppose those things then you will not be able to help them and you should not pretend that you are.

Health Services, Canterbury—Investment

5. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government is making major investments in health infrastructure in Christchurch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Last week I was in Christchurch for the signing of the construction contract for Christchurch Hospital’s new Acute Services building, which will open in 2018. The Acute Services building will have 413 new beds, an expanded intensive care unit, state-of-the art radiology, acute medical assessment, an expanded emergency department, and a rooftop helipad. Its 12 new theatres and procedure rooms will provide for an additional 6,000 operations per year. At a total cost of $445 million, this facility is the single-biggest Government project in the Canterbury rebuild.

Joanne Hayes: What other health infrastructure projects have been initiated in Christchurch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In early February the Government announced a new $72 million out-patients facility to be built at Christchurch Hospital and to be opened in 2018. This will be a new five-storey building that will provide out-patient and other clinical services including diabetes, endocrine, ophthalmology, and dental services. I am also looking forward to this May, when the $215 million redevelopment of Burwood Hospital opens.

Joanne Hayes: How much is the Government investing into health infrastructure in Christchurch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In total, close to $1 billion is programmed to be spent in the coming years on a range of new and/or redeveloped health facilities in Canterbury.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This new infrastructure helps future-proof Canterbury’s health system for decades to come—$1 billion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: $1 million?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: “B”—billion. Turn that up.

Reserve Bank—Official Cash Rate

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he support the expectation of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that banks would pass on the full Official Cash Rate cut made last week?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, that has usually been the experience in the past, although it is not necessarily immediate or exact. Mortgage lending is a competitive industry, and Kiwis can shop around. I am advised that some banks have already passed on the reduction in the official cash rate. Given some banks cut their rates almost immediately, you would expect competitive pressure to flow to other banks. But we do run a system where that is a decision made by banks, not by the Governor of the Reserve Bank or, as the Opposition is suggesting, by the politicians.

Grant Robertson: Was the Reserve Bank Governor wrong to say on Friday “I’d expect floating rates to come down by 25 basis points”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is yet to be seen, but competition is likely to put pressure on banks to pass on this element of their funding costs.

Grant Robertson: Is it fair that most of the major banks have cut their deposit rates by the full 25 basis points of the official cash rate cut, but have not done the same in terms of rates for borrowing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a matter the member should take up with the banks. Given that the cut in the official cash rate occurred just at the end of last week, it may take some time for competitive pressures to flow through. But I think most New Zealanders would support the notion that the threat of competition is probably a more reliable impact on their interest rates than the threat of politicians who talk about strong-arming and then legislating banks. If the Opposition members want to run a bank, they should apply for a job running a bank.

Grant Robertson: Does he think that the goal of the Reserve Bank Governor in cutting the official cash rate last week was to prop up the profits of banks?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would need to ask the Reserve Bank Governor. He has given a number of interviews, and as far as I know he has not actually specified that as a goal. But the member needs to bear in mind—if it is going to be legally required that banks pass on cuts in the official cash rate, will they be legally required to raise interest rates every time the official cash rate is put up? I suspect the member does not believe that.

Grant Robertson: Why will he not take the side of New Zealand borrowers and savers, and call on the banks to pass on the official cash rate cut—or is he that out of touch that he thinks putting the interests of overseas banks ahead of New Zealanders is what his job is?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a ridiculous way to describe the issue. What the banks will listen to is customers shopping around; that will have a great deal more influence on their behaviour than politicians making statements they cannot follow through on.

Banking Sector—Official Cash Rate and Dairy Industry

7. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Ron Mark: Why did he say on Q+A that he was “not overly concerned” that the banks have not passed on the official cash rate cut, when these banks are creaming almost 9 percent interest?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know what the member’s second statement means, but in respect of the first, the threat of competition—of customers shopping around and of other banks cutting rates—will be the ultimate determinant of where the banks go.

Ron Mark: Does he find it acceptable and in the best interests of the rural sector that a foreign bank can reject a rescue package, sell up a farmer, and send all the unsecured small business owners through the floor, when all that bank had to do was shave its extortionate 8.7 percent interest rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may well be making that up. I mean, there is no reference to any particular case—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at that. I seek your protection. We can table documents if we want—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a debating chamber. There is nothing there that I think can be taken offence at. The member just said that he disagreed with the figures, effectively. He could have said it another way, but it is hardly offensive.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I happen to know something of this case, but here is the point: when you make a statement like that, as your opening gambit, it is an allegation of dishonesty.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the member will resume his seat. He may well know something about the case, but that is not a point of order. I will ask the Minister of Finance whether he wishes to continue his answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have been saying for a while that it is in the best interests of both the banks and the dairy industry to stick together. We would expect that banks will take losses on behalf of farmers they are linked to who may not be able to service their debt completely or pay it all back, and we would expect that farmers will respond to the need to reduce their debt and reduce their production costs in part so that they can meet their obligations to the banks from which they borrow.

Ron Mark: Has that Minister forgotten that when the banks foreclose on a farmer, it is the unsecured creditors—the small businesses, like the fencing contractors, the engineering workshops, the irrigation engineers, the vets, and their employees—who will take the hit, and with that in mind, why will his Government not act? And, in particular, why will it not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Ron Mark: —support New Zealand First’s farm debt mediation bill?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, we are fully aware of the consequences, which is why, for instance, the Reserve Bank, which oversees the banking system, has been warning the dairy industry about the size of its debt for some time, because the debt has been entered into freely by farmers borrowing, and those who have worked for those farmers have been well aware that that is the way the industry was working—that is, that a lot of the growth was financed by debt. We would fully sympathise with any farmer who finds themselves in that situation, but all the indications are that the banks understand what would work in their best interests—that is, the stable and orderly restructuring of some debt where farmers are under pressure—and that farmers are doing their best to adjust their spending and their debt levels so they can remain sustainable.

Rt Hon John Key: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that China is New Zealand’s largest export market when it comes to dairy products, and can the Minister confirm that without China as a market to be able to sell into, it would be much harder for New Zealand dairy farmers? And can he confirm—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There are three parts to that question. The first two, the Minister can address.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm that, and I can also confirm that one way to support the long-term outlook for the dairy industry would be for political parties to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I can also confirm that New Zealand First seems to want to support the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table all the evidence you need that the Government is currently renegotiating the China agreement, because it was a dumb deal in the first place.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not prepared to put that leave, because I am not sure that it was.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document showing that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Minister of Foreign Affairs when the “dumb deal” was done.

Mr SPEAKER: And I am not prepared to put that leave, either.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a serious point of order, I will have it, but if it is another jocular one, it is not going to happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a serious point of order, because—

Mr SPEAKER: I will look forward to it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The point is that it needs clarity and for me to table some documents. He does not know how Cabinet is structured. That is why he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, no. You can have your general debate tomorrow.

Roading, Waikato—Waikato Expressway

8. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has the Government made on the Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last Friday the Prime Minister and I turned the first sods on the $973 million Hamilton section of the Waikato Expressway, signalling the start of the largest roading project in the Waikato’s history—in fact, outside of Auckland in New Zealand’s history. The highway will pass to the south and east of Hamilton and includes 17 new bridges, walking and cycling links, and five interchanges, all of which make it easier for freight, business, and tourism to travel throughout the region. When finished this new stretch of highway will be transformational for Hamilton City and, indeed, the Waikato.

David Bennett: How will the Waikato Expressway benefit road users in Hamilton and the wider Waikato region?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The expressway is now well under way and is about 40 percent complete. When finished in 2020 it will be a game-changer for the region. It will create jobs, boost industry, improve safety, and reduce travel times. It will also unlock economic potential by providing stronger links between the business and agricultural centres of Auckland, the Waikato, and the Bay of Plenty. This side of the House is a Government of infrastructure, and the Waikato Expressway is an excellent example of where we are building lead infrastructure that drives economic and social success for our country.

Schools—Funding Changes

9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “we do need to review the way we fund schools and focus more on outcomes rather than blunt proxy”?

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

Chris Hipkins: Will she rule out funding increasing or decreasing based on student achievement data; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No; because we are at the very early stages of the process, so I do not want to predetermine outcomes.

Chris Hipkins: If she will not rule that out, how can such a system work without either punishing schools whose results improve or rewarding schools whose results get worse?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We are at the very early stages of the review. We want to explore what our options are. We want to do that with the sector, and we will take the necessary time to do it.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about how the system would work without punishing or rewarding schools.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am going to invite—[Interruption] Order! I am going to invite the question to be asked again, but one of the difficulties I have is I could not hear all of the question and I could not hear the answer because of the interjecting, particularly from my right-hand side. It has to cease.

Chris Hipkins: If she will not rule out—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just a minute. To the Hon Paula Bennett, that is your final warning for question time today.

Chris Hipkins: If she will not rule that out, how can such a system work without either punishing schools whose results improve or rewarding schools whose results get worse?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member’s question is predicated on a view he already has, regardless of my answer. I have said that we are not ruling anything in or out at this stage because we are at such an early stage, so to then go on and answer a question he has made on the basis of a different answer would be to obviate the original answer I gave.

Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just wait for a bit of silence.

Chris Hipkins: How will she ensure that any move to shift funding from deciles to the risk profiles of individual children does not result in the stigma associated with deciles shifting from the schools to the individual children?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Again, the member’s question is based on his view about where money will shift from and to. No decisions have been made in that regard at this point.

Hon Member: It’s in the newspaper, Hekia.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Oh, the newspaper might say that, but I am saying what I am saying.

Chris Hipkins: Why is the Government considering basing school funding on Treasury’s risk profiling model when Treasury’s own analysis found that up to half the children who experience poor outcomes have none of those risk factors in their lives, while a third of those who are deemed to be at risk do not have poor outcomes?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am really pleased that the member has taken the time to acquaint himself with the detailed work that we are doing. Of course, we will take advantage of all the rich material we have to consider the options that might present themselves that may result in a change at some time in the future, but we are not yet at that place.

Chris Hipkins: How will the Government establish the qualification levels of parents if they decide to incorporate that into the school funding system, as proposed in the paper this morning, which she was quoted in; will parents have to bring their CVs along when they enrol their kids at school?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member might like to reflect on the time he spent as adviser to a former Minister of Education when the decile system was introduced, and where the qualifications of the family are included in the meshblock that the census uses—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very poor reflection on the Hon Dr—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. He knows the rules better than most. If he wants to raise a point of order, he should do so.

Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in her ability to introduce a new funding system when she has botched other similar projects like Novopay and has allowed the level of donations collected from parents to increase by over 30 percent since National came to office?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: For every hundred dollars that the taxpayer pays to fund our education system, parents pay $1.80. That makes up a very small part of our education vote, and that is a choice that parents make. Moreover, earlier in the House today we heard that all achievement in schools, particularly in National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 but also including participation in early childhood education, has gone up under this Government.

Road Safety—Speed Limits Outside Schools

10. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Will he support the Green Party plan to make 30 kilometres an hour the default speed limit outside schools, given that kids have less than a 50:50 chance of surviving being hit by a car travelling at the current default speed limit of 50 kilometres an hour?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport): Of course this Government supports making our roads safer for all users. We are spending approximately $1 billion each year on road safety, which includes funding towards safer roads, roadsides, and dangerous intersections, all of which benefit those walking and cycling, both young and old. I note schools and their local communities already have the ability, through their local road-controlling authority, to lower speed limits around schools to 30 kilometres, if that is what is required. This allows local solutions to local issues, supported by local communities.

Julie Anne Genter: Does he acknowledge that the current process for reducing speed limits is unnecessarily bureaucratic and puts hurdles in place for those local authorities that would like to drop the speed limit outside of schools, and that explains why fewer than 20 percent of schools have the safe speed limit of 30 kilometres an hour in front of schools?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: No, I do not accept that that is the reason. The process that we have now has been in place—I think it was last changed in 2003, under the previous Government, supported by that member’s party. So, no, I do not accept that that is the reason why some of these speed limits are not changed by local authorities or road-controlling authorities as that member would like.

Julie Anne Genter: Given that the number of children walking and cycling to school has declined significantly in the time since this process was put in place, will his Government consider changing the process to make the default speed limit outside schools the safe speed limit of 30 kilometres an hour to make our kids safer?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: No. One size does not fit all here. Local communities do know best about their conditions around local schools. I do note we have rural schools and urban schools, and sometimes changing a speed limit on a road, be it a 100 kilometre-per-hour road or a 70 kilometre-per-hour road, can in fact make more danger or create more risk than, in fact, a 70 kilometre-per-hour limit, which many schools already have. I also note that we note concerns around this—so there are limits in and around passing school buses, where if a school bus is stopped, the limit is 20 kilometres per hour, regardless of which direction the car is travelling.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he explain why his Government supports 30 kilometres an hour as the default speed limit when driving past road workers but not when it is around schools, where our kids’ safety is threatened?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: They are two totally different issues. A road worker, in the middle of the road, obviously working on an infrastructure investment—possibly a cycleway, possibly one of the safer roads that this Government is investing in—needs to be kept as safe as possible. But of course every life is as valuable as the next.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table the research done for the Government, which shows that 30 kilometres an hour is the appropriate speed around—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We just need the source of the research and the date.

Julie Anne Genter: This is the Safer Speeds Programme, which was a collaboration by the New Zealand Police, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the Ministry of Transport, and ACC.

Mr SPEAKER: And it is available on the website?

Julie Anne Genter: It is.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I am not putting the leave.

Crime Resolution Rate—Burglaries

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Why did the number of burglaries that were resolved fall from 9,770 in 2008 to 6,136 in 2015, with the proportion of burglaries that went unsolved rising from 84 percent to over 90 percent?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Police: In response to the first part of the question, I am advised that the figures the member is quoting are not directly comparable. The first figure refers to the number of burglaries resolved in 2008, while the second figure refers to victimisation—something the police started counting in 2015. In response to the second part of the question, I can advise the member that police are actively working to get those resolution rates up.

Stuart Nash: Does she think that it is acceptable for police to tell burgled South Auckland dairy owners that they are too busy to investigate?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I cannot confirm that that statement was made. The police are very concerned with dealing with resolution rates for burglaries, and in particular in South Auckland.

Stuart Nash: Will she admit that cutting the number of general duties constables by almost 18 percent since 2009 has contributed to the Police Association’s inability to respond to burglaries?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not accept the underlying basis of that question.

Stuart Nash: I seek leave to table an answer to an Official Information Act request to the Minister of Police.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it could inform members of the House, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular response to an Official Information Act request. Is there any—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Are they all published?

Mr SPEAKER: They are not all published. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Stuart Nash: Does she believe that there is an issue when 86 percent of Police Association members believe that front-line general duties branch police are under-resourced?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I actually have not seen that survey, but if people are asked whether they would like more resources, the answer, on most occasions, would likely be yes.

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not about whether they required more resources but the fact that they—

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

Stuart Nash: Why has she allowed three Auckland districts to underspend their budgets by almost $14 million while unresolved burglaries are now at over 90 percent?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I would have thought that they were operational matters, but let me make it clear to the member that the question of burglary is not taken lightly by the police or this Minister. This is a very difficult crime to resolve in many circumstances, often because it is reported long after the actual event. The key thing is that the police are focused on this issue and the Minister is supporting them.

Irrigation—Support and Investment

12. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting our regions through irrigation and water storage projects?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): As a Government we are strong supporters of irrigation and water storage projects. Analysis by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has shown that irrigation contributes $2.2 billion to the national economy. That creates jobs and is helping to revitalise many towns throughout the regions. Of course, water storage also has real environmental benefits. This includes more consistent river flows in the summer and reduced pressure on groundwater aquifers. It is well summarised by Ikawai farmer Gert van’t Klooster, who said that reliable irrigation “gives you the certainty to farm in the black and gives you the possibility to be green”.

Alastair Scott: What positive effects does irrigation have on different farming models?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. There are many misconceptions about irrigation schemes. One, in particular, is that they only intensify dairy farms. The reality is that dairy accounts for about 50 percent of the irrigated area in New Zealand, with 25 percent relating to sheep and beef finishing and the remainder going into cropping and arable. Irrigation allows for more efficient farmer models in terms of both environmental performance and productivity. One example is the Waimea dam near Nelson, which would enable the conversion of un-irrigated pasture into high-value apple orchards with a reduction in nutrient leaching, and the Central Plains Water scheme will ultimately help support half of the world’s radish seed and a third of the world’s carrot seed, which is grown here in New Zealand.

Alastair Scott: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for irrigation projects?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Last week I announced three new irrigation investments in the Wairarapa, Hawke’s Bay, and Gisborne. These investments come from the Ministry for Primary Industries Irrigation Acceleration Fund, with a total of $1.6 million. Analysis shows that Ruataniwha Dam could increase regional GDP by around $200 million a year and will lead to 2,250 fulltime-equivalent jobs in that region. In the Wairarapa, analysis shows that the Black Creek and Tividale projects could add around $100 million to the wider region per year.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister assure the Tasman District Council that the Government will pay it the $40 million required to build the Lee Valley dam?

Hon NATHAN GUY: There is a process to go through, and that, of course, will be through Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd, which has a board that makes the ultimate decision. So the member, if he is interested in water storage projects, should actually talk to his colleagues, who are opposed to jobs in the region, who are opposed to exports, who are opposed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is quite long enough.

Bills

Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill, and I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 2 August so that we can put the sanctuary in place by November. This bill delivers on the proposal announced by Prime Minister John Key at the United Nations last September to create a fully protected marine area around New Zealand’s most northern territory, the Kermadec Islands.

The bill is anchored in the philosophical view that humankind does need to put some limits on its development and have the wisdom to set aside areas for nature. New Zealand was a global pioneer in this thinking when Tūwharetoa chief Te Heuheu, in 1887, with the support of our parliamentary forebears, created the Tongariro National Park. It was the fourth such park in the world, and since then, Governments have progressively protected over 30 percent of our land in public parks, in reserves, and in sanctuaries.

The new frontier for protection is the marine environment. It makes up 71 percent of the globe, and is facing the stresses of overfishing, of pollution, of increased pressure for resources, and of climate change, yet less than 1 percent nationally and internationally is protected.

This bill is part of this Government’s ambition to be a world leader in the management and protection of our ocean environment. We started in 2009 by addressing the obvious anomaly of having no environmental regulatory system in our huge exclusive economic zone, and we set up the Environmental Protection Authority to undertake that role. We have got on with protecting specific areas, creating 11 new marine reserves in our territorial sea. We have a discussion paper out on comprehensive reform of our system of marine protected areas. Our Government has been pulling out all stops diplomatically with the US in trying to secure support for a huge marine protected area in Antarctica’s Ross Sea. At the UN last year we also successfully sponsored a resolution on strengthening ocean protection in the high seas, which are beyond national jurisdictions.

The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is the most significant of these initiatives. The 620,000 square kilometre area is twice the land area of New Zealand, or about the size of France. This amounts to 15 percent of New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone, and New Zealand is one of the few countries overreaching the global 10 percent target for marine protection. This area is 35 times the area of the total of all the existing 44 marine reserves, and 50 times the size of our largest national park, in Fiordland.

It is not just the size that makes this initiative significant but the outstanding geological and biological diversity of the Kermadecs. The Kermadec area contains the longest arc of underwater volcanoes anywhere in the world, and it descends to a depth of 10 kilometres deeper than Mt Everest is tall. The depths of the ocean, combined with the underwater volcanic activity, makes an extreme environment of pressure, of temperature, and of mineral content, where unique forms of life exist that are almost as fascinating as studying life on another planet. The marine life includes over 6 million seabirds of 39 different species, 35 different species of whales and dolphins, three species of sea turtle—all of which are endangered—and over 150 species of fish.

The Kermadecs also have a rich history. They were a crucial stopover point for the migratory waka that made the long and treacherous journey between the Pacific and New Zealand. They were the only part of New Zealand that got caught up in the horrific global slave trade of the 19th century, with the atrocious deaths of 160 Pacific slaves, destined for South America, on Raoul Island in 1863. The recognition of the area for natural values gained momentum in the 1930s, with a nature reserve gazetted in 1939, and the territorial sea was protected in 1990.

The details of this bill prohibit all fishing, all mining, any disturbance of the seabed, dumping, and any harmful vibrations from the likes of seismic surveys. The intent is to protect the area to the fullest extent possible, while being consistent with our legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Pew Charitable Trusts has noted that New Zealand is setting the gold standard internationally for marine protected areas with this bill. The bill provides for scientific research, as such areas are invaluable in benchmarking the broad estate of the oceans. The Environmental Protection Authority will be responsible for regulating such work, while the Department of Conservation will be responsible for its day-to-day management, with the support of key partners like the navy.

The bill provides for a new conservation board to be responsible for developing a conservation management strategy for the total area—i.e., the new sanctuary in the exclusive economic zone, the existing marine reserve in the territorial sea, and the nature reserve on land. The board is proposed to include a representative from Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri, the two iwi with a statutory acknowledgment, as well as a third member to be appointed by the Minister for Māori Development, noting that other iwi also have an interest and connection with these islands. Four members are to be appointed for their skills, their knowledge, and their experience to support the work of protecting the Kermadecs.

Let me address the three criticisms that have been made of these sanctuary proposals. The Greens have asserted that it is contradictory of the Government to be promoting the sanctuary while also supporting development of our fishing, our aquaculture, and our oil, gas, and mineral resources at sea. This misunderstands our blue-green approach of providing for areas of economic development as well as protection both at sea and on land. It is about balance and ensuring New Zealand is both economically and environmentally successful.

The other criticism, from the opposite end of the political spectrum in New Zealand—from ACT—is that somehow this protection is meaningless because 20-odd tonne of fish caught each year may well be caught in other areas of our exclusive economic zone. On this basis, you would not protect any geographical areas. I challenge ACT to visit the long-established Leigh Marine Reserve and others, and observe the stunning size of crayfish, snapper, and other marine life, because they are living proof that marine protected areas work.

I want to conclude by generously acknowledging those who have long advocated for this protection: Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri, the Kermadec initiative partners, the Pew Charitable Trusts and its tireless advocate Bronwen Golder, World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand, and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. I also want to acknowledge those hardy workers and volunteers from the former Wildlife Service and the Department of Conservation, including those who have died doing this work, for their contributions to this special part of New Zealand.

This sanctuary initiative is about New Zealand raising the bar on ocean protection globally and working with our partners in the Pacific like the forum countries—the US, the UK, and Chile—on building a network of marine protected areas in our region. This bill is about securing a better future for our oceans, and I commend it to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I rise to take a call in this first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and to register Labour’s support for this bill to go to the select committee. I want to acknowledge our previous spokesperson Ruth Dyson, because she long believed in extending the Kermadec Marine Reserve into the exclusive economic zone well before it was National’s policy. She also believed that it was important, if we were going to lead in this space, that by having a sanctuary going out into the exclusive economic zone it would send a very clear signal that not only are we a country that is surrounded by water but we believe that the protection of the marine ecosystem is a priority and that we, of all countries, should take leadership in that space.

It would be trite to make that comment in the absence of pointing to some of the aspects of the bill that I think will provide an opportunity for submitters to contribute to improving what is already there. The Minister made comment on the Kermadec Islands and the role of Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri in being represented on the management model. They refer to the Kermadec Islands, I understand, as Rangitahua. It is an area that is well-known within our navigational stories throughout the Pacific as a place of stopover. It also was a place where migratory mammals—marine species—would often pass, and people noted those stories and the times of the seasons.

But let us come back to the bill. This will be the first time that an ocean sanctuary has been extended into the exclusive economic zone. As the Minister said, all around the world other countries will be looking at this particular model as an opportunity to gain greater understanding about what they could do to take leadership in the area of protecting geological and marine biological diversity. As was mentioned, the area includes the world’s longest chain of underwater volcanoes. As I said, it is a migratory pathway for marine mammals, home to a significant number of threatened and endangered species, and also an area where a number of species of fish that are fished commercially are caught.

When the bill gets to the select committee, it is an opportunity, I think, to hear some of the concerns. I would just note the concern of Te Ohu Kaimoana with regard to the fisheries settlement and the fact that the Minister is not entertaining any compensation for the loss of rights in fishery management area 10, yet that is in direct contrast to the approach for the marine protected areas discussion document and what it was proposing there. It will lift the recognition and participation of iwi and kaitiakitanga in the greater marine space to a whole other level. Minister, you proposed to set up a management committee with representation of iwi, which I understand falls a little bit short of what they were hoping for, but it is a start, in their minds. On that note, I want to acknowledge both Rick Wītana and Harry Burkhardt, who represent Te Aupōuri and Ngāti Kuri, respectively, and have made very positive comments in terms of an enduring relationship to promote marine protection from their particular perspective and in their part of the world.

The issues around marine scientific research are provided for, albeit by way of a process. We are anticipating that there will be submissions in relation to the transitional provisions—in particular, on the issues that have been recognised in the departmental disclosure statement. I want to just comment on that. In particular, it says that “there is no proposal to protect area-specific Māori commercial fishing interests awarded under the Fisheries Deed of Settlement or any customary fishing interests from the impact of the Sanctuary’s creation. This lack of protection is likely to be criticised as failing to uphold Māori interests protected by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” Both Matiu Rei and Peter Douglas have commented on that. However, Shane Jones did make the comment that very little fishing is happening in that part of the world. I anticipate that the select committee will be able to ask questions on this particular point and gain some clarity on some of the issues.

On the issue of the marine scientific research, obviously we believe that the balance of opinion should be in favour of protecting the marine ecosystem, but it will come down to the process that is being proposed, and that is outlined in Part 2, clauses 13 to 22, of the bill. I anticipate that there will be a lot of discussion around the way in which, for example, consultation occurs and the information goes to the Environmental Protection Authority before a decision is made.

I want to come back to a comment that was made around illegal fishing in the exclusive economic zone and the extent to which it may or may not impact on this bill. The point was well made that unless you are monitoring what is happening wide out in that part of the world, anything could happen. So although I definitely applaud the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill including the exclusive economic zone for all the right reasons—and the fact is it is taking a leadership stance and covers 15 percent of our exclusive economic zone, so it could be just the start—it really is about how the monitoring and management of that particular area is going to be undertaken with a level of rigour that gives us an assurance that what we think we are protecting is being protected well.

With that said, Minister, I note, with respect, that many of the issues that affect Treaty rights in particular have not been dealt with very well by you. The housing right-of-first-refusal approach, where you totally ignored Treaty interests that were expressed, the marine protected areas proposal that cuts across fishing interests, and the Kermadec bill in relation to the 1992 fisheries settlement interest are, I think, all areas where through the select committee, again, I anticipate that there will be some submissions that address this particular area.

Once the bill gets to the select committee, it will receive a very robust hearing from all quarters. Labour will be very open to many of those concerns, but, again, I come back to the primary matter of having an ocean sanctuary that extends into the exclusive economic zone. It is a positive step, it will lead the world in marine area protection, and it has been viewed, albeit at its very initial stage, as a positive step forward for New Zealand. Kia ora.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill as the Minister of Conservation. This does represent one of the most significant achievements of this Government, and it is something I think that all New Zealanders should be very proud of. Not all New Zealanders will be able to visit it, but I think it is a tremendous and significant step under the visionary leadership of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, that we have been able to make this happen.

I commend the hard work of Dr Nick Smith; the Pew Charitable Trusts, led by Bronwen Golder; World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand; Forest and Bird; the Department of Conservation; and many others who have made this sanctuary happen. This bill is going to honour our commitment to protect 620,000 square kilometres of ocean. Size does count in this case, and I will talk a little later in my call about the international response to the naming of this Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary and the international response of others who would seek to follow our lead. It is going to be one of the world’s largest marine reserves, and it will make us leaders in international efforts to protect the waters of the Pacific. We will be working alongside the United States, Australia, Great Britain, and Chile. So we are joining forces with other nations in this tremendously significant project.

As has been pointed out many times, the Kermadecs are a pristine environment, but it has not always been that way, and they are not totally pristine. Sadly, the misguided colonisation that resulted in many eco-invaders taking over New Zealand—the possums, the rats, the stoats, and some of the feral cats—has also devastated the forests and severely depleted the seabird populations that were once so abundant on the islands of the Kermadecs. The Department of Conservation has led the efforts to eradicate the rats and the cats from Raoul Island, which is the largest of the chain, and the staff who work for the Department of Conservation now run a year-round eradication campaign for weeds, and it is ongoing challenge. The logistics are enormous. It is a remote place, and so the challenges in that regard cannot be underestimated.

When this bill passes, twice a year the navy will be involved in sending a ship with supplies and equipment to the island to keep the base there stocked up and safe. Twice a year the Department of Conservation will also charter vessels to transfer staff to and from the islands—staff and volunteers. I commend the extraordinary work that they do and their dedication to the vision of having predator-free—and that is weed-free, as well as pest-free—islands.

The main focus of the groups that go through is currently weed eradication. They target things that in New Zealand we would not mind too much—or would we—such as black passionfruit, yellow guava, purple guava, Mysore, and African olive. These are things that were introduced, as I said, in less enlightened times, and they now need to go because they are upsetting the biodiversity of these wonderful islands.

The Department of Conservation staff on Raoul Island play an important role as part of our national scientific network. They collect water samples and they send them to GNS Science. They also take air samples, to contribute to the international measurements of carbon dioxide and global warming and to assist with the annual whale survey for Auckland University and the research on the 6 million seabirds that inhabit this general area. But it is really in the ocean and what lies beneath the waves that the truly global significance and importance of the Kermadecs becomes apparent. Many of us will have seen the stunning images—teeming marine life in all its many weird and wonderful form, the 30 undersea volcanoes with their billowing plumes of black smoke, and the colourful and abundant reef systems.

The Kermadecs lie on the migration routes of whales and dolphins, including the gigantic blue whale. They support within their waters more than 6 million seabirds, 150 species of fish, and three out of the seven sea turtle species that are known to science. The Pew Charitable Trusts has described this as the gold standard of reserves, and it is correct. That means that nobody can fish there. No yachtie who passes through can stop and throw a line over the side, nobody can mine or dredge there, and nobody can exploit and degrade the natural beauty of this place.

The Department of Conservation will manage the Kermadecs as part of the Auckland Conservation Management Strategy, and once the sanctuary is up and running, it will work on a new conservation management strategy specifically for the islands and their waters. In the same way that the Auckland Conservation Board and the other boards around the country manage their specific areas, we will create—as my colleague Dr Nick Smith has outlined—a new Kermadec conservation board once that sanctuary has been established.

We have worked closely with iwi to reach agreement on the governance arrangements. The Department of Conservation will continue to authorise scientific work on the islands themselves and within their coastal waters, and the existing marine reserves as well, around each of the islands. The Kermadec Biodiscovery Expedition 2011 report—it was about 5 years ago now that it was released—has indicated a very exciting frontier of conservation in these waters. We are still discovering more about this region and its extraordinary treasures. There is much to be found. New species of plants and animals are perhaps lurking in the depths of the world’s second-deepest ocean trench—new taonga for all of us as New Zealanders to protect and cherish and be proud of for ever.

This is, indeed, a powerful symbol of New Zealand leading the world in conservation and environmental protection, I think, when we look at how the world has reacted to this. This weighty tome that Bronwen Golder sent through to my office and, I think, to Nick Smith’s office last October details the extraordinary response. The media ran out of superlatives, really. We had “enormous”, “giant”, “gigantic”, “vast”, “huge”, and “massive”. We also have announcements in here that compare the size of the Kermadecs with the state of Texas—that was the Americans, of course. The Europeans chose to reflect the fact that it was the size of France. These things have not gone unnoticed.

Again, I commend the spirit—the wairua—and the intention of what the Prime Minister first announced at the United Nations last September as being part of the vision that we have as conservationists and environmentalists on the world stage. We are but a small country, this is twice the size of our land mass, and it is a remarkable contribution to the way that the world will work and the exciting prospects that lurk beneath the waves, which will, I think, help secure our future. In order to manage what is happening beneath the waves, we need to be able to measure and understand it better.

As Theodore Roosevelt, the President who, of course, protected more than 230 million acres of land in the United States—and I will conclude my call on this note—once said of the Grand Canyon: “Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.” The Kermadecs will be left as they are, protected in perpetuity and as a legacy for all of us as New Zealanders to cherish and to value. The ages can continue their work, free of human interference. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a great pleasure for me to rise and join the calls of support for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill. I want to begin by making a genuine commitment of acknowledgment for the hard work and passion shown by the Minister responsible for the bill, the Hon Nick Smith. We are in different parties, but we share a passion for the protection of the marine environment, and on this particular occasion I think the tributes that have been paid to him, his drive, and the fact that this is regarded as the gold standard have been well-earned. So I want to place on record my acknowledgment for his work and our support for this legislation.

The Kermadecs are a pretty amazing place. The drive for the sanctuary has been driven not from within this Parliament, although it has certainly been Labour’s policy for a little while to support legislative protection through a sanctuary bill, but from people outside this Parliament, and they deserve a tribute equal to that that I have given to the Minister because they have been absolutely fearless, consistent, passionate, and factually based and have moved the whole of Parliament to this position. I hope it is the whole of Parliament. I have not heard the ACT contribution yet, and you never know, actually, when it comes to that party, but I hope the whole of Parliament is able to give its support.

So I want to acknowledge, not only but in particular, the Pew Charitable Trusts, represented in New Zealand by Bronwen Golder; Forest and Bird, represented on this issue particularly by Anton van Helden; and the World Wide Fund for Nature, again represented particularly on this issue by Alex Smith. There are others who have worked on it as well, but those three individuals and organisations certainly deserve tribute. They have been amazing.

The launch of the legislation held in the western foyer of the Beehive, which is a pretty noisy place at the best of time—it has a lot of traffic going through. It was abuzz with excitement last week, and I really enjoyed the fact that so many of our political parties were able to join with those organisations that I have just noted and celebrate such a good decision.

The bill will not be without controversy, I am sure, as it goes through the select committee, and I look forward to hearing from the chair of the select committee, Scott Simpson—who I am sure is keen to take a call soon—and also to the second reading here after the deliberations, because a piece of legislation like this will not be entirely without controversy, but I certainly hope that the select committee is able to give it the consideration that it deserves. It warrants it. It warrants coming back to this House in a better shape, if that is possible, as a result of submissions that were made.

The Kermadecs—the area that we are talking about—has 11 percent of the world’s seabird species. That is a lot. That is a lot in just one area, although it is a big area. There is a 10,000 metre depth in the Kermadec - Tonga Trench, and it has 32 different New Zealand fish species within it. A lot of people do not know that the Kermadecs is a New Zealand territory. They think it is somewhere else. I would like to pose a question to the Minister and to the chair of the select committee, because I have not yet been able to get an answer and I assume they will know the answer to this question: who is the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs? I am really disappointed that neither the Minister nor the chair of the select committee at this stage of the debate knows the answer, but I bet that by the end of the third reading we will have it.

I used to be the member of Parliament for the Chatham Islands. It was a great privilege. That area was stolen off me, rather unfairly, in boundary changes, and now it comes under Rongotai, and there are a few other beautiful islands that we are fortunate to have. I know that the member for Coromandel has quite a few of them in his patch because he is often boasting about them, and I know that Jacinda Ardern has often told, with some pride, of the islands that are attached to the Auckland Central electorate. But I do not know who the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs is, so I would like that to be the first challenge—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I volunteer.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member for Nelson is offering, but I cannot yet see a geographical connection. I suppose the same water touches the beaches around the Nelson area as in the Kermadecs, but, seriously, it is an interesting question, and I know that a number of us would really like the answer.

One of the issues that have been under debate is whether the governance structure of the sanctuary is going to be that of co-management. That is what was originally proposed, but that is not what is in the legislation, and I am sure it will be raised again during the select committee consideration. I want to acknowledge Rick Wītana from Te Aupōuri and Harry Burkhardt from Ngāti Kurī, who spoke at the launch of this legislation and who have long been involved and have had very open and serious discussions about the governance structure.

This is not a marine sanctuary that is set up in the same way as many others are. It is more along the lines of the Fiordland protection that the guardians of Fiordland set up under separate legislation, but this is different again in that it has both Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri represented as part of that structure. There will be, as I said, some debate about that.

There are a couple of other points that I want to make in relation to the administration. The first is that even though the Minister for the Environment introduced the legislation and, I know, did all the hard work to get it to this stage, the Department of Conservation will actually administer and manage the sanctuary. That is appropriate and that is good. I am very concerned, though, because in recent reports in the media, the Department of Conservation is quoted as saying to its Minister—not the Minister responsible for this bill, but the Minister responsible for the Department of Conservation—that it is so short of money that it is likely to be unable to fulfil its statutory obligations. And here we are giving it in this legislation a huge amount of more work to do—monitoring a marine sanctuary.

It is appropriate, as I said, for the Department of Conservation to have this role. It currently has amazing staff and volunteers who work on Raoul Island—and I want to pay tribute to them. I also want to echo the words of Minister Nick Smith in paying particular tribute to those who have lost their lives on Raoul Island, particularly the young volunteers who did so recently—one by drowning and one in a volcanic explosion. Those are tragedies. They are people who are so passionate that they dedicated part of their life to do this conservation work, and they paid the ultimate price for it. So they should be acknowledged as well.

But if we are expecting the Department of Conservation to manage this huge marine sanctuary, where is the money going to come from? If we want it done properly, it must be properly resourced, and if recent media coverage is anything to go by, it cannot even do its current work within the money that it has got. Millions and millions and millions of dollars has been slashed from its budget over the last 7 years without any justification, in my view, and we just to need make sure that we put the Government’s money—the taxpayers’ money—where the mouths of Ministers are in this legislation and make sure that the department is able to fulfil its job.

The second point that I want to make, which, again, I am sure will be raised during the select committee process, is about the breadth of marine scientific research that will be allowed under this legislation. We are told that research ordinarily would breach the provisions of this statute, but there are exemptions that can be made by the Environmental Protection Authority. I think that is a good process. If you are going to have exemptions, of course you should have a robust process, and I have no concerns at all about the integrity of the processes of the Environmental Protection Authority.

But we do know that in some instances the intention of Parliament, of legislation, and, presumably, of Ministers is often watered down when it comes to the actions. Again, recent reports about the extraction of swamp kauri are an example of that. Something that we all thought in this House was clearly not allowed has been permitted by what I think has been quite a lightweight response by the department responsible. I think in this case it was the Ministry for Primary Industries rather than Ministry of Environment or the Department of Conservation.

This is a great way to start the parliamentary week, with a celebration of the protection of an extraordinary piece of water, of underground volcanoes, of birdlife, and of fish, whales, and dolphins. The Kermadecs have got it all. It is a brilliant part of the world, and it is with great pride that this Parliament is taking this step and moving to its better protection.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on this first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill. It is not every day that we as politicians and as members of Parliament get to speak on a piece of legislation introduced into the House that will be so significant, so momentous, and so important into the future.

I wanted to acknowledge and congratulate both the Ministers who have already spoken in this debate on their work, effort, and contribution, not only in the debate but also in bringing this bill to the House in the way it is and in the manner in which it was introduced last week at a function in the west foyer of the Beehive complex. I also want to acknowledge and thank the two Opposition members who have taken part in this debate so far for their constructive and useful commentary on how, I think, they will see this bill working its way through Parliament.

The oceans of the globe continue to face increased pressure from habitat destruction, from overfishing, from climate change, and from pollution. It is entirely appropriate that in the face of those kinds of daunting challenges a piece of legislation as momentous and significant as this should come before this, the 51st Parliament. In a hundred years, when we are all long gone and when nobody may recall anything of the efforts and the legislative agenda of the 51st Parliament, there will be New Zealanders and people around the globe who will remember that in 2016, if those members of the 51st Parliament of New Zealand did nothing else, then they did good—they did great—in actually creating the largest no-take ocean reserve on the planet. That is a provision, a step, that we as parliamentarians, as New Zealanders, and as citizens of the world can actually be enormously proud of.

I am really looking forward to—and cannot really begin to describe to the House the excitement that I have as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—playing what will probably be a relatively small role in the process of getting this bill through the House, but it will be something that I think all of us on the committee will be able to take great pride in. I am hopeful that the committee, as it always does, will work in a collaborative and collegial way on this bill, which I see on first reading as already being a very good piece of legislation, but who knows? As we go through the submission processes and through the hearing of submissions from members of the public and organisations that want to have a say on it, they may want to point out to us some areas where the legislation could be tweaked or refined and improved, if that is possible. And certainly, I know that the committee that I chair will be open to those suggestions.

The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary that will be created by this piece of legislation is truly significant, not just for New Zealanders but for all citizens of the world. Most of us will probably never visit there. Most of us will never go there. Most of us will never get to experience the wonders and the magnificence of the marine life that has its home in the Kermadecs and the islands and the water and the sea that surround it, but we will all know that we have played a small part in creating something really special, really important, and really futureproof for ever and for all times. It is with great excitement and great passion and great enthusiasm that I commend this bill to the House because I know that on this piece of legislation we are absolutely and for certain doing real good.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe, tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Secondly, acknowledgments to you all, members of our House.]

The Green Party is very pleased to be supporting the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, establishing a new marine reserve in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone around the Kermadec Islands. We have had a member’s bill in the ballot, prepared by Gareth Hughes, for some time to establish a marine protected area at the Kermadecs. We congratulated the Government when it announced its intention to create this ocean sanctuary at the United Nations in the run-up to an international oceans conference last year. We are very pleased to support the bill.

As with Scott Simpson, I have never been to the Kermadecs, but everything I have read about this island chain and the photographs I have seen show that it is an extraordinary place of enormous significance to all humankind, not just Aotearoa, because of its biodiversity and geological and cultural values. Its remoteness has protected it from the impacts of fishing and from mining, so, as others have said, it remains one of the most pristine places on the planet. It is also important because of the complexity of the deep-sea marine habitats that are there. It includes a 12,000 kilometre section of the longest volcanic arc in the world, which extends from the Bay of Plenty up towards Tonga. You have got two tectonic plates colliding, and that means we have got this arc of underwater volcanos, active hydrothermal vents, and dramatic features like the black smoker chimneys. Those hydrothermal vents produce quite extraordinary conditions, where you have got quite strange organisms flourishing in those dark depths, in super-heated water, where there are quite high levels of quite toxic compounds. We have got in the Kermadecs the second-deepest ocean trench in the world, extending up to 10 kilometres deep, and it is really surprising to think that fish can live at that depth. Scientists have found fish living at 8 kilometres depth, and they have got amazing adaptations to be able to live in darkness and at the extreme pressure that you get at those depths.

Even though we have had quite a lot more scientific exploration in recent years, the Kermadecs still remain one of the least-understood habitats on the planet. It is an important area for marine mammals, with blue whales, fin whales, and humpback whales migrating through the region en route to and from their summer feeding grounds in the Antarctic. It is a really important place for seabirds, with at least 14 seabird species breeding on the Kermadec Islands and another 28 species using the oceans around the Kermadecs to feed. Ornithologist Chris Gaskin described arriving at Macauley Island. He said there were hundreds of thousands of black-winged petrels milling about over the islands. That must have been an astonishing sight.

As Forest and Bird, one of the champions of the Kermadec sanctuary—along with the Pew Charitable Trusts and World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand—has noted, it is one of the only places in New Zealand where you get both tropical and subtropical, and temperate species of birds, whales, turtles, fish, and corals and other marine invertebrates living together. This whole constellation of biological and geological values means that we would encourage Minister Smith, when the bill is passed, to consider nominating the Kermadecs for World Heritage status, to recognise their importance for all humankind.

This bill is significant because although we have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world—an exclusive economic zone that is 15 times the size of our land mass—at the moment we do not have any effective marine protected areas in it other than the benthic protected areas, which, of course, do not protect the water column. In New Zealand waters, in our marine environment, less than 0.5 percent of our territorial sea and exclusive economic zone combined is protected. As the Minister has noted, this bill will increase that to 15 percent, and that is why it is important—particularly with the prohibition on fishing and mining, and the Department of Conservation managing the reserve and the Environmental Protection Authority managing any applications for research for scientific purposes.

There was one concern: the departmental disclosure statement did note that because of the secrecy around the project, there was not engagement with Māori interests prior to it being announced. That was disappointing, but we note that there has been extensive consultation with Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri subsequently. Te Ohu Kaimoana has raised a concern about the potential impact on fishing rights allocated to iwi under the fisheries settlement, but I would note that there has been no fishing undertaken in the Kermadec region using the settlement quota in the past 10 years. So Te Ohu Kaimoana seems concerned about the potential fishing rights rather than the actual ones, and the biodiversity values far outweigh the fishing values.

Other countries in the Pacific have also recognised the importance of having large fully protected marine areas to preserve biodiversity, to provide a safe haven for species, and to do what Scott Simpson suggested, which was to ensure that there are large areas that remain in their natural state for future generations. We have seen Australia protect nearly a million square kilometres in the Coral Sea and New Caledonia protect 1.3 million square kilometres in the Coral Sea. So the major concern we have—not with this proposal, but with the accompanying proposals of the Government to reform the Marine Reserves Act—is that the Kermadecs seems to be it. Yes, the bill certainly raises the extent of marine protected areas from 0.4 percent to 15 percent, but the Kermadecs is largely subtropical and tropical. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will not protect representative examples of our subantarctic marine habitats and the species that inhabit those.

We need to see in our new marine protected areas legislation the ability to create more marine protected areas in our exclusive economic zone, and not just have that done by special legislation, such as this bill. The Minister for the Environment has referred to 10 percent of the marine environment being the target, but scientists internationally have referred to the desirability of having 30 percent of our marine environment protected in order to ensure that we have healthy seas, that we conserve our fish stocks, and that we protect important habitats for seabirds, marine mammals, fish, and marine invertebrates.

So 30 percent is a much more appropriate target, and the marine protected areas reform will not provide a simple process to have further marine protected areas created in the exclusive economic zone. We understand that that has been because of the opposition from the oil-drilling and gas industries, but the value of our deep oceans is in conserving species that we have only just begun to understand. Scientists are still finding and describing new species in areas like the Kermadecs. We understand probably more about areas of outer space than we do about our deep, deep oceans at the bottom of the trench. So we need to not just protect the Kermadecs but to have a process to establish other deep-sea marine protected areas. That is why there have been several thousand submissions on the Government’s consultation document, seeking that there be such a process.

So this bill is a very good one, which the Green Party is pleased to support, but we need a clear process that will provide for not just the subtropics to be protected but also representative examples of all of our deep-ocean habitats, given that we have got such a large exclusive economic zone and we have got a responsibility to the world to protect that, and not just leave much of it open for fishing, mining, drilling, and exploitation. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I take great pleasure in rising on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, and I have to say it is wonderful that we have now had 2 weeks in a row when we have, seemingly, got full cross-party support with legislation coming through the House. In saying that, though, I am still waiting to hear from the member from ACT, because, of course, we never know where he is going to go on any given day, and, in fact, I am probably quite convinced that he is not sure on any given day how he is going to go. But, all that being said, New Zealand First certainly will be supporting this piece of legislation through to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and hearing submitters’ thoughts and feelings on this bill.

I would like to think that the bill in its current state is probably better served by being called the “Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Sieve Bill” because the bill has got a number of holes that need to be remedied and rectified at the committee stage. A question was asked in the House last week of the Minister for the Environment with regard to the enforcement of this bill. The reality is, when we asked what his outcome was going to be and how he was going to actually uphold this fantastic sanctuary—we said that in the current state, if we are lucky if we have got three Orions fly over once a week, and we may be lucky if we have got a frigate that is within the area, and a Department of Conservation worker—his answer was “We’ve got more than one DOC worker.”

That certainly does raise some serious concerns when we, as a country, are hearing time and time again about the issue around the lack of policing and the problems that that is causing in our communities. If we cannot police our own country properly because of the lack of funding, then we are going to have some serious problems enforcing an area that is twice the size of our country with more than one Department of Conservation worker, a couple of Orions, and the occasional visit from a frigate.

All that being said, this is a magnificent area—pristine—and it needs to be kept that way. I think Scott Simpson summed it up quite nicely when he said that most New Zealanders—I would just about suggest 99.999 percent of New Zealanders—will not ever get to go and see this beautiful sanctuary a thousand kilometres off the north-east of the country. That should not be a reason why anybody would want to oppose this bill, because, of course, it is looking after our natural environment and trying to keep it as pristine as possible. We note that it is a category 1 conservation area, which would obviously prevent any fishing, any mining, and so on. But there are some contradictions in that, when we move through the bill, when we start looking into it further. People can apply for an exemption for research purposes, and some of those things need to be run through the two iwi groups to be ratified as to whether or not they can actually receive the ability to go in and do some research in that area.

But an area that is of concern, which could be a loophole for people to be able to get around restrictions, is with regard to naval vessels. The bill, it says in the explanatory note about clause 7, “disapplies the Bill to Crown activities necessary for reasons of national security”—I do not know what national security there could be going on at Raoul Island, but you never know—“(as certified by the Minister of Defence) and to ships and aircraft of the New Zealand Defence Force and foreign States.” What we could have happening, and we have seen it with whaling ships, is research vessels could be going in there under the name of a naval research vessel, and, of course, they could do things that we would be unable to stop. So I think we need to look at those as an issue that we need to circumscribe.

I think the sanctuary area, with regard to how it has come about, has happened quite quickly. When I say “quickly”, it has certainly been worked on for a number of years. In fact, in my first few weeks in Parliament, I was given a very good briefing by Bronwen Golder from the Pew Charitable Trusts, who was very passionate and gave all the right reasons as to why we should indeed be putting this area into a marine sanctuary.

But I do have to take with a pinch of salt the Government’s rushing into this. It is almost like a little bit of greenwashing is required, and “We need to tick the box because we said in our pre-election promises that we’re going to do something here.” Yet the Government neglected to talk about and include the exclusive economic zone in the rest of its documentation when it talked about new marine protected areas legislation. The Government promised that it was going to be in there—the exclusive economic zone was going to be included—and now we understand it has been completely removed, which is a 180-degree turn, which, to be fair, New Zealanders are getting pretty used to. The Government does tend to change its mind quite quickly on things and dish out promises that it cannot back up. So that is of concern.

The sheer nature of the location of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary would indicate that we need to look inshore, inside our territorial waters—inside that 13-mile radius—to ensure that we actually have some protected areas close to shore that people of this country can go to and look at and witness and involve themselves in, not too dissimilar to those that Australia has with the Great Barrier Reef. We want people to enjoy it and we want people to access it, but we want to protect it at the same time. That is certainly an issue that we need to look at.

We are concerned about the lack of consultation with those affected groups, in relation to their fisheries being revoked. So no compensation, no consultation—we are just going to remove that. The Government says it is only 20 tonnes—20,000 kilograms—of fish. It equates to $165,000 worth, give or take. I think, in a true, open, and transparent Government, we need to ensure that all affected groups actually have that opportunity to submit. So I am sure we will hear from those submitters at the select committee hearings, which will be coming up, I would imagine, rather, rather quickly.

There are a number of contradictions. When we talk about the naval vessels and the seismic testing and so forth—we are, as people, sailors, sailing up there, going on a trip, and putting on a depth sounder. That, under this bill, would be prohibited. Ironically and contradictorily, the naval ships can use their sonar, which is a hell of a lot more powerful than a little wee sailing ship with a bottom sonar, and that is a concern, and certainly one worth mentioning.

When we talk about the setting up of the new statutory Conservation Board for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, I would have to say that there is a concern about nepotism and cronyism, because when we talk about the board that is going to be put together specifically to look after the best interests of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, we see there is one nominee from each of the Kermadec iwi authorities—which, by the way, back in 1989 and 1992 were both granted control over one-third of New Zealand’s commercial fishing rights. So that is a right for those iwis to be there, to be involved in the discussion.

The second concern is the nomination “from the Minister of Māori Affairs for the purpose of representing other iwi [interest groups]”. That is where we are concerned that there could be some nepotism and cronyism coming into play, because if we go down to the third point, when putting this board together the Minister of Conservation is allowed to choose four members—it is quite clearly stated in the explanatory note “4 members appointed by the Minister of Conservation after following a public process calling for nominations and being satisfied as to each person’s skills, knowledge, and experience.” After that process they can be nominated. There are four places for those nominees, but nothing like that process has been put into the decision made by the Māori affairs Minister in relation to whom they choose and how they choose them. That is a serious opening up of the door to cronyism and nepotism, which I think reeks of undemocratic processes.

We would certainly like that fairness to be spread throughout all decision-making processes, as it has been clearly stated here—for the Minister of Conservation to be able to make those decisions, as opposed to the Māori affairs Minister, who can basically finger-pick whoever he thinks is going to be best on the day.

Marama Fox: No faith in the Māori affairs Minister.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: No, that is—probably you are right, too. The exclusive economic zone and the sanctuary that we find ourselves discussing here today is going to be a fantastic area for the future and, certainly, it is a fantastic opportunity for the world to look at New Zealand and see the cross-party accord and support for a piece of legislation that has everybody’s hearts and minds, and has the environment’s best interests at heart.

So we would certainly look forward to the discussions at the select committee hearing and to listening to some of those submissions, and we have pointed out a number of those holes that we would like to see remedied, particularly around enforcement and particularly around nepotism and cronyism and the like. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. I rise in support of this very fine bill, the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, introduced by our excellent Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who has been a passionate champion of the environment and conservation issues in this country over his long political career.

This is a fine bill. It does a number of things that my colleagues on this side of the House have already canvassed, and it is important that we celebrate the fact that we are protecting one of the largest ocean sanctuary areas on the planet, an area equivalent in size to France. As a country that has an enormous maritime area—perhaps the fourth-largest or fifth-largest in the world, depending on how it is measured—as part of the wider Realm of New Zealand, I think this bill is a major achievement of this Government, and it will be part of the legacy of this National Government that this contribution to protecting and safeguarding such a precious resource has been made. On this side of the House the wildlife and the sea life that will be protected have been mentioned: 6 million birds, coming from 39 different species; 35 species of whales and dolphins; and also three different kinds of turtles.

But I want to touch on something that I suppose is of personal relevance to me. Through my father’s mother’s mother, I whakapapa to Te Aupōuri, and I am delighted to see that Te Aupōuri does have a place on the governance board of this sanctuary under this legislation, along with Ngāti Kurī. This is particularly important because of the linkages that the Kermadecs provided in the Pacific to our ancestors and forebears. During that period of migration from Hawaiki, or the parts of Polynesia where Māori originated from perhaps a thousand years ago, there have been left archaeological remains on the Kermadecs, including obsidian tools that show evidence not only of migration but, actually, of two-way travel for a period of time between New Zealand and the Pacific by our ancestors. I would refer members, if they are interested, to the research by Professor Foss Leach conducted in the early 1980s, which is very interesting and effectively demonstrates that for a period of time the immigration and trade between the Pacific and Aotearoa was in fact two way—a very early example of globalisation.

This is a wonderful piece of legislation. It should be celebrated throughout the land. I know the select committee, chaired ably by the member for Coromandel, Scott Simpson, will look at it carefully, but it is an excellent piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to begin this 5-minute call with a reference to my colleague Gareth Hughes. Gareth is, unfortunately, away from Parliament today, otherwise, I am sure he would have been making this contribution. Gareth has had a member’s bill in the ballot for the last 4 years on providing for Kermadec protection, and I know that he would have wanted to stand here today to praise the Government for taking the step of establishing the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.

The thing about conservation in New Zealand is that so often the species that we need to protect exist only here. If we are not successful in protecting those species, conserving them, and preserving the ecosystems upon which they rely, then they will vanish from the earth for ever. That is why, despite being a small country with a small population, we have a particular responsibility not only to the natural world but to the world—to the global population—for conservation of those unique species and ecosystems.

Despite being a small country, we have a very, very large exclusive economic zone—the fifth-largest, I believe, in the world. The creation of this Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is an appropriate recognition of New Zealanders’ desire to protect those species and those ecosystems and to live up to that global responsibility. I want to express not only praise for the Government’s initiative in taking this step but also the hope that it will consider extending this into further marine protected areas within the exclusive economic zone.

Having praised the bill, there is one area that I want to express some concern about, and that was the decision to not consult with Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri prior to the bill’s creation, because consultation prior to the bill would have been most appropriate. I understand that that was not possible because of the secrecy of the project, but I believe that the Treaty, in fact, demanded no less than proper consultation at an earlier stage. I note that both iwi are now fully supportive of the bill and of the sanctuary, and I am pleased to see that they will be appropriately represented on the board.

Finally, I want to draw attention to one of the activities that will be prohibited within the sanctuary, and that is seismic surveying for non-scientific purposes. I fully support the prohibition of seismic surveying in this ocean sanctuary. It will add to our ability to love and protect those unique species, including whales and dolphins, that inhabit the sanctuary or pass through it.

One cannot help but think of the Government’s refusal to protect the Māui’s dolphin in its sanctuary from seismic surveying, and to wonder whether it is not perhaps that the economic value of fishing that will be forgone in the Kermadec sanctuary is less than the economic value that the Government hopes to glean from oil and gas prospecting in the Māui’s dolphin sanctuary. I wonder whether that is an appropriate basis for making such a decision. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. I believe that the purpose behind this bill is a very noble one—a recognition that in New Zealand and our economic zone we have taonga in the form of the natural world that are, in many cases, unique and worthy of preservation. That is why I am prepared to support this bill in its first reading. However, I believe that in our Parliament our process of lawmaking offers much opportunity to improve the quality of public policy through the select committee stage, and there are a number of changes that could be made to this particular bill that would greatly enhance the quality, because, let us be honest, it has been a rather rushed policy-making process. Cooked up in time for an international announcement, the regulatory impact statement was, to say the least, rather weak. We need to be concerned not only about environmental protection but also about the livelihood of those who make their living from the fishery.

The interesting thing from a conservation point of view is, as I asked the Minister Smith in the House only a few weeks ago, what change to the total allowable catch in New Zealand’s economic zone is brought about by this bill? Being a very experienced Minister, he ducked, he dived, and completely failed—or succeeded, perhaps—to answer the question. That is because the Minister knows that the change in fisheries taken under this bill is zero. What it will do is displace those who do catch fish to catch the same amount of fish elsewhere. From a conservation point of view, that is not an improvement; it is a small backwards step in the sense that it will mean more concentrated fisheries elsewhere.

The second problem—not only a conservation problem but also a commercial problem—is that $165,000 worth of fisheries will be precluded from the area. I will not go into the possibility of the fishing that might have taken place in the future. The idea that is in this bill is that if you are not using a property right at a particular point, then you lose it. Just focus on that relatively small value of fishing, because the premise we are being asked to buy into is that as long as you are picking on only the little guy or girl, that is OK—that no compensation is due as long as the person having their property rights appropriated is small. As a concept I find that abominable, and I think that this Parliament ought to do better than that.

I will be happy to support this bill at future readings because, as I say, there is a noble purpose behind protecting New Zealand’s unique and beautiful flora and fauna. It also enhances greatly our international reputation, where our conservation efforts have been criticised for the lack of marine reserves. None the less, we need to resolve a couple of issues. If this House is going to abrogate the property rights of New Zealanders that are legally held under New Zealand’s quota management system, then we ought to compensate them for the losses that they experience. If this House is going to try to preserve the fishery, then, rather than incentivising people to catch the same amount of fish in a smaller area of ocean, we ought to say that we are purchasing a public good and we will buy out the people who previously privately benefited from taking those fish. That is good public policy-making in line with the noble conservation objectives of this bill, and it is something that I will be happy to support in future readings. The ACT Party supports this bill in its first reading so that we can debate those changes. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): It is not very often that I find myself standing up and supporting my learned friend and colleague Mr Rāwiri Seymour. Today I find myself in quite a—

David Seymour: Oh, it’s not that unusual.

MARAMA FOX: Well, it is quite unusual for most pieces of legislation. So here we are with the legislation about the Kermadecs. I completely agree—it is a taonga not just for the people of Aotearoa but also for the population of the world, of the ao. I think the fact that we are able to gift this taonga to the world is a fantastic thing. It is a place that will be held in a sanctuary for all time.

However—and there is a big “however”—we are unhappy that the rights of the 58 other iwi who have been granted rights for quota during the fisheries settlement have been ignored. In fact, I think the Minister has been negligent in not consulting with them face to face. I fully recognise that he has been to mana whenua, the people who border that area—our Ngāti Kurī and Te Aupōuri—and they have been recognised with places on the board. I recognise that my learned colleague and Minister—the very able Minister—of Māori Development, and not Māori affairs, will be able to appoint someone to represent the rights of those other 58 iwi. However, the Minister should have had discussions with them. The reason that the Government did not want to discuss it with anyone or announce it before it was announced to the world just does not wash. You have a contractual agreement through a fisheries settlement for these 58 other iwi who have interests in this area, and that should, as my learned colleague Mr Rāwiri Seymour has pointed out, be compensated.

So let us have a look at that. We think that suitable compromise achieves sustainability, and we need to ensure that iwi are included in that conversation—we have neglected to do that with the 58 other iwi, which we could go into, but that would take all day. The proposal extinguishes iwi customary and commercial and non-commercial rights, which is contrary to the Crown’s duty to actively protect a settlement. This is no small thing. If we think that we can just go back on any settlements that we have had to date, then we are going to see a whole lot of furore in this nation over previous settlements that have been done and declared full and final. Yet the Crown has compromised its duty to protect the settlement as part of its Treaty responsibilities in this case. Notwithstanding, we agree that this is a beautiful sanctuary, and all it would have taken, I am sure, was to have a conversation with the affected iwi who are involved and who have now had those rights extinguished through this bill.

The proposal put to Cabinet states that the quota held by Te Ohu Kaimoana on behalf of iwi is an “administrative quirk”. That is how they have described the fisheries settlement that has been in place for quota in this country for some considerable time—as an administrative quirk. Well, I am surely hopeful that when the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa settlement comes to this House it will not, on some future date, be referred to as an administrative quirk and dismissed as quickly as this has been. That contradicts the process conducted in early administration to analyse where fish stocks should be, and were, introduced into the quota system in that area. As a result of that process, the Maori Fisheries Act provides for Te Ohu Kaimoana to hold quota until commercial catches can be assured. I say it again, this was not well done. The Minister should have gone to the people and conducted a full and thorough conversation with them, and they should have been adequately compensated because of the extinguishing of those rights.

The proposal claims the sanctuary is a sustainability measure that is needed. In fact, they have barely caught anything in that area for a long, long time, which, in itself, means that it needs to be sustainable, not for catch numbers, but for regeneration. Mining is one of the issues. The minerals that are found in that area might be something that everybody wants to grab for, and I think the fact that we are going to protect it is a fine step, again.

The Māori Party wants to assure the country that we support the bill. We support the idea of the Kermadec sanctuary, but the Government has been remiss in consultation with the other iwi, and to describe it as an administrative quirk is simply a failure. It needs to go back and rethink how it does its negotiations and its conversations with our people.

The proposal fails to identify the effect on quota rights and the quota management system. It states that the impact on commercial fishing is only small, as the current catch is. Against the advice of the Ministry for Primary Industries, it suggests the catch can be caught elsewhere. However, the species currently harvested in that zone will then move out. The fish cannot be caught elsewhere at that time. Consistent catch throughout the year is important for the high-value niche markets involved. What it is saying is that not enough consultation was had, and, against the advice of the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Government says that you are going to be able to catch this fish somewhere else, but, actually, it does not know, and the ministry has told it that. The proposal fails to identify the broader impact. The proposal does not reflect the true value of the quota shares.

The proposal is likely to contradict international law around no-take zones. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, New Zealand must make access available to other nations to fisheries we are not using. The ring of international fishing around the border of the Kermadec exclusive economic zone indicates a strong desire of other nations to fish in the zone. Whether or not it does, are we going to be met with litigation now, given that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is coming in? It is wonderful to have a taonga, but we should have done our homework, and I think, Minister, that, in all fairness, the 58 iwi who talk about their claim have rightly stated their issues, and to be described as an administrative quirk is simply irresponsible. There is something to be answered here. If you extinguish their rights, then compensation surely must be a conversation to be had in the future. I invite the Minister to have those conversations with those iwi.

I am happy today that we are going to support this bill at its first reading—the same as my colleague the lovely Rāwiri Seymour—but we would be looking through to the second reading for these things to be fleshed out further. The select committee process under which submissions can be made will, I feel, be vigorous. I am sure that iwi will take up the opportunity to put their case forward. All of that could have been avoided, had the conversation been had in the first place. So it is with some trepidation that we support the bill through this first reading stage. We are happy that we are going to have a taonga for all of Aotearoa to enjoy, but let us do our homework properly so that there is nothing to come back on us in the later years and we find ourselves having to relitigate this entire issue. Nō reira e Te Mana Whakawā, nā, nei te mihi atu ki a koe.

[Therefore, Mr Assistant Speaker, I do indeed acknowledge you.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon David Parker—a 5-minute call.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Firstly, can I congratulate the Hon Nick Smith on introducing this bill. As I was sitting in my chair a moment ago, talking to Nanaia Mahuta as to what I would say when I took this call, we both sort of reflected on the fact that if Shane Jones was still here, he would say “Labour Party policy”. So I do not need to say that for myself; the Greens have also said it. I think there is cross-party agreement that this is a very good thing to do.

Can I just refer to a couple of comments from the Māori Party. First of all, it says it does not often vote with the ACT Party. It backs every Budget in this House that the National Government passes, and were it not for the support of the Māori Party, those Budgets would not sail through in the way they do.

Can I say there was an interesting comment from the ACT Party. The ACT Party came here and said that you always have to compensate when you are taking away what it defines as a property right. It is interesting that people like the ACT Party would see the value of New Zealand’s fresh water grandparented and tradable amongst those people who currently have rights to use water under the Resource Management Act. I bet you that if National was foolish enough to do that—and I suspect that it has actually seen this one coming and decided that it is now not going to take that particular risk—the ACT Party would be coming along the next day and saying “I’m sorry, you can’t have a decent minimum flow for that river.”, or “You can’t stop us putting as much pollution into that river unless you compensate us for the property right”. I have a different view of property rights from the ACT Party—I think it over-defines them.

I want to refer to something in the regulatory impact statement that goes to the issue of compensation, which has been spoken to by the Māori Party. I want to read out paragraphs 47 to 51: “(47) It has been decided that compensation will not be paid in relation to the creation of the Sanctuary, on the grounds of sustainability, protection and biodiversity. This would be achieved by explicitly ruling out compensation in the legislation. (48) The principle not to compensate for global conservation initiatives of this significance is consistent with previous decisions not to compensate for other measures taken to secure the long-term sustainability of marine biodiversity, such as the establishment of marine reserves.” I will not read out the following paragraphs because I will run out of time, but I think that is an important point of principle that we should explore, because if we have got to the point where, around the world, the only way that we can conserve things is by compensating for what are alleged to be intractable property rights in respect of those people who have got rights to harvest, I cannot see the world making much progress in these conservation efforts.

I think I am probably able to be convinced by the Minister—and we will listen to submissions at the select committee—that that is probably right in principle. So I hope the Minister will perhaps take some comfort from us on that, because I hope that the Government is not forced into a position of actually giving up on that acknowledgment that sometimes there are actually conservation things that cut across people’s right to exploit resources that none the less ought not to be compensated when we are actually conserving something that ought to be conserved.

I think I have probably just about taken the 5 minutes I am sharing with my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor. Suffice it to say that we do think this is a worthy bill. The Labour Party had similar policies; so did the Greens. I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I acknowledge my colleague who has given me an opportunity to speak on this bill. There have been some very generous speeches in the House today, and I am perhaps a little less generous. It is not to be small-minded or picky that I say I will acknowledge the work done by the Government rather than praise it, because there have been many, many parties pushing for this for some time. I would like to acknowledge and praise all of their efforts.

The Government does have a tendency towards tokenism across the board. This is not a token gesture in itself—it is one of the largest marine sanctuaries in the world and, indeed, 15 percent of our exclusive economic zone. Labour has had a policy for many years of 10 percent of our marine areas in reserve status. A lot of people, including National, have consistently criticised us for that. In one fine swoop—not one fell swoop, I have to say—we are effectively putting 15 percent into areas of protection. That in itself is a wonderful thing. There would hardly be a person in this country who would want to criticise this.

Indeed, from the fishing industry down, the fact that we have identified only $600,000 or thereabouts of commercial interest does not fully state, as was said by the ACT Party, the potential for huge economic benefit. That applies also to the fishing industry around this area of protection. As we now understand, wherever we have a reserve or a protected area, the opportunity for fish species and other biodiversity to flourish and then spill outside the zone also applies to the Kermadec area. So there will be fishing companies around the world, in fact—not just in New Zealand—that will be eyeing the opportunity for this in the future. So the question is whether we can ensure that what we are setting out to do here in the House today can indeed be upheld—that is, protection of this area and all the ecosystems within it for future generations. I can acknowledge that there will be more enthusiasm for this with the younger people of New Zealand—my daughter in particular—and in what this will do for future generations and the opportunities to explore more what happens in this incredibly diverse area. So we are taking action now to protect their opportunities.

But in handing over to the Department of Conservation the responsibility for this, what I have to acknowledge in this House is that the National Government has done that with other protected areas in this country on land but has failed to fund the organisation to uphold the values and protect the values that it so proudly speaks of. So the question is, will we ensure that this Government and future Governments have the resources to protect the values that we are passing through in this legislation here? We have got a Department of Conservation that is under-resourced. It is talking about bringing in car parking charges and toilet fees, no doubt, or doing other things to try to fund the basic biodiversity work that is needed on land to protect our kiwis and our other threatened species. This reserve will protect many, many threatened species, and for that we have to acknowledge the Minister and the Government. But I ask the Minister—and through the select committee process, I am sure, there will be questions around the resourcing of the department and all the flow-on departments, like the navy. When this sanctuary is indeed formed, the Government agencies that will now be responsible for protecting the values that we are trying to pass through into legislation here—it is, indeed, a huge area.

Can I come back to one more point I would like to make before I finish here. In protecting 15 percent, it is not fully representative of the different marine environments throughout New Zealand. So I ask the Government, will it ensure that the other areas, or representations of the other areas, and marine species will also be protected? I personally support the protected marine areas concept, but it is not perfect. Marine reserves are a difficult and tortuous process to implement, but we do have areas of marine diversity in this country that need to be protected. I ask of the Government, will it ensure that it does not stop here—because it says: “We’ve protected 15 percent of our exclusive economic zone. Therefore, haven’t we done well?”. Will it move to protect and work with commercial interests and recreational interests to have a true range of protection across all the marine biodiversity?

This is a good piece of legislation. I acknowledge that if I find it difficult to praise the Government, as I say, it is not to be small-minded; it is to say that this has been a long process to get the bill here. We hope that this will continue smoothly through the select committee, but I ask of the Government, can it ensure that resourcing for the department that will be responsible for this area and many other areas, both on and off land—will it be resourced to carry out its duties and the expectations from the public to protect our endangered species?

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the first reading of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and, taking the last call in this debate, it is great to hear the support from around the House for this bill. It has thrown me a bit. Normally, for me, I know a bill is a good bill for New Zealanders when New Zealand First votes against it. So having those members vote for this bill has thrown me a wee bit, but it is good to see—it is great to see.

I am not sure I am as pessimistic as Damien O’Connor, the last speaker. I think this is a day when New Zealanders can be proud. I would like to acknowledge the Rt Hon John Key, our Prime Minister, for his vision in announcing the sanctuary at the United Nations. I would like to acknowledge the work of Ministers Smith and Barry—Ministers for the environment and conservation, respectively.

It is a great day to be a New Zealander, and this bill has created world attention. When you look at The Guardian in the UK, it said that the sanctuary will be one of the world’s most significant fully protected ecosystems, and when you look at the Wall Street Journal, it described it as “bigger than Texas” and it said that we were the latest island nation in the Pacific to put ecological protection and tourism ahead of the fishing and mining industries. That is great news for New Zealand. And also, the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand said it congratulated the Government on taking decisive action to protect this incredibly special area.

The Hon Ruth Dyson put a challenge to us in the fourth speech in this debate today. She said to us: “Who is the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs?”. So, as a diligent backbencher, I went away and did a bit of research, and I have to say—

Chris Bishop: Oh, who is it?

MATT DOOCEY: Actually, no one is the member of Parliament for the Kermadecs. But any people living on the Kermadecs—mainly Department of Conservation staff—will go back to the last electorate that they resided in as the electorate that they would vote in when on the Kermadecs.

Can I just finish by saying that I once heard the statement “If space is the final frontier, then the ocean is the first frontier”. Many New Zealanders love their snorkelling and their scuba-diving—possibly not in the Kermadecs. But when you go under the waves and you see the diversity of the ecosystems—basically, on this side of the House, you know, we love highways, and the Kermadecs is basically one big marine highway. If you think of all that marine life shooting its way through—what is it—620,000 square kilometres, that is something to be preserved.

I welcome this bill and look forward to it going to the select committee. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill be reported to the House by 2 August 2016.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Land Transfer Bill

First Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I move, That the Land Transfer Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. This bill has been developed in response to the Law Commission’s review of the Land Transfer Act of 1952. That review resulted in the commission’s 2010 report A New Land Transfer Act. The Law Commission’s report showed that the existing land transfer legislation is fundamentally sound, but it is well overdue for modernisation, simplification, and consolidation. The bill will modernise New Zealand’s land transfer legislation to make it clearer, more workable, and more consistent with modern ways of working. It retains the core principles of the Torrens system of land registration and introduces new measures to improve security of property rights.

The Land Transfer Act is over 60 years old and contains provisions from early legislation dating back over 100 years. Much of the language is archaic, complex, and difficult to understand. The Act is focused on paper-based transactions, which is completely at odds with the modern reality of an electronic land title registration system. The Act has to be read alongside two stand-alone amendment Acts. This creates a legislative framework that is difficult to navigate for property owners wanting to understand their rights and obligations. The Land Transfer Bill addresses these problems by replacing all three statutes with a single statute that is clear, workable, and focused on electronic registration.

As land is the principal source of wealth and wealth generation in New Zealand, the land transfer system is critical to the ongoing functioning of the economy. Confidence in the certainty of property rights in New Zealand underpins economic growth and attracts overseas investment. A land transfer system that provides people and businesses with secure property rights is essential for a prosperous and sustainable economy. It is still true that for many New Zealanders, buying a home is the biggest investment they will ever make. To ensure people continue to be secure in their property ownership, the bill retains the principle of indefeasibility of title. This is a fundamental aspect of the Torrens system, which provides that, in general, once registered, a transaction cannot be set aside.

However, the bill also recognises that in some circumstances indefeasibility of title can result in unfair outcomes. For example, an owner who is an innocent victim of third-party fraud can lose their home to a registered purchaser. Another example is where Māori freehold land is sold in breach of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, depriving current and future generations of Māori landowners of their ancestral land. To address this problem and improve security of property rights, the bill gives the court discretion in limited circumstances to order the alteration of the land title register where necessary to avoid manifest injustice. In situations like the ones that I have just described, if the outcome would be manifestly unjust the court would have the power to order ownership to be restored to the previous registered owner. The manifest injustice threshold is intended to balance the need for certainty of property rights with the need to protect against unfair outcomes. The limited judicial discretion is intended for use only in exceptional cases.

Another measure aimed at improving security of property rights and addressing mortgage fraud is the new requirement for financial institutions to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of customers taking out mortgages. The bill also makes changes to the Crown compensation scheme for those whose land, or an interest in land through the operation of the land transfer system—these changes will make this scheme fairer for landowners and the Crown. Currently, compensation is based on land value at the date of loss. This can be unfair. The loss can take some time to discover and the compensation in that case would not cover an increase in property value or improvements made to the property in the interim. The bill addresses this problem by providing for compensation to be based on the value of the land at the date when the claimant discovers, or should reasonably have discovered, the loss. In most cases the new compensation formula will result in claimants getting more compensation from the Crown.

The court will, however, have discretion to change the valuation date and add a loss adjustment allowance, based on property market movement, to avoid an unfair outcome. For example, the loss adjustment allowance might be necessary when a claim is made in a rising market and land value is appreciating. However, it might not be appropriate in a falling market when land value is depreciating.

The bill also makes clear that landowners are required to take reasonable care in their land dealings. Compensation can be reduced where the claimant contributes to the loss. The Crown will be able to take proceedings to recover the amount of compensation paid for loss caused by a third party.

The bill improves the protection of privacy by extending the Registrar-General of Land’s statutory powers to withhold an individual’s personal information for the protection of their personal safety. The bill also clarifies that the electronic register is subject to the relevant privacy principles under the Privacy Act.

A number of measures in the bill will also improve efficiency. These include shifting some certification requirements from the Act to regulations. This makes it easier to automate more transactions and update requirements to keep pace with changing technology. The bill also allows covenants in gross to be noted on the title. This is a new mechanism that offers a cheaper and quicker alternative to the current practice of registering encumbrances, which can slow down land development. Another efficiency measure is a simpler process for claiming landownership on a limited title on the basis of adverse possession.

This bill has been a long time in the making. I want to thank the Law Commission and, in particular, to acknowledge the contribution of George Tanner QC, the commissioner responsible for the review of the Land Transfer Act. I also want to acknowledge the contribution made by Warren Moyes, the former Wellington district land registrar and Land Information New Zealand official. Sadly, George and Warren have since passed away.

Land underpins everything. The ability to transact in land efficiently and with confidence in the security of property rights is vital for the economic and social well-being of New Zealand. The Land Transfer Bill will deliver long-overdue reforms to New Zealand land law that will enable everyone transacting in land to do so with greater confidence and certainty. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Every now and again in this House a seemingly technical and innocuous bill comes before us for reasons that I would warrant are not innocuous or technical. This bill was languishing at around about No. 90 on the Government’s Order Paper, and yet it suddenly sprang up to No. 2 today, and it is before us at the moment.

So today in my brief remarks I am going to, firstly, outline what the bill contains, and then go from the what to the why—why we are debating this now and what it says about the Government’s attitude to landholdings, in particular, at a time of great stress in our rural sector. First, let us consider the substance of the bill. As the Minister for Land Information has pointed out, this is—some would say—a much overdue amendment to the basic legal framework for land tenure and land registration. It follows from the Land Transfer Act first written in 1952—it is older than most members of this House—and it follows from the Law Commission’s report of 2010 entitled A New Land Transfer Act.

Labour is supporting this bill to the select committee—supporting it for its first reading—so that we can hear from the legal fraternity, in terms of their submissions, about what is right and wrong about this drafting overhaul. One of the things that seem promising is that the bill integrates the 1952 Act with two subsequent amendments: one from the standalone 1963—a fine year that—Land Transfer Amendment Act and the Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgement) Amendment Act 2002. It would be helpful, all things considered, to have those three pieces of legislation properly integrated into one single piece of law.

As the Minister has said, this bill does retain the essence of the Torrens system, where title to land is acquired by registration. It is, as far as possible, secure and indefeasible—one’s home is one’s castle; one’s title is the anchor of one’s home. A purchaser should not need to go behind the register to investigate the root of the title—that is, the title itself is gold-plated. That is also a strong tenet of tenure, so to speak.

The bill does make two significant changes, which the select committee is going to need to consider carefully. The first is in relation to indefeasibility, where the bill introduces a limited judicial discretion to order the alteration of the register in situations where immediate indefeasibility would result in what is termed a manifest injustice. So it is introducing a little more flexibility into the law, provided that clear grounds can be established on which to proceed without change would be manifestly unjust, and that is useful in situations where an unexpected complication has arisen between a mortgagee and a mortgagor. Sometimes, that mistake results from the passage of life into an estate.

The second significant change to the status quo is in respect of compensation. The bill retains the State compensation that currently operates, but it makes a few modifications. Compensation will be available for loss through a registrar’s error of the operation of the land registration system, in having acted in reliance on a guaranteed search, but those guaranteed search periods are shortened. That is, if a citizen acts in reliance on the statute and on the operation of the registry and, for some unforeseen reason, is thwarted and their title is “defeased”, then they may, in certain limited circumstances, be entitled to compensation.

The bill clarifies that the amount of compensation payable where the claimant has been deprived of an estate or an interest in land is the value of that estate or interest. So it rules out, by implication, pecuniary damages, and, for mortgagees, compensation only extends to the value of the security and excludes any amount beyond that.

There are a number of measures in the bill that the select committee will wish to hold to the bill’s stated purpose of enhancing clarity and certainty: provisions clarifying that the registered title may be limited by overriding interests in other statutes—and we will come on to some examples of that that are very important—provisions clarifying the nature and scope of the registrar’s powers of correction; removing inconsistencies around existing legislation that protects administrators from some kinds of personal liability, but not others; and limiting the effect and use of covenants in gross for consistency with the original policy intent.

Much of that goes to what we call good housekeeping of the law. It goes to the periodic updating of the legislative framework, in part because of the 2010 review. But that is where I think the mystery starts—that is that a 2010 review has slowly wound its way through the system and was languishing well down the Government’s Order Paper until today, where it leapt to the Government’s highest priority, bar one. None of us would argue with the previous priority, the Kermadec sanctuary and its wonderful and bipartisan innovation, but this one is a little bit of a mystery. It has been around for years; it is seemingly administrative and innocuous—why now?

Here, I think, is the reality: media over the last week have been focused on New Zealand’s growing rural land crisis—and it is a land crisis; it is driven by a sustained collapse in dairy markets. It has resulted in what Dairy New Zealand and the Reserve Bank, in its publication the Reserve Bank Bulletin of December 2015, forecast in its worst-case scenario, which was a payout of $4 per kilogram of milk solids sustained for 2 years and then rising. We are worse than that worst-case scenario now at $3.90. It forecast, in this document, a 40 percent decline in rural land values—a 40 percent decline. Even in the mid-case scenario, where prices are rising back to $6—and that seems fanciful on today’s money—that is a 25 percent decline in land values.

These are the technocrats; these are the economists. This is a matter—this analysis—that is not political, but the implications start to get political. I do not think that the Government wanted to debate on this bill in 3 or 4 weeks’ time or 2 months’ time, because this situation is rising to be one of the most severe economic crises that New Zealand has faced. If land values collapse by 40 percent, as the Reserve Bank is predicting, what is going to happen to the incomes of farmers? What is going to happen to rural towns and communities? What is going to happen to the broader New Zealand economy?

The National Government is arrogant and out of touch. It is not being straight with New Zealanders about the magnitude of this challenge. If all of those banks foreclose on those farms and we see a 40 percent collapse in farm prices, the knock-on effects will be huge. And I think we all know where the pressures will be. There is the National Government, caught between two core constituencies: the big banks on the one hand and the dairy farmers on the other. Something is going to have to give. Do you know what it is—and this is where this bill comes in—it will be fire sales overseas. That is why it wants this legislation on the way through, because it is preparing for a massive swathe of fire sales on New Zealand farmland to overseas buyers. Iwi are not that stupid; iwi do not sell their land overseas.

We should be very vigilant, and we are saying today in this debate that the Labour Opposition is going to be extremely vigilant about this issue. Because who takes the haircut? Is it going to be the banks that have made, in technical terms, a freaking killing of profit on the lending they have done to both the rural sector and residential urban real estate? Are they going to take the haircut? Is it going to be the farming families—the sharemilkers and the farmers—who get foreclosed on? Are they going to take the haircut? Is it going to be rural New Zealand communities—are they going to take the haircut when this bill facilitates the fire sale of New Zealand farmland?

And what is the Government doing about it? You know, if this was a rugby game, it would be a brawl, and the referee just abdicated the field. The Government is not even playing the role of a decent touch judge.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: He’d have given you a yellow card.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That has got Mr Woodhouse’s attention, because he can understand football, even if he cannot understand immigration. The Government is out of the game. That is why New Zealanders need a Government that can take a long-term view of land sales, with secure tenure and good strategy, and protect it for future generations.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is actually a pleasure to stand and rise to speak in this first reading of the Land Transfer Bill, brought into the House by the Hon Louise Upston. My goodness, if I am here as long as Mr Cunliffe and I come up with conspiracy theories along those lines, please just show me the door. It is incredible to sit here and listen to 10 minutes of just absolutely phenomenal conspiracy. What this bill is about is modernisation.

Mark Mitchell: It’s The X-Files, David.

SARAH DOWIE: It is The X-Files—it is absolutely The X-Files. It is beyond a joke. At the end of the day, the Land Transfer Act has been in force for 60-odd years and it is in need of modernisation—nothing more than that. Land transfer has evolved. I was there, I remember, in my short 40 years as a lawyer practising and running—

Hon David Cunliffe: You’ve been practising for 40 years? You don’t look a day over 60.

SARAH DOWIE: —the land-based transactions in the conveyance transactions. We have changed now to an electronic—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member and, although she might have brought the interjections on, the member making the interjection should know that I am over 60.

SARAH DOWIE: Thank you. The process of conveyance has actually changed and we have moved to an electronic system, so it is only fair to modernise and update the Act that governs this process and make it more workable and more reflective of today’s day and age.

I am really pleased that the Minister has referred this bill to the Government Administration Committee. We are the heavy lifters in this Parliament, I think.

Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

SARAH DOWIE: We are so, Mr Bishop—we are the heavy lifters. We often get technical legislation and, lo and behold, as an ex - property lawyer, I am excited about the Land Transfer Bill—I am excited.

When we talk about the Torrens title system, this is a system that underpins our property transaction basis. It is an incredible system, of course, developed in Australia and adopted by us, gosh, I think it was about 100 years ago. But it really does underpin the nature of our property transactions. New Zealand is known—having adopted this Torrens system, and through the Land Transfer Act—as a secure place to do business in respect of buying and selling property.

Of course, two of the premises behind the Torrens system are that it is a secure system and that you do not, as a purchaser, need to go beyond the register or beyond the title to research what is on there. You can reasonably rely on that register and, of course, on indefeasibility of title. That has sustained time within New Zealand—that no claim or interest can be defeated or voided with a past omission or error or act. Like I said before, that has sustained time. But what this bill does is it modernises indefeasibility in respect of that premise. It is allowing a limited change to indefeasibility where there are fraudulent actions and the result would be that there would be a gross injustice and somebody would miss out or be harmed by some fraudulent action. Therefore, the courts can go and look at that, and indefeasibility would be somewhat modified there.

Look, this bill is updating the legislation in respect of the evolution of what we have seen with regards to property transactions. The e-dealings need to be properly documented and updated so that the legislation is reflective of where we are at the moment with our property system. This is a good bill. There is no conspiracy theory with it. It is updating a 60-year-old bill. It is timely, it is needed, and it is important. I commend this to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): “A minor technical amendment bill”—yes, well, we have heard that in this House so often. Those of us who have been around for a wee while tend to look a little suspiciously at such statements. I listened to Minister Upston, and I had to agree with some of her statements, although not all. Land “underpins” everything, she said. Now that is partly true, I guess—if you are lucky enough to have some land. It “attracts overseas investment”—well, that is true, as well.

This is more than just a minor technical amendment to a piece of legislation. It comes off the back of a recommendation made in 2010 by the Law Commission, an independent body that comes to the House with recommendations—a bit like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, although the Government seems to ignore those recommendations.

I just want to go back, as a member of a committee that had oversight of Landonline, the technical electronic system that we have. It cost us a fortune, to be fair. There was a huge cost blowout, and now we are making some minor technical amendments to ensure that it operates properly. We in Opposition have to acknowledge that as time moves on, technology certainly has. Some of these changes will be required to ensure that we can retain the property rights—not to the extent that the ACT Party might proclaim; we are not that ridiculous. We are not that neanderthal in our thinking. There are new nuances around ownership that are referred to in this bill, such as lessees’ leases, that I am not going to get into.

I come back to the issue raised by my colleagues as to why this bill is going through now. There are some quite technical issues here and things that are being changed that will have far-reaching implications—some of which we will not raise or realise in this House today. But those people who are out around the world who might be, to quote the Minister, “attracted to New Zealand for overseas investment” will be looking very carefully at this.

Mark Mitchell: Yes, good.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The member over there who nods his head is probably quite happy to protect the rights of those people who are going to want to come and invest in New Zealand. I have a greater concern, and that is for New Zealanders who currently have the land or New Zealand families who want to keep and retain the land.

The fact is that we are under pressure. In 1985, when I was a sharemilker, I remember going to a rally against the then Labour Government and being told that farmers should farm for productive returns and not for capital gains. The unfortunate thing is fuelled and encouraged by the banks, by the Government, and by DairyNZ. Farmers have ploughed huge amounts of capital into land, arguably to the point where land values are unsustainable. Just as leaders of the dairy industry say that production levels around the world are actually unsustainable—that is about as true as saying that New Zealand land values are unsustainable. The question for Kiwis and for the New Zealand Government is which one should give in first. Which one is going to cave in first? That is, will it be the foreign production of milk all around the world, which is swamping us at the moment, or will it be the unrealistic land values of farmers up and down this country?

My colleague David Cunliffe pointed out the truth in his speech. The banks have walked away with billions of dollars of profit—billions of dollars of profit. What we have now is a whole lot of—thousands, literally; not the 10 percent that John Key wants to refer to. It is actually probably closer to 50 percent of farmers who are under real financial pressure now. The issue of land values is crucial to their future, good or bad. The reality is that unless the banks and the Government leave the door open to that foreign investment, we are likely to see a downward adjustment of up to 40 percent of land values in this country. That is a frightening scenario for too many farmers up and down this country. I suggest that, not as part of a conspiracy but just as part of the normal modus operandi for the National-Tory Government, the Government wants to tidy up these technical details. That is why this bill is in the House now: to ensure that the foreign investors—and there are millions of them around the world who would love to come and invest in this country. The member over there is shaking his head. He should get his head out of the sand.

Why would you come and invest in New Zealand? There are a couple of reasons. Firstly, if you want to put your money in the European Central Bank, you will have a negative interest rate of 0.4 percent. That is, you will be paying them to look after your money. If you want to come and invest in New Zealand, you can buy land, enjoy capital gain without any taxation, and most likely see further upward movement of land values—if the door is left open to further speculation from offshore investors.

The Government is caught in a bind here between its constituencies, as was said before—between the bankers, who have got very high exposure to our land values around this country and want to secure that as best they can, and the farmers, who are indebted as well. There will be a downward adjustment of 40 percent, which will mean potentially massive sales, which will mean that this piece of legislation is absolutely crucial to protecting the property rights of those selling or purchasing and of those who might be leasing or subleasing. I am assuming that the minor technical amendments that we are talking about here actually do protect the property rights of people coming or going, but my concern is for those farmers who might be going—or, in future, those farmers or wannabe farmers who will not be able to acquire the land.

We are facing a major issue. The timing of this legislation is just a little too cute for my liking. Although I have not been and will not be on the select committee, I will be following this closely, because if we do not get this right and if the National Government and the banks are quite prepared to see the massive sell-out of land in this country to foreigners, we will be, as John Key said and preached, tenants in our land—under his Government, endorsed by his Government.

Hon Louise Upston: After you sold so much.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That Minister is quite happy because she has acknowledged in her speech the robust and secure land tenure in this country, which goes back to something that we took from the Australians—you have got to be suspicious of that, in the first place—back in the 1800s. We have refined it, and this bill will further refine it. But let us not get distracted by minor technical amendments.

When the underlying agenda of the Government is to satisfy its mates offshore—it wants to be seen as open and welcoming to foreign investment. The banks, because they want to save any potential loss from a downward valuation of farmland around this country—the poor farmers who are stuck in the middle, who have been encouraged to go out and invest huge amounts in land values on the basis and the false promise of high dairy payouts, are caught out. We need to support them. We need to support them, not with money but with a fair deal and a fair process. I am not convinced that this piece of legislation does anything to protect the fair process. We are told it will. I am suspicious that it might be more about protecting the property rights of those who might come in from offshore.

I am in this House, as is the Labour Party, for one reason and one reason only. That is, first and foremost, to look after New Zealanders—people who want to come to this country, commit to this country, and generate wealth. I am not here to look after overseas foreign speculators who might want to come in and, off the backs of poor farmers, invest in property that they get free capital gains off. If this piece of legislation supports and enhances and helps them, then we are not for it. But if it does support the property rights in the place of New Zealand’s farmers—

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

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Like my colleague Sarah Dowie, I am really excited to take a call on this, the Land Transfer Bill. I would like to refer to the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor. We co-captain the Parliamentary Rugby Team. He is a pretty tough West Coaster and he is passionate about what he does. I would like to make an offer to the chair of the select committee, who I am sure will be very pleased to see him come on to the committee. I would like to extend that invitation. I know that he would like to be more involved in this bill.

But there is one thing that I do want to address. It is a very serious matter. It is that I think that probably the member for West Coast - Tasman was very pleased to see a National Government come into power, because what we did is we stopped the flood of sales of our land to foreign investment. And it was a flood. Under the Hon David Parker, there was more land sold. In fact, the biggest single transaction in the sale of New Zealand land was made under the stewardship of Labour and the Hon David Parker. So I am sure that the member was very pleased to see a National Government come in, where we made sure we tightened things up and we actually slowed that down. We felt that it was really important to do that. We made sure that the Overseas Investment Office process was a much more rigorous process to go through and we have been very careful about the foreign investment that we do invite into New Zealand. It is important, but it has got to be the right sort of investment.

This is a very important bill and I just want to refer to some of the key messages in the bill. This Government holds an important role dealing with land transfers and ensuring New Zealanders can have confidence in their property rights. This is really important because, actually, most Kiwis do aspire to owning their own home and having their own land, and it is actually very important that they feel their property rights are protected.

Our current land title registration legislation is outdated and this bill will modernise, simplify, and consolidate it. I just want to make mention too that Sarah Dowie, in her speech, raised the fact that the Hon David Cunliffe appeared to be running some type of conspiracy theory. I totally agree. I think it would not be unusual to see him sitting in Copperfields speaking to Agent Mulder and getting the new “X-file” opened up and running—

Hon Louise Upston: And they’re invisible.

MARK MITCHELL: That is right—and they are invisible too. The bill will make land transfer legislation clearer, more workable, and more consistent with modern ways of working while retaining the core principles of the current land registration system—this is very important—and there will be new measures to improve security of property rights.

I just want to talk very quickly too about the need for the change and what brought about the changes that we have made. The Land Transfer Act is over 60 years old, so it is an old piece of legislation and we see many times in this House that it is time to actually modernise this legislation and make it relevant to the world that we live in today. It contains provisions from earlier legislation dating back over 100 years, as my colleague Sarah Dowie also alluded to. Much of the language is archaic, complex, and difficult to understand. The Act is focused on paper-based transactions, which is completely at odds with the modern reality in the modern world that we live in now where electronic land titles and registration should be able to be done online.

The Act is to be read alongside two stand-alone amendment Acts. This creates a legislative framework that is difficult to navigate for property owners wanting to understand their rights and obligations—and I think that any property owner who has entered into a transaction would agree that things can become complicated very easily. Most people try to avoid costly legal bills when they are entering into a sale and purchase agreement or a land transfer, so this bill will actually go some way towards helping to reduce some of those compliance costs.

As land is the principal source of wealth and wealth generation in New Zealand, the land transfer system is critical to the ongoing functioning of the economy, and confidence in the certainty of property rights in New Zealand underpins economic growth and attracts good overseas investment. This is a very good bill. I am very happy to recommend it to the House and look forward to the receiving it at the select committee. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to support the Land Transfer Bill to go to a select committee. It is quite a technical bill, obviously, so we will be very interested in submissions. The fact that the bill is the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s very comprehensive 2010 report A New Land Transfer Act and it closely resembles the commission’s draft land tenure bill is reassuring. When the commission did that report its recommendations were aimed at modifying, simplifying, and consolidating the land transfer legislation because—

Chris Bishop: That’s right.

EUGENIE SAGE: —as others have noted—thank you, Mr Bishop—the Act was passed in 1952 and it has not been updated for nearly 60 years. It obviously has not kept pace with technology, as the Act was based around a paper-based, manual transfer system for land registration, and now land registration is almost entirely electronic. Nor did we see back in the 1950s the same degree of sophistication around mortgagee and mortgage fraud that we are seeing today. So it consolidates existing legislation by repealing the Land Transfer Act 1952, the Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963, and the Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgment) Amendment Act.

This whole system of land registration that we have in New Zealand is the basis for secure title. It is the basis for people being confident when they buy and sell land because it ensures that there is a central public register that describes and records all of the material facts that relate to a particular property. It ensures that title is secure and that people do not have to go behind that title to search out relevant information in relation to that particular area of land. I have got only a very limited understanding of land law and I look forward to getting more understanding if I am on the select committee, but the State through our land transfer system guarantees indefeasible title, and that means that title cannot be annulled or made void and it protects any registered proprietor against the claims of someone who is claiming ownership of that. It also protects the owner—and it protects sellers, too—against any encumbrances or estates or interests that do not appear on the title. So the register is intended to reflect as accurately as possible the true state of title to land so that people do not have to search elsewhere.

The State supports the whole Torrens title system by guaranteeing the accuracy of the rights that are registered with the land transfer register. Anyone who is deprived of land or of an interest or estate in land because there has been a mistake in the way title is entered in the land transfer register is entitled to take legal proceedings against the Government to recover damages. So my understanding is that the bill has some new clauses around mortgage fraud and this concept of indefeasible title in order to clarify the powers that the registrar has to correct the register, and around compensation if there has been a loss because of the way the land transfer system has operated. Those powers include giving the High Court the discretion to intervene in cases where there might be an obvious injustice, and the discretion to correct and adjust the compensation in certain cases. The bill also requires mortgagees to know the identity of mortgagors, as they have no entitlement in cases of identity fraud.

My understanding too is that the Law Commission consulted quite widely in developing the draft bill that was tabled in Parliament—both publicly and with interested stakeholders. But there are still concerns that the Green Party has around the relationship between the Land Transfer Act and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which my colleague Marama Davidson will talk about more, because there is further work needed there and perhaps a major investigation.

As other speakers have noted, with the current collapse in dairy prices, this bill, which deals with changes to the way land transfers occur, is going to have a major impact potentially if there is land sold because of the collapse in the dairy payout because of the milk lake that we have got in Europe, the signs that the dairy industry changes may be structural rather than just cyclical, and the major stress that a lot of farmers are under. Dairy New Zealand has predicted that 85 percent of dairy farmers are unlikely to make a profit this season, a recent Federated Farmers poll showed that 11 percent of dairy farmers are now under pressure from their banks over their mortgages, and farm consultant Peter Fraser has warned that around 25 percent are vulnerable. We have had the Reserve Bank predicting that up to 44 percent of dairy farm loans in this very heavily indebted industry—where debt totals around $38 billion—are going to be at risk of becoming non-performing.

So if you have got that sort of crisis—if banks are putting pressure on farmers and farmers are being pushed to sell—then the likely buyers are, obviously, overseas owners, and that is where there is a major gap in legislation because the Government is just saying that dairy farmers are expected to get through. It has done nothing substantial to tighten the legislation to protect productive New Zealand farmland from being sold and transferred to overseas owners. So we are facing the prospect of a double disaster if the dairying slump continues and flows through to the rest of the economy and if the Government’s very lax laws around overseas land sales mean that huge tracts of productive land are sold offshore.

In China, Switzerland, Canada, the USA, Argentina, Thailand, Japan, Ireland, India, and Korea there is much stronger legislation that bans the sale of farmland to non-country owners. If the Government tightened the laws on overseas ownership, there would be likely to be a substantial increase in interest in leasing land. Although this bill in itself might seem non-controversial, the fact that the Government has failed to prevent the sell-off of farmland to overseas interests and to adequately control that means that the land transfer process will occur more often, and that is a major gap in the law that needs to be plugged.

The Green Party is supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee, but the bill does not address that major problem with overseas ownership of farmland. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Before I heard David Cunliffe, I thought this was a non-controversial and non-political bill. Actually, I think that it is. I expect it will be supported by all parties, and it will certainly be supported by New Zealand First. In fact, it is a pleasure to see such an important and comprehensive piece of legislation begin the enactment process.

I want to begin by acknowledging the long years of hard work on this bill by the Law Commission and others—in particular, the late George Tanner QC of the commission, and the late Warren Moyes of the Office of Registrar-General of Land. I think this bill is a fitting tribute to their effort, their dedication, and their professionalism.

New Zealand has long been blessed with an efficient, reliable, and effective land registration system. It is still based on the Torrens system of title by registration, which grants the high indefeasibility of State-registered proprietorship of land, and it effectively guarantees title upon registration of a transfer or a transmission. The system was named after Sir Robert Richard Torrens, the third Premier of South Australia, and became the method adopted within the English law countries almost 100 years ago now. It progressively replaced the deeds system, thus providing certainty and simplicity to land transactions by doing away with the need for proving a chain of title by searching through a whole chain of deeds and other documents.

Before finishing my law degree, as a very young law clerk—just a few years ago now—my job was to search titles. I would fill out things that were called search notes, in pencil, by searching through huge, dusty books of titles, which was a horrible job. But if that was bad enough, where there was no registered title—and there was still land that was not within the system—you did have to search through the registered deeds that were available. That was very time-consuming, not very rewarding, and very archaic. However, it had to be done.

The system has improved and improved and improved over many years, but even the current system has had its challenges. I remember appearing in the High Court in a number of cases concerning unclaimed land because of the informal transfers of land, and I remember on the West Coast, in one particular case, a certificate of title was handed to me. It had written on it in pencil a number of memorials like “Last Saturday I sold this land to Joe Bloggs, dated so-and-so. Bill Brown.”, and there was a whole list of memorials like that. It had never been registered and nothing formal had ever been done, but we found a way of getting around all that and rectifying the title, with the cooperation of some very practically minded judges. I recall, in particular, the late Justice Roper, who I thought had a particularly good and practical system of dealing with those sorts of situations.

However, the system basically worked very well, and by the time I surrendered my practising certificate and gave up practice in 2002, the system had been computerised and was online. So, over all those years, it really travelled a long way.

The Torrens system itself works on three fundamental principles. One is called the mirror principle, which reflects accurately and completely the current facts about each title by way of a certified memorial on the face of the title document itself, whether it be a transfer, a transmission, a mortgage or a discharge of a mortgage, a lease, an easement, a registerable covenant, or whatever. The second is the curtain principle. There is no need to go behind the certificate of title. Everything you need to know and everything affecting that title is recorded on the face of it. Thirdly, and lastly, is the indemnity principle: providing State compensation for loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the registrar that causes a loss by the person who is claiming the title to the land.

That stood the system well over many years, and all of it was in the Land Transfer Act 1952 as amended in 1963, and later in 2002. By that time, of course, it had moved away from the paper system in favour of the current electronic one. But the old legislation is not well structured for that electronic system, and so this bill is welcome because it modernises the law and brings it up to date with those systems as we now see them. It has great advantages for everybody. Lawyers and conveyancers can search titles and process transactions from their own offices—therefore, costs are lower—survey information is better integrated, and security is improved.

The two main changes that I see incorporated in this bill are, first of all, judicial discretion to alter a title in cases of manifest injustice—that has always been needed. It is really good to see that finally arriving. And another one, which has been long coming and is very welcome, is the provision to avoid mortgage fraud by requiring a mortgagee or their lawyer or agent to verify the identity of the mortgagor, thus ensuring that the mortgagor does, in fact, have the legal authority to mortgage the land. That has always been a serious flaw in the system, and it is good to see that hole being plugged.

State guarantee is preserved in the bill, and compensation is still payable. Where, for example, loss occurs from a guaranteed search, compensation is—as has always been the case—payable, but now for a shorter period. That just reflects the speedier transaction processing now available, and it is quite appropriate. Also, land value will now be as at the date of the claim, rather than as at the date of the loss, because that was always not easy to fix. It also allows for consideration of improvements post-loss, so that is another welcome change. Another one is to reduce compensation where there is some fault attributable to the claimant’s lawyer or conveyancer. That is very appropriate.

There are many other changes to the bill, which are far too numerous to mention here, but I am glad to see that there is now a definition of “fraud”, better protection of legal administrators from personal liability, better ways of recording easements in gross, and better control over the way statutory land charges are administered, because they were always a bit of a mess—just to name a few. So the bill really takes some important leaps forward, I believe, and is a very welcome piece of legislation, as I have said.

Another thing that it does is make the land register subject to the Privacy Act and its principles, thus permitting personal information to be protected in appropriate circumstances. I am glad to see that, as well. And, of course, since last year, tax statements have been required—and that is incorporated in the new legislation—as a prerequisite to the registration of a transaction. That clears the way for something that New Zealand First has wanted for a long time—that is, control over who can actually own land. This is very important to New Zealand First because we want to put a stop to the sale of productive land and existing houses to overseas citizens—

Hon David Cunliffe: Hear, hear!

DENIS O’ROURKE: —not resident in New Zealand. And I am glad to see that the Labour Party has caught up with that policy and adopted it, as well, and we are glad to provide a policy-making service to the Labour Party and other parties in that way. So it is good to see that happen.

But, overall, this is a welcome piece of legislation, and I look forward to studying it in a lot more detail as it progresses through the House. New Zealand First will be voting in favour.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Land Transfer Bill. I see the member for New Lynn, David Cunliffe, over there. I just want to reassure him. He has been in this House, I believe, for about 17 years—since 1999—and the good folk of New Lynn might be somewhat surprised today to see that, despite those many years of service here, it appears that he could not comprehend that this particular bill does not actually amend the Overseas Investment Act, and, therefore, has absolutely no bearing on the ease or difficulty foreign buyers have in actually buying some land. I would suggest for the benefit of that member, and, in fact, for the benefit of his constituents, that he might find that comprehension would be aided if he were to remove his tinfoil hat when reading bills.

It is quite topical for me, this particular bill. This is a first reading; it is going to take some time for this bill to make its way through this House. But, as it so happens, this Friday, my partner and I will settle on two houses. We will settle a sales transaction on our current house, and we will settle the purchase of a new house in Khandallah. And, if I may, Khandallah translates as “the resting place of God”. Let me assure you that the suburb of Khandallah is, indeed, a slice of paradise in Godzone. Of course, you could actually use that to describe any part of the Ōhāriu electorate, the very best electorate across all of the country.

So this Friday we will settle on two transactions. But we are not alone, because this chain, as it is for many New Zealanders buying property, is a chain of at least four transactions—four that we know of. Each one of those is a potential area of some uncertainty or error—we do not, and would not, suspect any fraud—in a law that today I think we would all agree we would describe as archaic and very complex and incredibly difficult for lay people to navigate. Therefore, we would perhaps suggest there is the potential for some uncertainty in an area that is still likely to be the largest investment that most Kiwis will ever make, and, in terms of property rights, it is something that underpins not only economic growth but also just confidence in our economy and in the rule of law in New Zealand.

As I say, we do not anticipate any issues in the settlement chain for us this Friday, but I think by its very definition you would say that for any property settlement that goes awry, particularly if it were to be due to fraud. So I am very pleased—in fact, I applaud the changes we see in this bill to help to provide some greater restitution for people who might suffer a manifest injustice, particularly due to the fraudulent activities of others. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to its successful passage through the House.

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

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe. Huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. I am going to stand to support all that my colleague Eugenie Sage has pointed out in this, the first reading of the Land Transfer Bill. As she said, the Green Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee, and we look forward to what comes out of the select committee consideration so we can further ascertain what we can celebrate or what we may be concerned about in this bill.

I am going to particularly outline some of the Treaty of Waitangi considerations, with my Māori affairs portfolio hat on. So, just to quickly summarise, in 2010 the Law Commission gave some recommendations around a new piece of land transfer legislation, and the bill implements those recommendations. And, as people have said, the driver is to streamline land transfer law so that it is up to date, so that it is simpler for all of us—for ordinary New Zealanders and all alike—to be able to handle these land transactions. It does away with three other land transfer statutes and puts them all together, so that we have got this one collection of land transfer legislation.

The whakapapa—or the background to this bill; the driver coming into play—appears to be that the current legislation is rather old and raggedy. It needs a bit of a spruce up, it needs a bit of a dust off, and it just has not kept pace with technology. So this bill has possibly been a long time coming and, on the face of it, then, this Land Transfer Bill seems like good governance. It seems like a good way to overview and review our legislation and make sure that we are keeping up to pace, again, for ordinary New Zealanders to make such an important transfer—one of the most important in our ordinary lives.

So I come now to what, if any, Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations with the Land Transfer Bill are. I too, like my colleague, have a limited understanding of land law. However, Māori collectively have extensive experience—firsthand, lived, and generational experience—of land transfer. Not just of Māori land—I will acknowledge that Māori do not just own or manage Māori land. We also purchase private land that will, of course, obviously come under the normal part of this legislation.

But I am interested in looking at how this may impact, particularly, on Māori land, including Māori freehold land and Māori customary land. It appears that—and the Law Commission itself reports it—this bill does not make substantial changes to the current law governing Māori land. But the Law Commission does go on to say that there are—well, we need to understand a little bit more. Land law on its own is complex and profound, and so there is actually a little bit more information that we need—for example, the issues surrounding the relationship between the Land Transfer Act and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Those two pieces of legislation on their own are huge and complex; we need to look at the interface between the two of them, and get a good grip on what is actually happening.

So I agree with the Law Commission that this does need further investigation, and that is just, also, good governance. Keeping an eye on and keeping a monitor on how these pieces of legislation, how these statutes that we put before the House, impact on other statutes is always a good idea—it is a good idea for the Government. So the bill, apparently, does contain some changes that will impact on the treatment of Māori land.

I wanted to have a go at this indefeasibility concept, for listeners like my mother, who is wise, intelligent, and deeply clever, but is not a land lawyer. So we are looking at indefeasibility as a core concept of the land transfer system. It protects registered owners against competing owners—that can only be a good thing on the face of it also, and, particularly, for those people interested who are not registered.

I just wanted to say that there are some principles of land law that seem to be protected in this bill. I am interested in looking at how it interplays with Māori land law legislation. We are happy to support the bill to the select committee. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon David Parker—5 minutes.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise with some pleasure to support this bill. I think our Land Transfer Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation on our books. It ensures that people who buy a bit of land, or take a mortgage over it, can effectively get an indefeasible title without going back and looking at transactions that may go back over the prior hundred years. And if, once they get a transfer in their name, they have done what is called a guaranteed search prior to the date of their purchase, even if the person they have purchased from had obtained their interest by fraud, so long as the purchaser had no knowledge of that earlier fraud, the purchaser gets clean title, and the person who may have been defrauded out of their earlier interest in land actually has only a right of compensation rather than being able to knock over the title of the person who purchased it—that is assuming that the purchaser was without knowledge of that fraud. I mean, that is long established. I think the leading case is Frazer v Walker, which goes back to the 1960s Privy Council case that involved the venerable Justice Denning.

In any event, this is really housekeeping legislation. It should not be changing the law in any fundamental way. It may, I understand from the description of the bill, be changing some of the compensation provisions where the person who is seeking compensation may have an unmeritorious claim because they had some part in wrongdoing, but, other than that, my understanding is that it just carries forward the existing law. It does not introduce electronic transactions—that has already been done—it just incorporates the amendment Act that currently allows computer registration and electronic lodgment into the body of this rewritten Act.

I want to deal with a couple of issues that were raised by others in terms of the impending sort of calamity that we have in the dairy sector. Some of those people, sadly, are going to eventually be selling up at a mortgagee sale.

Those rights are exercised under mortgages under the Property Law Act but the registration of those instruments is under the Land Transfer Act, and I think it is proper to record two things. Firstly, there is the current Government’s misallocation of capital, which is protecting the dairy sector from the true cost of what it does, including the cost of increasing emissions—not baseline emissions, but increasing emissions—and preventing dairy farmers from facing a cost for their water, and it is also giving them a tax advantage for certain asset classes where they can make speculative gains with no tax consequences. Those things, together with the Government talking up the prospects of dairy and subsidising irrigation schemes, all increased the price of property and encouraged the boom, which has now turned into a bust. This Government, just like Muldoon in prior years, has caused massive misallocation of capital, with billions of dollars of additional debt in this sector, and the Government is partly responsible for that outcome.

What will the response be now? Well, the response will be to try to keep up land prices by enabling some of the sales by those farmers in distress to be made to overseas buyers. The Government says: “Oh, well, when Labour was in Government, it sold vast tracts of land.” Actually, the major transaction that those members referred to was the purchase by Graeme Hart of the Carter Holt Harvey farms and the onsale on that day to another overseas shareholder—so it went from a United States shareholder to Graeme Hart and then to a United States shareholder on the same day.

In any event, Labour changed its position. I was the Minister for Land Information in respect of that transaction, but I was also one of those who was supportive of us changing our position because I became concerned that in this globalised world, there are some assets that ought not be traded at an international market price; they ought to be traded at a New Zealand market price. There is something special about land. Land should be priced according to the ability of New Zealanders to buy land, not some rich “1 percenter” from overseas who can pay more for either a house or a farm in New Zealand than a New Zealand purchaser can afford to pay.

That is, essentially, the underlying reason why Labour has changed its position and said we should ban the sale of farms to overseas buyers. Buying our land is a privilege that should be reserved for New Zealanders, not offered to overseas people.

This is a good piece of legislation. There are some really important details to check through. I think the select committee should take as much time as it needs to deal with any controversies that come up through the submission process, and I look forward to its report back to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transfer Bill’s first reading. I really do want to note that the last speaker, David Parker, spoke of it being clearly housekeeping law, which is really quite contradictory to some of the conspiracy theories that we have heard earlier in the day from members of his own party. It seems to me like they are using a very simple piece of process legislation to try to beat up on the Government around the dairy industry. The words that I did just hear from the previous speaker about the dairy industry being bust—well, actually, the dairy industry is having a hard time, but it is definitely not bust.

In terms of this bill, let us not try to make a crisis out of process. There are three pieces of legislation, the Land Transfer Act 1952, the Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963, and then a very long-named one, the Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgement) Amendment Act 2002. This bill is bringing them all together and it is trying to actually make something quite simple out of three pieces of legislation that are currently difficult to tie together.

The Land Transfer Act is over 60 years old, and some provisions, as others have said, date back over 100 years. Much of the language is archaic, it is complex, and it is difficult to understand. It is focused on paper-based transactions, and we all know that we are not using paper for many things any more—although the paperless office seems to be more of a dream than a reality for many people. But it is at odds with modern reality, and the legislative framework is really difficult to navigate for property owners. It is really important that they are able to navigate it in a very simple way, so I really support that this piece of legislation is going to help do that.

It is important in this piece of legislation, also, that limited judicial discretion has been included. In the current legislation, an owner who is an innocent victim of third-party fraud can lose their home to a registered purchaser. So if an outcome—under the new planned legislation—would be manifestly unjust, the court would have the power to order ownership to be restored to the previous registered owner. Another measure aimed at improving security of property rights and addressing mortgage fraud is the new requirement for financial institutions to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of customers taking out mortgages. It is really hard to believe that this currently does not happen, or is not a legal requirement—I guess it happens most of the time, but, legally, it should be happening, and that is absolutely the right way to go.

I would like to note that at this point no stakeholder groups in the process of bringing this piece of legislation to the House have opposed it. Land Information New Zealand has extensively consulted the New Zealand Law Society, the Auckland District Law Society, the New Zealand Bankers’ Association, and the Financial Services Federation, and they have all supported bringing this good piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I stand to raise a couple of points and, understanding the comments made by my colleagues, want to highlight to the House that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, a significant piece of land legislation, is also in the process of draft iterations yet to be introduced to the House. It is really for that very matter that I think it is important to draw the attention of the House to the potential interlocking impact of the Land Transfer Bill on Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform in ways that may have unintended consequences or, just because of the timing and the sequencing, have not been lined up as well as they could. In fact, my colleague Meka Whaitiri would be the very person to stand in this House and comment on this bill, but here are a few things that I have captured from her concerns around Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform that I would like to draw the attention of the House to.

Firstly, there is no other bit of legislation in relation to land transfer that is more important to Māori than Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The consultations that have taken place have been extensive—yes, they have. However, they have continued to raise concerns amongst Māori landowners—actually, small family landowners—about the extent to which that legislation assures protection of their interests in land. When we are talking about land transfer, in a very practical sense for a number of Māori landowners one of the practical problems that they have is unlocking landlocked land. If, for example, paper roads—Māori roads, unformed legal roads—are not registered on their land, people have to go through a whole rigmarole to go to Land Information New Zealand to be able to investigate whether or not that is the case. If it is not recorded on the title then they have to go through the Māori Land Court. This is one simple problem that relates to the Land Transfer Bill, and I think, in terms of good conscience and due diligence of the select committee to consider fully the impact of going towards new legislation—and I understand all the reasons why you might want to do that—this type of issue needs to be looked at.

I raised earlier the issue of interlocking legislation. Take, for example, the provisions of the Rating Valuations Act 1998. Section 5B specifically relates to Māori land and the Land Transfer Act 1952. I think that the select committee should consider the extent to which the Rating Valuations Act, as it refers to Māori land, is or is not accommodating in taking forward the specific provisions of that Act with this piece of legislation. Take, also, a practical situation where a number of reserve lands, which were gifted by Māori a very long time ago, are administered by local government, and whether or not those protections and those registrations on title will carry forward. I raise that again to implore the conscience of the select committee to have a look at these types of issues to give the assurance that, if it is housekeeping legislation, if it is a tidy-up, then nothing is lost, and there are no unintended consequences in terms of taking these matters forward but also providing the types of protections over Māori land and the registrations on the title that should be there.

There is another area of interest: there are Ngā Whenua Rāhui kawenata that are deemed to be an interest in land but not necessarily recorded on the title of those particular lands. It seems to me that again, if you take a surface read of this bill, that type of history of land gifted for a specific purpose with a specific intent—the history of that could be lost if it is not recorded on the title in the way that the bill requires that it should be.

I have commented—and I am sure my colleague Meka Whaitiri would want me to make the very important point—around lands that have been taken under the Public Works Act. This is not a new issue for Parliament; there have been all types of arguments that have been brought to the attention of members of this House around the significant challenges of addressing this fully. It is not just a matter for this Land Transfer Bill; it relates to other bits of legislation: the Local Government Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and the like. But I did want to make mention of the Public Works Act and the potential impact of losing the historic nature of how land was acquired under this piece of legislation. If I have got that wrong, I am happy to have got that point wrong, but I think it does require at least a question in the select committee to pursue that because it would be in the interests of members across the House—because this is not just a Māori issue—to satisfy themselves, again, that there are no unintended consequences of rewriting this legislation.

In fact, the provisions that relate to land over 100 years ago, and, again, I am summarising—in short, it seems to me that there is the potential that land with a 100-year-long history perhaps may not have the full registration of interests on its title. If that is the case, it does cover the very issues that go to the heart of Treaty settlements. I think, in some practical way, as Labour has put the date for settling historical claims at 2020, if it was the case that all historical claims were settled at a point in time, one might consider that these types of issues would not be a matter, because they would all be resolved under the Treaty settlement process. But, again, due diligence of the select committee, I think, should just pursue with a little bit of effort, whether or not this is a problematic issue that has been created—albeit an unintended consequence.

Members on our side of the House have raised a number of issues around land transfer, and having surety of ownership in purchasing land, but I really want to focus the substance of my contribution on how Māori interests in land are being dealt with under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. There remain outstanding issues that are of utmost concern. I am really, really worried about the nature of the legislation being proposed in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform coming to the House. I really want to register that that Act and this bill, to a degree, go hand in hand, a point that was made by my colleague Marama Davidson. I implore the select committee to just pull through some of the key concerns, ask the questions, and pursue the matters that are going to give greatest assurance that in tidying up three Acts in this Land Transfer Bill you are not creating unintended consequences that create greater grievances in the House and less surety for people who want to purchase land. Kia ora.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I just want to contrast two of the speeches we heard in the debate on the bill. The two speeches I want to contrast are David Cunliffe’s and David Parker’s. Mr Cunliffe’s speech was quite an extraordinary contribution to the debate on this bill, and it actually continues a long line of his speeches on a lot of bills that come before the House, which is to really put on the old tinfoil hat and see conspiracy theories when they are not there. Somehow, on this very technical—very important but very technical—piece of legislation, he seemed to imagine all sorts of theories about foreign investment and about the dairy industry.

Then we had David Parker’s speech, which was a sober and serious and important contribution to the debate, particularly the front half—I did not necessarily agree with the back half of the speech, but it was a pretty good speech. I just want to say to the House that that was an interesting contrast.

I was not, at university, someone who enjoyed property law. I have got to say, at Victoria University, across the road, I enjoyed the lectures by Professor Richard Boast. I enjoyed learning about the history of the Torrens title system—and we heard a lovely exposition from the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke earlier, who I did not know was a lawyer, actually, but that was an interesting thing for the House. We heard a very interesting exposition from Mr O’Rourke about the history of the Torrens title system, and it is fascinating.

I particularly enjoyed the lectures from Professor Boast on some of the history of Māori land law, and we have just heard from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta about some of the past wrongs and some of the implications for Māori under this Act. Very, very interesting—but I was not someone who was particularly interested in the technicalities of property law, the indefeasibility and the way in which the Torrens title system works.

But I think that the take-home point from those lectures—and this is my final point—is that the land transfer system we have in New Zealand is world class, it is world leading, and it is extremely important. Not a day would go by when thousands of New Zealanders around the country would not use the Land Transfer Act and the systems contained within it that have been built up over time. It is extremely important—and this point has been made by a number of speakers—to the operation of our functioning market economy, based on property rights, and it is absolutely very important that we get it right.

I do not think I will be on the select committee considering this bill, but I know that my colleagues, led by Sarah Dowie and the rest of her team, will be doing a good job of considering this bill in great detail. With those brief remarks, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill

First Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. This bill will repeal and replace the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966. Repeal of that outdated 1966 Act is one of the actions in the Government’s Methamphetamine Action Plan and it is a long-overdue reform of the law for severely addicted people. The bill represents a significant step forward in the management of people who, because of the severity of their addiction and their lack of capacity to engage in treatment, are at significant risk of deteriorating health and premature death.

New Zealand has allowed for compulsory residential treatment of people with addictions for over a century—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Hon PETER DUNNE: When the House adjourned for dinner, I was on the point of saying that New Zealand has had a compulsory residential treatment programme for people with addictions for over a century. But we have moved on from incarceration and isolation as the best way of treating people with substance abuse problems to understanding that they do better now when they receive their treatment close to their homes and families.

The old 1966 Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act, which this bill replaces, is infrequently used today. It is poorly understood both within the addictions treatment sector and amongst the judiciary. It fails to protect the rights of people who are subject to committal, and difficulties in making applications under the Act cause significant distress for families and whānau who try to use it, and consequently they do not use it. The purpose of this bill is intended to enable people with a severe substance addiction, and severely impaired capacity to decide on the treatment for that addiction, to be committed to a place where their addiction can be assessed and they can have the opportunity to begin to engage in treatment. The purpose of compulsory treatment is to protect those individuals from harm and to stabilise their health. It is also to protect and enhance their mana and their dignity that has been robbed from them by the addiction and to restore their capacity to make informed decisions about further treatment and substance use.

Let me be quite clear that this bill is not intended to deal with unwise substance use or abuse. This bill is not a means of social control. What it does is provide only for the most vulnerable people who are at the most severe end of the substance abuse spectrum. Compulsory assessment and treatment should be only for those for whom there is no other option. It should not be the first choice nor should it be used for people who will not benefit from treatment.

We all know addiction is a complex condition. It is not defined by ethnicity or social class, and it is not a matter of willpower. People who need specialist addiction treatment services are often extremely vulnerable, estranged from family and friends, and facing significant barriers to recovery. Some people are reluctant to engage in treatment or care and are ambivalent about it, and there is still significant social stigma about substance addiction. We are talking about a small number of people, almost all of whom will be well known to addiction treatment services, emergency departments, and the justice sector over a number of years. As I say, the bill is not designed to cure people of their addictions but it does provide a mechanism by which they can be brought to a point where they can begin to engage in longer-term treatment.

The sad reality is that addiction is a chronic, relapsing illness and some people will relapse irrespective of treatment. For others, compulsory treatment will not be effective in tackling their addiction. But the evidence does show that the longer a person chooses to remain connected to treatment, the better his or her chances of recovery. That is why the bill is designed to support people with severe addictions to engage in voluntary treatment once they are no longer subject to compulsion. A significant improvement will be the requirement for a continuing care plan when someone returns to the community. They just cannot be left to their own devices, and their families are going to need ongoing support.

The bill does not allow for the courts to sentence people to a period of compulsory treatment. This bill is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. There are existing mechanisms that enable people whose offences are related to their use of alcohol or other drugs to be directed by the courts to undergo treatment.

In developing the principles that underlie this bill, the Law Commission considered whether there was a role for compulsory treatment. The fact that some people need treatment and are reluctant to engage with addiction treatment services is not actually of itself an argument for compulsion. Coercion or compulsion can bring people into treatment but it cannot ensure or require that they actively participate and engage in that treatment over the longer term. For this reason, the bill is intended to bring people into treatment for a period that enables medical oversight, particularly while that person is withdrawing from alcohol or other drugs, and supports them to voluntarily engage with services. There is a clear and a rational connection between interventions, such as medical detoxification, and the objective for protecting a person from serious harm by restoring his or her capacity to make decisions about treatment and continued substance use.

Proportionality requires that the limits imposed on a person’s right to refuse treatment go no further than necessary. That means that the benefits of those limits must outweigh the harm arising from the infringement of their rights, because for most people who are dependent on alcohol and drugs, the acute risks of harm tend to be short-lived. Only a relatively short period of compulsion can be justified, and most people with a substance abuse disorder do not require compulsory treatment. Some will attend treatment voluntarily, or as a result of informal coercion from family or friends, or a more formal coercion perhaps as a condition of employment. Others will be compelled to attend treatment by the criminal justice system. It may well be a part of their sentence.

Some people will refuse treatment but compulsory treatment would not be appropriate for them, because they have the capacity to make that decision for themselves. In that instance, it will be the responsibility of the addiction treatment services to work with people and their families and whānau to motivate them to engage in treatment and to support them to remain sober. This means that services developed will need to be accessible, acceptable, and responsive to a range of needs and cultures. As I said, a small group will always refuse treatment but will not benefit from compulsory treatment because they have reached a point in their illness where alcohol and drug treatment of whatever type can no longer help them. As I previously noted, people with severe substance addiction are often people who are highly vulnerable.

Those who receive compulsory treatment must have their rights to that treatment balanced with the specific protection of certain other rights, including the right to seek legal advice, to receive and send mail, including emails, and to have the company of others. The bill is explicit as to how it intends to protect individuals’ rights. Furthermore, it provides for district inspectors to ensure that the rights of patients are protected and that breaches of rights are investigated. The use of district inspectors has a long history in mental health legislation, and it has proven to be an effective means of safeguarding the rights of people who are subject to compulsory treatment.

Finally, this bill is designed to fit within the range of addiction treatment services. I am aware that a number of those services will need to make some changes to enable the legislation to be used effectively. Planning for the implementation of those new services has already begun and will continue to develop as the process unfolds. As I say, there will be those who object to any form of compulsory treatment, and I understand that is an issue that will inevitably engender polarised positions, but I am satisfied that this bill has been through a very comprehensive consultation and development process spanning some years now but the select committee process will also see a variety of complementary and opposing positions raised. That is how it should be. That is why we have select committees. I have every confidence in the Health Committee to guide this bill through to its second reading with the interests of our most vulnerable people very much to the fore.

As I said, the bill has been a long time in the development, it replaces a piece of legislation that is very elderly, and it gives me huge pleasure today to be bringing this bill to the House and to speak to what I think is a particularly important piece of health legislation. With pride I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to announce the Labour Party’s support for this bill, at least through to the select committee. It is very nice to be able to support a Government bill in the health area. We are painfully aware of the effects of the $1.7 billion in cuts to the health sector by this Government. I guess perhaps we should note that this bill comes from the Hon Peter Dunne, who is a member of a minor party in the Government rather than the major party, which seems to be increasingly out of touch with ordinary New Zealand and the aspirations of ordinary New Zealand, which include being able to go to the doctor and being able to have affordable and accessible, quality medical care, and that goes for the vulnerable, of course, as well as everyone else. So Labour will support this first reading, to update the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966. It is 50 years—

Hon Peter Dunne: It’s to replace it, not update it.

Dr DAVID CLARK: Replace it—my apologies. The Minister is correct. It is to replace it. The Act is 50 years old. It is time for it to be replaced. It is not in line with modern clinical practice and delivery. So it is good to see the recommendations of the Law Commission being picked up and finally being put into legislation.

Under the current, 50-year-old legislation two medical certificates are required to make an application to the court for compulsory treatment, and neither has to come from a specialist drug or alcohol practitioner. Therefore, we on this side of the House support the idea that it will be a requirement that compulsory treatment can start only via an approved list of specialists when the criteria for compulsory treatment are met. It seems a sensible step.

There are, of course, risks that go with the change, and we must safeguard the rights of patients undergoing compulsory treatment. There is a risk that these new measures will be taken up in greater number because it is seen to be more relevant or shorter term, or for whatever reason—these are the debates, as the Minister points out, that we will have in the select committee—and there is a risk that in that process, with more people going through the system, the safeguards will not be observed in the way that they might be. But I think these are risks worth taking because it is time to update this legislation, and there is no doubt about that. But we just must find the balance so that patients have the same rights as those held under existing mental health legislation.

Having a shorter time period—8 weeks, with the option of extension, with the goal of moving an individual into voluntary treatment—seems a far more progressive approach to treating severe substance abuse where patients are unable to make a treatment decision. It is a transition and, ultimately, we want the patient, in so far as they are able, to take responsibility as a part of their own care and rehabilitation back to the state they would like to be in. The statutory period for treatment under the current legislation is 2 years, which far exceeds the time frame needed for treatment in many cases.

The regulatory impact statement indicates a best guess of 200 orders per year being the result of this legislation, as opposed to the 70 orders that are currently the case. On this side of the House we want to raise questions about whether that will be adequately funded. The regulatory impact statement makes the claim that there will be net economic benefits, and there is a study quoted, an American study, that says—and this is from the regulatory impact statement provided by the Government—that “It is estimated that for every dollar spent on addiction treatment programmes, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost associated with drug-related crimes. With some non-residential programmes, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12:1.” We must take that, of course, with a grain of salt. It is coming from the USA and it is not looking at the New Zealand context. The results may vary, as the saying goes. But there is a clear indication that there is likely to be a net benefit from looking after those with addictions and looking after the mental health issues that go with them. That, of course, is something that I suspect will be accepted around this House.

The question comes as to how it will be funded. It is a net benefit to the economy, but that does not mean that it does not come with an accompanying cost in the health system. We are told in the papers produced by the Government that there has been $775,000 given to the health sector for implementing similar legislation annually and that that should cover the cost of this increase. I guess the jury is out on that, and we will invite submissions to the select committee about whether that will realistically cover the costs in the sector, which is already stretched—hugely stretched.

Members of this House will have people coming to see them in their electorate offices to describe some of the unfortunate consequences of having a stretched health system in the area of mental health and addictions. I am sure all members of this House have had people come to speak with them about those issues, many of which end in very tragic circumstances. It is incumbent, I believe, upon this House to ensure that these kinds of changes are properly resourced so that the intent of looking after the vulnerable is realised, rather than platitudes merely being mouthed in this House.

We have got plenty of evidence that the health system is squeezed. There are 20 district health boards that have sent 160,000 people to their GP without specialist appointments since 2010. There is a constant flow of information about the implications of having an underfunded health sector, and with that figure of $1.7 billion in underfunding, it is little wonder that those areas where people are more vulnerable are the ones that tend to get squeezed first. The Labour Party has discovered through Official Information Act inquiries that this financial year a further $163 million worth of cuts are being enforced across 17 district health boards, and of course that all flows through. That number dwarfs the $775,000 that is claimed to fund this particular activity, as is listed in the regulatory impact statement.

So we have got a health sector that is being squeezed by this Government, and that is having negative consequences for the public of New Zealand, who are recognising that they cannot access the health care that they would expect to in a prosperous nation. We have seen things like the drug Keytruda erupting into public debate, and I think that that is a symbol of a wider concern that New Zealand cannot afford medications that are funded in the UK, in Australia, and elsewhere, because, it seems, the current Government does not place the same priority on health care that a Labour Government would.

We on this side of the House, in the Labour Party, believe that the public health system must ensure essential health-care services are provided free for all New Zealanders, and we believe that that health system is currently under threat. The health system is no longer able to provide Kiwis with high-quality, safe patient care where and when it is needed in every case, and that is a sad situation to be in. So I come back to the point that the promises in this legislation will need appropriate resourcing in order to be realised.

There are other points in the regulatory impact statement that warrant highlighting in the first reading of this bill. There is very little international evidence on the effectiveness of civil compulsory substance addiction treatment in achieving good long-term outcomes for individuals. One might hope that shortening the period of compulsory treatment might go some way towards addressing that, and if a modern progressive approach is used—where the buy-in of the patient comes earlier in the piece—perhaps new evidence will emerge that that is a more successful approach. But we must acknowledge that the evidence around compulsory substance addiction treatment is thin, and that is acknowledged, indeed, by the Government in its regulatory impact statement.

We must also recognise that there is little data in New Zealand on the number of people in New Zealand who have a severe substance addiction and who may meet the proposed threshold for compulsory treatment, so we just do not know how many people this will apply to. The estimate of 200 that the Government has brought to the table is a guess—it really is a guess—and the estimate of funding that will be supporting it is based upon the funding that it believes will be necessary to support a guess. The number of people who qualify for this or who may fall under the legislation may be a far greater number, particularly in this day and age when we are observing growing inequalities in society, which have been very clearly linked, through the literature, to an increase in mental health concerns within a society.

So we have got a case where we have a New Zealand that is not as it should be, where we have financial pressures growing on far too many, and where the 1 percent are charging ahead under a Government that looks out for their interests—a Government that is increasingly out of touch with the lot of ordinary New Zealanders—and, therefore, we have a growing number of people presenting with mental health issues. You just need to go and speak with the police. A significant proportion of the police’s work these days is concerned with mental health cases. That happens increasingly in a society where there is that gap between the very, very wealthy—the ultra-wealthy—and the rest of the country, and where that gap between the richest and the poorest grows ever more.

So let us bear that in mind when we look at the estimates of the cost and the support that has been given to the district health boards to implement this legislation. That is where our concern will lie with this legislation—that the resources simply are not there. District health boards are being asked to make over $163 million in cuts across 17 district health boards this financial year alone. In that circumstance it is very hard to imagine just how they will afford to put this kind of legislation in place effectively, in the spirit in which it is intended.

More than half of the district health boards in the country are running deficits at present. Indications from Treasury are that cost pressures, demographic changes, and an ageing population will require even more significant changes to the health system over the coming years. This Government does not seem to have a plan for our health system. This is one piece of legislation, though, that we can support because it modernises something and is in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission, which seem very, very sensible.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on this first reading of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill. I want to thank the Associate Minister for introducing it into the House. I think it is just another example of this Government’s good work in this space, and there is a lot of work going on. This basically fits in a broader context with the Government’s Methamphetamine Action Plan, amongst other things, in basically working in the space of mental health and with a particular focus on youth. I think also it touches on some of the wider areas that the Minister himself is leading around work-drug control. So, again, thanks to the Minister for that.

I think the Health Committee is looking forward to taking the bill and to teasing it out. It is quite a complex bill. I would not say “complicated”, but it is a complex bill. There are a number of elements to it and probably the two that create the major tension are ultimately the desire to help and serve a particular individual or individuals, but, importantly, to balance that with their rights.

I was not pleased—well, I was going to say “disappointed”. Actually, let us start with the positive. I was pleased to hear that the Labour Party is supporting this bill at the first reading and I am hoping that other parties in the House—New Zealand First and the Greens—will be doing the same so that we can tease this out.

I have to say, for the record, that I became a little bit disappointed, but not completely surprised, that the particular points of this bill were then taken to basically start a whole lot of predictable clichés, attacking the Government in the area of health.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What were they again?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, there is no point in actually putting them out again, because they are all, sort of, falsities. And the fact that the Opposition just continues to put them out, time and time again—it is that sort of old axiom that if you say it long enough, people might believe it. The only problem we have is that when I am in my own electorate and around the country, people are actually very grateful for the work that this Government is doing in the health sector, and there is nothing like results to prove that.

Sue Moroney: How patronising.

SIMON O’CONNOR: See, here we go again. We have been accused now of being patronising. You see, it is just that classic ad hominem, emotional attack without any facts, going right back—

Sue Moroney: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: And now they are laughing again. It is just so predictable, really. I tell you what. Had I studied psychology, I could have done multiple theses on these people.

Hon Member: Theses?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Theses—it is the plural of thesis. Gosh, we really do need to do more work on Latin declensions here!

We have a very good story to tell in the health space. We have increased the health budget now to $15.9 billion. The health budget is increasing. The attempts to jump through hoops and spin things that there is actually somehow a decrease basically falters very fast in the face of the facts.

Hon David Cunliffe: Except for inflation.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Here we go. Now we have got a little bit of alliteration thrown in there as well. Importantly, in this particular context, the funding for mental health has actually gone up from about $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion. Really important, and a fact that the Opposition, particularly Labour, at this point has forgotten, is that the whole point of district health boards in the way that they are structured is for them to choose how they want to allocate moneys to support people in their area. I think, as a Government, we are very supportive of that, and we heard that through the district health boards as they came before the select committee. They are making choices all the time, on behalf of their communities. So where there may be areas where we need more support in substance addiction, I have every confidence that they will do so.

I am quite interested in this bill from a personal point of view as well. It goes back a few years, but I used to work in an addiction centre, a drop-in centre, in King’s Cross in Sydney, of all places. It was a real eye-opener to understand that addiction, particularly around drugs and alcohol, is a disease. This is something that all people in many ways do not choose. The devastation that can bring not only to the individual but to the family and the wider community was very clear to me day after day, week after week, working with these people.

One of the things I found, working at this centre, is how profoundly human those suffering this disease and addiction are. I mention that because it is all very easy to sort of put it outside or to demonise them, stigmatise them, and so forth. But, actually, they are human beings like you and me, but they have their problems. And we, as a society, have to choose how to engage appropriately and, I would stress, proportionately. I think that is what this bill ultimately does.

So if someone has an addiction—alcohol is the one that jumps to mind but, of course, various forms of drugs—how do we respond proportionately, as a society, to help them? Because by and large they do want help. That has certainly been my experience. A big part of that is to try to work alongside them to bring them to that situation themselves where they can understand what is occurring, and to enable the help to be given in a way that enables them to release from the addiction, from the disease.

In most cases, that is voluntary—it is voluntary—and those who understand they have a problem and need assistance will get the best results. But, as we heard from the Minister, there are a very small number of people in society who will never voluntarily seek help and, of fundamental importance, their level of addiction, their substance addiction is so strong and so high that it is causing them immense harm. Importantly, I want to stress again, the addiction not only causes them harm but it has been very clear to me over the years, from that experience in Sydney or in other places here in New Zealand, that it has an immediate and profound impact on the family, the whānau, and the wider community. This is not something that is ever isolated, and therefore we as a community have a duty—I would argue a moral duty—to step in and assist in these rare cases.

So, again, this is not compulsory for all people by any means. It is for a very limited number. If you will excuse me for reading out a couple of my notes here—there are four elements within the purpose of the bill to describe when it is required. Of these four, two are needed, is my understanding. So the first test, if you will, is if someone has a neuro-adaptation to the substance. For those who do not know what a neuro-adaptation is, basically it is when your body compensates for the presence of that particular chemical or substance and enables you to function quite normally. It is not quite at this level but we often talk about high-functioning alcoholics. They can knock back an incredible amount of booze, or others smoke various substances or inject, but somehow they are able to keep on functioning and working, and you do not know how. That is neuro-adaptation: the body is able to compensate. So if the doctors and clinicians can see that this is at work, that is one of the conditions.

The other is quite broad, of course. It is craving for the substance. That makes a lot of sense. The third one is unsuccessful efforts to control the use of the substance. And the fourth one is the use of the substance despite harmful consequences. It is those last two, for me, that really typify the point of this bill. If someone is unsuccessful, they have tried to treat or have had someone attempt to give them treatment and they refuse it, and the continuation of the substance abuse is leading to harm to themselves, we as a society need to step in.

The bill as outlined provides basically a whole range of steps, which the committee will look at further, as to how we begin to assist someone. But that brings me back to the first point, that this is really balancing two needs: obviously the desire to help a particular person but also to work to protect their rights. From my first look over the bill, I think we have got most of that in a very good space, but I am looking forward to having it in front of the committee, again—I am trusting and hoping—with unanimous support and to tease it out and to bring it back to the House in very good condition. So, again, thanks to the members and to the Minister.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you. It is a great opportunity to be able to speak on this bill, which, as Dr David Clark has said, we are supporting to the select committee. The intent of the bill is positive, but there are certainly some questions that I, as a member of the Health Committee, am very keen for the select committee to investigate.

There is no denying that when somebody has relinquished their liberty, and also when they are provided treatment potentially without their consent, there is a fine balance that needs to be struck between their rights as an individual, our rights as a community to safety, and their rights to not be harmed. It is a balance that we need to get right, and there are some questions that need to be answered in my mind before we can actually get to a point where I am comfortable that this is the right way to track down and support people with severe substance addictions.

There is no denying that the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act is outdated. In 1966 I do not think that many of the substances that are being consumed now, or the ways that they are being consumed, would have even been heard of. In my earlier days, I recall being quite taken aback when people were consuming glue by sniffing. It was called sniffing, but these days young people are huffing all manner of substances that were not conceived of in 1966 when the Act first came into effect. Also, society has changed in its attitude to the use of some substances, so there is no doubt that we need to update the legislation.

As I pick up on the point that Dr David Clark made, we currently detain about 74 people with severe substance addiction. The estimation is that this will go up to around 200 under this legislation, but we do not know for sure, and we cannot know for sure, until we have tested out several things. One of the things that we need to test out is the assessment on which someone will actually come within the purview of this legislation. If we are talking about the assessment as will be defined within the legislation, it will be based on three criteria: the severity of the substance abuse, the risk to that individual from significant harm, and whether they have refused treatment.

Here is where the concept of compulsion comes into the discussion. Anecdotally, I know from work that I have done in the past where I have worked with groups who were compelled to attend various sessions—in this regard, I am talking about young people who might have been compelled to go to groups held by the Department of Corrections as part of their probation conditions. Anecdotally, it is thought that compulsion is a really important part of the compliance to a treatment and the success of the treatment programme. But that is anecdotally, and, unfortunately, it does not appear that we have the evidence that compulsion is a proven pathway to ensuring that someone who is compelled to do a treatment programme is actually successful at getting through that programme and has a successful result.

Here I want to add that the experience of mental health consumers in this regard has not been entirely positive. Mental health consumers will want to, I am sure, contribute and submit to this bill because of their previous experiences. In that regard, I am referring to what may have happened in the past around the electroconvulsive therapy, which for mental health consumers was something that they were compelled to do and in many instances was very detrimental to their ongoing mental health. So there is a cautionary tale in that. In discussion with organisations such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, the treatment will be residential and it will require us to change our way of working with people with addictions due to the provision of wet houses.

A wet house is a place where you can safely use a substance until such time that you can wean yourself off that substance, because if you have a serious substance addiction you cannot go cold turkey—it is very dangerous to do that. This is a change in the way we would treat people with addictions. In my view, it is actually an option that could be open to a whole lot of other people who have substance abuse, not just the most at risk of severe harm. It is a method that is used overseas; it is not something that we use here, but it is certainly something that the Health Committee could look at as an option for treatment for people with other levels of substance addiction.

This bill also tends not to include the co-morbidities that go along with someone who has a serious substance addiction. Here I am talking about mental illness, talking about family violence, sexual abuse, and other social harms. We cannot see this person in isolation—only around their addiction. We have to actually review the whole environment that this person lives within. Neither can we actually then discharge somebody back into an environment that is completely unsafe, because that will mean that they are then triggered by whatever is in their environment and we potentially will not get a successful treatment option for that person. I am hoping that the select committee will be able, within the purview of this legislation, to ask questions of health officials about what is going to be provided for somebody post-treatment so that they can have a successful reintegration back into the community.

I want to refer to the regulatory impact statement. There is a reference to not including the criterion of significant harm to others within the bill. I just want to quote from the regulatory impact statement. It says: “Existing legislation directed at child protection, family violence and other criminal behaviour is available to deal with situations where behaviour arising from the substance addiction results in a risk of serious harm of others.” It concerns me that serious harm to others is not part of this legislation.

I want to refer to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 where serious harm to others is part of that legislation. For me, I am concerned that for someone who is under a compulsory treatment order and is mentally unwell there is a component of risk to others within their assessment. However, somebody who has a serious substance abuse addiction does not have serious harm to others as part of their assessment. I think we are missing an opportunity here to ensure that things such as children who are in homes where methamphetamine is being manufactured, for example, are not a significant risk to that child or that young person. It is my belief that the Health Committee should examine this as something that we should include in the legislation.

There is much more that I could say but, in conclusion, I just want to talk about the Code of Health and Disability Consumers’ Rights because there are elements of this legislation that are in breach of this code of rights. The right to freedom from discrimination, coercion, harassment, and exploitation—the coercion aspect of right No. 2 does come into play here. Right No. 6, the right to be fully informed, is about when somebody does have a compulsory treatment order imposed upon them and they are not completely informed. Right No. 7, the right to make an informed choice—there is also an aspect of not being fully informed and being able to give your permission. And right No. 10 is the right to complain. I understand the district inspector service will be part of this legislation, and, hopefully, anyone who is ordered to have treatment as part of this legislation actually has the option to complain. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to speak on the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill this evening. In doing so, I want to mention that we all know that this is replacing a bill that was written in 1966.

I would like to make note of the people, led by Maurie Zinsli, who have recently taken the time to commemorate those who died at Tokanui Hospital. It is a really sad case of people who were in a psychiatric hospital, which is 14 kilometres south of Te Awamutu. A lot of those people, in those days, when we did not understand as much as we do now about mental health issues, substance abuse, and the like, were taken into that hospital. Many of them were buried there.

There is a lovely plaque that has just gone up. It has got “Tokanui Hospital Cemetery 1914 - 1964”, which is only a couple of years before the piece of legislation that we are replacing was passed. It says: “May the 500 plus people buried here Rest in Peace.” I think it is significant that we remember them, because we have learnt a lot. We have made a lot of medical physical progress over the years, but in mental health and substance health and those sorts of things, it has taken us a very long time.

I would like to comment on something that one of the speakers said before. They talked about the difference between rich and poor people, but, actually, this is a disease that does not distinguish. The bill is not designed to say that it happens only in certain economic classes or socio-economic situations; it is something that can happen to anybody. Often, it is stress that leads to mental health issues, that then leads to substance abuse—whether it be abuse of alcohol, whether it be abuse of drugs—and so I think it is really, really important that we do look, as the previous speaker, Poto Williams, said, at the links between those things, because it fits in quite nicely with a lot of the other stuff that we are doing on the Health Committee.

The bill is based on extensive work that was undertaken by the Law Commission in 2010. It is a significant step towards managing people who are seriously ill as a result of their addiction to alcohol or other drugs. The bill, in its first reading, sets out the criteria for compulsory treatment. “Compulsory treatment may only be given to people who have a severe substance addiction and whose capacity for making informed decisions about treatment for that addiction is severely impaired.” It is really something that is not going to be taken lightly, and I am sure that in our debate in our select committee we will ensure that that remains the case.

The bill sets out the meaning of severe substance addiction, and it also sets out that the definition is applicable only if two of four highlighted conditions are part of the process. Before, the select committee’s chair talked about neuro-adaptation to the substance. It could be because of “craving for the substance, unsuccessful efforts to control the use of the substance, and use of the substance despite harmful consequences.” I know that in a lot of these situations, although these people would dearly love to break the cycle themselves, unfortunately, the addiction and the disease are such that they are unable to do so.

The bill states that “compulsory treatment is necessary only if voluntary treatment is unlikely to be effective.” Generally, we are looking at an 8-week period. If those who have this severe addiction are under 18 years of age, participation by the family in decision making is really important. It also states that the “Area Director must assign a responsible clinician to every patient for whom a compulsory treatment certificate has been signed and this must be done as soon as practicable after the Area Director is notified of the patient’s identity.” So we cannot let these things lag. The bill also says that “a compulsory treatment order for children and young persons who are under 17 years of age may be made only if the court is satisfied that appropriate treatment cannot be given pursuant to an order [or other determination] under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.”

I am looking forward to this piece of legislation coming to the Health Committee. There has been an increasing shift towards more mental health and addiction services being provided in our communities, and this aligns with the updated New Zealand Health Strategy draft, which emphasises the importance of care closer to home. Thank you, and I look forward to this bill coming to our committee.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): For at least the last 30 years, the alcohol and other drug treatment sector has been saying, with a more or less unanimous voice, that the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 has not been fit for purpose and needs to be replaced. So it is certainly with perhaps an overdue sense of welcome that I thank the Minister for his introduction of the bill today.

Several other speakers have referred to the Law Commission’s work, and I am going to quote from the commission’s report on this matter. It became interested in this topic largely through its very extensive study on controlling and regulating drugs and alcohol in our lives. What the commission said was that one of the most persistent themes from submitters and experts whom it dealt with during that inquiry was the need for robust and effective treatment services, which we often lack.

One of the things the commission said when it followed up that work by specifically reviewing this Act was this: “One component of any coherent framework for delivering alcohol and drug treatment is the use of compulsion to require people to undertake treatment. Outside of the criminal justice system, the only provision for compulsory treatment specifically for dependence can be found in the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966. That Act is now outdated, and there are difficulties in reconciling the broad powers of detention with the rights and protections in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Over the years some provisions of the Act have also fallen into disuse and the overall framework of the Act has not kept pace with subsequent changes in allied legislation such as the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. Reform of the Act is long overdue.” Hear, hear!

The framework in the current Act, in fact, is in some ways more akin to punishment. It is as if legislators were confused about what they were attempting to do. Just as with other aspects of the legal framework that we use to regulate alcohol and other drugs, the Green Party believes that we need to move this framework from one that is based on justice and punishment, through to one that is actually health-based. Certainly, we welcome the emphasis that is in this bill on harm reduction, and we specifically welcome the fact that compulsory treatment will used only if that is in the interests of reducing harm to the person concerned.

The framework that is set out in this bill is a very substantial step forward. The current Act is unwieldy and often inappropriate. Even in those circumstances where the current Act actually would be helpful, it is so hard to use that it often is not, and that is the sign, I should think, of an Act of Parliament that is no longer fit for purpose. Change to it—or rather, as Peter Dunne said, not change but the replacement of it—has been supported almost unanimously by the sector.

It is also worth noting that it was a recommendation of the National Drug Policy summit in August 2013, which comprised policy makers and treatment providers, as well as other stakeholders like the Principals’ Federation and the Police Association. Very many stakeholders in drug policy came together in Wellington and formed a consensus statement about the direction that drug policy should follow. One of its recommendations was that the replacement of this Act was one of the urgent priorities that the Government should undertake.

I was reminded, as I prepared for this contribution on this bill, of a singular day that I spent as the guest of one of the two alcohol and other drug treatment courts that are currently being trialled through the Auckland District Court. Under that approach, what is happening is that offenders who are repeatedly in front of the courts for offending that is caused by or related to their alcohol or other drug use are instead offered treatment options under the jurisdiction of the court, and I was particularly struck by the very strongly client-centred approach that was being taken by the court. From the judge on down, to every other participant in that process, the focus seemed to be on providing the best-possible outcomes for that person—reducing their harm, and leading them to the best outcomes that were possible.

In the afternoon, when I saw the offenders appearing before the court, seeing the relationship that those offenders had with the court and with everyone concerned, I have never—and I have been in many courts over the years—come across such relationships before. They were genuinely therapeutic in nature. Would it not be great if we were able to augment the limited tools that those alcohol and other drug treatment that courts have at their disposal to give them another tool that was useful for them in actually achieving harm reduction for the people they are trying to help? Would that not be great?

Some other speakers have raised some concerns about the bill that the select committee will need to take into account, and I am particularly mindful of the very thoughtful contribution from Poto Williams. I thought that was an outstanding contribution to this debate. The select committee will need to look at whether the balance has been properly struck between the powers that exist in the bill that are necessarily still coercive and the rights and freedoms that we have determined to be a necessary part of participation in society. As Poto Williams has rightly pointed out, there are some examples, such as some of the use of electroconvulsive therapy, the use of seclusion in some mental health facilities—or the excessive use of seclusion—and the excessive use of restraint, where that balance has been struck in the wrong place. Indeed, resource constraints, as others have referred to, can lead to those techniques being more often used, and that is something that the select committee is going to be interested in following up, I am sure.

There is debate about whether compulsory treatment is ever appropriate. There are some who believe that it is not, and I am going to be very interested to hear the views of those submitters on the select committee to see whether we have that set right.

David Clark is correct to point out that alcohol and other drug treatment services are currently struggling with resourcing. They have falling resourcing in real terms and have increasing need that they need to service. Well, actually, we will be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we add to the arsenal of treatment services a useful tool but we then actually hamstring those same services by under-resourcing them. We need to properly resource them to maximise the value of this change that this bill would make.

Finally, I just want to say, would it not be great if we actually took the action that was necessary to prevent harm as well as just to reduce it? I look forward to further action by this House in the bill that we are to debate following this bill, and in many others, to reduce the harm that can be caused by alcohol and other drug use. Thank you.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill. New Zealand First is supporting this bill to select committee and we will be most interested to hear submitters’ views on this complex issue.

As others have said, the current legislation is outdated and did need to be reviewed. We cannot have an Act that is 50 years old as part of the legislative framework. When we have a look at compulsory treatment we know that there are provisions for compulsory treatment already that are followed by the courts, but we also know that the process itself is very complicated and very time-consuming. Applications have to go through the District Court, hence the provisions are rarely used.

I was most interested to read the regulatory impact statement and to read the concerns of the Law Commission. When I read through those concerns I agreed totally with them, so that is one area that we are going to be looking at in the select committee. One of the main problems that was identified was that “although two medical certificates are required before a person can be committed, there is [absolutely] no requirement that either [of the medical certificates] be issued by a specialist alcohol and drug practitioner, following the personal assessment”. That is quite a concern, I believe.

The Law Commission also said that “the statutory period of detention is two years, which far exceeds what is normally necessary to undertake any form of treatment”, and there again I can agree with that particular area. It said “the Act makes inadequate provision for review of the detention decision”—so quite a concern there for people’s human rights—and “there are generally insufficient safeguards to protect the rights of people held under the Act”. One of its biggest areas, which I thought was most interesting, was that “few treatment facilities are actually certified to accept people under the regime and consequently there is little flexibility in the type of … programme available”. Those are big issues that need to be resolved, and no doubt we will be spending quite a bit of time on them at the select committee.

All of us in this House know that we have got a problem with illicit drugs. In fact, we have got one of the highest drug rates in the world. Although we are aware of this we are also aware that there are no real statistics on this very issue. We are operating in an area where we are uncertain of how big the problem actually is. We do not have any idea of the extent of the problem we are dealing with. We do not know how many people are even likely to be affected by this legislation. We all know though that the devastating effect that addiction has on an individual, a whānau, and the wider community cannot be overestimated. Of course there are all the resulting hassles that result from that: poor health and education outcomes, increased crime, and the breakdown of relationships and family groups.

In his latest report, the Director of Mental Health reported that the number of people who accessed specialist mental health and addiction services in 2014 was quite vast because, would you believe, addiction treatment is not recorded separately from mental health. So, really, when we get down to it, it is very difficult to determine how many people are actually accessing this specialist addiction treatment.

We do know that district health boards are struggling to cope with increased and overwhelming demand. So we are concerned on this side of the House that, if there is going to be an increase in the use of compulsory treatment provision, our current workforce is resourced adequately to cope with that increased demand. We know too that we have got an “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” approach to this bill and it is often only when one hits the bottom that the compulsory treatment report comes into being. It should only ever be used in extreme emergency situations, where there is no other option. We do not want to see the open-door attitude that the United States often has to compulsory treatment. We have heard very bad stories from across in the United States.

But we were pleased to see that severe substance addiction is defined as “the compulsive use of a substance that is of such severity that it poses a serious danger to the health or safety of the person suffering from it, or seriously diminishes the person’s ability to care for himself …”. We would also like to see the addition of a clause that states that no other treatment options have been considered, or that they have all been considered and tried.

We all know that compulsory treatment is not the best way to facilitate treatment, so how can we encourage those who actually need help to seek it for themselves? It is quite an interesting challenge there, because the stigma towards mental health issues and seeking help has to be removed; therefore, we need some funding directed towards the situation. We need education as well as treatment, and that in itself is a big ask.

We are pleased that there are provisions in the bill to inform family members of the person’s status and to notify them of the centre where their family member is receiving treatment, as well as any other information, but we believe that families should also have the opportunity to have some input into the decision making. It is difficult to see how the bill will be incorporated as part of the Director of Mental Health’s vision for mental health in 2030 for “a holistic, family/whānau-focused model of service delivery”.

During the select committee’s consideration we are going to be interested in discussing how the rights of the person can be protected and ensuring that the bill does not contravene the UN conventions. We are adamant on this side of the House—New Zealand First, in particular—that any benefits of compulsory treatment have to outweigh any potential infringements on the person’s rights. The criteria around compulsory treatment have to be robust.

Additionally, we have got concerns about the lack of evidence or otherwise of the ability of compulsory addiction treatment to deter future substance abuse—and, of course, there are no statistics on that. It is critical that the person is actually receiving the best form of treatment—I think other people have actually mentioned this as well.

When this bill passes into law—because it inevitably will—it is expected to cost $775,000 to implement. We would like to know whether there is going to be new money allocated for this, or whether it is expected to be taken from the existing mental health and addiction budget, because that is already stretched at this point in time.

New Zealand First supports the bill. We are going to be following the issues that I raised very closely. We look forward to hearing from a wide range of people, to carefully consider their views and the issues that they have identified as well. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): One of the fascinating things that occurs when one becomes a member of Parliament is that you learn things. Members of Parliament have an opportunity to hear information, to absorb information, and to participate in decision making in a way that others sometimes do not. On the Health Committee we get an opportunity to do that very frequently, in areas that are difficult and sometimes contentious. They are areas that sometimes transcend the moral, the ethical, and the medical. It is judging the fine line and the balance between those competing and, sometimes, conflicting priorities for individuals and the State that makes decision making difficult and complicated for us as members of Parliament.

This piece of legislation is very timely; in fact, it is probably well overdue. I have been very impressed with the careful, considered contributions of all members across the House this evening in this first reading debate. I think it is an example of Parliament working at its best, when we consider these delicate, sensitive but important issues as carefully and as well as we have this evening.

This bill has its genesis in some very good work that was done by the Law Commission back in 2010. It seeks to update, replace, and modernise the principal Act, which goes back to 1966. Of course, that was a long time ago; so much has changed since 1966, with the way that medicine, treatment, and even the causes of addiction have transformed people’s lives. Back in the mid-60s most people were concerned with the drugs in fashion at the time, and now we find that all these years later those drugs still exist, they still inflict harm and damage upon people, but now they have been added to by a huge range of more complicated, more horrendous, and more damaging drugs, which cause even greater harm to society and, of course, to the individuals who become addicted.

The question that the Health Committee really will need to address when it considers this piece of legislation, and when it hears from submitters, is where the balance is in the responsibility of the State to intervene in an individual’s life, when that individual either cannot or will not, for whatever reason, be in a position to address those issues for themselves. At what point do we find that it is right and proper for the State and us, as responsible members of society, to intervene upon the sacrosanct rights of individuals to make their own decisions in a way that affects them personally?

This change in mental health and addiction treatment that has occurred since the principal Act was introduced way back in 1966 is going to be very important, not only for the people who find themselves in a situation where they need help and assistance today, whether or not they know it, but also for those who are yet to come ahead, because, sadly, the scourge of drugs and addiction is going to be with us for a very long time—probably for the rest of time as we know it. So it is right and proper that this Parliament addresses these issues.

It is a technical but complicated, ethical piece of legislation, but it is something that we as politicians and members of the New Zealand Parliament need to get our heads around in an intelligent, informed, and careful way. I am very confident that under the very capable chairmanship of Simon O’Connor, the Health Committee and other members will be able to do that. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Clendon—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): On behalf of the Greens, I am pleased to reiterate our support for the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill to go to select committee for a good investigation there, which I am sure it will receive. The point has been made, and I will not labour it, that the legislation this will replace does date to 1966, and that since that time our understanding of addiction is very different. There are many more substances, it would seem, to which one can become addicted. Our understanding of what constitutes appropriate treatment has changed.

As my colleague Kevin Hague mentioned, a shift away from a punitive regime to one genuinely focused on treatment is entirely appropriate. I think those are all things that this bill seeks to achieve. Sadly, what has not changed, of course, is that it would seem that there is still a need to have a legislative power to compel people to take treatment if they are in such a state of mind that they are unable to make those decisions on their own behalf, as an option of last resort for people who either lack family or community support or, indeed, have rejected that in the depths of that addiction.

I should just say, in passing, that I have the greatest admiration for people at the sharp end of this sort of work, who work with severely addicted people. I think you would have to have a more than usual quality of compassion, because people in that very degraded state would not be the most attractive people to get up close and personal with, I believe. It is a credit to those folk who do this work day in and day out, that they manage to pick people up out of that pit and help them on to a better path.

The Law Commission in 2010 issued a report on which this bill is based, and established a number of key principles, which we hope to see, and, indeed, there is evidence of them being embedded in the text of the bill. For example, there is a very high threshold for compulsion, and that is as it should be. It is an extraordinary intervention in a person’s life and it is against their rights, in a sense, to compel them to take treatment, and so the threshold needs to be high, and I think this bill does do that. The notion of limited duration—8 weeks—seems to make a great deal more sense than 2 years, which does seem excessive. One would hope that after 2 years a person may be in much better shape to make their own decisions. Also, there is the notion of protecting human rights, of course, and the idea that the compulsory treatment should lead directly on to a pathway—that people are not simply brought out of crisis and then abandoned, but that there will be an ongoing pathway for them to pursue a voluntary course of treatment, for as long as that takes.

In terms of protection of rights, it would seem the bill does make some efforts to address that. I like the fact that there is a clear definition of exactly what constitutes severe addiction, so that those people doing that assessment can make as sound a judgment as can be made. The bill defines clearly what treatment is, and excludes certain things that, on a bad day, may be deemed treatment, but, in fact, would look more like punishment. There are criteria around which the compulsion may be determined to be the appropriate way to go: proof of severe addiction, severely impaired judgment, and that appropriate treatment is available, because, of course, it makes no sense to compel someone to a course of treatment if, in fact, there is nothing available to them. One would hope there always would be. So there are these fairly high bars set and a degree of principle underpinning that.

We understand that, of course, the legislation does allow for some use of force if people are unwilling to be taken to a place of assessment or a place of treatment, and there are some safeguards around that. I am particularly pleased to see that the treatment centres will be listed in the Crimes of Torture Act as places of detention, and, therefore, subject to the “OPCAP”, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and so the national preventative mechanisms—the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman, and so on—will have oversight of these treatment centres, and I think that is an appropriate thing. As I say, these will be some of the most vulnerable people in our community when they are in this condition, and, of course, it is appropriate that we have the highest order of monitoring of those sites where they will be treated.

So I will simply, finally, say that if we seriously wish to reduce the number of people who will fall into this category of severely addicted, we need to look very hard at the current resourcing of community-based drug and alcohol treatment. I suspect that there is scarcely a provider in the country that has no waiting list and is properly resourced. I would encourage all of us to take that issue very seriously. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Ruth Dyson—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution to the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill by paying a tribute to all those people who, in the past, under different regimes, have died as patients or residents—or inmates, as they were previously called; can you believe—in our psychiatric institutions around the country. I have no criticism of the health providers or the decision makers of the time, because I think everyone did what they genuinely thought was for the best, in the best interests of the person and their treatment. We have clearly come a long way since then, and thank goodness for that.

I also want to pay a tribute to two women who, in my view, changed the way that Parliament considered and acted in relation to mental health, learning disabilities, and drug and alcohol treatment, and they are the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley and the Rt Hon Helen Clark. Both of those women, as leaders of Labour and National at the time, made a conscious decision to stop using people, particularly people with mental illness, as pawns in this institution that we are privileged to serve in. And I think that was good not just for Parliament but it was also good for our consideration of mental health, and, therefore, the treatment that people got. So I just want to put on record my appreciation of that change.

I hope that other changes are driven in Parliament as well. Too often we make—I have only been viewing second or third-hand, actually, through Twitter. Is it The Bachelor New Zealand? Whatever that programme is, I think we make that look quite sophisticated, from some of our behaviour. I will just stop there, but I hope that we can get some other change driven.

I also want to acknowledge the Law Commission. It started this process. It saw an area where work needed to be done. It does, mostly, really robust, thoughtful work, and it gives Parliament something very strong to build on, and that is evident, I think, from the contributions that have been made from a range of different parties already tonight.

So this bill will throw out the old system—and so it should; it is outdated—and move to a new system that has an entirely different frame. We are no longer talking about penalty and punishment and the justice system in our area of drug and alcohol addiction. Let us wait for other recognition of that move of a frame, as well—but, at least, it is starting in the treatment area—through to a harm reduction. So that health approach, I think, is a very bold step, and it is one that, clearly, Parliament is up to supporting.

My concern is not for any of the specifics or the principles of this legislation. I think the Hon Peter Dunne has done a jolly fine job, actually, in picking up the Law Commission’s work and then fine-tuning it, through the various processes of Cabinet, into a bill that we all support. My concern is that, in the end, the services that we rely on so greatly in our communities have to be resourced well enough to do the job that we expect of them. So we are setting in place here a legislative framework where the provision of services will be different and additional to what we have now.

I just want to put on the record that these organisations that do this amazing work around our country need the money to pay for it. They cannot employ cheap monkeys. They have got a high-quality professional job to do, and they should pay them properly. So this needs to be resourced. If the $1.7 billion out of the health budget is an indication of how seriously the Government takes this, then we should be concerned.

I have enjoyed the debate so far tonight, and I am sure I will enjoy the remaining few speakers. It is not very often that we have an issue that is so important to so many people—so many individuals and their families—and yet, it has such support across the various parties in Parliament. It is, I think, a long-overdue measure, but it is one that has taken the proper time to come to fruition, and a proper process. The Law Commission is a very good place to start this work, and I think that the process that has been undertaken since then, and the discussion papers widely debated throughout the provider and support advocacy group community, has ended up with a jolly fine bill as a result.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to this, the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill, a bill that looks to help people who have severe substance addiction and substance problems get assessment and treatment. I mention both of them specifically, because we have all gone to the compulsion to treatment; just remember that the first step is actually the compulsion to assessment. And, certainly, I found that the most challenging.

When you are on duty doing after hours in a city, and you get called by the “DAO”, which was the 1992 definition—the duly authorised officer—to come along with them, because they have got a patient they are concerned about, you go out the back of a block of flats and there is this really large male in various stages of undress who is clearly not coherent. You are always very mindful and grateful to have the experts around you, but you are stuck with what the step is. The step to assessment was very complex; it was not clear. And we were looking at each other saying: “Well, who does what? What’s the next step? Clearly, this person needs assessment.” Well, this bill looks to clarify that, and it gives us the opportunity to talk about that pathway to assessment, because, I believe that once people have touched the system and got specialist attention, the best outcome that can happen generally does.

What this bill says is that when people have a loved one or someone they are concerned about who has substance abuse problems, often one of the first contacts is what the bill is calling an authorised officer. That will be a health professional, and that professional is appointed by the area director, and the area director makes sure there are always enough authorised officers in the region. The first thing that authorised officer does is seek voluntary compliance from the patient. Is there a way that you can help them with their own consent? If that fails, what then happens is the authorised officer approaches a medical practitioner. That medical practitioner has two tasks. The first is to assess whether that person has severe substance abuse, and the second is to assess whether they have capacity to make informed decisions.

As has been mentioned, there are four criteria for whether a person has severe substance abuse. Two of those four criteria are required. The first one is neuro-adaptive changes. With substance abuse the common pathway is dopamine in the brain. What neuro-adaptive changes mean, effectively, is you get down regulation of the dopamine receptors. You get fewer of them, and they become less sensitive. We know that as tolerance. So they are looking for evidence of that: craving, unsuccessful attempts to control the use of the product, and ongoing use despite harmful consequences. I think the second criteria, the capacity to make informed decisions, can be quite complex. There is a lot of contemporary discussion around what autonomous decision-making means, but I think there is a good piece of work here in clause 9 saying it is to understand the relevant information, retain that information, and be able to communicate that decision.

What happens then is the medical practitioner has to document their findings. They have to attest that they are not a relative of the applicant or of the client themselves. If for any reason you cannot get a medical practitioner to do that, the authorised officer is able to do that by completing a memorandum. The authorised officer then makes the arrangements, and those arrangements can also involve the police, and then the person enters the system. They are able to be assessed, and, hopefully, the best of care can be obtained.

I think this adds clarity to an area that I have personally found in practice to be really complex. When someone is shouting and when they are threatening you, often it is unclear as to who does what. I believe this adds clarity. I personally have no issue with compulsory incarceration or detention for treatment. When you see some people who are clearly a harm to themselves and clearly a harm to the public you just want to get them back to that state where they can make their own decisions. However you do that, in a clear and concise way, I think is a good thing. I think in its first reading this is a good bill. I support it and commend it to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I wish I were on the select committee for this bill; unfortunately, I am not, but just reading through the Health Committee’s notes before standing up to do this speech, it is a really interesting area, and an area that I am sure many of us in this House are concerned about. I have an electorate office in west Auckland, in Glen Eden, that I share with Peeni Henare and Kelvin Davis, and on a regular basis we see citizens outside our office who clearly are exhibiting either mental health issues or substance addiction issues or both. So seeing this bill is of high interest to me.

The Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill sets out a framework for the compulsory treatment of people who are assessed as having a serious substance addiction and lacking the capacity to consent to treatment. The explanatory note states that only a small number of people are expected to be treated, and treatment will be for a limited time. The departmental disclosure statement describes the aim of the bill as restoring “the capacity of people with severe substance addictions to be able to engage in, and remain in treatment.”

The bill seeks to repeal and replace the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966. The Act is described as “outdated” by the Law Commission, which notes that “there are difficulties in reconciling the broad powers of detention with the rights and protections in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” The bill’s provisions for both compulsory treatment and detention in a treatment centre have been assessed by the Ministry of Justice as being consistent with the relevant sections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Labour supports this first reading to update the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966. The Act is almost 50 years old, and not in line with modern clinical practice and delivery. It is good to see that the recommendations from the Law Commission are finally being implemented in legislation. Under the current 50-year-old legislation, two medical certificates are required to make an application to the court for compulsory treatment, and neither has to come from a specialist drug and alcohol practitioner. We support the requirement that compulsory treatment can start only via an approved list of specialists, when the criteria for compulsory treatment are met.

We must safeguard the rights of patients undergoing compulsory treatment. There are circumstances where compulsory treatment is necessary due to the incapacity of the patient to make a decision on treatment for themselves. However, the rights of patients must be upheld, and appropriate safeguards must be in place for situations where compulsory treatment is not found to be necessary. It is important that these patients have the same rights as those held under the mental health legislation.

A shorter time period for treatment—so 8 weeks, with the option of extension—with the goal of moving an individual into voluntary treatment is a far more progressive approach in treating severe substance abuse, when patients are unable to make a treatment decision. The statutory period for treatment under the current legislation is 2 years, which far exceeds the time frame needed for treatment. Under the current legislation there is an average of 70 compulsory treatment orders per year, and it is estimated in the regulatory impact statement that these changes will lead to an increase to approximately 200 orders per year.

Even though it is extremely important and necessary to update this legislation, we do have to make sure that at the same time we are resourcing health professionals and the New Zealand Police to enable them to carry out their duties under this bill. At this point I will point out the fact that under the National Government we have seen a $1.7 billion cut over 6 years out of the health system. Of course, that has implications for areas like mental health and addictions.

It is crucial that any estimated uptick in demand for mental health services is resourced, and, I have to say, that is a criticism that we have of the National Government. Often it puts things into legislation without thinking through the implications and the additional areas that need to be resourced. So we need assurance from the National Government that it will be increasing its resourcing in this area to ensure that all of the good things that are trying to be attained through this legislation are actually able to happen. We have seen the consequences of under-resourcing in mental health and of expecting the New Zealand Police to become the front line of mental health services. It is the police—it is every social service agency that is expected to pick up where the Government has failed.

I just want to point out an article that I saw in the New Zealand Herald. It was an opinion piece—I cannot remember who wrote it—over the Christmas period, and it was just about the increasing levels of homelessness that this person was seeing, and the fact that, actually, what they wanted to know was that their tax dollars were taking care of these issues, so that every day they were not having to be confronted by these issues. I think all New Zealanders will agree that they want to see their tax dollars spent on areas like this, so that every day when we walk out of our homes, when we walk into our shopping centres, and when we walk out of our offices, we are not confronted by the homelessness, by the mental health issues and by the drug and addiction issues that we currently are confronted by on a daily basis. Jami-Lee Ross laughs, but it is not funny.

Putting it in legislation, creating a bill like this is all good, but just going back to what I was saying, it is about making sure that the support services—the health professionals, the New Zealand Police, and everyone who contributes to addressing these issues—are adequately resourced. So that is the challenge we have to put to the Government. The regulatory impact statement states that “Additional resources have been made available to district health boards for medically managed withdrawal beds.”, but it will be interesting to see whether the $775,000 of additional operating costs is sufficient to cover the increase in orders.

Another serious resourcing question arises as to whether these additional costs will result in new funding being given to district health boards, or whether, as has become standard practice in health services, the shortfall is made up from district health boards’ already overstretched baselines. We have seen, in recent months—especially, I think, in Canterbury—cuts to mental health funding. Mental health funding, drug and addiction funding—we need the Government to make sure that our district health boards are adequately resourced to be able to address those areas.

The bill also creates offences relating to the ill-treatment or neglect of patients undergoing compulsory treatment, or for the staff at a treatment centre assisting or allowing a patient to be absent without leave. We have seen recent media cases of patients under compulsory treatment escaping care, with tragic consequences. It is noted that this risk is going to be managed by the development of a management treatment plan for each individual, and there are provisions in the bill to return a person to a treatment centre by an authorised officer or the police.

This is an incredibly important bill. We will be supporting this bill. Not only are we confronted on a daily basis with mental illness, with drug and addiction issues, and with homelessness but also we come across many families who have this as their daily reality. They are having to live through this with their children, having to put up with a whole range of things, whether it be the fact that they have family members who are violent because of these issues, or whether they have family members who are stealing from them because of these issues—a whole range of consequences of substance addiction. I know that these families I am talking about, who have to live this nightmare on a daily basis, are going to be supportive of this bill as well. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is a pleasure to stand and take this short call in support of this bill. This Government continues to focus on four priorities, one of which is delivering Better Public Services. The Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill fits well within that priority. As we have already heard tonight, the health budget has grown to a record level of just under $16 billion under this Government. With that, core services such as treatment for alcohol and drug addiction continue to receive Government support.

This is a sensible bill; it modernises the legislation to reflect the support we offer to New Zealanders who struggle with drug and alcohol addiction. Most people who abuse alcohol or other drugs do not need compulsory treatment; however, some people are just so unwell that they are not able to make that decision for themselves. I have confidence that families who have struggled with loved ones suffering from severe alcohol and drug addiction will support this piece of legislation, as do I. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I will be nominating the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill.

The passing of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act in December 2012 marked the first time in more than two decades that the Government moved to restrict, rather than relax, New Zealand’s alcohol laws. The Act introduced a range of measures to combat alcohol-related harm, crime, and public health problems. It also empowered our communities across New Zealand, giving them a chance to have a say in how alcohol in their area is sold and supplied. Two years on is still early days to draw overall conclusions on such a major regulatory reform. However, the early signs are encouraging: we are already seeing far fewer alcohol outlets, the first local alcohol plans are coming into force, and more communities are getting the chance to have a say on the way in which alcohol is sold in their community.

This relatively short bill is not an overhaul of New Zealand’s alcohol laws, because they need time to settle. Rather, this bill addresses a couple of unintended effects that have arisen since the passage of the Act—a couple of tweaks in the law that are needed. Such changes are, unfortunately, always possible when such large reforms are done, and this is not atypical.

The first change addresses how non-alcoholic and low-alcohol beer and wine are displayed in supermarkets and grocery stores. Under the Act, supermarkets are required to place all alcohol and promotions of alcohol in a single area of their store and no other products may be placed there. This was, quite properly, put into the alcohol reform law so that it would limit how much shoppers are exposed to alcohol and—for those people familiar with alcoholism—to recognise how difficult it is for people going to get their essentials to not be inadvertently tempted to attempt to buy alcohol. It is part of the broader effect of trying to improve New Zealand’s drinking culture.

However, because of the way in which alcohol has been defined in the law, stores cannot now legally place beer and wine with very low-alcohol content in that single area. This sometimes leads to supermarkets having to place very low or no-alcohol beer or wine with the fruit drinks and soft drinks, or opting not to sell them at all, and that is not to the community’s advantage. Although these products have existed for some time, there has been a significant increase in their popularity. I, for one—particularly with the change in the drink-driving limits—confess to often wanting to choose to drink low-alcohol beers, of which there are some excellent products. They are positive moderation products, which allow people to enjoy the social aspects of drinking while limiting their intake of alcohol. I have no doubt that it was ever the intention of this House to place a legislative block in the way of these sorts of low-alcohol products being sold alongside full-strength alcohol.

The amendment in this bill addresses this by permitting supermarkets to place these products in the alcohol area. It will allow supermarkets to place these alternatives alongside the full-strength alcohol, where shoppers would expect them to be, and, in my view, where they will actually have the positive effect of people making that choice more often. It will remove the need for the products branded like alcohol to be sold with fizzy drinks and fruit juice—which I actually think is also counter-productive to what the intent of the House was in requiring supermarkets to have a clear separation of those sorts of products. So the provision in this bill is a common-sense solution that provides clarity for the stores, for responsible drinkers, and for the general public.

The second change that is proposed in this bill addresses the definition of a “company”. Under the previous Sale of Liquor Act, companies were explicitly included under the category of those who could hold an alcohol licence. This was not carried over in the same way to the new Act. Although this oversight has not caused problems, it is important to make clear in the law that companies can continue to hold licences as they always have done. I think most of us would acknowledge in our communities that most of our stores that hold licences—cafes, liquor stores—are in the structure of a company, and it is appropriate for them to be able to hold a liquor licence in the name of that company. The amendment simply adds “company” to the list of who can hold a licence, and rectifies this problem.

Although the changes in the bill are minor, they are necessary and positive for the overall functioning and common-sense way that, I think, the House would expect the law to function. I commend the bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I think it is a useful opportunity—now that we have, as the Minister has described, a relatively minor tweak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—to have a slightly broader discussion about whether or not this bill could have been a vehicle for, perhaps, some other tweaks that even the Government itself flagged at the time that it introduced the primary legislation in 2012. I will come to that point later.

But first to address the substance of what otherwise is a rather minor and technical bill—and for that reason one that Labour will lend its support to, but, as always, we will be interested to hear from submitters via the select committee process as to what their views are on this amendment. Just to explore probably the most substantive of the amendments, which is around section 114 of the Act, which will allow for the display, promotion, or advertisement of low-alcohol or non-alcoholic beer, wine—important—or the mead that apparently we still retail, within an alcohol area, part of our problem is that within the legislation as it stands, “alcohol” is clearly defined. “Alcohol” is defined as a product that is 1.15 percent or more ethanol by volume. When you give such clarity in your legislation—as good drafting does—as to what constitutes alcohol, anything that sits outside that definition is, therefore, precluded.

When you go to the primary legislation, which of course is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, many members of this House will remember that it required that supermarkets and grocery stores, in particular, have designated areas for the sale of alcohol. The reason for that was people were complaining that when you would come through a supermarket you would often be forced, even if you were getting bread or milk, to go through the area where there was the sale of alcohol. It would be a thoroughfare for the supermarket often because there were heavily discounted alcohol products within the supermarket, and these were often used as advertising to draw people into supermarkets. Some debated whether or not there was loss-leading—we will not go there in this debate—but that was one of the things that was raised during that discussion.

I remember at the time that we had people coming to the select committee and saying, for instance: “I have suffered from alcohol issues in the past. I have overcome those, but I feel confronted every time I walk into a supermarket.” So that is what section 114 was attempting to remedy. It required those suppliers to create these single areas, and it had conditions around how they might be constructed. They could not be the most direct pedestrian route, for instance, between any entrance to the premises and its main body. They, basically, had to be able to be closed off in order to fulfil the requirements of off-licence hours, and so on.

Part of section 114, for instance, (1)(a) says “no display or promotion of, or advertisement for, alcohol occurs on the premises at any place outside the alcohol area;”, and section 114(2) says: “If the alcohol area has not been so described that it is divided into 2 or 3 sub-areas, a single-area condition also takes effect as a condition that the licensee of the premises concerned must ensure that no display or promotion of, or advertisement for, a product that is not alcohol occurs on the premises at any place inside the alcohol area.” There are two things happening here: (1) you cannot advertise alcohol outside the designated area, and (2) you cannot advertise any non-alcohol product within the designated area—obviously to stop that crossover—so you could not advertise bread in the alcohol area.

But the problem with saying that a product is not alcohol, as I have already raised, is that “alcohol” is clearly defined as a product that contains 1.15 percent or more ethanol by volume. So, immediately, a DB Export Citrus drink that is intended to be a substitute for beer and that is zero percent alcohol—but is considered to be a beer substitute—could not, therefore, be advertised within the alcohol area. Obviously, that is not what this Parliament intended. It is a by-product of some very tight drafting in order to try to achieve a particular outcome, but it has had a knock-on effect.

Here is my question, though. That legislation was passed in 2012, and here we are debating this amendment in 2016. I know that the Food and Grocery Council has been involved in advocating around this. I know that, for instance, DB Breweries and groups like this became aware of the problem and have lobbied to have it changed, and why would Parliament have a problem with allowing those products to be advertised in an alcohol area if we are trying to promote alternatives to alcohol, including low-alcohol or no-alcohol options as a substitute. When was this issue first raised with the Minister of Justice?

The reason that I am interested in this is that I am going to make a bit of an assumption here that most members of this House are likely to support this amendment bill. I am making an assumption; I might not be correct. But most of us, I assume, are wanting to promote, if you are in an alcohol area, an alternative to full-strength alcohol when you are in that area. I think that probably if we are in that trade-off situation, then that is what we would want to do. Why was this not done in a Statutes Amendment Bill? It strikes me that for something like this—and statutes amendment bills are designed to be non-controversial, where you are able to garner the support of the—

Chris Bishop: It’s about alcohol.

JACINDA ARDERN: —entire House. Oh, write down your little note there for your piece of rebuttal, Mr Bishop. But I would have thought—now I take your point. Alcohol has been treated as a conscience issue by this House before; not by your party, because conscience issues do not exist for National. But on this side of the House we have started treating it as a health issue. So we would have looked at that as a party and said: “Does this have some benefit in terms of encouraging alternatives to the use of alcohol?”. Therefore, we would have looked at that and if Amy Adams came to us and said “We would like it as part of a Statutes Amendment Bill.”, we would have said: “Look, that sounds reasonable.”—that sounds reasonable. Even if there might have been a question mark over whether you could treat an alcohol issue, previously treated as a conscience vote, as part of a Statutes Amendment Bill, why not test it? It is up to this House to decide whether or not we universally agree as a Parliament that this is the kind of amendment we would be happy to make within a Statutes Amendment Bill. Anyone who has seen the way statutes amendment bills work would know that we get a little list from Simon Bridges with an individual amendment for every suggestion that has been made and an explanation of what it is, and we tick yes or no—simple. Why did it not happen that way?

The alternative is that we now have to go back to the select committee—a very robust process, which, of course, allows the public to have their say on whether or not we want to promote no-alcohol and low-alcohol options for the public within our retail chains. The question could be asked: is that a great use of time? Why, if we are going to have to be in a situation where we debate this little amendment, did we not go the whole hog and review the other things the Government said that we would review as part of this Act? In 2010—and this is really important, so I want to read it out. On 8 November 2010, in response to the fact that the Law Commission said: “We regard pricing policies as the central plank of any reform package aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm.”, what was the one thing the Government’s bill on alcohol did not do? Anything on pricing. It did nothing at all. So what did Simon Power, in his defence, say? On 8 November 2010, “Mr Power says”—and I have got this from a Beehive release—“the Government is committed to investigating a minimum pricing regime but does not have the evidence base it needs, either locally or internationally, to set a minimum price immediately.”

He gave retailers a year to give him that information and said that if they did not, he would legislate to get the information. What happened? How is it that 6 years later we are in position where we do not have that information and we do not have any suggestion from the Government that it is going to look at it, even though it gave us that guarantee? What happened? I will tell you what happened: Judith Collins happened. Simon Power left this House, Judith Collins took over the portfolio, and, with one fell, dismissive swoop—no talk of evidence or research—she wiped out the chance of doing any review on this. The only thing she said in response, in the National Business Review, was: “It’s important to understand the vast majority of New Zealanders are quite happy to have a glass of wine.” That was it—review over. Minimum pricing investigation gone. The evidence did not matter. Judith Collins declared it was unnecessary. So if the Government wants to do work—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I take a great degree of interest in bills like this, not the least of which for the reason that in the Hutt Valley we have got some fantastic breweries: Panhead Custom Ales up in Upper Hutt—now the world-renowned Panhead Custom Ales—Baylands Brewery in Pētone, and Kererū Brewing up in Upper Hutt. So I take a great degree of interest in bills like this.

It is a sensible bill, as Jacinda Ardern made mention. Actually, I had Retail New Zealand representatives in my office—it would have been about 6 to 8 months ago—and they raised this issue with me, and I thought: “Well, that actually seems pretty fair enough. That seems pretty sensible. It doesn’t destroy the intent of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.” It clearly seemed to be an absurdity created by poor drafting or an unintentionally bad outcome from the legislation. I thought “Well, that seems pretty good. Maybe that’s a little member’s bill I can take through to the caucus and put on the floor of the House—a pretty sensible change we can make.”, and then, lo and behold, a few days later a Government bill was introduced, and I thought: “Oh, that’s that opportunity gone for a sensible member’s bill.” My colleagues—Stuart Smith is laughing away here in the House—next to me on the left and right know that certainly on this side of the House that is, you know, a classic sort of member’s bill that we could advance from the Government backbenches.

It is a sensible bill and it does fix an absurdity in the law that came about through the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. Really, we do not want a situation where you have low-alcohol beer or alcoholic products in next to fruit juice and in next to fizzy drink, and all the other plethora of different types of beverages you can get. It makes sense that those beverages would be available in the alcohol area of the store, and, as other members have rightly pointed out—including the Minister in his introduction—it is right that those products can be seen as an alternative.

I just want to briefly pick up on Jacinda Ardern’s comments towards the end of her speech about why this amendment is not in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Well, the simple reason is that alcohol issues in this House have traditionally been treated as conscience issues, and statutes amendment bills are reserved for those highly technical, incredibly specific changes to statutes for which there will be obviously—obviously—overwhelming support around the Parliament. I would say that they are the sorts of bills where no reasonable person could disagree that it is a sensible change to make. It is the sort of change where you add an “and” into a section in an Act, or an “or” here and there in order to make the policy intention clear. It is not appropriate—and it just shows Jacinda Ardern’s lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure, despite spending 8 years in this House—that she would think that something to do with alcohol would be considered appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill.

She said: “Oh, well, the Labour Party now regards alcohol issues as a health issue.” Well, that is all well and good for the Labour Party, but it is actually not how those members regarded the last major piece of liquor legislation to go through this House, in 2012, when we had this reasonably interesting scenario of the Labour Party splitting on individual lines for each division on the bill. For each stage in the Committee of the whole House debate on the bill, a variety of Labour MPs would vote one way and a variety of Labour MPs would vote with their conscience another way. So that is a reasonably new development if, indeed, the Labour Party is going to regard something like alcohol—which has been regarded as a conscience issue for a very long time in this Parliament—as a health issue.

Then, right at the very end of her speech, what did we hear? We heard Labour’s real cracker of a policy, which is that the minimum pricing for alcohol should be $2 per standard drink—which is what it was going into 2014 election. So this is the idea that the minimum price of a bottle of wine in a supermarket will be $14 or $15. No, no, you cannot get your $8.99 sauvignon blanc with fish and chips on the way home on a Friday night—no. That is not allowed any more. No, you cannot get your $13.99 bottle of Pinot noir or your bottle of chardonnay from the Hawke’s Bay—no. The minimum price is $2, and so all wine will have to cost $14 and above. The reason minimum pricing was rejected is that it does not work. It does not hit the very drinkers you are trying to make drink less, and, actually, the irony of the whole thing is that it actually guarantees profits for alcohol companies. That is literally what minimum pricing does. It says that it is $2 per standard drink—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

CHRIS BISHOP: —and guarantees pricing for alcohol companies. This is a sensible bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back—come back.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I take your point, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was moving slightly away from the bill, but I was just responding to the speaker before me, which I think is within the Standing Orders. It is a sensible bill. I commend it to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to follow Mr Bishop on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. I do remember in 2012 when the principal legislation came through this House. It was a conscience issue for members in the Labour Party, and there was a rather large spreadsheet to make sure that our whips knew which way we were to vote. But, in amongst all that, the Government’s process was so good that it forgot to put this in that bill. So that is why we have to take up the time of this House and the time of a select committee—as Jacinda Ardern has said, it is a very robust process—to fix up what I think the Minister called an oversight, through this minor and technical bill.

It used to be Simon Bridges who provided the House with his fix-up bills, but this is another piece of legislation that we have got before us—and if people are watching, yes, we are debating where we put low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beer in a supermarket. That is what this piece of legislation does.

If you are watching and you are wondering why we are talking about this, back in 2012, when this House passed the principal piece of legislation, there was an oversight, and low-alcohol drinks and no-alcohol drinks were excluded from the special area that you see in the supermarket. So if you go to the supermarket now and you look at the options around your normal wine and beer, you will not see low-alcohol beer and you will not see no-alcohol beer because the law forbids them to be placed with those products. It is a minor and technical bill but, for many reasons, we think it is an important one, so we on this side of the House—in the Labour Party, anyway—are going to be supporting this bill.

There are two perspectives around this bill that I will talk about in my contribution. The first one is the simple one, and it deals with the mechanics of the bill. From a customer’s point of view—as I think Mr Bishop mentioned in his speech—you do not want to go looking around the supermarket for your low-alcohol or no-alcohol option, but that is the reality at the moment. If you are the retailer, you also do not want to put a product that should naturally be with the family of products that is wine and beer with fizzy drinks and other juices. From a producer’s point of view—and I know that the Brewers Guild has been concerned about this. It does not want some of the products that it has been creating because of the new regime around drink-driving—that is, low-alcohol or no-alcohol drinks—to be placed with other juices and other drinks, either. It wants to make sure that those options are right next to the normal alcohol products that we see in the supermarket.

But also, from a public health perspective, I think we want these products to be with their family of products, so you want the low-alcohol beer to be with the full-strength alcohol beer. So if you are going home on a Friday night, like Mr Bishop does for his fish and chips, you can say: “Mmm, I don’t want the Steinlager Pure. I will take the low-alcohol option.” That is the option that Mr Bishop is faced with on a Friday night, and I think that is the best way for us to approach it—to give consumers options about another choice in terms of alcohol. So, in the functional respect of this piece of legislation, we think that is a good thing. It does give people a lower-grade option, whether they want to drink and socialise and have a beer, or to have a beer and have no alcohol. That is a good thing.

The other perspective I would like to look at is one that Jacinda Ardern also looked at, and that is how this bill has come about. I think this bill was introduced on 7 December 2015 and then, at quite lightning speed, got its first reading in the House. I think that speaks to the priorities of the Government. There are many other things that we on this side of the House think that the Government could prioritise. You could prioritise, maybe, the 6-year long wait that we have had for the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill to pass through this House.

Peeni Henare: How long?

KRIS FAAFOI: Six years. We could prioritise safer houses and warmer houses, or a whole lot of other things in the health area and in education where we think you should get in there fast and get them done. But what is getting done fast here? Getting a beer. Having a beer. You have to wonder where the priorities of this Government are when what it makes happen fast is the ability to buy beer down at the supermarket. Mechanically, I have no problem with that because I do not think it is such a big issue, but when you look at it in terms of the priorities of the Government, I think there are some genuine questions that could be asked by the voters out there just saying: “Hmm, is this as much of a priority as other things that could be put on the agenda?”. I think that, you know, there are genuinely other things that are of a higher priority than low-alcohol and no-alcohol beers at the supermarket.

One of the other aspects of this bill—and it is a minor and technical bill—is that it gives a company the ability to hold a licence. I think one of the issues that you can have with that is that if someone is to hold a function, it has had to be an individual who held the liquor licence but a company could not do that. I think if an individual within a company had to get the licence and something went wrong, it was the individual who was up for any penalty if the liquor licence was not adhered to. So this piece of legislation does tweak the principal Act and allows a company to be a licensee in this sense, which I think is a good thing for the protection of the people who are working for those companies.

But, in general, going back to the mechanics of the bill, it does get rid of a piece of red tape that I think was an oversight back in 2012. As I said, it was a time when there were lots of options on the table in terms of what could be ruled in and what could be ruled out of the sale and supply of alcohol legislation at the time, and this one got left out. I do not know how it happened—the Government was in charge of the process at the time, so maybe someone from that side of the House could explain to us how that happened—but I do not think it is the best use of this House’s time to be arguing over or debating this.

There was an argument put forward by my colleague Jacinda Ardern about whether this amendment could have been contained within a Statutes Amendment Bill. Then Mr Bishop rebutted her comments, saying that we did not know whether or not this whole House would have agreed to this, but we could have saved at least 4½ hours in this place and a select committee process if the Government had come to other parties and asked: “Could we do it in a different way? Could we do this in a Statutes Amendment Bill?”. I think that would have been a much tidier process and a much more efficient process, and would have allowed other priorities of the day to be put through this House rather than this piece of legislation that is before us right now.

A couple of people on this side of the House have asked about something that is a little bit quirky in this bill, and that is mead.

Hon Member: Talk about mead.

KRIS FAAFOI: Ha, ha! So let me talk a little bit about mead. There is a meadery, not in my electorate, but in the electorate of Rongotai—in Houghton Bay, I believe. If you do not know what mead is, it is a honey-based alcohol. I am a whisky person myself, as someone over across the hall will know. Mead is not necessarily my drop, but if you are a big fan of mead—and I know there are some fans of mead out there—this piece of legislation also covers mead. So if you are one of the very small percentage of New Zealanders whom I believe would enjoy a good drop of mead—I think Mr Mark Mitchell would; he looks like a honey man to me—then this piece of legislation also covers mead. So, do not worry, the Government has taken care of the mead fans as well in this piece of legislation. I do not think that looking after the mead fans in this country is a massive priority, but, hey, that is what the Government has decided to do.

There are things other than mead that this House could be talking about. So maybe in the future the Government would like to take a different approach to these kinds of bills and try to look to a Statutes Amendment Bill as another way to progress this through other than wasting the time of this House on an oversight that it made when it passed the principal legislation.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on this bill. I remember coming into the House in 2011 after the 2011 election—so I was coming in at the tail end of a round of consultation in our communities, around the sale of alcohol and liquor in our communities. I know that prior to that in the community there was a round of consultation that was quite significant, and I was part of facilitating some of those meetings that they had.

One of the key concerns for the communities at that time was the binge drinking and, especially the harmful behaviour and crime and the public health problems that were coming out of that—domestic violence and so forth—which was a contributor to some of the challenges and issues that our communities face. Out of that, the key concern that came out through the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act of 2012 was also the ability to allow communities to be able to have a say in that consultation around some of the regulations, especially with regard to territorial authorities, and local bodies as well. So that was a concern that was raised but was also then met through the legislation, which allowed for that to happen as well.

I think one of the things that was important in that was how we could ensure that there was a restriction and not relax the laws, but, at the same time, allow for a way for those restrictions to definitely address the issues around binge drinking. So in 2012—and being in the House when that legislation came through—it was coming through at the end of that consultation, seeing that legislation come through. Mr Faafoi talked about that piece of legislation and, I suppose, minimised the extent of what this House will do, but this bill is intended to correct, I suppose, unforeseen circumstances, although the Act has done a significant amount of work. I do remember and recall, though, in that time in 2013—I think there were about 20 Supplementary Order Papers that came through from the Labour caucus. So there was a little bit of confusion—

Kris Faafoi: Because we care.

ALFRED NGARO: Well, yes, it did say that you cared, but there was probably a lot of confusion that reigned through there in 2013. Lianne Dalziel also talked about these things, so there was some confusion. On this side of the House there is no confusion.

I think it is very clear that though there are minor changes, they are significant enough because, obviously, there is a concern to just remedy some of the unforeseen circumstances. I know the fact is that when we do talk about those circumstances and those changes, in certain places where people do shop and frequent, they do want to ensure—I suppose it is the separation, really, where you can go to a place where there is non-alcoholic and low-alcoholic beverages. People may want to see that. It is part of a change in lifestyle. That may be part of it.

So although these may be small, technical changes, we believe it is important to again ensure that the substantive work of the Act that we are talking about—the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act of 2012—continues on, so that it continues to be the legislation that it was intended to be. Most important, it is about reducing the binge drinking, giving consultation, and giving the ability for local communities to be empowered to consult and to look at the regulations that would be important for the localised issues in their communities. In fact, I remember some of the ads that were on. One of them was, I think, at the Ōtara flea market, where people got up and were trying to say to people: “Have your say.” So they were having their say, and we think that is important.

I do commend these changes that have come back into the House. We do think that they are important. They are small and they are technical, but I think they are changes that will be important to the overall—and I want to continue to emphasise that—essence and the intent of the legislation. So with my brief statements to this House, I commend this bill to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to begin this contribution by making a bit of a comparison between two bills, because the bill that the House considered immediately prior to this, the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill, is one that also deals with alcohol-related issues. It does so from a health perspective. It actually takes some measures that were in the law and that, largely, had a justice orientation to them and replaces them with new measures that have a health orientation and, specifically, a harm-reduction orientation. And yet, in the debate on this bill, we are back to dealing with alcohol-related issues and back to dealing with trying to reduce the amount of harm associated with alcohol consumption in our community, but doing so from a justice lens.

I would urge the Government perhaps to think about that, because here we have a bill that has been introduced on behalf of the Minister of Justice. It is going to be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, a select committee that, in fact—with all due respect to the members on that committee—does not have expertise around health issues and around harm-reduction issues. The signal that that sends to the community is that the Government has not yet made the shift in thinking from dealing with alcohol as an issue of justice to dealing with alcohol as an issue of harm. It is a shift that the Government ought to have made.

The Act that this bill amends came from the Law Commission’s report. The Law Commission’s report is called Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm. It set out to reduce harm. The Law Commission, in its recommendations, believed that the Act that we ought to have set up in 2012—actually, the Law Commission thought we ought to have done it prior to that—should have been called the “Alcohol Harm Reduction Act”, not the Sale and Supply of Liquor Act. Once again, this is an illustration of the failure to actually make that shift in thinking.

The evidence about harm reduction is extremely strong. We know, pretty much—or at least we do in the health sector—that changes to alcohol-related behaviour do not come about from prohibition. Equally, they do not come about from giving people education, which is, perhaps, counterintuitive. It turns out that education—giving people information—may be a necessary prerequisite, but the thing that actually changes people’s consumption behaviour is change to the environment. And that is why the Law Commission recommended that we should address the availability of alcohol—where it could be purchased, when it could be purchased, and the licensing hours. It recommended that we address pricing, both minimum pricing and the excise tax, and it recommended that we introduce controls around advertising and sponsorship. All of those changes were recommended in order to change the environment in which alcohol purchase and consumption takes place.

So this bill is a welcome step forward. It does actually address that issue of a person, perhaps in their supermarket or some other shop, being confronted with aisles’ worth of alcohol and not actually seeing the low-alcohol options there, by providing that direct availability of that low-alcohol option at the point of purchase. I would agree with the point that Chris Bishop made, which is it must surely have been an oversight of this Parliament not to have incorporated that change at the time; similarly, the change around liquor-licensing and companies. These were oversights of the House and of the Government. I guess my reflection would be that the mood that the Government was in at the time that that bill was making its way through Parliament probably made it not conducive to careful thought about the detail. The Government was not in a mood for looking at the detail or for countenancing any change to the bill that it put in front of the House.

I agree with some of the other speakers who have said that it is a shame that the Government has not included some of the other measures that have also become apparent since we passed that bill into law—the changes, for example, that local government has called out for such as some protection for communities against the bullying behaviour of the industry when they attempt to put in place local alcohol plans. There is the evidence that has come to light since we passed that bill and produced the Act around the balance of minimum pricing and the use of excise tax to actually ensure that we reduce consumption without taking an unbalanced approach. I also think that it is a shame that this bill has not been used to implement the recommendations of the panel that was led by Graham Lowe, about restricting sponsorship and marketing activities from the industry. So those were all things that the Government could have used this bill to do, given that, in fact, Parliament was setting out to change the principal Act by this bill. So the opportunity was lost.

Ultimately, what the House will need to do is stop addressing this kind of issue with piecemeal legislation. What we need instead—and I have spoken on a number of occasions in this House about this—is a piece of legislation that provides a single integrated legal framework for the regulation of all of the drugs, both those that are currently legal and those that are currently illegal. This legislation should be health-based, not justice-based, and the Government clearly has a step further to go in that direction. It should be aimed at reducing harm by using principles around harm reduction that are in the health sector and with which we are extremely familiar. So we should be preventing the harm in the first place, if we can; mitigating it, if we cannot, in a stepwise process; and using the regulatory tools that we have available such as age, availability, price, restricting the marketing, licensing, or perhaps prescription in some cases. And there is the further principle of proportionality—regulating those substances in proportion to the risk that they might cause health-related harm.

A framework like that is the right approach, and that approach would be one that pulls together different strands. It would use perhaps a base such as that which the House set up with the Psychoactive Substances Act, because that is precisely what that framework does. It would pull in alcohol legislation, tobacco legislation, and, indeed, the Misuse of Drugs Act and substances currently controlled using that Act to actually produce for this country a genuinely 21st century framework that minimises the harm to this country and its citizens from drug use. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this bill. The two corrections it makes are OK: firstly, permitting low and non-alcohol beer, wine, and mead to be displayed for sale in a single area of supermarkets, and, secondly, clarifying that any company can hold a licence under the Act. But, big deal! What a pathetic little bill, when you think about the magnitude of the harm that alcohol abuse does in this country. This bill is just tinkering, when what is really needed is a full overhaul of the 2012 legislation, which was itself a piece of legislation that was so changed, so altered, so reduced, and is now so pathetic that it really did not make much difference, and the problems that it sought to address are still with us.

The truth is that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 had generated at that time very high expectations amongst the public that those reforms would be comprehensive and would make a difference, as was in fact recommended by the Law Commission. Those expectations were grossly not met. This Government’s attempts, over all these recent years, at the reforms needed around alcohol have been an utter and complete failure. The drinking culture amongst the young is getting worse, not better. The big commercial interests in alcohol are obviously feeling very satisfied with this Government, whose arm they have twisted up its back. They will be well and truly off the hook and doing well as an alcohol industry, all because of the utter inaction and pathetic response of this Government to the public’s expectations of realistic reform. The 2012 Act was an opportunity lost for meaningful and effective reform. It was an opportunity to turn back the tide of alcohol abuse, especially amongst the young.

In New Zealand First’s view, there are a number of things that this bill should now be doing instead of these pathetic little measures, which will make little or no difference. Amongst those, there were three particular things that we in New Zealand First felt needed attention. I might say that we did not treat those matters as conscience issues—we were unified. We knew what we wanted as a party, and we said it at the time. These were those three things: the first was the failure to return the age for purchasing alcohol to 20 years. That would have really resulted in a significant reduction in consumption by that age group. It would have given them, also, a good signal that they needed to try to change the culture of binge drinking that has developed amongst that age group and that continues unchecked today.

The second matter was the failure to deal with the problem of those ready-to-drinks—those sugary, alcohol-loaded, easy-to-drink beverages that are so popular amongst the young and that can get them so drunk so quickly. Their sugar levels are very high. The drinks are very attractive, and yet very harmful.

This bill should be attending to some of those things, not just what can be presented and how in a supermarket. What we are seeing is that those problem drinks are still being pushed and are not being limited. They are condemned by the experts and the Law Commission itself. They are the most potentially harmful to young people. Those are the things that this bill is not addressing. Instead, it is addressing what can be displayed on supermarket shelves. Well, that is pathetic. It is not enough.

The third issue—and others have mentioned it—is the need for targeted minimum pricing. I would say to Mr Bishop that nobody ever intended to increase the price of wine, but other alcohol drinks should have minimum pricing, and that can be done through excise taxes and other means. It would have been worthwhile. The Law Commission recommended it. Other experts recommended it. Mr Bishop may not understand it, but that just means that he does not understand the issues.

Chris Bishop: I understand it perfectly well, Denis.

DENIS O’ROURKE: That just means he does not understand the issues and he thinks the experts and the Law Commission are wrong. In fact, it is he and his party who are wrong.

I will finish on this. Although this pathetic little bill is supportable—it does some good; hardly any—it will not be noticed, it will not make any difference, and the problem will still get worse, whether it is passed or not. Much, much more is needed by this Government, and, hopefully, the next time it looks at alcohol reform it will do something worthwhile.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is with pleasure I rise to support the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. For the benefit of the member Denis O’Rourke, who has just taken his seat, I say that the bill is very carefully and clearly pitched at being a small, remedial bill to address a couple of issues that arose and that had not been considered in the last set of reforms. It is not intended to be a major reform or review of the sale and supply of alcohol. So it is no great surprise, then, that it does just what it says it is going to do, and if Mr O’Rourke cannot quite fathom that, then I am afraid he is beyond our help. For the benefit of another member who spoke a little before and who said that he felt that this was going through a long process in order to achieve some small things—well, I have some advice or some suggestions for Mr Faafoi too. If he thinks that it is a long and involved process to make a couple of small changes, he could help by just taking much shorter calls. The quality of content would be the same and the time would be much less.

This bill will simply address a couple of unforeseen consequences of the earlier reforms. Those earlier reforms have not actually made any negative changes around the supply of those low-alcohol beverages. It is just that, unfortunately, it has meant that they could not be displayed or promoted in the alcohol section of the establishment—say, the supermarket—where the law demands that the other alcoholic beverages must be sold.

For instance, at the moment, if an organisation really wanted to, it could place the mead or the low-alcohol wine along with the vegetables. I, for one, do not normally make an association between a mead and a swede—a swede and a mead, I see no need—and I do think that it is absolutely right that those low-alcohol beverages should, in fact, be restricted to the same area of the supermarket or liquor store as the other alcoholic beverages. I think it is a very sensible move to tighten it up in that sense.

But I will remind the House that although there were some unintended consequences of the earlier reforms, they have not led to those beverages being more accessible, but just, perhaps, to them being displayed in the wrong area. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House, and to the much shorter calls from Mr Faafoi and his colleagues—and that way, it will be wrapped up a lot sooner. I commend this bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I rise to make a short contribution to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. As a father and as a family man, you roll into the supermarket and you are always mindful of what your children will see. I think some of the members this evening have raised very good points about a broader look at the amendments that could be made to make this bill a better bill, to make sure that the original intention of this particular piece of legislation will meet the requirements as expected in our community. What those are really about is minimising the harmful effects of alcohol in our communities.

Some of the members—and the member Alfred Ngaro has mentioned it this evening in his contribution, but I am mindful of the proliferation of the number of alcohol outlets, in particular in South Auckland—particularly in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau and in the good electorate of Manukau East, the electorate of my colleague Jenny Salesa. Many of the communities have spoken out against the proliferation of these alcohol outlet stores. I think about those communities when we consider that large supermarket chains—large supermarkets where you can go and purchase alcohol—tend to get these kinds of amendments through by successful lobbying. Although I appreciate that when you go into a supermarket you do not want to be inundated with advertisements about alcohol and you want your children to enjoy the experience of shopping without having to see these things, it is important that we do have specific areas for the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. But I do want the House to reflect on what this means in the communities, in particular in Tāmaki Makaurau and in South Auckland.

The Labour Party does support this bill. In my contribution I want to pick up on some of the points made by my colleagues on this side of the House. One of them—and I think the main one about this particular bill—is that the health consequences arising from this bill should be considered. We on this side take that very seriously because, as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni mentioned in respect of the previous bill in front of the House, our offices deal with the consequences of alcohol addiction and drug addiction and the problems that ensue in communities. They come into our office, where we have to deal with our good constituents, and we try our best.

It is relatively minor and relatively technical, this particular amendment, but it does highlight a greater need. Some of the contributions this evening have mentioned the greater need, and that is about the advertising of liquor in general. We know that the Labour view, when the first piece of legislation went through, was that we needed to seriously consider the harmful effects of alcohol sponsorship of sports teams. For some reason—it is just a Kiwi thing. You go to a game of rugby and you have a beer and a hotdog and chips. Although most of us have enjoyed those times, I think that if we are really serious about this as an issue moving forward into the future, it is important that we make sure that these pieces of legislation are substantial—that they deal with the issues fairly, and finally, in one hit. It does not mean that we keep coming back to tinker with these types of important pieces of legislation.

Far too often in this House, in my short time as a member, that is what we seem to be doing—coming back here and tinkering with substantial pieces of legislation when, of course, because of the expediency agenda of this Government, pieces of legislation are missing these things. They are missing what the Government might see as small oversights, but really, in the bigger scheme of things, if it had been done properly and if it had been done right at the beginning, then we would not have to be here wasting the time of the House. Instead, we could be considering—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2016

(continued on Wednesday, 16 March 2016)

Bills

Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill. I welcome the people of Te Atiawa to this House again. In June 2014 they were here to initial the deed of settlement; this time they are here to witness the first reading of their settlement bill. As we all know, the journey to reach this settlement has taken a very long time. It has certainly not been without its challenges. But today I do not want to dwell on the past. Instead, I would rather look to the future, and I am very, very pleased to be part of this significant occasion.

I want to begin with a few acknowledgments. I acknowledge those who have worked tirelessly since 1998 on this settlement. This includes members of Te Atiawa iwi; specifically, those of Te Atiawa who have passed away and are no longer here to experience this particular point in the history of the iwi. Obviously, our thoughts and our deepest appreciation go to Wikitōria Keenan, who was one of the driving forces behind the Te Atiawa negotiations and who passed away following the signing of the deed of settlement. She dedicated her life to her people and she left us too soon.

I also acknowledge those who are still with us, some of whom are sitting in the gallery today. I understand that Justin Keenan, Wikitōria’s son, is here on his mother’s behalf. Special acknowledgment must also go to Peter Moeahu, who has led the Te Atiawa negotiations from the outset with Wikitōria. Peter and Wikitōria kept fighting for Te Atiawa’s best interests, with mana, with commitment, and with perseverance. I acknowledge the dedication of the original Te Atiawa Waitangi Tribunal claimants. They were persistent in pursuing recognition and justice. I want to acknowledge the past members of Te Atiawa Iwi Authority, the mandated negotiation entity, and the trustees of the post-settlement trust. Finally, I acknowledge the chief Crown negotiator, Rick Barker, for his contribution to this settlement. I also acknowledge my team at the Office of Treaty Settlements and other Government organisations for their great work.

It is very fitting that this House starts consideration of settlement legislation for Te Atiawa on 16 March, for it was on 17 March 1860 that the Crown troops at Waitara fired the first shots in the Taranaki War. I will now briefly discuss the history of the relationship between Te Atiawa and the Crown. It includes some of the most unfortunate episodes in the history of our country. It provides the underlying context to why we are here today seeking to settle with Te Atiawa.

By the mid-1850s, Crown land purchasing had contributed to hostility and fighting within Te Atiawa, resulting in loss of life for Te Atiawa people. In March 1860 the Crown’s insistence on completing a land purchase at Waitara despite the strong opposition of many Te Atiawa led to the outbreak of the first Taranaki war. Fighting continued until a peace agreement in April 1861, which provided for the Waitara purchase to be investigated. However, the Crown precipitated another war by occupying various blocks before this investigation was completed. Although the Crown renounced the Waitara purchase, it was too late to prevent the fighting, which continued into 1864.

The Crown exacerbated the terrible impact of the wars on Taranaki by indiscriminately confiscating the entire rohe of Te Atiawa in 1865. The Crown was prepared to leave Te Atiawa only with small reserves of poor-quality land after the confiscation and insisted on awarding these reserves to individual Te Atiawa, rather than the tribal groups who held land in Te Atiawa custom.

In the 1870s and 1880s the Crown caused great distress to the iwi by the repressive measures it took to suppress the peaceful resistance campaign of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, who had established a settlement at Parihaka. In 1879 and 1880 many Te Atiawa were made political prisoners and detained without trial in the South Island. In 1881 the Crown invaded Parihaka. The Crown’s unjust and unconscionable treatment of the Parihaka community was an assault on the human rights of its inhabitants.

In the 20th century the Crown’s actions regarding the reserves left to Te Atiawa after the raupatu deprived them of ownership and control of these lands. Although the lands confiscated made a significant contribution to the wealth and development of our country, in recent years many Te Atiawa people have lived in very poor economic circumstances. The resilience of these people is evident. Today this growing iwi has a vision of the future that moves from raupatu to restoration.

Let me say something now about the settlement package. With negotiations on a package spanning almost two decades, reaching the milestone that brings us here today is the result of great commitment and dedication on the part of ngā uri o Te Atiawa. On March 17 2010 the Crown recommenced negotiations with Te Atiawa, which, as I said, began as far back as 1998. An agreement in principle was signed in December 2012. The deed was initialled here in Parliament in June 2014, and it was finally signed in August 2014. The bill was introduced back in September last year and, of course, this is the first reading of that bill.

The deed contains a settlement package that, I hope, will mark a new beginning in the relationship between Te Atiawa and the Crown. Key elements of the package include a quantum of $87 million and a cultural fund of nearly $1 million, the option to purchase 51 Office of Treaty Settlement land-banked sites, the vesting of the Taumata Historic Reserve in fee simple to Te Atiawa, and the joint vesting of Ngā Motu (Sugarloaf Islands) in both Te Atiawa and Taranaki iwi. The package contains overlay classifications over four sites of particular importance, statutory acknowledgments over 44 sites of significance, deeds of recognition over 15 sites, and place name changes. It also includes a proposed model for iwi representation on Taranaki Regional Council’s two standing committees.

Finally, given the historical and cultural importance of the site to Te Atiawa, mention must be made of the opportunity in the settlement package for Te Atiawa to enter into agreement to purchase any of the Waitara endowment lands from the New Plymouth District Council. This clause provides the iwi with future development opportunities in the heart of their rohe, should an agreement be reached.

In closing, I recognise, as I always do in these speeches, that it is not possible to compensate Te Atiawa fully for the loss and prejudice suffered as a result of the Crown’s acts and omissions. I acknowledge, however, the generosity Te Atiawa have shown in accepting the redress contained in their deed of settlement and in this bill. I understand that Te Atiawa already have exciting projects under way, including the building of Ngā Motu Marae in New Plymouth. I believe the settlement outlined in this bill will support them in realising their future endeavours and aspirations for Te Atiawa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, Te Māngai o Te Whare. “Korōria, hareruia ki a koe e Ihowa o ngā mano tuāuriuri, whāioio ki tonu Te Rangi me Te ‘henua i te nui ō tō korōria, nō reira, ti’ei mauri ora!”

Mai i Te Rakiura ki Te Tonga whiti atu ki Te Wharekauri-ki-Te Rāwhiti, toro atu ki Taranaki ki Te Uru, piki ake ki Te Reinga ki Te Tai Tokerau, ngā kokonga e whā o Te Motu o Aotearoa, ngā whānau i raro i te kapua pōuri, kai te hīkoi i roto i te ātārangi o ngā whārua o Te Mate; mauri mai ō koutou pare kawakawa kia tangihia i te wā iti nei. Tēnei te tangi apakura e aku parepare, e aku whakaruruhau, e te mūrau o te tini, te wenerau o te mano kua mānū ki Te Waka-ō-Aituā; kua huri, kua wehe ki ngā rangi, i ngā wiki, i ngā mārama kua taha ake nei. Ko koutou, kāre e takahi ana i te ara tukutuku o Poutama, kia eke ki ngā rere o ngā rangi, ki te karanga o Te Runga Rawa, e moe i roto i Te Kapua-o-Te-Ringa o Ihowa o Ngā Mano. E moe i te moe te au, te moe te rea, te moe whakaoti atu te hāpūranga o te kauheke, kia tau atu ki te rangatiratanga o Te Rangi hei whetū mārama i Te Pō. Ko te hunga nā mata kāheru i tanu, anei rātou mā te ārero hei hahu ake nei. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga wairua ki te hunga wairua, āpiti hono, tātai hono, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou, nō reira, tēnā tātou!

E tika ana kia mihi atu ki ngā uri o Awanuiārangi, te tamaiti o Tamarau te heketanga a Rangi rāua ko Rongoueroa. Nō reira, ki a koutou kua tae mai ki Te Whare nei, Manukōrihi, Ngāti Rāhira, Ngāti Tāwhirikura, Ngāti Tūparikino, Ngāti Te Whiti, Pōtaurawā, Pukerangiora, me Puketapu hoki, nō reira Te Atiawa, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai rā, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou!

E tika hoki kia tautoko i ngā kupu o Te Minita, te tuku reo poroporoaki ki a Wikitōria King. Kai te maumahara tonu au i te wā ko au nei te heamana o Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa. No’o tahi au ki te ta’a o Wikitōria kia w’iriw’iri i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā take i mua i ō rāua iwi. Nō reira, e tika ana kia tuku atu te reo mi’i poroporoaki ki a ia, mō ōna mahi ka mahia mai e a ia i te wā e ora ana a ia. Kai te mi‘i ‘oki au ki te matua nei, ki a Pita Moeahu, mō āna ma’i ki te ta’a o Wikitōria, hei whai huarahi tika mō tēnei ā’uatanga te w’akatau kerēme mō Te Atiawa. Nō reira e te matua, tēnei ahau e tuku mi’i atu ki a koe.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “Glory, honour, and hallelujah to you, Jehovah, Lord of the many hosts. Heaven and earth are filled with the greatness of your glory, so behold the breath of life!”

From the north and down to the south, over to the Chatham Islands in the east, extending to Taranaki in the west, and reaching up to Te Reinga in Northland, are the four corners of New Zealand. To all families who are under the mantle of grief and walking in the shadows of the valley of the void, bring forth your deceased so that we may mourn them in this short time we have. I mourn you my protectors, havens, my awesome and critics desired and loved by the many thousands, who are now upon the spiritual canoe, who passed away and are heading heavenwards in recent days, weeks, and months. You will no longer ascend the path of Poutama, but head heavenwards to the call of the Almighty above. Sleep in the cusp of the hands of Jehovah of the many thousands. Sleep the enduring and lasting until the birth of the generation to come. Enter into the kingdom of heaven to become a gleaming star in the void. They are the deceased who were buried with the chaplet of leaves, and through our tributes we will recall and resurrect them. The bonds are reunited; let the dead be with the dead and the living with the living; therefore, salutations to us collectively.

It is only right that the descendants of Awanuiārangi, the child of Tamarau, descendant of Rangi and Rongoueroa, are acknowledged. Therefore, to all of you who have arrived here in this House—Manukōrihi, Ngāti Rāhira, Ngāti Tāwhirikura, Ngāti Tūparikino, of Ngāti Te Whiti, of Pōtaurawa, Pukerangiora, and Puketapu as well—welcome Te Atiawa. Welcome, come hither, and congratulations to you collectively.

It is only proper that I endorse the farewell tribute by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to Victoria King. I still recall the time when I was the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa, and used to sit next to Victoria when negotiating related issues between them. Therefore, it is appropriate that I pay a tribute to her as well for all the work she did during her lifetime. I want to also acknowledge my senior kin, Peter Moeahu, for his work with Victoria in pursuing an appropriate way of settling this type of claim for Te Atiawa. And so, my elder kin, I truly acknowledge you.]

I have read a number of historical accounts, and very few go to the length and depth of the breaches and the wrongdoing of both Crown and Crown agents as the ones that are from Taranaki. In particular for this piece of legislation, the historical account for Te Atiawa can be quite depressing, actually. The totality of what was inflicted upon the people of Taranaki, and in this instance Te Atiawa, bears no place in New Zealand. It should never have happened. The fact that this process takes place and we are able to acknowledge those things that were done wrong—I think I will leave it to quote from the Waitangi Tribunal.

Here are some of the things that that report says. “They could be the largest”—talking in terms of the claims, and I think they are turning out to be the largest—“in the country. There may be no others where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time. … We see the claims as standing on two major foundations, land deprivation and disempowerment, with the latter being the main. By ‘disempowerment’, we mean the denigration and destruction of Maori autonomy or self-government. … This report has introduced the historical claims of the Taranaki hapu. It has shown the need for a settlement … Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori, to restore the honour of the Government, to ensure cultural survival, and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.”

Those are very powerful words. They are powerful, and they identify, in four short sentences, the extent to which Te Atiawa have suffered. It is, as I have said on a number of occasions on settlement bills, a gift to this country that Te Atiawa have decided to settle their claims. The magnitude of what was done to them cannot be over-emphasised, and the fact that they are performing an act of generosity to this country and to Taranaki is a credit to them and identifies the willingness to move into a development phase for the betterment of their future generations. That ought to be applauded. It ought to be recognised, and I think that within the settlement package, which is substantial—and so it should be; it should be substantial—as the Tribunal has pointed out, generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice against Māori.

Unfortunately, some of that prejudice still exists. We know of the recent occurrence in Waitara of the naming of two streets, where the majority of those streets are named after soldiers who participated in the first part of the Taranaki Wars. This is something that needs to be addressed. One of the mechanisms in this settlement is a letter of introduction, believe it or not, to the New Plymouth District Council. They should not need a letter of introduction, but the fact of the matter is that that relationship still needs some work on it. I hope that this settlement, and this process that we are beginning through Parliament, are the first step in ensuring a better relationship between not only the district council and Te Atiawa but also the community of Waitara, of New Plymouth, and of all these places within Te Atiawa rohe.

Nō reira, ‘e tino ‘ōnore tēnei kia tū ake i roto i Te Whare o ngā Raiona ki te tuku atu taku nei kōrero, hei tautoko i te pānuitanga tuata’i o tēnei pire, nō reira, ki a Te Atiawa, tēnei te mi’i anō ki a koutou otirā, ki Te W’are nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, this is indeed an honour for me to stand in this House of the Lions to deliver my speech in support of the first reading of this bill, and so I once again salute you, Te Atiawa, but at the same time this House; my appreciation to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, tēnā rā koutou ngā puāwaitaka ō tō tātou Mātua Tupuna. Ka mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui i Te Raki a Koe i te tīmataka me te whakaoti o Te Ao katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi au ki Te Kaihōmai o ka mea katoa.

Ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou kai tua kua wehe ki Te Ao Wairua. Ē, nō reira e koutou rā, ō ia marae, ō ia iwi, ō ia waka, e haere i ruka ki Te Ara-Whānui-ā-Tāne ko tua o Te Ārai, haere, haere, e haere atu rā!

Nō reira, āpiti hono, tātai hono, rātou ko te hunga mate ki a rātou, tātou ko te hunga ora, ki a tātou. Ā, tēnei hoki te mihi atu ki a koe e Te Minita, Te Hōnore Chris Finlayson. Ā, tēnei te mihi ki Te Iwi o Te Atiawa a ki Taranaki e haere mai ka Waka o Tokomaru, e tau mai nei ki Te Whare Pāremata. Nō reira, e Taranaki Mauka, e ngā mana, e ngā tapu, e ngā ihi, e ngā wehi, kua eke mai nei ki te whakarite i te karaka; e haere mai, e tau mai nei ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. Ko Tūtehounuku Kōrako tēnei Te Kaiwhakahaere o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri take Māori, nō reira e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you who have come to fruition and are of our great Ancestor, to whom I extend huge tidings, the Great Ancestor of the North. You indeed begin and end the world, and so I pay homage to the Creator of all things.

We reminisce for those who have gone beyond the veil and departed to the spiritual world; and so to those who belong to each marae, tribe, and canoe who have journeyed on upon the great path of Tāne and beyond the veil, depart, farewell, and go forth, indeed. Let the dead abide with the dead and the living with the living, and so greetings to us all.

I acknowledge you, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and the tribe, Te Atiawa of Taranaki. So welcome the canoe Tokomaru, the mountain of Taranaki, the prestigious, the sacred, and the awed that have arrived here in Parliament House to respond to the call; welcome here to Wellington. This is Tūtehounuku Kōrako, chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, extending a welcome to you all.]

I believe one of the most important things we do in the Treaty settlement process is reflect back on the history of our country and acknowledge the wrongs that were committed by the Crown against Māori.

In the case of Te Atiawa, these wrongs are many. Te Atiawa’s experience with underhanded dealings on the part of European settlers came at the hands of the New Zealand Company. The New Zealand Company purported to have purchased 20 million acres of land, which included all of Taranaki. This was unknown to most Te Atiawa Māori, many of whom were not even living in Taranaki at the time. This was unknown to most of Te Atiawa.

The New Zealand Company did not get its 20 million acres, but Land Commissioner Sir William Spain recommended it be granted a substantial amount of Taranaki land, including lands that had not been relinquished by Te Atiawa and for which payment from the Crown was never received. Robert FitzRoy, who at that time was the Governor of New Zealand, responded to Māori concerns and prevented Spain’s recommended grants of Taranaki lands to the New Zealand Company.

When Governor FitzRoy was replaced by Governor Grey, things took a turn for the worse. Grey was instructed to secure the rest of the land Spain had recommended, and he met with various Te Atiawa hapū to inform them that he intended to secure more of their land. Despite the opposition of many in Te Atiawa, the Crown took advantage of disagreements within and between Taranaki iwi in the absence of many of the customary owners of the land to alienate further blocks of land through agreements with small groups of Māori. This policy, as we know today, is called divide and conquer.

Eventually, large numbers of absent Te Atiawa sought to return to Taranaki, despite Governor Grey’s threats to keep them away, even using various devious means. The land sales continued, and documentary evidence from the time shows that Crown agents deliberately exploited disagreements between Māori and knew that the so-called purchases of land were happening without the approval of, or a resulting benefit to, the majority of traditional owners. There was some attempt, or at least lip service, to put aside reserves for Te Atiawa during these land sales, but the amount of land received differed widely. For instance, in the Hua block, a mere 10 acres of 14,000 acres was reserved, and the Crown encouraged the Māori who had sold the land to purchase sections in it for more than three times the sale price that they had received.

When a group of unarmed Te Atiawa resisted the surveying by the Crown of a disputed block, which the Crown claimed to have purchased, the Crown responded by declaring martial law, and sent in troops. The situation quickly descended into war. It took a year of fighting before the Crown agreed to peace and an investigation of the disputed purchase, in 1861. Fighting broke out again in 1863, and the Crown began constructing military installations on Te Atiawa land, which included sacred wāhi tapu sites.

Eventually, the Crown exercised its powers under the despicable New Zealand Settlements Act to confiscate the lands of so-called rebel iwi. This raupatu completely deprived Te Atiawa of their lands. As flawed as the then Government’s definition of “friendly” and “rebel” Māori might have been, its confiscation was indiscriminate, affecting even those Te Atiawa Māori who had refrained from fighting or who participated in land purchases or who expressed loyalty to the Crown.

The history of Te Atiawa since the mass confiscation has been one of fighting to regain at least some of their land. Reading the historical account in their deed of settlement, it seems that for every step forward this iwi has taken, they have been pushed back two or more by the Crown. The Crown set up the West Coast Commission. It must have been music to the ears of Te Atiawa that this commission would hear their claims and report on them, but the commission was not impartial, and rather than focusing on addressing Māori grievances, it sought a so-called balance with the interests of European settlers.

In the end, the recommendation was that the surest guarantee of peace was European occupation, European settlement, and the establishment of English homesteads. To add insult to the injury, the commission recommended a sum of compensation to Ngāti Rāhiri, a hapū of Te Atiawa, but it recommended that rather than paying this money to the hapū, it be used to fence roads that the Crown had built through their lands. When the reserve was finally put aside for Te Atiawa, the public trustee used its powers to lease or sell those reserves to Europeans.

In the 1960s the titles of all Māori reserves in Taranaki were amalgamated, which then allowed the Crown to sell some blocks of land without the consent of owners, who had ancestral links to those plots. These and other breaches of the Treaty left Te Atiawa with no way of supporting themselves and deprived them of the resources that now contribute to the rich industries of Taranaki.

It is not possible for this deed of settlement to restore everything Te Atiawa has lost, but it does provide an official apology for the hurt and the destitution that the Crown’s actions have caused. The redress included provides a financial base for the iwi to build on and support its members.

I acknowledge once again the Te Atiawa members who are here today, the rakatira, and those who have worked so hard to reach this milestone in their Treaty settlement process. As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to hearing their submissions and working to ensure that this bill does all it needs to give effect to their deed of settlement. Ka tūtohu au i tēnei pire ki te aroaro o Te Whare. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I te tuatahi ka huri ake ahau ki Te Atiawa nā koutou nei, i whakamahanatia tō tātou Whare, nā koutou i tatū mai nei ki konei kia rongo i tēnei, te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire e pā ana ki ngā hara o Te Karauna ki a koutou, ō koutou tūpuna i taua wā. E Mahara, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e te tuakana nāu nei i whakamahanatia ngā tūrū o tēnei Whare i tō wā nāu nei hoki, i whakapau ō kaha mō tō iwi.

[First, I turn to address you, Te Atiawa, who warm our House by arriving here to listen to this, the first reading of the bill, relating to the offences committed by the Crown against you and your ancestors back then in their time. Mahara, my senior colleague, I take cognisance of the time you spent here warming the seats of this House, and working tirelessly on behalf of your tribe.]

About 2 weeks ago I visited Sir Mark Solomon of Ngāi Tahu, a tribe that settled some 20 years ago. He heaped praise on the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. He said that one of the things that Chris Finlayson does is that he acknowledges the hurt and the pain before he acknowledges the quantums that come back. He said that that is really, really important, in that when we start talking about $85 million in redress, people focus on the $85 million in redress and say what a huge amount of money. “What are all these Māoris—they’ve just got their hands out again. All they’re doing is just asking for more. We’re sick and tired of it.” It leads to questions, such as in the survey in the New Zealand Herald the other day, which asked: “Should Māori be getting special treatment?”.

The reality is we need to look at what Te Atiawa lost. In 1865 some 1,199,000 acres were confiscated from Te Atiawa. Let us just let that register in our minds—the enormity of that confiscation. A whole tribe of people all of a sudden had nowhere to put their houses, sink their roots, or grow their crops. Let that settle into our minds, the extent of that confiscation, and how some five, six, seven generations later it has led to a whole heap of social conditions that Māori are not proud of.

Let me just quote Peter Moeahu to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1990. He said: “When I look at a map of Taranaki and trace the confiscation line, it is an arrow piercing the heart of my people.” Poignant words. Taurua of Pakakohi, speaking to a West Coast Commission—and Nuk Korako mentioned that commission—said: “[I was told], ‘Taurua, you and your people have done wrong in rebelling against the Queen.’ I answered: ‘I have not done wrong. I have not carried arms against the Queen, but against you, and you now say it is done against the Queen.’” The numbers of sins and hara, as we say, that have been committed in the name of the Queen and the Crown, and it is only appropriate that the Crown rectifies those hara.

Te Atiawa was peacefully occupying their land, and all of a sudden these people turned up into the neighbourhood. They set up their houses, they started ploughing the land, and they were actually allowed to have weapons to protect themselves. Basically, they used those weapons to dispossess Te Atiawa of their land. These days, if a group of people turned up into a neighbourhood with a bunch of weapons and intimidated and threatened and pushed people to the side, we would have a name for them. We would call them “gangs”. In the 1860s they were called “settlers”. How times have changed. These days, if gangs turned up into neighbourhoods, we would have the force of the Government, the Crown, the police—everyone would turn up and pounce on these gangs and lock them up and throw away the key. What happened in the 1860s? The Crown—the forces—turned up, and who got locked up? Not the people who invaded the ‘hood, but the people who were living there peacefully, going about their daily business. They were locked up, at times without trial, sometimes with trial. They would be sentenced and they would go away; the sentence would end, and they would still be locked up.

The total dispossession of Te Atiawa’s land is what occurred. If I turned up in someone’s quarter-acre section in any town in New Zealand these days, and a person had a house on this section and I said “Actually, I like the corner of your section. I’m going to build my house. I will just build my house there.”, and the house owner says “Oh, sorry, you can’t do that. That’s mine.” If this was 1865, I could say: “Actually, you’re rebelling and so I’ve got the right to actually, basically, evict you—force you off your land. But because you’re rebelling, I’m not going to take just that little corner of your quarter-acre section; I’m going to take the whole section. Actually, damn it, I’m going to take your neighbour’s section on the left and I’m going to take your neighbour’s section on the right. Oh, no, no. Actually, I’m going to take the whole street. No, while I’m at it, I’m going to take the whole subdivision.” That is, basically, what happened to Te Atiawa back in the 1860s. These guys turned up, made their farms, Te Atiawa said: “Hey, you can’t go there. This is our land.” “Oh, you’re resisting. Off you go, and because you are resisting, because you are rebelling against us, because you are taking up arms against the Queen, we are actually going to take 1.2 million acres.”

So when people are watching this debate and they are going “Oh, here we go. Here’s another tribe putting out their hand. They want $87 million, they want a seat on the council here, they want control of Ngā Motu Islands. Oh my gosh. Aren’t we sick of it? When are these Māoris going to stop this?”, actually, let us not focus on what Māori are going to receive; let us focus, in the first instance, on what Te Atiawa have lost, because when they were dispossessed of their land, they were dispossessed of their rangatiratanga, they were dispossessed of their mana, they were dispossessed of everything. They were locked up, the key was thrown away, they were sent away, and it is just wrong.

So that is why this Parliament now, 150 years later, is doing something about it. People will say: “Look, 150 years—you should have just got over it by now.” Well, actually, some of the people who were dispossessed are probably the grandparents of people sitting up here in the gallery right now. They know or knew people who were dispossessed. It is not ancient history; it is actually in their family. They feel it.

So the grandiose plan was to settle some 20,000 settlers from Waikato through Taranaki, establish these settlements, and set up shop. There was going to be 1,000 miles of road. The trouble was, somebody had to pay for that. So what happened is that the powers that be took out a £4 million imperial loan to pay for all these roads. Then they go: “Oh, crikey. We’ve got a £4 million debt. How are we going to actually pay back that debt? Well, let us just sell off all the surplus land at a decent price and let’s pay back that loan that way.” So, you know, invade an area, confiscate all the land, settle your new people there, take out the loan to pay for the roads and the establishment of towns and everything, and the way to pay it all back is to sell off any land you do not want. You are debt-free and all of a sudden you rule the joint.

When land was finally returned—and we can argue whether it was actually returned—land was set aside. It was non-customary. It was individualised title—individualised title means it is just chopped up and it is easy to pick people off, and especially when you are given the land and you are told to pay rates. If you cannot afford the rates, you are told “Oh well, we’re going to take your land.”, so more land is gone. It was rough, it was inaccessible, so they could not grow crops to sell to the market to pay their rates or whatever.

Then some of it was placed in the control of the Public Trustee, who said: “Actually, we are going to sell this off and we’re going to lease this bit in perpetuity to settlers.” So here is your land but you cannot have it. You can look but you cannot touch. How wrong is that? Every day these people drive past their land that, in theory, they own, but they cannot do anything with it. They cannot touch it, and there is some settler’s family that has been there for 150 years just milking it.

Hon Member: Literally.

KELVIN DAVIS: —literally milking it. You know, what Te Atiawa lost is just a fraction—it is probably one cent in the dollar, if that, that they are getting back. So to anybody who is out there listening and watching and saying, “Hey, Te Atiawa, you know, get over it.”, I just say, actually, take those rose-coloured spectacles off and have a big think through what was lost before you worry about what is being returned. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member, I am just going to make a slight request to members who are speaking. In a Treaty settlement bill I am reluctant to use the bell. It is important stuff, and I do not want to cut people off mid-flow. But if members on both sides of the House just keep an eye on me, I will give them a signal when they have, roughly, used their time up.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): This morning I would like to welcome Te Atiawa to our House. I have got my special little card this morning that was given to us at the signing of the document on 5 September, and on here there is a very special, meaningful quote, which is “Tūngia te ururoa, kia tupu whakaritorito te tupu o te harakeke.”—clear away the encumbrances so that the new growth of the harakeke can flourish.

I am speaking in this House—having come very late to the piece as a new member of Parliament—when we are looking at redressing things that have happened many, many years ago. But it is a real honour and a pleasure to be standing here today and speaking to you.

My colleague Nuk Korako said before, as part of his speech, that in those days the Crown really took advantage of disagreements between iwi in Taranaki. It is a real pleasure today, also, to hold this special taonga, which commemorates the historical milestone of the Taranaki iwi signing the Taranaki iwi deed of settlement, at Puke Te Whiti, on Saturday, 5 September 2015. This is something I hold dear to me, as we have this discussion.

What I find is the most important thing about this is that there is no redress, in terms of dollar amounts, that will ever help the things that happened in the past. It was absolutely abhorrent; it was absolutely unnecessary. I think the most important thing in doing this settlement is, really, around making sure that the cultural redress is made. The apologies have been done. It was a real honour to be with Minister Finlayson on the day, and I really do want to acknowledge the generosity of Te Atiawa in working through this settlement.

I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee, but I really look forward to your submissions coming through. I really look forward to taking an intense interest in this process, as we work through this piece of legislation. Something that I am really pleased about is that, being a Taranaki MP, I am able to attend events and hui where we talk a lot about your vision and dreams. I know I cannot make right of the past, but what I can do is help, in any way that I possibly can, with our Government in terms of helping you achieve your visions and dreams for the future.

I look forward to the Ngā Motu Marae going up. I live not very far from Paritūtū, and I really look forward to working with you going forward. What I wanted to say at this time is “Nāu te raurau nāku te raurau, ka ora te iwi.”—with your contribution and my contribution, we will prosper. So thank you for the opportunity this morning.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Ā, mihi atu ki te mana o te whenua nei, arā, ko Te Atiawa ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, ko Taranaki whānui hoki. Kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi! Kei te mihi hoki ki ō rātou whanaunga, koutou kua tae ā-tinana, tae ā-wairua hoki ki rō i Te Whare nei, mai i ngā rekereke o Te Tupuna Maunga, ko Taranaki, tēnā koutou katoa.

I pīrangi ahau ki te mihi ki ngā hunga mate, rātou kua whetūrangitia ki Te Korowai o Ranginui. Ka whakaaro ake au e pā ana ki ngā tini mate, e mau ana tātou o Te Whare, me ā koutou ngā manuhiri o te rohe o Taranaki, nō reira, ki ngā mate katoa i waenganui i a tātou i te ata nei, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā! E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ā, tēnā koe! Ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

He rā whakahirahira tēnei, he rā whakahirahira mō ngā iwi o Taranaki Maunga kua tae mai nei mō tēnei, ngā pānuitanga tuatahi o ngā pire kerēme. He rā hira mō Te Atiawa Taranaki, heoi, he rā hira mōku hoki. Ko tēnei te wā tuatahi ka tū au i roto i Te Whare nei ki te kōrero mō ngā pire kerēme. Āe, i mua i taku taenga mai nei ki Te Whare Pāremata i te mutunga o tērā tau, ēhara au i te tangata tautōhito i te mahi o te huarahi whakatau mō ngā kerēme. Ēngari e mōhio ana ahau he tino whakahirahira te mahi o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori mō ēnei tāke, ā, ki te titiro ki ngā piki me ngā heke o te huarahi whakatau, ki te whakarongo ki ngā whakawhiti kōrero ā Te Karauna, me ngā hapū katoa o ngā iwi. He āhuatanga matatini tērā.

Nō reira, he hōnore nui māku ki te tū mō te wā tuatahi, hei māngai whanaketanga Māori o Te Rōpū Kākāriki, ki te tautoko i tētahi pire whakataunga i ngā kerēme, kia ora! Anei rā tētahi uri o Te Tai Tokerau me Te Tai Rāwhiti, tū tonu tōku Maunga o Hokianga, ko Te Ramaroa. Tū kaha tōku maunga o Te Araroa, ko Te Whetūmatarau, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa! Ā, ko Mārama Davidson ahau, tēnā koe Maunga Taranaki mai i Te Rau o Te Huia ki Whakaahurangi, ki Ōnukutaipari ko tērā te rohe o Te Atiawa.

Ka mihi au ki ngā uri katoa o Te Atiawa i tēnei wā. He hōnore māku ki te pānui i te pire nei me te ripoata o ngā hītori, me ngā kōrero o ngā tūpuna o Te Atiawa. He uaua ki te pānui i ngā kōrero a ngā mahi raupatu a Te Karauna, ngā pakanga i waenganui i Te Karauna me Te Atiawa, he ua. Kei te mōhio tātau ko te tīmatanga o ngā pakanga o Taranaki, me tētahi o ngā pakanga tuatahi o Aotearoa; te raupatu o Te Poraka Pekapeka kei Waitara, i te tekau mā whitu o Poutū-te-rangi i te tau kotahi mano waru rau ono tekau, i whakaheke he tauā o Te Karauna ki te rangatira a Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitāke, me te iwi o Te Atiawa. I ngā tau i muri i tērā, ka tae anō ngā pakanga me ngā mahi tāhae i te whenua ki te rohe. I kī mai Te Karauna, he iwi hara, he iwi whakakeke a Te Atiawa, ā, nā tērā i raupatutia katoatia te whenua o Te Atiawa e Te Karauna, te katoa o te whenua! Whakaaro ana ki tērā, te katoa o te whenua! Pōuri ana tōku ngākau kia mōhio ai ki tērā! Ahakoa ka hainatia e Wīremu Kīngi me ētahi atu rangatira o Te Atiawa Te Tiriti o Waitangi, i te tau kotahi mano waru rau whā tekau, ki Waikanae, ā, ia tau, ia tau i wāwāhi a te kāwanatanga i Te Tiriti, me ā rātau kupu taurangi ki Te Atiawa.

Nō reira, kua tae mai tātau ki te wā, mō te whakatikatika i ngā hē o Te Karauna ki Te Atiawa. I roto i te pire nei e whakapāha ana Te Karauna ki ngā uri, ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Te Atiawa. E whakapāha ana mō ngā pakanga o Taranaki, mō ngā tāngata i mate ai i ērā pakanga, me ngā whānau i mahue. E whakapāha ana mō ngā mahi raupatu me ngā mōrehu o Parihaka kua whakahereheretia mō ngā take tōrangapū! Mō ngā take tōrangapū, pēnei i a au e tū ana i tēnei rā! He tika ēnei whakapāha o Te Karauna!

Ā te wā ka uru atu te pire nei ki Te Komiti Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, me whakatātari mātou i ngā mea puretumu i roto hoki. E kore e mutu te atawhai o Te Atiawa! Ka mihi ahau ki ngā kaiwhiriwhiri, ngā kaimahi, ngā kuia me ngā koroua, koutou katoa o Te Atiawa, e mahi ana kia tae atu ki tēnei wā. Ka mihi hoki ki ngā hapū katoa o Te Atiawa, mehemea ka whakaae, ka whakahē rānei i te pire. Ko ō mātou nei mahi, ki te whakarongo i te katoa o ngā tāpaetanga kōrero, ngā kōrero pōuri, ngā kōrero mamae, ngā kōrero hari me ngā kōrero riri. Kāre Te Rōpū Kākāriki e whakaae ki ngā āhuatanga katoa o te huarahi whakatau nā te mea, ka whakatau Te Karauna i te katoa o ngā āhuatanga. Ēhara tērā he rangapū! Ka pīrangi Te Rōpū Kākāriki ki te whakatū i tētahi arotake āhuatanga katoa o te huarahi whakatau ki te whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi, i te tino rangatiratanga o ngā hapū me ngā iwi katoa o te whenua.

Nō reira, e Te Māngai, huri noa i Te Whare, ki a koutou Te Atiawa he mihi aroha, he mihi mahana, ki a tātou, ki a koutou kua tae mai nei ki te whakamana i ō koutou mokopuna tae ki tēnei wā, ā; nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa, kia ora.

[I pay tribute to the customary authority of this area, Te Atiawa ki Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, and the wider Taranaki also; acknowledgments, salutations, and congratulations. I greet your kinfolk who have arrived here physically and spiritually into this House from the heels of the ancestral mountain, Taranaki; kind regards to you all.

I want to pay my respects to the deceased, those immortalised as stars in the heavens under the cloak of Sky Father. I am mindful of the myriad deaths we in this House bear and you, the visitors from the Taranaki region, bear as well, and so I say to all the dead amongst us this morning, slumber, sleep, and rest there.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I acknowledge you and everyone throughout the House, so greetings to you and to us all. This is a highly important and momentous day for the tribes of the mountain of Taranaki who have arrived here for this, the first reading of the claims bill. It is a great day for Te Atiawa of Taranaki and a day of consequence for me as well. This is the first time for me to stand and take a call in this House to speak about bills relating to claims. Indeed, when I arrived in the House towards the end of last year, I was not experienced in the settlement of claims process. But I am aware now, and recognise the important work the Māori Affairs Committee carries out in regard to these matters, in terms of examining the ups and downs in a settlement process and taking heed of consultations the Crown has with all subtribes of all tribes. It is a complex situation.

Therefore, it is a great honour for me to be standing here for the first time as a spokesperson of the Green Party for Māori development to support a claims settlement bill. I appreciate it. So here I am, a descendant of Northland and the East Coast; my mountain Te Ramaroa in Hokianga and Te Whetūmatarau in Te Araroa stand resolute; acknowledgments, greetings, and salutations to you all. I am Mārama Davidson, and I salute you, the mountain of Taranaki from Te Rau o Te Huia to Whakaahurangi and to Ōnukutaipari, that region of Te Atiawa.

At this juncture, I acknowledge all the descendants of Te Atiawa. It is a privilege for me to read this bill and the report pertaining to the histories and stories about the ancestors of Te Atiawa. It is hard reading about the acts of confiscation by the Crown and the wars between the Crown and Te Atiawa, very hard indeed. We know about the beginning of the Taranaki wars and about some of the first battles in New Zealand; the confiscation of Pekapeka Block at Waitara on 17 March 1860, where a section of Crown troops descended upon chief Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitāke and the people of Te Atiawa, and attacked them. In subsequent years there were further battles and acts of land theft took place once again in the region. The Crown stated that Te Atiawa was a tribe that transgressed and was not a communicative one, the consequence being the confiscation of all Te Atiawa land—the whole lot. Consider that, the entire land. To become aware of that really saddens me. Despite the fact that Wīremu Kīngi and other esteemed leaders of Te Atiawa signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 at Waikanae, the Government breached the Treaty and broke its promises to Te Atiawa each year after that.

Therefore, we have arrived at the moment where we address the wrongdoings of the Crown against Te Atiawa. In this bill is an apology by the Crown to the descendants, the families, and the subtribes of Te Atiawa. It apologises for the Taranaki wars, for the people who died, and the families left bereft. It apologises for the confiscations and remnants of Parihaka who were imprisoned for political reasons. For political reasons, just like me standing here today. These apologies by the Crown are for real.

When this bill is referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, we must analyse the points of redress in the bill as well. The benevolence of Te Atiawa never ceases to end. I pay tribute to the negotiators, the workers, the elder men and womenfolk, and all of you Te Atiawa who worked to reach this moment. I acknowledge all the subtribes of Te Atiawa, whether they agree or do not agree to the bill. Our task is to listen to all submissions: sad, painful, joyful, or irate stories. The Green Party will not agree to all aspects of the settlement process just because the Crown is saying that it will settle everything. That is not a partnership. The Green Party would like to set up a review of all matters pertaining to the settlement process in honouring the Treaty of Waitangi, the autonomy of subtribes, and of all the tribes of the country.

Therefore, Mr Assistant Speaker, and everyone throughout the House, to you Te Atiawa, fond and warm regards to us and all of you who have arrived here to empower your grandchildren right up to this moment; so acknowledgments, greetings, and regards to you, collectively, and to us all. Thank you.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou e Te Whare, ā, ki te korero: “Tuia Te Rangi i runga, tuia Te Papa ki raro, tuituia i te herenga tangata ka puta ki te wheiao, ki te ao mārama.” Ā, i te mea tuatahi e tika ana kia tautoko ngā mihi i mihingia e aku hoa i roto i Te Whare nei, ki te ‘hakatau i a koutou i haere mai tawhiti, ki te tautoko me te mātakitaki i te urunga mai o tēnei pire kia ‘hakatau tā koutou wawata ahakoa, i roto o te ‘hakaaro o ētahi atu, ē, ka nui te aroha o Te Karauna ki a koutou ēngari, e mōhio nei i a tātou i roto i ngā mamaetanga, ngā kōrero, ngā hītori hoki, ā, he āhua iti noa iho tēnei; ka aha tia?

Ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei tū, e tika ana kia mihi kau ana ki tēnā o ngā mate kei waenganui i a koutou, me ērā atu e kore rātou i waenganui i a tātou i tīmata mai tēnei kaupapa, kia mau mai kei waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei, nā reira haere mai! Hara mai Taranaki ki tēnei ō tō tātou Whare! Ēhara nō mātou e noho nei i raro i a koutou i te rā nei, nō tātou tēnei Whare; nā reira, hara mai! Pīkautia mai ngā tini aituā kei waenganui i a koutou, kei te tū honohono ki tēnā o ngā mate kei waenganui i a tātou. Nā reira, ahakoa ka nui rawa atu ngā mihi mā rātou, kāre rātou kia hoki mai! Nā reira e ngā mate, haere, haere hoki atu!

Kua ea te wāhi mā rātou, kua hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou! E mihi kau ana ki a koe e te hoa, Mahara! Mahara ana i te wā e noho ana koe i roto i Te Whare, he Minita! Ko koe anahe i nui mai te aroha ki a au i tō kitenga mai ki a au e noho ana i te taha o te huarahi, ka hara mai i runga i tō waka Minita. Ko koe anahe i pātai mai ki a au, “e Pita, haere mai ki runga!” Nā reira, ka nui ngā mihi ki a koe.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us, the House, and so to the aphorism that says: “As a consequence of the connection of Sky Father above to Mother Earth below, mankind emerged into the natural and enlightened world.” In the first instance, it is only right that I endorse and add my congratulatory sentiments to those expressed by my colleagues in welcoming you, Te Atiawa. Welcome to you who have come from afar to support and witness the arrival of this bill that will settle your aspirations. Although some might think that the Crown is being hugely generous to you, we all know that in terms of the hurtful experiences, the commentaries, and histories, this is quite minimal—so what?

Before I continue any further, it is only right that I acknowledge the deaths amongst you, with those who were here at the beginning of this bill but are no longer here today. So, welcome, draw hither, Taranaki, to this one of our Houses. Welcome to our House. It does not belong to us sitting here below, but rather to you and us, to all of us; therefore, welcome. Bring forth the myriads of misfortunes from within you and add to that one amongst us. So, regardless how much we extol them, they will never come back to us. Consequently, to you the dead, I bid you depart, farewell.

Now that the part to those dead has been accounted for, I come back to us, the living, and extend my acknowledgments, commendations, and congratulations to you collectively. Fellow colleague Mahara, a particular one for you. I recall a moment when you were a Minister in this House. You were the only Minister who displayed any empathy towards me, and a huge one at that. When you saw me alone on the side of road, you came along in your ministerial car, pulled up, then called out: “Jump aboard, Pita!”. You were the only Minister who did that. Therefore, my utmost thanks to you.]

I think it is important that although previous speakers have spoken about the settlement and acknowledged the Minister—and I join with them in acknowledging the Minister—we do articulate, a little bit, the history that has brought this issue to the House today. I want to do so. Previous speakers—particularly Mr Davis, from Tai Tokerau—alluded to the fact that there are members within our wider society who do not necessarily support these settlements, and, in fact, argue that, perhaps, Māori are continuing to put their hands out. I want to articulate the reasons why we have these claims.

I want to say that from 1840 Te Atiawa came under significant pressure to sell their land. This was the year that the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and so I just want to remind those who may be listening to this debate this morning. In the 1840s and 1850s Crown agents sought to purchase Te Atiawa land, despite being aware of disagreement amongst the people themselves. By the mid-1850s Crown purchasing had contributed to enmity and fighting within Te Atiawa, resulting in the loss of life of some of them.

In 1860 the Crown deemed resistance to the survey of the Pekapeka Block at Waitara, led by Te Atiawa rangatira Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake, to be an act of rebellion, and commenced hostilities against him and his followers. A peace agreement was negotiated after 1 year of fighting, but, unsurprisingly, conflict resumed 2 years later, and over the following 2 years a number of engagements were fought in Te Atiawa rohe, resulting in the destruction of property and loss of life. In 1865 the Crown proclaimed 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land confiscated, including all of Te Atiawa rohe. The confiscations were indiscriminate in that they deprived both loyal and “rebel” Māori of the ownership and use of their lands.

In 1866 the Compensation Court began the process to return confiscated land to Māori. However, most of the readily usable land was already occupied by European settlers. By 1880 most of the Compensation Court’s awards to Te Atiawa individuals had not been implemented. The compensation process created uncertainty and distress amongst the people of Te Atiawa about where they were to live and whether they had security of title.

Later in the century, most of the Te Atiawa people were supporting Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi and the movement for Māori peace and independence that they had established at Parihaka. Between 1879 and 1880 many Te Atiawa people participating in campaigns of peaceful resistance, which were initiated at Parihaka, were exiled to the South Island, where they were detained in harsh conditions without trial. I want to just reiterate the point that they were exiled to the South Island, and given the climatic changes that they would have had to endure, any compensation that we talk about today would certainly not alleviate the pain of that process.

Between 1879 and 1880 people participating in campaigns of peaceful resistance continued to be arrested. Some Te Atiawa people who were arrested did receive trials, but were then detained beyond the terms of their court imposition. One can only imagine, if that sort of activity happened today, what the reaction would be.

In the early 1880s the West Coast Royal Commission investigated Māori grievances, including the failure to implement compensation awards, and returned a limited amount of land to Te Atiawa. However, virtually all of the land granted to Te Atiawa was under uncustomary, individualised title, and much of it was rough or inaccessible. In addition, the reserves were not returned to Te Atiawa outright, but were placed under the control of the public trustee—and we heard Mr Davis make reference to that in his presentation. The public trustee then sold or leased, in perpetuity, large areas to European farmers, and in 1963 the titles of all remaining Taranaki reserves were amalgamated, leaving owners without specific interests in customary land. Today less than 5 percent of the area that was reserved for Māori is in Māori freehold ownership.

During the 20th century Crown efforts to address Taranaki Māori grievances failed. Some were limited in their scope, and others provided for compensation payments that were not discussed with either Te Atiawa or other Taranaki Māori. The Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944 stated that the sums were a full settlement of claims relating to the confiscations and Parihaka.

I recall, in an earlier term in this House, that when a particular settlement bill was discussed a member of this House made reference to that particular matter. What he failed to say was that there was no evidence that Te Atiawa or other iwi had agreed to that process. Even now there is some doubt as to whether or not they received anything as a result.

Te Atiawa has also experienced significant distress at the degradation of their environment, including the loss of indigenous plants and animals and the pollution of waterways and important offshore fishing reefs. This settlement bill is aimed at addressing many of those issues. However, as was alluded to by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, there can never be full compensation. We, therefore, need to recognise the generosity of Te Atiawa in accepting this settlement.

I commend this bill to the House and hope that it is, in fact, referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, because I know, like all other settlements, that although they are well intended, there will be members of the affected tribe who will not have any sense of agreement to this settlement, and I would like, through that process, the opportunity to hear their views.

Nā reira, e tātou mā, ahakoa e āhua moata tēnei wā, ka whakaaro anō au mēnā he kaupapa Pākehā, ā, tukuna atu tēnei wāhanga ki te ahiahi nei ēngari he kaupapa Māori, koina te take āhua moata tō mātou tū i te rā nei. Nā reira, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[Consequently, to all of us colleagues and iwi, this moment being somewhat early, I thought to myself, now, if this was a non-Māori matter, well, this part would have been left for this afternoon, but because this is a Māori matter, that is why we got up a bit earlier today. Therefore, greetings and acknowledgments to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ā, tēnā koe, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou te whānau whānui o Te Atiawa. Nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare i tēnei rā.

[And thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A huge acknowledgment to you, the extensive family of Te Atiawa. Welcome, welcome to the House today.]

I am pleased to stand to take a call, and it is going to be a very brief call, because I believe that every minute spoken here on the first reading is a minute longer that you have to wait for your bill to get through the House and through Royal assent, so I will keep it quite brief.

I just want to pay respect to Wikitōria Keenan for the hard work and the diligence and that “No, I’m not going to move.” attitude that she had as a negotiator for Te Atiawa. To not bow down to taking anything less than $87 million for the financial and commercial redress and nearly a million dollars for cultural redress was something that Te Atiawa can be very, very proud of, so I want to pay her respect, as well as Peter Moeahu.

Many of my colleagues in the House have given a wonderful historical account of the atrocities that Te Atiawa have faced to get to this point today. As many in the House have said, not all the money in the world can resolve, or pay you back for, the atrocities that you suffered. The conclusion of this piece of legislation, as described by a reporter from the Taranaki Daily News, will see you as “an economic powerhouse, a mega landlord”. And that is just the start, because soon, very soon, you will return to the most amazing economic past that you came from, as described by Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake. It was described in the history about the plantations, the crops, and the European-style trading ships from outside that Te Atiawa once enjoyed as an iwi. Although you might not get all the way there, it is a start. It is more than zero; it is a start. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā tātou katoa. “He hōnore, he korōria, he maungārongo ki te mata o te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa.” Tēnei ka tāpiri atu i taku mihi maioha ki taku rangatira a Adrian e whakatau ana i a koutou katoa. Ahakoa ngā whakahaeretanga ki mua i te aroaro o Te Pāremata, ka tika ka mihi atu rā ki a koutou, Te Atiawa, Taranaki Iwi, tēnei te mihi atu!

Tēnei te mihi atu me te hoki mahara, hoki mahara ki aua wā o tōku tūpuna, a Tāwhiao, i te wā i haere ia ki te tiki i tērā taonga i waenganui i a koutou hei noho whakaruruhau, hei ārahi i a mātou i ngā wā o ngā toimahatanga. Ko taua taonga anō, te taonga e whakatakoto ki te taki o Taupiri Maunga. He taonga i waihotia i ngā wā o ngā toimahatanga. Ko te take raupatu tērā, taua toimahatanga ki waenganui i a mātou. Nā Te Pūea anō hei whakaora ai tērā o ngā karakia, “Te Pai Mārire”, hei noho whakaruruhau, hei ārahi i ngā whakatupuranga, kia taea e tātou te noho piri i raro i ngā tūmanako o ngā mātua tūpuna, arā, te whakahoki mai i aua whenua i raupatutia e Te Karauna. Nō reira, i raro i ērā o ngā maharatanga, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings, everyone. “Honour, glory, peace upon earth, and goodwill to all people.” I add my affectionate greetings to those of my esteemed colleague Adrian when he welcomed you all. Notwithstanding proceedings before Parliament, it is fitting that you are acknowledged, Te Atiawa and the tribe of Taranaki, and I do so accordingly.

In greeting you, I am reminded of an occasion when my ancestor Tāwhiao went to fetch that heirloom, that peace from amongst you as a means of shielding and guiding us in times of hardship. That heirloom was indeed placed at the base of Mount Taupiri. It is an invaluable treasure left for times of hardship, that being confiscation. It was Te Puea, also, who revived that ritual, “Pai Mārire”, as a means of protecting and leading the generations that would enable us to remain unified under the aspirations of our forefathers and others, in terms of bringing those lands back that the Crown confiscated. And so, under those recollections, I congratulate you all.]

I rise to take a very short call on this bill. I want to recognise Minister Finlayson—you did what Labour could not. Indeed, I remember, when I was just a young member in the House of Parliament, when the Waitangi Tribunal report called the Taranaki Report was released in 1996. It was a preliminary report that gave quite a lot of impetus for any Government of the time to commence negotiations with Taranaki. If I recall correctly, when Margaret Wilson was the Minister, around about the late 1990s going into the 2000s, she did try to start negotiations with the iwi of Taranaki but did not succeed—there were too many issues. So, Minister, you deserve the accolades that have been given to you in the House. This is indeed a significant time to recognise your efforts on the Treaty settlement front.

But how do you encapsulate the significance of the historical events that happened in Taranaki in such a brief moment? You simply cannot, so I will not attempt to. But what I will acknowledge is that the people sitting in this gallery, Minister, are the representation of generations and generations of tūpuna who have carried the burden and the flame of the impact of raupatu on successive generations and are seeking resolution.

Today is another step forward in New Zealand’s story. It is a necessary step, because we are all trying to put some context around how it is that resilience can survive out of such a harsh and harmful history; how it is that resilience can survive at a time when, even now, when the Mayor of New Plymouth is arguing for representation on a council, the people are judged so harshly; and how it is that resilience can remain there as a symbol of fortitude for the rest of New Zealand, to say we have got to reconcile the hurts of the past in order to move forward. It is possible because generations and generations, like those represented in the gallery, remember the efforts of their parents, their grandparents, their forefathers, and their foremothers—those who have, again, carried the burden of raupatu. So I want to recognise that today.

I want to also recognise that in our role as the Māori Affairs Committee, things that we cannot arbitrate over are some of the most hurtful things. For example, a number of Wai claims are encapsulated in the Te Atiawa settlement, and time and time again this creates a lot of challenge for us, because we do have Wai claimants coming to say their views were not taken into account, and things like that. I am not predetermining that that will be the type of debate that will come to the select committee, but I simply illustrate that these are the types of things we consider during the hearing of a bill. We will listen to those concerns; we will be diligent about ensuring that the deed of settlement that your people signed, Te Atiawa, is reflected well in the legislation and is implemented, because a lot of the instruments here in your settlement require diligence on behalf of the Crown to ensure that what you want to happen will happen. No matter if institutional memory on the Crown side, on the Government side, is lost—the memory within the iwi will remain and people will uphold the deed and its legislation to ensure that what was agreed to will be for the benefit of the next generation and the generation after them. That is our role in the select committee, and we intend to carry out that function.

I do want to say, briefly, that when the Local Government Act was last passed—and this directly resulted out of things that were happening in New Plymouth when the council at the time tried to sell Bell Block—one of the issues that came up before the Local Government and Environment Committee was to strengthen the legislation, I think it was sections 138 and 140, to ensure that councils could not just sell off endowment land. That directly resulted from some of the events that were happening in Taranaki that were wrong, and you were not at a point where claims were proceeding. So I just called on some of my memory to give some insight that there are people in this House who, even though a settlement had not been reached, were trying to be diligent in observing the interests of you, Te Atiawa, going forward. With that said—I have not got a long call; I have got two fingers signalling me to hurry up.

Kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa—

[In congratulating you all—]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the nicest possible way—

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To hurry up. Tēnei he whakarāpopoto kōrero hei tuitui ki te maha o ngā korero, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I curtail this address, which is woven into the very many sentiments expressed; well done.]

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Hei whakakāingahia i tō tātou Whare i te rā nei, e tika ana me tū au ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero kua pātere pai ki roto i a tātou i te rā nei. Ko ngā mihi ki a koutou, e ōku tini whanaunga kua tae mai nei ki roto i tō tātou Whare. I a au e tamariki ana i tipu au ki roto i a koutou. I tīmata au ki roto i Te Kohanga Reo o koutou, nā koutou te kākano o Te Reo Māori i whakatōngia ki roto i te wairua o tēnei e mihi atu nei.

Ka tangi tonu ahau ki ō koutou tini aituā. E te tuakana, e Whare, kitenga atu i a koe ka hoki ngā mahara, ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā tini aituā kei roto i a koutou, kei roto hoki i tō whānau. E tangi auē nei, e tangi apakura tēnei ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Rātou i tūkinohia ai ki roto i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia nei i Te Whare i te rā nei. Rātou kua roa rawa e kawea nei i te mamae, nō te wā o ngā mātua o ngā tūpuna. Kāti, e moe koutou, okioki!

Ki roto i ngā huihuinga Māori e te tuakana, e Whare, kua roa rawa au e mea atu ana, ko Te Iwi Māori he iwi pōrangi! He aha te take ka tukuna atu ngā mate kia haere, kātahi ka mihi atu me te tangi atu kia hoki wairua mai? I tēnei wā tonu, ko ngā wairua ō rātou mā ki roto tonu i te ngako o wēnei kōrero, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou! Kua kōrero nei tēnei Whare ki ngā mamaetanga, ki ngā tūkinotanga o Te Karauna i a koutou! E kore rawa au e takaroa i wēnei kōrero!

Hoi nō, he tāpae atu i waku mihi ki a koutou, ā, tua atu i tērā, ka tukuna atu aku mihi ki Te Hōnore Minita kua whakapau kaha ki te whakatutuki i ēnei tūāhuatanga, arā, ngā kerēme e pā ana ki ngā hapa i taka mai i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāti, e mihi atu ana au ki a ia, ki āna āpiha, ki ngā tāngata katoa! Nā rātou te nuinga o ngā mahi, ā, kia tae ake ki a tātou ki tēnei wāhanga o te rā nei!

Kāti, ka huri tū atu ki a koe e Te Pāpā, e Mahara, e Ngāti Hine, mihi mai ki a Te Atiawa e mihi atu nei! Mihi atu ana au ki a koe, tō reanga kawea nei i ngā mahi me ngā kōrero a Te Iwi Māori ki roto i tō tātou Whare. Ki te pire, ēhara tēnei te takaroa i ngā kōrero. E hari koa ana kua tau mai tēnei pire ki roto i tō tātou Whare i te rā nei, ā, aianei ka tukuna atu ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori. Ko reira ka āta wetewete i ngā kōrero, ka haehae i te kiko o ngā kōrero. Ko reira he wāhi pai kia whakarongo tonu tātou ki ngā kōrero a Te Atiawa me ngā rōpū maha kai roto i ō rātou ake whenua. Kāti, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ki a tātou katoa e hui ngātahi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e tau ana ki raro.

[In bringing a sense of homeliness to our House on this day, it is only correct for me to rise in support of the speeches that have been delivered without restraint among us today. My acknowledgments to you, my many relatives who have arrived here in our House. As a child I grew up among you and began in one of your Māori-language nursery schools. You sowed the seed of the Māori language in the spirit of this one here welcoming you.

I still mourn the myriad of your dead. When I saw you, elder sibling, Whare, my thoughts went back to the very many departed ones within you collectively and your very own family. I lament and grieve tearfully here for them lost into the void. They were the ones who were violated and alluded to by the House in the contributions today; and for too long, bore the hurt from the time of their parents and ancestors. Enough—rest and sleep peacefully there.

Whare, my older brother, I have often said at various Māori gatherings that Māoridom is a mad lot! Why do they let the dead go, accord them a tribute, and then ask them to come back spiritually? Indeed, at this very moment the spirits are ingrained in these contributions, and so I pay a tribute to you, the spirits. This House has made references to the pains and violations incurred by the Crown upon you. I will not belabour the point in these sentiments.

I will, however, lay my tributes to you upon those accorded already, and, furthermore, commend the honourable Minister, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, who has worked tirelessly to execute these situations—namely, the claims relating to redress that dropped out of the Treaty of Waitangi. Enough, I commend him, his officials and everyone. They were the ones who did the bulk of the work that brought us to this part of the day.

Before I conclude, I turn to you the fatherly figure, Mahara; Ngāti Hine, acknowledge me, this Te Atiawa bidding you welcome, Te Atiawa! I thank you and your generation, who carried this onerous task, representing Māoridom in this, our House. And in regard to the bill, I do not wish to prolong my comments on it. I am pleased that this bill has arrived in our House today, and shortly it will be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, where the essence of its contents will be scrutinised and analysed. That is a good place, as well, where we will continue to hear what Te Atiawa and the many groups in their own regions have to say. Enough. Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us all assembled together, congratulations and good luck to you collectively. I resume my seat.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Nā reira, tautokohia ngā mihi kua mihia i tēnei ata ki a koutou kua tae ā-tinana mai, me tō koutou tira, ngā paunga rahi kai waenganui i a koutou ōku rangatira, kai te mihi, kai te mihi!

Ā, tautoko ana ahau i ngā kōrero kua whārikihia nei i te ata ki a rātou mā kua mene atu ki te pō. Nui ngā wā kua haere kē mai ki tēnei Whare ka āwangawanga ahau i te ngarohanga o te tangata, kai hea kē rātou? I ahau e whakaaro pēnei ana, ka whakaaro mō te hunga mate e kīkī nei i tēnei Whare. Kai konei rā ā-wairua, ka rangona tātau i a rātau mā kua mene atu ki te pō. Kai te hiahia rātau ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e whārikihia nei i tēnei rangi, kia tutuki pai ngā nawe, ngā mamae, ngā auwētanga kai waenganui i a tātau, nā reira, kai te mihi!

Kua tautokohia ngā mihi ki a rātau kua wehe atu me te hoki mai anō ki a tātou te hunga ora. Tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So I endorse the acknowledgments accorded to you who arrived here physically this morning, including your entourage and the remnants of your greater number among you. I salute and congratulate you, my esteemed elders.

I endorse the tributes expressed this morning to those assembled in the void. There have been many times when I have come into this House and been concerned at the absence of individuals and wondered: where are they? When I am in this state of mind, I think about the departed, and how they fill up this House spiritually. They are here in spirit. We sense the presence of those assembled in the void. They want to listen to the speeches being presented today to ensure that anything that is imperfect, painful, hurtful, and tearful is completed well, so cheers.

The tributes to the departed have been endorsed, and so I come back to us, the living, once again. Best wishes to us all.]

Much has been said about Te Atiawa and the massive loss of land, the cultural genocide, and the situation that we find ourselves in today because of the injustices of the past, and so I do not want to deliberate on those things any more, but I want to concentrate my comments on a couple of areas that give some context and some personal acknowledgment to just what that meant to these people and to us as a nation.

I want to start, if I might, by reading from the text of the Suppression of Rebellion Act 1863 because the words themselves give gravity to exactly what happened here. So I start. It says: “Whereas a combination for the subversion of the authority of Her Majesty and Her Majesty’s Government has for some time existed amongst certain Aboriginal tribes of this Colony and has now manifested itself in acts of open Rebellion And Whereas persons in prosecution of the said Rebellion have committed murders on some of Her Majesty’s subjects engaged in their peaceful occupations have pillaged their homesteads and burnt and destroyed their property And Whereas the ordinary course of law is wholly inadequate for the suppression of the said Rebellion and the prompt and effectual punishment of those who are guilty of such atrocity and outrage: … It shall be lawful for the Governor … from time to time during the continuance of the said Rebellion to issue his Orders to all persons whom he shall think fit to authorise in that behalf to take the most vigorous and effectual measures for suppressing the said Rebellion in any part of this Colony which shall appear to be necessary for the public safety and for the safety and protection of the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s … loyal subjects”.

Hence martial law was enacted, empowered by the Governor, where and however he saw fit. Anyone taking up arms or aiding, or, in fact, at any time the Governor determined any action to be rebellion, martial law could be enacted. What did that mean? Anyone determined to be in breach of this Act was then determined to be committing an act of war or treason. They could be put to death, held in penal servitude, arrested, detained in custody, or be subjected to any other action determined necessary, including land confiscations.

The second part of this kōrero I want to attribute to Danny Keenan, who I understand is here. I recognise him and also Wikitōria, his mother, who is not here with us but is certainly here in spirit, I am sure. I want to recognise the kōrero that he wrote in the Mana magazine, because it was the first time I ever heard of Wīremu Kīngi. So Mr Keenan quotes the historian Ann Parsonson in describing the rangatira Wīremu as “a chief of great influence and authority, who … stood on his dignity and kept his distance from those he saw as … careless of Māori rights”. When he died in 1882, though, the Taranaki Herald described him as a “turbulent chief to whom may fairly be attributed the difficulties and troubles Taranaki has passed through”. By the time of his death in 1882, in addition to being left virtually landless, the people of Te Atiawa had been subjected to wrongful imprisonment, alienation from the whenua, death through battle and through lengthy incarceration, poverty, and then, furthermore, this ongoing mistrust—demonised by the local settlers and authorities of the time.

However, in 1927 the royal commission—Danny explains in his article—charged with investigating the confiscation, said of Wīremu and his people that they were not in rebellion against the Queen’s sovereignty: “The Natives were treated as rebels and war declared against them before they had engaged in rebellion of any kind, and in the circumstances they had no alternative but to fight in self-defence. In their eyes the fight was not against the Queen’s sovereignty, but a struggle for house and home”. I think that fairly and clearly sums up exactly what has happened here: determined to be in rebellion, and then absolutely shown that that was completely wrong.

I just want to conclude with an acknowledgment of the Land Wars petition that has come to the House. The Land Wars petition wants to find a day—and we have had “Parihaka Day” proposed up in the members’ bill ballot, but, you know, we will discuss that. The Land Wars have been called Land Wars because to call them the “Māori Wars” or the “Māori Land Wars” does an injustice. People think that Māori fought against the Crown, fought against settlement, fought against sovereignty. This is an example of where that is exactly not the case. That is exactly not the case; they defended their rights for house and home. Until we acknowledge in our own country that the first war we engaged in was here in our own whenua, enacted upon the people indigenous to this country, then we cannot move forward and overcome the issues in the New Plymouth District Council, where they blindly cannot see that representation will benefit them, not inhibit them—where we cannot even get two street names named for those Māori words; people go “Oh, my goodness, how will I pronounce them?”.

I do not want to take up more time. Danny’s words in recognition of Wīrēmu Kīngi and the Suppression of Rebellion Act itself clearly outline the injustices of the Crown and our people’s overwhelming resilience, struggle, and tenacious attitude, and our ability to roll with the punches and move on. Here we are, in all humility, willing to work and try again with the people who continue to try to suppress us. I want to acknowledge Te Atiawa and Mahara, tēnā koe, ā, tēnā koutou, otirā, tēnā mai rā tātau katoa [good luck, and, at the same time, to all of us].

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. E Te Atiawa, tēnā koutou; nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. Nau mai, haere mai ki te whakatutuki I ngā wawata ō rātou mā. He rā nui tēnei, he rā whakahirahira.

Ka huri ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, haere koutou, haere koutou. Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, ki a koutou ngā rangatira huri rauna I Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, the House, collectively. Greetings to you, Te Atiawa, salutations and welcome; welcome to the House of Parliament standing here in readiness. Welcome, and welcome to the fulfilment of the aspirations of those others. This is a great and magnificent day.

My thoughts turn to those who have passed away and have become immortalised in the night sky. You, the deceased, journey on, depart. I come back now to us, the living, and to you, esteemed ones throughout the House; greetings, commendations, and congratulations to you collectively, and to us all.]

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to speak at the first reading of this very significant Treaty settlement bill. Can I acknowledge Te Atiawa and those who have travelled from far and wide to come to the House today to witness this historic occasion. We are dealing with Te Atiawa ki Taranaki, but, as we all know, the diaspora of Te Atiawa spreads far and wide, far and wide: from Taranaki to Kāpiti, to Porirua, to Pōneke/Wellington, to the top of the South Island—Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui—and stretches all the way over to the Chatham Islands. I have the great pleasure of being a servant to the extended whānau of Te Atiawa, in looking after the tūranga of Te Tai Tonga. Can I acknowledge my predecessor, who is sitting there, the Hon Mahara Okeroa—you are gracing us with your presence in the House today. Tēnā koe, e te rangatira.

This is a significant bill. I want to encompass the totality of Te Atiawa because of all of the whanaunga connections that bind iwi and all the hapū together. I know that people have travelled from far and wide, and it is wonderful that they could be here today. I like to draw on my own connections to things, and when I think of Te Atiawa, I think of my cousins in Waitara, the Tirikatenes and Baileys who are part of the Ōtaraua hapū. My Uncle Charles worked the land and was a very, very distinguished Māori Farmer of the Year on two occasions, and helped establish Parinihinihi ki Waitotara Inc. I do think of all of those things.

I also think back to my grandfather, who came into this House in 1932—that was a while ago. He came in as an independent Rātana MP. In his maiden speech he specifically referred to the grievances of the Taranaki people. That was one of the main foci of his mahi—to make sure that those grievances were addressed. It has taken a while—it has taken a while, but here we are in 2016 and we are at the first reading for Te Atiawa. Do I have a long call, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am not sure.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do.

RINO TIRIKATENE: I do. Oh, thank you. I will make sure I extend it out. I do think back to all of those who have gone before and all of the work that goes into these settlements. I have had the privilege of being part of this parliamentary process that we go through, formerly as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee considering these bills. It definitely is humbling to acknowledge, first and foremost, the history and the grievances that are acknowledged through these settlement bills.

I do not need to traverse all of the history. I think the most important thing is that the history is documented in black and white, and that it is acknowledged by the Crown, and the apologies are there as well. Although those might be words on the statute book, it means a lot to Te Atiawa whānau, whose generations of whānau have had to carry that burden, carry the hurt and the mamae [pain]. If there are any real powerful words, Māori power words, that are on the negative side they would be te muru me te raupatu [the plundering and confiscation]. To have that inflicted upon an iwi is the ultimate of grievances. These people have suffered through that.

We are fortunately here at this stage, on this occasion, addressing these matters, and we do it in a very positive, proactive, and congenial way. I acknowledge all the members of the Māori Affairs Committee who will be considering this bill, and no doubt will be going to Taranaki to hear submitters on the bill. From there, I am sure more kōrero will come forth. In the meantime, I acknowledge my tuakana Kelvin and his speech today. We must never downplay the hurt and the significance of the muru me te raupatu that took place.

I was just looking at the New Zealand Government questions and answers on these settlements. They do not talk about anything like that. All they talk about is: what is the cost to the Crown? Is any private land involved? Are the public’s rights affected? Do they have the right to come back in the future? Those questions and answers are tailored to an audience that I believe really needs to know the full historical background to these claims settlements. Although this might put at ease certain private property owners or those who are concerned about the fiscal cost to the Government, I am so pleased today that all the speakers in the House have been able to cover, in great depth, the history, the background, and the hurt that has been inflicted on our Te Atiawa whānau.

I just want to conclude by once again acknowledging Te Atiawa who have come here. I believe that this is—no, there are more settlements to come through Taranaki because we have to address the maunga, I understand, and Parihaka as well. This is one aspect of Te Atiawa—just one aspect. Obviously, we have had Te Tau Ihu settled. We have had Port Nicholson settled. I believe Kāpiti and Porirua are in progress. This is just one aspect of the wider Treaty settlement for Te Atiawa, and it certainly is a pleasure to be able to speak at this first reading. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in the final call on the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill. E rau rangatira mā, ngā mihi ki a koutou i tēnei rā mō tēnei mahi hirahira. Nau mau, haere mai.

[Esteemed ones of a hundredfold, acknowledgments to you on this day in regard to this magnificent accomplishment. Welcome, welcome.]

I wanted, just very briefly, to speak to some of the introductory sentences at key parts of this bill, because what is said is enlightening but what is written is binding. So I think it is important to cover some of these points. There are five key points to this bill.

Let me start with the acknowledgment. The opening sentence to the acknowledgment states: “The Crown acknowledges that despite previous efforts made in the twentieth century, it has failed to deal in an appropriate way with the grievances of Te Atiawa, and that the recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown hereby recognises the legitimacy of the historical grievances of Te Atiawa”. It then concludes the acknowledgment with the statement “The Crown acknowledges that its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have together significantly undermined the traditional systems of authority and economic capacity of Te Atiawa, and the physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being of its people. The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to protect the rangatiratanga of Te Atiawa, in breach of its obligations under Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

There are several key parts here. The apology follows. Part 1, clause 15, talks about the settlement being final. The cultural redress follows in Part 2, clauses 26 and 27: cultural redress under conservation protocols, fishery protocols, and taonga tūturu, which is further defined under the Protected Objects Act. That is kind of interesting, because as defined in that Act taonga tūturu relates to an object that relates to Māori culture, history, or society and that was or appears to have been manufactured or modified in New Zealand by Māori, or brought into New Zealand by Māori, or used by Māori, and is more than 50 years old. That is encompassed under the cultural redress. The final part is the commercial redress, which talks about the ability of the Crown to transfer properties. The Minister of Conservation may grant easement and the right of first refusal on right of first refusal land—that is a very short summary.

Negotiations began decades ago on this settlement, and many who have worked on this are not here today. Many have taken that long last walk to our heavenly father, and they are advancing the prosperity of their people, their values, and their traditions. So we give them thanks and we commend their bill to this House today. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

In July last year I attended the initialling ceremony for the Taranaki iwi deed of settlement at Puke Ariki in New Plymouth, and then the signing of the deed at the stunning and culturally significant Pukeiti in September. There were very large crowds gathered at both those memorable occasions, and I am sure many of the same people are here in Parliament today to witness the first reading of this bill. As I said in the Te Atiawa debate just a few minutes ago, it is so appropriate that the first reading for legislation to address the wrongs the Crown has done to Taranaki iwi takes place on 16 March, as it was on 17 March that Crown troops at Waitara fired the first shots in the Taranaki Wars. So to the people of Taranaki iwi, nau mai, haere mai.

Let me start with a few acknowledgments. I acknowledge those who are in this House today, and I want to also mention those who have passed on over many generations while the iwi pursued justice. These include Te Miringa Hohaia, who, sadly, passed away during this work. I want to acknowledge the trustees of the Taranaki Iwi Trust; the claims leadership team; the negotiators—a very, very talented and distinguished bunch of people; I say that because Mahara Okeroa is with us in the Chamber—Jamie Tuuta, Toka Walden, and Wayne Mulligan; and all iwi members. I want to acknowledge the chief Crown negotiator, Paul Swain, for his work on this settlement. I would actually say more about Paul, but he is getting increasingly worried that I praise him too much in public and that it may harm his reputation in the Labour Party, so I am going to leave it there. Thanks also to the officials for their work—some of them have moved on from the Office of Treaty Settlements to Te Puni Kōkiri; I think I have forgiven them, but it is a pretty mean thing to do to me, because they are so good.

As the history suggests, the journey for Taranaki iwi to settlement stretches back many, many decades. Tribunal hearings were held between 1990 and 1995 and the report was released in June 1996—20 years ago. The claims were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal as “Muru me te Raupatu”. It describes the confiscation or the plunder of property as punishment for alleged offences—muru; and the conquest or subjugation of the people by Government control—raupatu. The tribunal, as we all know, was chaired by Sir Eddie Durie, and he found that Taranaki Māori were dispossessed of their land, leadership, means of livelihood, personal freedom, and social structure and values. They were denied their rights of autonomy and, as British subjects, their civil rights were removed. For decades they were subjected to sustained attacks on their property and their person. This statement was in the forefront of the Crown’s mind when entering into negotiations with Taranaki iwi, and the Crown knew it had a very long way to go—a very long way to go—to address the profound grievances of Taranaki iwi, which, I can tell the House, are still felt today.

Settlement negotiations began in February 2010, when the Crown recognised the mandate of the Taranaki Iwi Trust to negotiate the settlement of all of the Taranaki iwi historical Treaty claims. As I said, the terms of negotiation were signed on 17 March 2010, and negotiations began. In December 2012 I signed a letter of agreement that outlined the main aspects of the settlement package, and on 5 September 2015 I signed the deed of settlement after it was ratified by members of Taranaki iwi, and that was, indeed, a very, very moving settlement.

Despite there being some pressure—I have to confess, on my part—to conclude negotiations as they saw their whanaunga from Ngāruahine and Te Atiawa moving closer to settlement with the Crown, the negotiators held on to their position and did not accept the Crown offer until such time as they were satisfied that their aspirations for Parihaka were being addressed. So, again, I commend the fortitude of the negotiators, because it is their determination that led to the formation of Kawe Tutaki, which was set up to provide advice and guidance to the Crown about how the Crown can support the people and the legacy of Parihaka. This group carried out its work alongside, but separate to, Taranaki iwi’s Treaty settlement. They were ably led by Dame Tariana Turia and Jim Bolger, and they submitted their report to the Minister for Māori Development and me last year, with the support of the Parihaka community. I am now working up those proposals and will be shortly talking to my Cabinet colleagues about Parihaka, based around the recommendations of Kawe Tutaki. I look forward, in the not too distant future, to announcing initiatives that I believe will help produce a final reconciliation between the Crown and Parihaka.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot really talk about Parihaka without taking a moment to reflect on the history that sits behind this settlement legislation—of course, you know it so well because you represent much of the relevant area in the House. When Māori and the Crown signed the Treaty in 1840 the Crown intended for Māori to be treated fairly and honourably, but the Crown has not upheld its obligations as Treaty partner, and Taranaki Iwi have been hurt as a result. That hurt stems from a history marked by the Crown’s serious and repeated failures to live up to its obligation to Taranaki iwi under the Treaty. The history of Taranaki iwi is so evidently a history of hardship, of suffering, and of resilience—and I am grateful for the very kind words of Kelvin Davis, but every time we have a debate it is important to read into the permanent record of the House exactly what happened before we talk about the settlement itself.

In 1860 the Crown’s purchase of land at Waitara led to war between Taranaki Māori and the Crown. Crown forces employed scorched earth tactics, which destroyed Taranaki iwi kāinga, pātaka, and cultivations. As we know, peace was officially negotiated in 1861, but the Crown forces remained in the region. In May 1863 war resumed, and in the following years Crown forces again destroyed Taranaki iwi settlements and cultivations. These people suffered severe distress and hardship, and many lost their lives. In 1865 the Crown proclaimed 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land to be confiscated, including all of the Taranaki iwi rohe not yet purchased. The following year a process to compensate loyal Māori for the confiscation of their land was established, but large tracts of Taranaki iwi lands had already been allocated to military settlers, and almost all of the land eventually returned was granted, as we know, under individualised title, extinguishing customary tenure.

In 1865 Taranaki iwi responded to the plight of war and Crown acts of violence with an alternative non-violent action. We know the story about the establishment of the settlement at Parihaka, in the very heart of Taranaki iwi rohe. It became a flourishing community, guided by principles of discipline, of faith, and of non-violence to resist further land loss and promote Māori independence. I was so pleased and honoured to be able to visit Parihaka last year and talk to the community. Over the years the population grew steadily, as those who had been dispossessed by war and confiscation sought refuge.

During the 1870s the Parihaka community engaged in a campaign of passive resistance against Crown attempts to make more Māori land available for European settlement. In 1879 and 1880 the Crown set aside the normal processes of law and detained many Taranaki iwi people without trial in the South Island. Then on 5 November 1881 Crown troops invaded Parihaka, dismantled the settlement, and forcibly removed many of its inhabitants. Te Whiti and Tohu were arrested and held without trial for many months. Over the following days some 1,600 men, women, and children not originally from Parihaka were made to return to their native homes, houses and cultivations were systematically destroyed, and stock was driven away or killed. Māori gatherings were restricted and entry to Parihaka was regulated by a pass system. This was a veritable assault on the human rights of Taranaki iwi, but even at the darkest hour, this iwi remained staunchly committed to those principles of passive resistance.

The day we signed the deed of settlement a poi composed by the women of Parihaka was performed at the deed signing, and it described their experience of being raped and assaulted by the troops. Actually, that poi had not been performed for many years, and it was an extraordinary moment, to say the least, in the course of that settlement. It is a testament to the pragmatism and the generosity of Taranaki iwi that in agreeing to this settlement the iwi have foregone full compensation for the loss and prejudice they have suffered as a result of the Crown’s acts and have accepted the need to put the hurt of the past behind them.

As I mentioned earlier, Taranaki iwi and the Crown signed the deed of settlement in September. Key elements of the redress include that agreed historical account—a very, very important part of any settlement—financial and commercial redress of $70 million; the opportunity to purchase specific Crown properties through deferred selection and the right of first refusal; the vesting of 14 properties in fee simple and 15 properties subject to reserve status; the joint vesting of Ngā Motu/Sugar Loaf Islands with Taranaki iwi and Te Atiawa; statutory acknowledgments over 25 sites of significance and deeds of recognition over 14 sites; the option to purchase specific South Taranaki District Council properties if they become surplus; and a proposed model for iwi representation on two standing committees in the Taranaki Regional Council alongside Te Atiawa and Ngāruahine. I certainly hope this package will contribute to mending the relationship between the Crown and Taranaki iwi that has been so badly damaged in the past.

Of course, the Treaty settlement grievances of Taranaki iwi will not be fully addressed—and Mr Tirikatene adverted to this—until Maunga Taranaki has been settled. Discussions around settlement redress for the maunga will be the subject of collective negotiations with the eight iwi of Taranaki. Ngāti Maru are very close to having their mandate for negotiations. Whenever I see Holden Hohaia I ask him how it is going. It is getting close; it is getting very close indeed. I look forward to the day later in the year when we will all be able to come to the table to discuss the regional settlement.

To conclude, back in the 19th century Taranaki iwi responded to the plight of war and Crown acts of violence with passive resistance, following the leadership of Te Whiti o Rongomai and other prominent Taranaki rangatira. At the time proclamations known as “Te Haeata” , “the new dawn”, and “Te Tau Ariki”, “a time of prominence”, were made to signal an end to the bloodshed and conflict and the beginning of a new struggle for self-determination through non-violent action. I certainly hope that today signifies a new dawn for Taranaki iwi and the beginning of a new relationship with the Crown. I am sure that the Māori Affairs Committee will be dealing with this bill and the Te Atiawa bill as quickly as possible, because I certainly hope—I hope Daisy Noble does not get upset about this—what a great day it would be for this Parliament if we could have the third readings of Taranaki, Te Atiawa, and Ngāruahine claims settlement bills at the same time, because I think that would truly be a very historic day in the life of our country.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te W’are. Āe, e kī ana te korero: “He puke ao tā Kahurangi, he rua tā Taranaki, he pou tā Maru W’akatare, he pou ‘oki tā tēnei w’akatipuranga.” Ko Taranaki Te Maunga, ko Taranaki Te Iwi, ko Taranaki Te Tangata, e kore e pau te ika ūnahi nui, ti ‘ei mauri ora!

Otirā, kei te ‘aere tonu te reo poroporoaki ki a rātou mā, te tini me te mano kua hinga mai nā puta noa te ro’e o Taranaki. Otirā, e tika ana kia tuku atu te reo poroporoaki ki a rātou katoa, nō reira, e oki, e moe, e moe, ā, kāti mō tēnā!

E tika tonu kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā uri o Taranaki Iwi, ā, nō reira, ki a koutou kua tae mai, ngā hapū o Taranaki Iwi, a Ngāti Haumea, Ngāti Haupoto, Ngāti Kahumate, Ngāti Māhanga-ā-Tairi, Ngāti Moeahu, Ngāti Tamarongo, Ngāti Tara me Ngāti Tūhekerangi, koutou katoa, anei ahau e tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou i tae mai ki te w’akarongo ki te pānuitanga tuata’i o te pire nei. Nō reira, nau mai, ‘aere mai, w’akatau mai!

[And thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, the saying goes like this: “Kahurangi has a worldly hillock, Taranaki has a chasm, Maru W’akatare has a pillar, and so has this generation.” Taranaki is the mountain, Taranaki is the tribe, Taranaki is the man and will never perish, for they are like a tough scaled fish; behold the breath of life!

The farewell tributes continue to them, the myriad, the thousands who have fallen throughout the region, but, at the same time, it is fitting that they are all accorded a farewell; so rest, sleep, and slumber. Let us leave that there.

It is right that the descendants of the Taranaki tribe are welcomed, and so to you, the subtribes of the Taranaki tribe who have arrived here—Ngati Haumea, Ngāti Haupoto, Ngāti Kahumate, Ngāti Māhanga-ā-Tairi, Ngāti Moeahu, Ngāti Tamarongo, Ngāti Tara, and Ngāti Tūhekerangi; all of you—I welcome you who have arrived here to listen to the first reading of this bill. So welcome, welcome, and greetings.]

I too want, first of all, to acknowledge the speech from the Minister. He has outlined some of the historical account in the very short time that we have available, so I want to just merely, rather than repeating that, endorse the words that he has said.

Like the previous bill, the historical account is somewhat sad reading, but I stand again to acknowledge all of the things that are in that historical account. I want to also point out to the House that that is a negotiated historical account. From my experience of being part of a Treaty claim, you do not always get what the claimants want, inside that historical account. No doubt, at the appropriate time, if that is the case for Taranaki iwi, they will have the opportunity to have their say, perhaps through the select committee process, on those issues that may not represent the magnitude of the breaches of the Treaty from their perspective. I think that is important for us to be mindful of—that this is a negotiated historical account.

But I do want to acknowledge all of the things that are in that historical account. I cannot begin to imagine the intergenerational and historical trauma that is borne out by the generation of today, which bears those Treaty breaches. I want to acknowledge just how difficult that is, and, as I said in the debate on the Te Atiawa bill, this iwi makes a significant gift to the people of New Zealand by accepting this settlement. It is but a fraction, as Kelvin Davis pointed out in his speech in the Te Atiawa debate. It is but a fraction of the value of what was lost.

But more important than that—why would you do it? Why would an iwi settle for maybe 1 or 2 percent of the value of what they lost? I have been in a position to ask myself that. The only reason you would do it is for the future generations, so that future generations can have the opportunities that were denied to our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents through the process of colonisation, through the process of raupatu, through all of those processes that were totally foreign to our people and denied us being full citizens of our country. So that is why you would do it, I think.

I have read some of the press releases or interviews from Te Kāhui o Taranaki Trust, and they are very positively focused. They are focused on the future. They are focused on how things can be improved for future generations. So I acknowledge the people of Taranaki iwi and the settlement trust for their tenacity in getting to this day, which is 1 day out from a very significant date, which the Minister has pointed out.

I continue to acknowledge the work that has been done by the trust, but I also want to acknowledge the negotiators Jamie Tuuta, Mahara Okeroa, Wayne Mulligan, and Tokatūmoana Walden. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou e kaha ana ki te ma’i i ēnei mahi.

[I acknowledge you, who worked hard at these tasks.]

It is not an easy path to navigate, the pathway of the settlement process. There is a lot to contend with. I did it once and I think Jamie has done it twice. I do not think I would have the stamina to do it twice. I particularly mihi to you, Jamie.

The Minister also pointed out some of the mechanisms that are within this Treaty settlement bill. There are 25 statutory acknowledgments. I just want to touch on that mechanism. I think the best part about the statutory acknowledgment of those 25 sites is that any person from Taranaki iwi, any whānau, any hapū, can attend any one of a number of processes, including the Resource Management Act processes, and quote the statutory acknowledgment as part of their connection to that site. That is an important mechanism. I do wish that it was for a longer period. But I understand that the very first ones were for 20 years, and so every one since then has been for 20 years. I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, otirā [although] I want to just acknowledge the Taranaki iwi. Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, oti noa, e tika ana kia mi’i atu ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha kia mahia ēnei mahi, kia whakaae ki tēnei pire, nō reira, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, this call will not be prolonged, but it is right that your efforts to do these tasks and to approve this bill are acknowledged. So well done and congratulations to you and to us all.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Anō nā ka tuku mihi ki a koutou kua hui nei i tēnei rangi, he rangi whakahirahira tēnei. E tika me pānuihia te hītori o tēnei rohe o Taranaki Iwi, o Atiawa ki roto i te pukapuka o Te Pāremata nei, ko Te Hansard tēnā.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. And so I acknowledge you who have gathered here on this important day today. It is fitting that the history of this region of the tribe of Taranaki and of Te Atiawa is read in that official publication of Parliament, Hansard.]

Hansard is where we record every single word that is uttered in this House. For time immemorial you will be able to look back and find the words said about your people, our people, and this nation in this House. In fact, the first time I understood that, I had been reading a research paper into the native schools of Aotearoa, and in the Hansard of the debate in this House it said that “the time has come to decide whether we should exterminate the natives or civilise them.” No way—they did not actually use those words. Well, yes, they did and we found them in the Hansard of this House when discussing the Native Schools Act 1867. So when I entered Parliament, a little over a year ago now, the first thing I did was roam the hallways looking for the place they discussed that. I wanted to see the seats those men sat in when they talked about exterminating our people. I wanted to see the building that housed that debate. I was happy to find that it had been burnt down in a fire, and what we stand in today, and the adjoining buildings, is what replaced it. I thought: “Well, there you go.”

Though the fire burnt down the building, the record remains—the record of those discussions of the extermination of our people. So it is right that we read into the history of this place the names of our rangatira, the injustices that were carried out against them in Taranaki, in Te Atiawa—in fact, it is very difficult to sit here as a member of Parliament and listen to that record. The first time I did it I was bawling. I just could not believe that I was sitting here listening to the injustice of this place on our people. See, that is why I have got a tissue, because it is hard, it is difficult. It is difficult not just for us here. Obviously, it is far more difficult for you all, and for our tamariki, our mokopuna.

Then we think of all of those ancestors who did not make it to this day, when 30 years ago they started to talk about bringing a claim; when 20 years ago they prepared the papers; when all through the years since, they have been negotiating, trying to get some settlement. Think of those who did not make it to see the outcome of their efforts.

Adrian Rurawhe described the magnitude of these things. Let us talk about the magnitude for a little bit. Here is the real-life magnitude of the Treaty process and the settlement of this country. When I walk out of the Wellington Railway Station I am met with the statue of Mahatma Gandhi—fantastic! I like Gandhi—he is a good guy. But where is Te Whiti o Rongomai, and where is Tohu Kākahi? Mahatma Gandhi reputedly took his stance on peaceful protest from their movement—from your movement. And yet, there is his proud statue standing there. And I look around and go: “What country am I in?”. Where are the symbols of our people that recognise their great sacrifice and their foundation in the way that we view one another and who, in all humility—despite everything that was thrown against them—still stood up and said: “I am here for peace.”?

Te Whiti o Rongomai, 1881, in which year he talked about Parihaka, said: “Though the lions rage still I am for peace … Though I be killed I yet shall live; though dead, I shall live in peace which will be the accomplishment of my aim. The future is mine, and little children, when asked hereafter as to the author of peace shall say”—not Mahatma Gandhi but—“ ‘Te Whiti’ and I will bless them.”

Oh my goodness. That is the magnitude of what we have to overcome in our time, right now, in every moment we sit in this House and every time we debate whether or not we want to recognise someone’s Treaty rights in this bill or that bill. Every time we come here and debate with the Government of the day how we can try to redress the disparities that have come about through years and years of the things that have been described here today, we have to uphold the legacy of Te Whiti.

It is by no accident that we have a member’s bill, now in my name—to be fair, I took it over from my learned colleague Te Ururoa Flavell—for Parihaka Day. It is no accident, and yet just last week we met two beautiful young women who came to us with a petition about the Land Wars. They never knew, growing up and attending school in the place where they lived, that just down the road raupatu, war, the loss of life in the settling of this land had happened—just down the road. We do not teach it in our schools. We do not tell the shared history of our nation. Our children do not know that more lives were lost in the settling of this land by Kiwis, New Zealanders, than in the First World War—for our people. Yet we do not acknowledge it.

So Parihaka has become a symbol not just of peace but of the future, with the group that has been headed and chaired by the honourable Dame Tariana Turia. In all your humility you have not looked to the grievances of the past, but you have looked to the future to find ways forward to change the situation that we find ourselves in. I honour you, your resilience and your strength, and your determination to hold on to the white feather, not, as some people want to label it, as a symbol of cowardice—please! Let us embrace our own symbols. That feather represents the peaceful movement and the actions of great rangatira that we can emulate today through forward, progressive thinking.

We as a Government can join with that group, your people, our tamariki, to carve out a place of the way we should live in a duality of nationhood for all time and for ever. I am honoured and humbled to be here today in the presence of these people and to recognise the efforts of their ancestors in carving out this nation. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Can I begin by acknowledging all those who have travelled from Taranaki to be part of this very important morning as we process the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill and the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill through the House.

I take the opportunity to speak on this, the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, knowing that this morning we are talking about those settlements that have pervaded across Taranaki. Can I acknowledge the negotiators of this settlement, Jamie Tuuta, Mahara Okeroa, Wayne Mulligan, and Toka Walden. Can I also acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, and his team for concluding a settlement the significance of which I think is almost impossible to comprehend.

As someone who grew up in Taranaki—perhaps I should just pause for a moment and also acknowledge someone whom I will mention very shortly, His Worship the Mayor of New Plymouth, Andrew Judd. As someone who grew up in New Plymouth and had my formative years there, you know, I learnt nothing of the Māori history of Taranaki, which is, of course, not just the Māori history of Taranaki; it is the Pākehā history, as well. We see in this settlement, in the acknowledgment of the historical events that are the cause of the grievance and the apology that has been recorded, actions and events that would have seen the end of a people in a different age and that would have suppressed a spirit and destroyed a community.

When I read the history of it, what calls out for attention and celebration and acknowledgment is that a spirit of peace and of justice has prevailed against some of the worst atrocities that humanity can cast upon itself. When I look at the mass confiscation, the raupatu; when I look at the brutal treatment of those who stood up against an unjust Crown and unjust colonial forces, not just being incarcerated, but being incarcerated hundreds of miles from their people and from their rohe; and when I look at the treatment of Te Whiti o Rongomai, who preached and lived, and lived by a creed of peace and peaceful action—for him to be brutalised in the way he was treated—it is a matter of awesome wonder that the spirit that he represented and the sense of justice that has been pursued has brought us to this place. Those who have been imbued with it, know it, and understand it have not resorted to the kind of violence that was visited upon Taranaki Māori. Instead it has led to a dialogue, a negotiation, an accounting of the history, and at least some form of settlement.

As my colleagues have already asked—Adrian Rurawhe and Nanaia Mahuta on the previous bill, the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill—how do you compensate, how do you genuinely atone for the actions that are recorded in these settlements? I think one of the encouraging aspects of the settlement—both settlements—is the representation on one of the committees of the Taranaki Regional Council, because if there is one thing that the denial of the rights of Māori to their land and their taonga means it is the loss of that right of decision making, of determination over it. It is one small gesture. It is one small step that restores that right to have a say. I think it is fair to say it probably barely goes far enough—in fact, it is unlikely to have gone far enough, and I say that because I know that even in the last 2 or 3 years there has been a debate in Taranaki about the representation of the Māori voice on public bodies, on the local government up there. It has not been a particularly instructive debate. It has not been a particularly pleasant debate, observing it both from here and when I have been in the region.

So where I get to with both bills—with this bill too—is that although here we celebrate the settlement, the sense of peace that can now be brought over these grievances, and to that extent a closure, I hope that it is also a beginning: a beginning of Pākehā in Taranaki understanding and acknowledging the history that our ancestors were part of. It is not about being shamed by it or being embarrassed by it or feeling hōhā about it. It is about understanding, as the beginning of that respect that we must have for each other, that those who have a claim to the land have been brutally treated. If this settlement does anything constructive for all inhabitants of Taranaki, Māori and Pākehā, let it be the beginning of that understanding and, perhaps, the beginning of a process to accept that each must have a role in all the institutions across the communities of Taranaki—the public bodies, and those organisations that make up and contribute to the life of the region.

I take the opportunity to welcome the folks from Taranaki to be part of the celebration of this legislation and this settlement, and to hope that it heralds a beginning for Pākehā, too, as we come to terms with and understand a history that I think for far too long we have preferred to ignore. Now we have the chance for understanding and the chance for a genuine peace and genuine justice that will serve all of us well. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnei ka hoki atu ki a kōrua nei, e Te Minita Te Hōnore Chris Finlayson me Te Hōnore Te Ururoa Flavell, kia ora. Tēnei te mihi ki Te Rakatira o Te Rōpū Reipa a Andrew Little, e mihi atu ki a koe, me koutou rā, tēnā koutou katoa. E Te Iwi o Te Kāhui Mauka Taranaki, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauria mai ō whakaaro ki te kaupapa nunui, ki te kaupapa o tēnei whakaaro mo Te Iwi nō reira e koutou rā, ā, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker. I now return to you two in particular, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, to commend you both. Greetings to you, the leader of the Labour Party, Andrew Little, and to everyone else. My greetings to you, the tribe of Mount Taranaki; salutations, bring forth your thoughts in regard to this matter of significance and importance for the tribe, and so congratulations to you all.]

It is, indeed, an important part of this milestone around the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill. We need, as we did with Te Ātiawa, to acknowledge the iwi’s history and the injustices that have led to this settlement process being very, very necessary. Like we have heard this morning with Te Ātiawa, and when we look at the grievances from Taranaki iwi, there is immense commonality between the two. That commonality is about raupatu, it is about a scorched earth policy, and it is about “divide and conquer”.

My colleague Kelvin Davis this morning gave a great overview, in some ways, of how Treaty settlements are seen by some New Zealanders, Māori and also non-Māori. If I go back to when my iwi, Kāi Tahu, settled, one of the things that came out of that was that it was not about the money. It was about the apology—it was about the apology. This is the commonality that we see with te iwi Māori right across the board when we talk about Treaty settlements. That is something that is so important, particularly today when it is a really important part of the history that we are making about the settlements of those terrible times that te iwi Māori went through. So I tautoko—I support—the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in saying that these two settlements are entwined, and so these two settlements should move together on a hīkoi to where we all want to go and, finally, settle.

My final part of my kōrero is actually about this settlement here, and is particularly related to my ancestral community of not only Ngāi Tūahuriri but also Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa on Whakaraupō—Lyttelton Harbour—and how it is actually related to our Taranaki monument, which is actually in our urupā. The year 1865 saw the start of a non-violent campaign to end the conflict and European confiscation of land in the Taranaki area. As we know, this movement was based at the settlement of Parihaka. This was led, as we have heard before, by those rangatira, two of them, whom we should be acknowledging within our history of New Zealand. They were Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi.

This movement aspired to the high ideals. It is what we have seen of passive resistance and the opportunity to negotiate with the Crown on equal terms. The number of Māori at Parihaka grew quickly as displaced members moved back to Taranaki. They came to return home—and we know what had happened. Parihaka’s peaceful ways were welcomed by the Crown, at least initially. However, tensions grew when Te Whiti called for the peaceful eviction of Crown surveyors from the confiscated land in Taranaki.

Then, as we know, the tensions came to a head when Te Whiti instructed men to begin ploughing confiscated land as an act of protest, of passive protest: stand behind the hōiho and the plough, and plough your own land. These ploughmen were rounded up and arrested and hundreds of them were jailed without trial. Despite the Governor’s proclamations that a trial would occur, they were all eventually transferred to Te Wai Pounamu, most of them: to Ōtepoti/Dunedin and to Hokitika. In those jails, many of them died. Eventually, the Crown raided Parihaka, arresting its leaders and dispersing its people, and the rest is history.

The events at Parihaka are something that affect all Taranaki iwi and Māori right around New Zealand—and non-Māori. It is an event that resonates as a symbol of the underhanded dealing, confiscation, and military action, as we have heard. In my own ancestral community, as I have said, at Rāpaki on Lyttelton Harbour, it is very distant from Parihaka—but very, very close. There is the monument there—the Taranaki monument—where the followers of Te Whiti were imprisoned on Rīpapa, our motu tapu on Whakaraupō. Many died. My ancestors exhumed the graves and brought the tūpāpaku back to our Christian cemetery in our church grounds, where we reinterred them.

The story of Taranaki iwi’s relationship with the Crown is one of conflict and betrayal and broken promises. Time and time again Taranaki iwi were promised that land would not be sold without the consent of its owners. They were promised that reserves would be set aside for them. These promises were rarely honoured. I once again acknowledge the Taranaki iwi members, Taranaki whānui, Te Kāhui Mauka. I acknowledge you here and I look forward to this bill coming to the Māori Affairs Committee.

The final part of this is that my colleague Shane Reti said something earlier that resonated with me and, I am sure, with many people. He said that what is said here today, this morning, is enlightening, but what is written here in the bill is binding. Ka tūtohu au i tēnei pire ki te aroaro o Te Whare. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): E Te Māngai: “Kōrihi ake ngā manu, tākiri mai i te ata, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea, tihei mauri ora.”, kia ora! Ka tū au ki te kōrero i tēnei pānuitanga tuatahi o Te Pire Whakataunga i ngā Kerēme a Taranaki Iwi, tēnā koutou. I te tuatahi, ka mihi anō au ki a koutou o Taranaki Maunga, kia ora. Kua tae mai i te ata nei mō tēnei rā whakahirahira mō Taranaki Iwi. Ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi whakatau o ōku hoa mahi ki a koutou katoa, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai, ki roto i tō tātou Whare Pāremata.

He āhua tauriterite ngā hītori i waenganui i a Taranaki Iwi me Te Karauna, ki ngā hītori o Te Atiawa, ōrite ki a Te Atiawa, kua raupatutia te katoa o te whenua o Taranaki e Te Karauna. Kotahi miriona eka o ngā rohe o Taranaki i raupatuhia i te tau 1865. I waenganui i tērā te katoa o ngā whenua o Taranaki Iwi. Te mutunga kē mai te kino o tērā. E ai ki te kōrero o Taranaki tūturu, kāore e pau, he ika ūnahi nui. Nā tōku pānui i ngā hītori nei, ka kite au i te tika o tērā kōrero. E pupuri tonu ana a Taranaki i tō rātau Taranakitanga, arā, Te Reo o Taranaki, te tino rangatiratanga o ngā hapū o Taranaki, me ngā tikanga, me ngā kawa o kui mā, o koro mā. E mihi kau ana ki a koutou e whawhai tonu ana mō te whakaoratanga o tō Iwi. Āe, kua whārikihia ngā kōrero a Te Minita Finlayson, i te tīmatanga o tēnei tautohetohe. He takahi, he mamae, mārama te kite. E mōhio ana ahau, ko wai ka hua? Ko Te Karauna, kua wini kē Te Karauna! Hoi anō, ka tū kaha a Taranaki Maunga me Te Iwi hoki, nō reira tēnā koutou.

Ā, mō te wā poto—mō te wā poto—ka huri au ki tōku tuakana, a Metiria Turei, te kaiārahi takirua o ngā Kākāriki i te mea, nāna i tuku tēnei hōnore, kia tū au hei māngai Take Māori mō ngā Kākāriki. Nōna te hōnore i tuku mai ki ahau, ki te tū i tēnei Whare Pāremata, ki te kōrero, ki te tuku aroha ki ngā iwi mō ngā kerēme Tiriti o Waitangi, ā, nō reira, e mihi ana ki a koe e tōku tuakana.

He aha te kerēme o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki ahau? Ko te mea tuatahi, he wero i ahau kia tū ki te kōrero i tōku Reo Tupuna ki mua i ngā Māori katoa. Ki ahau nei, ko tērā te tino patu o te Pākehā, o Te Karauna i tōku whakapapa. Nō reira, māmā noa iho te whakarite kupu hei pepa māku ki te pānui, ki te kōrero ki roto i tēnei Whare, ēngari he uaua te tuku kōrero tika, kōrero tūpuna kia waiho mā te pepa kei mua i ahau. Ēngari, mō ngā kerēme whakataunga, mō ngā whakataunga o Te Tiriti, ko tērā taku wero. Nō reira, tērā pea ka piki haere tōku Reo i tēnei Whare Pāremata kia tū ai te hōnore, ki te whakamana i te hōnore māku, kia tū i tēnei Whare mō ngā kerēme katoa, arā, mō ngā kerēme a Taranaki i tēnei wā.

Ēhara tēnei i tētahi mokopuna o Taranaki ēngari, kai te mōhio ahau ki te hōhonu o te hītori o Parihaka mō tātau katoa Te Iwi Māori, mō Aotearoa hoki. Nō reira, he tino hōnore kia tū au ahakoa te wero, ahakoa te mamae, ahakoa te whakamā, kia whiu atu te pepa ki te taha. Ko te mea nui ko tōku aroha ki a koutou kua tae mai nei, tōku mamae i rongo au i te hītori, i te patu a Te Karauna i a koutou. Ko te mea nui, ahakoa te hapa o tōku Reo, nei tonu tōku aroha mō Te Reo ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa. Mō te mutunga o tēnei kōrero, anei tōku tohu aroha anō, nāku i tito tēnei ruri, tēnei kōrero paku i te 5 Nōema 2012.

[Mr Assistant Speaker: “The birds sing at the break of dawn, as daylight appears. Behold the breath of life.”, greetings! I rise to speak in the first reading of the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill. Acknowledgments to you who have arrived here on this great day for the Taranaki tribe. I endorse the expressions of welcome accorded by my colleagues to you all: welcome, welcome, and welcome into our House of Parliament.

The history between the tribes of Taranaki and the Crown is similar to that of Te Atiawa, whose lands were also confiscated, like Taranaki, by the Crown. One million acres of Taranaki’s lands were confiscated in 1865, which had a devastating effect. According to tribal lore, Taranaki will never be conquered; they are like fish with great, thick scales. As I read the history, I discovered how accurate that proverb is. Taranaki continues to maintain its heritage, its language, its traditions and protocols, as well as the independence of its hapū. I salute those of you who continue to fight for the survival of your people. Yes, indeed, Minister Finlayson delivered his speech at the outset of this debate, describing the abuse and pain that you clearly endured. I recognise who will benefit—it is the Crown who wins! None the less, Mount Taranaki and its people will continue to stand strong, and so I salute you.

For a brief moment I would like to acknowledge my senior colleague Metiria Turei, co-leader of the Green Party. She honoured me with the position as Māori affairs spokesperson for the Green Party. She also provided me with the privilege to speak passionately in this House of Parliament to the tribes about the Treaty of Waitangi claims. Therefore, I want to thank you, my older sister.

What do Treaty of Waitangi claims mean to me? Firstly, it is challenging to stand and speak in my traditional language in front of all Māori. In my opinion, that is the main weapon that Pākehā and the Crown used to attack my heritage. And so it is easy to put words to paper for me to read in this House. However, it is difficult to express myself correctly about ancestral history and to leave the paper in front of me. But speaking on Treaty of Waitangi claims is a challenge to me. So perhaps during my time in Parliament I will become more proficient in the Māori language and live up to the honour of speaking in this House on the settlement of Taranaki’s claims.

I am not a grandchild of Taranaki; however, I know the complex history of Parihaka and its connection to the Māori people and also to New Zealand. It is a great honour to stand despite my painful shyness and throw the paper aside. What is important is that I express my love for you. What is important is the pain that I felt as I heard the history of the Crown’s assault upon you. In spite of grammatical errors, I still express my love for the language to you all. Thank you, thank you, salutations to you all. In conclusion, here is another sign of my love. The following is a short poem that I composed on 5 November 2012.]

To finish, I remember a poem that I wrote on 5 November 2012, and I end my kōrero with it. It is called “Love for Parihaka”.

Bear in mind

We are still digging you out of our tucked away memories

a knowledge glazed over

by the brush stroke of civilisation.

Tupuna deeds

from that time of Parihaka Power

are actions guiding a story

of sassy intelligent resistance

Kāore au i te mōhio he aha i tangitangi ai! [I don’t know why I’m crying!]

to settle the chronicles

in the genetic waters of Parihaka progeny

Now let’s the rest of us

pick up our hoe

push through those Parihaka waterways

smashing the flow of miseducation

so all our nations mokopuna

can recall Te Whiti and Tohu Kakahi …

with the might and bang of a firecracker!

Kia ora koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. “Tihei wā mauri ora, tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao ki te ao mārama.” Ngā mihi hoki ki a koutou Te Iwi o Taranaki, ā, koutou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare ēngari, i wareware ana au ki te mihi hoki ki a rātou, e noho tonu ki te wā kāinga i te ‘hakarongo mai i ēnei kōrero, ā, me ērā atu e mātakitaki mai ana i runga i te pouaka whakaata; nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki a koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “Behold the breath of life, and wellness to the natural and enlightened world.” I pay tribute to you, the tribe of Taranaki, seated here, but I must not forget those who remained at home and are listening in to these speeches and watching on television; my acknowledgments to you all.]

The Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill continues a process that is aimed at addressing those deeds performed by the Crown against Māori since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. While I was listening to the contributions made earlier by my colleagues in the House here, I remembered one of the earlier claims from one of the iwi of Taranaki—I think it was Ngāti Mutunga. I can recall the two people who represented their iwi before the Māori Affairs Committee at the time. There were two young gentlemen, by the names of Jamie Tuuta and—I just forget the name of the other one, other than to say that I have since found out that he married a niece of mine, so perhaps I should declare a vested interest, given that my niece or their children will certainly be beneficiaries of that settlement.

However, that aside, I can recall my question to them: why were they accepting the quantum that was being offered to them? I will never, ever forget the reply that Jamie made. He said: “Pita, we do not have the same political clout as other iwi.” I can always remember that. When they talked about political clout, they were talking about fellow citizens within the Māori world, who seemed to have ready access to the corridors of power. I have never, ever forgotten that response. Perhaps one could possibly place that analogy on this particular settlement, but, be that as it may, we have heard—and I agree—that the settlement is about looking to the future.

Although it has been said twice in this House that “Words are enlightening, but the written one is binding.”, I am not quite sure I agree with that, because I come from an era where your word is your bond. I just want to make the point here that words may be enlightening, but it is not always that people are bound by the written word—they may start out being bound by it, but further down the track there is a departure from that. We all need to just remind ourselves of the Treaty of Waitangi itself.

Be that as it may, I ought to give some history to the background of this settlement bill. We all know that before 1860 Taranaki iwi were participating—successfully, I might add—in the trading economy, and retained control over much of their customary land. Perhaps, having said that, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement might be of some interest to them. In 1860 the Crown purchased land at Waitara, despite strong opposition from Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake, which led to war between Taranaki Māori and the Crown. It has often been said that the Crown used a scorched earth policy, destroying kainga, cultivations, and food stores. In 1861 peace was negotiated; however, the iwi were left only Ōmata and Tataraimaka blocks to occupy. The Crown attempted to reoccupy these blocks as well, and as a consequence life was lost amongst the soldiers and war resumed.

Land was eventually returned, 15 years later, to some Māori—not all Māori; the “some” Māori were those who were described as being “loyal” Māori—through individualised title, thus extinguishing customary rights. In 1866 Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi established a peaceful settlement at Parihaka on Taranaki iwi rohe. I think the subsequent events against them probably could be described as one of the worst, if not the worst, atrocities carried out in the name of the Crown. Hence the bill that we have before us to try to address that particular issue. None the less this whole process has been a lengthy one. Iwi of Taranaki have been referred to as having to endure hardship and having a strong resilience, but also having a sense of survival. That is manifest in the presence of representatives of the iwi whānui. It is also represented by the work of those who have been responsible for bringing their claim to this point in its journey.

The settlement details are articulated in the bill itself. It makes reference to cultural redress. I just want to articulate some of them—the vesting of 29 Crown-owned sites to Taranaki iwi, 14 of which are vested in fee simple, 13 are vested as historic reserves; there is the Maitahi Scientific Reserve, to be vested as a scientific reserve; and the fee simple estate in the Sutton Road Foreshore Local Purposes Reserve, which is vested as a local purpose reserve. There is joint vesting of Ngā Motu or the Sugar Loaf Islands. That will continue to be managed by the Department of Conservation. Of course there are 14 deeds of recognition, and the relationship agreement between Taranaki iwi and the Ministry for the Environment.

It establishes the following protocols for the iwi. One is the taonga tūturu protocol; then there is the fisheries protocol; and the protocol with the Department of Conservation, conserving lands of Taranaki iwi interest. And then of course there is the local government participation redress, which allows for direct iwi representation on the Taranaki Regional Council’s two principal standing committees. I just want to make the comment at this time that, given that this year, towards the end of the year, there will be the local body elections, I hope that the iwi will actually stand candidates to sit on the full council, and then they can determine the membership of other committees as well.

Just in closing I want to wish the iwi well. We know that this settlement will never fully compensate them. Again, as in all other settlements, the nation should be grateful for the generosity that iwi such as Taranaki iwi have allowed for New Zealand to continue its relationship in a way that our forebears anticipated when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Nā reira, tēnā koe; tēnā anō tātou katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member, mainly through some of my own slackness in applying the bell, we are running slightly behind time and have another bill yet to come up before us. I think it would be exceptionally rude to the people who have travelled here if we did not finish that bill, and, therefore, I am seeking leave that this extended sitting be adjourned at the completion of order of the day No. 11, notwithstanding it may be after 1 p.m. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be no objection.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou e ngā rangatira huri rauna i tō tātou Whare. Ā, Taranaki iwi, Taranaki Maunga, Taranaki tāngata, tēnā koutou, nau mai hara mai ki Te Whare Pāremata e taka tū nei. Ka huri ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, haere, haere koutou, ā, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to the esteemed ones throughout our House. To you, Taranaki tribe, Taranaki mountain, and Taranaki people, I acknowledge, congratulate, and welcome you to Parliament House standing here in readiness. I turn now to pay tribute to those who have been immortalised as stars in the night sky, farewell, depart. I come back to us, the living, to acknowledge, salute, and commend you and all of us.]

Just to make a brief contribution, I stand in support of this settlement bill at its first reading. The Taranaki iwi is very closely related to Te Atiawa, whom we have spoken about earlier today. They are closely related, and we know that a lot of the grievances and the hara are shared. But I do want to focus on probably one of the darkest episodes in our country’s history, and that was at Parihaka, which is central to the Taranaki iwi claims.

I do acknowledge the kōrero from Marama Fox earlier, where she mentioned that recognition should be given to Te Whiti and Tohu. It is great to have a statue of Gandhi on the forecourt of the Wellington Railway Station, but it would be wonderful to see greater recognition given to Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. They were leaders. They were the pioneers of peaceful resistance, of standing up for yourself in a peaceful way. It behoves us, I think, as a country, to give greater recognition to the world-leading stance that they took. We have had many, many leaders, many prophets, who have followed in their footsteps and adopted the same peaceful resistance kaupapa that they established. That is world leading.

For all folks who have had the privilege of going to Parihaka, it is a very special place. You feel it when you visit there and you see the places where these two great leaders lived, and when you meet the people, the whānau, there. This settlement bill, I know, goes a way to recognising that and re-establishing Parihaka, and that really is the hope. I believe that all whānau who are connected to Taranaki iwi and Parihaka would love to see a thriving community celebrating their tūpuna and their teachings once more, because it was very much a thriving community back in the day. I know that I have only a short contribution but I did want to acknowledge Te Whiti and Tohu.

I also want to acknowledge my whanaunga Tūtehounuku, who mentioned the ploughmen who were interred in Te Wai Pounamu. Certainly, whenever I am in Ōtepoti or over Te Tai Poutini and around the wonderful great southern island, I do say a little internal mihi and acknowledge those tūpuna and the places where they were cruelly treated as a consequence of the stance that they took in following the wonderful teachings of their leaders. That concludes my brief contribution. I am looking forward to seeing the progress of this bill through the House. Kia ora tātou.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a humbling pleasure to take a very brief call on this bill today. This has a special place in my heart as someone who was also born in Taranaki, grew up in Ōpunake, very close to Parihaka, and went to school with a number of your people. It is my pleasure today to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Kei pōhēhē waku whanaunga kua tae mai, ka tere mātau ki te haere ki te kai. Nō reira me kōrero ahau, me whai wā ahau ki roto i tēnei totohe e pā ana ki tēnei pire o tātau. E tika ana, ka papā te whatitiri, hikohiko te uira, ka tanuku ki runga i te maunga Tītōhea, Te Maunga Tapu o Taranaki. Koutou e ōku whanaunga, koutou e ngā rangatira, he pōhēhē nui tā te iwi Pākehā, he iwi wehe Te Iwi Māori, kāhore. Ka mutu te pire tuatahi o te ata nei, nā ka mihi atu ki a koutou. Ka tae mai ki te pire tuarua o te rā nei, kei konei tonu koutou. Koinā te ātaahua o te whakapapa.

E te tuahine, e Marama, kia kaua e mataku ki te mihi atu ki ō tātou whanaunga. Ko te wahine whakamutunga, a Rāhiri, nā, nō roto i a koutou e aku rangatira, e aku tini whanaunga. E koutou o Ngāpuhi-ki-Te Uru, mihi mai ki a Taranaki ki Te Tai Tokerau. Kāti, e aku rangatira, e aku tini whanaunga, e haere tonu ana ngā mihi ki a koutou. E haere tonu ana ngā mihi ki ō tātou tini aituā kua wahaina mai ki tō tātau Whare i te rā nei. E tangi apakura tonu ana tātau katoa mō rātau kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō.

Ka hokinga atu au ki taku kōrero e pā ana ki te whakapapa. Kua kōrero mai tēnei Whare i ngā tūpuna i tūkinohia e Te Karauna, e Te Kāwanatanga i roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei, ēngari, ka hoki atu anō au ki ngā kōrero, nō mua i taua tāima. Ki ngā tūpuna ki a Tūārau ki a Te Hiko-o-Te Rangi, ki a Ngātata, me te tini o ngā tūpuna nā rātau i waitohu te kawenata tapu o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, koinā te whakapapa o tēnei pire. Ka tīmata mai ki roto i te hononga o Taranaki me Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ka kawea tonu ki roto i te kawenata tapu, ngā waitohu o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna kua tae mai i te rā nei. E aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

Anā, e Te Whare, ka mutu te pahūtanga o te pū repo, ka tau te puehu o te tūpara, ko konā tonu koutou e Taranaki. Ko konā tonu koutou ki runga i ō koutou whenua e kawea nei i ngā kōrero me ngā manako ō rātau mā kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō. Āe mārika, tēnā koutou.

Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō te hono ngātahi o ngā pire katoa o te ata nei, e tautoko ana au i tana whakapae, tae atu ki te pānuitanga mutunga ki roto i tēnei Whare, me noho ngātahi katoa wēnei pire. Kia tau mai koutou, kia tau pai tō koutou noho ki roto i tēnei Whare, kia hū rō, kia whakanuia tātau katoa i ngā pire e pā ana ki a koutou. Tā te mea, ka tū au ki runga i Te Maunga Tapu o Taranaki, ka titiro atu ahau ki te takotoranga o Te Nukuroa. Nā, ko Te Nukuroa kai roto katoa i ngā pire e totohe nei i Te Whare i te ata nei. Mai i te pire tuatahi, tae noa mai ki tēnei pire, tae atu ki te pire ā muri ake nei. Nō reira, e tautoko ana au i te kōrero a Te Minita mō tērā āhuatanga, e te pāpā, Mahara. E tautoko ana au i ngā mihi atu ki a ia, kāti ki a koutou e Taranaki. Ka whakaaro ake ahau i a au e pānui ana i ngā kōrero me ngā kiko o te pire nei, e hoa, e āhua ōrite ana katoa ngā pire whakatatū kerēme, nē? Ko te rahi o te pūtea ki a koutou, ko te whakahoki atu i ngā wāhi tapu, i ngā wāhi o te ngākau ki a koutou.

Ka mutu, ko te hiahia o Te Kāwanatanga ki te noho ngātahi, ki te whakahaere i ngā rauemi, i ngā ratonga kei waenganui i Te Kāwanatanga, me koutou o Taranaki. E mihi atu ana au ki tērā āhuatanga. E mihi atu ana au, ā, ki te hia nei miriona tāra ka whakahoki atu ki a koe, ēngari kā tangi tonu te ngākau. Ka tangi tonu te ngākau mō ngā mamaetanga kua kōrero mai nei i Te Whare i te rā nei.

E tika ana kia mihi atu ki te whakaaro nui kia hoki atu a Ngāmotu ki a koutou, tērā wāhi tupuna ō koutou. He tini ngā ingoa, he tini ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tērā wāhi, ki ngā wāhi katoa o Ngāmotu. E tika ana kia mihi atu ki Te Minita me Te Kāwanatanga, ko te whakaaro nui kia whakahoki atu aua Motu ki a koutou katoa. Ko te manako, kia tū motuhake ngā ingoa o aua moutere, mō āke, āke, āke. Kia tū motuhake ki roto i ngā kōrero a Te Māori, a te Pākehā, i roto i ngā taumaha kei mua i ā tātau.

Ehara tēnei i te takaroa i ngā kōrero, kāhore. Ka tautoko mārika ahau i ngā kōrero katoa kai roto i tēnei pire, me te hiahia kia tukuna atu ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i Ngā Take Māori, ko reira tātou katoa āta wetewete, ko reira tātou katoa e haehae ana i ngā kupu, i ngā kōrero kai roto. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe, e kara, e Tutehounuku. Tō kaha ki te ārahi i taua rōpū, otirā, koutou katoa ngā mema o taua rōpū, e mihi atu ana au ki a koutou. He nui ngā mahi kai mua i a koutou, he nui ngā taumahatanga ka pāngia ki runga i a koutou mō ēnei tū āhuatanga, nō reira, kia kaha rā koutou, kia kaha rā tātau.

Hai whakakapi ake i taku kōrero i te rā nei: “He hōnore, he korōria ki Te Atua, he maungārongo ki runga i te mata o te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa.” Koinā te pai ō tō tātau Reo, ka kawea nei ki roto i ngā whakapapa kua wahaina mai i a Peeni ki roto i taku kōrero, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Mā koutou, mā tātau, e Te Atua, e ukaukatia ki roto i ngā taumaha kai mua i a tātau, kāti, ki roto i te haerenga o tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare. Kei konei tātau katoa, ki te āta totohe, ki te āta kōrero, ki te āta wetewete i ngā take. Kāti e Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. My relatives who have arrived may think we would soon be going for a meal, so, as a consequence, I should give my contribution. I take the opportunity in this debate to talk on this bill of ours. It is right, the thunder crashes, the lightning flashes and it strikes the barren mountain, the sacred mountain of Taranaki. To all my relatives, to you the esteemed leaders, the Pākehā people have a great assumption that we are a divided people. On the contrary, we completed the first bill this morning, and I must thank you all, and now we are considering the second bill of the day, and you are all still here. This is the beauty of genealogical connections.

To my sister Marama, do not be afraid to acknowledge our relatives. The last woman, Rāhiri, comes from within your and my people, my esteemed ones and many relations. To you of Ngāpuhi in the west, turn and acknowledge Taranaki of the north. So, to my esteemed ones and many relatives, the tributes still flow to you all. We continue to acknowledge our deceased that you have brought along with you to this House. We all still lament them, who have passed on into the distant Night.

I go back to my reference in regard to genealogy. The ancestors who were abused by the Crown and by the Government in the years past have been mentioned in this House. However, I return to the stories that arose before this time, to the ancestors Tūārau, and Te Hiko-o-Te Rangi, and Ngātata, and the many other ancestors who were signatories to the sacred covenant of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is the genealogy of this bill. It begins with Taranaki’s connection to the Treaty of Waitangi. The signatures of those ancestors are imbued in this sacred covenant, so to my illustrious ones, my greetings and salutations to you all.

To the House, when the cannon stopped booming, when the smoke of the double-barrelled gun cleared Taranaki, you were still there. You are all there on your own land carrying the stories and hopes of those who have departed to the Night. Indeed, my acknowledgments to you all.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations elaborated on the connection of these three bills this morning. I support him and his comments regarding the final reading in this House and the fact these bills should be considered together. May your time in this House be fruitful so that we may all celebrate these bills that pertain to you, because I stand on the sacred mountain of Taranaki, I look at the landscape of Nukuroa. This Nukuroa is in all three bills that we are debating this morning. It is in the first bill, this bill, and the bill that follows; therefore, I support the words of the Minister in respect of my senior, Mahara. I support the tributes that have been extended to him and, indeed, to you all of Taranaki. I was thinking as I was reading the details of this bill, my friend, and found that all the settlement claims were alike: “Is that correct?”. And the size of the funding that you will receive, the sacred places, those places that are dear to you and will be returned are similar.

Furthermore, the Government wants to be involved with you of Taranaki in managing those resources and services. I want to acknowledge that aspect. I acknowledge the many millions of dollars that will be given to you, but my heart cries out. My heart cries out for the pain that has been expressed in the House this day.

I want to acknowledge the wonderful gesture in returning Ngāmotu to you all, that ancestral place of yours. There are many names, there are many stories related to this place, to all the places of these islands. It is right that I acknowledge the Minister and the Government for this great gesture in returning these islands to all of you inclusively. It is the wish that the names of those islands remain forever more and remain within all those stories of the Māori and the Pākehā in the turbulent times ahead of us.

I am not intending to draw things out. I definitely support all the matters in this bill and the wish that it be sent to the Māori Affairs Committee. It is there that we will all analyse and thoroughly go through the details therein. Therefore, I would like to pay tribute to you, my good friend Tutehounuku. Your strength in leading your group—and indeed, to all of the members of this group, I want to acknowledge you all. There is much work ahead of you all; there is much pressure that will be on you all in regard to these matters. Therefore, I say be strong, let us all be determined.

In concluding my speech today, I say: “Honour and glory to God. Peace on this earth and goodwill to mankind.” This is the beauty of our language, when it is used in genealogy that Peeni has bought into the discussion, right up until this stage. May you, and indeed all of us, through the assistance of God, persevere through the difficult times ahead of us, and through the passage of this bill in the House. We are here to fully debate, discuss, and analyse the issues, so to the House, Mr Assistant Speaker, greetings and congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau, ngā taokete o Taranaki tēnā koutou, e Rangitāne kua tae mai i te rā nei. Kaua e pāpōuri mai e kore au e noho mō te roanga o te kōrero e pā ana ki a koutou ēngari i tēnei wā, kua hāngai tonu taku titiro ki ngā taokete o Taranaki Maunga.

E hoa mā, he tīmatanga kōrero māku, me pēnei rawa te waiata, te ngeri.

Titiro, titiro ki Te Maunga Titōhea!

Runga o Parihaka, Waitotoroa,

Ngāti Moeahu, Ngāti Haupoto!

Ko te tākiritanga ki te kahu o Wikitōria kaitoa, kaitō-a!

Ko Tohu, ko Te Whiti ngā manu e rua,

i-i patu te hoariri ki te rangimārie, kss auē, kss auē!

Ahakoa i te pāhuatanga o Parihaka uē, uē, uē, hā!

Pai tonu tērā waiata, tērā ngeri ki a au. Kai reira te pūtake o te rā nei—kai reira te pūtake o te rā nei. He kōrero mō te māia o Taranaki ki te tū i runga i te whenua. He kōrero anō rā mō te haerenga mai o te hōia, o te koti whero ki runga i te whenua ēngari, pai mai, kino mai, māia tonu te tū o Taranaki. I te wā o te ua, i te wā o te marangai, anei, anei ngā uri kua tae mai. Ēngari me pēnei te kōrero ki a tātau, he iwi a Taranaki, he Iwi. Arā anō ngā iwi o Taranaki. E ai ki tā wētahi, e waru, ki ētahi, ā, rahi ake. Ēngari Te Iwi nei, he Iwi. He pērā anō hoki a Te Atiawa, he Iwi, kua tae mai me ō rātau take. Ēngari mō Taranaki whānui tonu, ko te roanga o nga kōrero, he aha kai te pūtake o ngā kōrero? He muru, he raupatu, ko te whenua. Nō reira koinei te mihi kai ngā taokete haramai, haramai, haere mai.

I a au e tū nei ka tangi ake ki a Te Miringa, koirā tērā kua riro. Koi ia tērā i kawe i ngā kaupapa, o Taranaki. Ēhara i te mea ko ia i tōna kotahi ēngari, ko ia tērā i te ūpoko, i whakakanohi nei i ngā āhuatanga o tā koutou kerēme, e hoa mā, kai te mōhio koutou. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki tana waka, karukaru nei ēngari, ā, mō te haerenga ki ngā huihuinga, kāre he tangata i tua atu i a ia. Haere ki uta, haere ki tai, ko Te Miringa tērā. Ko tana whānau i rongo nei i te pōharatanga, ko tana whānau e whakanuia ana i tēnei rā. Ka tangi ake, kāre i konei i tēnei rangi.

Te āhuatanga ki a koe e Pare, me tō māmā, nō nātata nei tātau i tuku atu ai i a ia ki Te Kōpū o Papatūānuku. Koutou Te Atiawa, te āhuatanga ki a Wikitōria, ka tangi ake, ka tangi ake. Ko rātau i tohe i te tohe, o te pānga o ngā tamariki mokopuna ka tangi ake. Ēngari, he mataku nōku ki te kōrero Pākehā, ā, kei kaha tonu taku tangi.

Ka hoki ngā mahara e hoa mā, ka hoki ngā mahara, ki te tīmatanga mai o taku noho ki roto o Taranaki. I tae atu ki ngā huihuinga tuatahi mō Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, i Ngāti Tama te hui inā kē ngā pukapuka a Te Taraipiunara. Āta wherawherahia ngā kōrero mō te aha? Mō te raupatu, me te muru o te whenua. Ā, ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā rā o Parihaka, tekau mā waru, tekau mā iwa. Ia marama, ia marama, ia marama kua hoki koutou ki Parihaka ki reira kōrero ai mō ngā tohe, mō ngā uauatanga, mō ngā taumahatanga. Koinei te rere o te tangi—koinei te rere o te tangi. Kāre he mutunga mai—kāre he mutunga mai. Hāunga ēnei kerēme, kāre he mutunga mai. Ko tēnei mea o te muru me te raupatu, ka titia ki te ngākau, ki te whatumanawa o te tangata.

Ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā kōrero i kōrerohia i te hottest talkback show o Taranaki, 94.8 te iarere. Ā, Te Korimako tērā, nā mātau tērā i kōrero, he aha ai? Hai whakatūwhera i te ngākau, ā, ki ngā kōrero i puta mō Taranaki. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā waiata, arā, pēnei i tēnei ngeri. Tēnei ngeri, arā ngā kōrero pēnei i tā koutou waiata Te Atiawa i te ata nei. Kai reira ngā kōrero mō te āhuatanga o te noho o Te Karauna me Te Iwi. Koinei te tangi—koinei te tangi.

Ka mutu, ka hoki ngā mahara ki ngā porotēhi, ki ngā porotū. Ē ko ētahi o koutou i tērā taha o te taiapa, ko au hoki tērā, i tērā taha o te taiapa. E porotū, whakatū i taku haki me te kī, e kī, e kī, kai te haramai koutou ki konei, me te kōpaki a Te Karauna. Ka tangi ake, ā, kua peke taiapa—kua peke taiapa. Kai tēnei taha o te taiapa i nāianei.

Me te kī atu, e tika ana te kōrero a Pita, a wētahi, ē, he iti noa iho te moni ka whakahokia atu, pakupaku noa ake. Kāre he rerekētanga o ngā kōrero i mua ēngari, ā, i tōna mutunga kai a koutou te mana, kai a koutou te kupu whakamutunga. Ka hoki ngā mahara, ki ngā tangi o ngā kuia, o ngā koroua. Te āhuatanga ki a Marge, ā, koia tērā i a ia e kōrero ana, mō te muru me te raupatu, ka rere te tangi. Ki a Pare, ki a Pare Tito, ko rātau i te tangi mō te muru me te raupatu.

Nō reira, ēnei kōrero katoa e hoa mā, ka hoki mai ki a au, ki tōku whatu manawa i tēnei rā. Ē, kāre au i kōrero mō te tohe nui i tū ki Waitara. Ā taihoa ake nei kua whakamaumaharatia. Ko te tū o te tohe ki Te Kōhia. Kāre au i kōrero mō te hunga i parau i te whenua. E kore au e kōrero mō ēnei take katoa i te mea, inā kē te whānuitanga o ngā korero. Mō te āhuatanga o te hunga i heria ki Ōtākou, i kōrerohia ake nei, i mauheretia mō te aha nei? Mō tā rātau whakapono nō rātau tērā whenua. Mō Te Pūrepo kai Parihaka, mō te mimi o te Kurī. He kōrero ērā—he kōrero ērā. Kāre au i kōrero mō te ekenga o te hōia, kāre au i kōrero mō te noho o te tamaiti, o ngā tamariki, o ngā wāhine i te rori. Te wā ka eke te hōia ki roto o Parihaka. Koinei te tangi i tēnei rā—koinei te tangi i tēnei rā. Nō reira, kua rere waku tangi i tēnei rā, kia hoki mai koutou mō tē mea whakamutunga, kua harikoa. Ēngari, kua harikoa kua tae mai koutou i tēnei rā.

Hai whakakōpani i taku kōrero. Kua rongo i te kōrero e pēnei ana te kī a Peeni: “He hōnore, he korōria, he maungarongo ki te whenua he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa.” Koina te āhuatanga o Taranaki. Ngā uauatanga katoa kua noho i roto i te māia ā-ngākau, ā-tinana ēngari i te rangimārie. Nō reira, anei tētahi waiata. He tohu tēnei, he maumaharatanga ki a Te Miringa. Nāna tonu tēnei waiata i whakaako ki a au. I roto i tēnei waiata, he pērā anō te āhuatanga, he kōrero mō tēnei pire ko te pūtake o tēnei pire, ko te pūtake o tēnei rā. E kore e mimiti te āhuatanga o te aroha ki a koutou i rongo nei i te ngau o te raupatu, me te muru o te whenua ēngari, mēnā ka waiata tātau pea i tēnei waiata, tēra pea ka ngāwari mai ai tā tātau noho. E hoa mā, naumai haramai. Kia kaha, kia māia ā ngā wiki kai mua i te aroaro. Tukuna ngā kōrero ki te komiti, hai mea wetewete mā rātau ā taihoa ake nei.

Anei taku waiata:

Piki mai, pūngarehu, ka tangi mai te piakara-a!

E tō huri runga mō ngā ē rere te maunga wā.

E tae e pā tiketike te tai e pa-e ngā tupuhi.

Ē tae e pāpi ko ngā nō kāwana te maunga wā.

Tū-ia atu, tū-ia mai o tāua nei ringaring-a.

I te ro-a rori ki kuini tiriti kei maunga wā.

Pīkau mai koe Kāwana ko hau tō Ariki.

Ko ko-e ta-ku pononga e Te Kuini kai maunga!

Arā, kai roto i tērā waiata ko te āhuatanga o tā tātau noho, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa, kai raro!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us, my in-laws of Taranaki, and to you, too, Rangitāne, who have arrived today. Do not be disheartened because I will not be present for the entire duration of the debate pertaining to you; however, at this moment I want to focus on my in-law of Taranaki mountain.

Colleagues, to begin my speech I will perform this chant, this posture dance without actions, it goes like this.

Gaze, look upon the barren mountain,

upon Parihaka, Waitotoroa,

Ngāti Moeahu and Ngāti Haupoto!

Untie the cloak of Victoria, good job, serves you right!

Tohu and Te Whiti were the two doves

that slew the enemy with peace, alas, oh dear!

Although Parihaka was plundered, push on and move forward, satisfaction at last!

I like that chant, that posture dance without actions. The genesis of this day is from there—the genesis of this day is from there. It speaks of Taranaki’s confidence to take their place on the land, the arrival of colonial soldiers, redcoats, upon the land, but regardless of the consequences, Taranaki remained staunch. Despite the rain, the inclement weather, here they are—the descendants have arrived. Let me put it this way to us. Taranaki is a tribe—a tribe, for goodness’ sake! Taranaki have other tribes. According to some, there are eight, while others claim there are many more. But this tribe is a tribe. The situation is the same with Te Atiawa: they are a tribe and have arrived with their concerns. None the less, in regard to broader Taranaki the story goes on and on, but what are the stories founded on? Confiscation, taking without right, land. And so this is why I salute you, in-laws, and bid you welcome, draw close, greetings.

As I stand here I shed tears for Te Miringa, for him who has gone. He was the one who bore the concerns of Taranaki. It was not as though he was on his own, but he was the head of it. He put a face to the circumstances of your claim, my friends, but you know that. I recall his run-down vehicle, but in terms of attending meetings, there was no other person beyond him. Be it on the coast or further inland, Te Miringa was there. His family who celebrate this day are poorer for his loss. I really mourn the fact that he is not present today.

In regard to you, Pare, and your mother, who we recently returned to the womb of Mother Earth—to you, Te Atiawa, in terms of Wikitōria, I grieve and mourn her. They remonstrated for the benefit of children and grandchildren, and, oh, the grief. I am afraid to speak in English in case I continue to weep.

My friends, the first time I lived in Taranaki I attended the initial hearings of the Waitangi Tribunal. The proceedings took place in Ngāti Tama territory, where the tribunal had a large number of reports about the land confiscations. I remember the meetings at Parihaka, held on the 18th and 19th of every month to discuss a range of contentious issues, difficulties, and challenges. And that is why there is an endless flow of tears. Even putting these claims aside, the flow of tears is never ending. Things like land confiscations pierce a person’s heart and soul.

I can remember the comments on the hottest talkback show of Taranaki, on Korimako radio station on the 94.8 FM frequency. We introduced the people of Taranaki to their history. We would recall the songs and the short posture dance with no set movements that I performed. That short posture dance contained information—like Te Atiawa’s song this morning—about the relationship between the Crown and the tribes. And so I weep, so I weep.

Furthermore, I remember the protests when some of you were on the other side of the fence with me. I was there with my flag protesting against the Crown for coming with their fiscal envelope. I have jumped to the other side of the fence now. I am on this side of the fence now.

Pita is correct when he said that you will receive only a small amount of money. Despite the amount, it cannot alter the history that has taken place beforehand. Ultimately you have the mana and the final say. I remember the cries of the elders. I want to also acknowledge Marge, who also spoke about the land confiscations. We mourn her passing, and also Pare Tito. They all cried over the land confiscations.

And so, my friends, I am remembering all of this history from my heart on this day. I have not spoken about the Waitara dispute. And the dispute at Te Kōhia will soon be commemorated. I have not spoken about those who ploughed the land. I will not speak about all of these things, because there is so much history to talk about, such as those who were taken to Otago and imprisoned because they believed that the land belonged to them, such as Te Pūrepo at Parihaka, and such as the piss of the Dog. That is the history. I have not spoken about the invasion of the soldiers, and of how the women and children lived on the road. It was a time when the horses arrived in Parihaka. That is why I cry today. And so tears have been shed today, and when you return for the final reading of the bill there will only be joy. But I am delighted that you have arrived here today.

In conclusion, I heard Peeni say: “Honour, glory, and peace upon the land, and goodwill to all people.” This is the nature of Taranaki. They have endured the hardships through courageous hearts and bodies, but in a peaceful manner. And so I would like to sing a song that reminds me of Te Miringa, who taught it to me. Within this song lies the foundation of this bill and of this occasion. My love for you who have suffered the pain of the land confiscations will never be diminished. Perhaps if we sing this song it will make us more comfortable. And so to my friends I say welcome. Be strong and brave in the weeks ahead. Send your submissions to the select committee to be considered.

Wait a moment, here is my song.

Waiata

Within that song is the reason we are sitting here now. I salute and acknowledge you all.]

Waiata

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill.

In November last year I was welcomed on to Te Hotu Manawa o Rangitaane o Manawatu Marae in Palmerston North to sign the deed of settlement with Rangitāne o Manawatu. Some 4 months on, I am really pleased to extend a warm welcome to the members of Rangitāne o Manawatu who have travelled to be here in Parliament today for the first reading of their bill. It has indeed taken a long time to reach this very important milestone.

To those who have worked so hard to make this day possible, can I offer my sincere thanks. The enactment of this bill will mark the end of a long-running Treaty settlement negotiation between the Crown and Rangitāne o Manawatu that started in the late 1990s. There are many people who have worked so very hard so that we could reach this milestone today. The bill is the result of much time, energy, and patience to arrive at a settlement that will provide a platform on which to build a much better future for all the people of Rangitāne o Manawatu.

The negotiations were long and complex, but Rangitāne o Manawatu always acted constructively, relentlessly addressing the concerns of iwi members and striving to achieve an enduring settlement for the iwi. I want to acknowledge all the people of Rangitāne o Manawatu who are with us today, as well as those who cannot be here today. In particular, I acknowledge those who began this journey so many years ago and worked so hard to make today happen but are no longer with us. I acknowledge in particular the late Ruth Harris, the original lead negotiator, the late Rangiharuru Fitzgerald, Tānenuiārangi Te Awe Awe, Kura Te Rangi-Baker, and Kararaina Tait, who tirelessly served as negotiators. It is their determination and hard work that has got us to where we are today.

I also want to acknowledge the Rangitāne o Manawatu negotiators Danielle Harris, who took up the role after her mother’s passing in 2007, Maurice Takarangi, and Matua Tokatū Moana Te Rangi. They have been outstanding advocates of Rangitāne o Manawatu, and I commend them for their contribution over the years.

It would be remiss of me not to pay particular tribute to Danielle Harris, who, as principal negotiator, has shown dedication, patience, and pragmatism all those years while striving towards reaching a meaningful settlement for her people. I always talk about the patience of negotiators, but if ever there was a patient and resilient negotiator it is Danielle Harris. Few negotiators have had to put up with what she has had to put up with. I must confess that if it had been me, I would have said “I’m out of here”, but she did not. She has, in many respects, to use the old joke, every Christian virtue except resignation, and we are here today because of her efforts. She is in the gallery, and I am sure, Danielle, your mother would be very, very proud of you.

I want to acknowledge the Crown team and its many iterations over the years, the Crown officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, and supporting Crown agencies, because they have done a great job. The Manawatu claim, Wai 182—and I emphasise Wai 182—was originally lodged by Ruth Harris on behalf of herself and all other descendants of Rangitāne o Manawatu in December 1990, over a quarter of a century ago. Rangitāne chose to pursue direct negotiations with the Crown, and in 1998 Tānenuiarangi Manawatū Inc. received a mandate from the claimant community.

Terms of negotiation were signed with Doug Graham on 27 July 1998, and a heads of agreement, as an agreement in principle was called in those days, was signed on 25 November 1999. I know that Sir Douglas was anxious to get it signed before he retired, but such is life. Subsequently progress was stalled, and negotiations endured a hiatus of over 10 years.

The mandated negotiators and the Crown resumed intensive negotiations in 2010, and on 1 May 2015 the Crown and Rangitāne o Manawatu initialled a deed of settlement to settle all the historic claims. As I said, the deed of settlement was signed on 14 November of last year. It is fair to say it has been a long time coming. The bill provides for the settlement of all historic Treaty of Waitangi claims for Rangitāne o Manawatu and gives effect to the deed of settlement that was signed in November last year.

The background to the claims is a very sad story of unrelenting land alienation. From the mid-19th century, through the faulty Crown investigation of the New Zealand Company claims to the acquisition of the Te Ahuaturanga and Rangitikei-Manawatu blocks, Rangitāne o Manawatu very rapidly lost large tracts of land, while minimal—minimal—reserves were set aside for the iwi. The operation and impact of the native land laws on the remaining lands, in particular the awarding of land to individual Rangitāne o Manawatu rather than to iwi or hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, and this contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Rangitāne.

By the end of the 1880s Rangitāne o Manawatu held approximately 20,000 acres of land. From the 19th century much of the remaining land was partitioned by the Native Land Court into blocks, which were subsequently purchased by private individuals. The 20th century continued the sad story that I have recounted so many times in this House, namely the continued erosion of Rangitāne o Manawatu land holdings. By 1930 land in Rangitāne o Manawatu ownership had dwindled to just under 3,000 acres. The remaining land was gradually eroded by further sales, and, as an iwi, this iwi became virtually landless.

The accumulated effects of the purchases I mentioned a few minutes ago, and the operation and the impact of the native land laws on private purchasing has left Rangitāne o Manawatu virtually landless, and this has hindered the social, cultural, and economic development of the iwi. The impact of landlessness and the loss of traditional tribal structures, leading to the loss of customary traditions of language and tribal authority, can still be felt, and that is why we are here today.

The settlement package has a number of components that will be closely addressed by the Māori Affairs Committee, and I will not go through those in any detail now. The committee will have to consider the financial and commercial redress as well as the cultural redress. As I have said twice before this morning, the Crown does not have the means to fully compensate Rangitāne o Manawatu for the loss and prejudice suffered, and I acknowledge their gracious acceptance of the redress contained in this package. I certainly hope that today is going to mark the beginning of a new relationship.

Before I commend the bill to the House, can I simply say this to the people of Rangitāne o Manawatu: this is the third settlement bill that we have debated today. The imperative is to get the bill off to the Māori Affairs Committee, where it can receive very careful consideration by Mr Korako and his team. It may be thought that some of the speeches are somewhat truncated, because they are, but that does not in any way mean that this bill is not being treated with the significance that it deserves, but rather that all members are very keen to see the bill go to the select committee so that we can get it back to the House for the second and third readings and an appropriate celebration to mark all the fine efforts of Rangitāne o Manawatu. I commend the bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Me tīmata au i taku kōrero ki tēnei rangatira, ko Whātonga. Mai i a Whātonga ka puta ki waho ko Tautoki; ko Tānenuiārangi me ngā uri o Rangitāne. Nō reira, ko Tararua me Ruahine ngā pae maunga, ko Manawatū Te Awa, ko Kurahaupō Te Waka, ko Hineaute, ko Te Rangi Te Paea, ko Te Rangiaranaki, ko Mairehau, ko Kapuārangi-ki-Manawatū, ko Tauira ngā hapū, ā, tihei mauri ora!

Kei te mi’i atu anō i te ā’uatanga ki ngā tini mate, rātou katoa e hinga mai nā puta noa ngā moutere nei. Ngā pīwaiwaka tītakataka, ngā reo w’akaoriori, otirā, te iti me te ra’i, te rangatira me te rawakore, haere atu rā ki tua o te ārai ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou mō te tangata. Nō reira, e oki, e moe, e moe, ā, kāti mō tēnā!

E tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a rātou mā nā w’ānau me ngā ‘apū o Rangitāne kua tae mai ki te w’akarongo ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei tā rātou pire. Nā reira, e mihi ana ahau ki a koutou, aku whanaunga o Rangitāne, nau mai, haere mai ki tō tātou Whare, Te Whare o ngā Raiona. Nō reira, koutou mā, tēnei te mi’i ake mō ō koutou kaha kia tae mai ki tēnei wāhanga o te whakahaerenga i tēnei tō koutou, tō tātou pire nei. Kua roa te wā, e tika ana te kōrero o Te Minita rā! Kua roa te wā kua hainatia te pukapuka tūtohu i 1999.

Ā, kāore e kore ka huri aku whakaaro ki taua whaea a Ruth Harris. Tino kaha a i ia ki te mahi i āna mahi. Tino kaha a i ia ki te hāpai i ngā ma’i tūturu o Rangitāne. E tū ana te hotu manawa a Rangitāne o Manawatū marae, e tū ana Te Whare tūturu pūmau, e tū ana a Tānenuiārangi o Manawatū me ōna rōpū katoa, e tū ana a W’akapai Hauora, e tū ana hoki a Kia Ora FM. Koinā te rahi o ngā mahi o taua whaea a Ruth Harris.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me begin my contribution with this noble leader Whātonga. From him emerged Tautoki and begat Tānenuiārangi, and so the descendants of Rangitāne were born. So Tararua and Ruahine are the mountain ranges, Manawatū is the river, Kurahaupō is the canoe. Hineaute, Te Rangitepaia, Te Rangiaranaki, Mairehau, Kapuarangi ki Manawatū and Tauira are the subtribes; behold, it is the breath of life.

I acknowledge as well the situation relating to the myriads who have passed away, all of them who have died throughout these islands, the twittering and eloquent voices, but at the same time, the meek, the esteemed, the well-off, and the impoverished; depart beyond the veil, return to the eternal home destined for all of us in mankind; rest, sleep, slumber there. Let us leave it at that.

It is appropriate that I accord a welcome to those families and subtribes of Rangitāne who have arrived here to listen to this, the first reading of their bill. And so, I acknowledge you, my Rangitāne relations. Welcome, come hither to our House, the Lion’s den. Therefore, to you, I commend your tenacity to arrive here at this part of your bill and our bill’s journey. It has been a long time, and what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations alluded to is right. Much time has passed since that document was signed in 1999.

Without a doubt, my thoughts go back to that matriarch, Ruth Harris. She was a toiler. She worked hard to elevate matters of a legitimate nature pertaining to Rangitāne to the fore. The establishment of the heart-throbbing Manawatū Marae of Rangitāne, the permanent House, Tānenuiārangi of Manawatū, and all of its affiliated groups, Whakapai Hauora and Kia Ora FM, as well—those are outcomes of Ruth Harris’s hard work.]

I had the privilege of sitting opposite whaea Ruth Harris on a number of occasions while I was representing Ngāti Apa, and I can tell you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and the House that she was formidable and that she always did her homework. We sat opposite each other on issues like fisheries. They were not easy issues to resolve, but I just want to take the time to acknowledge her work in getting this claim to the House. It should not be underestimated, what she achieved.

Can I also acknowledge the current negotiators and the chief negotiator, Danielle Harris. Kāore e kore kei te harikoa tō māmā i tēnei rā.

[Without a doubt your mother is euphoric today.]

I also acknowledge Maurice Takarangi and Matua Tokatu Moana as well, for traversing a very arduous journey to get this piece of legislation into the House. Can I acknowledge also the people and ngā kaumātua o Rangitāne, both those who are here today and those listening in, no doubt. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

There are a number of redress elements in this settlement that I want to acknowledge. I have a very close association to Pukepuke Lagoon and in this legislation there is a deed of recognition and a statutory acknowledgment, as well as the vesting of a piece of land within that block of land to Rangitāne. I want to acknowledge the shared history of a number of hapū of Ngāti Tauira of the iwi of Rangitāne and the iwi of Ngāti Apa, as well, who have a shared history in that place. I want to recognise that these instruments within this legislation ought to be something that cements that relationship, and I want to acknowledge that today.

I want to focus on the future. I want to acknowledge the Rangitāne o Manawatu Settlement Trust. I want to acknowledge each and every trustee so that they are recorded in the Hansard: Pōtaka Tāite, Terry Hapi, Louis Smith-Te Mete, Tina Kāwana, Chris Whaiapū, and Danielle Harris. I want to mihi to the trustees, who have the obligation, the privilege, and the opportunity of taking this settlement and the benefits from this settlement for the future of Rangitāne o Manawatu for the next generations to come—for the children, the grandchildren, and every generation of Rangitāne o Manawatu still to come. That is the legacy that has started today in this House.

I spoke on the earlier bills, Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill and the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, around why you would settle your claim for a fraction of the value of what you lost—of what we lost. That opportunity will be in the hands of the Rangitāne o Manawatu Settlement Trust. It will not be an easy journey. This is but the start of a longer journey to make certain that the future generations benefit from this process of acknowledging what has gone wrong over a long period of time for Rangitāne o Manawatu.

Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, oti noa, e tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki a rātou o Rangitāne mō ō rātou kaha, kia tae mai ki tēnei wāhanga o tēnei whakahaerenga. Nō reira, ki a rātou, ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, this contribution will not be prolonged, and, furthermore, it is appropriate that I pay tribute to those of Rangitāne for their tenacity in getting here to this part of this proceedings. Therefore, to them and to you, collectively, congratulations, and, at the same time, to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): E mihi atu ki a koe e Te Mana Whakawā, e, huri noa i Te Whare nei e kā mema, tēnā koutou katoa, ā, e mihi atu ki a koutou. Nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata e Kurahaupō Waka. Tēnei te mihi ki te iwi o Rangitāne o Manawatū; nō reira, tēnā koutou e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to members throughout this House. I acknowledge you all. Welcome, draw closer to Parliament House, the canoe of Kurahaupō and the Rangitāne tribe of Manawatū; so welcome, and my congratulations to you all.]

I take a short call on this first reading of the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill. I also want to acknowledge the incredible manaaki that was given to us when we came to the marae of Te Hotu Manawa o Rangitaane o Manawatu, where the first signing took place. Kia ora, Rangitāne. It is really interesting, because what I saw there and what I felt was, actually, your whakataukī “Tini whetū ki Te Rangi, ko Tāne-nui-ā-Raki ki te whenua.”—which basically means “As the multitude of stars in the sky, so great is Rangitāne on the earth.” When we talk about that, it is that we need to look back to actually move forward. So when this bill will come to the Māori Affairs Committee, it is that process that starts here. It goes to its first reading, second reading, Committee stage, third reading, and then passes into law.

Just to touch on a few of the main points here, particularly the historical perspective, the Crown’s dealings with Rangitāne began in 1843. The Crown acted without ever consulting with Rangitāne—and we see this commonality again with the New Zealand Company. It is acknowledged, also, that most of the claims by Rangitāne under the commission to investigate the involvement of land that was meant to be sold to the New Zealand Company were rejected. We talk about, within this, those sites of significance—wāhi tapu sites as well, particularly Raukawa Pā and, in particular, the Awapuni Lagoon. Within that, being addressed are the Rangitīkei-Manawatū Blocks, and so on.

I think one thing, travelling across the rohe or the takiwā of Rangitāne is a reflection of what was done to Rangitāne o Manawatu, particularly around that policy of granting individual titles. What that did—again, as part of this “divide and conquer” policy—was actually around eroding the traditional tribal structures, which is reflected today in the number of marae that are actually situated or located across Rangitāne. This bill will help, in some ways, to address the rebuilding of your marae. As we have found in Kāi Tahu, there are opportunities here now. We will never, ever be able to give full restitution—we know that—but at least this is a start.

On that note, can I acknowledge all of the rakatira, all of the iwi of Rangitāne o Manawatu—those who have actually taken Rangitāne o Manawatu on this journey and to here. One of the major milestones is to bring this bill to the House for the first reading. Nō reira, e Kurahaupō Waka me Te Iwi o Rangitāne ka nunui te mihi, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[And so, to you, the canoe of Kurahaupō and the tribe of Rangitāne, I commend you highly and congratulate you all.]

I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Tini whetū ki Te Rangi, Rangitāne ki Te Whenua, tīhei mauri ora!

[Myriad of stars up in the sky, Rangitāne upon the land; behold the breath of life.]

It is an enormous privilege to be able to participate in this first reading debate on the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill. When we gathered in the sunshine on the “Manawatū Riveria”, as my friend Wīremu Te Aweawe would say, in November last year, it was my first opportunity to witness a Treaty settlement signing and it was my first opportunity to see the coming together and the joining of cultures around this idea that we have to move forward together, we have to acknowledge our history, we need to come to some agreement, and that we need to move on together. The feeling of warmth and the feeling of togetherness on that day was something that I will never forget. It was truly a privilege to be there and to be able to witness it, as it is a privilege to be able to participate in this debate today.

This, as other speakers have said, is just one step along the journey—and my goodness; it has been a long, long journey. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations outlined, and my friend Adrian Rurawhe outlined, the history of the settlement claim, the history of alienation of the people of Rangitāne from the land of Rangitāne, and the Minister touched lightly on some of the challenges that have presented themselves through the negotiation process.

You have come through all of those and you have reached this point, which is just another one of the steps along the way—but an important milestone, because this is the point at which we all get to share the journey with you. I think it is a privilege for us to be able to share that journey with you in its very final stages—the stages that are most public, perhaps, and the stages that, finally, reach the point where you get the acknowledgment that you deserve and you get the redress; not that you deserve but that you are prepared to accept from the Crown. We all acknowledge the fact that the redress that this bill affords is nothing like what Rangitāne o Manawatu actually deserves for what has gone on in the past. But it is a recognition from both sides that settlement is important, and moving forward together is important.

I want to acknowledge, as others have, some of the key players, some of the people who have really been the driving force. Many have passed, but many are with us still: Danielle Harris, Maurice Takarangi, and Matua Tokatū Moana, who have been the driving forces at the negotiating table, particularly Danielle. Thank you for picking up where your mum left off and for continuing on this process, which is a process that is so important not just to Rangitāne but to the whole Palmerston North and Manawatū community. It is going to be an exciting time when this is all done and you are able to look forward to your future. Your future and Palmerston North’s future and the Manawatū future are shared, and you are going to be incredibly important participants in that future, just as you are incredibly important participants in our community right now. So I want to congratulate you on all the work so far. I want to welcome you here today on this important milestone, and I want to say that we all, in this Parliament, look forward to sharing the journey with you from here on in, and we look forward to the future and everything that you will continue to contribute to our community in Manawatū.

With those few words, I want to say that I also commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the select committee process, I encourage you to participate strongly with the select committee process, and we all look forward to coming back here for the final stages of this bill, when we get to celebrate this settlement properly.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawa. He mihi ki a koutou ki a Rangitāne o Manawatū, nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. He pai te rā mō Rangitāne o Manawatū, mō te rohe o Manawatū, he pai te rā nei mō Aotearoa New Zealand.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you, Rangitāne of Manawatū; welcome, come hither to Parliament House. It is a good day for Rangitāne of Manawatū, the region of Manawatū, and New Zealand today.]

This is a great day for Rangitāne o Manawatu, this is a great day for the region of the Manawatū, and it is a great day for New Zealand.

My journey with Rangitāne, in particular around the Treaty settlement, started, I guess, when I was elected to the Palmerston North City Council in 2001. Since that time, I feel like every time I speak to someone from Rangitāne I am like the little kid who sits in the back of the car on their way to a holiday and says: “Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”. Well, today: “Irā, titiro ki te moana!”—Look, I can see the sea! We are almost there. This journey is coming to its conclusion, and this is just the first stage in this House.

I acknowledge that today our time is restricted, and I only hope that I can make more of a contribution in further readings, but today I commend this bill to the House, and I say congratulations to all from Rangitāne o Manawatu. I look forward to the progress of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēna, koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I too want to stand on behalf of the Green Party and acknowledge Rangitāne o Manawatu, and Tānenuiarangi in particular, for all of the hard work over the last more than 20 years in bringing this settlement legislation to the House. Settlements are always bitter-sweet. They come at great cost, particularly to the iwi and hapū, who work so hard to negotiate those very tricky waters of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Government negotiation process, and their own issues within their own iwi and hapū too, to bring settlement to the House. It is always great to come to this part, the final part of the process, to have the settlement legislated for, but we must also recognise the cost—the cost in lives and the cost in time and the cost in relationships too. So I want to acknowledge Ruth Harris and her passing, and also, as other members have done, Danielle Pikihuia Harris and the whole team for the work that they have continued on with.

But I also want to acknowledge those who have concerns about the settlement. They too are entitled to a voice and to be recognised for their work in trying to uphold, from their point of view—whether you agree with it or not—the rightfulness of their claim, the acknowledgment of their own loss, and the difficulty that they have in negotiating, also, these very difficult waters of settlement. So Ko Te Pou Marangatahi O Rangitāne Ki Manawatū, I want to acknowledge you for the efforts you have made to see justice for yourselves. It has been a long and difficult process for you, as well.

In the select committee we will, no doubt, hear more about the history of this settlement, given it has been a very long and somewhat contentious history. As someone who was born and raised in Palmerston North, I really am looking forward to working with and talking to all of the whānau involved about whether there are improvements we can make, and making sure that we really listen to the issues that are raised.

Finally, because I know that we are short on time, I want to echo the statements of Pita Paraone in the last bill about the generosity of iwi in agreeing to these settlements. In my calculation—and I have never been the best at maths—the settlement is around $27 an acre. That is the reparation: about $27 an acre. We are talking about the Manawatū here, right? My dad was a farm labourer all his life, and we know that the Manawatū area is extraordinarily valuable in terms of land—possibly less so for dairying these days, but none the less valuable land—and goes for thousands of dollars an acre in a commercial sense. Let us be really clear about the cost—the economic cost—that this iwi is prepared to bear in order to see progress for their people, and about the economic contribution they are making to New Zealand society, to the New Zealand economy, and to the local economy in the Manawatū - Palmerston North area. Let us also just acknowledge the special treatment that Māori talk about when we say “No, thank you.” to that kind of special treatment.

I will finish here with another really important statement, from my point of view, acknowledging my particular interest in this settlement, as Rangitāne from Manawatū and Wairarapa, and also, again, acknowledging all of the hard work that has gone into bringing the settlement here to us today. I am looking forward to engaging with these issues to the completion of the settlement in time. Tēnā koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tihei wā mauri ora!

[Behold the breath of life!]

I want to just acknowledge Rangitāne o Manawatu. Nā reira, koutou nō te hau kāinga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā hoki koutou ngā whanaunga mai i Te Waka o Kurahaupō. Tēnei te mihi o ō whanaunga e noho nei i roto o Murihiku—arā, ko Te Aupōuri tēnā. Nā reira, tino koa te hari o te ngākau ka kite ana i a koutou i roto i Te Whare i te rā nei.

Tua atu i tēnā, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia ki tēnā o ngā mate kei waenganui i a koutou. Ka kite atu i a koe e te tuahine, Daniella, nā, ka hoki ngā mahara ki tō whaea, ā, ki tō tupuna a Barbara Devonshire. I rongo i a mātou i te kōrero o ētahi atu, tō kaha tō māia. Mōhio ana au, ā, tēnā toto i heke mai i ngā, e kī nei ngā Celtics—kia aha tia? E mihi hoki ki a Maurice me Matua. E kī nei te kōrero o te kāinga, ā, ko koutou ngā tokotoru tapu e kawe atu ana i tēnei kaupapa i mua i a tātou i tēnei wā, nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki a koutou!

E mihi hoki ki tēnā o ngā mate i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. E tika ana kia mihi kau ana ki a rātou nā te mea, nā rātou i kawe atu tēnei kaupapa mai rā anō. Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā rātou, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[And so, to those of you from back home, greetings, acknowledgments; and to you, as well, the relatives from the Kurahaupō canoe. This acknowledgment is from your kindred folk living in Murihiku—in other words, in Te Aupōuri. Therefore, the heart is absolutely overjoyed when I see you in the House today.

Further to that, I endorse the tributes paid to the dead in your midst. Whenever I see your sister, Daniella, well, memories of your mother and your grandmother, Barbara Devonshire, come to mind. We heard the talk by others about your endurance and capability. I know it is said that that blood is inherited from the Celts—so what? I salute Maurice and Matua. Back home, you are the three holy persons bearing this responsibility before us at this moment in time, so I compliment you three.

I pay tribute to those who have been lost from sight. It is fitting that they be remembered, because they were the ones who began this journey long ago. So that segment pertaining to them is settled, and we return to us, the living; greetings, salutations, and best wishes.]

As mentioned by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, this is a claim lodged back in 1990, and it has taken a long journey to get to this stage. It has not been without sacrifice. It has not been without commitment and a desire on the part of Rangitāne o Manawatu to do something about future generations. This is what this settlement is all about.

The bill records the apology of the Crown for the prejudice and loss suffered by Rangitāne o Manawatu. It also, by virtue of their acceptance of this settlement, recognises again the “generosity of the iwi to our nation”. As the previous speaker, Metiria Turei, quite correctly articulated, the total value of the loss endured by Rangitāne o Manawatu cannot be fully compensated. So the fact that they have accepted this settlement is testament to their generosity.

Between 1840 and 1863 Rangitāne o Manawatu encouraged European settlement in order to participate in the settler economy. Leased tracts of land between the Rangitīkei and Manawatū Rivers were made available to settlers. However, in 1864 the Crown purchased 250,000 acres in the Āhuatūranga Block from Rangitāne o Manawatu. The Crown continued to urge further sales of reserve land by the iwi, reducing the amount of reserve land from 5,000 hectares to just under half of that amount.

Reserve lands did not include many sites of cultural significance for Rangitāne o Manawatu, and the Crown declined the iwi’s proposals to have these culturally significant lands returned back to Rangitāne o Manawatu as reserves. In 1867 the Crown gave 71 acres of iwi land to another iwi without consultation. That land would eventually become the area known as Palmerston North. In 1866 the Crown purchased 241,000 acres in the Rangitīkei-Manawatū Block from three iwi, including Rangitāne o Manawatu, for a total of £25,000. This iwi campaigned for receiving a 20 percent share from that sale. They received only £600. There were no reserves allocated to the Rangitīkei-Manawatū purchase, so they sought reserves of 3,000 acres as compensation for a disappointing share of the purchase money. The Crown subsequently offered a 1,000 acre reserve to the iwi. In 1869 suspended rents from the Rangitīkei-Manawatū Block were settled and totalled £4,699 in payments distributed to the iwi.

So that is just an indication of some of the injustices that the Crown by its actions imposed on the iwi during that time. This bill acknowledges that those historical actions did cause prejudice to the iwi and breached the Treaty. The apology is for its acts and omissions, which breached the Treaty and caused damage to the iwi.

As part of this settlement, there are a number of different elements of cultural redress, including an overlay classification or whenua rāhui for two sites in particular: the Himatangi Bush Scientific Reserve, or part of that, and the Mākurerua Swamp Wildlife Management Reserve. It also includes statutory acknowledgments of 12 sites, deeds of recognition covering another 11 sites, of which six are Department of Conservation sites and five are rivers. It also includes a formal acknowledgment by the Crown of the special connection of Rangitāne o Manawatu to Linton Military Camp and Manawatū Prison and, in particular, the land and the buildings thereupon, not the number of people who are resident in those properties.

The settlement also includes a number of elements of financial redress. I do not need to articulate the amount, other than to say that there are still a number of issues. There is the mandate dispute: inclusion of Ngāti Tauira as a hapū of the Rangitāne whakapapa by the negotiated authority, which is the Tānenuiarangi Manawatū Incorporated, and, of course, Ngāti Tauira rightfully belongs to Ngāti Apa. I think a member of the House is aware of that particular situation. He is quoted as saying: “We are very annoyed that [they] continue to include our hapū in their negotiations.” That is why I look forward to this bill being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, because I know that, as with all settlements, not every member of the iwi actually supports these settlements. I would certainly like the opportunity to hear from them and for them to articulate their concerns. I commend this bill to the House, and I wish our iwi all the best going forward here on in. Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā.

Tini whetū ki te rangi,

Rangitāne ki te whenua,

E kī ai he iwi hūmarie,

maranga, tū mai rā.

Tēnā koutou ōku pou, ōku rahi, ngā hononga whanaunga kei waenganui i a koutou, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou! Ā, tēnei au e tū ake nei ki te tuku whakaaro ki a koutou me ō koutou tini mate, ō koutou tupuna, rātou kāre anō kua tae ki tēnei rangi i runga i te matenga, ka tuku whakaaro ki a koutou! He rangi whakahirahira tēnei, nei te mihi! Ka mihi nui ki a koutou i roto i te whakaititanga o ahau e tū ake nei, hai whāki atu ki te tini me te mano e whakarongo nei, ā, kua tae te wā, kua tae te wā!

Nā reira, ka tuku whakaaro ki tēnei iwi o tātau a Rangitāne. He ingoa anō tō Rangitāne, ko Rangitānenui, Tānenuiārangi, Rāngitānehuiārangi, nei te mihi ki a koutou! Nō hea? Ā, nō Hawaiki tēnei iwi i tae ā-tinana ki tēnei Whare, ki tēnei wā, me ō koutou tupuna kai muri i a koutou, ko Whātonga tēnā Te Kaihautū o Te Waka Kurahaupō, tae atu ki a Nukutaurua. Ā, ko tana mokopuna tēnā i moe i te mokopuna a Kupe, kai roto i te toto, te tipi me te haere, kai roto i a koutou! Ā, Rangitāne ki Te Wairarapa, ki Tāmaki-nui-ā-Rua, ki Te Wairau, ki Horowhenua, ā, ki Manawatū.

Nā reira, kai te mihi, kai te mihi ki a koutou katoa. Ā, kua kōrero kē nei ōku hoa mahi i ngā take kai roto i tō koutou kerēme, harikoa ahau kua tae ki tēnei wā. Kei konei koutou ā-tinana, ā-kanohi ki te whakarongo ā-taringa, kia kite ā-karu, kia rongo ā-wairua hoki ki te hōhonutanga o tēnei pire. Nā reira, kai te pīrangi au kia hāngai aku kōrero ki tētahi wāhanga ō tō koutou kerēme.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

A myriad of stars in the sky,

Rangitāne upon the land,

It is said a humble people they are,

arise, stand up.

Greetings to you, my pillars, my many kinsfolk amongst you; I acknowledge you. I stand before you to express my thoughts and to pay a tribute to the very many of your dead and ancestors who did not make it here today before they passed away; my thoughts are with you. This is a magnificent day, and I congratulate you. I have much admiration for you as I stand here humbly before you to reveal to the great and vast number listening in, yes, the moment and time has arrived.

So some thoughts about this tribe of ours, Rangitāne. It has other names: Rangitānenui, Tānenuiārangi and Rangitānehuiārangi. I salute you. Where is this tribe from? From Hawaiki! It has arrived here bodily at this House, at this point in time with your ancestors behind you; for example, Whātonga, commander of the Kurahaupō canoe, including Nukutaurua. That grandchild of his married Kupe’s grandchild, and so roaming around, calling in at places is in the blood. It is in you! Examples of this tendency are Rangitāne at Te Wairarapa, Dannevirke, Blenheim, Horowhenua, and Manawatū.

And so, I commend and congratulate you all. My colleagues have already alluded to the contents of your claim, and I am overjoyed it has reached this stage. You are here physically to see and hear spiritually the connections of this bill. Therefore I would like to align my sentiments to a part of your claim.]

I just want to concentrate for a short period of time on one aspect of the settlement—the awa, the beating heart, of Manawatū. Yes, there are a number of other awa that are included in the redress. At the time when Manawatū, the rohe, was settled, the awa, its beating heart, was in a pristine state. It is now considered one of the most polluted rivers in the world, and this is how it is returned to you. Shame on us—shame on us. Our people live next to rivers. Manawatū wai was acknowledged as the life source of our people. We do not just say “he maunga tēnā, he marae tēnā, he awa tēnā” [“that is a mountain, a marae, and a river”] for fun. These are the things that kept us alive: our tūrangawaewae, our maunga, our pā tūwatawata, and our awa. And the beating heart of Manawatū, pivotal to Rangitāne, is being returned as one of the most polluted rivers in the world.

I want to acknowledge Te Mana o te Wai fund and our work with the Minister Nick Smith in being able to provide some help, some awhi, to try to restore that river. There is no doubt that you will take the opportunity as kaitiaki, restored again a-ture nei to you all, to look after that beating heart—and who better? Who better? So I want to acknowledge you here today, understanding that the settlement will never go as far as it needs to go. And here is the prime example of that. Alhough, yes, guardianship of the river is part of the settlement—the river is absolutely pivotal to you—this is the state it is returned in.

I look forward to hearing your kōrero in this House when we meet as a select committee. I look forward to addressing you all. I look forward to the day when this process is finished and we can all move ahead again. We seem to be in limbo. I want to say that although the time is fast spent, this is an important day. The last thing I want to say is that when you look around the Manawatū, the region, there is plenty of money there. There are plenty of flash cars, plenty of beautiful houses, but they all belong in the hands of the people who own the land, and when you have been left landless, it is a long haul back from there.

Nā reira, ahakoa te uaua o tēnei tūāhuatanga, he rangi ātaahua tēnei! Ka taea te tiro whakamua mō ngā rangi kai te heke mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ka whakaae ana au ki tēnei pire. Kia ora.

[And so, despite the difficulty of this type of situation, this is a beautiful day. It is possible to look ahead to forthcoming days in the not so distant future. Well done and good on you. I commend this bill. Thank you.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Rangitāne o Manawatū, tēnā koutou, nau mai, piki mai, kake mai, haere mai. Tēnei tētehi mokopuna nō Te Awa o Waikato e mihi ana ki a koutou ngā iwi whakatipu o Te Awa o Manawatū, kia tae pai mai koutou i runga i tēnei huarahi, ahakoa te aukaha o Te Awa, ahakoa ngā pikopiko o Te Awa, ahakoa ngā au, ngā ripo, ngā piki me ngā heke ā tāua nei Awa. Ko tēnei huarahi te pai o te tutuki o ngā take Tiriti. He mea kia āta whakaarohia e tātou ngā mokopuna, ngā uri whakatipu o ō tātou mokopuna, me ō rātou nei whāinga, nō reira, tēnei te mihi atu kia koutou.

[Rangitāne of Manawatū, welcome, climb aboard, ascend, and greetings. I am a grandchild from the Waikato river, extending a welcome to you, the people who were raised alongside the Manawatū River, so that you would arrive here well on this pathway, despite the strength of the river, its currents, eddies, and the ups and downs of that particular river. This is the best pathway to settle matters relating to the Treaty. It is a way of ensuring that we consider our grandchildren, the offspring of our grandchildren, and their aspirations, and so I commend you.]

It is important to be able to spend some time at this first reading recognising the important juncture that we are at. I would like to offer a few comments on the settlement, mainly drawing from the contribution of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and some of the matters that he raised, which will focus the efforts of the select committee.

In no particular order I have highlighted, Minister—both for your officials and for the technical team of the negotiators—some aspects that I intend to pursue as a means of seeking greater clarification around the intent of the deed of settlement and the way that it is reflected in legislation. Those issues go something like this. Firstly, the advisory board for the Manawatū catchment—in the way that the legislation is portrayed, it appears to me that the opportunity to disestablish the board might be preceded by the way in which the advisory board sees itself taking on greater functions in the freshwater management aspects of the Manawatū.

If this is indeed the case, under the current Resource Management Act, the transfer of powers in section 33 certainly allow iwi to be able to take on roles and functions for that purpose. So I raise that as an issue, because it may be something that the officials could offer us some advice on, as to what the intent and purpose of the advisory board is and what the future opportunity space for the advisory board is in freshwater management.

The second issue I would like to ask some questions around will be the ongoing management of reserves and how the thinking is proceeding along the responsibility and the funding of that particular delegation of opportunity. You will notice that these are quite technical questions, to some extent, but they are important ones when we start to pursue the submissions that may come to us.

Given some previous settlements and the challenges around access provisions to private land and public land—and I notice there are some aspects of that within this bill—it is my view that it is worth the Māori Affairs Committee considering rights of access to protected sites; formal easements, whether or not that is the intention of what is required here, in some instances; and we would have to understand the nature of the sites that we are talking about.

The last issue, which has occupied the attention of the House for some time through various settlements, is the way in which it is intended that the right of first refusal mechanism operates within the context of Rangitāne o Manawatu. This has been something that has popped its head up over all sorts of issues, but it will require the diligence of the select committee to make sure that what is reflected in the legislation is what is intended in the deed of settlement.

Minister, you have had had a mammoth day today in bringing three settlement bills to the House. The efforts of your negotiating team and the negotiating team of Rangitāne o Manawatu is significant, and we recognise that. Although the first reading does not allow for all the acknowledgments that must be said to be said, be under no shadow of a doubt that once we go through the full process of the select committee and then back to the third reading, members will be heartened to bring the full extent of our recognition to the House for your satisfaction.

Nō reira, e te iwi o Rangitāne ki Manawatū, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, ki a tātou katoa.

[And so, to you, the people of Rangitāne of Manawatū, I congratulate you and us all.]

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 1.08 p.m. (Wednesday)