Tuesday, 24 May 2016

TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2016

TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Bougainville—Delegation, Parliament

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome a parliamentary delegation from the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, led by the Honourable Francesca Semoso, which is present in the gallery.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 12 to Minister, 10 May

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question during question No. 5 on 10 May 2016.

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

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In response to a supplementary question asked during question No. 5 on 10 May, I said in relation to the $41.1 million for emergency housing in Budget 2016 that “The new 3,000 places will be for anyone—individuals or families—who has a genuine need for emergency accommodation.” I should have said that the funding will be for 3,000 places, and that some of those will be new and some will go to the many emergency housing providers that require dedicated ongoing funding so that they can keep their doors open.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing Affordability and Availability—Government Measures to Address

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Building and Housing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Andrew Little: How can he have confidence in bumbling Nick Smith, who promised 500 hectares of new housing on Crown land in the last Budget but found only 13 hectares, and is now claiming he never made any promise at all?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Apologies—I just could not hear the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the question to be heard. It would be—[Interruption] Order! The question, as I heard it, was certainly one that was going to lead to some interjection, but, so that it is heard clearly, I do not want any interjection, particularly from my right-hand side.

Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am obliged. How can he have confidence in Nick Smith, who promised 500 hectares of new housing—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not.

Andrew Little: —on Crown land in the last Budget but found only 13 hectares—he is over there—and is now claiming he never made any promise at all?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing because he has undertaken a wide range of initiatives when it comes to housing. What we are seeing is a considerable increase in the number of houses that have been built. Yesterday the Minister announced that three sites in Auckland would be paving the way for 750 new homes; if combined with the Moire Road development last year, it is a total of 940 homes.

Andrew Little: Given his statement about housing, “I don’t think it’s a crisis,”, why does Statistics New Zealand data show falling homeownership rates every quarter under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I always have to check those facts when I see them from the Labour Party, but homeownership rates around the world, actually, have been reducing. One thing we do know is that under this Government we are helping a lot of people into their first home. One example of that is the nearly 12,000 people who have been helped into their first home under the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant scheme, totalling $55.6 million.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table information provided by the Parliamentary Library on the dwelling and household figures and ownership rates, which shows a declining—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The document has been described. Before I put the leave, it is not simply a précis of Statistics New Zealand, is it?

Andrew Little: Not at all.

Mr SPEAKER: OK, then I will put—[Interruption] Order! I will put the leave. [Interruption] Order! Leave has been sought to table the information prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. [Interruption] Order! Can I just have a little less assistance from Mr Brownlee.

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

Andrew Little: Is Kim Campbell, chief executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), right when he says “Whatever is happening now—it’s not working.” and “What we need is a massive Government-led house building programme.”, which, funnily enough, sounds a lot like Labour’s KiwiBuild programme?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: He is absolutely right when he says that whatever is happening now is not working, if he is talking about the Labour Party. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! To my left, the Leader of the Opposition is asking for a supplementary question.

Andrew Little: When Kim Campbell, the Council of Trade Unions’ Richard Wagstaff, and even Paula Bennett say there is a crisis, why does he not just admit that the Government’s housing policies have failed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government’s response in housing has been quite comprehensive, and that is why we are seeing 9,500 new homes being built in Auckland, the highest number in more than 11 years. That is why we are seeing more people employed in construction. That is why we are seeing people accessing KiwiSaver HomeStart to get into their first homes. This is an issue that takes quite a lot of catch-up, because of the work that is required, but I will say that this Government, and under Minister Smith, has been implementing a wide range of policies. The previous Government sat around for 9 years and did absolutely nothing.

Andrew Little: Have any of these Government policies reversed the fall in homeownership: (1) cheaper Gib board, which has now got more expensive; (2) trying to build houses on cemeteries; or (3) building less than 3 percent of the promised 39,000 houses in special housing areas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Once again, the member wishes to make things up, and he is welcome to do that. But I will tell you what is working, and that is the fact that 24,000 houses and sections have been consented in the first 2 years of the housing accord; that there are now 154 special housing areas in Auckland; that the rules have been tightened on property investors; that more Crown land has been released; and that thousands and thousands of people—in fact 42,000, I think, additional people—are in the area of housing and construction. A great deal is happening in Auckland housing. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Brownlee!

Andrew Little: Is it not time to stop the excuses and admit that after 8 years it is the failure of his policies that means that homeownership has fallen every quarter under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I reject the assertion from the member. Secondly, as I have pointed out already today, there are a great many initiatives that the Government has undertaken. I just look back at the 9 years under the previous Labour Government, and all we saw was interest rates going up.

Metiria Turei: Why is his Government prioritising the building of 4,500 new hotel rooms for tourists as part of “Project Palace”, when those resources could be directed to the Minister for Building and Housing in order to help build homes for the 4,500 people on the State house waiting list?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: They are different issues, of course. One is around tourism and the fact that it has become such a massive employer in New Zealand now. I would have thought that the member would want to welcome that. Regarding many of the hotels that are being built, it will ultimately be decided by the private sector whether it wants to invest in them—and they are in places like Queenstown. This might come as a shock to the member, but not every builder who lives in New Zealand wants to move to Auckland.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister not think that in the midst of a housing crisis his Government should prioritise “Project Homes for New Zealanders” and not “Project Palace” for tourists?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the member’s assertion.

Metiria Turei: Is this the Prime Minister’s new social housing policy, where he builds expensive hotel rooms so that homeless people can stay in them and rack up huge debts to Work and Income instead?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Metiria Turei: Does he genuinely think that 4,500 people on the waiting list for a State house and more than 30,000 New Zealanders in severe housing deprivation does not mean that we are in a national housing emergency, one that demands his full attention?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Like many issues that the Government faces, this does have my full attention. What you have already seen announced by the Minister for Social Development is $41 million being applied to 3,000 places, some of which are new and some of which are existing, but they allow people to access what will no longer be a loan but a grant for social housing. You have also seen the Government moving now on income-related rents for social housing providers. You have seen the Government insulate nearly 300,000 homes. You have seen the Government making sure that there are renewable tenancies, which benefit those with the greatest need. You have seen the Government working in areas like the Tāmaki redevelopment. The Government is doing a great deal—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is long enough.

Immigration, Auckland—Housing, Infrastructure, and Services

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is Auckland going to solve its housing supply problems when demand is inflated by 34,000 people coming into Auckland from overseas every year—[Interruption] When they stop, I will keep going. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjection, and there is one member, particularly, who is continuing to interject. I can name him if that would help quieten him down. Mr Peters, start the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is Auckland going to solve its housing supply problems when demand is inflated by 34,000 people coming into Auckland from overseas every year, or is this, to quote him, and I do, “hardly some sort of crisis that we cannot cope with.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Some of those people who come in actually come in with skills that can be applied in this particular area of housing. Secondly, if you look at the construction workforce, which has grown by 40,000 in the last 2 years nationally and by 24,200 in Auckland, the reality of a fast-growing Auckland, partly because of population growth both internally and externally, has added to a great deal of economic activity and job opportunities for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is Auckland going to solve its now massive roading infrastructure problems when half the population of New Plymouth, or 34,000, are now coming into Auckland from overseas every year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member should know, the Government has been investing massively in infrastructure in Auckland, spending a great deal not only on roading but also on public transport, and billions—I think $4 billion—has gone into KiwiRail in the time that we have had that, and that has included the electrification of lines in Auckland, the additional rolling stock, and the like. The Government is committed to its share of the central business district rail tunnel now. The Government has also invested in very large roading projects like the Waterview Connection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is Auckland going to solve its education and health supply problems when the demand for education and health services is inflated by 34,000 long-term arrivals from overseas going to Auckland each year, let alone those who come from the rest of the country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, many of the people who go to Auckland are returning New Zealanders who have decided to come from overseas because, like myself, they have worked in another part of the world and they have realised what a great place New Zealand is. And under a National-led Government there are so many reasons for them to come back and be a part of Auckland and a part of New Zealand, and there are reasons to celebrate that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is great. The member’s running an advertorial for the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Eat your heart out, Gerry.

Hon Member: Bring back Ron.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: They have never asked you, mate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know the member is responding, but, on this occasion, can we have the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the latest household economic survey reports that every income decile has declined in homeownership except for the top 10 percent, when will he start governing for all New Zealanders and not just for his rich mates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If one looks generally at those who think the country is going in the right direction versus the wrong direction, the member will see that, substantially, the number of people who think the country is going in the right direction outnumbers those who think it is going in the wrong direction. They are New Zealanders from all parts of the country and with all different economic cohorts. I think that answers the member’s question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Budget 2016—Fiscal Strategy

3. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2016 build on the Government’s commitment to a more productive and competitive economy while delivering responsible fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): New Zealand has made good progress over the last 3 years. The economy is growing by 10.2 percent, with average growth of 3.4 percent per annum over those 3 years. Average weekly wages have increased by 7.7 percent, there is an average growth rate of 2.6 percent compared with average inflation of 0.7, and the unemployment rate is down—in fact, in the member’s electorate, it is about 5.1 percent compared with 3 years ago. Budget 2016 will build on this considerable progress.

Todd Muller: How will Budget 2016 deliver on the Government’s commitment to responsible fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The deficit from 2011 was $18 billion, and in 2015 there was a small surplus. The Government has turned its focus to consolidating those surpluses so it can begin the process of paying down debt, which has run up fairly significantly since 2009 onwards. That would put New Zealand in a better position to deal with future recessions or natural disasters. In Budget 2016 the Government will, of course, measure its success not by how much money is spent but by how much difference the spending makes, particularly for vulnerable New Zealanders.

Todd Muller: What recent initiatives has the Government announced to support a growing economy as part of Budget 2016?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has so many initiatives to support a forward-looking, growing economy that it has announced a number of them prior to the Budget. For instance, there is $45 million for the tourism sector because it is growing so fast, to help communities build smaller scale infrastructure projects. Last week Minister Joyce announced funding for a further 5,500 apprentices by 2020. This will also support 2,500 more people into the Māori and Pasifika trades training programme, which will reach 3,400 next year—up from just 1,200 in 2014. Those are just a few examples of the Government focusing on getting better results.

Todd Muller: What reports has the Minister seen from notable—or, at least, recognisable—commentators on the indicators of a successful society?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a recent report from one commentator listing indicators of a successful society, which include improving employment outcomes and raising incomes. By contrast, I have seen a report from another commentator, who, instead, says that what matters is the percentage of the increase in GDP each year going to income. The first one was Grant Robertson, and the second one was Andrew Little. I wish they would agree with themselves. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are coming to it now, I suspect.

Budget 2016—Tax Cuts

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: What is his answer to Fran O’Sullivan’s question, “Was John Key’s brain fart on the tax front an involuntary exercise or was it calculated”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I would say she got it wrong.

Grant Robertson: When he took tax cuts off the table in his pre-Budget speech, was he expecting the Prime Minister to put them back on the table 3 days later?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I made clear is that the fiscal conditions in this Budget had not been met for tax reductions, and of course the Opposition will just have to have a look at the numbers in the Budget this week to see whether they think those fiscal conditions can be met in the future.

Grant Robertson: What is his response to Westpac economist Dominick Stephens, who said: “If the plan is for $3 billion of tax cuts, as the Prime Minister said, down the line, then that makes the accounts that he will deliver this week irrelevant and obsolete.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would disagree with him.

Grant Robertson: Why do you disagree with him?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Due to the hard work of the Public Service, the members of the various coalition Governments, and the New Zealand public, this Budget will indicate that New Zealand has choices out ahead of us that very few other developed countries have. They simply will not have choices because their public finances are not yet in a sustainable position—ours are.

David Seymour: When was the last time that the Government of New Zealand cut taxes with the Labour Party in power, and who was the Minister of Finance at the time?

Hon Members: There’s no responsibility for that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. It is an information question to the House. I think there is some responsibility to answer it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This Government’s tax package in 2010 cut some taxes—that is, the taxes on things we like, like work, savings, and investment—and pushed up taxes on something we think we had too much of, which was consumption. Prior to that I think it was Dr Cullen who announced tax cuts in 2008, which could not be fulfilled because of the recession. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection now on my left-hand side is simply too high. If I want to specifically mention a couple I could do that, but I am going to have to ask for some cooperation. Otherwise, I will be dealing with it more severely.

Grant Robertson: Are tax cuts a priority when New Zealanders are living in cars and garages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have indicated, there will not be any tax cuts in this Budget. There are other priorities to deal with, but there is a whole range of priorities. On different days the Opposition says it is elective surgery. On other days it is student debt. On other days it is budgeting services. Today it happens to be people living in cars. The Opposition does not seem to have any idea of what it thinks the priorities are. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, if New Zealanders are still living in cars and garages in 2017 will he still propose tax cuts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is getting well ahead of himself. He can be assured that the level of public support for the Budget for 2016, I am sure, will be positive and considerable, and that will give this Government—because of its sound financial position—plenty of choices for dealing with pressures that might be there next year.

Grant Robertson: Did the Prime Minister tell the Minister of Finance that he was going to put tax cuts back on the table just 3 days after he had taken them off?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We completely disagree with the member’s characterisation of what the Prime Minister said, and the Prime Minister and I and Ministers regularly have strategic discussions.

Conservation, Department—Funding and Maintenance of Facilities

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): My question is to the Minister of Conservation and asks: is she confident that the Department of Conservation can carry out its work considering the inflation-adjusted reduction in Vote Conservation allocation it has endured under her Government?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): That question varies from the one that was given to us. It has included inflation adjustment. I am happy to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: It is the question as it is on my sheet. I can ask the member to read it again if that would help the Minister. Can we repeat the question? It was certainly read exactly as per my sheet.

5. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Is she confident that the Department of Conservation can carry out its work considering the inflation-adjusted reduction in Vote Conservation allocation it has endured under her Government?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): I am entirely confident that the Department of Conservation (DOC) can carry out its work, but I refute the idea that DOC has endured a reduction. It has not. The core Crown revenue provided to DOC in the dying days of the Labour Government in 2007-08 was $263 million. We are forecast to provide $338 million out of an overall budget of $391 million in 2015-16. This is an increase, and, in addition to that, commercial-partnership funding has gone up over the past 7 years from about $4 million to $9.3 million—not a reduction by anybody’s mathematics, I would have thought.

Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table a document. It is a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library, and it analyses the differences in conservation spending from a 2008-09 baseline in real terms, demonstrating the reduction.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is not necessary. Leave is sought to table that particular Parliamentary Library information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm that 38 DOC-maintained structures are in serious or critical need of work, including 23 bridges and six viewing platforms, including a well-known viewing platform in Milford Sound?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member is being a bit selective with the places that he is highlighting. I would like to just put some facts out on the table. The data shows that about 13 of 944 huts that DOC manages had some serious work that was outstanding—something as small as a missing hearth brush is enough to mean that a hut does not meet its service standards. The number needing serious work equates to just 1.3 percent of DOC’s extensive network of—often remotely located—huts. This actually serves to reinforce DOC’s inspection and maintenance programme as very thorough. DOC spent more than $18 million on hut maintenance last year, and it continues to invest—

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —in improving its—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, Kevin Hague.

Kevin Hague: It is a long answer, but my question was actually quite straightforward—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The way forward, because I do not think the question has, at this stage, been addressed, is that I am going to invite the member to ask the question again.

Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm that 38 DOC-maintained structures are in need of serious or critical work, including 23 bridges and six viewing platforms, including a well-known viewing platform in Milford Sound?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There are tasks—and these are ones that the member alludes to—that the engineers have indicated a need to have carried out within the next 6 months. About a third of the work on the list that the member is citing, and was provided with by my office, has already been completed within this past month. The department undertakes tens of thousands of individual tasks such as these every year. All structures are inspected on a 2-yearly rotation. DOC takes its responsibilities for the public’s and its staff’s safety very, very seriously, and we have scheduled work for all of the projects that the member has noted, to be concluded by November this year. We spend $45 million—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think that the question was answered some time ago.

Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm that there are 103 DOC-maintained bridges that either are not safe to walk across or are in critical need of repair?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No. I would go back to the answer that I gave you before. DOC takes its responsibilities very seriously. I will not, and do not, confirm that the repair that is needed is of a substantial nature. If it was dangerous—if our inspectors, who go through regularly and inspect it thoroughly, felt there was any risk to public safety—then those structures would be closed down. They are part of a work schedule that is being done and that is being carried out with all seriousness.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The numbers that I am using in these questions have been derived from answers that the Minister herself has provided. They relate to the—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order?

Kevin Hague: What I am not sure about is whether it is possible for me to table her answers to my questions for written answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is certainly not, and the member knows that. The question was answered immediately. The member asked whether the Minister could confirm, and then went on and listed 103 bridges etc. being safe or in need of critical repair. The Minister immediately said no, she was not in a position to confirm that. The question was addressed.

Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm her answer to written question No. 4765 that a quarter of huts do not meet DOC’s own service standard, including, for example, Whariwharangi Hut on the Abel Tasman Coast Track Great Walk?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member is misrepresenting the information that he was provided with. The data actually shows that just 13 of the 944 huts that DOC manages had serious work outstanding. Something as small, as I said, as a missing hearth brush—those are the things that count. So the number needing serious work is just 1.3 percent, and we are working on it. We spent more than $18 million on hut maintenance last year.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about whether or not a quarter of the huts met the service standard, and the Minister is answering about critical repairs. That was not the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The question was whether the Minister would confirm an answer she had given to a written question that she had answered from her office, and she immediately took the approach that the member was misrepresenting and misinterpreting the answer that has been given. That is a right that the Minister has. The member can take it further with supplementary questions, but that question has been addressed.

Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm her answer to written question No. 4766 that nearly half of tracks administered by DOC are not up to the department’s own standard, including 60 percent of Great Walk tracks?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: When we look at the tracks, 50 tracks have been closed since 2008 on our watch. That has often been due to unavoidable natural hazards, but more than 400 tracks and more than 1,000 extra kilometres have been added to DOC’s network over the same period. As with its hut network, DOC is constantly reviewing and upgrading its network of more than 14,000 kilometres of track. If it would help the member, to go back over to the hut question, the loose bricks that he identified in the chimney of that hut in the Abel Tasman have meant that the chimney has been demolished. The hut is still open for about 20 people to use, and it is safe. It is fully functioning, but the fire and the chimney have been cordoned off. These are the staged repairs that DOC does in an effort to keep tracks and huts, and the people who visit our tracks and huts, absolutely safe.

Kevin Hague: Does the Minister stand by her answer to written question No. 4757 that indicated that there were some 168 structures administered by DOC that had failed their load capacity assessments and 709 that had yet to be assessed?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I think the details that the member is going into are all very well. The general responses that I have given need to be applied, which is that when something goes wrong with a DOC structure, whether it is a bridge, a platform, a hut, or a track, we are on to it right away. We have various stages of importance that we address when we are looking at the stages of work and their priorities. DOC does that with the utmost integrity, and with health and safety as our paramount concern.

Kevin Hague: In this week’s Budget, will the Government increase conservation funding to enable the Department of Conservation to ensure that the 142 species that have become closer to extinction do not become extinct, that people do not put their lives at risk on DOC viewing platforms or bridges, and that our huts and tracks—

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

Kevin Hague: —meet the expectations that New Zealanders have for them?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There are not 143 species that are at risk. The member is definitely being disingenuous. As a result of further information and classification, you boil that figure down, and there are 14, and they are very detailed and we are working on them very hard. When it comes to additional funding, every department in every Government would always say they would like more. DOC is adequately funded at the moment. We have had $20 million given for Battle for our Birds, and more than $11 million last year for the kiwis. New Zealand species protection is a very important part of what DOC does, and we take it very seriously.

Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table a list of the 142 species, derived from the Minister’s answers to written questions—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to know the source of the list.

Kevin Hague: It is a list compiled by my office from her answers.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 165/1. Information must come from a source like the Parliamentary Library, which I would consider, but if it is prepared by the member’s own office, I am not prepared to put the leave.

Housing, Auckland—Removal of Urban Limits

6. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What steps has the Government taken to dismantle Auckland Urban Limits that were identified by the Productivity Commission report in 2012 as a key problem for the city’s housing supply and affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The first step was creating special housing areas in 2013. This enables new housing estates to be approved beyond the urban limit, and, to date, this has provided capacity for 27,000 homes in Auckland beyond the old urban limit. The second step was fast-tracking a new unitary plan to replace those urban limits permanently, and that process has only weeks to run. The third step is the Resource Management Act Reform Bill before Parliament, which puts a specific new requirement on councils to provide for land supply. And the fourth step is a new national policy statement that would not allow councils to reinvent metropolitan urban limits in the future.

Jami-Lee Ross: What comments and reports has he seen of the adverse consequences of removing Auckland’s urban limits?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read reports that the 2012 Productivity Commission report recommending an end to urban limits was an ideological burp from dinosaurs of the extreme right and was best ignored. I have also read a statement saying that Dr Smith’s threat to get rid of Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit is total nonsense and that it will allow massive urban sprawl and completely unsustainable urban development. I have another statement, which says that wholesale destruction of the city limits is the last thing that Aucklanders want to see. It will allow suburban sprawl to rip across the countryside from Whangarei to—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That answer is not going to help.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a reasonable question. [Interruption] Well, it was. Although the Minister might have taken too long to read some of the extremely strong quotes that were offered by some, it would be nice for the House to know exactly who said those things.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. It was an unreasonable answer. It went on for far too long, and I listened very, very carefully. I was left in little doubt that it was going to then be in breach of Speaker’s ruling 174/4, and I am sure that I am right. Point of order, Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, no. I would need to deal with the point of order first, I suspect.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not necessary to identify the source of the comments—

Mr SPEAKER: This had better be a point of order, Mr Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —because his face was quite red.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did not quite hear what the point of order was, but my question is: who was the genius personality who made those comments?

Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no ministerial responsibility for that.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does the Minister recall any reports of dozens of hoardings being erected in Auckland in 2013 with his mugshot on them that decried his policy of overriding the urban limits and advocated a compact city; if so, has he subsequently heard from the authors of those hoardings of any change in position?

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will deal with that point of order in a minute. As I call the Minister to answer that question, if it in any way breaches Speaker’s ruling 174/4 and is simply an answer designed to attack the Opposition, I will deal with it very, very severely. There is a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am very reluctant to do this, but no backbencher should describe a Minister as being a mug, no matter how appropriate the description might be.

Mr SPEAKER: That is hardly going to help the order of the House. Does the Minister wish to answer the question? I suspect it is very unwise to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I do recall those hoardings, although it was not my best side. There probably is not a best side in my case. In respect of Labour’s change in position, actually I welcome it, because we can now have a far more intelligent discussion about what will make a difference on housing to Auckland families.

Housing—Affordability and Availability

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement when asked about the housing crisis, that “the idea that suddenly happened in May 2016 is a figment of some people’s imagination”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I stand by my full statement, which was preceded by this: “I have been a member of Parliament for 26 years, dealing with constituency cases every single year involving families in desperate situations around housing, including people living in caravans and people living in garages, as well as cars. This is not new.”

Phil Twyford: What is the Government’s position on the housing crisis: Paula Bennett admits there is a crisis, John Key says “crisis” is an emotive word, and he says it is a figment of someone’s imagination?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Every one of those claims by the member were typical half-quotes. There is no question that New Zealand is doing well. Our population has grown by 70,000 over the last year and, particularly, our housing issues have become a real challenge in Auckland. I would also have to say that in Christchurch, where rents have dropped by 5 percent, the Government’s measures to address the housing shortages over the earthquakes has seen a drop in the number of people facing acute housing need.

Phil Twyford: When he accused the media this morning of inventing promises, was he denying that in last year’s Budget, he pledged 500 hectares of Crown land for housing but has delivered only 13 hectares, or was it just a figment of the media’s imagination?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge the member to go back and read the press release from last year’s Budget, in which $52 million was committed to the Crown land programme. All of that money has been spent on purchasing land, and that land is going to be providing houses—940 houses for Aucklanders—which I assume members opposite would welcome.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Has the Minister seen today’s housing affordability data from interest.co.nz, and what does it say about homeownership costs as compared with a year ago and when National came into office?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This independent index of affordability was previously named the Roost index, and it measures the proportion of a single person on the median wage to serve an 80 percent mortgage on a median-priced house. The index today stands at 58 percent nationally; it has improved over the last year from 62 percent, and it is about 20 percent better than what it was in 2008. The index in Auckland is currently 93 percent, down from 96 percent at the same time last year, and 101 percent of where it was at its very worst under the last Labour Government. This index shows, actually, that housing affordability, both nationally and in Auckland, has improved over the last year and is significantly better than at the time when Labour was in Government.

Phil Twyford: When he promised in his 2014 Budget initiative that he would knock $3,500 off the cost of a new home, was that a figment of our imagination, given that plasterboard costs alone have gone up by more than the total saving that he promised?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I absolutely stand by the initiative taken in Budget 2014 to take tariffs off building materials. The advice I have had from the ministry is that the reduction in those tariffs is within 10 percent of the estimates that I gave at that time. I totally dispute the member’s claim that the cost of plasterboard has gone up by 50 percent.

Phil Twyford: Is it not actually the Minister who has the overactive imagination, given that he dreams that houses can magically appear on cemeteries and exploding substations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would focus on the facts. The facts are that when Labour left Government, only 10 houses per working day were being built. The latest figures show that, in fact, 40 houses per working day are being built, and I suggest that that is where the answer lies.

SuperGold Card—Auckland Transport

8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and by saying so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if it is by saying so, how does he reconcile his statement of 6 April, “the entitlements for the SuperGold card are not changing.”, when over 650,000 senior citizens must spend $15 if they want to use public transport in Auckland after 1 July this year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because my statement was correct on the advice that I had.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know it should be a point of order, but it is a supplementary question. Why is the Prime Minister insisting upon his word, given only last month, when there is already a travel card that can be used by retirees all over New Zealand—and Auckland—and it is called the SuperGold card?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: These can continue to be used, and will be.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister saying that the SuperGold card can continue to be used in Auckland when this document here from Auckland Transport, coming out on Friday, says the very opposite?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member did not specifically ask me about Auckland.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the subterfuge of a needlessly expensive, gold-coloured HOP card going to replace the free SuperGold card retirees have been happily using for years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have had is that there are long-term benefits of using the HOP card.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the evidence, to go in behind these questions today, that is from the Auckland Transport release to be made this Friday, which totally gainsays what the Prime Minister said.

Mr SPEAKER: I just need the source. Were they—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Auckland Transport. This is the issue that is going out to every retired person—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the stuff available on the website?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it is not.

Mr SPEAKER: No? Then I will put the leave. [Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to table this particular information. Is there any objection? There is.

Roading, Auckland—Western Ring Route Motorway

9. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made on construction of the Government’s Western Ring Route motorway in Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Construction of the Government’s $2.4 billion western ring route has serious momentum. As part of the project, I had the pleasure of opening the $210 million Te Atatū and Lincoln Road interchanges alongside my colleague Alfred Ngaro. West Auckland is experiencing high population growth but many need to travel for work in the central business district, at the airport, and to South Auckland. The new interchanges will support this growth by freeing up traffic flow on the north-western motorway while the extended bus shoulders will improve bus journey times during peak periods. All up, the two projects will mean that traffic and bus services will be able to get to and from west Auckland more quickly and reliably.

Alfred Ngaro: How will the Government’s western ring route improve roading connections for those travelling in and around Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Once completed, the western ring route will be a game-changer in terms of the way people and freight move about Auckland, by providing an alternative 48-kilometre north-south route to use instead of State Highway 1. The new motorway will support the fast-growing western suburbs of Auckland and provide more reliable access to and from the city and Auckland Airport. It will also improve public transport and ease pressure on local roads. The western ring route is the biggest infrastructure project in New Zealand. It has been 60 years in the making, and I am proud to say that I am part of the Government of infrastructure that is delivering this game-changing motorway for Auckland.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Northland—10 bridges?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has had his series of supplementaries today.

Police—Funding and Burglary Resolution Rate

10. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she believe the Police have sufficient funding to meet the expectations of the public?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes.

Stuart Nash: Does she think that the closing of the Papatoetoe Police Station, in order to “reduce property costs,” has contributed to the solving of only 70 of the 1,020 burglaries in Papatoetoe in 2015?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Stuart Nash: Does she think that solving just 53 of the 1,013 burglaries in Glen Innes last year is meeting the expectations of the Glen Innes residents?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure it is not.

Stuart Nash: Does she think that solving none of the nearly 100 burglaries in the tourist spots of Russell national park, Arthur’s Pass, Lake Tekapō, and Te Ānau in 2015 is a result of underfunding of the police in these areas?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Definitely not. In fact, I would suggest to that member that if he considers that burglaries in those particular spots often occur in homes that are vacant—in other words, they are holiday homes—it is very difficult to get burglars when it is announced to the police and reported 6 weeks after the event.

Stuart Nash: Is the lack of funding the reason that, according to the New Zealand Police’s own annual report, “The Police employee to population ratio in New Zealand is low in comparison to most similar overseas jurisdictions.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Not at all. In fact, I would suggest that that member remember that this Government put 600 extra police on the beat—600 more than his Government ever did.

Cyber-security—Computer Emergency Response Team

11. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve New Zealand’s response to cyber security incidents?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): Earlier this month the Prime Minister announced that $22.2 million of funding would be provided in Budget 2016 for a new national Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) to combat cyber-attacks and cyber-crime. New Zealand’s CERT will receive and triage cyber reports, track incidents or attacks, and provide advice and alerts to its customers on how to respond and prevent further attacks. It will also be key to our international cooperation on cyber-security. Cyber-security is a growing issue for New Zealand businesses, and costs our economy an estimated $257 million last year. Our new national CERT will be a key piece of our cyber-security architecture, and the central place to go for help and information.

Todd Barclay: What are the next steps in setting up the CERT?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The CERT will initially be set up as a branded business unit within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to ensure that the CERT can be stood up without delay. It is also in keeping with our emphasis on the economic benefits of improved cyber-security and making the most of our digital economy. To ensure strong public-private partnership, we are establishing a CERT advisory board to advise us on the set-up and operation of the CERT, and nominations for this board close tomorrow. It is our intention to have the CERT up and running by March next year, while we consider what the best long-term structure should be for the CERT.

Child, Youth and Family—Death of Moko Rangitoheriri and Reform

12. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Social Development: In the revamp of CYF, will she be strengthening the appeals process for the review of decisions that may prevent incidences such as the death of Moko Rangitoheriri; if so, how?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): The death of Moko was a despicable crime, and we must continue to raise awareness of child abuse so that it does not happen again. I am confident that the coroner will conduct a full investigation into this awful tragedy. Unfortunately, no one raised safety concerns with Child, Youth and Family (CYF) around the care arrangements that were in place for poor wee Moko prior to his tragic death. If we are going to ensure that this does not happen again, we all need to realise our part and do everything that we can to protect the children and mokopuna in our communities. We must pick up the phone if we have concerns about the safety of a child. The design of the new system, including complaints and reviews, will be strengthened to ensure that the voice of the child is at the heart of everything that we do and that decisions are made in the long-term best interest of those children.

Marama Fox: Does the Minister, then, agree with her officials that more could have been done to prevent the death of Moko Rangitoheriri; if so, what is she doing about it?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My congratulations to all of those who stood up in the weekend abhorring violence and saying that it is not OK. But as I announced in the overhaul of the Child, Youth and Family system, we are going to move from a system that is focused on crisis to one that begins with prevention and includes intensive intervention, care support, youth justice, and transition into adulthood and independence. I am confident that that system will go some way to preventing such tragedies, but, at the end of it, we all have a responsibility to pick up the telephone when we have concerns for the safety of a child.

Marama Fox: How can she ensure that information that is sent to her and her officials about the vulnerability of children in CYF care, such as information sent to the Lower Hutt CYF office, is not lost and does not ultimately disadvantage children and their whānau?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I certainly take all information that is provided to my office seriously, and I am always willing to investigate if people have specific concerns, but I have to balance that with being conscious that with Family Court proceedings and with investigations that are under way, including the complaints process, it is sometimes hard to intervene.

Urgent Debates Declined

Ministry for Primary Industries—Independent Review into Illegal Dumping of Fish

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Rino Tirikatene seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision by the Ministry for Primary Industries to launch an independent review into its handling of the illegal dumping of fish in 2012 and early 2013. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility.

The big hurdle to get over in applications for urgent debates is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside. The test is a high one. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change for the matter to take precedent over other business. Although the announcement of an inquiry may warrant an urgent debate, the circumstances must be exceptional, especially when the inquiry may take some time to finalise. I am not persuaded that setting aside the business of the House for an urgent debate on this matter can be justified. The application is therefore declined.

Voting

Correction—New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, on 12 May when the House was considering the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill, the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a third time was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 95, Noes 16. The correct result is Ayes 95, Noes 26. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

In Committee

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the parts of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill to be considered as one debate with the questions to be voted upon separately at its conclusion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that course of action? And I am assuming that the member means the preliminary clauses as well.

Tim Macindoe: All parts and the clauses.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): So, just making it clear, the member has sought leave for the parts and preliminary clauses to be debated as one question, but for votes to be taken separately. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Recognising that we are going to treat the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill as one part for this debate, including the preliminary clauses, I want to make some opening comments about this debate. We have made it clear all the way through that Labour is supporting this bill because we think that it long overdue that the standards of New Zealand’s rental housing are brought into the 21st century. We believe that it is long past time for mandatory standards to be set for rental properties, public and private, and that there is a strong public support for the idea of making sure that rental properties—whether they are Housing New Zealand, the council, or community organisations, as well as those in the private rental market—are warm and dry. The reason is this: the latest estimates from Otago University are that 50,000 children are hospitalised every year in New Zealand, and many of them are hospitalised with preventable infectious and respiratory diseases that are associated with poverty, overcrowding, and cold, damp, mouldy homes.

We have had many debates in this House about this issue in recent years, and I have to say I am pleased to finally see the National Government acknowledging there is a problem that needs to be solved here, and this bill makes some attempt to set some standards. But we, on this side of the Chamber, are bitterly disappointed that the bill does not go far enough. We agree with the comments that were made by Dr Russell Wills, the Children’s Commissioner, who came to Parliament and said that Nick Smith’s Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is a broken promise to the nation’s children, and that it is a wasted opportunity to do the job properly. One of the things we are going to be talking about in this debate is what is not in this bill but should be, and we will be doing our best to link that to the specific provisions in the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member had better start fairly soon.

PHIL TWYFORD: What the bill does is set standards for insulation and that is good in itself, but the problem is that without setting standards for heating and for ventilation, all we are doing with this bill is insulating many houses that are cold and damp and miserable. That is why we believe there should have been ventilation standards in here and there should have been heating standards. That is quite doable, and much of the work has been done, particularly by the metro councils.

Five different local authorities have done a comprehensive trial of the warrant of fitness concept. There are lots of data that could be drawn on, including the Minister for Building and Housing’s own trial of Housing New Zealand properties, but, sadly, for a spurious reason—the Minister thinks it will be an unwarranted and onerous burden on landlords that may cause rents to go up, and we will deal with that argument in the course of this debate—this bill focuses far too narrowly on insulation standards, and there are many provisions in Part 1 of the bill that deal with the machinery that will implement those insulation standards.

There are other issues that we will deal with in the course of this debate. One of them is the grace period that this bill gives to landlords. There is a 3-year grace period. We believe that is far too long. A year’s grace period would be better, as is reflected in Andrew Little’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). We could then allow the changes to be implemented as tenancy agreements turn over. I think the average length of a tenancy is around 10 months. If you phased in the changes that are required when tenancies turn over, in a very short period of time the great majority of rental properties would meet the required standards.

The other issue we want to talk about in more detail is in the schedules, and it relates to the regulation-setting powers that this bill puts in place. It is quite sensible for things like insulation standards—and heating and ventilation standards, if there were heating and ventilation standards—to be set by regulation. [Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call the member, I do want to remind members that the Committee stage of a bill is not the point when members can speak about what is not in the bill. They have got to speak about the bill, the technical clauses in it, and the amendments to it. By way of advice, I would refer members to Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper to the bill and, in particular, the amendment to add subclause (2B) to clause 13, which probably will help members.

PHIL TWYFORD: The only remaining comment I wanted to make in the opening contribution is really about the regulation-setting powers, and to say that it is perfectly logical and reasonable for these kinds of standards to be set by regulation, because standards will change as new technologies, new design, and new products are available, and as social expectations develop.

The unfortunate thing in relation to this bill is that the draft regulations that have been released at the same time as this bill demonstrate an intention by the Government to allow a giant loophole in the insulation standards that this bill propagates. Unfortunately, it is going to allow hundreds of thousands of properties that are already insulated to the redundant 1978 standard, which is insulation that is not very thick, and the draft regulations, which have been released alongside this bill, will mean those properties will not have to be upgraded to the current 2008 building standard, which would allow insulation that is much thicker. This bill is, effectively, legislating into place redundant and inadequate standards for legislation. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I want to address my Supplementary Order Paper 172. It is quite comprehensive, and I will need to take a number of calls to describe its parts and why we think they are necessary.

What we have in New Zealand now in the rental arena is that we have moved from what used to be about 80 percent of New Zealand homes being owned and occupied by the owner and about 20 percent being rentals. That proportion has significantly changed over the last 20 or 30 years, to much more of a 60:40 kind of proportion. This has put renters at a severe disadvantage because the law has been designed around a very narrow set of residential tenancies, mostly in relation to State housing, actually, from way back.

So there has not been a significant upgrade in the rights of long-term renters in our law, and we see the effects of that through the failure of our systems, including enforcement by the Tenancy Tribunal, to make sure that rental homes are up to standard and are actually warm and safe and dry for families to live in. This is why, in part, we have such a major problem with poor-quality housing, because our law does not allow for tenants to be able to require landlords to take action. And although we do have the Tenancy Tribunal, for example, which is established for that purpose, as the proportion of tenants increases and the supply of rental housing decreases—we know we do not have enough for everybody who needs it—then tenants become increasingly vulnerable to landlords who are in it for a quick buck, who are not committed to making sure they are professional landlords and are doing a good job and maintaining their homes to a high standard. When it comes to looking at anything like a warrant of fitness approach to New Zealand’s rental housing, it is also important to improve the rights of the renting families who are in those homes, so that they can genuinely hold their landlords—and often their property managers—to account for the minimum standards that are set in the law.

The first of the amendments on my Supplementary Order Paper 172 is to clause 6. Clause 6 is about changes to the tenancy agreements. There are a number of changes that the Government wants to make, and I have a number of additions to them. These additions are about improving—they are a start; they are not the full story—the rights of tenants so they have some ability to hold their landlords to account, both for standards but also to protect their tenancy, so that they are not kicked out if they complain about poor-quality housing or a landlord’s failure to meet the standards.

The first of those additions is that a tenancy agreement must include a statement saying that when the tenancy terminates, the tenant has the right of renewal. This is particularly important for families. There are many, many thousands and thousands of New Zealand families now who will never own a home. They are permanently locked out of the homeownership pathway. They will always be renting—raising their children from little babies; through to when they eventually retire—they will always be renting. In those circumstances it is critical that families are able to secure themselves a long-term tenancy. In New Zealand the tenancy agreements are generally for about 12 months, so we do not have the kinds of long-term tenancies that you see in other places where renting has been part of the culture for longer, particularly in places in Europe. This provision, to enable a tenant to have the first right of renewal, means that that tenant can stay in their house. If the landlord is wanting to get rid of them because they want to put up the rent or they want to do something else with the house, well, actually, that house is now the home of the tenant. If it is better for the tenant and their family that they stay in that home—their kids are going to the local school, they have got access to local work, and they have built themselves a life in that community—then they should have the right to stay. That is the first change.

The second change is that the tenancy agreement must include the calculation that the landlord intends to use to increase the rent. One of the major problems that we hear from renters is that their rents are going up every 6 months, and they have absolutely no idea what is going to happen. We heard a terrible story, Marama Davidson and I, in Christchurch just last week about a woman who was renting a home. It had earthquake damage. The Earthquake Commission was finally going in to do the repairs. She had to move out. The landlord told her that if she wanted to move back in, she would have to pay another $250 a week in rent, so she is now effectively homeless as a result of the earthquake. This is because there are no protections for tenants, as a result of the earthquake. So this woman and her family are now having to find themselves a new home. This change would at least prevent the landlord from being able to say: “Well, we’re going to massively increase your rent, for you to be able to stay.” The rent calculation would have to be set into the tenancy agreement, so that tenants know how much extra rent they can expect to be paying, and when it is.

We would also, under this Supplementary Order Paper, restrict the number of times that a landlord could put up the rent—no more often than once every 12 months. That still seems to me a bit harsh on tenants, but landlords would not be able to put up the rent more than once every 12 months. This gives the tenants certainty—how much the rent is going to go up by, and when it is going to go up, and they can plan for that. It means they can plan their finances. They know the rent increase is coming. It is not going to come as a surprise. It is not going to come rapidly, time after time. They have got some control over it.

We would also change the tenancy so that is for a fixed term of 3 years as a default. That, again, is to help provide tenants with greater security. We are advocating these changes because one of the concerns that often gets raised is that if you have a warrant of fitness, even one as minor and as miserable as is in this bill, the tenants’ rents will go up. They need more protection, and there is not sufficient protection. The policy settings to provide sufficient protection are pretty tricky; it is not easy to find a solution to this. We need to get on the policy road of better protecting tenants’ rights, so that they can deal with these kinds of changes and make sure that tenants are secure in their homes.

One other thing we would do is get rid of the 42-day notice. There are stories after stories after stories of landlords who issue a 42-day notice to tenants, saying that their kid wants to live there or their auntie wants to live there. No such thing is really happening. The tenants have no comeback. They get 42 days’ notice to leave their home. These are people’s homes. If you are a landlord, you own a house. If you live there, it is your home.

We need to make sure that people are warm and safe and dry and secure in the homes they are raising their families in. There is a very significant list of what a comprehensive warrant of fitness would look like. This is a list that has come directly from the research that was prepared by the recipient of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize. I have a great deal of confidence—and clearly the Prime Minister has a great deal of confidence—in the research, the skill, and the veracity of this warrant of fitness list, given that it came from Philippa Howden-Chapman, who was the recipient of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize. I think this would be a great way, if we agree to the list in this bill, to recognise not only her skills as a scientist but actually the work that she does.

There are some basic things in here, because they are not provided for in the law, such as adequate cooking facilities. Those of us who live in our own home or have had the benefit of living in a high-quality rental property might not think that is important. But last night I was told a story by a group of students who said that their land agent refused to replace their stove. All they had to cook on was a gas element and a skillet—for 12 months. The land agent said the stove was a non-essential item, and refused to replace it. You can say that they should go to the Tenancy Tribunal, but then they risk losing their home because they have no security of tenure. So you cannot expect people in very vulnerable situations to hold landlords to account for this if they have to argue their case before a tribunal. We have to make it mandatory that the basics are provided: adequate food preparation and storage areas, potable water—there is no requirement in the law for drinking water to be in the home. Hot water—there is no requirement in the law for that. A functional toilet, a bath, or a shower—there is no existing requirement in law for those.

Fixed space heating is also in this list, and it is essential. It has to be adequate for the house. One of the critical issues we have found from the Emma-Lita Bourne tragedy was that this was a home that had a fixed space heater in it, but it was in the lounge in a two-storey, cold, concrete block terraced house. The heating got nowhere except—

JONO NAYLOR (National): I just rise to take a brief call at this Committee stage of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I just want to, I guess, from my perspective re-emphasise what a balanced, sensible approach this bill is taking. We have heard some contributions already at this stage implying that perhaps the lead-in times for some of the provisions here are too long, but I just want to remind the Committee that in some of these aspects that are being brought in—for smoke alarms, for example, which we know will save lives of people in New Zealand; we know statistically about people who have died in house fires where there have not been smoke alarms installed in rental premises—immediate action is being taken.

At the moment, what are we talking? We are in May now. By the time this bill goes through, 1 July this year, it is going to be mandatory for rental households to have smoke alarms. That is, I think, appropriate timing, because we know that there are immediate effects and immediate benefits that can be had. Of course it is realistic for a landlord to be able to have those checks in place to ensure that those smoke alarms are going to be in place by 1 July. It is a relatively low-cost thing that can be done and easily organised, and so of course we should ensure that that is put in place immediately.

Mr Twyford, in his contribution, thought that the lead-in time for the insulation aspects of this bill was too long. It is a little bit more complex when you are looking at insulation requirements than it is for smoke alarms. When it comes to smoke alarms, as I have said, they are low cost and easy to organise. But if a landlord is having to look at completely redoing the insulation on a property, it is going to take some time to organise—to assess the current standards and to also assess whether or not it is actually going to be viable for that to occur. I am sure as we go through this process there are going to be some things that need to be sorted out from time to time between officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and landlords as to what constitutes viability for the retrofitting of insulation, because not all houses are designed the same. We are going to need a significant lead-in time to ensure that this occurs, and also to ensure that landlords have put aside appropriate financial provision to enable them to do this.

One of the other arguments that I have heard that has been a bit concerning is that we are simply settling for a substandard level of insulation by requiring people to come up only to the 1978 standards. There has been a bit of misinformation that has been out there, and I just want to make this completely clear: if a house was built prior to 1978, it will need to be insulated up to the 2008 standard. So we are not simply settling for the 1978 standard. What we are saying is if it was built before 1978, absolutely it will need to come up to the 2008 standard.

However, if the house was built after 1978 and that insulation is still in good repair, then it will not need to be upgraded. That is because the cost of upgrading what may be a minor amount is not proportional to the benefit that will be determined from that. For example, if a house was built in 2007 and was not up to the 2008 standard but was close to it—not necessarily back at an absolute minimal standard, but because technology had changed over 30 years, a builder may have put something in that was more substantial than the 1978 standard—it would be absolutely impractical, it would be an excessive expense for very little benefit, to require that landlord to retrofit a 2007 house that has been insulated to a very good standard up to that 2008 standard. So, as I said, this is highly practical. It is highly feasible.

If you think it is all one-way traffic for landlords in this bill, it absolutely is not. There are going to be higher fines for landlords if they do breach any of these things. It is absolutely imperative that we have a big disincentive for landlords to breach any of these things that are being introduced through this bill, and so we are going to be increasing those top fines that people can be paying to ensure that they do comply and do go forward.

I just want to address a couple of things that the previous speaker, Metiria Turei, mentioned. The first is the idea of there sort of being a right of renewal necessary for tenants. Well, I can tell you, I have yet to meet a landlord who had good tenants in place and who, if they wanted to continue, would suddenly just terminate their tenancy at the end of their fixed term.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I am specifically going to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 172. I want to commend my colleague Metiria Turei for specifically focusing on a 3-year term. The reason I do so is that I have just read an extract in the National Business Review from Philippa Howden-Chapman’s book called Home Truths: Confronting New Zealand’s Housing Crisis, and, actually, the average tenancy is 11 months. The impact of that on families and on communities is pretty intense.

I specifically want to talk about a Child Poverty Action Group report called The revolving door: Student mobility in Auckland schools, dated May 2014. The impact of transience on our children’s learning is immense, and I am sure the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, would be interested to know that within that report, essentially, it said: “ ‘Overall, we found that student mobility often produces an array of negative psychological, social, and academic consequences for children…’ ”. But, surprisingly, in that particular report it was not just the children living in transience who were affected, it was actually the entire school community. So what we know is that stable communities produce better outcomes for the social good. And the relevance to electorates like mine in South Auckland is that our Pacific and Māori rates of homeownership are actually incredibly low—for Pacific it is 18 percent; for Māori it is 28 percent.

So this piece of legislation is incredibly important, and this amendment that Metiria Turei is trying to have endorsed here in the Chamber today is incredibly important. Allowing children to live in a home for 3 years is actually going to produce much better outcomes, and this is reflected in a Ministry of Education report from 2004. It came from an Education Review Office finding that basically said that carefully planned and sequential learning experiences were required for sustained learning that built upon previous learning. So the impact on our education system of having a housing system that does not provide stability to our most vulnerable communities and community members is incredibly important. The reason that I am standing up to support this particular part of Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper is that enabling our families who are the most vulnerable to have 3 years of living in the same home is actually going to have a huge impact on our children’s learning.

But not only that—we think that children’s learning actually starts as 5-year-olds or 6-year-olds when we have compulsory education, but what Shirley Maihi found, at Finlayson Park School, in my electorate, was that it actually impacts on early childhood education learning. So the compounding effect of children not having sustained early childhood education when they are 3, 4, and 5 then means that they enter the school system and they are already behind. The long-term implications for not enabling our families and our children to have some security in that tenancy are incredibly important. This then leads to the first part of Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper, which is that when the tenancy terminates, the tenant has the right to renew that tenancy, hopefully for another 6 years. So, in fact, we build an ability for families to create homes, to be part of communities, to be part of their school communities, and to have a secure base to be able to go to school from, and for parents to be able to get extra education and to go to work. But I think we completely underestimate how vital a home is in the overall development of our children and society.

I hope that people who are here today in the Chamber participating in the debate will take seriously the impact of insecure housing on the ability of our children to learn, because I think that it is missing in this whole debate. We are not talking or thinking about the ongoing consequences. We know there are 26,000 “neet” kids out there—kids who are not engaged in education, employment, or training—but they do not just manifest out of nowhere; they actually manifest because, fundamentally, at the beginning of their lives, those children do not have stable base, they do not have a home, they do not go to early childhood education, and they do not go to school. For people who think that this is irrelevant, I have got, within my electorate, kids who have been to—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Firstly, can I welcome the broad support for this bill across Parliament at the Committee stage. I will briefly summarise the key provisions in these Committee parts and then, just briefly, speak to the Supplementary Order Paper in my name.

This bill does five important things. Firstly, it requires smoke alarms in all tenanted properties by 1 July this year—thus, the priority for the bill. That is expected to save three lives per year. Actually, 75 percent of the fatalities that occur in fires in New Zealand are in tenanted properties. They are higher risk, and this bill provides the regulation-making power that we have in line, to bring that provision. The Government is particularly keen to get that provision in place by 1 July, as per the requirements in this Committee stage, because we all know that those fire risks are greatest during the winter months.

The second key requirement of this bill is a requirement for all homes to be insulated progressively over a period of 3 years. I do want to note that during the second reading there was some debate about the number of lives that it would save. I do want to correct something. At that time I said that the figure was 23 lives per year that would be saved as a consequence of the provisions. That was on the basis of a sample size of 30,000 homes. Actually, it is 180,000 homes, so my ministry has come back to me and said that the insulation provisions in this bill are actually expected to save 129 lives per year. They are very substantive, they are important, and I welcome the broad support for them.

The third provision in this bill toughens up the capacity for the ministry to be able to actually enforce the existing standards. We have housing regulations. They cover issues of heating, electrical, ventilation, and all of those things. The problem is not that the regulations are not there; the problem is a matter of enforcement. What this bill does is create the mechanics in the law to enable my ministry to actually go after that relatively small minority of slum landlords and ensure that those existing regulations are enforced.

The fourth change in this part is around retaliatory notice. I am sure a number of MPs have noticed the issue that when a tenant does choose to go to the Tenancy Tribunal and seek to have an application of those housing regulations enforced, there is a risk that the landlord will just give them notice. The provisions in this bill extend the period in which we can take a retaliatory notice application to the tribunal and the powers for that to be resolved.

The last, and the fifth, useful part of this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is to provide for abandoned tenancies. Nobody wins from properties sitting vacant for months. As a consequence of the fast-track mechanisms in this bill, it will improve that. The Supplementary Order Paper in my name, No. 177, does make some amendments that I wish to make plain as to their intent and what they do.

The first of those is in respect of the enforcement orders that are required in respect of the requirement to fix a property. It is making plain that those orders include those important new insulation and smoke alarm provisions. The second is an issue that has been debated, and we want to make absolutely clear that anybody upgrading the insulation of their property before the deadline of 1 July 2019—just 3 years away, and I remind Mr Little, who is in the Chamber, that that is a substantially faster programme of insulating houses than what is provided for in his own bill. What I am making plain with the Supplementary Order Paper is that any insulation work has to be done to the 2008 standard—that is, if you are a landlord and your property is not insulated at the moment, you cannot whip in and get some 1978 insulation and pretend that that meets the requirements of this bill. The Supplementary Order Paper makes that absolutely explicit: any insulation work has to be done to the 2008 standard.

The last point that I would like to make is that the Government is not intending to support the Green Party amendments. They go too far. Let me give a practical example: it would be illegal to rent a home if it did not have visibility strips, under the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper. Yes, we think things like insulation and smoke alarms are right. But I do note that the Green Party’s own offices do not meet—do not meet—the visibility strip requirements that Metiria Turei is imposing on others. We on the Government benches say: “Don’t put rules on others that you’re not prepared to comply with yourself.” It is exactly the same, I have to say, when I check these standards against my own private home—it does not meet them. We need to focus on those things that are the basic legal requirements, and that is what the bill does.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to take a moment to address clauses 6 and 38 of the bill, as well as Supplementary Order Papers 177 and 172. I just note that, notwithstanding what the Minister in the chair has just said—the requirement that there be insulation, and delegating it to regulation to determine what the standards will be—it is pretty clear that there will be ample rental housing that simply will not meet the 2008 standard that he glowingly talks of now. The reality is that his bill means there will be rental housing that simply will not come up to the 2008 insulation standard. But there is something that is even more disappointing, and that is that it is just confined—this bill and the new standards that rental properties must meet, whether income-related rental properties or not—the only additional standards they now have to meet are an insulation standard and a smoke alarm standard.

It has been alarming to see in the justifications that the Minister gives that they include—he made this statement on 19 April 2016: “These new tenancy regulations will make 180,000 homes warmer and drier by requiring insulation …”. I have news for the Minister: adding insulation does not make a house warmer. It will retain whatever warmth there is; it will retain whatever coolness there is. It will not add warmth. It will not make houses warmer, and so this is a lost opportunity.

When the Minister talks about houses that are safer because they have smoke alarms, he might just want to reflect on houses that, at the moment, are making people—including young children—sick and are therefore unsafe. He might want to reflect on what a difference he could make if clause 6, which refers to the tenancy agreements, and clause 38, which refers to the new powers for regulation making, in fact added a requirement that not only should there be insulation as determined by the regulations but there should be a form of heating as determined by regulations. The regulation-making power allows ample flexibility for him as Minister, or the department administering the legislation, to ensure that it is not just one form of heating that counts.

I know that part of his criticism of suggestions that other minimum standards should be added, such as a source of heating, is that it is all just about heat pumps—it is not. This is an opportunity for this Committee, with his bill, to get it right, and we could expedite this House’s time on my Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) by the Minister admitting that perhaps we can make some modest improvements now that would allow those standards to be added. The regulation-making power in clause 38 would allow ample flexibility, and provide some reassurance to that part of the constituency that he is concerned about who might be thinking that they could be put to extra cost.

I want to refer to Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper 172 because it does contain a list of additional standards that might be added. The Minister is critical, for example, of visibility strips. He is a former Minister for ACC; he will know from the data from ACC that a common household accident is people walking into ranchsliders and floor-to-ceiling glass. In modern architecture and with a growing number of people living in apartments—and if only there were more of them to alleviate the housing crisis that “does not exist”—we will probably see more of this, so, actually, visibility strips are not such a silly idea. It is, after all, an inexpensive idea.

I will just prevail on the Minister, while he is in the chair and while he has got the time and the attention of this Committee, that with this piece of legislation, at a time when the entire country is gripped by issues of housing, housing standards, and housing quality, now is a time for leadership. He is capable of providing leadership—it has happened before, I am sure of it. He could actually step up and say that insulation is important, but a source of heat, which is what the insulation is there to keep in the house, is equally as important, and those other standards that have been laid out in Supplementary Order Paper 172 are equally important, for safety reasons, for tenants living in rental properties. He could do it today.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the challenge from Mr Little. There is only one provision in his Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) that is not in the existing regulations, and that is the issue of regulating for a minimum temperature in a house. Members on our side of the Chamber say that it is not proper, in this bill, to regulate for a minimum temperature in a house. What Mr Little needs to go back and check is that housing regulations already require heating. It is already in the current regulations—not the regulations from this bill; it is in the current regulations. Heating, ventilation, absence of mould, electrical safety, plumbing integrity—all those things are in the existing regulations, so the Leader of the Opposition does need to do his homework.

The second point is this: the member has raised the issue of visibility strips, and it is not the view of the Government that it should be illegal to rent a house that does not have visibility strips. If people want to have them and want to advocate for them, that is fine, but I have to confess that my house does not have them. My office does not have them. That does not mean I am an irresponsible parent or homeowner. It is not the sort of thing that should be regulated for, and I am surprised that Mr Little is getting his party back into the nanny State routine of saying that visibility strips on all long glass windows must be provided or it will be illegal to rent a house.

The third point I want to make in respect of Mr Little’s contribution is that he is mistaken around the issue of insulation standards. Let me take him through it very simply: in 1978, when we first provided compulsory regulations—

Andrew Little: That one there?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, for that insulation. Do you know that that 1978 standard reduces heat loss by 84 percent—84 percent? The 2001 standard took that up to 87 percent.

Andrew Little: That one?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, that is the 2008 standard, righty-o? And here is the issue: why would you want to incur an expense of $3,000 ripping out perfectly good insulation to gain only a few percentage points in insulation performance? It does not make sense. It does not stack up to cost benefits. You are going to impose more costs on people than you are going to impose benefits, and this is where members of the Labour Opposition live in a world where when you impose regulatory requirements, no one gets the cost. Yes, you do. We need to—

Andrew Little: You’re going backwards, Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —we are going forwards. In fact, let me just tell you how far we are going forward: 300,000 homes insulated under—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to interrupt and admonish the Leader of the Opposition, mainly because the responses coming—[Interruption] Well, it is happening both ways. I remind members not to use the second person. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This bill’s provisions around insulation, around smoke alarms, around being able to enforce existing standards, and around the abandonment notices and the retaliatory notices are a huge step forward for the standard of residential tenancy agreements. I just encourage Parliament to support this bill, to drop the nit-picking, and to actually focus on what is a big step up in the standard of New Zealand housing.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I am going to focus on a different aspect of this bill. I am looking at clause 17 in Part 1, “Section 661 amended (Landlord’s ongoing obligations)”. This clause is in relation to compliance in respect of smoke alarms and the compliance issues imposed on the landlord by regulations. The issue I have, which I want to ask the Minister about, is that when we were going through the select committee process the regulations for smoke alarms had not yet been determined. As I go through the regulatory impact statement in relation to smoke alarms, again we seem to be presented with two options, but again a decision seems not yet to have been made about what the regulations will look like. So when we are considering these compliance issues we do need to know what the regulations are in order to know whether or not we actually agree with the regulations and then therefore agree with them being imposed on the landlords.

When considering the regulations, I do want to bring up that there was much discussion around the smoke alarm regulations, particularly in relation to having a period of time where landlords would still be able to use battery-powered smoke alarms. The issues that were raised by us on the select committee, and also by some of the submitters, were the issues with families being able to actually take the batteries out of the smoke alarms for other technical devices. It may seem ridiculous, and some people might say—I would not say this—that it would be irresponsible of those people living in those homes. But you can imagine where there are low-income families, then when you need a battery for another more urgent device you will take it out of a smoke alarm, possibly. So the issue around that was that there was more of a push for the photoelectric alarms. They have long life—10 years.

But in one of the options that we were presented with through the regulatory impact statement, they would not be required unless the current alarm or the existing alarm, which could be one of the battery-powered ones that I am talking about, needed to be replaced, and at that point the expectation would be on the landlord to put in a long-life, 10-year photoelectric alarm. It is really difficult for us to envisage how that could possibly be monitored, but that is what is in option 1 in the regulatory impact statement. So I would really like the Minister, Dr Nick Smith, to speak a little bit to that.

I guess option 2, which we are presented with in the regulatory impact statement, is even more concerning. Option 2 would involve the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) educating landlords and tenants on the benefits of installing smoke alarms and ensuring that the alarms continue to work over time. This option, as quoted in the regulatory impact statement, “is essentially the status quo, as the Fire Service currently runs a public information programme. It would not be a good use of taxpayer funds for MBIE to also conduct an education programme. Fire Service public information programmes have had relatively limited effect on reducing the incidence of residential fires among high-risk groups, including low-income tenants.”

From my perspective, option 1 is better but, given the problems with the battery-powered smoke detectors that we are talking about, I still think it is an issue. So I really want to know how far along the Minister has got with considering the regulations for the smoke alarms, so that when we vote for this bill, when are considering this clause, we will know absolutely what the compliance issues are going to be for the landlords and what regulations are going to be imposed on the landlords, because at the moment that is not clear at all.

I am going through the bill and I am wondering whether there are other clauses too—and maybe the Minister could enlighten us on this—in this bill that have regulation considerations that have not actually been entirely thought through yet. I think we need to know that. I think my colleagues and I will be going through this bill with a fine-tooth comb just to see where those areas may exist, because it is, as I said, very difficult to agree with parts of the legislation when you are not even entirely sure what the regulations will look like. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I am disappointed in Nick Smith—I really am—for two reasons: first, that we have a building and housing Minister who cannot tell the difference between a rental home and an office—and perhaps that explains some of the problems the country has when it comes to the housing crisis—and, second, that he would actually so devalue the lives of 500 children every month who are injured when they fall out of and, more important, through glass windows. I mean, this is 500 kids a month. It is about 120-odd a week, or 17 a day.

So today 17 children will present at hospital with injuries ranging from cuts and bruises from toppling out of a window, to severe slicing through their faces, arms, and legs as a result of crashing though glass windows and doors. That matters to me. Those 17 kids today matter to me, the 120 this week matter to me, and the 500 this month matter to me. The cost of preventing injuries to 17 kids today and 500 this month is that we require landlords, as part of their general maintenance of the house, where they have glass doors or windows that reach from the ground to 700 millimetres, because that is what the building code requires, to put in a visibility strip. It is like a slightly opaque kind of design sellotape. It is not tricky. It is not expensive. You can buy it from any hardware store in the country for a couple of bucks. That is one of the provisions in Supplementary Order Paper 172, in my name. That is all it would take, and that alone would help prevent 500 kids a month from going to hospital with bruises and cuts and severe lacerations. I think that is a win for our kids and a win for our families. I think it is a win for landlords.

Does anybody want to be a landlord whose tenant’s child smashes though a glass door and injures themselves or sometimes dies just because you could not be bothered getting some tape from Mitre 10 and putting in a glass strip? We do not want any of that happening in this country if we can avoid it. That is why we have regulations to help avoid these kinds of serious and expensive consequences from accidents like this. So I make no apology at all for wanting to protect 500 kids this month and 17 today from going to hospital because they fell through a glass door. So, yes, glass visibility strips are a critical part of a comprehensive warrant of fitness because they are one of the measures that will protect children from injury and help to save lives, along with a range of other measures that are also in these provisions.

I was talking earlier about Emma-Lita Bourne and about the fact that the home she was living in, which contributed to her death, did have a heater installed in it. But it was an inadequate one, and no proper ventilation, no certainty of being free from mould, and no proper insulation meant that that family could not heat their home adequately and save her life. So if we are going to have regulation around what landlords need to provide to keep their homes warm, safe, and dry, let us make sure that it actually will do that by making sure we include fixed space heating, effective ventilation, and a requirement that it is free from mould.

There are other aspects in my Supplementary Order Paper. Effective window latches—this is one of the major issues that were reviewed during the Housing New Zealand test around a warrant of fitness—actually led to massive insecurity of homes. It was a huge risk factor for burglaries, which made people feel insecure in their home. These are not difficult things to do. There are some other provisions in there that members can go through, like securely locking doors, fire egress, and, of course, fire alarms, because they do need to be installed as part of a comprehensive warrant of fitness.

I would remind us too, following on from Louisa Wall, that children aged between zero and 3 spend 90 percent of their time in their home—so 90 percent of a child’s time between zero and 3 is spent inside their house. The quality and the condition of that house is absolutely critical to their health. We can make sure through relatively inexpensive measures, good quality regulations, and careful thought that every single one of those rental homes that these little babies are living in is warm and safe and dry and secure for them to live in. The consequences of not doing so we see being lived out every day: 40,000 hospitalisations of children for respiratory illness as a result of cold damp homes.

If we want to understand how effective a warrant of fitness can be for that, the research on a comprehensive warrant of fitness has shown that in rental homes we can reduce hospitalisations of children by 19 percent—a nearly 20 percent reduction in hospital visits by children because of respiratory illness if we make sure that there is a comprehensive warrant of fitness for their homes. For a child who might be ill and go into hospital three or four or five times in a winter, that is at least one fewer hospital visit for that child. In terms of 40,000 hospitalisations a year, thousands fewer is what we are talking about—thousands fewer children going to hospital because their homes make them sick. That is a win for us. That is a win for policy. That is a win for the Government.

There is no cost here to the Government of a comprehensive warrant of fitness. It is not going to be expensive for the Government to require landlords to meet basic safety standards and have good quality homes that they rent out to families. Everybody wins. Landlords have better quality homes that over time they may well be able to rent for greater amounts, improving the value of their property. The Government wins by having good quality policy that reduces hospital visits, reduces accidents, and reduces the financial burden on hospitals and ACC. Families win because they know that their kids are safe in their homes, safe and secure, warm and dry.

So I find it impossible to understand why Nick Smith would pick on petty issues and make ridiculous claims about the provisions in my Supplementary Order Paper when he could choose to do something great for New Zealand families—something that is also great for him, is part of his legacy as a Minister, something that is great for the Government in terms of taking housing issues seriously, something that is great for families, and something that is great for the national budget—win, win, win. These are the solutions that the Greens are putting forward. They are good for the Government, good for our economy, good for our homes, and good for our families. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The major problem with this piece of legislation is not what it does but that it does not do it well enough. The main problem that we in New Zealand First see with it—we will continue to support the bill, but we are disappointed in it—is the issue about non-uniform insulation standards. This bill does mean that properties built after 1978 with insulation standards that were in force at that time will for ever be permanently exempted from modern insulation standards—for ever exempted from that—and that is completely unacceptable to us. We would expect that, over time, all properties should have to come up to those standards.

I listened to what Minister Nick Smith said about that, and the excuse that he gave as to why he would allow that situation to continue to occur in the future under this bill. I forget the exact figure, but he said that more than 80 percent of the modern insulation standard would be achieved by the 1978 standard. First of all, I do not accept that that is the case. I do not accept that that is anything more than just an estimate, and the reality is that that will be very patchy. There will be some well under that percentage and some, no doubt, considerably better than it. I built my home shortly after that time. I remember investigating standards and looking at what other people were doing, and I found that there was a huge array of different solutions to the insulation of homes, so, factually, I do not accept what the Minister said.

The other excuse that members on the other side of the Chamber have given for not requiring all properties to come up to modern 2008 standards is the cost. The claim was made that if that cost was imposed on people with properties built after 1978, then that would mean significant rent increases and that that would be a problem for renting properties, but that is completely untrue. That is not the way markets work, because once a regulation is in force, the whole level playing field just goes up a little. One property is not performing any better or worse than the other if that happens, and there are no grounds for one landlord increasing rents more than another. So market competition simply means that the market can bear a certain amount, and that is the amount that will determine the rent, not whether the properties are being improved in terms of their insulation standard. So for that reason I do not accept the National members’ arguments, either.

What does, of course, increase rents is house prices, and rents are based on the recovery of the cost of capital of houses. That, today, is what is really driving rent increases, and anybody with half an ounce of common sense knows that if we continue to get the magnitude of house price increases that we are currently getting, then inevitably that is going to push rents up and up and up, and little or no proportion of those rent increases will come from having any requirement for an improved insulation standard. That is the truth of the situation there. I think that the National Government’s arguments in terms of those exemptions—which is what they, effectively, are—for 1978 properties from having the current standards is simply unacceptable.

In fact, if the Government really was concerned about rent increases arising from having a requirement for properties built after 1978 to improve insulation standards to current standards, then why would it not, for example, allow landlords to expense the whole of the cost of that upgrade in the year that the expense was actually incurred? If that was done, then what we would see is landlords wanting to do this voluntarily, whether it was required in the regulations or not. I know that that is the case, because I have talked to representatives of the landlords’ organisation and they have said to me that for a certain specified number of particular improvements—like insulation, like improved heating facilities in homes—if they were allowed to expense those costs fully in the year that they were incurred, then those people would invest much more readily and much more willingly in the improvements to their homes.

So if the Government really is concerned about those issues, then that is the sort of thing that it would do about it, but we are not seeing that. So I do not accept at all the arguments that the Minister and the speakers from the other side of the Chamber have put up against requiring, over time, all properties to meet what we are calling now the 2008 insulation standards. There should be no difference, whenever the property was improved or whenever it was built. What I would say is that if a property was built after 1978, because the insulation standards were better than before 1978, I would think it would be reasonable to have a longer period of time for compliance for properties built after 1978—maybe 7 or 8 years, or something like that—but it should not be for ever. There should be a period within which all landlords know that today’s standards—the 2008 standards—are the standards that, ultimately, they will be required to have.

Furthermore, as technologies improve, we should improve those standards, and landlords should continue to have to meet those standards within a reasonable period of time, no matter what those standards are and no matter when a property was built. That has got to be the objective—uniform standards for all properties—so that we get this very essential requirement for insulation at the highest achievable standard that we can in New Zealand, and, of course, that will not be enough by itself.

I want to refer, lastly, to Supplementary Order Paper 172, because the part of that that I particularly want to see is that heating and ventilation must also be subject to minimum requirements for performance of a property in terms of heating and ventilation—not just a list that space heating, for example, should be required, but what the standard actually is. There is not much point in having very good insulation standards without having similar standards for performance of heating systems and for performance of ventilation.

That should not, of course, apply only to rental properties. We have to try to see that those standards get met throughout New Zealand’s housing stock as soon as possible because, as others have said, the cost savings and the avoidance of illness and the avoidance of a whole raft of social problems that arise from this lack of standards in New Zealand are fundamental problems we have to address in this country, and we need to try to get ourselves much closer to the kinds of standards that you see in North America, in particular, and in parts of Europe. So we need to aspire to that much.

That is why, I think, I am so disappointed in this piece of legislation, because it really does not go far enough. The Minister has criticised other parties for wanting to go too far. He should look in the mirror and see that the real problem is not them; it is him, for not wanting to go far enough.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to make some preliminary statements and then make reference to clause 4, clause 23, and clause 37 of Part 1, and then, if I have time, I do want to speak in support of Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper 172.

I want to put to this Committee that we have three significant crises that this country is facing. The first one is housing—the lack of affordable housing and cold and damp housing. The second one is the growing number of children living in poverty. The third one is the growing gap in equality. All three contribute to another growing crisis—that is, sickly and unhealthy children—but I am told by those in the medical profession that if we get the affordable housing and if we get housing to be more warm and more healthy, then we can fix the growing number of sickly and unhealthy children.

Firstly, I want to ask the Minister a question. In a statement that he released as a preamble to this bill he said that this bill was primarily about affordable or cheap insulation, and yet I heard earlier that he talked about saving lives. I want to ask the Minister: what is the primary focus of this bill? Is it about cheap insulation or about saving lives? I put it to you that if you are saying it is about saving lives, then I do not believe—I have to agree with my colleague who spoke earlier, Denis O’Rourke—that you are going to achieve that. And I do not believe the figures that you have put out, particularly when you hear the Children’s Commissioner say that as a result of cold, damp, and unhealthy housing we have 42,000 kids going to hospital and 15 deaths a year. Am I correct—it is 15?

Hon Member: Yes, that’s right.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: So I am asking the Minister: is it true that the primary focus of this bill is about saving lives, or is it true, what he released in a preamble statement leading to this bill, that it was about cheap insulation? I do not believe that you can have both. If you are going to save the lives of children and families at risk, then you cannot have the primary focus of this bill being cheap insulation. It concerns me what has been raised earlier, that those houses that were built prior to 1978 will get insulation retrofitted but those houses built after 1978 will remain as they are.

I have to say that many of the houses in South Auckland go back to the 1940s, but some of the new houses that come after 1978 do not have insulation. These were built—I think the Hon Maurice Williamson made reference to it—during the period of those homes that had the leaky home syndrome. These were the houses that were built during that era, after 1978—the 1980s. So those houses are not going to be healthy or safe for children if we are not going to compel their owners to retrofit them with insulation that is of the time. By leaving out those houses that were built after 1978, you have got a gap of 33 years.

I do ask the Minister: is this about saving lives or is it about providing cheap insulation? If it is about providing cheap insulation, there we go again—you lead yourself to the condemnation of the public, because the public will be seeing this, and they will say: “There he goes again—supporting his mates rather than doing the right thing for the country.” I want to, then, ask in terms of clause 4 of Part 1: do the provisions that extend insulation apply to garages and to sleepouts? Because—

Hon Member: What about cars?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: And cars—well, ha, ha! Right now, at this very moment, we have a number of families with children living in garages—garages with concrete floors. There is no insulation on the walls. There is merely a piece of iron around that, and a boarding up against the wall, but there is also no insulation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I want to rise to the challenge of the points that were made by both Denis O’Rourke and Su’a William Sio, who has just spoken. Firstly, he says the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is about cheap insulation. No, it is not. Let me be very clear: the bill and the regulations require that all insulation to be installed is to the 2008 standard—absolutely. He asks the question as to whether cost should be a factor in the policy making. Of course it should, because all costs that we impose through regulation of this sort are ultimately passed on to the tenant, and we have to be confident that the benefit is more than the cost. So here is my challenge for Mr O’Rourke and Mr Su’a William Sio, and it is this—

Hon Members: Sio.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —Sio—when it came to the earthquake-prone buildings legislation, this Parliament did not require that every single building be upgraded to today’s standard. Were we, as a Parliament, saying that lives do not matter? No, we were saying, quite logically, that there needs to be an upgrade of older buildings but that it is not realistic that every older building meets the same standard today.

I challenge the member on this point: the current new regulations require every home in New Zealand to have double glazing. Why do we not put in this bill that every house has to retrospectively get double glazing? If you want to follow the logic that you have advanced, which is that every building has to be to the same standard, that is what you would do. The reason we do not do that is not because we do not care about children or about home warmth; it is because we are economically rational. If we required every home to meet today’s standard, and to be double glazed—if you believe what you say, you would actually put in this bill that every home has to be double glazed, because that is the current standard. But we do not, because the cost that that would impose would exceed the benefit.

Here is the bit that I do not think is understood: the 1978 standard provides for an 83 percent reduction in heat loss. The 2001 standard—they are the facts; they are the technical statistics, the R rating. In respect of the 2001 standard, that takes it to 87 percent, and the simple logic is this: insulating the 180,000 homes that are not insulated at all, of which you are getting no reduction in heat loss, is where the massive gains are to be made. Members opposite are completely underestimating the challenge for the insulation industry to do 60,000 homes per year over the next 3 years, which, in my advice, is going to stretch that industry to its absolute limits. That is my view: the cost-benefit analysis is overwhelming in saying that the benefits come from those houses that are uninsulated. Furthermore, this bill requires that where the insulation from 1978 is not in fit and proper condition it does need to be upgraded, and when it is upgraded, it is upgraded to the 2008 standard. That is logical, that is consistent, that is the right thing for New Zealand families, and it is the right thing for New Zealand homes.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ka pai, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity. I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate, and I want to speak specifically to clause 37, in respect of the installation of smoke alarms. Minister Nick Smith has just mentioned to us that we are underestimating the cost, that it has to be economically viable and sustainable, and all of this choice jargon. I received a text message from one of my constituents who is actually watching right now in one of the libraries in South Auckland. Let me explain what is “economically viable” for that constituent—and it is a matter of dollars and cents, just as the Minister has already mentioned. In this particular clause, there will be an onus placed upon the tenant to replace flat batteries in the alarms. I understand the reasons around safety, because we do see a heck of a lot of unnecessary house fires in communities, whether they are rural or in the city, but this particular constituent of mine said that after his expenses go out for rent and for those urgent expenses that are required to maintain life for him and his family, he is left with $15—$15—to make sure he can put kai on the table for his family.

Although this might seem just a silly little bit in the bill, when you place an expectation on a tenant who struggles on $15 per week to feed their family, you place on them an expectation to buy, say, in a standard, three-bedroom home, three smoke alarms. You have one in the lounge or open living area—it usually covers the dining room as well—one near the kitchen, which makes sense, and, generally, one in the hallway, which will cover the bedrooms. I am afraid that the price of those batteries is just beyond the reach of some of our families. I know that sounds petty and minuscule to some in the Committee here, but I can tell you that if it is a matter of dollars and cents for those who come through into my offices then they struggle to meet those costs. They struggle to meet emergency situations—a flat tyre, for example—where costs are really high. Even the smallest of price increases in their weekly budget, which they must factor into their budgeting throughout the week or throughout the month—however they might be paid—just those small things are a real challenge for those people.

While continuing on this point, I want to consider the current crisis. I want, in relation to smoke alarms, think about the emergency housing situation. I also want to think about the emergency housing situation that is being met right now by the likes of Te Puea Marae. Some of the compliance requirements for those emergency houses—I know this legislation says “private rentals”—I wonder how we can then boost these kinds of protections for those who are providing these necessary services. Some of those people were mentioned by my colleague Su’a William Sio, who talked about garages and the need for those to be insulated and have a fire alarm placed inside them. That is even more important in my constituency, when I consider a particular house I recently visited. Will there be compliance requirements for that private rental property? The garage is also being rented out by the person who owns that property, so, essentially, there are two dwellings on the property where separate families are living. I wonder whether these particular amendments to the bill will require those other dwellings, like a garage—and like a carport, as we have seen very recently—to meet any particular standard that will provide a warm, safe, dry, and healthy home for those families and those resident in those homes; and safe by way of fire alarms.

I consider Supplementary Order Paper 172 presented to the Committee by Metiria Turei, and I think it is probably a fair reflection of what is not being done by this Government. Why? Because if you look at the Supplementary Order Paper, you will see a heck of a lot of recommendations—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE: Excellent, Mr Chair, thank you very much. You will see quite a large number of amendments being proposed in this Supplementary Order Paper in the hope that we can actually fix the problem—fix the problem, not tinker around the edges. This is because what this particular bill that we are debating at the moment proposes is a “steady as she goes” approach—that there is actually not a crisis. We will turn a few knobs here, pull a few strings there, in the hope that, longer term, we will have a solution to some of the issues. That is, literally, tinkering around the edges and not doing enough.

Now to Metiria Turei’s fantastic Supplementary Order Paper, which details what I consider to be some pretty standard human rights—some of them are as simple as adequate cooking facilities. I wonder whether there are kitchens in the sheds in South Auckland? Probably not. I wonder whether there are places where there is a bath, a shower, or a toilet with proper sewage disposal in a lot of those sheds that are being rented out as a second dwelling on one property? Probably not. So I want to support Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee today, and once again emphasise the fact that this bill just does not go quite far enough.

Just going back to clause 37: I know there are small, technical things in bills such as this, but the word “may” keeps coming up. I consider that the word should be “must”. It should be “must” in many cases, and in particular this one, where it actually forces the landlords who own these properties to comply and to make sure that smoke alarms go into houses. It sounds like a small word, but it is an important word in the scheme of things. I wonder whether Minister Smith or some of the other members from the other side of the Chamber can just address some of those things, because they are questions that we all have. They are questions around the safety of our families and they are questions that must be answered in order to fix this housing crisis.

I end by saying once again that this bill is just not good enough and it is not big enough. OK, we will be supporting it, but we do have huge reservations and we also have some other views that we hope to express. Kia ora.

ALFRED NGARO (National): It is quite an honour to be able to take a call. I want to start by first acknowledging the comment by Mr Peeni Henare, when he said that small things do make a big difference. I absolutely agree. For almost 20 years I worked in the community of Glen Innes—for a number of years—which had the largest State housing stock in New Zealand at one stage. Almost 2,500 homes were there. I know that, in working with a small trust with the families, the children, and the young people in that community, and wanting to meet their needs—I know there were many times that there were cold homes that I went into. There were homes in which there were people who were struggling, where there was poverty, and where there were issues.

Although the talk on the other side is about housing, poverty, and health conditions, I saw all those three things, and under a Labour Government of 9 years, not once did I see any change in that. I can name the streets: Fenwick Avenue, that is there; Flanders Street; and Ropata Avenue. Those are the streets with houses that families were in, and not once in those 9 years did I see insulation going into those homes, addressing the issues of poverty. Even the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report talked about how that needed to happen.

But I am talking about the bill here in its Committee stage. What is really important are the issues. I want to address the issues around insulation, because talking about insulation—there has been outcry over the fact that this does not meet the standard. I understand that many of those members may not have had the report. We know that the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) had a report and a survey. It said that there were 450,000 homes out there that needed some form of insulation. When Mr O’Rourke talked about the sense of uniform ability—well, if he had read the report, he would realise that at least 100,000 of those homes are unable to be insulated because of their physical dimensions.

I want to point to the two different sizes of insulation that have been making their way around the Opposition benches. Having come from a construction background, as an electrician by trade, what I can say to you is this: while they can bandy around and show two different forms of insulation, what they will not understand is that to truly insulate a property and a home, it is like, for instance, how you need to think about a chilly bin or a cooler. In order to get 100 percent insulation, you need to make sure it is watertight and airtight. You cannot do that in a house, but what you can do is move towards that with double-glazing of windows. It is insulation in ceilings and in the floor—that is what this Government is moving towards. That is what this bill is moving towards and has the best reasonable and rational point of view in what it is doing.

What do we say, then, to the point of insulation from 1978? Well, there was an energy performance survey that was done in which it clearly states that, obviously, from 1978, the sealing of the insulation that was installed to the new standard of 2008—when the Opposition members talk about it, they will keep holding up the two different levels of insulation. If you take the technical aspect—not just your own philosophy or ideology—the technical issue is that from that form of insulation to this form of insulation, the efficacy and the efficiency that you will try to gain is not there. As long as the insulation retains itself to that 1978 standard—to try to include that is not there. The technical aspect of different insulation does not weigh up.

Let us go a little bit further than that, because the BRANZ report clearly states this: the average cost of insulation is $3,400 per home, for ceiling and floor, right? Therefore, if you were to upgrade that form of insulation to try to get it back to what you would call the standard of 2008, what is the cost? It is $2,800 on average. Where is the cost saving in that? There is none. There is no cost saving.

But here is the question that Mr O’Rourke then brought: will that cost go back to the tenants? He said that of course it will not. Mr O’Rourke needs to realise this: over 70 percent to almost 80 percent of current landlords in New Zealand are who? They are mum and dad investors with one rental property. That is the average. They are good people who are out in our communities, who want to do the right thing, and who are doing the right thing. That is what we are saying inside of this legislation. If we are going to try to have a uniform response, to try to make sure that everyone has to impose these costs, then mum and dad and average investors will simply say: “We have to push this cost on to the tenant.” That is not rational. That is not reasonable. That is the reason why we believe the standards that we are taking are making a difference.

I just want to make some other comments in regard to regulatory powers that are inside the bill. There was the issue around ventilation. The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 clearly state the fact that households need to provide adequate ventilation and also the heating that is inside of that. The question was asked to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and it looked and reviewed this. What clearly came back from MBIE was this: that the cost that is incurred will be passed on to the tenant.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): We have had a lot of discussion about cost-benefit analysis, and obviously with any significant legislative change there is an expectation, not just because of the requirements around setting out regulatory impact statements, that at least some cost-benefit analysis is done. But it is really up to a Minister and a department to factor in the range of issues that they would like to include in that cost-benefit analysis. In this debate, an area that seems to be severely lacking in the Minister for Building and Housing’s logic around the cost of, for instance, including standards in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill around heating, or even including higher standards around insulation, is that it does not factor in the cost to the State in the cost-benefit analysis of some of the issues around living in cold and damp housing.

I would actually really like to hear from the Minister about what he considers to be an adequate cost-benefit analysis, because he describes this bill as economically rational when, for instance, the cost to the State of rheumatic fever for a child is between $300,000 and $500,000. Obviously, the Government does consider that to be a cost worth mitigating because why else would it have made it one of its Better Public Services targets. It has implemented ways to screen by swabbing children for streptococcus and treating children with antibiotics, but, actually, if we were serious about prevention in this space we would acknowledge that you cannot pick up a child who is not at school—because that is where the children are being swabbed—and so if you really want to prevent further incidences you would look to the source, which is cold, damp, overcrowded housing.

So I think that it would make very good sense to include in a cost-benefit analysis the cost of the diseases of poverty and overcrowding, but also those that are directly influenced by—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They have.

JACINDA ARDERN: If the Minister says that they have, I would welcome, then, further detail on why it is that in his cost-benefit analysis, where we have over 40,000 children admitted to hospital per annum, it did not make economic sense in his mind to add, for example, heating and higher standards around insulation in this instance, because—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s already in the regulations.

JACINDA ARDERN: It does not make economic sense for the State to bear the burden of that cost, because the ministry has made an assumption that if that went to a landlord—and I challenge this assumption—and we required landlords to provide a source of heating, they would automatically put that cost on to their tenants. I actually question that rationale. Alfred Ngaro has said that mum and dad investors are the people we are talking about here who would be impacted by changes like that—I do not disagree with that—and that they want to be good landlords, and those are the people whom we would be putting this cost on to who would naturally then pass it on.

I question the decision making there to assume that every single landlord would put that cost on to the tenant. I have been a tenant for most of my life living in properties outside of my family home. I have had continual upgrades to different properties that I have lived in. Not once has that upgrade come at a cost where that landlord has said to me: “Because I have made this adjustment to the property that you are in, I am now going to immediately charge you more in your rent.” I have not had that experience. We have made an assumption here—an assumption that we want the tenant to bear the brunt of poor quality housing, because the trade-off is that they will paying more.

Tenants are paying more because we have a housing crisis—let us be clear on that. That is the reason why tenants are primarily paying more. Why not have a requirement that landlords do right by their tenants, because, actually, I have a belief that there are a good number of landlords who would not necessarily pass that on. For those who would not—those who are the slum landlords—let us make them provide quality housing. What is wrong with that? Why should we as a State bear the burden of the cost of children being hospitalised whilst we allow landlords to get away with not providing quality housing?

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call on this. I want to address the Supplementary Order Paper that my colleague Metiria Turei has put forward. But before I do that, I just want to make a couple of general comments. I think I will start by saying that, essentially, what we have got in New Zealand is housing stock rental accommodation that is substandard. How do we know that? We know that because there are, according to the Children’s Commissioner, 42,000 hospital visits per year, with 15 children dying every year because of substandard housing with poor insulation. We know that because we have seen so many people who are desperate for housing who are living in sheds, who are living in garages, and who are living in caravans and even in cars. I blame this Government because it has not addressed the housing crisis that has enabled bad landlords to continue to provide poor rental accommodation. It is about time that we did something about it.

The Minister said earlier that we do have regulations. But they are being flouted. There are so many different examples of people who are living in substandard housing where, if there are regulations, their landlords are not meeting them anyway. I have examples of that in my own community where I have some friends who, essentially, were renting a house in which, in the end, they, basically, could not turn on the electricity because the wiring was so poor, let alone heat the home in the middle of winter. When they asked for that to be fixed, it just did not happen, and so they moved out. But the landlord put that property on the market and another desperate family moved in, with no repairs being undertaken whatsoever.

I want to refer to some of the submissions that came through that support the measures that my colleague Metiria Turei has put in the Supplementary Order Paper. These were particularly from the Citizens Advice Bureau that said that it has had a 40 percent increase in inquiries related to residential tenancies in the last 5 years. I believe that reflects the fact that there is a wide breach of minimum standards from landlords, and it is probably why the bureau supports more regulation for the protection of tenants. That is what we should be aiming at. We should be remembering that a home when it is rented is a home; it is not just a rental property and not just a way for the landlord to make money. If we focus on that, then we should be focusing on the rights of tenants as well: the right to warm, safe, dry, affordable housing is the first point, but the second point is around security of tenancy. This is why we have in the Supplementary Order Paper a right of renewal for tenants after 3 years.

I grew up in rental accommodation provided by the State through the railways. About 10 or 11 years of my life was spent in one rental property. That enabled me to go to one school, to have one community that I was part of, and to be very, very stable. We have seen through various reports the declining education outcomes from children who are shifting from house to house to house because their rental properties are not secure, and who have to move because they are facing rent increases. That is another reason why we want rights for tenants that include that any increases in rent need to be part of the rental agreement at the beginning. And it has to be justified so that we do not have families who are facing major rental increases, are unable to budget, and are having to shift into cheaper accommodation—and upsetting, interfering, and interrupting the education of their children.

When you move into a home, it is a home, and that means that you are part of a community—that is where the schools are—

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a genuine pleasure to speak to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. Can I refer to clause 38, which I think a number of my colleagues have referred to previously in the debate.

Like Denise Roche, who said in her speech that she grew up in a railway house, I too spent most of my younger years in a State house, in Christchurch. I do not think I left it until I was about 20. I think my parents moved in there about 1976, so it would have been prior to the 1978 age of insulation. I think my colleague Jacinda Ardern poses a decent question to ask of the Minister for Building and Housing around any work the Government has done around how this piece of work will make the lives of those people in low to medium income families better off and safer and healthier in those homes. The reason I ask that is that I grew up in one of those homes. I suffered from asthma; I still do to this day, and I think it is because of the lack of decent insulation my family home had that I still suffer from asthma from time to time—sometimes it is due to my own management, but most of it, I believe, is because of the home that I grew up in. I do not say that lightly. There were a couple of occasions, my late father told me, when the doctor said “Well, that was a close one.” when I was young, because I had such bad asthma attacks that I nearly died.

I believe we come to this House with a responsibility to make the lives of people who follow us markedly better. It is certainly one of the things I push for in my own electorate. With all sincerity and all generosity and fairness to the Government, although it is trying to make an effort with this piece of legislation, I do not think it goes far enough. I fear that the same kind of experiences that my family went through, with me having asthma when I grew up, will happen to families who grow up in the same poorly insulated homes, which we are allowing to continue to happen under this piece of legislation. On this side of the Chamber we have argued that as well as insulation there needs to be a decent mode of heating—something, again, that my family did not have. We had fan heaters, which cost us far too much to run—and I am talking here of the 1980s and 1990s.

I am asking, in all seriousness, why families who are on low incomes and in poorly insulated houses have to go through the same experience my family went through 20 years ago. Why should parents have to worry about their children who get constantly admitted into hospital with illnesses like asthma, like me—and in some cases those children will pass away, unnecessarily—because we here in Parliament have not learnt the lessons of 20 to 30 years ago? I do not think my parents overly enjoyed the experience of taking me to the hospital and seeing me nearly pass away from an asthma attack, yet in this Parliament we seriously think it is OK to let the conditions of a 1978 insulation standard continue to be OK for families here in New Zealand. It is simply not good enough. I was one of the lucky ones, but I still go to hospital every so often with an asthma attack. But why should we allow this to continue to happen?

Someone from that side of the Chamber—and they already have—stood up and said: “Well, what did you guys do in your last period of Government?”. Are we here to sit here and continue to play politics like that?

Hon Jo Goodhew: Ha!

KRIS FAAFOI: Is that all you are going to say? And there is laughter over there. But I do not think it is good enough that we allow conditions, in terms of heating and insulation, to continue to be those of 1978, 1980s, and 1990s standards. The Government members can laugh at my speech—they can say whatever they like—but what I think is that we deserve to do better for the families out there, like mine, who are living in these substandard conditions and who do not want their kids to go to hospital with life-threatening illnesses not just once but constantly.

I think we owe it to the people of New Zealand who are in these conditions and these substandard houses to make sure that they can live a decent life. I was lucky enough to do that because my parents cared for me and looked after me, and I think other families deserve that too. When people ask why I am a member of Parliament, I say it is because I got the lucky chance to have a decent home and be looked after, and I am in Parliament to be able to make sure we do better for the children in New Zealand. We can do better, and we must do better.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to talk, first and foremost, about something called a social contract. The social contract is a philosophical term, and it talks about the moral and the political obligations that are dependent upon members of society to look after the health and well-being of others. Basically, what it says is we have an obligation to build the sort of society within which we all like to live. This is where I think every single landlord understands the social contract, and if they do not we legislate to make sure they abide by the moral and social obligations that society has put on them.

I would agree with Mr Faafoi and other speakers that this bill does not go far enough in this. There is an implied social contract, and that is that a landlord will provide a tenant with a warm, dry, safe home. It does not matter whether it is a private landlord or the Government in the form of State houses. Insulation, I believe, is a fundamental part of that social contract when we are talking about tenancy and when we are talking about rental accommodation.

If we talk about the sort of society we want to create—and this is related to clause 38 with regard to insulation—I think that most of us find, for example, rheumatic fever, which is a disease of poverty, to be abhorrent. The cost to the health system of a child diagnosed with rheumatic fever, from when they are diagnosed to when they die about 50 years later, is about $1 million per person. It is extremely high. So I think we have to enforce this obligation on landlords to provide tenants the sort of warm, dry house the landlord himself or herself would be prepared to live in or put their own children in.

I am a landlord myself. Last winter I installed four heat pumps in a block of apartments. I can tell you that I did not change the rent one cent. The reason for that is that I reject the Minister for Building and Housing’s argument that if we impose a cost on the landlord, then that will only translate into higher rents, because what determines the rent is, in fact, the market. If I had said “What I’m going to do is I’m going to put up the rent by $3,000 a year for every single one of my tenants in this block of apartments.” they would have been well within their rights to say “If that is the case, then we are handing in our notice.” and I could well have ended up with an empty apartment.

For me—and I know for a lot of landlords—the ability to have tenants in there that are going to stay for a long time is much more important than ramping up the cost every single time I possibly can. I have not increased the rent at all, and yet I have installed four heat pumps. That is because that is how the market works, and I reject the notion that placing an obligation on landlords to provide warm, dry, healthy homes means an increase in rent, because that is not the case. The market determines the rent, and tenants have the ability, if the rent is too high, to say “I’m not going to stay here anymore.”

When we talk about insulation, the evidence is incredibly clear. If a person, or a child, or a family lives in a home that is warm and dry, then it is safe and it is healthy. My son is in hospital at the moment. I do not want to talk about my son—I do not want to bring my family into the debate—but on the wall in the children’s ward there is a list of 10 things that children need. One of those things is a warm, safe, dry environment. What children do not need is to live in homes that do not provide them with the sort of security they require to be the best they possibly can be.

I just think it is inherently unfair to not require landlords to provide that sort of house. Not to do that is manifestly wrong, and I think it breaches the implied social contract between society, Parliament, the Government, and those who rent a house for whatever reason. Let us be honest about this. We have talked about the housing crisis in a number of ways, and I would like to acknowledge, as someone who lives in Napier, that the housing crisis is not simply an Auckland issue at all. There are 130 people on the waiting list in Napier. This is a crisis that goes across the country, and I want that to be known because this is often assumed to be simply an Auckland crisis. It is not. But we must provide tenants with warm, dry homes.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take this call. The Opposition has been going on and on about heating and ventilation, so I would like to talk about clause 13, which amends section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which states the landlord’s obligations. Yes, the landlord’s obligation does not include heating and ventilation as a minimum requirement. There are significant reasons for that. No. 1 is the evidence. The evidence shows that most benefits, in terms of health outcomes related to cold houses, can be obtained by insulating uninsulated houses rather than adding heating to insulated houses. So it is based on evidence. Yes, I understand—it is technical. It is difficult to comprehend. That is why a technical advisory group was set up to look into the idea of a warrant of fitness. That group did come up with ideas for ventilating bathrooms, but later on dropped that as a minimum requirement because it realised that that is linked to the behaviour of the person in the house. So it will be the tenants’ obligation to ventilate the bathroom.

Given the lack of evidence of adding all of these requirements on top of the requirements that are in this bill, I do not see any sense in that. I do not see any sense in that. This is all based on evidence, and based on the evidence we are focused on insulation.

A second point I want to talk about is clause 6, and I also want to talk about the Green member’s Supplementary Order Paper 172. I do not support that Supplementary Order Paper. The Green member Metiria Turei says that there should be calculations indicating increases in rent. That is not possible because we cannot base this on any baseless assumptions that all landlords will be able to absorb the costs that we keep imposing on them. Every landlord is in a different situation. Some landlords can put in heat pumps and may not pass the cost on to the tenants, but others might have to, simply because they just cannot afford it.

The second thing is that landlords love to have long-term tenants, but sometimes, if landlords want their property back for some reason, they should be able to give notice to their tenants, to get their property back. Clause 6 also requires landlords to specify the extent of insulation. They are required to include that in the tenancy agreement. If the house is exempt from that requirement, then the landlords are also required to provide that statement in the tenancy agreement. That is a good thing because we are putting the responsibility on to landlords to assess the property and provide that assessment, and statement, accordingly, to their tenants. Yes, if tenants feel that they have been given the wrong information, that they are not satisfied with the state of the house, or that it does not match with the statement that is provided by the landlord, then they can get an independent assessment done. They can go to the Tenancy Tribunal and they can get a work order issued for work to be done on that property.

We heard about a warrant of fitness for houses. We have been hearing that continually from the Opposition. But the idea of having a kind of warrant of fitness—having an independent body assessing houses—is going to cost. Yes, it does cost. These things do cost. We did a cost-benefit analysis. Yes, cost-benefit analyses are important. You cannot dismiss them. The cost-benefit analysis said that it would cost $100 million a year—$100 million a year. Yes, landlords will pass that cost on to their tenants. So if I break it down to the cost per house, it comes to $225 a year for a tenant. This is without providing any additional benefits. So how is it fair to pass on this kind of cost to tenants, when there is no benefit for them?

The member opposite, Peeni Henare, spoke about a family he knows that is left with just $15 after paying their rent. This is $15 per week. If this cost of $225 is passed on to that family, they will be left with just $10 a week. How fair is that? It is not fair. We do not think that the idea of having a warrant of fitness is good. If I speak about the amounts for unlawful acts, I believe that they are very reasonable, after the changes that have come after the select committee process, especially for breaches under section 54(3), inserted by clause 15, for a retaliatory termination notice. We know that these kinds of notices are not uncommon. After looking at that, we decided to increase the amount from $2,000 to $4,000. Looking at other amounts that are there for unlawful acts, to make sure that landlords are complying and also to make sure that tenants are complying—for example, if tenants fiddle with their smoke alarms they can be fined up to $3,000. When looking at these things, I believe that this is reasonable.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): The Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, in his last contribution I think, if I am correct, urged the Committee to stop what he called nit-picking. I was kind of reflecting on this—that the Minister thinks that the criticisms that the Opposition have of his bill are nit-picking. We have a lot of fun on this side of the House, at the expense of Dr Smith. It is mostly because there is such a big gulf between the scale of the housing crisis and this endless procession of half measures that he brings to the House and to the public. That is why we have so much fun, at his expense.

Nevertheless, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill deserves to be treated with some gravity, because it is something. It is something. After prevaricating for several years, the Minister has brought a bill to the House that actually does contain some good stuff. It does actually set some standards for insulation and smoke alarms. It has comprehensive provisions that put in place the machinery of government that will be necessary in the future to administer and enforce some proper and decent standards about the quality of housing. That is something, and that is why we are voting for this bill.

But the sad thing about it is that it falls so far short of what the Minister could be doing. He knows that credible New Zealand research and evidence shows that $1 invested in retro-fitting houses, through insulation and modern, affordable heating, saves $5 to $6 in future public health expenditure. That is the cost-benefit analysis, and that is why we cannot understand, on this side of the Chamber, why the Minister is legislating in this bill redundant insulation standards that go back to 1978. That is the shame of it. When this bill passes—as it will because National has the numbers in the House—hundreds of thousands of rental properties in New Zealand that are currently insulated to the 1978 standard will not have to be upgraded to the current 2008 standard. That is the shame of this bill, and that is the poverty of ambition that underlies so much of this Minister’s housing policy.

The reason for the deficiencies, the rationale for the deficiencies at the heart of this bill, is that it would be too much of a burden on landlords. The Minister is clearly afraid that requiring, for example, a $3,000 heat pump will be such a burden on landlords that they will have to put the rent up. My colleague Stuart Nash has put paid to that assertion. We know, everybody knows, the Minister knows, that rents are set by supply and demand. Just because a landlord has to replace the roof because it is leaking, and spends $10,000 on replacing it, the landlord cannot put up the rent to recover that cost from the hapless tenant.

If you consider the case of heat pumps, a heat pump might cost, let us say, at most, $3,500. A modern heat pump would have a lifetime of 15 years. Over that time, across the country, an average rental property with an average weekly rent of $440 would generate gross revenue of $340,000. If it is an Auckland property, with an average rent of $520 a week, the gross revenue over the 15-year period, the lifetime of that heat pump, would be $400,000. To suggest that requiring a landlord to invest $3,500 in a heat pump is going to force them to put up the rent and throw the tenants out on the street, which is the argument that the Minister has repeatedly used, is a complete nonsense. It will not happen. It is simply a cover for this Minister’s refusal to do the right thing.

By taking this position, the Minister is standing up for slum landlords. As an earlier speaker said, there are good mum and dad landlords and professional landlords all over the country who understand the importance of making sure that their rental property is not a threat to the life and health of their tenants.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Mostly, I am proud to be in this House, but sometimes I am absolutely ashamed. People out there must think this is a place of such hypocrisy when they listen to this debate. We have spent tens if not hundreds of hours in recent times debating health and safety legislation in this House to protect the lives of New Zealanders, because we had a terrible tragedy in my area where 29 people lost their lives.

On this particular issue the Children’s Commissioner came to the Social Services Committee and said there are “42,000 [hospital] admissions” and “fifteen children a year die” because they are in cold, damp homes. This is an outrage. Where in the health and safety legislation did we say: “Oh, it is OK to have a few New Zealanders die?”. Did we say that? No, we did not. Yet in this legislation the Government is saying it is OK to let 15 children a year die—quoting the Children’s Commissioner. The Government made a promise to New Zealand children: “We will make your house healthy.” Three years on from that Budget promise this bill will do little for children living in cold, damp, mouldy housing. It is a wasted opportunity and a broken promise to our children. I do not want to be part of a hypocritical Parliament that on one hand stands up for the rights of working New Zealanders, which is good, but here today does not stand up for the rights of the 15 children who will die every year because this Government is not prepared to legislate for proper healthy, safe, and dry homes. That is what we are talking about here.

We have a Government that is running a review of Child, Youth and Family because there are faults in the care of children who need care. We have got people marching in the streets for the tragedy of poor Moko Rangitoheriri, who lost his life because of terrible, terrible domestic violence that is rife throughout our country. And so it should be that people speak out, but when we get to Parliament, where the Government has the right—the obligation, I would say—to put in place legislation that does the very best possible for young children in this country, it is failing.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Back on the bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It has failed, and it is on this legislation.

Just as the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy said we had to change legislation to protect New Zealanders in mines and other places, the Children’s Commissioner comes into the Parliament and says there are 42,000 hospital admissions per year and 15 children dying per year from houses that are not adequately insulated or heated. And this Government says: “Oh no, we have got to have an exception. We have got to have an exception for old properties and old insulation methods.” We did not say that in the health and safety legislation. We did not say that some could abide by a lesser standard and that is OK and we will allow those poor New Zealanders working in those conditions to take a greater risk, but we are saying that here in this piece of legislation.

The National Government has bowed over, once again, to landlords who are putting children every single day at risk in this country. It is not unusual, I have to say. I have battled to try to get lower speed limits outside schools. Somehow, whether it is because they do not vote or whatever, children do not get the same level of care and protection that they should.

This is an opportunity for the Government to show that it really does care and it does not just bring to the House hypocritical pieces of legislation—because that is what it is: moving one step forward, but leaving a big gap that most likely the most vulnerable children in our country, the ones who can pay the lowest rent in the oldest houses, will fall into. But, no, we are not going to give them a guarantee of warmth, of a dry home, or of a safe home—never mind the fact that the Government does not even want to give them a home.

This is a disgraceful piece of legislation, and the Government is not protecting the children in this country, which it should be doing each and every day.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. Putting in place a legal framework to ensure that residential tenants are renting safe and healthy homes is crucial. This bill proposes to introduce some useful provisions towards providing standards for housing in private rentals, but it does not go far enough in addressing the dreadful circumstances that many families are living in, especially as we go into winter.

I would like to tautoko my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians—121 of us chosen by our constituents to come into this Committee—to do our best to save children’s lives. When we sit on this side we hear members of Parliament, particularly from the other side, talking about the cost and how it is too expensive to heat and to insulate houses, but when you actually put to the other side that we are talking about children’s lives—children’s lives—we should actually feel a little bit ashamed, or maybe a lot ashamed, that we are not doing what we as responsible MPs should be doing.

Minimum insulation standards for private rental houses are a step in the right direction—they are. However, this National Government should do more. This bill proposes a minimum insulation standard. When you insulate a cold house, that house still remains cold. When you insulate a cold house but you do not put in efficient, modern heating, do you think that house will magically become warm, dry, and healthy? No, it will not. I agree with Dr Russell Wills; this bill should do much better for our children. This is a shameful bill. This is an opportunity to do right by our children, but we are not doing that. Rental houses need to be warm, dry, and healthy.

My question, as we talk about insulating houses, is whether we are also going to ensure minimum insulation for garages. Just this last week we saw so many garages where families are living. I do not think this current legislation actually covers minimum insulation for garages, but it is a reality that we have too many families living in garages, and as we go into winter we should also consider the fact there are families that have been forced out of houses—forced out of houses—to live in cars, as well as in garages. They also need to live in warm, dry conditions.

The Productivity Commission stated in its report on housing affordability that “Generally, the quality of New Zealand’s housing stock is considered to be poor.” This issue of quality applies to private houses as well as to Housing New Zealand State houses. In the Auckland Regional Public Health Service submission to the Health Committee, it stated that “New Zealand currently has a high proportion of unhealthy rental homes, and the average temperature in almost a third of New Zealand homes is below World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations.” The WHO recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18°C for most people, and if you are a child, if you are elderly, or if you are disabled, it recommends 21 degrees for a house. But in this country the mean temperature in Auckland homes, which is what was in this submission, is around 16.5 degrees; 16.5 degrees is pretty cold. That is something this legislation should actually cover: insulation as well as minimum standards of heating.

Clause 6 of this bill covers information that must be included in tenancy agreements. Clause 6(3) would require a landlord to describe the insulation that is installed at a property he or she is renting out. Omitting to provide this information would be an unlawful act. This bill came back from the Social Services Committee with an amended clause 6(3), where landlords would be allowed to state that, despite making all reasonable efforts, they have not been able to satisfy themselves of the extent of the insulation. So I worry that this is a fairly slippery set of requirements, whereby insulation that is too onerous—

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand and speak to this, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, in its Committee stage today. I want to take this opportunity to note my thanks to the Hon Nick Smith for being the driving force behind this sensible and practical piece of legislation. I am sure that the rest of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber join me in congratulating the Minister on sponsoring such a great and practical bill.

I live down the road from a small place called Ōtira. Back in the day Ōtira grew into a tent city as workmen inhabited it to work on the Ōtira Tunnel. In that tent city the women and children grew and worked and survived in canvas houses, and some of them who were lucky enough had wooden floors. So we have come a long way since those days, and the standards have improved over time and continue to improve. This legislation will provide yet another way for us to improve the living standards of those people who depend on rental properties—I am talking about 450,000 New Zealanders who live in those rental accommodations. This legislation is going to ensure that they are warmer, drier, and safer.

Currently the Residential Tenancies Act requires landlords to keep their properties in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and they must comply with a variety of standards. These include meeting the standards in terms of ventilation, cooking facilities, heating, and so forth. Today I would like to talk about smoke alarms. That has been a great topic of conversation today. It is one of the key objectives of this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, and it is designed to reduce fire-related fatalities and injuries in residential rental properties. As the Minister has noted already today, the highest incidence of those fatalities and injuries is in rental properties. Smoke alarms will be a requirement as of 1 July this year.

Insulation will be installed progressively over the next 3 years, and landlords will be required to disclose the extent of insulation in tenancy agreements. This offers openness and transparency to tenants as they enter into tenancy agreements. However, social housing landlords, who receive income-related rent subsidies, must install floor and ceiling insulation from the commencement date of this bill, which is 1 July. These measures, as we have heard from the Hon Nick Smith today, will save 129 lives a year.

I would like to go on to talk about some of the main changes that were made at the select committee stage. The Residential Tenancies Act will now have a higher maximum payment for two unlawful acts, in order to help address the natural power imbalance between tenants and landlords. The maximum amount payable by a landlord to a tenant in the form of damages for failing to comply with regulations about smoke alarms or insulation has been increased from $3,000 to $4,000. This is an encouragement to landlords to ensure that they comply with this potentially lifesaving requirement.

The other issue that came up at the select committee relates to retaliatory notices. We heard that some tenants are reluctant to bring complaints against their landlords for fear of eviction. We also heard that some tenants found the 14-day time requirement to appeal too short and were submitting too late. This time requirement has been extended from 14 to 28 days. The maximum penalty for a landlord who does give a retaliatory notice is going up to $4,000.

A third change that was made in the select committee process was to forbid and prohibit cash payments in return for work that was required on rental properties. A fourth change was giving landlords a specific right of entry for installation of smoke alarms and insulation, which brings it in line with repairs and maintenance. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much. You did have a choice, so thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do want to take the opportunity to respond to a number of the submissions made across the Chamber to clause 38, around insulation. The last speaker to make a contribution, Maureen Pugh, said that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill was “practical”. Unfortunately for that speaker, that is not what the Children’s Commissioner thinks. He said in his submission to the Social Services Committee, rather bluntly, that, in his view, “this Bill will not achieve improvements in the quality of rental housing and will not reduce the numbers of children becoming ill from living in cold and damp housing.”

I think the Children’s Commissioner might know a thing or two about keeping children safe and healthy. Although this Government may think that the bill is practical, the Children’s Commissioner disagrees with the Government, saying that it will not make any difference to reduce the numbers of children becoming ill from living in cold and damp housing—something that I think the people of New Zealand should take into consideration when they think about being practical and keeping children safe and healthy in cold and damp houses.

Also, in relation to clause 38, another one of the Government’s speakers said that, based on evidence, having a heater in an insulated home will make no difference at all—again, something that the Children’s Commissioner, at the select committee, disagreed with. He said: “… I would have expected to see the following elements included in the Bill: 1. A heating standard for all properties, not just those in which insulation cannot be practically installed. The health benefits of insulation come from the combination of insulation and efficient space heating producing a warm, dry living environment. It is well known that children, especially very young children, suffer significant adverse health impacts from living in unheated environments;”. I think, again, that the Children’s Commissioner might know a thing or two about the effect that heating may have on the health of children.

Also, if we are going to look at evidence, research by the University of Otago showed that insulating to the 2008 standard would reduce child hospital admissions by 6 percent, around 3,000 children each year. In rental properties this reduction would be about 19 percent. So, in terms of evidence and practicality, it seems the evidence is on the side of the Children’s Commissioner, and the practicality is only on the side of the Government, which is doing nothing in this piece of legislation to improve the lives of children living in damp and cold homes.

If Government members are going to stand up in this Parliament and say that, based on evidence, a heater will not make any difference to the lives of children and families living in insulated homes, I have got a challenge for them: take the heaters out of your houses and see how winter goes for you. See how winter goes for you, because that is the reality for many of the people, families, and children whose lives we are trying to make better here. So if we are going to look at being evidence based, go and live in your insulated—I am assuming—houses without a heater for winter, and see how winter goes for you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I want to pick up exactly where my colleague Kris Faafoi left off, because he is absolutely right. Just think about what it would be like to live in a home that may be insulated but without a heater. It does not make it any warmer, and that is exactly the point that we are trying to make in the Labour Party and the Greens—frankly, everybody except the National Government—in trying to promote and get through a bill that will actually make a real difference.

If you look at the statistics and you look at what this bill could potentially do for children—but does not—it could reduce the number of kids being admitted into hospital by about 6 percent, and by Otago University’s figures that would be 3,000 children a year. That is a very conservative estimate; there are others who believe that it could, in fact, be much more. Just think: 3,000 kids who will not need to go to hospital with rheumatic fever, with respiratory conditions, with colds—with problems that will get so serious that they need to be admitted. Think of the savings to the taxpayer on our health bill if 3,000 children no longer need to go to hospital. There is an overwhelming benefit to New Zealand in this bill being done properly. It is an overwhelming benefit because it costs the Government effectively nothing. I cannot think of a policy change that we could look at right now, that we could implement, that would have such dramatic impacts on the very people that we want to help most, who are the people who are living in poverty and living in rental accommodation. Another statistic—if you can keep this in your head—70 percent of kids who are in poverty are in rental accommodation. So we are addressing the issues affecting most those children who are living in poverty and in the worst conditions. Think of another policy that would be able to target them and have that dramatic effect as quickly.

My surprise is that I think this was brought up in 2013, and here we are debating it in 2016. I am thinking: 3 years? That was 9,000 hospital admissions ago. We have 16 children dying every year from poverty and housing-related issues. Just imagine—some of those kids might well have been here as a result of this. Three years at 3,000 hospital admissions. Think of the cost in dollar terms. Think of the cost in social terms. Think of the cost to those families of having to take their kids to hospitals because of not meeting the basic requirement of having a warm dry house. Many of my colleagues have already spoken about this and the fact that New Zealand is well behind in terms of the housing quality that we have here in New Zealand. This is an Act that has needed to be addressed for some time. I do not know why it has not been addressed more urgently.

Here are the three things that we in particular want to be able to see. We want to be able to see that when these houses are brought up to spec—when they are insulated and they are warm and dry—they are monitored by the local council, and there is an enforcement policy. I know—certainly from people who are coming into my electorate and talking to me about their housing issues—that many of them are too scared to complain to their landlords because they think their landlords will kick them out. In Auckland, where there is a real housing crisis—how anybody could not call it a crisis I do not know; it is a severe crisis—they are scared about complaining to their landlords. So we need an independent arbiter making sure that those houses are monitored and enforced. We need to heat cold houses, for God’s sake. It is all very well putting insulation and everything else in it, but we need to have a heating source so that those kids stay warm. And we need to make sure that the insulation is up to date—that we have 2008 insulation standards, and not insulation standards that are 20 or 30 years old. When I mentioned, at the beginning of my contribution this evening, being able to save—

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 172 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 10 May.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we now turn to further consideration of the Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill. When we were debating this bill, we were debating the question that Part 1 stand part. Before I call the speaker, who will be Stuart Nash if he wishes to finish his 2 minutes 40 seconds, I have a statement in terms of a ruling that I made when we were last debating this bill. You may recall that we had a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Julie Anne Genter and I ruled it out of order, being out of scope, out of scope of what the bill is. There was some discussion—quite lengthy discussion, in fact—and I said that I would come back and report to the Committee as to the rationale behind my decision.

To clarify the ruling that I made: the Clerk’s Office will draft amendments for members and circulate them even if they are not in order. It will advise the member that amendments in its view are not in order. The fact that it publishes and circulates a Supplementary Order Paper does not indicate that it is in order. Ultimately, it is up to the Chairperson in the Committee of the whole House to rule on the admissibility of any amendment. To be in order, an amendment must be within the scope of the bill as introduced—and this is Speaker’s ruling 131/4.

The Chair rules on scope by considering the amendment in light of the bill as introduced and the report-back from the select committee. An amendment that is outside the scope of the bill does not widen the scope of the debate on the bill—and that is Speaker’s ruling 132/1—nor does the debate determine the scope of the bill or the admissibility of amendments.

For a Supplementary Order Paper that is outside the scope of the bill to be considered by the Committee of the whole House, it can be done only by way of an instruction—and that is Standing Order 176—to the Committee by the House at the second reading.

Part 1 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 (continued)

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I must admit that it is difficult to stand in the middle of a Committee stage that I think we were talking about 2 weeks ago and hit it, because I was really hitting my straps, I remember, when we pulled up stumps. If you give me about 2 minutes, I will talk about what this bill is about, once again.

This is the Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill. The title is probably longer than a lot of matter in the bill. Basically, it looks at bringing the tax system into the 21st century. This is about simplifying the communication process, electronic signatures, and sending and accepting emails instead of written notices. In the tax Acts before this, if you wanted to officially communicate with the commissioner or vice versa, it needed to be in writing. It was required to be in writing. Now we are talking about emails.

As in all tax bills that have come through this House recently, we do think this is a missed opportunity because there are some huge, huge issues in our tax system at the moment that we know about: avoidance, aggressive tax planning to the tune of between $1 billion to $7 billion worth of lost revenue to our economy. And here we are talking about whether we should be saying “notify” or using other small terms. What I was talking about when I was interrupted by the bell is something that I think is quite important. This is clause 59 and this amends section RM 5. It is an amendment of the overpayment on income statements [Interruption]—it is, Mr O’Connor; this may affect you—in the Income Tax Act 2007. What it did say—

Grant Robertson: Very interesting.

STUART NASH: You are dead right, Mr Robertson. It is very interesting. It is a huge piece of legislation but also a very important piece of legislation. What it used to say was: “This section applies when an income statement has been provided to a person and the result is that an amount of tax must be refunded to the person. For the purposes of this section, the amount of tax must be more than $200.” As we know, $200 these days hardly pays for a good night out on Ponsonby Road. What they have actually done is they have brought it into the 21st century.

Let me provide a little bit of background. When a wage or salary earner—not a company, but a wage or salary earner—needs an end of year assessment they are issued with, or they can request, what is called a personal tax summary. If the result of this personal tax summary is a refund and they can confirm the personal tax summary, that refund will be issued automatically. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Stuart Nash.

STUART NASH: Ha, ha! Thank you for that vote of confidence!

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Your big moment!

STUART NASH: In the past, or before this bill—well, at this point in time, if the refund is less than $200 and they do not confirm their personal tax summary, then that money will be automatically released to the taxpayer—i.e., it will be put into their bank account or they will be sent a cheque after 30 days. What this bill does, and I think this is most important—it is sort of tucked away but it will affect a lot of people—is it proposes to reduce the time delay and increase the threshold, so credits that would be released in 15 days after a personal tax summary would be issued if the refund is less than $600. So instead of waiting for 30 days and not having to do anything if the refund is under $200, it will now be done in 15 days—15 working days, so it is 3 weeks; still a bit of time—but it is $600.

The reason I think this is important is that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) actually owes New Zealanders $750 million. Not many people know that—that the IRD owes New Zealanders $750 million. A good chunk of this money is owed to people who have paid secondary tax or other withholding taxes and do not actually realise that the IRD does owe them this money. There are not many engaged—well, there are a number, and I must admit that awareness of the personal tax summary, or the fact that there actually exists a personal tax summary, is increasing. There is no doubt about that, and what I will say to anyone who pays secondary tax is that I would absolutely encourage them to go to the IRD and request a personal tax summary. Even if it means that they do not do anything about it, they will come up on the radar of the IRD, and I would almost guarantee that if someone pays secondary tax they will be owed money by the IRD. If they do not do anything else except apply for a personal tax summary and they are owed $600 or less, then the IRD will automatically either (a) send them a cheque or (b) put the money in the bank account if the IRD holds that bank account.

The reason I say this is important is that what it does, I think, is it enables more people to become engaged and to get the money back that they require. I must say that the interesting thing about this $750 million is if a taxpayer owes the IRD money, the IRD will go after them to the ends of the earth. If the IRD owes the taxpayer money, then this falls off the cliff after 4 years. So if the IRD owes you money and it is 5 years since that obligation was incurred, then the IRD does not have to pay that money back. In fact, it does not pay that money back. I think this is wrong.

We have talked to the IRD about this and asked it what it is going to do in respect of actually going as hard to give taxpayers their money back as it does chasing the money owed. It believes that this new business transformation system should make it a lot more streamlined, and people should not be owed money, or if they are owed money they probably will not even have to request a personal tax summary. In fact, for me, the ultimate is to not even have to pay secondary tax. Secondary tax at the moment is a withholding tax that people must pay, because what happened in the past was if they were working two or more jobs, they were underpaying their tax and at the end of the tax year they were hit with a massive bill by the IRD—something they just could not pay. It was a withholding tax. So secondary tax meant that they did not end up with a bill, but what a lot of them actually have ended up with is a credit, but most of them do not know.

I have an incident of someone who was working for a relative of mine. These relatives were saying to this person: “Give the IRD a call. Go on.” She was very reluctant to. In the end she did and she found out that she was actually owed $800. That is not an unusual story. So to everyone watching—and I know a lot are—who pays secondary tax, just go to the IRD. In fact, you can go to the IRD—public service announcement here—website. As long as you have got your IRD number, put it in and it takes about 5 minutes—

David Bennett: How long?

STUART NASH: —about 5 minutes—after you have put in your IRD number to find out whether you have got a credit or not. Until the IRD becomes a lot more proactive in giving this money back, we have got to do it ourselves. I would encourage you all to do it. Or, as mentioned, what I would do is I would go to the IRD and I would ask for a personal tax summary. The taxpayer will then come up on the radar and if they are owed less than $600—

David Bennett: Is this the best he can do?

STUART NASH: —they will get it back automatically. It is very important. Mr Bennett here, on this side of the Chamber, is going “Oh, $600 isn’t important to good hard-working Kiwis.” I believe it is, and most people do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jo Hayes—stand up if you want to take a call.

Joanne Hayes: I do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You must stand up. If a member wants to take a call, they must stand up and call out. I cannot second-guess whether someone wants to take a call.

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

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

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

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to Julie Anne Genter’s amendment inserting new clause 45A, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173. This amendment is out of order as it is outside the scope of the bill, and I ruled on that earlier.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Tax Administration Act 1994

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of this bill. I want to focus my initial contribution on the section of the bill that deals with the communications framework, and in particular clause 74. It may come as a surprise to those who follow tax legislation intimately and closely that this particular clause tended to be more like an English grammar class. Chris Bishop came into his own during this period as somebody who was educated in the 2000s, when grammar was taught. I struggled because I went to school in the 1980s, when they had stopped teaching grammar at all, and so some of this was confusing to me, but—

Chris Bishop: It was a terrible Labour Government then.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. Well, that particular Labour Government—yes, Mr Bishop. But this was quite an interesting, and actually quite important, part of the bill. Essentially, what this was about doing was trying to simplify and make clear different forms of the ways in which the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) interacts with taxpayers and trying to bring that into the modern age at the same time as defining various terms. Essentially, what the bill did was to set up three tiers of interactions between the IRD and taxpayers, and it then sought to define those. The Finance and Expenditure Committee did actually come to the conclusion that we needed to amend aspects of this to make absolutely clear to taxpayers the meaning of these different terms.

So the three tiers that were proposed were a tier that included the terms “asking, requesting, or informing”, and any one of the following was a means by which you can do that: “by telephone”, “orally in person”, “by electronic means”, “in print”, or “in another manner permitted by the Commissioner.”

Kris Faafoi: What does that mean?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, that is right. You may well ask, Mr Faafoi, what it means. So we could take the example, perhaps, of whether or not John Key asked, requested, or informed Bill English that he was going to put tax cuts back on the table 3 days after Mr English had taken them off. He certainly did not notify him—which is something we will come to shortly—nor formally notify him, so he possibly did ask or inform him by phone, orally in person, by electronic means, and perhaps he texted him.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Semaphore?

GRANT ROBERTSON: He may have done that. So the lowest level of form of communication is asking, requesting, or informing. Then we include—

David Bennett: Tell us about your tax increases.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Bennett was all over the detail of this when we went through it, I can tell you.

Then we came to “applying or notifying”, by which any one of the following is an acceptable means to apply or notify: “by electronic means,” “in print”, or “in another manner permitted by the Commissioner.” So we have stepped up here, and you cannot do it by phone and you cannot just drop into the IRD and let it know. You actually have to do it by electronic means, in print, or in a manner that is acceptable to the commissioner. Then the highest tier of communications is that of “formally notifying”, which is to be “in print, delivered personally or by registered post,” but not by way of “email, the internet, or other electronic means.”

I guess in many ways that starts to show us the limits of what we were trying to do here in the Committee. So it is a recognition that most people are not going to fax through their communications. Mr Cosgrove might still fax people, as he does from time to time, but, actually, most people have moved on from that and, frankly, most people have moved on from using the post to communicate with the IRD. So these clauses do have a serious element, which is that it is time to bring the IRD into the 21st century and have email as an acceptable form of communication.

What we learnt in the committee was that from a tax accountant’s point of view, for those people who have regular interaction with the tax system, these terms need to have specific meaning within specific Acts. So the Tax Administration Act is one of those, but the Income Tax Act is one as well. And we had submitters come to the committee and tell us that unless those terms are notified this could provide some difficulty. They felt that the three tiers were not sufficiently defined within each of those Acts. So in a sort of belt and braces approach we now, by the amendment of the committee, have decided that we will define each of those terms in each place that it appears in taxation legislation. As I say, you might think that this is not an important thing, but if people fail to comply with what the IRD wants from them, there are serious penalties. If they do not know, for example, that notifying cannot take place by telephone, then they may find themselves in breach of various things. So it is actually an important thing to make clear to taxpayers that the way that they communicate with the Inland Revenue Department is confined—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Grant Robertson.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I tell you, there is more to come on this. So this, I think, is actually an important part of it. The—

Kris Faafoi: This is the soundtrack.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. This is only tier one notification, I can tell you. We have got more coming here.

Interestingly, the IRD itself was very keen to tell us that it was trying to put emails on the same footing as paper letters delivered by post, and I think, as I say, for most people that that is important. However, its highest level—the formal notification—is still done by post and not electronically. One day, perhaps, that will change.

There was an element of futureproofing, so there is some ability for the commissioner to be able to say that as new technologies arise and as new forms of communication occur they can be adopted into the practices of the IRD without necessarily needing to change the legislation every single time that occurs.

So that is an advance. There was a bit of confusion, I have to say, between the officials, our expert adviser, the submitters, and ourselves about the exact meaning of various terms. But under clause 74 and related clauses, I do believe that we have now found our way to a position where people will be able to understand what is required of them, and certainly it is now possible to use electronic means for at least the first two tiers of communication between the IRD and others.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Brilliant.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, and it is an advance. It is, to quote from the title of the bill, transformational, because that is the standard this Government has for transformation—the meaning of the word “notify”. We will come back, in a later debate, to the title of this bill, and I think this is the point at which we must acknowledge the radical transformation of the definitions of the words “notify”, “inform”, “ask”, and “request”. So well done, I say to the Government—radical agenda there! That will turbocharge the economy for you, right there!

The other point I wanted to make was related to this, and that concerns the use of electronic signatures, which have previously not been allowed but are now allowed under this legislation. There was some concern about the veracity of them, and about how they could be stored and so on, but actually, again, this is the modern world. An electronic signature is your own signature. In a whole lot of walks of life people use electronic signatures where they have obligations under the law, and there is no reason why the Inland Revenue Department cannot also be in a position to deal with that also.

The other matter—which I may not get to finish in this call, but I will certainly happily take up another call—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Have another one.

GRANT ROBERTSON: My colleague Clayton Cosgrove will want to talk about this because it was a matter that he was seized of when the committee considered it. It is the question of co-location of offices.

Chris Bishop: Oh, this is a cracker.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I know Mr Bishop enjoyed these discussions, as well. So the IRD—as are now a number of Government departments—is co-located with other Government agencies. In Christchurch, for instance, the Ministry of Social Development is looking at being in with the IRD, because they are the people who are going to be in the Christchurch central business district because Gerry Brownlee has forced all the Government agencies in there. So they are going to be working together, and there is an issue about the secrecy requirements on IRD staff versus the secrecy requirements on other Government agencies. We had a very long and in-depth discussion in the committee about how to manage this. And in the end what the committee came down on the side of was to say that IRD employees are not considered to have breached secrecy conditions “if they did not intend the breach and took the care reasonable for place and conditions to prevent it.” That notion of reasonable care was what the committee inserted into the bill.

There was considerable debate about this. Obviously, if you have knowingly contravened the Act and if you have deliberately gone out and broken secrecy rules, then there are punishments that should follow that. But where you are sitting in a co-located environment and you are having a conversation with one of your IRD colleagues about a taxpayer or a tax matter—which you are able to do—and you are both aware of your obligations, if there is a staff member of another Government agency within earshot, to what extent is it the responsibility of the IRD staff member to not have those kinds of conversations? You know, the nature of modern work spaces now with open-plan offices means that the risk of this increases, and, in fact, all of the co-located ministries and so on are starting to work in those environments.

On the committee we were concerned because the secrecy of taxpayer information is something we should all take seriously, and it is actually, more often than not, a higher obligation than that of other Government agencies. So we were concerned to make sure that we had adequate protections in place around both the understanding that taxpayers would have of how their information would be treated—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I want to pick up where Mr Robertson left off in his eloquent address and analysis of this bill—but in all seriousness, the point that he made should be made again, for the record of the Committee. The Finance and Expenditure Committee did take quite a bit of time to work through a scenario that, essentially, some of us felt at the time was providing less of an incentive, if you like, to comply with the law—that is, the penalty was less than it ordinarily should have been.

Those of us who were around in Parliament back a wee way can remember inheriting in 1999 an Inland Revenue Department (IRD) that had significant difficulties. John Perham, I think—if I recall his name correctly—was charged, as the Commissioner of Inland Revenue at the time, with trying to rectify many of those difficulties where there had been, in the 1990s, significant breaches of information. I do not think the IRD at that time had electronic fingerprinting, if you like—or footprinting, as it was—in terms of traceability of personnel who were accessing information. I know that the then member Rodney Hide, along with some of his cohort, was quite vigorous in illustrating some of the problems that had occurred, and, as I recall, some prosecutions came out of that.

It did test the select committee, and we tested officials, in terms of whether there were enough safeguards around these issues to protect taxpayer information. Regarding tax systems, as I have said in other debates, there are a number of principles: transparency, simplicity, and community confidence in them—but also that information is incredibly secure. One of the things that, I think—I am reflecting on Mr Robertson’s analysis of the various terms in clause 74 and the huge, precise definitions around those terms. Some of us struggle with the fact that the IRD and its Minister have taken great care over those terms—which is fair enough—but, it seems, there was a lesser duty of care around those other arrangements in respect of co-location. However, we have given the analysis and the recommendations the benefit of the doubt.

I think it is incumbent upon the IRD—to put on the record of this Committee—to take extra care. If you are going to be co-located and there is even the slightest chance of taxpayer information being inadvertently shared—and I make the point that I believe that, since the IRD has cleaned its act up from the 1990s, the IRD staff are pretty well exemplary in their conduct. They take a great deal of care, in terms of the security of taxpayer information. However, if you do move into a co-location scenario, things can happen. I, like Mr Robertson—and I am sure the Minister would share the view—do not believe that these things are intentional, but there is a tenet of law that says that the greater the penalty, the more care people are likely to take, because the circumstances they may find themselves in if they are prosecuted are far more heavy-duty than they may ordinarily be. That is a basic principle. So I think that, as we go through this, we would be grateful for some assurances from the Minister around taxpayer security, given the co-location issues, and I think it would be important to get that on the record of the House.

I think the bill is—I would not call it transformational, but certainly it updates many of the IRD systems. It is linked to the so-called Business Transformation programme, and I would be remiss if I did not ask the Minister, while we have got his attention, whether he could perhaps give us a quick brief on the expenditures in—to be fair to him—the mess that he inherited with the Business Transformation programme, which I think we are going from, what was it, $1.6 billion—

Grant Robertson: $1.9 billion.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —$1.9 billion, and then it went down again, and then it went up again. I am mindful of Novopay—without getting into that—and I am mindful of the difficulties the Police are having, as espoused today, with the PricewaterhouseCoopers issues and their payroll systems. We do have a track record in this Parliament, I have to say, on the National side, not on the Labour side, if you go right back to INCIS, of IT programmes just going right off the rails.

I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a continued assurance that we are not going to have money spent like water, because there is a large amount of discretion provided to the department—it is the expert, it hires the contractors, and it signs the contracts, not the Minister. With that discretion comes a huge amount of responsibility, and we would like to ensure that the dollars are accounted for.

I do not know whether I can enlarge on the eloquence of Mr Robertson, especially in respect of clause 74, but at this point I, like others—subject to those assurances from the Minister—support the bill.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would also like to elaborate on a couple of things that Mr Robertson has spoken about. As mentioned, electronic signatures—we have talked at length in Part 1 of this bill on how there is a move from requiring a written notice to the acceptability of an email or other electronic form of transaction. The reason for this is that it does bring it into the 21st century, and that is important. But there is a very important rider on that, and this is where electronic signatures come into play, because if an electronic signature was not acceptable, what it would in fact do is it would negate everything else in the bill in terms of an acceptability of the commissioner receiving the document on behalf of the taxpayer. So it is an important thing; it is an important measure.

I would say, though, that it does say in new section 13B(3), inserted by clause 73, that “When the Commissioner receives a document bearing the electronic signature of a person, unless there are reasonable grounds to suppose otherwise,—(a) the document is treated as signed by the person;”. I am not too sure what “reasonable grounds to suppose otherwise” might be. It may be, for example, that it is so out of character or that it is a piece of communication that is not part of the correspondence that is going on at that point in time. I think it would be quite good to clarify that, because “reasonable grounds”—it is the sort of “reasonable man” test in law. But what does define reasonable grounds for accepting or not? I suppose the one question I would have is that what I would not want to see is a taxpayer and the commissioner in court because the commissioner has said “Well, I had reasonable grounds for not accepting this signature”, and the taxpayer has said: “Well, it actually was me.” That is just my one concern—the definition around those reasonable grounds.

The other thing is, under clauses 71, 83, and 87—from 2001-02—this is part of the tax administration area to make it easier for taxpayers to actually get what they need. This is amendments being made to the Tax Administration Act to allow the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to provide a special tax code directly to the Ministry of Social Development to help people receiving New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension to meet their income tax obligations. What it does is it reduces compliance costs, it makes it a lot easier, and it requires a whole lot less obligation on behalf of the superannuitant or the veteran.

I would also like to talk very briefly about something that Mr Cosgrove mentioned and something Mr Robertson alluded to, and this is about disclosure of information. Crucial to this is the intention test. I think it is the only test we can have, and if it is proved that someone has intentionally disclosed private information then that person, under several different Acts and, I think, also under their employment contract, can have their employment terminated immediately. But the intention test is very hard to prove, and a classic case of this is actually under the Income Tax Act, where whether or not the sale of a property is subject to income tax is based around the intention of the owner of that property when they bought it—whether the intent was to make a capital gain or to buy it for rental yield. The interesting thing is that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has only ever successfully prosecuted one person for not complying with the Income Tax Act due to a misallocation of profits on there. We have to just be sure that the intention test is applied correctly.

What I would hope, and what I am assuming is going to happen, is that the IRD will actually issue a briefing note, if not hold briefings with all its staff, around what this action means. I trust the IRD, I think it does a fantastic job, and I would never question the integrity of its staff in any way, shape, or form, but what I would like to see, and what I would like to know, is that the IRD is taking this as seriously as the select committee took it, and, as a consequence of that, it does make very, very clear to its staff the rules and regulations around this. I have a suspicion that they know this anyway, but we do need to ensure that there is clarity, because the last thing we would want to do is have someone divulge information unintentionally but break the law, and then have to be dragged through some sort of employment court or employment dispute because the definition of intention is incorrect.

But, on that note, we do understand that what is happening with Government departments is very important—they are working closer together, and we do believe this needs to happen. Whether this is out of necessity—i.e. in Christchurch when different departments had to come together and co-locate, or whether it is just out of greater efficiency—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted, and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Chairman. I just want to touch on a few of the contributions that have been made this evening, and acknowledge the kinds of issues around the electronic signature problem that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has been working through over the years. And the reality is, in modern practice—and we look to most of our banks at the moment—we see there is very much a safe and appropriate mechanism for the electronic signature, and it is taking a while but we have got there. I think it is absolutely appropriate, which is part of the reason why New Zealand First is supporting the legislation.

But what I did want to touch on, in particular, because it is an issue—and it is still, perhaps, for me and for New Zealand First—that needs further exploration and some commitment from the Minister, one would hope, is the co-location and secrecy issue that was raised in terms of discussions within the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

So, firstly, let me put it into points. The conversation started with the fact that the IRD was going to have to share locations in terms of physical office space with different Government departments, and that would raise some privacy and secrecy issues. I just wanted to note, though, that the IRD considers that no amount of training, best-practice guidelines, or adopted behaviour is likely to adequately address the substantial risk of the IRD employees inadvertently disclosing taxpayer information to other Government employees in a co-location environment. So what we have here is the ministry itself acknowledging that this is quite a huge problem and there does not seem to be, even with the best of intent, the ability to mitigate—well, maybe mitigate is a possibility, but to eliminate these privacy issues is a real concern for the ministry itself and the staff involved.

So in the select committee we had very in-depth conversations about what that would involve. I note Mr Cosgrove made a contribution about that earlier in the evening. I would like to support his words because it was a contentious issue. What we have done within this legislation is we have said: “Well, actually, let’s acknowledge that this is a possibility. Let’s acknowledge that despite the best efforts of ministry staff, best practice, implementation, and procedures we will have issue.” So that is not a debate. I think that is perhaps the primary concern for New Zealand First. There will be an issue. There is no debate on that. It is how we get around the problem for individual staff.

So with great reluctance, as part of that committee, my contribution was to support and say that, yes, let us come up with some additional safeguards for employees if it was proven that they were not deliberately trying to disclose private information—that that was unfair and unreasonable to take them to court proceedings if that was established in the first instance. But as that conversation was fleshed out, actually, we decided that is what a court is there for. So the court is there to establish the intent and the degree of the intent, and if there was intent then the court would come down hard and appropriately on those individuals. Conversely, if there was no intent then the court would establish that and the argument would be that, well, clearly there was no intent, and it was a true mistake on behalf of the employee—“Why has it come to us? Let us dismiss it for the accident it was.” And yet, we have more legislation around this. I think it is quite an issue that needs further exploration and consideration from the Minister.

I think, in terms of cost saving, we may have gone a bridge too far; for the expediency around a few dollars we are compromising the privacy of New Zealand taxpayers. It is an important issue that needs, I think, more consideration from the Minister and the Government. But, in the main, when we consider that this legislation is about updating the technology and the practices available to the ministry, I think we can support it.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): You were spoilt for choice. Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually do want to pick up the very point that Fletcher Tabuteau was discussing, and that is the question of co-location, and perhaps go back to the beginning because I think there is some confusion here around the question of a deliberate breach of secrecy by a staff member, and an inadvertent breach. Currently, the Act applies only where someone knowingly acts in contravention of section 81 of the Tax Administration Act, which is about disclosing information that they should not. Should a breach occur, there is a legal process to determine, as Mr Tabuteau said, whether the breach was unintended or made knowingly, and then appropriate sanctions apply.

When we were discussing this in the select committee, the position we reached was that an employee could be judged to have knowingly contravened section 81 where the breach was inadvertent but it occurred where there was a real risk inherent in the co-located environment. As it says in our report: “For example, an IRD employee might be aware of the risk that a co-located employee could overhear information, but not be able to avoid that possibility.” So we acknowledge that but, obviously, we have an obligation to ensure that that information is held in appropriate secrecy. So that was the discussion we were having: do we need a threat of a sanction to emphasise the point that this is a really important area of confidentiality, and there is an increased risk with co-located departments?

At one point we almost discussed whether we needed the clause at all because, actually, at the moment the obligations on Inland Revenue Department (IRD) staff are quite clear; they know what they are, and they sign an enhanced secrecy agreement above and beyond what almost any other public servant would do. But the co-location issue means that there is now a set of increased risks around those employees. We did, on balance, decide to include the concept of taking reasonable care in that co-located environment. Quite clearly, for the IRD employees who have already signed their secrecy agreements, they are going to be taking care, but this is a clause that at least acknowledges in some form or other that reasonable care would be required. Again, to quote the most excellent report of the committee: “Being compelled to take reasonable care would motivate employees to proactively manage the risk associated with a co-located environment. It would also provide an additional safeguard against reckless and negligent behaviour.”

I do not want people to gain the impression that we think that the IRD staff are going around engaging in reckless and negligent behaviour, but that the risk of inadvertently giving information out needs to be considered. I do think it would be useful for the Minister, whom I believe may take a call, to just address the way in which the IRD is going to go about taking this into account. This applies to the wider Public Service in my view, as well—that although we are all looking for efficiencies that come from public sector agencies being co-located, we know in the regions of New Zealand there used to be large Public Service agencies in—I do not know, a city like Wanganui, until the Government tore them out and took them back to Palmerston North—places like Wanganui, where Public Service agencies come together as a matter of efficiency and ease for the public to use them, where there is a lot of information flowing around. We have been encouraging through legislation—including in this legislation, in fact—public sector departments to share information where relevant.

So we have got, on one hand, a level of encouragement, but on the other the risk that the information, particularly around tax, could inadvertently be shared. I know that those who are listening in on this might be saying: “Well, why is this such a controversial issue?”. It is because it is about sensitive taxpayer information. We know that every time there is a privacy breach—every time someone leaves a briefcase on Lambton Quay—this causes upset. Well, here we are with people day in, day out needing to talk about taxpayer information, but working now in an environment where people who do not have the same secrecy provisions in their contracts will be.

So we are really just looking for an assurance from the Minister that it is understood what has happened here. The select committee grappled with it and we came up with what we thought was a decent solution, which was to include a higher duty of care but not try to, effectively, criminalise people just going about their daily jobs. So I hope the Minister understands what the committee has tried to do here. We certainly support the co-location of departments, but when it is the IRD we do absolutely want to make sure that New Zealand taxpayers’ privacy is protected. Given that you have not rung the bell, Mr Chair, although you are just about to do that—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): I just want to address the three or four very important issues that have been raised either side of the dinner break. But before I do, can I thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their consideration of this bill. Tax bills tend to be reasonably dry things, but I think the select committee has applied itself diligently to some issues that have been raised both in the select committee and in the Committee of the whole House.

I will start with the point that Mr Robertson has addressed in respect of co-location. I want to thank the committee specifically for its diligent consideration of this issue, because I think we all understood what was intended. Firstly, co-location is not only about efficiency; actually, what we will be seeing—and indeed the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has the responsibility for the administration of things like the student loans scheme, Working for Families, and child support—is a significant overlap with the Ministry of Social Development and its roles and functions. So co-location might have efficiency in at least one office that it occurs in now, but it also has the potential to improve the quality of the service that we can provide to the New Zealand taxpayer. But I think that the committee was right to look carefully at clause 117 in order to ensure that we have the right balance between ensuring that due diligence takes place, because there is a higher standard of care that is required to maintain the secrecy of people’s tax records, and that inadvertent breaches do not give rise to an unnecessary punishment. I think the committee landed that clause in exactly the right place, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

The effectiveness of the amendment that the committee has made will be in the manner in which the commissioner gives effect to it. I am confident that she understands and will use her best endeavours to protect the integrity of the tax system, bearing in mind that the exception applies only to unintentional breaches—no intentional breach will be given the protection of this clause. I think that was understood by the committee, but I think that the question was more about the margins and what, effectively, constitutes “reckless” or “careless” and not really about understanding or applying oneself to that requirement as an IRD employee. I am confident, having spoken to many, many IRD staff around the country, that they take their secrecy obligations very, very seriously. I have yet to find anybody who is flippant about that. In fact, if anything, Ministers have found section 81 a very, very strong black box, and rightly so. However, I do note that later in the year, as part of the tax programme, we will be reviewing the Tax Administration Act, and so this is a nice sort of segue into a broader review, and the questions of the privacy of information are going to be foremost in that.

Can I turn now to the issue of electronic signatures because—

Chris Bishop: Oh, please do.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: OK, I will. Mr Nash made a very good point before dinner, and it has been followed up by Messrs Tabuteau and Robertson. I think he asked the question about what would constitute “reasonable grounds” for the receipt of an electronic signature, but he then went on to quote clause 74. That was inadvertent, I am sure, but clause 74 actually works on out-bound communications, so I want to touch on both of those things.

At the moment, we currently have an arrangement whereby a document might be deemed to be sent if it is sent to the last-known physical address, even if that person has moved on. We certainly need to update that, because the whole essence of this is to give effect to a much more modern tax administration system. I think it would be enough simply to say that if somebody has communicated with the IRD by email, then there are reasonable grounds to presume that the commissioner can then communicate back. In fact, registering with myIR requires an email address to be put on there. Once the identity of the registered person is verified, then I think it would be reasonable grounds to assume that the commissioner can communicate with the taxpayer via that email address. Even if the email address changes, the same thing would apply with the last-known physical address: that it would be deemed to have been sent.

It is clause 73 that deals with the issue that Mr Nash was raising in respect of what would constitute reasonable grounds for the use of electronic signatures in the receipt of communications from it. I think the same principle would apply, but the question then becomes one of identity—verification that the communication is from the source that it claims to be—because it is not difficult, actually, to purport to be someone else in an electronic world. There is, I think, an allowance for the IRD to place a reasonable reliance on the use of electronic signatures, because there is discretion, obviously, for a signature not to be accepted if the IRD has reasonable grounds to suppose otherwise; that might be inconsistency of information, such as having a separate communication from someone who was also purporting to be that taxpayer, from a different electronic source. But in the absence of a “reasonable grounds” test, the IRD would be prevented from actually acting on not accepting the signature, even though it had good grounds to suspect that it was from a fraudulent source—perhaps changing a bank account, for example, and then asking for a refund to be paid into a different bank account. The IRD has got to be very diligent in ensuring that it is on top of that. I think “reasonable grounds” is a well understood nomenclature in legal jurisprudence, so I am confident that the tests that will be applied will be effective ones.

I want to just finish by giving the Committee a brief commentary on an issue that Clayton Cosgrove raised before dinner, and that was on the issue of the update on Business Transformation. The essence of taxpayer security, the reliance on electronic signatures, and the things that this bill will give effect to are all predicated on a business transformation project the like of which I think the Government has not seen at all. The number was $1.5 billion; it is now down thanks to, well, excellent efforts by the Minister, of course, backed up by the IRD. But, actually, the fact that we are not building a bespoke system has, I think, a significant value-add, and I am satisfied that although this is a project that is not actually just about technology, this is about fundamentally changing the way the IRD engages with the many millions of taxpayers around the country—that real lightbulb moment where we are building our tax system around the needs of the taxpayer, not the other way around. I think that is a significant opportunity to materially improve the experience of interacting with the IRD. But it is a big project. It is risky. Mention was made by Mr Cosgrove of going all the way back to the 1990s and INCIS, and Novopay, more recently, but there are successes in Government IT projects—the ones you never hear about. Certainly, the department of immigration’s online system, version 2015, has gone extremely well. It is under budget, and it was just on time.

Clare Curran: Why don’t we hear about them then?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We do not hear about them, Ms Curran, because they are good news—they are good news—and, of course, good news does not make the front page of the Dominion Post, I have to say; bad news definitely will, and Novopay is a good example of that. But it is also true to say that Novopay was a good learning experience, I think, in making sure that we do not sign agreements before we know that the vendor is ready to roll.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Hipkins would agree.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mr Hipkins would certainly agree with that, I am sure. But I am satisfied, actually, that I have seen the whites of the eyes of the IT managers at the IRD—their blood pressure is normal; I test it every fortnight—and although we are still some months away from phase 1, the GST roll-out, I am confident that the Business Transformation project and the IT platform that will underpin these changes are well on track for a successful implementation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Rev. Dr David Clark.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is very kind of you to use my extended title. The Minister of Revenue has raised the issue of the rebuild, as many members before him have, and some of my questions that I would like some reassurance from the Minister on relate precisely to that same project. I wish to discuss—and I do not think anyone in the debate has yet raised these—clauses 59 and 116, which specifically point to changes in thresholds. Clause 59 amends the repayment threshold for overpayment on income statements. They relate to the personal tax summary.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Are they related to Part 2?

Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, absolutely, Mr Chair—clause 116 is absolutely in Part 2. The other clause is in Part 1, but it is the same general principle that is in both parts of the bill and relates to the thresholds. The basic issue, for those who are at home or new to the debate, is that if your personal tax summary shows that you are owed a refund, it can be automatically returned to you as a taxpayer. There is a threshold, which is currently $200. So if the refund is less than $200 and you do not confirm it through a personal tax summary interaction with the department, it is automatically returned to you after 300 days. If it is over $200, then you have to go through the process.

The proposal in those two clauses together amounts to changing that threshold to $600 and making the wait just 15 days. So if you are entitled to a refund you get it within 15 days, which seems to me, broadly, a sensible step. It is about reducing bureaucracy. It is about saying if it is below a certain threshold we should not have lots of bureaucrats batting backwards and forwards. It would be very odd, given the competence, historically, of the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), for that number to be wrong. “We should just get on and do it” is the basic premise, I take it, behind this change.

My one concern is whether the IRD can deliver on this, given the significant changes that are going on with the business transformation package that is before us, which the Minister has just spoken to, because we have had situations in this House in the past couple of years when the Minister—and the previous Minister is the one who has had to do this—has brought back child support legislation that simply has not been able to be implemented when thresholds have changed or when a formula has changed. We have passed a law through the Parliament, which is one thing, to say: “We’re going to change this to what we think is more sensible as a Parliament.” It is then voted upon, a change is made that looks sensible on paper, and then the Government has been in the distinctly embarrassing situation of having to come back and reverse out those changes because the IRD had not been able to implement them through the computer system. It has happened more than once.

What I would like to know—and I believe it was not discussed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—is whether the Minister has sought assurances that this change can be simply made and whether it can be delivered in the time frame, which, in the proposed amendment in the original commentary was 1 April this year. Clearly, that is no longer the schedule, and I would be interested in the Minister letting us know whether this is, in fact, still the schedule for delivery—whether it is a retrospective piece of legislation. I mean, it is a detail, but this is what we are here to discuss in respect of the committee changes. This is the kind of thing that could trip the Government up and see the whole legislation coming back to the House. If the Minister has not got that assurance, I am prepared to move an amendment that would either remove that or push out the date for implementation to a time when the Minister thinks he could safely ensure that change as a part of the rebuild without the embarrassment of having to bring it back to the House again, as has befallen the Government previously. The Minister, I see, has had some advice so I will look forward to his contribution.

I do not wish to prolong my contribution much further, only to say that if that is not deliverable, as I have mentioned already to the Minister, I would be happy to move an amendment that either changes the date so it can be safely implemented, or, if that is not necessary, I am sure the Minister will explain to us shortly. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Mr Chairperson, you are catching the eye of the Minister of Revenue there to see whether he wanted to respond to those questions—I am sure he will in time. I just have a couple of smaller, minor matters in Part 2 of the Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill to raise that have not been raised yet because the Government members of the Committee are assiduously promoting this piece of legislation that has come before the House, which they are obviously so proud to get up and talk about.

I want to talk about one matter that is actually a very positive and necessary development for a reasonably small group of people, but one for whom this particular clause matters, and that is around the question of special tax codes. This did occupy a little bit of time for the Finance and Expenditure Committee when we were working on it. Essentially, amendments are being made to the Tax Administration Act to allow the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to provide special tax code certificates directly to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to help people receiving New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions to meet their income tax obligations. These amendments are basically about reducing compliance costs imposed on superannuitants or veterans pensions recipients in providing the certificate to the MSD and removing any delay in the application of the correct tax reduction rate.

It is quite a specific change, but one that affects a group of people for whom the amount of income they are getting outside of their pension source, particularly, is often quite small, and there have been unnecessary delays in the relationship between the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and MSD in terms of providing the information that is required. So the amendments are going to enable the commissioner to provide a special tax code certificate directly to MSD when the superannuitant or veterans pension recipient has applied for that certificate and advised MSD they want the certificate to apply to their superannuation income or veterans pension income. Many electorate MPs in the House will have had the experience of someone coming to their office to talk about the issues that arise between making choices about these issues and how quickly you are able to access the money. So I think this will be a welcome change for those people.

There was one issue where it appeared, in the original drafting, we were limiting this to being in respect of having only one employer. If someone had more than one employer, that may have been ruled out, so a change has been made within new clause 84 of the bill to make sure the reference could be to income from one or more employers. That small oversight was one that would have led to more people coming back to Mr Woodhouse asking him to make it easier for them to be able to work between MSD and IRD. So I do want to, actually, congratulate the Government on that. It is a matter that has been of concern to those who receive veterans pensions, particularly, that there was unnecessary bureaucratic delay and unnecessary double-handling, essentially, of the issues of the income they receive. I thank the Minister and the officials for bringing that before the Committee.

The only other matter I wanted to raise in Part 2 relates to biometric information, and I do think this is one of those clauses we will come back to in time—we all know the use of biometric information is increasing all over the world. Every time we got to an airport, every time we enter all kinds of different buildings now, biometric information is used. The issue here was around the disclosure of biometric information and, potentially, the illegal disclosure of biometric information under the now famous section 81 of the Tax Administration Act. What the previous clause 117(5) of this bill did was authorise the disclosure of taxpayer voice biometric information to an officer or employee of a public sector agency. What the amendment the committee proposed did was specify that that data could be released only with the taxpayer’s consent and only for the purpose of verifying the identity of the client.

I know, as a lot of taxpayers are doing more of their interactions with the IRD online and more of their interactions over the phone, that there is an increasing concern about what happens to that data and what happens to that information, particularly in the days of identity theft and all those sorts of things—biometric voice data is now very significant in the interactions that you have. The committee again, not wanting to get in the way of progress but wanting to continually assure ourselves that we are putting the right rules around the use of this new information, felt that this was an additional safeguard that we could put in. The Minister of Revenue will be delighted to know that he will now be notified when biometric information is shared. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Grant Robertson.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Just briefly, the Minister will be notified now when the information is shared—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I should not have given him the call, because he has had four calls on this part and his time has expired.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I do want to press on the previous point that I was making, because I have also perused a bit further and I have got further concerns about whether this will be able to be implemented. I am going to cover a bit that has broadly been covered so far in the debate but from a different angle. It is in Part 2—quite rightly—and it is clause 71. We are talking here about software packages that are accepted and able to be used. I go back again to the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to work with these packages, and whether this will indeed be able to be implemented.

The point I did not make perhaps strongly enough in my previous contribution is about this particular change that is going on at the Inland Revenue Department, which the Minister spoke so eloquently about—in fact, about his own involvement in bringing the figures down from $1.5 billion to $1 billion. I would be interested to hear how he did that—whether he licked his finger and held it into a stronger breeze, or quite how he got to the $1 billion figure, because it is a fairly round number. That aside—no, perhaps the Minister would like to address that. Part of that change is actually about bringing that computer system into the 21st century.

The current system was designed and implemented in about 1993. That is 10 years, at least, before Facebook came on the scene. It is about the time that Excel spreadsheets were being invented and used. Certainly, things like Twitter and all kinds of other things that we use as MPs in our daily correspondence with constituents were not even dreamt of. The existing system we have known has been a legacy system that has not been able to deliver the modern tax system we need.

The Prime Minister said—I think it was in 2012; it was certainly on Valentine’s Day because I described it as a Valentine’s Day promise at the time, when I was the tax spokesperson for the Labour Party—that he would be horrified to think that policy was being held back because we had a computer system to deliver our taxes that was out of date. We now know, as I said in my previous contribution, that in fact some proposed tax changes have had to come back to this House, because they could not be delivered by the existing tax system. Again, here we have some more complex interaction involving software packages. I seek assurances from the Minister that he is confident these can be delivered.

In my previous contribution I talked about the changes in thresholds and the date of delivery being 1 April. Some at home may find it ironic that that is the date that is being aimed for by the tax department to deliver changes it has previously struggled to deliver. I ask the Minister whether he has sought assurances that these changes can be put in place without this legislation having to come back to the Parliament, to be reversed out again—and, of course, we know that has an associated cost.

The cost of running this Parliament is well over $1 million, I think, for every bill that goes through. I hope I am right in that. It is a figure I looked up a long time ago. I was certainly surprised at all of the departmental costs that go into it—the staff, the MPs’ salaries; the whole works of Parliament. Democracy is an expensive thing. What we do not want is duplication. We do not want to duplicate those costs as they go through. The Minister looks like he is ready to address the question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I will at a later stage.

Dr DAVID CLARK: He will at a later stage, he says. Well, I think the Minister ought to jump to his feet soon because the people who are following this debate will want an assurance that the Minister is concerned about whether this can be delivered and is not being frivolous with taxpayers’ money to simply ram a political point through, and that the system should be more accountable, should be quicker, and should be less bureaucratic. That political point has been made in this House before, and we have all carried the cost as the legislation has come back and we have had to reverse it out. Taxpayers at home have had to bear the cost of that. I think the Minister owes those taxpayers an assurance that the same thing is not going to happen again with this bill.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to other enactments

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): This is the first go on this part, so we will make sure we keep counting this time. I do not actually have many things to raise in Part 3 of the bill, but I do want to discuss the clauses relating to KiwiSaver, and in particular clauses 205 to 211, which relate to minors—that is younger people, as opposed to those down coalmines—opting out of the KiwiSaver scheme. The bill proposes a new provision that would allow minors who have been incorrectly enrolled into KiwiSaver to opt out before their 19th birthday. This would, as the officials told us, provide some protection to minors who may not know they have been enrolled, and want to exit the scheme. Members who opt out of KiwiSaver under this new provision will have the contributions they have made returned to them, their Government contributions will be returned to the Crown, and their compulsory employer contributions will be returned to their employer.

Members of the committee asked officials how widespread this problem was, because we did find it a little curious that we were coming to Parliament to debate, perhaps, this rush of young people being enrolled in KiwiSaver by parents over-eager to get them in when they genuinely did not want to be, or felt it had happened in an incorrect manner. Officials assured us this was not an enormously widespread problem, but there was a need to provide a provision for KiwiSaver members to do that. So new section 59CB, inserted by clause 210, will allow members who have been incorrectly enrolled in KiwiSaver when they were minors to opt out, up until their 19th birthday. They have to meet these criteria: they are aged under 16 and they have the consent of one of their guardians, or they are acting under their own authority, between 17 and 19 years of age.

I really do want to make a couple of points here. The first is that I do not think it is desirable to be promoting, in any way, the withdrawal from KiwiSaver of people who have been enrolled under the age of 18. The Government has withdrawn the kick-start payment, which was a very attractive reason for a lot of people to be enrolled before they reached the age of 18. I think that is a pity and a shame, and I think it undermines some of the improvements to the savings culture that have been developed as KiwiSaver has gone on. But we do accept that there may be situations where people feel the need to do this. I think it is important to make that point.

I am still a little bewildered about the extent of this and why it has come to the Committee in this way. Minors are only able to join KiwiSaver by directly contracting with a KiwiSaver provider, obviously, as they will not necessarily have an employer, and the providers have the ability to receive and review parental consent. That all should actually be happening. This is to try to cover a situation where, for some reason, a provider has decided that it is just going to accept someone coming in as a minor and signing up for KiwiSaver. The officials eventually said to us—and they say it in the commentary on the bill—“To date Inland Revenue has not received any complaints from minors who have been incorrectly enrolled into KiwiSaver through their employers.” That would be none enrolled through their employers.

So I think the extent of this problem is very limited, but I guess it is a good thing to ensure that people under the age of 18, particularly, are not exploited. The reason the clause goes up to 19 years of age, which we did discuss, is to give time for KiwiSaver members, once they have reached 18 years of age and are in a position to be advocating on their own behalf, to be able to get out of the scheme, should they wish to.

As I say, it is not a clause that I think we would like to see used very often, but it is conceivable people will find their way, through either a rogue KiwiSaver scheme, a rogue parent, or a rogue employer—although there are not any who have done that. It would seem an odd clause, but I thought it was worth noting that it is now possible under this section of the bill.

When the bill came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee we did consider that the wording of the bill appeared to treat an automatic enrolment as a mistake, and only if there was a failure to meet all of those criteria that I mentioned before rather than one of them, and so the committee altered the bill under clause 207 to ensure that if any of those criteria were failed, then the person who had been incorrectly enrolled had the ability to withdraw from the scheme. Unless the Minister of Revenue wants to clarify the extent of the thousands of young people writing to him with deep concern about their automatic enrolment in KiwiSaver, we are happy to support the clause.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I wish to disagree with the previous speaker a little. I think he may be understating the potential of this problem. The Inland Revenue Department may in fact be trying to cut off at the pass a serious concern about minors wanting to withdraw from the scheme. I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee so I will defer to those who have wider knowledge, but my concern arises from the fact that in the last Budget the Government cut the KiwiSaver kick-start.

The terms of the KiwiSaver scheme have changed. In Dunedin, my home town, I know that as a result of those changes 14,000—14,000—young New Zealanders, probably first-time savers, the majority of them, will have missed out on that kick-start payment. If someone signed them up and they thought they were going to get that, they may well have felt aggrieved and may wish to remove themselves from the scheme.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many thousand?

Dr DAVID CLARK: 14,000.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s unbelievable.

Dr DAVID CLARK: It is unbelievable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Doesn’t he come from Dunedin?

Dr DAVID CLARK: It is shocking—and the Minister comes from Dunedin. There are 14,000 people missing out on that $1,000 KiwiSaver kick-start as a result of the last Budget. It is indeed an outrage.

So I think it is entirely possible that young people who have been signed up to a scheme where they thought they were going to get a savings boost from the Government will find out later that the Government has taken it from them in the previous Budget, as is its wont at the moment. And goodness knows what we will find out later this week as it plays to the mega-wealthy. I mean, we have seen what the Government is doing with the Panama Papers, and so on. We will see what it does with the Budget this week, but I am betting that middle New Zealand will be cut out of the picture once more by this Government, which is increasingly arrogant, Mr Bishop, and out of touch. Mr Bishop knows it: he laughs, he laughs, and he laughs. He takes this lightly, but I genuinely think that New Zealanders will be disappointed—those people in the middle who are struggling to get by—and I think some of those young people who might have discovered that they have been enrolled in this scheme would quite rightly be aggrieved and may wish to withdraw.

I politely put it to my colleague that this might be an issue and that, in fact, it might be in the interests of Minister Woodhouse to play it down, because it is his Government that has robbed middle New Zealand and is making it tougher and tougher for them, so that it can look after its mates who are the ultra-wealthy. It is this Government that is screwing the scrum in favour of those who have privilege already.

It is my concern that this clause may in fact be there for the right reasons. I would seek the Minister’s assurance that that is the case when he delivers his short address on why the existing system will be able to deliver all the changes in this bill, because he promised me that when he interjected before. I am looking forward to that speech. I hope it is not the Minister just pushing this out into the never-never as though his Government is above explaining itself, because that is becoming a pattern that New Zealanders are becoming increasingly concerned about: a Government that makes changes and says: “Well, to hell with the rest of you. We’re going to make the changes we want because we do not want to engage with the public any more. We’re just going to make the changes that we want to do.”

I come back to the point that is around clause 213 in the bill, where those deductions can be looked at and people can withdraw from the scheme.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I thought it would be useful to carry on this discussion with Dr Clark, because I do not think we are disagreeing at all here, in fact. He does raise a very good point about the impact of the removal of the KiwiSaver kick-start on the very people whom clause 207 alleges to help. The Prime Minister stood up in this House and said that removing the kick-start would “not make a blind bit of difference” to the number of people who were joining the KiwiSaver scheme.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who said that?

GRANT ROBERTSON: John Key said that—he said that. It is interesting, Mr Peters, because he said that, and then we got, under the Official Information Act, the advice of his officials, who said that this would significantly reduce the number of people who enrol in the scheme. But Mr Key took his own advice—an unwise course of action—and said: “No, this is not going to make a blind bit of difference.”

Well, what occurred within a year was a reduction—and my colleague Trevor Mallard always says that you cannot have a reduction like this—of 182 percent in the number of 0 to 17-year-olds joining the scheme. In other words—[Interruption] I know, and Alastair Scott is making the point that there was a reduction of 1,188 people on the average new enrolments of 0 to 17-year-olds over the previous 12 months. It fell away. It has collapsed, and it has collapsed for a very good reason, and that is that the kick-start was an incentive to young New Zealanders to get themselves into the KiwiSaver scheme. So I accept the point that Dr Clark is making, which is that it is possible that some of those people who were enrolled will now feel aggrieved about the fact that they were enrolled, because they do not get that kick-start any more. I think that is a legitimate point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s been a kick in the guts.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It is, indeed, a kick in the guts. It is a kick in the guts for the savings culture that KiwiSaver has developed—the very thing that we have been so poor at in New Zealand for so long: saving. I know the member has a history of promoting savings in New Zealand and the importance of it, but KiwiSaver has made a real difference, and to see that kick-start go in the Budget last year was a huge disappointment to a lot of New Zealanders. As my colleague Dr Clark says, who knows what they will do? So I do just want to put on the record the fact that I share the concerns of Dr Clark.

What this clause did was create the process by which people could withdraw from the scheme up to the age of 19. I still do not want New Zealanders to do that. I still want young New Zealanders to be in KiwiSaver, because, long term, it is important to New Zealand that they are. It is just a pity that this Government has consistently undermined KiwiSaver over the last 8 years.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I think we are reaching a point of harmony in the Committee. It may just be a difference in emphasis. I ask Mr Robertson to consider that it will be, in my estimation, more than 30,000 first-time savers in the Greater Wellington region who have missed out on this $1,000 KiwiSaver kick-start as a result of the changes the Government had made since the last election, where it, increasingly, is skewing the playing field in favour of the ultra-wealthy and is letting people in the middle miss out. I think Mr Robertson and I are, indeed, in agreement that this will create some concern for people and that there may well be people who wish to withdraw.

I agree also with Mr Robertson that we should not be encouraging people to do that—that, instead, we should be encouraging people into savings, and that the movement that was started by the last Labour Government to really push a savings culture is one that is worth taking into the future. I guess we would encourage this Government to take up that cause. For starters, it could look at restoring the kick-start fund that it took out, because that is the harm that has been done. It has changed behaviour, and the Government has had the advice that that has changed behaviour. So that is where, I suspect, the concern from officials came—from the Government’s own advice. I mean, the Government’s best economic advice is that the damage the Government did to that kick-start scheme, which withdrew that entitlement for a lot of first-time savers, will have a lasting impact and that we will see it play out in different ways. So I suspect that is what is reflected in this.

Mr Robertson and I agree. Harmony is breaking out in the Committee, and, actually, Labour is supporting this bill. I think that is something we should also note along the way. We believe in a broad-based tax system that is fair. Of course there are aspects that we will disagree with the Government on. We do not think that it has the tax system right, but we do want to work towards simplification, and that is what a good deal of this bill is about. I am still looking forward to the Minister giving us some assurances that he can actually implement this legislation. I hope that he does not consider himself above giving members of this House and the wider public that assurance. It is a mistake his Government is slipping into, where, increasingly, it is seen as arrogant and out of touch. I hope the Minister himself will rise to the occasion and give that assurance. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are all glad that you are getting on.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): I am pleased to take a very, very short call to address the issues raised by the Rev. Dr David Clark in Part 2 of the bill, and specifically clauses 59 and 116—his challenge to me to verify—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Clauses 1 and 2.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, we are working on the commencement clause, which is why I raise it in this context. The member will note that clauses 59 and 116, among others, have a commencement date of 1 April 2016. The date 1 April has passed. The system changes that will give effect to this have already been made; now we need to give legal effect to it. These are system changes being made to the legacy system, not to the new system. They have already been made, we are ready to go, and the only thing holding it up is the passage of the legislation. I encourage—nay, I implore—Messrs Clark and Robertson not to delay it any further and to get out of the Committee stage.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I thank the Minister for that explanation. We will see whether, in practice, this is true. I suspect the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had given assurances around the child support legislation previously, which were amendments to the legacy system. Simply because they are amendments to the legacy system does not always make them straightforward—that is part of the problem with the legacy system. It is something that needs to be addressed and updated, because it is hard work to push changes through the system—at least, that is my understanding from talking to those technical experts at the IRD who make those changes. That is part of what needs to be rectified.

We need a 21st century responsive tax system, and this Government has, of course, delayed. It has been in Government for 8 years, and the whole time it has been here, it has had brought to its attention that the system is out of date. The Government has been very slow off the mark, and these changes along the way, which it has not been able to make, have hindered tax policy in New Zealand, and they have harmed the reputation of the IRD, which is no longer as strong as it once was. Its reputation as a place of fair dealing and of being easy to deal with has slipped under this Government, and I do not think that the Minister can duck that responsibility so easily. I do thank him for his assurance; he has, at least, sought some assurance that this will be possible to implement, but, of course, the proof will be in the pudding.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): In clause 1, I do want to refer to the title of the bill. It is the first and second words of the title of the bill that I want to reference: taxation transformation. Well, I think we have heard in the course of the debate tonight that it is the view of the current Government that the transformation of our taxation system relies on the definition of verbs—that is, going to transform our taxation system. It relies upon electronic signatures being allowed to be used—that is, transformation for this Government. It is about the ability of young people to opt out of KiwiSaver—even though none of them have actually asked to—that, apparently, is transformative as well.

Transformation of our taxation system will occur when the Government gets off its chuff and starts actually making people pay their fair share. Fundamentally, tax is the price of a decent society, the price of a fair society, and the price of making sure that every single New Zealander gets the opportunities that they are entitled to by being here. It is about making sure that everyone gets a fair go—

David Bennett: No, it’s not.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —and David Bennett does not care about New Zealanders getting a fair go. David Bennett is so out of touch that he does not think that transformation of the tax system in New Zealand actually requires people to pay their tax.

I will tell you what else would transform the tax system in New Zealand: when the Prime Minister gets up—he is talking about multinational tax avoidance—and says “Well, you see, the problem here is that the ethical thing to do might not be the legal thing to do.” How can those two things be different in a proper, functioning tax system: the ethical thing to do and the legal thing to do—they are not quite the same? If we were transforming the tax system—which is what this bill says in its title that it wants to do—then we would not have the Prime Minister standing up and saying that. We would have a Prime Minister who actually understands the difference between right and wrong and who actually understands that everybody paying their fair share is the core of our tax system.

With all due respect to colleagues who use phrases like “aggressive tax planning”, “aggressive tax planning” is people getting away with not paying their fair share. That is why members on this side of the Chamber have been so annoyed and upset with the blasé attitude of the Government to New Zealand’s increasing reputation as a tax haven. I know that the Minister and others will say “But we’re not a tax haven”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I just want to bring the member’s attention to the fact that a Supplementary Order Paper addressing the issue that the member is straying into has been found out of order. He was allowed the opportunity to make an aside. If he wants to continue to make this a bigger chunk of this speech, then I am afraid that he will have to sit down.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I am referring to the title of the bill, which claims to be transforming our tax system—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, make that argument then.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —and the transformation of the tax system we are looking for on this side of the Chamber is one where we can hold our heads high internationally. That would be a transformed tax system. A transformed tax system would collect the billions of dollars from multinationals that decide that they do not want to pay tax in New Zealand. Transformation would be about saying we stand for every New Zealander paying their fair share. Would it not be a great day when, rather than aggressive tax planning, we actually had companies and individuals in New Zealand who said: “I am paying my tax because it’s the right thing to do. I’m paying my fair share because it’s my contribution to society. It’s my way of saying I am part of society.” That would transform our tax system, not tinkering about the edges, not looking into whether or not different parts of the IT system work or not, but actually saying that our tax system is the fundamentals of a decent society, the fundamentals—

Andrew Bayly: Why don’t you just say it—you want to put up tax rates?

GRANT ROBERTSON: —of what allows New Zealanders to do that.

Andrew Bayly is talking to us here about the right and wrong thing to do. Andrew Bayly and his Government need to make sure that they are on the side of ordinary New Zealanders—

David Bennett: Oh, what a load of rubbish.

GRANT ROBERTSON: David Bennett reacts—the people who pay their PAYE every day of the week, those New Zealanders who do the right thing, who meet their tax obligations—and David Bennett would prefer to be on the side of the fortunate few who can hire an accountant and hide their tax. Well shame on you, Mr Bennett. Shame on you. If you want to transform the tax system, Mr Bennett, get alongside parties who want New Zealanders to do the right thing. [Bell rung] Mr Chair? There ain’t no one else.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to pick up where my colleague Grant Robertson left off, because he raised the critical point: this bill is called a transformation bill. I had a look in a dictionary for what “transformation” means. It is a very simple term. It means to make a “Marked change in the form, nature, or appearance of:”—“Make a marked change in the form, nature, or appearance of:”. It is not about a little patch-up here and there, which this bill is about. We approve of the patch-ups, but what we would like to see is genuine transformation, where people are actually encouraged to pay their fair share, where tax avoidance is not something to be sniffed at and laughed at, and where Mr Bennett does not chuckle away at the very suggestion that everyone should pay their fair share.

We want genuine transformation, on this side of this House. We believe in having a fair society, where everybody has the opportunity to get ahead, not just the wealthiest people whom National is alongside. We want a New Zealand where middle New Zealand has the same kinds of opportunities that the wealthy few whom those members on that side are supporting have. That is the kind of transformation we want and it is not in this bill, and that is why I contend that this bill is not named in an accurate fashion. We might be better to say “Incremental Change:”—the “Taxation (Incremental Change: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill”.

What we see in this bill is not genuine transformation. It is not changing those tax structures that enable tax planning aggressively to avoid paying a fair share. It is not addressing the issue of the way in which our society is becoming increasingly divided, in which we have got these growing inequalities where we have the lowest homeownership rate—

David Bennett: No, rubbish—rubbish.

Dr DAVID CLARK: —since 1951, Mr Bennett. It is not addressing those issues, this bill. It is an incremental bill, and so I contend it would be better named the “Taxation (Incremental Change: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill”. I look forward to the Minister’s consideration of this suggestion and to his thoughtful response.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I have got to confess that some of us are down here tonight for this debate on false pretences because we were told that National was going to introduce and pass through certain stages the Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill. That is why we are here, only to find out that we have been grievously misled.

You will recall there was a family down in Louisiana in the United States called the Long family, and Huey Long’s famous comment about taxation was—very much epitomised by the National Party attitude when on the hustings, until it gets in here—that taxation reform is very much like “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that man behind the tree.” That is exactly where we are now tonight, because when we talk about transformation it is quite possible that people out there who do think that the Parliament in this country has got some sort of credibility and is actually serious about the word “transformation” in the title. There is nothing very transformative in this legislation at all. In fact, all it epitomises is that in the 8th year of its term in Government, National is still flitting around the edges and does not quite know what it is doing, and it will probably be back in 6 months to change this as well.

And then, on the issue of simplification, let me say that we have more tax law than the United States.

Hon Member: No, we don’t.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We do so. It is more voluminous and more complicated than the United States, but, of course, over there if they catch someone cheating they put them behind bars for 10, 20, or more years. Here, we give them a knighthood or we cover it up. We do our utmost not to disclose it. Any transformation or simplification would certainly be attacking, for example, those trusts that are a big issue, politically, in this country, but which no one can mention tonight. With all that evidence glaringly out there in the public domain, with voluminous amounts yet to come soon to home in on all sorts of personalities in this country, and headlining the latest National Business Review on the front page, it does not make it into this legislation, which tells you that we may be wasting the taxpayers’ time and, indeed, the time of this Parliament.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Human Rights Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Human Rights Act 1993.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is pleasing to be able to have an opportunity to speak again on the Human Rights Amendment Bill, which was originally brought to this House by Judith Collins. I think it is interesting that—perhaps as we have seen with other transitions that portfolios have made between Judith Collins and the now Minister Amy Adams—there have been a few tweaks to this bill. I would say it has actually made a rather substantive change to the Human Rights Amendment Bill for the better, and it does not actually surprise me that Amy Adams has reversed a decision that was made by her colleague Judith Collins when it was brought before the House.

To quickly traverse the substantial parts of the Human Rights Amendment Bill—and the most substantive parts are contained in Part 1—currently the Human Rights Act 1993 does set out that there is room for the statutory appointment of two specialised commissioners outside the role of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. They are the Race Relations Commissioner—and, obviously, I doubt anyone in this House would dispute the need to maintain that role—and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, which is also a role that I think this Committee would probably agree there is certainly still an important place for, and a role that I think has been fulfilled very well by an ex-colleague from this House, Jackie Blue.

The Act as it originally stood also allowed some flexibility in additional commissioners that could be appointed. We had a situation where you could have three full-time and then up to five part-time commissioners. That allowed a certain flexibility to appoint commissioners based on what needs were identified by the Human Rights Commission and also flexibility in the employment arrangement—which seems fitting for the Human Rights Commission given the fact that there were part-time roles available, dependent, obviously, on the priority of those commissioner roles.

What this bill does, however, is substantially change that flexibility. It provides different designations. Well, actually, it removes designations in its original form and reduces down the number of commissioners who can be available. So where we had a situation where there were three full-time and up to five part-time, we moved to the situation that we have according to clause 6 of the bill, which sets out the membership of the commission. Clause 6(1) states: “The Commission consists of the following Human Rights Commissioners: (a) the Chief Commissioner; and (b) not less than 3 and not more than 4 other Commissioners.” So there is a substantive change in the amount of flexibility going from three full-time and up to five part-time—a total of eight different designations that could be held.

I think something important here, as well, is that removing part-time options does remove the flexibility that existed for the commission. It may well be that you might have a portfolio that did not require a full-time post. For instance, what if down the track we see that we have substantial issues for our seniors, and the Human Rights Commission determines it would be useful to have a role—Australia has done the same—to actually have someone identifiable who holds that role singly, but maybe it was a part-time role. We are now removing that ability—it would be full time or nothing—and you might have a situation where the human rights commissioners are holding multiple designations. I think that really muddies the waters and muddies the distinction that we want between those different commissioners. So we have lost a bit of flexibility there.

There has been quite a substantive change, though, since the time that the bill was introduced, between what the original Minister was suggesting and what we now have via a Supplementary Order Paper that Amy Adams has produced. I would say this side of the Chamber supports that Supplementary Order Paper. We still have substantial problems with the bill and do not intend to support the bill, but Supplementary Order Paper 175 is an improvement and something that we think we should support.

Let me cover what that Supplementary Order Paper does. Originally, under clause 6(1A) of the Human Rights Amendment Bill, which sets out how the designation needs to work amongst those new three or four commissioners, it states: “There must be a Commissioner, other than the Chief Commissioner, appointed to lead the work of the Commission in each of the following priority areas:”. Originally, the bill set out “(a) disability rights”, which actually is one part of the bill we absolutely support, as did roughly half of the submissions at the select committee—they supported the establishment of a disability rights role within a Human Rights Commission; not before time, I have to say. It is fantastic that that has been included, and we absolutely support that. But we supported the idea of a disability rights commissioner.

What the bill originally did was just set out that there must be a priority area of disability rights. There was not a specific commissioner. It was not clear necessarily how that portfolio would be managed, and so on. Clause 6(1A) then set out (b) “equal employment opportunities (including pay equity)”, as if pay equity were a side thought, and “(c) race relations”. So those three designations were now just set out as portfolios rather than as specific designations for each of the commissioners.

Then we had the Minister enter into it. On Tuesday, 10 May Supplementary Order Paper 175 was tabled. This has been described as a minor amendment—a technical amendment to the bill. I often find that these “technical” and “minor” changes are wolves in sheep’s clothing, because, actually, I would not consider this to be minor at all. The explanatory note notes that “This Supplementary Order Paper makes minor amendments to new section 8(1A) of the Human Rights Act 1993 as inserted by clause 6 of the Bill. The amendments give the designations of Disability Rights Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and Race Relations Commissioner to the commissioners appointed to lead the work of the Human Rights Commission in the priority areas …”. So that was what we used to have. That was what we had as the status quo, apart from the Disability Rights Commissioner that, we accept, is the new amendment. In this bill that was brought before the House by Judith Collins, we did not have those commissioner roles before. She was getting rid of them. They were just titles, bits of lead work that needed to be done by someone. Now we have Amy Adams bringing them back—bringing them back as specific commissioner designations. All I would say is—

Clare Curran: Whew.

JACINDA ARDERN: —good. It is—and perhaps “whew”. Clare Curran, you are absolutely right: “whew” is a good description. Perhaps we actually had some role in persuading the Minister—who would know? But it did seem a waste of energy to us to say, on the one hand, that there is a need now to have a Disability Rights Commissioner but, in the other breath, we are going to get rid of the commissioners in the other areas. So I thank the Minister for her Supplementary Order Paper. I think it is the right thing to do.

The comment I have, though, is that this Supplementary Order Paper does not change the total number of commissioners that can be appointed. We have not got a change to the total number. Remember that in clauses 6(1A) and 6(1B) it sets out that there will be a chief commissioner and “not less than three and not more than four other commissioners”. Well, we have got disability rights, we have got equal employment opportunities, and we have got race relations. So basically we have our buffer of one now.

We used to have more discretion before this bill came to the House. The commissioner had more discretion to appoint other commissioners, and that has not been reinstated by that Supplementary Order Paper. So we are still disappointed. We do not see the rationale for that in terms of the make-up of the commission—and I will come back to this later on in the discussion. That discretion—much to our disappointment—actually now lies to a certain degree with ministerial discretion as well, and we disagree with that. Priority areas now are in consultation. We do not think that is right. We think that there should be that absolute independence of the commission. So it is good on the one hand but does not go quite far enough, in our thinking.

The other question I would pose to the Minister is does the addition of the word “commissioner”, as her Supplementary Order Paper 175 sets out—does a separate delegation of commissioner mean that you cannot hold multiple portfolios? So you could not be the Disability Rights Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and/or the Race Relations Commissioner? If you can hold multiple portfolios, I guess that means that there would be greater flexibility. I am not clear in my own mind as to whether or not the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper precludes one designation from holding multiple roles, and it would be useful to know that. Of course, it sets out in the rest of clause 6(1B) that the “Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work priority area only in accordance …”—and this was an amendment by the select committee—

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): You are spoilt for choice, Mr Chairperson. I rise to make a contribution in this stage on the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I want to preface my contribution by mentioning that just recently, approximately a month ago, I attended the Ethnic Communities’ Engagement Summit hosted by Auckland University of Technology. They did a great job of bringing together a broad range of ethnic communities to discuss human rights, of all things.

We had present at that particular forum the current Race Relations Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, who heard from all of the ethnic communities that were represented there just how stretched the resources of the Human Rights Commission are, from their perspective as people within the communities who are looking towards the Human Rights Commission to look after some of these issues that they are faced with every day. They were very clear in their dissatisfaction with the service they received and are afraid that that is going to get worse under this particular amendment bill.

I think my colleague Jacinda Ardern has covered off quite well the aspects of the bill that we do not agree with that are forcing us to not support this bill. In particular, I want to have a look at clause 5, “Functions of Commission”, in particular where it says: “Section 5(2) is amended by inserting the following paragraphs after paragraph (k) that section 5(2) is amended by inserting the following paragraphs after paragraph K: ‘(ka) to report to either or both of the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible on any existing or proposed legislation (including subordinate legislation), administrative provision, or policy of the Government that the Commission considers may affect human rights:’ ”

Some of that I get. That is pretty straightforward. I think there should be a good relationship there between the relevant Minister and, of course, the commission in the important work that it does. But I take the contribution made by my colleague Dr Clark on the previous matter before the House where this seems like another process in licking your finger and putting it in the air and just wondering which way the wind blows. I am rather confident that there is no crystal ball in existence that allows that kind of a prescribed work agenda to be set to allow the Human Rights Commission to really do its job and do it well. What this tells me is that once it has put its finger in the air it has said to itself that there clearly is not a need for some of these roles—that we will not need an advocate for important matters such as equal employment opportunities.

We have had particular pieces of legislation come through this House recently where it has actually been highlighted that we do these types of roles to make sure that there are people there to represent the views of a wider community that are disaffected by these matters. Also, in terms of the disestablishment of the Race Relations Commissioner role, I would have thought at this particular point in time—as I said at the beginning of my contribution about the ethnic communities’ summit and the realities that they face—we know that there is an increasing number of people entering and flooding into our country. Some of them find their feet, but many of them do not.

I want to just digress very briefly, Mr Chair, with your indulgence, about one of the points made by a lot of the ethnic communities there. One of the panels that I spoke on was about the relationship between the Treaty of Waitangi and ethnic communities. They wondered whether there was any provision, or any sort of plan by this Government, and those who set the test for citizenship, to allow ethnic communities and those who come into the country to be afforded some sort of training in the Treaty of Waitangi, and a bit of history around the Treaty of Waitangi. But I will leave that on the floor for consideration.

So it is important, then, that the disestablishment of the Race Relations Commissioner as a full-time appointment is of huge concern to us. It is of huge concern to us in Tāmaki-makau-rau, where most of the large ethnic communities find a home. A lot of them struggle. A lot of them do not know where they can go to. I am afraid that, sadly, by disestablishing these full-time appointments, we are going to find a group in our society who will not know where to go and who will not have the confidence to approach the office of the Human Rights Commission to express their views so that their views are heard and so that the role of the commission can be fulfilled in advising this Government, or producing the types of evidence and reports that are required to assist this Government in making a good policy plan moving forward, on how we help to establish the many ethnic communities that find a home here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

I want to just go back briefly to the section that I talked about with regard to the provision “to report to either or both of the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible”. We have some concerns with regard to this, as we feel that the role of the commission is actually to be somewhat of an independent lens upon many of the issues that are brought to its office from across the country. Sadly, we feel that by having that kind of a relationship, where work schedules are set and where policy directions are forced upon the Human Rights Commission, we are afraid that a lot of the actual work that was done by the commission—the good work—is going to be lost. There will be no consideration in the future for a lot of the priority needs of the communities that seek the assistance of the Human Rights Commission.

Just in conclusion, one of the big concerns, and this is my contribution this evening, is the reduction in the number of commissioners. We have debated many times in this House about the huge workload and the programme being placed on institutions such as the Human Rights Commission and our public sector, yet we question whether or not the support is in place for them to fulfil their job properly and we question whether or not they have the resources and the capacity to actually fulfil their job and do it well. Recently I have talked about the Māori Land Court and some of the shortcomings there, and I am afraid that this amendment being proposed to the Human Rights Commission is just going to put more stress on it.

I want to finish by quoting—which I have done before in this Chamber, and others have—the expression of Meri Ngāroto from the far north, who said “He aha te mea nui o tēnei ao, māku e kī atu he tangata, he tangata, he tangata!”, and I can say that he tangata come in many shapes and forms. We are afraid that the proposed amendment that we are debating this evening is going to remove the rights and the assistance and the services for those many people in our community who make up that expression “he tangata, he tangata, he tangata!”. Kia ora tātou.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to focus my comments in support of Supplementary Order Paper 175, which reinserts the separate designation of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, as well as that of the Disability Rights Commissioner. I want to stand and acknowledge the Māori Party for lobbying and enabling that, and I acknowledge Minister Amy Adams for listening and bringing this Supplementary Order Paper to the House.

The Supplementary Order Paper expresses one of the major concerns that the Green Party and many submitters had about the bill, which the Minister of Justice at the time refused to address. It was clear to me from listening to the many submissions that the removal of the specific titles was perceived by the communities that these commissioners support as a lessening of the roles and a change in the specific special character and focus on disability of these roles.

So the change in this Supplementary Order Paper, I would say, is not minor. It is significant. It is significant because titles do matter, and for each of the priority areas of the Human Rights Commission it is vital, in our view, that the titles of the commissioners do reflect these priority areas. Specific designations not only create clarity and increase visibility; they affirm the critical importance of these issues to the groups represented, in a way that downgrading to generalised commissioners leading the areas of priority does not.

This is because the priority areas in the bill are just that—priority areas that really focus on the community, where there is still a long way to go to ensure that their human rights are recognised, for disabled people are amongst the most marginalised and discriminated-against people in New Zealand. They are under-represented in employment and homeownership, they are overrepresented in prisons, and they face major challenges in accessing health and other services. Over 30 percent of complaints to the Human Rights Commission are related to disability. Gender issues are as critical as ever, with record levels of domestic and sexual violence in this country, and a significant pay gap for women in many sectors. We see appalling—absolutely appalling—levels of abuse and racism directed at Māori in this country on an almost daily basis. All of these factors combined affirm that this is absolutely not the time to be disestablishing the specialised designations for the human rights commissioners.

First, I want to put on record, again, that the move by the Government to create the position of a Disability Rights Commissioner was partly prompted when a member’s bill by my colleague Catherine Delahunty was pulled from the members’ bill ballot in 2010. That bill by Catherine established a designated disability commissioner to sit alongside the existing specialist designations of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and it was long overdue because for far too long the needs and rights of disabled people have languished far behind those of other people, in part due to the major structural and systematic failures that disabled people face in this country, along with systematic, negative attitudes towards people living with impairment—towards disabled people.

Catherine, at the time, was doing her best in good faith, when the Government announced that it would be creating a disabilities commissioner, under the assumption that such a position would be created to stand alongside the existing designated positions, and that is why we objected so strongly when it was found that the bill was going to go much further than that and actually restructure the commission and downgrade the specific designations. So it is a huge relief, in fact, that this Supplementary Order Paper now reinserts these specific designations. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): This bill is opposed by Labour because, actually, it is trying to fix something that is, in fact, not broken. We actually have a very effective system of being able to protect the rights of people in New Zealand who obviously, and very frequently, do not get a voice, and for many of those people, that voice is either going to be taken away or downgraded to the point where it is not going to be able to be effective.

We do agree with the idea of having a commissioner who would protect the rights of people with a disability. That is something that is long overdue. We signed that convention in the UN in, I think, 2008, and this gives it weight and it gives it a means of being able to be carried through and supported. But what we do not and cannot accept is that with this legislation—as I say, really not fixing anything because I do not believe anything is broken, and I really question the underlying motives of why this legislation has come into being—why we do need to take away the specific roles of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, which is currently held by Jackie Blue, and the Race Relations Commissioner, which is currently held by Susan Devoy.

Just simply by looking at the number of times that those people appear in the media—and I know that is not a particularly good measure—you can see they are the people who are standing up for many of the issues that are facing us today. So if we look at equal employment—do we have equal employment opportunities in New Zealand? Of course we do not. We have looked at the number of times that, for example, women are not represented well; their salaries in comparable jobs are not equal. There is a very real need for ensuring that that particular commissioner stays there, if only for that simple reason: to provide the focus of work and attention on those issues. They are real issues in New Zealand that are certainly not being addressed. In fact, in many of the statistics we are actually going backwards and not forwards.

Likewise in race relations—why would we want to disestablish this particular role in New Zealand at a time when, for example, the city that I come from, Auckland, is the second-most diverse city in the world? There is a need for looking at the opportunities, the rights, the way that people are treated in our society with regard to what kind of ethnicity they have, what background they hold, and to make sure that somebody is specifically standing up for them and protecting their rights and making sure that they get a fair go. This has been longstanding in New Zealand. We have had a Race Relations Commissioner for a very long time, and this Government wants to disestablish the position. This is a lessening and a weakening of our system of rights in New Zealand, and it is for that reason that we are opposing this legislation. That is the first reason.

The second issue is the independence and the operations of this office as well. I unfortunately happened to be on the select committee that was looking into the operations of the Government Communications Security Bureau in 2013 and I heard John Key, when the Chief Human Rights Commissioner came before our select committee—John Key clearly did not agree with the findings of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. He said that the Human Rights Commission needed to pull its socks up, implying that it was going to lose its money, the $9.3 million that it is given every year in order to do its job effectively. That is the really scary, frightening aspect of putting an office like that too closely in sync with the Government, and what this bill will do is ensure that the office itself will have to pass its work programmes in front of the Minister.

The Minister might be a very honourable person, but I do not believe that it is healthy for our Parliament, for our society, to have a situation where the commissioners need to pass their work past a Minister. There should be a complete separation, and there should be no threats being able to be levelled at one of those commissioners by the Prime Minister, or whoever. We might have good Ministers now, but Ministers, like all people, come under enormous amounts of stress, their situation is criticised, and perhaps one of their first reactions is to attack back at the independence and the ability of these people to do their jobs.

The third issue is that this move threatens what we believe are international minimum standards. It has been criticised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, with particular emphasis on the abolition of the Race Relations Commissioner. The move down this track does nothing for the reputation of New Zealand internationally—it does a lot of harm. It is not just a re-juggling, a change that is supposed to make this more effective; it is actually, in some ways, going to bring some discredit to New Zealand in terms of the way it is going.

These are, I think, three very powerful reasons why we do not need to change this piece of legislation. I have yet to see and have yet to hear a rational, strong argument by the Minister and those who are in support of this bill for why this bill needs to go through. It has taken a year for it to get from when it was last read, to now, so it is not exactly urgent anyway, but irrespective of that, I do not see the reason why we are spending valuable parliamentary time on a bill that does not purport to do anything that is going to be remotely positive. In fact, it is going to take away, as I say, the focus on critical areas and critically weakened areas within our society that need to be stood up for and supported.

We agree with the introduction of a Disability Rights Commissioner and support that inclusion, but taking away the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner in the form of the current holder of that role, Jackie Blue—actually, a former National MP who, to her credit, has come out and criticised this Government. She has not stood back and withheld her criticism. She has been, I believe, a very effective commissioner.

The Race Relations Commissioner, again appointed by this Government, in the person of Susan Devoy, was actually highly criticised when she got the job. People said: “Why has she got the job?”. I think she has done a very credible job. She has actually stood up for and done what we expected her to do. Sometimes I did not always agree with her, but I have to say she has tried to act as independently as possible.

But the fact that those two people can do that speaks volumes about why we need to have those people in our society and as part of the structure of our institutions. Take those away and we lose something—those people who might be supported by those very institutions lose an advocate, and that is an important point.

Secondly, as I said before, the independence of these groups is being threatened by the fact that their work programme and the ministerial oversight is so strong that it will influence the way that they are able to operate independently. I think that is such a backward step. This Government used to call the former Labour Government nanny State; this is actually more than that. This is about a steel grip around our independent organisations, pushing them in the direction that the Government wants to go. Thirdly, I do not believe that it actually helps our international standing in the world when we sign up to these agreements.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I will take a call this evening on the Human Rights Amendment Bill and address a number of the issues that I have heard discussed around the Committee this evening. Firstly, it is not entirely clear to me that Mr Shearer, who has just resumed his seat, and Mr Henare, I think it was, who spoke earlier in the debate, are aware of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 175—which I will talk to in a minute—which makes it very clear that, far from disestablishing any positions, they are absolutely being maintained in name and in function.

What I want to take the Committee through is that the point of the bill was to address the fact that, at the moment, the structure of the Human Rights Commission limits the ability of the Commission to act as effectively as it could, so at the moment the Commission can only act with three full-time members and a number of part-time members. It might interest the Committee to know that, actually, at the moment the commission has the equivalent of 4.7 commissioners, so we have three full-time and a number of part-time commissioners, who make up 4.7 full-time slots if you take them out to a full-time equivalent. What we have found in talking with the commission is that, actually, for those part-time commissioners, although they have done some excellent work, it has really impinged upon their ability to take full part in the life of the commission as what they are, first and foremost, which is human rights commissioners.

The change of the structure of the commission is an important one, and one that the commission supports, which is to say that, actually, to have four or five full-time commissioners absolutely preserves the resourcing of the commission, and that is the point I wanted to make very clearly. We are not reducing the total number of commissioners. Four to five full-time commissioners is the same as is available at the moment, and slightly more if needed, but it means that each one of those commissioners is a full-time human rights commissioner and is not finding that they are losing a large part of their working day on administrative matters.

I have spent a number of my working years in part-time roles. I can tell you that when you are in a part-time role, you spend a huge amount of your time doing the administrative meetings that everyone has to do, and that leaves you very little time to do your job, and that is certainly what our part-time commissioners were finding. So by making them all full-time commissioners, we expect, and the commission expects, that they will be far more able to take an active role in the life of the commission.

I want to come back to this point around this alleged disestablishment of the roles. I want to read what the bill said initially, which made it very clear that there must be a commissioner, other than the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, who will lead the work of the commission in respect of disability rights—which is, of course, the new commissioner position—equal employment opportunities, including pay equity; and race relations. All the way through, the bill has been extremely clear that there has to be a full-time commissioner appointed to lead the work in each of those roles.

Talking with my colleagues in the Māori Party, they felt very strongly that the title itself had to be provided in statute, and, look, I was very open to that. So we have put up the Supplementary Order Paper, which makes it clear that after each of those lines, it now goes on to say “(the Disability Rights Commissioner)”, “(the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner)”, and “(the Race Relations Commissioner)”. The roles were always in the legislation, the roles have never been disestablished, and now, with the Supplementary Order Paper, we are making it very clear that the title also remains. If the title gives this Committee some comfort, then that is wonderful; I am very happy to support that. The roles were always there. They were there in substance, and they remain there. So to stand in this Chamber and suggest that the roles are being disestablished is completely misleading and, I would say, somewhat disingenuous. From the day this bill was introduced, it has been absolutely clear in statute that there would always be a requirement for commissioners to be leading each one of those pieces of work and, in fact, as I have said, now we have made it very clear that the titles are also not being removed, and I would argue that there was no requirement they ever would be. But, as I said, if it gives the Committee some comfort, we are very happy to do that.

The other allegation that has been made is one that, somehow, the bill removes the independence of the chief commissioner. Again, I dispute that. The bill makes it very clear that the chief commissioner has the right to determine other priority areas. One of the things I like about the structure of this bill is that although we have created the new Disability Rights Commissioner and we have protected the statutory roles of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner, we have also made it very clear that we have provided the capability for the chief commissioner to identify other priority areas.

Human rights are not a static beast. We are living in a period of incredible change with the advent of the digital economy, and the way we live our lives is changing. It is absolutely clear to me that in the period that this legislation is current, there will be the need to have human rights commissioners focused on other pieces of work. We wanted to make sure that the chief commissioner absolutely had the capability and the legislative scope to do that. Under the bill, the chief commissioner has the absolute right to determine any of those other priority areas. Yes, there is an obligation to consult with the other commissioners, as there is an obligation to consult with the Minister, but the Minister does not control it, the Minister does not dictate it, and the Minister cannot veto it. You would expect any chief commissioner working under the responsible Minister to at least advise and seek the views of the Government. That chief commissioner can ignore them if he or she chooses, and that is very clear in the bill—it is only an obligation to consult. I would suggest that to not do that would be absolutely poor practice, and I would not think anyone would support that. But it cannot be said that somehow the Government has the control or that that independence is in any way being diminished.

The last comment I wanted to pick up on was, again, Mr Shearer’s suggestion that somehow this bill was being looked down on by the international community and we were being criticised or it degrades us. In actual fact, I was at the UN—

Jacinda Ardern: We were. The UN criticised us. That’s why you changed the bill.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —no—Human Rights Council in Geneva this year, and it was very clear—in fact, it encouraged the Government to pass this bill without delay. So I would just say to the Labour Party, which is opposing it, that the Human Rights Council of the UN urged the Government to pass this legislation without delay. That is what we are doing, and I think the Labour Party has to look at itself to ask why it is opposing legislation that the UN Human Rights Council has urged this Government to pass without delay, that the Human Rights Commission is anxious to get under way with, that creates the new role of Disability Rights Commissioner, that provides the scope and capability for the chief commissioner to develop other priority areas, and that ensures that they have the full resourcing to do that.

It is an excellent bill. I look forward to this House passing it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Every party in this House wants an effective and efficient Human Rights Commission—that much, I think, is common amongst us all. The only question, then, is: how do you achieve that? On this occasion New Zealand First agrees with the Government and does not agree with either the Greens or the Labour Party. The reasons for that are fairly clear in my mind. Firstly, I listened to David Shearer’s speech and he said that the bill is not fixing anything—for reasons I will give later, I think that it does—he questioned underlying motives, which he did not specify; he said that there would be a weakening of rights, which does not occur in this bill; he questions independence, which is not actually threatened at all; and he says that, internationally, minimum standards, especially in relation to the Race Relations Commissioner, would be reduced, thus resulting in international reputational damage. I do not see any of that occurring either.

The truth about the matter is that if you actually look at what the bill says, it says that there must be a commissioner other than the chief commissioner appointed to lead the work in each of the priority areas, which are actually specified: disability rights, which the Greens are particularly interested in, and that is great; equal employment opportunities, which I know the Labour Party is particularly interested in, and that is great, too; and race relations, which we are all very interested in. But the important thing here is that the chief commissioner is also able to designate a commissioner to lead work in other priority areas, and that is a leap forward as far as I am concerned.

We in New Zealand First, for example, think that there is a lot of work to do as far as the elderly are concerned and some of the rights that they are not being delivered in this country. In fact, ageism is a really serious problem in New Zealand. I hope that the chief commissioner will have a look at that. Of course, he will have to consult about those additional designations with the other commissioners—and, yes, with the Minister—but I see no harm in consultation on that.

New Zealand First does not agree with the other parties about the perceived loss of specialised commissioners. If you look at Supplementary Order Paper 175 you will see straight away that the titles or designations are actually restored in that anyway. The new approach will lead to commissioners being appointed to lead priority areas but that still allows the flexibility that those commissioners can work in other areas as well. I think that is very important. I think that is one of the things that is fixed in this legislation. I think it will make the Human Rights Commission more effective and more efficient, and surely we all want that.

Hon David Cunliffe: More efficient to abolish it altogether.

DENIS O’ROURKE: See, that is the kind of comment that I hear from Mr Cunliffe: “abolish it altogether.” Can that member have actually read this bill if he is going to make an inane and idiotic statement like that? Can he have actually read the bill if he is going to make a stupid statement like that? Obviously not—obviously not. What the bill actually says is that the decisions made about what those lead areas are going to be has to be done in accordance with the strategy that all of the commissioners have to agree upon. The Justice and Electoral Committee actually added the words to amended section 8(1B): “… in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1) …”. So it shows that what is going to guide its decision making in this is a strategy, and I am very glad to see that, because if it had not been in this bill it is exactly what New Zealand First would have moved to achieve.

Those new priority areas will have to be allocated in accordance with the strategic direction determined by the commission as a whole. That is, I think, one of the things that is being fixed in the bill. We do not have the concern that some of the other parties have over the fact that the Minister is to be consulted over the strategy in those priority areas. There is nothing wrong with consultation if that is all it is—consultation. Consultation with the Minister of Justice is completely appropriate, as it would be with anyone else who has a direct interest, but consultation does not mean direction. Direction would be inappropriate, and I am sure that if direction was attempted with that commission, it would be rejected. So I do not see an issue with that either.

The issue that I want to end on is simply this: the bill does fix something else in that it makes sure that the people appointed will be suitable people for the lead areas. This is something that I would like the Green Party in particular to consider, because I know that it is especially concerned about disability issues, and I have great respect for its expertise in that area. But it says that you have to have a commissioner whose only job is to do that. I do not think that is necessarily good for the commission, and I think that as long as suitable people are selected then there is not going to be a problem. If you look at new section 13, inserted by clause 9, you will see that the Minister has to have regard not just to their own personal opinion but to some specified criteria. The first is an understanding of the principles and practice relating to the relevant priority area—the relevant priority area; secondly, an appreciation of the issues in the area internationally; and thirdly, an ability to carry out the functions specified in new section 16, which itself has actually been substituted to ensure skills and leadership ability and the ability to contribute to public debate. So if you look at all of those criteria together I am sure that this regime will result in a more effective and more efficient Human Rights Commission where people will have specified roles, leadership to exercise, special expertise backing that up, and they will also, however, work together as a commission on everything. I think that one of the defects in the existing legislation is that it did not make that very clear.

I think that this is a prescription for a much, much better Human Rights Commission, one that will work together in an integrated way and one that will understand what each area is doing, and yet, at the same time, will mean that that leadership that is necessary in those priority areas will still be exercised. So I think that is a great balance. It is a big step forward. I do not for the life of me understand why either the Labour or the Green Party are opposing it, because it is good legislation. We do not hesitate to say so when that is true, and we will be voting for it.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I just want to clear something up: the Greens’ position on this bill has changed from time to time, and with the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 175, in the Minister’s name, we have revised our positon. If that Supplementary Order Paper passes, then we will be supporting the bill. The reason we are doing that is that we see it as an act of good faith. The reason we see it as an act of good faith is—if some people in this House cast their minds back, they may remember—that in October 2010 the Greens had a member’s bill in the name of Catherine Delahunty pulled, which was called the Human Rights (Disability Commissioner) Amendment Bill. That bill, essentially, set out that the Human Rights Commission would have a designated disability commissioner, because we do not actually agree with the New Zealand First speaker who suggests that you can do everything. Generalisation means that specific attention wanders, and that is what we need if we are to address some of the issues facing the disability community.

As well as creating a designated disability commissioner, Catherine Delahunty’s bill also spelt out the specific criteria for the appointment and an extensive list of the functions that that disability commissioner would undertake. It was developed in extensive consultation with the disability community. One of the things that the disability community said it really wanted from a disability commissioner was for that person to have experienced having a disability, for them to actively engage with different communities or persons living with impediments—they needed to be an advocate for their interests, rights, and well-being, and, crucially, they needed to assist the Government to work towards the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This was all part of a bill that was pulled from the ballot. When the Government said in 2010 that it was looking to introduce legislation that would enshrine in legislation the position of a disabilities commissioner, we pulled that bill in good faith. So you can imagine that we were very, very disappointed when this bill came to the House and it was not actually at all like what we had hoped for. In fact, it looked like it was set to disestablish the specific positions and to just have them covered by broad portfolio roles. That has been our major concern all the way through: that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner and the work of disability would basically be portfolios rather than specific commission roles.

The other thing that we found extremely difficult about the introduction of this bill, as it was written when it went to the first reading, was that it did look like it was restructuring the Human Rights Commission by stealth. We certainly believe that we still need designated commissioners working within the Human Rights Commission, with the Chief Commissioner, and that they are specifically addressing the issues of each of those areas. We still need an equal employment opportunities commissioner. We just have to look at the whole situation with the Kristine Bartlett equal pay case, where the Crown is currently negotiating what the principles are in order to ensure that women’s work is valued at the same amount as traditionally male occupations. There is still a pay gap of between 11.8 percent and 14 percent for the average hourly rate for women workers. So we have not achieved pay equity yet. Women are still facing barriers to leadership in the workplace, both in the public and private sectors, with only around about 43 percent of women in senior positions at board level. How can we know these facts if we have not got someone keeping their eye on it? The role of these commissioners is to advocate in these areas. We would not necessarily know this information if we did not have someone set to do it.

We also need a specific Race Relations Commissioner. The New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils rightly pointed out in its submission that the “genericisation” or “mainstreaming” of positions that are dedicated to race relations functions means that the functions are diminished and absorbed, which is why it stated that it is therefore all the more important that the designation of Race Relations Commissioner itself not be disestablished. We know from its report, which it released last year, Our Multicultural Future, that non-Pākehā New Zealanders still continue to face massive discrimination in New Zealand, particularly in the areas of education and employment, with people who have the requisite qualifications and experience facing difficulties finding commensurate employment and having their previous employment overseas recognised. The 2012 Statistics New Zealand report revealed that 187,000 New Zealanders had experienced racial discrimination and that nearly one in five Asian New Zealanders has also reportedly experienced racism in the last 12 months. That harassment ranges from a variety of bad behaviour, including workplace harassment, street cat-calling, applying for work, or dealing with the police. So it is clear that New Zealanders have a lot more work to do and that a specific Race Relations Commissioner is part of that.

We also support, and we specifically need, the Disability Rights Commissioner, and that is the major reason we are supporting this bill, because it creates that in legislation for the first time. We need a Disability Rights Commissioner because of the shocking 60 percent unemployment rate among people with disabilities. Disabled people are also less likely to have a formal qualification, with 67 percent holding a school or tertiary qualification compared with 85 percent of adults with no disabilities. Sixty-four percent of disabled adults have an annual gross income of $30,000 or lower, compared with 45 percent of the abled community. So, overall, it is clear that in this country we are not doing more to enable New Zealanders with disabilities to fully participate in everything that our country has to offer, and that is why we need a Disability Rights Commissioner to advocate for that and to make it happen. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to reaffirm Labour’s opposition to this bill, and I do so on two grounds in particular. Firstly, this bill undermines the independence of the Human Rights Commission. It makes it subject to consultation with a Minister, which is the antithesis of the independence required of an independent body, such as the Human Rights Commission, which is charged, sometimes, to lean against Government policy. Therefore, making its work programme subject to ministerial consultation is entirely the opposite of what would make a more effective and more efficient commission.

Secondly, although it is true the Government has introduced a late Supplementary Order Paper that restores the title of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner, which we welcome, we still do not believe that the process there has been transparent, nor was the original bill one that would uphold New Zealand’s reputation, and I will come back to that reason and the evidence for it.

Thirdly, this bill still reduces the number of commissioners, thereby limiting the scope of the commission. Taken as a whole, Labour continues to believe that this was not a bill that was required, and that the so-called fix is worse than the problem. It reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of the commission.

May I also introduce, as I set out the case here, the fact that the Government’s attempts to weaken the Human Rights Commission—because that is what it amounts to; or to fetter it or to hog-tie it to the whims of the Minister of the day—is in keeping with other efforts that the Government has made to weaken the independent statutory watchdogs of our polity. The underfunding of the Ombudsman is something that is now so well-known across the community, and the backlogs that have been created by the current Government’s arrogant and out-of-touch efforts to constrain its resourcing are such that we are faced with a position where Ministers thumb their noses at Official Information Act requests awaiting an appeal that might take a year to come.

We have also noticed, in terms of independent watchdogs, the weakness in the Overseas Investment Commission, which has been thrown—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not in this. Come back to the bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —into stark relief, no doubt, by the Panama Papers.

Coming back to this bill, our concern is that the weakening of the Human Rights Commission would be amongst the factors that Transparency International will consider next time around when it gives New Zealand a further downgrade. Why does this matter? Because New Zealand’s international reputation as a trading nation, let alone our hoped-for position as an upstanding member of the international community committed to the rule of international law and human rights, is downgraded by this successive top-slicing of these independent institutions by a Government that is showing every sign of “third-term-itis”, wanting to take more power to the executive, undermining the role of the watchdogs—

Hon Simon Bridges: The member knows all about that. He’s been there, done that, written the book.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —undermining the role of the legislature. Oh, Mr Bridges. Mr Bridges has not learnt the lessons of the Northland campaign, where he showed up and offered a whole few bridges, and the good people of Northland sent him packing.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Come back to the bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am responding to an interjection, Mr Chairman, which I am sure you found as amusing as the members opposite. Look how enlivened they are. Look how enlivened they are by the debate.

Chris Bishop: You couldn’t even be bothered running.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr Bishop, the also-ran from Lower Hutt, is just looking across at his colleague in jealous admiration—

Peeni Henare: Get involved in Northland.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —of his also-ran in Northland. I am surrounded by the sons of Ngāpuhi, and they are looking across the Chamber and saying “Mr Bridges, good luck.”

But look, back to the issues that concern us here. All revelry and joking aside—it is late in the evening—the issue here is that New Zealand’s reputation counts for something. If we want to be a trading nation, if we want to expand our markets overseas, then our reputation for integrity has got to be beyond question. It is a matter of concern to New Zealanders that we are slipping down the rankings for the anti-corruption index and Transparency International, and it is, in part, because the Government is doing successive small weakenings of our independent watchdog agencies—and that is what this is.

Let me come to the second issue here, which is concerned with Supplementary Order Paper 175. The Government initially stripped the explicit titles of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner out of the legislation governing the Human Rights Commission. Although we support, as our Green colleagues do, the appointment of a disabilities commissioner, we are very concerned to see those titles withdrawn. It might seem semantic, but how would a commissioner stand up in public and uphold the specific weight of an office if that office’s title has been removed? And why do it, other than to subsume that?

Hon Member: The SOP.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I know that the Supplementary Order Paper does, but I am just saying that we in the Labour Opposition have not been impressed by the original displayed intent, nor the lack of transparency in the process. It is only after the United Nations itself criticised the Government for the original drafting, and only after, word has it, some of the Government’s coalition partners turned turtle on it and it lost the numbers to get the bill through in its original form, that it has had to compromise and come back to the House with its tail between its legs, offering up this Supplementary Order Paper in a last-ditch attempt to get the bill through.

Why such a humiliating back-down for a Government, on a bill that has been before the House since January last year—and done in Budget week. Has the Government nothing better to do? Has it nothing better to do? There are huge issues facing New Zealand—climate change, homelessness, poverty—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! If I have to interrupt the member again on relevancy, I will terminate his speech.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Therefore, we have had a considered reflection on this bill, and we maintain our opposition to it. It is, in summary, based on three grounds—firstly, the fettering and limitation of the commission by requiring consultation with the Minister of the day, and I will say a couple more words on that. The Minister, of course, represents the executive. The whole point of having an independent statutory commissioner is to weigh against the executive by taking an independent statutory perspective. The commission has its own resourcing; it has its own media. It is not subject to Order in Council. It is not subject to Cabinet collective responsibility. That is the whole point. It is a creature created by statute, created by this House.

The commission has delegated statutory powers that depend upon not only its actual independence but its perceived independence. That perceived independence is under threat, as is the actual independence, when its work plan has got to be consulted on with the Minister. Consultation, in this context, is a loaded term. It means that the civil servant has to walk up to Minister Adams’ or Minister Collins’ office, as it was when the bill was drafted, to say: “Well, this is what we want to do. What do you think?”. The Minister says “Well, I really don’t want you doing (a), (e), and (f) on that list.”, and some sort of compromise might be worked out. That is what consultation amounts to. That is inappropriate, both in substance and in perception, and that is the principal reason why this Labour Party continues its opposition to this bill.

If we want to have a reputation for integrity, if we want that to underpin our position in international affairs, then we have to have not only the substance but also the recognition of that independence, and that does not mean fettering independent watchdog agencies to consultation with a member of the executive. It is not appropriate. It is actually the antithesis of what the commission should be.

So, summing up, we have got three reasons why we are continuing to be opposed to the bill: the first is the consultation process, the second is the lack of transparency and the original formation of the withdrawal of the titles of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and the third is the overall limitation on the number of commissioner positions. Thank you very much.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I think we need to be absolutely clear about what Minister Adams has and has not done with her amendments to this bill. This bill does not simply reinstate positions that were removed and everything is back to the status quo. The current legislation allows for there to be up to three full-time and up to five part-time commissioners and for the flexibility to appoint around what those roles need to be. Of course, we have added the Disability Rights Commissioner, the specific role, and we applaud that. Obviously it means that we would then have four commissioners. But what this bill does is it means that we could, essentially, end up with fewer commissioners than what the original Human Rights Act allowed us to have. I want to be absolutely clear. Thank you, Minister, for your Supplementary Order Paper 175. We support the Supplementary Order Paper. It was the right thing to do, to reinstate those specific designations, but the bill still has not changed the fact that the commission will consist of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner and no fewer than three and no more than four other commissioners. Even if they take the maximum, we will still have fewer commissioners. That is a matter of fact.

I am yet to see a rationale from this Government as to why we would want to reduce the representative roles that commissioners have within the Human Rights Commission. Why would we want to reduce their capacity? They have always used their flexibility appropriately in that regard. They have sometimes used their part-time roles as a 0.3 and up to a 0.5, according to what the needs of the commission were. But it seems suspicious to me that at the same time there have been criticisms that the chief executive of the Human Rights Commission is drawing a salary that required, as I understand, a special exemption from the State Services Commission. At the same time as we are drawing higher salaries for our chief executives, we are reducing the number of commissioners. So I am somewhat suspicious about that. Unless the Minister can tell me that she fully exhausted all of the rationale as to why we would not want to give the capacity to have the same number of commissioners as we have now, then I will remain suspicious as to why we are doing that—unless I hear some rationale as to why we would reduce that representation. That is one of the reasons that we have had concerns and previously had opposition to this bill. Thank you for the designations, but I still have significant suspicions.

Perhaps the Minister might want to rise, and if she is perhaps suggesting that this is not an issue of concern, why is there not a Supplementary Order Paper that, at the same time as she has included the specific designations, reinstates the number of commissioners that it is possible to have? It was one of the options canvassed by the regulatory impact statement. It looked at just simply retaining that flexibility. In fact, one of the whole reasons we had this bill in the first place was a complaint that there was a lack of flexibility for the commissioners to be appointed. Well, now we have got a situation where the Minister, rightly, has said we will have a specific Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, we will have a specific Race Relations Commissioner, and we will have a specific Disability Rights Commissioner. Actually, if you include the Chief Human Rights Commissioner in there, we could end up with nothing else—nothing else.

Minister , I would really appreciate some rationale from you, perhaps; maybe, if not that, a commitment that any budget saved would be going back into representative work and not just higher salaries, or a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table saying that actually there is no point reducing the number of commissioners and that you will maintain what was the status quo. I look forward to some response from the Minister in that regard, because it is significant. It may seem like we are just removing some flexibility, but we, of course, had grave concerns with taking out a designated title, so why would we not have concerns with removing the discretion in the future to appoint a commissioner in an area that becomes of substantive concern? I have already raised an example of where, down the track, it would be potentially useful to have that ability from the human rights commissioner.

There has also been raised the issue of consultation with the Minister. Even though there is some specification within the Human Rights Act 1993 around consultation—that is in specific reference, it reads to me, to the commissioner’s allocation of portfolios—in this particular amendment bill, it is very clear under Part 1, clause 6(1B), where it states: “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1) and after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” That reads to me that both the strategic direction and the designation of roles could, therefore, be determined with the Minister.

I know it has been stated that consultation—consultation—means that the commissioner can come in and inform. I have seen the word “consultation” used in those relationships before. Let us be really clear, because I have heard, for instance, the Law Commission, which I doubt anyone in this Committee would think feels under the thumb of the Government at all, say at select committee that even though it has the ability to set its own agenda in terms of the work that it does, it knows there is no point in bringing to the Minister—in consultation with the Minister for its work programme—something that is not within their political orbit or their political priorities. So there is a self-filtration that happens when you are required to consult—even though it is the word “consult”—that means entities, naturally, will not bring something that they consider to be unpalatable in case it gets taken off the agenda and just dismissed. If it is simply a matter of being informed, then call it that. Let us be specific that it is actually just that they have to notify the Minister. The word “consult” is very different to the word “notify”, and I have no doubt that a human rights commissioner who is obliged to consult is therefore likely to take on board the feedback that is given by that Minister when it comes to allocating any potential new commissioner roles.

I thought that this amendment bill could have been a perfect chance to reflect back on the Paris principles, which were passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 1993, which set out the status of national institutions—basically, what should it look like when a country sets up a human rights institution? What are the really core principles to make sure you establish a proper, robust human rights institution? It says in the Paris principles that a national institution “shall be vested with competence”. It should be given “as broad a mandate as possible”. I think that is interesting: “A national institution shall be given as broad a mandate as possible, which shall be clearly set forth in a constitutional or legislative text”. So although we want to specify composition and sphere of competence, actually allowing that flexibility that we talked about in those roles, which we lose in this bill, is a core principle of the Paris principles. It also talks about submitting any human rights concerns to the Government “on an advisory basis either at the request of the authorities” or at the exercise of its own power.

But all the way through, right down through, I found, particularly, Minister, the methods of operation—the framework that the national institution shall freely consider any questions falling within its competence, whether they are submitted by the Government or not; hear any person; address public opinion; and establish working groups from among its members as necessary. All of these fundamental principles talk about the need for it to maintain that independence. There was a prime opportunity with this review of the Act to sit back and ask: are we upholding the Paris principles to the very best of our ability? And if there is any concern that embedding principles around consultation may be misinterpreted by a commission to be more than advising or informing, then perhaps we should change our language. Perhaps we should look at the kind of language that embeds independence.

In fact, if we really were taking a first-principles review, why would we not set up at the same time a select committee within our Parliament to review human rights on a regular basis to ensure that we are upholding those important institutions within New Zealand? It has been recommended. I think there are good grounds for it. That is the kind of first-principles debate we should have been having when this amendment bill was put forward, and, in fact, when the Ministry of Justice in 2010 established its review in the first place—going back and ensuring that we were trying to uphold those principles that we signed to in Paris in 1993.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 88

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 32

New Zealand Labour 32.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 175 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 6 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill with amendment, the Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill with amendment, and the Human Rights Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

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

TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2016

(continued on Wednesday, 25 May 2016)

Bills

Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I seek leave, me kī, kia wāwāhi te āhuatanga ō wā tātou kōrero i tēnei rā, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te kupu kōrero ki te wāhi ngaro ā-karakia nei, nō reira, kai te īnoi atu ki Te Whare kia whakatūwherahia i roto i te kupu kōrero ā-karakia nei, kia īnoi atu ki a Adrian Rurawhe pea, hei wāwahi i wā tātou kōrero, mena e pai ana tēnā ki Te Whare.

[I seek leave, shall we say, to re-examine the way we begin today, in terms of opening up our contributions in regard to acknowledging the unseen place in a traditional way or through a prayer. Therefore, I seek the indulgence of the House that we proceed to do that by way of a prayer, and furthermore respectfully ask whether Adrian Rurawhe might perhaps lead the way with a prayer to open up our contributions, if the House so desires.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, kāti rā, korōia, harerūia ki koe, E Ihowa, ngā mano tūāuriuri, whaiōio, kī tonu Te Rangi me Te Whenua i te nui o tō korōria. Nō reira, anei mātou whakahokia te reo whakamoemiti ki mua i ō koutou aroaro mō ō koutou tini manaakitanga ka tukuna mai e koutou ki runga ki a mātou. Oti noa, ka tono atu anō ki a koutou kia hōmai te ora, te kaha me te māramatanga, te rangimārie, kia manaakitia hoki mātou i roto katoa i o mātou whiriwhiringa kōrero. Manaakitia hoki ngā iwi katoa kua tae mai i tēnei rā ki te whakarongo ki ō rātou pire. Nō reira, ko koutou hoki nei te tīmatanga me te whakaotinga mai hoki ō mātou tūmanako atu nei i roto i ō koutou kōroriatanga. Mā Te Māngai e tautoko mai āianei, ake nei, āe.

[And so glory and praise be to you, Jehovah of the multitudes and the thousands upon thousands, and whereupon heaven and earth are filled with your glory. We are here, therefore, returning and placing our words of praise before your multitude and thousands upon thousands for the protection and care bestowed upon us. Furthermore, we seek that you make us well, energetic, understanding, and calm and that you look out for us throughout our deliberations. Take care of all the tribes that have arrived here today to listen to their bills. Therefore, our inspiration begins and ends also with you in your glory. May Te Māngai endorse this now and forever, yes.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill is going to give effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Hineuru that was signed here in Wellington in April last year, settling all the historic Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to Hineuru. The settlement comprises historical redress, which records the breaches and the past injustices caused by failures of the Crown; cultural redress reconnecting the people of Hineuru with a number of their most culturally significant sites; and financial and commercial redress reasserting Hineuru’s role in the region with a strong economic base for them to grow.

As always, I want to thank and acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, which has once again done an excellent job in progressing this bill in a very timely manner. The committee began its consideration of the bill in September last year and considered 13 submissions from interested groups and individuals, including one submission that was extremely critical of the Treaty settlement process, suggesting that the Waitangi Tribunal is a “racist rip-off” and that Māori are not indigenous to New Zealand. It is what I call—and I often receive emails from such people—a “KKK submission”. Although I do not want to give credence to individuals with these rather odd beliefs, I want to acknowledge the unique perspective on Treaty settlements as a timely reminder of the importance of these settlements for the development of our country. It is only right the history of these settlements be recorded, remembered, and retold to future generations to ensure the wrongs of the past are neither forgotten nor belittled.

The committee travelled to Napier in November last year to hear from submitters on the settlement. I was very pleased to see that the majority of submissions were in full support of the settlement, including a number of submissions from neighbouring iwi who wanted to show support for their Hineuru relations. The committee makes 13 recommendations, which are all either technical or consequential in nature. I want to thank the chair, the committee members, and the advisers for their consideration of the bill and their combined efforts to return the bill to this House without undue delay.

I intend to keep my comments in the second reading very short. I will leave my final thanks to the Hineuru negotiating team until the third reading. However, before I end I want to acknowledge the patience of the trustees of Hineuru, who have been anxious to reach settlement of their historical claims, and I want to assure them that I and, I am sure, everyone in this House, share their aspiration for a just and durable settlement as soon as possible.

I look forward to the bill moving towards its third reading in a very timely manner. I also look forward to welcoming the community of Hineuru back to Parliament as we draw to a close this final stage in this particular settlement and come together to celebrate a stronger and more prosperous future for the people of Hineuru. I commend the bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ā waiho ki “Te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri”. E ngā mate huhua kua hinga atu, haere, haere, moe mai rā.

E rau rangatira mā! Ngāti Hineuru, e ngā kaumātua, nau mai, haere mai, hoki mai. Hoki mai ki tō tātou Whare. E Te Māngai o Te Whare nei, tēnā koe, e ngā mema katoa, ā, tēnā tātou katoa. E tātou e “te iti rearea, teitei kahikatea ka taea”. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Leave it to the aphorism: “Emblem of god in the vanguard, food bearers to the rear”. To the vast number that have fallen, depart, go, rest there.

To the respected leaders of a hundredfold, to you, Ngāti Hineuru, respected elders, welcome, come forth, and welcome back. Welcome back to our House. Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you, and acknowledgments to all of us members. We are indeed like “the tiny bellbird capable of soaring over the great heights of the kahikatea tree”. Well done all.]

It is indeed my honour to stand in support of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. In terms of context, as the Minister Christopher Finlayson has alluded to, the second reading is really an opportunity to report back what was presented in front of the Māori Affairs Committee.

Before I address some of the critical issues that Ngāti Hineuru themselves raised at the Māori Affairs Committee, may I just paint some context for the tribe of Ngāti Hineuru. They descend from two ancestors: Apa-hāpai-taketake of Ngāti Apa and Kurapoto. The Hineuru rohe—although a mountainous region; its location is on the main access routes between Napier and Taupō, Rotorua, and the Bay of Plenty. Their history is, indeed, an interesting one. Although the subjects were raised at the select committee—and, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations rightfully said, recommendations were made and technical changes were made—I want to take my time and talk around the negotiation process that the negotiators of Ngāti Hineuru had to endure. They raised some very important points in front of the select committee that I may seek the indulgence of the House to traverse in my contribution this morning.

The history with the Crown is described by the submission submitted by Ngāti Hineuru. The most important incidence of the Hineuru history was the Crown attacks at Ōmarunui and Pētane in 1866, during which their rangatira, Te Rangi Hīroa, was killed. Following these attacks many were captured and sent to the Chatham Islands. There they came across Te Kooti and were subsequently involved in his escape and the subsequent wars that ensued. While all this was happening the Crown was purchasing and taking Hineuru lands. Ngāti Hineuru were left virtually landless. And, to add salt to the wounds, the Crown also awarded certain Hineuru lands to other iwi. This is an area of contention for Hineuru, as it is for many other iwi who have suffered a similar fate. Once a very powerful iwi, Hineuru held very strategic areas in the central North Island. Following the loss of their lands, resources, and people, the Hineuru people who remained lived in poverty and in the shadow of the pains of the past. Once a powerful nation, their journey to settlement is about rebuilding their people.

The other interesting aspect of this particular claim was that Ngāti Hineuru had to attend three hearings: the Mōhaka ki Ahuriri inquiry during 1996 and 2000, the central North Island tribunal hearings in 2005, and Te Urewera hearings from 2003 to 2005. It is a challenge enough to attend your own hearings and prepare yourself to ensure that your interest in your rohe is protected, but in this particular instance of Ngāti Hineuru the requirement to protect what little they had required them to attend three hearings. I would put the question around whether any other iwi has to endure three hearings to ensure what land they have can be protected.

Entities were established. Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc. was established in 2005, and its responsibility was for the negotiations. Te Kōpere o Te Iwi o Hineuru Trust, responsible to receive and manage the redress, was ratified by just under 75 percent in late 2015. I want to acknowledge the six pou that form the intent of the iwi to rebuild their people: the restoration and protection of their cultural heritage and history for future generations; the restoration of the health and well-being of their people; the recognition of the mana of Hineuru and the restoration of the relativity Hineuru had with other iwi in the region; the reassertion of the presence of Hineuru through their rohe; the rebuilding of their economic base; and the revitalisation and restoration of their role as kaitiaki of their natural resources and environment.

The two issues that I want to raise in my contribution are, first, issues pertaining to the negotiations, and, second, the continuing pursuit of recognition. It was interesting in the submission to the Māori Affairs Committee—we often do not hear the struggles that sometimes negotiators have to go through in terms of getting their particular settlement over the line. I want to mention the issue around the Crown Forestry Rental Trust funding and the extra pressure it put on the negotiators when it came to funding the particular negotiations. It was sorted—I would like to say that; it was sorted through perceived conflicts of trustees of Crown Forestry Rental Trust—but the upshot was that Ngāti Hineuru were left with a debt, and they still have a debt over something that had nothing whatsoever to do with them in terms of the releasing of funds. So I want to say to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that if there is any way, in his good grace, that we could forgo that debt, I am sure that you will make Ngāti Hineuru people very, very happy.

The other issue that was raised at the select committee was the continuous pursuit of recognition. As we have seen in many, many settlements, the use of iwi authorities in current legislation confers some benefit, and clearly those who do not have the status of iwi miss out. In Ngāti Hineuru’s case, they mentioned the fisheries protocol with the Ministry for Primary Industries. Far be it from me to be talking about fish in this settlement, but the fisheries settlement means that Ngāti Hineuru’s part of the settlement is not managed by them. If I can read through their submission, they would one day like (1) to be recognised as an iwi; but (2) to pursue and enjoy the opportunities that other iwi have in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claim) Settlement Act. Again I put that on the floor of this House: if there is anything that the Minister could help with in that regard, we would definitely support that—and also the census classification.

I too, in my final couple of minutes, want to thank the select committee, the Minister, the officials, the negotiators, and the people of Ngāti Hineuru.

In my closing point, the Ngāti Hineuru claim, like many others, has shown the Crown’s action in retaining Māori whenua in Māori hands has been dismal, has been an abject failure, and has been a dereliction of duty. Like Ngāti Hineuru, none of their land loss was of their own making. Being removed from their land and incarcerated on the Chatham Islands without trial was not of their doing. Their land being sold in their absence was not of their doing. Earlier this month the Government introduced a brand new Māori land law, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill—not an amendment of the existing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, but a complete rewrite. Māori landowners have had a year to understand the 400-page bill. Like Ngāti Hineuru, I contend this is not of their doing. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa. Ka mihi ki a koe e te mema o Te Tai Hauāuru mō te āhuatanga ō wā tātou whakarite i tēnei ata, hei wāwāhi i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero o tēnei ata. Ka mutu, ka huri atu ki a koutou katoa e whakakanohi nei, a Ngāti Hineuru i tēnei ata, tēnā koutou, mōrena, moatarau! Haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, Te Whare Paremata, ā, i takatakihi nei i te mana o Ngāti Hineuru i ngā tau kua hipa ake nei, anā e kōrero ake nei, e tēnei o ngā mema, e Meka Whaitiri. Ka pai tana kōrero, ko ia te mea whakatakoto i ngā rārangi kōrero mō te āhuatanga o ngā hītori, e kore au e hoki ki ēnā kōrero, kua kōrerohia, kua rongo kē koutou i ērā korero.

Ka mutu, i a au e tū nei ka rere ngā whakaaro ki Te Tai Tokerau, e hoa mā, ko te āhuatanga o tērā o ngā pou o Te Kōhanga Reo, ki a Mānuera Tohu, ko ia tērā e takoto mai rā i roto i Te Tai Tokerau. Ēhara i te mea ko ia i tōna kotahi ēngari, ngā mate huhua kāre e kore, kua heria mai ai e koutou i tēnei rā. He kite kanohi, ka hoki ngā mahara, he rongo ā-taringa, te āhuatanga o tēnei ingoa, a Ngāti Hineuru, ka hoki ōku whakaaro ki a Whetū Tipiwai. Ko ia te tangata i aki nei, i tū hei whakakanohi nei i te āhuatanga o tā koutou kerēme i te wā i a ia, ka tangi ake ki a ia kua riro ki tua o te pae o maumahara. Nō reira, kāti. Ko tāku he whakakao mai i ngā mate katoa i raro i te korowai o ō tātou nohotahi i tēnei ata me te kī atu, koutou e te pō, e moe, e moe, e moe, tātou te hunga ora huri noa i tō tātou whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

I tuatahi, kāre au i konei i roto i Te Whare nei i te wā i kōrerohia tuatahitia tēnei o ngā pire, ēngari ko te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero o Ngāti Hineuru, āe, arā ētahi paku rerekētanga ēngari ko te tino kaupapa e orite ana, muru i te whenua, raupatu i te whenua, kōhuru i te tangata, ērā āhuatanga katoa. Ēhara i te mea, he kōrero hōu i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata mō ngā take kerēme. Nō reira, ko tāku i te tuatahi ka mihi ki te komiti i haere nā ki roto i te takiwā o Ngāti Hineuru, i rongo ki ngā kōrero, e kore au e kōrero mō ērā kōrero i te mea, ko koutou te hunga i rongo nā i ērā korero; ēngari, ka mihi rā ki te tiamana, otirā, koutou ngā mema o tō tātau rōpū, tō tātau komiti o Te Whare Pāremata i a koutou te mahi nui.

Kua aro tonu atu ōku taringa ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero a Meka Whaitiri me te kī atu, e kore e taea te whakahē i tua atu o tētahi kaupapa, ā, ko Te Ture Whenua Māori, nō reira ka hoki mai ki tērā ā taihoa ake nei. I kōrerohia mō te āhuatanga o ngā tohe, o ngā pakanga i tū, ka mutu, ki Petone, ka mutu i kōrerohia te ingoa o Te Rangihīroa, kua tuhia ki roto i ngā pukapuka o Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei wā, nō reira, e kore au e hoki ki ērā.

Ko te āhuatanga o Te Kōti Whenua, ā, ēhara, kei te tika tērā! Ko te Kōti Whenua i whai wāhi i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa mō koutou Ngāti Hineuru, ko tāna mahi he whānako i te whenua i raro i te ture, ākuanei pea te āhuatanga o Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Nō reira, kai te whakaae atu ki ērā momo kōrero ki tērā momo hītori! Kei te whakaae atu anō hoki ki tā te mema nā, e kōrero nā, kia whakahokia te mana o ngā āhuatanga o te kaitiaki o runga i te whenua o Ngāti Hineuru ki a koutou. E whakaae atu ana au ki tērā, nō reira, e kore au e whakatōwai i ērā kōrero i te mea, kua kōrerohia, kua puta tērā kōrero.

Kotahi, e rua pea waku tāpiringa kōrero ki ngā kōrero i kōrerohia ake nei. Tuatahi, mō te haerenga o tētahi iwi ki mua i te aroaro o Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, otirā, ki mua i te aroaro o iwi kē, ēhara tērā i te āhuatanga hou. Koia te āhuatanga i roto i ngā kerēme katoa! Kai a au tōku mana, kai au tōku hītori ēngari, a hā, kua rerekē te kōrero a tēnā iwi, ā tēnā iwi, ā tēnā iwi. Nō reira, me pēhea hoki? Me haere ki Te Kōti, ki reira whakatau ai, ā, ko te wāhi ki a koe, ko te wāhi ki a au. E pērā ano hoki, ā, kai te mōhio pea koutou, ko te āhuatanga o ngā kerēme, me kī, o te Central North Island, ha! E 3 tau a ngāi tātau e tohe ana, ki a tātau anō mō te rohe kai a au, kai tēnā, kai tēnā, kai tēnā, kai tēnā. Nō reira, ko te haerenga ki Te Kōti ki reira whiriwhiri ai i ngā take ā-rohe whenua, ā-mana nei ēhara i te āhuatanga hou. Nō reira, kai te whakahē atu au ki tā te mema e kōrero nā.

Tuarua, e whakaae atu ana ki tana tīmatanga kōrero, i te wāhanga whakamutunga o tana kōrero, me tana kī atu: “He wāhi mō te ture”, āe! E tika! Ko te ture he mea i takatakahi nei, i muru i te whenua nei i raro i te korowai, e ai ki tā te ture, o te tika me te pono. Ko te mate kē, kāre i te tino pērā. Kei konei tātou e ngana nei ki te whakatika i ērā āhuatanga.

Nō reira, i kōrero ia mō te āhuatanga o Te Ture Whenua Māori ā, tēnā. I aroha mai mō te huri ki tērā kaupapa ēngari, a koia nei te āhuatanga o Te Whare Pāremata: he tau utuutu te korero. Ka tū tētahi, ā, ka whakautua e tētahi. Ka tū mai tētahi kaupapa, ka whakautu e tētahi. Nō reira, taihoa ake nei, kia eke ki te mea tuatoru, ā, kia hāngai tonu ki te kaupapa o tēnei mea ko tā koutou kerēme o Ngāti Hineuru.

Ko tāku ki Te Ture Whenua Māori e pēnei ana, ko Te Ture Whenua Māori hou; i tīmata mai ai i te tau kotahi mano, 1993, e 5 tau i muri mai—ha!—kua tīmata ki te whakapanoni, ā, mai i tērā wā kua kōrerohia, kua kōrerohia, kua kōrerohia i ngā tau, ā, tae rā anō ki te tau kua hipa. Nō reira, ahakoa ko te mema ka kī, poto noa iho te wā ki te kōrero o roto, me kī mō te marea, mō tēnei kaupapa ēhara! Kua roa tēnei kaupapa e kōrerohia ana! Ko tāna kaupapa, he whakatikatika i ngā nawe i kōrerohia e koutou, Ngāti Hineuru, i roto i tā koutou kerēme. Tuatahi, ko te mana motuhake o te whenua Māori me noho ki roto i ngā ringaringa o te ao Māori. Taku mōhio, ka whakae atu a Ngāti Hineuru ki tērā kōrero. Ka rua, mena e hiahia ana a Ngāti Hineuru ki te whakawhanake ake tōna whenua, kai a ia te kōrero, kaua mā tētahi, kaua mā Te Kōti, kaua mā tētahi atu. Ā, ki taku mōhio kai te whakaae mai a Ngāti Hineuru ki tērā kōrero.

Kaupapa tuatoru: ā, kāti. Ko Te Whenua Māori, he taonga tuku iho, he taonga. Kia kaua e riro tērā whenua ki tangata kē. Ki taku mōhio ka whakaae atu a Ngāti Hineuru, ki tērā kōrero. Nō reira, kāti, he aha te raruraru? Ā tēnā ko tā tātau, ngā mārama kai mua i te aroaro? Ko te aha te ruku ki te hōhonutanga o tēnei take, he aha ai? E tika ana tā te mema, kia kaua tātau e hoki ki ngā pēhitanga, ki ngā mahi tinihanga o roto i Te Ture, i whānako nei, i riro ai e Te Karauna te mana o te whenua, kore te kaupapa. Nō reira, Ngāti Hineuru, haere mai, haere mai ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata, kia kōrerohia ēnei take.

Ko te āhuatanga o te hītori ka whakatakotohia e te mema, kua kōrerohia i te pānuitanga tuatahi. Kia hoki mai tātau ki te mea tuatoru, ā, kāti, me whakanui tātau i te āhuatanga, kaua i ngā mahi o Te Kōti Whenua Māori, kaua i te hōia, kaua i ngā tohe, hei tohengia ngā pakanga, kāo! Me whakanui i te take kua roa koutou e whaihai haeretia ana i roto i ngā tau, arā, kia hoki te mana, otirā, tētahi paku painga ki a koutou ā ngā tau kai mua i te aroaro.

Nō reira, kāti, haere mai. Whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, ā, kāti. Ā te wāhanga tuatoru, kua hui anō tātau ki konei whakanui ai. Haere mai, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata, huri noa, kia ora tātou katoa, kai raro.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to everyone. My appreciation to the member for Te Tai Hauāuru in regard to how we commenced proceedings this morning. Further to that, I turn to all of you Ngāti Hineuru who have fronted up this morning—acknowledgments to you, good morning, and an early one at that! Welcome to Parliament, the very one that walked all over the authority of Ngāti Hineuru in past years, as reiterated by the member Meka Whaitiri. Her contribution was good, she outlined the historical side—which I will not revisit as you have already heard it.

Furthermore, as I stand here my thoughts fly north, friends, to one of the pillars of the Te Kōhanga Reo movement, Mānuera Tohu, currently lying in state up there in the Far North. It is not as though it is him alone, but also the innumerable masses, many of whom you bring with you here today. Seeing your faces brings back memories of them. Upon hearing this name, Ngāti Hineuru, my thoughts bring back memories of Whetū Tipiwai. He was the person who, during his time, was the face of your claim. I lament him. He has gone beyond the horizon of memories. Enough. My part here this morning is to bring together all the departed under the cloak that belongs to all of us assembled here as one this morning, and to say to them—you of the void—sleep, rest, and slumber. To us the living throughout our House, my greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to you collectively and to us all.

First of all, I was not present in the House when the first contributions were made on this bill, and, yes, although the tenor of the statements by Ngāti Hineuru may have differed a little, the basic theme remained the same: plundering the land, confiscating the land, murdering people, all those kinds of things. But that sort of statement is not new in this Parliament as far as claim issues are concerned. So the first thing for me is to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, which went throughout the Ngāti Hineuru district and heard the accounts. I will not address those, because you, the committee members, were the ones who heard those accounts. However, I do acknowledge the chair and you, the members of our group, our committee of Parliament; you have a big role to play.

My ears are focused on the nature of Meka Whaitiri’s comments and assuring her that it is not possible to dispute what she has stated beyond the Māori land legislation, but I will come to that presently. The circumstances around the disputes and battles were discussed further at Petone, and what is more, the name Te Rangihīroa was the subject of discussion which has been written into the records of Parliament—and so I will not go back to those.

In regard to the Land Court, that is indeed correct. The Land Court was involved in the negotiations for you, Ngāti Hineuru. Its role under the Act was to steal the land, and that, perhaps, is the situation as far as the Māori Land Court is concerned. Therefore, I agree with that sort of talk and that kind of history! I agree also with what that member is saying—that the power of the trustee, in terms of Ngāti Hineuru land, should be returned to you. I agree to that and will not prolong those comments, because it has been mentioned and is out there already.

Perhaps I have one or two more supplementary statements to add to those that were made. The first one is in regard to a tribe going before the Waitangi Tribunal but at the same time ahead of another tribe; that is not a new situation at all. That is the situation in all claims! I have my own power and my own history, but—hello—what that tribe, that one, and that one are saying is quite different. So what happens now? Go to the court and settle the part that concerns you and the part that concerns me. It is similar as well, shall we say, to the Central North Island collective claims of which you are well aware. We have been fighting amongst ourselves for over 3 years for the region that I have and that that one, that one, and that one have. And so in the end it is a trip to the court to negotiate matters relating to land boundaries and authority—none of that is a new situation. Therefore, I disagree with what the member has said.

Secondly, I agreed with her opening remark in the closing stages of her address and where she said “There is a place for the law”. Quite correct! It was the law that abused and plundered this land under the cloak, according to the law, justly and honestly. The problem was that it was not really like that. We are still here trying to sort out those situations.

She alluded to the situation concerning the Māori land legislation. She apologised for turning to that matter, but this is the situation in the House: the protocol is first one side and then the other side. One side stands and delivers, then the other side responds. Eventually the third reading is reached, and contributions must remain focused on this task at hand—which is your claim, Ngāti Hineuru.

In terms of the Māori land legislation, I put it like this: it began in 1993; 5 years after—hello—changes began to happen. From that time onwards, discussions took place each year right up until the year just gone. So despite the member’s assertion there has only been a short period for consultation, in terms of public consultation, that is not it at all—the time devoted to this matter has been long enough. Her agenda was to amend the concerns you, Ngāti Hineuru, raised in your claim. Firstly, that the autonomy of Māori land must remain in the hands of Māoridom. Secondly, if Ngāti Hineuru wants to develop its own land then it must have a say in that. No one else has a say in it; not the court, no one else. And, to my knowledge, Ngāti Hineuru agrees to that statement.

Well, now to the third matter. Māori land is a treasure handed down; it is a treasure and must never be taken by someone else. As I understand it, Ngāti Hineuru agrees to that statement. Therefore, what is the problem? What else is there for us to consider in the months ahead? What else is there for us to delve into at depth, and for what purpose? The member is right—we must never go back to actions of suppression and deception through the Act that enabled the Crown to alienate land and secure ownership of it without the policy. Therefore welcome, Ngāti Hineuru, welcome into Parliament to discuss these matters.

The member has set down the historical context; it was considered in the first reading. And so when we come back for the third reading, suffice to say we will celebrate the circumstance and not the actions of the Māori Land Court, not the constabulary, disputes, and battles. We will celebrate the reason it took you so long to follow up this matter over the years—the return of the mana to you, in other words—to get back one small benefit for you collectively in the years to come.

So enough and welcome. Listen to the contributions. And I leave it there. At the third reading we will assemble here again to celebrate. Welcome and acknowledgments to you, Ngāti Hineuru. My acknowledgments to the members of the House throughout, and to all of us indeed, thank you. I resume my seat.]

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, e Te Whare. Ki a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Hineuru e rere haere ana ngā mihi aroha o Te Rōpū Kākāriki ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā whakahirahira ō koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you collectively, the House. To you, the descendants of Ngāti Hineuru, affectionate empathy goes to you all from the Green Party on this inspirational day of yours, so congratulations to us all.]

I rise to take the call for the Green Party in this, the second reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill, and I am doing so on behalf of Catherine Delahunty, who addressed Parliament at the first reading. So I am just taking her place for today. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the people of Hineuru who have got the legislation in this settlement to where it is today, and I include in that acknowledgment not only the people who have worked on the negotiations since 2010 but also those of previous generations who have worked their entire lives for justice for their people. And, like the others before me, I do want to acknowledge those who have passed on. I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, also the submitters who sent in their submissions, and those who came and spoke to the committee in person in Napier. I have read through some of the submissions, and I have also read the deed of settlement.

I agree with my colleague Catherine Delahunty that the history of Ngāti Hineuru has been invisibilised. It is a harrowing read. But I feel it necessary to read of the tragic losses and grief that have been suffered by the people, in order to understand this settlement itself. That history includes the alienation from their land and from the people of Hineuru through mostly foul means, as well as the historical injustices that were meted out to the people. I want to just quote from one part of the summary of the deed of settlement: “Thirty-four Hineuru individuals were among the 86 prisoners of the Crown captured at Ōmarunui and the conflict near Pētane. Most were transported to the Chatham Islands and detained without trial in harsh conditions for almost two years. In 1868 the prisoners escaped and became embroiled in a war with the Crown. During this war Crown forces attacked Ngātapa in January 1869. After the attack a severed head reported to belong to Nikora of Hineuru was brought back to the Crown camp. Crown forces summarily executed a number of prisoners captured at Ngātapa.”

This history is important. This history must hurt a lot. And it is the scars that the people of Hineuru bear today that this settlement seeks to heal. This history is hardly known by Pākehā. This history is not taught in schools, and that is another tragedy, for how can young Māori plot their future if they do not know their past? And a wider knowledge of the history of people—the frequently brutal story of colonisation—would maybe go some way towards preventing the ignorant and casual racism that pervades our society. So, yes, I think this history should be compulsory in schools.

I want to acknowledge that in this settlement Ngāti Hineuru have identified six pou that they want to see realised, and others have touched on them. They are the restoration and protection of Hineuru’s cultural heritage; the health and well-being of their people; the recognition of Hineuru’s mana and the restoration of their relationships with neighbouring iwi, which is very important; the reassertion of Hineuru presence throughout the rohe; the ability to rebuild an economic base for the iwi; and the revitalisation of Hineuru’s role as kaitiaki of the environment and their resources. And I note that the negotiations have tried to achieve that with this redress package, which includes financial redress of $25 million in the financial redress, plus $2 million for cultural revitalisation, plus some commercial redress, and the statutory recognition and deeds of recognition of wāhi tapu in places where Ngāti Hineuru have special association.

I also want to acknowledge that in this settlement Ngāti Hineuru have shown great generosity. One example is not only accepting this settlement, which does not cover their losses, but also things like the Waipunga Falls Scenic Reserve, which will be vested in Hineuru and held by them for 10 days but then returned as a gift to all New Zealanders.

I do have to say that, although the Greens celebrate with iwi the great achievements in getting this settlement through the House, we also have concerns about the settlement process itself. I note the supportive submissions of some of the neighbouring iwi, like Maungaharuru-Tangitū, but I also note the concerns of, for example, Ngāi Tahu ki Waikare about the competing interests in the Mōhaka-Wakare block. Our concern is that the Crown determines whom it will negotiate with, and it, obviously, prefers to deal with large natural groupings—that is what it says. So, essentially, again, the Crown holds the power. It determines who is in and who is out. I know it is a very difficult decision around who gets what but it is the Crown that determines it, and our concern is that that reinforces the Crown’s position as a coloniser and it pits iwi against iwi, hapū against hapū.

We know that there can be many interests from hapū and iwi in some significant places, because of the nature of relationships—the interweaving of the strands of whakapapa. However, the decision about who gets what rests with the Crown, and we worry about the potential that has to create additional grievances. Having said that, we acknowledge the negotiators who have had to balance those interests, and particularly the negotiators from Ngāti Hineuru, who have achieved the best settlement they can.

For the record, I do have to state that the Greens never—and we do not with this one either—accept the settlement as full and final, regardless of what it says in the deed of settlement. It is certainly not full when you compare the losses—the huge losses; the terrible hurts—with the compensation. It is certainly not a full settlement, and we do not think it is final, because the historical breaches—what happened in the past—may yet affect generations to come in ways that we have not foreseen, and I know that Ngāti Hineuru, in common with iwi across the country, have no wish to short-change the children yet to come. We do, however, recognise that this settlement is the best that could be negotiated for Ngāti Hineuru in these circumstances. We hope that it will be an economic base, a way to restore their mana, and that their people will be restored to their rightful place. We therefore commend the bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou ōku rangatira huri rauna i tō tātou Whare. E tū tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire i tōna pānui tuarua. Ki a koutou Ngāti Hineuru, nau mai haere mai, piki mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you, my noble ones around and throughout our House. I endorse this bill in its second reading. Welcome to you, Ngāti Hineuru, come hither, climb aboard, and pay homage to Parliament waiting here in readiness; so greetings, salutations, and acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all.]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of this bill at its second reading. It was a great honour to be on the Māori Affairs Committee when this bill was being considered and to travel up to the Hawke’s Bay with our—well, it was actually only half of the select committee, because we split on that particular day. But it is very important that we do travel to the takiwā—well, near enough to the takiwā involved—so that we can hear all of the submitters, especially the hau kāinga. It is always a pleasure.

I have sat on a few Treaty settlement bills in my time, when I was on the select committee, and the issues are very similar right across the board through every Treaty settlement, and I guess that was evidenced by the submitters who came forward. I am pleased that the overwhelming majority of all the submitters were wholeheartedly in support of this bill, in particular the neighbouring iwi in Maungaharuru-Tangitū. I was very pleased to see the support of the whole area, because there are a lot of connections between those various iwi, and they go back a long way.

Just to remind this House, actually, for those who do not know where the country of Ngāti Hineuru is, it is—it will not be accurate if I give geographic points. I could try, but it would probably not be effective. If you could picture it, for those who are familiar with the area, driving on the highway from Taupō to Napier, from Tarawera on the Napier-Taupō highway you go up to Te Hāroto, over the saddle, and down into the Hawke’s Bay. So it is a massive, massive area.

I am well familiar with Te Hāroto; I have actually been to Ngāti Hineuru as a young child. I was in the Rātana band. We were up there for—it must have been a whakamoemiti or hui of great note, but I remember it very well because it was snowing and it was extremely cold, and I was there, shivering in my uniform with my fellow band members. We could hardly get out a note, it was that cold. So we did not sound too good, marching on—in fact, we were very quick marching on. But I do have fond memories of Te Hāroto, even though it was mightily cold—even from someone from the south. I do know what the cold is like, but it was certainly cold up there on that particular day.

Just getting back to the submitters, there was a lot of local support. It was wonderful to hear those supportive submitters. There were submitters such as Ngāi Tahu, and I know we all perk up when we hear “Ngāi Tahu” but there is no connection to the southern Ngāi Tahu; this is a hapū from up those ways.

Meka Whaitiri: Pāhauwera.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Pāhauwera, that is right. We heard similar submissions when the Pāhauwera settlement was going through and when the Maungaharuru-Tangitū settlement was going through, in terms of who is included in what and who should be included on this. It is always difficult when peoples are on those boundaries or they all sort of mix together or are intermingled. But we heard those submitters, and those matters were clearly dealt with in the Pāhauwera settlement and also in the Maungaharuru one. It was very clear that Ngāti Hineuru definitely have their own grievances and their own settlement. That was made clear to us, but I do acknowledge those Ngāi Tahu submitters who were there to have their particular say.

Ngāti Hineuru, as I said, is this vast geographical area, but it has actually been involved in four Waitangi Tribunal inquiries. So we are talking about Tūhoe, we are talking about Taihape, we are talking about the central North Island—and one other. It is a vast area. Oh, it was Mōhaka ki Ahuriri. How could I forget the main one? It is a vast geographical area in a Māori sense, in an iwi sense, and it is really gratifying to know that we are progressing this bill so that Ngāti Hineuru can assert their identity, assert their mana, and their tino rangatiratanga over their ancestral landscape and over their tribal whenua.

I was pleased to note that Ngāti Hineuru do not muck around. They are a very progressive iwi. They have been working very hard—so hard that they have even purchased a farm that was a right of first refusal in their deed of settlement, which would be expiring later this year, but I understand they have already taken up that right of first refusal and have purchased the Woodstock farm—I would prefer to say their maunga tapu. It is their maunga tapu. They have purchased quite a large farm and adjoining forest lands, which are part of their maunga tapu, and it is wonderful that through this Treaty settlement, through the cultural redress and commercial redress, they have already been able to activate those hard-fought gains that they have managed to achieve within their settlement to bring their whenua back to their people and to be able to stand on their own maunga.

I do not want to prolong my contribution, but I do support Ngāti Hineuru for travelling down today through the storms and the lightning and the thunder. They were able to make it here safely to see this House support the safe passage of their bill, and I commend it at its second reading. I commend the swift passage of this bill through the House. Kia ora tātou.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare i te ata nei. E tū ake tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au ēngari, e te tuakana, Adrian, e mihi ana hoki ki a koe nau nei i whakaritengia wā tātou noho i te ata nei. E tika ana kia huri ngā whakaaro ki Te Runga Rawa kia īnoi atu ki a Ia, kia pai ai ō tātou mahi i te rā nei. Ēngari tua atu i tēnā, e tika ana kia mihi hoki ki a koutou mā Ngāti Hineuru i tae mai i waenganui i a tātou i te ata nei, me koutou e noho mai nā i te wā kāinga, me koutou hoki e mātakitaki mai ana i runga i te pouaka whakaata ki ēnei kōrero e pā ana ki tā koutou kerēme.

Ā, mihi hoki ki tēnā o ngā mate maha kei waenganui i a koutou nā Te Minita i whakahuangia te ingoa, a Whetū nā te mea, ko ia tetahi i kawea atu i tēnei kaupapa i runga i te hīkoitanga o tēnei take ki Te Whare nei. He mihi hoki ki a ia kua tū honohono ki tērā o ngā mate kei waenganui i a mātou, mai Te Tai Tokerau, nā, ko Manuera Tohu tēnā. Ko ia tetahi o ngā pou o Te Kōhanga Reo, nā reira, e tika ana kia mihi tonu ki a rātou.

Ā, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us seated here in the House this morning. I stand to support the tributes accorded by speakers who got up before me, but to you in particular, Adrian, my senior, a special thankyou for conducting a prayer over us seated here this morning. It is proper that thoughts are cast up to heaven, to Him, to ensure our work goes well today. But that aside, it is proper as well that you collectively of Ngāti Hineuru who have arrived here amongst us today be acknowledged, plus those of you back home, as well, watching these contributions on television that relate to your claims.

A tribute also to that one of the many deaths amongst you, whom the Minister for Māori Development named as being Whetū, because he was one who took this proposal on its trek to this House here—a tribute to him, united now with that other one of our deaths in the north, Manuera Tohu, one of the pillars of the kōhanga reo institution. Therefore, it is fitting that we continue to pay a tribute to them.

And so we come back to us, the living; acknowledgments, salutations, and congratulations to you collectively.]

On behalf of New Zealand First I stand to support this bill in its second reading. As an earlier speaker pointed out, this is the opportunity to report on the submissions that were presented to the Māori Affairs Committee, which I felt privileged to be a member of. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations quite rightly points out that the bill is about settling all claims and providing cultural redress to the iwi, together with financial redress, to allow them to go forward in terms of the economic development of the iwi.

Can I say that the committee received 13 submissions, and a majority of them were in favour of the bill. However, there were one or two submitters who spoke in opposition to the bill, and a number of concerns were also raised by those who supported the bill, not least of all the concern was that, as an iwi, they had not been recognised by the system—I am talking about Statistics New Zealand.

Members may recall that during the first reading of this bill I expressed my envy of Ngāti Hineuru, whose population, according to the information that was provided to us, was around the vicinity of 1,500. Yet my whānau exceeds the 5,000s—and that is just the Paraone whānau. But I belong to—well, I refer to—an iwi called Ngāti Hine in the north. And we are not even recognised as an iwi. Kia ahatia, kia ahatia? Koinā te āhuatanga o tātou!

[So what? So what of it? That is how it goes with us!]

But I am making the point, in support of this bill, that Ngāti Hineuru should be given due recognition, and when the next census is carried out, I would want to see Ngāti Hineuru on the list—next to Ngāti Hine. But if that is going to be a prevention of Ngāti Hineuru being on the list, then I am quite happy to stand down, because you have got to this stage as part of your settlement process and I think that it should be duly recognised.

As part of that whole process also, some disquiet was mentioned about not being able to participate in the fisheries allocation, although being an iwi. And we can understand that. But I just want to say to Ngāti Hineuru that Ngāti Hine is mentioned in the actual Maori Fisheries Act, but we have yet to see a scale. But that is another matter—hoi anō.

The report of the select committee also mentions the issue around the Mōhaka-Waikare block. The report, quite rightly, says that we heard the concerns of a representative of the Ngāi Tahu ki Waikare ancestral owners who queried the right of Ngāti Hineuru to include that part of their lands into their claim. We were aware that the Crown carried out investigations into the historical interests in the area before offering Hineuru redress in the Mōhaka-Waikare block, and these investigations found that Hineuru in fact has customary interests in the block. After the agreement in principle between the Crown and Hineuru was signed, the Crown consulted with all overlapping claimants to enable fair and appropriate redress. I think, in this respect, that that process needs to be commended because of the support that was provided by those iwi who had overlapping claims.

The Office of Treaty Settlements advised the committee that Ngāi Tahu ki Waikare is included in the definitions of Ngāti Pāhauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū claimants, and that those groups were part of the consultation on overlapping claims. Redress was provided in deeds of settlement for both groups to settle all of their historical claims. Therefore the Office of Treaty Settlements believes that the Crown has adequately considered the interests of Ngāi Tahu ki Waikare.

In terms of those who opposed the bill, one submitter was astonished that a hapū of Tūwharetoa Taupō has a Treaty of Waitangi grievance claim to lands outside of their ancestral boundaries. They referred to Hineuru as a hapū, alongside other Tūwharetoa hapū, that has received pūtea from land sales beginning in 1859 through to the 1900s. They said that Hineuru was a major beneficiary of the Mōhaka-Waikare land during the gift-back of confiscated land, including the Tarawera, Tataraakina, and Pohokura blocks. We also heard from another submitter, who objected to the claims settlement bill pertaining to the Waitara block that the Crown retained after confiscation in 1869.

Before I conclude, I just want to support some of the comments made by the Greens spokesperson in terms of this bill not being a complete settlement, in terms of iwi groups. But we do acknowledge the contribution that these settlements make to our nation. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e mihi atu ki a koutou ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata. Nō reira, e ngā uri o Rangihīroa, Ngāti Hineuru, Mātaatua Waka, Mōhaka Awa, Tītīōkura Mauka, e mihi nei, e tangi nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Mauria mai he whakaako ki te kaupapa nunui, ā, ko tēnei rā, e mihi atu ki a koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I acknowledge you, members of Parliament. To you, the descendants of Rangihīroa, Ngāti Hineuru, Mātaatua Canoe, Mōhaka River, and Tītīōkura Mountain, grieving and mourning here, I acknowledge you all. Bring forth a learning of huge significance, which is this day; I salute you.]

I want to also, first of all, acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, as its chair, and say that it has actually presented here today a lot of the background to the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. So as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee I say there are just two important points that I would like to make, and they concern, actually, the progress to the second reading. In the first reading we covered very much the historical aspects of this claim, this settlement. In this one it came down to the Māori Affairs Committee, and then from there we heard the 13 submissions. I think the important thing is that in those submissions we heard for and against.

So the first one I want to talk about is one that was actually for—one of the many that was for—the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. This one came from Karauna Brown, who is also one of the co - lead negotiators. Karauna spoke of the mamae and the pain that is being carried to this day by Ngāti Hineuru, particularly around the Crown confiscations. Karauna also highlighted the way the settlement provides recognition for Hineuru as an iwi, as a people. Hineuru have often been listed as a hapū of other iwi, such as Kahungunu or Tūwharetoa. Hineuru members have been reminded every 4 years during the census that they are not actually seen as being a listed iwi for them to select, but the members of Hineuru have continued to consider themselves to be an iwi in their own right, despite the Crown’s actions to undermine their status. This settlement recognises the mana of Hineuru as a distinct iwi and restores them to the place of relativity with other iwi in partnership with the Crown, so that, to me, is one of the real highlights of this Treaty settlement bill.

The next one is, again, from a party from the other side, which did not agree with this settlement. The Māori Affairs Committee actually hears—one of the great things about this is it is an opportunity for those who are involved in that whakapapa in the particular iwi to actually come and address the Māori Affairs Committee. The one I am talking about is from the representatives from Ngāi Tahu ki Waikare. These were ancestral owners, as they said, who submitted before the committee, and they have interests in the Mōhaka-Waikare block, which has been highlighted here a number of times today.

I think the important thing, though, with the Māori Affairs Committee is that we did give this a very, very good hearing, and, particularly, it was a very, very long discussion, as well. We took into account the historical interests and then also one of the important parts as to the whakapapa, and all of that, but at the end of the day it was a consensus of the committee that we found no reason to disagree with the Crown’s conclusion. So they are the two important submissions, I believe, in this process, in which we confirmed we would move this bill to the second reading.

I look forward again to this particular Treaty settlement coming back so that it can go through its Committee stage and then into its third reading. You will notice that we have only a very, very short time on this side of the House to actually kōrero, but on that note, hopefully, I have highlighted those two most important points. Nō reira, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi rā ki ngā whanaunga, ngā uri o Ngāti Hineuru, tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to the powers, voices, and esteemed ones of a hundredfold, acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to us all. Acknowledgments indeed to the relatives and descendants of Ngāti Hineuru; greetings to us.]

I stand here as a descendant of Ngāti Hineuru, incredibly proud to be in the House in the second reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. What I have decided to do is to actually let the voice of Ngāti Hineuru speak in this process, and what I want to do is quote from some of the submissions that were heard by my colleagues during the select committee process.

The first such is Ivy Kahukiwa-Smith, and I quote from her submission: “I get emotional thinking about the journey we have travelled. The most powerful aspect that has been hard for me has been hearing our histories and our stories. The stories of our struggles, our fights, the loss of life and whenua, and the consequence of being nearly landless are stories that have been really hard to hear. However, in learning these stories, it is important that this information is never lost. I am excited for the future because there is light beyond all of [the] pain and anguish suffered by my tupuna and it starts again with the finalisation of this settlement. Our Hineuru people deserve this. I think about all of those people who have been victims of this claim. I think about our old people who fought over many years and who are not alive to see the settlement come to fruition. Our old people deserve this. This settlement is about them. It is about making sure they are recognised for the mamae they have suffered as a consequence of the actions of the Crown. This is also about our future and about building a stronger Hineuru. With this settlement, we are able to make sure our people are well looked after. It is as much about the past as it is about our future.”

I would also like to quote from the submission of Karauna Brown: “Our people were peaceful people, but the Crown believed that we were rebels and so we were attacked. They were peaceful, but being at Omarunui, they were absolutely slaughtered. Our people were then imprisoned and taken to the Chatham Islands where they lived in inhumane conditions before coming back with Te Kooti. Our people were then stripped of their land by the Crown through various means and now we are centrally located in a very small settlement; Te Haroto. There was a huge mamae for me from the battle of Omarunui because in that slaughter was my own koro and his name is Te Wano. He is on one of the poupou in our whare. Because of my Koro, I continue this journey today. He started it, and now I hope I can take it over and finally finish it. He deserves it and so too my mokopuna. As a negotiator, when I heard the Crown offer the apology, I had a bit of a tangi. This is because it brought back a lot of the mamae that we carry from the raupatu. It brings back all of the memories of the stories. One major aspect of the settlement for me is recognition of who we are as a people. We are not a hapū of Kahungunu or Tuwharetoa, but we are an iwi in our own right. This settlement has been about us fighting to rebuild our mana as an iwi. For far too long, we have been subsumed into other iwi. This settlement provides us with another standing to be recognised as an iwi and to stand proud as Hineuru.”

Toi Tāwhai’s submission says: “The reason why I support this Bill is because of how proud I am to be Hineuru, how proud I am to have been part of this journey and how I believe it is an important step in us moving forward as an iwi. Given the effort of all negotiators involved, and how long it has taken to come this far, I believe we got the best settlement we could have in the circumstances. … I think that this settlement will make our future brighter and allow us to remedy the grievances that the Crown has inflicted on us in the past. It will enable us … to move forward with mana. The Hineuru settlement does not compensate us for all of our grievances, nor does it satisfy every single member of Hineuru. No settlement will ever be sufficient to fix or to right the wrongs of the past or to satisfy everyone. However, as someone who is involved in this kaupapa, I can say that we have worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome for our people.”

I would now like to quote from Tirohia Bridger’s submission: “For me this bill is the end of a long, hard journey that my mother began when this kaupapa started decades ago. Her name is Hine (Gladys) Campbell and her life’s work has been working for her iwi, Hineuru. At times this mahi, for her, was very difficult and her work has not been rewarded. She also did not get to see the benefits that this Treaty settlement will bring for the iwi. But I always remember that she never got involved for selfish reasons. One of my mother’s catchphrases when she used to take me around on hui was: ‘When you start doing this mahi, never ever focus on the money. When you are working for Hineuru, you focus on Hineuru.’ Therefore, for me, the settlement is about my kuia, our generation, and the future mokopuna to come.”

I would now like to quote from Rēnata Bush: “This type of mahi takes a big toll on the wairua, and for me it is important to continue to have karakia. I pray to our heavenly father that we complete this settlement very soon so that we can let go of the pain and mamae of our people, and begin to work toward a better future for our mokopuna.”

And, finally, Tūhuiao Kahukiwa: “I remember my kuia and koroua say[ing] to me years ago—I was a mokopuna then. My old people said to me, ‘Mokopuna, this is all for you. We are fighting for this for you.’ Now that I have grown up, I say to you, my mokopuna, ‘Moko, this is all for you.’ I was the mokopuna then, but now I am still fighting for my mokopuna. I don’t think my children will see the eventual fruits of this settlement. My mokopuna might see some fruits, but the next generation after that will be hugely rewarded for the pain and suffering caused by my old people. This is for them. We want to finalise this settlement because the future is for Hineuru. It is no one else’s to take it away from them. We are ready to build a stronger future for our mokopuna. I wholeheartedly support the completion of the Hineuru settlement and the finalisation of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill.”

I read these out because I think it is important that the voice of Ngāti Hineuru is recorded in Hansard, and because for me it has always been about the power of our people through this truth and reconciliation process to get to a point of settlement that is very much about our aroha for our tūpuna, but it is also about us accepting what has happened to us and actually focusing on the future. Every iwi in Aotearoa have their stories, Hineuru have their own stories, but I think it is incumbent upon us in Parliament to make sure that the voices of the people whom we represent and the voices of the people who are involved in the Treaty settlement process actually are the most important voice in this House.

I have been listening intently, actually, to the whole focus on identity and the status of an iwi, and how important it is for iwi to be recognised. One of the issues that Hineuru brought up in the select committee process was that it wants recognition through the census. I guess it is an opportunity to recommend to the Māori Affairs Committee that it is an opportunity for you to write to Minister Foss, who is our Minister of Statistics, and jointly with the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to actually create not a precedent but a principle: that if iwi are recognised through the Treaty settlement process then they automatically should be included in the next census. I actually thank Hineuru for bringing that to the attention of the House, because it is something that we can do and that we can include, possibly not as part of the settlement but as a principle going forward.

So, with my colleagues, I commend this bill to the House, and I am incredibly proud to be here today to witness the passage of this legislation. Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e hui ā-kanohi nei i tēnei rā, koutou i hara mai ā-tinana ki te whakarongo ā-taringa, ki te tiro atu ā-karu, ā, ki te rongo ā-wairua hoki ki te kiko o ngā kōrero kua whārikihia i tēnei rā, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou i roto i ō koutou mate i tēnei wā, ngā mate o te wiki, o te marama, o te tau ēngari anō mō ngā tahi rau tau kua hipa, ō koutou tūpuna i mate mai i roto i te pakanga o Ōmarunui, kai te mihi atu ki a rātou katoa. Ā, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you gathered here physically, face to face, on this day to hear, see, and spiritually experience the gist of these contributions delivered before you. I acknowledge you collectively in regard to your deaths at this point in time—not just those of the week, month, or year, but those as well of the past hundred years, your ancestors who died in the battle of Ōmarunui. I do pay a tribute to them all, so greetings and salutations to you collectively. My appreciation to us all.]

Ngāti Hineuru, like many other iwi in Aotearoa, you have suffered. Ngāti Hineuru suffered land confiscation under the New Zealand Settlements Act, suffered in the Land Wars at Ōmarunui, near Pētane, where Te Rangi Hīroa lost his life. The involvement of Hineuru with Te Kooti and your participation in the peaceful Pai Mārire movement branded the people as rebels, which yielded unwarranted attacks. The tūpuna who survived those attacks were exiled—exiled from the ancestral lands to the Chathams. Whilst the people were exiled the lands were plundered, rendering the people of Hineuru virtually landless. In fact, some of the land was given to other iwi. The Crown detained the ancestors of Hineuru and executed those ancestors without trial. When settlement negotiations started in 2009 Hineuru negotiators provided a set of pou, representing the settlement aspirations: mai i Hineuru, mō Hineuru [from Hineuru, for Hineuru].

But what is most astounding to me in the history of this people is the significance of the landholdings, the strategic landholdings in a pivotal part of the central North Island that you once held. They were the arterial routes between Hawke’s Bay and Taupō, Rotorua, and the Bay of Plenty. They included Rangitaiki and Kāingaroa, which, in your submission, was explained as a mahinga kai area, and bordered by Maungaharuru, Te Waka Range, and the Kāweka Range where the settlement was—a significant part of the central North Island. What is astounding is that, despite that huge area, after decimating your people the Crown did not even acknowledge your status as an iwi and you were left out of the fisheries settlement because of what the Crown decided you were, because the Crown wanted to make a decision about who you were and where you got to live. You know, from that prominent position that you held and then becoming landless, what is, again, astounding to me is the small area that is coming back to you—the small parcel of land that is coming back to you, the Hineuru people. You have had to use the settlement money to purchase some more land, and the small amount of money the people get is being subsumed further by having to purchase more land.

I ask myself why. I have a 5-minute call only, but I ask myself: why do we do this? When will Aotearoa recognise the gift that our people give in their settlements, because if we took all that should have been returned, our country could not afford it. You, the Hineuru people, have answered why: through your pou: tuatahi restoration, protection, cultural heritage—aroha mai, Mr Assistant Speaker. Your pou explains it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Joanne Hughes.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you—Hayes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Hayes—sorry, I apologise.

JOANNE HAYES: Ā, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou ngā whānau o Ngāti Hineuru. Nau mai, haere mai!

[And so I acknowledge you greatly, the family of Ngāti Hineuru. Welcome, come hither!]

This is going to be a short contribution today because we have got to start looking to the future for Ngāti Hineuru. Much has been said about the content of your bill and the travesty that you suffered through land loss, through the invasion of the Crown on to your land. So I want to turn you to looking towards your future and where to from here, because this is all about the future for mokopuna in Ngāti Hineuru—remembering the past but looking forward to the future. So without any further ado I want to commend the bill to the House and look forward to the rest of the process to see your bill traverse its way into legislation. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Kai aku rangatira o Tauranga Moana, tēnā koutou, haere mai. He ngāwari tā koutou noho, kua oti kē i a mātau te tuku i tētahi kupu kōrero ki te wāhi ngaro, anā, kua rongo ngā uri o Ngāti Hineuru i tērā karakia, ā, nō reira kua ea tērā, kua huri ki a koutou katoa kua haramai i raro i a Mauao, ā, i Te Ākau o Tauranga Moana, tēnā koutou, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai! Ēhara tēnei hīkoi ō koutou i te huarahi hōu, kua tae kē mai a Ngāti Ranginui, kua tae kē mai a Ngāti Pūkenga. Nā, kua eke ki te rā, ā, kua eke mai koutou; nō reira, ko tāku ko te kī, ā, hei wāwāhi i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero, tēnā koutou, haere mai.

He kitenga kanohi, ka hoki ngā mahara. Tuatahi, ki te hunga kua ngaro inātata nei; Colin Reeder kai te mōhio tonu koe ki te āhuatanga o to tāua hoa a Matiu i Te Whare Wānanga, ka tangi ake. Nā tātau tērā i tuku ki Te Kōpū o Papatūānuku i te kotahi marama pea kua hipa ake. Ko Matiu tērā i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa mō tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Arā anō ngā pakeke e mōhiotia nei e koutou, kai aku rangatira o Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Pōtiki, ko Rere Amoamo, ko rātau, tērā hunga, tērā whakatipuranga, ā, ka mutu, taihoa ake nei ka hoki ki ētahi, kia kōrerohia rātau. Ēngari ki ngā pakeke, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai.

E Turi tēnā koe e whakakanohi nei i to pāpā. He āhua pāpōuri te ngākau kāre tērā koroua, tērā o ngā pāpā i haramai ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata kia rongo i tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Ko ia te kanohi e kōrerohia ana i runga i ngā marae o Te Motu. Te kanohi o Tauranga Moana, ka mutu o Ngāi Te Rangi. Ko ia, ki a koe te pāpā Hauata, tēnā koe haere mai. E te hoa o Te Whare Pāremata i ngā tau kua hipa ake te hōnore e Mita, tēnā koe. Haramai ki te hōro, haramai ki te marae o Te Whare Pāremata, kua waia kē koe ki ēnei momo āhuatanga. Nō reira, he oranga ngākau kua tae mai koe i te taha o to iwi, ki konei kōrero ai i ngā take o tēnei rā. Nō reira, e Tiare, ko koe tērā te tiamana i whai wāhi nā i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa o te iwi, ka nui te mihi. Ki ngā kanohi e mōhiotia ana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

E Riri, tēnā koe, Wikitōria, ē, ko koutou kua haere mai i tēnei rā. Ko te whānau Rōritanga pai te kite atu i a koutou, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai rā. Nō reira, kia whai wāhi au ki te mihi ki Te Minita i te mea, ko ngā kerēme katoa i ngā 6 tau pea kua hipa, nāna tonu i āki ki te whakatakoto ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata nei, kia taea ai e ngā iwi te kimi, te whai tonu i tētahi huarahi hei painga mō rātau.

Anā, ko koutou tēnei i whai i ngā tapuwae o ngā iwi i kōrerohia nā e au inātata nei. Nō reira, tēnei te huarahi i kitea e ētahi iwi i mua i a koutou anā, ko Ngāti Hineuru tērā i mua i a koutou. Whai muri i a koutou ko ngā iwi o Whanganui ka tae mai ki te kōrero mō Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui. Heoi anō, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, kai te mōhio tonu ahau he ara tāpokopoko i whāia e koutou.

Me mihi rā ki ngā mea e noho nei hei kaikōrero mō koutou. Ko te taha ki a Ngāi Te Rangi ki a Spencer Webster—kāre au i te tino kite i a ia—āe, kai reira tonu ia. Ki a Mita, ki a koe; ki a Willie Te Aho, tērā Māori ka whai wāhi tana ringa ki roto i ngā kerēme katoa o Te Motu ēngari, ā, hoi anō tērā, tērā. Ka mutu kia huri atu ki a Ngā Pōtiki, ki a koe Wikitōria, ōtirā, ki a Mātānuku, ā, kāre au i te tino mōhio ki tō pānga ki Tauranga Moana ēngari, he pai tonu. Māu tērā e kōrero, ko te whakapapa ki roto o Tauranga Moana, ēngari, tērā pea ā-rōia nei, ka mihi ki a koe. Ko koe te ringa āwhina ki a Ngā Pōtiki, ka mihi ki a koe i haramai ki te taha o ngā pāpā nei, o ngā kūia nei, o ngā whānau nei, ā, tēnā koutou katoa.

Kua rongo koutou i ngā kōrero o ngā mema Pāremata inātata nei mō te iwi nei mō Ngāti Hineuru. Ko te wāhi ki a au, ēhara i te mea ki te whakatakoto i ngā hītori katoa, ka waiho ake mā Te Minita tērā e kōrero. Ko tāku ko te kī atu, kai te rongo koutou i tētahi paku rerekētanga o ngā nawe, o ngā take o Ngāti Hineuru ki ērā o Ngā Pōtiki, o Ngāi Te Rangi—ki taku mōhio, kāo. Ki taku mōhio kāo. Muru i te raupatu, ko koutou tērā. Muru raupatu, ā, he kaupapa e waia nei koutou ki tērā āhuatanga. Ko te muru i te whenua, ko te takatakahi i te mana, ā, ko te tū o te pakanga. Ēhara koutou i te tauhōu ki ērā kōrero.

Kia kōrero au mō te āhuatanga o Pukehinahina, o Te Ranga. I tū ngā tohe o Te Karauna ki ngā iwi, ā, kāti, kua waia kē tātau ki ngā mahi tohe a Te Karauna, ngā pakanga i waenganui i a tātau. Nō reira, mai i te tau 18, taku mōhio, 65, ā, tae rā anō ki ngā tau, me kī, 1970, tērā wāhanga, ā, i āhua pērā rawa te āhuatanga o te noho o Te Karauna ki ngā iwi o roto o Tauranga Moana, otirā, o Te Motu. Ko taku iwi o Ngāti Rangiwewehi i tū, pokohiwi ki te pokohiwi, ki Te Ranga. Ki taku mōhio pērā anō hoki ki Pukehinahina. Me pērā i te mea kua āhua tata nei te whenua e nohoia nei e ōku pāpā, e ōku koroua, e ōku kuia ki tērā o roto o Tauranga Moana. Ēngari ko te mate kē, i raro i te ture, i raupatuhia ngā whenua o Ngāi Te Rangi, otirā, o Ngā Pōtiki. Ko te taunga waka rererangi, ki taku mōhio, i murua i a koutou. Ko te āhuatanga o te rori hōu, ngā wāhi o te rori hōu mai i Tauranga Moana ki Te Puke, he pērā anō te āhua.

Ka hoki aku mahara ki tētahi pire nāku tonu i kōkiri ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Ko te ingoa o te pire nei, ko Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. Nāku tēnā i kōkiri ki roto nei. He aha i pērā ai? I te mea, ā, ko te tikanga o tērā pire he whakahoki atu i tērā whenua ki a koutou, i te mea i murua e Te Karauna. Otirā, i tukuna ki te kaunihera, mō te aha? Kia taea ai e te kaunihera o Tauranga te tuku i tāna parapara ki roto i ngā whenua o Ngāi Te Rangi. Me kī, ki te tāhuna o Rangataua, ā, ka tukuna te para, te tūtae, te aha rānei ki te ākau ki Papamoa. Nō reira, ka tangi ake, koirā tētahi tauira o te āhuatanga o te mahi a Te Karauna ki ngā iwi o roto i a koutou, a Ngā Pōtiki, a Ngāi Te Rangi ēngari, he pai tonu, i te wā poto kai a au kua huri pea a Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Pōtiki ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama.

Ko au tētahi i waimarie ki te tae atu ki Te Whetū, ki te whakatuwheratanga o tērā kaupapa ā-whare nā. Wikitōria ko koe tērā i kōkiri i tērā kaupapa. Nō reira, ā, ka mutu ki Mangataua. He pērā anō te āhuatanga. He aha te mahi? He hanga whare kia tiaki i ngā pakeke, kia tiaki i ngā kuia, i ngā koroua. Nō reira, ka mihi rā ki tērā āhuatanga. Ēhara i te mea kai te noho koutou i te pō uriuri, te pō tangotango, kāo! He hiahia nō koutou kia puta ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Mā tēnei huarahi pea ka eke ki tērā taumata. Nō reira ko te wāhi ki a au, he wāwāhi i ngā kōrero mō Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā me te kī atu, nau mai, haere mai i tēnei rā.

Ēhara i te mea kua mutu, kāo! He tīmatanga noa ake tēnei i te mea, ka haere Te Whare Pāremata ki a koutou ki te rongo i ngā kōrero, ka mutu ko te pānuitanga tuatahi, ā, ka mana, kua wātea te huarah. Nō reira, kua rahi māku i tēnei rā, haere mai, kai aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Greetings and welcome to my esteemed of Tauranga Moana. You can rest easy; we have already paid homage to the unseen world, the descendants of Ngāti Hineuru witnessed that prayer, all of that has been taken care of, so I turn now to all of you who have arrived from Mauao, from the shores of Tauranga Moana, greetings to you collectively, welcome, welcome, welcome! This journey of yours is not a new one, Ngāti Ranginui and Ngāti Pūkenga have already been here, and now we come to this today, to your arrival; therefore, I say, as a way of introducing matters on this issue, salutations to you, welcome.

A face seen is a memory recalled. Firstly, to those recently departed: Colin Reeder, you knew our good friend Matiu very well at university. I lament him. It was us who buried him only a month ago. Matiu was involved in the negotiations for this matter. And there were other elders that you all know. To my esteemed ones of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, to Rere Amoamo, they were the group, that generation. Also, I will refer to others whom I will talk about. However, to the elders, welcome, come hither.

To you, Turi, I thank you for representing your father here. I am a little bit saddened that that elderly gentlemen, that uncle of ours, was not able to be here in Parliament to hear these matters. He was a person who was spoken of on every marae around the country, the representative of Tauranga Moana and indeed of Ngāi Te Rangi. And to you, my Uncle Howard, greetings and welcome to you. To a dear friend of this Parliament in years gone by, to the honourable Mita, greetings. Welcome to the House, welcome to the marae of Parliament. You are already very familiar with these occasions. It is very uplifting to see you have arrived here with your tribe, to discuss the matters before us this day. And to you, Charlie, you are the chairman who was given this opportunity by your iwi. My sincerest gratitude to you. To all the others whom I know, greetings and acknowledgments to you all.

I pay tribute to you, Riri, to Wikitōria, and to all the others who have come this day. To the Rolleston family, it is good to see you all. I bid you all welcome, welcome, indeed welcome. Furthermore, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, because, with all the claims that have gone through in the last 6 years, it was he who encouraged them to be presented before this Parliament so that the tribes could quickly get on with the job of pursuing a better pathway for them all.

And so this is you—you have followed in the footsteps of those other tribes that I have recently mentioned. Therefore, this was the pathway that other tribes had discovered before you, and it was Ngāti Hineuru just before you all. After you, the tribes of Whanganui will be arriving to discuss the ancestral river of Whanganui. However, let me put it this way, I know it is a billowy course that you have travelled.

I want to thank those who are here as spokespersons for you. On behalf of Ngāi Te Rangi there is Spencer Webster—I cannot really see him—oh yes, he is still there. To you too, Mita, and to you, Willie Te Aho—that Māori who seems to have a hand in all the claims around the country. However, so be it. Futhermore, can I turn to Ngā Pōtiki, to you, Wikitōria, and at the same time to you, Mātānuku—I am not really sure of your connection to Tauranga Moana—but that is fine. You can mention it, your geneology to Tauranga Moana. However, as a lawyer, I must pay tribute to you. You were the helping hand for Ngā Pōtiki, and so I thank you for coming along with these uncles and old matriachs of the families here. My acknowledgments to you all.

You would have heard some of the contributions from the members of Parliament just recently in regard to Ngāti Hineuru. My contribution will be not to outline all the historical account; I will leave that to the Minister. I would like to say—you will hear a slightly different version of the concerns, of the issues of Ngāti Hineuru, to those of Ngā Pōtiki and of Ngāi Te Rangi—my understanding is, no. As far as I know, there is no justice for confiscations, that is you. Confiscation is an issue that you are very familiar with. The dispossession of lands, the disregard for mana—that is something that you are quite used to now. The confiscation of land, the disregard for mana and the engagement of war. You are not strangers to those stories.

I would like to make mention of the circumstances of Pukehinahina, of Te Ranga. These were battles initiated by the Crown against the tribes. Oh well, we are quite familiar with the disagreements of the Crown and the battles between us. Accordingly, since 1865 and up until the 1970s—that period—that is very much how things were between the Crown and the tribes of Tauranga Moana, and, indeed, of the country. My own tribe of Ngāti Rangiwewehi stood shoulder to shoulder at Te Ranga. And as far as I know it was similar at Pukehinahina. And I should say that, because the land where my own uncles and grandparents live is similar to that land in Tauranga Moana. The only problem is—in terms of the law—the land was confiscated, the lands of Ngāi Te Rangi and of Ngā Pōtiki. The airport is one place where I believe the land was taken from you. And there are the circumstances of the new road, those parts of the new road, from Tauranga Moana to Te Puke, it is the same.

I cast my mind back to a bill that I actually introduced into this Parliament. The name of the bill was the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Repeal Bill. I introduced this into the House. Why was that? Because the intention of that bill was to return the land to you all, as it was taken by the Crown. However, why was it given to the council, for what purpose? So that the Tauranga council could deposit their effluent into the lands of Ngāi Te Rangi, let us say, to the shore of Rangataua, and they released their rubbish, their excrement, and whatever else, on to the beaches at Papamoa. I weep at this situation. This is an example of the sorts of things the Crown was doing to the tribes amonst you, of Ngā Pōtiki anf Ngāi Te Rangi. However, it is OK. In the short time I have had, maybe Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki have become a bit clearer and more enlightened on the issues.

I was one of the fortunate ones to go to Te Whetū, to the opening of the housing complex there. It was you, Wikitōria, who advanced this issue. Therefore, it is similar with Mangataua. There are similar circumstances. And what were they? They were to do with the building of houses to care for the elderly, the old womenfolk and menfolk. Consequently, I acknowledge that matter. It is not as though you are all sitting in the dark, in the intense darkness—never! It is your earnest desire to enter into the glimmer of dawn and into the world of light. This pathway may assist you in reaching that pinnacle. And, therefore, it has been my task to begin this debate for Parliament today, and to say to you all welcome and salutations to you today.

It is not as though it is all over; no, this is just the beginning, and Parliament will be coming to you to listen to what you have to say. It will become official following the first reading. The way will be clear. Therefore, that is enough from me today. I say welcome to my esteemed elders, greetings and salutations to you collectively, and my appreciation to us all.]

I commend this bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao ki te ao mārama, tīhei wā mauri ora! I a au e tupu tamariki ana, ko ngā mātua o te hau kāinga o Te Tai Tokerau, whakaakohia mai te mahi o te kai kōrero tuarua hei tautoko ake i ngā kōrero a te kaikōrero tuatahi. Nā runga i taua whakaaro, ko ngā mihi hoki ki tōku tuakana ki te mema Pāremata o Te Tai Hauāuru, nāna tō tātou huihuinga i te ata nei i whakarite, kia anga atu ngā kanohi me ngā wairua ki tō tātou Kaihanga. Māna tātou e tiaki ki roto i ngā nekehanga o te wā nei, māna anō hoki koutou e tiaki ki roto i tō koutou nohoanga i roto i tō tātou Whare, ka mutu ki tō koutou hokinga atu ki te wā kāinga.

Ka tāpae atu ngā mihi me ngā tangi ki ō tātou tini aituā, ngā mate o te wā kua wahaina mai e Te Minita, e tōku matua a Te Ururoa, ki tērā pou o te kōhanga reo, tērā tauira o te ao kōhatu ka riro atu ki roto i te kōpū o te whenua, kāti, e tangi ana tēnei; ka tāpae hoki au i ngā mate, ko ōku tuākana ērā kua ngaro atu ki te pō. E Ngāi Te Rangi, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I te wīkene kua pahura ake nei i tuki waka i aituāngia e ōku tuākana ki roto i a koutou. Koutou rā tēnā e tiaki i a rātou i te rā nei, ka ngaro atu ki te hua kōiwi o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna ki roto o Pangaru, Waihau, i te rā nei. Kāti te wāhanga ki ngā mate, haere, haere, haere!

Kia whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou, tēnā tātou katoa! E Ngāi Te Rangi, e Ngā Pōtiki, e tautoko ana ahau i ngā whakatau ki a koutou i te rā nei. Haere mai rā koutou. Haere mai rā koutou ki te whakakanohi i ngā mātua, i ngā tūpuna rātou ngā whānau kei te kāinga e tatari mai ana. Mō te aha te take? Mō ngā rawa kei roto i te pire? Kāhore! Mō ngā kōrero a tēnei Whare? Kāhore! Ēngari kia whakahokia atu ko te mana motuhake i whawhai ō koutou mātua tūpuna tahi me ngā tūpuna o tēnei e kōrero nei, e hoki atu ki te kāinga. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I te mārama kua pahura ake nei, i kōrero atu ahau ki ō koutou whanaunga i tae mai ki roto i ngā take kerēme i roto i Te Whare nei. I taua tāima i kōrero ahau mō ngā pānga ō koutou ki a māua ko tōku tuakana nei a Pita, mai i te pakanga o Te Ruapekapeka ka whai whakaaro ahau ki ngā pakanga o tōku kāinga hei tāpae atu ki ngā pakanga kua kōrero mai nā e Te Minita ki roto i tō tātou Whare i te rā nei. Ka whakaaro anō hoki ki ngā mātua tūpuna nā rātou i haina i Te Tiriti o Waitangi ahakoa te rangirua, ahakoa ēhara i te mea he mataku ēngari he rangirua ki ngā mahi tinihanga ki ngā mahi māminga a Te Karauna i taua tāima. Ahakoa tērā, ka hainatia rātou i Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ētahi ō rātou, me te hiahia kia whiwhi oranga rātou ki roto i ngā tau ka haere ake. Kāti, ko ngā mātua tūpuna tērā heke iho mai ki a koutou, otirā ki a tātou i tēnei rā; tēnā tātou.

Māmā noa iho te kōrero atu mō ngā iwi e kōkiri ana i ngā take nei ka whai whakaaro ahau ki ngā hapū kei roto i a koutou. Kua kōrero mai tōku tuakana a Pita mō te āhuatanga ki a Ngāti Hine ki roto i Te Tai Tokerau. Kāti, ka mihi atu ki te mana o ngā hapū kua whakakotahi mai nei kia karangahia tēnei Whare he iwi kē koutou. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana au ki a koutou i roto i ngā āhuatanga o te wā nei.

E aku rangatira, kua kōrero ētahi mō ngā whawhai, mō ngā pakanga mō ngā tūkino a Te Karauna i a Ngāi Te Rangi rātou ko Ngā Potiki. Ka whakaaro ake ahau, āe, e mōhio ana tātou Te Māori i ngā pakanga, i ngā mahi tūkino a te kāwanatanga anā ko te pū te mea e arahi nei i te kōrero. Ēngari i tēnei wā, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā ture. He nui ngā pātai ka pātaihia mai ki a au nei, āe, e mōhio ana au i tūkinohia e te Kāwanatanga i a mātou; ēngari, ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ngā ture hei wāwāhi i ngā iwi Māori hei tango i te whenua hei patu i te wairua. Nō reira, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero a Te Minita a mea mō te tuku para mō te tuku tūtae mō te tuku puta ki roto i ngā wai kaukau o ō koutou mātua tūpuna, kāti. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki te mahi rangahau e tātou mā.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki tēnei pire i pahure ki roto i tēnei Whare, arā, ko te Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, āe mārika, āe mārika! Ka pānui ahau i tēnei pire me te ki atu ahakoa ka wāwāhi te pire nei i tētahi huarahi, ka taea e ngā tāngata katoa o te wāhi rā ki te tuku kōrero ki te tuku i wā rātou mana e pā ana ki tēnei wāhi kua tango mai e Te Karauna i a koutou. Ka mutu ka pānui ahau i ngā niupepa o taua tāima, ka tū kaha a Ngā Pōtiki me ngā iwi katoa o Tauranga Moana ki te whawhai i tēnei pire ahakoa i kī ki roto i te pire nei, ka whai wāhi koutou ki roto i ngā mahi nei. Kua kite tātou i roto i ngā kōrero, kāhore, kāhore, kāhore!

Nō reira, ko te pai o tēnei pire i te rā nei ki te whakatutuki i ngā whawhai, i ngā kōrero ā koutou i taua tāima i roto i ngā mahi o te wā nei. He aha ai? Kia whai oranga koutou i roto i ngā mahi kei mua i a koutou, hei oranga ngākau, hei oranga wairua, hei oranga mō ngā uri whakatupu e haere ake nei. Āe mārika te nanakia o ngā ture Pākehā.

Kei roto i ēnei pukapuka ko ngā ture wāwāhi whenua, ka tono atu ki ngā Pākehā mā rātou e whakahaere. Ko tētahi āhuatanga pai ki a au nei i roto i tēnei pire, ko te nuinga o ngā pire kua kite nei tātou, e wehewehe nei i a tāua te Māori. Nā, kua kite ahau i tērā āhuatanga ki roto o Ngāpuhi. Ēngari, mā tēnei pire ka āhei a Ngāi Te Rangi, ka āhei a Ngā Pōtiki me ngā tāngata katoa, ngā hapū katoa, ngā mana katoa, ngā iwi katoa o tērā kāinga te mahi ngātahi. He aha ai? Hei whakahaere ake i ngā whenua ka whakahokia atu hei whakahaere ake i ngā rawa, kia whakahoki atu ki a Ngāi Te Rangi, ki a Ngā Pōtiki i tēnei rā.

E Te Pāpā, e Taku Ariki e Tumu, kātahi anō koe kua tau mai ki roto i tō tātou Whare; tēnei e mihi atu nei te ngākau; tēnā koe, tēnā koe!

Kua rongo koutou i āianei kua tangi te pere, nō reira, kua whāiti te tāima ki a au nei. Nō reira, ko tāku kōrero whakamutunga ki a koutou e aku rangatira, e te pāpā e Mita, koutou, koinā te take o tēnei Whare; rawa atu au e kite i te nuinga e noho mai nā kī pātata i a koutou. Nō reira, ka huri atu ki a koe e te pāpā e Mita, e mihi atu ana ki a koe, kua ārahi mai nā e koe i tō iwi ki roto i tō tātou Whare.

Hei whakakapi ake, ko te taha pūtea ka whakahokia atu ki a koutou, e whakaae ana tēnei, otirā, te nuinga o mātou, he kōnae iti ki te rawa i riro atu ki te Kāwanatanga i te taima i raupatuhia e rātou ō koutou whenua, i takahia ai rātou i ō koutou mana me tō koutou wairua. Kāti, mā tēnei pea ka whai oranga koutou i roto i ngā mahi kei mua i a koutou.

Ko tāku atu ki a koutou e Ngāi Te Rangi, e Ngā Pōtiki i tēnei ata, mā Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i Ngā Take Māori, mā ngā mema katoa o tēnei Whare, e āta whakaarohia, e āta wetewete ngā kōrero kei roto i te pire, mō koutou te take. Nō reira, kāti ake rā i konei e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e aku rangatira kua tau nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. As energy is manifest into the world of light, it is life. Growing up, as a child, our parents’ generation back home in the Far North taught us that the role of the second speaker is to support the speech of the first speaker. Accordingly, I thank my senior colleague and member of Parliament for Te Tai Hauāuru, who commenced our proceedings this morning by turning our eyes and spirits to our creator, who will protect and guide us in this dynamic environment, and who will also protect and guide you in your stay here in our House, and on your safe return journey home.

I acknowledge and lament our dearly departed, including those recently deceased mentioned by the Minister for Māori Development, by my uncle Te Ururoa, such as that pillar of the kōhanga reo movement who exemplified the ancient world, now laid to rest within the earth, alas; I too mourn. I also acknowledge my own older cousins who only just passed away. Ngāi Te Rangi, my sincere thanks to you. Just last weekend my older cousins died in a car accident within your tribal area. You looked after them and today they are being laid to rest in the hallowed burial grounds among the ancestors of Pangaru and Waihau. Farewell to all the dearly deceased, may you rest in eternal peace.

Returning to us, the living—greetings one and all! Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, I support this settlement with you today. Welcome, all of you. Welcome to you, the representatives embodying the faces of the elders and ancestors and the many families waiting back home. For what exactly? For the assets within the bill? No. For the words of this House? No. But for the return of self-determination, which your ancestors and mine fought for together, that it be returned home. My greetings and salutations to you all.

In the month just gone I spoke with your relations who had arrived here in the House pursuant to the claims process. At that time I referred to the connection that exists between yourselves and my senior kinsman Pita and me, from the battle of Te Ruapekapeka; indeed, I reflect on the battles of my own home in relating to the battles spoken of by the Minister in our House today. I also reflect on the ancestors who signed the Treaty of Waitangi despite great apprehension, not through fear but in trepidation of the treachery and deceit of the Crown at that time. Despite that, they still signed the Treaty of Waitangi, some of them, anyway, with the hope of securing prosperity in the years ahead. And so it was for those ancestors from whom you descend today, or rather from whom we descend, indeed; greetings to all of us.

It is easy to talk about tribes advancing these issues, but I also reflect on the subtribes among you. My senior kinsman Pita has spoken to me about Ngāti Hine in the Far North. Accordingly, I acknowledge the integrity of the subtribes that have come together here to enable this House to refer to you collectively as a tribal entity. And so I congratulate you in the circumstances of this moment.

Esteemed guests, some have commented on conflicts, battles, and atrocities committed by the Crown against Ngāi Te Rangi and those of Ngā Pōtiki. On reflection, yes, we Māori are aware of the wars in regard to acts of atrocities inflicted by the Government, and there you are—the gun is leading the talk! But at this moment I reflect on the laws. Many questions have been asked for me to respond to; yes, I am aware we were molested by the government. However, I think about the laws as a means of driving Māori tribes apart from each other, taking possession of land and being a killjoy. I cast my thoughts back to the Minister’s comments in terms of direct pollution and sewage releases into the waters where your parents and ancestors bathed—but enough. I reflect on what is being done in the area of research, which I consider is good for everyone.

I think about the bill that was passed in this House, namely the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975—yes, indeed, and very much so. I read this bill and speculated: even if this bill opens up a way, everybody from that area can make a submission and stake their authority to this place that was taken from you by the Crown. Furthermore, I read in the newspapers of that time that Ngā Pōtiki and all the tribes of Tauranga Moana stood strongly to fight that bill even though there was a provision in the bill for you to be involved in these operations. We have seen in the accounts that absolutely nothing came out of it at all.

Therefore, the good thing about this bill today is that it allows the battles and your accounts of that time to be fulfilled and to be included in current operations. Why? So that there is a livelihood in the work and in the future that will sustain your psychological and spiritual well-being and the well-being of future generations. Yes, indeed, not bad for Pākehā law.

Contained in these documents are laws that divide up lands, and then send them to Pākehā for them to administer. To me, an aspect of this bill that is good is that the majority of the bills we have seen separate the Māori—you people and me. I have seen that situation in Ngāpuhi. But through this bill, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Pōtiki, and everybody, all subtribes, authorities, and tribes of that place, are able to work collaboratively. Why? To administer the lands that are to be returned, and to manage the resources that are to be returned to Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki today.

To you, the respected father figure, to my paramount chief, Tumu, I have just noted your arrival into our House; I acknowledge your noble presence and extend a heartfelt welcome to you; greetings and welcome.

You all would have heard the bell ring, and so I have not much time left. My final comment to you esteemed ones, to Uncle Mita, and to you all collectively is that that then is the purpose of this House; I have never seen such masses of your ilk fill this House and be packed so closely as you are. And so I acknowledge you, Uncle Mita. You did that by leading your people into this House of ours.

In conclusion, and in regard to the funding to be returned to you, despite it being a mere pittance compared to the resources the Government accrued at the time your lands were confiscated and your status and spirit were trampled upon, the majority of us and I agree to that happening. Enough; this might bring about the well-being that you are striving for through the work ahead of you.

I assure you, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, that the Māori Affairs Committee and all the members of this House will carefully consider and scrutinise the accounts in this bill with your interests in mind. Therefore, Mr Assistant Speaker and my esteemed ones gathered here, acknowledgments and greetings to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I am very pleased to take a call to support the first reading of this bill, which, like other Tauranga bills, has been many years in the making. To those in the gallery who have come to witness the long-awaited and historic day, I welcome you to Parliament. Tēnā koutou. Can I say that it is great to see our former colleague Mita Ririnui back in the House today.

The signing of this deed of settlement in 2013 signalled the completion of all settlements with the three Tauranga Moana iwi. The bill follows the introduction of the other two Tauranga Moana bills, the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. I spoke at the first readings of both those bills on 14 April, and it was a great pleasure for us parliamentarians to host Ngāi Te Rangi for that occasion, along with the other Tauranga Moana iwi. It is fitting for the three Tauranga Moana iwi, who began their Treaty settlement journey all those years ago, to be basically at the same stage in the legislative process. Despite the time that has been taken to get to this point, I never had any doubt that we would get there, and that is why I am so pleased to see representatives of the iwi in the gallery, and I hope they agree with me that it has been worth the wait.

An unusual feature of this settlement is that there are two entities mandated to negotiate the settlement of Ngāi Te Rangi’s claims. We have got Te Runanga o Ngāi Te Rangi and the Ngā Pōtiki a Tamapahore Trust. In October 2008 the Crown recognised the mandate of Te Runanga o Ngāi Te Rangi to negotiate a settlement of the historical Treaty claims for nine of the 10 Ngāi Te Rangi hapū. Then, in May 2011, the Crown recognised the mandate of the trust to represent the Ngā Pōtiki claimant community in negotiations of their historical Treaty claims as part of the Ngāi Te Rangi negotiations with the rūnanga. I want to take a moment to commend the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki negotiators and trustees for the way in which they worked together at one table to negotiate with the Crown. It was, indeed, an unusual arrangement to have two mandated groups negotiating at the one Treaty settlement table with the Crown, but they managed this relationship with professionalism and with manaakitanga for each group’s aspirations.

In June 2013 Cabinet approved the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki settlement package, and the agreement in principle was signed on 28 June 2013. The team was determined to try to achieve the signing of a deed of settlement in 2013 and they did keep the pressure on the Crown to achieve this, and eventually it was signed on 14 December 2013, on a typically fine Tauranga Saturday morning.

This bill will give legislative effect to the final agreements on the redress as set out in the deed. The historical claims of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki primarily relate to the Crown-initiated military conflict in Tauranga in 1864, which was in breach of the Treaty and its principles. The claims also relate to the ensuing confiscation, or raupatu, the Crown purchase of the Te Puna - Katikati block, the imposition of native land laws in Tauranga Moana, Crown purchasing methods in the Tauranga district in the 1880s and 1890s, the compulsory acquisition of uneconomic interests, and, inevitably—and I say this every debate on a settlement bill—public works takings. As a result of these actions, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki are virtually landless, retaining only approximately 2 percent of their rohe with their cultural landscapes and seascapes compromised and diminished.

As we know, it is not possible to compensate Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki fully for the loss suffered as a result of the Crown’s acts and omissions, but, hopefully, the financial and commercial redress provided seeks to recognise those losses. Commercial redress includes quantum of $26.5 million plus interest to Ngāi Te Rangi and $3 million to Ngā Pōtiki, plus interest, land-banked properties, commercial redress properties, sale and leaseback properties, and rights of first refusal in relation to the disposal of Crown land. Cultural redress includes the vesting and joint vesting of sites of cultural and historical significance to Ngāi Te Rangi. It also includes changes to official geographic names and statutory acknowledgments over areas that are of great significance.

Ngāi Te Rangi can trace their origins to the Mātaatua waka. They have had a long and varied history of war and migration. By the 18th century they had become known as Ngāi Te Rangihouhiri, named after their leader, who, along with his brother Tamapahore, led their people through turbulent times and to the area they now call home. I am sure that both those tūpuna would be very proud indeed of the way the negotiators and trustees have fought hard to achieve the best settlement possible for future generations of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki.

I want to acknowledge all those who have supported the settlement, those who are with us today and those who have since passed. I particularly want to acknowledge those who championed the claims at the tribunal, through to the whānau, the marae, and the rūnanga workers who quietly slaved behind the scenes to support the work of others.

A person of more recent times it is appropriate to acknowledge is Matiu Dickson. Matiu came from the Ngāi Te Rangi hapū of Ngāi Tūkairangi. He was a man of many talents, who made an important contribution to Māori education and to iwi politics. These talents included being a law lecturer at the University of Waikato, serving as a Tauranga city councillor, being a board member of Pharmac, and being a judge for Te Matatini National Kapa Haka Festival competitions. He had a particular skill in bringing people together and forging a shared sense of understanding when it came to Treaty of Waitangi aspirations. As one of the Ngāi Te Rangi negotiators, his skills in this area were critical to reaching this point, and I acknowledge his contribution.

I particularly want to acknowledge the chief Crown negotiator for the three negotiations in Tauranga, Dame Patsy Reddy. She oversaw the work on this settlement and was instrumental in the completion of all the Treaty settlements in the region. I take this opportunity to wish her all the best for her next role, and I hope, as indeed she hopes, she is in the chair to sign into law the Tauranga settlement bills. On that day I hope we can all have a great party—all of us—up at Government House.

Finally, I want to thank my ministerial colleagues, the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements, and officials from the various agencies for all the work they have done to make this settlement possible. I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and thus I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Kelvin Davis. [Interruption] Sorry, I apologise to the member, but I have called Kelvin Davis.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi māku e tautokongia ngā kupu hei whakatau i a koutou Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Pōtiki ki roto i tēnei tō tātou Whare i runga i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ō koutou kerēme. E te hoa, e Mita, hari koa ana ahau te kite i a koe i roto i Te Whare; tēnā rā koe. Mihi kau ana ki a koe mō ō kaha tautoko i ahau i taku taenga mai ki tēnei Whare Paremata, nā reira e mihi kau ana ahau ki a koe. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me is to endorse the welcoming sentiments accorded to you, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, into this our House in regard to the speeches relating to your claim. In so far as you are concerned, Mita and friend, I am overjoyed to see you in the House; greetings indeed to you. I really acknowledge and appreciate your tremendous support when I arrived in this House, and therefore I thank you immensely for that. Thank you all.]

In these settlement claim bills I think it is always appropriate to go over the historical background relating to the bills and the historical account. I have said it time and again that I get really fed up with the great unwashed, ignorant people out there who say: “Why are these Māoris always in here putting their hand out, wanting more money?”. It just irritates me to the eyeballs, and I think it is really important that we go through the historical account so people understand, first of all, what was lost before they start hearing and complaining about what is going to come back to the tribes.

I remember meeting some people down here in a restaurant in Wellington who attacked me, basically, by saying: “Oh, you Māoris, why are you always doing this? Why are you always asking for more money? Why have you got your hands out? When’s it going to impact on the people in your tribes?”. I basically had a stand-up argument with them and said: “You guys need to actually get your facts straight. You need to find out what really happened and stop being so ignorant.”

In terms of Ngāi Te Rangi, in the late 1850s and early 1860s, they were going about their business quite peacefully, settled there around Tauranga just basically doing what people do—finding food, looking after the whānau—but then with the establishment of the Kīngitanga in 1858 and the Crown’s attempts to quell what was happening in Waikato, Ngāi Te Rangi, as well as Ngā Pōtiki, supported their whanaunga over in the Waikato by taking arms, food, and supplies. It happens these days whenever countries go to war. There is always an economy created around the supply and the logistics and support for those battles. It was no different in those days. Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki saw their whanaunga needing assistance, and so went to their aid.

The Crown, though, to quash this, came and fought Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki and confiscated some 290,000 acres. The population of Aotearoa New Zealand at the time was probably around about that—everybody in Aotearoa New Zealand could have had a whole acre to themselves. That is the size of the parcel of land that was confiscated in the district in Tauranga. It was done to punish those Māori who opposed the Crown. When that land was to be returned, Ngāi Te Rangi rangatira understood that 25 percent of the land would be held, but it would be only from those who had resisted the Governor. In the end, that was not the case. The Crown retained 50,000 acres.

My uncle up in Motuōtau had a farm of some 200 acres. I thought it was a huge bit of land, especially when I had to lift hay-bales. But some 50,000 acres of land—this was not a punishment; this is tantamount to a form of genocide by excluding people from huge amounts of land. It was all about revenge on behalf of the Crown.

I see here that there was a prominent Ngāi Te Rangi rangatira, Hōri Tūpaea. He was associated with Paimarire activities, and he was detained without being charged with any offence. I find it interesting that it is acknowledged—and I am sorry to detract here slightly from the bill—that it is wrong to detain somebody without charges, and, 150 or so years after that event, we are saying sorry to a person who has passed away. If the Government is really, really apologetic about detaining somebody without charges, then we also need to address the situation where our whanaunga in Australia are being detained without charges.

I remember when the Māori Affairs Committee went to Tauranga Moana to discuss the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, some 5 years ago. I remember a kaumātua standing up and telling us about the area of the coast where they used to gather kai moana when he was a little kid. It was plentiful, plentiful kai moana, heaps of food. Then he said that within a matter of years a port was built right where they gathered their kai moana. No consultation, no asking—just plonk a port there. So what are people meant to do when their pantry, their food stores, are just taken away like that, and they are made to feel bad—“Oh, what are you worried about? The port’s here, you can go and pick pipis somewhere else, but this is good for the economy of Tauranga and for the Bay of Plenty.”

Well, my question is how have Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Potiki benefited from that port? Sure, some people may have got jobs, but the reality is their mana over those areas of land was just taken and gone. The unfairness of it all, this is what I want people listening in to understand—the unfairness of these decisions by the Crown and by their agencies, and the systems that they have set up to rob people of their livelihoods, of their food stores. Ngā Pōtiki suffered similar fates. Their burial place of Tamapahore on top of a strategic maunga, an ancestral maunga, was disturbed for quarrying. Many of the non-Māori people probably do not know the significance to us of our maunga. Whenever we recite our pepeha, we talk about our waka and

I mihi to Mātaatua, koutou ngā tuakana; ko ahau tētahi o ngā uri o Puhi, te teina, nā reira e mihi kau ana ki a koutou.

[I greet you, Mātaatua, you the elder siblings; I am one of the descendants of Puhi, the younger sibling, and so I really acknowledge you collectively.]

Maunga are so significant to us, and along comes a council and just quarries—quarries, disturbs the bones of their tūpuna. A rubbish dump was built on Rangataua tidal flats—a rubbish dump—where, again, they collected kai moana, and then later a sewage pond was constructed there. This would be the equivalent these days of someone going into Pak ’N Save and taking a crap in the seafood aisle. The place would be closed down. The shelves would be cleared, it would be fumigated, and yet the Crown and the council at the time said it was OK to have a sewage pipe going through the kai moana - gathering spot and a rubbish dump leeching all of its waste into that estuary. And where do Ngā Pōtiki go to get kai moana then?

This is the reality, and it is a pity that the group of schoolchildren left the gallery a few minutes ago because this is what needs to be told. Our people growing up need to know the true history of our country. It does need to be taught in schools, as was mentioned earlier in the House, so that we do not have people hitting up politicians and Māoris in restaurants and pubs and saying: “Why have you guys always got your hands out and wanting more money?”. The reality is—and we all know—that the value returned is going to be less than 2 to 3 percent of what was taken, and that is why these claims need to be settled. Kia ora.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e Te Whare; ka huri aku whakaaro ki te hunga mate, rātou ngā tūpuna o Ngāi Te Rangi me Ngā Pōtiki kua wehe atu ki te pō i runga i te ara roa o te kerēme nei. Haere, haere, haere, oti atu rā! Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa ngā uri kua tae mai nei.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you collectively, the House; my thoughts turn to the dead, to the ancestors of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki who have gone to the void upon the long road of this claim. Depart, leave, and go forever! Let the dead link up and remain with each other, we acknowledge you; let the living link up with each other. Acknowledgments to you collectively and to you, all the relatives who have arrived here.]

I want to start by firstly acknowledging the people of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki who have passed on. I particularly want to acknowledge those who have spent their lives—and it has been over many generations—fighting for justice for their people. This bill signals the last of a series of settlements relating to the iwi of Tauranga Moana. The larger iwi, Ngāi Te Rangi, negotiated to work collectively with Ngā Pōtiki to achieve this joint settlement, and that is what we are celebrating today.

The history behind this bill is a history of betrayal by the Crown. It is a history of raupatu in both the 19th and the 20th centuries. The Crown brought war to Tauranga Moana in order to justify confiscation and to gain access to the fertile lands there, and in a bid to limit Ngāi Te Rangi support for the Kīngitanga. In particular, General Cameron brought a reign of terror to the Waikato, which was also because the Crown wanted that land. The consequences of the battles in Tauranga were a massive confiscation of the land of these two iwi and a betrayal of the promise that only some lands of those involved in the fighting would be confiscated. A large area was taken, as we have heard from Kelvin Davis, the previous speaker, and when some of it was returned it was returned to individuals, not to hapū, which, when you analyse it, is how you alienate the collective hapū from their land. It undermines the hapū rangatiratanga.

Given the importance of this history and the Land Wars’ impacts on these iwi and many others, you would think that the Crown in 2016 would be ensuring that this history would be taught in our schools. How many people, for example, would know that Te Papa Peninsula, which is today where the Tauranga central business district is, was included in the confiscations? That is acknowledged in the deed of settlement and in the acknowledged history.

In addition to the large land loss and destruction of social and economic structures, the 20th century saw a continuation of the attack on the people of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki via the use of the Public Works Act. The sacred burial site of Ngā Pōtiki tūpuna, Tamapahore, at Mangatawa, was destroyed, firstly by a quarry and subsequently by a reservoir. The Public Works Act was used to build sewage works that would pollute their food basket and undermine their kaitiakitanga. This is acknowledged in the deed of settlement, and I just want to quote from it. It says that “the development of the Port of Tauranga, the disposing of sewerage and wastewater into the harbours and waterways of Tauranga Moana, and the construction of effluent treatment ponds on Te Tahuna o Rangataua, have resulted in the environmental degradation of Tauranga Moana and reduction of biodiversity and food resources which remain a source of great distress to Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki.”

It also says in the deed of settlement that since 1886, on top of the thousands and thousands of acres of land that were confiscated or swindled from iwi, “421 acres of Ngā Pōtiki lands have been acquired for public works purposes.” To this day, the Public Works Act is, correctly, considered to be an instrument of oppression against tangata whenua lands, and this is why my colleague, Green MP Catherine Delahunty, has a bill that has been selected from the ballot to prevent any more collectively owned Māori land being taken under the Public Works Act. It has been hugely supported by iwi across the country. It may not stop it all, but it is a start, and many tangata whenua are supporting it because the Public Works Act has done enough damage.

Although we acknowledge the journey that it has taken to get this bill to the House, the Greens also maintain that this bill does not represent a full and final settlement. It is not final because at this stage we do not know how the past actions of the Crown will impact on the generations yet to come, and it is certainly not full when we compare the redress package with the huge losses suffered, and the previous speaker spoke about that.

We also have strong reservations about the process, which is that the Crown determines whom it will and will not negotiate with. We worry that this will cause more breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi because it can pit iwi against iwi and hapū against hapū. Make no mistake: the settlement, although it is to be acknowledged and celebrated, is a deal. It is the best offer iwi could negotiate at the time, but we still need to recognise that it is a deal.

The financial redress package for Ngāi Te Rangi is $25 million and for Ngā Pōtiki it is $3 million. They will receive interest, and there are some commercial properties as well, but, as it says in the deed of settlement, this is for setting up an economic base. It says that the financial and commercial redress is aimed at providing Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki with resources to assist them to develop their economic and social well-being, which was basically stripped from them with their land. The iwi will also have the opportunity to buy back some properties—about 37 of them for Ngāi Te Rangi, and 32 for Ngā Pōtiki.

I think we have to acknowledge the generosity of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki for agreeing to this settlement. The compensation is a drop in the bucket. Tomorrow is Budget day. That is when the Government will decide how many millions it will allocate for its various projects. With a total of nearly $30 million for this settlement, it does not come anywhere near the $1.7 billion that this Government allocated to bail out South Canterbury Finance about 4 or 5 years ago, and those investors did not even lose their land.

The relationship redress sets out how the Government agencies will interact and consult with Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki. It includes provisions for the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Office of Treaty Settlements to write letters introducing members of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki to governance entities like Government agencies, local authorities, education providers, and State-owned enterprises. There are also some reserves that will be vested in Ngāi Te Rangi as cultural redress. That will give the opportunity for the iwi to work with the Crown to protect and enhance the conservation values.

Last, but not least, the legislation contains the apology from the Crown to iwi. That apology is to be valued. It can never be underestimated. Again, we acknowledge the generosity of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki. We hope that this settlement will help with setting up an economic base for their people and that the apology will go some way towards healing the hurts from the past, but we have a long way to go before they are fully restored to their place in Aotearoa New Zealand. Having said that, we will be supporting this bill.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tīhei wā mauri ora, tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao ki te ao mārama! E tū ake tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e aku tuākana i tū ake i mua i a au ki te ’hakatau i a koutou kua tae mai nei i te rā nei.

E Ngāi Te Rangi, e Ngā Pōtiki, karekau e mōhio ana ko wai koutou e noho nei ēngari, ’hakarongongia e au ngā kōrero a Te Minita i ’hakahuangia ētahi o ngā ingoa. Nā reira e kara, e Mita, hoki mai koe ki te wā kāinga. Charlie, ngā mihi hoki ki a koe i arahi mai i tō rōpū kia ’hakatau tēnei kaupapa i te Whare nei, ā, ki a koe hoki e Haueta. Hoki te mahara i te wā e noho ana koe i roto i a mātou i Te Tai Tokerau kia haututu i a tāua, kia ahatia? Ēngari, ka nui ngā mihi ki a koutou. Ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei kaupapa, e tika ana kia mihi kau ana ki a koe e te rangatira e Tumu, ā, me tō rōpū i tae mai nei i roto i Te Whare i te rā nei.

E ’hakaaro ana au: “He aha ngā take kārekau au i kite atu i a koutou Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Pōtiki?” Nā te mea e noho ana koutou ki tēnei taha ki te titiro ā-kanohi i tēnā e noho nei i te wā taha o Te Kāwanatanga. Ēngari māku e mea atu ki a koutou, kia mahara ā te tau e tū mai, he kōhiringa pōti, i muri mai i tēnā, kei a mātou o tēnei taha i neke atu ki tērā taha, mēnā e tautoko ana i a koutou ki mātou, kia ahatia? Kia hoki mai ki te kaupapa i mua i a tātau i te rā nei.

[Behold the breath of life! Well-being to the natural and enlightened world! I rise to endorse the words of welcome accorded by my elder colleagues who got up before me to you who have arrived here.

Although I cannot see any of you who are seated, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, I did listen to what the Minister for Māori Development was saying and to some of the names he mentioned. And so to you, my friend Mita, welcome back home. I compliment you, Charlie, who led your group here to this House to settle this matter, and now to you, Haueta. I think back to the time when you lived amongst us in the north and we got up to mischief—so what! But much appreciation to you collectively. Before I go on with this matter, it is only proper that I acknowledge you, esteemed one Tumu, and your group that has arrived here inside the House today.

I am thinking: “Why am I not able to see you, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki?” Because you are sitting on this side so you can face that lot on the Government side. But I want to warn you that there is an election next year, and afterwards, we on this side might shift to that side if you support us, so what are you going to do about it? But let us come back to the matter in front of us today.]

On behalf of New Zealand First I stand to make a contribution to this debate, which deals with the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill. Can I say that, unlike other settlement bills that have come to this House at this point in time, this is the first one that I have seen where two claimant groups are being dealt with through the claims process under one bill.

I want to commend those who have been responsible for bringing the claim to this stage. As the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiatons quite rightly pointed out, that could have happened only with the cooperation of the parties involved. However, having said that, I look forward to the time when the Māori Affairs Committee will have the opportunity to hear submissions from the claimants, particularly those who support the claim but also those who probably do not support the claim. I think it is important that they have the opportunity to be able to express their view.

The settlement is about cultural and financial redress, and is a financial settlement as well, in terms of the assessed value of the claim. I say “assessed” because, as the speaker before me, Denise Roche, quite rightly pointed out, these claims, although they are regarded as full and final, cannot really be regarded as fully compensating the various iwi.

One speaker mentioned that he was somewhat annoyed at being badgered when he went to a restaurant by people who clearly did not understand the process that iwi have to go through to reach this stage. Part of the problem is that not too many people know the history of our nation, particularly the history involving our people.

I want to take this opportunity, for those who are sitting in the gallery, to say that in a few weeks’ time school boards of trustees will be having their elections. When the Māori Affairs Committee heard submissions regarding the recognition of New Zealand battles, we were told by the Ministry of Education that in order to change the curriculum, submissions had to be made by the boards of governors of each school. If that is the case, then I want to say to you in the gallery to take the opportunity to put up our people to stand for boards of trustees so that you can influence the schools to be able to teach our history. It is a sad commentary that we have to do it by that process, because if the Government wants to change something, it does not go back to each community to seek its approval; it just makes the decision. I just wonder why the Government cannot take the opportunity, given the highlight that has been given to New Zealand history over recent months, to make the decision to include the teaching of New Zealand history in the curricula of our schools. Be that as it may, that is the situation at the moment.

But that is no consolation to the people of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki. They certainly have grounds to be concerned about the loss of land over the 1850s and the balance of that century. This is an opportunity to try to rectify that. I think that with a will they will certainly be in a position to advance the economic cause of their people by way of this settlement.

I just want to say one thing about this and other settlements. It seems to me that prior to settlements actually being made, once the quantum is mentioned, other interests are wanting to lean on the iwi to contribute to the wider benefit of the community. I just want to signal that that should not be a signal for Māori to necessarily assist their local bodies or even central government in terms of addressing some of the social issues confronting our people.

I just want to take this opportunity to say that New Zealand First supports this bill and it commends its referral to the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei ka mi’i nui atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui i Te Raki. Ko Ia te tīmataka me te whakaotika o koutou katoa. Nō reira, ka mi’i au ki Te Kaihōmai mō ka mea pai katoa. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a Ngāi Te Rangi Ngāpōtiki e mihi atu o te whanauka o Te Waka o Tākitimu, e Mātaatua, nō reira, huri noa, huri noa i Te Whare, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and throughout this House with a huge blessing to our great father in heaven; he is the beginning and the ending for you all, my thanks to the provider of all good things. Therefore, I this kin of the Tākitimu canoe, Mātaatua, greet you, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, and you all throughout the entire House.]

I have been given only a very, very short call because that is what we get on this side of the House, so when you see a note coming across, I have got 1 minute.

As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee I do want to acknowledge the fact that around 3 or 4 weeks ago we had the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill. That bill had its first reading, but there was one more to come and it is this bill here today. So it has actually arrived.

With this bill—just very, very quickly I will go over some of the main points that are going to be a highlight of this bill itself. In settlements, as we have seen, this is really another familiar story around the reasons why we should have a Treaty settlement. This is about land loss through broken promises and confiscations. This is about underhand purchases, particularly from minors. This is about relationships with the Kīngitanga that were actually detrimental to Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki. This is also about—which is quite unique—a famous battle at Gate Pā that was won by the vanquished.

As I said, all of these stories are familiar, but one of the most beautiful things about this settlement is around the tikanga, particularly when we see the coming together of two iwi and particularly the uri of two brothers. I mention Rangihouhiri and the ancestors Ngāi Te Rangi and Tamapahore, the ancestor of Ngā Pōtiki. What a beautiful way to bring that together and embark on this journey to settlement.

It is interesting that we hear from the other side of the House around the fact that you will see who is holding the purse strings—not that side, but this side. When you look at this Government, and particularly over the last three terms, there is an incredible number of Treaty settlements that have been put through. I just want to acknowledge that.

The final thing is the fact that there is a very, very principled and pragmatic select committee in this House that is called the Māori Affairs Committee, and as chair I want to acknowledge the members of that particular committee. We love to think that we park all of our political affiliations at the door and get on with what is good for our people, and with this particular bill that is certainly what we will do.

I want to finish on this note. A young wahine from Waiuku said yesterday at the Youth Awards that were held here at Parliament: “Let’s not dwell too long on what was lost. Let’s embrace what we have obtained today, for our future—not that we will ever forget the wrongs that have happened, but it’s actually about an apology. It’s about moving forward.”

The Māori Affairs Committee looks forward to receiving this bill. I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā tātou katoa. Tuatahi tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe Te Ariki, e Tumu, hei whakakanohi mai i a rātou mā i whakatū te pou ki Pūkawa kia whaia e tātou te mana motuhake o Te Iwi Māori nō reira, ki a koutou nō Te Awa o Whanganui tēnei te mihi atu. Ka hoki mai ki a koutou o Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Pōtiki, nei te tino tāpiri atu aku mihi maioha ki ērā i waihotia i mua i a koutou nei aroaro tēnei pānuitanga o tā koutou pire; nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to us all. Firstly I acknowledge you, paramount chief Tumu, who are the face of those who erected the pillar at Pūkawa where we sought independence for Māoridom, and to those of you of the river of Whanganui, I greet you. I come back to you, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, and add my genuine and fond regards to those who left before you this reading of your bill; therefore congratulations to you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to support the first reading of the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill, and the intent of the legislation. I want to acknowledge both Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki for their longstanding efforts to get to this particular time, and also commend their aspirations for the future.

Can I acknowledge those negotiators who have already been mentioned but make special acknowledgment of my former colleague Mita Ririnui, who was an associate spokesperson on Treaty settlements, and of Matua Hauata Palmer, who kindly hosted me when I was doing a little bit of research of my own. I will come to those salient lessons as I go through my speech.

I want to also acknowledge Matua Waka Paama and Matiu Dixon. I had some personal interaction with Matiu during his time in the Waikato, over a number of years. Can I say, Minister, that everything you said about Matiu was absolutely true. He made a huge contribution to the Waikato. He is sadly and sorely missed in our area because he was a community man. He understood the necessity of trying to hold on to and uphold the values that Māori have within an ever-changing world, and I think he was absolutely consistent right through to his untimely death. Waka also made a huge contribution to the Hāhi Rātana. He was a kind soul and very wise, and people who sought his advice would always get two sides of the coin, I think. He gave very wise counsel.

I came to this whole process of the Tauranga Moana Treaty settlement knowing those commonalities of our experience. Raupatu was all about iwi standing up for their own lands, fighting to retain what was theirs in their own area. But let us put Tauranga Moana into some context, because today Tauranga Moana has one of the most successful ports other than Auckland. In the future it will continue to be one of the most successful economic areas, or engine rooms, for the country.

So when we think about the opportunities going forward it is no wonder that there has been some significant effort to try to retain some gains around local government representation. Mita Ririnui himself, under some vociferous and nasty debate, introduced the first provision for Māori seats at the regional council level. Once you understand the extent of the impact that that level of decision making at central government and local government can have, I think the opportunities in this particular settlement can only be built on.

I want to reiterate the comments of the Minister. The Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill really brings together what has already been debated at first reading in this House for Ngāti Ranginui and Ngāti Pūkenga. However, those things outstanding, the Tauranga Moana framework—everything to do with what is happening in the marine space of Tauranga Moana—is absolutely significant. We have not mentioned the Rena, but it did have a big impact on their area. The response may not have been as well accommodated for as iwi wanted, but should it ever happen again—we hope it does not—the response should be much better informed with the direct contribution of iwi.

Again, the other issue about the Tauranga Moana framework, which in time we may well get to support if it requires legislation, is the ongoing ability of iwi within Tauranga Moana to have a say on the way in which the harbour develops, because if, for example, any extension to the port or any dredging within that part of the marine space of Tauranga Moana is required, iwi should have a say. The turnover of the Port of Tauranga just last year was $79 million, so you calculate how long the port has been there and what the lost opportunity is for the people of Tauranga, and then see what the ongoing obligation of any Government would be to try to include the people of Tauranga Moana within the development of their particular part of the world.

Housing is unaffordable for people from Tauranga. Tangata whenua from Tauranga are being outpriced in their own region. That cannot be fair. The settlement does provide an avenue for opportunities, and I was heartened by my visit to Ngā Pōtiki and looking at what they are doing to enter into the space of the provision of housing for their own people in the social housing space through partnerships. They are starting in ways that they obviously have a plan around and are doing good work in, but the sad reality is that as Tauranga becomes more economically prosperous, our question has to be: will this settlement enable them to continue to live and thrive in their own region? That is going to be the ongoing test of the settlement.

I made mention earlier that I went to visit Hauata with the specific intent—I am the representative for Hauraki-Waikato, and I am standing to make some very certain statements based on some research that I undertook, because I had questions, knowing that Hauraki iwi had made claims into Ngāi Te Rangi. My questions were very simple, and from my own upbringing. If you understand your own history you use that as a platform to be whakahīhī enough to go and ask a question—nā runga i te kore mōhio, nā runga i te kūwaretanga. He pātai noa iho kia āta kimihia te huarahi pai māku [be arrogant enough to go and ask a question because of one’s lack of knowledge and ignorance. It is just a question of carefully seeking a way for me]—so that I could stand with a level of conviction about things. But I did have concerns about the extent, Minister—and you know this—of Hauraki’s interests right into the central business district of Tauranga.

My questions were simple. Was there a tatau pounamu? Was there a significant marriage that occurred? Beyond Ngāti Pūkenga—that history stands by itself—was there a significant marriage that happened between the people of Hauraki and the people of Ngāi Te Rangi that was enduring to this day? Was there an urupā? Was there a significant ancestor who came from Hauraki and had enduring interests, like ahi kā, within the area? I asked my kūare questions—I will say that in front of Hauata, and he kindly responded—but I have come to know this, having also gone back to Hauraki to ask questions. Minister, the process does not lend itself too kindly to a Māori way of sorting out these things. If kaumātua had been able to be encouraged to sit down and sort this out, I think the extent of Hauraki’s interests would have been where they rightly should be, which is back in their own rohe.

I say this as a member of Hauraki-Waikato, and at the risk of not being elected at the next election, because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. We see so many times iwi coming to this House through the Treaty settlement process and being put in some very difficult situations where it is hard enough within their whakapapa connections, arguing with one another, let alone somebody coming from somewhere else and making all sorts of claims. But I do it because it is the right thing to do. I do it because I know that Tauranga Moana have had a very long history of trying to seek redress, and it is a smidgen. But if the real opportunity of the collective of Tauranga Moana redress around the impact of raupatu within their rohe is measured, then it is the way in which, going forward, any Government sitting on that side of the House would seek to continue to uphold not only its obligations due to the settlement but its ongoing obligations to support leveraging through local government and other decision making about the economic prosperity of the Tauranga Moana region, because it can only flourish with all the iwi of Tauranga Moana.

Nō reira, he paku mihi, he paku whakaaro hei tāpiri atu ki ēnei kōrero ki ngā kaupapa.

[And so it is just a brief acknowledgment and thought to add to these contributions to the proposals.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou e hui nei i tēnei wā ki a koutou, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Pōtiki; kai te mihi atu ki a koutou ēngari kua kīkī Te Whare i ngā kāwai rangatira kai waenganui i a tātau, koutou ngā hā kui, ngā koroua o te motu nei kai te mihi atu ki a koutou. Nā koutou tēnei Whare e whakamana, nā koutou tēnei Whare e whakamana. Kai te mihi atu ki a koutou o Ngāi Te Rangi. Kua kōrero kē nei ōku hoa mahi i te hītori o tō koutou kerēme, ā, kua tae ā-tinana mai koutou. Ko te pānuitanga tuatahi tēnei mā koutou. He paku noa te wā mōku nā reira, kai te pīrangi au ki te hāngai aku kōrero ki te kōrero e pā ana ki a Pukehinahina.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and a welcome to you assembled here at this moment, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki; I acknowledge you but note that the House is packed with the leaders amongst us, you the elderly women and menfolk of the country. I salute you collectively. This House is enhanced and made noble by your presence; I commend you, Ngāi Te Rangi. My fellow colleagues have already addressed the history of your claim and you are here physically. This first reading is for you. I have only a limited time, so I want to focus my comments on the story about Pukehinahina.]

I am going to concentrate my comments, for the short time that I have, on the battle of Gate Pā, or Pukehinahina. Why? Because we talk about it, say that it was raupatu, it was a battle, and there it ends. But the story is so much greater, and the story points to the resilience of these people. So I want to read it into the history, and I want to read it into the Hansard of this House, and not just dismiss it as: “There was a battle.”

In March 1864 the Tauranga Moana tribes challenged British troops stationed at Te Papa in Tauranga to battle. The soldiers had been sent there to block any support for the Kīngitanga. The first challenge went unheeded, and so the field of battle was moved closer and the fortifications were built at Pukehinahina, now known as Gate Pā. Rāwiri Puhirake of Ngāi Te Rangi was the chief in charge at Pukehinahina. Hēnare Taratoa, a Christian minister, wrote a code of conduct for the battle, imploring that the enemy be cared for and not ill-treated when wounded.

Fighting broke out on 29 April 1864, when 1,700 soldiers faced the 230 Māori warriors. Their artillery levelled the pā. Then 300 soldiers stormed the ruins, but they were caught off guard. They were caught off guard as the defenders were safely hidden in the bunkers and opened fire and decimated their ranks. With the troops in disarray, the tribal warriors abandoned the scene of their victory.

The soldiers’ revenge for Gate Pā came a few weeks later, on 21 June 1864 at Te Ranga. While the defenders were building a new fortification they were attacked, and many were killed. In Māori terms, this was considered a treacherous act, as great kindness had been shown to the British wounded at Gate Pā. This spelt the end of fighting in the Tauranga district and the beginning of the confiscation of thousands of hectares of fertile, pristine Tauranga land, for which we have finally gathered here today.

No matter what we say and no matter what we do, the negotiations that your people have been through will in no way make up and compensate for the loss that has been so well articulated here today. So, again, I recognise the koha that you give in even settling—as little as it is—for the history, the confiscation, and the loss of posterity in your own lands over this time.

Your whakataukī or your pepeha “Ko Mauao te maunga, ko Tauranga te moana”—he tohu tēnā o te tangata, ki uta, ki tai. Kā tū mō ake tonu atu ahakoa te patu o te tangata, ahakoa te pēhitanga o te Kāwanatanga kai runga i a koutou, kai konei ā-tinana, ā-kanohi kia tutuki pai tēnei kerēme; nei te mihi atu ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Your saying or your proverb “The mountain is Mauao, the sea is Tauranga”—that is the identity of the individual at the foreshore and in the hinterland. The symbol stands forever, regardless of harm inflicted by mankind or oppression imposed by the Government upon you collectively, you are here physically and face to face to ensure that this claim is fulfilled; I commend and congratulate you. My appreciation to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Ngā uri o Ngāi Te Rangi me Ngā Pōtiki, nau mai, haere mai; Mita Ririnui, tēnā koe, ā, nau mai.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. And so to the descendants of Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki, welcome, draw hither; acknowledgments to you, Mita Ririnui, and welcome.]

I am pleased to stand to take a very short call on this bill. It is a very important bill. As iwi you are part of the Tauranga Moana, yet your bill stands alone by itself. I want to acknowledge the distance you have travelled to be here today, for Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki. I acknowledge the journey many of you may have made historically, and I want to acknowledge the journey of Ngā Pōtiki and that it has taken 17 years to actually get here today.

I want to acknowledge the many people who have helped to bring Ngā Pōtiki here. My focus, as you realise, is going to be on Ngā Pōtiki today. I want to acknowledge the work of Kathy Ertel, who worked very hard. She was a strong advocate for the claims for Ngā Pōtiki. I want to thank our kaumātua Waka Tāite for his contributions here in supporting Ngā Pōtiki’s claims here today.

I want to acknowledge our kuia up here, Poihaere Walker, who has been on this journey for a long time to get Ngā Pōtiki here. That is not the only reason I acknowledge her; I also acknowledge her because she is the mother of my executive assistant, Elaine Durie. I want to also acknowledge Victoria Kīngi, Mātire Duncan, and Colin Reeder—all kaimahi who have worked to get Ngā Pōtiki here.

As we have heard in the House today, concerning these bills, there has been a mention about drops in buckets. Well, today there are 26.5 million drops in the bucket for Ngāi Te Rangi and over 3 million drops in the bucket for Ngā Pōtiki, and, as I have said in many of my contributions in the House, it is not how many drops in the bucket you get, but it is actually the ocean you create economically as a result for your iwi.

This is an amazing bill. It is an amazing time for both iwi. I look forward to it coming to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. This is a truly historic day because today, after all these years, this House will debate Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill for the first time. I warmly welcome to Parliament all representatives of Whanganui iwi. They were here 2 years ago to initial the deed of settlement, and now our common goal of bringing recognition to the great Whanganui River has brought us back together.

There are a number of people who have been pivotal in reaching this point, so it is sad that they are unable to be here. First and foremost, I mention Sir Archie Taiaroa. He is one of those key people whom I have acknowledged in the past. We cannot forget that his vision for Te Awa Tupua is why we are here today. He always proposed that the river be addressed first, for it is the river that unites the people of Whanganui. There are so many people who have passed on since this process began that I can recognise only some of them this morning. From the trust board, I acknowledge Martha, Lady Taiaroa; Hikaia Amohia; Joan Akapita; Michael Pōtaka; William, or Barney, Haami; and Dardanella Metekīngi-Mato. I acknowledge particularly the former board member Waimaria Erueti, who passed away in 2011. Her son Kiwa witnessed my signature at the signing of the deed of settlement in 2014. I welcome Kiwa and Waimaria’s mother, Evelyn, to Parliament, and I have to say I am delighted that Kiwa is going to be my Youth MP in July.

Although our first negotiations did not come to fruition, I acknowledge those who were members of the 2002 negotiating team, Piripi Haami and Meena Williams, and I also acknowledge the leadership of the collective iwi of Te Awa Tupua, whose support continues to be pivotal. Our recent meeting with the leadership of the iwi demonstrated once again that it is the river that brings us together, and I look forward to working with the iwi to implement the framework, for of course there is a lot of work to be done.

I acknowledge the leadership within the regional and district councils, whose support has enabled a settlement that is appropriate and fit for the purpose, and I particularly acknowledge the presence here today of Annette Main, who has been such a wonderful supporter of this particular exercise. I acknowledge her work as the Mayor of Whanganui—thank goodness she was the mayor when we were dealing with this issue. I acknowledge the lead Whanganui iwi negotiator, Gerrard Albert, who led the negotiations and is now leading his people in the post-settlement world. I pay particular respect to John Maihi and Te Tiwha Puketapu.

I acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements and all the key agencies that have worked so very hard on this issue. I particularly want to thank John Wood, my chief Crown negotiator, for his outstanding work. He is a great New Zealander. I particularly want to make a special acknowledgment of Amber Duncalfe. Amber was an official from the Department of Conservation. Sadly, she passed away late last year, but I welcome Amber’s parents and sister to Parliament. She had a key role to play within the negotiating team for both the Whanganui River and the Tūhoe settlements, and she was, and remains, greatly respected by the negotiators for the work that she did. She made a lasting contribution to the innovative inclusion of conservation and natural resources within Treaty settlements.

Finally, I welcome back to the House the great Tariana Turia. She is here for the first reading of her iwi’s bill. She secretly loves it when I call her great.

Kelvin Davis made a very valuable contribution to the previous debate, and I was particularly intrigued by his comments about what he tells those people who moan about Treaty settlements. He tells them to learn something about the facts. Of course, he is absolutely correct, not only in relation to the previous debate but also in relation to this one, because it is very important for all of us to understand the facts here.

The constant position of Whanganui iwi for well over 150 years was that they never willingly relinquished possession or control of the Whanganui River and all things that give the river its essential life. For generations they have pursued justice in respect of the river. Their claim has been persistently maintained and advanced since the first petitions to Parliament in 1873 and 1887. Numerous further petitions and submissions followed over the next 125 years. The endless quest for justice was brought home to me when I saw the long list of legal counsel who have supported the iwi in their cause, beginning in the Native Land Court in 1938 with the late Chief Judge Morison, and continuing today with the likes of Jamie Ferguson, Peata Williams, and so many others. I particularly want to place on record one of their counsel, the late George Barton, who represented them in the Court of Appeal, it was, as far back as 1962. George was a very close friend of both Jamie Ferguson and mine, and a great New Zealander.

The Wai 167 claim was filed by members of the trust board on behalf of all Whanganui iwi in 1990 and was heard by the Waitangi Tribunal in 1994. Progress was made in 2011 and in 2012, when the Crown and Whanganui iwi signed two important documents. The record of understanding and the Tūtohu Whākatupua set out the key elements of Te Awa Tupua upon which these negotiations have grown. On 5 August 2014 the vision was realised, when we signed the deed of settlement at Rānana on the banks of the river. The signing came after Whanganui iwi carefully considered the settlement package and voted overwhelmingly to support it. In addition, all those who look to the river have expressed their support for the settlement. I thank them for their support, and I acknowledge Sir Tumu here today. Since that memorable day, the Crown and the iwi have continued to work together to refine the deed of settlement into the Te Awa Tupua bill. It has been a long road to its introduction, and at times it has not been easy. However, I am proud that the bill we are debating here today is practical, it is workable, and it provides a platform for the Crown and Whanganui iwi to move together in partnership.

The redress provided for in the bill has both novel and exciting aspects, and I can barely touch on them in the available time. The river is going to be recognised in law as Te Awa Tupua, an indivisible and living whole, from the mountains to the sea, incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements. The Crown will no longer own the riverbed but the Crown will still have a role to play, and we have developed this concept of the role of Te Pou Tupua, where both the Crown and iwi will appoint two guardians, and that will be the face of Te Awa Tupua and will symbolise our partnership through the Treaty. This is an exciting project for both the Crown and iwi, and to support it there will be a $30 million contestable fund to support activities to promote the health and well-being of Te Awa Tupua. There are numerous other aspects of the bill that will need to be considered very closely by the committee. Finally, the settlement includes the payment of $81 million to Whanganui iwi in recognition of the settlement of their claims to help advance the future health and well-being of the river and its people.

There is so much more that one could say about the bill but I am getting that look, so, Mr Assistant Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, korōria harerūia ki a koe e Ihoa ngā mano. Tūāuriuri, whāioio, kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tōna korōria, ā, tihei mauri ora! Mai i Te Rakiura ki Te Tonga, whiti atu ki Te Wharekauri ki te rāw’iti, toro atu ki te uru, piki ake ki Te Reinga, ki Te Tai Tokerau, ngā kokonga e whā o Te Motu o Aotearoa, tae atu ki Te Awa Tupua e rere nei.

E ngā w’ānau i raro i te kapua pōuri, kei te hīkoi i roto i te ātaarangi o ngā whārua o te mate, mauria mai rā ō koutou pare kawakawa kia tangihia i te wā iti nei. Tēnei te tangi apakura e aku parepare, aku w’akaruruhau, e te mūrau o te tini, te wenerau o te mano, kua maunu ki te waka o aituā, kua huri kāweka i ngā rangi, i ngā wiki, i ngā marama kua ta’a ake nei. Ko koutou ērā e taka’i ana i te ara tukutuku o Poutama, kia eke ki ngā rire o ngā rangi ki te karanga o Te Runga Rawa, e moe, e moe, e moe! Ā, kāti mō tēnā.

Nō reira, e Te W’are tēnā tātau, ōtirā, e tika hoki kia tuku mi’i atu ki a koe e Te Ariki e Tumu. Tēnei te mi’i ake ki a koe tēnā koe! Oti noa, ki a koutou, ki a tātau ngā ‘apū me ngā tupuna ro’e o te awa o W’anganui, anei au tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou ngā paerangi, ngā poutama, ngā hau. Ngāti Hāua, Ngāti Kura, Ngāti Pāmoana, Ngāti Patutokotoko, Ngāti Peketūroa, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Ruakā, Ngāti Tuera, Ngāti Tupo’o, Ngāti Uenuku, Hinengakau, Tamaūpoko, Tupo’o, Tama’aki, Uenuku. Tēnei te mi’i ake ki a tātau katoa. Tēnei a’au tō koutou w’anaunga e tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou, ki a tātau ngā uri o Te Awa Tupua, nau mai, ’aere mai ki Te W’are Pāremata nei.

’Aere mai ki te pānuitanga tuata’i o tēnei pire hei whakatau tēnei kerēme mō Te Awa Tupua, tēnā koutou. Kua roa te wā, kua rongo tātau i te kōrero o Te Minita. Neke atu i te 150 ngā tau kei te haere tēnei kerēme. Ka ’uri aku w’akaaro ki a rātau i tuku tēnei kerēme i te tuata’i. Ki a Kaiw’are Kiriona, Tanginoa Tapa, Te Kira Taina, Tonga Tume, Hōhepa Hekenui, Hēnare Keremeneta, Te Rama W’anarere, Hekenui Whakarake, Tītī Tihi, Pongātu Tau, Taka-i-te-iwa Anderson, Kahukiwa Whakareke. E tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki a rātau.

Ka w’akapiri ’oki aku w’akaaro, aku mi’i ki te mi’i o Te Minita, me tōna whakahua i ngā ingoa e mōhio ana tātau; ki a Hikaia Amohia, nāna i tuku atu te kerēme i te tuatahi. Tā Te Atawhai Taiaroa, me pē’ea te mihi ake ki a ia. Ki a Rangiti’i Ta’upārae, Matiu Māreikura, Niko Tangaroa, Koro Pestel; ki te pāpā Te Anga Tipa, rātau katoa. Hoi anō, e tika ana kia tuku atu te reo poroporoāki ki a rātau, nō reira, e ’oki, e moe, e moe. Oti noa i runga i ngā kupu ā kui mā, ā koro mā: “Ripi, ripia, hae, haeā! Ripi, ripia, hae, haea, turakina! Paranitia atu koko o te ngāngara kai tangata, uē, ā! He a’a te to’u o te ringaringa! He kawakawa tuku ki raro ki a ope rā! He toro ki a ko te w’akatau o te mate, uē, ā, uē ā!”. Ā, nō reira aku w’anaunga tēnā tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and at the same time, glory and hallelujah to Jehovah of the inumerable thousands. Heaven and earth is filled with the greatness of his glory, behold the breath of life! From Stewart Island in the south across to the Chatham Islands in the east, stretching forth to the west, ascending to Cape Reinga in the north. These are the four corners of New Zealand, including Te Awa Tupua flowing here.

To the familes clouded by sorrow, walking in the shadow of the valley of death, bring forth your wreaths of mourning to be mourned at this brief moment. I mourn and lament my fortifications and havens, and the dread of the multitude and envy of thousands who have departed on the conveyance of mishap over the past days, weeks, and months. You are the ones going up the stairway of Poutama to the extremities of the heavens, at the call of the Almighty above; rest, sleep and slumber! Let us leave that there.

So acknowledgments to us all, the House, but at the same time it is fitting that I acknowledge you, paramount chief Tumu. I acknowledge and greet you! Furthermore, I greet you and we subtribes, ancestral regions of the Whanganui River, the horizons, genealogies, and winds. Ngāti Hāua, Ngāti Kura, Ngāti Pāmoana, Ngāti Patutokotoko, Ngāti Peketūroa, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Ruakā, Ngāti Tuera, Ngāti Tupo’o, Ngāti Uenuku, Hinengakau, Tamaūpoko, Tupo’o, Tama’aki and Uenuku, I acknowledge you all. I, your relative, extend this greeting to you and to us all, the descendents of Te Awa Tupua, welcome, welcome to this House.

Welcome to the first reading of this bill that will settle this claim for Te Awa Tupua. Well done to you. It has been a long time. We heard what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said, that this claim has been going on for more than 150 years. My thoughts turn to those who made this claim in the first place, Kaiw’are Kiriona, Tanginoa Tapa, Te Kira Taina, Tonga Tume, Hōhepa Hekenui, Hēnare Keremeneta, Te Rama W’anarere, Hekenui Whakarake, Tītī Tihi, Pongatū Tau, Taka-i-te-iwa Anderson, and Kahukiwa Whakareke. It is fitting that they are acknowledged.

I also append my thoughts and congratulations to the Minister for his pronunciation of the names we are familiar with; to Hikaia Amohia, who submitted the claim the first time; to Sir Te Atawhai Taiaroa—how many more accolades can we heap on him; to Rangiti’i Tahupārae, Matiu Māreikura, Niko Tangaroa, Koro Pestel, and Uncle Te Anga Tipa—all of them. So it is only fitting that we accord them a farewell tribute, so rest, slumber, sleep. Furthermore, and in the words of our elders, men and women: “Slash and cut up, slash and cut up, overturn it, brand the head of the monster that consumes man, uē-ā! What is that in the hand? It is the mourning wreath to be handed to that entourage as a tribute of death over yonder, uē-ā!”. So my appreciation to us, my relatives.]

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has spoken about Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua. This provides a framework for moving forward. I am very pleased about the nature of this framework. It provides seven principal elements that encapsulate the way that we all feel about Te Awa Tupua in a way that honours the awa in its rightful manner. I want to add my mihi to those who have taken responsibility for bringing this bill to this House today.

It has been a long journey for those who have been directly involved with bringing this bill to the House, so I acknowledge every single one of the negotiators for their tenacity in transferring the understanding, the knowledge, and the mauri of the awa into a bill that fairly reflects the way that we feel about the awa. It could not have been an easy journey. I can only imagine from my experience the battles that went on behind the closed doors to bring this to fruition so that it can come here to this House—this House that decides laws and brings new laws and settlement bills like this into law.

Not that we ever needed a law for the Te Awa Tupua. Te Awa Tupua is ingrained in our hearts and in our minds. I think that this piece of legislation, with its framework that has a human face for our awa, is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the health and well-being of Te Awa o Whanganui—Te Awa Tupua—is able to be maintained, not so much for us here today but for future generations.

I do want to acknowledge the rangatahi who have journeyed here to Parliament to witness this. They have a responsibility for future generations to remember this day and the last 150 years, and that this is but a means to give the full recognition of Whanganui iwi as well as the awa itself in the days to come. Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki a rātau mā, rātau katoa, i hara mai Te Awa o W’anganui ki Te W’are Pāremata. Nō reira, e mi’i ana a’au ki aku w’anaunga i runga i ēnei kupu nei: e rere kau mai te awa nui, mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.

[This delivery therefore is not a long one, but at the same time it is fitting that I pay a tribute to them, my relatives, all of them who came from the river of Whanganui to Parliament, and I do so with these words: the mighty river flows from the mountain cluster to Tangaroa, the sea; I am the river and the river is me.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Pōkarekare ana ngā ta’ata’ha o ngā wai o W’anganui,

Tika rere mai i waenganui e

Ko au tēnei te aorererangi nei i runga i te kapua

E titiro nei ki te tira hoe waka

Pōkarekare ana ngā wai o W’anganui, korikori ana te mouri tipua,

Ko au tēnei, ko koe tēnā e ngā mokopuna,

E rukuruku nei i ngā wai te puenga ake he tipua.

Ko te taurahere ki Te Rangi.

Pōkarekare ana ngā wai o W’anganui, korikori ana te mouri tipua,

Ko au tēnei, ko koe tēnā e ngā mokopuna,

E rukuruku nei i ngā wai te puenga ake he tipua.

Ko te taurahere ki Te Rangi.

Ko te taurahere ki Te Rangi.

[The waters of the Whanganui agitate along the banks

As it flows directly from the centre

I am this aircraft up in the cloud

Looking down upon the team of canoe paddlers

The waters of Whanganui ripple, the ancestral deity stirs

This is me, is that you, oh grandchildren,

Diving about in the waters from whence a deity emerged

As the link to the heavens.]

E hika mā, tēnā koutou!

[Well, friends, that was well done!]

Well, whānau, I greet you. It is as if the awa itself has flowed right into Parliament today, not only here in the gallery, but also overflowing into the foyer outside and into the big room with the great big TV—I am not sure what it is called. I greet you. Tēnā koutou.

Well, that is just about my time up, but I do have a speech. I want to talk about the awa, Te Awa Tupua, which forms an indivisible whole from the mountains to the sea. I acknowledge the inalienable interconnection between the iwi and the hapū of Whanganui and the Whanganui River—I practise my “whangas”. E rere kau mai te awa nui nei mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa.

[This great river flows directly from the mountain cluster to Tangaroa, the sea.]

Today we recognise the perseverance, the discipline, and the faith of Hinengakau, Tamaūpoko, Tupoho, Tamahaki, Uenuku, the tūpuna rohe groups of the Whanganui iwi. There is a whakataukī amongst the people of the river: “Kauaka e kōrero mō te awa, kōrero ki te awa.”

[Do not talk about the river, but rather to it.]

Today then I want us to remember and to reflect and to refresh our thoughts with those who have the care, the protection, the management, and the use of the Whanganui River in accordance with the kawa and tikanga maintained by the descendants of Ruatipua, Paerangi, and Haunui-ā-Pāpārangi. Te Kuia Peeti was one of the many who recalled the river of their childhood at Kaiwhaiki. She said she could swim before she could walk: “From morning to night we would swim and learn about ourselves and surrounding environment. As youngsters, our bodies were developed in the water. Limbs were stretched and pulled. We learnt fleetness of body and mind. … The river was our playground.” The people of the river told the tribunal that the teardrops of Ranginui are the source of their being, the artery of their one heart: “The awa is a healer, a kāpata kai, a highway, and a protector. It is the rope that binds all the whānau together from the mountain to the sea.”; te taurāwhiri o Hinengākau—the plaited rope of their tipuna Hinengakau. The kōrero was consistent: the river is the beginning; it ties the people together like the umbilical cord of the unborn child.

Matiu Mareikura explained to the tribunal: “The river is ultimately our mana, our tapu, our ihi, our wehi, all these things make up what the river means to us. It is our life cord, not just because it is water—but because it is sacred water to us. Our people go to the river to cleanse themselves, they go to the river to pray, and they go to the river to wash. They go to the river for everything [for everything] leads back to the river. And the river, in return, suffices all our needs.”

I have taken this time to traverse the power of the tupuna awa Whanganui because it is at the heart of this bill. Today our memories are focused on the original nine trustees of the Whanganui River Māori Trust Board, who in December 1990 brought the Whanganui River claim on behalf of Te Āti Haunui-ā-Pāpārangi. Their sacrifice and devotion is now recorded in this House, and so we mihi to the vision of Hikaia Amohia, Archie Taiaroa, Raumatiki Henry, Kevin Amohia, Hoana Akapita, Te Turi Ranginui, Brendan Puketapu, Michael Pōtaka, John Maihi, and Rangipo Mete-Kīngi. In doing so we honour the generations of inequities, of enquiries, of petitions, and of court cases dating back to 1873; those who brought their awa tupua into this House.

After the hearings at the marae up and down the river in 1998, the tribunal declared, on page 385 of their report—you can look it up—“Contrary to some popular opinions New Zealand was not colonised on the basis that rivers were publicly owned. The right of ownership was based on universal principles of law, principles guaranteed in the Treaty of Waitangi.”

I know my time is running short, so I am going to cut straight to the words of Te Kuia Peeti: “To my sorrow my own children and mokopuna have not grown up in this environment, but what we had as children is no longer there. What we thought was unchangeable and immutable, the river, [has] undergone changes which we never dreamt of. Our beautiful safe swimming places have all gone. Because so much of the water was taken away, and therefore it made it inhospitable for the fishlife to live, it was not uncommon for us to see dead [fish] floating down the river. Where once stood strong trees all along the river, we now have very serious erosions on our bank.

“Where once the birds were plentiful and we could recognise their cries, or squawks, we hardly see them at all now. Where once we had crystal clear water flowing up and down our marae, this is now a very rare occurrence.”

And I finish with this, her words. “In fact, the river is filthy dirty most all of the time, that is our friend, tupuna, our whanau, has been desecrated by bad farming practices. Where once we had a healthy waterway, we now have a sick river …”.

What you have returned to you is not what was taken, but I acknowledge the strength of your people to restore it in its own entity. He pai te mihi atu ki a koutou kua hui mai nei i tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[It is so wonderful to acknowledge you collectively who have assembled here today; greetings and congratulations and my appreciation to us all, thank you.]

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; ā, tuatahi māku e mihi kau ana ki a koutou ngā hapū i ’hakahuangia ōu koutou ingoa, nā koutou i tau mai nei ki raro i te tuanui o tēnei tō tātou Whare, Te Whare o Te Motu. E Te Ariki, e Tumu, tēnā rā koe. Te Kahurangi a Tariana, tēnā rā koe. Rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. E Te Awa o Whanganui, tēnei tētahi uri o Taumārere, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou. Mōhio ana tātou ki ō tātou awa awa, ka rere atu ka tae ki te moana, ā, kei reira ngā awa awa katoa o te motu, o te ao, e tūhonohono ai rātou ki a rātou. Nā reira, e pēnei ana a Taumārere, e honohono ana ki a koutou ki Te Awa o Whanganui.

E ngā tini mate kua rongo hoki i ngā ingoa maha i ’hakahuangia i roto i Te Whare i tēnei rangi, rātou i whakapau i o rātou kaha kia tae ki tēnei wā, ka mihi atu ki a rātou. Kore e taea te whakahuangia i ngā ingoa katoa i te mea, kua rongo ahau i te kōrero a Te Minita i te tau 1873, kua tae tētahi petihana ki tēnei Whare, mai i taua wā i te tohetohe, i te whawhai koutou o Te Awa. Nā reira, ka nui ngā mihi atu ki a koutou, ngā uri ō rātou mā kua tae ki tēnei wāhi ki te whakatutukitanga o taua moemoeā ō rātou.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. First of all, I acknowledge you, the subtribes whose names were mentioned, you who have arrived here under the roof of this House of ours, the House of this country. Greetings to you, paramount chief Tumu; and Dame Tariana, greetings. Acknowledgments, leaders of a hundredfold; salutations, welcome, welcome. To the Whanganui River, this descendant of Taumārere welcomes you. We know that when our rivers reach the ocean it is there that all of them from the country and from the world link up with one another. Taumārere is doing just that, linking up with you, the Whanganui River.

To the many deaths—I have also heard many names mentioned in the House today, those who used up a lot of energy to arrive here at this moment, and I pay tribute to them. It is not possible to mention all the names, because I heard the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations say that in 1873 a petition arrived at this House, and since that time you of the river have been debating and in conflict. So there is much admiration for you, the descendants of those, who have arrived here at this place for the completion of that dream of yours.]

This bill declares that Te Awa Tupua “is an indivisible and living whole [and comprises] the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating all its physical and metaphysical elements.”, and is a legal person with “all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” Two things sprang to mind when I read that. First of all, what on earth does metaphysical mean? And then kua rongo ahau i roto i ngā kōrero a Adrian, a Marama, te mana, te mauri, te ihi, te wehi, wērā āhuatanga. Mehemua kua tuhia aua kupu ki roto i te pire, ā, ka mōhio, ēngari, kia ahatia rā?

[And then I heard in the contributions by Adrian and Marama, references to power, life principle, force and fear—those aspects. If those words were written into the bill, one would know—but so what?]

The second issue that sprang to mind was that it is about time—I think this is the third time, but it is about time and it needs to happen more—that the Māori world view is basically legitimised in legislation. To say that we are talking about a person, incorporating all their physical and metaphysical elements, when talking about a river, just as we have spoken in this House about Te Urewera having similar mana—Te Awa o Waikato has similar mana. It is about time that this House started recognising and legitimising the Māori world view.

We will all remember the time when they were building a road somewhere up north and the local hapū said “Oh, there’s a taniwha there. Be careful.” Māoridom was ridiculed. So we have come a long way since that time when we were ridiculed for actually putting our point of view forward, to the extent now that we are legitimising Māori concepts in law. I can imagine how outside of these walls the country will be going off: “Oh, my gosh! These Māoris—what are they on about now?” Well, if in our Pākehā culture and in our Christian culture we believe someone can walk on water, then we can believe that Te Awa o Whanganui is a person. So it is a beautiful thing. I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and everyone who put all the effort into getting to this stage.

I just want to read out two paragraphs that struck me from the acknowledgments of the bill. “The Crown acknowledges that through this settlement Whanganui Iwi have sought to bring all the iwi, hapū, and other communities of the Whanganui River together for the common purpose of upholding and protecting the mana of the Whanganui River and its health and well-being for the benefit of future generations and, ultimately, all of New Zealand.” The two words that hit me there were “other communities”—“Whanganui Iwi have sought to bring all the iwi, hapū, and other communities …”. This is not about Māori just wanting again to do stuff for ourselves. This is about New Zealand as a country, including all of our communities.

How can we possibly protect the mana of the river, and its health and well-being, for the benefit of future generations if Māori have got to do it all on our own? This is about bringing businesses into the fold—about farmers, forestry, the Department of Conservation, Forest and Bird, and all the commercial interests and recreational interests. Everybody has a role to play in ensuring the mana, the mauri, and the hauora of the river. And just on recreational interests, it reminds me of my great-grandfather Uru Davis, who happened to live in Wanganui over a century ago now. I think he even played rugby for Wanganui. He was certainly a rower, and he was part of the Wanganui rowing club. So that is just another little link from myself to the Whanganui River.

The Crown also acknowledges “that the approach taken by Whanganui Iwi in respect of this settlement represents significant compromise and generosity of spirit by Whanganui Iwi and promotes a collaborative, inclusive approach to the Whanganui River and its future governance and management with the recognition and protection of Te Awa Tupua at its heart.” Those are great words in the acknowledgment. This is about collaboration, working together, and all the various communities—iwi, hapū, organisations, everybody—coming together to protect the mana, the ihi, and the wehi of this great body of water.

We all know that when we pepeha—I said this in the debate that we just had on the previous bill, the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill—we acknowledge our waka, we acknowledge our maunga, and we acknowledge our awa. It is part of us. It is who we are. This bill endorses that. It just outlines to the whole country how special our awa are. Be it Whanganui, be it Taumārere, be it wherever, they are an integral part of who we are as Māori.

The framework that is being spoken about I believe is fantastic and will go a long way to ensuring the mana and the mauri of the awa. The bill provides for the establishment, purpose, functions, and powers of Te Pou Tupua; “Its purpose is to be the human face of Te Awa Tupua and to act in the name of Te Awa Tupua.” So we are going to have people who are going to have the job of making sure that this bill is enacted.

I will just quickly race through in the short time that I have got left and talk about the other parts of the framework. Te Karewao—the bill establishes Te Karewao as an advisory group for Te Pou Tupua, so it is advising the people who will be on Te Pou Tupua. Te Kōpuka nā Te Awa Tupua—it establishes Te Kōpuka nā Te Awa Tupua as a strategy group for Te Awa Tupua, made up of not more than 17 members made up from a number of groups. Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua is “to provide for the collaboration of persons with interests in the Whanganui River, in order to address and advance the health and well-being …”. Te Korotete o Te Awa Tupua, which is Te Awa Tupua Fund—this here is the $30 million that will be spent in order to promote the hauora, mauri, and mana of te awa.

Again, I would like to congratulate everybody who was involved in the development of this bill, in particular the recognition of the Māori world view and legislating for it. This is the start. We are looking forward in the Māori Affairs Committee to hearing submissions on this bill, but I do commend it to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ki a tātou, huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I te tuatahi, me mihi au ki te hunga mate, ki a rātou ngā kuia me ngā kaumātua i tautoko i te ara o tēnei whakataunga, kua wehe, me ngā mate katoa i waenganui i a tātou i tēnei ata, haere, haere, haere oti atu rā! Ki a tātou te kanohi ora e tau nei; tēnā tātou katoa. Nōku te whiwhi ki te tū mō te Rōpū Kākāriki, tēnei te pānuitanga tuatahi o te pire mō Te Awa Tupua. He uri ahau o Te Awa Tupua o Ātihaunui ā Pāpārangi. I whānau mai tōku kuia a Piupiu i Hiruhārama, ā, ka takoto ia i tona moenga roa kei te whenua o Pūtiki. Ka tū toku manawa nā te whakahirahiratanga o tēnei rā mō mātou ngā uri; nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all, acknowledgments throughout. First of all I pay a tribute to the dead, the elderly men and womenfolk who supported the passage of this settlement and who have passed away, and all the dead amongst us this morning, farewell, depart, travel on forever! I acknowledge us all seated here; salutations to us all. I am privileged to speak on behalf of the Green Party at this the first reading of the bill for Te Awa Tupua. I am a descendant of it—of Ātihaunui ā Pāpārangi. My grandmother, Piupiu, was born at Hiruhārama and her resting place is at Pūtiki. My heart came to a halt because of the significance of this day for us offspring; and so greetings to us all.]

As a survivor of the people of Te Awa Tupua, it really is an honour to have this opportunity to rise on behalf of the Greens to support the first reading of Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. I rere kau mai te awa nui mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au—the great river flows from the mountains to the sea; I am the river and the river is me. This whakataukī speaks of Te Awa Tupua as an indivisible and living whole, comprising the river from the mountains to the sea, to its tributaries, and all its physical and metaphysical elements. Kia ora, Kelvin. Our identity as mana whenua of this rohe is intrinsically and inextricably connected to our awa, and so in these lines of the whakataukī also lie the history and the spirit of our people. It is because of this rich history of whakapapa and connection to the land and to the water that the significance of this occasion is certainly not lost on me.

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement, Ruruku Whakatupua, which is the culmination of well over a century of efforts by our people to protect the awa and our kaitiakitanga relationship to it. The challenges for iwi and hapū to uphold this relationship have been ongoing and massive. In the 1870s and the 1880s they faced regulations that threatened fishing grounds and the economic base, the destruction of pā tuna by colonists to make way for gold and coal prospectors, the removal of gravel from the awa to build roads, the clearing of rapids, and the draining of swamps. The removal of gravel has continued over many decades.

But throughout this history of pain, and despite the confiscation and the violence that has been inflicted on the awa, our people have been there at every step of the way doing everything we could to uphold the kaitiaki relationship and to protect the tupuna awa.

As far back as 1888 iwi members were petitioning the Crown to stop the destruction of the pā tuna. In 1895 iwi took a claim to the Supreme Court over customary fishing rights. In response the Government established the Whanganui River Māori Trust Board, a Crown agency that took control of the awa. From the 1930s to the 1980s iwi would continually fight for the recognition of ownership, tikanga ownership, of the river. And often those small victories that were won would lead to larger setbacks. After long and hard work during the 1980s and 1990s to get to a place of negotiation with the Crown, even then the struggle has had to continue. Two proposals for hydroelectric dams, which would have been massively destructive to the mauri of the awa, were stopped because of mana whenua claims and campaigns—Pākaitore of the 1990s.

In 2001, the same year the terms of negotiation with the Crown was signed, the Environment Court approved a 35-year extension to the resource consent for the diversion of the Whanganui awa headwaters, which had happened 40 years earlier and was to be continued for another 35 years. It has been a continuous battle for our iwi, our people, to protect the river against all of the incursions against it. Through it, of course, our people have endured and so has the river—not in the state that we want it, but it is still there, still thriving, and now under this settlement, hopefully, with a great deal more control for our people over our place. That is something. That really is something.

So I just want to, before I finish—I do not want to speak for too long—acknowledge the importance of the legal status that is afforded the awa in this legislation. Yes, I agree that it is absolutely about time the law caught up with our tikanga. It has been our tikanga for ever that our environment is entitled to its own integrity, is entitled to be protected and restored from damage and injury for its own sake, and that our environment, however we want to describe it, is our ancestor and from where we come, and, therefore, we owe our environment everything—our life, our existence, our future. The law slowly is starting to find ways—clumsy and not perfect by any means, but it is slowly trying to find ways—to understand that core concept.

I guess that for those Pākehā who might find it difficult to understand how we could give legal status to an ecology, to an environment, I ask them to just consider why it is that we have in our law the right for corporations to have legal status as a person. We actually do have, in Pākehā law, something quite similar. A corporation is not a thing. It does not have a separate identity, but it does actually have legal rights like a legal person. A corporation has rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for goodness’ sake. It is just a construction in our own minds about how the law responds to an entity. It is so much more important—so much more important—that we give status for its own sake to the very thing that gives us life, and in Whanganui that is our river. It is a small step forward but a step none the less.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to the negotiators, the petitioners, the claimants, and the kaitiaki of the awa over so many so generations—to all of those who have contributed to getting us to this place in the journey, and I wish us all the very best for the future of this settlement and for our awa. Kia ora koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā anō hoki tātou. Ka nui ngā mihi ki a koutou e noho nei ki te tautoko mai i te kaupapa nei. E mōhio ana au, mai i tērā rau tau tae noa ki te wā nei, ko tēnei tetahi o ngā taumahatanga e noho ana kei runga i a koutou, he aha ai? I ngā mahi kikino a Te Karauna ki a koutou o Te Awa. Nā reira, ngā mihi hoki ki a koutou i te rā nei.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all as well. Much appreciation to you seated here in support of this matter. I know that since the last century and right to the present time this has been a burden on you, and why? Because of the injustices inflicted upon you of the river by the Crown. So congratulations to you today.]

When Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill first came on to the Order Paper I went home that night and I thought of two people in particular, and in so naming them I am not being disrespectful to those who have carried this kaupapa from last century through to the present time. One was Nik Tangaroa. I knew him in Auckland as an active member of the union, and he was a good fella to have on your side. The other one—it was not until he was knighted that I came to know what his full name was—I always knew as Archie Taiaroa. Archie and I worked for the Department of Māori Affairs in a time when we actually looked after our people in a way that we do not necessarily see today. But that is another issue.

Ka nui taku mihi ki a rāua, ahakoa kāre rāua i noho ā-tinana i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei ēngari, kei te maumahara i a rātou. Nā reira, moe mai kōrua e Nik, e Archie, me rātou mā, e noho nei i te kāpunipuni o ngā wairua. Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā koutou, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[I have a huge appreciation for those two. Even though both are not here physically amongst us today, I reminisce about them. So sleep there, Nik and Archie, in the place where spirits inevitably end up. And so the part for them has been satisfied. I come back to us, the living: greetings, acknowledgments, and well done to you collectively.]

Listening to the previous speaker, Metiria Turei, I think she made some telling points when we talk about the river as a living being. She made mention of legislation or the law actually catching up with tikanga. When she said that, I thought of the fisheries settlement—particularly that part surrounding the Kermadecs. It passed through this House. Everyone was happy because the protection of our fishing rights was ensconced in legislation, and then, over recent weeks, things about the legislation seem to have been forgotten. So although I and New Zealand First support this legislation, I think it is incumbent on all of us, those of us who sit in this House, and those of you who have come, sitting in the gallery, to ensure that we never ever see the river lost to us again.

This settlement is a little bit different from other settlements because it comprises two deeds. The first deed is to establish the river as a separate legal entity. It provides for two river guardians, the development of a strategy for river well-being, the vesting of the Crown-owned parts of the bed in Te Awa Tupua, and the establishment of funds to support the activities of these entities. In the second deed, where the historic account is agreed to, the Crown makes acknowledgments and apologises. There is cultural and financial redress for the Whanganui iwi. So in all there is the settlement redress of $81 million, the funding for Te Korotete of $30 million for the health and well-being of Te Awa Tupua, for Te Pou Tupua $200,000 per annum for the next 20 years—and I would recommend that they capitalise on that fund and take the $4 million now rather than wait every year for the next 20 years—and for Te Heke Ngahuru, $430,000 for administration costs.

The good thing about this—and I think she was acknowledged—is that the Mayor of Whanganui is in attendance. Given the history between the council and local iwi over recent years, I think it augurs well to know that we have the support of the local body in terms of the future of the river. I just want to acknowledge that and have that placed on the record of Hansard.

When I think about the Whanganui River I recall first hearing the saying “The river is me and I am the river”. I thought that we in Ngāti Hine were the only iwi who subscribed to that notion when we talked about our traditional river, Taumārere-herehere-i-te-riri. I think it was Mr Davis who talked about swimming in the local river and learning more about one another—oh, I think it was the member for the Māori Party. Having been brought up in a place called Mōtatau, I can remember doing the same thing, and when she said about knowing about others, I thought: “Hey, they must have been just like us. We go for a swim, no clothes, and we know what everybody is about.” And those are some of the histories surrounding our rivers—learning about one another in more ways than one, I might add, but also realising how important the river has been to our tūpuna.

As a young person going to Bay of Islands College and learning about Māori history, I can recall seeing photos of tāua holding tuna, and the caption saying that these were on the Whanganui River. Again, I liken the Whanganui River to our traditional river of the hau kāinga, of Taumārere-herehere-i-te-riri. I welcome this opportunity of contributing to this debate but also having this bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, because it will give people the opportunity to express their view as to whether they support or oppose the bill. If they do, then it gives them the opportunity to articulate as to why. Having said that, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ki te iwi o Ngāti Hau, e mihi nei, e tangi nei, koutou ngā taoka whakahirahira, koutou e tumanakohia ake nei, koutou e hāpai iwi nei, nō reira, ko ngā iwi o Ngāti Hau, Ngātikotahitaka, nau mai, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all throughout this House. To the tribe of Ngāti Hau, I greet and mourn you. You are treasures of significance, have aspirations, and support tribes, therefore to you, the tribes of Ngāti Hau and Ngātikotahitaka, welcome, draw hither, and welcome to the House of Representatives. I acknowledge you all.]

To all of you, I know the feeling of coming here, as a son of Kāi Tahu, and to actually be listening to the first reading of your bill. But the really significant thing about this particular one reminds me of when Kāi Tahu were actually doing not the same thing but a little bit of the same process around Aoraki Mauka. So what I see here today is the fact that just like us, it was not about us; it was actually about all of New Zealand. I acknowledge you, here, for that.

We have heard so much so far around the bill itself. I would like to concentrate on just one part of it that actually reflects the uniqueness of this actual settlement. The uniqueness of this settlement is in the legal framework for the river, because this is what makes this particular settlement groundbreaking. This recognises Te Awa Tupua, comprising the entire Whanganui River, its tributaries as well, and all its physical and metaphysical elements, as a legal person—as a legal person—and with all of the corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities. The establishment of the river as a legal entity, then it provides the framework for the recognition of the unbreakable connection between the Whanganui iwi and Te Awa Tupua.

The other part of this is to provide human representation for Te Awa Tupua and the position of Te Pou Tupua, which will be established and filled by two people nominated by the Whanganui iwi and also the Crown, which is a really important part of this kotahitaka within this settlement. The Crown-owned bed, of course—the Whanganui River—will be vested in Te Awa Tupua, and a $30 million contested fund will be established to support the health and well-being of Te Awa Tupua. This new legal framework is an innovative use of the Western judicial system to manage the river in a way that is distinctly Māori. That is one of the most unique things of any settlement that has ever come before this House. This settlement allows the Whanganui iwi to take back their responsibility for the river, which should never have left them following the Treaty of Waitangi.

I also want to acknowledge the members of Whanganui iwi who have worked on this settlement but also all of those who have gone before, as we have just heard, and we acknowledge them. As before, for over a century, the people here are uri of those who protected and preserved the river itself and the iwi interest in it.

I want to acknowledge, also, one particular person—we have done a lot of acknowledgments here today and, sure, we have to and we must do. I want to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson, whose personal involvement in this particular settlement reflects the importance of it. That is not to take away the importance of any other settlement, but particularly this settlement, because this is groundbreaking legislation, is an achievement that I think speaks volumes about the value of having such a distinguished and respected legal mind as our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.

To everyone here, your time has come. This is the final beginning of your long journey, and on that note, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, we indeed look forward to this bill coming to the select committee so that we may continue its journey, or shepherd its journey, through to the third reading and the finality of the journey itself, which will happen here and it will be enacted in law. So kia ora to you all, Ngāti Hau. Ka nunui te mihi, ka nunui te aroha, e mihi, e mihi ai atu ki a koutou katoa.

[The appreciation and empathy is massive; well done and congratulations.]

I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā tātou katoa. Tēnei e tāpiri atu ngā mihi ki ngā puna, ngā mātāpuna, ngā wai marino, ngā wai rere, ngā ripo, ngā ū kaha o Te Awa o Whanganui, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

Tēnei e tāpiri atu taku mihi ki a rātou i whakahuatia maitia nei i roto i Te Whare, rātou kei te wāhi ngaro. E kore e mutu ngā whakaaro ki a rātou e kawea nei tēnei kaupapa, tae noa ki tēnei wā, kei konei rātou katoa. Ka nui te mihi atu, heke iho mai ki a koutou ngā mahuetanga iho, nei te mihi aroha, nei te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

Me te hoki mahara ki ngā kōrero i waihotia i te wā i haere mātou ki runga i Te Awa o Whanganui ki te taha o tō tātau nei Āriki, tērā kōrero i whakatō mai i roto i te whakatumanawa kia tuitui ki te tino taonga i waenganui i ā koutou pononga ki Te Awa o Whanganui. E rua ngā roimata i heke mai nā Rangi Nui i runga i Te Maunga o Ruapehu, inā, ko Te Awa o Whanganui, ko Te Awa o Waikato, mai i Te Kāhuinga Maunga ki Tangaroa, tēnei te nui o te mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou!

[Salutations to us all. I add my acknowledgments to the pools, sources, calm waters, waterfalls, eddies, and strong currents of the Whanganui River; I acknowledge you all.

I add my tribute to those who were mentioned in the House, to those at the unseen place. Thoughts about those who carried this matter right up to this moment will never cease; they are all here. Much appreciation to them, right down to you, the ones left behind; a loving and affectionate regard to you all.

I reflect also on the stories that were left behind when we went on the Whanganui River with our paramount leader, yours and ours, that legendary account that welled up from within you and was woven into the priceless heirloom, the core of your collective belief about the Whanganui River. There were two tears that came down from the Great Sky above that fell upon Mount Ruapehu and flowed down to Tangaroa, the sea, from the mountain cluster: one was the Whanganui River and the other was the Waikato River. I acknowledge you greatly, well done!]

In standing to support the contribution of my colleague Adrian Rurawhe on this particular bill, I had prepared a certain speech to read today, then I heard the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations speak and recollect a number of important people, and then I heard Adrian speak and recollect a number of people. I have to say that during my brief opportunity—actually, privilege—to journey down the Whanganui River, one person came to mind very specifically, and that was Piripi.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Ha, ha! But let me come back to Piripi. Let me come back to Piripi. I had the good fortune to be able to be one of a small group of people who travelled in support of a tono from Matiu Māreikura to Taiaroa, and John Tahupārae to Te Arikinui, to travel down the Whanganui River. We started in Taumarunui and went all the way down. Actually, before we even got there we talked about how they were going to take us down on kōpapa, and, you know, we had better get all fit and all of this. Actually, we got there and we went down on speedboats. There was so much more to that journey than physically being on the river and travelling down it. It was all the kōrero and all the things that we witnessed along the way. Actually, Morgan was with us as well—Morgan Kāwana. We knew that every day he did a flip of that good book, something special was happening.

It was in that recollection that I want to, perhaps, share—there has been some talk in the House today about the metaphysical identity and tikanga merging with law and things like that. Actually, to know one’s awa, like you can smell its different fragrances; to know one’s awa when you can witness a change, albeit so subtle; to know one’s awa to the point where you understand something else is happening in our world, but it has been read through the awa—that is what we were able to experience in coming down the Whanganui River.

I think it is a great day today because it has been a long journey for the people of Whanganui to get to this point. It is not without context if we think about the Waitangi Tribunal and the opportunity that has been offered to people to look to redress historical claims, and just the journey of our rivers. Waikato lodged their claim to the tribunal in 1987, Whanganui lodged their claim in 1990, Tūwharetoa got the Crown to vest the lake to Tūwharetoa in 1992, and then we had a claims process. It is all interconnected.

It is the journey of our waters, I think, that leads us to some very important conversations today. For me, this is quite historic today, because it is happening within the context of very important conversations that this nation is having around the health and well-being of our waterways and the issues of fresh water. I want to acknowledge that because when we talk about the role that Parliament plays, yes, to give effect to the intent of the deed of settlement for the Whanganui River, it is within a context and some broader conversations. I think the Māori Affairs Committee is quite cognisant of that. We will use the opportunity of the submission process to ask questions within context—for example, the resource management legislation going through that is talking about collaborative planning, that is proposing models for collaborative planning, and that does not address issues of fresh water but that impacts potentially on any river settlement that has already been reached. We will ask the types of questions about what is the anticipated connection between what you are seeking to achieve for the awa of Whanganui and what is being proposed. That is to ensure that the intent and the integrity of your settlement can be preserved.

Many people before us have always said that Governments come and go, but, funnily enough, the institutional memory of the iwi stays very determined over a long period of time, and it is a very long institutional memory that keeps any Government accountable. We are mindful of that, too. It is with that view in mind that I think we will be considering very carefully the submissions coming to the select committee. I am hopeful, actually, that we might have a sitting at Tieke. We would actually have to get on a waka and then get to Tieke, and then appreciate the fullness of the experience of what is being talked about—he whakaaro noa iho [it is just a thought].

Coming back to Piripi now, on another occasion, after the opportunity with Te Arikinui, I did have the opportunity to join a few tira hoe. My very first tira hoe that I joined, little did I know—after karakia I was assigned my crew mate. It was Piripi. Then one of the whanaunga said to me “Don’t worry, Piripi is the best in the river. You’ll never fall out.”, because I was kind of in a bit of trepidation. Well, I can guarantee you, every ripo, every curve of that river we fell in. I think I may as well have just swum the Whanganui River. But my gratitude goes to Piripi, because in the great joy of experiencing, you know, tērā āhua, te ruruki, te wai o ngā mātua tūpuna, tērā āhua [that aspect of waters to ancestral forefathers, it was nourishing]. It was nourishing. The fact that we could laugh about it all the way down—and I remained his crew member—was, I think, a testament in itself. But all the people who have gone who lived the river, who enjoyed sharing the river with the next generation, who told stories from their own place of reference, I think are a richness that this settlement will never convey, but we know it is there. I have certainly witnessed that and I want to acknowledge it.

The other thing—eating piharau. Was that legal then? We ate piharau. I had never tasted piharau before, and I am from people where we have lots of eels, but I have never tasted such a beautiful delicacy ever in my life. That taste has remained with me, right to this day. Every time I hear that word “piharau”, oh boy, everything starts coming back.

The other thing—when you are going along the river and you see how the canoes got through and you see the dents in the sides of the river, you know, those are stories that cannot be captured in settlement legislation, but they tell us that long before the British came to New Zealand there was a history well before their time that was long established. I hope that the settlement, in some small way, will contribute to what you have always lived, always believed. You have not lost anything; the legislation just had an impact on you. Even going to a marae where they talked about the health legislation during Māui Pōmare’s time, the Maori Councils Act, “Pire Kiore”, I think they called it, and learning that history, how relevant it was in the physical presence along the river and how you told the story of its context and impact on yourselves—those are the treasures that have stayed with me for life.

Those are the treasures that I think about when, within the context of today’s world, we talk about Archie, Matiu Māreikura, and John Tahupārae and their thinking—Ao Māori thinking, wairua Māori thinking—and how it impacts on what we are trying to achieve today. Archie—Sir Archie Taiaroa—led the freshwater issues after the settlement and helped implement the fisheries claim. It is within that context—although we are mentioning their names here within the settlement today, they have had such a broad impact on the way that New Zealand has evolved its understanding to be a lot more complementary and coexisting with our Māori world, and that is to create a better New Zealand.

With that, I am not going to take up too much time. Can I just leave you with one lasting memory that I will never ever forget. I think I was in my early teens then, coming down the river, but I was always inspired by Nanny Nui, Te Manawanui Pauro. At her age—and I think she was well over 80 at that time; could have been 90—she was still paddling down the Whanganui River. Her love for the river gave her a level of, I think, kind of like a supernatural effervescence about her. Never did she waver, never did she tire. That is the type of sustenance that the next generation can draw on as those types of exemplars, all of them. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa, haere mai ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata. Ē, Kahurangi Tariana, hoki mai ki te wāhi i nohoia e koe i ngā tau kua hipa ake. He oranga ngākau kua eke ki tēnei taumata. Ko koe te mea kōrero nei mō te āhuatanga o tēnei o ngā kerēme i ngā tau ē hia kē nei. Ka mihi ki a koe, haere mai, haramai me tō tira, haramai me tō iwi Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi, Ngāti Apa, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau. Kai taku Ariki e Tumu, tēnā koe, haramai mō te āhuatanga ki a tāua ki a Te Arawa ēngari, ka rere mai tēnei o ngā awa i a koe, ā, i Ruapehu, ā, ka eke ki te takutai moana. Ko koe tēnei e whakakanohi nei i tērā taha o tāua, nō reira tēnā koe, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

Kāre e kore kua rongo koutou i te kōrero o taku tuahine a Marama. Nāna anō rā i whakarārangi mai i ngā kōrero. Kaua e riri mai, kāre au i konei i tērā wā, e hia kē nei ngā Māori kai roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā. Kua tae mai ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki wā rātau kerēme. Nō reira, wā poto ki a au.

E rua ngā wāhanga tuatahi kia kōrerohia mō tēnei kaupapa i tōna orokohanga mai, ka mutu, pēnei i tā taku tuahine e kōrero nā ko te hōhonu o tēnei mea o te wai ki a tāua. I taku mōhio, ā, ko Tariana tētahi i kōrero mō tēnei kerēme. Ē hia kē nei ngā tau e tatari nei, e tatari nei, ā, tae rā anō ki tēnei wā, a W’anganui e tatari nei kia rongo i ēnei kōrero. Ka mihi rā ki a Te Piki Kōtuku, ki taku mōhio, ko ia tērā i whakatakoto i tētahi petihana i te tau 1927. Nāwai, nāwai, ka eke ki a Hekenui Whakarake me ētahi atu, i kōkiri nei i tēnei take i roto i ngā tau 30 pea. Ā, nāwai, nāwai, ka eke ki te Wai e 167 i te tau 1990. Ko ngā mea pēnei i a Hikaia Amohia, Joan Akapita, Rangipō Metekīngi, tae atu ki a Michael Pōtaka, tae atu ki tēnei o ngā tipua ki a Te Atawhai, ko rātau kua ngaro atu i tēnei wā, tae rā anō ki te hoa rangatira a Te Ātawhai, ki a Martha, ka tangi ake! Ēngari anō a Rūmātiki Linda Henry, a Kevin Amohia, a Julie Ranginui, e kui, mēnā kai konei koe? Anō hoki a Te Tiwha Puketapu, a John Maihi kei konei koe, haere mai! Ko koutou tērā i kōkiri tonu nei i tēnei take kia eke ki tēnei wā.

Ko Te Ātawhai, pēnei i tā taku tuahine e kōrero nei, koinā te tangata whakatau i te wairua o te tangata kia taea ai te kōkiri i tēnei take ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata. Ki a Titi Tihu, te rangatira nāna anō rā tēnei kēhi i whakaara ake i tēnei kaupapa mō te hunga e kōrerohia ake nei. Nō reira, ka tangi ake ki te hunga kua ngaro, ki a Tahupārae, ki a Piripi, taihoa a Piripi, ki a Niko, ērā, ko rātau katoa kua ngaro atu. Waiho rātau kia okioki, anei tātau e hui nei i tēnei rā, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ā tēnā, i puta te kōrero i taku tuahine ko te hōhonutanga o tēnei mea o te wai ki te tangata. I a tātau e kōrero nei mō Te Piripi nei, tangata nui nei, nui ā-ngākau, nui ā-tinana, ka mutu, koirā tāna mahi. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki tētahi hui i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Nāku tonu ētahi o ngā tamariki o te kura rongonui o Tīpene, St Stephen’s College, āe; i haere atu ki te marae o Ken Mair. Ā, ko te kōrero a Piripi, me eke ki runga i te waka kia puta ki te awa o W’anganui. Kāre au i rite ki a koe e te tuahine, kāre au i haere i te taha o Piripi, kāo! He mataku nōku. I haere au ki tētahi atu o ngā waka ēngari anō tērā i taka, i heke ki te wai. Hoi anō tērā, tērā! Ka hoki ngā mahara ki a ia, ā, ko ia tērā i tū ki mua i te aroaro o te taraka, ā, te taraka i muri i a ia, kāo, kāo, kāo! Ko Piripi tērā!

Otirā, ko te rally i W’anganui, ā, pērā anō hoki ngā radicals me ngā activists o W’anganui. Ā, ko te jet boat race, ko aua take, ērā! Whakakorengia, nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i te ngākaunui o te iwi nei ki tēnei o ngā awa. Ka hoki rā anō ki te āhuatanga o Pākaitore. Te ata, te ata tonu o tērā o ngā kaupapa. Ko māua ko Te Miringa Hohāia i haere i Taranaki kia eke atu ki te marae i W’anganui. He aha te mahi? I noho i te pō, ko tā Tahupārae, kaihau, kaihau! Arā, he aha te tikanga o tērā? Kaua e kai. I te ata tonu, i te ata hāpara i eke atu rā ki te awa, ki reira, ā, i tuku i te karakia. Ko Niko tērā i tuku i te karakia. Ka rīngiringihia mātau e te wai, kia tau te wairua i mua o te ekenga ki Pākaitore, ka hoki ngā mahara.

Nō reira koinei te hōhonutanga o tēnei mea o te awa ki te tangata pēnei i taku tuahine e kōrero nei. E kore au e whakatōroa i ēnei kōrero. He tīmatanga noa iho. Hoki mai mō te mea tuatoru, hoki mai mō te mea tuatoru ki reira tātau whakanui ai i tēnei kaupapa. Kai te kī mai te tangata nei me whakarāpopoto i taku kōrero. Nō reira me āmene atu ki a ia, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa, kai raro.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and hello there, everyone, welcome into Parliament! Dame Tariana, welcome back to the place you occupied some years ago. How reassuring it is to have reached this level. You were the one who commented on the circumstances about this claim for several years now. I acknowledge you, welcome, draw hither with your people, Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi and Ngāti Apa, greetings to you collectively and to us all. Welcome to you, my paramount chief, Tumu, in regard to the circumstances that relate to you and me in terms of Te Arawa, but one of these rivers flows to you by way of Ruapehu, and eventually reaches the foreshore. This is you, the face on that side in regard to you, and so salutations to you, to you collectively, and to us all.

Without a doubt you have heard the address of my sister colleague Marama Fox. She outlined the tenor of the contributions. Do not be offended I was not here at that time. There are so many Māori in Parliament today. They have arrived to listen to the contributions about your claims. Therefore, the time for me is short.

There are two primary parts I want to comment on, the origin of this bill furthermore and, as my sister colleague alluded to, the depth of our understanding about this thing, water, to you and me. I understand that Tariana was one who spoke on this claim. The Whanganui people have been waiting to hear these speeches for a very long time. I am full of admiration for Te Piki Kōtuku; in my understanding, Te Piki was the one who submitted a petition in 1927. Eventually Hekenui Whakarake and others advanced this matter over approximately 30 years. After a time the Wai 167 claim was filed in 1990 by Hikaia Amohia, Joan Akapita, Rangipo Metekīngi, Michael Pōtaka, and the legendary Sir Archie Te Atawhai Taiaroa. They, along with Martha, wife of Sir Archie, have all passed away. I grieve for them. As for Rūmatiki Linda Henry, Kevin Amohia, Julie Ranginui—old lady, are you here? And also Te Tiwha Puketapu and John Maihi—are you here? Welcome! You were the ones who advanced this claim until it eventually arrived at this point in time.

Te Atawhai, like my sister colleague said, was the one who was capable of putting a person at ease to advance this matter into Parliament. Now to Titi Tihu, the chief who was responsible for raising this case, this matter, on behalf of the people I mentioned previously. And so I grieve for those who have died, Tahupārae, Piripi—more about him later—and Niko. Those ones—all of them have passed away. Allow them to rest, as we the living gather here today. Leave them to rest there as we are gathered here today; greetings to you all, and much appreciated.

My sister colleague made a statement about the deeper implication of water to mankind. While we were talking about this man Piripi—he is a large man; big in heart, big physically, and furthermore, that is his job! I recall a meeting some years back. I took some younger students from that famous Tīpene school—St Stephen’s College, yes; we went to Ken Mair’s marae. And that Piripi urged us to climb aboard a canoe to get out to the Whanganui River. Unlike you, my sister colleague Nanaia, I did not go with Piripi—not likely! I was too scared. I went to one of the other canoes and got on board. But it capsized, and I fell into the water. But that is that incident! Memories go back to others, like the time he stood in front of the truck with one behind him calling out, no, no, no! That was Piripi.

At the same time there was the rally in Whanganui, and similarly also with the radicals and activists of Whanganui and the jet boat race. Those were those matters! Why were they stopped? Because of their commitment to this river. It goes all the way back to the Pākaitore situation. At the very dawn of the morning of that protest, Te Miringa Hohāia and I travelled from Taranaki to go on to the marae at Whanganui. So what was to take place? We were going to sleep the night. Tahupārae exhorted: consume air, eat air. So what does that protocol mean? Don’t eat! At the break of dawn we ascended the river to release prayer; Niko led that. Water was sprinkled over us to appease us and to settle us down before the ascension of Pākaitore; memories go back to that event.

Therefore, in regard to the depth of appreciation for the individual about this river thing, and like what my sister colleague alluded to, this is it. I will not prolong these sentiments. This is only a beginning. Come back for the third reading; come back for the third one, where we will celebrate this bill. I have been given the wind-down signal and agree to end my contribution. Therefore, acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively and my appreciation to us all. I resume my seat.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa,

Ka w’akapiria mai ko ngā piringa,

Hinengākau, Tamaūpoko, Tūpoho, Pōtiki e,

Ko au te awa, te awa ko au.

[From the mountain cluster to the sea,

The connections are added,

Hinengākau, Tamaūpoko, Tūpoho and Pōtiki,

I am the river, the river is me.]

Ngā uri o Te Awa o Whanganui, e rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi, tēnei te mihi, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, nau mai!

[To the descendants of the Whanganui River, esteemed ones of a hundredfold, I acknowledge, greet and, commend you all, welcome!]

Before I start my contribution, I want to just put in an apology from the Hon Chester Borrows. He was unable to be here today. He really wanted to be here, but he is hosting some manuhiri back in Whanganui.

I want to first of all acknowledge the knights and the dames amongst you: Tā Tumu te Heuheu Dame Tariana Turia—you are the great Dame Tariana Turia. You always kept us on our toes as the coalition partner, and you still keep us on our toes today. I also want to acknowledge the Mayor of Whanganui, Annette Main—and yes, I tautoko what the Minister said about you being the mayor here today; kia ora—as well as your deputy sitting here over in the corner. I want to acknowledge the kaiwhakahaere for Whanganui, John Maihi. John and I go back a wee way, from when I worked for Taumata Hauora Trust and Ngā Tai o Te Awa. He was always the one in my ear, telling me what I could and could not do.

Tim Macindoe: Now it’s me.

JOANNE HAYES: And now it is this guy here. I acknowledge that it has been a long journey for the iwi of the Whanganui awa. It has been a very long journey, from the 1800s right through to today, from the original claimants of the Whanganui awa to the seven new trustees of Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o Whanganui. Believe you me, I knew a lot about Ngā Tāngata Tiaki, because John would never let me forget it when I worked for him. So much has happened, so many things have happened—let us say that a lot of water has run under the many bridges of Whanganui. Today is a historic day, and I am so proud to be part and parcel and give my voice to tautoko this settlement bill today.

I want to acknowledge Tā Archie Taiaroa, and I acknowledge you, Lady Martha. I acknowledge you because your husband did an amazing job for the Whanganui River Māori Trust Board for all the iwi of Whanganui. Piripi—yes, Piripi and I had a bit of a history there for a little while. He was fondly known amongst our team at Ngā Tai o Te Awa and Taumata as Pirip. He did some amazing things, like he had a contract with me that went only as far as Taumarunui, yet when I looked at his travel records, he would be in Bombay Hills or he would be all the way down south. I would say to him “How come you’re all over there?”, and he would go: “It’s all part and parcel of the claim.” I would say: “OK, righty-o.”

I want to acknowledge Matiu Mareikura. I never got to meet the man, but I heard all about him. I want to acknowledge John Mateparae because—and I did meet him and we did have some encounters a few times—he was an amazing person. Auntie Dardi, Julie Ranginui—they are some of the many people who have helped to bring this claim to the House today.

Soon you will receive an investment, an investment that will be invested two ways, Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o Te Awa Tupua and Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o Te Iwi o Whanganui. It is amazing—over $80 million. Wow! As I said before, I stand humbled to be able to contribute my voice to this claim, to my whānau’s claim. I end with this: e rere Te Awa Tupua [flow on, the Whanganui River].

I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. (Wednesday)