Wednesday, 13 April 2016

WEDNESDAY, 13 APRIL 2016

WEDNESDAY, 13 APRIL 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 6 to Minister, 12 April

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to question No. 6 in the House yesterday afternoon.

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

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday, in response to a supplementary question, I said that New Zealand had the seventh-highest rate of economic growth across the OECD over the last 6 years. It is actually the seventh-highest rate of economic growth across the OECD over the last 5 years.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2016—Economy and Government Financial Position

1. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Finance: What economic and fiscal conditions is the Government factoring into its planning for Budget 2016 on 26 May?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the Prime Minister said in his pre-Budget speech today, Budget 2016 will be delivered with a backdrop of a growing economy, more jobs, and higher incomes, notwithstanding the challenges for the dairy industry. Most New Zealand forecasters are predicting growth of around 3 percent on average over the next few years. In respect of the Government’s books, we have moved from an $18.4 billion deficit to a surplus in 2014-15, and as long as we remain fiscally prudent we are on track to reduce net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

Tim Macindoe: How is this outlook translating into growth for particular sectors of the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fortunes of the export sector are particularly important for New Zealand, and despite the dairy downturn we are seeing continued export growth. Despite a $3 billion fall in dairy exports Statistics New Zealand reports that in 2015 total exports rose $1.9 billion—even with that decrease in dairy exports. Important factors in this were a $2.3 billion increase in spending by international visitors and an increase of just under $900 million of meat exports. Other exports are also growing: international education and wine.

Tim Macindoe: What challenges does the New Zealand economy face, given fluctuating global conditions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite forecasts of continued reasonable growth, nothing, of course, is guaranteed. In the latest World Economic Outlook the International Monetary Fund has reduced its global growth forecasts yet again, highlighting China’s slowdown, the impact of low oil prices on emerging markets such as Brazil, and persistent economic weakness in Japan, Europe, and the US. New Zealand needs to understand the impact of these on our situation, rather than just the headline numbers.

Tim Macindoe: What initiatives does Budget 2016 include to support the growth of small businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Today the Prime Minister announced a range of adjustments in the tax system that are friendly to small businesses. These will reduce compliance costs and make tax simpler for small businesses. This is just the latest initiative that we have introduced. Others include cutting ACC levies by around $2 billion since 2011, introducing 90-day trials and the starting out wage, and making it easier for businesses to interact with the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has it taken the Government so long to adopt the brilliant policy of removing provisional tax with business PAYE, announced by New Zealand First on 15 July last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, we announced it before New Zealand First, and, secondly, we actually have to do it.

Prime Minister—Antipodes Trust Group and Overseas Trusts

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have any financial interests which may affect his decisions around foreign trusts; if so, what are those financial interests?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No.

Andrew Little: Did he disclose to Cabinet his links to Antipodes Trust Group when making decisions on the review of foreign trusts in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I rely on the members knowing about my pecuniary interests.

Andrew Little: Did he send John Shewan and Don Brash to the Bahamas in 2014 to advise that Government on tax matters?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I think they went to talk to them about GST.

Andrew Little: Can he confirm that John Shewan and Don Brash advised the Bahamas that its financial services be zero-rated for value-added tax in order to protect the offshore services industry of that country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I am not aware of that level of detail.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table an article from a Bahamas news outlet, not widely available—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is seeking leave to table a document. I want to listen to what it is. If there are interjections coming from particularly my far-right quadrant, that makes it difficult. Would the member start his introduction again as to what the document is.

Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a media report from the Bahamas, not widely available, on the advice given by John Shewan and Don Brash to the Bahamas Government to the effect that international financial services be treated as zero-rated to protect—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been well and truly described. I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular media article from the Bahamas. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Andrew Little: Does he not see that there is a fundamental problem with appointing a person to review our foreign trust laws who has advised a Government on how to protect its tax haven status?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member has proven over the last 2 weeks that he is completely unfit to judge who—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is a straight personal reflection on the member who has asked the question, and that will be ruled out of order. Would the Prime Minister stand now and answer the question. [Interruption] Well, I have not heard the answer. [Interruption] Order! I have not heard the answer, so I am going to invite the member to re-ask the question so I can hear the answer.

Andrew Little: Does he not see that there is a fundamental problem with appointing a person to review our foreign trust laws who has advised a Government on how to protect its tax haven status?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm whether the Bahamas is a tax haven or not—I simply do not know. I do not think the member would know either.

Andrew Little: How can New Zealanders have any confidence in his judgment as Prime Minister on tax-dodging foreign trusts when he has links to Antipodes Trust Group, a company specialising in foreign trusts?

Mr SPEAKER: It is a very marginal question as to whether there is prime ministerial responsibility, but I will let the Minister address it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have fully disclosed my positions. As is quite clear I am not going to go into those because I have no prime ministerial responsibility for them, but I am quite confident that I understand my positions and I am quite confident that they are above board. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Why, in answer to my question yesterday, where I asked “has he ever been involved personally or professionally in a foreign trust or other vehicle used to reduce tax,” did he fail to disclose his links with Antipodes Trust Group, a business that specialises in foreign trusts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not involved in a foreign trust. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am referring to the front bench of the National Party. Order!

Andrew Little: Why is his trust run by a firm that specialises in helping the mega-wealthy set up foreign trusts to dodge tax?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No. In that particular case, that question is definitely out of order. There is no prime ministerial responsibility. I can clarify my ruling there if it would help, if there are any further supplementary questions: “Individual Ministers are not responsible for the Register of Pecuniary Interests. That is a thing that members of Parliament are required to comply with. However, Ministers are responsible for their management of conflicts of interest, and where there is a potential conflict of interest with the Minister’s portfolio interests, then there is a legitimate ground for questioning.” I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 172/1. A Minister may be asked about financial or other interests only in so far as it involves potential conflicts of interests relating to his or her portfolios, and in the case of the Prime Minister there is a responsibility for every portfolio, but he still only has ministerial responsibility for potential conflicts of interest. I would also take this opportunity to draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 171/4, which states that “A question whose sole purpose is to pry into a member’s private affairs is not in order”. The Cabinet Manual makes it clear that Ministers do have additional requirements in respect of personal interests because of the influence and power they can exercise. Ministers are responsible for identifying, reviewing, and managing conflicts of interest, and that is a legitimate subject for questioning in the House today or any day. The member may want to rephrase that question.

Andrew Little: How can New Zealanders have any confidence in his judgment as Prime Minister and the management of his conflicts of interest when, days after appointing somebody to investigate our foreign trust and tax-dodging laws, he discloses he has money deposited with Antipodes Trust Group, given that that arrangement is not standard practice for the management of trusts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is standard.

Andrew Little: Can he give New Zealanders a cast-iron assurance in relation to the management of his conflicts of interest that the money he has with Antipodes Trust Group is not associated with any vehicle designed to avoid tax?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it quite clear: it is money that is held in my name that is in with a New Zealand trading bank. It is no different to anybody else, and pretty much any lawyer around New Zealand does trust work.

Andrew Little: In relation to that last question and the management of the Prime Minister’s conflicts of interest, given that his trust lawyers say “client information is kept strictly confidential. Reporting requirements are limited, and the identity of the settlor and beneficiaries need not be disclosed.”, why does he still say that New Zealand has full disclosure of information in relation to its foreign trust law?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it does, and, actually, interestingly enough, a specialist trust firm is subject to part one of the anti - money-laundering rules. It has to know the source of client, it is subjected to 2-yearly reviews, and it is subjected to full disclosure of any information that is asked of it, with countries that have either a double tax agreement or an information-sharing agreement. Actually, they are, basically, the crème de la crème of making sure that there is proper disclosure.

Andrew Little: Has he ever had any links to any companies or other financial vehicles that are used to reduce tax?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not see a prime ministerial responsibility in that question.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order!

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, as you have made very clear in your ruling, the entire line of questioning has been around potential conflicts of interest for the Prime Minister, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for the Leader of the Opposition to be testing that.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I just ruled—the member is right about most of the questions, but he is not right about that question. There was no mention of potential conflicts of interest, as I heard the question.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a different point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify—we had an issue yesterday where I asked the member whether he was raising a fresh point of order and he said it was. I reviewed it, and it certainly was not. I do get a bit impatient when we continue to relitigate matters. If the member does have a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but if it is in any way questioning whether I have just made the right call in saying that question was in order or out of order, that is, then, just questioning me as a Speaker, and that in itself is very disorderly.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have a point of order here, first—or do I not? [Interruption] A fresh point of order from the Hon David Parker.

Hon David Parker: I believe it is, and I accept your comment about yesterday. The Prime Minister, to the New Zealand public and to this Parliament, quite often relies upon his expertise in banking and his experience as an international member of that industry prior to election to justify his expertise and his views on matters. Mr Speaker, the flip side of that is when we come to other issues that relate to international banking. The history of the Prime Minister’s experience is relevant to the views that he has, and if it is relevant on the positive side, I suggest that the Opposition must have some latitude in respect of exploring issues where those same ethics—and I do not mean that to impugn—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the point to an end, please.

Hon David Parker: —the ethics there—and those same factual bases become relevant from another point of view.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The questions from the Leader of the Opposition have been in relation to a conflict of interest about a foreign trust. I have never had a foreign trust, I do not have a foreign trust, and, therefore, I cannot have a conflict of interest with one.

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

Andrew Little: Yes, one more.

Mr SPEAKER: Further supplementary—unless I am required to rule on Mr Parker’s point, but I would simply say that I have, in my opinion, given latitude to the Leader of the Opposition throughout his questioning, apart from one at the very end, which I am comfortable I have ruled out of order, and should have done so because in my opinion it was prying into matters for which there was no prime ministerial responsibility.

Andrew Little: Does he think that he can properly manage his conflicts of interest as Prime Minister if he does not give New Zealanders a cast-iron assurance that he has had no links to any companies or other financial vehicles that are used to reduce tax?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I just answered that in the point I made earlier. I have never had a foreign trust, and I pay my fair share of tax. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not want to have to mention the name of the member twice in 2 days.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Referring to his statement that New Zealand is not a tax haven, is the Antipodes Trust Group Ltd a foreign trust operation or a domestic trust operation?

Mr SPEAKER: There is no prime ministerial responsibility for that at all. That is about the member’s pecuniary interests. I made a ruling earlier.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not about his pecuniary interests. I am asking about the status of an operation that he is familiar with, because of his connection with the chief executive and lawyer, namely the man who set it up. That is not a matter of pecuniary interest. I want to know the facts.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the question, and it did not meet the requirements that I established quite clearly during question time today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we are going to get at the truth of this matter, I want to know, as a point of clarity from you, what the offence that I am engaging in here is if I am asking for the status of a trust operation that is now out in the media and known by everybody.

Mr SPEAKER: Because I have just ruled that that is a matter associated with the member’s pecuniary interests return, and, as I said earlier, that is a responsibility for every member of Parliament in this place. It is not something for which there is a specific prime ministerial responsibility.

Tax System—Overseas Trusts and Antipodes Trust Group

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is not a tax haven because “New Zealand has full disclosure of information” when it comes to foreign trusts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

James Shaw: If New Zealand has full disclosure of information, why does Antipodes Trust Group describe New Zealand foreign trusts as offering limited reporting requirements, where the identity of the settlor and the beneficiaries need not be disclosed?

Mr SPEAKER: No, again we have just transgressed into exactly the territory we were in before. If the member wants to ask a question about full disclosure, do so. But do not use the question to pry into any member’s return of pecuniary interests.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week we had questions in the House about statements on websites by other law firms that were offering services to people to set up foreign trusts in New Zealand. These organisations, like Covisory Partners Ltd, and so on, are very similar to Antipodes Trust Group and I do not see why we should exclude Antipodes Trust Group from the same line of questioning as we had last week, just because the Prime Minister has an account with them.

Mr SPEAKER: Because I suggest then that members refer to the two Speakers’ rulings that I gave—Speakers’ ruling 172/1 and Speakers’ ruling 171/4. They describe quite adequately the role of the Prime Minister in answering questions. It is not an opportunity for members to use questions to any Minister to then pry into the register of pecuniary interests.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. I will allow the member to rephrase his question so that it is in line with the Standing Orders.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. If it is a fresh point of order, I am very keen to hear it. But if it is in any way again just disagreeing with the decision I have made—

James Shaw: I am seeking clarification.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, that is really not the purpose of a point of order. The way forward—and I have given the member an opportunity to move quickly to a question and rephrase it in a way that it meets my requirements.

James Shaw: I am rephrasing the question, then.

Mr SPEAKER: I am giving the member the opportunity. Rather than ruling it out, I am giving the member—

James Shaw: Does he agree with Antipodes Trust Group that New Zealand foreign trusts offer limited reporting requirements, where the identity and settlor of the beneficiaries need not be disclosed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to see that statement in context with all the other positions.

James Shaw: Does he agree with Antipodes Trust Group that potential foreign investors are available to use their services because client information is kept strictly confidential?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not for me to comment on the advertising of a particular private sector company.

James Shaw: Has he spoken to anybody at Antipodes Trust Group in the last 2 weeks?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, insofar as there is prime ministerial responsibility—insofar as there is.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not in terms of prime ministerial responsibility, no.

James Shaw: So does he agree that it is correct that client information is kept strictly confidential?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I cannot see how that relates in any way to prime ministerial responsibility.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am simply extending a line of questioning started by my colleague Julie Anne Genter last week. The Prime Minister said that there were a number of law firms that were incorrect in their statements on their website. I am just trying to determine—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to rephrase the question in a way that satisfies me, I will give him an opportunity.

James Shaw: So does the Prime Minister stand by his responses to questions last week that law firms including Antipodes Trust Group, Covisory Partners, and so on, are incorrect in the statements that they make on their websites in relation to foreign trust law in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was not asked about that particular firm last week.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Shaw put a generic category of firms and then included Antipodes Trust Group. The answer came back from the Prime Minister: “I was not asked about that particular firm last week.” That cannot be the answer to a question that included more than that firm, as Mr Shaw put it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member made an assertion about a particular firm and said that that was what his colleague had asked me last week. She did not ask me that last week.

Mr SPEAKER: And that was the answer that was given.

James Shaw: Does he think it matters whether or not New Zealand fits the legal definition of a tax haven if it is being marketed as one or used by people from overseas as one, regardless of its legal definition as a tax haven?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand is not a tax haven. I had a discussion with the Inland Revenue Department commissioner this morning about exactly that point and she confirmed to me as well that New Zealand is not a tax haven.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from James Shaw. [Interruption] Order! I have a point of order from James Shaw.

James Shaw: My question was not whether or not he thought that New Zealand was a tax haven, it was whether it mattered whether it was thought of as a tax haven.

Mr SPEAKER: And again the question in my mind was addressed, particularly when I refer to Speaker’s rulings 191/3 and 4. When you ask a very general question like that as a primary question, you have got to allow some latitude in the subsequent supplementary questions and the answers that might be given.

Tax System—Small-Business Changes

4. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Revenue: What is the Government doing to reduce tax compliance costs for small businesses?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): Very good news for small business. Today the Prime Minister announced a—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the answer.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I cannot even hear myself. Today the Prime Minister announced a small business - friendly tax package that will make paying tax easier and more certain and help small businesses—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Iain Lees-Galloway, please desist the barrage. I am trying to listen to the answer. Would the Minister please start the answer again.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Happy to, Mr Speaker. Today the Prime Minister announced a small business - friendly tax package that will make paying tax easier and more certain and help small business tailor payments to their circumstances. The changes announced today will save small businesses an estimated $180 million over 4 years. The main improvement is to allow small businesses to pay provisional tax as they earn. This new pay-as-you-go option will benefit 100,000 businesses by allowing them to pay provisional tax 2-monthly based on their accounting income and reducing the risk and cost of underestimating. In addition, we will allow people to pay their provisional tax through their accounting software rather than running a separate system just for the Inland Revenue Department.

Alastair Scott: What other changes did the Government announce today to benefit small businesses?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We want the tax system to fit in with business, not the other way around. Use-of-money interest will be removed from all but final annual payments, the 1 percent penalty levied on top of an interest charge will be scrapped from 1 April 2017 for new debt, and contractors subject to schedular deductions will be able to choose a withholding rate that suits their needs. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. We want to help them spend more time focused on their business, not on their tax.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that they say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, how many other policies of New Zealand First would he like to borrow?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I thank the member for his flattery, because the green paper that the changes are based on was released in March 2015, a full 4 months before New Zealand First’s policy.

Tax System—Overseas Trusts Review, Appointment of John Shewan

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could someone from PricewaterhouseCoopers qualify to review our foreign trust disclosure laws when PricewaterhouseCoopers’ association with Tegel Foods saw that company generate revenue in New Zealand of $562 million yet pay only 0.38 percent tax in this country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: PricewaterhouseCoopers will know more about tax than that member ever will.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could someone—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want the member to have a fair go. There was too much interjection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How could someone from PricewaterhouseCoopers qualify to review our foreign trust disclosure laws when PricewaterhouseCoopers’ association with Rio Tinto saw that company generate revenue in New Zealand of $76 million yet pay only 3.6 percent tax in this country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: PricewaterhouseCoopers is recognised worldwide as one of the top five firms in the world, and the managing partners of it, I think, are generally recognised for their expertise. Mr Shewan actually is an international expert. I think his capacity is beyond reproach, and any feeble attempts by that member to denigrate his personality will be seen for what they are: bitter and twisted, but not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now moving a bit—[Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What would qualify John Shewan to do the job that the public is requiring now—or to fit the Prime Minister’s description of being an expert—when he has been heavily criticised by the Supreme Court of New Zealand and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, and his views were dismissed by a court as high as the Privy Council in London?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Many people criticise that member, and some people still listen to him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This, as you well know, is not about me. It is about him—it is about him. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I know it is not about the member, but when I consider the tone of the question in the first place, and the way it was levelled at a person who is not in the House to defend himself, the answer given was not one that I would have given but on this occasion I am going to rule it as satisfactory.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made these remarks about Mr Shewan outside of the House. If he does not like them, his recourse—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he not see how preposterous it is to put up someone who has very recently been advising the Bahamas Government on how to set up tax-free foreign trust structures?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The genesis of the reason why John Shewan and Don Brash were sent to the Bahamas is because the Bahamas Prime Minister asked me about the successful introduction of GST in this country, going all the way back to the introduction under the Labour Government, and because it was looking to implement a similar policy. I thought the expertise of two experts in this area—Don Brash, who had done an enormous amount; and John Shewan—was a sensible thing to do for international diplomacy. I stand by that view. I am glad that I sent those two gentlemen and not others I could name.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Cards on the table—of the 70 leaders and heads of State mentioned in the Panama Papers, is he one of them?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not actually hear the question. Did the Prime Minister hear enough to answer it? [Interruption] Order! I did not hear it, but if the Prime Minister heard it enough to answer, then he can move to answer it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have already previously made it clear that I have no dealings with Panama.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the member, particularly when there is continual chatter here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is not whether he had any dealings in Panama. It was: of the 70 heads of State and leaders mentioned in the Panama Papers, which are to do with transactions all around the world—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was then answered by the Prime Minister—maybe not to your satisfaction, but it was answered.

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, but if you are going to continue to raise points of order and disagree with decisions I am making, I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order! If the member now wants to speak to a former point of order to assist—[Interruption] OK. The Prime Minister is now saying that he did not hear the question. Nor did I, because of the level of noise here. [Interruption] Order! The way forward is I am going to have the question asked again in absolute silence from everybody in the House, and then the Prime Minister can answer it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the 70 leaders and heads of State mentioned in the Panama Papers, is he one of them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I will not hold up a sign saying that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No. The question was answered immediately.

Andrew Little: How can he manage his conflicts of interest, including any conflict of interest over the appointment of a reviewer of New Zealand’s foreign trust laws if he cannot give New Zealanders a cast-iron assurance that he has not used companies or other vehicles—not foreign trusts—

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

Andrew Little: —to avoid tax?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am quite confident that I have managed all of my conflicts of interest.

Health Services—Elective Surgery Access

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “there’s a difference between surgery people actually need, and surgery people think they need”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Absolutely. There is a difference between a telephone survey of what a person thinks they need and a trained doctor’s medical assessment. It is like the difference between how a party thinks it is doing and how it is actually doing. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: Is he aware that eight district health boards have not performed the number of hip and knee operations expected of them since 2011, according to figures released by the Ministry of Health, with a total of 2,181 operations not done; and is that because the patients do not need the operations—they just think they do?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is absolutely incorrect. I mean, overall, we have done 2,092 extra hips and knees over that period, 110,000 extra appointments across the system, and 50,000 extra elective operations across all specialities. So, no.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table data released to me from the Ministry of Health, under the Official Information Act, showing the trend in procedures over time.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that Ministry of Health information. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Hon Annette King: Does Sharon Cooper of Christchurch, a 35-year-old who has been refused assessment for a knee operation three times even though her GP and orthopaedic surgeon say she has advanced osteoarthritis and cannot walk up and down stairs, squat, or kneel—

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

Hon Annette King: —need surgery, or does she just think she does?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As the member herself has said in the past, it is better to help patients than to use them. So if the member would like to send the details through to me, I would be happy to take a look.

Hon Annette King: Does Janet Frame, a 66-year-old who has been waiting for a shoulder operation recommended by her surgeon and who is now reliant on home support and injections for pain and has become inactive, just think she needs surgery, or could she actually need it?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am, obviously, not familiar with that lady’s case. But, once again, rather than using her, why do you not send the details through to me, and we will see whether we can help her?

Hon Paula Bennett: May I ask the Minister what reports he has had on elective surgeries? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, no, I do not know yet whether it is an attack on the Labour Party at all. I have got to listen to the question, and I cannot—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am not going to warn Dr Megan Woods again. If she continues to yap all the way through question time, then she can do it from outside the Chamber.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have had a report from a Mrs J A of New Plymouth, who writes: “Dear sir, I’d just like to inform you I had a hip operation on the 7th of March. I’d like to let you know the service was excellent from the op to the food and aftercare—tops all the way. The doctors and nurses couldn’t do enough for me. Keep up the good work; it’s appreciated not only by me but by others. Annette King needs to go. I remain a very satisfied customer. Janet Armstrong.”

Mr SPEAKER: So for the Hon Annette King, that is a very good reason why I cannot anticipate an answer.

Small Businesses—Online Resources

7. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What online tools is the Government providing to help small businesses make informed decisions and reduce costs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: This Government is committed to reducing costs for small businesses and providing more online resources to help them make informed decisions. Through the business.govt.nz website there are a number of online tools to assist small businesses, such as compliance form matters, an employee costs calculator, a one-check company name and trademark and dominion name search, and comprehensive and quick focus business plan templates. Small business owners are now able to quickly and easily create employment agreements online with the launch of a refreshed employment agreement builder tool. Hiring an employee can be stressful for a small business, but with the updated employment agreement builder we are making the process easy. This means less time working on contracts and more time working on your business.

Nuk Korako: What other Government agencies are providing more support to small businesses through online resources?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Last year Statistics New Zealand launched the “Data for business” section on its website. The online resource can help businesses succeed by identifying their customers, markets, and competition. The industry profiler tool on the website provides information about the number of businesses by region, numbers of new and ceased businesses in the past 5 years, worker turnover, survival rates, and average earnings for staff. The site has been recently updated with a new section called “Imports and exports”, which allows small businesses to find the data of the value of New Zealand trade with our top 50 trading partners. Retail trade was also included under the “Compare your industry” section to give businesses access to retail spending figures in New Zealand. It is just another way the Government is helping small businesses get more informed.

Housing, Auckland—Housing Developments on Crown Land

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement that “The areas that Mr Twyford has identified are not on any of the lists that have been provided to me by officials” in relation to his Auckland Crown Land Programme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Housing: Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Phil Twyford: So is he still denying that the Mangere Lawn Cemetery and the Glendene electricity power substation are on the list that his officials say was used as the basis for his promise of 500 hectares, and has he informed Dame Patsy Reddy that he is planning to build apartments on the croquet lawn of Government House?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Phil Twyford: Does he stand by his statement that he never saw the list that his officials released; if so, has Treasury expressed concern that he announced a $52 million Budget initiative without reading the official Budget papers, and is he concerned that the finance Minister just laughed yesterday when asked whether any more money would be forthcoming for this scheme?

Mr SPEAKER: Any of those three supplementary questions, the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He spent his time doing what takes an enormous amount of effort to do, and that is securing surplus Crown land and making arrangements with the developers to build houses on it. He has not spent a whole lot of time going back over a list compiled from residential zonings compiled in 2008 by the previous Government. He is working very hard to get new houses built on surplus Crown land.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that he has wasted $52 million on a Budget announcement to make it look as if he is doing something about the housing crisis and that he has not got a single new house to show for it, and we are now only weeks away from the next Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, the member’s statements are complete nonsense. This process is similar to the one we went through in Christchurch—of procuring surplus Crown land. It took up to 18 months to follow all the legal and council processes to enable the Government to lawfully build houses on the land. The $52 million will certainly be spent—all of it—and within a matter of 6 months or so, we should see signs of development on the surplus Crown land.

Family/Whānau Violence—Integrated Safety Response Pilot

9. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made as part of the Ministerial Work Programme on family violence?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today with my colleagues Anne Tolley and Judith Collins, the Government has announced a new, integrated safety response pilot for family violence. The new pilot will initially be based in Christchurch and will bring together a number of Government and non-Government agencies, including agencies looking at wider issues such as health and housing, and including Whānau Ora navigators. It will provide 7-day-a-week triage and risk assessment and will develop and oversee tailored responses for victims, perpetrators, and their families. The pilot includes independent victim specialists to work with high-risk victims, and it is planned to commence from 1 July.

Joanne Hayes: How does the integrated safety response fit into the wider ministerial group work on family violence?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Today’s announcement is just one part of our wider ministerial work programme, under which Ministers representing 16 portfolios are actively reviewing and improving all aspects of the Government’s involvement in reducing family and sexual violence. From primary prevention to risk assessment, workforce development, incident response, legislative reviews, and more, this work programme and today’s announcement reflect the priority that this Government places on reducing New Zealand’s appalling rates of family and sexual violence.

Finance, Minister—Statements About Young New Zealand Men

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by the statements made to a meeting of Federated Farmers that there is “a cohort of Kiwis who now can’t get a licence because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable—you know, basically, young males” and that a lot of Kiwis available for work are, in his words, “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I welcomed the presence of the member who strode to the front of the Federated Farmers meeting and sat there showing complete attention to everything I said, for about 20 minutes.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by his statement that one of the reasons why immigration is “a bit more permissive” is that, in his words, Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is mixing a couple of different statements there. I referred to the common—[Interruption] Well, the Government is at the sharp edge of this every day, and I referred to the common response from New Zealand employers that many of the people on our Ministry of Social Development list will not show up to the jobs they are offered and will not stay in the jobs that they are offered. If the member has not heard that from dozens of New Zealand employers, he is out of touch.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why, after 8 years of the National Government, has he written off a whole cohort of young men as unemployable because they cannot read or write properly, and what message does it send young New Zealand men that they need to be replaced by migrant workers because, in his words, they are “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has certainly not written anybody off. In fact, we have poured hundreds of millions into raising the level of educational achievement, job training for young New Zealanders, and individual supervision for every sole parent under the age of 20. Labour left young New Zealanders in such bad shape that even with that investment we still have so much more to do. And if the member cannot handle a realistic description of the problems we are dealing with, then he is out of touch.

Irrigation—Ruataniwha Scheme

11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will Crown Irrigation Investments Limited continue to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam Project, in light of information released this morning that the total cost of the project is nearing $1 billion?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Acting Minister for Primary Industries): As Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd has not yet made a decision to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam project, I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Catherine Delahunty: Will the Irrigation Acceleration Fund continue to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam project given the cost blowout?

Hon JO GOODHEW: My understanding is that the Irrigation Acceleration Fund has given a grant of $575,000 to this particular project. It is a grant as opposed to an investment, which makes it a different type of framework to Crown Irrigation Investments.

Catherine Delahunty: Why is the Government funding or giving grants to a scheme that is undersubscribed by farmers and is having at least its fifth final deadline for farmer sign-up this month?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I think the member is jumping the gun a little. There will indeed be calls for further investment from farmers and from others who would be interested in investing in this. In fact, Crown Irrigation Investments has not made any decisions yet, but, as in the past, the Irrigation Acceleration Fund will make grants to assist schemes to be developed as a business case, in order for the technical aspects of the scheme to be determined, so that the possible investors can then make wise decisions.

Catherine Delahunty: If local farmers are unable to fund the $565 million that they are expected to pay, will the Government make up the shortfall, and by how much?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I believe that the member is asking me to speculate, and that is not something I am prepared to do on behalf of the Minister.

Water Supplies—Fluoridation

12. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Health: What steps is the Government taking to improve the oral health of New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yesterday the Hon Peter Dunne and I announced a proposal to move decision making on water-supply fluoridation from local government to district health boards. I would just like to acknowledge Mr Dunne’s contribution to this important policy work. Fluoridation will potentially reduce tooth decay by 40 percent in children and 30 percent in adults. That is really important given that 35,000 children under the age of 5 had a rotten tooth extracted last year.

Jono Naylor: Why is this decision making on fluoridation being moved away from local government?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It makes sense to move the decision-making process from local government to district health boards, as district health boards not only have the relevant clinical expertise but also can align decision making with local health priorities. The move has been welcomed by Local Government New Zealand and a range of respected health bodies. This is a significant step forward for public health in New Zealand.

General Debate

General Debate

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Once upon a time, they used to say that John Key’s moral compass was broken. It now turns out that he never had one at all. Of course, it is no longer just his moral failure; it is the entire moral failure of that National Government and every backbencher who supports it. You see, it is not just the Prime Minister any more. Even the Minister of Finance, Bill English—this master of small government—cannot face up to the real challenges of young New Zealanders who are desperate for opportunities and to get a job. He just writes them off. This is a dreadful, shabby little Government that has nothing to offer the future of New Zealand and New Zealanders.

So we now see the real world of John Key being opened up for all of us to see—a world that was never shown to New Zealand until now. Once upon a time, we all thought that John Key was this easy-going, charming, affable sort of leader—a man of the people, a man for everyone. But he is not, because we know who his friends are, we know whom he associates with, and we know whom he takes his advice from. It is those who live in that world of enormous, of extraordinary, of just plain mega-wealth, who will do anything that they can—take all the advice that they can from the high-paid lawyers and accountants—to avoid their civic obligations and to avoid paying the taxes that they should pay.

We live in the developed world. We are lucky to have a country, like many others around the world, that has a good, developed education system, that has a good health system—apart from the slops they serve up around our health system at the moment—that has good roads, and that has peace and security. But, you see, in the history of the last 30 years, around the world this community has been growing of people who no longer respect that—who no longer respect the histories of those countries—who are greedy, and who see their job and mission in life as being to avoid, wherever they can, contributing to and taking those steps that help the next generation through. And that is now what drives the Government, or, at the very least, the leader of it. It is hopeless—it is hopeless for it, it is hopeless for us, and it is hopeless for all of New Zealand.

You know, most New Zealanders wondered why, in their usual kind of genteel way, when we heard about the big multinational corporates like Facebook and Google that were coming here with massive trading revenues but paying little or no tax. But the Prime Minister’s response was to say “Well, it’s legal.” and shrug his shoulders—there was nothing to see here. Then, faced with the reports of this country now playing host to 12,000 special trusts that allow the mega-wealthy of the world to avoid paying tax in their own countries, he shrugged his shoulders and said: “This is good for us. We get legal fees and accountants’ fees.” And that is all he cares about.

The rest of New Zealand was in shock because we thought we had a good reputation. We thought we were a country driven by good, healthy, wholesome values—that if you work hard you get ahead, that you pay your way, that you make your contribution, and that you help the next generation come through—because that is what we have always stood for. But not that Government. It has sided itself with the world’s greedy and the mega-wealthy, who just want to avoid their civic obligations and their civic responsibilities.

And it is not just the Prime Minister anymore, because, you see, I have not heard a single National Party MP in the last week or 10 days stand up and say: “This is wrong—this is wrong. We are a better people than this. Where is our morality?”. Not a single National Party MP, and they are all tainted. They are all responsible. We are a better country—we can be better. New Zealanders do not want us to be associated with those who will shrug off their civic responsibilities, fail in their duty to their home countries, and enjoy their greed at the expense of every other citizen who works hard and has to make their way. That is not New Zealand.

New Zealanders are looking for real moral leadership, and that Government—that party—has demonstrated it is incapable of it because it has a leader who does not know right from wrong. In politics there is a right and there is a wrong, and it is in the wrong. We do not want to have tax laws that play to the mega-wealthy of the world at our expense and at the expense of the countries they come from. We can do better—we can do better. New Zealand is a better place, not under that Government, but it will be better under Labour.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): That was a round of applause as the party bus heads its way down from 28 to 26. This country has trust laws that apply to all trusts in this country. Every New Zealander who sets up a trust, whether it be for the protection of their families or the security of their retirement income—and it could be any number of retirement schemes that exist throughout the country—is governed by the same laws that Andrew Little has said in the House today Labour wants to dismantle. Why does he want to affect the rights of New Zealanders to make the most of the circumstances that they find in their own lives? Simply because he wants to protect the tax base of foreign national countries. Well, let us be very clear about this. If you are a young worker in New Zealand entering the workforce, you are likely to be paying a tax rate of around 17.5 percent. If you are in an average OECD country, that same person would be paying twice that rate at 35.5 percent. The answer for those foreign jurisdictions is not to start moaning about New Zealanders’ rights under trust law but simply to adjust their own tax law.

Is it any wonder that the Labour Party is in such a dreadful state? Why would New Zealanders turn round to it and say: “You’ve got my vote because of the attention you are paying to foreign tax bases at our expense.”? Of course, the attack on John Key is motivated entirely by the perplexing situation that the Labour Party sees in the current round of polling. Everyone would agree that there is only one poll—that is on election day—but the indications coming from the public are that that is a party with the phone off the hook. We saw it today in question time, and we see it every day in question time, where there is every effort made to reflect on some past glory of a previous Labour Government and to compare it to the extraordinary results being delivered for New Zealanders on a daily basis by this Government.

Was it not interesting in the general debate today to hear Mr Little’s plea to help foreign tax bases at the expense of New Zealanders and their rights under trust law, again, by saying: “This country has a good education system, a good health system. It is a peaceful country, and it is a secure country.”? If that is where the Labour Party is coming from—and its worry is entirely offshore—no wonder New Zealanders are not listening.

In the last week this Government has made a number of announcements that are positive for New Zealand. Anne Tolley announced the changes to the way in which this Government will see the State’s involvement with children enhanced to a level not seen before—a programme that will see children put at the centre of the State’s care and not the bureaucratic institutions that deliver that care. That is the sort of thing that New Zealanders want to hear and do connect with. It was fascinating that even the Labour Party saw the worth in that.

Today there was an announcement from my colleague Michael Woodhouse. He will make more comment on that in a few minutes, but it is a clear demonstration that this Government knows where the opportunity for delivering social services to this country comes from. It is from the small businesses that risk their capital, that employ people, and that go out day after day working hard. What we will get from the other side is an attack on that, and no support for it. No wonder, then, that New Zealanders are asking: “What does the Labour Party stand for?”. If you were listening to Mr Little today, it stands for good education, good health, good security, and good housing. He concedes that this Government is delivering all of that, and then his party stands for protecting the tax base of foreign countries against the rights of New Zealanders, who want to enjoy the privileges of our domestic trust laws.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Renters deserve warm, dry, and safe homes. Renting is now a reality for a third of New Zealanders in this country. That is nearly one and a half million New Zealanders who are living in rental homes, and every one of those New Zealanders deserves to live in a warm, dry, and safe home. The Green Party will do what is right by renters, and it is right to make our homes warm, safe, and dry for our kids and for our families. It is right—and not only that, it is 100 percent possible—to make New Zealand homes warm, dry, and safe.

New Zealand needs to have a warrant of fitness for rental properties in this country. That is what is needed to make homes warm, dry, and safe. So I am urging New Zealanders to sign the Green Party petition—and you can find it on our website—that will urge this Parliament to put in place a warrant of fitness for New Zealand’s rental homes and for those nearly 1.5 million New Zealanders who live in those homes. We can make warm, dry, and safe rental homes real in this country. We can make it real in this country if we all work together. So please sign the petition. I invite members to sign the petition.

Why is this important? Well, we know that, on average, 15 children in this country will die from conditions related to cold, damp, and mouldy houses—on average, 15 children a year. Why do we not just think for a minute in this House about the kids whom we know and love? Think for a minute about our own children, about our own grandchildren, about our nieces and our nephews, and the children in our neighbourhoods whom we love, and think that there will be families this winter—up to 15 families this winter—who will see their child sicken and die because they live in a cold, damp home. That is the only reason why these children will get sick. It is because they live in a cold, damp house. We can fix that in this country. We can save these children’s lives and save these families the grief of watching their children sicken and die.

Think for a moment about your grandparents and the kind of home that they and their friends might live in. Did you know that 1,600 New Zealanders die every winter in New Zealand from preventable illnesses? Those 1,600 deaths would be preventable if those people were living in warm, dry homes—that is all that is needed to make sure. Of those 1,600, most will be older people who die as a result of living in cold, damp, and mouldy homes. Think for a moment of the 40,000 hospitalisations of children this winter from respiratory illness—40,000. That is the entire population of Gisborne—every man, woman, and child—going to hospital for respiratory illness. It is the entire population of Wanganui, or the entire population of Blenheim, going to hospital—that is the equivalent. We can fix that. We can make sure that our kids and our grandparents and our families are safe in their homes with a warrant of fitness for rental homes that will make those homes warm, dry, and safe.

The power will be in the hands of this Parliament when it soon comes to debate the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. We can choose in this House to make sure that our homes are warm, dry, and safe for our kids, for our families, and for our grandparents. That power rests also in the hands of the public, and the public is saying: “We demand that our Parliament puts in place the systems that will protect our families this winter.” I urge everyone to sign the petition to make sure that our rental homes are warm, dry, and safe. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): In addressing the many comments that the Leader of the Opposition has made on the so-called foreign trusts, I am not sure—I am a bit confused. I do not know whether to speak more loudly because he is deaf or more slowly because he is stupid, because, frankly, that is where we have got to. I have got a dilemma: either he is completely obtuse about this issue or he thinks that the New Zealand public is, because he keeps banging on about things that are simply not true. I respect anybody’s right to have a different opinion, but they cannot have a different set of facts, and these are the facts: there is no tax avoidance or evasion in New Zealand in respect of foreign trusts.

Hon Annette King: Rubbish!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: These are—see, the member says “Rubbish!”, right? Cloth-eared, again. These are foreign trusts owning foreign assets and earning foreign income—there is no tax obligation in New Zealand. On Monday, 11 April Mr Little said: “The reality is the Government is allowing the world’s richest people”—here is the kicker—“to hide their wealth in New Zealand and not pay their fair share.” There is no wealth hidden in New Zealand with these foreign trusts. Otherwise, here is the thing: they would not be foreign; they would be domestic trusts. If there was any money in New Zealand—

Hon Annette King: That is so dumb.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —then there would be a tax obligation to the Inland Revenue Department and an anti - money-laundering obligation, including to the New Zealand Police.

And here is “dumb”: Mr Little apparently released his tax returns—no, only he did not; he released his personal tax summary. A personal tax summary is not a return of income tax, and when that was pointed out to him, his press secretary said something like: “Oh, well, there may be other things, like a small amount of interest income on his savings.” Can you imagine what Labour would have said if the Prime Minister had given that sort of response? I do not need to remind you that a certain David Shearer is a bit forgetful about offshore interests, is he not? Fifty thousand dollars of offshore interest in a bank account that he forgot about—but we did not go on for too long about that, did we? We gave him a tease.

Even today in question time—here in question time today—the breathless revelations that Mr Brash and Mr Shewan went to the Bahamas. Here is why: they advised the Bahamas Government on how to set up a tax regime to make finance services to offshore companies zero-rated for GST. Guess what? So is ours—so is New Zealand’s. Roger Douglas’ GST framework, which is the world leader, gives the opportunity for New Zealand tax and accounting firms to offer services to offshore companies at a rate that is zero-rated for GST. That is sound tax policy, and we are losing the plot on the discussion about New Zealand’s world-leading tax system.

Here is why it is so sad about today, because today is a very good day for small businesses in New Zealand. The vast majority of our businesses are small: more than 90 percent of them employ fewer than 20 people, and 97 percent of them employ 50 people or fewer. Small business is the backbone of this country and of this economy. To be able to announce today that there is a package of tax measures that will make life so much easier for them is something I think we should be very proud of as a Government—I certainly am. Here is why. What businesses say to us—because we talk to business; in fact, we give them a damn good listening to—is that provisional tax is very, very clunky and inefficient and does not fit with the business model. So the accounting income method, using accounting software, is going to make meeting tax obligations much, much easier. It will fit with a company’s income flows and cash flows, and avoid the late-payment penalties and the use-of-money interest that has been a burden on small business for some time. We have listened and we have delivered.

We have also made significant changes to use-of-money interest, where people using the uplift method who make honest underestimations or have a really good year should not be punished for having a better year than the previous year, and so use-of-money interest will apply only on the third provisional tax payment. Even then, they will have an opportunity to bump it up if they can see that their income is going up. These are good policies. This is good, sensible tax policy. It is the sort of policy that New Zealand’s tax framework is renowned for globally, including amongst the OECD, and I stand very strongly beside it.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): We have heard it all. We have just heard from the member who has just sat down, Michael Woodhouse, who came down here and said: “I don’t like the way Andrew Little tabled his tax records.” Well, I put it to that member—if John Key has nothing to hide, if he has nothing to run from and nothing to fear, then why does he not come down to this House and show us his tax records? Let us have some transparency from this Government on tax. It would make a change.

We saw it all again in question time today—the man of many hats is back. This time he is even more slippery, he is even more evasive, but he is back. He is trying to dance on the head of a pin. This is the man who sat back and watched a dirty-tricks campaign being run out of his office. This time he is back here in the House trying to tell us he cannot answer whether or not the Bahamas are a tax haven. That is what we heard today from the Prime Minister. Well, Prime Minister, Google it. Get a brochure from the Bahamas tourism office; it is how they market themselves. But he is back, and he is on the side of people avoiding; he is on the side of people evading. He is shushing his way through. He is on the side of people who are money-laundering and people who are hiding stolen assets.

What does this mean for you and me? You, Mr Speaker, as I am sure, pay your taxes. What does this mean for the people who pay their PAYE, for the business owners who pay their tax, for the companies that pay their tax? Internationally, this tax avoidance, this tax evasion, and this money-laundering ultimately end up with people paying more tax. When the mega-wealthy decide that they are going to hide it away, then it falls on middle New Zealand to pick up the pieces in this country.

This is the side our Prime Minister has taken. He has decided he is going to protect that. He is going to defend that rather than say we need to have fair tax and we need to make sure that people pay their fair share. This is not the kind of country that any of us want. It certainly is not the kind of country where we make sure that people pay their fair share and we spend it on health, we spend it on education, we spend it on housing, and we spend it on building the Kiwi Dream, rather than sheltering people who are doing wrong and spending their time in Parliament defending it.

Then we had a very limited game of defence played by the Government members today. Obviously, they were not queuing up at procedures to ask for a call in this general debate, because they knew what was coming. It was Gerry who came down, and I have to give the Minister a sub-par performance. It really was not up to Gerry’s normal standard—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Dr MEGAN WOODS: —the Minister’s standard. But then, I guess, that particular Minister remembers that it was the Prime Minister who is quoted as saying “I’ve told Gerry to deliver me a paper that has a zero rating of funds and we’ll work on that.” when he was in the role of Minister for Economic Development.

Then we had what can only be described as a bizarre speech from Michael Woodhouse. This is the man who thinks that worm farming and growing lavender are two of the most dangerous occupations that we can have in this country. He decided that he was going to try to have a sledge and have a go, but it backfired. This is a Government that will not fess up. It got it wrong. It was out of touch with New Zealanders when the Prime Minister shrugged his shoulders and said: “There’s nothing to see here. Move along. We’re not a tax haven.”

The polling shows that that is not what New Zealanders think. That is not what they think out there in my electorate of Wigram, and it is not what they think all around the country. This is a Prime Minister who is showing he is arrogant, he is out of touch, and he is not on the side of the people who want a fair go.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It is a privilege to be here in the House this afternoon. I have to say I did have to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Little, really complaining and bagging the Government, saying that this was a dreadful, shabby little Government that has nothing to offer New Zealanders. Basically, he seems to be saying that the 50 percent of New Zealanders who support this Government are fools. Is that what he is saying? Is that what he is saying—that the 50 percent of New Zealanders who support this Government, who continue to support this Government, and who put their trust in the Prime Minister and this Government to do the best thing for this country are fools?

Then he talked about morality. Does he really think that he, as Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour Party, lives on some higher moral plane than the rest of us over on this side of the House? Does he really think that he is of a higher moral standing and of a higher morality than the many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who stand behind this Government? I do not think he is. The moral thing to do—in my opinion, being involved in the Government—is to work every day to improve the living standards of New Zealanders. That is what we do. That is what we on this side of the House get out of bed every morning to try to do.

That is why we work hard every day to reform the Resource Management Act so as to make housing more affordable for everyday New Zealanders. We think that is the moral thing to do. [Interruption] It is interesting that members on the other side of the House do not seem to think that that is important. We think the moral thing to do is to remove barriers to entrepreneurship, to remove barriers to competition, to help small businesses to get through the difficulties of business and pay their provisional tax and get on and do well. We think the moral thing to do is to provide a stable environment that is sustainable and predictable so that New Zealanders in every walk of life can know where they stand and can make plans for the future, can make investment for the future, and can do well for themselves and for their family. We think the moral thing to do is to focus on getting good results out of Government spending, rather than the lazy idea of just throwing money at a problem and expecting that that is a solution in itself.

We think the moral thing to do is to continue to reform welfare in this country. It is not good enough just to accept multigenerational dependency, which has developed in many parts of this country, but you actually have to think hard and tackle those long-term issues. That is what we think, and that is what I believe is the moral thing to do as a member of Parliament, and we strive to do that every day.

I do not take criticisms from people on the other side who claim to be living on some kind of higher moral plane than everybody. I have not met a single person in this Parliament on either side of the House who does not come here and think that they are going to do the very best job that they can for New Zealanders. We disagree very strongly about how to go about doing that. We have strong arguments about what the best way to raise the living standards of New Zealanders is, but I personally am not one who would want to throw such abuse at members on the other side of the Parliament.

The Prime Minister made a very interesting speech this morning around the progress that the Government is making on building a more productive and competitive economy. He did mention a couple of things: that the overall spending of Government—

Dr Megan Woods: Isn’t 5 minutes up?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much. He mentioned that the overall spending of the Government on structural expenses had gone from 36 percent of the entire economy in 2004 up to nearly 45 percent in 2009—an 8 percent increase; a massive increase in Government spending. And why is that a problem? It is because there is very little money left over for ordinary New Zealanders to spend on what they want to spend if Government is taking 45 percent of the whole economy in terms of spending.

We have to be mindful of the fact that most Government spending is done by monopolies and it is not subject to competition and real discipline. That is why I am proud to be part of the Government that has managed to bring that down, and it is very difficult. We have got it back down to 39 percent—dropped it 6 percent—and we still have got a lot more work to do. But it is that hard work that we carry on in this Government. The task is not finished, and we have got a long way to go.

Finally, I did want to mention the progress that we had been making in the financial literacy space. I was very pleased last week to have the launch of the Sorted website, and I encourage all members of the House and anybody listening today to have a look at that for help on financial capability. Thank you very much.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Politics is a matter of trust. The Government boasts of its transparency and accountability, and that is very apposite right now. I am reading a poll, which Government members have not got—and thank God we have—that says that the last spokesman’s statements are utterly wrong and that they are in trouble. I cannot share it with them because it is confidential, but there it is, and it is all bad news for the backbench. The so-called Panama Papers are like the real-life embodiment of John Grisham’s novel The Firm.

Hon Member: That’s last week.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know it was last week. It will be next week, and the week after, and the week after, and the week after, because this is a perfect storm, built from secrecy and deceit and, above all, the Prime Minister’s arrogance. That is a new feature in his behaviour.

Government members have been so cocky that they decided to get a retread as the person who is going to investigate the wrongdoing that has been happening to this country’s formerly good name. They started off with the Inland Revenue Department doing the job, and then they decided to get an international tax expert. Then, all of a sudden, because the polls were coming in, we had a re-run of the comment made exactly 46 years ago to this day: “Houston, we have a problem.” That was exactly 46 years ago today: “Houston, we have a problem.”

So Mr Key pulled out not the overseas tax expert but a Wellingtonian who has travelled overseas to the Bahamas to advise them to do the exact thing that is happening here and that saw the foreign trusts in this country treble under the financial money-mover Mr John Key, Prime Minister. So who is Mr Shewan? Well, he was involved in the Westpac Banking Corporation disgrace of trying, with the three other Aussie banks, to dodge paying their tax in this country. He was their adviser. They settled out of court for $2.2 billion.

Denis O’Rourke: Some adviser!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, some adviser. And then you have got the other cases, all the way to the Privy Council—the highest court that we have got, in my view—all saying this man is no tax expert. But why has he been chosen? It is not because he is the poacher turned gamekeeper. No, he is the poacher out to help poachers, and he will not change. Mr Key, you see, could not get an independent expert, because he cannot stand the sunlight of disclosure, and that is what this is all about.

You can run all the protection rackets you like to try to protect National now, but it will not work, and those of us who have got experience know just how long that can take. The good news is that we have got months and months to dissect this series of disgusting, scandalous transactions, where New Zealand is mentioned—how many times? It is 60,000 times. I asked the Prime Minister: “Of the 70 State and governmental leaders around the world in the Panama Papers, is your name one of them?”. He gets up and answers: “I’m not doing any transactions in Panama.” Is that an answer to my question?

Hon Members: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it is not. Does he think that is going to be successful?

Hon Members: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it will not. I know people like Mr Mitchell from the Rodney electorate and places like that, and the member for the Bay of Plenty. I know that they are smiling over there. But right now their knees are knocking big time, because I know, reaching into the old National Party, that about one in three voters knows that this has got an acrid stench and it is, sadly, coming into the party they thought would never behave like this. I have got news for them, and it is all bad—very sad, as well.

Sadly, the new National Party, a bunch of Tea Party clones, will put up and say anything to defend its behaviour. It will say anything just to hold on to power. Unfortunately, the polls are now—and if you take the one on TV ONE the other night, it is a total waste of time. This poll says that the flag did make a massive dent, and this is before he was discovered dealing with a group of Chinese business people to try to change the flag outcome in New Zealand. We always knew he was in the pocket of the Chinese, but this is outrageous—this is outrageous. Also, the poll was before the Panama Papers, and my message to Television New Zealand is: “For goodness’ sake, for the first time, go and get a reliable poll and stop misleading people.”

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): First of all, I would like to wish all the Kiwis of the Khalsa Sirjana Diwas—and Vaisakhi, which was celebrated yesterday in Parliament. Hundreds of constituents came to celebrate. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving the opportunity to many of the baptised Sikhs to come and visit Parliament while wearing their kirpan and participate in this celebration.

In 1890 the first Punjabi arrived in New Zealand. That was 125 years ago, and they started with bush scrub-cutting in the Waikato area. They progressed from there, and today they own small, medium, and large businesses. Some of them own businesses that employ more than 500 people in New Zealand, contributing to the economy. Why I say this is because Indians and migrants have been very hard-working and have been contributing to the New Zealand economy.

This Government is looking after all those businesses, which are contributing to the economy. As was mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister today announced a package that will help small and medium businesses with their provisional taxes. Small and medium businesses around the country, and in particular in Manukau East, are the backbone of this country. More than 90 percent of businesses are small to medium businesses that employ fewer than 20 people, and they are the ones that are creating jobs. If you look at the statistics, retail spending is increasing every time. Tourism is increasing. The economy is increasing. That shows that the policies that have been introduced by this Government are working and benefiting the economy.

Budget 2016 will contribute to ensuring that New Zealand continues to be one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD group of the wealthier nations. This Government has been encouraging all businesses to diversify. We have been very much an exporter of primary goods, but we are helping businesses to diversify. In the last year only, if you look at the statistics, there was a 15 percent increase in research and development—in just 1 year. That shows that we are helping businesses so that they can grow. As I mentioned, the provisional taxes are going to be simplified. That is not the only thing we are doing. We are also helping small businesses, giving them different tools to help them to concentrate on their business, rather than concentrating on the paperwork. We are going to give small businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million the opportunity to choose a new pay-as-you-go option for provisional tax. It is very important, because small businesses continuously struggle for their capital, and subsequent to these changes they will have more money in hand so that they can expand their businesses and help to grow this economy.

The way provisional tax currently works is that people by one method or another estimate their likely income tax bill for the coming year, and pay the amount in three equal instalments. With the new options, they will pay on only as much income as they feel they are going to make, whether it is a huge profit or a medium profit. They will determine themselves how much they want to pay.

More flexibility will be given to contractors, who pay, on average, about 20 to 25 percent withholding tax. There are 130,000 contractors who pay withholding tax, which is deducted from them. Many will be familiar with the form that says if you are a shearer you have to pay withholding tax of 15 percent, if you are a freelance journalist you have to pay 25 percent withholding tax, contracting cleaners pay 20 percent withholding tax, and the list goes on. We are changing this from 1 April 2017. It will be easy for contractors to choose their own withholding tax rate, subject to the minimum of 10 percent.

We are helping small businesses to grow, and we will continue to support them. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I would like to begin my general debate speech by thanking someone, and that is the Hon Bill English. I would like to thank him for writing the latest chapter in the three-part saga of National called “Arrogant and Out of Touch”. We now know from the comments—I would like to thank Iain Lees-Galloway—that Mr English made at the Feilding Federated Farmers meeting last Friday what National really thinks about New Zealanders. Usually we get positive comments from the Government like “We are backing New Zealanders. We back them. We don’t care what the Labour Party says; we back New Zealanders to be the best that they can possibly be.”

But when National members are behind closed doors talking to their mates—and Bill English has got form in getting caught telling what he really thinks about New Zealanders—we find out what National really thinks about New Zealanders. What did Mr English say about young males to the Federated Farmers in Feilding last Friday? He said they were “pretty damned hopeless”. He said we need to have a little bit more immigration at the moment, because Kiwis, in general—so not just males—are “pretty damned hopeless”. So that is what National thinks behind closed doors. When the camera is out and the microphones are out those members say “We are backing New Zealanders so they can do the best for New Zealand.”, but when they go to their caucus room and they have their little party meetings around New Zealand, they think New Zealanders are “pretty damned hopeless”.

Well, I have got some news for the Minister of Finance. For 15 to 19-year-old males, what is the unemployment rate? It is 23 percent. The unemployment rate for young males aged 20 to 24 is 9.3 percent. What is our national average? It is 5.3 percent. So it is our young males more than anyone who are struggling to find jobs, and what is the message that we get from this arrogant and out-of-touch Government? It is that young males are “pretty damned hopeless”. Well, if those people out there can hear the message that this Government has got for them they will find out that this Government has been pretty damned hopeless at getting them the job opportunities that they need.

This is not a Government that is working for those “pretty damned hopeless” males out there. If it did its job and was not so damned hopeless those people would have jobs. They would have the education to make sure they could get the jobs that New Zealanders need. That is the kind of arrogant and out-of-touch Government that we have got when those members talk behind closed doors of New Zealanders who may have voted for them but will seriously reconsider their vote now. Those members already think that those young men out there are “pretty damned hopeless”. Those are the kinds of people that I have got in my electorate who are desperate to find a job. And, yes, in one respect, they have not got any hope. They are not hopeless; they do not have any hope in this Government to do a decent enough job to get them a job. That is what this Government really thinks about New Zealanders.

I would like to know what else those members are saying behind closed doors about other sections of New Zealand, because we have now found out what Bill English really thinks of young males in New Zealand. He got caught out telling what he really thinks about New Zealanders. There is one story in front of a camera and in front of a microphone, and another story when those members are talking to their mates. So this is an arrogant and out-of-touch Government, and that is the latest chapter in a very long saga.

We got another episode of arrogance this week when the Prime Minister said he will not release his tax records. [Interruption] I will put my leader’s credibility over the credibility of your Prime Minister every day, because this is a Prime Minister who has got a loose relationship with the truth. Let us hear what he said about his Tranz Rail shares back in 2008. When John Key was asked how many shares, exactly, he and his family had in Tranz Rail he said it was 50,000 at the maximum. Sometimes it was 20,000, and sometimes it was 50,000. He was asked whether he personally bought 50,000 Tranz Rail shares in 2003 and sold them off. He said: “Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep.” When he was asked whether it was an issue that he should be clear about, he said: “Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total.” That was our Prime Minister, talking about his own personal affairs and his shares. Within the space of 30 seconds, he went from one story to another.

I think we are going to see that with the Prime Minister around his affairs and trusts issues at the moment. Why will he not front up and tell the people of New Zealand, like our leader has, all the details around his tax? Why is he not “manning up” as those people on the other side of the House have said, and telling us the story of his own tax details? Why will he not? Because we know that in the past, he has got form—

Iain Lees-Galloway: If he’s got nothing to hide, he’s got nothing to fear.

KRIS FAAFOI: That is right. What was the line when the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation was going through?

Iain Lees-Galloway: If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing fear.

KRIS FAAFOI: Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. So it is a very simple request to the Prime Minister: if you have got nothing to hide, show us your tax details.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I was surprised the other day when I was back in my electorate that someone actually came up to me and asked the question: “Simon, do you actually believe the poll about how bad Labour and the Opposition are performing?”. I say that I was surprised because, being the bluest, strongest seat in the country, by and large the Tāmaki electorate does not really care about Labour. Basically, they do not care about poor performance, because, by and large, the good people of Tāmaki are there because they have worked jolly hard, paid all their taxes and a lot more, acted philanthropically, and so forth. But this person did ask me whether I believed that Labour polled at 28 percent. Well, to that particular constituent and anyone else who is listening, you only need to have engaged with the general debate today to see how out of touch, how odd, and how silly the Opposition is. There are a whole lot of other adjectives waiting to be used, but I try to be a man who is polite.

Just to illustrate, we have just had the usual rant from Labour. Basically, its members have been told by the doyens in their research office—the bean counters and the like, who will not actually even know what a counter or a bean is, but that is what they call themselves—“Oh, just use the words ‘arrogant’ and ‘out of touch’ many, many times, because eventually the New Zealand public”—

Kris Faafoi: You just did it.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —“will fall for it. They’ll just fall for it.” The irony is, of course—now they are saying: “Oh my God, you’ve used the word.” Yes, I am allowed to use the words occasionally, but they just repeat them over and over again.

And then the real humdinger is this: “Oh, our Leader of the Opposition, ‘Angry Andrew’ Little, who—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Sorry, very good point. He yelled and screamed for about 5 minutes. They are saying: “Oh, he released his tax return.” Well, no, actually. To those listening, and certainly to the Opposition, he did not release it. He said he did, but, of course, he did not, actually. What he released is something called the personal tax statement. To those of us on this side of the House, who actually understand the Inland Revenue Department, who actually put in tax returns and the like, that is not the same thing. I am not going to bore you with all of the tax details, but this is classic Labour. It has made all these assertions about what it and its leader have done, but they are actually false. Not just false—demonstrably false. And not demonstrably false by this side, but by its own self.

Then, from New Zealand First we have, basically, an array of fiction, which is pretty classic Winston Peters. I think it was illustrated perfectly by him quoting John Grisham’s book The Firm—we did not quite understand why. But then he moved on pretty quickly to talking about The Perfect Storm and a film—I was wondering what sort of operatic, philharmonic, and ballet things he was going to get on to—all, again, falsities to try to illustrate nothing, absolutely nothing.

So, ladies and gentlemen—

Fletcher Tabuteau: You have a wonderful turn of phrase.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —the reason, ultimately, that the Opposition is faltering so badly—falsely faltering, flat-footedly; we can just keep going; we are just going to keep the alliteration, all for Fletcher—the reason is, ultimately, that it is just so totally and utterly irrelevant.

The opposite is true, when I think back to my own electorate at the moment, in particular in the area of small business. They are happy with where the Government is at, and are already thrilled, judging from the texts and emails that are coming through. Tāmaki is an aspirational, hard-working electorate. It is an area with a lot of small businesses. You go around and you see, actually, that in the most recent weeks we have had new businesses set up—if you have not already, The Good Grocer down in Kohi, Mission Bay is a fantastic new development. We have got a new fruiterer up in Sunhill, and I am looking forward to visiting there. One of our local coffee shops, Tim and the team at Cigana, another small business, has moved recently but is redeveloping around the Tāmaki to Glen Innes cycleway—a $40 million project.

Todd Muller: How much?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Forty million dollars pumped into the Tāmaki electorate. We have got a new butcher, and a whole lot of new business is often advertised through the Neighbourly website, which, incidentally, was actually developed by a Tāmaki local.

The long and the short of it is that there are lots of small businesses doing well, and lots of small businesses that will be absolutely thrilled today about the announcements made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that will make life easier, primarily around provisional tax. And that is where I want to finish here, actually, where there is the contrast of the “do” attitude of a local constituent who will welcome a Government doing something, versus absolute rubbish coming from the other side, which is, in itself, irrelevant—which means that 28 percent is probably a high-tide mark for this Opposition at the moment.

JAN LOGIE (Green): We all know that food, shelter, warmth, rest, safety, and security are essential for children to develop. I believe that in this House we all want every child to be able to be a child and to be able to develop into their best self. Yet we all know that without those basic needs being met, children suffer, and it becomes pretty impossible for them to grasp the opportunities in life. Yet thousands of children in this country are suffering and missing out on those opportunities because benefit and paid work rates are too low and housing and power costs are too high. Otago University research has shown that more than one child a week dies of low income-related diseases because of those policy settings.

I want to remind the House of this, because talk of putting children first in the Child, Youth and Family review does ring a little hollow when it is not happening in other areas across Government that could absolutely also save children’s lives. We have had multiple reports telling us that things within Child, Youth and Family are in crisis, and we have had those over a long time. Last year the Office of the Children’s Commissioner told us that there was the equivalent of a small city of children, right now, that he could not tell us were safer in care than they were in the homes that they were removed from. Since that report came out, we have had experts talking, and now we are looking at—5 years out—money being provided along the way being taken from existing services, in the meantime, to build a future model. In the meantime, social workers, who are children’s potential lifelines, are feeling under attack and are still overwhelmed with too much paperwork and too many cases. And we still cannot say whether those children, right now, are safe. We need to look at the short-term safety of those children as well as our long-term goal of securing a better future for all children, through whatever Government structure we eventuate with.

The Government’s new proposal will create a central organisation that is accountable for all children within care. It will put, we are told, more money into support for foster carers and it will create a market for these services to ensure that children do not have to wait for them, as they are now. The Minister for Social Development has likened this to ACC. She has repeated many times that children are having to wait for services from Government and she does not believe that they should have to. We do not believe that they should have to either, yet there are waiting lists for ACC services, and, indeed, in some areas, even where the Minister lives, there is an absolute dearth of ACC providers, particularly for sensitive claims, which is the most analogous area. On the East Cape, on its website, ACC has one counsellor listed for the entire East Cape—a population of over 43,000 with high rates of abuse. So we know from the example of ACC that the market does not solve the problem of its own accord. We absolutely need State oversight and an investment in core Government services so that we are transparent and are accountable to the people, because when we distance it out into relying on individual groups to come forward and businesses, we lose some of that accountability and ability to be sure of the provision of services.

And I do want to, in the last minute, talk briefly about some of the concerns for Māori. Sixty percent of children in care at the moment are Māori, and I have heard from social workers who are deeply concerned that the changes at the moment—unless they absolutely focus on changing the model to a kaupapa Māori model—will result in another stolen generation. The phrase that was said to me was that this has the potential to simply legalise child trafficking and profiteering from it, and for Māori it equates, potentially, to genocide. We have to watch this carefully to make sure that every child, now and in the future, is safe.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is a pleasure to stand here and take a call in this general debate. I have been listening to some of the comments made by the Opposition today, and we have heard today that the National Party benches and their rich mates have some sort of advantage. Well, I do not like the thought of “rich” being used as a four-letter word. From my own experience, being rich is quite subjective and does not always equate to the amount of money someone has in their bank account. For me, it was only a few years ago when I worked in a service station pumping gas and cleaning a public toilet, but I thought I was rich then. The thing that I would like to make as my point about that is that becoming a member of Parliament and representing your community is something that this country makes available to every citizen.

We also heard from our Opposition today that young men are in the highest cohort of unemployed. I would just like to do the maths. We have heard about bean counters today, and I am certainly no bean counter, but this Government has been in the Government for 8 years now. Prior to that, there was a Labour Government for 9 years. So in 17 years I think we are seeing the tail end of those people who went through the education system under a Labour Government. You will see, too, that National has now broken the cycle with the work that is being done by the Hon Anne Tolley and the work that is being done by Hekia Parata to make sure that that cycle is completely broken. So we are seeing the tail end of those educated under a Labour Government, and thank goodness for that.

In terms of economic opportunities, I would like to focus on just some of the success stories that are happening in an area that is near and dear to my heart, which is West Coast - Tasman. Rather than talking about some of the huge Government investment that is happening in that electorate, like ultra-fast broadband or major capital works like a hospital or seriously big infrastructure like roading or cycle trails, I will focus on a few small businesses. They are mostly family-owned and they are producing high-value products for domestic and international markets. I am sure the House would like to hear a few of those examples.

Alluvial gold mining is still going gangbusters. These little operations are employing people and taking a high standard in terms of the environmental responsibility. There are families like the Birchfields in Ross and there are the Acker and Mates families in Kūmara. They have been supported by the gold mining industry for many years, they create jobs, and they engage local service businesses that support their industry.

Dear to my heart is the timber industry, and, especially, the harvesting of the windthrow native timber, which was introduced in a concept I brought to the Hon Nick Smith and was supported wholeheartedly by this Government. We are seeing a factory in Reefton, Sustainable Forest Products, now adding high-value native timber to its production line. That is going into domestic and international markets. Those people too are employing and growing their businesses and helping repair properties in Canterbury after the earthquakes.

Many family-owned fruit and tree nut growers account for more than 11 percent of employment in the Tasman region, and Tasman supports a third of the national pip-fruit industry and employment. And there is even a specialist Waimea grower who produces 60 percent of the trees for the apple growers nationwide.

I was in Motueka and Golden Bay recently, and during this time I caught up with some people in the viticulture sector. It is no surprise that these people are thrilled, given the 14 percent rise in their exports last year, which are now worth $1.5 billion to this country. This is music to the ears of the winegrowers in Waimea.

Of course, there is also tourism. Tourism is a flourishing industry, and this directly contributes $10.6 billion to the New Zealand economy, and both the West Coast and Tasman regions thrive on tourism. It is increasingly becoming one of the electorate’s consistent job creators. Abel Tasman Sea Shuttles is a family-run business out of Motueka, there is the Glacier Country with its helicopters, and there are other trickle-down businesses that are affected by the growing tourism industry. All of these industries are excited about the potential of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They are grateful that this Government shares their ambition to expand their markets, and they are celebrating the new tax announcements made today. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This debate comprises the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. The time allocated for this debate is 10 hours and it comprises two distinct elements, in accordance with determinations of the Business Committee. The first is the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government, as reported by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The second is the debate on the annual reviews of departments, Offices of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees. The second debate is structured around those 10 sectors established by the 2014 estimates of appropriations.

As with last year, there will be a mixture of allocated and supplementary calls. However, this year the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government will draw from only the 45-minute supplementary calls. The annual financial statements of the Government debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and this debate will expire after 2 hours, or earlier if no member seeks the call.

Annual Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2015

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): It gives me great pleasure to lead off this debate, and these are great times to be a New Zealander. These are the best times to be a New Zealander because not only do New Zealanders have a great Government that is looking after them—a great Government that is delivering for them now—but they have a Government that is setting them up for the future and building a strong, prosperous country that is connected, open, free, and in a very strong economic and social position for our people to enjoy the best times to be New Zealanders in this century of New Zealand and the Asia region. New Zealand will do extremely well in the future, and these financial statements we are looking at today are the basis of the strength that this Government has delivered for New Zealand.

Not only have we delivered a surplus to this country—a surplus in the most difficult of economic times—but also we have delivered strong economic growth for New Zealanders. Jobs are aplenty. New Zealanders are finding work. New industries are being created just as we speak. Our ICT sector is growing compoundly. We are seeing big growth in our exports of fruit, vegetables, and other products like that. New Zealand is in good shape and that is shown in the financial statements of this country when we look at them, and when we looked at them in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. New Zealanders know that they are enjoying low interest rates. They know that they are enjoying the sound economic management that this Government has delivered, and that is giving New Zealanders choice. They are seeing the options that are in front of them, they are making choices about their future, and they are looking to this country with a positive and strong opinion of its future.

Other people are coming to New Zealand to make it their home as well. They are seeing the advantages of this country and its stable economic management, its social strength in the way that we look after people and provide education and health services, and our interconnected and open approach to life. Those are the things that you will hear from this side of the Chamber during this debate. We will talk about a strong Government that is delivering for New Zealanders, about a Government that is focused on the economic matters that challenge our country and the world at this time, and about a Government that also has a heart and is looking after the social connections that our country needs in making the reforms through our Government. We have seen just recently in the Child, Youth and Family space how those reforms have been promoted and how they have been supported by our countrymen and women. They understand that this is a Government that is doing things, and doing things for the success of our country going forward.

Today we saw another example of that with small businesses. The initiatives in that area show a Government that is doing good things for the country going forward and a Government that has delivered. On the other side, the members of the Opposition will talk about envy. They will try to make a lot of accusations and build up all these cases for some kind of conspiracy theories, which will see them harking back to their past as conspiracy party theorists. That is all they have—that is all they have. They have no economic policy. They have no theory that New Zealanders would support. But when they do come out with theories and things that they want to do—let us have a look at some of the things that the Labour Party would like to do, like setting interest rates. It is setting interest rates from the Labour Party leader’s chair. Setting interest rates is one of those things that is not possible for one individual in a political party to do in a modern economic environment, and no political party worth its salt, anywhere in the world, would agree to doing that.

We see that members of the Green Party want to build a communal bank out of Kiwibank and take it to the next level, you could say, with their $100 million contribution. That will be quite ineffective as well, and we will see no policy from the Green Party other than more envy, more anger, and more frustration at being in Opposition for the whole time that it has ever been in this Parliament.

From the New Zealand First Party, we are going to hear how there should be no migrants to New Zealand. Those members will undervalue those people who have made New Zealand home. They will talk about conspiracy theories, because that is all that their leader knows, and that is the approach that they take to New Zealand—an approach of failure.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt David Bennett and indicate to him and other members who are following that this is a very broad debate. The member probably tested the margins of it, but my ruling is that I am not going to rule him out of order because the first 2 hours can be very broad, and after that, it will tighten up on particular entities. But, I must say, at least referring to the reviews a bit would be vaguely helpful.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Yes, the member David Bennett ranged around there and probably reflected a little of, I think, the overall theme that we will see in this debate, which is that the National Government is bereft of any actual ideas about how to grow the economy in a sustainable way. It is bereft of any ideas about how it is going to ensure that we lift productivity in New Zealand, that we lift exports in New Zealand, and that we actually have sustainable growth that is going to lead to good, high-paying, high-value jobs in the future. Instead, we will get David Bennett’s fantasy views on what other political parties might say or do. I think, unfortunately for Mr Bennett, that if he throws his hat in the ring for the mayoralty of Hamilton, he is actually going to struggle alongside Tim Macindoe, his counterpart. I think we will actually see a meeting of the minds in that contest and David Bennett will come second to Tim Macindoe in that meeting of the minds, and not for the first time in his life, I might say.

The financial statements have some numbers in them that the National Government, if it bothered to read them or even to talk about them, might be able to put up there and say: “This is why we think we are doing well.” It could point to growth rates that look to be around the 2.5 to 3 percent level and it could say: “Well, we know we are doing all right. We have got the economy growing.” But any exploration of those numbers will tell you that the New Zealanders who every single day say “But I’m not feeling the value of that growth rate. My life doesn’t feel like it’s getting better in the way you would expect it to with a growth rate of around 3 percent.”—there is a reason for that. When we actually look at per capita growth in New Zealand, per person, how is the economy going? It is flat. It is barely moving. It was described by a Westpac economist as sluggish. Most commentators look at it and say that this is not an economy that is growing sustainably. It is barely moving at all, and that is the truth.

The growth that we have got is simply a result of there being more people here, and that is not sustainable. You cannot keep growing the economy just by adding more and more people to it. At some point, the economy has to grow because we are more productive, because we are smarter, and because we are more innovative, but that is not the story of the National Government. Its story is the story of a complacent, out-of-touch Government that does not actually have the wherewithal to say: “Let’s stop the belief that there is some kind of great trickle-down economic growth that is going to support everybody, and actually get in behind New Zealanders, grow wealth from the ground up, and give everybody a chance to share in prosperity.”

What we now see under National is that working people’s share in the economy is actually declining and that those people who have already aggregated wealth are the ones who are succeeding and the value of working people’s wages is going down. In the last set of accounts the Government put out, real national disposable income has now dropped, not only for the second or third quarter in a row but for the whole year. So the real value of the income that New Zealanders have, per person, is dropping. We are getting poorer as a nation every day because this Government is relying complacently on the fact that more people are coming into New Zealand at the moment and it is pretending that the economy is growing sustainably when, clearly, it is not. We are getting poorer by the day under this Government.

So what would help drive the economy? What should we be looking for in these financial statements? What about exports? Well, we are not seeing it there. The Government sets a lofty target of increasing exports to 40 percent of GDP and—

Hon David Parker: It promised.

GRANT ROBERTSON: What was that?

Hon David Parker: It was a promise.

GRANT ROBERTSON: A promise—yes, it was a promise. It was not just a target, Mr Parker—you are right. It was a promise, and where have we gone? We have gone backwards. Exports started out at 30 percent. They are now at below 30 percent—27 to 28 percent of GDP is the value of exports. That is not an economy that is going to go forward and create high-value, high-paying jobs.

The Government crows about tourism. Tourism is an important industry for New Zealand, but it is not a route to prosperity on its own. It does not provide the high-value, high-wage jobs that New Zealanders need in order to sustain our standard of living into the future, and there is no evidence from this Government that it is investing in those high-value jobs or that it is getting alongside industry to say: “How can we move ourselves up the value chain?”.

Why are we still continually reliant on raw commodities? The wave that we have to surf when the value of those commodities goes down is now hitting the regions of New Zealand. We have three or four regions in New Zealand that are in recession because this Government has sat back and allowed us to think that we were wealthy while we rode that commodity wave. We, as a country, are not. We are going backwards because we have not invested in those industries. We have not diversified the economy sufficiently so that New Zealanders can feel confident that there is a sustainable future.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Those members say that they care about small businesses, but they do not. They say that they care about families and children, but they do not. They say that they support farmers and provincial towns, but the Opposition does not. I will tell you what: we on this side do care, and we can prove it because we vote for it.

Here are a couple of examples. The free-trade agreements—the free-trade agreements that give the opportunity for New Zealanders to take part in an international market place. They are an opportunity for exporters to produce high-value products to export to growing economies.

The other example of how we prove that we support families in communities is that we support irrigation projects. There was a question on this in the House today, and again we demonstrated that we support these projects, because not only do these things increase productivity across the land that we farm—that we put horticulture across, or vineyards, or whatever it might be—but these projects also give a huge amount of value to the social benefit of the communities. They give social benefits by providing sporting and recreational facilities. There are environmental benefits through the higher minimum flows that irrigation projects will bring to waterways and by the stringent regulations that these irrigation projects will be run under. The irrigation projects, I would have thought, would be a key part of any Green Party policy, quite frankly, because these things are going to be fantastic for the environment.

The free-trade agreements and the irrigation projects are just two examples of initiatives that we have on this side that demonstrate that we support families, businesses, and provincial towns, and if we can do those two things in tandem, we will raise the standard of living for all New Zealanders. We will have the GDP that allows us to invest in such things as broadband, which continues to roll out through the provinces and through the towns of New Zealand.

I would like to focus a little more on the balance sheet of the Government. We talk quite a lot about the income statement and we quite often talk about surpluses and so on, but, in fact, we should be thinking about the long term. We should be thinking about the balance sheet of this country—in particular, the liability side. That is exactly what we are doing with Minister Tolley’s announcements, where she is going to be focusing on the million-dollar kids—the kids who are most in need. We know who these kids are. We know where they live. We know their backgrounds. We know that with the backgrounds that they have, they will cost the taxpayer a million dollars. So it makes common sense. It is very sensible to invest in that cost, which will eventually have long-term benefits, not just for the families involved and not just for the communities that are involved but for the taxpayer—for the benefit of the balance sheet.

There is a huge number of other initiatives that will be brought up today, but those things that I talked about at the beginning—the free-trade agreements and the irrigation projects—are but two very pragmatic, very sensible initiatives. I really cannot for the life of me understand why the Opposition will not support them, because those things bring about increased productivity. It is not just about dairy; these irrigation projects will increase and diversify land use. They bring in seed companies from Europe that can develop their seeds with reliability, which is brought about by irrigation projects. With that comes highly skilled jobs, with that comes increased GDP, and with that comes increased taxes to the Government, which enables the Government to do what it should be focusing on—that is, supporting those most in need. Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The National Government claims that it is doing a great job for New Zealand’s economy. Very superficially, if we look at some of the numbers, it may seem like it stacks up. It is true that GDP growth is above zero—it is actually above 2.5 percent. It is one of the higher rates in the world, but what it does not tell us is how we are doing as a country, and the other statistics that have been coming out in recent weeks tell quite a different story. So, in fact, when we look at income per capita, once we assess GDP growth alongside immigration and population growth, the truth is that income per capita is stagnating.

We have had about as much population growth as we have had GDP growth if it were even the case that GDP was really a measure of true progress in this country, which, of course, it is not. A lot of GDP growth has been driven by the Christchurch earthquake. We are not better off, because one of our major cities was nearly completely wiped out in a horrific earthquake and a lot of money had to go into rebuilding it, which has taken a lot longer than it should have because it has been poorly managed by the National Government.

Another really important factor that we need to look at—and I would love the Minister in the chair, Bill English, to comment on this. The Minister of Finance used to go around and give talks in the first few years that the National Party was in Government, and he would show a graph that showed a gap between the growth in the non-tradable sector of the economy versus growth in the tradable sector of the economy. Bill English said: “We’re going to fix this. We’re going to turn it round. Under the Labour Government, growth in the tradable sector of the economy—the really productive sector; the part that sells goods and services to the world—has been lagging, and growth among the part of the economy that is really just selling things to each other like buying and selling houses has been growing.” But the Minister of Finance has stopped showing this graph, and I will tell you why. I have got a copy of the graph right here. He stopped because at the latest release in GDP figures we saw that, in fact, the gap between non-tradables and tradables is at its widest point ever. This is after 7.5 years of the National Government, and it must be quite disappointing for the Minister of Finance.

I do not blame him. I am sure that he has every intention, and had every intention, of fixing this problem, but he has been unable to do so. Why is that? It is because National’s ideology and the policies that it implements simply will not deliver the improvements to the economy that need to be made to have a truly productive economy. The ideology of the National Government says that we need to cut taxes for the rich, we need to privatise and sell off State assets, and we need to reduce environmental protection, but none of those things will actually create a more productive and prosperous economy, nor will they look after the things that are really important to New Zealanders, like protecting the natural environment and having fairness and opportunity.

So the sad truth is that when we look at the evidence, the National Government is failing to deliver the competitive and productive economy that it has promised, and that is because those members’ ideology and instinct is to protect the status quo and to look after the people like themselves—the people who are already rich and want to get a lot richer, and the people who might want to use tax havens to avoid paying tax in their home country. The National Government’s instinct is to protect those industries. Its instinct is to not go after the multinational companies that are avoiding anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion worth of tax each year. Its instinct is, instead, to crack down on student loan defaulters and beneficiary fraud. Although that is all well and good—we should do those things—the reality is that the value of doing that is much smaller. Those people are vulnerable people and they are taking a lot less money from us than the rich and powerful are.

So what we need are policies that are actually going to deliver a productive and smart economy. The National Government has instead delivered subsidies for irrigation, which, contrary to what the member Alastair Scott said, is not good for the environment at all. It encourages more intensive dairying, which is terrible for our rivers, which are already highly polluted. It has refused to set standards for water quality that would actually improve water quality. We have got a standard for wadeable rivers rather than for swimmable rivers.

We have got subsidies for oil and gas exploration. This is actually absolute madness in 2016. When I was in Paris for the climate talks in December, I went to a conference at the OECD about green growth. The keynote speaker there, who was from Oxford University, said in his speech that in order to meet the agreement that we signed up to in Paris, all new infrastructure from 2017, basically, would have to be carbon-neutral—that is, zero carbon.

In order to achieve the goal of phasing out fossil fuels by the mid-century, which is absolutely logical and necessary if we want civilisation to continue to prosper as it has for the last millennia, we have to be phasing out fossil fuels now, and that is the role and the responsibility of the Government. It is the role and responsibility of the Government to protect our natural environment and to look after the most vulnerable people, but, unfortunately, National is simply failing to do that. It says that it is pursuing its policies because it wants to achieve better economic performance, and then someday down the track we will be able to afford to look after our environment and our people. It has got it round backwards. The way we build a productive, sustainable economy is by looking after the most vulnerable in our society—by not allowing the rich to get richer through cutting taxes and refusing to reform tax rules around foreign trusts, for example. The way that we will achieve this is by looking after the most vulnerable in society and by protecting our natural environment, which, frankly, I think is precious to all New Zealanders.

We hear a lot of “greenwash” from this Government at the same time that it is pursuing oil and gas exploration, which is, supposedly, going to make us rich even though oil prices have collapsed. Simon Bridges, who is the Minister of Energy and Resources and Minister of Transport, goes around trying to get into a lot of photo ops with charging infrastructure for electric cars, but that has not been paid for by this Government. It has got virtually no new policy to support the uptake of electric vehicles. The vast majority of its transport budget is being spent on motorways that are not even going to resolve congestion, let alone reduce dangerous carbon pollution.

It is continuing the asset sales with Kiwibank now and is trying to squeeze out as much money as it can—suck it out of the Government—so that it can spend it on its priorities, which are very short term. Ultimately, that is going to cost New Zealanders in the long run. That is what we saw with the asset sales with regard to the energy companies. That has now cost us almost as much as the cash that we raised from them, which was then not even spent on productive infrastructure, as the Minister had promised.

So this National Government is letting down the people who voted for it, and who trusted it to deliver an economy that was going to look after New Zealanders, and it is time that it took responsibility for its poor decisions. We have got lots of constructive ideas here, Minister, about how we can actually build a productive, successful economy by looking after our people and our environment. That is the smart thing to do. That is what the Green Party is committed to delivering in Government. Although that Government will continue to scaremonger about Green Party policies rather than engage in a constructive and informative debate and give actual reasons why it will not support such policies—

Hon Maggie Barry: Because they’re rubbish.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: —they will simply call it rubbish. A perfect example—Minister Barry says it is rubbish. Why is it rubbish, Minister Barry? Why are our policies rubbish? For example, the Kiwibank policy that we announced—we have a problem in New Zealand that the four big Australian banks are sucking out $4 billion in profits from our economy every year, and what would make sense is to use our Government-owned bank to deliver wider social and economic benefits for all New Zealanders. We could do that. We know that when Kiwibank was first introduced, it actually did drive down mortgage rates and lending rates, but the reality is that for the four big Australian banks, their most profitable area is here in New Zealand, and that is a market failure. They are not delivering benefits to New Zealanders; they are sucking out profits from New Zealand. So it does make sense to use our State-owned bank not to earn a profit that is going to go to the Government—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to call the honourable Minister, but I just want to warn Mr Bennett that if he is going to continuously interject, at least do it in the proper form and do not involve me.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is a pleasure to take part in this debate about the annual reviews from the 2014-15 year—the year when the New Zealand Public Service achieved a surplus after 6 or 7 years of deficit, some of them very large deficits. I want to just acknowledge the work done by so many public servants, select committee members, and chairs of select committees in helping to produce, essentially, more for less. At a time when money has been pretty tight, this is a period when public services have improved, and that is to a large extent due to the efforts of the Public Service and also my colleagues in Cabinet.

Just to comment a bit on the Greens’ finance spokesman’s words—you know, I will give the Greens credit. At least they have got their own internal coherence. I do not agree with them—and I will point out some ways in which I disagree with them—but it is quite a contrast to the Labour Party. With the Greens you know what those members are going to say; you know how they are going to say it. Generally it is with a bit of nasty edge, although this member is a bit better than some of the previous occupants of that position, which is welcome because it makes it more likely that you can have a constructive discussion. Whereas with the Labour Party, you do not quite know what those members are going to say, and it is pretty hard to connect one bit to another.

So just to a couple of points raised by the Greens spokesman—

Hon Annette King: Spokeswoman, actually.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —spokeswoman—actually, as a result of the tax changes made in 2010, the higher-income brackets are paying a higher proportion of income tax and there is a great deal less structuring around companies, trusts, sole proprietors, and so on because the tax systems for the higher-income earners are more coherent and harder to avoid, and they do pay pretty much at the statutory rate. That part of the Green Party prejudice is simply wrong, as it is about protecting the most vulnerable. As any number of members of Cabinet could attest, we spend an awful lot of time on not just protecting the most vulnerable but working out how to assist them to realise their aspirations.

Here are a couple of examples of that. New Zealand now has one of the highest ratios of minimum wage to average wage in the developed world because of consistent increases in the minimum wage. Just a few weeks ago, on 1 April, were the first increases in base benefit rates for households with families in over 40 years. This is the lesson that the Greens should learn: if the Green Party wants a constructive discussion, then it should be a bit more objective about what has actually been achieved so that we can talk about how to achieve more.

To come back to the financial reviews, I think a growing feature, which is actually reflected in the material prepared by the select committee, is the way the Government is taking a longer-term view—in fact, a multigenerational view—of what drives our expenditure. Sure, it is a good thing that we got a surplus in 2014-15 of around $400 million, after much effort, but, actually, if we want to have a surplus in 2025 there are decisions being made now that will affect that. The effectiveness of programmes for 5-year-olds will determine whether they need support when they are 15 years old. Too often in the past the Government has been flying blind on whether our programmes and spending have an impact. Most of our spending is social spending, and for most of it we need to have a better idea of what impact it has. By and large, in the mainstream services it is fairly effective, but, particularly for the most vulnerable—whom the Greens keep talking about—and for the most complex families, we have got quite some way to go.

I expect that in the future we will see more in our select committee reports on the financial review for this year—further progress on that shift to the long-term view that this Government is taking. We do have to account for this year’s cash—that is important; important for the Parliament—but we do also have to work out whether it is going to contribute to the future financial sustainability of the New Zealand Government.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I thank Minister English for his contribution. He talked about ambition and he talked about National’s commitment to being—as I think the election slogan was, back in 2008—ambitious for New Zealand. I have to say to the Minister that it is hard for people to be ambitious about their own circumstances when real disposable income for people is decreasing.

If you look out in the communities, how do communities benchmark their take, if you will, on whether an economy is thriving for them? It is pretty simple. It is not loaded with economic terms and analysis for your average Kiwi battler out there, or your average family; it is about whether that family and the breadwinners within that family feel they are getting ahead economically, whether they feel they are getting a fair go, whether they feel they can get ahead—not just make ends meet, but actually have a little bit of their own surplus in their own domestic economy for the extras in life, perhaps, for their family—and whether it is getting financially tougher for them. I would argue that that is how your average Kiwi would measure and benchmark the progress of an economy and, therefore, the progress and quality of the economic stewardship of a Government.

If you have a look at some of the statistics that have been produced independently and by the Government’s own agencies, you are, of course, looking at per capita growth being flat. The only real growth, really, is off the back of (1) the earthquake and (2) population growth. If you look at exports as a percentage of GDP—there was a Government target, which was trumpeted all around the country, that the target for exports as a percentage of GDP was 40 percent. It started at 30 percent; it is now 27 to 28 percent and going backwards. As another benchmark or acid test for an economy, if you look at per capita GDP last year it was 0.03 percent—0.03 percent. As I said, real disposable income is heading south.

Then the Minister talked about the wafer-thin surplus of $400 million. What he failed to mention, of course, is that if you look at the Earthquake Commission papers, you will see that the $400 million, so-called surplus is exactly the amount that the Earthquake Commission did not spend last year in Canterbury. You could argue whether the people of Canterbury, of my province, are getting as fair a go as they should. Are they benchmarking the quality of management of this economy based on that $400 million surplus, which is exactly the same amount that the Earthquake Commission did not spend last year? That is the fact.

In terms of being ambitious for New Zealanders, I think that we would all agree, cross-party, that we would like to see Kiwis get ahead and that we want to see their ambitions achieved. Whether they live in the poorest of our communities or whether they live on the entrepreneurial side of the road, if you will, and have a bit extra to invest in business and to employ people, we want to see Kiwis get ahead. We want them to do better than simply stretching their budget to breaking point to get the kids’ school shoes and to get a feed on the table—if that is as good as it gets for people, then I would argue that that is not particularly ambitious. This, of course, is from an incoming National Government that inherited 9 long years of surplus, which the Minister of Finance sort of parked in the back, in the archive. In every year a Labour Government put a Budget together, there was a surplus, and not just an offset, “rob Peter to pay Paul” one, but a real one that grew every year.

Hon Annette King: That’s why they appointed Michael Cullen to the bank.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, indeed. Those members showed their confidence in the financial stewardship of Sir Michael Cullen by appointing him to the only Kiwi-owned bank that we have, which is Kiwibank. Mr Muller is nodding, and he knows that is the truth. Michael Cullen was the Minister of Finance who delivered to the National Government and to Bill English zero Crown debt—zero. Not 1 percent, but zero Crown debt. The National Government inherited a surplus and it inherited zero Crown debt, and that, I would argue, would have provided a quite decent platform for a Government that was ambitious about our local communities and our Kiwis and that wanted to get people doing better than just trying to string it together to make ends meet.

Yet that legacy, I would argue, has been squandered. You can say global financial crisis—I am sure the Minister would, and, to be fair to him, there is a component of that. But we are through that, and this Government has had options. God only knows, had it inherited from Labour in 2008 a Budget of huge debt, of huge deficit, then goodness knows how it would have coped with that global financial crisis. I note that the Minister was honest enough many, many years ago to say that that was the rainy day, and acknowledged the fact that Michael Cullen and others had set up a situation, a platform, of zero Crown debt and 9 years of surpluses so that we could tough it out when the global financial crisis was put upon us through overseas influence.

I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on those statistics that per capita growth is flat and that exports—particularly exports as a percentage of GDP—are nowhere near the ambitious target that the Government set. The target started at 30 percent, aimed for 40 percent, and now it is 27 to 28 percent and winding back. That was before the dairy crisis, by the way—that was before the dairy crisis. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments in terms of the rationale of the plan and why that went awry, or whether there is a strategy going forward, given the dairy crisis and other international issues. What is the strategy to increase exports as a percentage of GDP to anywhere like that target of 40 percent? Likewise, real disposable income—I would be interested in having the Minister talk to us about how he proposes to increase it, or what the Government plan is to see it reversed, from decreasing to increasing. Likewise, I would be interested in his comment—I am sure it is one that is well rehearsed within the propaganda of the Beehive—as to how he justifies a surplus, which he calls a real surplus, of $400 million with an Earthquake Commission offset of spending that it did not make of an equivalent amount.

As I said, we all agree, I think, cross-party—the Greens, the National Party—I think we all come into this place wanting to be ambitious for New Zealanders and wanting to do our best. We do disagree around the edges, I think, as to how we should get there.

I come back to my original point. Mum and dad on Struggle Street, Minister—I say through you, Mr Chairman—are not going to sit there and read these weighty financial statements. They are not going to pick through them line by line. They are probably not, as a priority, concerned with the analysis of Treasury, the Inland Revenue Department, and independent economists. They will sit there at home on a Thursday, after they get the pay coming in, and say: “OK, how do we make our household economy, our household expenditure? How do we actually get through the next fortnight?”. That is how they will judge it. They will ask “Is it easier for us? Is it harder for us?”, and for many, many people in New Zealand, it is a hard, week-to-week, fortnight-to-fortnight, pay cheque - to - pay cheque war of attrition to get ahead. Kiwis want to get ahead, and that is how they measure their ambitions and how they achieve those ambitions—through their week-to-week economies.

I forget, was it Muldoon or somebody else who said—or I think it might have been a couple of Ministers over there—that people would not understand the economy if they fell over it? People really do understand economies, because they have to take money coming in and money going out and somehow make it balance. They do not do it through a Budget once a year; they do it every fortnight or every time they get their pay cheque. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that as we move through this debate.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There are a couple of points I want to make, just addressing the notes of Mr Scott. He talked about the fact that that Government over there is supporting dams. Well, he is talking about the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, and what I would like to say is that the Government has taken a really arrogant, out-of-touch approach on this. What the Government has said is “We know best.”—in a 1950s-style, command and control economy—“This should be built.”

The really interesting thing about the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme is that those who will extract value from it—i.e., the farmers—have not invested in it. You would think that if anyone was right behind this, and if anyone was investing in it, it would be the farmers. But, yet again, it is a classic case of that Government forgetting how to listen to key stakeholders. “We know best, we will build it, and they will come”—that is not the 21st century economy that New Zealand deserves, and not the sort of leadership that I think this country needs.

I think that one of the major differences between Labour and National is that National believes that you leave it up to the market and the market will determine the optimal outcomes, whereas Labour believes there needs to be a strategy, there needs to be a vision, and the Government needs to get behind it and put the legislative and regulatory environment in place that allows businesses to really thrive.

If we have a look at what happened with exports, as a classic case—and we are a trading nation—this Government inherited an economy where exports were 30 percent of GDP. It had a plan to take them to 40 percent of GDP. Well, we have found out that it is not a plan, because exports are now 28 percent of GDP. There was no plan there; it was fancy rhetoric. What I am finding more and more is that the massive plan—the vision, the strategy—is hollow promises. You cannot keep saying these things and hoping they happen. There actually has to be a strategy. Provincial New Zealand is a classic case. We talk about regional economic development, and yet we see nothing from this Government in terms of policies, except when there is a by-election. When there is a by-election, it comes out and promises the world, but I look at my own region and I see there is no strategy from central government. Local government has driven growth there in a way that this Government has no idea how to do, because it breezes in, articulates a couple of platitudes, and then it takes off.

The other thing that disappoints me is the Minister in the chair, Bill English, standing up and talking about “more for less”—we expect people to do more for less. He talks about an investment approach, but the problem with that is that communities are not about rates of return. Solving police numbers is not about what the rate of return is that we get from moving a police station out of Napier and moving it to Hastings. An interesting thing, in the briefing to the incoming Minister of Police, was that the first priority was managing within a budget. Moving a police station out of Napier was all about how much money we were going to save. It was nothing to do with communities.

I think this Government has stopped listening to communities. It has started telling communities what they need. It has stopped listening and asking: “What do you require?”. It is an arrogant and out-of-touch approach, which, unfortunately, tends to afflict a lot of Governments in the third term. I am brave enough to stand up and say that it happened to Labour, and it is happening to National now. The National Government is out of touch, it is arrogant, and New Zealanders are seeing this. It is just not good.

Let me give you an example around overseas investment. We absolutely believe that overseas investment is vital to driving economic growth in this country—I think we would all agree with that—but there is a difference between good economic investment and bad economic investment. The company that I want to talk to you about for 2 seconds is called Hikurangi Forest Farms. It came here 20 years ago—20 years ago—and it bought—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! David Bennett will stand and withdraw the comment he just made. The suggestion that any company is paying me is something that is completely out of order, and he will not do it. Even if he meant it about another member, he would still have to withdraw. The member will withdraw.

David Bennett: I withdraw.

STUART NASH: Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a company that in 1996 promised—promised—in an application to New Zealanders that it would build a state-of-the-art sawmill. In 2006 it bought more land and went through the Overseas Investment Office again, and what did it promise? To build a state-of-the-art sawmill. In 2007 it bought some more land, and—you guessed it—it promised to the Overseas Investment Office, which acts on behalf of New Zealanders, to build a state-of-the-art sawmill, and it has done nothing.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is good to hear, occasionally, from Stuart Nash, who I think is the remaining member of the Labour right wing—well, he says he is when he is in Napier; he probably says something different down here. I think that discussion reflects the wishful thinking of the Labour Opposition. Those members wished, when they were reviewing the finances here, that they could say the National-led Government is a nasty, cutting, uncaring Government. They wished that they could say the regions are struggling and getting nowhere. They are saying it and they wish it was the case, but I detected, even from that remaining member of the Labour right wing—with due respect to Trevor Mallard, who is starting to look like he is a member of the Labour right wing, although he did not used to be. Relatively speaking, without moving anywhere, he is starting to look really quite conservative.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Now I have lost my train of thought. But none of those things are correct, because very little of what the member for Napier said—in fact, none of it—was correct. Although some of the regions are under some pressure—I can think of Southland, my own spiritual home, where GDP in the year to March 2015 dropped by 10 percent because of the slowdown in dairy conversions and the drop in the dairy prices—most regions are actually doing pretty well because of the increasing diversification of the New Zealand economy.

In this year to 2015 the Government invested substantially more amounts of money into the kind of innovation and research that does not replace the entrepreneurialism of our companies but supports it, which I think is one of the differences between the Government and the Opposition parties. The fundamental driver of the kind of growth that we would like to see is people taking risks with their own money and succeeding because of their skills and reinvesting the profits that arise from that success, whereas the Opposition parties look through this kind of document and what they want to see is politicians—whom they regard as smarter than the people who run our businesses—making decisions, in detail, about where the economy should go, what risks should be taken, and what risks should not be taken.

The kind of investment that the Government has made through here in innovation and research and development does not always show a direct flow through to profitability, but it has certainly created an environment where—building on work done by the previous Labour Government, to be fair—New Zealand businesses are now much more orientated towards spending a bit of money on research and development, enhancing their productivity, and, in the long run, therefore, producing more jobs.

There have been some issues raised—actually, there is another member, Mr Phil Twyford, who is starting to look like the right wing of the Labour Party although he entered it on the left, because Damien O’Connor needs some company. By “right wing”, I just mean vaguely logical. That is all I mean—vaguely logical. Vaguely logical.

Phil Twyford: Is this you being nice, Bill?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is good to see that he is paying some attention to that.

Some questions have been raised about per capita income. That is a legitimate measure of progress and, like other measures of the economy, it fluctuates. More recently, because of the surge in migration, which is at a many-decades high, and a relatively slower-growing national income largely influenced by the drop in dairy prices, the per capita measure has dropped back a bit. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Of course, as migration flattens off and comes back—which it certainly will; it is just a matter of when that happens—and dairy prices pick up again, all other things being equal, per capita incomes will tend to rise. Across the developed world of low growth, low inflation, and low interest rates, it is a significant challenge to have consistently increasing per capita incomes, but the outlook for New Zealand in that respect is pretty positive.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I just acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Bill English, for having now taken two calls in this debate. I was raised well, I like to think, in that you acknowledge your elders and their experience, and there are very few in the Committee who have more experience and more knowledge about New Zealand and its economy than the Minister. I fully acknowledge that. So it was particularly frustrating to sit here and be told that we have gained a surplus, this wafer-thin surplus, based on the grinding down of Government departments—the conglomeration of super-ministries, brought together to create efficiencies within the Government’s day-to-day operations so that it can cut and cut and cut costs. More than that, it has ground down the very daily lives of the average New Zealander. I talk about health, I talk about homes, and I even talk about infrastructure in Northland.

In terms of infrastructure and growing the Northland economy, to promise 10 bridges was a wonderful thing to do. It was wonderful to say it, but where is the follow-through—where is the follow-though? It is not there. It is an artificial surplus—cuts here, cuts there—so much so that, for me, this example just highlights the ludicrous nature of the situation. A Department of Conservation (DOC) ship—a DOC vehicle—took the big oil industry players out into our deep-sea oceans so that they could further explore deep-sea oil drilling in New Zealand. It was DOC that was facilitating the exploration by these big oil companies, which want to go out and explore oil exploitation off New Zealand shores. The mandate was: “You guys need to make more money. Create your own revenue. It’s not good enough to ask the New Zealand taxpayer to do it.” Well, the Government will not do it, and so here we are today talking about artificial surpluses.

Let us accept that the Minister’s words are true and that there was a surplus. The reality is that that surplus is a short-term, short-minded focus on balancing the books today. The question that that Government over there needs to be asking—that those members on that side of the Chamber need to be asking—is what is the true long-term cost to New Zealanders of trying desperately to gain this surplus? What will that do to those who are raised in substandard housing? What will that do to those who are suffering so poorly in terms of their health, and who are not able to find real alternatives in our public health system so that they can come back and contribute to the economy? What will it do to the lower-income earner who now resorts to crime because they literally cannot feed their family? They resort to desperate, desperate measures that we would call unacceptable, but when you reflect, the situation is just unacceptable. There is no strategy here. There is no long-term strategy, and I think the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee highlighted that very point brilliantly. Long-term strategy? No.

In terms of having a long-term strategy to grow the economy, Mr Joyce, for example, is travelling around the world trying to find foreign investors to come and buy up New Zealand’s assets. That is his investment strategy. I stand here and acknowledge that in doing so, Mr Joyce—if he finds those investors—will increase New Zealand’s GDP, but that highlights the farcical nature of taking GDP as a measure of a country’s success. As those GDP figures go up through investment and business undertaken within our borders, the profits simply go offshore. Incomes will fall because in most of our trade agreements—for example, with China and within the Trans-Pacific Partnership—there are provisions for bringing in labour from offshore and they do not have to comply with local employment legislation. So we are talking about cheap labour being brought in from offshore to facilitate the profits of foreign companies that are then taken offshore. It just makes no sense. GDP will increase—that is a given; it is accepted—but what will that do for everyday New Zealanders? Nothing. In fact, it will make us worse off. The inequality problem that New Zealand has been facing for decades now will continue to grow, and this Government has done nothing to address that.

I just want to address some of the comments from the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and from some of the other members on the other side of the Chamber. It was not Mr Bennett himself, but some of the members have used pretty words. They have used wonderful rhetoric to describe a New Zealand economy that is doing well and that is strong—it is fantastic. That is the picture that is being painted on that side of the Chamber—it is wonderful. But the reality is that when we came to the point—and the crunch came in the by-election last year, for example—it highlighted the fact that our regions, for example, are being completely neglected by this Government. For Mr Joyce to go around the country and come up with these regional development plans, with no money behind them, and then for them to be disabused of any common sense or any benefit from the people within those communities, just highlights the dearth of actual strategy that this Government has to grow our regions. It wants to grow Auckland. You know, it is a big city—let us get up with the modern world. Well, the reality there is that average incomes in Auckland have fallen since the party on that side of the Chamber came into Government. That is a reality. It is just unacceptable.

In his contribution earlier, Mr Bennett said to the Committee that we are enjoying the lowest interest rates this country has ever seen. I think he does not realise that that underpins the farcical nature of the comment. First of all, there are two points to make around that. Interest rates are not low by international standards; they are ridiculously high. That is creating huge pressures for our foreign currency exchange. Our dollar is so overvalued it is not funny, and it is undermining the very industry—and I mean the export industry—that this Government purports to want to support. By failing to manage our official cash rate and our foreign exchange, the Government is undermining every effort that private businesses are trying to take to export overseas. It is ridiculous.

The second point is that it is simply an indication of how badly the economy is struggling. Low interest rates are indicative of a time of low growth, constraints, and—[Interruption]

The guys who are yelling abuse at me need to listen to what I am saying: interest rates are high by international standards. What we are seeing is this ridiculous juxtaposition where—by contrast—they are too high by international standards, but here in New Zealand the Government is not doing enough for local businesses, and interest rates need to come down. It is just absurd.

Immigration—those guys label us as xenophobes for wanting controlled immigration policies. We simply need to manage the flow of people coming into New Zealand so that we actually get skilled labour where we need it. This uncontrolled inflow that we are seeing now is a band-aid on the New Zealand economy. It is a band-aid because it simply covers up the reality that GDP per person—the income of a New Zealander here, an individual New Zealander—is going down and it is not going up. That is the band-aid that immigration is for this country. The fact that pretty much two-thirds of it is going straight into Auckland, so that the infrastructure there cannot cope, is just absurd. Earlier today in the House, Mr English was asked about what conditions—

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this annual review. What we see with the Opposition members is that despite their very best—and a recent poll would suggest that most of New Zealand does not see their best as that good—attempts to talk down New Zealand and despite the fact that they show that they have no aspiration and that they have no confidence in New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses performing, the fact is that New Zealand is doing very, very well. The economy is growing—2.3 percent in 2015. Most pundits are predicting an average of 3 percent over the next few years. The country is doing well. There have been 170,000 jobs created over the last 3 years—170,000—with a further 148,000 forecast over the next 3 years. Those members have tried to talk it down, but the facts are just getting in the way of their story. It is not even a good story.

But to compound that, despite their best efforts to talk down the facts that get in the way, their colleagues are completely confused. They do not know whether things are good or bad, whether interest rates are too high or too low—apparently they are both the same at the same time. It is quite interesting. Mr Tabuteau says interest rates are too high and that it is constraining our exporters, the people whom National members say they support—yes, the exporters. So last year exports grew $1.9 billion—$1.9 billion into the headwind created by a drop-off in dairy. Dairy fell by $3 billion. With exports growing a total of $1.9 billion that tells us that other export industries and sectors grew $4.9 billion. By any measure in New Zealand that is an economy that is performing extraordinarily well.

There was a previous comment, too, from the member for Napier. The Minister of Finance noted that that member, the member for Napier, would appear to be on the right-wing side of Labour. He also pointed out that it is quite relative, and the reason it is relative, I would argue, is that that member was talking about—whereas this Government has a very strong focus on optimisation in public services and delivering better public services for the same or less amount of money, the member for Napier, on the other hand, was just consumed with the idea of not spending less. He clearly sees that the Government is a big driver of economic growth through its own spending. We accept that the Government is a big spender in the economy. It has to be. But on this side of the Chamber we know that it is businesses—businesses—that drive growth, businesses that drive employment up, and businesses that drive wages up. That is why we are committed to opening markets for our exporters to export their products and services. That is why we are open to channels of investment, whether it is direct foreign investment or whether it is innovative approaches like crowdsourcing. This is a Government that knows it is private enterprise that drives the ultimate results for Government business. So we are there supporting our businesses to grow and to reach new markets, to have the confidence to employ more New Zealanders, and, through that, to push incomes up. We have seen that. We have seen incomes rise.

If we take a longer view of this, the Minister of Finance recently reported that from 2010, average wages have grown 15 percent. Inflation over that same period has risen only 10 percent. More recently, inflation has been incredibly low—at a decades’ low of around 0.1 percent—yet average wages continue to rise. People in New Zealand are better off. They are better off because their incomes are growing faster than inflation, and they are better off because there are more employment opportunities, because this is a Government that is supporting businesses to grow and to get out into the worldwide market. So what we see and what we report on is a New Zealand Government that is performing well, is supporting businesses, and is also supporting Government entities.

The member from the Greens made a point that I think symbolises their lack of understanding of business. She talked about how utility companies, or mixed-ownership model companies, are now delivering greater dividends under the new model than they were previously. She completely missed the point. The reason they are delivering better dividends now is the structural change this Government put in place because of the reprioritisation they have through their different governance model. If it was simply a matter that they could have delivered those dividends, the real question is why they did not do it beforehand. By any measure, the mixed-ownership model is delivering more for New Zealanders and it is delivering better results for the Government. This Government is in great shape.

Report noted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we now turn to the second part of the debate. This is the debate on the annual reviews of departments, Offices of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees. The time allocated by the Business Committee for this debate is 8 hours. However, the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government ended early and the remainder of the time is available for debate. I remind members that this debate now includes the reviews and performance of Crown entities as well as departments.

The Business Committee has determined that this part of the debate will follow the structure established by the 2014-15 estimates of appropriations. The annual reviews are grouped into 10 sectors. A list of the entities covered by each sector is available at the Table. Each debate will be led by a call by the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector. Parties have the following calls allocated for each sector: Labour Party, two calls; Green Party, one call; New Zealand First, one call; and the Minister in the chair, three calls. All calls are 5 minutes in length.

In addition, there is the remainder of the 40-minute supplementary calls not used in the debate on financial statements of the Government, which may be taken by all parties as they see fit. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members, depending on parties’ use of their allocation of supplementary calls. At the end of each sector debate the question will be put that the Committee reports relevant to the sector be noted.

At the conclusion of the debate, a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment or debate on the question. When the chairperson reports the bill to the House it is set down for third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading. I remind members that this is a debate not like the previous one that we have just concluded, in that we are specifically dealing with the reports of the committees that are relevant.

Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector

MELISSA LEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): It is a great pleasure as the Commerce Committee chair to lead off this debate. What a great year of annual reviews the Committee has had and received from the select committees. It has been great to listen to the excellent accomplishments through the Government’s work to support economic development around our country.

The Commerce Committee was privileged to hear about a wide array of great initiatives our Government is offering to New Zealand. I was particularly interested in the Commerce Commission, and I would like to commend the work—the great work—by the Commerce Commission to help New Zealanders become more financially literate, thus supporting better saving and budgeting in Kiwi households. It is clear that financial capability is a priority for the Government and that further work in this area will help support New Zealanders to shape their lives for the better.

I think that everyone in this Chamber is in fact aware of the website called Sorted.org.nz, released by the Commerce Commission. This website, which helps New Zealand families work out their financial situation, has undergone a revitalisation to better fit the needs of those who use its services. All New Zealanders go through times when they need a little bit of help—whether it is budgeting for a new “want” item or trying to work out the interest rates and repayments of mortgages that they are trying to negotiate with a new bank, for example. They can make their plans via the website because it does actually provide that assistance, and I think it is great work that it is doing.

Another thing that I am particularly fond of from the Commerce Commission is the animation on tv.comcom.govt.nz. It is called It’s All Good. It has been a fantastic way for New Zealand households to check out information on common issue areas, and the first item that it put up had 140,000 views in the first week alone. It should be commended by this Parliament and members in the Committee. I think it is absolutely fantastic work. The animation gives examples, like when characters are trying to get a loan, and it shows what they should be aware of and some of the pitfalls they could actually fall into. I think it is incredible that our people should actually use that website to get some guidance when they are making financial decisions.

During the annual review the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise presentation to the Commerce Committee about the New Zealand Story Group was also of particular note. This is a plan that focuses on promoting New Zealand’s international brand under the Business Growth Agenda, and it will aim to lift exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. New Zealand’s focus to get our brand to the rest of the world is an essential one if we are to be a part of a growing global economy.

New Zealand is in good shape, and we are working towards building a stronger, more prosperous country where hard-working New Zealanders can have a brighter future. The review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was another great presentation. It was commendable to hear how the Government’s National Science Challenges are working as another great success for New Zealand. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment told the committee about the levels of funding access available to New Zealand scientists to support further research and development within our country and how it was supporting the needs of New Zealand research.

Eight National Science Challenges were under way by the end of 2015, with a total of $650 million in funding committed for their 10-year lives. It is part of New Zealand’s plan to get the best of New Zealand’s scientists working together on a given issue, supporting collaboration and partnership over direct competition. More money in research and development will be the key need for New Zealand’s future, and this is being accomplished. It was noted in the Business Operations Survey that total research and development investment growth was up almost $200 million on 2014 to $1.4 billion. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, the Business Growth Agenda is the master list of the Government’s initiatives, and is a great example of our plan to lift job growth, support better business—

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate on the economic development and infrastructure ideas. I want to pick up where the chair of the Commerce Committee, Melissa Lee, left off, and that was talking about the importance of exports to the New Zealand economy. I think right around the Committee we would all agree that for New Zealand to succeed, we have got to lift our game when it comes to exports. That is where we are going to find the industries that are going to drive high-value jobs and are going to give New Zealanders the standard of living that we want our future generations to have.

So the Government set itself a lofty goal. It was actually a promise, and that was to lift the percentage of GDP that exports constitute to 40 percent. I note in the report of the Commerce Committee on this that it was described by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as “an aspirational target”. That is an interesting change of tune. It is not actually an aspirational target. It was a specific promise of this Government, that it would lift exports as a percentage of GDP from about 30 percent when it came into office to 40 percent. Where are they today? Around about 27 or 28 percent. We are going backwards under this Government when it comes to exports. We are going backwards on the very thing that will help generate the kinds of high-value jobs that New Zealanders want.

The Government complacently sits there with exports at the moment being still approximately 80 percent from primary industries, many of which are unprocessed commodities leaving our ports. That is not going to grow the kind of future New Zealand that our children and our grandchildren want to stay in. We have got to have a greater aspiration than that. Once upon a time the National Government had aspiration. Once upon a time it said it was ambitious for New Zealand, but now we are going backwards. There is absolutely no ambition among the National Government members for New Zealanders, particularly when it comes to the export target.

But do not worry, because hidden here in the report of the Commerce Committee on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is the Government’s big strategy and plan for economic growth. It is called here an agribusiness hub in Saudi Arabia. For those not familiar with this genius economic plan from the Government, it involves giving approximately $12 million to a man named Mr Al Ali Khalaf. Mr Al Ali Khalaf was given this money to set up his agribusiness hub in the desert.

Many people around the Committee, and perhaps listening, will not be aware that the sheep that were flown over to set up this agribusiness hub actually belonged to Mr Al Ali Khalaf in the first place. So the taxpayer paid out to get the sheep from his farm in the Hawke’s Bay and pop them on a plane—they may as well have put them in business-class seats, because that is how much it cost to fly the sheep over there. A sad part of the story is that many of the sheep died on the way. Those that did not, died when they got there. We had some dispute with Nathan Guy about whether or not it was a sandstorm that killed them, but they did die.

In the end, though, the money just kept flowing out of New Zealand. Murray McCully called it a “facilitation payment”. Well, there is another word for that. It begins with “b”, and has the letters “r”, “i”, “b”, and “e” after that, and that is actually—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No, no.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Here in the report of the Commerce Committee on the annual review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is a description of the agribusiness hub in Saudi Arabia. This kind of approach from the Government is appalling. It is about looking after its mates. It is about looking after those at the very top, rather than hard-working New Zealanders supporting and investing in the regions of New Zealand.

Here we have $12 million being pushed offshore to Mr Al Ali Khalaf in the vain hope that he will somehow support a free-trade agreement with Saudi Arabia that does not actually seem to be going anywhere at all. We await with interest the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the agribusiness hub in Saudi Arabia, because it is murky, and it finished off most recently with the payment for an abattoir in Saudi Arabia, and that—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No sheep.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! There are no sheep there, but they have got the abattoir. That impoverished group of people, the Saudi Government, has been now given by New Zealand an abattoir, because it is actually not possible for Mr Al Ali Khalaf, under Saudi Arabia law, to own the abattoir himself, so we had to give it to the Saudi Government. This is the best the Government can do, in terms of an economic development strategy for New Zealand, according to the review that we have here: to throw away $12 million on the vain hope of some kind of pay-off. That will not happen.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I said in a previous contribution that the Opposition was doing its best to talk New Zealand down, and Mr Robertson has just shown us that its best is not very good. There are a couple of points I would address that he did raise. Of course, we do have this goal of raising exports by 2025. What Mr Robertson either glosses over or simply cannot comprehend—I will leave it to the New Zealand public to decide which of those two it is—is that there is this very large-scale internal spend that has been going on in New Zealand. It is called the rebuild of Christchurch. This is a Government that has stood alongside the people of Christchurch since the earthquakes. The fact is that that is such a large contribution from the Government—about $16 billion—and it is such a large-scale piece of activity, also, by insurance companies, that the implication of that is that it will create a counter-pressure to the percentage rate of exports. So it is up to the New Zealand people to decide, having heard Mr Robertson saying that export percentages are going backwards and knowing that the Christchurch rebuild is such a great determinant of that, whether that means that a Labour Government would set aside the rebuild of Christchurch so as not to negatively impact exports as a percentage of GDP. I would have to say, I would not have much confidence of Labour doing anything other than that.

But the reality is that exports are growing exceptionally well. Even in the headwinds of a reduced dairy price globally, exports grew at net $1.9 billion over the last financial year, which actually meant that exports as a whole grew at $4.9 billion extra, because the dairy contribution declined by $3 billion. In fact, one of the best areas where we can see that in economic development is the work that has gone into improving the tourism spend—the number of tourists we get and the amount of money they spend. I have just seen a report that the Telegraph Travel Awards have rated New Zealand as the best country in the world. Over 75,000 readers voted in that annual poll, and they have identified New Zealand as the best country, the best destination. We see that in the results of the last financial year. They, perhaps, in some respects, were a bit slow to see it, because tourism in the last financial year was up over 30 percent—in fact, 31 percent—with $9.7 billion as a contribution to the New Zealand economy. That is an export. That is exceptionally good.

In areas of infrastructure investment, you see a Government that appreciates that in order for New Zealanders to live the lives that they want and for New Zealand businesses to succeed, they need to be connected to the world. We do that in a couple of ways. One way, which I will get to, is through trade agreements. But the other way is through infrastructure that actually permits that connection. For us that is the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative. Investment is now at over $2 billion that this Government is making to ensure that Kiwis and Kiwi businesses can connect with customers across the country and around the world, that they can deliver their services more effectively and more efficiently, and that they can use the power of technology to help them develop new and more innovative and exciting products to take to the market.

This Government is investing billions in ensuring that New Zealanders can fulfil their potential and can compete on the world stage. It is one thing to connect Kiwis to the world through technology; it is another to actually connect them in the sense that they can market their goods and services. This Government, through our economic development programme, does this through free-trade agreements. We are, it seems now, the sole champions—except for, maybe, our friends in the ACT Party and the United Future Party—of free trade in this Parliament. Labour used to believe in it but it no longer does. New Zealand First has never believed in it; it just thinks that Fortress New Zealand is the answer to everything. But we do. We know that a small country at the bottom end of the world is never going to get rich by selling its stuff to itself. If we want to create the prosperity and the lives that Kiwis want to enjoy then we are going to have to do that—and we want to do that—by creating opportunities for our businesses to take their products and their services to countries around the world, and to do so on a more level playing field so that they can compete, and not be locked out of markets or have things made that much more difficult for them to be successful through high tariffs. So we spend a lot of energy in creating those relationships and creating those agreements. It is a shame—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just before I give the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs a call, I ask members to focus on the sectors. Although the member Brett Hudson was referring to free-trade agreements, there is actually a separate debate on foreign affairs, defence, and trade matters. Although one could argue that trade and enterprise was actually in this sector, one must tie it back. But, of course, talking about free-trade agreements is not part of this one. Sector debate—[Interruption] No, no. I let you continue, but just be mindful that this is a sector debate, and there are opportunities to have your say on all of them.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I was running my eye through the list of sectors that we are dealing with here, and there are three of them that I am responsible for that I wanted to comment on today, around the Commerce Commission, the Commission for Financial Capability, formerly the Retirement Commission, and the Financial Markets Authority. All three of those areas are integral to a broader discussion that we are having around expanding the financial capability of New Zealanders, protecting those New Zealanders who struggle—or who have an absence of basic money skills, and get themselves into terrible situations with very expensive debt—and what the Government is trying to do to improve the lot of those New Zealanders.

There are three elements to it. First, legislation itself can take you so far, and we have done very significant reforms in the consumer credit space in the last couple of years. We have introduced the Responsible Lending Code, in which we have introduced rules around responsible lending in the pay-day lending space and in the truck-shop space, trying to get much better clarity around what particularly vulnerable consumers are signing themselves up to. That legislation has been passed and we are confident that it is going to make quite a big difference, particularly to people at that end of the spending spectrum who have got themselves in trouble over the years. But it is only so good if it is properly enforced. That is why the Commerce Commission needs to be actively engaged in the enforcement of that new legislation, and it has been. It has been very interesting and reassuring to see over the past few months the Commerce Commission being very active in this consumer space, policing the Fair Trading Act as well as the Consumer Credit Act. It has been out there dealing with some of the truck shops and sending clear notices to them to change their behaviours and the way that they operate.

Changing that legislation and enforcing that legislation only takes you so far. The much broader multigenerational task that we have got is to improve the financial capability of New Zealanders as a whole. That is why the Government last year put out a Government statement on financial capability. One of the things that struck me when I first became a Minister responsible in this area was that just about every Government department had some form of financial capability programme under way, whether it was through the Ministry of Social Development and the massive investment that it makes in budgeting, through to the Ministry of Youth Development, to the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, to the Commerce Commission, to Treasury, to schools, to all sorts of areas. It is such an important thing and many private sector players and banks have also engaged in this discussion. There was a danger that we had not really got a coordinated effort, and so there is a national strategy that is being developed by the Commission for Financial Capability.

We have said, as a Government, that this is actually important to us, this is the strategy, and we are expecting all the Government agencies, at least, to work together very collaboratively on trying to improve the outcome of this area, and also to work collaboratively with the private sector. I am looking forward to a 1-year update in a couple of months on the progress that has been made in that area. Overall, if we can do everything we can to equip New Zealanders once they come out of school and into the community with a better understanding of how debt operates, how interest operates, and how when you buy something for $15 a week for 20 weeks, that is going to be a lot more expensive than potentially buying something directly. All those basic things that we are going about in a systematic way—

Hon Member: Yawn!

Denis O’Rourke: This is waffle.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —so dealing with the legislation, dealing with the enforcement, followed by dealing with a wider effort of financial capability. And I am conscious of the fact that one or two members at the back end of the House may find this a little dry, but it is these kinds of systematic, thorough, and ongoing efforts that need to be made across every aspect of Government that lead to the outcome for New Zealanders that we are trying to attain, and that is an ability to raise living standards in this country, and to give every New Zealander the opportunity to thrive and succeed.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call on the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector in the annual review debate. I am going to restrict my comments to the whole area around the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

It is a rather interesting process that we go through to scrutinise the performance of what is, essentially, the Public Service as part of our democratic process. I applaud the work done by the Public Service, and I also think that we need to recognise the pressure that our public servants are under with this National Government, coping with the expectations of having to do more with less, which is a consequence of National’s persistent underfunding of public services in order to give more and more to those who have too much already. Unfortunately, it is not only the public servants who bear the brunt but also the most vulnerable people in New Zealand—people like our exploited workers and new migrants, who deal with the reality of having a Public Service that has to do too much with too little and cannot service them properly.

I would like to talk about two areas specifically, and they are immigration and employment, where, because of the lack of resources, our public services are falling short of delivering the core services that they are supposed to. Nearly one in five investigations into suspected breaches of minimum employment standards has not been completed within 6 months of the initial notification by the labour inspectorate, and that is the natural consequence of having a stretched labour inspectorate. Australia has one labour inspector for 19,000 Australians. Here in New Zealand we have one labour inspector for 58,658 New Zealand workers.

With limited compliance checks, bad employers like Nelson’s Taste of Egypt restaurant or Masala are able to exploit their workers, paying them less than the minimum wage. In Taste of Egypt’s case, it was paying them for 30 hours a week when they were actually working 70, and the employer continued to intimidate and exploit these workers even after a labour inspector had visited them.

Having an underfunded labour inspectorate and an imbalanced industrial relations climate allows these gross breaches to happen. Essentially, it favours employers and National’s donor class over ordinary, working New Zealanders. If the labour inspectorate cannot adequately fulfil the target set out for it, which is a 90 percent completion rate of investigations of suspected breaches within 6 months, then clearly we need more labour inspectors.

Immigration New Zealand is also feeling the consequence of underfunding, with nearly one in five audited visa decisions being rated as not accurate. As with the labour inspectorate, we cannot keep expecting the Public Service to do more with less. Overworked public servants are under pressure to meet high targets for processing applications, but they are only human and are liable to make mistakes. The persistent underfunding of this crucial public service has led to an explosion in the growth of an immigration advisory industry, and some of them are dodgy. Looking at the data, nearly 40 percent of cases of complaints about immigration advisers had still not been resolved more than 5 months after the first complaint was made, and it is clear that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is having issues in regulating this industry.

It makes it more perplexing when you consider that the immigration levy has been underspent. In the year 2014-15 the migrant levy collected amounted to $9,979,000. This is money that is supposed to be allocated to support new migrants to settle here, but only $9,190,000 of that was allocated last year, leaving more than half a million dollars unallocated. When so many of the wonderful migrant centres and multicultural associations around New Zealand are struggling for funding and are providing useful support, why is the Government continuing to penny-pinch the money that migrants actually pay to this country to provide the services for them? It is clear from the annual review process that our public services are struggling from the strain of having to do more for less.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to talk about this Government’s appalling record on transport infrastructure. We have often heard speeches in this Chamber about roads of national significance, but we never hear anything about rail, because this Government does not care about rail; it only cares about more and bigger roads. That is a forlorn strategy, doomed to failure, as shown in many places worldwide. A good arterial roading system is essential, but that does not mean putting all the eggs into that one basket, leaving other land transport modes a basket case, which New Zealand rail has certainly become.

Rail in New Zealand is grossly neglected by this National Government, funding for capital development of rail is pathetic, and maintenance in many areas is clearly underfunded. The saga of failures of the Cook Strait ferries alone—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I would like to hear what the member is saying. There are too many other discussions going on. If one wants to talk, that is what the lobbies are for. All right?

DENIS O’ROURKE: I was saying that the saga of failures of Cook Strait ferries alone proves what I have been saying. It shows that rail is being run down across New Zealand quite deliberately by this Government.

Rail in Northland needs special attention, with neglected lines failing to attract customers because of the sheer poor quality of the product offered to them. The line to Northland must be improved if the port is to realise anything like its potential, and the Napier-Gisborne line remains mothballed, damaging economic viability for many exporters in that region. Here is what one of them wrote just this week: “Transferring product moved by road to rail has huge implications for our area. During peak season, we are restricted by the amount of trucks we can obtain, and transport cost increases with volume. However, transporting this volume to rail will decrease transport costs to port, making Gisborne competitive.”

I would also have to say that if New Zealand is going to have any hope at all of meeting its climate change obligations, we cannot do it with a run-down rail system. Our only hope, in fact, is to reduce the growth of transport of road freight and to invest in rail freight. That is, in fact, what the road transport industry itself wants too. New Zealand First, of course, has a much better policy than this National Government; we have instead of “RONS” a “RONI” policy—railways of national importance. That is a strategy to redevelop rail in New Zealand, properly funded through a single land transport fund, giving rail the priority it needs.

Turning to regional roads, despite desperate promises for the two-laning of 10 bridges in Northland during the recent by-election, Minister Bridges will actually only, in fact, build four of them, as now set out in the National Land Transport Programme, confirmed by this month’s Northland Regional Council’s transport committee. So it is clear the Minister has no genuine plans to widen more than the four bridges currently budgeted for, when only three more are part of corridor studies and may be considered in the future.

As for the remaining three of the promised 10, the report says: “The Government may decide on an investment approach …” for them. This “maybe” approach to six out of 10 promised bridge-widening projects for Northland shows the Minister’s duplicity on that matter—promising one thing and delivering less than half. He may be “Bridges” by name and by promises, but not by promises fulfilled. This is a good illustration, in fact, of the National Government’s failure everywhere on transport. As I have said, that is seen by a run-down rail system—run down, actually, quite deliberately by this Government by not properly funding the infrastructure that the country needs, poorly funded regional roads, and totally inadequate commuter rail for Auckland. This is all caused by a Government that has not the remotest clue how to invest to solve New Zealand’s transport woes. Its approach is non-strategic.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would like to take a call on two votes within this sector—the Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Earthquake Commission within this. We have heard the traditional rubbish from Government members about what a fantastic job the Canterbury rebuild is and the amount of money being put into there and what a positive effect that is on New Zealand’s economic development. Well, there is no denying that the rebuild of Canterbury has had a stimulatory effect on the economy. There is no denying that, but this is the year when the Canterbury rebuild is forced to cease to become a net generator of growth within our economy.

One cannot help but fear the way that Canterbury and the rebuild of Canterbury and Christchurch is slipping down this Government’s agenda because it is not that source of growth any more. Sure, there will still be money spent in our region and it still will be good, but it is not going to be driving economic growth in this country in the same way that it has been since 2011. The Canterbury earthquake recovery portfolio has lurched from problem to problem under the leadership of Gerry Brownlee. We have wide open spaces and wastelands in our city where Government action was meant to be happening. It simply has not been the case that the Government has performed in the way that it should. Years on, only five out of the 12 anchor projects even have business cases completed. The anchor projects were meant to be the things within the central city that anchored the recovery—that provided the stimulus for private enterprise to build around and to fuel that development. Well, the anchor projects have become more of a weight and a millstone in the centre of Christchurch rather than having a stimulatory effect.

What we have are delays and uncertainty, and these delays and uncertainty from Government are actually causing capital flight from Canterbury. We are hearing on the ground in Christchurch all the time about vast sums of capital that is leaving Canterbury because the risk and the uncertainty is far too much for those investors to bear. There are fantastic things happening in Christchurch—there are wonderful things happening within the central city—but they certainly are more than likely to be something the Government has nothing to do with. Where the Government has touched something, it is subject to delays and repairs. Just last week we saw that Treasury gave the Canterbury earthquake recovery—and, specifically, in the central city—the worst rating of any other Government expenditure on capital in this country.

And how did the Minister respond? Well, when I was 13 years old, if I had gone home and blamed the report writer for a bad report, my parents would not have bought it. But what we had from the Minister was a tantrum about Treasury, rather than him owning up and saying: “Yes, things haven’t gone so well. We haven’t seen the kind of progress that we would like to see in central Christchurch. We haven’t seen the development that we need and, 5½ years on, we are behind schedule. But we’re entering a new phase, and I’d like to think that we can get on and do this.” No, we saw the usual bluster from the Minister, rather than owning the problem, and this has been part of the problem all the way through. What we have is a Minister who has presided over a Government department that has spent money telling Cantabrians that everything is OK, when the blindingly obvious around them is that this is not the case.

In the final part of my contribution, I want to turn my attention to the Earthquake Commission. This is, quite frankly, something we must learn a lesson from. We can see we have gone through yet another financial year where we have huge numbers of complaints. We have re-repairs on re-repairs occurring. We see the sale of people’s property in Canterbury falling through because of shoddy and dodgy earthquake repairs the first time. And, still, we have a Government that refuses to open its ears, to open its eyes, and to understand that we must learn from these mistakes. What we have been through in Canterbury is not something that we ever want to see anyone in any other part of this country go through again, but this is a Government that is intent on not learning from those errors—not learning how we can do this better. This is something that we simply must face up to by having an independent inquiry—

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party wants to create a smarter, greener economy that is going to look after all New Zealanders, and that is entirely possible. One of the ways we can do that is through smarter investment in infrastructure. This Government, in its National Infrastructure Plan, announced a series of projects, the vast majority of which were motorways that it calls roads of national significance. The reason these projects had to be given this special title of “national significance” is that none of them actually stacked up under the traditional economic evaluation method that was used by the New Zealand Transport Agency at the time.

National got into power, it did the economic analysis, and it saw that these motorway projects it had promised do not make any economic sense. At the time, I was working as a consultant for the New Zealand Transport Agency, and I remember the officials there at the time expressing great concern over the priorities of this Government—how they simply did not make any economic sense, and that it was a poor use of money. Naively, I thought, as a consultant, that we could present the evidence to the politicians. They say they care about the economy, they want to reduce costs to households, business, and government, so I thought: “Great. There’s opportunities to do that that not only reduce all the cost to households, business, and government but also reduce pollution, protect the environment and the climate, make life easier for all New Zealanders, make it easier for them to access goods and services, create healthier, happier cities, and all these win-wins.” But, unfortunately, the National Government has completely failed to take up the opportunity that exists for it.

It has been a bit of a mystery for me, because if we look at countries overseas, there are centre-right Governments that understand the economic benefits of having a balanced transport system, and they are investing in public transport, safe cycling, and rail to move freight because it makes economic sense. We have business people, freight experts, here in our own country—like Mainfreight, which is by far the largest freight company—that have said it makes sense for their business to invest in rail and to use rail to move goods around the country. But it is the Government’s responsibility to invest in the underlying infrastructure and, unfortunately, this National Government has failed to invest in the infrastructure that we need to have a balanced transport system because it has been so busy delivering these promises, which are hugely expensive—we are talking $12 billion, at least—on just a few stretches of extremely expensive motorway, which, of course, is going to do nothing to help the vast majority of Kiwis get to work and avoid congestion. It is not even going to help freight that much, if you look at an objective analysis of these projects.

So it is a real missed opportunity, and the Green Party has a clear alternative solution. We demonstrated right before the last election exactly how we would pay for fast, frequent, reliable public transport in our major cities: Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. We demonstrated how we would pay for safe walking and cycling to schools. That is one of the smartest ways to reduce peak-hour congestion in our towns and cities but, not only that, it is better for our kids. It is better for the environment. It means they get moving before school so they can learn better when they get there, and that is really their birthright—to be able to walk and cycle to school. That is a popular policy, but, unfortunately, the National Government has still failed to implement it, after 8 years now in power. It is moving on with the urban cycleways, which is great and we support that, but it needs to go further.

As an Aucklander, I can say that public transport in Auckland is bursting at the seams. Buses and trains are full to standing. The buses that pass where I live—oftentimes at peak time, three to five buses will pass completely full, leaving 10 or 20 people waiting at the bus stop. That is simply not acceptable. It is also too expensive. Households are having to pay far too much for public transport.

But the other big missed opportunity is in the freight area. As I said earlier, Mainfreight, our biggest freight logistics company, has said that we need more investment in the rail network. The way to do that is to have the infrastructure, the rail network, not treated as a State-owned enterprise that needs to somehow return a profit to the Government through its surplus—which KiwiRail does have; it has an operating surplus on its freight operations—but we should treat the rail network as part of the transport network and invest in it because of the wider economic, environmental, and social benefits for all New Zealand businesses.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Recovery): I would like to take a short call on this infrastructure theme, and I would really like to have this focus on the infrastructure investments, repairs, and rebuilds in Christchurch. Listening to the member for Wigram, Megan Woods, I would think I live in a different city.

I am enormously proud of the work that the people of Christchurch have done in Christchurch over the last 5 years. I am enormously excited about the future of our city, and I am really impressed with how they have managed to rebuild so much of our infrastructure. When you think about it, earthquakes are really tough on infrastructure, and 15,000 earthquakes are particularly tough. That number of earthquakes has made us think about how we manage our rebuild, how we can be innovative, and how we can really make the most of this opportunity—5, 10, 15 years of investment, as we replace our infrastructure, has made us the construction capital of New Zealand, and we are making the very most of that opportunity.

The challenge of rebuilding and repairing the majority of Christchurch has required us to innovate. They say that necessity is the mother of invention. Really, the problems we had replacing our horizontal infrastructure—who knew about horizontal infrastructure before our earthquake? It is the three waters: fresh water, stormwater, and the sewers—and, on top of that, the roads. That is horizontal infrastructure. To replace that, we have had to create an organisation called “SCIRT”. “SCIRT” is the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team, and it is a new way of working. The team has brought five of our major construction companies together, and they have worked in a collaborative model to be able to deliver the huge amount of work that has to be done to bring together their expertise and capacity. And it is interesting that that model has been recognised internationally as something that is really good as an immediate response to a disaster, and it is being used for our disaster risk reduction kaupapa around the world. In fact, Fiji has used it after their recent cyclone.

Of course, as well as the repair of horizontal infrastructure—and at this stage, we think we have repaired about 90 percent of the inner-city horizontal infrastructure and about 85 percent of the suburban area—we are also investing in all of the things that a city needs in order to go forward. We are investing in roads, we are investing in transport mechanisms, we are investing in hospitals, and we are investing in education. We have got a significant roads of significance programme in Christchurch, we have got a new transport interchange, which connects not only our local buses but also our intercity buses and has places for biking and walking at the end of those bus routes, and we have also got the biggest hospital redevelopment and replacement in New Zealand’s history. Two major hospitals are being built—one in Burwood and one in the centre city, and the Burwood hospital is going to open some of its wards within a couple of months.

Finally, I would just like to mention the investment that we have in education: $1.1 billion going into new schools, primary and secondary—magnificently well-designed, creative new learning environments; places that our kids are really going to have the opportunity to take off. Of course, there is also investment going into our universities and our polytechs. So I am really excited about the future of Christchurch. We are building a safer, more innovative, people-friendly city; a city that has opportunities for our young people, that we can see going forward, and that is a place I hope all generations will feel comfortable and will feel is their home. Kia ora.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I am very glad to take a contribution in this annual review debate. I want to talk about housing and the work of the ministry of business, innovation and enterprise—or should it be employment?

Grant Robertson: Employment.

PHIL TWYFORD: Employment. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—otherwise known as “Mobie”. The Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith has talked a good game over the last 4 years about this Government’s commitment to try to make homeownership affordable once again. But when we look at the record in Government of this Minister and this ministry, it is a tale of woe, and I am going to catalogue that woe for the record. I think it is clear to everybody that New Zealand is in the grip of a housing crisis, and the latest Statistics New Zealand numbers show that under this National Government homeownership has dropped from 66 percent to 63 percent. It is a very significant drop in the last 7 years. In the last 12 months, according to recent data released by one of the international banks, New Zealand had the highest rate of house price inflation of 23 countries in the Western World—the worst record in skyrocketing house prices and unaffordable homeownership in the Western World. Young Kiwis are locked out of the dream of homeownership. We have unprecedented numbers of families all over the country, but probably most acutely in Auckland, living in cars and garages.

How does this Government respond? What does Nick Smith do? He wheels out one stunt, one phoney press release after another, and we have been discussing it in the House for the last couple of days. The centrepiece of the Government’s housing announcement in the Budget last year was its vacant Crown land initiative in Auckland. The Prime Minister and Nick Smith promised 500 hectares of new land freed up from Crown ownership to be developed to provide housing in Auckland. What has happened in the last year? Nick Smith has spent $52 million and all he has got to show for it is 25 hectares of Crown land. Not a single new house has been built. This was the centrepiece of the Government’s housing announcement in the Budget, and the nation has been subjected to this classic Nick Smith fiasco, as he has denied point blank that cemeteries, power substations, and schools were included in the list of land sites that he used to make that 500-hectare promise. Thanks to Nick Smith’s officials, under the Official Information Act that list has been released. The substations, the schools, the cemetery—they are all on the list, as is Government House. If this was not such a tragedy it would be funny, but Aucklanders desperately need real houses that they can live in.

The Crown land fiasco is just one of them. The special housing areas in Auckland, which is supposed to be the Government’s centrepiece policy to tackle the supply shortage of houses in Auckland, in 3 years has resulted in the construction of only about 700 houses, according to Nick Smith—700 houses. Under this National Government we have seen a shortfall of between 30,000 and 40,000 houses build up over the last 4 years. They are only building about 9,000 houses a year in Auckland, but the city needs 14,000 just to keep up with population growth. Record net migration in Auckland means that in the last 12 months an additional 31,000 people have settled in our country’s biggest city. The new build rate in Auckland will not even house those new arrivals. So the shortage under Nick Smith and this National Government is getting worse by about 4,000 to 5,000 a year.

Why this elaborate charade, why this constant procession of fake, phoney policy announcements that are obviously designed to have minimal impact? Why go to all the bother? Well, John Key made it very clear the other day when he told Leighton Smith on Newstalk ZB that a lot of people in Auckland like their house prices going up. That is why his policy is not to do anything that will disturb that house price inflation, and he is, cynically, prepared to look after the interests of the wealthy, the leafy suburbs, the speculators, but he is prepared to cut adrift Generation Rent, the mortgage slaves—

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): With the couple of minutes I have remaining before the dinner break, I would like to briefly discuss the immigration services aspect of the annual review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The Commerce Committee looked particularly at the Investor Plus category and questioned, I think quite rightly, the lack of oversight of that particular category. It was concerning to discover under questioning that the ministry officials have actually got no idea what the impact of the Investor Plus category has been on the New Zealand economy. They do not know how many jobs, if any, have been created by the Investor Plus category. They do not know what the people who have come into New Zealand under the Investor Plus category have gone on to actually contribute to New Zealand’s economy. I think it is an appalling lack of oversight for a new category that this Government introduced.

The Government claimed that it was going to add huge economic benefit to New Zealand, that it would put people of extreme wealth to the front of the immigration queue, ahead of other people looking to come into New Zealand, only because they are extremely wealthy. The Government claimed that that was going to have a massively positive impact on New Zealand, yet it is not prepared to actually monitor that in any way and to actually produce any data that tells us whether the Investor Plus category is working or not. There have been allegations that the Investor Plus category has been used for money-laundering.

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

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Before the dinner break, I was talking about the Commerce Committee’s report into the review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and particularly the section that pertained to Immigration New Zealand. In that report, some of the members raised concerns about the Investor Plus category, the lack of oversight of that category, and the lack of information telling us whether or not the Government’s intentions for setting up that category, for setting up the system whereby wealthy migrants get to jump to the front of the queue ahead of everybody else, was actually working in New Zealand’s interest.

One of the signs that there might be some issues with this category is the report that we got earlier this year that police investigated two American investors who brought their money into New Zealand through the Investor Plus scheme but then withdrew their money into a different account whence it came before they gained residency in New Zealand. What the police were interested in was whether this was money-laundering. Was New Zealand’s immigration system being used to launder money? The bit that concerns me is that Immigration New Zealand did not pick up on this. It was not Immigration New Zealand that looked into this; it was the police who looked into this after, I think, a tip off from the bank where the money had been moved to. So I do not think that Immigration New Zealand’s oversight of that particular category is up to muster.

I think the Government should be resourcing Immigration New Zealand and asking it to take a much closer look to make sure that the Investor Plus category is actually working in New Zealand’s best interests, because an immigration system that works in New Zealand’s best interests is an immigration system that works for us as the host country and also works for the migrants themselves so that they get good outcomes. It is not just the Investor Plus category that Immigration New Zealand is not looking closely enough at; in fact it is all the categories. We do not actually know what the outcomes are for a lot of migrants.

I looked particularly at the skilled migrant category. What we do know—not from research done by Immigration New Zealand but from outside research that has been done—is that around 90 percent of people who apply to come to New Zealand under the skilled migrant category get work after 6 months, and that sounds quite good on the face of it. What we do not know is whether or not they actually get work in the area for which they are skilled. I look at two examples. I had a long conversation with a bloke who came from Egypt. He is a civil engineer, he has been in New Zealand for over a year, and he cannot get work. He came to New Zealand under the impression that he was wanted here. He came to New Zealand under the impression that he had a skill that New Zealand needed, and yet he cannot get work. I have to ask whether our immigration system is working if people who come to New Zealand under the skilled migrant system are not able to get work.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): It is a pleasure to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in this part of the debate. I choose to speak about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment this evening and its report. I think everyone in the Chamber this evening will acknowledge that it was a ministry designed to fix all woes—that was the intent. I do have some sympathy for Minister Joyce. He must be getting tired. It must be exhausting. He is like a bald Hercules running around the country putting out fire after fire. We will all soon be talking about lost productivity within the ministry, loss of focus, and how whole departments are getting lost within this super-structure. Although, to be fair, there is a giant TV right at the start of the maze to light the way for those lost and confused staffers and members of the public brave enough to enter.

The report describes the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as the primary-facing agent for New Zealand business. I am just wondering whether that means the stone sign outside the super-herculean ministry facing passers-by, which cost $24,000 more than they had budgeted for—a total of $70,000 for a stone sign on the side of the road. It is just unbelievable. The report from the super-herculean ministry states that if the community is confident that its society and environment will be protected and enhanced and the benefits of growth are fairly shared, the New Zealand business environment will flourish. New Zealand First could not agree more with that statement but, yet again, the superlative choice of language from this Government is first rate and paints a picture not just in the minds but also in the heart. It is just truly wonderful.

But let us examine the statement “if the benefits of growth are fairly shared” in a bit more detail. We know the benefits of growth are not being fairly shared, and this ministry has no solution. We now know that this Government is cool, or simply apathetic, about tax havens. We know that tax avoidance by New Zealand and international corporates, totalling somewhere in the vicinity of $7 billion, is all good with this Government. We know that it is fine to allow international fraudsters to use the Auckland housing market to launder money. We know that it is fine to allow Kiwi homes to be the means for foreign speculators to make giant or gigantic capital gains at the cost of our Kiwi lifestyle and our Kiwi Dream. “No rush.”, says the National Party, “Let us not upset big business. We do not want to compromise big corporate profit margins—heaven forbid if they drop in any given year.”

As the ministry itself has said, the benefits of growth must be fairly shared for the business environment to flourish. What we do know for sure is that New Zealand’s inequality measures are rapidly increasing—that is, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and there are more of them. Actually, small to medium sized businesses, and even the big players in the New Zealand economy, are, literally, losing out on profits because of income inequality here. Rising inequality is responsible for wiping a third off New Zealand’s economic growth over the past 30 years. New Zealand’s GDP growth was stunted by as much as 15.5 percentage points between 1990 and 2010—more than any other OECD country. Income and wealth inequality in New Zealand gets bigger by the day. It is not all the fault of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, I acknowledge, but “Rising inequality has been the norm in most developed countries but few have seen its increase by as much as New Zealand.”

This ministry’s Minister needs to stop talking about huge trade gains, which even by their own analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example, are less than a 2 percent increase by 2030. These gains are so tiny actually that impartial analysis of this free-trade agreement shows us that as we sign up to this type of partnership—and that is what it actually is, a partnership—income inequality in New Zealand and in those partnership nations will actually increase. That is not a solution.

Reports noted.

Education and Science Sector

Dr JIAN YANG (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the education annual review. As the chair of the Education and Science Committee, I am proud to say that the National-led Government is delivering an education system that New Zealanders can be proud of. The Hon Hekia Parata and the Hon Steven Joyce are doing a fantastic job as Minister of Education and Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, respectively. We are seeing great results and outcomes for our children.

This Government is committed to ensuring that every young New Zealander has the skills and qualifications needed to successfully participate in the modern economy. Under National, the lift in achievements has been astonishing in some cases. This year 98 percent of new entrants in schools have participated in early childhood education. This means New Zealand is in the top third of OECD countries for the participation of children in early childhood education. National introduced national standards in 2010 not only to identify children who were behind at school but also to help parents support their children and to help schools focus on what they needed to do.

I am proud to say that projections show that students are on track to surpass challenging educational targets—almost 2 years ahead of schedule. The number gaining National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, or an equivalent qualification for 18-year-olds, increased by 3.2 percent to 84.4 percent last year. Since National came to power in 2008, there has been a 24 percent increase in achievement. The lift in achievement has been astounding for Māori and Pasifika students. The number of Māori students gaining NCEA level 2 at school has increased by 33.2 percent to 69.4 percent, and the number of Pasifika students gaining NCEA level 2 at school has increased by a massive 48 percent to 75.2 percent. Sixty percent of 25 to 34-year-olds will have a qualification at level 4 or above by 2018.

Under National, student achievement is real, because our plans to monitor progress and lift achievement in education are working, such as the Investing in Educational Success programme. We have also seen significant growth in our international education industry—now our fifth-largest export sector—with over 100,000 international students in New Zealand. This industry is now worth $2.85 billion to New Zealand and provides more than 30,000 jobs for New Zealanders. This shows that parents from other countries have confidence in our education system, and our reputation for educational achievement has spread across the world.

To ensure that our schools are equipped for the 21st century we have built 30 new schools since 2009, and 2,111 new or replacement classrooms since 2010. The National-led Government has also invested $700 million in digital infrastructure and has connected 90 percent of State schools and State integrated schools, which is 2,282 schools, to the managed network. Our next steps for continuing the investment in our education system are reviewing how we deliver special education, updating the Education Act, and, of course, investing in the Christchurch education sector.

Our unrelenting focus is on raising achievement for all of our students, and it is paying dividends. National is delivering an education system that New Zealanders can be proud of. I would like to finish by acknowledging that the lifts in educational achievement are also a result of the hard work of students, teachers, principals, and parents. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I have just noticed that for a couple of speeches tonight—and I just want clarification from you—people have been reading their speeches during these stages. So I am just checking whether or not that is within the rules of what we are supposed to be doing during this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Given the speech that has just been delivered, I was happy with that, and, of course, I am the judge of that. Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will feel free to jump in any time, if that is OK.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak particularly on the areas of Education New Zealand and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

I will pick up on some of the comments by Dr Jian Yang, the chair of the Education and Science Committee, particularly around export education, which is covered by both Education New Zealand and by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. If I can just quote from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s annual report, one of its key pieces of work is: “administering the Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students, which involves working with other quality assurance providers and the International Appeal Authority and Review Panel to verify that Code signatories perform as required and that international students receive ethical and responsible care from their providers.”

What I want to touch on here is that it is interesting—Dr Yang actually touched on it—that in 2014 there were 110,000 international students inside the post-secondary environment here in New Zealand. Just the universities alone made $883 million from those students for that particular year. Education New Zealand, for example, spent approximately $31 million on marketing overseas and so on in order to get those 110,000 students to come here to New Zealand. They were given a marketing opportunity by this Government in the last few years, which was the ability for students to actually have 20 hours’ part-time work. Dr Yang said quite rightly that it has been extrapolated out that the export education industry has created 30,000 jobs in New Zealand. The Government has handed out 70,000 part-time work visas. So if Dr Yang would like to do the maths, New Zealand has actually lost by 40,000 jobs—40,000 jobs have been taken from New Zealand students under the marketing ability of export education.

So if we get back to the fact that export education spent $30 million to $31 million of New Zealand taxpayers’ money going overseas to promote export education, which, let me say, is vital to New Zealand—the reputation of that education is vital to New Zealand—what would the House think that the State received back for that $31 million worth of investment? The State actually received a $4 million return from the training institutions, not just universities but all private training establishments, all training institutions from tier 1 to tier 4—why we have tier 3 and tier 4 training institutions when our reputation is vital overseas I have no idea, but perhaps the Government could tell me. The Government received a $4 million return. That is because every training institution that receives a benefit from the $31 million worth of marketing pays $185 per year, per institution—$185 per year, per institution. That is what the New Zealand taxpayer received back for that investment. Apart from the fact that it is a woefully sorry return for the New Zealand taxpayer on the investment that they make, at the same time it is supporting private businesses to gain a benefit from the overall New Zealand taxpayer dollar.

Then there comes this issue of care, and this is where the New Zealand Qualifications Authority needs to step up and where the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s resourcing under these financial documents needs to be looked at quite strongly. What we have had from the AUSA, the Auckland University Students Association, is that it has had a 96 percent increase in students coming to it over the last few months for food parcels, for legal aid, and so on. That is all students—a 96 percent increase in all students coming to them in January and February. What is very interesting is that 55 percent of those people are international students. International students are coming to them for legal advice around sex-for-rent. International students are coming to them for food parcels. International students are coming to them for assistance in the workplace where they are being ripped off. And yet what we have is a lack of resourcing for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to be proactive or to hold those private training establishments and those universities, which hold our reputation in the palm of their hand—we have a lack of resourcing by that department to maintain the level of reputation that we need for what is an incredibly vital service.

So when New Zealand First raises these issues consistently around the abuse of international students inside the workplace, and the abuse of international students—and particularly female students—with the sex-for-rent scandal, why was there no noise from any member of the Government or any Government department when there was an investigation into the sex-for-rent scandal that happened up in Auckland? That is a resourcing issue.

The other issue that we have and I think is very interesting—and this is from the 2015 year—is a statement put out by the Hon Hekia Parata and the Hon Steven Joyce. The statement that they have made here is that “In addition, New Zealand is one of only nine OECD countries where salaries for experienced tertiary-educated teachers compare favourably with salaries for people with equivalent qualifications in other occupations. The report shows that teacher salaries have risen faster in New Zealand than the OECD average since 2005.” I bring this to your attention because it relates to the financial documents, but it is the spin that is put on these financial documents. Dr Yang just spoke about how well the New Zealand education system is doing, insisting that it is because the National Government has invested so highly in it. But the National Government has underspent in special-needs education. The National Government has continued to fight for increased funding for all students. The National Government has continued, and is continuing to this day, to put barriers in the way of extension for gifted and talented students and also for our special-needs students.

What is interesting about the statement I just read is that I actually had research done to try to prove the statement that was put out by Hekia Parata and Steven Joyce. The researchers’ comments are: “we cannot replicate the above statement with data. There is no data to support the statements made.” This, again, is what happens inside these reports and inside the conversations that this Government talks about with regard to education. Statements are made—they go off just like water down the road—but there is no substance to those statements. One can say again and again and again that one cares and wants to get five out of five students over the line. Yet the Government is not funding, not spending, not making sure that they support the organisations—the Government departments—that should be proactive to keep the reputation of our education system intact. Ensuring they have the right funding should be inside not only these financials but the financials going forward.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is with great excitement and privilege that I stand and talk, for the first time, actually, in my new role on the Education and Science Committee, about the review of the education and science year. After the Opposition ramblings, let us talk about children, shall we, and the incredible effort that this Government has made in partnership with the ministry and teachers around New Zealand to actually deliver a better outcome for our children in New Zealand. The other side might get lost in all its lamentations and study around the future of work—

Carmel Sepuloni: No expectations; no aspirations.

TODD MULLER: —but this Government will focus on ensuring that our children, when they leave at the end of their education, are fit—

Carmel Sepuloni: That’s why the Deputy Prime Minister calls them all hopeless. No aspirations.

TODD MULLER: —and ready to be able to take those skills to the world. That is why I am delighted to be able to talk to this review. Let us look at the results that Carmel Sepuloni is spurning from the other side. In 2008, just 7—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! The member has achieved cut-through; can she tone it down a bit now?

TODD MULLER: —short years ago—7 short years ago—only 68 percent of our 18-year-olds had National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or equivalent. The other side did not worry; it is not particularly interested in the actual achievement of these young people, but this Government, over the last 7 years, has lifted that to 84.4 percent. We get absolutely no credit; the Opposition is constantly looking for fault. These are real children who have achieved under this Government, and we are still relentlessly unsatisfied with 84.4 percent. We will push on to make it higher, because that is the aspiration, Carmel, of this Government. We are interested in children and in ensuring that they succeed and have the skills and resilience and attitude to be able to embrace their future. I can assure you that they will have very little interest in the future of work that you spend all of your hours lamenting and debating.

Let us look at Māori and Pasifika children in particular. In 2008 over half of them were not achieving NCEA; now Māori are at 69.4 percent, up 33 percent, and Pasifika 75.2 percent, up 48 percent. These are real numbers, real children, and it is making a fantastic difference to the people of New Zealand, particularly to the people of the Western Bay of Plenty, whom I have the privilege of representing. A number of our schools are in excess of that 84.4 percent target.

The other issue I would like to cover off relating to education and science, which I am sure will get the accolades that have been coming from the Opposition, is the community of learning concept. What a fantastic concept that is. As a parent of three children who are in the education system at the moment, I am very interested and supportive of that particular programme, because I want to know how my children are performing against the national standard of reading, writing, and arithmetic. In particular, I want to understand how their performance continues through their lifetime of educational attainment, particularly in the years 1 through to 13. I want to know what is working, I want to know when they are under pressure, and, above all, I want to know that their data of performance is actually being followed year by year, teacher by teacher, school by school.

I am not interested in a cliff face, where they go from a primary school to an intermediate and suddenly it is like a new child and we have got to work out who they are. I expect the education system of the Western Bay of Plenty to have my children at the core of its focus. For every single step that they make in their academic attainment and challenge, I want it databased, I want it evidenced, and I want the teachers to be able to understand how they are succeeding and where their challenges are. If, as a group of teachers, they can see that my child, or a group of our children, is under pressure in a particular area, be it science or education, I want to make sure that those teachers then work together, drawing out best practice to ensure that they can apply what is the best in the education system, and, in particular, our area, to improve our children.

I know when I look at the face of Stuart Nash over there that he fundamentally agrees with what I am saying, because it is common sense, it is intuitive, it is evidence-based, and it has got our children at the core and heart of this policy. That is why, when we sat and listened to this in the Education and Science Committee, we were so impressed with the analysis that we were having put in front of us. The other thing that really impressed me about the community of learning and the teachers who are involved with that is that they are seeing data and evidence as their friend—

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): I want to just start by focusing on an area that the Opposition is clearly interested in, and that is workplace literacy and numeracy. I want to follow my commendable colleagues and particularly the chair, Dr Jian Yang—I want to thank him for his work on the Education and Science Committee. I thought it would be useful to put some statistics on the table. The findings from the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey of 2006 showed that around 43 percent of New Zealand’s adult population has less than optimal literacy skills, and 51 percent—

Carmel Sepuloni: But why did the National Government cut adult education?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —has less than optimal numeracy skills—2006. So it is very clear that one of my ministerial colleagues is clearly lifting achievement for primary school students.

I have been clearly talking about the examples of those in the workplace who, unfortunately, do not have sufficient workplace and literacy skills to do well. That is why I thought it would be useful just to start talking about the fact that we do actually have a clear Tertiary Education Commission - funded programme for those who, unfortunately, the previous Government left behind. The previous Government was not able to provide them with the fundamental skills in literacy and numeracy they require, which is why we have a workplace literacy and numeracy fund. It helps employers provide for their employees what we know on this side very clearly are the basic skills that they need to do well.

But I want to just look at the tertiary system as a whole and say that at the end of the day, as we on this side of the Chamber know, the higher the level of education that an individual is able to obtain, the greater the opportunities they have through tertiary education. One of the myths, unfortunately, that the Labour Opposition has been putting out there concerns the amount that the taxpayers of New Zealand pay to fund tertiary education. The person in the street, whether they are the person who works in the petrol station or those who serve the coffee in the local cafe—they are the ones who fund tertiary education in New Zealand. For an individual student who is studying at university, for example, and who has a student loan, 70 percent of the cost of their tuition is covered.

I think it is useful just to put some figures on the table for taxpayers, because the Opposition tends not to include them. I want to put this figure again. Taxpayers subsidise around 70 percent of the costs of tuition for—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I would encourage the member to at least seek a call if she wants to give a speech. In the words of a previous and sometimes esteemed Speaker, Speaker Hunt, interjections should be rare and reasonable and, hopefully, witty. I would ask her to dwell on that before she tries to intervene again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I was saying, New Zealand is also the only country in the OECD that does not charge interest on loans after graduation. If you look at the generous support that we provide—well, actually, the taxpayers; those who work for New Zealand and pay tax and provide the opportunity for students to study at tertiary level—the Government spends 48 percent of its tertiary education budget on financial aid to students. The OECD average is only 22 percent. So we provide 48 percent—as opposed to 22 percent—which is, I think, a really important and generous package, recognising that the higher levels of education for young New Zealanders provide them with greater opportunities.

I did want to touch on just one other aspect. I think it is important that not only are we delivering higher levels of education but we are also focused very clearly where industry needs it. One of the exciting developments is the ICT grad schools, of which we are funding three. This is recognising clearly that we need to make sure that we are connecting students with educational providers, to shape the development of ICT and also research and development. So that is these ICT graduate schools.

The other area that I would like to touch on is the focus on the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Again, we need to focus our efforts on training our young New Zealanders in the areas that we know are high growth and high demand, and also have higher wages. So we need to lift the participation rate in science, technology, engineering, and maths, and we can clearly see, in terms of a report around domestic graduates in 2011-14, that there is a greater proportion of degree-level domestic graduates completing qualifications in these areas, which is significant. I am really pleased that we are also lifting the participation rate of women in these areas, to make sure that they achieve those equal opportunities as well.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on this. I want to correct a few things that the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, just mentioned. The first is that I think even a relatively cursory glance at the finances relating to tertiary education would show that on average, on a per student basis, the Government probably funds somewhere between 50 to 55 percent of the cost of a tertiary qualification and not the 70 percent that the Minister just mentioned.

A relatively cursory glance at the statistics released by Universities New Zealand would also show that over the course of a graduate’s lifetime—or a trainee’s lifetime if it is someone doing an industry qualification—the amount of extra money that they would earn and the extra tax they would pay more than covers the cost of providing the subsidies for their education and more than covers the cost of meeting that additional component should the Government of the day choose to do so, as the Labour Party is proposing. So what we find is that the higher the skill level of the population, the higher the tax take we actually get. The Government ends up fiscally better off overall from having a more highly educated population, because it collects more tax, because they earn more money as a result. Actually, the numbers simply stack up. Even Steven Joyce would acknowledge that, because he is the one who is touting all of the figures to justify doing certain courses of study.

But Universities New Zealand has gone so far as to calculate not just the post-qualification earnings but also the post-qualification tax take. And the post-qualification tax take, of course, goes up as well. It shows that, actually, an investment in tertiary education—whether it be a university degree, a polytech programme, or an on-the-job qualification—pays back to the Government more than it costs, many, many times over, and even if we make it free. So it actually makes sense for the Government to be investing in that. This is a Government that claims it is taking an investment approach to social services, but not when it comes to education, apparently. I think the evidence there is pretty clear regarding the provision of free post-school education: that it stacks up. Of course, if it did not, then I am sure all those members on the opposite side, who benefited from a free post-school education when they had the opportunity to get one, would be clamouring to pay the money back.

I want to turn instead to the issues around the school sector. I want to commend the people working in schools for the improvement in National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results. I think they definitely deserve a commendation for that. I do want to say that when it comes to NCEA it was a proposal floated by the then National Government in the 1990s, adopted by the last Labour Government, and continued with by the current National Government. I think NCEA is the right qualification system for New Zealand.

I do, however, think that we need to be mindful, as we push forward to encourage more and more students to gain NCEA qualifications, that we are ensuring that they are on meaningful pathways that are going to lead them to something at the other end of it—because it is possible to increase the number of students getting NCEA qualifications, but not necessarily getting better outcomes when they leave school. The analogy that one of the people who works in the education system used with me is that it is like going to the supermarket with an empty basket: you can fill up your basket with toothbrushes, but you cannot then go home and bake a cake. If you look at NCEA being the same—if you fill your basket with a particular type of credit, that is not necessarily going to give you all of the ingredients that you need to then go somewhere else once you have got it.

So now that we have got the education system on a pathway to improving NCEA results, which is a good thing, we need to turn our attention to what is in that. What is actually in the basket? What are the skills and attributes that we are giving the kids when they leave school, so that they are actually going on to do something meaningful, whether that is employment or whether that is further education or training? That is where I think the next big challenge and the next big step for our focus on improving results must be, because a qualification in itself—and we have had some good interchange on the 85 percent target for NCEA level 2—is not enough. This is the critical point. We could hit the target and get 100 percent of kids getting NCEA level 2, but if they are making up those qualifications with the wrong credits, which are not then leading them on to another pathway, are they actually better off? I am not convinced that they necessarily are.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in this debate. In the Ministry of Education’s annual report, Māori are referenced 108 times, which is quite a lot. I think in carrying on and contributing to this debate, it would be remiss of us not to acknowledge that. One of the big issues—and I support what my colleague Chris Hipkins has said around the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)—is that although the NCEA results for Māori have improved, as it says in the report, “disparity of achievement remains a challenge.” There are a number of things that the Ministry of Education has been doing. For example, it has been working with 11 iwi, which have worked with around a hundred whānau each, to develop Whānau Education Action Plans.

My contribution to this debate around that is that that is great—but there are a lot more families out there, and I think that maybe we are just tinkering around the edges a bit. There needs to be a lot more engagement at that level for it to be successful. I think the really important thing also is that plans are great, but if you have not got the means to implement them then they become just ideas on a piece of paper. So we need to look at how that can be done, and, from my point of view, I support what Chris Hipkins has just said: free post-school education would be a huge contributor to making those plans work for our people.

Over the years we have had this thing called historical and intergenerational trauma. That means the population today—this generation—has inherited the hurt and the problems that have been passed down generation by generation. Unfortunately, we let that impact on our lives far too much. I think it is more important for us to acknowledge that and to actually put things in place that address those issues. That is why I stand to say that the 305,000 children living in poverty today are a huge barrier—and a huge number of those children are Māori children—to overcome in an education system that should be addressing all of those issues for all children.

Today we heard the opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister around a cohort of people. I would suggest that a number of those people are brown people. And to systematically write them off as being “pretty damned hopeless” is absolutely not good enough. No matter how you characterise that group, there is no doubt about it that Māori and Pasifika make up a huge part of that group. I am really disappointed that this House has accepted the answers from the Deputy Prime Minister around that, because it is actually not good enough. I think that there are things that need to be addressed within the education sector—although there are a number of programmes within this annual report that deserve credit—and I would say that it needs to go a lot wider and it needs to include a lot more people for them to be successful.

Unless we make major, major changes to the way that we deliver education in New Zealand, then these results here as part of the annual report will continue and that gap will just move incrementally along with everyone else. So we might make some gains, but unless we address that fundamental issue I think that we are doing the future generations a disservice. Thank you.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, otirā, tātou huri noa i tō tātou Whare.

[And so, greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, at the same time, to us throughout our House.]

I am very pleased to be able to take a call in this annual review and to talk about the progress that has been made in education generally, as well as specifically in early childhood and secondary education and, as my colleague Minister Upston talked about, in adult education. New Zealand has a wonderful education system and it has served generations of New Zealanders very well. One of the truly inspiring dimensions of our education system is our willingness to recognise that we cannot be complacent about what we have got, that we have constantly got to be building on it, paying attention to what is not working, and being courageous about making changes that will effect greater and better outcomes for all of our kids.

Our Government has taken up that challenge. We have set ourselves Better Public Services targets that make us publicly and transparently accountable for what it is we are doing. We understand that at every point in the education journey—as my colleague Todd Muller said, the whole-of-life journey of his children, of all our children, of our grandchildren, and of all young New Zealanders. So we have focused on early childhood and said that, based on all of the evidence and just common sense, we need to ensure that most, if not all, of our early learners have the opportunity of a strong start in education.

We led the world in developing an early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki, and it is our challenge to make sure that every kid gets the opportunity to experience the learnings under Te Whāriki. So we set ourselves a target that 98 percent of all kids starting school by the end of 2016—this year—would have participated in early childhood education. We are at 96.4 percent as of the end of last year, so we still have a way to go but we are very focused on that. At primary school we now have really good information emerging from national standards, as well as the richer information that teachers routinely gather to inform their practice, to make sure that they are undertaking what the former Chief Review Officer of the Education Review Office, Dr Graham Stoop, said is the core business of schools, which is to cause learning to happen and to know that it did—to cause learning to happen and to know that it did.

Under this Government we have built PAI, the Public Achievement Information framework, which gives us real, measurable evidence on how well learning is being caused to occur, for which children, and whom we need to target resources to, to ensure that those who are most at risk of underachievement get the best chance possible. We have seen that data incrementally improve each year as well. At secondary school level, as a number of speakers have already acknowledged this evening, we have seen tremendous growth—perhaps more than we even anticipated, so much so that, in respect of our Better Public Services target that says that 85 percent of all 18-year-olds, by the end of 2017, have, at least, our minimum qualification of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, we know that at the end of last year we were at 84.4 percent. So we are 2 years ahead on that target.

And here is where I would like to find unusual concourse with the Opposition spokesperson for education: it is really important that it is a meaningful qualification. I absolutely agree—no argument there whatsoever—because we want to ensure that those 80 credits that young people have do come together in a coherent fashion that allows them to step out on the next part of their educational journey, whether into employment, whether into workplace internships, whether into more training, whether into higher academic studies, and that they do so on the back of a very strong minimum qualification. NCEA heralded a profound shift in our culture in New Zealand because what it did was move away from what many of us in this Chamber tonight experienced, which was the rationing of educational success. In order for some of us to be successful, the system was predicated on others not being successful. NCEA is a profoundly democratising qualification because it anticipates that anyone—everyone—can be educationally successful at any time in their lives.

I recall that when it was first introduced I arrived back at Wellington Airport from Ruatōria—when I say I arrived back in Wellington, I was coming from Ruatōria—and I remember getting into a taxi, the font of all local wisdom. I said to the driver: “What do you think of this new qualification?”. He said, with disdain in his voice: “I don’t like it.” I said: “Why is that?”. He said: “Next minute, anyone could get a qualification.” I thought that captured, right there, this idea that we had inculcated in ourselves, through the system we did have, that we had to ration educational success. The idea that anyone can be successful is, I think, an absolutely valuable part of who we are as New Zealanders. So those “anyones” are increasing under this Government.

Overall, we have seen increases. For Māori, we have seen them improve, as we have said, to just under 70 percent. That is good, but it is not great, and there is still work to be done. We have seen Pasifika grasp the opportunities and climb even higher. That is good, but that is not great, and we have got more work to do. This Government is absolutely interested in every child. Whether they are most at risk, whether they come from homes where they get strong support, every child can grow into their potential. That is the challenge to our education system, and it is one that I, as Minister of Education, am absolutely and relentlessly committed to. We know that that occurs mainly through the quality of teaching and leadership in school, through the strength of family and parents and whānau involvement with their kids’ education outside of school, and through the expectations we hold for each and every one of them. And that is free. We can just have high expectations and it costs nothing, but the effect it has on young people is extraordinary, so we need to keep holding those high expectations.

We have invested in the Communities of Learning, which are whole-of-pathway approaches. The great thing about this policy is that no school loses anything. It does not lose its unique identity. It does not lose its roll. It does not lose its address. It does not lose its teachers. What it gains is the opportunity to collaborate over the transition pathways between early childhood and primary, primary and secondary, and secondary and tertiary. It also means that we can systematically invest in collaboration between our professionals, who, under the most recent OECD report, indicated that we have in our education system one of the highest levels of professional integrity in the world. It is not something we are surprised about, because we know that we have a very trusted profession, but we have got to constantly push them, as well, to improve their practice so that all kids can routinely be successful.

We are currently consulting about legislation in the update of the 1989 Education Act. It has been almost 30 years since the tremendous reforms under Tomorrow’s Schools were introduced. We know now what the strengths of those are, and we know, also, what some of the weaknesses are. We need to maintain the strengths—self-management, local decision-making, parents involved in their children’s education—while also overcoming some of the weaknesses, which are from the very extreme competitiveness where we see resourcing going to the size of the roll rather than to the size of the educational challenge. We in Government are very focused on how we do that, and we are not leaving behind those most vulnerable. We spent all of 2015 looking at the update of special education provision, and we now have got going 22 projects across New Zealand to ensure that those kids who are most vulnerable, who have the highest need, whose parents want the best for them every day—how can our system more routinely make it easier, more accessible, more timely, and more supportive? We are doing all of these things. We are trying to make sure that every child gets the very best opportunity under this education system.

Members of the Opposition also talked about what we are doing in terms of iwi. Although the member may be aware of 11 iwi, in fact, the Ministry of Education has 56 iwi partnership arrangements. Each of those is different, as it should be, because iwi are interested in particular as well as common things. We are working with them across the country. In addition, we have invested in 16 Pasifika PowerUP Plus stations, where we are working with Pasifika communities: Pasifika churches, Pasifika sports teams. We have absolutely understood that we need to go to where the kids are. We are seeing success, and we want more of it. Kia ora.

Reports noted.

Environment Sector

SCOTT SIMPSON (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): It is a pleasure to be leading off the debate on the Environment Sector in the annual review debate, because as chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I have got the privilege of leading a select committee through some of the most important legislative work that I think this Parliament will be doing in its term in the 51st Parliament. We are, I think, making wonderful progress as a Government on some very important material that will help enhance, preserve, and maintain our natural environment, which is so important to all of us as New Zealanders.

The select committee had an opportunity to conduct several reviews recently, and I want to focus on just two of those: that of the Department of Conservation, so ably led by the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, and the Director-General of Conservation, Lou Sanson, and also that of the Ministry for the Environment, led by my friend and colleague the Hon Nick Smith and Vicky Robertson as the chief executive. These are two of the most significant State agencies that are involved with ensuring that in years to come our natural environment will be in as good a condition—or, hopefully, in a better condition—than it is today.

I want to just focus on a couple of the matters that were brought to our attention. High on that list, of course, are the further reforms to the resource management legislation currently before the select committee. I was delighted that both agencies focused on this during their submissions to us at the select committee, and both gave the committee encouragement to pursue its work in this area, because at the heart of the work that we do on the Local Government and Environment Committee is a distinct and realistic understanding that our natural environment is actually our greatest asset as a nation. We on the Government benches absolutely, sincerely believe that a successful economic policy can go hand in hand—in fact, it must go hand in hand—with a successful environmental policy and position. We know that when those two matters are connected and are in sync, we will be able to achieve for all New Zealanders a cleaner, brighter future.

This is a Government that is providing real leadership on environmental issues—real leadership—and it is fair to say that this Government has done more to maintain, protect, and enhance New Zealand’s natural environment than any other Government in the history of New Zealand. I think, as a Government member, we can all be proud of that as parliamentarians, but particularly Government members can take a lot of pleasure in that achievement. And there is more yet to come, because at the heart of this is the Government’s Bluegreen environmental vision. It is an understanding that at the core of our quality of life, our national identity, and our competitive advantage lies our natural environment. Since becoming the Government our party has simplified resource management legislation. We have enhanced opportunities to ensure that the natural environment is protected.

I have the privilege and honour of representing the Coromandel electorate, and it is without doubt one of the most beautiful parts of the nation. The people in the Coromandel—[Interruption] The member for North Shore confirms that the beaches of the North Shore are not quite to the standard of the Coromandel, and I am sure that that will be a debate that she will continue to be on the back foot on in years to come.

However, we have done an awful lot in a lot of areas. One area that was highlighted during the reviews was the announcement on the legislation that pertains to the creation of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. Notwithstanding issues that will be proceeding through the judicial system, the select committee is continuing its good work on this piece of legislation. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will be created—620,000 square kilometres of no-take ocean reserve for the future of all New Zealanders, and, in fact, for all citizens of the world. That is a land mass twice the size of New Zealand and about the same size as the footprint of France, so this is deeply significant for us as a Parliament and also for us as citizens of the world.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou o Te Whare nui i tēnei pō.

[Greetings to you of the great House this evening.]

Everyone always says it is a pleasure to take a call. I do not know whether it is a pleasure. It is an opportunity, but sometimes it feels less than pleasurable, because when we come to the environment of this country and the annual review of the Ministry for the Environment—which I am going to speak about—it is not really that pleasurable to discuss the state of New Zealand’s water.

It is interesting because Scott Simpson, the previous speaker, was talking about the Coromandel, which is where I also come from. Everything that we have in that place, we fought for. Every bit of environment, every beach, every river, and every mountain that was, basically, under application to be mined, we have fought for. When I say “we”, I mean me and my mates. So I do take pride in being part of a community that stands up for the environment, and I know that the environment is only as good and as strong as the community.

As for the annual review of the Ministry for the Environment, I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I did read the report on the annual review. The ministry has been focused on the environment, but to what end? There was a lot of rhetoric, a lot of talking, a lot of slogans, and a lot of discussion of fresh water. In the annual review the ministry said that one of its goals is to make sure that fresh water is well governed and sustainably managed for maximum benefit for the future and the present. Unfortunately, in its national reporting it also had to be honest and admit that 62 percent of our monitored rivers are too polluted to swim in. So it is hardly an indication of the success of the Ministry for the Environment’s track record, let alone of the Government of the day, that we are at this rather parlous state with our New Zealand rivers.

The ministry has spent a lot of time saying that it is going to provide national direction, and yet there is a fight going on in this country. It is going on community by community, river by river, and freshwater consultation meeting by freshwater consultation meeting, where the ministry has to sit there and watch the Minister for the Environment say that it is impossible to meet the goal of having swimmable rivers.

When I read the report on the annual review discussion that was held at the select committee, it indicated that members of the committee had raised issues around achieving swimmable rivers. The Ministry for the Environment officials said that it was a challenge and they were going to do their best to think about whether it was possible. It is a bit awkward for them because the Minister is going around the country saying that it is impossible to have swimmable rivers because of—guess what? Birds, ah, volcanic ash—these are the reasons being given for why we cannot have swimmable rivers.

Aotearoa has always had birds. It has always had rivers that have some volcanic ash in them. That is not the issue. The issue that has led to 62 percent of monitored rivers being unswimmable—which the Ministry for the Environment is saying that it is proud of but is also saying that it is recording with regret—is that we have created land uses and we have trashed the environment. We have trashed our rivers through intensive agriculture, we have trashed our rivers through ways of disposing of sewage that are far from optimum, and we have treated rivers as drains. So if the Ministry for the Environment is going to change this, it is going to have to tell its Minister to step up to swimmable.

Swimmable is what everybody outside the ministry and the Government wants. They want their mokopuna in that water, they want it clean enough to put their heads under, they want national standards, and they want the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management to be amended so that we have a goal of swimmable and not boatable or wadeable. All around the country the ministry officials who participated in this review have had to travel with the Minister and listen to the community—tangata whenua, in particular—telling us, either at the meetings or on the hīkoi that came to Parliament less than 2 weeks ago: “We want swimmable. We don’t want wadable.” In fact, the people would really like to be able to gather the food again. I am very lucky that I live next to a river where the tuna are healthy, but I have not seen a native fish for some time, and I think that this is the issue.

The Ministry for the Environment needs to be the guardian of these resources. It is meant to provide a pathway for achieving this taonga to be passed on in terms of fresh water to future generations, and it does make great play of how important water and fresh water is to its strategy. But while we have a national policy statement that talks about having just a non-aspirational, low-level standard of boatable and wadeable, we are really not going to get there.

So it is with some concern that I read the rhetoric of the collaboration that it is talking about. A lot of resource has gone into holding Land and Water Forum meetings, and what they call providing education—

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to talk in the time that I have, if I can, about water, climate change, renewable energy, and the Resource Management Act. I love that quote from Herman Daly, a World Bank economist, who said that the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, and I think that is true over the longer term. If we think about what the major parts of the environmental challenges that we have in New Zealand are, as the last speaker, Catherine Delahunty, said, you really cannot go past water and, I would add, climate change.

Let us think about what has happened with water. There is a very sad history of the decline in water quality in New Zealand. It goes back to the Resource Management Act being passed. There was full delegated authority to regional councils to control the degradation of our rivers; they did not. They failed in their duty in part because, I think, they were surprised by the speed of the transition to more intensive farming practices, which were caused by the increase in dairy prices following the Doha round of the GATT, actually.

In response to that, the last Labour Government started to do something about it, and then the whole thing got sideswiped by the foreshore and seabed controversy. The Labour Government made mistakes. Some mistakes were made by the National Party rarking things up and by Hone Harawira rarking things up on the other side. Anyway, the terrible confrontation that we had over the foreshore and seabed left Māori feeling very suspicious that everything that we did in respect of fresh water was somehow going to try to usurp their claimed interests in fresh water. It took some 2 years for the Government to separate water allocation from water quality, and by the time we did it, we put the national policy statement into a process under the Resource Management Act. It did not pop out until just after the 2008 election.

The effect of that national policy statement, which was drafted by former Principal Planning Judge of New Zealand Judge Sheppard, was to say that clean rivers ought not to get dirty, dirty rivers ought to be cleaned up over a generation, and in order to stop clean rivers from getting dirty, we actually needed to stop and control intensification of land use. It is no longer the councils and the factories that are causing most of the pollution of our rivers; it is actually non-point source discharge, which is the diffuse pollution caused by increasing numbers of cows, mainly, but also sheep and deer on our farms.

What did National do? It spiked it. It put in place an inferior instrument that to this day does not control the increasing intensification of land use in New Zealand, which is why in places like South Canterbury we have a continuing decline in the quality of our rivers, not just in the lowland—it was worst there first, in the lowland rivers—but also in the mid-country. Until we go back to that form of national policy statement—the Judge Sheppard form—we will not get our river quality under control.

I believe that most New Zealanders want their rivers to be clean enough to swim in. I believe that most New Zealanders think that the most important river to them is the one that is local to them, which they want to swim in. They are the two messages that I parley around this country, and the people respond and say that they agree with the Labour Party that the standard should be swimmability, and it should be for their local rivers. The simple proposition is that if their local river is clean and my local river is clean, then all of our local rivers will be clean. We can do that over a generation, but today we could stop our clean rivers from getting dirtier if we had the form of national policy statement that was promoted by Judge Sheppard.

The National Government, under Nick Smith, says that you cannot do that—you cannot have a swimmability standard, because when rivers are in flood you cannot swim in them. What nonsense—no one is suggesting that the standard is for rivers in flood. He says that some rivers occasionally have seagulls defecating in them—or in their nests on the banks of the Ashburton River, which is another example I have heard used. Well, again, we are not trying to stop natural challenges to water quality; we are actually saying that it is the human-induced ones that we need to control.

I want to turn to climate change, because the performance of this Government on climate change shows a similar weakness to what it has done in respect of fresh water. Before doing so, I will just say that I am a bit tired of Nick Smith standing up and claiming credit for the Taupō and Rotorua restorations, which were approved by the last Labour Government and funded by us in our Budgets. I have to say that I opposed both of those initiatives in Cabinet because I did not think that we should have to pay farmers to stop polluting, but, anyway, I lost. I think my colleagues, including Ruth Dyson, were right because it was actually a bit of money from central government that actually facilitated the processes that have led to improvements in Taupō and Rotorua.

Climate change—well, who is the Government preferring the interests of, in climate change? Again, it is farmers. It has an economically irrational emissions trading scheme. The Government has allowed the price of, really, its only instrument to control the growth of emissions to collapse to close to zero after the second Kyoto Protocol period did not happen and the price of carbon dropped to zero. It did not do anything to stop units coming in. Even worse than that, the Government excluded agriculture, which is where 50 percent of our emissions come from.

What is the effect of that? Increases in agricultural emissions become a burden on the rest of the economy and a burden on the environment, and you get the land use signal wrong between increasingly intensive farming practices, which produce emissions, and forestry, which reduces emissions. It is economically unsound what the Government has done in respect of the emissions trading scheme.

The Labour Party says that we should have different targets for carbon dioxide emissions than the target for reduction of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, which make up 50 percent of our emissions but are harder to reduce to zero. We say that you should have a 40 percent reduction target below 1990 levels in respect of the carbon dioxide emissions from transport and power energy production and factory emissions and the like by 2030 and a different target in respect of methane and nitrous oxide because you cannot reduce them to zero in the same way, but you certainly should not be increasing them. You certainly should not be keeping them outside the emissions trading scheme. Sure, the agricultural sector needs high levels of free emissions rights, but you must preserve the marginal price signal that penalises that industry for increases in emissions and rewards them for decreases. That is how an emissions trading scheme works.

In respect of renewable energy, this is an illustration of how national policy statements work. The last Labour Government promoted a national policy statement on renewable energy. Since then, our proportion of renewable electricity has gone up from 57 percent to 80 percent. That was through a combination of things—including the national policy statement and including the price of carbon, and various things to improve the grid investments that the Labour Government recognised were necessary to get distant renewables to market and, therefore, to give the generators the confidence to invest in new renewables—and it has worked. Gerry Brownlee tried to abolish the target of 90 percent renewables by 2025, but, luckily, the Prime Minister saw fit to throw him out of that role and put Hekia Parata in that role instead, and Hekia Parata had the good sense to keep the target that the last Labour Government established.

The Resource Management Act—after all these years we still have National blaming the Resource Management Act for New Zealand underperforming economically. We have per capita growth rates of close to zero after 8 years of the National Government. After a couple of attempts to amend the Resource Management Act, it still blames that as the cause of the economic underperformance of this Government. Luckily, because the Māori Party, Peter Dunne, the Greens, New Zealand First, and Labour combined to vote 61 votes against changing Part 2 of the Resource Management Act—32 of those 61 votes coming from the powerful Labour Party, I note—the Government did not get to ruin Part 2 of the Act.

There are some other changes that we are working through, under the capable chairmanship of Scott Simpson, on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am enjoying that process. We have got to fix things. I am suspicious of some of the collaborative processes—some of the stripping out of appeal rights for people whose interests are adversely affected—but there are also some good things, like templates, so long as they go to form not content.

Overall, I think the National Government has to be judged harshly for a decline in water quality and increasing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. It has done all right in continuing what we started with renewable energy and in its Resource Management Act reforms this time round—I think we can probably make a decent job of them at the select committee. I hope, if we have cooperation from members, we can get to a decent outcome there.

My final point—estuaries. Our wetlands in our highlands and in our lowlands—our estuaries—are our rarest landscapes. So many of them have been converted to agriculture or polluted. They are the filters through which we trap silts and things and stop them going out to sea. At the moment—

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): In my brief call, I would like to talk about climate change and, if I get time, the Resource Management Act. The report of the Ministry for the Environment for 2014-15 talks about an outcome statement being that “New Zealand becomes a successful low-carbon society that is resilient to climate change impacts on its climate, economy and lifestyle”—a very laudable outcome, with which the Green Party would agree. We have got $3.4 million having been spent to support policy making by Ministers and another $7.5 million for resource management policy advice, yet all of this money has failed to deliver decent advice on adapting to climate change. We have seen that the National Government has got an extremely weak stance on reducing our climate emissions, and also it is not ensuring that we prepare for the impacts of climate change such as sea level rise.

Five months ago—last November—the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment delivered a report that made eight recommendations on how we could start to tackle the impacts of sea level rise, yet the Minister of Finance, Bill English, seems to think that sea level rise is speculative. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommended that there be a working party established to look at the fiscal and economic implications of sea level rise, but, according to Minister English, there are other more pressing, more immediate issues. That is despite the fact that the parliamentary commissioner identified a $20 billion cost to replacing just the homes in low-lying areas that are potentially at risk from the impacts of coastal erosion, more coastal flooding, and a higher water table associated with rising sea levels. So the Government has failed to act there.

The Minister has also failed to act in providing clear national guidance to local authorities in terms of how they deal with sea level rise. The Government needs to provide that national direction under the Resource Management Act. What have we seen? The most recent guidance for local authorities in terms of the amount of sea level rise that they should plan for dates back to 2008, under the former Labour Government. It talks about a rise of 0.8 metres by 2100, yet since then, we have had several reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We need new guidance. I understand it is being developed in the ministry, but we have not seen it yet.

I was at a seminar just last week in a room full of quite anxious planners, property and insurance experts, and scientists, where they were highlighting that the risks of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting can significantly exacerbate the rate of sea level rise. Potentially, just from the West Antarctic ice sheet alone, it will be 2 metres of sea level rise in a generation, yet what is the Ministry for the Environment doing under this Government? It is failing to ensure that we have consistent national direction with a national policy statement on sea level rise and natural hazards.

It is leaving it to coastal communities to deal with this challenging issue on their own. We have seen what happened in Kāpiti and in Christchurch when those councils tried to take a long-term view and tried to include provisions in their plans in order to control development in areas that were at risk of coastal hazard and at risk of rising seas. There was a substantial push back, and both councils withdrew those provisions. So the National Government is being completely irresponsible by failing to provide that consistent national guidance. It is leaving it to the communities in low-lying areas of Napier, on Wellington’s south coast, in South Dunedin, and in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch to have to cope on their own.

We had the Minister for Climate Change Issues admitting in the House yesterday that councils are not providing enough guidance to communities about the potential impacts of sea level rise and the risk to property values. How are we going to solve that? The Government has got its head in the sand. It needs to tackle this issue because, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said, we have got time to plan, but we have to start planning now. Her report came out 5 months ago, and we have seen no action by the Government. There is a $20 billion cost for the replacement of homes, yet the finance Minister has failed to set up a working group to look at this in more detail. It may be that the Government has got an economic policy and that, like the costs of the rebuild after the Christchurch earthquakes, it thinks that somehow this is going to spur economic activity if it leaves communities to be inundated and having to cope with issues on their own.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Conservation): It is an enormous privilege to live in a country like New Zealand, which has such a magnificent natural environment, and all Kiwis have special places that they enjoy. We have magnificent birds, trees, rivers, and lakes, and we are privileged, I think, to have such easy access to these magnificent places.

A third of New Zealand is in public ownership, known as the conservation estate, and I think I would like to spend a few moments just to reflect on the good work that the Department of Conservation (DOC) is doing in looking after that conservation estate. Those national parks, our regional parks, our reserves, our lakesides, and our riverbeds are something the world is enormously envious of, and thousands of local New Zealanders, tourists, and travellers come here to explore and enjoy them.

I think DOC has been doing particularly interesting work in terms of our native birds. It says that if you want to be a conservationist in New Zealand, you need to be a killer, and you need to be a very keen killer because our predators—rats, mice, stoats, possums, and feral cats; all those imported animals that have come to New Zealand—prey on our special birds and, unless we kill them, we are going to lose the birds themselves. I think the key issue here is that our birds are particularly vulnerable to these pests because they evolved without these animals in our country.

Fortunately, Kiwis, as New Zealanders, love our birds, and we have got thousands of New Zealanders who go out and help in that conservation work, and we have got businesses and organisations that are keen to be part of that conservation. Organisations such as Kiwis for Kiwi have done magnificent work in terms of turning up the number of kiwis being born, and looking after them once they have been born. In the wild, 90 percent of kiwi chicks are killed by predators, but if we look after them properly, up to 80 percent of them can fledge and have an opportunity to live in the wild again.

We have just had the most successful breeding season for kākāpō. Kākāpō are now breeding, this year, in three different sanctuaries around New Zealand, and we are thinking that we may have up to 40 new chicks, which makes an enormous difference to this small population. On top of that, the whio—the blue duck—has doubled in numbers since 2011. We now have more than 600 birds, and we believe that they are back from the brink of extinction. I think we can celebrate the fact that ordinary New Zealanders have the opportunity to see such unique birds as takahē, kāka, kea, mohua, rock wrens, tūī, kererū—you name them—and many, many, many more. New Zealand is so fortunate with the birds that it has.

We are also a Mecca for seabirds and migratory birds. I have just spent some time at Pūkorokoro Miranda Shorebird Centre, where DOC was signing a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese Government to protect the godwits and the red knots, which have come all the way from Siberia and the Arctic Circle. They fly via China all the way to the Coromandel Peninsula, and it is wonderful that the Chinese Government is prepared to work with New Zealanders to protect their environment on the way, and their habitat, so that they actually can complete that journey.

While I was there, I had the particularly fortunate experience of seeing over 2,000 wrybill birds. A wrybill is a bird that is unique to the Canterbury area for breeding—it breeds on our braided rivers—and if you are fortunate, and you go out there with a birdwatcher, you might see one or two on the braided rivers. They breed there, but then they go to the Coromandel during the summer, and they go in large flocks. I saw over 2,000 of those wrybills. The wrybill is unique because it is the only bird in the world that has a beak that turns or bends—that is, it is wry at the end—and it uses it to look for grubs and things under the stones in the braided rivers.

I would just like to make the point that DOC is doing a very good job in partnership with numerous people to protect these special species, to make New Zealand the country that it is, and to reflect on our natural environment. Kia ora.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to rise tonight to speak in the annual review debate on the Environment Sector, specifically on the Department of Conservation (DOC). When I thought about my contribution tonight, I thought it was a good idea that I start with the finance Minister’s speech last year on the Budget debate and some of the comments that he made in relation to that. He was talking about this Government having tighter controls on spending and a strong focus on value for money. He also went on to talk about the Government’s fiscal priorities, and some of those priorities were: “Returning to surplus this year and maintaining surpluses in the future.”—I would certainly like to see how that goes, and the jury is certainly out on that mark—and “Reducing net debt to 20 per cent of GDP by 2020, including repaying debt in dollar terms …” I wonder whether that includes selling off State houses, selling off banks, and further sell-offs of our power companies to try to get to that surplus and maintain it. Finally, we go on to: “Using any further fiscal headroom to reduce debt faster.”

I have to bring it to the attention of the Committee that there has been a real shortfall in that Budget speech from last year, despite all of the MPs on the other side who take great pleasure in telling us what a fantastic environment we have got—and I do agree with the Minister that DOC does a magnificent job. However, the reality is that tourism, which has been driven so heavily through our conservation—through our beautiful rivers, wonderful lakes, mountains, and our walks; the ecotourists who come to New Zealand for this beautiful country—is certainly not being taken seriously by the Government and is not being funded adequately.

I bring your attention to page 13 of a 13½ page speech, which has two sentences dedicated to looking after the department. It says: “Kiwi are New Zealand’s most iconic birds, but numbers are declining every year. The Budget contains $11 million of funding over four years for breeding and predator control programmes, run by community groups as well as the Department of Conservation.” The Government has not increased funding. In actual fact, it has taken it from one department, being the Natural Heritage Management System, and put that into the kiwi fund. It is just a shuffling of paper and relocation of funds. If it really was taking conservation seriously, it would adequately fund this very, very important organisation, which has seen job cuts.

We have seen the closing of walks and tracks, the closing of DOC huts, and, of course, restructuring of $12.5 million, which has just been absolutely worthless, unless you are talking about that restructuring losing 100-plus jobs. If you were trying to create low staff morale and job uncertainly, I think the Government did a good job in that sector. Our brand of “100% Pure New Zealand” is a brand that other countries, like Ireland, are trying to take up and hold on their mantel—its Government is taking conservation seriously, looking after its flora and fauna and its topography, and creating an environment where tourists and ecotourists can go and see it. We need to seriously fund the department, and I hope that we see that coming in the Budget very shortly.

I will also tell a quick story about life being a journey, and at any point in time you could take your location in life, but it does not give you a clear picture. Life is actually about the trajectories and the direction—the vectors—on which you are travelling. What we can do is ensure that the trajectory that the department is travelling on through the guidance of this Government is the right one.

In 2009 the real expenditure for the department was $403 million. In 2015 it had dropped to $342 million—a $60 million drop since 2009. In real terms that is a negative trajectory, which shows the Minister of Conservation and this Government are not putting the priority on to one of our biggest exports—in fact, it is our biggest. Our biggest export is the export tourist dollar. Then, of course, we have got capital expenditure. In 2008, $98 million was being invested in the department, particularly into track upgrades and DOC huts around the country. That has fallen in 2015, from $98 million to $23.5 million.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you for this opportunity to rise in support of the annual reviews for the Environment Sector in the 2014-15 year. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the new wave of processes that are coming through, both in conservation and in respect of the management of our environment—that is, of course, in respect of bringing the community along with us and in respect of collaborative processes and partnership models.

If you look at what the Local Government and Environment Committee heard in respect of the Ministry for the Environment and the reforms that are due with regard to the Resource Management Act, there is a call from the public to streamline processes and to make them less divisive in the community. What the Ministry for the Environment has endorsed is collaborative processes that engage the community and engage different stakeholders, with often competing interests, and bring them together to look at common wins for managing resources.

One of those examples is the Land and Water Forum, where over 90 stakeholders have come together to look at ways to manage the water resource and water quality, moving forward. What we have found throughout that process is that at the other end, when it comes to providing recommendations and providing management plans, and moving forward to manage that water resource, we have common elements flowing through—no pun intended—those stakeholder groups. They can come to agreement on and then put in practice those proposals, through to a competent management plan.

The same goes in respect of the Department of Conservation. In the past conservation has often been looked upon as the poor cousin. Funding for it often comes behind portfolios such as health and policing, but conservation, to New Zealanders, is a very important portfolio, and I really encourage the Department of Conservation in its move towards endorsing partnerships and taking the community with it in its conservation efforts. So, as I said before, often communities have competing interests, but if the Department of Conservation can bring communities together and bring stakeholders together, then it can find common elements and often, with that community spirit, get wins in a conservation effort to bring about a healthy environment for the community.

I want to talk about one such effort in my own electorate. It is actually bringing together the Healthy Nature, Healthy People initiative of the Department of Conservation, which talks about having a healthy ecosystem, getting people out into that healthy ecosystem, enjoying nature, and learning about the benefits of nature, and, through that, creating a healthier lifestyle for themselves. That, in conjunction with the Healthy Families Government initiative, which is a health initiative, has similar messaging in that we talk about preventing disease through getting out into nature, being active, and doing healthy things.

One of the collaborative processes that I ran myself was to bring Healthy Families together with our Department of Conservation staff and run a function that encouraged our families to get out into nature and enjoy what Southland has to offer in our backyard. That was called the MAD Day Out—the Mud, Adventure, Discovery Day Out. Basically, what people did was they came out to the Sandy Point reserve. We had a short and a long obstacle course, where people traipsed through nature, through some of our tracks, up and down different obstacles that were put in the tracks and then through an optional mud run, and families absolutely thrived on it. It was an event where mums and dads and guardians could get involved with their children and enjoy nature and understand the benefits of nature.

So, as you can see, it is not just about getting big corporates involved; it is about taking the community with you, and it does not often cost a lot of money to bring about these initiatives.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): It is with great pleasure that I stand to talk about the performance and the achievements of the Department of Conservation (DOC) in this past year. I commend the hard-working Local Government and Environment Committee—in particular, its chair, Scott Simpson. The member of Parliament from Coromandel has a great sense of humour about the greatness of his own beaches, but apart from those small flaws of, I suppose, bias he is in all other ways an outstanding chair. The select committee members from across the Committee have worked very constructively, I think, to ensure that there is robust discussion around the key elements of conservation.

Conservation is at the heart of who we are as New Zealanders. It is certainly at the heart of why so many visitors want to come here and enjoy what we have to offer. Some 35 percent of the people who come to New Zealand say that they come here because of our nature. DOC’s ambitious aim is to extend that to around 50 percent, and I think that is very much within reach.

Conservation takes many forms. Partnerships have become something that are an important part of modern conservation, and DOC, under the visionary leadership of Lou Sanson—DOC is in his DNA—has assembled a stellar senior leadership team, which works very collaboratively and involves businesses, partnerships around philanthropy, and conservation groups throughout the country, of which there are many hundreds. Some 400 alone work conscientiously at weekends and on their holidays on, for example, kiwi conservation.

As other members and other speakers have alluded to, a lot of what you do when you are trying to save things is to kill the things that kill them before they try to extinguish some of our species. The Battle for our Birds, which has had its very successful conclusion, was really the first time, I think, that we did landscape predator control on the scale that we have. It was around 600,000 hectares of quite hard-to-reach countryside. Aerial use of 1080 is the best weapon that we have in this battle, and as a result of that successful battle we were able to save—certainly—10 species of birds from local extinction, and also short and long-tailed bats and our snail species. These species are vitally important if we want to be able to ensure our ecosystems stay in balance.

As a department, DOC has worked very carefully with the various agencies that have some unease, it is fair to say, around the use of 1080. It is very interesting, again, to see the work that is being done in new technology. The Kiwi ingenuity, No. 8 wire factor is very much a part of who we are, and it is something that we do very successfully. When it comes to finding new and innovative ways to humanely kill creatures such as rats, stoats, possums, weasels, and mice, DOC does it very well. There are a number of ingenious inventions in New Zealand, and we have taken that to the world. When DOC looks at the various ways in which we can cope with the challenges of these eco-invaders—these creatures that have come here and made it more than their home; they have tried to take us over and, unfortunately, brought many of our key species to the brink of extinction—it is determined to win the fight. I believe that with the team that we have, and with the collaborations that we have, we will succeed.

Some of the partnerships that we have been able to build have achieved some really remarkable results. One that I want to just dwell on briefly tonight in my call here is what has happened in Mount Taranaki with the maunga. There has been a project that has been pulled together with Wild for Taranaki and philanthropic and business interests—a boost to the local economy and a project that will see a major investment of $24 million over 10 years. Essentially, that means ridding that extraordinary mountain of its pests and getting rid of the deer, the pigs—and now the big challenge is to get rid of the goats. Then there will be a “ring of steel” put around the maunga, and that will prevent re-infestation so that the birds that have been driven from that place will come back. These are ambitious goals, but when you look at what is happening in Taranaki, you have a community that is working together to aspire towards achieving these goals in partnership with DOC. We have the NEXT Foundation to thank for that as well.

Genesis Energy has committed to an ongoing partnership with DOC over the next 5 years, the main focus of which is the ongoing Whio Forever Partnership. I would have to say that sometimes when you give something you get back more than you gave, and that has certainly been my experience in talking to the staff who work for Genesis Energy, for example. I have had the privilege of being in the wild and releasing these extraordinary little blue ducks, and the reward, the enthusiasm, and the bonding of the staff—who like each other a lot more for going out on a shared challenge and achieving some goals—are things that business acknowledges and recognises. I do not think some of these partners could pull out, because their staff would not let them. The Whio Forever Partnership is one of the great success stories.

I think other speakers have spoken about what has happened with Kiwis for Kiwi. We got $11.2 million of new money, and that has been very well spent. We have put the money that we have into community groups to do what they have always done, but we have removed the struggle that they have had to raise money. So we have launched the programme Kiwi Guardians—which is a new one, a partnership with DOC and Toyota—which is involving younger children. If we can get them out and away from their computers, television sets, and other distractions and get them into nature, then we have a great chance, I think, of igniting an enthusiasm that will be with them for life. Getting children out into nature also involves little inducements, like collectable wooden medallions, which are very much the thing that young people like at the moment. These have been enabled by our partnership with Toyota. We are raising new generations of conservationists.

There are 20 sites around New Zealand that have been focusing on some of the main centres. Kiwi Guardians was launched in my own electorate area of North Head, and we have seen significant increases in the number of people going there, because when young people go there to a site and like it and enthuse, they bring their parents along as well.

As Sarah Dowie, my colleague who is also on the select committee has indicated, Healthy Nature, Healthy People was the theme for last year’s Conservation Week, and it will be again for this year. I really commend her for the Mud, Adventure, Discovery Day Out—MAD Day Out—initiative. More than a thousand people took part in that. It was a wonderful collaboration—a local member of Parliament with vision, energy, and ingenuity working alongside the Department of Conservation and others to achieve a great day out and something that has enriched lives.

Our goal—and it is highlighted in this report—is to have 90 percent of New Zealanders’ lives enriched through a connection to nature. Research has shown—and this has been a compelling thing for my colleague the Minister of Health—that for every kilometre walked or cycled, the health vote is saved $2.70 in future health costs. So if you extrapolate that out to the Otago Central Rail Trail, that is worth about $2.66 million of avoided health costs each year. So on every level this makes sense. It enriches us as a people, and it enables us to save money and redirect it into areas where it is better spent.

I think that the Good to Grow Partnership, which the Department of Conservation signed with the Department of Corrections, is also enabling people who have made bad choices in life to get better qualifications and have the ability to earn a living when they get out of jail or when they get through their periodic detention and community service. We will teach them how to grow things—some of them, admittedly, are quite good at growing things anyway—but we can formalise that with good qualifications.

With plants, the War on Weeds has been a significant outcome from the last 8 months or so. We are really stepping up and have already started the process of ensuring that wilding pines do not continue with their hideous progress of encroaching on our natural landscape. If we do not do anything now to stop wilding pines—which are basically escapees; these things are too good at breeding—they will take over nearly a quarter of our natural landscape within the next 20 years. So it is my priority as the Minister of Conservation to ensure that that progress is halted, and I am working alongside my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy and the Ministry for Primary Industries to achieve that outcome.

The Dirty Dozen weeds initiative—we named 12 this year and there will be another 12 next year—is to encourage gardeners, and to encourage everybody, really, to try to take a part in this. It is all very well to sit back and carp about the Government needing to do more—and that is true; we will never resile from it—but it is vitally important, I think, that people engage, and we need to win hearts and minds if we are to win people over to the idea that they need to be part of the solution.

Last year $918,000 went to weed-busting groups. That was delivered through the DOC Community Fund, and it is part of $1.2 million that was committed to combating weeds. As the select committee pointed out, the wilding pines are one of the most pressing dangers. I absolutely commend the New Zealand Wilding Conifer Management Strategy.

Reports noted.

External Sector

MARK MITCHELL (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee): Firstly, can I start by acknowledging the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and David Shearer, who sits on that committee and is in the Chamber tonight. Can I also acknowledge Lieutenant General Tim Keating, our Chief of Defence Force, and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Brook Barrington.

There is a fair bit to get through in 5 minutes, but can I just firstly say to our New Zealand Defence Force, the men and women who are serving overseas, that we are proud of you, you do a great job, and you are wonderful ambassadors for New Zealand. We have deployed recently to Fiji, which has been hit with a terrible natural disaster. We have seen the deployment of the HMNZS Canterbury, which has carried the main New Zealand Defence Force contingent, including relief supplies, army engineers, and helicopters. We sent up two navy SH-2G Seasprites. We sent up two of our new NH90s—they are obviously operational and doing a very good job—as well as our army light engineering unit. We have also got an Orion P3K up there, and we have also got the HMNZS Wellington, which I want to make a special mention of because the captain of the Wellington also lives in my electorate of Rodney.

I also want to touch very quickly on the work that our team are doing up at Camp Taji, just outside Baghdad. During the reviews, we asked the Deputy Chief of Defence Force about how that deployment was going. We learnt that in the last 18 months since the coalition began operations, Daesh has lost around 40 percent of its territory, which is significant. This has been achieved by support provided by the Iraqi forces through airstrikes and a slow but steady campaign of targeting individuals and, of course, their supply routes. Weekly charts are compiled using satellite imagery and intelligence and show that there is a change of dominance in Iraq as to who controls that territory. So I want to acknowledge our troops up at Camp Taji because the work that they are doing—just their mere presence there—sends a very positive message to the Iraqi forces that are having to go out and meet this threat and that are obviously doing all that they can to seriously degrade Daesh and the threat that it poses.

I just want to talk very quickly also about the role that we are playing through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our position on the United Nations Security Council and some of the work that has been done there, especially in relation to—again, I will come to Daesh—the progress that we have made on the Syrian humanitarian issues in the Middle East. As a co-leader on the Syrian humanitarian issues, New Zealand has been at the forefront of the council’s efforts to alleviate the humanitarian effects of the Syrian conflict. This includes leading work to reinforce protection standards and principles supporting health care in the armed conflict.

I am very proud of the fact that our people in New York on the United Nations Security Council took a genuine leadership role in making sure that we could actually open up the supply routes into Syria to make sure that proper humanitarian aid, medical assistance, and food got through to the refugees who had been cut off from that for a long time. We saw pretty heart-breaking stories on TV about children who were having to try to exist by eating grass.

The work that has been done on the United Nations Security Council also involves the degradation of Daesh in the sense that the sanctions that have been imposed on Daesh are having an effect. We are encouraged to hear that Daesh is having to levy its members now for financial contributions because the sanctions regime is starting to affect its financial resources—bearing in mind that because of the territory that Daesh actually had, they had a fair amount of resources available to them, especially oil and petrochemicals, to actually be able to generate a fair bit of revenue, which was actually funding and feeding their terror attacks in their war against Iraq and neighbouring countries. We also, actually, chair the al-Qaeda sanctions committee as part of our United Nations Security Council role. I just want to acknowledge the work that is being done by our personnel in New York on the United Nations Security Council.

The other very important piece of work that is being done that we feel very strongly about as Kiwis is around the veto that the permanent five countries have.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I would like to pick up a little bit on that line, I think, but I would like to speak about reputation, and about New Zealand’s reputation—our reputation in the world. Although we are a small country, we have a reputation for fairness, for transparency, and for honesty, and that counts for a lot. For a country of only 4.5 million people, amongst many of the larger countries, it counts for a lot that we are held in respect and listened to. That is exactly what happened when we were voted to be on the Security Council. We were able to beat overwhelmingly the other, larger countries of Turkey and Syria because we were seen and respected for those very values, which we hold very, very close.

I was up in New York a couple of weeks ago and had the opportunity of being able to sit in on the Security Council deliberations that were going on at that time, and we were held in high regard. I pick up what Mark Mitchell was saying just now about our work on the Syrian file—on the humanitarian aspects and access, and on the sanctions to stop terrorism being funded—and also about our ability to bring a fresh approach to the Security Council in challenging the older, established members—the Permanent Five. I went and saw the Russian ambassador, who said to me “Look, we think New Zealand is doing a good job, but we wish it could agree with us a bit more.”, then I went and saw the British ambassador, who said “I think New Zealand is doing an excellent job on the Security Council, but sometimes we wish that it could agree with us just a bit more.”, and I thought that, actually, we have probably got it about right if that is the case.

What is really sad about this story and the great work being done by our ambassadors and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff up there is the fact that none of that filters back here to New Zealand. Of the many people who are listening to this debate, I can guarantee that almost all of them will not have heard one bit of news about the great work we are doing on the Security Council. I think that is a real shame, and I point the finger directly at the Minister for not taking those stories and making them more public. He seems to be sitting on that and, in a sense, saying: “We can do it. We know all about it. We don’t need to involve you.” He is taking a leaf out of the Tim Groser book. When he was negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he did not feel that it was necessary to talk about what he was doing with anybody in New Zealand. It was that arrogant, smug, rather out-of-touch approach of saying: “We know what’s best for you, and we don’t need to tell you what we’re doing.”

I think most New Zealanders are fed up with that approach—that smug, that arrogant, that out-of-touch type of approach that is dominating the National Government so much more now, and no more so than what we have seen with the Panama Papers over the last week. This is the Prime Minister standing up and undermining our very reputation, which I was just speaking about, and saying “There’s nothing to be seen here.” and denying that there is any problem. All of last week, that is all Mr Key did, and this week, suddenly he has decided to change his tune because what he saw through his banker’s eyes was not cutting it with New Zealanders on the ground. He had to turn 180 degrees and say that he would set up an investigation.

There is something to be seen here. There is a problem and, as one economist said, foreigners can set up untaxed trusts in New Zealand without disclosing their identity or the details of what they are being used for and, because of that, we are seen as a soft touch and as a tax haven. That is destroying the very reputation that we have built this country on. It is one of the reasons why we have slipped from being in first place under Transparency International down to fourth, and we will continue that slide. Our response has been solely inadequate for dealing with what is going on.

That money that is being squirrelled away by corporations, individuals, and leaders across the world could have paid for more taxes to go into education and into health. It is estimated that $1 trillion has been taken out of developing countries.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): I do need to respond to some of the comments made by the previous speaker, David Shearer. I would agree with him that New Zealand does punch above its weight in many international fora. I would agree with him that New Zealand does have a significantly valued reputation among countries of similar minds when it comes to some of the big issues that the world faces. We do have a voice in forums that is considerably greater than our population might normally or most usually allow. But I think the latter part of that speech, about the external relations review, was fundamentally flawed.

The first point is that trust law in New Zealand is there for New Zealanders, not for anyone else. It is there for New Zealanders who, for one reason or another, find it a necessity, or prudent, to put their assets into a trust. It is not as if it is unusual. There are large numbers of New Zealanders who choose to do this. When they do so, they are subject to New Zealand tax laws, because they are taxed as the settlor of the trust. So inside the New Zealand structure there cannot be avoidance in our tax jurisdiction. If Mr Shearer and his colleagues are making a case that we should change those laws and, therefore, bring in more pernicious laws for New Zealanders in order to protect the tax base of foreign countries, then I think they are seriously missing the point—seriously missing the point.

What Mr Shearer said is that there are trillions of dollars being hidden in New Zealand trusts. That is not true. That is a fundamental misrepresentation of the entire situation. What I would further say is that if there are people from offshore choosing to protect their assets by virtue of having a New Zealand trust and they are nominated as the settlor, they will pay tax in New Zealand. If that tax means that there is some avoidance in another jurisdiction, it means that that other jurisdiction has got its tax laws in such a complicated state that people cannot work effectively with them.

Let me give you a small example. The first point is that if you are a low-income worker in New Zealand with an income below some $40,000-odd a year, your tax rate is 17.5 percent. If you are a very high-income earner in New Zealand, your maximum rate, exclusive of GST, is 33 percent. If you are a low-income earner, as I said, under about the $40,000 mark in an average OECD country, your rate is 35 percent. If you are a high-income earner, it could be 90-plus percent. So you have to ask what we are trying to do here.

What the Labour Party is arguing is that, because some people take advantage of registering a trust in New Zealand and, as settlors, are paying tax in New Zealand, we should change the laws in this country to ensure that all New Zealanders are caught up in some higher tax rate. What it signals is the Labour Party has no real perspective of where New Zealand sits in the world—

David Shearer: Why don’t you read the paper?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and wants instead to raise the tax levels in this country to some of those highly pernicious rates. No other conclusion can be drawn from the rubbish that has been talked in the House in the last few days.

The member might want to scream out at the top of his head: “Read the papers.” Well, I have read the papers, and I have got to tell you that he is making a wrong analysis. I am sure that as he stalked the halls of the United Nations in recent weeks, with the United Nations job adverts clenched in his fist, he was not saying to those foreign jurisdictions: “We’re coming after you for your tax rate.” I am sure that that is not what he was saying.

We do have a strong reputation in New Zealand as being a fair country, a reasonable country where people can live their lives in a peaceable fashion. We are a country that enjoys extraordinarily advantageous trading conditions throughout the world because successive Governments have chosen that for this country and they have gone aggressively after those trade deals. We have very, very good country-to-country relations with other countries throughout the world, and that is because they look at us and how we operate in this country—no matter who is in Government—when it comes to external relations, and they see that there is a predictable path, or at least they have up until now.

What we have at the moment is a Labour Opposition that is totally opposed to our engagement in Iraq, is totally opposed to anything that might, you would say, advantage New Zealanders in a domestic sense through our trust laws, and, in general, is quite confused about a picture around trade because it does not want to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. There are two gentlemen over there who do want to support it. One of them is allowed; the other is not allowed, and he is going to tolerate that. He is going to say: “No, I’ll accept that. I’m prepared to sacrifice my beliefs on the altar of socialism. I’ll just give up what I really think, while my bench mate here gets an opportunity to go out and campaign for the mayoralty of Auckland on the basis that he’s in favour of a growing economy.” It is quite an extraordinary situation.

It is always sad, I think, when the external relations of a country become caught up in the domestic politics of a country. There will always be policy differences about how there is an interaction—between one country and another; one institution and another—that may change with a Government. But, generally, the flavour of the way a country operates, the reliability of a country, and the fact that you can take a country’s political statements—or, should we say, international statements by its politicians—for what they are is extremely important. So it is somewhat disappointing that Mr Shearer, who had a significant international background prior to his coming to the House, would deliver a speech today that starts to destroy that level of trust.

The Government is—[Interruption] Oh, look at this. You see, over there, the Hansard will record the sighs and the moans from people saying: “Oh, that’s not true.” Well, stack it up and have a look at it. Labour members do not like the idea that a law that advantages New Zealand is being used by others to advantage their situation. They do not like the TPP agreement—they are dead against that. They are not going to have expanded trading opportunities for New Zealand. They do not want to acknowledge that the scourge of Daesh on the world is a terrorist organisation that could well affect a country like this and, therefore, we should be involved. No, not from the Labour Party point of view—it does not want to be part of that. And when it comes to a range of other engagements, it is a party that wants to deny its past.

This Government is extremely progressive. This Government recognises that, sometimes, partisan politics gets set aside when it comes to dealing with our relationships in the international sense. There is no better example of that than this week, when the Government was quite proud to throw its weight behind the Rt Hon Helen Clark in her bid to become Secretary-General of the United Nations, and I, personally, think she has got an excellent chance. I think if we look at the various geopolitical arrangements, particularly around Europe, as per, say, the United States, she is in a very strong position, and this Government will support her.

I wonder what the Labour Party really thinks about that, because in her there is a leader who has said yes to the TPP agreement, yes to a fight against Daesh, and yes to a more international outlook for a country like New Zealand. That is the sort of leadership that kept the Labour Party in power for 9 years; it is the opposite of that, which has got it in such a bad state at the present time—almost leaderless, totally directionless, and almost certainly consigned to a longer period to think about the types of policies that it should be offering to connect to New Zealand. It is sad that it is so starkly shown when it comes to external relations, where we should expect a much higher level of understanding and commitment to us as a nation.

Even this week, we will see the Prime Minister going to a country like China. We have got differences and we make those differences known, but we also know that this is a country that is going to be one of the strongest emerging economies in the world—it already is strong; it will only get stronger—and to be encouraging it to see us in a light that says “equals”, in a light that says “reliable”, and in a light that says “We are interested.” is very important.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): We have just heard an appallingly ignorant speech from the Minister of Defence. I heard him, a moment ago, justify laws that allow New Zealand to be exploited as a tax haven as being OK because it advantages New Zealand. That is what the Minister said; that is what his Hansard will show. I want to tell that Minister that $10 billion was made by multinational companies in New Zealand last year, and they paid $1.8 million in tax on it. They pay tax at a lower rate—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to take the point of order, but I think it is worth pointing out that in this debate about external relations, it is inappropriate to confuse revenue with profit.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member Phil Goff will resume his seat. The Minister in the chair knows that that is not a point of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Phil Goff—your time is starting again.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the point is that if New Zealanders are deeply disturbed that we are being ripped off by multinational companies making $10 billion a year out of New Zealand and paying just $1.8 million a year in tax, we want to see an international system that stops that sort of tax dodging and evasion. And if we are not prepared to crack down on entities that are using New Zealand as a tax haven, how are we going to get the cooperation of international countries to stop people ripping us off? That is the point that the Minister totally missed.

First of all, speaking to the Ministry of Defence annual review, I want to acknowledge the work done overseas by our men and women in uniform. I had the privilege for 9 years of serving as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defence and of seeing the sheer professionalism and commitment of the New Zealand Defence Force. I have got to say that the Kiwi emblem worn on the shoulders of those men and women is something that makes us proud because that Kiwi emblem stands for decency and professionalism in the work they do, and are continuing to do today in Fiji. But the annual review is about the accountability of the Minister, and I want to hold the Minister to account.

I want to put four questions to him—four because I think he can count that far and will be able to remember the questions. The first question is about the training of Iraqi soldiers in Camp Taji. He was up there; the Prime Minister was up there. Last month he did a review of the effectiveness of the $30 million that we invest in that. We are not privy to that review yet, but we do have the American Department of Defense review on Taji and the effectiveness of the training.

These are the questions I have got for the Minister. This report says that the conditions under which those Iraqi trainees are living—without power, without water—are appalling. They detract from the effectiveness of the defence training that we can do, and they cause a very high level of desertion—absence without leave. I want to know whether the Minister, when he was over there, was aware of that fact—high levels of absence without leave, appalling conditions, and conditions so bad they detracted from our ability to do the training that would be worthwhile. Did he ask questions about that? Did he challenge the conditions that they were living under? Or was it just a public relations exercise to be over there, wearing his flak jacket?

The report also says that the real problem with the Iraqi army is the ineffective and corrupt leadership. Did the Minister ever raise that and ask why our guys are doing the best they can in training while their efforts are being undermined by a corrupt and ineffective Iraqi leadership? This report says another thing. It talks about the inadequacy of the equipment. We are trying to teach these guys how to do basic things, like firing a gun.

Ron Mark: A rifle.

Hon PHIL GOFF: A rifle, to use the correct term. The Iraqi trainees were issued with 300 M16s and seven cleaning kits for the rifles. How can we do the job when the equipment being provided to the people we are meant to be training is so thoroughly inadequate? The report says that much of the equipment that is meant to be used by those men who are being trained is syphoned off to go to the militias, whose cause we do not even support. So that is the first question.

The second question is about the poor relationship this Minister has with the Defence Force. I read the annual report. It said that the Minister of Defence had a 50 percent level of satisfaction with the advice he was getting from the Defence Force. Well, that is better than the zero percent confidence that the Defence Force has in that Minister, who is absolutely arrogant and out of touch. But I want to know why his relationship is so poor when that of his predecessors was actually quite good.

I want to know how that Minister could come out and say things like the purchase of NH90s was a dreadful purchase when Wing Commander Scott McKenzie, who runs No. 3 Squadron RNZAF, said that these aircraft are the best thing that ever happened. Mark Mitchell heard him say that—that these aircraft ran rings around any alternative like the Black Hawk and they were really capable. Even his predecessor said that the NH90s were a quantum leap forward. So is it a problem with the advice given by the Defence Force—

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I have to say it was quite interesting, listening to the speeches from the two major parties in the Committee. I thank Mr Goff for reciting a good part of my press release, because it was New Zealand First that actually found the American Department of Defense report. But the point he makes is a very valid one, and I will get to that.

But what I want to address, for a start, is that it is something worthy of note that this Government still has not produced a white paper. When I came back to Parliament, one of the first things I did when I got the defence portfolio back was to have a look to see where the white paper was at. Of course, all I could find was the existing white paper, which is under review, and a statement in it saying that it would be reviewed in 2015. So I was naively expecting to see the defence paper reviewed in 2015, and I am sitting here, looking at this report here—the latest Ministry of Defence annual report of 30 June 2015—that says, yes, the defence white paper will be released in 2015. Well, it is actually 2016.

The reason I make that point is that we have been subjected to a barrage of propositions for defence, and particularly in procurement, that are the very issues and the very points and the very subjects that should be addressed in the white paper, and about which we should not be taking any predetermined positions or evaluations without the white paper. So trying the hard sell and the big spin on having us buy a C17, and shifting our strategic lift from sealift to airlift, is a big proposition, because that is what a C17 is. It is a strategic airlift capability. We thought to ourselves that we would have had a white paper first—that we would have evaluated that concept within the white paper before we started trucking them out and offering MPs rides in them and extolling the virtues of them, and trying to sell them before we had actually decided we even needed them.

We know that there are questions around the NH90s, and I think we share some of the same concerns as the Minister of Defence. We probably do not necessarily accept the arguments of the former Minister of Defence Phil Goff, because we know the problems. But these problems need to be addressed in the white paper. So we are looking forward to seeing that white paper.

It is the same as the protector fleet. There are some issues in there. The latest answers to the questions that New Zealand First has put up reveal that some of our vessels have not been to sea for, in one case, 4 years and, in another one, for 3 years. We have gone from a high in 2011 of having 218 days’ patrolling by our navy on fisheries work to 9 days’ patrolling, dropping down steadily in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. In 2015 we were down to 33 days’ patrolling in our fisheries. We would say these are serious matters, and these are the things that we would like to see discussed in the white paper and have the solutions for this proposed. So we are waiting out for that white paper.

There is some good news. The good news, I would say, is the announcement of the purchase of the Lewis Machine and Tool rifle as a replacement for the God-awful Steyr, which should never have been bought in the first place. But there are problems in the backdrop of that too, Minister, and, as I understand it, they sit around the capability of that company to actually deliver the order and support the order, given the size and the scale of the New Zealand order is different from what it is used to. But I actually said at the time that it was a good decision, and let us see that rolled out because we need to get rid of that damned Steyr. That was something that I recommended from Oman that we not buy, but, you know, the Government of the day went off and did that anyway, despite the advice of the army officers and NCOs and warrant officers on the ground.

But I have got to come to the Iraq deployment. I cannot find any figures around what the misinformation campaign cost—the gagging campaign that was imposed on soldiers and the threats of being charged and court-martialled if they were found out to be talking to MPs. That sort of nonsense has no place in the New Zealand Defence Force, but it happened. It happened, and we are saddened by that. We questioned the deployment to Iraq and the expenditure of that money, and I guess it all came to a head with the very visit that Mr Goff was just talking about.

How can we have the Prime Minister reporting from Iraq that the mission has been highly successful and we are achieving all of these wonderful things as coalition forces when, at the very same time, the Inspector-General of the Department of Defense in the United States has issued a report slagging the entire mission, talking about the very things—the poor equipment, the poor support for the Iraqi troops, the defections, the desertions, the absolute unbridled corruption? And right at the time that all this is going on—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): I think I should respond to some of the comments that have been made, starting with the comments made by Phil Goff. The United States report that the member quoted from was brought to the attention of the select committee and, allegedly, in the absence of any other reports that were available.

We have been in the Taji mission for just on 18 months and in that time—in conjunction with the Australians, who are the senior partners in that particular mission—there have been some 4,000 Iraqi troops pass through that training process. The suggestion was that they are living in difficult circumstances, that they are not being treated properly let alone being given proper rations—particularly water—and that their absenteeism is at a high level. That is not the experience of the Australia - New Zealand mission. The matters that have been raised in that US report have been directly addressed by the New Zealand mission with the Iraqi authorities—in particular, the on-base living conditions of the Iraqi trainees. There was also a question at the start of the mission about whether or not there would be sufficient numbers turning up to the training that was being offered by the Anzac mission. The subscription rate has been exceptionally high.

The quality of what is being delivered has been accepted and the conditions under which that is being delivered have also been accepted, so I totally reject the suggestions that the circumstances that were stated in a United States report delivered early last year are comparable to the circumstances and experience that the New Zealand training mission has—

Hon Phil Goff: The US report is on Camp Taji. It’s on the very camp where we are doing the training.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, the member, of course, screams from his seat that it was about the place where the New Zealanders are working. The place is 65 square kilometres—a huge base—and the trainees whom we are dealing with are quite separate from the trainees other countries are dealing with. I am sorry—the member tries to call on his experience in these matters, but he does not have the first-hand experience that others in this Committee have.

As for the issue of the corrupt leadership, that is exactly why the Iraqi Government has asked New Zealanders and Australians—and the United States and the Spanish and everybody else who is there—to be in Taji to offer a training system and to offer an experience and an example that is separate and different from what it has known in the past. What we have to do is ensure that in Iraq, Daesh is beaten. It will be beaten only by competent Iraqi security forces. We are not going to put boots on the ground in that particular fight. It may be what the Labour Party would want to do, but it is certainly not what this Government is going to do, particularly in the absence of any request from the Iraqi Government itself.

There was then this question about confidence in either me or the Ministry of Defence—whatever. I have huge confidence in the New Zealand Defence Force. I have huge respect for the New Zealand Defence Force. What it might think of me is somewhat irrelevant. My responsibility is to ensure that it has sufficient resources to do the jobs that it is doing. I have got to say, I was extremely impressed by what I have seen in Taji and very impressed by what we have recently seen in Fiji. New Zealanders do make $1 of military spending go far further than almost any other military in the world, and they are to be commended for that.

Mr Mark raised issues about the white paper. All I can say is, hold on—it is coming. There are a number of things that have emerged over the last few years since the 2010 white paper that have to be considered. Firstly, New Zealand has a big interest in the Southern Ocean. We have a big presence in the Antarctic, yet we have had very little focus on that as far as capability is concerned. We have sort of hung on in there. The incident that occurred about 18 months ago, when the—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Rt Hon—the Hon Mr Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you for the elevation—I am very impressed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, it is Speaker coming soon.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Ha, ha! You have thrown me there, I can tell you. I have never felt so uncomfortable in my life.

Ron Mark: The incident.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The incident that occurred around about 2 years ago, when there was a close go with the Boeing 757 landing in the Antarctic, changed a lot of things, because the Civil Aviation Authority brought in some rules that said, well, when you are heading down there with a 2-hour window for go/no-go, loaded with passengers, it does leave you in a difficult circumstance if you go just a few minutes more. The reality is that we do not have a plane that will get us there and get us back. When it comes to our ability to take a ship down to that part of the world, we do not currently have a vessel, because of recent signings-up to international rules or regulations about what you need for ice protection. We no longer have a vessel that is capable under those rules to safely get to the Antarctic. So we are in a position of saying that the Antarctic is important, but we have got no capability to get there and back in a safe sense. Yes, we can still send the C-130 Hercules in, but their loads are somewhat compromised. We can still get the Boeing 757 to fly down there to pick up passengers, but not necessarily to take them there and back. So there does have to be a broader consideration about how we work through that particular conundrum.

The other thing that has emerged over the last few years is the potential reach for terrorist activities right into our own shores. We are part of a coalition in the Middle East, expressed mainly in our roles in the headquarters in Kuwait and the Taji military camp in Iraq, because we are not immune to the activities of terrorists. Although we might want to forget about the Lindt cafe in Australia, which is very close to us, and imagine that there would be no one living in this country who might want to engage in that sort of activity, we need to remind ourselves that we do have people on a watch-list. We do not want to bring in laws that would impede the freedom of New Zealanders to go about their business in any old way they like, but we do have to watch some people because they have expressed, in various ways, sentiment that would mean that they should be taken very seriously and at least watched to make sure that they do not carry out some of the activities that we have seen in other countries.

So the whole concept of intelligence around security and its role inside the fence is something else that will be new in the white paper review when it comes. Once again, it is not something that you can just magic up out of the air, but it has to be part of a much broader approach to things. I would be, as I have been in all things since becoming a Minister, more—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret interrupting the member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 13 APRIL 2016

(continued on Thursday, 14 April 2016)

Bills

Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Hai wāwāhi i taku kōrero i tēnei ata, ka tuku i tētahi kupu karakia mō te ātaahua o tā tātau nohotahi i tēnei rangi. Nō reira me pēnei rawa te kōrero: “Mai e te tipua, mai e te tawhito, mai e te kāhui o ngā ariki, mai e tāwhiwhi ki ngā atua. Ō ī ka takina te mauri, ko te mauri i ahua noa ki runga ki ēnei taura ki runga ki ēnei tauira. Kia tau te mauri ki runga ki ēnei tama, tamatāne, tamawahine he tukuna nō te whaiorooro o Tāne-te-waiora. Tēnei te matatau ka eke whakatū, tārewa ki te rangi. Uhi, wero, hara mai te toki. Haumi e, hui e, taiki e!”

Tauranga Moana, koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, haere mai. Hara mai me te āhuatanga o te kapua pōuri o ngā mate huhua kua pā mai ki a koutou, ki a tātau i te wiki kua hipa, i ngā wiki tata kua hipa ake. Me te mōhio anō hoki nō nātata nei tātau hui atu ai ki runga o Te Marae o Hungahungatoroa, tuku atu i te roimata ki a Matiu, ēhara i te mea ko ia i tōna kotahi. He kitenga kanohi ka hoki ngā mahara, ki te hunga kāre i konei i tēnei rangi, ko rātau i para i te huarahi. Ka kite atu i te āhuatanga ki a Īria. Ka kite atu te āhuatanga ki ngā mate huhua o roto, o waenganui i a koutou. Arā anō rātau, kāre i waimaria ki te haramai. Me pēnei pea te kī, ko te āhuatanga o roto o Ngāi Te Rangi ki a Turirangi Te Kani, ki a Mau Gardiner, ki a Hone Farrell, ā, tae rā anō ki a Matiu. Ngāti Ranginui ko Ānaru Kohu tērā, Alec Tata, Tipi Faulkner, ki a Īria anō hoki. Ko te āhuatanga ki a Ngāti Pukenga, ē, ko Wīremu Ōhia, ko Slim Mikaere, ko Rere Amoamo, ē, ko Te Kepa Smallman. Ēhara i te mea ko rātau te katoa o te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Ēngari, i a au e whakahua atu ana i ērā īngoa, me pēnei te kōrero, kua korowaitia rātau i te āhuatanga o te aroha nui kua tukuna atu ai e tātau i ngā rā kua hipa ake.

Nō reira, kai aku rangatira haere mai, haere mai, haere mai! Ēhara i te mea ko ngā mate ō nātatanei tātau e kōrero nei, kei te kōrero tātau mō ngā mate, ā, i rongo nei i te ngau o te pū i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Nō reira, koinei te tangi o te ngākau mō rātau kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Hoi anō, tēnei te āhuatanga o te tū, ki te tuku i te roimata mō rātau katoa. Ēngari, ko koutou e whakakanohi nei i a rātau i tēnei rangi e kui mā, e koro mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ēhara i te mea i pēnei ki tāku e kī nei, nō nātata nei ngā mate i nanahi nei tātau e kōrero nei. I te mea i puta mai te take nei, arā, ko tēnei o ngā whakataunga kerēme i ngā mate o ngā tau kua hipa ake, i ngā rā o nehe. Ka waiho ake mā Te Minita anō rā e kōrero mō te āhuatanga o ngā pire e kōrerohia ake nei. Ēngari ko te wāhi ki a au, ko te whakatakoto i ētahi paku kōrero o roto i te ngākau.

He aha te take o nehe? He aha tērā take? Ā, te tino pūtake o tā tātau hara mai i roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā? Ki taku titiro ko te muru! Ki taku titiro ko te raupatu! Ki taku titiro ko tēnei mea ko te pakanga, ko te pakanga! Kai te mōhio tonu koutou o Tauranga Moana e rua ngā pakanga nui, ko Pukehinahina, ko Te Ranga. Āe, arā anō wētahi! Ēngari, nā runga i ēnei pakanga nui, e ai ki taku rongo, tata eke ki te 50,000 eka i murua e te Kāwanatanga, nā runga i ērā āhuatanga, nā runga i ērā tohe. I te tau 2014, i tū ngā rā whakamaumaratanga mō ēnei wāhi e rua, ko Pukehinahina, ko Te Ranga.

Ko Te Ranga i tēnei rā kai te mōhio tonu koutou, he pātiki, he pari. Ia rā, ia rā, ka taraiwa te tangata mai i Rotorua ki Tauranga, mai i Tauranga ki Rotorua, ka titiro whakatekatau, ka titiro whakatemauī, ka kore tētahi e paku mōhio i tū he pakanga ki tērā wāhi, tae rā anō ki ngā tau tata kua hipa ake! Ēngari anō a Pukehinahina, kai te rori matua o Tauranga tēnei wāhi. Ko wai te īngoa o te rori? Ko Kamerona! He mea nui tērā i roto i ngā kōrero mō te hītori e kōrerohia ake nei. Ko te painga ake o ērā rā maumaharatanga, ko te whakaoho i a Tauranga Moana mō ngā hītori, ka mutu, ko ngā kōrero mō ngā tohe i taua tāone, taua hapori o Tauranga Moana. Ko te mate kē, i rongo Te Ao Māori i te kawa o ētahi o te hapori ki ngā hītori, otirā, ki a ngāi tātau. Ko ngā kōrero o ēnei wāhi, ko te tikanga, he mea whakaako i roto i ngā kura, kia mōhio tonu ngā tamariki o Tauranga Moana, ē, arā anō ngā āhuatanga o ngā hītori kei mua tonu i te aroaro! E taraiwahia ana e ētahi, ia rā, ia rā ēngari, kāre tētahi i te paku mōhio.

Nā, i roto i ngā tohe, i ngā pakanga nei, i noho tōku iwi o Ngāti Rangiwewehi hei hoa haere mō ngā whanaunga o roto o Tauranga Moana. Nō reira, me hoki rā anō ki ērā kōrero. I te 29 o Paenga-whāwhā i te tau 1864, i tū te pakanga nui ki Pukehinahina, ko Kamerona te tianara. Mō ngā 8 hāora i tukuna ngā pahū, i tukuna ki runga i tērā o ngā pā. Nā Kamerona te tono, kia kotahi atu ki te 300 tāngata ki tēnei o ngā pā, arā anō te 300 tāngata i muri iho kia herehere i ngā Māori i tērā o ngā pā tūwatawata. Nā, e ai ki ngā kōrero, 230 ngā Māori, 1,070 hōia. Ēngari, he mahi huna tā te iwi Māori i te pā. I te taenga o ngā hōia ki te pā, i tūmeke katoa rātau i te mea, i pōhēhē rātau kua mate katoa te iwi nei, koutou. Ngā tūpuna ō rātau mā! Ko Rāwiri Puhirake o Ngāti Te Rangi, te ariki o te pā, i hinga pai te hōia. E 8 wiki i muri mai, i tū pakanga o Te Ranga. I taua wā i eke atu tōku iwi o Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Porou anō hoki ki te tautoko i a Puhirake: 100 tāngata whenua i mate, 10 hōia.

I rā tātau i Tauranga Moana i ngā rua tau kua hipa ake, he tuku i ngā tangi mō rātau i tērā o ngā urupā i te tāone nanā. Ēngari nā te whakamā i tae atu ai a Greer, ko te tianara o tērā wā, ā, mai i reira ka puta te īngoa Greerton pea! Nō reira, ēnei kōrero katoa kai roto i ngā hītori o te wāhi nei, otirā, o tēnei o ngā kerēme. Ngā hōia i mate ēngari i tū ngā tohe. Nō reira te wāhi poto nei ki a au, i whakaaro ake me whakapuaki tonu i ēnei hītori ēhara i te mea, kia whakanui i te āhuatanga o ēnei mate, kāo! Ēngari, kia tangi i te tuatahi i te mea, ko ngā uri tēnei kua eke mai ki mua i a tātau i tēnei rā. Ka tangi ake mō te āhuatanga o wā tātau kōrero i tēnei rangi i te mea, ka kōrero nei tātau mō ngā kerēme mō ngā whakataunga ēngari, me kōrero mō ngā mate i roto i ngā tau kua hipa ake.

Nō reira koinei tāku, he mihi poto. Ki a koutou e hoa mā, kai ngā pāpā, ngā whaea, ka tangi ake te kite i a koutou nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā mate kua pā mai ki a tātau i ngā rā tata kua hipa ake, nō reira tāku kupu whakamutunga, he mihi ki Te Minita. Ko ia tērā i tiki atu i te rākau, ā, kia kōkiritia atu ki tōnā taumata, me te mōhio anō hoki i ngā tau kua hipa, ā, i reira tonu ētahi paku raru ēngari, kai te pai! Koinei te āhuatanga o te tangata. Pēnei i a Māui Tikitiki-ā-Taranga i pērā rawa a ia. Nō reira kāti! Ko tāku ko te kī ka mihi ki Te Minita, ka mihi ki a koutou, haere mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[To begin my speech this morning I will recite a ritual chant as we sit together on this beautiful occasion. And so I will recite it thus: “I invoke the inspiration and guidance from the universe and the gods, and I therefore bestow upon these disciples and young men and women the life-force under the auspices of Tāne, the giver of life. Let them attain the sacred knowledge from the highest heavens. Hold fast, hold strong, it is done!”

Welcome to the people of Tauranga Moana who are present here today. Come forth under a cloud of mourning of the many deaths that you have suffered, not only last week but over recent weeks. I also acknowledge our meeting, which took place at Hungahungatoroa Marae, where we shed tears for Matiu—but he was not the only one. When we see a face, thoughts go back to those who are no longer here today and who paved the way. We recall the situation relating to Īria and to the myriads of deaths within and among you, and others as well who were not lucky enough to come. Let me put it this way: the situation within Ngāi Te Ranginui was there were Turirangi Te Kani, Mau Gardiner, and Hone Farrell, including Matiu. In Ngāti Ranginui’s situation there were Ānaru Kohu, Alec Tata, Tipi Faulkner, and Īria once again. In Ngāti Pūkenga’s case there are Wīremu Ōhia, Slim Mikaere, Rere Amoamo, and Te Kepa Smallman. It is not as though they were the total number lost from sight. Let me put it this way: as I mentioned those names they became enshrined with enormous empathy that we placed upon them in the days gone by.

And so to you, my esteemed ones, welcome, welcome, welcome! It is not just recent deaths we are referring to but those also that felt the bite of the musket in bygone times. And so this is why the heart grieves for those who are lost from sight. Shedding tears for all of them, therefore, is an aspect of rising to take a call. But I do acknowledge, commend, and congratulate all you revered elderly men and womenfolk. You put a face to them today.

It is not as though it is like what I am saying here is that the deaths yesterday we were alluding to were of recent times, because this matter, this one of the settlement claims, emerged from deaths that occurred a very long time ago, in ancient days. I will leave it for the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to elaborate on features about this bill being debated here. But I do want to put forth some sentiments from within the heart.

What is the purpose of ancient times? What is that reason? Yes, the real reason for coming here today into Parliament House. To me plundering, confiscation, conflict, battle are the reasons. You of Tauranga Moana know exactly that there were two major battles, Pukehinahina and Te Ranga. Yes, and there were other battles. But according to what I heard and because of these two major conflicts, approximately 50,000 acres were taken by the Government because of those circumstances and contentions. In 2014 memorial days were held for these two places, Pukehinahina and Te Ranga.

Te Ranga, as you know so well today, is a paddock and a precipice. Each day one drives from Rotorua to Tauranga, and from Tauranga to Rotorua, looks right, looks left, and would not see a shred of evidence right up to years just past that a battle happened at that place. But as for this place Pukehinahina, it is on the main road to Tauranga. What is the name of the road? It is Cameron Road! That is a significant point alluded to here in the historical accounts. A benefit from those two memorable days is a wake-up call to Tauranga Moana about historical accounts, and, furthermore, accounts about the protests in that community of Tauranga Moana. The problem was that Māoridom heard that some in the community were bitter about the historical accounts that affected us. As of right, historical accounts relating to these places should be taught in schools so that children of Tauranga Moana become aware that there are other aspects of history that are there in front of them that one will drive past daily and be totally unaware of.

In regard to these battles my own tribe of Ngāti Rangiwewehi tribe stood as allies with kin from within Tauranga Moana. So we need to go all the way back to those historical accounts. On 29 April 1864 a huge battle took place at Pukehinahina. Duncan Cameron was the general. For 8 hours that one of the pā settlements was bombarded by artillery fire. Cameron then ordered 300 to go directly to this one of the settlements, and 300 more afterwards to arrest the Māori in that one of the fortifications. According to accounts there were 230 Māori and 1,070 imperial troops. However, the Māori were cunning. When the soldiers entered the pā they were absolutely shocked, as they had assumed this tribe, all of you, their ancestors, were dead! Rāwiri Puhi of Ngāi Te Rangi, who was the paramount chief, had fooled the soldiers well. Eight weeks later the battle of Te Ranga took place, and my Ngāti Rangiwewehi tribe, with Ngāti Pikiao and Ngāti Porou as well, embarked in support of Puhirake: 100 locals and 10 soldiers died.

So there we were in Tauranga Moana 2 years ago, lamenting them at one of the burial sites in that town. It is because of the embarrassment when Greer, who was the general at that time, arrived there that the name Greerton emerged, perhaps! Therefore, all these accounts are in the histories of this place, but at the same time in these claims. Although the soldiers perished, the protests endured. So in this brief call I decided to reflect and to really express these historical anecdotes, not as a means of extolling these deaths, not at all, but rather to grieve in the first instance, as these are the kin who have arrived here before us today. I grieve because of the circumstances of our contributions on this day. While we talk about these claims, these settlements, we must also address the deaths that have occurred in the years gone by.

So this is my contribution. A brief acknowledgement to you, friends, uncles, and aunties. I am moved as my eyes settle upon you in respect of the deaths that we have experienced together in recent days. My final acknowledgement is to commend the Minister. It was he who reached out for the baton so as to thrust it forward to its ultimate destination, knowing full well that in years gone by minor issues remain still, but that is fine. This is how it is when dealing with an individual—quite like dealing with Māui Tikitiki-ā-Taranga; he was just like that. So enough! I salute you, Minister, and bid you all welcome, come hither! My appreciation to us all.]

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): “Papā te whatitiri, hikohiko te uira, kahukura ki te rangi! He ai tū ka riri ka rongo mai ka hē ko Ngungunu, ko Ngangana ko Apārangi, ko te titī o te rua, ko te tao whakahoro, ko te tao whakawahine, ko te tao o tōku tupuna a Hineamaru. Tihei wā mauri ora!”

E Te Minita, ka tāpae waku mihi ki tāu nā i whārikihia nei ki mua i te aroaro o tō tātau Whare. Mihi atu ana au ki a koe, nāu te huarahi i hanga kia kotahi ai te wairua Māori o tēnā, o tēnā o tātau kua tau nei. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e Te Minita i tuku karakia e Te Minita o Ngā Mahi Whanake Māori. E tāpae atu waku mihi ki tāu nā mihi ki ō tātau tini aituā. Rātau kua ngaro atu ki te Pō. Ngā mate huhua ki roto i ngā taumaha kua pahure ake nei. Tae noa mai ki tēnei rangi, e tangi tonu ana te ngākau, e haehae tonu ana i te kiri. Koutou e ōku tini whanaunga kua tau mai ki roto i tēnei Whare o tātau. Pīkauria mai ngā aituā ki runga i a koutou, kia tūhono ki ngā aituā ki runga i a mātau e noho nei, kia tukuna atu ko ngā pātū o tō tātau Whare te mihi atu, te tangi atu ki ngā mate. Koutou, i mau ai te ringa kaha o aituā, o aituere, o aitukikini, o aitutāmaki. Nāna i kōwhaki ai i te kauae o tērā e tangi mai rā, o tērā e tangi ake rā, o tātau e tangi atu nei, nō reira, kāti ki te wāhanga ki Te Pō!

Nau mai te ao, ko wai me ahau ko te ata! E aku rangatira, mihi atu ana au ki a koutou! Haere mai rā koutou e Ngāti Hine ki Tauranga Moana. He aha te take a Peeni e taki nei i tēnei momo kōrero? Kua wahaina mai e Te Minita mō ngā pakanga. Nā, ka huri ōku whakaaro ki roto i ōku ake ki Te Tai Tokerau. Ko te pā maioro, ko te pā tūwatawata ko Te Ruapekapeka. I tukuna atu tōku tupuna a Kawiti i te karere ki te motu whānui, haere mai, awhi mai, nā koutou taua tono i whakatutuki. I haere mai a Te Whatarau ki roto i a au ki te āwhina atu i tō mātau pakanga ki te koti whero. Ahakoa i tae mai a Te Whatarau ki runga i tētahi wāhi pātata ki te tāone nei o Whāngarei, ko te īngoa o taua wāhi rā, ko Pakikaikutu. I tae mai a Te Whatarau, nā, i pōhēhē wētahi o ōku whanaunga, ā, ko koutou kē te hoariri. Tahi ka pūhia e mātau koutou ēngari, ka ora mai a Te Whatarau! Hei hohou i te rongo, ka tukuna atu e Kawiti tētahi wāhi whenua ki roto i a mātau e kīia nei, ko Akerama. Nō reira i whai kāinga ai a Te Whatarau ki roto i a mātau o Ngāti Hine, kātahi ka heke mai ko ngā uri. Ka moe rangatira te rangatira o koutou ki roto i a au nei, ka puta mai ko ngā whānau ka noho tonu ki runga i tō mātau whenua i tēnei wā tonu. E Ngāti Hine ki Tauranga Moana, haere mai rā koutou ki runga i tēnei e kōrero ake nei, ko Tauranga Moana ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau. Kāti e ngā whanaunga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau!

Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō ngā āhuatanga o ngā pakanga i raupatuhia ai e Te Whenua o Tauranga Moana, kua tae mai tātau ki tēnei wāhanga o wā rātau haerenga. Ko tāku e kī nei, ahakoa ka tatū mai ngā nawe me ngā amuamu, me ngā whakahē a Te Tiriti o Waitangi i tēnei rā tonu, ka whawhai tonu tātau, ka whawhai tonu tātau! Kia kaua tēnei Whare e pōhēhē ka tutuki tēnei pire, ka mutu te whawhai o Tauranga Moana, kāhore, kāhore, kāhore! Ko te whāinga matua ko Te Mana Motuhake! Ko tētahi o ngā tepe ki runga i te huarahi, anā, ko te mahi ngātahi, ko te mahi ngātahi a Tauranga Moana me Te Karauna, tāku e mihi atu nei ki a koutou!

Ka huri ngā mihi ki Te Minita, ki a ia i whakapau werawera mō ēnei take Tiriti. Kua roa rawa koutou e tatari ana! Nā, kua tae mai i te rā nei nā runga i te tono a Te Minita, otirā, o te tāhūhū o tō tātau Whare. Nō reira ki a koe e Te Minita, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe, koutou ko ō āpiha, ko Te Tari Tatū ai i Ngā Kerēme e pā ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, e mihi atu ana! Kua kōrero mai Te Minita, ka haere tēnei pire ki mua i te aroaro o Te Rōpū Whāiti mō ngā Take Māori. Ko te hiahia nō reira, kia āta wetewete, kia totohe i ngā wāhanga katoa o tēnei pire. Āe, kua whakaritea nei i tētahi wāhanga pūtea ki roto i te pire, ka tika! Kua roa rawa mātau e kī atu ana, ahakoa te rahi o te pūtea, ka kore e ea i ngā mamae kei runga i a koutou.

Ko tētahi atu wāhanga o te pire e mea atu ana, āe, e whakapāha ana Te Kāwanatanga mō ngā mahi tūkino i a koutou. Kia mōhio mai koutou e aku rangatira i te wiki kua pahure ake nei, i tukuna e mātau o tēnei taha o Te Whare i tētahi kōrero, kia whakapāha Te Kāwanatanga mō ngā mahi tūkino i Te Reo Māori. Tēnā, ko tāku e hiahia ana, nā runga i te kōrero o Te Kāwanatanga, tēnā pea ka kitea i tētahi whakapāha mō tērā āhuatanga ki roto i ngā mahi e whai ake nei!

Kāti, kai konei mātau o tēnei taha e tautoko ana i tēnei pire. E tautoko ana mātau i tēnei pire nā runga i ngā hiahia, ngā moemoeā a ō tātau mātua, a ō tātau tūpuna. Kua roa rawa a Tauranga Moana e whawhai ana i tēnei whawhai. Ko tāku e pānui ana i ngā kōrero ka tukuna mai e Te Kāwanatanga, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a Tauranga Moana, tā te mea, ka noho nei koutou ahakoa ngā nekehanga, me ngā whawhai, me ngā kōrero o ngā hapū, nē? Titiro mai ki a au o Ngāpuhi! Ka kite nei koutou i te kino o te whawhai Māori ki te Māori! Āe, me tū motuhake ngā hapū, ka tika! Ēngari mō te take nei, ka kōkiri ngātahi a Tauranga Moana, tēnei ka mihi! He tauira tēnā! He tauira tēnā ki ōku ake o roto Ngāpuhi. Tēnā, ko ngā hapū, ko te mana o ngā hapū ērā ka takahia nei i te nukuroa mō te wā roa. Ēngari mō te take o tēnei kaupapa, ka kōkiri ngātahi. Tēnei e mihi atu ana ki a koutou mō tērā whakaaro rangatira me tēnā whakaaro rangatira. Ka kōrero nei wēnei mahi rangahau i ngā hapū katoa kei roto i a koutou, tēnei ka mihi.

Nā, kua rongo koutou kua tangi te pere hei haukoti i tōku kōrero i te rā nei. Ēngari kia mōhio mai koutou, i roto i te roanga ake o tēnei pire mai i te pānuitanga tuatahi tae atu ki tōna tutukitanga, kei konei mātau totohe ai, wero ai! He aha te take? Mō te mana motuhake e whāia nei e koutou! Nō reira, kāti ake e aku rangatira! Hei whakakapi ake i tōku kōrero i te rā nei, i pahū te pū repo ki runga i ngā pā tūwatawata o te motu whānui, ka auē te iwi Māori tahi ka hopī ngā mate i ngā hopī o te tūpara. Iaia tonu nei, ka mihi atu ki ngā mahi rangatira i oti ai i a koutou ki runga i te pā o Pukehinahina, ki runga anō hoki i Te Ranga.

Hei whakakapi ake e ōku rangatira, e kīia nei tēnei haka ki runga i te pā o Te Ruapekapeka. Pukehinahina hō! A Te Ranga hō! Ruapekapeka e hōhā! Kāti aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[“Thunder rumbles, lightning strikes, and a rainbow straddles the heavens. Anger vents forth, peace emerges, it is Ngungunu, Ngangana, Aparangi, it is the shearwater within its burrow, the spear that descends, the feminine article, the spearhead of my ancestor Hineamaru. Behold the breath of life!”.

Minister Flavell, I append my words of greetings to those that you just uttered in our House. I salute you for binding the spirits of each of us gathered in this House. I commend you, the Minister for Māori Development, for leading us in prayer at the commencement of our debate. I append my regards for the dear departed to your words of farewell to them, the people who have passed beyond the realm of the living; the many dear departed of the years past. Unto this day, lamentations, lacerations of the heart and the body, keening for those never to return to this world. I turn to my kinfolk who have come to this House of ours. Bring forth your losses into our House that they may mingle with the losses borne by the members seated here, that the very walls of our House reverberate with our cries of loss; you who bear the burdens of beloved kin passed beyond the firmament as we lament their passing. The lamentations that burst forth from the congregation here—enough of the dead!

Returning to the world of the living, and to whom else but me, the breaking of the new day! Salutations to you, august visitors! Come hither to you, Ngāti Hine from Tauranga Moana. You may well ask why Peeni is addressing you in such a manner. The Minister brought up matters relating to land wars. So my recollections reach back to my homeland in Northland, to the fortified pā of Ruapekapeka. My ancestor Kawiti sent forth the clarion call throughout the land to come and assist, you fulfilled that call. Te Whatarau came among us to help us fight the redcoat. Although Te Whatarau arrived at a place nearby to the present day city of Whāngarei, that place was called Pakikaikutu. Upon his arrival, some of my relatives thought you were the foe, then we fired upon you. But Te Whatarau survived! As a token of amity, Kawiti ceded a piece of land to you at Akerama. And so that is how Te Whatarau found a home amongst us of Ngāti Hine, and his descendants followed thereafter. Your high-born married the high-born within Ngāti Hine and begat the families that continue to reside upon our lands to this day. And so to you, Ngāti Hine of Tauranga Moana, my personal welcome to you from this Tauranga Moana from within Northland. So welcome and acknowledgments to you collectively and my thanks to us all.

The Minister has spoken about the wars that brought about the loss of lands in regard to Tauranga Moana and has come to this juncture of the proceedings. I state and reaffirm here, even though imperfections, complaints and criticisms of the Treaty of Waitangi still continue today, we will continue to fight on. Lest this House consider that this bill will end Tauranga Moana’s battle, I say it will not, it will not, it will not! The primary goal is independent integrity. One of the first steps to achieve this is working together. That is it! Tauranga Moana and the Crown working together! I salute you collectively on that!

I turn to the Minister and direct my accolades to he who has expended perspiration over these Treaty matters. You, Tauranga Moana, have waited a long time. And now you have arrived here today through the invitation of the Minister but, at the same time, the invitation of the ridge pole of our House. Therefore to you, the Minister, I truly commend you, your officials, and the Office of Treaty Settlements, well done! The Minister has stated that this bill will be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. The desire is to carefully analyse and debate all parts of the bill there. Yes, a portion of funding has been considered in the bill. Well, then, we have advocated for a long time that regardless of the quantum, not all grievances that you have will be settled financially.

There is another part in the bill saying, yes, the Government is apologising for its violations against you. Esteemed ones, you need to be cognisant of the fact that we on this side of the House in weeks just past made a statement that the Government must apologise for its acts of ill-treatment against the Māori language. On the basis of the Government statement, I want to see if the Government can find a way to apologise for that situation in terms of acts of violation that might occur subsequently.

That aside, we here on this side of the House support this bill. We do so because of the aspirations and dreams of our parents and ancestors. Tauranga Moana has fought this battle for a very long time. What I interpret from the contributions will be delivered by the Government. I applaud Tauranga Moana because you will remain fixed on the purpose regardless of movements, subtribal battles, and tribal ones, yes? Look at me of Ngāpuhi! You will see the ghastly nature of Māori fighting Māori. Yes, subtribes must remain independent, and quite rightly so! But in regard to this situation, Tauranga Moana has worked collaborately and I doff my hat to you! That is an example, and one for my lot in Ngāpuhi to follow. There is an example for subtribes and for the integrity of subtribes to traverse and follow in the long haul and over a lengthy period of time. I commend you collectively for that esteemed and outstanding philosophy, a truly great one. These researched anecdotes on all your subtribes within you are quite revealing, and I commend you.

Now, you have heard the bell signalling that my address today is at an end, but you must understand that throughout the lengthy process of this bill from the first reading right through to its conclusion, we will be here to debate, to challenge and for what purpose? For the independence you are seeking. Therefore, enough, my esteemed ones! To end my contribution today: the cannon boomed out over the fortified pā of the nation, Māoridom wailed, then the defeated were panic-stricken by the intimidation of the double-barrelled gun! At this very moment I commend the acts of nobility you collectively accomplished on the settlement of Pukehinahina and on Te Ranga, as well.

In conclusion, my esteemed ones, it is said that this posture dance performed on the parapets of Ruapekapeka went like this: Pukehinahina hō! Te Ranga hō! Ruapekapeka hō-hā! Pukehinahina, Te Ranga, and Ruapekapeka are fed up! Enough, noble ones, acknowledgments to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I join with the previous two speakers, Te Ururoa Flavell and Peeni Henare, in welcoming our guests in the public gallery. I am delighted we have reached this stage, as they and I know it has been no easy task, for reasons that I will develop in my speech.

The Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective comprises Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, whose settlement is being read now together with the collective redress; Ngāti Pūkenga, whose bill will also be read a first time later this morning; and Ngāi Te Rangi, whose bill I expect to be introduced to the House in the next few weeks. I am particularly pleased we have reached that stage, and I acknowledge all the good work of Ngāi Te Rangi.

These groups entered into collective negotiations in 2010 to negotiate shared redress alongside their individual iwi settlements. This collective approach has required intensive engagement and has resulted in the three iwi agreeing on the shared redress, which is set out in the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective deed and the bill. On 22 December 2011 the collective signed a statement of position and intent with the Crown. This summarised the status of negotiations between the Crown and the iwi collective, and outlined the remaining steps that needed to be taken to reach final agreement on the collective redress. On 2 November 2012 the collective deed was initialled by the Crown and the collective, and after a lengthy hiatus that followed to enable the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective parties to organise their affairs, the deed was finally signed on 21 January 2015. The Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill will give legislative effect to the final agreements on collective redress as set out in that collective deed. Settlement redress for each individual iwi within the collective is set out in their respective individual deeds of settlement.

Let me say something about the history that has got us to this place. The tribunal found that along with loss of life and loss of land, Tauranga Moana iwi “suffered reduced access to, and use of, traditional resources from the rivers, sea, and the forests [around] Tauranga Moana.” Later the “accelerating pace of urban development” and economic activity led to “degradation and pollution” of the environment. Much land—as so sadly we hear every time there is a settlement bill read in this House—was taken under the Public Works Act. The collective actions and the omissions of the Crown left all Tauranga Moana iwi with insufficient land for their needs, undermined their economy, and frayed the social fabric of the region. It also impacted on the ability of whānau, hapū, and iwi to pass on language, tikanga, and mātauranga to younger generations—and that is one of the reasons why this afternoon we are going to have the third reading of the Māori Language Bill.

The enactment of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill is going to provide for Crown acknowledgment of statements of association for statutory areas, joint management of the sacred maunga Mauao, a right of first refusal over certain land, the transfer of Crown forest land to Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective and Te Kūpenga, and a relationship agreement—a very important agreement—between the iwi collective and the Department of Conservation (DOC). I acknowledge the good work of Lou Sanson and the team at DOC.

I must also mention the framework, the Tauranga Moana Framework, a very important and novel co-governance framework for Tauranga Moana iwi and other iwi with recognised interests to participate in the management of the harbour and surrounding waterways and the coastal area. As described in the collective deed, the whānau and hapū of Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāi Te Rangi, and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui are moana-centric people, with an enduring thousand-year association with Tauranga Moana that is fundamental to their identity and well-being, both culturally and materially. I know and I recognised it was an incredibly difficult decision for the collective to remove the framework from this bill because of reasons beyond their control. I too was very disappointed that we had to go down that path, and today I reiterate my commitment to support the iwi as they work with their neighbours to see the Tauranga Moana Framework finalised. Then we will bring it in through separate legislation.

Can I now turn to the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui claims settlement, which, as I said, is in the same bill as the collective redress. Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui is an integral member of the collective and, as can be deduced from the title of their bill, a hapū-centric iwi. To all of those in the gallery who have come to Wellington to witness this long-awaited and historic day, I reiterate my welcome and my thanks to you for all your hard work so that we got to this stage. It is a very real pleasure to welcome you to Parliament this morning.

Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui gave the mandated negotiators a mandate to negotiate a deed of settlement with the Crown. The Crown recognised the mandate on 7 April 2008. The negotiators and the Crown signed terms of negotiation on 27 September 2008, and on 21 December 2011 Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui and the Crown signed a statement of position agreeing, in principle, that Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui and the Crown were willing to enter into a deed of settlement. On 6 April the deed of settlement was initialled and on 21 June 2012 the deed was signed, on the anniversary of the battle of Gate Pā. The bill will give legislative effect to the final agreements on the redress, as set out in the deed.

The historical claims primarily concern the war and the raupatu at Tauranga, the purchase of the Te Puna and Katikati Blocks soon after the war, and the effects of the Crown’s native land laws and later Māori land legislation, and once again public works takings, during the second half of the 20th century. The Crown’s actions during the bush campaign are of particular note. This conflict was sparked by Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui resistance to the raupatu and the Te Puna and Katikati purchase, which Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui refused to recognise. In response to the obstruction of surveys and threats against surveyors, the Crown employed a scorched earth policy to subdue Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui. A Crown force numbering in the hundreds looted and destroyed villages, burnt crops, and took any livestock that was found. In the years following Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui have struggled to support themselves. Food shortages were common. Poor sanitation resulted in sickness. The Crown’s apology is set out in the deed of settlement and, as I say, was delivered by me personally in June 2012.

The redress in the deed of settlement is designed to go some way to correct that which has been lost, and I certainly hope it will eventuate for the whānau and the hapū of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui. The financial and commercial redress offered to Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui seeks to recognise the losses suffered by them. They will receive just over $38 million plus interest, as well as numerous commercial redress properties, some sale and lease-back commercial properties, a 20 percent share in Pūwhenua Forest lands, and a right of first refusal in relation to certain right of first refusal land.

I once again say it has taken longer than we anticipated to reach this stage, but I want to thank all the negotiators for their work, and my chief Crown negotiator, Dame Patsy Reddy, who has been working so hard both on the collective redress and on the individual settlements. We now move to the final stages of the deed of settlement process, and I look forward to seeing the bill back in the House in the very near future.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare, he mihi nui ki a Tauranga Moana, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to the House and a huge one to Tauranga Moana; welcome, come hither to Parliament House.]

To the kuia and kaumātua here today, the whānau here today, and the voice of the pēpi we heard in the Chamber urging us to remember that this is about mokopuna katoa, the next generation, welcome, welcome. Thank you for being here for this moment of history, your history, which Te Rōpū Kākāriki wishes to honour and acknowledge. We wish to support the bill all the way through its process, and to honour and acknowledge the extraordinary effort of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, me Ngāti Pūkenga hapū katoa o Tauranga Moana [and all subtribes of Tauranga Moana] in your incredible survival, commitment to change, and willingness to rebuild a future in Aotearoa alongside us Pākehā, despite a painful history, which has been touched on already by the Minister for Māori Development, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and other speakers this morning.

I just wanted to acknowledge a quote from Charlie Tāwhiao: “For [more than] 150 years … five generations of [our] people have been carrying an unbearable pain that this weekend will end and allow us to get on with the work of moving forward. We’re very pleased to hear that the Crown has acknowledged that, up until now, it has not properly dealt with the injustices we have suffered—that it now recognises we had control over our tribal area up until it started the war with us in 1864 that caused real suffering for many of our people.” I think that that is a really important quote in terms of understanding the history of Tauranga Moana. In the little that I know, as someone who lives up the road in Hauraki, this is a wealthy, beautiful, fertile, amazing part of Aotearoa. Nowhere is as unique as this settlement, or has had some of the unique dispossession that took place—the violence that has been visited on this area.

I just want to acknowledge that war is a good way to steal land. What actually happened in 1864? We who have been taught such limited history think that there was a battle at Gate Pā. There was generosity and honour shown by tangata whenua warriors. Those things are true, but that is not the reason there was a war. The reason there was a war is described well in a historical account. “Conflict in the Tauranga district between the Imperial troops and Maori warriors became … inevitable when in January 1864 three ships landed almost 700 soldiers at the tiny settlement known as Te Papa. At the time the government claimed that its intention was to prevent Maori from Tauranga and the East Coast lending support to the Kingite forces in the Waikato by sending men and supplies to the Waikato. However, the government was also keen to increase the amount of fertile land available for settlement. Provoking a fight in the Tauranga district would provide a reason to confiscate productive land.”

That is the truth of the matter: provoking a fight would provide a reason for raupatu. As the Minister said, some 50,000 acres were taken in raupatu and in subsequent forms of legalised theft right up to the late 20th century, including the infamous Public Works Act. I just want to honour the survival and the determination of Tauranga Moana iwi and their commitment to work together, where they share common interests, to develop a future. It is not a simple matter. Others know this better than I, and we will hear more, no doubt, through the select committee process, but it is a total tribute to those people.

My deep concern about this is that Pākehā do not understand. I would venture to say in Tauranga it is the same as everywhere else: this wealthy place with many wealthy and comfortable homes, where there are many Pākehā people living comfortable lives in the context of an extreme dispossession that they do not understand. I was disappointed when the Minister of Education said that Land Wars education in Aotearoa is a choice for schools. It was not a choice for tangata whenua in 1864. It was not a choice when the Public Works Act took their land. It was not a choice to engage in the Treaty settlement process. It was a necessity in order to consider the future for mokopuna.

How is it a choice for my culture to not know these things? How are we holding our heads up and saying we will not teach our children what has happened? How can the settlement be full and final if we do not have the understanding in my society of what happened and why it happened? How are we going to get the buy-in? It really disturbs me, because I know that Tauranga Moana iwi have worked very, very hard to create this with the Crown, but my culture is still ignorant.

I recently went to the freshwater consultation process, and I was horrified by the blatant ignorance and racism of my own people in talking about relationships with natural resources. As we know, natural resources are at the heart of this settlement in the sense of the damage that has been done, particularly, but not only, to two awa in the rohe. I was there when the Rena foundered and I helped scrape oil off the beaches, and that is a continuing hurt for Tauranga Moana. So this is a contemporary issue. How will we have a relationship? How do we manage our resources?

The Green Party believes that education of everybody—tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti katoa—in Aotearoa is not a choice but a necessity, as a peacemaking parallel process alongside this important process that we are here to do today. If we do not follow those things, we are going to have a whole lot of people floating around, with their ignorance on the news and on their talkback shows, hurting other people, misunderstanding their place, and being ignorant about history.

I believe it is Parliament’s responsibility to do better than that. As we are doing better than that today with these processes, we have to do better than that with education, so that every citizen in Tauranga Moana understands what happened at Pukehinahina and Te Ranga, understands what rohe they are in, and knows the names, the places, the history, the meaning of why we are here today, and how this is about giving back 2 percent of what was taken. This is not to paralyse my culture with guilt but to inform us with the ability to engage, with respect, with history, to give a deeper understanding of our own place, and a recognition of the value of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a place where we can all stand if we stand with honour and respect. But if we do not educate our own while the tangata whenua are bending over backwards to build a relationship, then it is on our heads. It is our failure. We as elders of this country—those of us who are over the age of 25—need to take some responsibility for this.

There are many interesting and moving parts to this settlement, and one of them is the maunga of the rohe: the beautiful Ōtānewainuku, Pūwhenua, and Mauao—these peaks and their story. I was a young person when I was told the story of the mountain that fell in love and then could not have his beloved. The patupaiarehe tried to help him throw himself into the sea. If we understand that story, we understand that what has driven so much of the Treaty settlement process is law and is economics, but it is really love of whenua, love of maunga, love of awa from the tangata whenua side. We all need to know the story and feel the love that actually supports Tauranga Moana as identity for everybody, based in, and started with, the stories of the tangata whenua, which are more than stories; they are whakapapa.

So it does disturb me a little—and and no doubt it will come back after the select committee process—that the maunga peaks are not being returned. Recently we had a Department of Conservation briefing about what conservation land was available for settlement, and I was disturbed by that briefing in the sense that my culture just seems to refuse to be as generous as we need to be. It is more than the peak; it is the maunga. It is more than reserve status; it is full return. That is what we would like to see in many of these settlement bills. It is more than right of first refusal; it is a generous return of a theft, because when you steal something, the thief is not normally giving it back. Kia ora koutou katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Nuk Korako—5 minutes.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe. Te mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātau Matua Nui i Te Raki, ko ia te tīmataka me te whakaotika mō tātau katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi au ki Te Kaihōmai o kā mea pai katoa. Ā, tēnei te mihi ki ngā waka o Te Arawa, Mātaatua, Tākitimu, nō reira, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. E ngā iwi o Tauraka Moana, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāti Ranginui, ka mihi. Ko Whakaraupō Te Moana, ko Te Rakiwhakaputa Te Tangata, ko Te Poho o Tamatea Pōkai Whenua Te Mauka, ko Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa tōku marae. Kei te mihi ki te whanauka o Te Waka o Tākitimu, Ngāti Ranginui. Nō reira, e koutou rā, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[The most important thing is to praise our Great Father in Heaven, He is the beginning and ending for us all. Therefore, I give praises to the Provider of all things that are good. I acknowledge the canoes of Te Arawa, Mātaatua and Tākitimu, so welcome, come hither and welcome to Parliament House. I acknowledge you, the people of Tauranga Moana, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāti Ranginui, welcome! Whakaraupō is the ocean, Te Rakiwhakaputa is the man, Te Poho o Tamatea Pōkai Whenua is the mountain, and Rāpaki o Te Rakiputa is my marae. I bid you welcome, my relatives of the Tākitimu canoe and Ngāti Ranginui. Salutations to you collectively and to us all.]

That was, first of all, a welcome to all of the iwi of Tauraka Moana, and to say, on behalf of the Māori Affairs Committee, it is indeed our honour to actually host you here at the beginning of the first reading of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Nga Hapu o Ngati Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. I know that the people here have been on a very long journey to get here today, and I trust that now you are watching as your settlement enters its final stage before becoming a reality. I know you all feel all of the hard work that has gone into the process and you know that it is indeed worth it. The hard work of making this settlement work is the benefit of each and every one of these people here and your whānau, whanauka, whānau tautoko, who are watching this back home.

This omnibus bill ratifies two separate deeds of settlement: the Tauraka Moana Iwi settlement deed and the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui deed of settlement. The Tauraka Moana Iwi collective comprises the three Bay of Plenty iwi centred around the Tauranga Harbour. This grouping into one collective reflects the fact that although each iwi will have its own settlement with the Crown, the three are closely entwined and their interests overlap considerably.

The collective deed of settlement is an important part of the settlement for each of these iwis, so I just want to briefly cover that redress. There is the statutory acknowledgment of the cultural, spiritual, and historical and traditional associations of the Tauranga Moana iwi. There is a relationship agreement between the Department of Conservation and also Tauranga Moana. This agreement sets out how the parties will cooperate and enhance the conservation of their rohe. There is an arrangement for the management of the Mauao historic reserve. This reserve is currently managed by the Tauranga City Council, and will be transferred to the new entity to provide a joint management arrangement.

I know how Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui—and I acknowledge those who are here today, particularly the various hapū as well. They are the hapū of Ngāti Te Wai, Pirirākau, Ngāti Taka, Wairoa Hapū, Ngāti Hangarau, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Ahi, and Ngāti Ruahine as well. The Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui settlement recognises the great injustices that were committed by the Crown against the hapū of Ngāti Ranginui. In particular, it recognises the loss of life that was caused through those land wars and the subsequent alienation of land under the raupatu.

In all of this, this is a day when the beginning of the end of that journey begins, and I wish you all well for that journey, the final part of it, and we look forward at the Māori Affairs Committee to receiving you and hearing the submissions and continuing that journey to the finish, when these deeds will become Acts of Parliament. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): “Tuia te rangi i runga, tuia te papa ki raro, tuituia tātou ka puta i te ira tangata, tihei wā mauri ora!”. E Tauranga Moana, koutou i tae mai ā-tinana, koutou i are taringa mai i runga ngā Reo Māori Irirangi, koutou i are kanohi mai i runga i te pouaka whakaata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou! Ka tū ake tēnei ki te tautoko ngā mihi i mihingia e aku hoa, ētahi ngā tuākana ki te whakatau i a koutou i te rā nei. Ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu i tēnā wāhanga, e tika ana kia mihi hoki ki tō tātou Minita. Nāna i whakaritengia i a tātou i te rā nei nā reira e Te Minita, tēnā koe! E hari ana au i kite atu i a koe i whakakī i taua wāhanga ko te tūmanako, kaua e waihotia ki tēnei pire anahe ēngari, mō ngā pire pēnei kei te haramai. Taku hiahia kia kite atu i a koe e whakarite ana i a tātou ki Te Runga Rawa, kia ahatia?

E tātou mā, ka nui ngā mihi i mihingia ki tēnā o ngā hunga e ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi, ahakoa i whakarārangitia ētahi i waenganui i a tātou, mai i a Tauranga Moāna, i hinga atu. Ēngari, taku hiahia kia maumahara ki tētahi o koutou e noho nei i roto Te Tai Tokerau, e hia te roa ki te kaha ana ki te tiaki i tō mātou rangatira. Nā, ko te wahine tēnā a Tā Kereama. I whakahuangia e tōku tuakana tetahi whenua i roto i a mātou i W‘agārei-terenga-paraoa, ko Pakikaikutu tēnā, ko ia tetahi o ngā wahine e mau hea i roto o aua whenua. Nā reira, e hiahia ana ki te mihi atu ki a ia, me ērā atu i takahia Te Ara Whānui-ā-Tāne. I hoki atu ki te kāinga e kīia nei, te kāinga tūturu mō tātou mō tē tangata. Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mō rātou, ka hoki mai ki a tātou e te hunga ora, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou!

Ko tēnei pire kia whakatau i ngā wawata, ngā tūmanako o Te Iwi o Tauranga Moana, wā rātou kerēme e pā ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi. E korekau kē i whakahēngia ngā kōrero i puta mai i roto i te pire nei. I mea mai te kaikōrero mai i Te Rōpū Kākāriki, tana āwangawanga, tana pōuri, karekau kē e whakaae ana Te Tari Mātauranga kia akongia ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ēnei kōrero i kite tātou i roto te pire nei. Koinā tetahi take ka nui te hari, ka nui te koa o tōku ngākau kia puta mai ēnei kōrero, kia mōhio mai te ao i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki ngā kerēme Māori i te rā nei, ki ngā kerēme e pā ana ki a Tauranga Moana nui, me Ngāti Ranginui.

Nā reira, taku mihi ki a koutou nā te mea, e āhua pūhaehae ana au ki a koutou. Ahau nei mai i te tino hapū, Iwi nui rawa atu o Te Tai Tokerau, o Ngāpuhi, ko Ngāti Hine tērā! Mai i te putanga mai o ēnei kaupapa, kīhai Te Karauna e w‘akaae ana ki a mātou o Ngāti Hine! Kāre kau kē e tika ana kia tono mai koutou ki Te Taraipiuna o Waitangi, he aha ai? He hapū koe! Kārekau mātou o Te Karauna e hiahia ana ki te kōrero atu ki ngā hapū ēngari, ko ngā iwi, ā, pai atu tēnā! Ēngari i te rā nei, ka kite ana i a koutou o Ngāti Ranginui, me ētahi atu, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou! Kia ahatia?

Kai te kotiti haere waku kōrero! Te pire e tātou mā! Kāre kau kē i tino hē ngā kōrero i roto i te pire nei. E tika ana Te Minita, e toru ngā take e pā ana ki te pire, ko te muru, ko te raupatu, ā, me te pakanga! I kite ai i a mātou i aianei nā te maha o tātou o Te Ao Māori e hiahia ana ki te maumahara ki ngā pakanga o Te Motu nei. Tērā pea karekau Te Kāwanatanga, te iwi whānui i whakaae ki ēnā kaupapa ēngari, he kaupapa tino māharahara ki a tātou o Te Ao Māori. Koinā te take i kaha ai tātou ki te ki te i roto i tēnei whenua, ko te āhuatanga e pā ana ki ngā pakanga, ngā mahi kikino a Te Karauna, ā rātou mahi whakahē i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā reira, e tika ana kia tū kaha ai tātou o Te Ao Māori!`

[“Bind the heaven above, bind the earth below, bind us all together and so the human element emerges, behold the breath of life!”. To you, the people of Tauranga Moana who have arrived here physically, those of you listening on Māori radio stations and watching on television, acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to you. I rise today to endorse the acknowledgments of welcome accorded to you by my colleagues and some of my elder kin. But before continuing on with that part, it is appropriate that I acknowledge our Minister. He was the one who commenced our proceedings today, so acknowledgments to you, Minister. It pleases me to see you fulfil that role; hopefully it will not be for this bill alone, but other ones in the future similar to this one. My wish is that I see you conduct us in a prayer to the Almighty Above, but never mind.

I say to us all, many tributes have been accorded to those who are lost from view, and although we ennobled some from Tauranga Moana, they have passed on. But I do want to reflect on one of your kin who lived in Northland and cared for our esteemed elder for many years. That was the wife of Sir Graham Latimer. My elder kin mentioned an area of land that is in the region of Whangarei-terenga-paraoa, and that is Pakikaikutu. She is one of the women with shares in that land. So I want to acknowledge her and others who have traversed the extensive pathway of Tāne. She has returned to that place referred to as the permanent home for us, the living. Therefore, that part for them has been fulfilled and we come back to us, the living, so acknowledgments, greetings, and salutations to you all.

This bill settles the hopes and aspirations of the people of Tauranga Moana relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. The contents that emerged from within this bill cannot be faulted. The spokesperson for the Green Party expressed her concern and disappointment that the Ministry of Education opposed the accounts that we saw in this bill being taught. That is an issue that I am extremely pleased about, in that these accounts have emerged for the world to learn about situations relating to Māori claims today in regards to those concerning greater Tauranga Moana and Ngāti Ranginui.

So I congratulate you because I am quite envious of you. I, in particular, come from one of the greatest subtribes of Northland, of Ngapuhi, and that is Ngāti Hine. From the outset, when these policies emerged, the Crown refused us of Ngāti Hine. You actually did not have a right to make a submission to the Waitangi Tribunal, and why? Because you are a subtribe. We of the Crown did not want to reveal that to subtribes; on the other hand, tribes were able to, and that was fine! On the contrary, today we recognise you of Ngāti Ranginui and others, and I truly applaud you. So be it.

My address is straying—back to the bill, fellow colleagues, back to the bill! There appear to be no faults in the accounts contained in this bill. The Minister is correct, there are three matters relating to this bill: confiscation, takimg without any right, waging war. We have seen today that a number of us of Māoridom want to commemorate the wars of this nation. Although the Government and people at large may not favour these initiatives, on the other hand, it is an important strategy to us of Māoridom. That’s the reason why we strongly advocate and want to see in this country an aspect about wars, acts of mistreatment by the Crown, and breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. So it is indeed right that we of Māoridom stand resolute.]

I do not need to elaborate on the details of the bill. I think sufficient time has been had to look at this, but I look forward to it being discussed, after being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. Like all settlement claims, although we may be delighted that we have reached this stage, there will always be some concern as to why certain claims were not included in the bill.

I certainly look forward to that opportunity of hearing from members of the tribe, and those members of the tribe who do not support the tribe in terms of their claims, to hear the details of what their concerns are, in relation to the settlement. The select committee process does give the opportunity for people to have their say, in terms of what they feel may not be quite right for them. So I join with the rest of the House in supporting this bill to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Nā reira e tātou mā, ahakoa e āhua poto tēnei tū ēngari, ko te mea nui kei te tautoko i te pire, kia haere ki Te Komiti Whakawhiriwhiri o ngā Take Māori, kei te wātea koutou ki te haere ake ki mua i te aroaro o taua komiti, ki te whakatakoto i wā kātou kōrero, wā koutou āwangawanga me ērā atu o ngā mea. Nā reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou!

[So, to all of us, even if this is somewhat of a short address, the important thing is that I am supporting the bill going on to the Māori Affairs Committee. You are welcome to come before that select committee to submit your thoughts, concerns, and any other matters of relevance. Therefore, acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively, and my appreciation to us all once again.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Louisa Wall—5 minutes.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou ngā mana whenua o Tauranga Moana me ngā hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to you, the mandated ones of Tauranga Moana and those from the subtribes of Ngāti Ranginui, welcome, come hither to Parliament House.]

It is a pleasure to take a call in this first reading of your settlement legislation. In trying to determine what I was going to say in my 5 minutes, I actually went back to the Waitangi Tribunal report Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana. It was presented to Te Minita Māori, the Hon Parekura Horomia, on 11 August 2004, and it noted that the first hearing of the Tauranga Moana Tribunal was held at Hūria Marae between 23 and 27 February 1998. In this document it lists the Wai claims that actually led to the process that we are here to honour today.

I would like to take the opportunity to look at some of the claimants, because I think we should always acknowledge the whānau who started this journey so many years ago. The first claim that was lodged was Wairoa Hapū (Wai 42(a)). It was lodged by Rameka Apaapa and others, and that was under the Ngāti Ranginui claims. We had Wai 227, which was lodged by Tipi Faulkner on behalf of the Pirirakau hapū. Wai 362 was lodged by Lance Waaka on behalf of Ngāti Ruahine of Ngāti Ranginui. Wai 370 was lodged by Taumatangi Keno, who died during the course of the inquiry, and Tane Heke-Kaiawha on behalf of Ngai Te Ahi. Wai 503 and Wai 672 were lodged by the late Michael O’Brien and others on behalf of their hapū. Wai 546 was lodged by Tūreiti Stockman on behalf of Ngāti Tapu. Wai 659 was lodged by Desmond Tata, Peri Kohu, and Piripi Winiata on behalf of Ngāi Tamarāwaho. Other Ngāti Ranginui claims we had were: Wai 42(b), which was lodged by Jacqueline Sayers; Wai 42(d), which was lodged by Alex Tata and others; Wai 47, which was lodged by the late William Ōhia and others; Wai 360, which was lodged by Lance Waaka on behalf of the descendants of Ānaru Hauā; Wai 580, which was lodged by Toa Faulkner and others; Wai 611, which was lodged by Christopher Tangitū; and Wai 853, which was lodged by Peri Kohu and others.

Then, in the report, we look at Ngāti Pūkenga. There was Wai 637, which was lodged by Shane Ashby; Wai 751, which was lodged by Te Awanuiārangi Black; and Wai 664, which was lodged by Thomas McCausland and others. Under Ngai Tukairangi, we have the Wai 211 claim, which was lodged by Mahaki Ellis. In terms of Matakana Island hapū, we had Wai 228, Wai 266, and Wai 854, lodged on behalf of Matakana hapū by Taiawa Kuka and the late Sonny Tāwhiao, and John Toma respectively. Wai 342 was lodged by Tane Kaiawha on behalf of Ngāti He. Wai 353 was lodged by Patrick Nicholas. Wai 489 and Wai 947 were lodged by Toa Faulkner. Wai 42(c) and Wai 522 were lodged by Kevin Bluegum and David Murray. Wai 540 was lodged by Kihi Ngātai. Wai 717 was lodged by Mātire Duncan and others. Wai 755 was lodged by Desmond Tata and Wai 807 was lodged by Tūreiti Stockman. Wai 938 was lodged by Te Karehana Wicks. Wai 100 and Wai 650 were lodged on behalf of the Hauraki Māori Trust Board, and Wai 454 and Wai 182 on behalf of Marūtuahu. And, finally, we have Wai 645 lodged on behalf of the Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board, and Wai 701, lodged on behalf of the Athenree Claims Committee by Matiu Ellis and Colin Bidois. Kia ora tātou.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā, tēnā tātau katoa. Ka tika ka tāpiri atu aku mihi ki a koutou nō Tauranga Moana kua tau mai nei i roto i tēnei Whare ki te whakarongo ki tēnei wāhanga o ngā tutukitanga. Nō reira, Ngāti Ranginui, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, kātahi anō tātau i mutu i te kaupapa o Te Poukai i runga i Te Marae o Tūtereinga, nō reira nui te mihi, nui te aroha i tēnei wā.

I rongo ake ki ngā kōrero, i whakaaro au me whai wāhi ki te whakahua i ngā hapū i raro i te maru o Ngāti Ranginui me aua marae. Nō reira, ka mihi atu rā ki a koutou Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Ahi, Ngāti Hangarau, Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Ruahine, Ngāti Te Wai, Pirirākau, tēnā me ō koutou nei marae, a Hūria, a Hairini, a Hangarau, a Wairoa, a Waimapu, a Tūtereinga, Poutūterangi, a Paparoa, ā, a Tawhitinui. Ko te take ka whakahuahua i roto i te tīmatatanga o taku kōrero, kia mōhio pai ai tēnei Whare, kua kawea mai a Ngāti Ranginui me ngā momo kei waenganui i a koutou mō tēnei kaupapa. Kāre mātau i te tino mōhio ki ngā toimahatanga kei waenganui i a koutou, kia tae pai mai koutou ki tēnei wā.

Nō reira, i whai wāhi anō ki te whakahoki mahara ki ngā hononga kei waenganui i a tātau, ngā pakanga ō mua, me tērā hiahia o ngā mātua tūpuna kia pupuru i ngā whenua ki waenganui i a tātau anō. Nō reira, ki ngā āhuatanga o Pukehinahina, Te Ranga, e kore e wareware ngā āhuatanga o aua wā. He aha ai? Kia kaua e wareware tēnei motu o Aotearoa, ko ngā pakanga ō mua kei runga i te mata o tō tātau nei whenua, he mea nunui kia tū māia te iwi Māori i runga i ō rātau nei ake whenua. He aha ai? Kia anga whakamua tātau. Me kaua e wareware ēngari, me anga whakamua.

[Acknowledgments to us all. It is fitting that I add my welcome tributes to you, Tauranga Moana, who have arrived here in this House to listen to this part of the settlement bills, therefore I welcome you collectively, Ngāti Ranginui, even though we have just completed Te Poukai on the marae of Tūtereinga. So a huge acknowledgment and love to you at this point in time.

I listened to the contributions and decided to find time to mention the subtribes and those marae under the protective cloak of Ngāti Ranginui. Therefore, I acknowledge you, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, Ngāi Te Ahi, Ngāti Hangarau, Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Ruahine, Ngāti Te Wai, and Pirirākau, and your respective marae, Hūria, Hairini, Hangarau, Wairoa, Waimapu, Tūtereinga, Poutūterangi, Paparoa and Tawhitinui. The reason for mentioning them at the beginning of my address was for this House to be well informed that Ngāti Ranginui and whom it represents have been brought here to be amongst you for this matter. We really do not know what difficulties there are amongst you to get you here safely at this point in time.

However, we do have the opportunity to reflect upon the connections that exist amongst us in relation to the wars of former times, and that desire of the ancestral forefathers to keep the land amongst ourselves. So in terms of Pukehinahina and Te Ranga, the circumstances of those times will never be forgotten, and for what reason? So that this country of New Zealand will never, ever forget the wars of former times on the face of this land of ours here, and so that Māoridom stands on land that really belongs to them, with confidence, so that we can move forward; never forget that, for us to move forward.]

I just want to endorse many of the statements that have been made with regard to the settlement bill before the House today. It is in two parts that I would like to comment. The Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill primarily has two parts, which the select committee will be looking at. As I said in my brief introduction, we really do not know the challenges within Tauranga Moana to have a combined collective redress mechanism as well as specific remedies for the interests of Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāi Te Rangi, and Ngāti Pūkenga. The mere fact that Ngāi Te Rangi has not been able to proceed as one today indicates that there have been some significant and challenging moments. Also, the fact that in 2014 in the Ngāti Ranginui settlement there was an amendment to the extent of redress to be included indicates to members in the House, and, certainly, to the Māori members of the Māori Affairs Committee, that there were substantial matters that still needed to be addressed if this was to get over the line.

So I expect that when we as a select committee go to hearings within Tauranga Moana, we will get the total summary of some of the issues in regard to the nature of redress—the mechanisms to enable rights of first refusal, for example, and other aspects of redress to be successfully implemented. And there it is. In order for any Treaty settlement legislation to be useful and, I think, gain the advantage that iwi like Ngāti Ranginui would want it to gain, our role as a select committee will be to ensure that the redress mechanisms that are available to Ngāti Ranginui can be successfully implemented.

I want to comment briefly on the nature of the history of Tauranga Moana and whether or not the reduced mechanisms were sufficient. I will come to that, Minister, as I allude to some of the historical facts. Tauranga, like Auckland, is considered a significant regional economic hub, to the detriment of the confiscations that occurred there. We could not even begin to fathom the lost opportunity for the iwi in Tauranga Moana as a result of raupatu and people being disenfranchised from their lands and their moana, but also as a result of the growing expansionism that occurred there, in terms of the development of the port infrastructure to ensure that Tauranga was connected to the rest of New Zealand, as a growing and emerging economy that is now significant in the space of horticulture and power generation. It is no wonder that, over time, the people of Tauranga Moana have sought vociferously, and led the way, to achieve representation on local government. In fact, I can remember my former colleague Mita Ririnui bringing the local bill to the House to ensure that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council had two dedicated members on the council.

Once you understand the extent of the history and the impact of lost opportunity for Māori, and the way in which local government severely imprinted the way in which that city grew, it will be a no-brainer to ensure that Tauranga Moana will continue down this road and that Parliament will support its aspirations to have greater local government representation, because where the rubber hits the road is actually at the local government level. The mere fact that many of the public works lands transferred to local government are not available for settlement remains a matter of contention for a number of iwi, and I expect that it could still be an ongoing issue for people in Tauranga Moana.

The other point I would like to make is that, in this instance, the land and sea are synonymous with the people of Tauranga Moana and, certainly, from what I have read of the Ngāti Ranginui interests, synonymous with the interests that they would like to see in their ongoing role, not only as kaitiaki but also as good custodians of positive development in the Tauranga Moana area. I would watch with interest, too, the way that the Tauranga Moana management framework will develop and come back into the House. Potentially, there is an opportunity for the select committee to pursue questions in that space so that we are a bit more informed when that does come back into the House as a separate piece of legislation. When I read the Waitangi Tribunal report, I was very mindful that the land and sea are synonymous for the people of Tauranga Moana, and, in this instance, for the Ngāti Ranginui interests.

A comment was made by Des Tata. He said: “Some impact on the natural environment is inevitable when development occurs, but what I really object to is the thoughtless and irresponsible development that has taken place. Local bodies have a habit of putting rubbish dumps and oxidation ponds and sewerage plants by waterways.” That really sums it up for me. The ongoing test of implementation of Treaty settlements is actually the way in which local government accepts its responsibility to work alongside iwi to be able to ensure responsible decisions are being made about everyday things. Once a settlement goes through and the iwi can continue to do what they do, at the coalface it will still be local government where much of the responsibility for implementing some very practical things will continue. I just raise a flag there that it is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to consider how we could better support the implementation of Treaty settlements such as that in the Ngāti Ranginui settlement.

He poto te wā māku tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[This is but a brief one from me, well done and congratulations to you all.]

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, and welcome to Tauranga Moana iwi, all three of you; welcome to Parliament. Congratulations on what I know has been a long road for you in getting here today. In my remarks, can I address both of the bills before Parliament and all iwi: Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and Ngāti Pūkenga.

As I say, congratulations on getting to today, to legislation that gives effect to the final agreements that you have signed with the Crown and that provides for the redress that, as we know, with all of these settlements, does not provide fully, by any stretch, for the injustices of the past, but nevertheless is an acknowledgment, both in statutory form in terms of relationship agreements, and in regard to, for example, new approaches in relation to Mauao, that special and splendid mountain in the area that we all love. And, of course, there is commercial redress, as well—again, never enough—both financial and in terms of property.

As the member of Parliament for Tauranga, can I address my remarks and my focus not just to what this means for you—clearly that is most important, as iwi in our region—but also what it means for our entire subregion, in terms of the settlement today that comes to the beginning of the end in this Parliament. These settlements are truly significant, in that new commercial entities for economic development are being formed, and you will, as iwi, be significant engines of regional economic development—you already have been, but will be much more so—for the long term. We know and you know that you are not going anywhere in our region, and you are much more able, I think—certainly than politicians, who come and go; much more than other businesses, in fact—to take that long-term strategic view as to what you want to do.

I have always believed quite strongly that, although the primary reason and rationale for the Treaty settlement processes, which have been well established now as we work our way through, is to redress past injustices, a secondary, very clear benefit is the very strong regional economic development that the settlements provide in regions like the Western Bay of Plenty and the Bay of Plenty. I know that you will be fantastic economic stewards of the commercial redress that you are providing. There will be competing priorities. There will be so-called great ideas coming from left, right, and centre, including from me as one of the members of Parliament in your areas, but I know that you will grow the economic pie. You are now in so many sectors in our regional economy, but you will grow into other areas as well—this decade, the next, and beyond.

Can I just finish on what is a side issue, really, but one that I know affects you, as well as the entire region. It is, in a sense, a crusade of mine, but I think it is a significant issue: Tauranga Moana needs a museum. Tauranga Moana needs a museum for the reason of its size as a city of a very significant population now, and as an area that has an incredibly significant history, which you and these settlements are an integral part of. Let us be honest: that is going to require very significant government—central government and local government—backing, but also business backing. I hope you as iwi will also play a very significant role, because you need a place where your story—so incredibly important in Tauranga—is told, and it is something that I want to engage with you on more in coming weeks and months. So, once again, congratulations on today, on coming this far, to the beginning of the end—the homeward straight, if you like. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. I am sure that its members will do a very good job, although very soon, I think, they will have about seven or eight bills before the committee, so there will be no time to waste. I expect them to get on with it, and knowing the calibre of the people on that committee—which includes you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am sure that will happen.

I am so very pleased to speak in support of this bill, which, like the other Tauranga bills, has been many years in the making. It is almost 3 years to the day since the deed was signed, and despite the time that has been taken, I never had any doubt at all that we would get to this stage. It has been worth the wait. On 4 December 2009 the Crown confirmed the mandate of the iwi to negotiate a settlement of all historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Pūkenga. On 25 January 2010 Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown signed terms of negotiation that set out the scope, the objectives, and the general procedures for negotiations. On 31 July 2012 Ngāti Pūkenga and the Crown signed a statement of position and intent, as a basis for the final deed of settlement. On 23 November 2012 the deed was initialled, and then, on a beautiful day, 7 April 2013, the deed was signed. The bill is going to give legislative effect to the final agreements on the redress as set out in the deed.

As with all these settlement bills, it is very important to place on the permanent record of the House the history of why we are here. These historical claims relate to the Crown-initiated military conflict in Tauranga in 1864—actions that were in breach of the Treaty and its principles. Despite assuring Ngāti Pūkenga that it would scrupulously respect their interests, the Crown extinguished all of the Ngāti Pūkenga customary interests in Tauranga land by confiscating a very large part of the district. Ngāti Pūkenga became dependent on lands gifted to them by other iwi, but the Crown failed to protect Ngāti Pūkenga tribal interests in these lands from the impact of the individualisation of Māori land tenure, which the Crown imposed in the 19th century. The financial and commercial redress provided to Ngāti Pūkenga seeks to recognise the losses suffered by them. They are going to receive $7 million plus interest, as well as commercial redress properties and rights of first refusal in relation to right of first refusal land. Cultural redress provided to Ngāti Pūkenga includes the vesting of cultural redress properties, protocols, and statutory acknowledgments, and the vesting of minerals in vested land.

I too join with my friend and colleague Mr Bridges in his—as he said, “a crusade”; perhaps a politically incorrect term—desire to see a museum in Tauranga. It is something that I was very interested in achieving when I was the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. A great city like Tauranga, with such a special history in terms of Māori culture, needs to have a museum. The other day The Telegraph in London said—no surprise to any of us—that we are the best country on Earth, and one of the 26 reasons it gave for that self-evident proposition was the unique and very strong Māori culture. It is so important that we recognise around the country, in various regional museums, that unique culture, and so too in the Tauranga district. So I hope that Mr Bridges and his parliamentary colleague and our mutual friend Mr Muller will be able to persuade the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage that that regional museums fund could be used to very good purpose.

Ngāti Pūkenga were renowned as warriors and priests. Due to these skills and the ability to move at short notice, they were called on to assist tribal groups with their disputes and were rewarded with gifts of land. There are so many who have worked tirelessly on these claims and, more widely, for the iwi of Ngāti Pūkenga, but I particularly want to mention the late Wīremu Ōhia, who displayed the qualities of a warrior and a priest. Bill was a leader in the farming, forestry, and kiwifruit industries of Tauranga Moana, and he was a Māori leader on the national stage. He worked very hard to bring together the different kāinga of Ngāti Pūkenga. As I said, the Crown let them down in the 19th century. As a consequence of that, they were dispersed to various parts of the North Island—Manaia in the Coromandel; Pakikaikutu in Whangarei, Maketū, as well as Tauranga. It is, therefore, not surprising that each kāinga operated autonomously and independently of one another. Bill’s vision, however, was that they would work together, and that came to realisation through the negotiations process. Now, once the bill is passed, we will move to the post-settlement environment.

Ngāti Pūkenga priestly skills continue to this day, with their relationship-building leading them to becoming part of two collectives: the Tauranga Moana iwi and the Hauraki collectives. They have also built an enduring and warm relationship with the Crown through their interactions with officials and, in particular, my chief Crown negotiator, Dame Patsy Reddy, whom I want to acknowledge once again for all her work. I also want to thank my ministerial colleagues and various agencies for their extensive input into making this settlement possible. Now, as I say, the bill, once passed, moves to the select committee, and I very much look forward to the Ngāi Te Rangi legislation coming in shortly thereafter. I am sure the Māori Affairs Committee is going to deal with this legislation expeditiously so that it can come back to the House and, hopefully, be enacted before the end of the year. I think the bill needs to go to the committee without delay, and thus I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): He pito kōrero whakahokia. E Te Whare, e haere tonu ana ngā mihi ki ngā kaupapa kei mua i te aroaro i te rā nei. E haere tonu ana ngā mihi ki Te Minita, tana kōrero ki te āta whakatakoto i ngā kōrero katoa kei roto i te pire. Mihi atu ana au ki a ia, ōna āpiha, me te rōpū whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori. Korekore aini ka taumaha te kōnae mahi o taua rōpū whiriwhiri ki roto i ngā wiki e tū mai nei.

E aku rangatira, kua kōrero mai te mema o tērā taha o Te Whare mō te waka o Mātaatua. I taku kōrero tuatahi ka kōrero ahau ki te īngoa o tērā wāhi o Pakikaikutu, me te taunga mai ō koutou ki roto i a au o Ngāti Hine. E kīia nei ko Mātaatua Waka Ngā Kurī a Whārei ki Tihirau. Āta whakaaro ake ana au ki tērā kōrero, korekore i a koe e te pāpā e Kihi ki roto i a au o Ngāpuhi, ka rongo koe ki ngā kōrero o Mātaatua Waka ki roto i a mātau. Ko te kī atu ahau i aia tonu nei, ko Ngā Kurī a Whārei ki Tākou ki Te Raki. Ēhara i te mea kua whakaritea nei tēnei Whare kia tū wēnei pire i te ata tonu nei me te pire o Ngāti Kahu whai muri ake tā te mea ko te wāhi o Ngāti Kahu nā ko tātau te takotoranga o Te Waka o Mātaatua. E te pāpā, e Hoturoa, e mihi atu ana. Koinā te pai o te whakapapa. Tuituia nei i a tātau ki roto i ngā mahi o te wā. Ka whakaaro ake anō au mō te whakapapa.

Kai pōhēhē tēnei Whare ka ara mai tēnei pire, mai i ngā pakanga ki runga o Pukehinahina, ka hoki atu anō waku whakaaro ki te hainatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko Te Kau o Rēhua te kaihaina i Te Tiriti o Waitangi nō roto i a koutou e Ngāti Pūkenga. E mihi atu ana au ki tērā whakaaro nui tā te mea, i mate te tupuna rā ki runga i te pakanga o Pukehinahina. Kei konei tātau. Kei konei tātau ki te whakatikatika i ngā hua, i ngā hēmanawatanga ka puta mai i te pakanga o Pukehinahina ēngari, kia kaua e wareware tātau ki ngā tāngata, ngā tūpuna, ngā rangatira i hainatia ai te Tiriti o Waitangi i te 1840. Nā rātau te mana o tō koutou iwi, ka waitohu ki runga i te kawenata tapu e puritia nei e tātau i te rā nei. Nā, ka kite nei, ko ōna uri ko ngā pire kai mua i te aroaro o Te Whare nei i te rā nei. E Ngāti Pūkenga tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau!

I te ata nei i kōrero au ki runga i Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa e pā ana ki ngā take pakanga o te motu nei. Ko te kī atu ahau e hoa, me tukuna atu ki roto i Te Marau o Te Tāhūhū o Te Mātauranga! Ka pātai mai ētahi: “E Peeni, he aha te take e mātau ana koe ki ngā kōrero a Ruapekapeka, ki ngā pakanga o Ōhaeawai, me Kororāreka? I pānui koe i ngā pukapuka ki roto i te kura?” Ka kī atu ahau kāhore, nā ōku mātua tūpuna wēnei kōrero i hūhare mai ki ahau e tū nei. Ko te hiahia kia rongo atu te ao whānui i ngā kōrero i hūhare mai e ōku mātua, e ōku tūpuna ki a au nei. Nō reira āe, me whakaakohia wā tātau tamariki ki wēnei kōrero i a rātau i te kura, ka tautoko ana au i tērā kōrero. Koinā tāku e tautoko ana i te kōrero o tōku tuahine te mema nei mō te Kākāriki, me tana kōrero me pērā!

E kara, e Awanui, ka kī atu ahau ki roto i tēnei kōrero tā te mea, kai konei koe kei konei koutou. Hōmai te rā, kia whakanuia e tātau i ngā mahi o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna. Ahakoa te pūrepo, ahakoa te pēneti, ahakoa te tūpara, i whawhai mātau mō te mana motuhake o ngā iwi, o ngā hapū. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ki te whakaaro nui, kia whakaakohia wā tātau tamariki ki ngā kōrero. Kia mōhio mārika rātau, he aha ngā tūkinotanga ki runga o Ngāti Pūkenga, ki runga o Tauranga Moana whānui. Nō reira, ko tēnei e tautoko ana.

Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō ngā wāhanga kai roto i te pire e pā ana ki tetahi rahi pūtea. Ka whakaaro ake, ā, ki te whiti 9 o te pire, ko te whakapāha o Te Kāwanatanga ki a koutou e Ngāti Pūkenga, i taku kōrero tuatahi i te ata nei, i mea atu ahau, tēnā pea ka whai wāhi koutou ki te whakarongo i tētahi whakapāha mō Te Reo te take tā te mea, i te wiki kua pahure ake nei, ka mea atu tēnei Kāwanatanga, āe i tūkinohia e mātau i a koutou e pā ana ki Te Reo Māori ēngari, rawa mātau mō te whakapāha. Tēnā pea, ka mirimiri i tērā whakaaro i te wā ka haere tonu tēnei pire ki roto i te rōpū whāiti o ngā take Māori. Ka kōrero mai Te Minita mō ētahi o ngā wāhi whenua ka whakahokia ki a koutou, me te hiahia kia whakaritea i tētahi tūranga ka āhei koutou, ki te whakahaere i ō koutou ake rawa, ki te whakahaere i ō koutou ake whenua, ki tā koutou e hiahia ai. He mea pai tēnā!

Ēngari ka whakahoki atu ahau ki taku kōrero tuatahi i te rā nei: koinā tētahi tepe ki runga i tēnei huarahi roa rawa atu. Ko te hiahia kia whakahokia mai aua rawa ki a koutou, kia tū motuhake ai koutou ki runga i ō koutou ake whenua. Koinā te mahi ngātahi. Āe, me mahi ngātahi kia whakahokia mai pū ngā rawa ki a koutou, koinā tā koutou e whai nei, koinā tā mātau e whawhai nei.

E ōku rangatira, ko ētahi atu o ngā kōrero kai roto, e tautoko ana i ngā kōrero o ngā Minita e pā ana ki te wāhi whānui o Tauranga Moana. Nā, te pire i mua mai i tēnei, ka kōrero mai mātau mō Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, ōnā hapū katoa. I aia tonu nei, mō Ngāti Pūkenga. He mea pai tēnā! I kōrero mai tōku tuakana a Pita Paraone nei mō tērā tūāhuatanga, ka whai wāhi ngā hapū me ngā iwi katoa ki roto i wēnei nekehanga. Kia kaua e whāiti te Kāwanatanga i a mātau, ka taea e tātau katoa ki te whakapuaki i wā tātau ake reo mō ngā take nei. Koinā tēnei e tino harikoa ana! E tautoko ana ahau i te kōrero a tōku tuakana ki a koutou, he tauira koutou. He tauira koutou mō ngā nekehanga e pā ana ki te tatūnga kerēme ki roto i a mātau o Ngāpuhi.

Kāti, hei whakakapi ake, e harikoa ana mātau o tēnei taha o Te Whare ki te tautoko i tēnei pire i roto i tana pānuitanga tuatahi. Ia pire ka mea atu ahau, āe, ko konā ko ngā tino toki o tēnei taha o Te Whare, ki te āta wetewete, ki te totohe i ngā kōrero i te wā ka haere atu ki roto i te rōpū whāiti o ngā take Māori. Nō reira, kāti ake ngā mihi whānui i te wā nei. Ā, taihoa ake ka tau mai ko ōku ake o Ngāti Kahu ki roto i Te Whare hei tāpiri atu ki tēnei kaupapa me ngā tūmomo mahi o te wā nei. Hei whakakapi ake, e te tuakana, e Awanui, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou i tae mai ki roto i a au o Te Ruapekapeka, hai tautoko ake i tēnei kaupapa tupuna, i marere iho mai ki a tātau katoa e te hunga ora o tēnei wā. Nō reira ka mutu i konei: hōmai te rā! Kia ora tātau katoa.

[Worthy speech should be reciprocated. To the House, I continue the acknowledgment for each of the issues before us today. I also acknowledge the Minister and his statement about the bill being a place of permanent record. I thank him and his officials, as well as the Māori Affairs Committee. Without doubt there will be an increase in workload for that select committee over the proceeding weeks.

Esteemed guests, the member from that side of the House has referred to the Mātaatua tribal confederation. In my first speech I referred to the name of Pakikaikutu, and your own arrival into my tribal lands of Ngāti Hine. According to the adage, the region of the Mātaatua confederation is known as Ngā-Kurī-a-Whārei to Tihirau. I have myself pondered over that precept. No doubt when you, our elder, Kihi, were among my people of Ngāpuhi, you would have heard our own oral histories for the Mātaatua region. I will state here today my own adage, Ngā Kurī ā Whārei to Tākou in the north. It is also not as if the House planned for the bills to be read this morning with that of Ngāti Kahu to follow, given the region of Ngāti Kahu includes Tākou, the resting place of the Mātaatua. Greetings also to you, Hoturoa, my senior. That is the beauty of genealogy. It binds us together within current events. Genealogy is indeed significant.

Lest this House thinks, mistakenly, that this bill emerges from the battles upon Pukehinahina, I return to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was Te Kou o Rehua who signed the Treaty from among you of Ngāti Pūkenga. This should be deeply acknowledged, as that ancestor died in battle at Pukehinahina. We are here now. We are here now to address the long term ill effects and associated post-traumatic stresses occuring from the battle of Pukehinahina. Let us also not forget the people, the ancestors, the chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. It was they who signed with the authority of your people the sacred covenant we still retain today, of which the present bills before the House today are figurative descendants. Ngāti Pūkenga, greetings to you, greetings to all.

This morning I spoke on Radio New Zealand about the New Zealand wars. What I said was, it should be in the curriculum of the Ministry of Education. And some asked me: “Peeni, how is it you know the history of Ruapekapeka, and the battles of Ōhaeawai, and Russell? Did you read about them in books at school?”. I said no, my grandparents and forebears handed down these stories to me. They should be heard wide and far, the stories my forbears handed on to me. Indeed, they should be taught to our children in school, and I support that initiative. That is also why I support the contribution of my sister the member of the Greens, and her appeal for this to happen.

My friend, Awanui, I will say it here as you are here, you are all here. This is a great day, worthy of recognition from all of us for the efforts of our forebears and ancestors. Despite the cannons, despite the bayonets, despite the double-barrelled shotguns, we fought for the self-determination of the people and the subtribes. Therefore, I commend the importance of teaching our children the history. So they know without uncertainty what ill treatment befell Ngāti Pūkenga, and indeed the wider Tauranga Moana region. Therefore, I stand in support.

The Minister has spoken about the provisions within the bill, including a financial redress package. In reflecting on clause 9 of the bill, which is an apology from the Crown to you of Ngāti Pūkenga, in my opening speech this morning, I referred to you possibly hearing an apology from the Crown for the Māori language, as last week, this Government acknowledged, yes, we have ill-treated you in relation to Māori language, however we are not going to apologise. Perhaps there is some opportunity to massage this idea when the bill proceeds to the Māori Affairs Committee. The Minister has referred to some of the lands that will be officially returned to you, and has expressed a desire to establish a platform by which you may manage your own resources and your own lands in the way you deem fit. That is commendable.

However, I also return to my first comment today: this is one step on a very long journey. It is hoped through returning those resources to you, you will again be able to achieve self-determination on your own lands. That is indeed working together. Indeed, only through working together are the resources able to be officially returned to you. That is what you have sought and that is what we have fought for.

Esteemed guests, some of the other provisions support what the Ministers have said in relation to the wider Tauranga Moana region. In the preceding bill we spoke of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, and all their subtribes. Now we speak of Ngāti Pūkenga. This too is commendable. My senior Pita Paraone referred to this, saying that all tribes and subtribes will have a place in this process. To ensure we are not unnecessarily restricted by Government, everyone will have the opportunity to express an opinion on the issues. This is very pleasing. I endorse my senior’s speech to you, in saying you are indeed exemplary. You have also set an example for Treaty claims settlement for us in Ngāpuhi.

In concluding, we on this side of the House are pleased to commend this bill in its first reading. As I have said of each bill, indeed we have our most experienced on this side of the House, to analyse and carefully consider the contents when it goes through to the Māori Affairs Committee. Therefore, I conclude with greetings to all. Shortly my own people of Ngāti Kahu will arrive in the House to follow on from this bill and continue this important process. Finally, my senior, Awanui, my salutations to you all who arrived into my own area of Te Ruapekapeka to support this ancestral journey that has been bequeathed to all of us, the living. I end here: give us the day! Acknowledgments to us all.]

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa te whānau whānui o Ngāti Pūkenga ki Tauranga Moana, Manaia, Maketū, Pakikaikutu, ngā hapū katoa, tēnā rā koutou!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A massive acknowledgment to you, all the extensive family of Ngāti Pūkenga at Tauranga Moana, Manaia, Maketū, Pakikaikutu, all subtribes, I welcome you indeed.]

It is a privilege for Parliament to have Ngāti Pūkenga in the Whare. First, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary tenacity of this tangata whenua, of this particular people, given that they were dispersed as a result of the impact of colonisation from the homelands in Tauranga Moana to Manaia, to Whangarei at Pakikaikutu, and to Maketū and Little Waihī. They are a dispersed people and yet a strong people who have maintained, throughout all the tribulations, an identity that we see before us—an identity that has come before us—with the ability to have a future.

I would just like to pay respects, in particular, to Ngāti Pūkenga living in the tuku whenua land at Manaia and Hauraki—I also live near there. They are long-term friends and neighbours of mine, who were unable, historically, to return to Tauranga Moana, and whose lands have been undermined, divided, and fragmented, both in Tauranga Moana and in Manaia and elsewhere. So I just want to tautoko the ahi kā of Manaia—Ngāti Pūkenga people, Ngāti Whanaunga people, not to mention Ngāti Huarere and others—who have resisted the destruction of their pātaka kai and resist it to this day: indeed, warriors; indeed, priests; people of deep knowledge of the spirituality of Hauraki even though they are also from Tauranga Moana. These are people who have stood up, and have stood up for their maunga, for their ngahere, and for Tikapa Moana, and who have educated those of us who have lived near Ngāti Pūkenga ki Manaia in the importance of standing up for your place. So I just want to thank them for the education. When they stood up against the multinational miners in the 1970s who sought to dig up their whenua and their harbour: they still have their kauri, their harbour still has fish—not as it once was, but these things are recoverable because of their vigilance and determination. So I acknowledge them, in particular.

I also want to acknowledge the other end of the rohe down to Maketū—a magical place—and all across Tauranga Moana, because I think, as some other speaker referred to, that there is the inability to separate Tauranga from moana, and that is such a true thing. When we knelt on the beach, scraping black oil off the rocks at Maketū, alongside the people of the marae there, I felt that history was continuing to be about the pollution of not only the environment but also of people’s identity, and so I am humbled by the resistance and strength of these people.

Just acknowledging the historical account, Te Kou o Rehua signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi with the expectation that peace would be upheld with the Crown, but that is not what happened. In 1864 Pukehinahina and Te Ranga happened, and raupatu happened. Te Kou o Rehua was killed by a bayonet on 29 April 1864 at the battle at Pukehinahina. I think it is a warning to the 21st century: if we are standing here—my culture, the Crown—on the side of doing right by the articles of Te Tiriti, we had better remember that promises have been made before and not fulfilled. The promise was made by George Grey. When Te Kou o Rehua signed Te Tiriti, he did not expect the confiscation of Tauranga Moana, but, in fact, George Grey was an intimate part of planning some of that confiscation, although he limited it. He held discussions at Tauranga without Ngāti Pūkenga, addressing that those who had been in the military action against the Crown would retain a quarter of any land confiscated and return the rest to tangata whenua. But Ngāti Pūkenga know that is not what happened.

I just want to quote George Grey as a warning to us all, because the Crown has an ability to make speeches but not always to make justice: “I now speak to you, the friendly natives. I thank you warmly for your good conduct under circumstances of great difficulty. I will consider in what manner you shall be rewarded for your fidelity. In the meantime in any arrangements which may be made about the lands of your tribe, your rights will be scrupulously respected”. And I acknowledge that the Minister also used that word because he knows the history deeply—“scrupulously respected”. However, in 1865 the Crown issued an Order in Council for the raupatu and it confiscated all the land described in the schedule, regardless of the iwi to whom it belonged, or whether they had fought against the Crown. That is not very scrupulous, is it?

Therefore, the Crown now has to be scrupulous because our tūpuna were not, and the price was paid by Ngāti Pūkenga and other iwi across Aotearoa. I think it is really important to remember that if we do not understand history, we are doomed to repeat it, and that is why we should teach all of our kids what George Grey said and what he did not do—it is really important to remember that. If your word is your bond—if you believe that a word given by an ancestor passes on through the generations—then our word needs to be good, otherwise we are of as little dignity and honour as George Grey at that moment of history. I am not personalising it to George Grey: there was a whole colonisation process; he was a mouthpiece.

I would like to just acknowledge the importance of the mechanisms that we used subsequent to raupatu. They are not the only problems that beset the people subsequently. There were many problems that have followed. I just want to acknowledge that the 20th century was a bad time for many tangata whenua groups because of the use of other tools of colonisation—for example, the fragmentation of whenua. Ngāti Pūkenga reasonably believed that eight individuals to whom the Native Land Court awarded title at Manaia were representative of the hapū, but that is not what happened. The Native Land Court awarded lands differently. The Native Land Court, along with the Public Works Act 1864, are two instruments of colonisation that are very important parts of this story, and—particularly for Ngāti Pūkenga—the way in which individual title and the manipulation of people’s belief that they were speaking as hapū became an ability to alienate land and make it into individual title. That was the unique gift of the Māori Land Court—that is what it did. It used the belief of the people that they were acting collectively to turn everything into Pākehā individual title. In fact, the transformation of collectively owned whenua into individual title was a key part of the strategy, because collectivity was a threat—individual title was what we understood; individual title was a way of gaining control of land.

I will never forget our kuia Aunty Betty Williams at Manaia talking about the 1967 Act and about whenua that was seen to be too small to have any value, and so little pockets of land that belonged to whānau that had been passed down with great love, through whānau, became declared to be too small to be economic, and up for sale. I was in disbelief that the court could just make a ruling like that, and that a law could just say: “This little bit of land is not economic; therefore you can’t own it.” So when we talk about economics, let us be very careful—and I am thinking about the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act here—that those little blocks of land that are precious to whānau, the whānau themselves need to define whether they are of value in any sense, including economic sense. So our kuia Auntie Betty reminded us that you need to look at these Acts of the past and remember what they did to Ngāti Pūkenga and to other iwi katoa.

I look forward to the select committee process, and learning and understanding more, because you can live in a rohe—and I do—and know nothing. That is the scary thing. If you ask anybody in the street in Coromandel how come Ngāti Pūkenga, who are deeply connected to Tauranga Moana, actually live in Coromandel, they will not be able to tell you, and that is a disgrace. That is a disgrace of the education system, but also of a culture that talks Te Tiriti but does not bring its people on board. We have a lot of work to do. I look forward to learning more and to honouring the survival, tenacity, and vision of Ngāti Pūkenga. Kia ora tātou katoa.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā me te mihi atu ki a koe, ki a koutou o Te Whare, ōku hoamahi, koutou o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa! Ēngari, ka huri ki a koutou, ko koutou ngā kanohi, e kanohi nei i ngā kaupapa, me ngā take kua whārikihia nei e aku hoa i tēnei rangi, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou!

E tika kia whai wā te mihi atu ki a rātau mā kua mate, āe, te hunga wairua! Rātau kua whakapau werawera i ngā tau kua hipa, kia kōkiritia tēnei kaupapa, ngā hītori, ngā kōrero o ō koutou takiwā. Kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, ki a rātau mā kua wehe atu! Hoki wairua mai! Hoki wairua mai hei ārahi i a mātau i roto i tēnei ao, te hunga ora nei, te hunga tutuki i ō rātau nā wawata. Hoki wairua mai, hei arahina i a mātau! Kai te kōrero au mō koutou, rātau i whakarite i te kerēme ēngari atu i a rātau ko ngā tūpuna mai i te wā i tae ā-tinana a Pākehā ki runga i te whenua, mai i te wā o Te Tiriti. Mai i taua wā ki tēnei wā, kua porotēhi, kua hīkoi, kua whawhai mō te whenua, nā reira, ki a rātau mā e tika me mihi atu ki a rātau.

Āe, ko ō tātau tīpuna ēnā, kua whawhai mō te whenua mai rā anō, ā, koinei mātau, he aha ai? Kia whai mana mātau i runga i te whenua, kia whai rangatiratanga tātau i runga i te whenua, kia mau ō tātau mōtika i runga i te whenua, kia ora pai ai ō tātau tamariki, mokopuna mō tēnei rangi me ngā rangi kei te heke mai! Koirā te whawhai kei mua i a tātau katoa! I tēnei wā ka konei koutou mō te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire. Ā, ēhara i te mea, he mea māmā tēnei te kawe i ngā kerēme ki mua i Te Karauna! Kaha ana rātau ki te whawhai, te tautohetohe! Kei roto i ngā rūma koutou e whārikihia nei i ngā kōrero tapu ki a koutou, kātahi ka wero nei Te Karauna i a koutou! Hika mā! Nā tātau tēnā kōrero! Ko wai kē koutou te whakahē i ō tātau kōrero, ēngari koirā te ao o Te Karauna, Te Taraipiunara, ka wehewehe i te tangata, ka whawhai i ngā hapū, ka tau ngā āwangawanga kei waenganui i a tātau hei wāwāhi i te tangata.

Ēngari, kai te hoki atu au ki tētahi wā kua whai mana koutou i te tau 1977. E ai ki a Te Ururoa, i haere tētahi rōpū o koutou ki te kaunihera. I hiahia te kaunihera ki te whakaputa i te parahako i roto i te moana, te moana o Rangataua i Welcome Bay, i hiahia rātau te whakaputa i te parahako o te tangata ki roto i te Wāhi Tapu o Rangataua. Kātahi tētahi rōpū pakupaku i haere atu ki a rātau, ko te koroua a Wīremu Ōhia tēnā i mea atu hika, mehemea ka whakaparahako koutou i tō tātau wai, ā, ko te kaimoana tēnā kai reira, ko Te Wāhi Tapu e kaukau ana te tangata kei reira! Ka patu te manawa o te tangata mehemea ka pēnei ana tā koutou mahi. Kātahi, ka whakakorengia taua mahi a Te Kaunihera o te rohe rā! I runga i tēnā, ki tāku e mōhio nei, ko ngā rangatira o taua wā, ko Wīremu Ōhia, ko Gwen Kiriwehi-Walker, ko Elaine Tapsell me ētahi atu, i tīmata i tēnei haerenga ki Te Taraipiunara.

Ēhara i te mea, he huarahi māmā tēnā ki a koutou! Kei ngā rohe katoa o te whenua, kāre Te Karauna i te kite i taua tūāhuatanga ki runga i te whenua! Kāre rātau i whakaaro he iwi a Ngāti Pūkenga! He rerekē te noho o Ngāti Pūkenga ki ērā atu o ngā iwi! Nā reira, kāre koutou i hāngai ki tō rātau tauira! Ēngari ko wai rātau te kī, mehemea he iwi tātau! Ko wai rātau te kī, me pēnei te noho o te tangata! Nā tātau tēnei! Nā reira, ko koutou tēnā i whakarite i tō koutou rōpū, Te Au Māro mō Ngāti Pūkenga, hei whaiwhai i tēnei whawhai ki Te Karauna nei. Ā, e ai ki tō koutou rōpū e kī nei, ko te matakahi tēnā. He aha te matakahi? Ā, ko te matakahi he momo wedge! Mehemea ka whawhai te ope tauā, ā, ko te matakahi tēnā e wehewehe i te hoariri. Koirā te mahi o tō koutou rōpū ki Te Karauna nei. Āe, ehara i te mea he māmā, karekau!

Ēngari, kua tae ki tēnei rangi, whārikihia ō koutou kōrero ki runga i te pukapuka o Pāremata mō ake tonu atu! Ā, he ture kai te haere, he pūtea, āe, kai te haere, ēngari kua whai anō ō koutou mōtika i runga i te whenua, i runga i tō koutou ake whakaritenga. Nā reira kei te mihi! Ā, me tiro whakamua, me tiro whakamua!

I haria ā mātau tamariki o Te Wharekura o Wairarapa ki Raukawa, i ngā tau kua hipa atu, kai reira tētahi rōpū o tō koutou takiwā o Te Kura Kōkiri. Nohotahi mātau i reira, Te Kura o Wairarapa me Te Kura Kōkiri, ki te whakahoahoa i a mātau anō. Nā Te Kura Kōkiri mātau i tiaki, i manaaki i tētahi wā pōuri rawa atu ki a mātau i taua wā! Kātahi anō ka puta he raru kia mātou o Wairarapa, i pāngia ētahi o ō mātau tamariki ki te mate ēngari, ko ngā tamariki me ngā kaiako o Te Kura Kōkiri tēnā, awhi nei i a mātau i a mātau i haere atu ki Raukawa. Nā reira kai te mihi atu ki ērā rēanga, te hunga rangatahi nei, ā, Ngāti Pūkenga ko rātau ka hua!

Ko rātau te hunga rangatahi ka puta hei rangatira mō āpōpō! I runga i ō koutou tohutohu, i runga i ō koutou whakarite, i runga i ngā whawhai kia tae ki tēnei rangi. Kua wātea nei te huarahi mā rātau kia tū rangatira i runga i te whenua, ahakoa kai hea! Kai Hauraki, kai Te Hiku, kai Tauranga, kai Maketū. Ahakoa kai hea, ka taea e koutou i runga i ngā whawhai nei, kua whai mana, kua whai rangatiratanga, ā, he wā anō tēnei mā koutou kia puta pai ngā tamariki i runga i te tauira o ō tātau tūpuna. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, my acknowledgments to you, fellow members of the House, and my colleagues of the Māori Affairs Committee, greetings and salutations to you and to us all. But I turn to you, the ones who are the eyes viewing the policies and matters that have been laid forth by my colleagues today, I acknowledge you.

It is only right that we take the opportunity to pay a tribute to those who have passed away, yes, to the spirits! They are the ones who perspired in years past to advance this policy, the historical accounts, and the stories relating to your regions. I pay a tribute to you collectively and to those who have departed! Return to us here in spirit! Come back to us spiritually to guide us mortals here in this world and indeed those of us charged with the responsibility to fulfil their aspirations! Return to us spiritually to lead us! I am speaking on your behalf about them who considered the claim and beyond them to the ancestors who were here at the time the Pākehā arrived here physically upon the land from the time of the Treaty. From that time to the present there have been protests, marches, battles for land, and so I say it is fitting that we acknowledge them!

Yes, those were our ancestors who fought for the land, right from the outset, and here we are, and for what purpose? So that we have control and independence over the land, so that we keep our rights over the land, and so that our children and grandchildren can live well today and in the future. That is the battle ahead of us all. At this point in time you are here today for the first reading of this bill. Bringing claims before the Crown is by no means an easy thing to do. Our ancestors were tough at mixing it up and haggling; whilst you are there in rooms presenting accounts sacred to you, and then the Crown challenges you all. For goodness sake! That’s our account! Who do you, the Crown, think you are, contradicting our version of events? But then that is the domain of the Crown and Tribunal; they isolate individuals, do battle with subtribes, and concerns descend upon us which set individuals up against each other.

But I will go back to a time when you were mandated, in 1977. According to Te Ururoa Flavell, a group of yours went to the council. It wanted to comment on detrimental acts in the sea at Rangataua, at Welcome Bay, and at a sacred site at Rangataua. A small delegation then went to them and the elder Wīremu Ōhia said: “For goodness’ sake, if you pollute our waters, seafood there would be unfit to eat, a sacred place there would be desecrated and recreational swimming there would not be possible anymore.” In the end the council discontinued discharges in that area. I understand the leaders at that time were Wīremu Ōhia, Gwen Kiriwehi-Walker, Elaine Tapsell, and some others, and that set off the first trip to the Tribunal.

It was not as though that path was an easy one for you; it is the same for all other regions in the country. The Crown is not sensitive to that situation occurring across the land. It does not recognise Ngāti Pūkenga as an iwi. The situation with Ngāti Pūkenga is different from that of other tribes. Therefore you do not fit their model. Nevertheless, who are they to say whether you are a tribe or not? Who are they to say that this is how a person should live? This is for us to determine. So there you are, you considered that the group to represent you of Ngāti Pūkenga, to fight this battle with the Crown, would be Te Au Māro. And according to your group this Te Au Māro is that matakahi! What is a matakahi? It is, indeed, a type of wedge! When a battle force attacks, warriors take up a wedge formation and drive forward to take the enemy apart, ideal for attacking and breaking up massed enemy forces. That is the tactic your group will employ against this Crown. And, yes, it is not going to be easy, not at all.

But you have arrived here today to express your thoughts so that they are captured in the Parliament Hansard for posterity. Therefore an Act and funding is in the making, it is proceeding but you are also acquiring your rights on the land with your very own terms of reference. Therefore I commend you! So look ahead to the future!

Years ago we took our children of Te Wharekura o Wairarapa to Raukawa. Te Kura Kōkiri, a school affiliated to your people, is there. We, Te Kura o Wairarapa, were billeted there with Te Kura Kōkiri at the same time and developed a good rapport with each other. And it was Te Kura Kōkiri who came to our aid when problems beset us of the Wairarapa when some of our children fell ill. The children and adults of Te Kura Kōkiri assisted us in our time of need when we went to Raukawa. I therefore acknowledge those ones and the younger generation that helped us; Ngāti Pūkenga, they are the ones who will benefit from that experience, and I thank them.

They, the younger generation, will emerge as leaders in the future through your tuition, considerations, and the battles you fought to arrive here on this day. The way forward has been cleared for them to stand tall on the land wherever they might find themselves, be it Hauraki, Te Hiku, Tauranga, or Maketū. Regardless of where you might find yourselves, and despite these battles, you will achieve integrity and autonomy. Opportunities might come to hand as well to add to the next generation, whereby children in the future will follow the example set by our ancestors; therefore, acknowledgments, congratulation to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, ā, tēnei te mihi ki ngā iwi o Mātaatua, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou anō.

[And so, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge you all throughout this House, and the tribes of Mātaatua, I commend you once again.]

As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to stand and speak in the first reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. I will not go into the whole content of the bill, because the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, has already done that quite eloquently.

I think, though, that it is worth noting the really interesting sort of history of this claim, particularly when we look at the Ngāti Pūkenga iwi; the fact that the stories of them are very much that—when looking at that incredible time when their lands were confiscated and when there were very many breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi—they continued along that road of passive peacefulness and dependence on the rule of law. There is the rich history, particularly from the kaihautū of the Mātaatua waka, Tōroa, and then moving down to the beginnings of their iwi up there and their tipuna, their ancestor, Pūkenga—particularly, when looking through that rich history and moving down to the signatory of Ngāti Pūkenga for the Treaty of Waitangi, who was Te Kou o Rehua. It was really interesting when he signed that treaty. There was an interesting sort of part to that. He said, basically, that it was actually based around that rule of law, particularly with the Governor and also with Queen Victoria. But, obviously, in a lot of ways, the rest of it was one of the exact opposite.

In understanding all of that, we as a committee do. I mean, when we look at all of these settlement bills, a lot of it is based around wrongs that do need to be righted. As we all know, grievance mode is, in some ways, a terrible thing. Grievance mode is a time of entering the world of darkness, but when you can see light on the other side, well, that is the beginning of another new part of the journey. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Pūkenga here today because this is your time, and also acknowledge that coming from an iwi who was one of the first to settle, Kāi Tahu, the fact is that this is only part of the journey to get to settlement. But after that is another really important part, and it is all about kotahitaka, or kotahitanga. It is about iwi, hapū, and whānau working together. But also, on the other side of it, it is about local government, businesses, and all of those who are responsible and who build a community and actually work together. That is kotahitaka, and that is the most important essence of the whole thing.

Finally, you will see here today that some get to speak more than others, but that is, actually, a situation in which we have to balance this. You will not see many people in the House, but everyone here is watching, because this is a special time when we set aside Treaty settlements to actually be debated in the House. So we have something here—particularly on our side of the House, we get little time to speak. But I like this one: after all that was said and done, there was more said than done. That is us; this is what we are about. So kia ora. I look forward to receiving this bill in the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Taku hara, taku hara, taku hara e kara, e Kihi! Kāre kau au i kite atu i a koe i mua nā te mea, wēnā te mate i a mātou e noho i tēnei taha nā te mea, ki reira i tērā taha o te pūtea, kia ahatia? Tēnā pea ā te tau e tū mai, e aroha mai ki a koe, kia koutou hoki kia pōti mai ki a mātou, kia haere ki tērā taha o Te Whare, kia ahatia? He kōrero noa iho tēnā!

[And so, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. My fault, my mistake and my oversight, friend Kihi! I did not see you before because that’s what happens when we sit on this side rather than on that side of the ledger, so what can be done about the situation? Perhaps in the coming year you all might pity us and vote for us so we can go to that side of the House, how about that? Just simply idle chatter, that is all!]

Back to serious business. I stand to support the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. I am going to take this opportunity because I want to address the students who are in the gallery. Today we have a bill that will help settle a Treaty claim for a tribe called Ngāti Pūkenga, and here in the gallery you see descendants of that iwi. I want to take this opportunity because in another forum we have talked about the need to include the history of these battles and of the claims as part of the educational curriculum. We have been told that that is a choice that is to be made by the local community, the board of trustees, and, in fact, the school itself. I just want to say to, particularly, your teachers that they may consider taking the opportunity of taking a copy of this bill and the report relating to this claim and allowing it to be part of the curriculum for your school so that your generation may learn more about the history of our nation. Although some of it would be quite embarrassing to this generation, I think it is important that we do know the background to the history of our nation. So teachers, take the opportunity.

Again, I take the opportunity of also supporting the welcoming of you into the House today. You are part of history. You will be part of history because this is the first reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill, which has come here as a result of claims that Ngāti Pūkenga has made to the Waitangi Tribunal. The bill is all about an apology from the Crown in terms of its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is also about commercial redress, which will help—I should not say “appease”, but certainly it will help—the wrong that the Crown by its actions inflicted on the tribe.

You should remember that this tribe did not go to war, and yet the Crown saw fit to confiscate its land, and this is what this claim is all about. It is about trying to redress that wrong for the people of Ngāti Pūkenga. It is also about the urbanisation and industrial development that has occurred in Tauranga and in which the tribe has been somewhat marginalised from the valuable sources of kai moana at Tauranga Moana, at Maketū, and Manaia that have been lost due to pollution and sedimentation of waterways. They believe that they have benefited little from the rapid urbanisation of Tauranga since 1945.

Ngāti Pūkenga believe that they have been inappropriately marginalised in histories about the Crown-Māori relations in Tauranga Moana, and so in this bill the Crown apologises for bringing war to Tauranga Moana, apologises for unjustly extinguishing all customary title to land within the Tauranga Moana confiscation district, and apologises that Ngāti Pūkenga did not receive the same opportunity as others to protect their interests in Tauranga Moana after the confiscations. So, on that basis and on other things that are articulated in the deed of settlement, I certainly support this bill.

Also I want to acknowledge the negotiators. They were Rāhera Ōhia, Shane Ashby, Te Awanuiārangi Black, Harry Haerengarangi Mikaere, Āreta Gray, and Dominic Wilson. I have no doubt that their task has not been an easy one, and we will certainly find out once this bill comes before the Māori Affairs Committee just how difficult that task has been, because there will be members of the tribe who will have an obvious different point of view from those of the negotiators, and that is what I would be very interested in hearing: what are the things that they would have liked but did not get and why they did not get them.

I want to quote from a comment made by the chairman of Te Au Maaro o Ngāti Pūkenga after they signed the deed of settlement, who said that the signing of the deed of settlement was a time for reflection not celebration. He said: “It was bad enough that our land got confiscated in the first place, but, to then be shut out of the Native Land Court process in the 1880s that saw some iwi get some of their land back really rubs salt into the wounds. … It was a courageous decision by our people to overwhelmingly accept this settlement and give us the opportunity as a people to move forward.”

When I look at the details of the different land interests that form part of this settlement bill, I think that some people, particularly those outside of the tribe, will probably think that Ngāti Pūkenga are getting too much. I just want to remind this House that any settlement that comes before this House will never fully compensate the iwi. We have said this before, and as each claim comes before the House we will continue to say that because it is a fact.

During the third readings of each of the settlement bills, people have commented on the generosity of the iwi to accept that settlement, knowing full well that they are entitled to much more. Kia ahatia? I look forward to the bill coming before the Māori Affairs Committee and again I commend the bill to the House. Tēnā koe.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai tēnā koe, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou. E ngā mate ō tātou kua hinga i Te Pō, haere, haere, haere atu rā! E ngā kaumātua, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, ā, e Te Iwi o Ngāti Pukenga, Tauranga Moana, Ngāti Ranginui, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai! Nau mai, haere mai ki ō tātou Whare o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa, nō reira, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us members of this House. I say to our dead who have fallen into the Void, depart, farewell, and journey on. To the elders, I acknowledge you, and to you, the tribes of Ngāti Pukenga, Tauranga Moana, and Ngāti Ranginui, welcome, draw closer, and welcome. Come hither to our House of Parliament, New Zealand; therefore, I commend, salute, and congratulate you collectively.]

I rise to take a short call on this important bill and to stand with all members of this House in supporting the first reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill on behalf of ngā iwi katoa o Te Rohe o Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, e tautoko ana i te pire whakahirahira nei [all the tribes of the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, we are endorsing this magnificent bill].

It gives me great pleasure to stand here, as the representative of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, to mihi to the people of Tauranga Moana in acknowledgment of the significant day of this first reading of your bill. There is too much in this bill to give due time to in the 5 minutes that I have, but I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the negotiators for their perseverance. As a former Treaty negotiator myself—I have had some 7 or 8 years’ experience of having to sit in that seat—I know that it is not an easy seat in terms of having to hold the line with the Crown, to always go to bed thinking about whether you have done the best deal for your people, and also to make compromises that are sometimes uncomfortable to do because you wear the burden of your people on your shoulders. So I want to acknowledge the negotiators.

As I look up there, I see Dame Patsy Reddy. I want to acknowledge you in your future appointment as our Governor-General. I realise now that your movement amongst our people means that you will extend your hospitality to them when you take the big house in your appointment, so I mihi to you and I mihi to that happening. But, in all honesty, negotiators do have a hard row to hoe and, like all my colleagues here, I say that having this first reading is an important step to then having it closely examined in the select committee. Like the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, I too look forward to hearing not only about the good parts of this bill but also about what have clearly been omissions, and to seeing whether the Māori Affairs Committee can help address some of those issues.

For the time I have got remaining, I want to talk also about the expectation of negotiators on behalf of their people when they come to the table with the Crown. They come to the table in good faith that they will get a decent hearing by the Crown, and they are constantly informed by the Crown that this is a full and final settlement. We all know, as Māori people who have been in that chair, that it is never ever full and final for the losses that we have all suffered. It is interesting that for Treaty settlements that are signed on behalf of the Crown—and I appreciate that we are starting this process for Ngāti Pūkenga—when the Crown signs, it is a contract; it is a contract and an obligation on the Crown as full and final, which acknowledges the losses of the people of Ngāti Pūkenga, and it makes commitments to address the losses that they suffered.

This week iwi have been challenged by a Treaty settlement that is fisheries related, and it is important that when we go through and see the passage of this bill, the Crown is obligated and keeps to its word that it is full and final. If there is ever a time when we challenge what that settlement means, we need to be speaking to the iwi who have signed part of that contract. So all I am saying is that if we are making that obligation to iwi who come to the table—that it is full and final—then we respect that obligation and that the Crown upholds its commitment. We have a very live issue in this House this week, and it has been brewing. I ask the Crown to ensure that it addresses this in the way in which iwi have always come to the table, and that is in good faith. I commend this bill and look forward to it being examined in the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora tātou.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngāti Pukenga, tēnā rā koutou kātahi anō ahau i tū i te ata nei te kōrero. Nā reira, ka tautokongia ahau i ngā mihi nui kua ūhia ki runga i a koutou i te ata nei. Kia kore rawa ahau e pau taku wā i runga i ngā mihimihi me haere pū ahau ki te ngako o tēnei pire.

Nā reira, tuatahi, e huri ngā whakaaro ki tērā o ngā tupuna arā, ko Te Kou o Rehua. I roto i tēnei pire e meatia ana, nāna nei i pupuri, i ū tonu ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ahakoa rā tēnā, ohorere ana ahau kia rongo kua mate ia i runga i te pēneti o te Pākehā i roto i tērā o ngā pakanga o Pukehinahina. Nā reira e whakaarohia ana ahau mehemea he tangata hūmārie, he tangata rangimārie, pēhea ai ia i mate i roto i te pakanga o Pukehinahina. He aha ai ngā mahi o te Pākehā kia whakamatea taua rangatira i runga i tēnā pā?

E kī ana tēnei o ngā pire kīhai a Ngāti Pukenga i uru atu ki roto i ngā pakanga o tērā wā, i te mea nā rātou, nā koutou i ū ki tērā o ngā whakaaro o Te Kou o Rehua kia pupuritia i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā reira, ahakoa tēnā, e kite ana ahau kua pau katoa ō koutou whenua. Kua riro katoa. Nā reira, mai rā ano te Karauna i mahi pērā rawa ai te raupatu, te muru whenua. Ahakoa horekau, ēhara nō koutou, kīhai koutou i tahuringia kia tangohia ngā rākau ki te Pākehā nā rātou i huri ki a koutou! Kua tāhaengia koutou, kua raupatuhia, kua murua ō koutou whenua katoa. Ka kite atu ahau i te whakahokitanga mai o ngā whenua, he kongakonga noa iho. Ehara te katoa o ngā whenua, e iwa tekau mā waru me te hāwhe o ngā eka i hoki mai ki a koutou! Kīhai i whakahokia mai aua whenua ki te katoa, ēngari ki tētahi tokotoru! Taua mahi o te kāwanatanga kia whakaroherohe i ngā whenua, māmā noa iho kia whiwhi tētahi wāhanga, whiwhi tētahi wāhanga, whiwhi tētahi wāhanga, ā, i te mutunga ka pau katoa! Koia ngā mahi o te Karauna mai rā ano ki a koutou ki a tātou katoa.

Nā reira, i runga i tēnā, e rongo ana mātou katoa i ō koutou mamae, me te harikoa kua tae ki tēnei wā hei whakatikatika wēnei raruraru ēngari, e tika ana te kōrero ā tērā o ngā mema nō Aotearoa Tuatahi, taku whanaunga a Pita, kua tika wana kōrero. E Pita, nāu i tāhaengia te hau o ōku kupu i te mea i te hiahia ahau kia kōrero ai ki ngā tamariki! He tika tāu, aua tamariki e noho ana kei roto i tēnei Whare. Kaua kē rātou i te tino mōhio ki te ngako o te take. Haere rātou ki ngā kura ka ako rātou i ngā hītori o whenua kē, ēngari horekau rātou e ako ana i ngā hītori o konei, o Aotearoa. Horekau i te mōhio nō hea aua tamariki! Ēngari, ahakoa nō hea rātou, he iwi nō tēnā takiwā kua meangia nei ēnei āhuatanga ki te iwi e noho nei koutou.

Nā reira Ngāti Pukenga, ko tāku atu ki a koutou, kia hoki ki ō koutou kura, kura Māori, kura auraki rānei, kōrerohia ō koutou kōrero. Whakaakongia ki ngā kaiako i ngā kōrero kia kore e ngaro ki te reanga e tū mai ana. Hangaia i ngā rauemi hei whakaakongia wēnei āhuatanga e pā ana ki Te Kou o Rehua, ki a Pukehinahina me wērā atu o ngā āhuatanga. Hangaia ngā rauemi kia whakaakongia ai ki roto i ō koutou kura, kia kore e warewaretia ngā whakatipuranga e haere mai ana. Kei a koutou ngā kōrero. E kore e taea te kāwanatanga, e kore te kāwanatanga e mea ana e ngā kura, me whakaako koutou. Nā reira, kaua e wareware te mana, te kaha, o te katoa o ngā iwi haere ki ngā kura. Tono atu ngā kura kei roto i ō koutou takiwā kia whakaakongia ēnei mea.

E kite ana ahau, kua hangaia te kāwanatanga tētahi huarahi hei whakawehewehe koutou i te takutai moana, kia kore rawa koutou e taea te kite i ngā mātaitai. Ēngari kore rawa e taea te whakawhitia, te haere, i te mea kua wehewehe koutou e te kāwanatanga i tēnā huarahi, tēnā rori i te takutai moana. He aha te take o te Māori te taea te kite i te moana ēngari kore taea te haere ki te moana te whiwhi i ngā kai moana? Pai ake te poro o taku ringaringa i te haukoti ahau te haere ki te tiki mātaitai. E kite ana ahau hoki i waenganui i ngā tau 1953 me te 1974, he ture ka whakakahangia i te Māori Trustee kia murua i ngā whenua ki tō rātou whakaaro horekau e whiwhi hua. He aha te hua ki te Māori, he pūtea? Tērā pea. Ēngari mōhio ana ahau, taku pito whenua kei roto Karetu, e 2 eka pea te nui, ko te awaawa haere ana ki te taha o taua whenua, karapoti ana i te ngahere, horekau au e hiahia ana kia whai i tētahi pūtea mai i taku whenua, horekau ahau e hiahia ana ki te whakatū i tētahi wheketere ki runga i taku whenua.

Ki ahau nei, te mea nui e āhei ana tōku whānau kia haere ki te whakatū ō mātou tēneti i te wā o te Kirihimete, noho ki kō mō e hia wiki. Kia haere ki roto i te ngahere, wērā tūāhuatanga. Koia ngā hua o taua whenua ki ahau, ehara te whiwhi i te pūtea mai i ngā wāhi whenua katoa. Ēngari tēnei ture e mea ana ki te kore e whai pūtea mai i taua whenua, e pai ana mō te Māori Trustee kia murua. E hē ana tēnā! E hē ana tēnā, he ture anō, me pānui ahau i tēnā i roto i te reo Pākehā: “The Crown acknowledges the compulsory status changes to Māori land titles carried out under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act.” Ko wai Te Karauna hei tahuri i te mana o te whenua? Ko wai rātou? Kei a tātou te Māori, mā tātou anō e kōrero mō ō tātou whenua. Ēngari i pōhēhē ai Te Karauna e āhei ana rātou ki te tahuringia te mana o ngā whenua.

Hei whakakapi i taku kōrero, he kōrero mō te whakapāha. E pai ana mō Te Kāwanatanga kia whakapāhā mō ngā hē ki a koutou, tautokongia ana ahau i tēnā. Ēngari tautoko hoki ana ahau i te kōrero a taku hoa a Peeni mō te kore whakapāha i roto i Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori, kīhai Te Kāwanatanga i whakapāha mō te wēpu i ngā tamariki kei roto i ngā kura. Kore ahau e kite ki roto i tēnei pire te whakapāhatanga mō tēnā āhuatanga kei runga i ō koutou tamariki. Ēngari nā Te Kāwanatanga i mea mai i roto i te pire Māori, kore rawa rātou e whakapāha i te mea kei roto i ngā pire take Tiriti katoa, e hē ana tēnā i te mea horekau he whakapāhatanga kei roto i tēnei pire, nā reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Acknowledgments to you, Ngāti Pukenga, I rise at last to address you this morning, and so I endorse the plaudits bestowed upon you this morning. So in order not to use up my time applauding you, I will go directly to the substance of this bill.

In the first instance, my thoughts turn to that one of the ancestors, Te Kou-o-Rehua. It states in this bill that he held firm and continued to be committed to the Treaty of Waitangi. That aside, I was shocked to hear that he was killed by a pākehā bayonet in the battle at Pukehinahina. Now I’m wondering, if he was a humble and peaceful man why did he die in the battle at Pukehinahina? Why did the Pakehā kill that chief, kill on that pā?

This bill asserts that Ngāti Pūkenga did not enter into the wars of that period because you stuck firmly to the view of Te Kou o Rehua to hold on to the Treaty of Waitangi. So despite that, I note that you have lost all your lands, it has all gone! So since then, the Crown has continued to plunder and confiscate land. Even though it was no longer yours, you did not set upon the Pakehā but, rather, they set upon you. All of your lands were stolen, plundered, and confiscated! I note that when the lands were returned, it was only a fragment of the original. It wasn’t all of the land, only 98½ acres were returned to you! It wasn’t returned to everyone but to three persons only! What that Government did was to subdivide the lands and make it easier to acquire portions of it, until it was gone totally. Those have been the actions of the Crown way back to you and indeed to all of us!

And so, because of that, all of us feel your pain but are delighted that you have arrived at this moment to remedy these problems but what my relative, that member of New Zealand First Pita said is correct! Pita, you pinched the essence of my words because I wanted to speak about the children. You are right; those children sitting in this House. They don’t really understand the gist of the matter. They go to schools, they learn about the histories of other countries instead, but they do not learn the histories about here, about New Zealand. I don’t know where these children are from but irrespective of that, they are living in that area affected by these circumstances mentioned here. And so, I urge you Ngāti Pūkenga to go back to your schools, your Māori-medium or mainstream schools. Tell them your stories, and teach it to the teachers so that it is not lost to the generation that is coming. Create resources to teach this aspect about Te Kou o Rehua, Pukehinahina, and other related aspects. Create resources that can be taught in your schools so that future generations are not forgotten. You have the stories! The Government is unable to tell schools that they must teach it. So never forget the integrity and ability of all the ones going to the schools. Tell the schools in your areas to teach these things.

I note the Government has built a road to separate you from the foreshore. You have found the seafood but cannot access it because of that road it built. What is the reason why Māori can see the ocean, but are unable to reach the seafood? It is better to have my arm cut off than being denied access to seafood. I also note that between the years of 1953 and 1974, an Act that empowered the Māori Trustee to confiscate land if it deemed it unproductive. What is productive to Māori, revenue? Maybe, but I know that I don’t want to make money from my property of perhaps two acres at Karetu, where a stream runs along it, and it is surrounded by bush. I don’t want to build a factory on my land.

The important thing to me is for my family to go and pitch our tents during Christmas time, spend several weeks there, and to go into the bush and to do all of those things. Those are the benefits that accrue from that land! To me, it is not about receiving money from all lands. But this legislation is proposing that if a land is deemed unproductive, then it is fine for the Māori Trustee to confiscate it! That is absolutely wrong! It is wrong, it is another law and I must read that in English: “The Crown acknowledges the compulsory status changes to Māori land titles carried out under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act.” Who does the Crown think it is, to overturn land status? Who is it? We, the Māori, have that responsibility. We are the only ones who can speak for our lands. But the Crown assumed that they are permitted to overturn land ownership.

To end my contribution, a comment about the apology. It is fine for the Government to apologise for their wrongdoing against you, and I support that. However, I also support the comments by my colleague Peeni Hēnare that an apology was not in the Māori Language Bill, and that the Government did not apologise for administering corporal punishment upon children who spoke Māori in school. I didn’t see an apology in this bill for the punishment your children suffered. However, the Government said during the debate on the Māori Language Bill that they will not provide an apology because there is one in every Treaty claims bill, which is incorrect because there is not one in this bill; so my appreciation to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, ā, tēnā koutou te whānau me te iwi o Tauranga Moana, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou. Ki ngā whānau whānui o Ngāti Pūkenga, nau mai, haere mai i runga i tēnei rā hītori, he rā ka tae mai tā koutou pire kia kōrerotia hoki i te wā tuatahi ahakoa tō koutou haerenga roa, ko te mutunga i roto i te titiro, nō reira, nau mai, haere mai!

[Thank you, and acknowledgments to the family and people of Tauranga Moana, much appreciation to you collectively. Welcome to you, the extensive family of Ngāti Pūkenga, come hither on this historical day and one where your bill arrives here as well to be addressed for the first time. Despite your lengthy journey, its final scrutiny is nigh, so welcome, welcome.]

I am pleased to take the last call on this really important bill. I am privileged in that I get to speak with a large contingent of whānau from Tauranga Moana. When I look at the bill, I see so many things that have taken a long time for the iwi to get to this place. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I really look forward to the next stage of the process for this bill to go through. Once it hits the Māori Affairs Committee, I look forward to hearing from whānau from within Ngāti Pūkenga, but, more important, from some of the ones who do not belong to you who will come along and give their submissions to the select committee. I look forward to hearing those submissions.

As I said in my mihi, it has been a long journey for you. I am hoping that you are now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel with this process. We have got there because we have a hard-working and determined Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I have been privileged to be part and parcel of some of his rōpū as we have gone around various iwi throughout the motu, signing deeds of settlement to get to this place today.

Today I have sat here and, as the last speaker, I have heard the many great contributions from our members of Parliament and members of our Māori Affairs Committee. They were great contributions. The speakers have weaved their way like a weaver weaves her kete. They have talked about the many things that are contained in the bill, about the history—the atrocious history—of your past, and about all the mahi that you have done to actually get here today. They have also talked about the future and who will hold that future—the future being held by the mokopuna of your iwi—and where that will go to. It might not be a great amount of money, but it brings an opportunity for you to start your economic development journey, or—that was an assumption—to carry on your economic development journey.

So without any further ado, as I said, I look forward to the next process for this bill. I am very, very confident, and am very happy to support it and commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

I want to begin by welcoming the representatives of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa who are in Parliament today to attend this first reading, and I want to set out some of the background to this very important deed of settlement. It was 18 December of last year when I signed the deed of settlement on behalf of the Crown with Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. The deed and this Treaty settlement bill put to rest some very, very longstanding grievances of this iwi.

Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa are the descendants of Kahukuraariki. They describe their ancestral lands as being between the eastern side of the Mangonui Harbour and the Whangaroa Harbour. I have only been to their rohe a couple of times, but it is a truly beautiful part of the country. The road to settlement has been very long and tortuous. It was as far back as 20 September 2001 that the Crown recognised the mandate of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust Board to negotiate on behalf of the iwi. On 19 October 2004 the Crown and the trust board signed terms of negotiation, and on 22 December 2007 the Crown and the trust board signed an agreement in principle for the comprehensive settlement of the historical Treaty claims. Stony Creek assets, which comprise approximately 3,000 hectares including Stony Creek Station and the Thomson and Clarke Blocks stock and plant, are Crown property. They are key features of the settlement package.

Since the signing of the 2007 agreement in principle, progress on the settlement was stalled because of an occupation of the station by some dissenting members of Ngāti Ōkiwa, a hapū of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Between 2007 and 2013 the Crown attempted to resolve the occupation of the station so as to facilitate an outcome that would lead to this settlement. On 7 June 2014 the Crown and Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa signed the 2014 refined Crown offer. On 5 June 2015 the Crown and Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa initialled the deed of settlement, and after the initialling, of course, the iwi took the settlement package back to the wider community for ratification. Hui were held and, following a vote, 78 percent of those who voted indicated their support for the settlement. The Minister for Māori Development and I agreed that the ratification result demonstrated sufficient support from the claimant community, given the very deep and longstanding internal divisions within Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa regarding Stony Creek Station. So it was great to be able to sign the deed of settlement after that very long and, as I said, tortuous history.

The settlement assets will be administered by the Kahukuraariki Trust, the post-settlement governance entity that was approved by iwi members. Given the length of time and the hard work that so many people have undertaken to get to this stage, it is appropriate to acknowledge the perseverance of the lead negotiator Dr Ella Henry, and kaumātua Pita Pāngari and Dave Hēnare. Through our negotiations, we had to traverse a number of very hard issues. Ultimately, we resolved them, thanks to the work of the negotiators, and I know that this will be to the benefit and the durability of the settlement. I also want to acknowledge those who have passed away and are not here today. Finally, behind the negotiators have been the trustees of the trust board, and I particularly acknowledge Dave Manuel and the trustees Roger Kīngi and Manaaki Poto, who have really worked so very hard to see the iwi’s grievances addressed.

The settlement addresses the historical grievances that the iwi has carried for so long, including the Crown’s failure to properly investigate pre-Treaty land transactions, its failure to adequately protect reserves set aside for Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, large-scale land purchases that did not take customary interests into account—once again, the third time this morning—compulsory takings for public works and a scenic reserve, and the impact of the surplus lands policy and the Native Land Court. The Crown’s actions and omissions have had a very severe impact on the well-being of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, and have left them virtually landless, with most iwi members now living outside the rohe. The settlement package includes an historical account, the Crown acknowledgments, and, importantly, the Crown apology. It also deals with the issue of Stony Creek Station. The station will be vested in the Kahukuraariki Trust and, post-settlement, the trust is going to run an open process to ensure that every adult member of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa has an opportunity to take part in determining the future ownership of the station. This is very important, as it empowers the iwi to decide who will, ultimately, own the land.

The Crown will pay the post-settlement governance entity financial redress of $6.2 million, in lieu of the Crown’s commitment in the 2007 agreement in principle to maintain the plant and stock of Stony Creek assets in substantially the same condition as they were at the date of the 2007 agreement in principle, of which $3 million was paid on account to the post-settlement governance entity after signing the deed of settlement. Secondly, there will be interest on the financial redress from 7 July 2014 to the day before settlement date, and adjusted for any on-account payments. The settlement also provides for a cultural fund of $300,000 for the development and the implementation of an historic reserve management plan for the Kōwhairoa Peninsula property.

Cultural redress provided to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa includes the vesting of 15 culturally significant sites, totalling approximately 3,400 hectares. The balance of the cultural redress package includes an overlay classification over Whakaangi Scenic Reserve, statutory acknowledgments, a deed of recognition, 11 geographical name changes, and other redress that is culturally significant to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

So I say, on behalf of myself and, I am sure, on behalf of Dr Cullen, who worked very hard to get to the agreement in principle stage, how delighted we all are that this bill is having its first reading this morning and will, hopefully, be with the Māori Affairs Committee. I ask that committee and its excellent chair if it could get the bill back to the House just as quickly as it can. I commend the bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Kāti rā tātou mā, ka huri ake ahau i te tuatahi ki a koutou o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, nā koutou i takahi mai i Te Tuarā o Te Ika-ā-Māui ki a tātou i konei, i Te Ūpoko, nā reira, nau mai, haere mai ki roto i tēnei Te Whare o Te Motu. Nā reira, Roger mā, haere mai, haere mai, whakatau mai!

Hari koa ana ahau ki te kōrero mō tēnei pire ēngari, ko tāku e hiahia ana kia mea atu ki a koutou ko tēnei pire kua pūmauhia, kua mau ki roto i te ture. Ko tēnā tāku tino hiahia ēngari, i te wiki kua pahure ake nei kite ake mātou i tērā o ngā raruraru kei runga i te pouaka whakaata e pā ana ki Te Rangi Tāhuahua. Kua takahia te kirimana i whakapāhotia e Te Peremia ki tāwāhi i runga i te ture, kua whakamanahia e tēnei Whare i te tau 1992, arā, e pā ana ki ngā hī ika. I pōhēhē tātou katoa Te Māori he mea pūmau tēnā ture, kore e neke mō āke tonu atu! Ēngari e kite ana mātou, mehemea e hiahia ana te kāwanatanga kia tahuringia ai ngā ture, ka taea e rātou! Takatakahia ai, tīnihia ai ngā ture kua pahuretia! Nā reira, e hiahia ana ahau kia mea atu, kua mau tēnei ki roto i te kōhatu. Koia taku tino hiahia! Horekau ahau e hiahia ana kia kite i te 20 tau, ka whakarite Te Kāwanatanga kia kāhorengia tēnei o ngā ture i te mea kua rongo mātou i ngā kōrero o Te Minita mō te roa o te wā e wānangahia ana tēnei, tohetohe ana, whawhai ana!

Ngā mea i kī mai mō te rā 22 o Tīhema i te tau 2007 kua hainatia Te AIP i Taimārō, i reira ahau i taua rangi, kore rawa tērā e taea e au te warewaretia! Tērā i mua atu i te 21 o Tīhema, ko taku rā mutunga hei Tumuaki o Te Kura o Kaitaia. Nā Shane Jones i mea mai ki ahau: “E hoa, mena e hiahia ana ahau ki te tū mō Te Paremata, haere mai i te mea ko ō kaipōti kei konei kei Taimārō.” Nā, i runga i taku kūware nāku i haere atu ki Taimārō i te mea, ka tae mai a Michael Cullen i taua rangi ki te haina i Te AIP. He rangi ātaahua, e tū ana te tēneti, tini ngā tāngata kei reira!

Ēngari, kīhai ahau i te mōhio te pukuriri o ētahi o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa mō te hainatanga o taua AIP. I te mutunga i waenganui ahau, mātou ko te tamaiti a Shane Jones me wētahi atu e whakarārangitia ana kia haukotihia tētahi rōpū pukuriri o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa kia tae atu ki a Dr Michael Cullen. Nā rātou i te hiahia kia tahuringia i te toparere i rere mai a Michael Cullen mā runga. Nā i runga i tēnā kua neke rātou, kua haere a Michael Cullen ki Kerikeri, ko taku whakaaro kua hainatia Te AIP ki reira, nā reira, koia taku rā tuatahi i roto i te ao tōrangapū ēngari, pai ana tēnā i te mea, i te mōhio ahau i taua rangi tuatahi ki te kaha o ngā whakaaro, te kaha o te mamae o wēnei tūāhuatanga ki runga i a tātou Te Māori.

Ka tahuri ahau ki wētahi o ngā kaupapa kei roto i te pire. Kite ana ahau i te tini, te nui o te whenua kua murua, koia te tuatahi. Me pēhea rā Te Māori e whai oranga mehemea horekau he whenua hei whakatipu i ōna māra. Hei whakatū i ōna whare! Pēhea Te Māori e tangi mō ōna mate mehemea kua murua ngā whenua kei reira ngā kōiwi, ngā ana kōiwi, ngā tōrere kōiwi, ngā wāhi tapu. Pēhea Te Māori e tū hei Māori mehemea horekau he whenua? Ko te mutunga, ko te pōharatanga, te rawakoretanga o Te Iwi Māori nā kua mea atu ki a koutou o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. Mōhio ana tātou i ēnei rangi, e ruarua noa iho ngā mahi hei mahi mō te whānau. E memeha haere ana tēnā mō ngā tamariki e haere ana ki ngā kura i te mea, horekau ō rātou mātua taea te whai mahi kei roto i Whangaroa. Mai rā anō tēnei āhuatanga i te mea nā ngā mahi a Te Karauna i wērā tau i mua.

E kite ana ahau, ko tērā wāhi whenua i tae mai a Lord Ranfurly ki roto i te Whangaroa, i pikiniki a ia i tētahi pito whenua. I runga i tēnā whakaaro, i te hiahia rātou i tētahi wāhi whenua hai whakamaumahara i tōna pikiniki. Nā, i whakarite a Motukiwi Honetua kia hoatu e te 10 eka! Tekau eka noa iho! Ēngari i te mutunga, e 706 ngā eka kua tangohia mō taua wāhi whenua! He wāhi whenua hai whakamauharatia i tētahi pikiniki mō taua rohe. He aha te take e hiahiatia ana te 706 eka mō tērā wāhi maumahara, tērā wāhi whenua? Kite ana ahau te tini o ngā whenua kua murua i runga i te surplus lands, neke atu i te 11 mano eka kua murua i raro i tēnei āhuatanga ngā surplus lands. Ki te kore te motu i te mōhio he aha te surplus lands, e meangia ana e te Pākehā, ō, 2 mano eka ki konei nā ka roherohengia, ō, neke atu i te e hia mano kē ngā eka? Ēngari, kīhai rātou i whakahoki mai te excess o ngā whenua, ā, kua pupuritia e te kāwanatanga. Ēhara tēna e tika ana! Mehemea ka meangia ai ahau i ēnei rangi tērā āhuatanga, ka whiua ahau ki roto i te whare herehere! Ēngari aua rangi, pai ana mō te kāwanatanga kia pupuringia ngā surplus lands mō rātou anō, hei hokohoko atu, hei whai pūtea.

Wēnei āhuatanga horekau e whakaakongia i roto i ngā kura. E pōhēhē ngā tamariki Māori e matapiko ana, e hiahia ana mātou ki te kapohia ngā whenua, ngā rawa katoa mō tātou anō, nō tātou aua rawa! Nā Pita Paraone i kōrero i mua mō Ngāti Pūkenga, i mea ai ko te wāriu o ngā mea e hoki mai ana ki a koutou, e 2 paihēneti pea o te wāriu o ngā mea katoa kua tangohia, kua murua, kua raupatuhia, kua tāhaengia!

Tua atu i tēnā hei kupu mutunga, nāku hoki i kōrero i roto i te kerēme o Ngāti Pūkenga mō te whakapāhatanga mō Te Reo Māori. Horekau te whakapāhatanga mō Te Reo Māori kei roto i tēnei pire. Nā te kāwanatanga i mea mai, horekau ka whakapāhatia mō te wepuhia o ngā tamariki kino i roto i ngā kura pēra i a Dover Samuels mō te kōrero Māori i te mea, kei roto taua whakapāhatanga i wēnei ture ēngari, horekau kei roto i tēnei pire tēnā whakakapāhatanga! Nā reira, koia tāku e whakapae ana me whakapāha te kāwanatanga, Te Karauna, ki ngā iwi katoa i te mea horekau i roto i tēnei pire he whakapāhatanga mō aua murunga o ngā whenua, te tāhaetanga o ngā whenua. Koia hoki tētahi o ngā take, kore ā tātau tamariki e taea ana te kōrero i Te Reo Māori i te mea, kua pāhorohorongia ngā whenua, ō tātou tikanga wērā āhuatanga katoa tae atu ki Te Reo! Nā reira, i runga i tēnā ka mihi anō ahau ki a koutou, tēnā rā koutou i Te Whare, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Well, everyone, I turn firstly to you, Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, who travelled over the back of Māui’s Fish to us here at the Head, so welcome, come hither, welcome into this House of the nation. So to you, Roger and others, welcome, come hither, welcome.

I am happy to talk about this bill, but what I wanted to say to you is that this bill will be fixed firmly and permanently as an Act. That is what I really wanted to tell you but just recently, in the week just past, we noted on television a problem concerning Raoul Island. The Prime Minister has overridden the agreement that was announced overseas about a law that this House validated in 1992 about fisheries. We of Māoridom all thought that law was durable, that it was permanent for ever. However, what we are seeing is that whatever the Government wants to do in regard to overturning legislation, it can do. Walk all over it and change laws which are exposed! So that is what I really wanted to say. I did not want to see the Government abolishing this Act, because we heard the Minister saying how long it took to debate, argue, and fight over.

Some stated that the agreement in principle was signed on 22 December 2007 at Taimārō. I was there that day and will never forget it because the day before, 21 December, was my last day as principal of Kaitaia Intermediate. Shane Jones said to me: “Hey mate, if you want to stand for Parliament, come because your voters are here in Taimārō.” Because of my ignorance, I went to Taimārō because Michael Cullen was to arrive that day to sign the agreement in principle. It was a beautiful day and the marquee was up and there were a lot of people there.

But I was unaware that some of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa were angry about the signing of that agreement in principle. In the end, there I was among them; we and Shane Jones’s son and others were lined up to intercept an angry group of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa trying to get to Dr Michael Cullen. We stopped the angry group from overturning the helicopter that Michael Cullen had arrived on. Because of that they moved, and Michael Cullen went to Kerikeri. I think the agreement in principle was signed there. So that was my first day in the political world, but that was fine because I knew on that first day just how powerfully the thoughts and hurt from these situations impinged on us, the Māori people.

I turn now to other matters in this bill. I note the vast amount of confiscated land—really huge—that is the first thing. How can Māori possibly survive without land for its gardens and to put up houses on? How can Māori mourn its dead if land with their skeletal remains, burial, and sacred grounds, have been confiscated? How are Māori able to be Māori if there is no land to stand on? Eventually, poverty and lack of resources will prevail amongst Māoridom, and for you, Ngātikahu at Whangaroa. We know these days there is not a lot of employment around for family, and it is not getting any better for the children who are going to school, because their parents are unable to find employment in Whangaroa. This situation has always been there because of Crown actions in former times.

I note that the piece of land that Lord Ranfurly visited to picnic on was at Whangaroa. With that in mind, they wanted a portion of land to memorialise his picnic. Now, Motukiwi Honetua determined that 10 acres, just 10, be granted. But, in the end, 706 acres was taken for that place to memorialise a picnic in that region. Why was 706 acres required for that memorial place? I note that very many lands were confiscated as surplus lands, in excess of 11,000 acres were confiscated under this surplus lands mechanism. If the country is unaware of what this surplus land being used by Pākehā is about, or if 2,000 acres is being subdivided here, or how many more acres exceed expectations, it should be noted that excess lands have not been returned by Government but retained. That is not right! If I did that sort of thing today, I would be jailed! But in those times it was alright for Government to hold on to surplus lands for themselves, so that they could sell it on later for financial benefit.

These kinds of situations are never taught in schools. Māori children think, mistakenly, that we are being greedy, grabbing the lands and all the resources solely for us—all those resources belong to us! Pita Paraone commented on this earlier on in regard to Ngāti Pūkenga, and said that the value of everything coming back to you would about 2 percent of the value of everything taken possession of, plundered, and stolen.

Further to that and in conclusion, I commented on the Māori language apology in the Ngāti Pūkenga claim. There is no apology for the Māori language in this bill. Government said that it would not apologise for administering corporal punishment to bad children in schools like those that Dover Samuels attended, for speaking Māori. So that, indeed, is why I am asserting that Government and the Crown must apologise to all tribes, because there is no apology in this bill for those confiscations and thefts of land. That, surely, is one of the reasons why our children were not able to speak the Māori language, because our lands, customs, all those things, including the Māori language, have fallen away. So, on that note, I acknowledge, commend, and congratulate you collectively, the House and us all.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, otirā, e Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Ā, tēnā koutou Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, anei te mihi ki a koutou.

Ka tuku whakaaro ki a rātou kāre i konei, rātou kua mate, ngā mate kai runga i a koutou i tēnei wā, i ngā tau kua hipa, anei nā ētahi Taeporohēnui Day, Selma Day, Jerry Hēnare, Ching Heta, Kātera Manuera, Heta Te Pānia, Tūroa Te Pānia, Hākopa Adams me Mere Kei, atu i a rātau he maha kē atu.

I i tuku text mai taku hoa a Peeni i te tīmatanga o te rangi nei. I mea mai ia, kāre ia i te kōrero i runga i te tata whanaungatanga ki a koutou. I mea mai ia ō māua whanaunga ēnei nā, he aha ai? Ā, ko taku hononga ki a koutou i roto i te whānau Heta. Ko Connie Heta tēnā te tamāhine a Joe Heta, i moe i a Ririwai Fox, ka puta ko Ben Fox. I Ōpape te kuia e noho ana, i haere atu te koroua ki reira. Nā reira, koinā ia i kī mai, ā, ko tō māua whānau tēnā. Nā reira, ka text atu au, māua e noho kei ngā taha e rua o Te Whare, text atu au me te kī: “Ina hiahia koe ki te whārikihia i tētahi kōrero ki ō māua whanaunga, he aha tāu e kī nei?”. Māmā noa iho te whakautu, nāna i kī mai: “Hoki wairua mai ngā mate hai ārahi i a tātau i ēnei rangi, te hunga ora, hai tutuki i ō rātou nā wawata.” Nā reira, e aku whanaunga kai te mihi ki a koutou me taku hoa Whare a Peeni, i runga i ngā āhuatanga ō tātou mā Te Māori, tēnā koutou.

Ā, kai a koutou tētahi kōrero e pā ana ki tō koutou maunga ātaahua. I roto i ngā pukapuka o ngā kāpene o ngā waka Pākehā e hara mai ana ki Aotearoa, i te tau 1822 te tūtakitanga tuatahi o koutou mā o Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa ki te Pākehā. Kai roto i ō rātou pukapuka o ngā kāpene, e kī nei, e whakahua nei i te ātaahua ō tō koutou wāhi, te moana i reira o Whangaroa, e pīataata mai, me te tihi maunga o Taratara. Nā reira, he kōrero tā koutou e pā ana ki a Taratara. Pīrangi au hai whakahuatu i tēnei wā ahakoa he rerekē ētahi ki ētahi, koinei te mea ka mōhio nei au. E hiahia au te whakahua i tēnei pūrākau ki roto i Te Whare kia mau ki roto i ngā pukapuka mō āke tonu atu.

Ā, ko Taratara tēnā, he Atua, tūpuhi, ā, tāroa te āhua, pūrotu, he tangata ātaahua, maha ōna pūkenga, e rua hoki ōna hoa wahine. [Interruption] Hā, kia ora! Kāre au i te kōrero ki tō hoa wahine ēngari, anō nā tētahi atu e noho ana ki Ōtangaroa Valley, ko Maungataniwha tēnā. Ā, he Atua pukuriri te āhua, harawene hoki. E kite atu ia i ngā hoa wahine a Taratara, ko Ōkahahīria me Tūrou. I te hiahia ia ki tētahi hoa wahine ātaahua pēnā ki ngā wahine nei a Ngātikahu. Kātahi, whakaaro ana ia kai te haere au ki te pātai atu ki a Taratara mō tētahi o āna hoa wahine. I a ia e hīkoi ana i runga i te ara, rūrū ana te whenua. Haere atu ia ki reira i runga i te kaha, kātahi ka karawhiu atu i te pātai. “E, Taratara, kai te pīrangi au i tētahi i o ō hoa wahine. E rua āu hoa wahine, he raru kai te puta, waiho tētahi māku!” Ā, whakahē nei a Taratara ki a ia, ka hoki pukuriri atu ki tōna whare.

Ā wai rā i ngā marama kua hipa atu, ā, pahure ake, e whakaaro ana ē, kai te noho mokemoke tēnei, kai te hoki anō au ki Taratara. Haere atu ia ki a Taratara, anō na whakakorengia e Taratara i tana tono. Ēhe, hoki atu rā, pukuriri anō, pupū ake te raru! Wā tuatoru, haere atu ia me te kī: “Ē, hōmai rā tētahi o ō hoa wahine mōku, hai whakamahana i taku whare!” I runga i te whakahē, me te katakata o Taratara, i wēpua kahangia e Maungataniwha a ia, tangohia tana māhunga, kai reira taua māhunga e noho ana i tēnei wā, ki Ōhākiri.

I roto i taua kōrero, e toru pea ngā āhuatanga i puta mai, ā, te kaha, te māia o te tangata! I a koutou e whawhai ana mō te whenua, e whārikihia ngā kerēme, kua kite taua tūāhuatanga kai roto i a koutou, te māia, te kaha ki te whaiwhai atu i ngā hiahia, ngā nawe, ngā āwangawanga aua take katoa ki Te Karauna, ā-kanohi kai mua i a rātau. Anō nā kai roto i te kōrero ō Taratara rāua ko Maungataniwha, kua puta mai i tētahi atu whakaaro, te ngākau māhaki, te whakaiti i te wā tuatahi i haere a Maungataniwha i runga i te hiahia ēngari, ma te whakaiti pātai atu. I kite anō mātou i tēnā kai roto i a koutou, he aha ai? Kāre Te Karauna e taea te whakahokia te katoa ki a koutou! Ēngari i runga i tō whakaiti, whakaae ana ki tēnei wā. Ā, he koha tēnā ki te whenua o Aotearoa, me maumaharatia! Kāre e taea rātau te utu i te katoa o ngā rawa kua tangohia kēngia mai ēngari i runga i tō whakaiti, tō koutou whakaiti, ā, tākoha atu ki Aotearoa nei te toenga whenua, kāre i whakahokia mai.

Tuatoru, te whakahīhī o te ngākau o Taratara me ana hoa wahine, nāku wēnei! Ko ēnei te ātaahua o te tangata! Kāre au i te hoatu i tētahi ki a koe! Ā, kua kite i taua whakahīhī kai roto i a koutou ēhara i te mea te whakahīhī, ā, hoatu manawa nei, ēngari te whakahīhī o ngā tikanga kua mautia tonutia kai roto i a koutou, Te Reo, te kōrero, ngā pakiwaitara o tō koutou wā, hai aha? Hei tākoha atu ki ngā tamariki, mokopuna o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. Ā, ko ērā ngā pūkenga kua kite nei au i roto i te kōrero mō Taratara me Maungataniwha, kua pupū ake kai roto i a koutou! He rangi whakahirahira tēnei, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae a-tīnana mai! Kua kōrero kē nei Te Minita i ngā take, kua kōrero kē nei a Kelvin i ngā tāke ēngari, ngā pukenga kai roto i a koutou, kai roto i a koutou mō āke tonu atu, ā, kai roto i ō koutou uri whakaheke! Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and at the same time my acknowledgments to us all in the House. I acknowledge and salute you, Ngātikahu at Whangaroa.

My thoughts go to those who are no longer here, those who have passed away recently and in past years. Here are some: Taipoherenui Day, Selma Day, Jerry Hēnare, Ching Heta, Kātera Manuera, Heta Te Pānia, Tūroa Te Pānia, Hākopa Adams, Mere Kei, and many others.

At the beginning of this day my colleague Peeni texted me and stated that he would not be speaking, due to his close connections to you. He mentioned our connections, and why. My connection to you, Ngātikahu, is through the Heta family. Connie Heta is a daughter of Joe Heta who married Ririwai Fox who begat Ben Fox. The elderly woman was living at Ōpape, and the old fella went there and met her. So that is why he mentioned it, it is our family. So I texted him back, as we sit on different sides of the House, and said: “Do you want me to make a statement about our connection; what are you implying?” The reply was simple. He said: “Ask the dead to come back in spirit to lead us, the world of the living, to fulfil their aspirations!” And so, my kin and parliamentary colleague Peeni, I greet and acknowledge you in regard to the circumstances that confront us of Māoridom.

Now, you have a tale about your beautiful mountain. In the records of the captains of early non-Māori sailing ships that travelled to New Zealand in 1822 are accounts about how you of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa first met non-Māori. It states in the captains logs how beautiful your place was, how the sea there at Whangaroa reflected the peak of Taratara. You have a tale relating to Taratara that I want to tell, even though it might differ from what others know. This is the version that I know. I want to relate this tale in the House so that it is recorded officially in the records for posterity.

That Taratara was a deity; he was lean, tall, handsome, admired, talented, and had two wives. [Interruption] Who was that? Thank you! I will not tell your wife you said that! However, there was another deity living in Ōtangaroa Valley, Maungataniwha. He was a hostile and envious deity. He saw Ōkahahīria and Tūrou, Taratara’s wives, and wanted a beautiful wife like these Ngātikahu women. Then he thought: “I will go and ask Taratara for one of his wives.” As he walked along the path, the earth quaked. He went on his way, boldly stumped up to Taratara, and fired off his statement. “Taratara, I want one of your wives! You have two wives, there is a problem brewing, and I want one of them!” Taratara turned him down, so he returned home fuming.

After many months had passed, Maungataniwha thought: “I am getting lonely, so I am going back to see Taratara.” Back he went again, but Taratara declined his demand and told him to go away. Empty-handed once again, Maungataniwha scuttled off, enraged, and the solution to his trouble came to him. On the third try, he demanded: “Give me one of your wives to warm my house!”. Taratara refused and laughed at him. At that, the enraged Maungataniwha struck him a fierce blow and knocked Taratara’s head off, and it remains there still today at Ōhākiri.

From within that tale three aspects, perhaps, emerge: intensity, confidence, and the individual. As you were fighting for the land and setting out the claims, those qualities were seen in you in terms of the confidence, intensity, and the ability to follow up on aspirations, grievances, and concerns on all those matters with the Crown on a face-to-face basis. Also emerging from the tale of Taratara and Maungataniwha is another viewpoint about personal qualities and being mild-mannered and humble, which Maungataniwha displayed because of his desire. We noted that quality in you, as well, and why? The Crown was not able to return everything to you but, because of your humility, you accepted it at this point in time. And that is a gift to the country of New Zealand that must be remembered! They cannot compensate all of the assets that were confiscated, but because of your humility you have gifted to New Zealand the remainder of the land here that was not returned.]

Thirdly, the pride of the heart. Because of that, Taratara was moved to say: “These are mine!”. An admirable quality indeed in an individual, which prompted him to say: “I won’t give either of them to you!” I sense that quality within you, not in the sense of giving the pride of the heart away but, rather, the pride relating to the customs that you have retained—the language, tales, legends of your times—and why? So you can gift it as a legacy to the children and grandchildren of Ngāti Kahu at Whangaroa. Those are the skills I have seen in the tale about Taratara and Maungataniwha that are embodied within you. This is indeed a magnificent day and I commend you for your presence here today! Minister Flavell and Kelvin Davis have commented on matters, but the skills that you have within you are there for ever for your generations to come. Well done and congratulations to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koutou huri noa i Te Whare. Ka tū au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, he pire nā te iwi o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa me tōna whakataunga Tiriti, ā, nō reira he mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you collectively throughout the House. I stand to support this bill belonging to Ngātikahu at Whangaroa and its Treaty settlement, and so a huge greeting to you all.]

It is right that we acknowledge this iwi and, particularly, all of the people who have struggled and negotiated their way through this settlement. It is right that I again acknowledge Dr Ella Henry, Pita Pāngari, and Dave Hēnare as some of the lead negotiators for this settlement. The Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa settlement has also given me the opportunity—I wanted to look back at some of the other beginnings from where this settlement came.

I stand here as a neighbour—a Ngāpuhi mokopuna—to Ngatikahu, so it was interesting for me to learn about how, in the 1980s, Pita learnt from his kaumātua and kuia about the specific grievances and specific land confiscations by the Crown, and that these were longstanding. In the 1980s he learnt from his kaumātua and kuia exactly how that had impacted on their iwi, on their people, so that in 1983, the kaumātua and kuia came from the far north and actually held a hui in Auckland, at Tūtahi Tonu, the marae at Epsom Teachers College. Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa was the first group to have a hui at this marae, which had only just been built. Our kuia from the far north came down to this hui, and some of them, I found out, included Tom Thomas, Haki Tātai, Auntie Māta, Wīroa Hēnare, Tūroa Tepānia, Hetā Tepānia, Kātera Manuel, and Sid Hōkai. I thought about our far north kuia and kaumātua coming down to have this hui in Tāmaki-makau-rau, talking with the younger generations about the history and the absolute impact of whenua being cohenarenfiscated and what that meant. It went right back, actually, to Pita’s great-great-uncle Hēmi Rua Paeara, who had consistently been taking grievances and drafting petitions to the Crown for redress.

This is when I think about the beauty of the process. That is not something I often say about the process, because the process was brought about by grievance, and that is not beautiful at all. As an adult and as a mokopuna raised in Hokianga and learning about my own Treaty grievances from my own people, I am also starting to understand that it is our people who have instilled the beauty of our history in these claims—and in the kōrero to talk about Pita’s great-great-uncle Hēmi Rua Paeara, who embellished the fighting spirit of Māori by continually drafting and seeking redress, and how that was then, after his death, taken up by Pita’s grandfather, Hēmi Roha Paeara—and that the beauty of the strength that we can always see in these stories comes up through these processes.

I am proud to stand for the Green Party in support of this bill and in support of the hard work of those still here and those gone. It is an honour. Also, one thing that I have loved about my job as a member of Parliament, as a spokesperson for Māori development, and as our representative on the Māori Affairs Committee is the privilege of the depth and richness of what has actually happened in these negotiations—the rich history and the stories that have come out, and the names that we honour here in this House today, including the many names of the many people whom we may not honour specifically but who have been involved in this negotiation. It has been fraught—they are all fraught. By their very nature, Treaty negotiations between iwi and the Crown, due to the grievances and the generational impact they have had, are always going to be fraught. But I want to acknowledge some of the specific fraught nature.

Everybody recalls, particularly Ngatikahu, the protests that also happened around particular pieces of land. I think back to December 2004, for example, to the occupations that happened over particular pieces of land that were up for negotiation. These create uncomfortable times during all of our iwi negotiation processes. We never fully agree on a nice, soft, simple process along the way—that is not how any of these negotiations happen. I want to acknowledge those difficulties. I want to acknowledge the hard raru that each iwi and hapū have to balance and contend with. I want to acknowledge that the Crown’s breaching of Te Tiriti partnership creates this faction, creates the hardships and the raru that set hapū and iwi against each other in these very processes. I want to acknowledge the protesters, but I also want to acknowledge how difficult that then made the negotiators’ jobs, as well. I acknowledge all of that—all of it. We are dealing with the hardships of these negotiations, as Māori, not because of something that was in our control. That is the main thing that I want to acknowledge—all of our iwi and whānau who have come here to this House today to be a part of witnessing the first reading of their Treaty settlement bill.

The Greens have always understood that this settlement is a deal. As my colleague Catherine Delahunty will have laid out for the previous Treaty bills, on this occasion we are very clear about what this has done to Māori and about what it continues to do. We are very clear that those breaches continue. We are very clear that these are deals, and not settlements. Like all of our Māori MPs in this honourable House, we are in this predicament where, although we acknowledge the incredibly hard and heartbreaking work that has gone into these negotiation journeys, we also understand that it is never ever going to be what is rightful redress. It is my honour to stand here and feel really awkward about these Treaty deals—and I will continue to, as some of my iwi in the north are coming up. I want to acknowledge my connection to this northern iwi—to Te Tai Tokerau. I want to acknowledge all of the raru. We cannot dress this process up, but that is what makes this process what it is. I want to acknowledge all of the raru beforehand.

I want to acknowledge some particular Crown acknowledgments, like the 1863 Mangonui purchase, and how we again see exactly how the Crown awarding individual title broke down our collective kaitiaki responsibilities and set us up against each other as Māori and as kaitiaki of those lands. I want to acknowledge the particular acknowledgments—and there are many—including the apologies, as Kelvin Davis referred to, that are not included that always should be. Te Reo is another thing that each of our iwi lost and underwent, as well. But I want to acknowledge the apologies: what the Crown does own up to in these settlements is still important. It is still the Crown being able to say “We did wrong.”, and that is important. But the real work, as we all know, is going to continue. For that, I acknowledge our iwi who have come here to the House today. Kia ora koutou katoa. Thank you.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, e mihi nei, e tangi nei, koutou ngā taoka whakahirahira, koutou e tumanakohia, koutou e hāpai iwi nei, nau mai, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I grieve and acknowledge you, Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, you wonderful and hopeful treasures who tribes find uplifting, come forth, draw hither, welcome, welcome.]

I have only a short call to acknowledge the iwi, the people of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Particularly, last December it was my honour to act as a witness at the signing of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa deed of settlement. I want to thank you for hosting me that day at your beautiful Ōtangaroa Marae. Maururu koe, mō tō manaaki atawhai, kia ora.

[Your hospitality and kindness is appreciated, thank you.]

It is also my pleasure on behalf of the Māori Affairs Committee to welcome you here to Pōneke and to welcome you here to this place. I have always enjoyed the opportunity to visit your beautiful rohe, and I look forward to being there again, particularly at the fish and chip shop. Kia ora.

I know this settlement has not been an easy one. I really do know that, and it was reflected when we were at your marae. We saw this. We saw the rawness that reflected the negotiations, but what I also saw there was the mana. When Pita Pāngari was there he said to us that “Once upon a time I was there also.” So I acknowledge you for the way that this settlement particularly has been on a very, very difficult journey. But the journey is actually, in some ways, coming to an end, particularly around the Treaty settlement process, and then another really important journey will start, also—probably the most important one—and that is the post-settlement situation and how you will actually deal with that.

I think the important thing that I want to acknowledge is one thing that is in this deed of settlement, and that is the fact that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa have said they will forgo full compensation to contribute to New Zealand’s development. That is mana. Also, we need to highlight that it is not about just that. As someone from an iwi who settled very early, as someone who has seen Treaty settlements progress—almost all of our people, particularly our kaumātua, will tell you that it is not about the money. It is actually about the apology, because that there enables us to move on. But it is not only about accepting less, because less in some ways is more, particularly when we look at the fact that this is legacy. You are actually the people, the rangatira, the whānau, who are trying to ensure that there is a better legacy for your rangatahi. It is also about opportunity—commercial, yes, but also social opportunity. It is also about that opportunity, cultural and social. So this has been a hallmark, really, of an iwi that has shown mana. When I travel around the far north, there is, I believe, a desire, particularly from the rangatahi, that they want their settlement settled, because they can see that there is another life after grievance.

Finally, our Ūpoko Rūnanga of Ngāi Tūahuriri, Pita Te Hōri, said once in 1861: “Kia atawhai ki te iwi.”—take care of the people. This Treaty settlement is the real essence of what these rangatira are doing here today, and those who are at home listening. This is the essence of this settlement, and I acknowledge you for that, and I honour you, and I commend your bill to the House. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā hoki koutou nō te hau kāinga. Ā, he wāhi poto tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e aku hoamahi i roto i Te Whare nei ki te whakatau i a koutou. Ā, e tika ana hoki kia mihi atu ki a rātou i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. Tēnā pea i karanga atu ēnei o aku hoa, ko au te kaumātua ēngari, tino tamariki noa iho au ēngari, kia ahatia. E mahara ana au ki ēnā o ngā kaumātua o te kāinga pēnei i a Piri Mōkena, Pita Tarawau, ā, tae atu ki a Tim Heta, Hākopa Āro mā nā rātou i kawe atu ngā kaupapa i hangangia e Te Tari Māori i taua wā. Nā reira, e tika ana, kia tukuna atu te kaha o waku mihi ki a rātou. E kī nei te kōrero, nā rātou ki a rātou, ka hoki mai ki a tātou e te hunga ora, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou! Ā, tēnā anō tātou, koutou ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au e pā ana ki te pire nei.

Horekau e whakahē i ngā kōrero i puta mai, ēngari ko te mea nui i whakawhiti mai i mua i a au. Ki tetahi o ngā kōrero i puta mai i te mema mō Te Tai Tokerau a Kelvin, e pā ana ki aua moutere i Rangitāhuahua, koinā tētahi o ngā kōrero i roto te pire nei, he full and final wēnei take. Ēngari māku e pātai atu ki a tātou, me pēhea te kaha o taua kōrero? Pēhea te kaha? Tika ana tēnā, koinā te take i mea atu ki a tātou i tēnei wā. Tēnā pea mā te wā ka kite ana i a tātou ēngari, māku e mea atu ki te hunga kāinga, koinā tetahi o ngā whakaaro i roto i a au i tēnei wā. Ēngari ngā mihi hoki ki Te Karauna kia tukuna atu te whakapāha ki ngā uri o Kahukura-ariki, me ērā atu o ngā hapū i rārangitia i roto te pire nei.

I tēnei wā, ka hoki taku mahara ki tērā tetahi o ngā tangata i te wā e ora ana, ko Bully Peters. Ko ia tētahi tangata tū kaha ana ki te whawhai mō te whenua Stony Creek. Ahakoa ngā piki ngā heke, ko ia te tangata i whakaū ki tōna kaupapa. Nā reira, ēhara tēnā wāhanga he mea hōu i roto i ngā kerēme. Ko te pātai kē, ahakoa mēnā e tika ana, e hē rānei ēngari i tēnei wā, koinā te kōrero. Mēnā e tika ana kua riro aua whenua ki tērā hapū, tērā whānau me pēhea mēnā kei roto aua kerēme i runga i te kerēme whānui mō te iwi? Koinā te āwangawanga a Bully mā i taua wā. Nā reira, koinā te take e tautokonatia ana te kaupapa a Te Minita kia tukuna atu tēnei pire ki Te Komiti Whakawhiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, kia wātea ki ngā hau kāinga mēnā e whakahē, whakatautoko hoki i te pire nei, kia whakatakoto mai i wā rātou kōrero, kei mōhio mai i a mātou o Te Whare nei, he aha ngā āhuatanga i waenganui i a koutou e pā ana ki te take nei.

Ēngari e mihi kau ana ki tēnā o ngā tangata e kawe atu i tēnei kaupapa, mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei kerēme, tae noa ki tēnei. I whakahuangia te īngoa o Ella rāua, ko Pita, me ētahi atu, ngā mihi hoki ki a rātou. Ēhara tēnā mahi he mahi māmā nā te mea mōhio ana i a tātou, ahakoa me pēhea te kaha o tō mahi, me pēhea tō aroha ana ki tō iwi whānui, kei reira ētahi ki te amuamu hoki i tō mahi, kia ahatia! Koinā te āhuatanga ki a tātou!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you from back home. This is a brief call to support the welcoming sentiments expressed by my parliamentary colleagues in this House to you. It is fitting indeed that I pay a tribute to those who are lost from view. While these of my collegues may have said that I am the elder member, this is not so, as I am very much younger by comparison, but never mind. I think of those elders from back home like Piri Mōkena, Pita Tarawau, Tim Heta, Hākopa Aro, and those who were responsible for initiatives created by the Māori Affairs Department back then. Accordingly, my tribute should be more in their direction. As the saying goes, they the dead should remain there amongst themselves, so I come back to us, the living, therefore,greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to you collectively. I acknowledge us and those of you who addressed the bill before me.

I do not oppose any of the statements made. The important thing is that they were made in my presence. One that caught my attention was made by the Te Tai Tokerau member, Kelvin Davis, about the Kermadec Islands—which is in this bill—about these matters being full and final. But what I pose to you is how powerful, how strong can it be? That is right, that is what I ask of us at this point in time. Perhaps time will tell us but, nevertheless, I will say to those back home, that thought is in me right now. But I do commend the Crown for the apology to the descendants of Kahukura-ariki and other subtribes listed in this bill.

At this stage I cast my mind back to one of the people who were alive back then, Bully Peters. He fought hard for the land at Stony Creek. Despite the ups and downs, he was committed to his cause. Therefore, that aspect about claims is not a new thing. The question really, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, is that that is the situation right now. If it is correct that those lands have been taken by that other subtribe or family, what happens if those claims are in an extensive tribal claim? That was the particular concern of Bully and others at that time. So that is the reason why I supported the Minister’s call that this bill be sent to the Māori Affairs Committee, to enable those from back home to oppose or support this bill, and to make their submissions to ensure that we of this House are informed of situations that you may have amongst you relating to this matter.

But I really acknowledge those who took responsibility for this matter from the outset of this claim to where it is now. The names of Ella, Pita, and others were mentioned, and so I commend them. That is not an easy task because we know that no matter how hard one works, how much you love your extended tribe, someone will always be there complaining about your work, never mind. That is how it is with us.]

I just want to say that the bill itself certainly articulates the reasons for the bill coming to the House. It also articulates those parties that are affected by the bill. And it outlines a way forward for the people of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa to progress their claim. I should say that they have the advantage of sitting on the fence, and I am talking about the iwi fence: the Ngāpuhi fence, and the Ngatikahu fence. They are right in the middle, and I can recall when this whole issue of the claims first came about, there was a lot of debate. In fact, there was dissension that Whangaroa should enjoy that privilege of having their own claim. But through hard work and perseverance, the trust board—ahakoa, ngā piki ngā heke e pā ana ki taua rōpū [in spite of the ups and downs relating to that organisation]—persevered, and today we see the fruits of their efforts. And do not be surprised that, perhaps next year, we have another bill called the “Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa” as part of the Ngāpuhi claim. But that is something that the people will need to talk about. I just give signal to those who might be listening, and wave the flag for Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. Kei mōhio mai te iwi whānui, ē, horekau i mutungia tēnei mahi, kia ahatia. [The extensive tribe might find out, hey, this job was never completed. So what?]

But in respect of the land that they were entitled to and the return of land, the last speaker from the Government benches, Mr Korako, talked about the fact that although land was being returned as part of this settlement, it would not fully compensate the iwi. And again, as I mentioned during the debate on the last bill, these settlements can never be regarded as full, knowing the history that has led to the bills’ coming before the House.

I want to say also that the apologies that are being extended by the Crown, I take those to be with sincerity. For the Minister to front the people at the time of the signing of the deed of settlement, I think it is to his credit that he has done that. I think the people who are involved have really appreciated that fact, given that during the negotiations—I do not know whether he was still in the House; he may have been a negotiator on behalf of the Crown—Dr Cullen attempted to attend one meeting, and our relatives from Ngāti Aukiwa prevented that meeting from proceeding.

I just want to notify the Minister that at the time part of the problem, I think, was that the bureaucrats involved were not taking advice from the local Te Puni Kōkiri office, because the signs were certainly there and what needed to be done to avert that situation. That is part of the history—that becomes part of the history, albeit colourful. The good thing about it was that no one was hurt. Perhaps pride may have taken a dive, but never mind.

Having said that, I commend the bill to the House and look forward to receiving submissions from those interested in this bill when it comes before the Māori Affairs Committee. Tenā koe.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe. Tēnei e tāpiri atu aku mihi ki a koutou Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, kua tae mai nei i waenganui i a tātau mō tēnei whiriwhiri kōrero mō tō koutou kerēme. Anei te tino mihi rawa atu ki a koutou katoa. I rongo au ki ngā kōrero o taku hoa a Kelvin, me ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki ā koutou kerēme, ngā āhuatanga ki tō peka o te motu. Ka tika, kei ngā whiti tuawaru atu ki te tekau o tō koutou tutukitanga, ngā whakarāpopoto kōrero mō ngā hītori e pā ana ki te take, tā koutou take, ā, me ngā whakaaetanga a Te Karauna.

Kua mōhio pai koutou i roto i tēnei taupatupatu, he whakaaro anō e pā ana ki ngā whakapāha atu a Te Karauna. Tēnā pea, māku hei whakarāpopoto ētehi o aku nei whakaaro ki tērā, ka tāpiri atu ki ngā kōrero a te mema a Nuk Kōrako. E tika ana, ka tau ki tēnei wā ko te whakapāha atu te mea hei whakatōpū, me kī, ngā toimahatanga i roto i ngā kerēme pēnei, i roto i ngā ture o te Pākehā, kia kaua e wareware, kia kaua e wareware! Atu ki tērā, ko te mahi nunui hei whakatinanahia, hei whakatinanhia, kia kaua e noho he kōrero i runga i te pepa, me whakahuatia ngā hua o ā koutou kerēme, nō reira, ka titiro ake ki ā koutou nei whakapāha i te whārangi 14 o ō koutou pire.

Tēnā pea e Te Minita me whakatikatika te taitara i te tuatahi. Atu ki tērā, tēnei te wairua o te kōrero. E hiahia ana au ki te pānui mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Kei a rātau ngā mea nunui hei whakatōpū mai, he aha ngā mahi a ngā mātua tūpuna kia haria mai tēnei kaupapa ki Te Pāremata, anā! Tēnei te whakapāha atu a Te Karauna ki ngā whānau, ngā hapū me te iwi o Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, ki ō koutou tūpuna me ō koutou mokopuna. E tuku whakapāha ana Te Karauna mō tāna kore whakatutuki i ōna herenga ki a Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi.

He tino roa rawa te wā i pau e Te Karauna, he whakatutuki i runga i te tika o ō koutou whakamau roa, tino ngau kino hoki. E āhukahuka ana Te Karauna, he kino te pānga o taua hapa ki ngā whakatupuranga maha o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. E kaha whakapāha ana Te Karauna mō te mamae me te whakamau haere tonu ki a Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa e pupū mai ana i tā Te Karauna tango i ngā whenua tūwhene me tāna whakatewhatewha auroa i ngā tauwhitinga whenua i mua i te Tiriti o Waitangi. E whakapāha hoki ana mō te pānga kino o ngā ture whenua Māori ki ngā whenua o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, me tā Te Karauna tango whenua mai i a Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa mō ngā mahi nunui me te tohu i te tirohanga whenua. E kaha pōuri ana Te Karauna mō ngā pānga tāpiripiri o āna mahi tērā i tango i a Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa ōna pae hira, ngā wāhi tapu me ngā urupā o ō koutou tūpuna, ā, ko te mutunga iho tata kore nei ō koutou whenua.

I whakatūria e Te Karauna ngā ture me ngā kaupapa here taka kino i tukituki i te oranga o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. I tīkai hoki te rangatiratanga o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. E kaha pōuri ana anō hoki Te Karauna mō āna mahi tērā i whai tākoha atu ki te ngaromanga o te tino rangatiratanga o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. I tūkino rā hoki i ngā hangahanga ā iwi o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. Tēnei te mea nunui ki a au nei. I rīpenata ana Te Karauna mō āna tūkino ō mua i whakawhiua ki runga i a koutou. Mā tēnei whakataunga e tūmanako ana Te Karauna ki te whakaora i tōna hōnore me te hiki i te wairua whakamau tika o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. E tāria ana e Te Karauna te hanga i tētehi whanaungatanga hōu, mau roa tonu ki a Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa. Ko te ngākau pono, te wairua whakaute, tētehi i tētehi, te kōtuinga me ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti o Waitangi ngā pūtake.

Nō reira, kua kapohia ēnei kupu i roto i ngā pukapuka o Te Pāremata nei mō ō koutou tamariki, mokopuna. Ka nui te mihi aroha ki a koutou. Ka tatari mātau ngā mema, mō tēnei take kia haria mai ki mua i te aroaro o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Māori, kia āta titiro ki ngā wāhanga katoa o te pire nei. Nō reira tēnā tātau katoa.

[Greetings. I add my acknowledgments to you, Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, who have arrived here amongst us for the debate about your claims. Here, then, are my profound congratulations to you. I heard the sentiments expressed by my colleague Kelvin Davis about the circumstances of your claim and those that relate to your part of the country. Quite correct! A summary of historical accounts relating to your issue, as well as the acknowledgments by the Crown, are in clauses 8 to 10.

Of course, you are very much aware that through this debate there is another view about the Crown’s apology. Perhaps I should summarise some of my views and add them to the contributions made by the member Nuk Kōrako. It is appropriate that the apology is settled at this point in time as a mechanism to bring together burdens, shall we say, into claims and legislation like this, so they are not overlooked and forgotten. Beyond that, implementing it and making it a reality is the important thing, so it does not remain as mere words on paper; make your claims bear fruit, therefore, examine the apology to you on page 14 of your bill.

Amending the title might be the first thing, Minister. Beyond that, this is the spirit of the statement. I want it for the children and grandchild to read. They have important things to bring together: what did parents and grandparents bring before Parliament about this matter? There you are! This apology by the Crown to families, subtribes, and people of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, to your ancestors and grand children. The Crown submits an apology for not fulfilling its obligations to Ngātikahu at Whangaroa under the Treaty of Waitangi.

It has taken the Crown a very long time to address the situation, because you have suffered and felt the hurt over a very long period. The Crown recognises how badly the omission impacts upon the many descendants of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa that welled up when the Crown took possession of surplus lands, and held prolonged investigations of lands under the Treaty of Waitangi. It apologises also for how Māori land legislation has impacted badly on lands owned by Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, and on how the Crown took land away from Ngātikahu at Whangaroa for important projects. The Crown is very remorseful for the roll-on effect caused by its acts of taking possession of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa’s significant sites, the sacred places and burial lands of your ancestors, that eventally left you virtually landless.

The Crown established Acts and policies that impacted badly on the well-being of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa. The Crown is also very remorseful that it contributed to Ngātikahu at Whangaroa’s loss of self-determination, which impacted badly on how Ngātikahu at Whangaroa could develop itself. This is something that I value greatly! The Crown records its past atrocities and casts these upon you. The Crown hopes that this settlement will restore its honour and, in so doing, fittingly uplift Ngātikahu at Whangaroa spiritually. The Crown plans to create a new and lasting relationship with Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, with a sense of integrity and goodwill of one with the other, interlaced with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

So these words have been captured in the Hansard for your children and grandchildren. There is much empathy for you collectively. We, the members, await the arrival of this matter before the Māori Affairs Committee so that all parts of this bill can be examined. My appreciation to us all.]

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, kei te mi’i ‘oki au ki a koutou ngā uri o Kahukura-Ariki, ngā whānau katoa o Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoia, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangimatamomoe, Ngāti Roha, Ngāti Rua, arā, Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, tēnā koutou katoa, nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou.

Otirā, e tika hoki kia mi’i atu anō ki te ā’uatanga ki ō tātau tini mate, rātau katoa i hinga mai nā puta noa i ngā moutere nei, ngā pīwaiwaka, tītakataka, ngā reo whakaoriori, otirā, te iti me te rahi, te rangatira me te rawakore. Haere atu rā ki tua o te ārai ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātau, mō te tangata. Oti atu te wā ki a koutou, e ‘oki, e moe, e moe, ā, kāti mō tēnā.

[And so, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time I acknowledge you, the descendants of Kahukura-Ariki, all the families of Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoia, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangimatamomoe, Ngāti Roha, Ngāti Rua, in other words, Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, welcome, come hither and greetings to you collectively.

But at the same time it is fitting for me to pay a tribute once again to the circumstances of our very many deaths, all of those who have fallen throughout these islands: the song birds, the fantails, the insignificant, the outstanding, the privileged, and the impoverished. Depart beyond the veil to the place destined for us, for mankind. Your part is done, depart, sleep and rest, so enough in regard to that.]

It is always a great honour to speak on Treaty settlement bills, and this is no exception. I too am a descendant of Kahukura Ariki, on the side of my grandfather Paki Rurawhe. He comes from a small marae called Te Huia, at Pupuke, near Kaeō, just south of the area of interest that we are speaking about today. I want to acknowledge aku whanaunga, my relations who have come here today for this reading of this bill.

Treaty settlements are always difficult, and I want to focus in on the historical account, the acknowledgments, and the apology, in so far as they all fit together. The historical account is an agreed historical account—negotiated. It would be interesting to know what was left out of this because the Crown did not want it in there. In that historical account—and Marama Davidson, in her contribution, mentioned the acknowledgments the Crown has made in this settlement—it talks about acknowledging the compulsory taking of 700 acres for a scenic reserve. There are acknowledgments around public works, around the taking of 6 acres at Matakaraka for public works, and other acknowledgments as well.

Then we come on to the apology, and I want to repeat some of the words that my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta read out in Te Reo Māori. I want to, in particular, read this part of the apology: “The Crown has promoted injurious laws and policies that undermined Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa wellbeing, and disrespected Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa rangatiratanga. For its acts which contributed to the loss of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa autonomy and damaged Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa’s tribal structures the Crown is deeply sorry.” And so the Crown should be.

We should be acknowledging this apology, but the value of any apology is its sustainability. It says here: “The Crown has promoted injurious laws …”. The apology has value only if every single law from now on no longer injures Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. That is the challenge for this House—to ensure that we scrutinise every single piece of legislation to make certain that laws are no longer passed that are injurious to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and, indeed, to every single iwi that has settled their claims through settlement Acts. I mention that and join with my other colleagues who have spoken about current issues, which, no doubt, if passed through this House, will be injurious to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and every other iwi. So I just want to make certain that this is recorded and that we make certain that this House passes laws that are good laws for all of us.

I also want to talk about the process. It is an arduous process and, like others, I acknowledge the negotiators from Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. I acknowledge the Crown negotiators as well, and the officials who have worked on this settlement. The process is indeed another step towards reconciling those wrongs of the past. This bill will go to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I encourage everyone who supports this bill to make a submission and to tell the select committee why they support this bill. Too often, I think, we make submissions only if we disagree with something, and I think it is really important that the voices of those who support the bill are heard as well. It is an opportunity also for those who disagree with the bill to make their thoughts known to the select committee.

I can assure Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa that, from my experience, the Māori Affairs Committee will look very carefully at all of the issues. Its members will ask the difficult questions and they will expect compelling answers from the officials, and I am sure that those answers will come from the officials. That is really the final step in the process to be able to acknowledge those things that people have concerns about, so I also encourage them to make their submissions.

On a number of occasions I have said this, and I am going to say it again: we are here today despite all of the difficulties of the horrendous history that is outlined in the historical account, and despite the challenges faced by Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Despite all of this we find ourselves here today for the first reading of this bill, and we are here today because Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa have performed an act of generosity to this country. They perform an act of generosity to this country because of the magnitude of what they lost in comparison with the settlement that they will receive. We should all be thankful to them for this act of generosity. But we should also always ask why you would do that. Why would you settle for much less than what you lost? You do that for the future generations. You do that to move on from being in that claimant phase into a development phase. So taku kōrero w’akamutunga ki a Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, tēnei ahau tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou e kaha ana kia tae mai ki tēnei wāhanga o tēnei whakahaerenga, kia whakatau tō koutou kerēme, ngā mi’i nui ki a koutou. Kāore e kore, mai i ō koutou mahi, ka whai hua ngā tamariki, mokopuna o Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa, nō reira koutou mā, tēnā koutou, otirā, tātau o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa.

[So in my closing remarks to you, Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, I commend you for working so hard to get here for this part of the proceedings that settles your claim and does so greatly. Without a doubt your work will benefit the children and grandchildren of Ngātikahu at Whangaroa, therefore, well done to you collectively but at the same to us, this House, my appreciation to us all.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Ā, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, e ngā iwi katoa, nau mai, haere mai, nō reirā, kia ora mai tātou.

[And so, acknowledgments to you, esteemed ones; welcome, come hither, all tribes; my appreciation, therefore, to us collectively.]

It is a pleasure to speak to this, the first reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to start by commending Minister Finlayson, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and ngā iwi katoa for getting this bill here today to its first reading. I have had the pleasure, many times, of enjoying the natural bounty that this settlement recognises, primarily in the Whangaroa and Mangonui harbours. To that end, I want to remind us of the area of geographical interest within which the overall settlement is located—the rohe area—and many of these places are, of course, included in the settlement itself. We start at Taemaro, an important starting place when one looks at the attention Taemaro gets in the settlement itself. You then move up the coast to Te Whata, around the corner to Hīhī, and then down into Mangonui Harbour. Then the boundary actually heads through Oruaiti, the head of the stream there, and passes inland, bordering Ngāti Kahu and Ngāpuhi, making its way past Maunga Taratara Otangaroa. Then it reaches back into Whangaroa Harbour at Waihapa Bay, makes its way up past Totara North, Taupo Bay and back to Taemaro.

Within the overall settlement, within this area, the Minister has commented that the return of the Stony Creek Station, 2,275 hectares, is a key part of this settlement. We know that this has been challenging, but it is important and it comes now to a resolution. I want to observe that if one stands today on the ground of Stony Creek Station, it could be considered that one is metaphorically standing on an island—an island of negotiation, collaboration, and leadership that is returning the land to iwi through the process of settlement. I use the metaphor somewhat as a segue to my colleague Pita Paraone, who also raised this issue. I used the metaphor of an island, because all around the rohe, iwi land remains in limbo, and it is our hope that others will observe the realness of Crown intent and the tangible benefits that will accrue to Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa and that they will also come to the table with pure intent. I commend the leadership of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa for getting us again here today.

In detailed documents like this, I have particular interest in the final statements, the closing statements, in some of the major sections for the overall substance that they might convey to me and the guidance they might give me. The closing statement in the acknowledgments, clause 9(8), reads thus: “The Crown acknowledges that the cumulative effect of its acts and omissions, including Crown purchases, public works takings, and the operation and impact of the native land laws, left Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa virtually landless. The Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa retained sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” I think the closing statement under “Apology”, clause 10(e), is also important: “The Crown seeks to atone for past injustices it has inflicted upon you. Through this settlement, the Crown hopes to restore its honour and relieve Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa’s justified sense of grievance. The Crown looks forward to forging a new and enduring relationship with Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa based on good faith, mutual respect, partnership and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi.” I have talked about the realness of Crown intent, and I think in these statements that realness is laid bare.

In this, then, the first reading, I want to conclude as I basically started, by commending the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and ngā iwi katoa for getting the settlement to its first reading. I look forward to its progress through this House. Thank you. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.43 p.m. (Thursday)