Tuesday, 28 June 2016

TUESDAY, 28 JUNE 2016

TUESDAY, 28 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Fiji, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu—Delegations, Parliaments

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome parliamentarians from Fiji, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu, who are present in the gallery.

Motions

United Kingdom—Death of British Member of Parliament Jo Cox

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the death of British member of Parliament Jo Cox.

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

PHIL TWYFORD: I move, That this House express its sympathy for the family, friends, and colleagues of British member of Parliament Jo Cox, who was attacked and killed as she went about her duties as a local member of Parliament on 17 June, and pass condolences and solidarity to t 1he British Parliament. Jo Cox was a friend of mine and a colleague. She was the best of what we all want elected representatives to be.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Tax System—Overseas Trusts and Disclosure Regime

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

James Shaw: Why, then, did he tell me in April that foreign trust disclosure requirements on registration were “broad and deep”, when John Shewan described them this morning on Radio New Zealand National as “absolutely minimal and tells nobody anything”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I believe that to be an accurate reflection. If you look at what Mr Shewan is actually saying, it is not the amount of information that is being collected; it is where it is actually placed. He believes that it should be more fully in the hands of the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), as opposed to the trustees. But, broadly speaking, he is not recommending significant changes in the amount of information that is collected.

James Shaw: When he said that our disclosure requirements were “broad and deep”, why, then, did the Shewan inquiry find that foreign trust disclosure rules are “inadequate”, “not fit for purpose”, and, therefore, likely to be abused?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said, if you look at what Mr Shewan was also saying on Radio New Zealand National this morning, he was saying that, essentially, the issue here is where that information is kept, not what is collected. He made the point that he thought that it should be at the level of the IRD, with a register that can be searched by relevant agencies. The Government agrees with that and will continue to do that.

James Shaw: Given that John Shewan has suggested that dodgy foreign trusts will quietly withdraw under the new disclosure rules, will the PM ask the Minister of Revenue to ensure that those trusts are investigated?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Those are not the words Mr Shewan used.

James Shaw: When Todd McClay told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last year that none of the reports that he had received from the Inland Revenue Department drew any conclusion on foreign trusts, did he mislead the select committee?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

James Shaw: When revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse ruled out making any changes to foreign trust rules in April, saying that they were world class, did he just get it wrong?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. In fact, actually, as John Shewan pointed out in the report, New Zealand’s international reputation is, rightfully so, very strong. What he has recommended are a few changes that, in light of the Panama Papers and the international focus not on New Zealand but the broader issue, it is appropriate for New Zealand to make. The Government will follow those.

James Shaw: When the Prime Minister insists that our foreign trusts have full disclosure despite warnings to the contrary from, first, the Inland Revenue Department in 2012, and now John Shewan, is he not misleading the public and this House?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and I refer the member to John Shewan’s interview on Morning Report this morning, where he made it quite clear there is full disclosure.

Tax System—Overseas Trusts and Disclosure Regime

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “tax havens are where there is non-disclosure of information. New Zealand has full disclosure of information”, given the Shewan report “concludes that the existing foreign trust disclosure rules are inadequate” and “not fit for purpose in the context of preserving New Zealand’s reputation”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and I note that Mr Shewan this morning confirmed that New Zealand does currently have full disclosure of information. As he explained, records are required to be maintained by trusts, and if they are asked to exchange that information, they must do so. Mr Shewan has recommended extra measures that will see that information provided to the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) through a searchable register.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the Shewan report that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the regime is facilitating the hiding of funds or evasion of tax”; if so, why has he consistently denied that there is a problem?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm that one way or the other because I do not have any access to the source document, and Mr Shewan himself was unable to find any evidence that that was the case.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the Shewan report that “under current law and enforcement practices the risk of detection by authorities is low.”; if so, why has he consistently claimed there is no problem?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I certainly agree with Mr Shewan that there can be improvements, because by having that information at the IRD’s level in the searchable register, it makes it easier. But New Zealand has complied with every request it has had. The same information will still be collected, and in fact under the changes that the Government has made, including the extension of the automatic exchange of information, the rules around the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, and others, have shown that, actually, New Zealand, by the way, does have that information and it does give full disclosure.

Tim Macindoe: What does the independent Shewan report have to say about claims that New Zealand is a tax haven?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It concludes that such claims are wide of the mark. The report says: “The tax treatment of foreign trusts follows New Zealand’s long established and principled policy of not imposing New Zealand tax on foreign source income derived by non-residents.” The report goes on to say: “It does not result in New Zealand being a tax haven under established OECD criteria.”

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the Shewan report that “… New Zealand is part of a global tax police force … to clamp down on aggressive tax practices.”; if so, why has he allowed New Zealand trusts to dodge other countries’ tax?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand’s primary purpose, from an IRD perspective, is to preserve our own tax base. Of course, it is also to have good international tax practice, and we do. As the Shewan report quite correctly says, New Zealand ranks right at the top for best international tax practice.

Andrew Little: Which is true: his claim that we provide full information to other Governments, or the Shewan report’s finding that “the paucity of information currently disclosed … appears to limit IRD’s ability to proactively provide assistance to foreign revenue authorities.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is selectively trying to quote from John Shewan, when this morning he made it quite clear on Morning Report that, in fact, actually, the situation is that New Zealand does have full disclosure. Mr Shewan is not recommending a significant widening of the amount of information collected; what he is recommending is that there should be a searchable register held at IRD’s level.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Prime Minister seen on the appointment of Mr Shewan to lead the independent inquiry into foreign trust disclosure rules?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen several reports. The first was the joint statement from the finance Minister and revenue Minister describing Mr Shewan as “a highly regarded tax expert”. A second report claimed Mr Shewan had advised the Bahamas on how to preserve its status as a tax haven. This led to a third report—interestingly enough, actually, released 2 hours before an All Blacks test match—where the same source admitted he was completely—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the Prime Minister but I do not see any ministerial responsibility. [Interruption] Order! I want substantially less interjection from members to my right.

Andrew Little: If at least one member of the House is capable of accepting when he has got it wrong and publicly acknowledging that, when is he going to acknowledge to the public of New Zealand that he misled them about the state of our foreign trust tax laws?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not misled the New Zealand public. We certainly commissioned a report and made sure that that report comes up with some recommendations. But if I had misled the New Zealand public, I would not hide behind the liniment bottles and try to release that apology 2 hours before an All Blacks test match and pretend no one saw it. I would have the courage of my convictions.

Andrew Little: Why did he block efforts to fix foreign trusts in 2013, when the Shewan report finds that they helped tax evasion, that the risk of getting caught is low, and we do not give assistance to countries trying to stop tax-dodgers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, the member is incorrect. In answer to the second part of the question, the Shewan report makes it quite clear that New Zealand has a very high international reputation. In fact, it says that the only damage done is by misguided New Zealand politicians trying to score domestic political points, and in fact internationally there was virtually no coverage of New Zealand, because it is well respected for what it does.

Andrew Little: Is it not time for him to stop playing silly buggers and admit what the IRD told him in 2013, what John Shewan told him last week, and what every New Zealander knows: that his Government has been harbouring foreign tax-dodgers for far too long?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member, if he wants to look at responsibility, should get out a mirror, and stop apologising to John Shewan 2 hours before an All Blacks test match, and have the guts to get up and say it in this Parliament—that he is sorry.

Economy—Resilience

3. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on risks in the global economy, and the potential implications for New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As members will be aware, on Friday the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. This has created some uncertainty in financial markets, particularly currency markets, and also sharemarkets fell, particularly in the UK, Europe, and Japan. Government bond yields fell to low levels, and oil prices fell. Although substantial, these market movements have been orderly so far, although financial market volatility is expected to continue in the short term at least, and may have some impact on New Zealand. We have already, for instance, seen the New Zealand dollar rise against the pound, but fall against the US dollar.

Sarah Dowie: How well placed is New Zealand to deal with international uncertainty?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Global economic uncertainty is pretty much the norm these days, whether it be due to the exit of Britain, alongside the uncertainty about the outlook for the management of credit in China, or the timing of interest rate rises in the US, or the forward track for dairy prices. In New Zealand, though, New Zealand businesses, particularly our exporters, were forced to become more competitive when the exchange rate was US88c, and they are now reaping rewards, despite global uncertainty. We are seeing New Zealand companies with the confidence to continue to grow and invest, knowing that they are able to adapt and respond to the international economy as it changes. We are an open and confident country, and our businesses back themselves on the world stage.

Sarah Dowie: How is the Government’s programme of economic reform supporting the resilience of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government approach is not to respond to every shock. As I have outlined, there is any number of sources of economic stability, although we will be pragmatic if the impact of those shocks is major. However, we do work to support the resilience of the economy, through responsible fiscal management, continuing independent monetary policy, sustained investment by the Government in infrastructure and in skills, and the Business Growth Agenda, which is focusing on supporting businesses to invest, to grow, and to diversify.

Sarah Dowie: How does our economic resilience compare internationally?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of measures that can be used for our ability to withstand further destabilising in the global economy, if that is what occurs. Treasury has collated a list of the countries that have a broadly balanced budget, net Government debt less than 40 percent of GDP, economic growth greater than 1.5 percent, and scope to further reduce interest rates. These are all criteria that New Zealand meets, and only three other OECD countries—that is, Australia, Iceland, and South Korea. So by these measures, we are in as good a position as most developed countries to withstand any destabilisation in the world economy.

Immigration Policy—Comparison with the United Kingdom and Impact of Brexit

4. 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 I would have thought it was blindingly obvious.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of these two statements: “It is in New Zealand’s best interests for the UK to stay within the European Union.” or “The UK leaving the European Union would not have any direct significant implication on New Zealand.”, which one did he rely upon, uninvited, to poke his nose into the UK referendum process?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Both are correct. Talking of poking one’s nose in, I thought the member was—he was leading the campaign for them to leave.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If one of the driving forces for the Brexit vote was grave dissatisfaction with the social and economic pressures of rising immigration, why does he not commit to reducing immigration to New Zealand to prevent further pressures on our housing, infrastructure, skills, and hospitals in Auckland—and now further around the country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because, of course, migration will go in cycles. Much of what is driving the strong net migration into New Zealand is New Zealanders returning, or not leaving. If we go and have a look at 2011-12, about 40,000 Kiwis net went to Australia; those numbers now are a positive number, about 1,700. I might point out that his favourite politician in the world, Nigel Farage, is advocating, actually, that Britain has New Zealand’s immigration rules.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as he said of the UK: “We can control our migration, they can’t,” and our rates of immigration in real per capita terms are four times that of the UK, does that mean that he still believes in record immigration into New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I certainly do support this country bringing in people who can add value and make a difference to New Zealand. But if one looks at 2015, in broad terms, 650,000 people went into the United Kingdom, half of whom were from the European Union, from where there is no control of whether they came or did not come. In New Zealand’s case, the only unlimited migration that can take place into this country is, fundamentally, from Australians.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What can the public make of his performance in Northland, the flag referendum, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement debacle, Brexit, and now foreign trusts, other than that his aspirational pixie dust is fast running out?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am delighted, in a way, that the member thinks that I am so influential that I was the driving force behind Brexit, one way or the other—I wish I had such influence. When it comes to TPP, I hope the agreement is ratified, because it will be good for New Zealand.

Tax System—Overseas Trusts and Disclosure Regime

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Did he read the report, “Taxation of Multinationals” prepared by the Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department dated 15 August 2013, and what was his response to the statement in that report in respect of foreign trusts “to protect our international reputation it may be necessary to strengthen our regulatory framework for disclosure and record keeping”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I said in my answer to the member’s near-identical question on 6 April, yes, I did read the report, and agreed to all the recommendations in it. The main recommendation was that Ministers agree that initiatives “to protect the New Zealand tax base from base erosion and profit shifting should be the key focus”. This is exactly what the Government has done. Base erosion and profit-shifting tax strategies allow multinationals to exploit gaps and discrepancies in tax rules in order to shift their profits to foreign countries where tax rates are lower. New Zealand has been working with the OECD and the G20 to develop a coordinated global solution to address this, because a solution carried out by one country on its own is unlikely to be effective. Yesterday the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) released the action plan setting out the steps the Government has already taken, as well as further steps in the pipeline, to address this issue.

Grant Robertson: Why did his Government not act on advice from officials in August 2013, again in August 2014, again in November 2014, and again in December 2014 that New Zealand’s rules around foreign trusts were damaging our reputation and needed to be tightened?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In August 2013 officials did not recommend the Government take action on it, actually. What they said was to take action to protect the New Zealand tax base. There is a long string of further actions that have been taken, consistent with New Zealand having one of the tightest regimes for the taxation of foreign ownership of income that can be taxed by New Zealand. So our priority was protecting the New Zealand tax base. The Shewan inquiry has given us clear direction about how to deal with the foreign trusts, which are, of course, all about the tax bases of other countries.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the November 2014 briefing from the IRD that was referred to him as Minister of Finance already included work on a review of foreign trusts, with a report due to go to the Minister of Revenue in December 2014?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm that, but it may be either that or some similar report that led to the legislation that is now before the House dealing with the role of look-through companies in respect of foreign trusts, about which the advice is that it will bring an end to most of the types of activity that the member and ourselves would like to see finished.

Grant Robertson: Will he now admit to this House that the Inland Revenue Department had started work on a review of foreign trusts; that that work was stopped because the foreign trust industry, through the Prime Minister’s lawyer, influenced the Government; and that now, 3 years on, New Zealand’s reputation has been damaged because he did not do that work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because none of what the member has said is correct. New Zealand’s reputation is that it has one of the toughest regimes for taxing the incomes of foreign companies, and he should just go and ask a few of those who regularly complain to us about how tough that regime is. In respect of his first few assertions—as I explained in my first answer, the Government’s priority has always been the protection of the New Zealand tax base. The Inland Revenue Department, in the midst of a large-scale transition in its own organisation and IT system, has limited resources. We made decisions about priorities, which we stand by.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why has the Government’s priority now changed so that it will tighten the rules around foreign trusts? Is it just because of the publicity from the Panama Papers, and otherwise his Government would have gone on siding with the mega-rich and the foreign trust industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s assertions are simply wrong. The Government will reduce the priority it has been giving to other matters in order to deal with the recommendations of the Shewan inquiry because it is important that we deal with the issues of information disclosure, to ensure that everyone does have full confidence in our regime. But I would stand by my statements: New Zealand has one of the toughest regimes in the developed world for the taxation of income of foreign-owned companies.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an Inland Revenue Department policy and strategy policy report dated 14 November 2014, which includes the statement that there is work under way on a review of foreign trusts.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. This is a paper prepared by the IRD, dated 14 November 2014. Leave is sought to table that particular piece of paper. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Trade—Impact of Brexit

6. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Trade: What steps has the Government taken to safeguard New Zealand’s trade interests following the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the EU?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Trade: The Government had sought and received assurances from the UK and the EU before Friday’s referendum that the rules around New Zealand’s trade access would not change until they had negotiated new arrangements with us. The process of discussions between the EU and the UK will likely take some considerable time given the large number of issues to be worked through. The Prime Minister, Ministers, and senior officials will be visiting the UK and Europe in the coming months and will also be meeting with key decision makers on the margins of international meetings. They will continue to work closely with the United Kingdom and the European Union to ensure our trade interests are maintained and advanced.

Mark Mitchell: How will New Zealand’s trading relationship with Britain be affected by the vote to leave the EU?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Not much will change in the short to medium term. New Zealand trades with the UK under an umbrella of rules and market access conditions that relate to the UK’s EU membership. The UK remains a member of the EU for the moment, and it will need time to work through the implications of its decision to leave and to put new trading arrangements in place. Although there is no precedent for a member State exiting the EU, the framework of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules provides safeguards for New Zealand market access and trade. The EU and the UK’s WTO commitments set out our existing market access arrangements, including longstanding country-specific tariff quotas for New Zealand. If the UK and EU wish to change those arrangements, then WTO rules require them to notify us and to renegotiate with us.

Mark Mitchell: What impact will the vote to leave the EU have on progress on the EU free-trade agreement (FTA)?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Although negotiations between the UK and Europe will command significant attention, we do not expect the time lines around a possible NZ-EU free-trade agreement to be significantly affected. It has been evident for some considerable time that New Zealand would need to build stronger relationships across the entire EU membership in order to successfully conclude an FTA and to consolidate our relationship with the European Union generally. That is the strategy that Ministers have been actively pursuing for some considerable time.

Transport Infrastructure, Auckland—Rail and Roading

7. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Can he confirm that a rail corridor in Auckland has the potential to carry 10 times as many people as a single lane of motorway, and twice as many people as a dedicated busway?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): No.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this chart, which is from a report that is no longer available online but it was specific to the Auckland—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to know who prepared the chart.

Julie Anne Genter: It is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis of the member’s explanation that the information may now be hard to find, I will put the leave. It is for the House to determine. Leave is sought to table that particular chart. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Julie Anne Genter: Given the much greater capacity of rail over motorway lanes, why has his Government committed billions of dollars to up to 10 new motorway expansion projects and no new money to rail expansion projects?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member is just plain wrong. We have invested $4.2 billion in rail. We are committed, in principle, to the City Rail Link, albeit we have got to work through a business case to ensure its success. There will be further improvements, but she is right about one thing: we also invest in roads, because Aucklanders and New Zealanders also want to see that considerable investment as well.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) report that shows there is no funding for new rail lines for the next 10 years—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need further—I just need to know whether the NZTA report is available on the internet.

Julie Anne Genter: It is quite difficult to find.

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! Members can get assistance from the member if they really need to find it. I am not putting the leave.

Julie Anne Genter: So is the Minister saying he thinks that Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland should be content, for example, to be stuck on the airport bus—which is stuck in traffic—for another decade or two, rather than having a rapid transit link?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No. That is why we are investing considerably in Auckland. That is why the New Zealand Transport Agency is working on route protection to ensure that there is high-capacity public transport between the airport and the central business district. Of course, we are working on a plethora of projects all around Auckland, as my colleagues to the left of me say, including the western ring route, the southern and northern motorways, the Northern Busway, and many more projects to come.

Julie Anne Genter: Would his Government consider making a rail link to the airport a priority if it was named after Captain Cook?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, that is a really silly question. The truth of the matter is that the analysis from both Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency showed a 0.6 benefit to cost ratio. As New Zealand’s self-styled foremost transport economist, I would have thought the member could realise—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That answer will not help the order of the House.

School Buildings—Funding Announcements

8. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about investment in school property?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): In the last week Minister Parata and I announced over $51 million in projects to build and redevelop new schools and classrooms. This spending is part of the significant increase of $882 million in education infrastructure secured as part of Budget 2016. This budget more than doubled the education infrastructure spend of last year’s budget. I am pleased to advise the House that this Government has committed around $5 billion to school property—significantly more than any previous Government.

Todd Barclay: What investment in schooling infrastructure is under way in Otago-Southland?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Last week I was pleased to announced that around $37 million will be invested in school property in Otago and Southland, including around $25 million for Wakatipu High School to be relocated and rebuilt for a roll of at least 1,200 places; up to $11 million to redevelop Arrowtown primary school in Central Otago; $350,000 for a new classroom at Donovan Primary School in Invercargill; $700,000 for two new classrooms at Mt Aspiring College; and $350,000 for one new classroom at Pembroke School in Ōāmaru. These investments demonstrate a strong commitment to ensure modern learning environments in high-growth areas.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What investment in schooling infrastructure is under way in Auckland?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Last week I announced that around $14.5 million has been approved for Clayton Park School. This school has experienced issues with aged and leaky buildings, and asbestos. The redevelopment will see most of the school’s existing buildings replaced and will add 19 permanent teaching spaces. This is on top of the already announced $153 million as part of Budget 2016, to get ahead of growth in Auckland. I can also confirm that since 2014 the Government has invested $261 million in Auckland’s school redevelopments. This shows the Government’s commitment to meeting the needs of students in our fastest-growing city, now and into the future. I am pleased to confirm that there will be further announcements this year delivering more redevelopments and more good news for New Zealand.

Schools—Operational Funding for State and Private Schools

9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with John Key that private schools have smaller class sizes and are better resourced than State schools; if so, will she commit to smaller class sizes and better resources for State schools as part of a future education funding system?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I understand that Mr Hipkins is referring to a 2005 article in which the Prime Minister talked about making a choice as a parent. I fully support the right of parents to choose what they think will be best for their children’s education. What I commit to, as Minister, is using educational resources in the most effective way possible to ensure choice for parents, flexibility for schools, and results for kids. That is why the funding review is exploring how the education funding system could be improved so that the right resources get to the right child at the right time in the right amount. That is also why a number of proposed directions for change are currently being discussed with an advisory group that includes representatives from the sector, including the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute.

Chris Hipkins: Why has she proposed removing the cap on private school funding and moving to a per student funding model for private schooling, given that State schools are struggling to make ends meet, resulting in demand for parental donations rising at 10 times the rate of inflation?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Helpfully, all of the background papers are publicly available on www.education.govt.nz, where the member will be able to ascertain that the proposal is for per student funding for all students across the system, and what is proposed for those who are at independent schools is a predictable amount. It would be equivalent to how much the Crown would incur if those students were being fully funded in the State mainstream system.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask the Minister to explain what the proposal was; I asked her why she was making the proposal.

Mr SPEAKER: No, and I felt that on this occasion the Minister addressed that question. She suggested there was a variety of reasons available on the website. The member then did add some politics to the question with his last bit, suggesting that State schools were struggling. So it has been addressed. [Interruption] No, it has been addressed.

Chris Hipkins: Why has she proposed removing the cap on private school funding and moving to a per student funding model for private schooling?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is a matter of equity. As I explained—[Interruption] Yes, and as I explained at the end of my answer to the primary question, it is because I wanted to more clearly match the amounts that would be incurred if those students were being educated in the fully funded mainstream system. It is because I want greater predictability and certainty across the education system, and it is because I want to support the diversity of choice that is available to all parents and that characterises New Zealand as having a world-leading education system.

Chris Hipkins: If it is a matter of equity, as the Minister now claims, how is increasing funding for students who attend private schools, who, by the Prime Minister’s own admission, already receive more resourcing than those in State schools and already have lower class sizes, possibly going to help equity and help the achievement of students who are not doing as well in the public school system?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not proposing—and I want to confirm to the House that these are proposals and available for discussion—that the education system fund all of the costs. I am simply saying that the equitable approach would be to fund more closely to what it would cost the system if those students were fully educated in the publicly funded system.

Chris Hipkins: Will her proposal result in an increase in funding on a per student basis for those students who are attending private schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Right now those children are New Zealanders who are attending a school by parental choice, and they are our cheapest students in terms of calls on the taxpayer purse. It is likely—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Answer the question.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —if that rude person would desist—that having set a proportion, it would be greater, but I do not know by how much, because we are consulting. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, cease the interjecting, please; it is creating disorder. [Interruption] Order! I will not be asking you again.

Chris Hipkins: Why is she considering increasing funding for private schools when 86 percent of secondary school principals are reporting that they have insufficient Government funding and are cutting field trips, available subjects, and curriculum resources?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Again, if I could point the member and his colleagues to the actual proposals, he would see that we are proposing a per student amount for every New Zealand child going to school, that we are proposing an additional amount for those most at risk of not succeeding, and that we are proposing an additional amount for schools that are isolated, in rural areas. The proposal, as a whole, is: how do we give greater certainty and predictability to all school managers, how do we use data to ensure that we are getting impact for that investment, and how do we assure taxpayers that the over $11 billion we are putting into Vote Education is resulting in more kids being educationally successful?

Schools—Teacher-student Ratios and Funding

10. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Where accurately represented, yes.

Tracey Martin: Does she stand by her statement on The Nation that principals already set class sizes now?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do, yes. That is because the Ministry of Education funds to the schools on the basis of a ratio, but it is the principal who decides what the actual size of classes will be.

Hon Member: It doesn’t, actually. You know that.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, they do. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Tracey Martin: In light of that answer, can she confirm that staff funding for mainstream primary schools is currently based on a teacher-student ratio of 1:15 for year 1, 1:23 for year 2 and year 3, and 1:29 for year 4 to year 8, with variations for smaller rural schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Indeed, the member has helpfully confirmed my answer, which is that we fund on the basis of the ratios that have been quoted, but then how the principal decides to set the class size is the principal’s decision.

Tracey Martin: How can she stand by those statements that principals set class size, when in reality many principals have no option but to increase class size, often into the mid-thirties in our senior school, while they wait to reach her ministry’s predetermined teacher-student ratios, over which they have no flexibility?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Either the member is wilfully misunderstanding the difference between how a funding formula is determined and how the leader of a school then applies it, or she really does not understand it. The member has just quite accurately said that new entrant classes are funded on the basis of 1:15, but a principal might have 20 in that class and go for a lower number in year 2 or 3. It is their professional discretion—

Tracey Martin: They can’t get a teacher, Minister, until they get another 20 kids.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —as to how they set class size. Talking over the top does not help the member listen.

Border Control—Dog Teams

11. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Customs: What update can she give on how customs detector dog teams are improving security at New Zealand’s borders?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): Customs dogs and their handlers play a very important role in targeting and identifying criminal activities and networks linked to drugs and to cash. In the past 3 years customs detector dogs have intercepted almost $10 million worth—[Interruption]—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry; I am having trouble hearing because of the interjections of two members. The Minister has the floor to answer a question, and she will be heard. The Hon Nicky Wagner—I apologise for interrupting.

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the past 3 years customs detector dog teams have identified $10 million of undeclared and concealed cash at the border. They help protect New Zealand from money-laundering, and they detect movements of large sums of cash that can be linked to illicit activities.

Andrew Bayly: What additional funding is the Government providing for detector dog teams?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Budget 2016 provided around $500,000 for five new detector dog teams, which will bring a total of 13 to 18. These additional teams will provide additional assurance to ensure that people comply with the rules around large sums of cash, and it sends a very clear signal to criminals that the Customs Service can and will stop illegal cash movements at the border.

Paid Parental Leave—Cost to Increase

12. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement to Radio New Zealand on 17 June 2016 that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks “would add when it’s fully in place about $280 million a year”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No; I was incorrect and should have used the numbers in the veto certificate. This is a useful opportunity to clarify the numbers. The Government—[Interruption] well, just listen—currently spends about $280 million a year on paid parental leave. Labour’s proposal, once fully implemented, would cost around $120 million per year on top of that, or $100 million per year net of tax. Net of tax, the proposal would cost $280 million over the next 4 years. However, I vetoed the bill based on the Government’s view that this is unaffordable now, particularly in the light of other spending priorities that we have. In short, the policy costs too much, and that is why we vetoed it.

Sue Moroney: Why did he repeat that incorrect figure four times throughout that interview, even when challenged by Guyon Espiner on the accuracy of it, given that just the day before he had issued a financial veto certificate stating that the additional cost in the 2018-19 year of full implementation would be just $116 million? How did he get it so wrong on four occasions?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked in a very lengthy fashion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because I confused the $280 million over 4 years with $280 million a year.

Sue Moroney: Can he explain, then, why MPs Paul Foster-Bell, Sarah Dowie, and Mark Mitchell all claimed in their Committee stage speeches that the cost of the bill would be $445.8 million over the next 4 years, which was further embellished by Brett Hudson, who upped it to $466 million, then the Ministers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It is doubtful whether there is ministerial responsibility, but I will let the Minister—[Interruption] Order! I am allowing the Minister to address the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a welter of numbers around the whole policy, but I just remind the House what the current policy is. That is, it was 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, this Government extended it over 2 years to 16 weeks, and then to 18 weeks. That currently costs about $280 million a year, and we vetoed the extension.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Oh, it is surely past due time now. He has—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. If she wants to raise a point of order, I will listen to it, but it is not about filibustering question time.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Is?

Sue Moroney: —and I was referring to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just hear the point of order.

Sue Moroney: OK. The point of order is that I did not ask him about how many weeks there were—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And it was a question for which there was no ministerial responsibility for what various backbench members have said. I should have ruled it out of order in the first place.

Sue Moroney: Does the Minister recall using the same tactic when the bill was first drawn in 2012, telling the public it would cost an additional $500 million over 3 years when he had, in fact, received official advice before making that statement showing that the true cost was a maximum of $285.6 million over 3 years? Why does he keep—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to sharpen up her supplementary questions. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! My patience will run out with Sue Moroney. We have had lengthy supplementary questions that are, strictly, out of order. I am trying to assist her to get an answer, but if she continues to interject when the Minister rises to his feet, I see no point in carrying on. The Hon Bill English, briefly.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member needs to sharpen up her ability to win electorate seats after, I think, five losses.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order—well, I certainly hope it is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: First of all, you ticked off the questioner for trying to put together a couple of examples of what the question was about, and then the Minister got up and started off with a blatant insult, and, as usual, you did nothing about it.

Mr SPEAKER: And, in retrospect, I probably should have said to the Minister that the answer was not helpful, but we have had a series of questions that have been very politically loaded. When you get such—[Interruption] Order! When you get questions like that, it tends to lead to quite political responses from Ministers. We will move on.

Sue Moroney: Supplementary question, if I may, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Provided—[Interruption] Order! I just want to warn the member that provided it is in line with the Standing Orders, I will allow her supplementary question. If it is a lengthy one, like we have had—[Interruption] No, no. I am speaking to the member. I will accept a supplementary question, but it has got to be in line with the Standing Orders.

Sue Moroney: Why is the National Party so determined to mislead New Zealanders on the cost of extended paid parental leave to 26 weeks by more than doubling the costs that have been determined by Government officials?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will leave the question to stand, but when the answer is political, the House should not object.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The National Government is keen to extend paid parental leave, as it can afford it, weighed up with other alternatives. For instance, on 1 April over a hundred thousand of the poorest families in New Zealand got $25 a week extra per week. We could have used that money to extend paid parental leave, but we thought the best balance was some extension in paid parental leave and $25 a week for all families on a benefit with children. We think that balance is about right.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very interesting answer, but at no point did he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, I invite the member to go back. The question started off by saying “Why did the National Party do something?”. The Minister has responsibility for the Government, but certainly not for the National Party.

Urgent Debates

Government Inquiry into Foreign Trust Disclosure Rules—Release of Report

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter—[Interruption] Order! I have received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the release of the report on the Government Inquiry into Foreign Trust Disclosure Rules. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The subject of the report is a significant one, and the Government has stated it will implement most of its recommendations. It is not clear, however, from the Government’s response which recommendations it will implement and whether it will involve changes to legislation. Therefore, this may be the only occasion for the House to debate this issue. The matter has attracted significant media and public attention in the past few months, raising potential risks to preserving New Zealand’s reputation. Having carefully considered this application, I believe it does require the urgent attention of the House. I therefore call on Andrew Little to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. John Key and the National Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything about the dodgy foreign trusts regime that they have set up, and to ensure that, at last, New Zealand gets to preserve—or at least try to restore—its international reputation on tax matters. This is not a question or matter of recent occurrence; it has been going for some time. The Government was told in 2013 that there were problems that the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury saw with our foreign trusts regime. They did not like what they saw. It is interesting to note that by 2013 we had 7,700 of these foreign trusts operating in New Zealand. They had more than doubled since 2008—more than doubled since this Government took office. That was between 2008 and 2013. I have to say that since 2013 they have nearly doubled again. They are nearly up to 12,000—they have nearly doubled again.

This Government has had repeated advice from the Inland Revenue Department and from Treasury saying that our foreign trusts regime is not good and it is not adequate. The disclosure rules are hopeless, they do not know what is going on, and they cannot assure the Government that the regime that is in place is not harbouring ill-gotten gains and dodgy people—which might be the company that the National Party keeps from time to time. But that is not the point. When you are in Government your foremost duty is to preserve the interests of New Zealand. That is what New Zealand Government Ministers are meant to do: to put the New Zealand people and their Government and their sovereign interests first. That is what was demanded of them, but, starting in 2013, they got these reports and they did not want to act on them.

Finally, the Inland Revenue Department decided it would make it part of its work programme and it told the Minister: “We are making this part of the work programme.” The Minister obviously let it go because the Minister then received a couple of updates saying that it was on the work programme and that work was under way reviewing and having a look at our foreign trusts regime because of the concern that good, honest, hard-working public servants at the Inland Revenue Department, and Treasury for that matter, had about the regime—because they did not like it.

Then what happened? Mysteriously, the Inland Revenue Department review was stopped in its tracks. Oh! It stopped in its tracks. No notice; just a report from a deputy commissioner saying—for whatever reason—“We no longer are devoting resources to this review.” Something had happened. And we now know what happened, thanks to the Panama Papers. Oh, the Panama Papers. They have shone a light on our tax system and its administration. They have shone a light on what Ministers in the National Government knew but did not want anybody else to know. Those papers have shone a light and have shown that New Zealand has been operating a dodgy foreign trust regime.

How did the Inland Revenue Department review come to a grinding halt? We now know that the chap described as the Prime Minister’s “close personal adviser”—because he does not have a practising certificate any more, although he was qualified in the law—and sometime investment manager of some of the Prime Minister’s personal funds wrote a letter representing a thing called the “foreign trust industry”. Who knew we had that? It has not appeared in any New Zealand Trade and Enterprise report about economic development or any Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment report about the way to a bounteous growth in the future. Anyway, we do have this thing called the foreign trust industry and it wrote to the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Finance and said “You shouldn’t really touch this.”, or words to that effect—that is not a direct quote. They stopped it. The then Minister of Revenue, within days of having received this letter, stopped the review. It was that quick. Has there ever been a lobbying effort that has had an effect that efficiently?

Grant Robertson: Ordinary people in the Koru lounge.

ANDREW LITTLE: Ordinary people in the Koru lounge were talking to the Prime Minister about it too—ordinary Kiwis, middle New Zealand—because of course they want a foreign trust regime where there is no disclosure and people can hide their ill-gotten gains and they can rip off the countries that they come from! Of course we all want that. It is just rubbish—it is just rubbish—and Chris Bishop, the sometime representative of the tobacco industry who sits in his corner up there looking like he has been quaffing on nicotine for centuries, is not disturbed about it. He does not care about it. He is waiting to launch the assault on plain packaging—that is what he is here for, to make sure that plain packaging does not proceed.

In the meantime, the rest of New Zealand is concerned about the reputation that our country is gaining abroad for being the host for dodgy tax regimes. It is not who we are. It is not who we are as a country. We are better people than that. New Zealanders to a person are hard-working, honest, and expect the same of others. But not this Government—not the wide boys in the National Government. Not those people who rub shoulders with the rich and the powerful from overseas and grant any favour going. That is because it is the grace-and-favour Government. It does not care about that.

It was John Key’s dream to have a financial services industry with zero rating, tax instruments, and all that sort of stuff. That was his dream. He said that it was going to add billions to the New Zealand economy. What has the foreign trust regime added to the New Zealand economy? It has added $27 million and that $27 million is the billings of the lawyers and the accountants who set these things up. They are the ones with the websites that sell this stuff and say that New Zealand is a tax haven—but the Prime Minister does not accept it is a tax haven. Even the independent reviewer struggled to shuck off the label “tax haven”. He said: “Oh! According the OECD definition we are not a tax haven.” But then he very quickly had to say “But anyway, it is an outdated term and let’s not look at it too closely.”—because, actually, the fear is that we might actually be one. We might be one. When everybody else describes us as one, then we probably are one. It is the old duck test: if it waddles, quacks, and it has feathers, then it probably is one of those that waddles, quacks, and has feathers—that is the duck test.

This Government has been embarrassed and caught short by the Panama Papers, by whichever public-spirited person hacked into Mossack-Fonseca’s computer system and found this treasure trove of information that showed the world just who we are. It showed the world just who we are. The information revealed showed just how this Government operates, and just how much it cares, or actually does not care, about those things that actually are important to our identity as a nation and our reputation abroad. We knew about this and about our Government’s failure only because of international reportage, particularly through the Australian Financial Review.

There is one respect of the John Shewan report that I do not agree with—when he tried to analyse whether or not our reputation had been damaged. He had done a Google search or gone on to international media and said that there was not much coverage of it. But that is not the reputation we are talking about. The rest of the world—6 billion other people, or however many it is—do not spend their time talking about the tax regimes of the world. I am not sure that many people in the Brexit vote last week were thinking about tax regimes of the world. But there is a cohort of people in different parts of the world—accountants, lawyers, and those dealing with the huge wealth of very rich people—who do think about tax systems and they do look at what happens in other parts of the world. It is our reputation amongst them that counts, and amongst international bankers, and amongst international organisations—Public Service organisations, whose job is to keep track of what is happening with tax regimes and the flow of finance and money around the world. That is where the reputation counts. That is where our reputation has to be above board. That is where it counts most.

With all due respect to Mr Shewan, he got that wrong. Our reputation has suffered. We have been the subject of headlines around the world and of international reportage in newspapers, and we are the subject of comments and websites around the world, including websites hosted here, which describe us as a tax haven. So let us not be cute about it. Our reputation has suffered. But, to his credit, John Shewan has had a look, using his formidable, technical, tax brain, and said that the disclosure requirements are inadequate. But, of course, that is directly contrary to what the Prime Minister spent weeks telling New Zealanders. He said: “There’s nothing to see here; nothing to worry about. We have full disclosure; we have full disclosure.” But John Shewan did not say that. He said the opposite: “The disclosure requirements are inadequate.” He has now recommended a set of significant disclosure requirements that should be met. The Government has said it is not quite sure which recommendations it is going to take up.

It is a pity that Mr Shewan did not go further and say that not only should the Inland Revenue Department be collecting the significant additional data, but it should be publicly available. As so many business records in New Zealand, for those who do business in New Zealand and are domiciled in New Zealand, already face, there should be public access to the details and the information applying to foreign trusts. It is not unreasonable. Why would we grant ever more privilege to the rich and the powerful of the world, because they are going to set up a trust here, usually to use it to avoid tax obligations in their home country. Why would we? Why would we keep it secret to our agencies here, when there will be good, innocent tax authorities in other parts of the world that will want to know what information our Inland Revenue Department holds about foreign trust settlors and those who are connected with them? Why should they not know? Why should they have to know the precise information before they can ask for it and get it from our Inland Revenue Department?

That is not right. It is not Kiwi rules, and it is not Kiwi standards. It might be Bill English’s standards, it might be John Key’s standards, but I think New Zealanders have already arrived at the conclusion that those are not standards that we ought to live by; that, actually, we represent something better. We represent something more wholesome. It is about openness and transparency and honesty, and doing business the right way, and doing good business the right way. That is what New Zealanders demand. That is what this Government, in spite of its repeated opportunities to do so, has singularly failed to uphold—good, honest business principles. Instead, it has shacked up with the world’s rich and powerful. It is looking after those at the top, because it has long given up on middle New Zealand, and everybody else.

The Government just does not care. Perhaps it never did. But it does not care now. The Government has been caught short, and we have been caught embarrassed, and it is not right. Good on John Shewan for coming up with the recommendations that he did. But, actually, if this Government wants to meet New Zealand’s expectations and do the right thing for all New Zealanders, do the Kiwi thing, then it will go beyond John Shewan’s recommendations and will follow the advice of various other independent experts who have said that there is more that is needed.

Why does the Government not follow the advice of Deborah Russell, a well-known tax expert at Massey University, and go beyond the recommendations of John Shewan? Why does the Government not do that? That will be the test for this Government. Is it a good, wholesome, honest Government that believes in good, wholesome, honest business? Or is it just rubbing shoulders with those whom it prefers to favour—the privileged and the powerful and the elite—at the expense of everybody else? So far, that is the track record the Government has set for itself. It is not good enough.

We can do better, but when it comes to ministerial decisions, that responsibility is reposed in that side of the House, in those people, and in people like Bill English, and the floundering Minister of Revenue, whom we only expect a straight answer from. They are the people in whom we repose the responsibility of maintaining New Zealand’s reputation. So far, they have failed. They have a chance to get it right and to serve New Zealand better and to serve New Zealand well. Let us see whether they take it; let us see whether they take it. New Zealand expects nothing less.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. During the contribution by Andrew Little, David Bennett interjected an unparliamentary comment. I could tell from your body language that you did not hear it, but I certainly did. I ask you now to call on him to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Unfortunately for the member raising the point of order, it is a requirement for points of order of that type to be taken immediately; therefore, I am not going to require Mr Bennett to withdraw and apologise. He may want to anyway.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): There is one comment from the Leader of the Opposition that I will strongly agree with, which was when he said something to the effect of: “When one is in Government, the foremost duty is to preserve the reputation of the country.” But I find it really rich coming from that member, whose Greens-Labour coalition has been at the forefront of the biggest attack on this country’s reputation, and that is the continued and relentless description of New Zealand as a tax haven. It is scurrilous, it is wrong, and it is also consistent with a pattern, I think, of derogatory comments coming from the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in respect of the author of the Government inquiry into foreign trust disclosure rules.

The Leader of the Opposition accused Mr Shewan of helping tax havens, and took weeks to withdraw those comments—2 hours before a rugby test. The one thing I will disagree with the Prime Minister on—in his comments during question time—is that Mr Little still has not apologised. He could not bring himself to say those two simple words “I’m sorry.” and “I made an accusation about Mr Shewan—a scurrilous accusation. That was wrong. It was probably libellous.” He withdrew it, but he could not bring himself to say sorry, and that is consistent with a pattern of attack on this country’s reputation and on that author’s reputation that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Let me tell the House what the report said about New Zealand as a tax haven. It is quite simply this: we are not—by any measure—a tax haven. When one considers the attributes that contribute to that reputation, New Zealand has none of them—none whatsoever. Mr Shewan then goes on to say that the issue of tax havens is somewhat passé these days; the more common nomenclature is around things on tax systems that are preferential or harmful. He then says New Zealand’s tax system cannot be categorised that way. In no other aspect of the tax system could it be considered to be preferential or harmful. What is harmful is the relentless attack on this country’s reputation.

But let me just touch on another issue that was raised by Mr Little, both in question time and in his interview on breakfast television this morning. That was the question of the degree to which record-keeping requirements are robust. Mr Shewan concludes this: “The record keeping requirements for foreign trusts are … quite extensive,”—quite extensive—“and include constitutional documents …, particulars of settlements or distributions, and the name and address … of settlors and recipients of distributions.” He goes on to say: “IRD advised the Inquiry that … requests [for that information] are typically met without difficulty, and that the standard of records provided is consistent with the standard for business taxpayers.”

So I am trying to reconcile this comment—these accusations: (a) we are a tax haven, and (b) the record-keeping requirements are poor. But as has been said, the question is not what record-keeping requirements there are—and all of them not only have to be kept but have to be kept in English, regardless of where the settlor and the beneficiaries are from—

Grant Robertson: I can’t find it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I can refer the member to paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 on page 22, for his benefit, under the term “Record keeping requirements”. They are extensive, he said. In fact, he said they are quite extensive.

Hon Annette King: Can you read the whole lot. Keep reading.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Why would this member want to be held to a different account? If that member will cherry-pick, so will this.

Hon Annette King: Very selective.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Very. Yes, we have been, have we not, Mrs King? Because there was a lot said about this that says they were extensive—of their own volition. While there were 142 comprehensive disclosures of information to foreign jurisdictions, 80 percent of them were provided on the initiative of the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and I think 42 or 43 were provided at the request of the foreign jurisdiction. The system provided for a comprehensive sharing of information, proactively or on request.

Why would the system be so proactive? Why would 80 percent of them be proactive? Well, primarily because the IRD’s main interest in preserving the tax base is to ensure that New Zealand tax residents are not hiding behind foreign trusts as a way of avoiding paying New Zealand tax. This goes to another point that Mr Little made on television this morning. He believes—he honestly believes—that the whole taxing of foreign trusts should be reviewed. Never mind that a very, very thoughtful policy position was put in place by the fourth Labour Government in 1988 because of the propensity of New Zealand tax residents to shelter their income behind trusts where the trustee was offshore, because the tax point until that point was the trustee. I can tell this House without fear of contradiction that a return to that framework would have a massive negative effect on the New Zealand tax base. If he believes that our first priority is to preserve our reputation, one very high priority has to be to preserve the New Zealand tax base. The change back to the old days would do quite the opposite; it would have a very, very detrimental effect on that.

The other matter that the Leader of the Opposition has raised is the question of the public register of foreign trusts. Mr Shewan is unambiguous about that—at paragraph 10.14, for Mr Robertson’s benefit—“The Inquiry is [specifically] not recommending that the information obtained by IRD would be automatically exchanged with foreign tax authorities.” This is for the simple reason that those authorities may use them for other purposes. That is a bit of code for the very legitimate reason that one might actually use a foreign trust for the protection of their family and their asset base—

Hon Annette King: How many of those are there? Give us a number.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that is a very good question. I wonder whether that member has a domestic trust. I am sure I could search the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament, because as a publicly elected official she is held to a different standard—that is fair enough; we all are. But I wonder whether that member’s family has a family trust? Why? The protection of an asset, probably, and the risk of litigation that could result—

Grant Robertson: They pay tax on it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, probably on the income and on the distributions, of course.

Grant Robertson: That’s right. They probably do pay tax on it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, what I’m saying is that Mr Shewan has made a very thoughtful recommendation not to have the register public, and I agree with that recommendation. Any suggestion that the salacious searching of the public register would be necessary or appropriate is just inappropriate.

One of the things, of course, in the many incorrect claims that the Opposition has led on this is that—

Hon Annette King: I’m glad we’ve led on it. We’ve exposed you for what you are.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Really? What is that?

Hon Annette King: Supporting the rich and privileged who hide their tax.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: OK, so we are supporting the rich and the privileged.

Hon Annette King: Who hide their tax.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: OK—only here is the thing, right? There have been, what—how many million papers in the Panama Papers? Do you know what? My IRD officials, for all the breathless descriptions of this, have not been able to access the Panama Papers. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has had these papers for a year. It has a register of names, a register of references to New Zealand, but nobody outside the ICIJ has seen the Panama Papers. But that member determines that means that we are helping our rich mates. I would love to know who these rich mates are. I would love to know how we are all flying around in Learjets and somehow in cahoots with these rich mates.

You know what? Our No. 1 priority is to protect the New Zealand tax base. These are offshore individuals using legitimate vehicles for whatever purposes. Mr Shewan has said, and I agree, that with 11,000 of these trusts it is probably likely that not all of them are absolutely squeaky clean in all of their affairs in relation to tax in their foreign jurisdictions. They have no obligation to the New Zealand tax base, because they do not have assets here, they do not have income here, and the money is not coming through New Zealand’s banking system—and I know that the Minister of Justice will touch on this in respect of the anti – money-laundering recommendations that are highlighted in the report. But it is simply not true to say—and that party has made very strong inferences that this is the case—that there is somehow money washing through the New Zealand banking system from foreign trusts on which tax should be paid in New Zealand but is not. That is just not true.

There are a number of other things, of course, that we have heard about in respect of matters that the Government has already responded to. Minister Adams will talk about anti – money-laundering. I want to talk about look-through companies. There is one area where there was international media around it, and that was with an Australian Business Review report that was critical of the frameworks that were revealed in the Panama Papers but focusing not on foreign trusts but on look-through companies. The Government has already got a solution to that. It put a bill into the House that will mean that a look-through company that has the greater of either $10,000 or 20 percent of its turnover earned from foreign sources loses its right to have that tax set off against other individuals. That will, effectively, mean that the look-through companies have to pay company tax here in New Zealand regardless of where that income is earned. That is going to be a significant barrier to anybody who is using these vehicles to shelter or avoid income tax.

This is a good report. This is a report that says—

Grant Robertson: But there’s no problem—so why is it a good report?

Hon Annette King: You said there was no problem.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I never said that.

Grant Robertson: Yes, you did. You’ve spent 8½ minutes saying it.

Hon Nathan Guy: They weren’t listening.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, they were not. Why would anything be different? This is a solid report that highlights an area of potential reputational risk—and it is going to be removed. And it is going to be removed, I have to say, at a significant impost on the resources deployed by IRD, Treasury, and other agencies on a massive business transformation project that will be going on for the next 4 years. That was the issue that Minister McClay, as my predecessor, had to consider when he asked officials what would have to give in order for the foreign trust review to take place. They were reluctant to say anything about that. So the question answered itself. I maintain that the priority has to be the preservation of the New Zealand tax base. Obviously, there is a reputational issue here as well. Although the record-keeping requirements were robust and there were plenty of examples of the sharing of information, it is appropriate to beef that up and to put information into the custody of the IRD.

So I want to thank Mr Shewan, despite the scurrilous attacks on him by the Opposition parties. He has done a very good job. That is one individual whose reputation is certainly enhanced by this report. The Government, obviously, has to take advice on it, but there is no recommendation that I can say we will not be following. There are a couple of areas around anti – money-laundering in that, and although we have already announced, effectively, the remedy that Mr Shewan recommends, the method, obviously, and therefore, as a consequence, the timing do need to be reconsidered. And there is an issue around whether or not the fee that would be charged for registration is consistent with other fees charged by the Government for similar registrations. But those are the only two things that spring to mind as possible nuances against the recommendations. Overwhelmingly, I expect to be able to take recommendations to Cabinet that will support this, and I want to do that in as timely a manner as I can. I thank Mr Shewan for this work.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Government has been caught out. This National Government has been caught out helping an industry that exists only to help the global wealthy elite hide their assets so that they can avoid paying taxes and potentially engage in even more nefarious activities. I have to congratulate the Minister of Revenue and the Prime Minister on accepting the very reasonable recommendations of the Shewan report, because when those recommendations were made by Opposition parties like the Green Party the Government described them as “barking mad”. It is amazing that when something comes as a proposal from the Opposition the National Government refers to it as barking mad, but when it is in a report that it has commissioned from a tax expert it is willing to accept it. So that is great. But I have to say that the Minister is being a little bit misleading when he says that the Opposition parties are the ones making scurrilous attacks, when in fact it has been the National Government that has been accusing everyone else of making attacks on it—when in fact the truth is it was wrong and it has been caught out.

Let us start at the beginning. At the beginning, when the Panama Papers were released and a number of tax experts were saying that, in fact, New Zealand has a number of loopholes and our foreign trust regime could be used for tax dodging purposes if the settlors were not resident in New Zealand and Australia, what did the Prime Minister say? The Prime Minister said there was nothing to worry about, that “New Zealand has full disclosure of information.” In fact, the Shewan report says disclosure is “inadequate”, “not fit for purpose”, “light-handed”, and therefore likely to be abused. That is from this report—it is right here in paragraph 1.2 of the conclusions, in the executive summary: “The Inquiry concludes that the existing foreign trust disclosure rules are inadequate.” How, Minister, can they be inadequate and yet full disclosure at the same time? How can they be inadequate and not fit for purpose, and yet be “broad and deep” at the same time? Well, the truth is, they cannot be all of those things, and I suppose it is very indicative of this National Government that it cannot own up to its mistakes—that it would prefer to mislead the New Zealand public rather than be honest about the fact that there were—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! One has to be very careful when one uses the word “misleading”. When one says that someone “prefers” to do it, that means that they are doing it deliberately, and that, of course, would be a breach of privilege. The member cannot imply that in the House in that way.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Key then said that the requirements on form IR 607 were broad and deep. The Shewan report says that the IR 607 registration requirements are absolutely “minimal”, “extremely limited”, and tell nobody anything. Minister Woodhouse said our foreign trust laws are “world class”, but the Shewan report says “the risk of use of foreign trusts for inappropriate purposes is high.” Minister Woodhouse says the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) can get the information at any time from the trustee; the Shewan report says: “Foreign tax authorities will typically not know how to ask for information about a New Zealand foreign trust … because they have no way of knowing if it exists.”

So I congratulate the Government on accepting the findings of the Shewan report, which are very, very close to what Opposition parties—like the Green Party—have been saying for the last few months. Our goal is not to damage New Zealand’s reputation, it is to identify a serious deficiency within our law and provide some constructive solutions, because we know that New Zealanders do not think it is right or fair that New Zealand’s foreign trust laws should be used by wealthy people from overseas to avoid paying taxes in their home countries. I would be the first to say that I do not think this National Government is entirely responsible for those loopholes—because they have existed for a very long time—but it was under the National Government’s watch that the loopholes really started to be exploited and the number of New Zealand foreign trusts registered in New Zealand went through the roof.

Then there is the whole issue of whether or not it knew it was a problem at the time. If we go back in the time line, we have a report from August 2013 where the IRD warned the Government about the high risks of New Zealand foreign trusts. The report says: “our foreign trust rules continue to attract criticism, including claims that New Zealand is now a tax haven in respect of trusts. … the mismatch between our rules and those of other countries may result in income not being taxed either in New Zealand or offshore. To protect our international reputation, it may be necessary to strengthen our regulatory framework for disclosure and record-keeping.” That was in August 2013.

In December 2014 an unnamed person from the Antipodes Trust Group wrote to Minister McClay on behalf of the foreign trust industry concerned about the IRD’s change of view of their industry. He claimed that he had spoken to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister said he had no plans to change the status quo—pretty typical of this Prime Minister. That person also claimed the Prime Minister encouraged a meeting with a small group of foreign trusts and the Minister at the time, who was Todd McClay. The attached industry briefing paper claimed that 300 people work in the industry and this was a big risk for jobs here in New Zealand, so what they would like was for the Government not to make any changes around disclosure of foreign trusts so they can continue to make money from those wealthy individuals from offshore who want to hide their assets in a New Zealand foreign trust. The very next day Minister McClay expressed his concern to IRD officials that their report might include removal of the foreign trust regime—so it is pretty clear where the direction to not pursue reform of the rules came from, and it was not coming from IRD. It came from this Government because it was lobbied by the foreign trust industry. I think that is something else that New Zealanders should be very concerned about. This National Government is open for business, and it is quite open to being persuaded by members of that wealthy elite class of New Zealanders, but it is not open to the interests and values of your average New Zealander, who would say: “Actually, we don’t want New Zealand being used as a tax haven.”

About 9 days later—12 December 2014—we have an IRD report on foreign trust rules. The IRD found that our approach to taxing trusts differed from the international norm and had attracted criticism internationally. Our regulation is not good enough and it is difficult to enforce compliance with the rules. Being perceived as a tax haven is damaging our international reputation. IRD questioned the adequacy of our disclosure and record-keeping requirements, and suggested that, perhaps, they did not have the ability to ensure compliance. Just a few days later Minister Todd McClay met with representatives of the foreign trust industry in Auckland. On the agenda: that the industry feared moves to have greater disclosure of foreign trusts would close the industry down, and they sought commitment from the Government as soon as possible that it would not conduct a public review of foreign trust tax laws. And that is exactly what happened.

It took the Panama Papers, and it took that enormous public exposure and scrutiny for this Government to undertake the review that should have been done several years ago. It took that exposure and the continued scrutiny from Opposition parties demonstrating that the Government was not being completely transparent about how our foreign trust rules work in their answers to questions—that is what it took for this Government to undertake a review and to propose the sorts of recommendations that the Green Party proposed in our bill and in my Supplementary Order Paper to one of the tax bills. All that we recommended was that there was a register, and that it was required for the settlors to disclose their foreign address, country of tax residence, information about non-resident trustees, and information about who the beneficiaries were. That is exactly the strengthened disclosure that has been recommended by the Shewan report.

I think the issue here that should really concern New Zealanders is the fact that the National Government is willing to turn a blind eye to activities that most New Zealanders would consider unfair and wrong. It is willing to do that when the right people with the right money and the right connections lobby it, and it is only when there is persistent scrutiny from international and domestic media, and the Opposition parties, that this Government will actually listen to reason and start to do the right thing.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): When this inquiry was first set up, Transparency International and the UK Tax Justice Network said it would not allay the fears and the claims being made about New Zealand’s position as a tax haven. There are two groups that are experts—not like the so-called expert they chose for this inquiry.

The Prime Minister announced this review at the same time he asserted, again, the integrity of the New Zealand trust laws when it came to taxation. If our system had any integrity, this review would not be required. The fact is our system and its integrity were under grave question from expert international comment, and this emerged from the Panama Papers, which the Prime Minister sought to deny the import of. Mr Key knew about this a long way back.

In 2011, Mr Key knew of the Santa Tereza case, when Geoffrey Taylor linked New Zealand company SP Trading to smuggling 35 tonnes of North Korean weapons into Iran. Mr Key knew when Minister Simon Power alerted him back then to what was going on in New Zealand entities, back as far as 2011. And a principal of Santa Tereza, in a plea bargain in Brazil, where he was picked up purely by mistake, admitted the money-laundering operation that he was involved in.

So the Prime Minister decides to carry on with his bluster. First of all, he was going to have an inquiry by a man in the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). The problem with the man in the IRD: his reputation lasted exactly 24 hours, until it was unearthed that, in the wine-box inquiry, which some members of this House do not want to remember, he was debunked as being an expert. He was seriously exposed as not knowing what his job was. He was a person who seriously believed that form was far more important than substance, and as a consequence, within 24 hours, the Prime Minister was talking about getting an overseas expert—not a New Zealand expert; no, an overseas one. And then that got flicked for a man called Shewan—in fact, John Shewan—who, we are told by the media of this country, and I love that expression, is a tax expert. Really? When the Westpac Banking Corporation ended in a Westpac Banking Corporation IRD dispute, which ended with four Australian banks settling for $2.2 billion in December 2009, guess who he was involved for? The banks.

Second, he gave expert advice in the Penny and Hooper case, and the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, two of the highest courts in our land, dismissed his evidence as being inappropriate from an expert witness. So it is not me saying it, it is not New Zealand First saying it; it is two of the highest courts in our land now saying it. Third, he was dismissive over the Cook Islands wine-box allegations, preferring form over substance, a misguided view overruled by the Privy Council, the Court of Appeal—that is the Privy Council in London, by the way—and the New Zealand High Court. And, fourth, Mr Shewan had been giving advice to the New Zealand Government for years.

He is no tax expert. And so he came out with a report. Before we get to the report, anyone who was an expert, seeking to do his job by his country—that is, clean up the country’s reputation—would have first asked to see the terms of reference, and demand that they gave him or her the power to get to the truth. Well, apparently, he had a discussion about the terms of reference with Mr Key, and as for the powers to get to the truth, he did not ask for them. He did not ask for them. And out comes his report, telling us less than we already know.

Let me tell you a couple of the principal statements that came out of his report. He said: “In theory”—listen to this—“the current rules should be sufficient to deter tax abuse.”

Ron Mark: In theory.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In theory.

Ron Mark: In theory—ha, ha! Pure theory.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Well, you know, that is astonishing from a professional. He is not talking about practice, what is actually happening, what is going on behind closed doors, what is not transparent, what is secret. No, he says: “In theory”.

Then he went on to say this, to this extent: “anti-money-laundering rules should ensure funds held [by foreign trusts] are from legitimate sources.” I have seen some naive people in my time, I can tell you—a lot of them from across the aisle over there—but I never thought that someone calling himself an expert could write something like that: “anti-money-laundering rules should ensure funds held [by foreign trusts] are from legitimate sources.”

We are not interested in the theory. This inquiry was meant to be about what was going on, or the practice that was ripping this country’s reputation apart. Mr Shewan did not find any direct evidence of illicit funds, because he never had the powers to find out the truth and he never asked for them—he never asked for them. To say that the Panama Papers’ reputational damage to New Zealand will be offset by any future moves to tighten disclosure rules means, in reality, that the Government gets away with another cover-up.

The Government itself could not have written a weaker report. It did not give the inquiry the powers to get to the truth, and Mr Shewan, who is a “tax expert” did not ask for them. So what we had was merely a completion of the circle: the Government in denial, an inquiry that did not get at the facts, and then someone saying: “I’ve got a few things you should do.” Given Mr Shewan’s background, New Zealand First, unlike the other parties, did not support his appointment. And it is wrong for the Green member Julie Anne Genter to say that we supported his appointment—no, we did not. We knew we would get a soft report that would never get at the truth and would not finger anybody who would be of embarrassment to the Government. This is despite the fact that the trusts were building up in recent years by 500 percent. The number of trusts flocking here in their thousands to be formed was building up by a factor of 500 percent in recent years.

As I said at the time, Mr Key looked like some boy who had been widdling behind the couch, and he is trying to tell mum: “The cat did it.” It is pathetic in the extreme that this came from a First World democracy—from a man who came from Merrill Lynch, who is meant to be an expert in finance. Mind you—

Hon Member: No, he’s a dealer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is just because he is a money dealer. And who is Merrill Lynch? Why, they are a corrupt bunch of American Wall Street thieves who went belly up and had to be bailed out, by whom? By the American taxpayer. That is no training school for someone to be able to understand integrity and honesty. That is Merrill Lynch. And, by the way, they are back again, Merrill Lynch—all the same old feet in the same old troughs, screwing the American public, and they wonder why Donald Trump is winning on one side and Bernie Sanders almost won on the other side. The American system, when it comes to these matters, is crook.

What did Mr Key say? This is what he said this morning: “I basically said New Zealand is not a tax haven.” That is what he said this morning. He said “Well, he”—he is talking about John Shewan—“agrees with that perspective. I said there is a full disclosure of information. There is, when it is asked for.”, Mr Key said. What a duplicitous, deceiving mind. So here you have got all these trusts set up. No one knows what their names are, who is connected with them. You have to have a New Zealand name attached to them, but as to who is behind them, no one knows. And Mr Key says that it is adequate that the information will be disclosed when it is asked for. In short—

Tracey Martin: Is he a psychic?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right. My colleague Tracey Martin very wisely says you have got to be a psychic, you have got to be a soothsayer, or, more important, you have got to be someone with practical knowledge who knows that some people in this world, befriended by the National Party, are a bunch of crooks, like they were in the Cook Islands, like they were with the wine-box inquiry, and like now.

Can I just say this: this morning I happened to listen on the way to the airport to the most painful interview. It was Mr Woodhouse being interviewed. I have never seen someone make such a sorry, sad—I cannot use the word to go with it—fool of himself. It was an unbelievably—torturous is a word, is it not? It was torturous, tortuous, turgid in the extreme, a fabrication of nothing on behalf of a man who claims to be a professional. Frankly, we do not need Ministers like that in charge of the Inland Revenue Department. We need to do what you say, Mr Assistant Speaker: wind them up, take them out, get somebody who is responsible—in fact, listen to a party called New Zealand First, which said from the word go that this would be a whitewash, and it is.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I noted in listening to the Speaker when he granted the urgent debate that he made particular reference to wanting to clarify the comments of the Prime Minister when he talked about most of the recommendations being given effect to. I want to speak specifically to that point because the comments the Prime Minister made were around simply the way in which the changes to the anti - money-laundering laws (AML) were going to be delivered, and I want to be really clear about that.

There was certainly no intention that we will not be making the changes to the anti - money-laundering law, but, actually, I think this urgent debate gives us a very good opportunity for me to clarify to this House exactly how that process is intended to happen and why we do think that there is a need to depart, not on substance but on process, from what the report said in this regard. Mr Shewan, in the report, indicated that, in his view, to bring lawyers and accountants into the AML regime was a reasonably simple matter of issuing an Order in Council (OIC) to remove the exemption from the definitions regulations. Although I can understand that that might have an attractiveness in its simplicity, it simply is not workable, and primary legislation is required.

Let me just explain how that works. Currently, under the anti - money-laundering law, we have a requirement that all financial institutions are reporting entities under the legislation—as, in fact, are all trust and company service providers, which I will come back to later—but because by nature the definition of “financial institution” is a very wide brief that could encompass a lot of things, it is then spelt out by the types of activities that they perform. To make it clear that it was never intended that lawyers would be included in that first phase, the regulations simply made it very clear that lawyers were not caught by that definition of “financial institution”. It was never intended that they would be, no one ever expected that they would be, and the exemption does not do that—simply, to carve them out of the legislation just makes it very clear what we had, in fact, passed at that time.

To bring lawyers and accountants, and real estate agents, for that matter, into the framework, as we are absolutely committed to doing—as I have announced and the Prime Minister has announced—you do need primary legislation, and that is the one point where we have a slight difference of approach from Mr Shewan. It cannot be done by his simple OIC process, although, as I say, I can understand the initial attraction of that as, potentially, an option. It simply does not work, and one of the core reasons is that you need to work out who the supervising agency is and you need to work out how that is put in place, but, most importantly, you need to deal with matters like legal professional privilege. That cannot be done simply by an OIC process.

Legal professional privilege is enshrined in the Evidence Act, it is enshrined in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, and I am sure this House will understand, very simply, that to have an anti - money-laundering regime—to have mandatory reporting requirements on lawyers and conveyancers and accountants and real estate agents, but the lawyers in particular—you have to have a framework that makes it very clear for them what their obligations are to report information that would otherwise be covered by legal professional privilege. That can be done only by primary legislation, so that is why there is a distinction. The point the Prime Minister was making was that, actually, although we are absolutely committed to bringing the reform in, the OIC process will not work.

We are committed to the legislative reforms. We have already announced that we are accelerating those. I have said publicly that it is my intention that we will have a bill coming into this House by the end of this year and, subject, of course, to the processes of Parliament, I want to see that legislation in place and in force by July of next year. That is working at some pace, and let me just be very clear with this House that although we are working at pace we do have to be careful to make sure that we get this right.

This is a regime that will impose significant compliance costs on not just the sectors but, actually, the New Zealanders who pay the bills of those sectors. Every time you buy a house, there will be more cost. Every time you go to your lawyer or your accountant, there will be more cost. That is OK. We need to have a regime—we have all accepted that this is an important part of transparency and good accountability in financial oversight—but we have an obligation to ensure that the system works well, that it covers what we need it to cover, and that those costs are no greater than they need to be. Every single New Zealander has an interest in seeing that happen, as do we. We have absolutely committed to the fact that we want to get this regime in place quickly, but no New Zealander would thank us if we imposed cost that was unnecessary and unwarranted and if we could do it more efficiently.

Let me just talk about one other aspect, which is that although the focus today is, of course, on foreign trusts as a response to Mr Shewan’s report, when we are talking about these amendments to the AML laws—and it is relevant because this was the very point that the Prime Minister said was the one that we needed to go on a slightly different road to get to the same place—actually, foreign trusts are only one part of what we need to deal with AML legislation. When we bring lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents into the framework, it is as much about the criminal activity of gangs and the like in New Zealand and the laundering of criminal proceeds, and the police have a real interest in ensuring that we can get access to far more of the suspicious financial transactions. So when we are working through these matters, although I know the focus today is on simply how the foreign trust part works, actually, it is incumbent on us to make sure the regime works for all its intended purposes, and for that reason it is not simply a case of carving something out and, you know, we have got an instant result.

So that was the only point the Prime Minister was making. Yes, we agree with Mr Shewan’s recommendations on AML and the need to change. Yes, we have already committed to making those changes. Yes, we are accelerating them. But to suggest that it could be done by Order in Council was where we disagreed, and the process that we are on, the time frame we are on—actually, I am comfortable—is as quick as we can get it without running the serious risk that the regime is incredibly expensive, not workable, or not comprehensive, and I do not think anyone would thank us for that. As part of that, I do want to see a select committee process in place. I think it is important that there is a full opportunity for people to test the framework, and I think this House would want to see it. So at this stage it is not my intention to seek that the bill be pushed through all stages in urgency. I do think that there is benefit in having a select committee process. As this House knows, there is a trade-off in that regard in that that is extra time before it is in place, but that is certainly my view at this stage.

I want to talk about one other aspect of this in regard to the anti - money-laundering component of the recommendations, and that is to make it very clear that although lawyers and accountants and real estate agents are not in the regime as of right at the moment, what is in the regime automatically are these things called trust and company service providers. I can tell you that, currently, there are 109 trust and company service providers that are being supervised across New Zealand and a number of lawyers and accountants who do this work are also voluntarily agreeing to be subject to the regime, although they are not required to do so.

So to suggest somehow that there is no oversight at all is not right, but we do accept that there are a number who are not currently being covered because the work is being carried out by a lawyer in the ordinary course of their business as a barrister and solicitor. We do agree that those need to be brought within the framework and, as I have said to this House in this contribution and as I have said publicly, that is something that we have already made very clear. So the process of the work now is to work through with those sectors exactly how the oversight will work, where the regime touch-points and levers are best set, and exactly who that supervisory agency should be. That is a process that is progressing, as I say, at some pace.

I get a lot of questions about whether somehow there has been some big campaign from these sectors that they do not want to be in the regime. I can certainly tell this House that I meet regularly with the New Zealand Law Society, as you would expect of a Minister of Justice. It has been well aware that this is coming at them and, actually, as an organisation it is very comfortable with that. I am not going to say that every one of its 12,000-odd members might not have a view—I am sure some of them do—but the organisation that speaks for them, the New Zealand Law Society, has been very relaxed and accepting of the fact that an anti - money-laundering regime is going to come into place for lawyers and in the time frame we have discussed.

It is worth mentioning that there is already the Financial Transactions Reporting Act, which applies to them, so they are not completely without oversight at the moment, but certainly the AML regime is significantly more comprehensive. The real estate agents, similarly, have certainly not raised any concerns with me. I have not met with them on it directly yet. That process is getting under way now with the consultation, but they have certainly seen the media reporting and they have made no representations to me whatsoever that they do not think they should be in, and neither have the accountants. So there is simply no truth to the sort of implied argument that, somehow, we are getting a lot of pressure from the sector to leave them out. They all know it is coming. They are up for that. They do have an interest in ensuring it works well and is efficient, as do we.

But, just to be very clear, the one point where the Prime Minister said there were most of the recommendations—it is around that. We say yes to the substance and yes to the recommendations, but to simply suggest that the OIC process would work in place of primary legislation is, unfortunately, not right, and I believe the time track we are on is the most responsible and effective one.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): The question that New Zealanders should be asking when they look at the John Shewan report is: whose side is this Government on? Is it on the side of hard-working New Zealand taxpayers, who pay their tax out of their wages every week and who do the right thing, or is it on the side of the mega-wealthy who want to find places in the world to shelter their income, to not pay their fair share, and to put that burden on to those hard-working people?

What we have seen consistently throughout the process of the raising of concerns about foreign trusts and the Panama Papers is that the Government has chosen its side. It has chosen to be on the side of the mega-wealthy. It has chosen to be on the side of tax-evaders, and it leaves hard-working New Zealanders questioning their commitment to the tax system. It is human nature—if someone else is getting away with it, why should I do my fair share? It is this Government that is enabling—facilitating, to use John Shewan’s word—tax evasion, by the rules that it has put in place on foreign trusts and by ignoring the advice that it has been given, consistently, since 2013 that something needs to be done. So the answer to whose side this Government is on is clear: it is not on the side of hard-working New Zealanders; it is on the side of the mega-wealthy.

If we go through the history of this, we start in August 2013 when the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) said to finance Ministers and the Minister of Revenue that there were concerns about our foreign trust rules. The rules continued to attract criticism, including claims that New Zealand was now a tax haven in respect of foreign trusts. IRD went on to say: “This is largely because the mismatch between our rules and those of other countries may result in income not being taxed either in New Zealand or offshore. To protect our international reputation, it may be necessary to strengthen our regulatory framework for disclosure and record-keeping.” That is the IRD saying that in 2013. It was concerned because the number of foreign trusts was growing, and growing fast.

If we look today there are 11,671 foreign trusts—that has doubled since 2011. Mr Woodhouse and others are keen to say: “Oh, this is the regime that’s been in place since the Labour Government brought it in in 1988, and then it was updated in 2006.” The first time the IRD raised a problem was in 2013. It raised a problem because the problem was growing under National’s watch. It had changed other rules around look-through companies, it had changed other rules around investment entities, and the system was starting to be gamed. The number of foreign trusts grew.

So IRD officials continued to voice their concern, and they raised it in papers in August 2014, again in November 2014, and again in December 2014. In November 2014 they actually had a table in that document that listed off the work that was already under way. It included the review of foreign trusts, and it included a paper on that review due to be with the Minister of Revenue in December 2014. That was a critical moment in this time line, because it was that report when it was reported on that led the foreign trust industry to think that it was under threat. Its little game of being able to sell itself into the world as being a place with loose disclosure arrangements, where people could hide their money, was starting to be called on.

So what does the foreign trust industry do? It uses its inside influence on the National Government. Ken Whitney—the Prime Minister’s close adviser, his lawyer, his funds adviser—writes in to the then Minister of Revenue. He says: “I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this”—the review of foreign trusts—“and he advised that the Government has no [current] plans to change the status of the foreign trust regime [applying in New Zealand]. The PM asked me to contact you to arrange a meeting at your convenience with a small group of industry experts.” That is how it works under this Government—the inside influence. The review that the officials knew was merited had already got under way, and then the inside influence of the foreign trust industry comes along. Ken Whitney comes along and uses his contact with John Key. Todd McClay says: “The Prime Minister wants this. I’ll respond to it.” The meeting happens, and the review is cut dead.

The officials knew. They were concerned about New Zealand’s reputation as a tax haven in respect of foreign trusts. They were concerned, as we went out into the world and asked other countries to be part of a crackdown on multinationals not paying their tax, that people would laugh at us if we were part of facilitating tax evasion because of our foreign trust rules. They were concerned—the IRD officials—because it does not matter whether it is a Mexican taxpayer, a Brazilian taxpayer, or a New Zealand taxpayer who has been ripped off by somebody. We need the whole world working together on this, and if we are part of facilitating tax evasion, then we are on the wrong side.

All of those things were known, and the Government stopped the review stone dead so that when it was raised again in light of the Panama Papers in April this year, what could we expect from the Government at that point? Well, what we heard from the Government was: “There’s no problem. We have full disclosure of our foreign trusts.” We were told that the trust regime was broad and deep, and, as Julie Anne Genter said, people who raised concerns were described as being “barking mad”. That was the first reaction of this Government. At his press conference when the Panama Papers first came out John Key’s instincts were to protect the foreign trust industry and the mega-wealthy—

Ron Mark: His default. That’s his default position.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —instead of protecting New Zealand’s reputation and the integrity of our tax system. And it is, Mr Mark, his default position to look after the people that he grew up with—

Ron Mark: Corporates.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —in the corporate world. That is what John Key’s default position was—not to protect hard-working taxpayers, but to say: “The foreign trust industry, that’s who we’ve got to protect.”

But the pressure came on, and it is pretty rich of Michael Woodhouse to blame Opposition parties for reputational damage. Mr Woodhouse, the reputational damage comes from a system that people can see is a tax haven for foreign trusts. Exposing that is actually a public service, and that is why the Panama Papers forced the Government to act. Mr Woodhouse cannot claim that there would have been any action on tightening the disclosure rules on foreign trusts, because he spent 3 years not doing anything. Then the Panama Papers came out, and the Government was forced to act.

Then John Shewan’s report comes out, and it tells us that our foreign trust regime is facilitating the hiding of funds and the evasion of tax, that the system is inadequate and not fit for purpose, and that the risks are high of it being exploited. That is not full disclosure. That means the Prime Minister was wrong. It means Bill English was wrong when he said that anyone who said we had limited disclosure arrangements was wrong. This is a Government that has deliberately not acted on these issues. It is a Government that chose the side it is on, and it chose to protect the interests of the mega-wealthy.

People have asked why we should care. We should care because today we learned that inequality in New Zealand is growing; 60 percent of the wealth in this country is in the hands of the top 10 percent. We have a massive problem with inequality in New Zealand. We have a massive problem with every New Zealander getting the one thing we thought everyone in New Zealand would get: a fair go. That is not on the table if you are in a household in that bottom 40 percent of New Zealand taxpayers, who own only 3 percent of the wealth. We need a tax system that supports those people—the people who want to get ahead; the people who want their families to be able to buy a home, their children to be able to buy their first home; the people who want their children to get a decent education. We need a tax system that backs that up, and that is a tax system where every New Zealander pays their fair share.

This Government has let New Zealanders down. It does not have its priorities right. It is a Government that is on the side of the mega-rich, of the wealthy, and it has been caught out. John Shewan’s report forces it to act. It could go further. There should be a public register. We need a public register so that it is not needle in a haystack territory to try to find out what is happening with these trusts. We have got a public register for companies; we have got a public register for land; why can we not have one for these foreign trusts?

The Government could go further than John Shewan’s report, but it will not. It will not because it does not care about those hard-working New Zealanders. It has chosen its side: the side of the tax-dodgers and the tax-evaders. On this side of the House, we have chosen our side: New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders who deserve a fair go.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): For me there are two issues with regard to Mr Shewan’s report. The first one is the integrity of our tax system, and the second one is New Zealand’s global reputation. Mr Robertson and Mr Little have talked about the integrity of our tax system, which is incredibly important to our global reputation, but it also matters around what is fair. It plays into the very narrative of who does what with whom—who pays tax, when, and how.

One of the things Mr Shewan noted in this report is that New Zealand is committed to “integrity, openness, and transparency; ensuring that its legislation and enforcement activities meet or exceed global best standards; taking a leadership role on these initiatives; [and] acting to address and rectify issues of concern”. That is what our global reputation is on tax issues. I would argue strongly that, in fact, we have fallen behind in maintaining the integrity of our tax system to the point where the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) said, with regard to base erosion and profit-shifting measures, that we are not even going to be able to meet our international obligations. In fact, there were early adopters in this space, then there were countries who said they would do things on time; and our recommendation to Cabinet was that we were actually not even going to meet the timetable—we were going to be a year late. I am not too sure whether this is because the Minister is not over his portfolio, I am not too sure whether this is because the IRD is overworked, or I am not too sure whether this is because the Government just does not care. Whatever the reason is, it is wrong.

The fact that John Shewan put a chapter called “New Zealand’s Reputation” in his report shows that he understands the effect of this on our global reputation. What is this reputation worth to us? Well, in 2005 the then Ministry of Economic Development tried to quantify the value of this, and it came up with the figure of $20 billion a year. There is an organisation called Transparency International. Their index ranks countries on a scale from one to 100 based on external surveys and assessments from 13 reputable international organisations. These are not Kiwis who come up with this measure, these are international arbiters that determine whether New Zealand has a reputation worthy of the past, or what is happening to it. In 2012 we were No. 1—we were No. 1. In 2015 we are now fourth. The countries from No. 1 down are Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and then New Zealand. I am the first to admit that fourth out of a hundred and however many countries is not bad—but the thing is that we trade on this global reputation. It is what we go overseas with, it is what our companies take as one of their main tools in their bag of—I was going to say tricks—unique selling points. We come from New Zealand—that means something, and if it fails to mean something then we are in big trouble. Then what happens is that we become just another small economy hawking commodities to an ever-competitive global world. At this point in time being from New Zealand means something.

What Mr Shewan said about our drop in Transparency International’s rankings was: “While it is not clear what caused this drop, the downward move is regrettable and demonstrates there is no room for complacency.” Yet it appears that complacency is the very thing that this Government has got in spades when it comes to this. This is a big issue—and not just for the integrity of our tax system, but for the integrity of our global brand. The press around this was damning of New Zealand. In a way, reputation is about perception, and, often, as we all know, perception does not take account of facts. If the Australian Financial Review writes “While New Zealand’s tax laws are a major plus for foreign investors, it is not the only attraction. They also come to use New Zealand’s good reputation.”, and if it also says “the papers held by ICIJ show how Mossack Fonseca bragged to clients how easy New Zealand laws make it for foreign investors to hide their tax-free profits”, then we have a reputational problem. Whether this is true, whether we are a tax haven or not—and John Shewan actually does say “It might be argued that the foreign trust regime is a preferable tax regime, and this is sufficient to make it a tax haven.”—whether that is the truth or not does not really matter, because if the global community has the perception that New Zealand is in some way corrupt, is in some way an easy target, allows criminals to hide money, is anything but squeaky clean, or is anything but how we market ourselves overseas, then we are in real trouble.

So this whole issue is not just about the integrity of our tax system. This whole issue is not just about the reputation of our tax system. This whole issue cuts to the very quick of what it means to be a New Zealander, what it means to be a New Zealand company going overseas, and what it means to be a small New Zealand company going overseas and standing on what we believe our global, unique selling point is—and that is a reputation for being upfront, for being honest, and for doing things the way that things should be done.

There is one way to rectify this now—because the damage has been done—I think the way we can get this under way and mitigate the risk is to get this legislation before the House as soon as possible. Amy Adams, you heard her say—I just failed to see a sense of urgency there, and this is the Minister of Justice. We have got the Minister of Revenue who I think, now, finally understands the scale of the problem—whereas in the past I would argue that even he failed to grasp the severity of this, not only for our tax system but our global reputation. But I do believe he now understands it, and I hope like hell that this report has been a wake-up call, because John Shewan is a man of integrity—of that I have no doubt. John Shewan has made his reputation—

Hon Member: Better speak to your boss, then.

STUART NASH: No, no—John Shewan is a man of integrity.

Hon Member: Tell your boss that.

STUART NASH: No, he is a man of integrity. But John Shewan also understands the fact that his reputation, his business, and his unique set of skills are also dependent the reputation of this country. So Mr Shewan knows that if we do not get this right, if we fail to address this in a manner that meets the expectations of the global community, then not only does his reputation suffer but the reputation of this country and the reputation of our tax system suffer.

I think that the only way forward for this is to get legislation in front of the House as soon as possible. It does need to go through the select committee process—I absolutely agree with that—because we do need to hear what the submitters to this report said; MPs need to hear that. We also need to hear what other players in this game think, but we need to get this legislation into this House, we need to get it passed as soon as possible, and we need to rectify the situation.

The global tax system is in trouble at the moment: it is called base erosion and profit shifting. This is about large corporates not paying their fair share. We know this is a major issue, and we are trying to deal with this at this point in time through the OECD process. It has to be done in a multilateral way, but this is just—I was going to say an unwelcome distraction, but that is actually belittling what this is—an issue we need to deal with immediately. But unlike base erosion and profit shifting, we are the only ones who can deal with this. We do not need an OECD mandate to do this—all we need is the legislation to be passed to correct it. I hope like hell that the day the Minister got this report—and I am assuming he did not get it yesterday, but let us assume he did—the first thing he did was he called his officials in and he said: “I want legislation drafted now that is going to implement every single one of John Shewan’s recommendations. I want it done under urgency, it is the No. 1 priority, and we must get this in front of the House as soon as possible.” Because the damage is now done—the damage is now done. All we can do is mitigate it.

I just want to reiterate that there are two points there: the integrity of our tax system must be upheld; but, most importantly, the reputation of our tax system and the reputation of our country is now on the line. Let us do the right thing, let us get this through now, and mitigate the risk that is already out there. Thank you very much.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate about the Shewan report into foreign trust disclosure rules. I am pleased to hear the Labour Party—well, the remaining centrist member of the Labour Party—say that Mr Shewan is a competent person, because that is not what its leader was saying; nothing like it.

As we see, the Labour Party is resorting to one of its tried and true practices, which is to try to scare people out of taking part in legitimate public debate. So Labour decided, straight away, when Mr Shewan’s name turned up, that he was in some way assisting people to avoid tax obligations offshore. Those comments turned out to be, probably, libellous. It was not actually tested in court, so we do not know whether they were for sure, but they led to a humiliating apology from the Leader of the Opposition, who, I might say, in attacking him, is showing a pattern of attacking people he disagrees with in a fairly personal way. Of course, there are a lot of people in New Zealand who disagree with the Labour Party these days, because it is a shadow of its former self, and, probably, seven out of every 10 people in New Zealand do not support it and do disagree with it. So that was a bit of an unfortunate start, but it is good to see the member for Napier indicating that there will be support from the Labour Party in the House on the legislation as it comes through.

I think what is a striking feature of the report is the way that the report shows the context in which this issue around foreign trust disclosures can be dealt with. I think anyone who was not familiar before with the wide range of activity that is now going on in New Zealand and internationally around transparency will now be familiar with it. On that point, there is a lot of nonsense being talked about here and over recent months about so-called damage to New Zealand’s reputation. If anything, what is surprising in the Panama Papers is how infrequently New Zealand is mentioned, given that the Panama Papers cover participants in tax-related activities from all around the world, including pretty well every developed country. So out of millions and millions of references, there is a handful made to New Zealand, and there is a reason for that, some of which is referred to in the report. That is that New Zealand has set as a priority the protection of its own tax base, and, in pursuit of that priority, has one of the tighter regimes for the taxation of companies and individuals that are domiciled outside New Zealand.

Mr Shewan has done a thorough investigation not just into the foreign trusts and the disclosure regime but into the surrounding context. I just want to talk a bit about that context, because when the House deals with the relevant bill related to this report, it will find itself dealing with quite a lot of other issues that are directly connected to it. And, just by way of example, we just want to be clear about the principles that do apply, because we do have one of the more principled, consistent tax policy structures in the world, and that has been a bipartisan effort over the last 20 years or so.

The basic principle is that we tax all profits earned in New Zealand, that all revenue earned in New Zealand should be reported, and that any deductions should reflect actual costs of production and not be designed to reduce tax. So we focus now on, really, three streams of work: making tax law more robust, increasing international cooperation, and improving transparency and exchange of information. In that sense, the Shewan report fits into that third work stream, because in the debate that led to the report, there was a quite misleading impression created that, somehow, these foreign trusts were part of some general erosion of New Zealand’s tax system and that somehow the tax system was so slack that we could be designated as a tax haven, only by the Leader of Opposition, from what I could see—

Grant Robertson: Read the report. Have you actually read the report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Not by anyone who knew anything about tax policies, including Grant Robertson.

So the report says New Zealand is “not a tax haven”, and that is absolutely correct. I will give you just a couple of examples of the changes that have recently occurred. We have reformed the controlled foreign company rules, repealing eight country-based exemptions for non-active subsidiaries, as well as putting limits on interest costs that could be deducted in relation to outbound investment. We have strengthened the thin capitalisation rules to reduce the amount of debt a foreign-controlled entity can have before interest deductions will be disallowed. These rules were also widened to capture more foreign ownership structures. We have introduced bank minimum equity rules that limit interest deductions taken by foreign-owned New Zealand banks by requiring them to have a minimum amount of capital. We have removed the foreign dividend exemption for deductible foreign equity, removing an opportunity for tax arbitrage between New Zealand and other jurisdictions. And just one more on this list: we have eliminated the conduit regime that allowed New Zealand subsidiaries controlled by foreign shareholders to flow foreign income through New Zealand without paying any New Zealand tax.

If they all sound a bit detailed, that is because they are. That is because they are incremental improvements on what is, by any developed country’s standard, a comprehensive regime of taxing income in New Zealand of foreign-domiciled companies. And there is more in the pipeline—more that is coming through. The particular one that is relevant to this report is limiting the use of look-through companies as conduit vehicles. So this is when New Zealand companies are used by non-residents to invest in foreign markets to generate income that is not taxable in New Zealand. Certainly the advice I have seen via the Minister of Revenue is that this change, which is in the current May 2016 tax bill, will have a significant impact on activities that could be regarded as offshore companies trying to avoid taxation in their own jurisdictions.

So we endorse the recommendations of this report. Essentially, what it does is make available to Government agencies and enforcement authorities, here and offshore, the detailed information that is held by various parties to these foreign trusts. The indication is from Mr Shewan that making that information available to enforcement authorities will have the effect of reducing the use of foreign trusts. So that will be a good thing for offshore jurisdictions that may be concerned about the use of these vehicles in New Zealand. In the meantime, the Government will focus on the international effort to deal with base erosion and profit shifting. There are not many, if any, measures that we can take unilaterally that are going to deal with the much broader issue, which is potentially a threat to our tax base, which is the growing problems of jurisdiction that arise out of the use of the internet for a great deal of commerce and the ability of what feels like the very large presence of companies like Facebook and Google to move their profits anywhere in the world that they choose.

So we are going to work with other countries, through the OECD, where, I might say, there is a strong degree of interest in cooperation for the simple reason that almost all developed-country Governments are keen to have revenue, and they have been losing it. This report is going to assist them, to some extent, but we will certainly continue to focus on maintaining New Zealand’s tax base.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill

First Reading

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill

Second Readings

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill be now read a second time. Just to explain the technical role of this bill, the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill relates to the financial year that ends on 30 June 2016—that is, this week. It seeks parliamentary authority for variations to appropriations authorised by the Estimates bill and for new appropriations that were not in the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Act 2015. I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee for considering the report back so promptly.

The Imprest Supply bill relates to the new financial year starting 1 July 2016. This is a bill that enables spending authority for Government expenditure during the first 2 months of the financial year before the Estimates bill is passed—that is, the bill that was introduced on Budget day and is the vehicle for the Budget. I know that appropriations may not be the most politically discussed topic, but working with the appropriations system and improving how we work with it is at the heart of the Government’s view on fiscal control. These bills, which alter the appropriations, are the constitutional underpinning for Government spending.

Through the Public Finance Act of the late 1980s and its variations in the early 1990s New Zealand developed what was at the time one of the more progressive and well-defined public finance systems in the developed world. At that stage, it helped to clarify the way that money flowed through the system, but we are now in the process of evolving that system further. There are a couple of things that appropriations do pretty well. One is that they legally limit the amount of money that a Government department can spend on any particular activity described by the appropriation. Secondly, it enables the Parliament to track an individual dollar all the way through the system to where it was actually spent. This has served us pretty well as a means of fundamental accountability. It has underpinned a high-quality Public Service and at various times it has enabled Governments to exert fairly good fiscal control, just through the processes of government and exercising those processes thoroughly.

However, it does not tell us much about whether those dollars are effective—it is not a management system. In the past, unfortunately, it has to some extent been regarded as the way of managing public expenditure. Well, it is a useful tool for Parliament to look for accountability for a dollar, but it does not tell us much at all about what actually happens when a service is delivered to a New Zealand citizen. So what the Government is trying to do is to bring a much more focused way of showing that the dollars appropriated by Parliament actually achieve results.

That is not how things have always been done. Too often, Parliament and Governments have indicated that they are getting results simply by spending a lot more money through these appropriations—simply by enlarging the appropriations. Well, we have learnt, having had big surges of spending, particularly from about 1997 through to 2008—a huge surge in Government spending—that there was no appreciable impact on the problems that spending was addressing. Not because I say so; it is because the Salvation Army in 2008—[Interruption] Oh, now they are getting excited. The Salvation Army in 2008 essentially said that despite spending all this money, in what must have been a bit of a nirvana for those who believed in Government spending, it could not see any improvement in social statistics.

So the Government has set about a very thorough programme of focusing on getting results. When the Parliament votes on these bits of legislation it is going to be achieving something more than it used to—that is, it is voting for appropriations that mean it can increasingly, but certainly not yet comprehensively, track whether a dollar makes a difference where it is meant to make a difference. For instance, if we are spending $100,000 per prisoner in prisons, are we having any impact on recidivism? Well, we are, because we are measuring it. We are measuring it and taking action while we have people in prison, to reduce the likelihood that they will have to come back.

There is not much point in appropriating more money for education if you are not making a difference to the New Zealanders who most need the benefits of public education. And we are. These appropriations are going to be underpinning what has been a successful effort to lift National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) pass rates. Why does that matter? Not because of the statistic but because it puts young New Zealanders on the doorstep of further training and further skills. What is fascinating is that the increase in performance around NCEA level 2 is disproportionately in the Māori and Pacific population, where thousands more of these young New Zealanders are getting to that threshold, and we are doing a better job of supporting them to do it. They have always had the potential but the system is now backing them up. The appropriation on its own does not tell us that, but the Government’s results framework and its social investment framework do tell us that.

In fact, what we found is that focusing on results helps everyone to understand that the solutions to some of our most intractable social problems are not just about money. More money is often needed—some money—but more often what is needed is a much better knowledge of who our customer is. Who are the people we are trying to help? This is not just in general, but it is about which particular people and where. If we are appropriating for another social welfare programme or for social workers or Whānau Ora, which people and where is this actually happening? That is a good question to have to answer. Can we connect with them? As we are finding with some of these issues around homelessness, sometimes we just cannot connect with people who really need help. For instance, families who are scared that their children will be taken from them do not approach Government agencies. Families who may, for various reasons, have benefit debt do not approach public agencies. It does not mean that they do not need help; it just means that our system is too intimidating to be able to deliver it.

A third question is whether or not, when the money is spent, we actually made any difference, because too often we can spend a lot of money with good intentions for the people it is aimed at, but we cannot tell if we have changed a life. That is something that is not expressed in the Appropriation Bill but which matters a lot to the Governments that are focused on spending the money. Are we changing lives? This is particularly so for those people where bad outcomes are so predictable. Our data analysis and use of big data means that we can now have a pretty good idea of the probability that a person with certain characteristics is going to end up on welfare or in prison, and this enables us to take more action.

When we pass these bills it is a technical exercise for Parliament—an important constitutional one—but it is less and less the case that the appropriations bills and the Estimates bills and the Imprest Supply bills capture the Government’s fiscal control. Of course, the Government has built up a bit of a record of being able to achieve better results without spending a lot more money. If I could just give you an indication of that, from 1998 to 2006 Governments were spending $2 billion to $3 billion extra every year. This Government is spending about $1.5 billion extra, but getting better results. We look forward to the support of the House for these bills.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is certainly true that if you go looking in the Budget, in the supplementary estimates, and in the Imprest Supply bill, you are not going to find anything that gives a vision or a picture of what the Government is going to do. So the Minister of Finance is definitely right on that score.

Before I come to some of the specific issues in the supplementary estimates, it is interesting that the Minister of Finance chose to use this speech to talk at some length about the Government’s so-called social investment approach.

Chris Bishop: This is new. You’re engaged upon it. Good on you.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Have you engaged on it, Mr Bishop? In fact, more engagement on it would be better. At its heart, at its core, some of the rhetoric of the social investment approach—who could disagree with the idea that we need early intervention and we need to get into problems before they start. We need to invest in people and the lives that they live to make sure that they can achieve their potential and do not end up in a situation where they are not achieving what they want, where they are not contributing to society or to the economy in the way that they are capable of, and where society misses out and they miss out as well. We all agree on that.

Mr English says that that is what we want to do, and we are going to do that by using big data and we are going to use that by looking at our programmes and measuring them properly and we will be able to see what the results are. I do not think he should start talking about recidivism too quickly as his example of that, because that is not going too well.

But let us pick off one where the Government actually has set a target and it thinks it has achieved it. That is the pass rate for National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. The target is 85 percent—85 percent of school-leavers having a pass rate for NCEA level 2. The Government is going to be able to point at the statistics and say it is nearly there, or it is there. But there is a fundamental problem with this, which is the fundamental problem with this approach that the Minister is putting forward. Getting NCEA level 2 is like going to the supermarket and you have got to fill up your trolley, and when it is full you will have NCEA level 2. You can go around the supermarket and you can fill up your trolley completely with toothbrushes, so it is totally full. You have filled your trolley; you have got NCEA level 2. But when you get home you cannot bake a cake. That is the problem with the Government’s public sector targets. It is all very well to say everyone is going to get NCEA level 2, but if that is just reaching that target and not worrying about the quality of it, not worrying about what people are actually learning, just making it—just making it to the target—then that is not good Public Service spending.

What we know in terms of NCEA level 2, just to take that as the example, is that, yes, they are getting that level of pass rates, but then the Tertiary Education Commission has a report that says that school-leavers, many of them, are functionally illiterate and innumerate. That is the result of focusing so much on this target, rather than on the quality of what is being achieved.

Then, the other problem with the social investment approach is that it is all very well to track the results to see whether what is happening is working or not, but what is the answer? What is the answer? Has this got anything to do with what policies will actually work? No. The Government is not interested in listening to the community about what those policies are. It thinks it knows best, it thinks it knows who the support from the Government should go to, and it simply sets itself up as the arbiter of what is good and what is not, and what works and what does not. It is words, it is rhetoric, and it is artificial targets. It is not real policy development. Unfortunately for the Minister of Finance, although there might be some great principles behind it, the actual social investment approach itself is all smoke and mirrors. It is a mirage, not unlike the Government’s Budget.

But returning to the question of the supplementary estimates that we are debating today, as the Minister of Finance indicated, this is a regular part of the Budget process and one that all Governments go through as they tidy up the accounts from the financial year as it is about to end. So what sort of a scorecard can we give the Government as it ends its financial year needing to make one or two extra payments? One of the things we can look at is what this year’s Budget told us is “what matters for achieving higher material living standards”, and that is per capita GDP.

Dr David Clark: Oh, you’re stealing my speech.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, no; we will just be working in unison here. Come up with something new, Dr Clark.

What we know from the latest figures is that gross national income per person was zero. In the term that we are talking about, the supplementary estimates for today, gross national income per person was zero—flat—and GDP per capita was just inches above that, to 0.05 percent. So we have seen the economy grow, and Mr English talked about that in his speech. We have seen the economy grow. GDP has grown, up around 2.5 to 3 percent—fantastic stuff. Good work. Guess what? There are a whole lot more people in New Zealand. There are a whole lot more people in New Zealand, and although it might look like the economy is growing, per person it is not.

That is why, when we are out talking to New Zealanders and they hear these numbers about growth in the economy, they think: “Why am I not experiencing that? Why is my community not experiencing that?”. We go to the electorate of my colleague Meka Whaitiri, up in Gisborne. You go up there, and they say: “There’s no jobs here.” There is 10 percent unemployment up in Gisborne. The employment confidence survey came out the other day. The Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay region had come down, and with due respect to both of my colleagues from that area, it is actually driven out of the Gisborne area. So people in that community are not saying: “Fantastic. We’ve got growth.” They are the people who know. They are experiencing the flat per person growth.

We are not going anywhere. Realistically for the Government, as it looks ahead in the next 2 financial years, this continues. It continues because the population grows but nothing is actually happening in terms of the Government’s policy agenda to match that, in terms of what we are doing in the country. So what we see, and this was highlighted by the Westpac economists when they were reviewing this year’s Budget, is that none of the growth forecasts out into the future come as a result of a policy change or an action of the Government. They are just projections. They are just projections about the fact that more people are going to show up. They are not actually about establishing a sustainable economy—one that grows decent jobs, one that provides reasons for New Zealanders both to stay here and to come back from overseas. On that scorecard the Government is struggling.

The two other parts of the scorecard for this financial year that these Estimates come from, where the Government is struggling, are around unemployment. Grand promises were made at the election in 2014 of unemployment coming down towards 4 percent. Actually, it is not. It is up, over 5 percent, and is forecast to go up a little bit more. There are 144,000 real people without work. These are people who want to work—people who could be contributing to New Zealand in that meaningful way, who are not. So the Government has failed on that part of the scorecard for the 2015-16 year. The Government also made big promises about the lift in wages—the amount that wages would go up. Well, wages have not grown in that way, as 46 percent of New Zealanders did not experience a wage increase in the year that we are covering under these Estimates.

The share of wealth that working people have has declined over the year. It has declined over a succession of years. It means that people are working harder but they are not seeing the return on that, and today did that not hit home, with Statistics New Zealand releasing the latest wealth data, which says that the top 10 percent of New Zealand earners have 60 percent of the wealth? It is getting worse. It was about 55 percent, or slightly under that, when National took office, and now it has gone up to 60 percent. The bottom 40 percent hold 3 percent of the wealth.

I am proud that when Labour was last in Government we stopped inequality growing, and we started to reduce it through programmes like Working for Families, interest-free student loans, 20 hours’ free early childhood education—good things that were the building blocks—

Hon Bill English: Didn’t help with inequality.

GRANT ROBERTSON: You kept every one of them. You kept every single one of them. This is the Minister of Finance who likes to criticise the last Labour Government. He did not ditch a single one of those promises. He has ridden off the back of Michael Cullen’s success as a Minister of Finance, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Now there is no Christchurch rebuild to rely on, Bill. It is all about population growth, and none of it is about a Government that actually has a plan for a sustainable economy.

Inequality is growing under this Government. Fairness is going out the window. The Kiwi concept of a fair go—that wherever you were born you could get ahead and you could succeed—has gone under this Government. Inequality grows because this Government is on the side of the very, very few at the top; not most New Zealanders, who are working hard. The supplementary estimates here do nothing to change the view on this side of the House of what the priorities of this Government should be. There is not a single reference in them to additional initiatives for housing, and not a single reference in them for how they are really going to lift productivity. All it is is a record of the Government’s failure to work things out in Christchurch and the massive gaps in our health expenditure. That is actually what the Estimates are about.

This is another representation of a failed Government that works only for the very few at the top, and not for most New Zealanders.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I am glad that last speaker woke up once the bell went, and he actually got to his speech. But Grant Robertson did make one comment, and that is that the Government has ridden off the back of Michael Cullen. Well, we all know what Michael Cullen left this country: 10 years of deficits ahead, high interest rates, a country that was going into recession before the rest of the world. That is what Michael Cullen left New Zealand. That is what the Labour Government and New Zealand First left New Zealand.

That is not what this Budget represents, because in this Appropriation Bill and Imprest Supply bill we see what this Budget actually delivers for New Zealanders. And that is GDP growth of 2.9 percent, projected to be 2.8 percent over the next 5 years; exports up $2 billion in the last year; and a trade surplus of $358 million in the last month. I remember the days when the Opposition would come in here and ask about trade surpluses and deficits, but they do not any more because New Zealand is in surplus. Over 200,000 more people are in work than 3 years ago, and another 170,000 jobs by 2020. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.6 percent, and the average wage is increasing to $63,000 a person—that’s up $16,000 since the National Party came into office.

Dr David Clark: Who wrote this rubbish?

DAVID BENNETT: This is the truth of what has happened in New Zealand, Mr Clark, and I wish you would listen. The net operating allowance of only $1.6 billion, compared with Labour’s of $4.3 billion—the Labour Government that Grant Robertson was so keen to extol the virtues of and that spent New Zealand into recession before the rest of the world. Operating surpluses are expected for the next few years, going to $2.5 billion in 2018-19 and then $6.7 billion in 2019-20. Net debts peaked at 25.6 percent of GDP and then fell to 19.3 percent of GDP.

What does that show the New Zealand public? It shows the New Zealand public prudent economic management—good economic management—in this Budget which delivers results for New Zealanders. It delivers the ability for us to fund those social services in the many areas that New Zealanders want. Contrast that with what is happening in the rest of the world at the moment: Britain deciding to be isolationist. Britain could be the Hong Kong of Europe if it took the approach of looking wider towards Asia, Africa, the Pacific, and America, but instead it is taking a very isolationist approach. America may well follow that isolationist approach later in the year. We know that in Canada there is a left-wing Government that is spending money like it is going out of fashion, and will destroy its economy.

What does that leave? That leaves New Zealand and Australia, at the bottom of the world, which actually have the best Western economies, and New Zealand has the best Western economy of any country in the world. Mark my words, New Zealand will be the place where all Europeans and all Americans and all Asians and all people of this world who want to have a good future will actually want to come and prosper, because it is a country that will run itself in a prudent and successful way. We have shown we can do that, and we have shown how important it is to do that. We do not need to be a failed State like Europe, where there is too much bureaucracy, where there are initiatives supporting uncompetitive industries, and where there is a large welfare State and high debts in those countries. We need a country that is open and free and that trades with the rest of the world. That is what this Budget delivers for New Zealanders, and what this Budget delivers for all people in the world to see what can be done with this country and what is important.

We will hear from Opposition speakers that there should be no immigration, that we should cut this country down, and that we should take an isolationist approach. That is the policy of the Labour Party. It is against immigration. We know the Green Party is against immigration—how silent its members are in this House. They will not admit to their policy when it is said in front of them. They are so silent about it, are they not? We know New Zealand First has always been against immigration. It does not see New Zealand as an open place for business.

This Budget is a Budget, through its Imprest Supply bill and the Appropriation Bill, that shows that we are open for business. We have set the fundamentals there for New Zealand to prosper and succeed. And New Zealand, as a country that has that opportunity, will be a haven for all those like-minded people who believe in the future of themselves and their people. New Zealand has that stable Government that can take up those opportunities, and we look forward to that happening in the near future as we continue to build on the successes of this last Budget.

We also saw in this Budget, in the speech from Bill English, how there has been an attempt and an approach to actually look at social investment and to look at how that spending has been spent, to make sure that we see the strong results of that expenditure. No more can we see that than in areas such as education. With the large investment in innovation in this Budget, it really sets up a strong basis for education for our people. It sets up a system where people understand that there is a strong investment in things like the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects in our universities, so our students see where their job opportunities are. They know that that investment is there, so they can follow that investment through.

It sets up the extended health-care provision as well, in the Budget, with over $2 billion in extra health-care expenditure for New Zealanders, to deliver those services. It also works in the education field around how to look at funding for schools, so that we actually fund those students who are most in need, rather than just the broad increases that there have been in the past. The use of that kind of data and understanding of information so that we deliver the best services for New Zealanders is what our people want. It is the best use of our resources as a Government, and it shows an economic base that is solid and strong and that can deliver those opportunities. When you look through and see that economic base, we are flourishing in this modern world.

New Zealand has gone through the economic hardships of the recession. We have rebuilt Christchurch, to a large extent, and at the same time have managed to do so in a way that is prudent for our Budget and that has put us into a place where we now can have surpluses going forward. That gives New Zealanders opportunities and choices—choices that would be taken away by the Opposition, which wants to spend and spend and spend, and take away those surpluses—

JAMES SHAW: Is that communism then? You haven’t said communism yet.

DAVID BENNETT: —to deliver New Zealand no opportunities for the future.

We have the Green Party over there, its spokesperson wanting to talk about the word “communism”. Well, we know that he is a member of that party, and so we acknowledge his past in that area. But the Green Party, for example, would be the last party you would want to have in control of the Budget of New Zealand. We know from the agreement with the Labour Party that those two parties are looking at formalising such an arrangement. But we always know that the Labour Party leads the Green Party that far and then dumps it just at the election day, and then goes with New Zealand First. So beware, in the Green Party. I hope that that agreement has something tangible for you, because it is unlikely to ever come to fruition after an election result because Labour’s history is not such.

These are interesting times in the world. They are not the times to be isolationist. They are not the times to set walls around our country. They are the times where we should look forward, and we should take advantage of our opportunities. New Zealand is uniquely placed. We are the country that has strong economic management. We have solid bases, through education and health care, for our citizens. We have a free and democratic system. We have an opportunity for all people to achieve their full potential. No other country in this world creates that environment at this time. With the uncertainty in Europe, with the uncertainty in America, and with the growth of Asia we are uniquely placed to become the place where everybody will want to be in the future. New Zealand should take that advantage. We can ill afford to have an Opposition party in this Parliament and in any Government going forward that would stop New Zealand being able to take advantage of those opportunities. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Subsequent to discussions at the Business Committee, I seek leave for the sitting of the House today to be extended through tomorrow morning, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., for the second reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill and the remaining stages of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill.

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

Bills

Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I have been looking forward to the opportunity to speak on this legislation, particularly after the contribution of the previous speaker, David Bennett, who, I think, illustrated a point I wanted to make in my speech, which is that there is no plan from this Government. These supplementary estimates, which we are debating today, make that abundantly clear. The supplementary estimates, for people at home, come out in a volume like this. You can get them on a computer as well. They are in a pretty solid book, usually in a blue cover, produced by Treasury, and they indicate the areas in which the Government has moved money around in the year that has passed. The Government does it to make sure there is appropriate accounting treatment for the money that has been spent.

The member who spoke previously would have us believe a whole lot of bunkum, if we took his speech at face value. He did not speak at all about the supplementary estimates. I propose to differ from his approach and actually speak a little to the supplementary estimates in my speech, novel though that may seem in such a debate. I also just want to set the record straight on a couple of things that he raised.

The first thing he said was that the Cullen Government was not a good manager of the economy, or words to similar effect. The Cullen Government ran nine surpluses in a row. I cannot claim any credit for that—I was not a Minister in that Government; I was not even a member of Parliament when the last Labour Government was here—but what I can say is that I have done the sums myself and Labour grew the economy 25 percent real. Once you strip out inflation and all of that kind of stuff, it grew the economy 25 percent—real. Labour genuinely grew the economy, and it ran nine surpluses out of nine Budgets—nine surpluses in a row. I think the facts speak for themselves. This Government, by contrast, has borrowed more money than Robert Muldoon’s Government borrowed. It has generated deficit after deficit after deficit after deficit after deficit after deficit, and, finally, it has squeaked a couple of surpluses home through a bit of jiggery-pokery. And that is the economic record that we debating here today.

All those fine words that that member read out to the House do not address those fundamental facts of history: the last Labour Government grew the economy; this Government has struggled to make ends meet. Part of the problem, I would argue, is laid bare in these supplementary estimates. There is no plan—there is no dream of sharing the economy amongst the members of our citizenry. Government members are not interested in sharing any economic gains with middle New Zealand. Most New Zealanders are missing out. Under the last Labour Government over 50 percent of the gains went to ordinary working people. Under this Government most people are missing out. Only 37 percent of the minimal gains have been accruing to working New Zealanders, and that lays bare a fundamental approach to the economy, which is that the Government is just not interested in the interests of most New Zealanders.

I flicked through the Supplementary Estimates, because I enjoy looking through these things—it is a slightly awkward thing to admit to, but I enjoy having a flick through. I was looking through them and stumbled across the supplementary estimates for the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), and I remembered, of course, that the Business Transformation project, the grandly titled computer rebuild at the IRD, was one of the big infrastructure projects claimed by this Government as part of its Budget—the infrastructure project being a central government computer. That is the great vision: replacing what we already have.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The big hit.

Dr DAVID CLARK: That is the big hit, as Mr Cosgrove says. That is the vision. So in the Supplementary Estimates we find a line that says “a transfer of $717,000 from 2014/15 to 2015/16 for restructuring costs.” That is the grand vision that we find in the Supplementary Estimates. Then we find something about this rebuild—“a fiscally neutral adjustment of ($2.100 million) to reflect Inland Revenue’s funding contribution to the business transformation programme”. This is the kind of thing we find in this document. It is moving small amounts around in a fiscally neutral fashion—if you are lucky—with a transfer here, a fiscally neutral adjustment there. That is the range of exciting plans on show from the Government in the Supplementary Estimates.

What else do we notice if we look through this document further? What we find in there is that there are delays noted in here. The reason that the Government has a little bit more money in its pocket to spend on some issues is that it did not get around to spending it last year. So the Christchurch rebuild delays contributed to the changes in this document. We find that the slow roll-out of broadband contributed to some of the changes that had to be noted in this document. We find that some outstanding earthquake claims that have been written off because the Government has not managed to process them well are in this document.

We also find that there is a reduction in capital expenditure for district health boards at the very time we know that the Southern District Health Board needs a $300 million refit of the clinical services building that sits in Dunedin Hospital. We know that that needs to happen—we know a rebuild needs to happen—but this Government keeps pushing out the expenditure year after year after year. Tony Ryall was going to bring a plan to this House to rebuild Dunedin Hospital, and he has gone. Then arrived Minister Coleman. He said “I will commit to that. I will have it done just as Mr Ryall suggested.”, and then he shifted it out. Then he shifted it to the end of the year, and now he has shifted it to a bunch of commissioners, who have no fixed deadline, as best I can tell, for delivering a capital rebuild project to Cabinet. They keep pushing it out. So in here we find more adjustments because they have not spent their capital allocation.

So here is the kind of jiggery-pokery that is in here—it is about a Government that is not doing what it says it will do. It has a limited vision for what it will do and, even then, it is not delivering on it. That is what these supplementary estimates tell us when we actually look through them.

We can also see that there is $50 million put aside because the number of unemployment beneficiaries is higher than forecast. So in these documents we have an extra $55 million allocated for a higher number of unemployment beneficiaries. It speaks to the Government’s success once again—it is an economy that is working in the interests of the ultra-wealthy, and middle New Zealand is missing out. Those who are struggling, those who have hit hard times, and middle New Zealand are missing out. They are missing out in this Budget and in these supplementary estimates documents.

We also find in there a reduction in the programme for investing in education success, and what more would you expect from this Government? We also find that the forecast tax credit for KiwiSaver is down because people are earning less and, therefore, the KiwiSaver contributions are less overall because the forecast wage growth has simply not eventuated. This is a Government overseeing a stagnant economy and content to manage decline. Those members are content to manage decline. That seems to be the vision that we find in this document here.

I look forward to some more contributions from those opposite to explain how exciting managing decline can be. That may well be what we hear from the next speaker—I think it is Mr Bishop. I can see him poised, sitting on the edge of his seat, ready to tell us that, actually, “managed decline” is one term for it but there is a much more exciting term and that is “managing the economy well”, or some such story.

Those members do not have an answer to the fact that GDP per capita has been absolutely flat or the fact that most New Zealanders have not seen salary or wage increases, that most New Zealanders are missing out and that the share of wealth going to the top 10 percent of New Zealanders is now at 60 percent in the recent study that came out, that we have growing inequalities, that homeownership rates are the lowest they have been since 1951, that they have underfunded the health system by $1.7 billion in the last 6 years, and that they have capped operational spending on education. This is a Government with no vision but to manage decline. It is not interested in the Kiwi Dream like we in the Labour Party are. We would have made sure that 100,000 new houses were planned for. We would have made sure that the health and education systems were properly funded. But this is the Government’s document. This is the National Government’s document. Those members are content to manage decline. Shame on them. This is not what New Zealand deserves.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Budget 2016 was delivered by our great Minister of Finance at a time of great global economic uncertainty, and, actually, those uncertainties have only increased in recent days with Brexit—the British exit from the European Union. I was thinking over the weekend, as I remained transfixed, watching the BBC coverage and the Sky News coverage on television, and reflecting on the seismic political and economic events in my lifetime. I was 6, possibly 7, when the Berlin Wall fell. I do not really remember the Berlin Wall falling, but I certainly remember 9/11. I certainly remember the attack on the twin towers, and I was thinking over the weekend about what is comparable to 9/11. I do not think Brexit meets it, but it is certainly probably second in terms of the big political and economic events of my lifetime.

I have got to say that I am a bit of an optimist about the exit from the European Union by Britain. I think Britain is fundamentally a great country and its history demonstrates that it is versatile and adaptive, and it will cope with exiting from the European Union as indeed we will cope with it as well. The initial response from the markets in the short term was panic, I think, in the few hours post the decision as we watched during the day on Friday as those leave votes tallied up in the north-east and then increasingly around the country. Is it not an interesting irony of the whole situation that all the exciting things in British politics happen in the middle of the night? They vote till 10 o’clock, the results come in at 4 a.m., and it is nice for us because it is 4 in the afternoon and we can watch it all happen.

I think economic uncertainty has increased in the days following the Brexit vote, so the question really is now, more than ever before, we need a Budget like Budget 2016, which this Appropriation Bill gives effect to, and we need a Government that knows where it is going—that provides the stability and the economic confidence that will allow New Zealand to continue to make its way in the world. I think this Budget does three things that are very important in light of the global economic uncertainty—and we had the Reserve Bank officials in at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I am privileged to serve on, a couple of weeks ago, talking about how global growth is still weak despite very stimulatory monetary policy around the world.

We look at the EU and we see anaemic growth; we look at the United States and we see fundamentally anaemic and sclerotic growth rates. So this is a time of uncertainty, and I think this Budget does three things that are very important. Firstly, it moves to increasingly diversify our economy; secondly, it tries to build an economy based around innovation, and based around science and technology; and, thirdly—and this Appropriation Bill gives effect to this—it is a Budget that tries to expand our opportunities on the international stage and that tries to grow our export markets, and that is incredibly important in light of the British exit from the European Union.

On that first point, about the diversification of the New Zealand economy, when Britain entered the EU in the 1970s, it is fair to say that New Zealand did not respond well, and that it was a cataclysmic shock to the New Zealand economy when 60 or 70 percent of our exports went to Britain and that was cut very quickly—not quite overnight, but very, very quickly beyond that. In 2016 we are in a much better position to cope with Britain’s exit from the European Union because we have an increasingly diverse export base, in terms of both the types of goods and services we export and the places to which they go. The fourth Labour Government, from 1984 onwards, deserves a lot of credit for the important changes to the New Zealand economy that it enacted, which have led to that situation—changes that Labour members have turned their backs on in some ways, I suggest to the House.

This Budget builds on past measures by past Governments to diversify the economy, and we are increasingly seeing our ICT sector that we are blessed to have in Wellington and the Hutt Valley—or, as I call it, “Technology Valley”—booming. Exports are growing at record pace. Jobs are being added into that sector of the economy—the report out just last week demonstrated just that. If you look at reports like the TIN100 Industry Analysis and the TIN200 report, you will see exactly the same. Our tourism sector, under the guidance of Paula Bennett as Associate Minister of Tourism and, of course, the Prime Minister as Minister of Tourism, is going great guns.

Something else in the Estimates I want to point to is something that I know is of real importance to our regional MPs—people like Sarah Dowie and Stuart Smith—and that is the regional research institutes that are going to increasingly diversify our economy in a regional sense. I was down in Southland last week, with the regional development caucus committee of the National Party, meeting with the great people down there from Venture Southland, the Southland economic development agency, hearing about its plans for its regional institute, which has been shortlisted and is about investing in primary industry productivity. I know my colleague Stuart Smith, from the great wine-growing province of Marlborough, has high hopes for the regional institute that he hopes to establish there—a wine institute. That is exactly what we should be doing as a country—focusing on the regional strengths that we have. Clearly, if you go to a region like Marlborough, or you go down south where they have got aluminium and they have got primary products, or you go to Taranaki with oil and gas, it obviously makes sense to focus on our strengths. This Budget gives effect to those regional institutes, and I think that is a good thing.

The second thing I want to point to is innovation. Every now and then—well, not every now and then; actually, it is a constant refrain from members opposite that we have got to focus on building an innovative economy, we have got to focus on innovation, and those members’ solution to all this is always research and development tax credits. They never take that next step and actually look at the broader picture that we need to be investing in.

What this Budget gives effect to is the Innovative New Zealand package—$761 million across the science sector and across our tertiary sector to invest in the core capabilities of our Crown research institutes, to invest in things like the Pre-seed Accelerator Fund to increase investment for our incubators in New Zealand, and for a range of very important initiatives like that. It is not true to say that this is politically directed flunkeys handing out science money, as one particular member opposite sometimes mentions. Science funding in New Zealand is arm’s length from the Minister. It is given out by independent bodies like the Marsden Fund, and we know it is independent because the Marsden Fund gave Jane Kelsey a large sum of money to issue a study on neo-liberalism and the transcendent nature of it in the public policy sphere. I can assure members that if it was politically directed, the National Government probably would not be funding such a project, but that just illustrates the falsity of the claim that this is something that is politically directed.

It is likewise, too, with the other funds that are funded, like the Endeavour Fund. This Innovative New Zealand package will lead to more commercialisation of scientific discoveries, and if you go to the Callaghan Innovation campus and the precinct that I am privileged to have in my neck of the woods in the Hutt Valley, there is a range of highly innovative companies there doing great things, and this Budget will help support companies like that.

The third thing I want to mention is what this Budget does about expanding our overseas trade opportunities. We have done a lot in this space already, signing free-trade agreements with Malaysia and economic partnerships with Taipei, Hong Kong, Korea, and, of course, the big one of them all, which is the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Something that has not received a lot of press in the Budget, but I think is really important, is the new initiative that funds the Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence, which will be based in our universities.

Increasingly, our future is not so much with the EU and UK, or not so much with the old economies that we have traditionally associated with; our future is in Asia, and we need more young kids in our universities and more young students studying Asian languages and studying Asian cultures. That is why we funded things like the Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia programme—which is given effect to in this Budget—that sends young New Zealanders offshore to Asian economies and Asian countries to study culture, to learn the language, to enmesh themselves in the cultures of those economies, and then to come back to New Zealand, as they invariably do, and add to the knowledge base of this economy. That is why we fund things like that, and it is why we are funding the Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence. There are going to be three of them set up. I think that will be a significant and substantive long-term legacy of this Government and this Budget. This is a Government that is focused on building an outwardly focused, confident New Zealand on the world stage.

I want to end my speech by just cycling back to where I started, which is: in a time of global uncertainty, what is the correct policy response? Is it to try to insulate ourselves from the rest of the world? Is it to put up the shutters of “Fortress New Zealand” and retreat to some sort of 1970s utopia that never existed? This Government does not believe that is the right answer. This Government believes the right answer for New Zealand is to be outwardly focused, to be confident on the world stage, and to expand our overseas trade opportunities. I commend this Appropriation Bill to the House.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I rise to speak on the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and I would like to start my comments by responding to some of the comments from previous speakers from the other side of the House. I do, seeing as he raised it, want to touch on Brexit—the decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union that was raised by the previous speaker, Chris Bishop.

But I thought that I would start by responding to some of the comments of Mr Bennett, who spoke a bit earlier about how the EU was a failed State. I would imagine that some of the EU ambassadors will shortly be making their way to Mr Bennett’s door, because I do think that the European Union does not fit the definition of a failed State, and neither do any of the countries inside the European Union. Germany, for example, has a higher productivity rate than New Zealand. Germany’s wages are higher than New Zealand’s. Its environmental standards are higher than New Zealand’s. Its employment relations are stronger than New Zealand’s. Germany is moving further and faster on climate change than New Zealand. Germany is also pulling its weight substantially when it is coming to resettling refugees from Syria and other distressed countries. I think that it is an extraordinary assertion to suggest that it is a failed State.

Moving on to Brexit, to the decision by the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union—and it is relevant to this Appropriation Bill because in his analysis that this kind of appropriation bill giving effect to this Budget is exactly what we need for this kind of time of instability—Mr Bishop overlooks the fact that it is exactly this kind of Budget and appropriation that leads to the underlying social and economic conditions that give people a reason to vote for leaving the European Union.

Because the very same set of conditions in the UK that led to the rise in discontent in the United Kingdom with the people who are running the United Kingdom, with immigrants coming into the United Kingdom, with the general state of affairs is what drove that protest vote and the decision to leave the European Union. It is exactly the same set of social and economic conditions that is giving rise to Donald Trump in the United States. It is rising inequality, where you can have an extended period of significant increase in GDP but, at the same time, a large portion of the population is getting left further and further behind. That is the trend in the United States, it is the trend in the United Kingdom, and it is also the trend here. We did start later. It started here in about 1991, whereas it had been going on in the United States since the late 1970s and in Britain since the early 1980s, but the same trend does exist here, and if it continues you will see the same kind of resentment and backlash that built up in both of those countries present here today. That gives rise to populism and to nationalism. It gives rise to anti-immigrant feelings and to social discord. We absolutely cannot let that continue in New Zealand, and it is exactly the kinds of policies that are enacted in this Appropriation Bill.

Today we had the news from Statistics New Zealand, from the household net worth statistics, that the top 10 percent of New Zealand households now own half of the country’s total wealth. So 10 percent of our families own half of our wealth, while the bottom 40 percent of families own just 3 percent of the wealth. So you have got 10 percent owning half the wealth and 40 percent owning 3 percent of the wealth and that trend is continuing. And that is exactly what we saw in the United Kingdom, and it is exactly what we are seeing in the United States and in several other countries as well. When you have the kind of wealth inequality that is that stark, and when it is growing, it is clear that the economy is not working for everyone.

So you can have a headline number that says gross domestic product is increasing 2.4 percent a year, and that is, you know, “Great news!”, but if it is not shared in by people all across the economy, then it is not working. The economy is not working. That is what you are seeing here. That kind of wealth inequality is driving the housing crisis, particularly with the kinds of measures that you continue to see in this Budget, which enable people who are already property owners—it is extremely easy for them to leverage their existing assets to buy yet more assets, whereas people who want to buy their first home are completely locked out of the market. It means that you have got people who cannot afford their rents any more.

Many of the people who are living in garages and in three-bedroom houses with 11 people in them—these are people with jobs. They actually have jobs, and so when, I think it was, Anne Tolley asserted in the last few days that National’s plan for eliminating poverty is to grow the economy, well, the economy has been growing at the same time as poverty. Poverty has been growing in this country all of these years, even while gross domestic product has been increasing. So the fact that GDP is growing, actually, is meaningless just by itself in terms of what that means for people at the bottom of the heap. If the kinds of policies that the Government is enacting continue to be applied, then those people will continue to get further and further behind.

What you have had here in New Zealand since about 1991 is that the top third of income earners in New Zealand have done very well, so their incomes have increased. People in the middle—we call it the squeezed middle; the middle third of income earners—have just managed to increase, but as cost of living has increased as well they are holding on by their absolute fingernails. They are getting increasingly conservative because they are worried that any change will rock the boat and that will cause them to slip under the waves. But, in the meantime, the bottom 30 percent of income earners in this country have got further and further behind because their incomes have been rising lower than the cost of living has been increasing, so they have actually been going backwards in this country.

These are exactly the kinds of outcomes that are exacerbated by the Budget this year and by the Appropriation Bill that we are debating here today, which gives effect to that Budget. I concur with the previous speaker, Chris Bishop, that these are uncertain times and that we need to navigate carefully, but the problem is that Mr Bishop’s Government is doing exactly the same kind of thing that the United States and the UK did that created the conditions that caused the kind of resentment that is leading to the rise in populism and nationalism and racism in those countries, and that would be a disaster if we allowed that to continue here in New Zealand as well.

We have some other specific criticisms about the Appropriation Bill that is in front of us today, as well. We have said consistently that we were looking for an improvement in the state of our rivers. We have been campaigning on that for many years. The supplementary estimates include $3.816 million for ensuring successful implementation of the national policy statement. But, of course, all that does is maintain a pretty low level of water quality in New Zealand. You would have to say that $3.816 million is not a significant allocation of money.

In housing, this is another perfect example of a Government that is trying to be seen to be doing something while actually doing as little as possible. When it could have been really changing the conditions in this country, it has actually done pretty much nothing at all, just what it can get away with. We need tens of thousands of houses, and this Government is not doing anywhere nearly enough to ensure that that actually takes place.

On climate change, I want to note that there is an additional appropriation here of $115.760 million of allocation of New Zealand Units to trade-exposed emitters—in other words, a subsidy by the Government to our major polluters in this country. So we are handing $115.5 million of public money to the worst polluters in the country—that is, $115 million of free carbon credits to subsidise pollution—and it is no surprise, therefore, that when you subsidise pollution it continues to increase. We learnt about a month ago that the emissions trading scheme, which has now been in existence for 9 years—during that period of time our emissions have actually increased by 20 percent, which is extraordinary. Why would you have an emissions trading scheme if you actually did not want emissions to go down? So this Government is short-sighted and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt—

JAMES SHAW: Very well, Mr Assistant Speaker, I shall sit down.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It gives me pleasure to be able to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak to this Appropriation Bill. I would like to be able to get up and talk about something positive, but, unfortunately, we have a job to do. I have police as one of my portfolios, and I need to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we are disappointed. We are disappointed that the Government’s budget for police continues what we see as a flat-line policy. We are disappointed that this Budget continues what is, essentially, a funding freeze that has now stretched out to 6 years and, as a consequence, New Zealand is now seeing a new age of policing that we have seen once before—in the INCIS era, when we were having senior police officers telling us that they were going to have a computer catch crooks at night.

Today we are seeing the thin blue line get stretched to the point of almost becoming emaciated, we are seeing fly-by patrols being talked about, and one new phenomenon we are seeing in this Budget as a result of the funding that has been appropriated is policing by warning and police concentrating staff in big centres at the expense of small-town New Zealand and rural communities. It actually does not matter, really, what the Government says it has done or what this Budget is going to do, and it really probably does not matter what New Zealand First has to say. Contrary to what the Minister of Finance has asserted, which is that crime has dropped by 16 percent, we could say that what we have noticed is a drop in the number of charges that police have lodged, and that drop reflects a massive increase in the number of warnings and cautions that police are giving out instead of charging offenders.

We could point out the official statistics—and, let me assure you, it has not been an easy task to get these statistics, but we have got them. Those statistics we have obtained show that the percentage of incidents that police have attended that resulted in arrests has plummeted from 16.5 percent in 2007 to 13.5 percent in 2015, that from 2008 the total number of incidents police have attended has risen from 420,000 to 525,000 in 2015—up 150,000, or more than 20 percent—and that of these incidents, the number of arrests made during this same period has dropped from 72,000 to 69,000 in 2015. So we could say from the numbers we now have that incidents are up 105,000 and arrests are down 3,000, and, therefore, the Minister of Finance is probably quite right, on his figures, that on his gerrymandering of the numbers—and whatever instructions have been passed on as a result of the negotiations between the Māori Party and the National Party—crime on those numbers is down.

But we do not need to talk about that. All we really need to do is look at the evidence that we are seeing in newspapers daily now about the result in provincial New Zealand, and we can find the evidence in those media reports. For example, from Radio New Zealand on 23 June, “Small towns becoming lawless” say business people in Kawakawa, Kaikohe, and Kaitaia. They say that the flying squad approach is not working and that criminals are getting younger and bolder. Why? Because they know they are not going to get caught. Kaikohe business association spokespeople are saying that there is no police presence in the town. The head of the Kaikohe community board is reported by Radio New Zealand saying that the community is “at the mercy of marauding gangs of youth”. They know where the police are and where they are not, and when they are not around, the youths are “running in and just grabbing what they want and … assaulting the shop keepers while they’re doing it.”, and doing it at liberty, which is exactly the same thing that we are seeing reported out of Auckland.

But it is not just there. Look at Hastings. Its district council is looking to expand its assisted community patrol initiative at further cost to the Hastings ratepayers by about a million dollars. And this is Hastings. The Mayor of Hastings is Lawrence Yule, a man whom the National Party has been having quiet conversations with about replacing Craig Foss because it knows that Lawrence is highly respected, and he is a deep-seated National Party member and supporter. He does not take shots like this on behalf of his community just for the love of it, because Lawrence has been well-known for not actually wanting to criticise National Governments over the years. But it is not just him. There is Roly Ellis from Tararua—now we have a group of 18 mayors, primarily in rural New Zealand, provincial New Zealand, saying that the big cities are getting the attention.

So, however this Budget has shaped up and however we sell it, you have got to say that the Minister of Police must be grinding her teeth at the back, looking at the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and saying “What the hell are you trying to do to me?”, because these frozen Budgets are having a serious impact in rural provincial New Zealand. Have a look at what is being said in Masterton. In Masterton we have got reports of burglars now. “Burglars have struck Masterton more than 11 times in the last week,”—this is Monday, 13 June—“in some cases stealing from the bedsides of sleeping homeowners.”

Warning: we know—and it was good to have the Minister of Police confirm that we were correct over here—that burglary is an entry-level crime. It starts at the burglary of an empty house or a house that is not occupied at the time. It progresses to burglary at night, when people are home. Then it progresses to voyeurism, and then it progresses to an assault when someone wakes up and confronts the burglar, or it progresses to a burglar stealing from the bedside of a sleeping homeowner, and then the next step that comes in is sexual assault and rape.

We know from all the reports from criminologists—not New Zealand First—that burglary is a serious crime if one wishes to interdict the rise and prevent crime and serious crime, but we do not see that this Budget is going to do that, we do not think these appropriations are going to do that, and we certainly do not see that the reports that we are reading repeatedly in the newspaper about the concerns of rural provincial New Zealand are going to address the problems that rural provincial New Zealand is facing. This is a serious article here: “Senior Sergeant Gordon Crawley said in four cases the burglar had entered unlocked houses at night while the owners were asleep and had stolen small portable items, such as cellphones and cash.”—right beside the sleeping victim. That has got to be a massive alarm, and if I was the Prime Minister I would be explaining myself to the rest of Cabinet as to why the police budget has not been increased.

Look, New Zealand First has a track record, and, in conjunction with our time in coalition with the National Government and in our time with the Labour Government, we did everything we could to increase police numbers, but it is not just about increasing police numbers. It is making sure that the police presence is out there and that it is being seen.

I want to summarise by saying this. Between 1997 and 2005, I had the opportunity to spend time with law enforcement agencies in the United States: Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Arizona. I spoke to, of all people, Chief William Bratton, who was the Los Angeles Police Department chief of police and formerly a very successful chief of police for the New York Police Department. He said that policing has not changed. It is about feet on the beat, prevention, intervention, and enforcement. It is about the three Rs—random patrolling, rapid response, reactive investigations—and it is about creating a presence in the street and the certainty that if you are going to commit a crime, like bashing a shopkeeper on the head and stealing cigarettes, you will be caught and you will be arrested and you will be charged and you will be convicted.

He also gave one further warning—if I might, in the time I have. He said: “The evidence is clear at LAPD that as arrests increase, crime decreases.” He also said—here is a warning—about when you take police away and you reduce the numbers and they are too thin on the ground: “Stranger policing, … results when too few are asked to do too much with too little for too long. Stranger policing creates a disconnection between the police and the public undermining trust, particularly in minority [communities].”, so increasing the incidence of crime.

We in New Zealand First are disappointed. We expected this Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to appropriate more to the police budget, but what we did not expect to see with the appropriations that have been made is a thinning out of the number of police in rural provincial New Zealand, where they are so desperately needed to ensure the safety of those communities.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I would like to talk not so much about the money or the amount of money that is listed in the documents, but more about the results, because they are what matter. It is the results that count. It is not a matter of numbers of dollars or even, perhaps, the number of police on the streets; what matters are the results.

Reflecting on Mr Mark’s comments about the police, I was just thinking that my father retired from the police around 1990. He started probably around 1958 as a constable, and jumping into a police car nowadays, he would be just amazed at the technology and the efficiency and the change in the way that criminals and youth are dealt with from the way that he dealt with them back in the day. I have been in a cop car recently, and they do amazing things. The technology has enabled results to be almost instant, and with technology the results matter. I can also reflect on the town of Dannevirke, where technology is used to get results and where they have put up closed-circuit television cameras in the town, and that is getting results. That is reducing crime rates and enabling crime to be pushed out of Dannevirke, and, as we have seen in the results, crime statistics are coming down. Fewer youths are going to prisons. These are important statistics because they affect the way that our communities act and behave in the future.

Other results that matter: National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)—we have talked a little bit about NCEA results. Performance is increasing. More youths are passing NCEA level 2 than ever before. Particularly, Māori and Pasifika are having a fantastic increase in results. Pharmac funding—increased Pharmac funding enables better results to be achieved for the likes of melanoma victims. Colon scanning is now going to be part of the health system, rolled out, in the first instance, in the Wairarapa and the Hutt Valley. These are results that matter.

We get these results because we have a strong economy. That economy is going to enable debt to fall. Forecast debt will fall below 20 percent of GDP. That is an important result. The percentage of Government involvement in the economy is also reducing, enabling the private sector—New Zealanders—to take control of their own lives and their own destinies by having a greater part of the economy, as the influence and the expenditure that the Government has reduces. We have already heard that new money from this side of the House at each Budget is about half of what the previous Government spent per Budget, if you like. So approximately $3 billion a year of new funding was introduced each year by Labour, and about $1.5 billion per year is the constrained and sensible amount of new money injected into the economy by this side of the House.

The Minister of Finance has already talked about results in the social investment sector, so we know that the results of the $1 million investment in kids are important. We need to identify these kids and invest in and wrap around those children because, again, they are going to be the future that we live in tomorrow. Once we can identify those kids, we can invest in and care for those kids. We have already seen improvements in that future liability. That future balance sheet item has reduced, and that is because of the investment we are making—and have been making—today. If a kid has had Child, Youth and Family contact, if mum and dad have been in jail or have been on the benefit for more than 5 years in the past, or if the kid has left school early, we know that that child is at risk. It is highly likely that that child will follow the parents’ pathway, and we need to arrest that. That is why we are focused on that end of the community, and that is why we are getting results with the targeted—and my emphasis is on targeted—investment.

We have had a few speakers before me, and so far I have not heard of any alternative approach, any better way forward from the Opposition, today at least—except, perhaps, the 100,000 houses. “Build more houses” is the Greens’ solution to the issue, and, of course, there is the building 100,000 homes programme from the Labour Party. But where are these buildings going to come from? Who is going to build them? Who is going to pay for them? Where will they be built? Those are fundamental questions. That is a $50 billion project. Let us say half a million dollars a house—that is a big programme, and do we really expect the taxpayer to fund that? Do we really expect the State to get involved and with a snap of its fingers build 100,000 houses? I do not think so.

The other alternative policy that we have heard to solve some of these issues that we continually debate and have talked about this afternoon is the universal benefit idea, where all the benefits are cut. Well, there is an idea, but, again, who is going to pay for the universal benefit that replaces the targeted social welfare system that we have today? With the universal basic income, I and all of us here would receive about $11,000. That wipes out all benefits for all people. But, of course, I do not need that fund. I am not in need of an extra $11,000. To ignore all those people most in need is, quite frankly, a very poorly thought out policy from the Opposition.

Again, who is going to pay for the idea that there should be free tertiary education for anyone over 18? That is another “bums on seats” idea that is apparently going to educate everyone so that they are able to get high-paying jobs and more jobs. Of course, again, it is not targeted. There is no filter. There are no criteria. Anyone can turn up and sit on a seat at a university who has not previously been at a university or in tertiary education and spend taxpayers’ money. You see, that is the difference. This side of the House considers taxpayers’ money when it invests, when it decides where the money should be spent. It is not a lolly scramble on this side. It is not a free-for-all. We know there are limited resources. We are concerned for the taxpayers’ money because we are all taxpayers. That is who we represent.

We took at question time today the question around increasing paid parental leave. Yes, we would all like to have our mums or dads have increased paid parental leave, but there must be consideration as to the cost. As the Minister of Finance mentioned himself, it is $25 a week going to every beneficiary family with children, or something else. We have decided that the priority is to target those most in need.

I was going to talk about Brexit, actually. Mr Bishop talked about Brexit and how it had changed, and I would reflect on when Margaret Thatcher got kicked out of Parliament. I was working in London at the time, and there was chaos and calamity. This situation I do not think is going to be the same as back in those days. That is because the economy here today that we are lucky enough to be working in is a diversified economy. It is much more resilient, it is much more flexible, and there is much more understanding of what the economy does for the community. We do understand that having a strong economy is the only way that we can afford to invest in and support those most in need.

This Appropriation Bill talks about where money flows and where it does not flow, but really it is all about getting results, and that is what we are targeted on on this side of the House. We want to leave more money in the taxpayers’ pockets for them to decide to do what they wish to do with it, to reduce Government debt over time, and to reduce the Government’s share of the economy over time. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The previous speaker, Alastair Scott, asked what the alternative vision is from Opposition parties. He said he had not heard it, so I would like to use my speech to lay that out. Obviously, this bill, the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, is about the additional appropriations that have been made since Budget 2015 was finalised. An example of that is the $150,000 that the Government appropriated for the Shewan inquiry, which was the Government inquiry into foreign trust disclosure rules, which, of course, was released very recently and demonstrated that there are serious shortcomings with our foreign trust rules, on which, of course, the Opposition parties have been calling for constructive changes. In fact, many of the recommendations in the Shewan inquiry go further than Opposition parties were suggesting. The Government was denying that there was a problem.

Like most New Zealanders, I am here because I love New Zealand. I love our natural environment and I want to live in a country that is fair—where everyone has a fair go. What has the National Government achieved through its eight Budgets, including this supplementary estimates bill? Well, we finally got a narrow surplus this year—just a couple of hundred million—and, aside from that, we have seen it achieve a mastery of spin in the media. It has also achieved more expensive houses, especially in Auckland but all over the country; more people living on the streets or sleeping in their cars; and more pollution—60 percent of our rivers are now unswimmable and carbon emissions are up. And I note that in the supplementary estimates bill there is actually an additional $115 million to subsidise carbon polluters. That is $115 million spent on free carbon credits for polluting industries.

There is more inequality. We have got information, just released today, from Statistics New Zealand that the top 10 percent of New Zealanders now own 60 percent of the wealth. That does not seem fair. In fact, inequality is at the worst point that it has been for a decade. And, of course, that is not going to change under this National Government, because, ultimately, it is gutless and focused on protecting the status quo.

Well, I have a message for the National Government. Budgets are all about priorities—what we choose to spend money on. Mr Scott was asking “Oh, who is going to pay for these things that you want?”, like education, and houses, and the things that people actually need. Well, we are not going to spend as much money as the National Government does helping out its mates. We are not going to spend as much on tax cuts for the wealthy because you do not build a strong economy by helping those who are already doing very well; you do it by investing in your people, the ones who actually need the most help. We are not going to spend it on Saudi sheep deals. We are not going to spend it on subsidies for polluters. We are not going to spend it on Skycity or Rio Tinto or Chorus. We are not going to spend it on infrastructure that does not stack up economically. The National Government is focused on dams, like the Ruataniwha Dam, which does not even make sense in economic terms, let alone in environmental terms. It is the same with transport infrastructure—the Government has managed to find billions and billions of dollars for motorway projects that will not reduce congestion. They will not make it easier for people to get to work or to get to school, and they certainly will not do anything for our carbon emissions and pollution.

There are smarter ways to do things. We could take the same amount of money and spend it on making sure that kids are not hungry in schools. We could spend it on protecting our environment and having a transport system that actually makes it easier for people to get around. Imagine that—imagine a rail link to the airport or to the North Shore. We could actually do that for less than the idiotic motorways that the Government is prioritising.

A strong economy, as I said, is not achieved by privileging those who are already doing well and giving handouts to businesses that are already making money by screwing over the environment. Actually, a strong economy is developed by protecting our environment and investing in our people, and that is why we in the Green Party would prioritise affordable housing and smart infrastructure that reduces pollution—smart infrastructure that uses our water better in our cities and creates more people-friendly streets. There are so many things that we can do, and we have shown how we can pay for them. That is the kind of New Zealand that I think most New Zealanders would like to live in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Meka Whaitiri—5 minutes.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and say that Labour stands for a productive and fair and just society, where all benefit and not just the elite few.

Poverty levels and inequality levels are real and are growing in this country. Today we had Statistics New Zealand release some inequality-related figures, and I would like to share them with the House. European people had an individual median net worth of $114,000; Asian people, $33,000; Māori people, $23,000; and Pacific people, a very sad $12,000. That is individual net worth. That is what we have in this country under this National-led Government.

Like previous speakers have said, the supplementary estimates are a normal part of the Budget cycle, where we seek to authorise and vary the appropriations for 2015-16, the financial year that is about to end, which were made in Budget 2015. For the time that I have got, I want to make my contribution in reply to the Minister of Finance’s opening statement, where, amongst other things, he talked about value for money and a commitment to showing results. He made mention of the results framework and the social investment framework.

I want to give a snapshot of the electorate that I represent and paint the picture of the so-called results that people in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay are experiencing, particularly around unemployment and homeownership. The statistics that I want to share with the House were taken from Statistics New Zealand’s household labour force survey. It paints a picture of when Labour left Government in 2008 and when National took over. The unemployment rate in Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay in 2008 was 5 percent—5 percent was the unemployment rate in Hawke’s Bay - Gisborne. The New Zealand unemployment rate was 3.7 percent. Let us fast-forward to 2016. The Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay unemployment rate is now 7.7 percent—7.7 percent—and New Zealand’s unemployment rate is 5.7 percent. That demonstrates that unemployment in the Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay region has grown significantly in these last 8 years.

Let us look at the real numbers. In 2008 in the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne area we had 5,200 people who were unemployed. Fast-forward that to 2016, and there are now 8,200 people unemployed. The Government’s policies around addressing unemployment in the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne region are failing. If I look at the real numbers of Māori unemployed people, I see 3,000 people of Māori descent in 2009, growing to 4,200 in 2016. For Europeans, the real number in 2009 was 3,900, growing to 4,400 in 2016. Again, many more people in Gisborne are facing the sharp end of unemployment, which this Government has taken its eye off.

Homeownership in Hawke’s Bay has decreased by an average of 30 percent. We all know that when we have homeownership it leads to stable whānau within that home, it leads to children being in education, and it leads to their health issues being addressed. But when you take away that dream of owning your home—not to mention the homelessness that I see experienced on a daily basis in my electorate—again, this Government’s record has failed when it comes to showing social investment results.

Like I said, for the short time I have got I have looked at the Estimates, particularly around Vote Māori. All I want to say is that one of the roles that Te Puni Kōkiri did have in ensuring better Māori outcomes was the monitoring of all the mainstream agencies. I am saddened that that is not one of its key pillars, and I suggest that we should do that—

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

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking in this supplementary estimates debate tonight. I was going to talk on three of the four key strategic initiatives that the Government is pursuing. The first one is mainly about returning to surplus and retiring debt; secondly, making this economy much more productive; thirdly, delivering better value from public services; and, of course, the very important one, which is supporting the rebuild of Christchurch, which has proceeded very well and made great progress.

I just want to start with the first one—which I think is absolutely essential—which is about returning to surplus and reducing debt. Of course, we are a long, long way from 2011, when we recorded a deficit of $18 billion. Last year we recorded a surplus of $414 million, and I would note that at the 10-month stage, to April this year, we recorded another surplus of $300 million. Hopefully, we are going to build on that to get an even greater surplus this year, for the financial year.

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

ANDREW BAYLY: Just before we closed for the dinner session I was just talking about how we have been achieving surpluses and we would expect to continue to do so, rising to a massive nearly $7 billion in the year 2019-20. Of course, all that means is that you have got more money to spend, and this Budget was particularly generous. It has in it well-targeted programmes. We have got the $650 million we are going to put into social investment, $2.2 billion into the health sector, the nearly $800 million we are putting into science and training and apprenticeship schemes, and roughly $2.1 billion for infrastructure.

The other thing about running surpluses means you can reduce debt. This is something that we set about trying to bring down to very modest levels, particularly when you compare it internationally. So at the moment we are just over 26 percent, but the Minister of Finance has got a target to get it to 20 percent by 2021, and that is a great thing to be doing. With growth rates projected of about 3 percent over the next few years, this is what is going to generate the money to help pay down debt as well as invest in other schemes and infrastructure that we so dearly want.

Of course all of this is leading to increased jobs. We have heard many times in the House how over the last 3 years 175,000 jobs have been created in New Zealand, and Treasury is expecting another 173,000 by 2020. Also, this is leading to higher job incomes—a 3.1 percent increase in the year to 2015 against a very low inflation rate—which all means that people are enjoying net increases in their wages, which is what we want to do, and it is about sharing with everyone in New Zealand the benefits of a growing economy.

I just want to now turn to the second part of the big plan for the Government, the plan that we are working to, and that is around making the economy much more productive and competitive. Running our economy is just as important to achieving this goal. When I say that, that is about the Government’s entities. So what that is about doing is making sure our own business is much more responsive, and what is interesting is that the gross share of Government entities that we are spending money on was about 34 percent when we took over office in 2008; it is now just under 30 percent. Again, reducing the size of government but, at the same, time making it far more accountable and efficient has been a wonderful achievement. I think we need to compliment many of the people in our State services and all the various Government agencies on achieving that.

The other big thing is that there has been a massive reduction in the area of ACC, and I know that the member opposite—Sue Moroney—is very interested in that. There has been a net $2 billion reduction over time. Also, the Hon Steven Joyce is investing very heavily in science and technology, and that is correct. That is a very important thing. The focus on building the skills in science, technology, and engineering is all really, really important. We have a target to get to 60 percent of all 24 to 34-year-olds gaining an advanced trade. An interesting thing at the moment, and many people do not understand this, is we train about 44,000 people in apprenticeships. This Budget actually provided some more money as part of a $257 million spend into science and work schemes to see more people get into skills training and apprenticeships. That will take the number of people and apprenticeships in New Zealand to just under 50,000. I think that is a point that is well made because I do not believe that many people realise so many people are in apprenticeships in New Zealand.

The other thing is we are continuing to enter into free-trade agreements. We are hoping that we are going to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement through. Of course what has happened in Europe puts added pressure on making sure that we do enter into good negotiations—which have already commenced—with the EU. Also, the complexity now around the exit of Britain from the EU will place added pressure, but our Ministers and our officials are up to that. It would be good to be in a position where we can put in place some really robust trade agreements not only with Europe—because it is the third largest trading bloc in the world, with over 550 million people involved—but also with England, which we have had a long history with.

The other thing I just want to talk about is telecommunications. Sometimes it is glossed over, but we are making huge strides in this, particularly in ultra-fast broadband (UFB). We originally had $1.35 billion allocated to it, we have had another $210 million, then just recently we have invested another $50 million set aside for dealing with some of the black spots we have around New Zealand. I have seen evidence of this even in my own electorate. I was very happy to be at the closure when the final cabling or UFB was rolled out in Waiuku, a small town in my electorate. That was great. I think it was No. 16 out of the regional towns that were involved in the complete roll-out. Of course that opens up huge possibilities for people wanting to work and also to do business but also for general personal enjoyment. These are the types of things that people want and actually demand now. The other one is the Rural Broadband Initiative, a very substantial programme of $400 million. The final one, which is near completion, is the Network for Learning, which hooks up all our 2,500 schools across New Zealand, and provides substantial broadband access to all of those.

Finally, I just want to talk a little bit about our economy because most people sort of seem to gloss over it. I just want to note that manufacturing is a very important component of our economy. It has notched up well over 43 months, I think it is now, of consecutive positive growth and outlook. That is measured on a monthly basis, of course. But the services sector, I think, is terribly underestimated in New Zealand. It accounts for nearly 70 percent of our economy. It is a growing part of our economy, and it is a really important thing in terms of the access, the skills, and the talent that New Zealanders have. It is growing substantially, particularly in areas like information and communications technology, which is now over a billion dollars’ worth of exports. It is a dynamic area and obviously one where we have a lot of inherent advantages in New Zealand. I believe it accounts for about 25 percent of all net exports from New Zealand. So services are really important and getting the right framework for those, coming back to those trade agreements, is really important.

The other ones I just want to highlight—we have got the Associate Minister of Tourism in the House tonight—are the huge strides that we have made in tourism. International education is now worth over $3 billion and wine is worth over $1.5 billion. These are all just helping to drive us at a time when other parts of the economy—namely, the dairy industry—are going through a period of difficult conditions. But this is the way that helps makes sure that we have got a dynamic, robust, and competitive economy. Thank you very much.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I just want to take one issue with something that Alastair Scott said before the dinner break. I think it really defines the difference between Labour and National when it comes to spending and responsibility and how we view things.

Alastair Scott was talking about the housing issue. He said this about Labour’s solution: “Do we really expect the Government just to build houses?”, as if this was just anathema. Well, the thing is the answer to that is yes—it is yes. The reason I say that is I believe the main difference between the two parties is that National believes you can leave things up to the market, the market will provide the best solutions, and the Government does not need to interfere because it will all do OK, whereas Labour believes—certainly in a country the size of New Zealand—that the Government has a very important role in providing for its citizens, in giving them a hand when they need a hand by providing houses, providing education, providing police services, and actually meeting or even exceeding the expectations of New Zealanders. We believe that the Government has a very important role in driving equity of outcomes and of opportunities. We believe that Government is about doing the right thing when it comes to fairness for all New Zealanders.

I would just like to talk about my four portfolios, but before I do this, one thing that I think that this Government has done particularly poorly—there are a number of things, but it is one thing that I would like to highlight and I will weave through my four portfolios—is managing our global brand. I have talked about this a bit. Our global brand is worth about $20 billion a year. It is what differentiates us, it is what businessmen and businesswomen take overseas when they are hawking their products, and it is what makes us proud to be Kiwis, because we stand for integrity, we stand for fairness, and people know that we come from a country that values these values, basically. It is who we are and it is part of our DNA. People know it and I am very, very proud of it. But if we look at what is happening in the country, I am concerned that this global brand we have has been mismanaged to the point where we have got brand dissonance—there is no doubt about that. We need to start managing for this, because if we do not, we are big trouble.

Let me start with police. No matter what the Minister of Police says, the crime rate is increasing. The statistics have just come in and this year, month on month, burglaries nationally were up by 35 percent compared with last year. There were over 1,500 more burglaries committed in the year to May 2016 than in the year to May 2015, and yet there are less police on the beat in Hawke’s Bay.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Fewer.

STUART NASH: Sorry—fewer police on the beat. In Hawke’s Bay there has been a 43 percent drop in police on the beat between May 2015 and May 2016. That makes a difference. Lower resolution rates—we know this—we know that in Auckland less than 8 percent of all burglaries committed are going to be solved. That does not play into how we view our communities and the role of Government in providing protection for our communities and crime prevention but also in solving crime so that the bad guys can go away.

Forestry is now dominated by overseas interests. This was epitomised for me by a situation in Gisborne where there is a Malaysian investor who owns a 35,000-hectare forest. There is a sawmill there that is owned by the local economic development agency. It could employ about 40 people in the area with the highest level of unemployment in the country and with one of the highest levels of deprivation—a fantastic place to go on holiday, though. It is a magic spot, Gisborne. This forestry company is sending pruned logs right past this mill to send overseas without a cent of value added at all. As a consequence of that, this mill cannot start up without a guarantee of logs. When the Minister was asked about this she said: “Well, that is the market. We let the market decide about this.”. Well, that is wrong—that is wrong. What about Kiwis? What about jobs for New Zealanders? This sawmill, which wants to buy logs in Hikurangi, does not want any special favours. It is prepared to pay for logs at the global price—but no. This is what happens when we lose control of our future in a strategic industry. It is wrong and we need to change that as well.

Let me look at revenue. We have got a tax system that is just not fit for purpose. John Shewan has come out with his report, and the fact that he had to write a chapter on New Zealand’s reputation shows that we are in trouble. When I talk about our global brand being one of integrity and fairness and transparency, and John Shewan comes out and says that our global reputation is at risk, then we know we need to do something about that.

The thing about a reputation—and again, John Shewan outlined this—is that it is often about perception as opposed to the facts. So when a member of the Government stands up and says “Well, the facts say this.”, my response to that is that is all very well, but when international media are calling New Zealand a tax haven and when international media are saying “Invest in New Zealand and set up an overseas trust in New Zealand because the laws are lax and you don’t have to declare who the beneficiaries are, and it is easy to get away with hiding money.”, then we know we are in trouble. Who cares if that is the reality? That is the perception in the international media and, again, it cuts to the very heart of who we are as Kiwis. We are a country full of integrity and this cuts to the very heart of that.

Let me have a look at electricity and energy. It was fantastic to see the Minister of Energy and Resources drive to a photo op for the 1,000th electric car to be registered in New Zealand, but the thing is he drove to that photo op in a huge big diesel BMW. He had the photo op then he jumped in that huge big diesel BMW and drove back to Parliament. Would it not be great if the Government actually walked the walk and if Ministers started this by driving electric vehicles? Imagine if our Crown fleet was electric vehicles. Would that not be fantastic?

Hon Paula Bennett: What a great idea!

STUART NASH: Would that not be great? Even the Minister agrees with me. She obviously does not have the power to influence those in control because, obviously, if it was up to her, then we would have a Crown fleet full of electric vehicles, but there are none—there are none. What a shame.

Start walking the walk and stop talking the talk. It is actions that speak louder than words. Imagine international visitors being picked up at Wellington Airport in Tesla cars. Imagine what that would do. Imagine the brand—imagine how that would resonate around the world. We have led the way in a number of these initiatives, we really have. From the day we gave women the vote—we were the first country to give women the vote.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Excuse me, we won it.

STUART NASH: Sorry, women won the right to vote. Then we were nuclear-free. We were leading the emissions trading scheme. We were global players in all these things that were incredibly important to defining our global brand and who we were on the global stage. People looked at New Zealand and said: “Wow, these guys are just amazing. Look what they stand for.” All of these things played into who we were, and ever so slowly, over the last 8 years, these have been eroded. We are now falling behind in the emissions trading scheme—that plays into our global brand. Nuclear-free has sort of disappeared. Women have still got the vote—thank goodness for that. But these things that made us great, these things that defined us, and these things that gave us a unique selling point are slowly being eroded to the point where we have now got a tax system that is seen as an easy target for overseas money-launderers. We now have a forestry system where the overseas investors just do not care about local jobs. We have now got an electricity system that is creaking—there are global innovations going on and we are way behind the eight ball.

We have got a police force where the men and women on the front line work incredibly hard. They work incredibly hard, but that thin blue line is stretched to breaking point. Then I read the Budget this year and saw that there was no money allocated for more police—man, that is the wrong direction. What is worse is that I had a look at the New Zealand Police’s strategic plan between 2016 and 2020 and it says that there are going to be no more officers on our streets—and that is simply wrong. There is so much more that needs to be done, but the thing that I am afraid of is that that Government is just unwilling to do it. The only way that we are going to get things back on track is a change of Government. Bring on 2017. Thank you very much.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I feel a bit sorry for Stuart Nash. He is one of the bright young hopes of the Labour Party. He is actually a reasonably nice guy. He is the closest thing that the Labour Party has to a free-market capitalist, but he is just so negative. He is just so negative. Was there anything positive in that speech? Is the Labour Party ever going to come up with an opportunity to win Government and ask New Zealanders to support it if it never has anything positive to add, never has anything positive to suggest, and it is always negative? We hear moan after moan after moan. Everything’s bad, the country’s going down the sewer—that is the Labour Party’s mantra. Day after day, week after week, it never has anything positive.

Sue Moroney: Oh, vetoes are positive, are they?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I can hear Sue Moroney yapping over there. That is a one-trick pony for you—looking at Sue Moroney. How many times has she lost a seat? Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, you probably stood against her too. If we wanted to hear an opportunity from the Labour Party to be positive, we did not hear it during this debate.

The National Party is positive. The National Party is doing good things for New Zealanders. The National Party is presiding over a Government that is leading to this economy growing at one of the fastest growth rates in the OECD. We are growing faster than many of the economies we compare ourselves with. We are seeing job rates going up. We are seeing rates of pay going up. The average wage is going up. Unemployment is trending down. New Zealanders are more prosperous than they were 8 years ago.

Mr Nash talked about crime rates, and I want to pick him up on that. He is absolutely wrong about crime rates. The year 1978 is a year I do not remember as I was not born at that time, but 1978 was when crime was last at these levels. Crime rates are at the lowest levels they have been since 1978. He tried to tell us that crime is rising. Recorded crime is down 17 percent since June 2011. Violent crime is down 10 percent since June 2011. Reoffending is down 7 percent since June 2011. Crime rates are actually dropping. Do not come into this House and try to spin a line that crime rates are going up. Of course any crime is bad. Of course we all want crime rates to go down even further. But do not come into this House and try to tell us that crime is actually going up. Crime is going down. There are more police on the streets in New Zealand than there have ever been before. New Zealanders are safer in their homes. Reoffending is coming down. New Zealand overall, from a law and order perspective, is doing well.

Mr Nash also said there was no money in the Budget for the police. I do not know which Budget he was reading, but there is $300 million extra in the Budget for funding for police—$300 million extra. I know he is from Napier and I know he is focused very much on his electorate, but I suggest that if he wants to be the police spokesperson, he should actually be reading the Budget. The Budget allocated $300 million extra for the police. They are doing a good job. We should be backing our police, and this side of the House does. We do not talk down the police. We do not talk down the economy, like Labour does. We do not talk down the health sector, like Labour does. We do not talk down the education sector, like Labour does. We talk up those sectors. We provide them with the resources to do their jobs. More funding going into important areas is what this Government is delivering.

But at the same time as we are delivering more funding to those key areas, we have kept Government expenses under control. We have got the economy back on track. We have got the deficits under control, and we are now posting surpluses. When we came into office we looked into the horizon and there was a decade’s worth of deficits. That has been turned round. Net debt as a percentage of GDP is expected to be under 20 percent by the mid-2020s. If the Labour Party was in office at the time that we went through the global financial crisis, I hazard a guess that the Budgets that New Zealand would have faced would not be as good as they were under Bill English.

National is delivering more jobs and more wages for people, and we are also seeing better outcomes for New Zealand children. We are seeing more children being educated than ever before. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) rates are showing us that more children are leaving school with NCEA than ever before. The rate for 18-year-olds leaving school with NCEA level 2 is now over 84 percent. It was much lower before, under the Labour Party in its last term in Government. We are also seeing more funding going into early childhood education. There is more funding going into early childhood education so those kids can have a good start before they go to school. That is something that we are seeing improving, which we never saw previously, as well.

One of the hallmarks of the Government’s recent announcements in past years has been to put, for the first time, more funding into benefits so that more children in need are getting the help they need through the benefit system. Paula Bennett reformed the benefit system consistently, and she did a good job of doing that. We identified the need to put more money into families so that we could invest in those families, so they can get a better start in life for their children.

Sue Moroney: They can sleep in cars and garages.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I know Sue Moroney, who is still yapping over there, does not support that. She does not support that all. The Government made a deliberate decision not to go through with throwing money at something in an unaffordable way, like Sue Moroney did. We instead prefer to take the investment approach that actually sees the funding going where it is needed.

At the same time we have delivered an increase in paid parental leave. We have delivered an increase in paid parental leave in a measured fashion—in a measured fashion. Sue Moroney, who has lost the debate every time that she has come up with a paid parental leave idea, thinks that we should just massively expand the scheme at an unaffordable rate. Well, she might get 26 weeks this time around—or in the future, next time she tries—but where will she stop? What is the right number? Is it 52 weeks? Is it 2 years? Those members would just throw more and more money at it, at an unaffordable rate. We prefer to do things in a measured fashion. We prefer to do things in a way that is affordable for New Zealanders but still delivers better outcomes for young New Zealanders.

I am proud of the effort that this Government is putting into supporting families in need. I am proud of the effort that this Government is putting in to support those who need social investment by the Government, not just a handout in perpetuity. There are far fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes because of the reforms that Paula Bennett has put through. There are far fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes because their fathers and their mothers have jobs. There are far fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes because the average wage rate is rising under this Government. We are proud of that. We are positive about that. We are happy to talk about our plan. If we could, for once, hear from the Labour Party about what it would do, it would be quite refreshing. I do not suspect we ever will. I do not suspect we should expect it.

Sue Moroney: My 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, for a start.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: There is the one-trick pony again, over there. She lost six elections to different National MPs, but she has got her one trick to play. It is never going to get there—never going to get there—because it is unaffordable for New Zealanders right now. But we are actually delivering results for New Zealanders.

I also want to talk about the health system. The health system is delivering more operations for New Zealanders as well. Annette King likes to come to the House and tell the House that, supposedly, there is billions of dollars of under-investment in health. If there is such a dire situation in the health system, how come we are able to deliver 50,000 more operations every year for New Zealanders? Every year 50,000 people are getting the operations that they never got under the last Labour Government. We have increased the health budget, like we have increased other budgets, but we have done so in a way that delivers better public services for New Zealanders. We have done so in a way that sees better results for New Zealanders.

Being in Government is not just about throwing money at certain areas. It is about getting results and getting a better bang for your buck when you put the money in there. We are seeing that in the health system as we are seeing it in the education system and as we are seeing it in the law and order system in this country. On every measure that you can look at, when voters go to the polls and when voters talk to us as electorate MPs—electorate MPs, Sue Moroney—about the things that matter to them, they tell us about getting more jobs for their families. Well, we are ticking that box. They tell us about delivering more operations for their families. We are ticking that box. They talk to us about seeing their children getting a better education. We have ticked that box. They talk to us about seeing fewer crimes being committed in New Zealand, and we are ticking that box.

We have delivered, over a long period of time now, sensible Government that is delivering for New Zealanders. These bills, about imprest supply and the appropriations, will lead to greater investment in key areas for New Zealand. That will benefit New Zealanders going forward into the future.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill be now read a second time.

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.

Bills read a second time.

Bills

Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

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.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2016/17) Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 15 June.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, when we were on the first reading of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill, Mojo Mathers had the call, and she has 2 minutes remaining if she wishes. Does the member wish to take it? No. Very good.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am proud to rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party and my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau to speak to the first reading of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to introduce a public interest test to New Zealand’s anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime in a provision allowing for the duty to be deferred in cases of natural disaster and other emergencies. Dumping is a practice, for those of you who are not aware, where goods are sold at below cost, primarily as a means to drive local competitors out of business. Interestingly, it was Canada that first introduced such measures to counter US intrusions into its domestic market in 1904.

I will try to give a very simple example for those members of the public who are watching or listening at home, or perhaps even driving in their car, tuned in and listening to Parliament tonight. If another country produces too much of a material such as concrete and offers it to New Zealand, where we have a small concrete industry trying to compete within the domestic market, that concrete would flood our domestic market at a reduced price. Therefore, this could be seen as being an anti-competitive practice, especially for the example I have just provided, which is the small domestic concrete market.

How would this bill be considered to provide domestic industries with assurances that they can be protected against dumped, subsidised, and injurious imports?

Simon O'Connor: Is this what they call a concrete example?

RIA BOND: In international trade, dumping often has the effect of endangering the financial viability of manufacturers in the importer nation. You can still laugh, Mr Simon O’Connor. New Zealand First will always stand up in this House to protect local manufacturers and local businesses. We are the only political party with true conviction in our first belief that we must put New Zealand and New Zealanders first.

Hon Paula Bennett: Oh, please.

RIA BOND: It is interesting—if you did not know it then, you know it now, Mrs Bennett. It is interesting, is it not, this world of politics—it really is.

Today I wish to extend my wholehearted congratulations to Minister Coleman on the speed with which he and his Cabinet have pushed this bill to its first reading. What an accomplishment. It was only this month that that Cabinet agreed in principle to the bill, and here, tonight, we see it right before our very eyes, like the speed of lightning. Some may call this efficiency; others may call this something else. If this does not make us celebrate how efficient Minister Coleman is, it makes us worried about the motivation behind the how and the why this bill got to the House so quickly.

Anti-dumping measures are designed to limit or, ideally, prevent a company from selling goods below cost to drive local competitors out of business. The World Trade Organization has recognised that heavily subsidised markets overseas can undercut New Zealand businesses in the market place. Theoretically, having driven the domestic manufacturers out of business, large multinational companies are then free to use their mighty market powers to fleece the domestic customer. As you can imagine, New Zealand First is adamantly opposed to this tactic. The wider implications of this bill are of huge concern to us. The Minister talks about a public interest test, but this is limited, and we will seek to expand on this conversation further throughout the select committee process.

We agree, again, that the anti-dumping and countervailing measures are accepted devices in trade treaties. However, New Zealand First warns the Minister that unless applied in a considered and consistent approach, this could actually do more to repress competition and could actually encourage inefficiencies, despite what the Minister asserted in his speech. But, done right, our domestic producers can move forward, assured of the countervailing measures. The public interest test is, of course, imperative, and this supports a commerce and consumer affairs Minister whose stated outcome is to support New Zealand business. But the question mark still exists, as the explanatory note of the legislation describes the public interest test as involving “an assessment of the extent to which the cost, to New Zealand downstream industries and consumers, of imposing a duty would materially erode the benefit,”.

New Zealand First agrees that the test should allow for broader public interest elements such as competition and consumer welfare, so the question mark is the stand-alone provision empowering the Minister to defer, to not impose, to terminate, or to suspend. Clause 8 amends section 3 and provides a new definition of “emergency” that allows the Minister to trigger these self-appointed powers.

Again, another question mark is in relation to the public interest test. The Minister must consider only the cost to New Zealand downstream industries and New Zealand consumers—there is the first issue. Actually, that is a real issue, and it is huge. If the Minister considers it appropriate, the Minister may consider the domestic industry of a relevant third country.

Make no mistake, our support is for only the first reading of this legislation. It is imperative that the select committee process is able to take place. We reserve our final decision upon feedback from the New Zealand public and the experts in this space. Thank you.

SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to follow a call here. I will wait for counter-heckling. I am very pleased to talk on this Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. I am very pleased to hear that New Zealand First is supporting this to first reading. I think—and I assume, like all members of the House, actually—I am looking forward to the select committee process. We are engaging not only with the public at large but particularly with those in manufacturing who will be able to come in and speak to us, for us in turn to be able to hear and make some decisions.

I am not going to belabour the points around this bill; they have been well traversed by colleagues before me. The long and the short of it is that this is an attempt to put in a public interest test when it comes to dealing with dumping and duties. The long and the short of it is that at the moment our law, basically, allows duties to be put on to, obviously, protect manufacturers—rightly and understandably so. But there are circumstances and times where it is felt that the wider public good needs to be taken into account. One only needs to think of issues around housing, particularly residential housing, where we note that a number of products, actually, in New Zealand are relatively expensive. So this bill, amongst other things, is an opportunity for the Minister to be able to take a slightly wider view, and not simply view the placing or replacing of duties from a manufacturing point of view but to also look at what is good for the public.

What has not been touched on so much is a smaller but not unimportant provision, within the bill, and that is around the whole natural disaster aspect. The long and the short of that is that at times of natural disaster in this country provisions would kick into place, if this bill becomes an Act, where duties can be removed to, ultimately, allow produce and materials to come in to help us rebuild. But, as I said, I do not intend to belabour this. This is a relatively simple bill in terms of its intentions, but I certainly acknowledge that how it becomes expressed introduces a number of complexities, and I, like others who have spoken, am looking forward to the select committee process. I commend the bill, on its first reading, to the House.

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

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a short call to reaffirm the Green Party’s opposition to the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill, as has been flagged earlier by my colleague Mojo Mathers. As we have heard, dumping is a practice whereby a quantity of goods or products, be they primary produce or manufactured goods, whatever they might be, gets dumped into a country from some other place, usually below the cost of sale in the country of origin. I guess our fundamental objection to this legislation is that it further weakens the protection for New Zealand producers, New Zealand manufacturers—the people who actually produce things and make things and employ New Zealanders here in New Zealand. I think those protections are already weak.

We know that we are one of the least subsidised countries in the world, particularly in areas like primary production, and that in a sense is something to be proud of. Certainly, I was pleased to be at the Ballance Farm Environment Awards last week—the national finals after a series of regional finals. There is some pride within our primary production sector in the fact that it is not subsidised to any significant extent and yet it manages to compete very well against producers who are. So our belief is that this introduction of a new consumer interest criterion will simply lead to a reduction in the protection afforded to our already quite exposed producers.

That is OK—New Zealand producers and manufacturers expect to compete, but the Greens have long argued that fair trade is different from free trade. Free trade is basically open slather. It is a race to the bottom. It is about price compared with value. We think that fair trade is actually a much broader and a more structured position to take, and I think that this legislation will take us away from that notion of protection of our producers and our manufacturers—who can compete, but they must be in a position where they compete fairly and on something like an even footing. Dumping obviously counts very much against that.

The central debate is whether we protect local industry and jobs or allow allegedly greater consumer choice, increase competition, and provide cheaper goods. All of those latter three might on the face of it appear OK but it is about short-term or long-term thinking. Yes, if we allow some country to dump a quantity of goods here, whatever they might be, then, yes, in the short term it means the consumer buys a product at a lower price than they would otherwise. But what about the supply chain locally? What if some primary produce is dumped in New Zealand and it, effectively, means that 1 year’s harvest from our local providers suddenly does not have a market or at least a market at a price that assures even a reasonable return—a recovery of costs to the producer? That could be sufficient to send producers out of business.

We know that primary production is not a place for the faint-hearted. A bad season due to weather or whatever, then suddenly the dumping of goods on our market here could be enough to undermine the integrity, the investment, and the employment opportunities of a given production, of a given supply chain. Similarly, with the notion of competition, New Zealand companies and primary producers can and do compete, but it is important that they be able to compete fairly. How can New Zealand producers compete on price when they are obliged to meet the cost of the regulation that we in Parliament impose on them?

Minimum wage requirements, health and safety requirements, environmental waste management laws—these sorts of things all impose costs on producers and manufacturers, and that is as it should be. How and why ought our manufacturers and our producers be obliged to compete with producers who are not constrained by labour laws, by health and safety laws, or by appropriate environmental regulation? We see the weakening of the protection of our local producers and manufacturers that would emerge almost inevitably from this bill, because it is a reflection of short-term thinking. It is about grabbing a cheap price now rather than thinking about the long-term consequence. It is about a cheap price, rather than addressing issues of value. We will continue to oppose this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call the Hon David Cunliffe—5 minutes.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to take a short, 5-minute call in support of this bill and thus join with most members around the House. I will just run over the arguments, which I think are being validly raised, of the member who has just resumed his seat, David Clendon, on behalf of the Green Party.

Let us firstly acknowledge the definition of what dumping is. Dumping is when country A sells goods or sometimes services into county B at a price that is lower than they are domestically available for in country A. As the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the bill says, that is not technically illegal in itself in most countries, but it has been, first under GATT and then the World Trade Organization rules, subject to anti-dumping levies or countervailing duties from country B, the recipient country, if country B feels it is harming its domestic industry.

For New Zealand this has quite a long history. It is a type of provision that, historically, we have relied upon to protect some of our exports in third markets, where we might be country C. Let us say it is a market for milk in the Middle East. Country A—let us say it is a European country—dumps milk powder into a Middle Eastern country that we export to. We, of course, do not like that practice because we do not want to see our products undercut. So there are real downsides to dumping, and that is why the world trade rules allow for both anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties.

What does this bill, then, do to change that framework? This bill allows a discretion to the Minister, and sets out criteria by which the Minister will apply the discretion, to allow the suspension or the non-intervention of countervailing or anti-dumping duties for the purpose of benefiting consumers in the recipient country. The classic example of this—in fact, it is the reason that is stated both in the Cabinet paper and the regulatory impact statement—was the building and construction industry in Christchurch. I see we have a few Christchurch colleagues around the House. There was, I think, legitimate concern by the Government that a very concentrated market for importation and goods supply chain meant that prices were way higher than they should have been. This legislation is one of a number of measures that I think were rightly introduced to seek some downward pressure on those prices. I think that we on this side of the House would say that that is a legitimate goal. We want people to be able to rebuild their homes and their lives after the Christchurch earthquake without undue profit margins going to just a couple of supply chain companies. That is fair enough.

The issue here—and this is where we acknowledge the argument the Greens have raised, but we do not agree with it, at least not at this stage—is that this is a good place to start to have the interests of consumers at heart. Otherwise, you often reinforce monopolistic behaviour by producers. So we like the consumer interest test and we agree with the idea that the Minister should have to weigh up the pros and cons of the national interest, the consumer interest, and the precedent that is set by allowing a dumping practice. I think there is a reasonable quality of cost-benefit analysis in the Cabinet and the regulatory impact papers, and in some cases, such as building products, they come out on the side of saying that there would be a good pro-consumer case for not imposing duties.

We think that we should pass this bill. We think, however, that we should be carefully monitoring how it is applied and the effects that it has.

Just to sum up, dumping is where one country sells or exports goods to another country at a price that is lower than they are available for at home. When that occurs it is technically called dumping. It is not technically illegal under world trade rules, but it does give the recipient country the right to respond, if it feels it is being harmed, by imposing an anti-dumping levy or a countervailing duty. Cabinet—and we agree that in this case there is a probable cause—has brought this legislation in to give the Minister a discretion to suspend or not impose those duties in some cases where the national interest benefits. The example given was building products supply for the Christchurch earthquake. Let us give the Minister the discretion, let us see how it is used, and let us carefully monitor the results.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill’s first reading. New Zealand is a signatory to many World Trade Organization agreements, and this bill addresses one of those—which is where, according to the World Trade Organization agreements, anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties can be imposed if New Zealand feels that there is a dumping of some products. The Government wants to ensure that New Zealand has a competitive market where consumers get the best value for money. As a counterpart, we also want to protect our manufacturers so that the products that are produced overseas cannot be sold under value in New Zealand.

The bill introduces a test to the anti-dumping regime that will better balance consumer interest with those of the manufacturers threatened by unfairly priced imports. By introducing a public interest test, the regime can now consider whether consumers are benefiting from the lower price, and greater choice, availability, and quality, and whether this outweighs the effects on the industry. It is very important because we have got a very small manufacturing base in New Zealand and we want to protect that. We also want to protect that consumers should get the best-quality product at the cheaper price. We need to understand that these are the things that affect our economy.

The example that most of the speakers have given is of construction. You might remember that some time ago the Government asked for this study to compare the pricing of construction products in New Zealand and Australia, and it was found the Australian products were much cheaper than New Zealand. That is why the Minister at that time recommended that we should reduce the duty on imports of construction materials so that construction in New Zealand could be competitive and the pricing of housing—which was skyrocketing—could be controlled. These are some of the measures that the Minister can do with this bill’s introduction. Once the select committee process is over and the bill is passed through Parliament, the Minister will have more tools to ensure that there is the right competition in the market. With these words, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill, and, as my colleagues have signalled, Labour is supporting this legislation. We are keen to see this legislation go to a select committee so that some of the questions that have arisen in this debate and, I am sure, others that will be raised by submitters can be teased out.

As speakers before me have outlined, the purpose of this bill is to introduce a public interest test into New Zealand’s anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime, and essentially this changes laws to allow goods into the country without duties being imposed on them if it is considered that consumers will benefit. That is the critical part of this legislation. It is about getting that balance right—about balancing how a consumer will benefit from these changes against the need to protect local industries—and that is the debate that we are hearing in this House. We are saying that we do not want to see our local industries destroyed but we do need to put in place a regime that sees that consumers will benefit, and that is what the public interest test that is going to be introduced under this legislation will do. It will give us the tools to weigh up whether or not there is a public interest in this—whether or not ordinary people, when they go down and look to purchase certain goods and materials, are going to benefit from this.

There is a more general ability to do this, and my colleague David Cunliffe spoke about that in his contribution, but there is specifically pointed to in the legislation an ability to do this in the period following a natural disaster. I think that we do need to think about what happens to a supply chain when you have a rapid increase in demand and there is just no way that the local suppliers can meet that demand, and that is what we have seen in the case of the Christchurch rebuild.

I think it is worth going back and thinking about the genesis of this legislation. We know that the bill came out of the Productivity Commission’s 2012 report on housing affordability and that that is where this idea first came from. This is a report that was presented to the Government in 2012, and here we are in 2016 debating this measure. Some could say that it is a little bit too late and it is no wonder that we have not done the things that we need to do to address the really real and critical issues of housing affordability, because this is 4 years on from the Government being alerted and this is a measure—it is not a silver bullet, but it is a measure—that could have been introduced to address some of those issues.

There was the report to the Government. It directed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to undertake a market-level study into the construction sector to identify barriers to improved housing affordability. The regulatory impact statement that sits alongside this bill explains that the ministry identified tariffs and anti-dumping duties on residential construction materials as two barriers to competition and productivity, and it went on to give some specificity around those claims. So this is legislation that is born out of a particular need in our country at the moment.

But after that report it came through that there was another phase of some consultation, where the public did have a chance to have their say on some measures that were going to be introduced under this legislation. One of the things that came through really clearly in that public consultation, which was carried out throughout 2014, when the discussion paper was released, was that there was a range of opinions. Twenty submissions were received on the discussion paper. Thirteen submitters expressed support for the status quo, while seven submitters supported the adoption of the public interest test. A range of questions were raised in these submissions, whether it was the people who were supporting the status quo or the submitters who actually did want to see the introduction of a public interest test, and they are questions that the select committee will need to consider when this legislation goes before that committee.

One question will be around the limits of the test: what are the parameters that we are putting in place, and whether it is fit for purpose in order to address the issues that have been spelt out, which the legislation is trying to address. What we learn from the legislation, in terms of when the imposition of a duty is being investigated as to whether it is in the public interest, is that the chief executive of the relevant Government department that administers the bill must investigate the following issues. They must look at “the effect of the duty on the prices of the dumped or subsidised goods:”. They must look at “the effect of the duty on the prices of like goods produced in New Zealand:”, so this is very much having a look at what the impact of making these changes will do to our local industries. They must look at “the effect of the duty on the choice or availability of like goods:”. They must look at “the effect of the duty on product and service quality:”. They must look at “the effect of the duty on the financial viability of the domestic industry:”, so we can see that many of these tests are there to ensure that we do not destroy our domestic industries in the process. They must look at “the effect of the duty on employment levels:”, and this is going to be a critical test. We do not want to see goods coming in without the proper thought given to what it does to jobs here in New Zealand. They must look at “whether there is an alternative supply … of like goods available:” and any other factor the chief executive considers might be important.

So these are going to be really important criteria for the select committee to consider, and I am sure that the submitters who will submit on this legislation will address those. Are these the right criteria that we are putting in place for making these decisions? Are these the things—or are there more—that should be considered when deciding whether or not to apply this legislation? It will also need to be considered how this legislation, and how allowing these goods in, will fit with our international obligations. This was something that was raised when there was the call for public submissions in the discussion document, so I am sure something the select committee will need to consider is how this fits within other trade agreements and with the other objectives of the World Trade Organization, of which we are part, and how New Zealand is seen to fulfil its obligations there.

As I have mentioned many times, one of the things I am sure the select committee will turn its mind to and give good consideration to when the bill appears in front of that group of parliamentarians is the impact on local industries, and that will be something. One of the other issues—and there will be many, but another issue that I picked up from the regulatory impact statement that was raised in the initial round of consultation on the discussion document was the complexity in administering the rules that are put in place. Are we making a set of rules where it is possible for them to be administered and for them to be checked that they are being applied in a fair and even-handed way?

So these are all questions that the select committee will turn its attention to and I am sure that it will give due consideration to them because these are really important questions that do need to be addressed, and I think that everybody knows that. But we do have to ensure that we are getting that balance right between making sure that our consumers are getting a fair deal and making sure that our local industries are also receiving a fair deal.

I think we have a number of case studies where we can have a look at what happens in a place after a natural disaster, like Christchurch, where you do have the normal demand and supply mechanisms severely upturned. But what we do have to realise here is that this legislation, although it seems sensible—and Labour is always happy to consider sensible trade legislation, and consider it at a select committee. We are more than happy to do that, but we cannot kid ourselves that this is the big idea that we need in terms of how we grow our economy and how we provide the kinds of incomes that we need so that all New Zealanders can get a fair deal. This is not the big ideal that will get us exports reaching the Government’s goal of 40 percent of GDP. This is tinkering around the edges.

We are happy to support this. We think there are questions and fishhooks that need to be addressed at a select committee, and we certainly will play our part in that.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in this first reading of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker, Dr Megan Woods, has been talking about, this is not the big ideal. Well, we would agree. This is not the big ideal. This is one part of a comprehensive plan.

If I focus on this bill in particular, there have been lots of comments in regard to the construction industry, obviously. There was a study that was conducted in 2013, in fact, it was the residential construction sector market study, and Cabinet papers clearly indicate that after that study was considered—it was in 2014 when Cabinet considered this—Cabinet considered suspending the tariffs that were in the construction industry. That was important. So there was some comment about why it has taken so long. That period of 3 years is quite critically important. Any cost-benefit analysis has to be done over a period of time, hence the reason for that period of 3 years from when that was considered in 2014.

The other thing is when we think about the construction industry and we think about, I suppose, the cause and effect of the removal of the tariffs at that time. One of the things that is of concern when we think about housing and construction is the way that the removal of tariffs is quantified in cases both here and abroad. In particular, if we think about Australia, to give an example, it is costed and quantified per square metre. At that time the averages were around—so, for instance, in Australia the average build, from design to build, to a code of compliance and completion, to handing over the keys to the new owners, the average cost is around about $1,200, given the exchange rate for us, as well.

If we think about what the comparative cost of that is in New Zealand, it is around about $2,500. If you were to do the sums, the average house of 150 square metres would cost around about $375,000. That is just to build and complete. We know with that costing there had to be some means in there for us to be able to try to capture that cost and try to reduce it so that our consumers could benefit from this—hence the reason for reducing those tariffs was quite critically important. There have been a lot of lessons that have been learnt from that.

The previous speaker, Megan Woods, talked about the regulatory impact statement, which talked about that. One of the things that did come out of that was that although costs had been reduced, when we think about certain building requirements that were there—in fact, in paragraph 34 of the regulatory impact statement, it talks about that. It is talking about reinforcing steel and coil, plasterboards, nails, and so forth. They were just part of a test to see the reduction that that would have.

But one of the things that did come out of that, hence the clause in this bill, which is critically important, is the public interest test in the regulatory impact statement. They call it the “BPIT”—better public interest test—and that is to ensure that consumers would benefit. So although we can reduce tariffs, and for the manufacture and the supplier there may be an added benefit, what was not clear was seeing how the consumer was also benefiting from the reduction of the tariffs.

So we are happy to hear that the support is across the House, bar the Greens. We think that actually at the select committee we will hear from submitters from the sector. We will hear from those who are consumers. We think that will give us a good indication about the direction that this bill is taking. We think the discretion that has been afforded to the Minister is important to that as well. So we support this bill in its first reading to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

Bills

Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 June.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): When we were last on the second reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, Dr David Clark had the call and has 8 minutes remaining.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): When I was rudely interrupted, I had just read through a letter from the Catholic social justice agency Caritas—and I had to read it quickly because I had only a minute and a half before the House rose—to illustrate the point that this law that we are looking at passing in this House is something that will disrupt family life. It is a change that I do not believe we need to make.

Caritas, the Catholic agency for justice, peace, and development, sent the Commerce Committee chair and the members of that select committee a letter. I wish to read the first couple of paragraphs. It said: “Dear Melissa Lee, I am writing to follow up on the invitation I issued last week to you and your fellow members of the Commerce select committee to come to our Caritas office for an Easter Sunday meeting to discuss the proposed changes to Easter trading in the shop hours amendment bill. The meeting is for 10.30 a.m. on Sunday, 21 March at the Caritas office in Hill Street, Thorndon, Wellington. We, ourselves, have plans to be with family, community, and church on that day but we are willing to sacrifice those plans to help you understand the impact of having to work on Easter Sunday.”

As far as I am aware, no members—not one—from that committee attended the meeting, or even voiced a desire to attend that meeting, and I think we have a fundamental problem in this House when we have people willing and able and keen to pass laws that they themselves will not be affected by and that they do not imagine they will ever be affected by. They are happy to dictate that other people should be at the beck and call of their employers on Easter Sunday when they themselves would never undertake such a thing, even on a one-off occasion such as that suggested in this letter from Caritas.

So I want to say that this particular piece of legislation is a step further down a slope that we have been going down where working people are deprived of the few rights that they have left in this country to enjoy time with their families and to pursue hobbies and to build the social fabric that makes New Zealand the special place that it is, which we have all grown up in.

I was also looking through the risk analysis prepared on this bill and I discovered that it was limited because the direction had been given by the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety that this was going to be a very simple way of doing things—the way the Minister wanted to do it, looking at no other options. The conclusion we find in this is that there are risks with the proposed amendment. It says the general public, businesses, and employees could find the changes “complex and confusing,”.

This by-law is complex and confusing. It expects that local authorities will have to make the decision. The responsibility for making these decisions, for implementing policy, and for writing the policy, and all the costs that go with it, will be shoved at local government. It does not make things less complex in reality; it actually makes them more complex. It will make New Zealand more of a patchwork than it already is. It does not achieve the stated purpose that Mr Woodhouse has been claiming for the bill, which is that it will sort out the issue of Easter trading, and we have already seen that members of this House—certainly on the Government benches—have voted against similar legislation. We will find, no doubt, amongst local governments around the country a difference of opinion, and if we look in this House we see that difference of opinion.

We see that Mr English has voted three times against a similar bill, we see that Mr Brownlee has voted three times against similar bills, we see that Chester Borrows has voted on four occasions against similar bills, and we find that newer members of the House have voted consistently against similar bills. Alfred Ngaro, Tim Macindoe, and Sam Lotu-Iiga have voted with their consciences against bills like this in the past. It will be very interesting to see whether the Government members vote with a similar conscience this time, or whether, maybe, they have changed their minds dramatically for some reason, now that this has become a Government bill.

I certainly have been consistently opposed to this kind of change in our legislation, and I shall be voting against it because I believe that New Zealand families do not need that limited private time that they have, that limited time they can plan to be together, eroded any further than it already is. It is very limited in this day and age. When I was a kid, Sundays were generally retail-free. Those days are gone. They exist in other countries around the world. Other countries see fit to have days that do not involve retail, and they still seem to tick over. Plenty of European countries have very few shops open on a Sunday. But here we are, proposing that those last remaining days of the year that people have to spend with their friends and families will be taken away from them so that they cannot plan holidays together out of town and they cannot plan a long weekend, and those who wish to have religious observances, for example, cannot necessarily guarantee to have those.

The Minister tried to give us assurances that if employees said they did not want to do it there would be no repercussions, but we know what hollow words those were because we know that as workers become more and more vulnerable as more and more of their rights are eroded, working people feel the pressure from their bosses, particularly those who would want to open 24/7. That is where working New Zealanders are most vulnerable. So I want to contend that it is not just for those workers but also for their families. Those working people have families that depend on them and want to spend time with them, and when employers who are not implementing this bill want to spend time with their spouses and families, they will no longer be able to guarantee that.

I know that when I put a bill through this House that Mondayised a couple of holidays, what I was surprised to learn—a little surprised, and maybe I should not have been—was that the majority of employers were in favour of an extra public holiday. They were either in favour of or neutral towards it—87 percent were either in favour of or neutral towards another public holiday—and I think that was, in part, because the majority of employers are small employers and they also want to spend time with their friends and family. They know that that time has been set aside, not that they have the time for themselves set aside because they are employers and they can choose and they cannot see their families because they are required to work at short notice.

So that is why I shall be standing against this bill, and I suspect many of my colleagues will too because they care about working New Zealanders, unlike the crowd opposite, who are happy to see wages eroded year after year for working New Zealanders. We on this side—at least those I have spoken to—will be opposing this bill. We want to see New Zealanders with more rights, more opportunities for leisure time, better incomes, and the ability to pursue the Kiwi Dream of owning their own home, bettering their lot through education, and so forth. That is why I shall be opposing this bill. I think it is a bad bill. It is bad law, and I think those opposite who support it but who are not themselves willing to give up their Easter Sundays should be ashamed.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill in its second reading. Before I start talking about the bill I just want to respond to David Clark, the member who has just taken his seat. He mentioned the letter from Caritas, and I just want to tell that member that I did, in fact, reply to that letter. I was, in fact, working on part of that holiday and I was not able to travel down to Wellington, but I was in Wellington and I did invite those people and said that if they were in Auckland, I would be very happy to meet with them. So the member is quite wrong if he thinks that somebody did not actually respond to them—just correcting that fact.

This bill amends the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act of 1990 to grant territorial authorities the limited power to create by-laws, and if the select committee had had its way, there would have been a local policy surrounding shop trading hours trading on Easter Sunday to ensure the right of shop workers to refuse work on that day, as well. It was the main agenda item in the Commerce Committee over the last few months and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues and also the committee secretariat, who have actually put a lot of hours into this bill, for their support during the submissions and hearings process. I believe it was a comprehensive discussion for the committee and I thank the members of the committee, even though we did not come to an agreement to support the bill. We had disagreements, and that has to be respected. It is, after all, a democracy in this country.

The current rules around shop trading on Easter Sunday are, in fact, outdated, I believe, and need to reflect the changing requirements of New Zealand. Tourism in New Zealand is affected by uneven requirements—actually, uneven benefits—that have been grandfathered to certain townships and districts. Complex trading rules are hard for small businesses to work out as they are confusing, and the trading rules are, in fact, confusing. For example, Rotorua could not trade on Easter Sunday, but its neighbouring town could; Queenstown could, but its neighbouring districts could not. That was one of the main discussions we have had. As a committee, we read over one hundred written submissions and listened to a number of oral submissions. These submissions were wide ranging. They were from businesses and organisations small and large, as well as from members of the public, and I thank those who made submissions for participating in our parliamentary processes.

The submissions were actually quite clear in wanting to maintain the significance of Easter Sunday as an important day in the New Zealand cultural calendar, and they were clear in wanting clarity in the law for New Zealand trading. I know that the member opposite who just took his seat also mentioned the fact that Easter is, in fact, a day for families, and I do agree. Those people who celebrate Easter and mark the date for Easter actually think of it as a day that they need to spend time with family, but there are other communities that do not actually look upon Easter as such.

I am pleased with the recommendations that my National Party colleagues have made in the committee and I wish to bring some of those recommendations to the House as they are important for the discussion of this bill, I believe. These recommendations will ensure that employees’ rights are, in fact, protected and that local policy is implemented rather than a series of by-laws, which local districts actually said might be a little too expensive and difficult to implement. At the moment, the law is unclear as to whether employees can actually refuse to do non-trading work on Easter Sunday, such as stocktaking or even maintenance work, which is actually not trading work. This recommendation by my colleagues would see the rights of the worker put first to ensure that they can, in fact, have their day of significance without interference or prejudice, and they can actually refuse to work. A worker must have an option to refuse work on Easter Sunday without the repercussion of their employment relationship falling through. One of the key ways that we can do this is to clarify the meaning of “treat[ing] an employee adversely” to be defined the same way as section 67F of the Employment Relations Act 2000. This would ensure that benefits, such as skills, promotion, or training opportunities, are not denied to them, and that they are not dismissed or unduly treated for choosing to refuse to work on Easter Sunday.

One of the things that was quite apparent during the submission process was that many people are led to believe that Easter Sunday is, in fact, a public holiday. It is not a public holiday. Good Friday and Easter Monday are, in fact, public holidays, but Easter Sunday is not a public holiday. It is a restricted trading day. A lot of people—

Sue Moroney: Was a restricted trading day.

MELISSA LEE: Ha, ha! The Easter holiday is a significant day for many people. This is important to remember because some people will be expected to work on that day, but will have no time in lieu or extra pay when they work. I think it is the right of the workers to say to their employers: “Actually, those are the days that I find very significant for my religion, for my family, and if I want to refuse to work, I should not be prejudiced as a result of refusing to work.” I think that extra protection that we could have provided through this bill we could not actually agree on during the Commerce Committee process.

The tourism industry needs this law change, I believe. To paraphrase the Deputy Mayor of Queenstown Lakes District Council, people come from all around the world and they expect certain levels of service. The current law is damaging to our reputation as a great place to visit. As long as we have a nation forbidding local communities to make a call about how they want to operate during Easter Sunday, this will be an ongoing debate and an ongoing problem for the tourism market in our great country. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recently released some data about tourism numbers, and the international visitor tourism spend increase actually went up by 10 percent, which is helping to grow our economy and helping to employ more New Zealanders in the tourism sector. It is important for members of this House and the local communities to understand that businesses should not expect any additional cost as a result of the passage of this bill. The bill, if anything, will help them grow their businesses during the period where thousands of expats come home for the holidays—even local New Zealanders travel between cities to have a family holiday.

One of the key arguments against letting communities decide for themselves as to whether they should have Easter Sunday off or not is that it is supposed to be a family day and that they should have a family holiday. My response to them is to ask why a day with the family cannot involve the shops. Often Easter Sunday is a day a lot of families actually do DIY projects as a family—I know that whenever there is a public holiday my mum drags me to the garden centre to get plants so we can take it back and plant the garden or change over the plants that she had that have died, or something. It is a family time that we do actually spend together, and I think it is important.

In summary, I believe that this bill is important, and it is, in fact, important for New Zealand. It will also provide the means for local businesses and communities to work out whether they actually want to trade on Easter Sunday, and I think empowering the local communities to decide for themselves is important. I think we have provided that through this bill, and it is only a shame that we as a select committee could not actually agree on that. Hopefully, during the Committee stage we might have more debates on this. I commend this bill.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): There is a number of reasons to vote against this legislation.

Hon David Cunliffe: There are.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, there is a number. There is a number; there are several reasons.

Hon David Cunliffe: Oh, very good.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes. No worries. So there is a number of reasons to vote against this legislation. It really does not matter what side of the debate members are on in the substance of the legislation. It is actually a very poor piece of legislation, and it should be voted down simply on the grounds that it is just bad lawmaking, but I want to address the issues both of the quality of the bill and of the substance of the bill.

So, first of all, what we are talking about here is actually taking away from workers one of the days that workers have the absolute legislated right not to have to go to work; one of just 3½ days that are set out in New Zealand law where shops cannot open and the workers who would ordinarily work in those shops actually have the legislated right to spend time with their families and their communities. It just so happens, because of the history of our nation and the way we have developed, that those days mostly are based around Christian festivals—Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day morning. Personally, I am not particularly wedded to the Christian festivals, although I know for a lot of members that is an important aspect of this. I am not. What I am interested in is the fact that we actually set aside some days—really not that many, but some days—that are for families and communities, some days where we just take a break from consumerism, where we just say that, actually, on these few days, 3½ days out of the year, we are going to put families and community first. That is actually what the shop trading restrictions currently do.

In effect, what this legislation is doing is taking away one of those 3½ days. It is being done in the name, apparently, of tourism. Pardon me if I am unconvinced by the argument that tourist operators desperately need to be able to operate on Easter Sunday, but it is OK that they remain closed on Good Friday, 2 days beforehand. It is OK, apparently, to keep Good Friday as a restricted day where shops cannot open and tourism operations cannot operate. That is OK. That is not having a detrimental impact on tourism, having Good Friday as a restricted day, but for some reason Easter Sunday, just 2 days later, has to be liberalised.

I have not yet heard a cogent argument from anybody why that makes sense. In fact, from submitters at the Commerce Committee I heard the opposite. Submitters—Retail New Zealand, Hospitality New Zealand—came to the select committee and said there was actually no logical argument for liberalising trading on Easter Sunday and not doing it on Good Friday or Christmas Day or Anzac Day morning. So are they next? Once this battle is over, if the Government gets its way, is that what happens next? Do we go to Good Friday next? Do we suddenly get the argument that tourism will collapse if we do not allow trading to occur throughout the entire Easter weekend? Or will it be Christmas Day? Is that what comes next? I am not usually one who buys in to the slippery slope argument. These were arguments that were made by the people who support this legislation—that there was actually no logical reason to pick out Easter Sunday, and we should be doing the same on Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day morning. So that is something that I think members need to think about.

Ultimately, to me it comes down to that simple fact: that workers actually deserve some days where they are allowed to have the day off, where they can put their families and their communities first. That is sort of the substance of the argument.

What about the bill itself? The major failure with this legislation is that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Michael Woodhouse, got up in his first reading speech and told us that one of the problems with Easter trading currently is that there are different rules for different areas. So Queenstown and Wānaka have different rules. Rotorua has a different set of rules from—somewhere else that is nearby that I cannot recall. This legislation does not solve that. This does not solve that issue.

If anything, it makes it worse, because territorial authorities up and down the country will have different rules. From my part of the country, Palmerston North and Feilding are 15 minutes away from each other. People like to shop in both of those, usually on the same day. People come to Palmerston North for conferences and sports events. They often go out to Feilding as part of their experience. Two different territorial authorities—potentially two completely different sets of rules. Right there, one of the Government’s main arguments for proposing this legislation is completely undermined, because it said that the whole idea of this legislation was to get rid of those inconsistencies between territorial authorities. All this legislation does is set up the opportunity for an even greater level of inconsistency across the country.

Why has the Government chosen that path? Well, the answer to that is simple. That is that if it actually took on the responsibility of allowing Easter Sunday trading—which is a Government responsibility, not a local body responsibility—it would not get it through its own caucus. It does not have the support of enough National Party MPs to get that bill through Parliament. That is the truth. That is the reason why the Government has chosen this course of action—not because it is the smarter course of action, not because it is more efficient, not because it makes more sense, but because what it wants to do is get rid of the restrictions on Easter trading altogether.

But National Party MPs will not let that happen, so, instead, it is foisting the responsibility on to poor old local government—local government that the National Party likes to berate for putting its rates up, saying that it is creating unnecessary costs for ratepayers. Yet this Government, because it cannot get something through its own caucus, is prepared to cause unnecessary cost for every single council in the country. This is a poor piece of legislation, created because the Minister could not convince his own caucus to support what he wanted to do, and, frankly, if the Minister has not got enough power of persuasion to do that, he should not kick the can down the road to the poor old councils.

On that ground alone, Parliament should vote this bill down, regardless of where members sit on the argument of should we or should we not set aside Easter Sunday as a day for families and communities. This is a bad piece of legislation that dispatches a central government responsibility on to local government, at a cost to every single one of those councils—a significant cost to every single one of those councils. I know the Government is going to bring Supplementary Order Paper 179 that proposes that we change the responsibility of the councils from a by-law to a policy. The councils told us that that will not make one iota of difference to their costs. Every single council that came and submitted at the select committee said: “Do not make this our responsibility. It is your responsibility, not the local government’s responsibility. Do not make us carry the can on this one.” Even those that support the concept said that they did not want the responsibility. They did not want the cost. So the bill fails on that front as well.

We know that this has traditionally been a conscience vote. The National Party MPs have been effectively whipped into supporting this. I will be interested to know how some National MPs, if this legislation passes—what position they plan to take if their councils actually seek to liberalise Easter Sunday trading. I will be very, very interested to know how some of those MPs will actually position themselves on that. But the message is simple: this is a bad piece of legislation. It creates unnecessary cost for councils and it takes from workers their right to have a day that is set aside for their family and their communities. I urge members to vote it down.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, a bill that does not take away rights but offers choice. It offers choices to communities to express, through their local authorities, whether they would like to see shops able to open on what is currently a restricted trading day. It offers the choice for those territorial authorities to accede to the wishes of their communities, or not. If they do pass a by-law or a policy that permits trading, it gives choice to businesses as to whether or not they choose to open. Lastly and most importantly, the bill offers the ultimate choice to each employee as to whether or not they wish to work on that Easter Sunday. Should they choose not to, it has provisions to provide protection for that employee, particularly if the employer seeks to take some advantage or later consequential action for that choice. It is a bill that is all about choice.

I would like to speak about a couple of elements around the select committee process, particularly the submissions from local bodies. But before I get to that, I think one of the reasons we now find ourselves in a second reading debate with a bill returned to the House without amendment—just in its bar 1 form—is the comprehension failure on the other side of the House, which is exhibited tonight by the speaker who has just taken his seat, Iain Lees-Galloway. His claim is that this bill would enforce costs on every local authority across the country. He is 100 percent wrong, and could not be further wrong, because he sat in the Commerce Committee for this item of business. It was made very clear to the members of the committee that councils could choose to maintain the status quo, and that if they chose to maintain the status quo there would be no costs of a by-law or a policy or any other measure, Mr Lees-Galloway. So his statement just shows that the member there has no fundamental understanding of the bill, and so he is hardly in a great position to recommend to others whether they should support or oppose it.

But that brings me to the select committee, because the select committee did seek to undertake work—or the members on this side sought to undertake work—to improve the bill. There were a number of amendments that, we feel, had the bill made it through the select committee process with the tracked changes adopted, would have improved it. Being a first-term MP, I can say that most occasions are learning occasions, and I have been told by colleagues on both sides of the House that in the past Opposition members—and a great example of this that I was given was Sir Michael Cullen—felt that it was their duty to work constructively in a select committee to improve a bill, even if, ultimately, when the bill returned to the House, they would oppose it. In this particular instance, the Opposition members chose to do the opposite.

Sue Moroney: Oh, like you did with the paid parental leave bill, for example? The National Party did the same with the paid parental leave bill.

BRETT HUDSON: They chose, instead of improving the bill and returning it to the House in a better form, to use the power of their equal number of votes to have all changes thrown out.

I heard the member opposite making some noise about other bills. Well, I can say from the limited experience I have had in this term that, if I look at bills like Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave bill at the Government Administration Committee and the Official Information Act amendment bill under Adrian Rurawhe that recently passed, the Government members on the Government Administration Committee worked constructively to help make amendments for each of those bills, taking on board the message that had been given to me that our duty is to at least ensure that a bill, if it is returned to the House, returns in the best state it could be in.

Unfortunately, the members opposite, in this instance, do not think that that should apply to them. It is actually worse—there was an instance in a select committee meeting when one of the Labour members said: “Why are we even bothering doing this, because we’re just going to vote against it in the end anyway?”. That just left me with a cold chill, wondering whether, for the Labour Party members, democracy extends only to items that they agree with, because that seems to be, through their behaviour, what their philosophy is.

The other area I want to briefly touch on is the submissions from local bodies. In the early 2000s the previous Government passed a general competency clause in the Local Government Act, which gave local bodies a far wider remit to undertake actions, to spend money, and to take on projects than they had had in the past. Yet I have never yet heard a council say: “I don’t want to have general competence.” Similarly, I have never yet heard a councillor say “We, the council, do not want to take on board the wishes of the local community.”, except in this instance.

In this instance, what they want is they want central government to make a blanket statement for their local communities. They do not want the power, in this instance, to listen to their communities and give their communities what their communities want. It would seem to me, sitting on this committee, that there is a possibility that exists, at least amongst some of our territorial authorities, of a wish to have a wide range of powers, but as soon as a difficult problem comes along, to kick that up to central government and take away local choice, and have central government make the decision for them.

I hope that in the next stage we get some Supplementary Order Papers to put back some of those amendments into the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the call for this, the second reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, for the Greens. I had the privilege of sitting on the Commerce Committee, replacing my colleague Gareth Hughes for the submission process of this bill. I want to thank the chair and the permanent members for having me there.

As you are aware, the committee was unable to reach a decision, a majority decision, about this bill, which I think actually reflects just how vexed the whole issue is about retail trading on Easter Sunday. From my reading of the pages on the website, this is, I think, about the 10th bill on Easter Sunday trading that has come before the House since 1996. So it is about every 2 years that a bill like this appears. Actually, it is probably the reason why we have got bits and pieces and little amendments and exemptions all over the country, with some places allowed to open and some places not, which I think, quite frankly, is a bit of a dog’s breakfast.

This bill—this is the original bill—gives councils, territorial authorities, the ability to make a by-law to allow shops to open in their areas. To quote the Bills Digest, there are three parts of it: limit power to create by-laws, give shop workers the ability to refuse work on Easter Sunday without giving a reason, and enable shop employees to take a personal grievance if they were compelled to work on Easter Sunday or their employer treated them adversely as a result of their refusal to work on Easter Sunday. I am going to address a couple of those parts in turn.

The first part, which is about the councils—they cannot actually make a by-law. That is what we found out during the process, but they can, however, make a policy. That was the recommendation that that members on that side of the House were keen to put in as an amendment if the bill had been passed at the select committee, which it was not. Regardless of whether it is a policy or a by-law, there is still a special consultative procedure that has to occur. We heard from councils and from Local Government New Zealand that this is actually quite an expensive process because what it involves is consultation, calling for submissions, hearings, and deliberations—exactly what happens with a select committee, basically, but on a more regional scale.

All the councils that we heard from were concerned about the cost for the process: all that plus the cost of the staff who have to support that process. If we think about it, Parliament has got a lot more money sloshing around than our local councils do. So with the exception of a couple of councils—there were a couple like Rotorua—they expressed a clear preference for the Government to make decisions about whether shops should be open or not on Easter Sunday so that the ratepayers did not have to foot the bill, and at least there would be some consistency across the country. I agree with my colleague from Labour Iain Lees-Galloway that this bill is badly drafted law in the first instance but it is also, I believe, the only way it could get past National’s caucus.

My Green colleagues and I are all opposed to this bill because we do not actually believe that retail workers will be protected. They will not be able to tell their employer that they do not want to work on Easter Sunday. Their ability to take a personal grievance is extremely limited, particularly since just taking a personal grievance generally occurs only when the employment relationship is in breakdown, and if it was not in breakdown before the personal grievance was taken it is certainly going to be in breakdown after the personal grievance is taken, so what is the point?

There is also the issue of whether retail staff actually can take a personal grievance. Maybe if they are in a union—FIRST Union, which is the union for retail workers—they would be able to take a personal grievance and would have some protection. But in the retail sector there are an enormous number of shops that are small businesses, the worker is working alongside the employer, and they are not covered. They are not members of a union. In that case, they are unlikely to feel empowered to take a personal grievance. Given the low wages in the sector it is unlikely they will be able to afford a lawyer.

Our opposition also stems from the fact that there are only 3½ days a year when shops are closed. In the submission from FIRST Union, which represents retail staff, they refer to a Unicef report from 2007, which actually states that here in New Zealand our workforce has one of the lowest rates of family time in the world. Since that report in 2007 it has also been shown that we have some of the longest working hours in the world. I will just quote. They said: “Removing one of the few remaining protected family days will certainly not increase the quality of living of New Zealand families.”

I think we need to recognise that families are under stress, huge stress. Today’s data from Statistics New Zealand’s net worth survey shows that the top 10 percent of New Zealand households own half our country’s wealth while the bottom 40 percent of the households in this country own just 3 percent of the wealth. As our co-leader Metiria Turei said today, “When wealth inequality is this stark, it’s clear that the economy is broken.” I would wager—and I am not a betting person; I am the gambling spokesperson—that retail staff are not in that top 10 percent. They are more likely to be some of the 300,000 working people in this country today earning the minimum wage or close to the minimum wage. They are ordinary mums and dads who are spending longer and longer and longer hours at work to make ends meet. So if we take away one of their guaranteed days off then their families will suffer.

This bill will be a personal vote. I think it is about recognising that Easter Sunday is a religious holiday, and some MPs hold very strong views about the Christian sacred days. Last time a bill like this was voted on, Todd McClay’s member’s bill in 2009, National Party MPs Bill English, Chester Borrows, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Tim Macindoe, and Jonathan Young all voted against that bill. We are certainly hoping that tonight the members on that side of the House will not be whipped and that they will be able to vote with their consciences. We are asking that MPs choose what is right for families and for the communities because the economy works best when it is working for everyone. This bill does not help everyone.

I just want to reiterate that this is bad law and we really do need to kick it to touch. It is bad for councils, they do not like it; it is bad for retail staff; and it is bad for their families. I would urge MPs on that side of the House to use their personal votes to dump this bill. Thank you.

I seek leave to table an online petition that was organised by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, with 4,581 signatures, calling on MPs Peter Dunne and Te Ururoa Flavell to vote against the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that process? There is objection.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the second reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to allow the statutory restrictions on shops opening on Easter Sunday to be removed by granting territorial authorities the power to create by-laws to permit all shops to open in all or part of their districts on Easter Sunday.

This bill proposes to allow communities the choice about whether shops open on Easter Sunday in their district. New Zealand First disagrees with the purpose of the bill. If this were the case, then this bill would have provisions to allow for a local referendum, at a fraction of the cost of the proposed by-law mechanisms inside this bill. New Zealand First believes that this overarching assumption sets the tone of the legislation in its entirety but does not take into satisfactory consideration the degree of citizen engagement with local body decision-making processes.

The bill aims to achieve these means by granting territorial authorities a limited power to create by-laws that allow shop trading in defined areas within their boundaries on Easter Sunday, enabling shop workers the ability to refuse work on Easter Sunday without giving a reason, and enabling shop workers to bring a personal grievance against an employer who compels them to work on Easter Sunday or treats them adversely because of their refusal to work on Easter Sunday.

I do want to thank the Commerce Committee advisers for their patience throughout the process of the select committee going through this bill in its entirety. This bill has proven to be a very tricky bill and at times the members of the select committee agreed passionately to disagree in every way possible.

New Zealand First supported this bill in the first reading in order to allow the select committee to scrutinise this bill. This is a fundamental process of Government and allows for the knowledge of our advisers to assist the select committee in that process. The select committee had a good range of submitters. In total we had 107 submissions and we heard from 17 submitters orally. There was a good variety of submitters: from local councils, Churches, Family First, Caritas, the Retail and Wholesale Merchants Association of New Zealand, the Salvation Army, the tourism industry, and many more who took part in providing the select committee with their views on this particular bill, which overall actually had quite a common thread of concern.

Most councils felt that the decision-making process should remain at central government level. They did not want to make the decision for their local council to choose to create a by-law and have to actually enact that by-law. This was primarily due to the costs that they could not, in good conscience, pass on to their ratepayers, particularly when many districts already have significant financial challenges.

We have seen this in my home town of Invercargill where a proposed project to fund water mains had failed quite spectacularly and was under constant pressure, due to financial demands in other areas. Such a by-law would add more pressure on local councils, which could face costs ranging between $60,000 and $120,000. This cost was the catalyst for local councils throughout New Zealand to determine why the responsibility should sit with central government to make the decision.

New Zealand First feels very strongly that local councils should call for a local referendum, because this bill, for members of this House, will be a conscious vote.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: A conscious vote?

RIA BOND: So why not let the good people of our country—our ratepayers—decide as well. I am sure, Dr Coleman, that when you have got a cold you cannot say words properly either.

New Zealand First provided a minority report, through the select committee process. New Zealand First does not support any of the amendments presented to the Commerce Committee because the costs to councils would remain the same. The complexity of this bill would remain the same. The issues with this bill would also remain the same.

Fundamentally, the main purpose of this bill was initially to allow councils to consult with their communities regarding Easter Sunday trading, and that employees are given the opportunity to decline work without repercussion. However, this has unintended consequences on employees and employers, and I will give two example of this.

If a person on a job seeker’s benefit went to their first job interview and was called back to that same business for a second interview, when the clause becomes a condition to accepting the position for the employee but that potential employee declines to work on Easter Sunday due to the fact that they have an unveiling for a loved family member to attend, they will not get offered the job. They would then go back to Work and Income and tell them that they did not get the job because they were not available to work on Easter Sunday. What happens to these people then? I will tell you what happens to them. They will get stood down from their benefit, and this is clearly an unintended consequence for job seekers. This is just one example amongst many more that I can give on this particular issue within this bill.

If those workers who are actually already working in the workplace have their employer negotiate with them to work on Easter Sunday, and they decide to decline this request, then their employer will absolutely—and I understand this—be annoyed with their top-performing employee for not capturing the potential income that the employee could provide to the business. The relationship breaks down; the employee seeks the only method of protection, which is to take a personal grievance against their employer. This also goes vice versa. When that relationship breaks down further in the workplace and the employee decides to leave, to get a new job somewhere else, they must disclose that they took a personal grievance against their previous employer. This is tinkering with the provisions of employment and it is riddled with unintended consequences.

I would like to now briefly address the submission from Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand, which put forward a very strong submission that centred on the rights of family to spend time together to strengthen the family bonds and to be able to go away as a family over the Easter weekend. Its submission was a call to keep, for New Zealanders, 3½ days per year shop-free so as to be able to focus on our families. We know that there is a lot of pressure on families in today’s world, so New Zealand First can sympathise with families who are struggling to find time to spend with each other.

In conclusion, 10 times there have been bills like this brought to the House, and 10 times those bills have been voted down and lost. New Zealanders work the second-longest number of hours in the OECD. New Zealand has some of the most liberal shop trading hours in the world, with only 3½ days annually that are restricted and, aside from certain sectors, absolutely no restriction on opening hours.

New Zealand First believes that such nationwide change is undemocratic, when local elections can be used for a local referendum on whether to liberalise local trading hours further. Although some would say that it is too late for the 2016 local elections, that is not the case. It would be suitable to hold a local referendum, thereby saving costs for territorial authorities and allowing each community to decide for itself by asking a simple question: “Do you want shops in your district to open on Easter Sunday?”. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This bill is such good news for Wānaka. This bill is also good news for Geraldine. This bill is great news for Tekapō and Fairlie and Alexandra and Cromwell, all of which—I have not even got outside my electorate yet, but this bill is great news for the tourist towns in regional New Zealand. It is also great news for Marlborough. Wonderful news for Rotorua.

Iain Lees-Galloway: If it’s such a good idea, why don’t you take responsibility and do it yourself?

JACQUI DEAN: Fabulous news for Palmerston North, except the member opposite cannot see it because he is so blinded by his union—of course his union pushers are telling him the way to think—but not so this side of the House.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know, Mr Assistant Speaker, that it is out of order to suggest that a member is being told how to think by any outside influences.

Hon Amy Adams: It may be out of order, but it’s still true.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think the first thing we will have is an apology from Amy Adams for her interjection.

Hon Amy Adams: I apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I want to take some advice on the question. I am not—no, in fact I am prepared to rule. I am going to rule that it is not against the Standing Orders to suggest that people are being told how to think. I think it is one of the things that people who try to influence politicians do all the time.

JACQUI DEAN: This bill is wonderful news for all those towns in New Zealand that rely on tourism and visitors to their towns over Easter to make a dollar.

One of the first jobs I ever had, as member for Otago back in 2005, was a meeting with the chamber of commerce in Wānaka and with a number of their retailers who were frustrated at the fact that every second Easter Wānaka hosted the Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show, and up to 80,000 or 90,000 people flocked into the Wakatipu Basin area to see Warbirds over Wānaka. What happened? Those people who were flocking in for the weekend—they flew into Queenstown Airport or they came by road or they hitchhiked into town to have a wonderful weekend—what could they not do? They could not go into town and buy any groceries because the supermarkets were resolutely shut. All the small retailers could see people up and down the street trying the doors of the shops in Wānaka, to see whether the retailers were open.

Here is the news for Opposition members, who are so hidebound in their viewpoint—actually, here is the breaking news on this stuff: people want to shop. So it is not just the retailers who wish to open—of course they do, because they want and need to make a dollar. People want to shop when they are on holiday, and that is the part of this argument that Opposition members have no argument for. They have no comeback on this, because the simple fact of the matter is that people come to Wānaka, they go to Rotorua, they go anywhere in New Zealand—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Don’t they go to Wānaka on Good Friday?

JACQUI DEAN: They even go to Palmerston North. I love Palmerston North. It is my home town. They want to shop when they are on holiday. They have not been able to. Well, glory be. Here comes the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, which is going to fix that problem for Easter Sunday. Bring it on, I say. It is nothing but great news.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Greens on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Although recognising that this is a personal vote, the Green Party members, I understand, will all be voting against this bill. The reasons I think have been outlined fairly consistently across the Opposition members in this House: this bill is bad for children, it is bad for families, it is bad for workers, and it is bad for local government. Although some of us may see shopping as a religion—I suspect the previous speaker seemed to elevate shopping to the status of a religion—actually, some of us believe that there is a value in taking a break, sometimes. Maybe 3½ days in a year is not too excessive in terms of taking a break from shopping and focusing on family, and guaranteeing that there is an opportunity to spend that time together.

I have heard some other members saying that, yes, the Opposition says that it is about family bonding, but what if your family wants to bond by doing the gardening together or doing some DIY? Strange, my family; I do not know—we have the ability to plan ahead, and go shopping the day before. I do not know whether that is too extreme a suggestion, but it seems possible to me that you could plan ahead and shop the day before, and be able to engage in those same activities together, as a family, on Easter Sunday.

As the local government spokesperson for the Greens, I think it would be a bit remiss for me not to talk about some of those specifics and why we oppose this bill. It does seem to me that there have been so many attempts to get this legislation through that have been unsuccessful. I guess there has been lobbying and discussions that have been happening within the National Party caucus with those who are proponents of this bill, to see what they may be able to get past the consciences of their members to be able to pass this bill to liberalise this trade. My understanding is that similar legislation in this House has failed nine times. It seems that the point that the National Party has got to is this: “This House will not make the decision. We’ll give the decision to local government, so that your consciences”—the consciences of those MPs on that side opposed to Sunday trading—“can be free.”

You can just say that it is a local government decision, even though the end result in many of the areas that you live in, or have connections to, may well be the same as what you would have opposed initially. You will be putting further financial and responsibility burdens on local councils, which time and time again tell central government that they are sick of being given further responsibilities, without having an increase to their funding base—that already the burden of responsibility and regulation versus funding is out of whack and they are overburdened.

It does not make sense to put employment legislation or shop trading hours on to local governments. They would be required to initiate a consultation process, hear submissions, institute hearings, and deliberate in the same way that Parliament does. That is a costly exercise. It is not cost free. So many of our councils are struggling to be able to fulfil their regulatory legal obligations, as it is. I do not think it makes sense to add another burden on to those councils, particularly the smaller councils.

Although the members there seem to reference the businesses and the tourists coming in, what about the local members of that community? If you are going to say “Well, they’ll be keen on this.”, then there needs to be a consultation, and a rigorous one, to make sure that they are keen, and that is going to be costly. Every time we have heard the legislation discussed at national level, that has not been the mood of the public. The public has not been telling us they want to shop more—that they cannot have this day free of shopping; that it will just completely destroy their lives to have more time to spend with their families, away from retail work. The Green Party believes that the least we can do for our families is let them keep this time together. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Well, they say that rust never sleeps, and this bill coming back before the House shows just how true that actually is, because it is the National Party attacking family time again. Family time is under attack by this National Government. Today it is actually trying to get rid of the ability for families to get together on Easter Sunday; tomorrow it is going to use the extreme tool of a financial veto to stop families from getting 26 weeks of paid parental leave. So there is a theme that is developing here. I do not know what National has against families, but it is becoming more and more transparent with this Government.

I am delighted to vote against this bill. This is one of those fortuitous moments in a parliamentarian’s life—my Catholic upbringing, my belief in how we must prioritise families, and my background in workers’ rights happily collide, all in one bill. So I am very pleased and proud to stand here, because I am standing up for the convictions that I hold by casting my vote against this bill.

I want to encourage members opposite, in the governing party, to hold to the courage of their convictions also. I note that there are a number of MPs who have voted against a measure similar to this, on past occasions, before this Parliament, and I want them to stand up for the courage of their convictions. I particularly call on Tim Macindoe to stand up for the courage of his convictions, because not only has he voted against measures that intervene in family time on Easter Sunday but he is known locally as a churchgoing man, and good on him. But Mr Macindoe, you cannot do one thing back in your electorate and then come here, to Parliament, and not only vote for trading away Easter Sunday but be the enforcer, the whip, who is requiring other MPs to trade away Easter Sunday as well. So I am calling on Tim Macindoe, as an MP who shares the local area that I am in, to do the right thing and stand up for the courage of his convictions also.

But I will also be interested in how MPs like Louise Upston vote on this issue. I note that Louise Upston has always seemed to have voted, since she has been in Parliament, to trade away Easter Sunday. But in her neck of the woods, her constituency for which she is the MP, in Cambridge they not only do not open on Easter Sunday but do not open the shops on any Sunday—any Sunday, any week of the year. Yet here they have their MP voting to try to get local bodies to consume their time and their money to ask themselves whether Easter Sunday should be traded away.

For whom is it being traded away? It is being traded away for workers and their families. That is what Easter Sunday is being traded away for. I do not care what religious affiliation people do or do not have in New Zealand; that is of no interest to me. What is of interest to me is that workers and their families can choose to do whatever they want on Easter Sunday. That might mean going to church, but it might mean the sorts of things that my family does, like attending, every Easter, a basketball tournament. Those are the sorts of things that happen over the Easter weekend, because it is the time when families can actually afford to have the time to get away and do those things. So that is what I am standing up for.

Fundamentally, this bill is a shambles. It is a shambles because that Government’s members are trying to appease their own conscience by standing up and saying that it is not fair that one area gets to trade on Easter Sunday and another does not. Well, the truth is that this bill is going to make that worse. It is going to exasperate that situation, and it is going to ensure—

Hon Amy Adams: Exacerbate.

SUE MORONEY: Well, it is going to exasperate that situation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It might be both, actually.

SUE MORONEY: But they do not understand that by saying that local body by local body by local body are going to make this decision it is going to get more and more fragmented. They do not seem to understand that. They need to start listening.

This out-of-touch, arrogant Government needs to start listening, and hearing what people are saying. Local body after local body after local body turned up to the Commerce Committee to say: “If you want to do this, National Party, do it yourselves. Don’t duck-shove it on to us.” That is what they said. That Government has stopped listening, and it also has stopped even giving its MPs the ability to use their conscience on this very important issue for families.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill in the second reading. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the officials who supported us during the Commerce Committee deliberations. Even though we could not come to a resolution, at least they worked hard and assisted the select committee in the process.

The previous speaker, Sue Moroney, mentioned that the National Party does not care about families. This is the only party that cares about families. That is why we are debating this bill. We want to ensure that businesses have got the choice of what they want to do.

This country has a growing number of tourists, and they come from far away to enjoy our hospitality. If we do not give them the opportunity, when they come, to go out and do shopping, buy some souvenirs, buy some memories from here to take back home, then we are doing an injustice to them.

As I said, we care about families. Think about the family—the bread earner works from Monday to Friday. The only time he gets to go and do some shopping is over the weekend, and if he plans to go somewhere like Rotorua during the holidays, he does not get any opportunity to shop over there with his family.

I would like to give my own example. Normally, I go out on Sunday to do shopping with my family. If on Easter Sunday some of the shops that want to open—we are not compelling them to; they have got a choice whether they want to open the shop or not. If that opportunity is given, then a lot of shops will open up. Because the country is getting diverse, a lot of people—I am not saying that Christianity is not a good religion or anything—from different religions who do not go to Church on Sunday can open their shop and can offer good opportunities for families to go out and shop together.

So this bill is a real opportunity for businesses to grow. We want to ensure that places like Rotorua have got the competitive market. Whereas Taupō can open up, Rotorua cannot, so this bill will give an opportunity for them to decide to open. With these words I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): This is one of the many times during my time in Parliament that this Parliament has called on members to exercise their conscience around Easter Sunday trading, and each and every time—and it must be more than half a dozen in the years I have been here—Parliament, and its members exercising their conscience, has decided that the right of families to spend time together, the right of workers to be free of subtle or not so subtle pressure from their bosses to work, and the right of New Zealanders to have just some small vestige of religious celebration should be protected in the law.

Each time, Parliament’s members have exercised their conscience to throw this out. And the National Government was confronted by the reality that if it put a bill to this Parliament trying once again to take away the rights of workers and families, and religious observance, it would get the same result again: no.

So what did National members do? Rather than have an honest debate about choice, they have come up with this cock-and-bull story about regional variation and some bizarre logic that it is somehow going to iron out the kinks in the admittedly imperfect schedule to the current law, where there are one or two towns that can and one or two towns that cannot but perhaps for tourism reasons should.

It is an underhand solution to a matter of conscience that has been repeatedly and strongly issued by members of this House, through successive Parliaments. It is wrong in principle. It is tricky in principle. It is dishonest with the will of this House. It is also unconstitutional. That was pointed out repeatedly to the Commerce Committee by the Regulations Review Committee, which I, wearing a different hat, have the privilege to chair. The Regulations Review Committee wrote to the Commerce Committee not once, not twice, but three times to address the constitutional outrage that this bill seeks to pass. Let me very quickly summarise it in really plain language.

When this bill was introduced it contained, arguably—because there was some difference between advisers’ views on this—a thing called a “Henry VIII” clause. A “Henry VIII” clause is when a regulation or a delegated instrument seeks to override the primary purpose of the bill. In this case, the primary purpose is to protect some holidays but a delegated instrument gives, or purports to give, local authorities an override.

The rules of Parliament have always said that “Henry VIII” clauses are a bad thing. It is like the retrospective punishment of taxpayers is a bad thing. It is on our no-no list. On the rare occasions where it is deemed acceptable, it is only under very narrow circumstances and only with the strongest protections.

So here is the next part of the sorry saga. The submissions started rolling in from local government around the country, and I am sure National expected submitters to grab this with open arms. But, one after the other, Auckland, Christchurch, and most of the major centres around the country came in and said: “We don’t want this bill. We don’t want the supposed right to create a tangled mess of red tape and bureaucracy, because every community is going to be forced to go through all sorts of processes and procedures and end up with a whole different mass of rules. We don’t want it; it’s nonsense. If you want to change the law, change it yourself.”

In its wisdom, what did National then decide to impart upon the country? “Oh well, we’ll do away with the bylaw-making processes in the bill and just make it a policy matter”—virtually a tick-box, thereby aggravating the very constitutional outrage that they were supposed to be attenuating. Worse, they thought they would add insult to injury by stripping out the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protections. So there is no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, as it is called—a check done by the Ministry of Justice or Crown Law to check that the Bill of Rights is complied with. No, that gets sacrificed on the altar of Mammon, as well as the rest of it—as well as family time, religious observance, union rights, and everything else—because this is a Government that has lost its moral compass, that has lost its values, that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

I call this the “Brexit Bill of Easter Trading” because if our territorial authorities were like the eurozone, this encourages people to do a little bolt for the sidelines. You know what? The same kind of dissatisfaction and alienation that is amongst voters in the UK who have voted to leave—in my view, wrongly—will be encouraged by this bill, because people, in their heart of hearts, know that life is about more than money. It is not just about trading every day of the year. Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, if we pass this bill this year, then next year there will be another bill to get rid of what will be the last 2½—not 3½—days. It will be Good Friday, it will be Anzac Day, and then they will be the Nats who stole Christmas, because that will be the last bastion of families. Imagine going to little Johnny, Jane, or Rangi and saying: “Hey, dad would have come here to open your presents, but John Key’s Government forced him to go to work instead.” These folk seem to know nothing more than the elevation of commerce to their only god—

Chris Bishop: Oh!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and whatever people’s religion—well, Mr Bishop groans. Is any member of the National Party going to stand up for religious observance and vote against this bill? Just one, raise your hand—or are you under the whip? Are you under the whip? Are those members under the whip—because that would be yet another outrage.

This workaround bill seeks to trash one of our few family protections, and in doing so also removes the conscience vote as well as the constitutional protections against a “Henry VIII” clause. It is hard to comprehend a more underhand, sleazy, back-door approach to liberalising Easter trading in the name of the great god Mammon. Members over there are wriggling in their seats with discomfort because they know that they are wrong, and members on this side of the aisle are right on a matter of deep conviction.

Let me sum up: this bill undermines workers’ rights. There is no way that it cannot. There is no way that if you pass a law that says, in theory, you have the right to object to go to work and your employer will not mind, that that will be borne out in the real world. This bill removes one of only 3½ days per year of protected holidays that New Zealanders have left. It is part of a slippery slope of the run down, of the secularisation, of our society, and the worship of commercialism above all else. That is why this is a line in the sand worth fighting for, as a matter of principle.

Fourthly, this is a constitutional outrage, bad in conception, made worse by the amendments that the Commerce Committee rejected—could not find a majority for—and so sent back to the House unamended. Here is the prediction, wrapping up: the Minister will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to do in the House, using the vote of the National whip, what the select committee would not vote for and which members of the House as a whole do not want. That will be the icing on the cake of a process that is the antithesis of principle, that is wrong in object, mistaken in execution, and, actually, insulting to the highest ideals of New Zealanders. I will exercise my conscience to vote strongly against this bill.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker, David Cunliffe, the son of an Anglican minister, and surely that was an evangelical, hermeneutical, preaching sermon about, I suppose, the supposedly sanctimonious position of this Government to this bill. But this is not about religion. This bill is about the issues around the freedom of choice. But let us go to that point, because the point was made in regard to this bill on the impact that it has on families—the impact that it has on the fact of imposing employment, and of trading on an Easter Sunday, and the realisation of that.

If the previous speaker actually thought and looked hard into the aspect of what the religious observance is of Easter Sunday—it is absolutely the most important day for those of the Christian faith. Inside of that, it talks about sacrifice, it talks about service, and it talks about the aspect of redemption that is actually important to that faith. But the most important thing it also reveals is this: it is the freedom of choice for every single person to choose, if they so choose to, the fact of receiving the revelation, the redemption, and the resurrection of the Son of God—as is part of Easter Sunday trading. If that is the key principle of Easter, then that is the same principle that lies in this bill.

I have some sympathy with and understanding of the comments that have been made. I myself, of the Christian faith, do understand the importance of Sunday, and the role that it plays for families, and the observance of that. I do not oppose that. I think that is absolutely important. But inside of this bill, what it does talk about is dealing with the next step. Others of the Opposition have said to us: “Well, why do we not just make it universal legislation that demands that every single territorial authority, that everybody else—actually, that there will be a compliance towards trading on Sunday?”. It takes a step back because it allows this clause, the freedom to choose—the freedom for territorial authorities, which will engage with their communities. If you read the regulatory impact statement, why it also talks about this is—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Pontius Pilate!

ALFRED NGARO: It is not the washing of the hands of Pilate. I know that is what he was referring to. It was the fact of this. Even Pilate knew that the people of Israel, the Jews themselves, had to make a choice. He let them choose. So if Mr Lees-Galloway wants to read further, read it, as it says, in context. If you know your hermeneutics, he allowed the people to choose. This bill will allow communities to choose, as they wish, whether they should have trading or shopping hours.

There has been some talk about the impact on those who may be affected for employment reasons. I am going to wind this up just in a few comments. There already currently exists the Human Rights Act of 1993, the Employment Relations Act of 2000. Those things are important. I know my time is short. I am getting notice of that. I do stand in this second reading. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 62

Noes 59

Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 10.10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 28 JUNE 2016

(continued on Wednesday, 29 June 2016)

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave, in relation to the Ngāti Hineuru debate, for all amendments in my name to be incorporated into the bill and that when order of the day No. 6 is called by the Clerk, we proceed directly to the third reading.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.

Karakia

Karakia

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): He rā anō tēnei e Te Pika kua moea te pō, kua oho ake tātau i te ata nei, ā, anei te manuhiri kei runga ake nei. He inoi noa ake tāku ki tētahi, ki a Kelvin Davis pea, hei wāwāhi i wā tātau kōrero i roto i te kupu kōrero ki te wāhi ngaro, tētahi kōrero karakia nei, māna tēnā hei kawe hei tīmatanga i tō tātou rā, mēnā kai te pai tērā ki Te Whare.

[This is another day, Mr Assistant Speaker, we have slept the night and have woken up this morning and here immediately above us are the visitors. My plea is simply to seek that someone, perhaps Kelvin Davis, open up our contributions by way of an incantation to the place unseen or a prayer. I leave it for him to consider how our day should start, if that is fine with the House.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that process? I take it the member was seeking leave. There appears to be none.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia īnoi tātou. E Te Atua Kaha Rawa, kia atawhai, manaaki anō hoki mātou i tēnei tāima, kia ngākau tahi mātou. Ka īnoi atu ki a koe kia manaakitia ngā haerenga i roto i Te Whare i tēnei rangi hei painga mō te motu whānui. Ka inoi atu ki a koe kia manaakitia rātou katoa mā kua tau mai nei ki roto i tēnei Whare kia rongo ai i ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki a rātou. Ka īnoi atu ki a koe i runga i Te Ingoa Tapu o tō Tama a Ihu Karaiti. Āmine.

[Let us pray. Almighty God we seek that you care and also protect us at this time to ensure that we are all of one heart. We pray that you support the proceedings in the House today for the betterment of the nation at large. We pray that you look after all those who have come into this House to hear the proposals that relate to them. We make that plea to you in the Holy Name of Your Son Jesus Christ. Amen.]

Bills

Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. The bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāruahine that was signed near Hāwera in August 2014. The settlement provides financial, commercial, and cultural redress and acknowledges the losses suffered by Ngāruahine arising from very serious breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I acknowledge the work of the negotiators, some of whom are present in the gallery this morning, my ministerial colleagues, and Government and other agencies that have contributed to this bill. I also want to thank the chair and members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their good work during the consideration of the bill and the exploration of the issues raised in submissions.

The bill was referred to the committee on 11 August 2015, 24 submissions were received from interested groups and individuals, and the committee heard 12 of these at hearings in Hāwera and Wellington in November 2015. The committee reported the bill back to the House on 23 March 2016 and recommended that it be passed with a number of amendments, which include changes to clauses relating to fines for offences under regulations and by-laws, the inclusion of new Part 4 to the bill to provide a mechanism for Ngāruahine to reorganise their governance structure in relation to their fisheries assets, and other minor or technical amendments that are not specifically referenced in the committee’s commentary on the bill.

There is one particular matter that I want to refer to now. In its commentary on the bill, the committee went to some lengths to address Āraukuku interests covered under a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, registered as Wai 552. This was a key issue raised by submitters opposing the bill. It is the subject of judicial review proceedings on appeal to the Court of Appeal and is set down for hearing on 19 July. Āraukuku is a Taranaki hapū that has whakapapa links both to Ngāti Ruanui and Ngāruahine.

The committee noted in its commentary that although the claims settlement process does not allow it to address to its satisfaction the issues that some Āraukuku individuals raised in submissions, it does not propose any changes to the bill and will continue to monitor the situation through the Post Settlement Commitments Unit. On the related issue of the Stratford Power Station land, I acknowledge the committee’s request for the Crown to make public statements in respect of this land, and I will certainly consider that at the appropriate time.

The other matter raised by the committee in its commentary related to concerns raised by Ngāruahine regarding the appropriateness of transferring future or contingent liabilities from their mandated iwi organisation to their post-settlement governance entity, as provided for through the governance reorganisation provisions of the bill. I understand that although the post-settlement governance entity accepts the need to take on all known current assets and liabilities, they are concerned about unknown future or contingent liabilities that result from acts or omissions by their mandated iwi organisation up until the date it is wound up.

Although the committee is not recommending any amendments to the bill in relation to future or contingent liabilities based on Crown advice, my officials agreed to look into this issue in more detail on a without prejudice basis, and I am going to write to Ngāruahine very shortly.

The second reading brings us closer to the concluding stages of the settlement process. It seeks to recognise what is important to the people of Ngāruahine and to provide redress for historical breaches of the Treaty. My hope is to host the iwi of Taranaki here in Wellington in October for a joint Ngāruahine, Te Atiawa, and Taranaki Iwi third reading. I commend the bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, ko te mea tuatahi tū ake au ki te tautoko i Te Reo w’akamoemiti; nō reira, e te tuakana i tukuna atu i taua whakamoemiti, tēnei te mihi ake ki a koe. Oti noa, mai i Te Rakiura ki Te Tonga, whiti atu ki Te Wharekauri ki Te Rāwhiti, toro atu ki Taranaki ki Te Uru, piki atu ki Te Reinga ki Te Tai Tokerau—ngā kokonga e whā o Te Motu o Aotearoa—ngā whānau i raro i te kapua pouri, kei te hīkoi i roto i te ātārangi o ngā whārua o te mate; mauri mai rā ō koutou parekawakawa kia tangihia e 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 mānu ki Te Waka o Aituā, nō reira e ngā mate maha o te wā hoki wairua atu ki a rātou mā i Te Wā’i ngaro. Nō reira oti atu te wā ki a koutou, e oki, e oki.

Nō reira, e tika ’oki kia ’uri atu ki ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Ngāruahine, koutou katoa kua tae mai ki tēnei Whare ki te w’akarongo ki te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire. Nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai rā, ā, tēnā koutou.

[So the first thing is that I rise to endorse the voice that gave the prayer; therefore, to you elder brother colleague who delivered that prayer, well done. Accordingly, from Stewart Island to the south, across to the Chatham Islands in the east, extending to western Taranaki, and up to Te Reinga to the north—the four corners of the nation of New Zealand—to those families shrouded in a cloud of sadness and walking in the shadow of the valley of death, bring forth your garland of greenery so that we may mourn in this brief period. This is a lament of grief, my parapet and my shield; the dread of the multitude, the vessel of death is afloat. And so to you the many deaths of the moment return spiritually to the unseen place, and the time for you is at an end; return, go back.

It is fitting, as well, to turn to the families and subtribes of Ngāruahine, to all of you who have arrived at this House to listen to the second reading of this bill. Welcome, come forth, draw closer, and greetings to you collectively.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak in the second reading of this, the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. I had the pleasure of sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee for this bill, and I want to acknowledge all of the submitters who made submissions in support of this settlement bill. There were some submissions that did stand out for me, and I just want to acknowledge one in particular. It was the submission by Peter Moeahu, who told us about when this process started and reflected on the changes within his own family. He spoke about the fact that at the time that this settlement first started he had one mokopuna—one grandchild—and at the select committee stage I think he had at least nine, from memory, and several great-grandchildren as well. That, for me, expressed how this settlement—because this is what he told us—was about his future generations, not for himself, and I think that reflected the sentiments from a number of submitters that it was about the future.

If we also look at the summary of the historical account—I’ll read the first sentence: “Before 1860, Ngāruahine were prosperous and economically successful, and retained the ownership of their lands and resources after consistently opposing the sale of land in their rohe to Europeans.” That first sentence tells us a lot about the history of when the breaches of the Treaty started. So in 1860 Ngāruahine were prosperous and economically successful. Peter Moeahu talked about the future of his family and his hapū, and I wanted to reflect on from 1860 till now. A lot has happened to diminish the prosperity and economic success of Ngāruahine. Only yesterday we found out through a report that talks about the prosperity of our own people, whereby the majority of assets in this country are owned by only 10 percent and that 10 percent does not include Māori, or many Māori, at all, or Pasifika as well. I wanted to mention that because I think that gives us some context around why we have these settlement bills come into this House.

This settlement is an opportunity for Ngāruahine to start turning round their lack of prosperity, the lack of economic success for their tribe. I think that it would be remiss of me not to mention that in comparison with others, Māori have an average of only $23,000 worth of assets, Pasifika have only $12,000, and European/Pākehā have $114,000 worth of assets on average. So there is huge disparity in our country today. I think, hopefully, that Ngāruahine can take this settlement and build on potential future success so that their people can live in prosperity.

There were also some submitters who did not agree with the settlement, and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations has mentioned that, and I too wanted to mention Āraukuku. In a way it has been quite an unfortunate process for Āraukuku, but on reflection on all of the evidence, despite their concerns, the committee acknowledged those concerns. The Āraukuku hapū were included in the Ngati Ruanui settlement in 2003, and not all of the Āraukuku people agreed with that settlement, but there was not, in the opinion of the select committee, the scope to allow a discrete settlement for Āraukuku. Those members of Āraukuku who whakapapa to Ngāruahine can still participate within the Ngāruahine settlement under the relevant hapū that they whakapapa to. So although it is an unfortunate series of events and is still going through a judicial process, it is important, I think, that we acknowledge that they did make submissions.

There is also the actual settlement itself, and I mentioned the financial redress, which is by no means the most important issue. I think probably more important are the cultural redress items that were within the settlement, and they are significant. I want to acknowledge both the iwi and the negotiators of this settlement for their tenacity in getting such a good settlement, both financially in the commercial redress and under the apology and the cultural redress items as well. It could not have been an easy process to go through, and I want to acknowledge all the good work that they did.

Nō reira, tēnei ahau tētehi uri o Ngāwakataurua e tuku mi’i atu anō ki aku whanaunga kua tae mai, otirā, ki ngā whānau me ngā hapū katoa. Ki a au nei, ko te tūmanako kia pai haere ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Kua tata te wā ki te mutunga o tēnei whakahaerenga, oti noa, he tīmatanga tēnei. Nō reira, kei te mi’i atu ki a koutou o Ngāruahine oti noa, ki ngā mema o Te Whare nei, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, I, one of the descendants of Ngāwakataurua, welcome you once again my relatives but at the same time the families and all the subtribes that have arrived. For me personally I hope that aspects relating to this bill will continue to improve. The time for this process to end is near, but it is only the beginning. And so, congratulations to you of Ngāruahine, but at the same time, members of this House, my regards to us all.]

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tīhei mauri ora, huri noa i Te Whare nei e ngā mema o Te Pāremata, ā, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ā, tēnei te mihi mō Ngāruahine, koutou nā taoka whakahirahira, koutou e tūmanako ake nei, koutou e hāpai iwi nei. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, ā, ki a koe e Kelvin Davis mō te whakamoemiti mō Te Whare. Ka hoki hoki ngā maumahara mō ngā rakatira o Te Tai Tokerau. Ka maumaharatia a Charlie Pētera me Tā Graham Latimer; nō reira, e ngā rakatira, e haere atu rā, e haere atu rā ki Te Pā o Te Whakawairua, takoto mai, takoto mai, takoto i raro i te rangimārie i runga i tō waka, hoea atu tō waka ki tua o te ārai, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Nō reira, āpiti hōno tātai hōno, rātou te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, behold the breath of life, and acknowledgments to all you members throughout this House. And to Ngāruahine, you who are treasures of significance, are ever hopeful, and support tribes. I commend you all, and you as well, Kelvin Davis, in regard to the prayer for the House. Recollections of Northern leaders return as well, and of Charlie Pētera and Sir Graham Latimer; therefore, depart o leaders, go forth to the gathering place of the spirits, rest and lie there peacefully upon your canoe, paddle it beyond the veil, go forth, journey on, depart. Therefore the lines are joined, the dead to the dead, the living to ourselves.]

It is indeed my pleasure and honour to be able to speak on the second reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. In this second reading I want to focus on the work of the Māori Affairs Committee in relation to this bill. Our role on the select committee is to listen to submissions, seek official advice, and recommend any amendments that would improve the bill before us. We received quite a number of submissions on this bill, many of those from Ngāruahine members and expressing strong support for the bill itself. I particularly noted the understanding that submitters showed in acknowledging the settlement that it would not, and could not, make up for everything that was lost in the past. We have seen this with many Treaty settlement bills that have come before this House, but, like the many bills before this one, Ngāruahine also have a sense of optimism about the fact that what comes out of this settlement is the opportunity for Ngāruahine to build itself an economic base for the future that will allow it to provide greater opportunities for its people.

I particularly want to—and my colleague Adrian Rurawhe actually quoted this in his speech. I want to acknowledge Mr Rurawhe, as well, because he is not a permanent member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but during the early stages of this bill and particularly when we went to Hāwera to listen to the submissions, Mr Rurawhe was there to assist the committee, particularly from a local perspective. But I want to also mention Mr Peter Moeahu because Mr Moeahu, who has been very active in Treaty settlements right across the area, particularly in Taranaki, will also be the chair of Te Korowai o Ngāruahine trust, which is the organisation tasked with administering this settlement on behalf of Ngāruahine. Mr Moeahu has been involved, as I said, in Treaty claims for quite some time, but I want to read from Mr Moeahu’s written submission, as I feel that these words are a reminder of how important this work of Treaty settlement negotiations is and the profound effect that a settlement has, not just in the commercial redress but through the issuing of a formal apology from the Crown for its misdeeds.

In Mr Moeahu’s words, when he was speaking during his appearance before the tribunal, this is what he said: “At that hearing I presented my 7 children and my first grand child to the Tribunal and said, ‘This is who the Crown steals from.’ Today on behalf of my 7 children, 14 grandchildren and 7 great-grandchildren I say this is who the Crown settles with. I also said in 1990, ‘When I look at a map of Taranaki and trace the Confiscation Line, it is an arrow piercing the heart of my people’. This Bill removes that arrow and the apology and small measure of redress contained therein, will help heal the wound caused by the Crowns grievous actions.” In the 1990 tribunal hearing, this is what he said: “if the Crown chose the right path to the settlement peace would reign. The Ngaruahine Claims Settlement Bill is the right path.”

Not all submissions on the bill were positive, though. Some individuals descending from Āraukuku hapū have raised their concerns in relation to this bill. Āraukuku has links to both Ngāti Ruanui and Ngāruahine. They were included in the claimant definition of the Ngāti Ruanui settlement based on their own decision to participate in the settlement itself. However, some individuals disagree with the hapū decision to throw its lot in with Ngāti Ruanui, and we heard from some who would like a discrete settlement for Āraukuku. As a result of these submissions, the committee sought confirmation that Āraukuku individuals who whakapapa to Ngāruahine will be able to benefit from the settlement, and we are assured that that will be. We were not satisfied that we were able to fully address the concerns of these individuals as part of this settlement bill, but it is clear that Āraukuku hapū has already settled with the Crown as a part of Ngāti Ruanui. But one thing that the committee did resolve is that it will continue to monitor the situation through the Post Settlement Commitments Unit to ensure that individuals are treated fairly.

The other amendments we have recommended are largely administrative matters concerning the reorganisation of the iwi’s governance after the settlement. The mandated group Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine Iwi Inc. will hand over its responsibilities, assets, and liabilities to the post-settlement entity Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust. Our recommended amendments ensure that this happens smoothly, and we did spend a lot of time actually looking at that transition from one entity to the post-settlement entity.

I want to acknowledge those of Ngāruahine who are here today, and also those who cannot be here but who are actually watching live broadcasting from this House. I also want to acknowledge, as Mr Rurawhe also did, those who have passed on and did not actually see what is almost the final continuation—to this point, rather; to the second reading—through the Committee stage, and to the third, final reading. I look forward to discussing this bill further, in the Committee stage and the third reading. Again, it reflects the pragmatic and principled way that I believe that my committee operates as the Māori Affairs Committee. On that note, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā rā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, e Ngāruahine tēnā rā koutou i takahia mai i Te Ika-a-Māui. I mahue ai i a koutou ō koutou maunga tapu o tō maunga tupuna, a Taranaki, me ō koutou awa tupuna, kia tatū mai ki konei ki te takiwā, ki te aroaro o ngā maunga o Te Ātiawa o Ngāti Toa me ngā awa o konei. Nā reira, tēnā rā koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki roto i tēnei Te Whare, Te Whare o Te Motu. E hari koa ana kua tae ki tēnei wāhanga, te pānuitanga tuarua, ā taro ake tēnei kaupapa ka oti. E manakohia ana ko ngā hua ka ūhia ai ki runga i a koutou me ō koutou mokopuna, ō koutou uri; nā reira, tēnā rā koutou.

[Thank you indeed, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you, Ngāruahine, who traversed Māui’s Fish, and in so doing left your sacred mountains—namely Taranaki—and your ancestral rivers behind to settle here in the territory before the mountains of Te Ātiawa of Ngāti Toa and the rivers here. So acknowledgments indeed to you, welcome into this House, the House of the nation, and welcome. I am pleased that we have reached this part, the second reading, and presently this matter will be completed. The desire is that the benefits are bestowed upon you, your grandchildren, and kin; and so, well done.]

Like my colleague Adrian Rurawhe, I would like to quickly go over some of the historical account because it always puts into context what we are just discussing here. As Adrian Rurawhe has said, before 1860 Ngāruahine were a prosperous and economically successful iwi. It was only a matter of years later—about 5 years later—that the Crown began its programme of confiscation of land throughout the Taranaki area. Some 1.2 million acres of land was confiscated, and Ngāruahine, in the end, was basically left landless.

We really need to take stock of what that actually means—the forces of the Crown just turning up and shifting people off their land, taking their land. We can imagine if that happened these days—if the New Zealand Army turned up in a township and basically said to everybody: “Sorry, this place is no longer yours. We’re coming along, we’re bulldozing your houses, we’re bulldozing your gardens, your supermarkets, your schools, and everything. Off you go, and, by the way, we expect you to become successful and to develop yourselves, despite the fact that we’ve taken all your resources.” If that was to happen these days all hell would break loose, but in those days it was fairly well accepted. Ngāruahine have been fighting that since the 1860s, and that is what has brought us here today.

We need to recognise that some of that land was returned. There was 26,000 acres that was eventually returned to Ngāruahine as reserves, but the Crown retained over 145,000 acres of Ngāruahine land. That land that was returned, but it was not returned as a big parcel to the whole iwi. It was, in fact, individualised. This is just another way that the Crown has managed to alienate iwi, hapū, and whānau from their land—by returning it under individual title, where it is easily picked off and sold off. In effect, it is just another way of confiscating land. It was easy then for settlers to acquire that land, probably because many of the whānau had debts to pay after having had their land taken off them and not being able to afford to support themselves economically. The best way that they could get some money to support themselves was to sell their land. Of course they sold the land and still they were no better off.

It is important that we set the context for what we are talking about here, and I have said that before. It is quite coincidental that whenever we are talking about Treaty settlements, groups of schoolkids come in. It is important that they know this is what—come into the gallery, I mean. It is important that they hear this sort of story so that they know the true history and what has really happened to our people. Again, I will reiterate the claim that this sort of history needs to be taught in our schools.

People have touched on the Āraukuku situation—by the way, I have a map here and it gives people a bit more context. If we look at a map of Taranaki, Ngāruahine are the iwi with the land directly to the south of Mount Taranaki. To their east is Ngāti Ruanui. So they are two iwi, side by side, sharing adjacent—in fact, overlapping—boundaries, and Āraukuku are a hapū that are right on that boundary. The people of Āraukuku are descended from both Ngāruahine and Ngāti Ruanui, and that is where some of the confusion—I am sorry. I should not say “confusion”, because they know who they are. But that is where some of the confusion lies for those of us who are not from the area where the overlapping interests occur.

So there were some people who opposed Āraukuku’s settlement, and they wanted their own individual settlement, which in itself is problematic. It is believed that Āraukuku’s interests were settled, basically, entirely under the Ngāti Ruanui settlement. The Āraukuku opponents of the Ngāruahine claimant definition apparently did not respond to a Crown offer to facilitate hui between themselves and Ngāruahine to address their participation in the Ngāruahine settlement. These Āraukuku individuals were apparently unable to demonstrate a significant level of support among Āraukuku or that they had a mandate to represent the hapū.

I have some empathy because I know how intricate our whakapapa are, and someone coming from Ngāpuhi is in no position to judge the relationships and the whakapapa and the whole situation. So I do have some empathy for Āraukuku. However, in the end we have decided that Āraukuku interests have been addressed.

I will just move on to some of the recommended changes in the bill. As the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee has said, it is largely administrative. There is a new Part 4 to the bill, and that provides a mechanism for reorganising the various governance bodies established by Ngāruahine. The liabilities transfer from Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine, which is the very group that has brought things this far, and they are going to be transferred to Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust.

The bill also sets out new clause 128, which dissolves that current representative group of Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine. New clause 129(1) vests the assets and liabilities of Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine Iwi Inc. as the assets and liabilities of the trustees of Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust.

There was some issue over clause 127(1)(b)(ii) of the bill, where Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust was concerned about the unknown level of future or contingent liabilities. We understood that any change to clause 127(1)(b)(ii) would be a significant departure from the Crown’s current policy on assets and liabilities. The officials recommended that it remain. New clause 130 provides arrangements for the subsidiary Ngāruahine Fisheries Ltd to no longer be a tax charity for the purposes of tax legislation.

That is the tenor of most of the changes. It is more administrative, but as we are dealing with these mainly administrative issues we always need to keep in context why and how we have got to this stage, and it really does come from the historical account.

We have heard that whānau have said: “When we started this journey I had just one mokopuna; now we have many.” So we really to need to acknowledge that this is for those many mokopuna. We need to also remember and acknowledge those people who started this journey but who are, sadly, no longer with us. Their work is creating a new future direction for their mokopuna. With that, I look forward to the Committee stage and recommend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): E rau rangatira mā tēnā koutou, e ngā iwi katoa kia ora mai tātou.

[Acknowledgments to you esteemed leaders of a hundredfold, and greetings to every one of us tribes.]

It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging my good friend and colleague Nuk Korako and his very gracious contribution and comment towards two of leaders in Te Tai Tokerau who have fallen recently: Charlie Pētera and Sir Graham Latimer. I would like to add to that list Rob Cooper, if I may, and I would say to Rob: E Rob, haere, haere, haere! Haere ki te kāinga tūturu o tō tātou Matua i Te Rangi; moe mai, moe mai, moe mai.

[Rob, depart, journey on, farewell! Go forth to the true heavenly home of our Father in the Sky; sleep, lie, and rest there.]

It is a pleasure to speak to this bill, and when I speak to bills of this sort I often like to just summarise in my own mind the progress that brings us to this point, and add to the dialogue that our colleagues from across the House have already laid down. This bill talks to Ngāruahine, which is one of eight Taranaki iwi, with a population of around about 3,800 people. The traditional lands for Ngāruahine are South Taranaki, encompassing Egmont National Park and extending from Taungatara Stream at the northernmost boundary to the Waihī Stream at the southernmost boundary.

As I look at this bill I am often inclined to go to the final paragraph in each of the acknowledgments because I find, for me, it conveys some tone and mood of what all the preceding narrative has described. So I would like to start by first of all going to the summary of historical account. The final statement here reads as follows: “During the 20th century, Crown efforts to address Taranaki Māori grievances failed to do so. Some inquiries were limited in their scope, and others provided for compensation payments that were not discussed with Ngāruahine and other Taranaki Māori. The Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944 stated that the sums were a full settlement of claims relating to the confiscations and Parihaka. There is no evidence that Ngāruahine or other iwi agreed to this.”

Similarly, if we turn to the acknowledgments, the final stanza for the acknowledgments also conveys mood and tone of what is intended in this settlement. It reads as follows: “The Crown acknowledges that its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles during the 19th and 20th centuries have together significantly undermined the traditional systems of authority and economic capacity of the Ngāruahine iwi, and the physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being of its people. The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to protect the rangatiratanga of Ngāruahine, in breach of its obligations under Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

The apology concludes thus: “The Crown hopes that this settlement and this apology will relieve the burden of grievance that Ngāruahine has carried for so many years, and will assist Ngāruahine to heal the wounds of the past. The Crown looks forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation with Ngāruahine founded on respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

A full settlement like this, of courses, includes cultural redress, and the cultural redress here talks about providing recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual association of Ngāruahine with places and sites owned by the Crown within their primary area of interest. This allows Ngāruahine and the Crown to protect and enhance the conservation values associated with these sites. The financial redress has been well commented on before. It is a sum of money, $67.5 million, in recognition of all the historical claims.

Finally, the collective redress is also a nice piece of work and I want to commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for bringing this part of the agreement together, particularly, and I want to talk to that. The collective redress elements of the settlement have been negotiated between the Crown and Ngāruahine, Te Atiawa, and Taranaki iwi. Each iwi stressed its strong associations with all of the natural resources within its rohe and its desire to achieve more positive environmental outcomes for the Taranaki region. The deed of settlement sets out a proposed model for iwi representation on the two standing committees in the Taranaki Regional Council that perform the roles and functions associated with policy, planning, and consents. This is a settlement that goes beyond focusing just on the iwi. It also focuses on their relationships, their boundaries, and their interface with other iwi, and particularly with parts of their natural environment, which, of course, is very important to Māori. This settlement is an excellent settlement. It is well-thought-out. It has had a lot of work and continues to have work through the Māori Affairs Committee. It is my absolute pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe, huri noa ki tēnei Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Ā, huri noa ki a koutou o Ngāruahine kua tae mai nei mō tēnei pānuitanga tuarua, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa. He mokopuna tēnei o Te Nōta me Te Tai Rāwhiti hoki nō reira. Ko Te Ramaroa me Pangarū ōku Maunga, ko Hokianga Te Moana, ko Ngāi Tūpoto me Te Hikatū ōku hapū ki Te Tai Tokerau. Whakawhiti atu ki Te Tai Rāwhiti, anei te uri o Ngāti Porou, ā, nō reira tēnā koutou katoa. Anō hoki, e mihi ana ki ngā taitamariki, ngā tamariki pakupaku, me ngā taiohi hoki kua tae mai nei ki te whakarongo ki ēnei tautohetohe; ā, nō reira tēnā tātou katoa, kia ora.

[Acknowledgments to you, Mr Assistant Speaker of the House, and to us all throughout this House. And turning to you, Ngāruahine, who have arrived here for this second reading, I acknowledge you; well done and accolades to you collectively and my appreciation to us all. This one is a grandchild of the North and of the East Coast as well. Ramaroa and Pangarū are my mountains, Hokianga is the ocean, Ngāi Tūpoto and Te Hikatū are my hapū in Northland. Crossing over to the East Coast, here is the relative of Ngāti Porou—and so I salute you all. Also, and again, I acknowledge the teenagers, infants, and adolescents who have arrived here to listen to these debates; so congratulations to us all and thank you.]

It is absolutely an honour, always, to be able to stand in this House and address the House and address our nation and our people on readings of Tiriti settlements. I started as an MP in November last year, and so I want to pay special acknowledgment to this Ngāruahine claim because this was my very first hearing in my role as spokesperson for Māori development for the Green Party—the Ngāruahine claim.

I was still fluffing around, trying to figure out what on earth I do in this place. I was heavily endowed with the honour of being the Māori Affairs Committee member for the Green Party. It is an incredible committee and an incredible privilege to be part of this committee, which tries to do the best and make the best laws for our Māori people. So here I was. Like all of us MPs, I followed the directions in my diary on my phone, got told what plane to catch and where to drive to. I landed in a part of the country that I knew very little about. I followed the directions and followed “Auntie Google” to get me to Hāwera. I arrived in Hāwera. This was my very first Treaty hearing experience as a very, very new MP. I did not know what to expect—I did not know what to expect. I was carrying an incredible sense of responsibility to do the best job I could as the Green Party representative, and to hear what the people were going to say.

I rocked up to the Hāwera stadium place. There was the big panel. We had all been given seats, and we had our lovely gold-embossed little name tablets and everything up there. I was late. I was late, and there was my name sitting there, with no Marama behind it. So I tried to sneak in sideways and inconspicuously, to take my seat and sit down. Luckily in Te Ao Māori the pōwhiri and the mihi often take up a little bit of our beautiful time—that is, Māori time. So I still managed to sit down in time to stand up again to give my whakapapa and introduce myself.

And then I sat and I listened to, I think it was about 12 submissions that day. I remember Peter Moeahu, who is the inaugural chair of the mandated body Te Korowai o Ngāruahine, which is going to take the claim forward. Like everybody else, I cracked up when he talked about starting the claim with one mokopuna and ending it with, I think it was, 14 and with some great-grandchildren. You know, although that was a beautiful story to indicate the length of time, I was also thinking that in my family that could be 1 year, ha, ha! But it was a beautiful story to indicate not just time but how our whakapapa moves and grows through the hearings of these settlements. They do take a while. We have children, we have grandchildren, and we lose our people at the other end as well, our kaumātua—sometimes the very ones who started off these kōrero. So I wanted to acknowledge everybody involved in these fraught processes.

These Tiriti settlement claims are fraught every time. If there is one thing I learnt really quickly, coming into Parliament and being on this committee and hearing settlement claims, it is that every time they are fraught. Māori have done fabulously in trying to get anything happening and trying to get anything moving, with how fraught these processes are. This is where I also want to acknowledge all of those who also opposed this bill, including Āraukuku, who were very clear. The submitters who came to us were very clear that they wanted to align in the Ngāruahine settlement, and they felt excluded from this settlement because it was said that the Crown basically mandated that they were already part of the Ngāti Ruanui settlement. So we heard that as well. I want to acknowledge that.

Yes, I too, like my colleague from Te Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis, am not one to stand here and pass any sort of judgment over the wedges between hapū and across iwi that arise in Treaty settlements. I cannot imagine what I am going to say when my iwi turn up here, when Ngāpuhi turns up here, in the House—I cannot even imagine. But it is still important for me to acknowledge the sincerity with which every submitter brought their mamae, their joy, their range of emotions and stories to us on the select committee.

I will pick up, for example, from a submission from Allie Hemara-Wahanui, who supports the bill, who said: “While the settlement barely compensates Ngaruahine Iwi for the injustices of the past, it provides the opportunity to implement the aspirations outlined in our 25 year iwi strategy 2009-2034.” I am always amazed by our people in these settlements. On the continuum you have got people genuinely doing their best to move their iwi and hapū and whānau forward—negotiators, kaumātua, marae, and hapū engaging in these really fraught conversations—because you can never settle the injustices. They are never settled, and these claims are not just about a settlement. They are ongoing, enduring relationships and we need to be very clear about that. [Bell rung] Oh, already, Mr Assistant Speaker—all right then. They are ongoing, enduring relationships.

I have quoted Allie as an example of the aspirations, and I will also quote how Āraukuku felt that this was a monumental Crown blunder and that our Māori have to deal with this process, which sets hapū, marae, and iwi against each other, resulting from something that the Crown did to us, and yet it is Māori who end up having these difficult, fraught conversations. I want to acknowledge our people for trying to do the best that we can. I will finish on the fact that Te Tiriti was a relationship with hapū, and it was set up, and that is partly why trying to settle with iwi is fraught. Ngāruahine ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa, tēnā tātou. Kia ora.

[Ngāruahine, acknowledgments to you all and to all of us. Thank you.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā anō tātou i roto i Te Whare. Te mea tuatahi māku, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e te tuakana e, Kelvin, nāu i ’hakarite tā tātou noho i te ata nei, kia māmā te haere o tēnei pire mō Te Iwi o Ngāruahine. Tua atu i tēnā, koutou ngā kanohi, mai i Ngāruahine, koutou mai i te maru o Taranaki, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e aku tuakana i ’hakatau rā i a koutou i roto i tō koutou Whare i te rā nei, nā reira; tēnā koutou! He mihi hoki ki tēnā o ngā mate maha, i ’hakahuangia ētahi i roto i a mātou o Te Tai Tokerau, kei te tūhonohono ki tēna o ngā mate kei waenganui i a koutou i te rā nei. Na reira, e ai ki te kōrero: “Nā rātou te pō, ka hoki mai ki a tātou, ko tātou te ata.” Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to those once in the House. The first thing for me is to really commend you, Kelvin, the elder colleague who eased our situation this morning and allowed this bill for the people of Ngāruahine to proceed smoothly. Further to that, I say to you the representatives of Ngāruahine from the shelter of Taranaki, that I endorse the tributes accorded to you by my elder colleagues in welcoming you into your House today; come hither! I pay tribute as well to that one of the many who have passed away, some of whom within us in the North were mentioned to link up with that one amidst you today. Therefore, and according to the saying: “Theirs is the night and ours is the morning.” And so I acknowledge, commend, and congratulate you collectively.]

I take some delight in participating in this debate, particularly in terms of seeing another Treaty claim settlement come before the House on its way to being enacted, and therefore allowing the claimants to leave this House knowing that essentially what they have asked for has been resolved—not entirely, but certainly resolved to a great extent. In this case we are talking about the claim from the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee, where we heard a number of submissions, and can I say that I certainly support that process because it allows those who do not necessarily agree with the terms of settlement that have been reached to certainly air their concerns, and for us, as politicians, to hear and to consider.

First of all, I want to say that this bill is one of a number that addresses some of the—in my view—serious breaches of the Treaty in the history of our country, particularly in terms of the loss of life, displacement of a people, and the results of all of that. It is articulated in the bill as to what happened, and we all know that before 1860, 20 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, this iwi was one of the most prosperous and economically successful iwi in the region—some would probably say “in New Zealand” at the time, but I am from the north, so I probably have a different view in that respect. However, the fact is that there is no question about the economic position of Ngāruahine at the time. So the invasion of Crown troops has led to this claim being made before the Waitangi Tribunal, and we all know the history involved in that.

The Māori Affairs Committee’s report makes reference to the Āraukuku issue, and, again, like my colleague Kelvin Davis, who am I to question the position that Āraukuku has taken? Given the whakapapa links between that hapū or iwi to that of the claimant group today, that is something that will always be an issue for us as Māori, who both have a concern about claims and do not agree with the claims, but at least we have been assured that anyone from Āraukuku who is descended from their tūpuna is able to benefit from this particular claim. Some members of Āraukuku did not support that decision and they campaigned for a discrete settlement for their iwi or hapū—whatever we might want to describe them as. They wanted their own autonomy, their own rangatiratanga.

Some members disagree with the exclusion of Āraukuku from the list of hapū in the Ngāruahine claimant definition. The Crown has previously stated that Āraukuku’s settlement alignment was for the hapū to resolve, and to a certain extent I agree with that, only as long as the Crown has not been responsible for that position, and some would argue that it has been. The select committee has been assured by Ngāruahine that Āraukuku individuals with Ngāruahine whakapapa are able to benefit from the Ngāruahine settlement. The settlement process does not allow for the committee to address the concerns of Āraukuku satisfactorily, and I, in this part of this debate, certainly support that notion.

The other issue that was raised was in regard to the Stratford Power Station. The land was confiscated during the 1860s and awarded to Āraukuku after the raupatu as part of a reserve, but subsequently became privately owned. As the Crown will not give privately owned land, the committee would like to have the Crown produce public statements to accompany this settlement bill. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has assured this House that he will certainly do that.

I just want to make some comments about the submissions. A large proportion of those who submitted certainly supported the bill. In regard to the Kanihi hapū, and I quote from their submission, “… throughout the entire treaty settlement process every effort was made by the Nga Hapu board, and the negotiator(s) to ensure that everyone regardless of whether they were registered members of Nga Hapu or otherwise were kept informed by way of various mediums, i.e., panui, hui, website, email etc.”. So that confirms that every effort was made to inform the beneficiaries of this claim.

However, some of the issues that were raised by the submitters—I want to mention them because one or two of them do have, for me, some validity. Ngāti Tū did not support the Ngāruahine-mandated collective—Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine Iwi Inc.—and subsequently do not support the negotiated settlement. They believe that the settlement suffers from the same issues identified with my people from the Tai Tokerau, Ngāpuhi, and the issue of the Tūhoronuku Independent Mandated Authority. Another submitter was Democracy Action. It quite clearly stated that it opposed clauses 85 and 86, relating to cultural redress and iwi representation on council committees. This clause is something that is imposed on the people of that local body area, who have been denied the right to elect who should be sitting on their council committees. That is a concern that has been expressed not only in terms of this claim but also as a consequence of other claims that have already been settled.

I think that the argument that Māori are just as good as anyone else to stand for election has some validity. I think that we are, in fact, as Māori, just as good as our fellow citizens, and we should be putting ourselves forward to stand for those positions. However, that raises another issue, and I am not quite sure whether, ultimately, it will lead to another claim against the Crown—that people have been denied the opportunity of having their own wards so that they can stand for council. This bill does meet the intention of both the iwi and the Crown, and, on behalf of New Zealand First, we commend this bill to the House.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēna koe e Te Mana Whakawā, otirā, ki Te Whare e hui nei i tēnei ata, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou ōku hoa mahi, ki a Kelvin, e whakatau nei i a tātou i te ata nei i te karakia. Ki a koe, Nuk Kōrako, ko koe tēnā e whakahaere i Te komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori na reira, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou, mōrena rā tātou ōku hoa mahi. Ki a koutou ō runga, koutou o Ngāruahine, ōku pou, ōku rahi, koutou e hāpai nei i tēnei kaupapa, anei te mihi atu ki a koutou! Ko koutou tēnei kaupapa e kōkirihia nei, āe, i ngā rua tekau, toru tekau tau kua pahure ake ēngari anō, mai i te wā i tangohia kēngia nei te whenua kua whawhai tō koutou whānau, ō koutou tupuna mō te whenua te take. Nā reira, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, anō nā ki a koutou e hara mai nei mō te pānui tuarua o Hineuru. I tēnei ata kai te pīrangi au ki te pānui i tēnei o ngā kōrero. Te kōrero nei nā Ron Hudson i tuhi kai roto tonu i te deed of settlement.

Kai roto i āna kupu te kiko o tēnei kōrero nā reira, ka haere ahau ki āna nei kōrero. “I ahu mai a Ngāruahinerangi mai i ngā ranginui e tū nei, ko Rangitūhāhā, ko Māreikura, hei Māreikura, ko Te Rangiwhakataka, ko Taumakumaku ō ngā rangi, ko Te Paraparawai ō ngā rangi, ko Te Māriehou ō ngā rangi, ko Te Matawaiwai, ko Te Tuarā ō ngā rangi, ko Te Matauarā ō ngā rangi, ko Te Takinui ō ngā rangi, ko Tūtewanawana ō ngā rangi, ko Aoaoariki ō ngā rangi, ko Kirikiri ō Mātangi, ko Te Toi ō ngā rangi, ko Ngāruahinerangi iwi o Taranaki nui tonu ē! “Maungarongo ki te whenua, whakaaro pai ki ngā tangata katoa”.

I te wā i tīmata ai te muru me te raupatu i te tau 1863, i eke mai ai ngā hoia, ngā pū me ngā pū repo i te awa o Waitōtara. I te tīmatanga o te muru, me ngā raupatu, i tērā wā i a tātou te tino rangatiratanga o tō tātau maunga, awa, whenua, ngahere, takutai moana, hinuhou, ngā whakairo, ō tātou Māoritanga, ō tātou marae, ō tātou māra, ō tātau kāinga, ō tātou urupā, i te mutunga, i te matenga o ētahi o rātau i te raupatu, i murua katoatia te whenua, ā, kai reira te kiko o te kōrero nei, kai roto i te kōrero o tēnei o ngā rangatira. Kai te koroua, kuia haere aku kamo, koirā te take kāre e taea te pānui, hoi anō rā, kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki a koutou.

[And so I acknowledge you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but, at the same time, the House assembled here this morning, I acknowledge you my fellow colleagues, especially you, Kelvin, who welcomed us today with a prayer. I acknowledge you as well, Nuk Kōrako, who conducts the affairs of the Māori Affairs Committee; well done. I say “Morning” to us, my fellow work colleagues, and pay a tribute to you of Ngāruahine seated above; my pillars, my greatness, and you who are supporting this matter, well done. You are the ones pursuing this matter and, yes, not only in the past 20 and 30 years but further back to the time when the land was confiscated. Your family and ancestors fought it, the land was the reason. And so I commend you for coming here to the second reading of the Hineuru bill. This morning I want to read this one of the accounts. It was written by Ron Hudson and is in the deed of settlement.

The substance of this account is in his words, and so I proceed to read it. Ngāruahinerangi emerged from the great heavens standing here before us, Rangitūhāhā and Māreikura. From Māreikura came Terangiwhakataka, Taumakumaku of the heavens, Te Paraparawai of the heavens, Te Māriahou of the heavens, Te Matawaiwai, Te Tuarā of the heavens, Te Matauarā of the heavens, Te Takinui of the heavens, Tūtewanawana of the heavens, Aoaoariki of the heavens, Kirikiri-ō-Mātangi, Te Toi of the heavens, and thus the dominant tribe of Taranaki at large of Ngāruahinerang; indeed oh! “Peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind!”

In the year 1863 when the plundering and confiscation began, the soldiers with their guns and cannons came from the direction of the river of Waitōtara. When the confiscation and plundering began at that time, we had ownership of our mountain, river, land, forest, seashore, oil, carvings, our Māoritanga, courtyards, gardens, homes, and burial places, and, ultimately, some of them died as a consequence of the confiscation, and all the land was wiped out. There then is the substance of this account. It is in the account by this one of the leaders. My eyesight is ageing somewhat, and that is the reason why I was unable to read it. But so much for that; I do want to acknowledge you collectively.]

Ngāruahine, in the Waitangi Tribunal report, said this: “They could be the largest in the country. There may be no others where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time.” We have heard today of the debate that has raged during this settlement, but it goes back to the heart of this. There was a Treaty signed in this country, of partnership. The member here, Pita Paraone, has just said that there was some debate as to whether or not there should be seats in a governance responsibility on regional council and council positions, but partnership is just that—where two partners come together. The report itself highlights the breaches equivalent to none other: “[The] Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time. We see the claims of standing on two major foundations, land deprivation and disempowerment, with the latter being the main. By ‘disempowerment’, we mean the denigration and destruction of Maori autonomy or self-government.” In the whai kōrero that I just read out from the deed of settlement, that is the heart of the matter: the loss of mana, of power, of autonomy, and of rangatiratanga.

“Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori, to restore the honour of the Government,”—if it can be restored—“to ensure cultural survival, and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.” Well, effective interaction, in my mind, would mean co-governance arrangements over areas of environment and over the interests of the people in that area. “Ngāruahine record the following Tribunal findings: the whole history of Government dealings with Maori in Taranaki were the antithesis to that envisaged by the Treaty … the war in south Taranaki was commenced by the Crown without just cause and was contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi”, and why was it commenced? For no other reason but to secure land for settlement.

And why did the Government forces come out on the people of Ngāruahine? Because they simply refused to sell. Confiscation removed Ngāruahine’s land entirely. The Government’s purchase of the land offered inadequate protection of Māori interests and “did not meet the required standards of sincerity, justice and good faith to be valid in terms of the Treaty;”. And, finally, “the imprisonments without trial of several hundred Maori was contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi.”

Despite all of the conversations and the debates and the submissions that we have heard, there is one thing that is clear: no matter what settlement redress Ngāruahine is able to be afforded through this process, it will in no way make up for the huge injustice. It is merely a beginning. It must be acknowledged, as it has been for many other Treaty settlements, that this is, in fact, the largest koha, or show of generosity, from one people to another, to accept such a minimal amount in order to redress the utter destruction meted out against the people of Ngāruahine and, indeed, the iwi in other Treaty settlements across the country.

We have heard about the conflict with Āraukuku, and I recognise that Ngāruahine, in the submissions that we heard, were very supportive of Āraukuku’s claim, so we recognise that. It was a matter of great debate amongst us in the Māori Affairs Committee. We wanted to ensure that everybody had their day to present their issues in front of the Tribunal and we recognised that Āraukuku had not been afforded that opportunity, so now that has gone on to another court to see whether there can be a way forward.

But we are here today for the second reading. We have heard the redress and the packages that are going to be offered. We have heard the apology that has come from the Crown, and although that in no way makes up for the injustices that have been meted out upon the people of Ngāruahine, it is, again, in their generosity that they come to this point and accept this settlement offer so that they can progress and so that they can move forward and start to put behind them the injustices so that they can build an enduring relationship with the Crown to progress forward, and that also means their local government—their establishment of places on council—so that they can have a stronger part to play, and say, in the dealings of their people in the settlement where they live. No reira e te iwi, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa. [Therefore people, I acknowledge you collectively. Well done; my appreciation to us all.]

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): “Ā, tuku mauri ora ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama, tiheiwa mauri ora.” Kāti, e Te Whare; ka tū ahau ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero, ka patere pai ki roto i tō tātou Whare i te rā nei. Ka tautoko anō au i ngā mihi i tukuna atu ki runga i a koe, e te uri o Pōmare, e Ngāti Manu, e tōku tuakana, e Kelvin. Nāu tō tātou rangi i whakarite, kia kotahi ai te wairua ki raro i ngā whakaaro, me ngā haumaru o tō tātou Kaihanga. Kāti.

Ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki ō tātou tini aituā, kua wahaina mai e tō tātou Whare i te rā nei. Ka tautoko mārika i tērā kōrero ki a rātou: “Haere mai, haere.” Kua kōrero mai nā koutou, otirā tātou, mō te wāhanga ki roto i ōku ake, arā, ko Tā Kereama, arā ko Charlie Pētera, tau atu ki roto o Mōtatau i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei, ko Rob Cooper tēnā. Kia kaua tēnei Whare e pōhēhē, ko Rob Cooper i whakapau werawera mō Ngāti Hine, mō Ngāpuhi te take, kāhore! Ko tōna mahi, he whakariterite i ngā ratonga hauora Māori puta noa i te motu whānui. Nō reira e tautoko ana i te tangi atu, i te tangi mōteatea atu ki tērā hau tupua, nō roto mai i a au o Ngāti Hine; e te pāpā, e Rob, haere, haere, haere.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou e Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. E tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kua tae mai anō koutou ki roto i Te Ana ō Te Raiona, kia whakarongo atu koutou ki ngā kiko kei roto i tēnei pire. Aua mātou ko te kī atu, nā mātou katoa wēnei kōrero, kāhore! Ēngari kua mutu ngā mahi whiriwhiri o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori. Kua noho rātou ki roto i a koutou ki te āta whakarongo ki ngā kōrero katoa, ā, e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Nō reira e mihi atu ana au ki a koutou, nau mai, hoki mai, haere mai.

E mihi atu ana ahau ki Te Minita mō ngā Take Tiriti, me te whakaaro nui ki roto i tana kōrero i te rā nei, kia whakakotahi ai ngā iwi o te hauāuru o Taranaki hei te mutunga o tēnei tau. Nō reira koutou, otirā tātou katoa, te whakanui ake i ngā mahi i oti nā i a koutou me Te Tari o Te Minita hai tatū ai i ngā kerēme ka puta mai i ngā take o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā whakaaro rangatira tā te mea, e mōhio ana tātou Te Iwi Māori, ko tēnei mea te whakapapa, kāhore e taea te wetewete. Ki te āta titiro atu ki ngā kōrero i puta mai e pā ana ki tēnei pire, ko ngā hapū katoa e kōrero ana mō ngā wāhanga kai roto i te pire; ēhara tēnei mea i te wetewete i a koutou, kāhore! Ko te kī atu, ko ngā hapū, nō reira ko te mana. E aro pū atu ana ngā hapū katoa ki ngā take nui o te iwi puta noa. Nō reira ko tēnei mea te whakapapa, kia kaua e waiho noa atu mā te ture e wetewete, e tīhaehae; ka noho weherua tātou Te Iwi Māori! Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a koutou, ā, e ōku rangatira e Ngāruahine, me ngā hapū maha kai roto i a koutou.

Nā, kua kōrero mai tēnei Whare mō ngā tāngata i tau ki mua i te aroaro o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, arā, ko Āraukuku tētahi. E kī nei te kōrero anā, ko wā rātou tūpuna, ko Kanihi-Umutahi, rātou ko Ōkahu-Inuwai ngā hapū. Kāti, e mihi atu ana au ki wēnei korero.

I a au ki roto i tēnei Whare, Te Whare Pāremata, kua titiro atu ahau ki te nuinga o ngā kerēme Tiriti ka uru mai: ka puta atu. Nā, ko reira katoa ngā āwangawanga, ko reira tonu ngā āmaimai o Te Iwi Māori. Kua kōrero mai tōku tuakana a Pita Paraone mō tēnei tūāhuatanga. Ka kōrero mai, ahakoa te ūpoko māro o Te Kāwanatanga, kia noho pū ki te tēpu o Ngāpuhi. Ko te kī atu mātou kei ngā hapū te mana. Kei ngā hapū te mana whakahaere i ngā marae maha. Kei ngā hapū ngā Reo, me ngā kōrero o Te Iwi. Nō reira, ko tāku e kī nei i a au e pānui ana i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā hapū, nā, kia kaha rā koutou. Ahakoa ngā whakaritenga o tēnei Kāwanatanga, ahakoa ngā mahi e ai ki wētahi, he mahi pōheahea a tēnei Kāwanatanga ki te wetewete whakapapa, ki te weherua tō koutou noho ki roto i ō koutou whenua. Ka kite atu ahau i ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei e mea atu ana—

[“Well-being to the natural world and to the world of enlightenment, behold the breath of life.” That is enough for the House; I rise to endorse the contributions that flowed without restraint in our House today. I also support the tributes bestowed upon you the relative of Pōmare, of Ngāti Manu, and my senior kin, Kelvin. You made our day by saying a prayer to unite us spiritually under the considerations and protection of our Creator. Enough.

I endorse the tributes to the myriad of our deaths, brought here before us today by our House. I truly endorse that, saying to them: “Come forth, depart.” You, and indeed all of us collectively, have alluded to my own ones, namely Sir Graham and Charlie Pētera, including those within Mōtatau in the last few days—and that is Rob Cooper. This House must not delude itself that Rob worked tirelessly for Ngāti Hine, with Ngāpuhi being the cause—not at all! His role was to organise Māori health services throughout the country. Therefore, I too share the tears expended, the grief and laments to that incredible person from within me of Ngāti Hine; and so, the fatherly figure, Rob, depart, go forth, farewell.

I therefore bring the focus of the discourse back to us, the House, and my acknowledgments to us all. I endorse the salutations accorded to you collectively. You have returned here once again into the lair of the lions, to listen to the substance of this bill. It is not for us to say to you these comments are ours—absolutely not at all! But the considerations by the Māori Affairs Committee have ended. They have sat among you to listen carefully to all the discourse about this bill. And so I personally acknowledge you collectively, come hither, welcome back, welcome.

I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and his profound speculation in his speech today that by the end of this year Taranaki’s western tribes will be united. So allow us and you collectively, to celebrate the work that you and the Minister’s office have done to resolve the claims which came out of the matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. I commend that profound viewpoint because we Māori people know full well that this genealogical thing cannot be dismantled. If the commentary that emerged relating to this bill was examined carefully, all subtribes were talking about the parts in the bill; this thing is not about unravelling you collectively—far from it! It is actually saying it is about subtribes, therefore it is about the mandate. All subtribes are focusing on key tribal issues throughout the nation. Therefore this thing—genealogy—should not be left for the law to unravel, dismantle, and cut up; we of Māoridom will be driven apart! But I do congratulate you my esteemed ones of Ngāruahine, and the many subtribes in your midst.

This House has spoken about the people who came before the Māori Affairs Committee and one such was Āruakuku. It has been stated, as follows, that our ancestors were Kanihi-Umutahi and the subtribes Ōkahu-Inuāwai. Enough, I commend these words.

In my time here in this House, Parliament, I have observed a huge number of Treaty claims that have come in and have gone out. However, the concerns and unease of Māoridom are still there. My elder kinsman Pita Paraone has spoken to me about this kind of situation. He told me: despite the hard-headed attitude of the Government, you must hold fast to Ngāpuhi’s table. We are saying that the subtribes have the mandate. Subtribes have executive control on many marae. Subtribes have the languages and the talk of the people. So what I am advocating here as I read the accounts about subtribes, is that you must be resolute—despite this Government’s arrangements, regardless what others may come up with in terms of strategies, or dismantling genealogy by this Government to split you in your way of life on your land. I note the comments in this bill, saying—]

“The Crown has made it clear that the nature of Āraukuku’s alignment with the two iwi, Ngāti Ruanui and Ngāruahine, in Treaty settlements was for the hapū and the two iwi to resolve.”

Nā tēnā, e mihi atu ana au ki tērā whakaaro rangatira. Mā koutou tērā e whakatau, kia kaua e waihonā atu mā te ture tātou e noho weherua, kāti!

E mihi tonu ana ahau ki ngā kaikōrero me wā rātou kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Kua wahaina mai e Te Whare ēnei momo korero. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki te whakapapa, ki te hītori o tēnei take. Koinā hoki te take kua tae mai koutou i te rā nei. E mea atu ana, ko ngā hītori kua kōrero mai mō te raupatu, mō te tāhae whenua, mō te mauherengia o ō koutou ake tupuna, ēngari, ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ngā āhuatanga ō koutou ki roto i ngā tau mai i taua wā tae noa mai ki tēnei wā, nē? Kia arohaehaetia aua take? Nā, ko ngā take e pā ana ki te ture, ngā take e pā ana ki tō koutou noho ki runga i ō koutou whenua, mai i taua tāima tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. E mea ana wētahi, ko tēnei mea ko te “systematic legislation”, nē? Koinā hoki ngā nekehanga. Ko taku titiro ko ngā mahi raupatu o ēnei rangi, te tūkino, te taunu i a koutou, e Ngāruahine, mai i te tāima o te whenua raupatu tae noa mai ki tēnei wā.

Ko taku titiro atu ki te pire nei, i roto i ngā wāhanga e toru, kia ea ai ō koutou nawe, ō koutou take e pā ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nā, kua tutuki i roto i tēnei pire. Nō reira, ko tāku atu i tēnei wā, e mōhio ana au i ngā nekehanga o tēnei Whare. Ā taihoa ake nei ka mutu te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire. Ka hoki atu anō au ki tērā tono a Te Minita ki a koutou: kia noho kotahi ai koutou ki roto i tō koutou hurōtanga, whakahōnoretanga, whakatutukitanga i ngā take kerēme, a te Oketopa e tū mai nei. He whakaaro rangatira tēnā. Kāti e aku rangatira, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire i roto i tana pānuitanga tuarua. Kāti—kua rongo koutou kua tangi mai te pere, e aku rangatira— tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[And so I commend that noble thought. That is for you to determine—do not leave it for the law to split us in two. Enough said!

I continue to acknowledge the speakers and their contributions in regard to this bill. These kinds of sentiments have been brought to bear by the House. I reflect upon the genesis and the history of this matter. That, indeed, is the reason why you have arrived here collectively today. It is saying that the historical accounts talk about confiscation, theft of land, and imprisonment of your very own ancestors, but I think about your circumstances over the years from that period right down to now, OK? Should those matters be critically discerned? These matters relate to the law and how you live on your lands, from that time right down to this moment. Some are saying this thing is called “systematic legislation”, OK? That indeed is the way procedures move. In my view, modern day acts of confiscation violate and taunt you, Ngāruahine, from the time the land was confiscated right down to now.

When I look at this bill and its three parts to see if your grievances and your matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi can be settled, in this bill it can be settled—yes, indeed. And so, further to that and at this present moment, I am familiar with the procedures of this House. The third reading of this bill will conclude presently. I go back again to the plea from the Minister to you: that you remain united in your happiness, glorification, and fulfilment in regards to claim matters, collective recognition, acknowledgment, and settlement of claims by the coming October. That is, indeed, an inspirational thought. Enough of that, my esteemed ones, I am endorsing this bill in its second reading. Enough—you heard the bell ring, my esteemed ones—congratulations, well done, and my appreciation to us all.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora e te whānau whānui o Ngāruahine, rau rangatira mā hoki, ā, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki te rā whakahirahira i tēnei rangi. [Acknowledgments to you, the extended family of Ngāruahine, and also to the esteemed ones of a hundredfold. Salutations, welcome, and draw hither on this day of high importance today.] I am pleased to stand to support this bill today in its second reading. But before I do that, I want to acknowledge the passing of Tā Graham Latimer, who had a major impact on the whole of the motu for the many amazing deeds that he did. I also want to pay tribute to Charlie Petera, another kaumātua rangatira from Tai Tokerau, and, finally, to Rob Cooper from Ngāti Hine. I want to especially mention Rob Cooper because he had a big impact on hauora Māori for Aotearoa New Zealand and he would have had a big impact up there in Ngāruahine. I started working within the health sector when I first came across Rob Cooper and Gwen Tepānia-Palmer. I was amazed at the amount of work and the push that they had in driving the improvement of Māori health through the implementation of the Māori health providers throughout the motu. That is why I just wanted to take some time out to acknowledge Rob Cooper.

Ngāruahine is one of eight Taranaki iwi who have been through this process or are coming through this process now and in the future. It is amazing that our select committee and the Crown can actually bring together all of these claims from Taranaki through this House during this year. It is amazing because all of the eight iwi have their roots to the Maunga, Taranaki, and the horrific injustices that happened there and throughout that area of Taranaki.

I want to acknowledge the many people who came to the select committee hearing in Hāwera this year. I want to acknowledge them because it is really, really difficult to articulate a lifetime of injustices in 10 minutes to a group of MPs who are sitting there listening intently, putting together the parts to your puzzle and to your history. I want to acknowledge you, because to do that takes a lot of guts and a lot of nerve, a lot of talking with your whānau and bringing together the words that you need to say so we can actually hear all the stories. I want to acknowledge you; it is not an easy thing to do. Actually, I have never submitted to a select committee, so I take my hat off to you.

I want to also acknowledge our Minister, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I do that quite often here, but I just want to acknowledge him because he sweats a lot for all the claims. He does that and works really hard. I have been privileged to be part and parcel of the many signings that he has done throughout the country, and the words that he articulates in the speeches and apologies come from the heart. I have seen him on one particular occasion where a teardrop nearly got there and he was able to hold it together, but that is how passionate he is. I think that many people in the country do not realise the blood, sweat, and tears that he goes through to actually make sure that iwi are acknowledged by the Crown.

Some people might say “Oh, it is not enough.”, and others might say “It is too much.”, but I say it is the start. It is either the start of your economic development for the growth of your iwi or it is to grow what you have already put in place. All of these claims here, they are not about the people sitting in the gallery. They are about the future. They are about the mokopuna who come through. You know, it is about everything that is going to happen into the future. And all of you sitting here today, in this House, you will go down in the history—your history—as your mokopuna, in years to come, will look back and say: “It was my koro, my kuia who sat there and pushed hard for that day to happen.” So I have no other things to say today, in the second reading. I am very privileged and proud to commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ka hono aku whakaaro ki Te Runga Rawa me te karakia whakarite i a tātou i tēnei rangi. Ā, tēnei anō e mihi atu ki a koutou Ngāruahine, ki Matua Te Tapu, te maunga Taranaki, ki a koutou kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā; tēnā koutou. Kia kaua e pōhēhē koutou ko tēnei te tutukitanga mō Āraukuku, ēngari e tika ana, me kōrero tātou ki tēnei take. Ā, waihotia mō te pānui tuatoru ki te whakawhānui ake i ngā whakaaro mā koutou ēngari, e pā ana ki te momo o ngā kaupapa i puta mai i mua i te aroaro o Te Komiti Māori, ka tika, ka whakamārama pai kia waiho ki konei. Ka mutu te wāhanga o te tutukitanga ki te pānui tuatoru.

[I link my thoughts to the Almighty Above and to the prayer that readied us for today. I acknowledge you once again, Ngāruahine, and Matua Te Tapu, which is Mount Taranaki to you who have arrived here at this point in time; welcome. You must not think mistakenly that this is the final settlement in regard to Āraukuku, but it is appropriate that this matter is discussed by us. Leave the elaboration of viewpoints for your consideration at the third reading, but in terms of the kinds of proposals that emerged before the Māori Affairs Committee, it is right that they are explained well and left here. The part relating to the settlement will reach a conclusion at the third reading.]

I just want to offer some comments with regard to the substantive issues considered by the Māori Affairs Committee, and raised through the submission process. This is a second reading, so it is important for us to ensure that all the matters that were considered and traversed by the committee are clarified here so that by the time we get to the third reading and the substantive matters of the Ngāruahine settlement we are able to move forward confidently and in a way that gives Ngāruahine a level of assurance that it is an opportunity for the iwi to move forward.

Kei whea te rongoa mō tēnei tūāhuatanga, te muru, te raupatu i pā mai ki runga i a koutou, i a mātou; te tangohia o ō tātou nei whenua nā te ture i mahia, nā te pakanga i mahia, taua tūāhuatanga hei patu i a tātou whakapapa? Ā, kua puta mai aua kōrero katoa.

[Where is the remedy for these kinds of situations—plundering, confiscation—that you and we experienced; where these lands of ours were taken possession of, and that the law and warfare effected, and whereby those situations subdued our genealogy? All those sentiments emerged.]

So it is a very difficult situation, in terms of trying to traverse some of the historical realities of what happened, and reconciling some of those through a Treaty settlement process. My colleagues before me have spoken at length on that. But can I say, at the select committee level, when the submitters came to the committee—albeit with some specific issues of contention with where interests were best represented—ultimately, the committee did not get a strong sense that this was about a contest between iwi or between hapū; actually, this was a frustration with regard to the Crown process. So I acknowledge that in the first instance.

In the second instance—and I happened to be the local MP when the Ngāti Ruanui settlement was reached. Let me just, for the purposes of those listening to this debate, consider the Āraukuku matter within that context. Members of the select committee had heard that the Ngāti Ruanui settlement had substantially addressed Āraukuku interests. They had been recognised in terms of having a seat on the governance board, and they were included in the claimant definition. However, the matter that came to the select committee under the Ngāruahine settlement was that the Wai 552 claim was not extinguished. So your common-sense approach would say: “Well, if Āraukuku’s interests were settled under the Ruanui settlement, why wasn’t the Waitangi Tribunal claim extinguished at that point if the Crown was so confident?”. We pursued all those types of questions to try to understand the submissions coming to us under the Ngāruahine settlement.

With that said, I think, in my mind, what it whittled down to was that there were some interests that may have been thought to be outside the Ruanui settlement that may have been addressed in the Ngāruahine settlement. Even if I whittle it down further, the matter really could be condensed down to the power station, which is why the select committee made comment on it. Minister, the way in which you referred to the Stratford Power Station land and its inability to be utilised for settlement purposes while recognising that that is an issue that remains outstanding is helpful, I think, as people try to ensure that the nature and extent of their interests in specific areas that have not been addressed by either settlement can still be recognised. That is really important because Āraukuku did say quite clearly that the extinguishment of their Wai claim within the context of the Ruanui settlement was something that they did not consent to. However, this committee did not change that—it did not take that out. It recognised that this bill will continue with the Wai claim, Wai 552, and the recognition that it will be extinguished.

A couple of other matters that the committee concerned itself with as a result of the Āraukuku submission were mainly that in clause 13 of the bill there was no specific reference to Āraukuku, and the issue was around the whakapapa connection. It was a really difficult situation on our select committee—we were not there to arbitrate over whakapapa. We would much rather prefer that those matters had been dealt with well before the bill came to our committee. However, we understood that these were matters that were so inextricably linked to your connection to the whenua that they would undoubtedly come to the committee. So when we were informed that Āraukuku’s connection to Ngāruahine was through Kānihi-Umutahi and Ōkahu-Inuawai hapū, we could only but accept that that was the case. Even though we heard that the Ketemarae Pā was outside the interests affected by the Ngāruahine settlement, we understood that to the extent of the Ngāruahine settlement there was an opportunity for Āraukuku interests to connect back here.

Imperfect as it is for Āraukuku—and we tried very hard—you will see in much of the select committee’s report that we tried very hard to try to whittle through every issue that was raised. Imperfect as these explanations may be, for Āraukuku the committee resolved that, actually, there was very little we could do other than recognise the extent of their representation to our committee and the importance of ensuring that for the public record there potentially may remain matters unresolved. But the relationships with Ngāti Ruanui and Ngāruahine for the time being are absolutely critical to enable Āraukuku to move forward and also to enable Ngāruahine and Ngāti Ruanui to continue to move forward. Can I just reiterate to the House, so that there is no misunderstanding, there was not a high level of animosity between Ngāruahine and Āraukuku—there was not. It was very much a frustration with the process.

Minister, you have heard all the contributions from the committee at this second reading of the bill. Can I just, for your benefit, acknowledge the extent to which the officials went to the degree of giving us the advice that we needed to make a confident decision in the report that we are providing here today. Can I thank my colleague Adrian Rurawhe, for sitting on this committee. As was mentioned by our chair, Nuk Korako, he offered sage advice to us and a level of wisdom that was helpful to the committee. Nō reira, tēnei te tino mihi atu ki a koe, Adrian, mō tērā, tō mahi, āe, i Te Rohe o Te Taihauāuru.

[And so I really acknowledge you, Adrian, for that, in terms of your work in the Western region.]

Lastly, in terms of the technical amendments and the transfer of responsibilities for the post-settlement governance entity and just making sure that no liabilities will transfer, we saw that as a very worthy amendment and we are happy to recommend it to the House on the third reading. Ka waihotia te whakawhānui ake o ngā painga katoa mō te tutukitanga o Ngāruahine ki taua wā ēngari mō tēnei wā, anei he pitopito kōrero, he paku whakamārama mō ngā āhuatanga i tae mai i mua i te aroaro o te komiti. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou, kia tātou katoa, tēnā koe.

[To the actual elaborations of all benefits relating to the settlement of Ngāruahine—to that moment—but for now, here are some little bits of information and explanations in regard to the situations that came before the committee. I have much admiration for you collectively and for us all; so thank you.]

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, kia ora e Te Whare, tēnā koutou e Te Iwi o Ngāruahine.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, salutations to you the House, and acknowledgments to the Ngāruahine iwi.]

It is very good to have you here today. As a Pākehā member of Parliament from the Waikato region, I am a little bit too far removed from the action to be able to speak in great detail about this particular bill, but this is a very significant occasion. I am delighted to have the honour of taking the final call on behalf of the Government this morning. I congratulate all who have worked on this bill to this stage on the progress that you have made but I also thank the iwi for your courage and your considerable understanding in the process that you have undertaken.

As a Government we are firmly fixed on making great progress with the Treaty settlement process, and I acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson for the sterling job he has done in leading us to this point. I acknowledge those before him who have also worked on these matters. I acknowledge our tremendous relationship with the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, Marama Fox, and the members of the Māori Party, and I thank them for the work that they do as well.

To all those who have done such great work behind the scenes or up front within the negotiations, I extend my congratulations and my acknowledgment. To the Māori Affairs Committee that has worked on the bill as well, I commend you for the work that you have done.

I endorse the kōrero of my good colleague Jo Hayes, sitting beside me, who does have much greater knowledge of these matters, and, in particular, I just want to conclude by acknowledging the points that she and others have made that this is, of course, a matter of great historic significance, and your mokopuna—our tamariki—will look back in years to come at the work that is being done now. Their futures are being shaped by the decisions that are being made.

So it is my fervent prayer that this will have a very positive outcome for the iwi. I am absolutely confident that it is having a very positive atmosphere and result for our country as a whole. It is bringing to us a much greater degree of understanding. It is right that we correct the wrongs of the past, and that we learn from those lessons. I have great pleasure, therefore, in supporting this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I want to begin by welcoming the community of Hineuru here today. It is fitting that we are in this House, where matters of law are discussed, to address the wrongs that have been committed by the Crown against the people of Hineuru. I recognise a number of visitors in the gallery today. They will never have entered this House before, and many will have a relationship with the institution of this building that is clouded by a long history of mistrust and grievance. I hope their experience today is going to be a positive one.

Hineuru’s journey to settlement stretches back decades. While I acknowledge those present, it is only right to mention those who are no longer with us—the original claimants, who carried the claims of their tīpuna but were unable to see their aspirations recognised in legislation. I pay tribute to those who were instrumental in reaching this day, including Hine Campbell, Rere Puna, Kori Hill, Nick Wall, Emi Wall, Puāwai Rāhui, Hoani Hōhepa, and Whetū Tipiwai. I also want to mention Nicholas Twohill. He was a former historian from the Office of Treaty Settlements whose final work before he passed away was directed at describing the injustice suffered by this people—injustices that have put a serious stain on the reputation of the Crown and need to be recorded in Hansard today as a reminder to future generations of the hurt borne by past generations of Hineuru.

The tīpuna of Hineuru lived and cultivated land in the mountainous inland region between Napier and Taupō Moana. This was a strategically important area because it was one of the main thoroughfares between the central North Island and the Hawke’s Bay. Unfortunately, their first interactions with the Crown took the form of protests at the Crown’s failure to include Hineuru in its negotiations to purchase the Ahuriri block. In October 1866 Crown forces attacked a group of Māori who were camped at Ōmarunui, near Napier, after the expiry of an unreasonable ultimatum calling on the group to surrender. On the same day Crown forces intercepted, surrounded, and subsequently attacked another group, led by Hineuru rangatira Te Rangihīroa, further north near Pētane. Crown forces killed him and also other Hineuru people during the attacks, and then pursued Hineuru and other Māori into their rohe and plundered their kāinga.

Thirty-four members of Hineuru were captured, and were among the 86 prisoners who were transported to the Chatham Islands without trial. While these prisoners were being held captive the Crown proclaimed a large confiscation district in the Hawke’s Bay that included a great deal of Hineuru land. After years of protest by members of Hineuru, the Crown in 1924 promoted legislation that allowed the Native Land Court to award land in Tarawera and Tataraakina to Hineuru individuals descended from those who had been excluded from the 1870 grants. However, this action was repudiated by the Crown in 1952, when it promoted legislation that overturned these titles. For Hineuru, these actions resulted in decades of uncertainty about tenure, significant financial costs, and social and cultural dislocation, and left them virtually landless. Yet, despite all this, they have persevered.

I ask all members to stop for a moment and consider this—to consider how a people could go from a position of holding a fertile area of strategic importance to one in which they were left virtually landless, alienated from their traditional homes, and struggling to maintain leadership structures, cultural practices, and, indeed, their very language. I ask members to consider how the people of Hineuru sitting in the gallery today, whose ancestors have been subjected to such horrific treatment, and who have suffered economic and social marginalisation in their own rohe, can find it within themselves to be able to sit at the same table and engage in this process of reconciliation with the very group who, despite being entrusted to protect their interests, were responsible for the loss that was suffered.

It is a testament to the character of this people that we are here today. It is a testament to their generosity, to their desire for a better future for their children, that they have forgone full compensation for the losses they have suffered. By accepting this settlement, the people of Hineuru give a great deal to their country, and for this I thank them.

I want to acknowledge the Hineuru negotiation team. I want to make a particular reference to Karauna Brown and Ivy Kahukiwa-Smith for their significant contribution as lead negotiators. I want to acknowledge the other trustees of their trust, including Tirohia Bridger, Rēnata Bush, Toi Tāwhai, Te Reo Spooner, and Tūhuiao Kahukiwa. All these individuals have carried the heavy weight of their tūpuna and deserve praise for their services. Can I also acknowledge their advisers, including Traci Houpapa and the team from Kensington Swan, who have made a significant contribution to pursuing this settlement. Finally, I want to thank the Crown team, ably led by one of our own, Paul Swain. Although this is undoubtedly a day for the Hineuru community, I know that officials from across various departments share their excitement.

At the deed’s signing, I spoke about the significance of rangatahi—those who will inherit the full benefits of this settlement—who will not be made to endure the same prejudices as their tīpuna and who, I hope, will remember their history and will share it with generations to come. I reiterate these comments in this third reading speech but say something more: the time has now come for you to persist and persevere. The weight of your tīpuna will now fall on your own shoulders to carry, and through this settlement I hope your shoulders will not be overburdened.

I want to finish by recalling the first negotiations meeting, when the negotiators presented Crown officials with an old New Zealand flag. This was the last flag flown at the Te Hāroto School, and it flew at their marae on the day the officials met with Hineuru. In the past the flag had been flown as a symbol of partnership with the Crown. During the meeting the negotiators said they have lost faith as a result of preparing their claims for negotiation. They lowered the flag, they folded it, and they presented it to the Crown with a challenge to the Crown to hold it until such time as Hineuru considered the relationship of trust and good faith had been restored. I have the flag today and look forward to presenting it to the people of Hineuru after this bill has been passed. I look forward to the flag flying again in Te Hāroto as a representation of the partnership and of mutual trust between the parties. It has been a long journey, and I am delighted that we have reached this stage. I commend the bill to the House.

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! E ngā iwi o Ngāti Hineuru, aku whanaunga, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou, kia maumahara au i tēnei rā, ko Auntie Emmy Tehuihuinga Wall nee Bush, ka aroha ki te whānau, me Uncle Robin, Ngatoru, Ngahere, Janice, nei i konei anō nei, nō reira, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā mō te take, kia ora.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively and to us all, the powers, voices, and esteemed ones of a hundredfold; greetings and salutations. Acknowledgments to you, the people of Ngāti Hineuru, my kin, loving tributes to you. I must recall the memory of Auntie Emmy, Tehuihuinga Wall, nee Bush, today. I empathise with the family and mention these ones as well here: Uncle Robin, Ngātoru, Ngahere, and Janice. And so welcome, welcome to the House of Parliament here today in regards to the matter. Thank you.]

Kia ora to Kahukiwa as chair of Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc., and all of our whānau. Today is a special day. Today the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill will be passed into law in this Parliament. I am incredibly proud to stand here as Ngāti Hineuru representing our whānau in this Parliament on this incredibly significant day.

Ko Tītī-ō-Kura Te Maunga, ko Mōhaka Te Awa, ko Te Rangihīroa Te Tangata, ko Ngāti Hineuru Te Iwi.

[Tītī-ō-Kura is the mountain, Mōhaka is the river, Te Rangihīroa is the man, and Ngāti Hineuru is the tribe.]

Hineuru, daughter of Tukuha, descendent of Apa Hāpaitaketake—our rohe within the following rivers: Ripia, connecting with the Mōhaka, to Te Hoe, to Hautapu, to Te Pukahunui Stream, to Matakuhia Stream, to Waipunga River, to the Ōkoeke Stream, to the Tunamārō Stream, back to the Ripia. Our rohe within the following whenua blocks: Mōhaka, Waikare Blocks, Pukahunui, Rūnanga, Pohukura, Heruiwi, Whirinaki and the Kaingaroa. Ngāti Hineuru has links with Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and Tūhoe. Our ancestors, including Kura, snared tītī at night by raising a net in the air and building a bonfire behind it. The birds attracted by the light would be snared by the net—hence Tītīōkura.

So why are we here today, whānau? What happened to Ngāti Hineuru? According to the Waitangi Tribunal, commenting on the 1851 Ahuriri purchase: “It is also doubtful whether all parties with rights in the land were consulted, fully understood, and agreed to the transaction. For example, insufficient effort was made to obtain Ngāti Hineuru’s agreement. Instead, their consent was essentially acquired ex post facto, when the transaction was a fait accompli.”

Between 1863 and 1870 Ngāti Hineuru were victims of Crown raupatu. We suffered armed invasion, military attack, destruction of our property. We were exiled to Wharekauri—the Chatham Islands—and some of our whānau were executed. The Crown were the thieves, the Crown were the murderers. Samuel Locke, resident magistrate in Taupō, had come to believe by February 1869 that Ngāti Hineuru “was practically extinct”, with most of our lands confiscated.

I would like to read through what happened in terms of our history. The pretext for the confiscation was the so-called battle of Ōmarunui in 1866, when a group of Pai Mārire supporters encamped at Ōmarunui was attacked by Crown forces. Some of those at Ōmarunui were Ngāti Hineuru. Te Rangi Hīroa, Hineuru’s principal chief, was killed at Pētane on the same day.

Following the battle of Ōmarunui, survivors of the battle were transported to Wharekauri. The Ōmarunui detainees had not been given any kind of trial, whether civil or military—a process that the Waitangi Tribunal has found to be illegal. In its Mohaka ki Ahuiri Report the Waitangi Tribunal found that “The manner in which ‘confessions’ were extracted after Omarunui and the prisoners’ indefinite detention on the Chathams without trial amount to breaches by the Crown of its duty of active protection and its duty to act reasonably and in good faith.” Subsequently many Ngāti Hineuru people were with Te Kooti’s Whakarau when he led the escape from the Chathams, and from 1868 until 1872, Te Kooti’s fate and that of Ngāti Hineuru were intertwined.

The Waitangi Tribunal analysed the events at Ngātapa at length in its Tūranga report. In this, the context of the concession by the Crown was that unarmed prisoners at Ngātapa were executed by agents by the State and that this was a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Executed was Ngāti Hineuru leader Nīkora Te Whakaunua.

I looked at the history of Ngātapa in preparing for this third reading speech, and I will just quote from this source: “… somewhere between 86 and 128 people, captured or surrendered at the end of [the] siege, [were] stripped naked, lined up against the side of a cliff, and … executed without trial by government forces.” One of the attendees that day, a J P Ward, who was a member of the armed constabulary, wrote: “In all some 130 odd of the defenders of Ngatapa were captured in the bush and gorges below the pa where they lay asleep having had neither sleep nor water for 2 days. They were marched up the hill side again under the outer wall—as it were—of the pa they had defended so long and so heroically, stripped of every vestige of clothing they possessed and SHOT—shot like dogs. There was no mention of a trial or if any or all of them had participated in the [Poverty Bay, Matawhero] Massacre. That did not matter to us one straw. They were shot and their bodies left to swelter and rot under the summer’s sun and bones to bleach to this day. And all this—and very much more—as done beneath the … flag of mighty England.”

We do not know our history. New Zealanders do not know their history. What the Treaty settlement process enables is for us to reclaim our history. Ngāti Hineuru has committed to six pou of their settlement. The first is the “Restoration and protection of our cultural heritage and history for future generations.” Our tamariki need to know our stories, and through this Treaty settlement process, through pieces of legislation such as this, our whānau will never forget. So there is an opportunity for us to commemorate our history through education, through language, and through culture.

Ngāti Hineuru have also committed to the “Restoration of the health and wellbeing of our people.”, and one of the main priorities is to ensure that our whānau have housing and that we create health centres. There is a “Recognition of the mana of Ngati Hineuru and restoration of the relativity Ngati Hineuru had with other iwi of the region.” The primary focus from Ngāti Hineuru will be on our relationships with our fellow iwi, but also with our local and central government representatives. There will be a “Reassertion of the presence of Ngati Hineuru through our rohe”. There will be information boards and names that are relevant to our whakapapa. We will rebuild “an economic base for Ngati Hineuru.”, and there will also be “Revitalisation and restoration of our role as kaitiaki of our resources and environment.”, an implicit commitment to the revitalisation of our fisheries and birdlife.

I have read the latest Te Kokonga Kōrero, and our whānau are committing to Hineuru scholarships. One of our main focuses will be on ensuring that our tamariki have the best access to education. There is also an emphasis on our trustee elections. We are trying to get as many of the whānau as possible involved in the post-settlement entity. In their Te Kokonga Kōrero is their strategic vision: “Hineuru—ka tupu, ka ora, ka rea; Hineuru, we grow, we thrive and we prosper.”

It is my absolute pleasure to speak on behalf of Ngāti Hineuru in the House today and to commend this piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader--Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa, ā, tēnā tātau e hui nei i tēnei rā ki te kōrero, ki te wānanga i ngā take Ngāti Hineuru, Hineuru te aumangea, Hineuru te pūkeke, Hineuru te mārohirohi, tēnā koutou haere mai, haramai ki Te Whare Pāremata. Haramai ki ngā auē, haramai ki ngā kōrero, ki ngā hītori, haramai ki ngā tangi e tangihia ana. Nō reira, tēnei te whakatau atu ki a koutou kai ngā pakeke, kai te iwi, tēnā koutou, haramai! Haramai, haramai!

Kua rongo ake i ngā kōrero, e kore au e hoki ki ngā kōrero a Te Minita.Kua oti i a ia te whakatakoto i te hītori, ngā kōrero katoa e pā ana ki a koutou, ēngari ka rongo ake i te tangi o taku tuahine, ē, ka hoki ngā mahara ki tana matua kēkē ki a Hoani Wall, otirā, ki a Emmy, ko Te Whetū, koinā ngā mea i mōhio nei au i te wā i a rātau. Ka rongo ake i te tangi o tōna ngākau! Kua tae mai tēnei āhuatanga ki a ia ki tōna ngākau! ki a mātau katoa ngā Māori nei!

Ēhara tēnei āhuatanga i te āhuatanga hōu i te mea, koinei te āhuatanga o ngā kerēme i ngā wā katoa ka ngaungaua te ngākau, ka tangi te ngākau! Nō reira kai te tuahine, ka mihi rā ki te āhuatanga o tō kōrero he rawe tonu ēngari, he pōuri anō hoki ki te rongo ake i te ngaungau o ngā pēhitanga kua utaina ki runga i a Ngāti Hineuru, otirā, ki tō rahi i tēnei rangi tonu nei.

Koinei te pānuitanga whakamutunga, ā, e tika ana kia tuku roimata! Nō reira, e kore au e hoki ki aua kōrero kai aku rangatira! He tū poto noa ake tēnei ki te kī atu kai te tautoko Te Pāti Māori i ēnei kōrero katoa, kai te tautoko ake i te hiahia kia anga whakamua. Āe, he wāhi anō rā ki ngā hītori ēngari ko te painga ake, arā, ko te iwi e noho nei, ko tā rātau ko te tuhi i ngā kōrero kia noho ēnei kōrero ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata mō ngā rā e hia kē nei kei mua i te aroaro.

He wā pea tōna ka hoki mai ngā mokopuna, ka taea e rātau te kī mai, kai hea ngā kōrero i kōrerohia, ā, i tēnei rangi tonu nei ā ngā whā tekau tau kei mua i te aroaro! Pēnei i a mātau o tēnei whakatipuranga, ka wātea mātau ki te hoki ki ngā kōrero i kōrerohia e Apirana Ngata mā i te wā i a rātau. Nō reira, koinei te painga ake kia kōrerohia ngā kōrero i roto i te Whare Pāremata, kia tuhia ngā kōrero, ka mutu, ka noho tonu ki konei mō ake, mō ake nei!

Ēngari, waiho tērā ki reira. Ko te tino pūtake o taku kōrero, ko te kōrero mō te āhuatanga kai mua i te aroaro, kaua mō ngā uauatanga kua pā mai, kai tōwaitia katoatia ngā kōrero. Hoi anō, ka mihi rā ki a koutou me tā koutou māia, ahakoa ngā uauatanga kua pā mai ki a koutou, i noho angitū nei, māia nei, ā, ahakoa ngā pēhitanga e kōrerohia ake nei, ā, kua hāngai tonu tā koutou titiro kia eke, kia tū mana motuhake nei i roto i ngā kōrero, i ngā hītori, kia whai wāhi koutou, ēhara koutou i te hapū, he iwi tonu, ā, ka mutu, he hiahia anō wā koutou, he tūmanako anō rā wā koutou. Nō reira, kia hāngai tonu taku kōrero ki tērā o ngā kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all, and acknowledgments to us gathered here today to speak and debate matters concerning Ngāti Hineuru. Hineuru the tenacious, strongminded, and brave; greetings, welcome and come forth into Parliament. Welcome to the groans, the contributions and the grieving being shed here. I therefore welcome you, the adults, the tribe, welcome, welcome, welcome!

I have heard the contributions and will not be revisiting the statements made by the Minister. He has outlined the history and all that relate to you collectively, but I heard my sister colleagues’ sob and, hey, my recollections go back to her uncle John Wall, but at the same time to Emmy and Whetū, to those ones whom I knew in their time. I heard her heart-rending sob! This came from within her, a situation that wells up within us all Māori here!

It is not a new one, because this is the situation, with claims every time the seat of emotions is chewed at, the heart laments, and so I commend the tenor of your contribution sister colleague. It is quite nice but sad also to hear as a consequence of the bite of the burdens placed upon Ngāti Hineuru, but at the same because of your massive number here this very day.

This is the final reading, and, yes, it is apt for tears to be shed! Therefore, I will not revisit those stories, my esteemed ones. This is but a short address to simply advise that the Māori Party support all these accounts and the real desire for it to move forward. Yes, there is a place for history, but the benefit is there in the people seated here. Their job is to report the contributions so that they remain here in this Parliament for the many days ahead in the future.

A time will come, perhaps, in the future when the grandchildren will be able to say to us: where are the contributions that were delivered on this very day 40 years ago, before us! Just like us of this generation, we are able to go back to the accounts delivered by Apirana Ngata in their time. So this is the advantage of delivering speeches in Parliament and reported, eventually; they remain here and are recorded forever.

The real purpose of my contribution was to talk about the situation in the future, and not about the difficulties that have emerged, as it will totally prolong discussions. Therefore, I do commend you and your perseverance. Despite the difficulties that affected you, you remained successful and confident. Despite the pressures that were referred to, your focus has remained fixed on making it to the top and being independent in the contributions and histories, and that you are able to participate; you are not a subtribe but a tribe in reality. Furthermore, you have your own needs and aspirations. Therefore, my address must remain focused on that one of the contributions.]

This is just to congratulate Ngāti Hineuru on being here today, although I hear the tangi of my sister Louisa Wall over there and, of course, of all of the iwi. For the recording of the history it is great that we have Hansard here so that it can always act as a record for the future, and the generations to come will find a space to come back here and be able to look at the discussion that happened today in the third part of this third reading of the bill. Hopefully it will become law in a very short space of time.

I have not gone back to the past history, because it has been hugely covered by both of the previous speakers—by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations himself, and also by my colleague Louisa Wall. As I have said, these are not good times to be a Māori in Parliament discussing these issues. It happens every time that you cannot but feel an element of sadness, and yet huge respect for what our people tried to do in the face of huge provocation. The destruction of papakāinga, the loss of land—that sort of stuff is pretty hard to get over.

But I suppose today is about looking to the future, and if I can, in this short period of time—because I do not wish to go back over stuff that has already been mentioned—I will share with the House today a small excerpt from the Hineuru Strategic Plan 2016-2020, “Hineuru 2040—a dream for the future”. In that document it says: “Our people stand proud but humble in knowing who they are and their own individual whakapapa. … We have CEO’s from across many sectors from land management, business and new technologies always being asked to go and support other iwi and other peoples around the world … Our people are healthier and our kaumatua are livelier because they don’t suffer from many illnesses. This is due to an increased quality of housing for our people. Our whanau are living longer and our tamariki mokopuna are not influenced by drugs and other aspects.” Mēnā koinei te whāinga matua o tēnei iwi, me mihi rā ki tērā āhuatanga! [If this indeed is the primary aim of this tribe, then they must be applauded for that!]

As I travelled many times between Taupō, where I used to live, and Napier/Ahuriri, I went directly through the heartland of Ngāti Hineuru. You get to the top of the hill at Te Hāroto and you look around and you see the school and all the various papakāinga there. I just want to acknowledge the fact that, hopefully, this will set a pathway for Ngāti Hineuru into the future. This is the dream that they have set out for their people.

Despite all the atrocities that they speak about, it is noteworthy that they are here today to talk, and, in particular, to pick up on the offer from the Minister to sit together and discuss that flag and what it might mean into the future. Most important, they bring with them values that I think are hugely important—the values of whakaiti, of manaakitanga, of kotahitanga, and of rangatiratanga, amongst many more.

It is a privilege to be here today as the Minister for Māori Development and as a representative of the Māori Party to absolutely support this bill to be law and to allow Ngāti Hineuru to go where they want to go for their futures and for their mokopuna.

Ā, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou e hoa mā, whakaritea mai ai tā koutou mahere mō ngā rā kai mua i te aroaro, ka tupu, ka rea, arā, e kōrerohia ake nei. Ko tāku ko te kī atu, he whakatinana i ngā wawata. Kua ea te wāhi ki tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata, ēngari, koinei te mihi o te ngākau ki a koutou i haramai i tērā o ngā Whare, haere mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kai raro.

[I commend you hugely colleagues; organise your future plan, make it grow and multiply, in other words, as mentioned here. I say to you, aspirations will be manifested. The part for the Houses of Parliament is done now. Nevertheless, a heartfelt acknowledgment to you collectively from me, who came from the other one of the Houses. Welcome, welcome, greetings, accolades, and congratulations to you collectively. I resume my seat.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou aku rangatira, tēnā koutou rau rangatira mā. E ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Hineuru, tēnā koutou, nō koutou tēnei rā, nau mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei; āe, he rā nui tēnei, he rā whakahirahira. Whakatau mai kei te pire o Ngāti Hineuru, whakatau kei Te Whare Pāremata, kei Te Ana o Ngā Raiona. Āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, rātou te hunga mate ki a rātou, āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to you my esteemed leaders and you of a hundredfold. Acknowledgments to you the relatives of Ngāti Hineuru, this is your day, and so welcome, draw hither to Parliament, standing here in readiness; yes, this is a great and magnificent day. Welcome to the Ngāti Hineuru’s bill, to Parliament, the Lions’ Den. The lines are drawn, the dead to themselves and the living to ourselves. Greetings, acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively and to us all.]

It is a great honour for me to stand and speak in support of and endorse this bill, the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill, at its third reading. I had the great honour—indeed, this was the last bill that I considered when I was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. In my relatively short time in this House, in respect of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done, it is a great honour—that is all I can say, and I do acknowledge all the members who have participated in the great work that we do in that committee.

Today is Ngāti Hineuru’s day—Ngāti Hineuru, whom I would like to sum up as stamping their authority and indigeneity right across the motu today through the passage of this legislation. I guess that not too many folks would have heard of Ngāti Hineuru before, but after today and through the passage of this legislation, we know that Ngāti Hineuru are reasserting their rangatiratanga, and I am just so delighted by that. So often, when you consider the Hawke’s Bay or go inland, Ngāti Hineuru have been overlooked, but that is no longer the case. I am just delighted to be able to share with the whānau who have travelled far and wide to come here on this special day, because these settlements are more than just acknowledging the historical wrongs and grievances that have taken place. As I have mentioned, these settlements are also about reasserting our history.

That history, for us as Māori, is summed up in one word, and that is whakapapa. Our oral traditions and our whole genetic make-up come from those stories: the stories of the men and women, our ancestors, who created that history. They are stories of everyday life, wars, marriages, and death. They are all those strands that we hold so dear to our hearts, in memory of who we are and where we have come from. I do want to acknowledge my tuahine Louisa Wall, who gave a very eloquent speech outlining the terrible history and the terrible atrocities that have been inflicted upon Ngāti Hineuru. That is so appropriate, as she is a descendant herself, and I just acknowledge her for her whakaaro and such a moving speech.

I do not wish to traverse the history, but I do note from this settlement certain names that have come out from other settlements that we have passed through this House and through the Māori Affairs Committee, of which I was a member. There are names of places such as Ōmarunui and Pētane, and the conflicts and battles that went on in those places—places like Ngātapa. These names have come up in the settlements with the Tūranga iwi, Rongawhakaata, Te Aitangi-a-Māhaki, and also with Maungaharuru-Tangitū. So not only are we reasserting the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Hineuru but also we are acknowledging the associations of the shared history that they and also other iwi have been impacted by.

The atrocities were grave. We know about the systematic plunder, pursuit, and imprisonment of their tūpuna, and also the modus operandi of the Crown in terms of its purchasing and the fact that so much of Ngāti Hineuru’s land was, effectively, given to other iwi. They had to suffer the indignity of being totally excluded and made virtually landless through the Crown’s actions, so I do acknowledge all of the journey that Ngāti Hineuru has been on in order to arrive at this momentous day. It was a long journey, and we have heard many stories. I am inspired by the kōrero that Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc. and Te Kōpere gave to the committee and by how positive and how on to it they are in terms of their ushering in this new post-settlement era for Ngāti Hineuru.

But if I can backtrack a bit, we have looked at the history of Ngāti Hineuru through this bill. I am the member for Te Tai Tonga. That is the largest electorate in the country, so I cover all of Wellington, all of Te Wai Pounamu, whiti atu, and over to Wharekauri, and so whenever I see the word “Wharekauri”, my eyes choke up. I noted that—it is only one line in the bill; one line in the historical record—in 1866, I think, 34 Ngāti Hineuru were, with a total number of about 86, I think, taken as prisoners to Wharekauri, to the Chatham Islands, without trial. They were imprisoned in the harshest of conditions for over 2 years. One can only marvel—I mean, just wonder—at how those tūpuna endured all of that. But what really struck me in the historical account is that it just says: “In 1866 the prisoners escaped.” Then they joined the Crown in another battle at Ngātapa.

If we can just think back to the amazing ingenuity of Māori—the amazing ingenuity of the tūpuna of these people being imprisoned on the Chatham Islands, hundreds of miles away from the mainland, and they were able to escape. Not only just escape; how did they get back from the Chatham Islands to Tūranga—to Gisborne? They had to take ahold of a Pākehā sailing ship and sail it all the way back the opposite way, from the Chatham Islands to the East Coast. One can only marvel at the daring and the adventurous spirit and the desire of their tūpuna to get back home.

I can just picture it right now. I can just picture Te Kooti, and I can just picture Hineuru tūpuna, and there were Rongowhakaata tūpuna there, Maungaharuru-Tangitū—they were all huddling there and saying: “Right, guys, we’ve got to get back home. How are we going to do this?”. I would suppose that one of their group would have said: “I know, uncle. If you get the boat, I’ll get us home.” That could have been a Hineuru tupuna, but that is probably what took place. They were able to get hold of a sailing boat—

Meka Whaitiri: Schooner.

RINO TIRIKATENE: A schooner? Oh, well, OK. A bit of a nautical, dramatical twist—ha, ha! But they were able to get ahold of that schooner and make their way back, gibbing and gybing—masters of the waves of the sea.

I think that is what I would like Ngāti Hineuru to take from their settlement: draw on the inspiration of their tūpuna and the great bravery that they had in being true to their convictions and standing up for their iwi and for their people. I am inspired by that, and every time I see that story, I think, you know, it would make a wonderful movie to capture the adventurous spirit of their tūpuna. I do acknowledge Ngāti Hineuru, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): Mauri ora e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnei te mihi o ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata huri noa i Te whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ngāti Hineuru whakatau mai, ngā uri o Rangihīroa whakatau mai, Whiti-ō-Hura Mauka whakatau mai. Mātaatua waka whakatau mai, e mihi nei, e tangi nei, mauria mai ō koutou whakaako ki te kaupapa kua huihui e tākata. Nō reira, ka hoki hoki ngā maumahara mō tō Emi Te Pohe Ngahere Bush, mō Rapi Te Pohe Ngahere Bush. E, nō reira, haere atu rā, haere atu rā ki te pā o te whakawairua, takoto mai, takoto mai!

[Good health, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you all throughout this House; members of Parliament, greetings! Welcome to you, Ngāti Hineuru, relatives of Rangihīroa, Whiti-o-Hura Mountain, and Mātaatua Canoe. I lament and grieve here, bring forth your learnings to the matter; why the people are gathered here. Thoughts go back as well to Emi and Rapi Te Pohe Ngahere Bush. Therefore depart you two, journey on to the place of the spirits lie there, and rest.]

It is indeed my honour, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, as a member of the Government, to acknowledge, first of all, this iwi into this House and to acknowledge two people whom I knew down in Ōtautahi and their sad passing, and also to acknowledge being here as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for the third reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill.

This morning we have had an incredible overview of the historical account and also the journey through to this third reading. What I want to do, though, is keep it fairly tight and concentrate on the beginning of the process, where Hineuru provided the Crown with a set of pouwhenua, and those pouwhenua were really the guiding pouwhenua on this hīkoi to where we have reached here today for the third reading.

Those pouwhenua, or pillars, guided the iwi throughout this settlement. I know there are people here in the gallery today from Hineuru. There are people who cannot be here and are possibly watching this live, and there are people also—rangatira—who have passed on, and we acknowledge them here today. Also, there were the Crown negotiators led by Paul Swain, as this settlement actually continued through to reach and fulfil those pou.

So looking at the pouwhenua, the first one is the pouwhenua tuatahi, which recognised the protection of Hineuru history and culture for the generations to come. The next one, tuarua, was the restoration of the health and the well-being of Hineuru. Tuatoru, the third one, is the recognition of the mana of Hineuru, and this particularly relates to way in which the Crown’s actions have diminished Hineuru to the point of their not being considered as an iwi in their own right. The fourth one, tuawhā, is the reassertion of Hineuru’s presence in their area following the decimation of this key Hawke’s Bay iwi by the Crown. Tuarima, which is actually the pouwhenua that will be an important one—they are all important but this one particularly—around the commercial redress and rebuilding the economic base of Hineuru. The final one, tuaono, is the recognition of Hineuru’s roles as kaitiaki of the environment in their rohe and of their traditional resources.

Hineuru have trodden a long road to reach this point, and indeed it is important again to acknowledge the negotiators—in particular, Ivy Kahukiwa-Smith and Karauna Brown—for the way that they have stood up to get the best deal they could for their people by negotiating with the Crown in a very, very pragmatic way.

I want to also acknowledge the other rangatira of Hineuru, including their chair, Tū Kahukiwa, and the board of Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc. I know that they have worked hard to reach this point, and I will say, after someone who is a son of Kāi Tahu has learnt since 1996, the work does not stop now. It just changes and it continues on your own journey. Now that they have been charged with putting these new resources to the benefit of their people, I am confident that they will drive an expertise that they have, particularly in those who have been the negotiators and those who have been supporters—people like Traci Houpapa. When we look at that, that is really the beacon that will take them through to what they want out of their settlement.

Hineuru have waited a long time, and they come to the final end of the journey. When I look at this, your deed of settlement, one thing that it reminds me of is that what is talked about is informative, but what is written here is binding. So, Ngāti Hineuru, ko tō koutou mahere heke mai tēnei. [This is your future.]

On that note I acknowledge again the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. We went to Napier/Ahuriri, and we actually heard the submissions and we also took note of not only those who supported this bill but also some who did not support the bill. I think of Ngāi Tahu—not the one in Te Wai Pounamu, as you know; the one in your takiwā, in your rohe. But we heard all of these submitters and then we were able to come back to the House and make an informed decision as part of this journey through to where we are today. I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, Hineuru. [I acknowledge you all, Hineuru.]

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora koutou katoa. He mihi nui ki ngā uri o Ngāti Hineuru. Ngāti Hineuru katoa, kuia, kaumātua, whaea, mātua, rangitahi, tamariki me ngā pēpē hoki, he mihi mahana mai i Te Whare Pāremata.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, greetings to you all. And a huge acknowledgment to the relatives of Ngāti Hineuru. All of them—elderly folk, men and women, mothers, parents, youth, children, and babies as well, a warm welcome from Parliament.]

It is our privilege to have you here in this Whare as part of your hīkoi towards tino rangatiratanga. The Green Party would like to proudly support your settlement and acknowledge your efforts, and to recognise that in this House, on the record today, the invisible-isation of your iwi is laid to rest. It is laid down, and the nation will hear your name, as it should.

I would just like to acknowledge that in reading the process of getting to this point it is easy to read the words, but then, you see, what does it take when a people has been scattered, their whenua stolen, their history attacked—what does it take to bring them back together to create this process? I think of all the journeys that you made to do that and all the journeys you could not afford to fund, to make. So you go to the big cities and gather up the people—you put out the call to the people but there are places that you cannot go. And in this process of drawing people back in, I think just what a huge effort it is to do that—to get people together to address their rights, their history, and their future. That itself is an enormous challenge and task for those who have been scattered to ngā hau e whā. So I just want to acknowledge you for all of that.

I also want to acknowledge that your account of this process is a testimony to the complexity when so much has been taken—not lost, but stolen. You did not lose it. You were not on the way to the shop one day, and you dropped out of your pocket your whenua and your culture—you did not. It was not that you lost it; it was taken. And it was taken, as others have said, through violence. That is why it is appropriate for tears to be shed in this Whare and throughout the motu. Before we can move to the rebuilding of the pou that you have identified, tears should be shed.

I would argue that my culture, Pākehā tūturu, should shed some tears when we read—if only we did read—the historical account. Some of us do, but most people do not. Most people in my culture in your rohe have no idea of the significance of this day, and it saddens me that we have not shed tears yet in order to be able to move on and create a decent relationship with the mana whenua. In our ignorance, we do not weep. I think weeping is a good thing, because I think it is part of healing. But if we do not weep because we do not understand, we hold on to our idea that our dominance is normal. There is nothing normal about colonisation. It is just a hell of a lot of work to fix it up—as you know—as you work on it.

This settlement is about many things. It is Matariki—time to reflect. This settlement is a great one to reflect on. It is something we often say in this Whare—that it is a deal rather than a full and final settlement. The Green Party rejects “full and final”. Te Tiriti is a living relationship. It goes on. Mai rānō katoa—keep talking. Keep the dialogue. No end—no “Tick the box, we have done it.” That is not to undermine the fantastic achievement, but to say that it is just part of an ongoing and permanent dialogue on the nature of justice under the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

We say it is a deal negotiated in the flawed context of a Crown-controlled and defined process. It is about many things—status, quantum, cultural and statutory overlies. My favourite one is RFR. I was like “What is RFR?” when I first started doing this mahi. It is the right of first refusal. I find that fascinating. So they stole your car, and then you get to compete over, or you get to make an offer on, the hubcap—RFR. That, to me, is kind of interesting, but not my idea of justice. However, next time I get in my car I will think about the hubcap, because RFR is a big part of many settlements. It is a big part of this settlement. It is better than not having it, but it is not my idea of what the thief who pinched your car should do.

However, to carry on, I just want to acknowledge that if this is the tangata whenua’s moment of justice, it has got to be about whenua—whenua. Whenua in this settlement—there are places that are being acknowledged and returned, such as the Upper Mōhaka Domain, the Tarawera Hot Springs, and the core of the rohe, including pre-colonial kāinga and wāhi tapu. Those are so important. They may not be enough, because again it is the hubcap; not the rohe, but that one hectare at Waipuna Falls—you can call it a scenic reserve. They call it a scenic reserve, but it is the spiritual significance of that wai that really matters. That is coming back under the authority of those who are deeply and intrinsically both kaitiaki and connected in a way that I do not even understand because I left my water—my family, we left the water in Ireland and we have not got back to it yet. I do not know if they want us back, either. It is understandable. Colonisation makes a mess everywhere on the planet.

However, it is really important that these sacred places are returned, at the very least to recognise the nature of those sacred places. I want to acknowledge, as my colleague Rino Tirikatene talked about, the memorial on Wharekauri and the tribute to the Whakarau, 36 of whom were members of Ngāti Hineuru. As Rino said, we can barely imagine that journey and those feelings that were invoked. We can barely imagine it.

I myself had the privilege of standing where the riflemen landed in Tūranga—standing on the beach at Whareongaonga, actually with the Ngāi Tāmanuhiri people. We stood there one day and I had that picture in my mind, but I did not know your name. Now I know your name, and that is really important. We all need to know the names of the people who were taken to Wharekauri—some of whose wairua is still there, as your story recounts. It is so important that we do not just blur history by not knowing who was there. Why were they removed from their homeland? Why was this injustice perpetuated? As Rino said, we all look forward to the movie of the return. But there is a lot of loss and a lot of pain that goes with what happened to the Whakarau, and we need to acknowledge that. This is again—where is my culture? How many people in the rohe can tell you, if they are Pākehā, about the Whakarau? It is gross ignorance, and we will never sort the Treaty until we educate our people. It is never too late to hear it, and it is extremely humbling to hear it.

Just a week ago I walked with Andrew Judd, the Mayor of New Plymouth, to Parihaka on the other side of the motu. There were 500 of us Pākehā walking, which is better than nothing, and I suspect that when I was young there would have been, like, 10 of us. So that is an improvement.

But what concerns me is that when I asked the Minister last week in the select committee whether she would make sure that the Land Wars kōrero was taught in schools, she said: “It’s a choice. The schools can choose whether to do it.” And when I pushed her, she said: “The kids can choose.” He aha? The children, who do not know the history, can choose whether to learn the history, especially the children for whom their dominance and privilege is protected by not knowing the history? Not good enough—not good enough for Ngāti Hineuru. Everybody needs to know the history, especially in your rohe. The children of that rohe, the next generation, who should be supporting the settlement and the rangatiratanga of your people—those people need to understand the history. This place needs to commit to teaching what happened in those Land Wars—what happened—because you cannot make peace until you sort out the truth and reconciliation of these issues.

So it disappoints me when I get a Minister saying that to me in 2016, when, in the next breath, we are in this House trying to make a settlement based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But we are not going to tell anybody about it, except those who are in the know and those who have suffered and have fought their way back to this moment. That is not good enough for this country, let alone for the people who live with the consequences of Pākehā ignorance. And there are consequences. I do not have tell these people about those consequences. They are not historical consequences; they are current experiences of our tamariki, our mokopuna. That is not good enough—not good enough at all.

So the truth of history and land must be taught and articulated. Which of the rest of us will walk beside you, Ngāti Hineuru, in support of your future? You deserve all of us to be there. But in the meantime, congratulations. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. We wish you every opportunity for a complete restoration of your tino rangatiratanga. Kia ora koutou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou i roto i Te Whare nei. E ai ki te kōrero, “ko Titi-ō-Kura Te Maunga, ko Mōhaka Te Awa, ko Mātaatua Te Waka, ko Hineuru Te Iwi”, nā reira koutou ngā pākeke, ngā mātua, ngā taiohi, ngā kōhungahunga o Hineuru i tae mai nei i waenganui i a tātou i te rā nei, hara mai, hara mai, hara mai! Tautoko ngā mihi i mihingia e ēnā o aku tuākana, tuāhine i tū ake i mua i a au, nā reira, tino koa te hari o te ngākau ahakoa, mā koutou nahe ēngari mō tātou o Te Whare Pāremata nei. I mua i te haere tonu o tōku kōrero, i kite atu i a koutou, taku rangatira, i uru mai i Te Whare nei, te take nei, kore kau i ‘hakapono ki a au kia tū kaha ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, kia hakamana tā koutou kerēme. Nā reira, kia mōhio mai koutou, kei te pau te kaha i a mātou o Aotearoa Tuatahi ki te tautoko i a koutou i te rā nei, nā reira, tēnā koutou.

Ahakoa i puta mai ngā kōrero hītori, ahau nei nā horekau e hiahia ki te hoki atu ki wēnā tūmomo kōrero nā te mea, kei te mōhio tātou ki ēnā tūāhuatanga ēngari, i tēnei tū e āhua pūhaehae au ki a koutou, Ahakoa i puta mai tēnei kōrero i roto i te wāhanga tuarua i te wā o tēnei pire ēngari, i tū ake anō au ki te mea atu ki a koutou, kei te pūhaehae tonu au nō Ngāti Hine i roto i Te Tai Tokerau ki a koutou nā te mea, i kite atu i ngā kōrero i puta mai i tēnei kaupapa, e hiahia ana koutou kia whai mana mai i Te Karauna, kia tū hei iwi pēnei i a mātou o Ngāti Hine i roto i Te Tai Tokerau, korekau i riro i a mātou he iwi, ahakoa i roto i tō mātou whakaaro, he iwi tonu mātou, pēnei i a koutou. Nā reira, ki a au nei, he iwi koutou, korekau he kōrero i tua atu i tēnā. Tua atu i tēnā, i roto i ngā kōrero i kite atu ētāhi e pā ana ki ngā ika, pēnei i a mātou i roto i a Ngāti Hine. Ahakoa e rapa ana tō mātou ingoa i roto i taua ture, korekau i taka mai tetahi matenga ika ki a mātou, mai i taua wā tae noa ki tēnei. Nā reira, aroha ana ahau ki a koutou e pā ana ki taua kaupapa ēngari, māku e mea atu kia koutou, kaua e mutu te whawhai, kia whawhai tonu.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us as well in this House. According to the saying “Titi-ō-Kura is the mountain, Mōhaka is the river, Mātaatua is the canoe, and Hineuru is the tribe,” so to you elders, parents, young people, and infants of Hineuru who have arrived here amongst us today; welcome, come hither, welcome! I endorse the words of welcome expressed by my sister and brother colleagues who stood up before me and, as a consequence, my heart is very happy not just for you but for us of this Parliament. Before I continue with my contribution I noted you and your people, my esteemed one, enter this House, the reason being, he did not believe that I would stand in an assured manner to support this bill and to validate your claim. Therefore, I want you to know that we of New Zealand First expended a lot of energy to support you today, so congratulations.

Even though much historical evidence emerged, I for one do not personally want to go back to those historical accounts, because we already know about those circumstances. But I do stand somewhat envious of you as a collective, despite the fact that this matter emerged in the second reading of this bill. I do rise once again to say to you that we of Ngātihine of the north remain envious of you. I saw the comments that came out of this proposal that you wanted the Crown to validate you so that you could be a tribe like us Ngātihine in the north, but we were never given tribal status even though in our thoughts we are a tribe just like you. As I see it you are a tribe; there is nothing else to say about it. Beyond that, I saw some reference in the commentary about fisheries just as we of Ngāti Hine did. Even though we searched for our name in that act not a single fish head at all dropped our way since that time right to this very moment. Therefore, as far as that matter is concerned I sympathise with you all, but I will say to you collectively, do not stop fighting; continue fighting it.]

I have said that I do not need to reiterate the comments regarding the historical background to this claim, other than to reiterate my feeling of envy of them. Their iwi is similar to mine. I am of Ngāti Hine in the Tai Tokerau. We are still looking for recognition as an iwi; we are still looking for our share of the fish deal—they are yet to come. But my jealousy is at the fact that they have had their claims settled as part of this process. After today they can look forward to the future and to leading their people to where they want to go.

People have made reference to the chairman, Tūhuiao Kahukiwa, but we all know that behind every successful man is not only his whānau but also his committee. I want to just mention their names: Karauna Brown, as deputy chairman, Ivy Kahukiwa-Smith, Te Reo Spooner, Tirohia Bridger, Rēnata Bush, and Toi Tāwhai. Today we extol the virtues of each and every one of them and of what they bring to the table. But can I tell you, tomorrow most of your iwi will want to hang you because, in their eyes, you have probably made the wrong decision. But that comes with leadership—that comes with leadership. I say to you all, support your leadership. Support them. They need all the help that they can get because history will define them on the basis of what they do for their people, and without your help they cannot succeed.

I can recall when I had the privilege of being chairman of my iwi rūnanga. That night, when I went home, my father called me to his room and he said: “Boy, I just want to say one thing to you. Don’t think that just because you’re the chairman of the rūnanga that you have the final say. Don’t think for one moment that now that you’ve been ensconced as chairman of the rūnanga that you are the leader of your iwi, because if you perceive to be the leader then always remember to look behind you. Because if the people you purport to lead aren’t there, then you have to ask: who are you leading?”.

Nā reira e koutou i “hakamana te tūranga hei kaiarahi mō te iwi, māku e mea atu ki a koutou, kia kaha, kia kaha ngā tiakitanga o Te Runga Rawa ki runga i a koutou mō ngā rā kei te heke mai.”

[Therefore, to all of you collectively who validated the position as leader for the tribe, I will say to you collectively: “Be strong and may the protective powers of the Almighty Above be upon you in the days ahead of you.”]

Before I take my seat, I just want to thank the Māori Affairs Committee and those who made their submissions, particularly those who made submissions contrary to those who support the bill, because without them the committee could not give greater consideration to the bill.

In conclusion, I just want to thank the officers from the Office of Treaty Settlements, because they—and it is beyond their control—are often criticised, I believe, sometimes quite harshly. In some instances I have been guilty of that. So I just want to take this opportunity to record that appreciation, and to finally wish Hineuru all the best going into the future. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

JOANNE HAYES (National): E koro mā, e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā o Ngāti Hineuru, nau mai, haere mai, kia ora. Ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the elderly men and women, and esteemed ones of Ngāti Hineuru, welcome and greetings. So acknowledgments, salutations, and congratulations to us all.]

I stand privileged and humbled to take a short kōrero on the third reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. I stand humbled from the contributions that have been given in the House today about the atrocities and injustices that your tūpuna endured, and how you have survived and come through to today. I am humbled because I have never—and will never—walked in your shoes. I have no idea about the pain and the hurt that you have suffered through the loss of your land. As I sat and listened to the contribution from my colleague Louisa Wall, my heart, too, fell apart over her contribution about the issues and atrocities that you have faced.

Today is a day of remembrance, a day of forgiveness, and a day of looking to the future—looking to your future, to your mokopuna’s future. I am just one mere cog in the whole process, which will go on after today, when the Governor-General receives this legislation, signs it off, and, effectively, it receives its Royal assent. So it becomes law and you receive everything that is within your legislation, so that you can carry on and thrive.

From sitting up there just a few minutes ago and looking around the gallery, I understand that you are only but a portion of such a very big group. I just want to say well done. I want to congratulate you. I want to say that in a few years’ time, when I am visiting over in your rohe, I will see many great things from this settlement process that you have been able to grow with yourselves, with your rangatahi, and with your mokopuna. If ever you run out of ideas, ask your mokopuna and your rangatahi—they have got heaps of ideas for you.

So, without any further ado, I stand and I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are, otirā, e kī ana te korero “Apa wetewete nāna i tāpiki te tākiritanga o te ata”; ā, tīhei mauri ora. Nō reira, anei ahau, tēte’i uri o Apa ’āpaitaketake e tuku mi’i atu ki a Hineuru kua tae mai ki te w’akarongo ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire, nō reira, e tāpiri ake atu taku mi’i ki ngā mi’i kua mi’ia. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, otirā, e ngā mema o Te W’are, ā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same there is an aphorism that states “It was Apa who snared and dismantled the dawn”; behold the breath of life. And so here I am, the descendant of Apa’apai-taketake, extending a welcome to Hineuru, who have arrived here to listen to the third reading of this bill, and, accordingly, add my tributes to those accorded previously. So greetings to you collectively, members of the House, and my appreciation to us all.]

I want to acknowledge the contribution from Louisa Wall to the House today. I think, within what she said, kāore he kupu i tua atu i ngā kupu ka tukuna atu ki Te Whare nei [there are no others beyond what has been uttered to this House].

There are no other words that I can think of to aptly describe the hurt and the mamae that Hineuru have gone through over a number of generations. I have spoken about the intergenerational trauma today, and I think it is really important to acknowledge that from that time to now, Hineuru have come a very long way. This bill provides the opportunities for future development.

I want to turn my attention to Part 2 of the legislation—in particular, the cultural redress. This item is not in the legislation but is in the deed of settlement, and it is a recognition of cultural revitalisation within the deed of settlement. I think it is wonderful that as part of the negotiations Hineuru, obviously, have requested, and have received, a payment in recognition of cultural revitalisation. I think it is really important for an iwi moving forward that every opportunity is taken to ensure that with regard to those things that have affected their development and have impacted on issues like Te Reo Māori, all aspects of our culture, there are mechanisms within the settlement to address that. I acknowledge the negotiators of Hineuru for having the tenacity to be able to include such a mechanism within their settlement.

There are also a number of statutory acknowledgments within this settlement. The statutory acknowledgment cultural mechanism is an important one for every single uri of Hineuru in that every member of Hineuru has the ability to use the statutory acknowledgment within the different forums—for example, within the Environment Court—to establish and to have recognised their connection to these particular places. I think it gives that opportunity, without being questioned over their connections through those particular processes to that land. It is hugely important for our iwi and our hapū, I believe.

I think also the place name changes—and there are three place name changes in there. If I can just read them out: Stoney Creek and Ohane Stream are to be known as Ōhane Stream, Hell’s Hole is to be known by its correct name, Tauira Mateāwhā, and Te Ahimanawa is to be renamed as Te Ahimanawa-a-Kohipipi.

So there are many, many wonderful things within the cultural redress of this settlement, and in the short time that I have I want to acknowledge them. Nō reira ki a koutou Hineuru, tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou katoa.

[And so to you, Hineuru, I truly acknowledge you all.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnei e tāpiri atu aku mihi ki a koutou o Hineuru, me ērā kōrero o taku hoa a Louisa hei whakawhārikihia te maha o ngā hītori, arā, ngā maharatanga mō ngā āhuatanga ki a koutou.

Māku hei whakarāpopoto ētehi o ngā painga, me kī, kia āhua whakaarohia e tātou ki tērā tūāhuatanga hei whakapakari ake i a Hineuru, tērā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te wai rere o Waipuna. Ka nui te mihi atu kia whakahokia mai ā koutou hononga ki tērā o ngā wai mō ngā āhuatanga, kia āta whakaarohia e te tokomaha ina ka taea rātou ki reira anā; he take tā Hineuru ki reira.

Ka nui te mōhio mō ngā ahuatanga o ngā mahi o ngā kaunihera ā-rohe, te kite mai i ngā whakaaro i roto i ā koutou nei tutukitanga mō tā koutou pire. He wāhi kia eke mai koutou i runga i te komiti whakahaere, te komiti whakamahere me kī, o tā koutou kaunihera ā-rohe mō tērā rōpū whakatōpū i ngā take mō te Rangitāiki. Ana, kua tae ki te wā kia kite i tērā atu āhuatanga, kia mahi ngātahi ngā iwi ki te taha o ngā kaunihera ā-rohe mō ngā momo taonga, ngā momo āhuatanga kei waenganui i tā koutou ake rohe.

Anā, kua kite mai te āhuatanga anō, kua riro ki a koutou tētehi wāhanga kia hoko i tērā tāmua Woodstock ahakoa, pea te nui o te utu mō tērā, ko te tino take kei reira te maunga e kōrerohia ki a koutou o Hineuru. Kei reira anō ngā āhuatanga mō te pūtea tautoko hei whakawhānui ake ā koutou nei mahi mō ā koutou tikanga, ā koutou nei herenga ki ngā momo āhuatanga o Hineuru. He mahi pai tērā mō ngā whakatupuranga.

Nō reira, koina ētehi o ngā painga i kitea e au, me te aronga ā-iwi mō Hineuru, mō ngā pou hei whakatū i tā koutou nei ake whare, ngā pou e ono kua kōrerohia mō te whare. Kua whai whakaaro au ki ērā pou. Ka whakaaro ake, he momo tērā kia hanga he whare mo ngā uri whakatipu kia tino mōhio rātou anei te take a Hineuru ki tā koutou rohe, anei te tino whainga a Hineuru, anei ngā whakakitenga mō āpōpō, anei ngā kōrero o ngā mātua tupuna e ora ai i roto i tēnei whare e hanga ai e koutou. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi!

He maha ngā kōrero kua whakawhārikihia ki mua i tō koutou aroaro, me te kite anō i tēnei tūāhuatanga. Kei a koutou anō te rongoā mō ngā whakakitenga, arā, ngā whāinga. Kei a koutou ngā āhuatanga hei whakapakari i a koutou anō ēngari, mīharo au ki te kite i ngā tautoko mai i ngā iwi kei tō taha, arā, a Maungaharuru ki Tangitū Trust. I tae mai tā rātou petihana me ā rātou tautoko i mua i te Komiti Māori. He mea mīharo tērā nā te mea, kua noho tata koutou i a koutou, me ā rātou kōrero hei whakapai, me kī, hei whakangāwari i ngā whakaaro ki tērā hononga ā-iwi Ihu, ka nui te mihi. Kua kite i ngā āhuatanga mō ngā tautoko mai a Tangōio Marae hoki, he mea pai te kite i ēnei tūāhuatanga kei waenganui i te iwi mō ēnei momo āhuatanga uaua, anā, te whakatutuki take Tiriti. Nō reira Hineuru, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou.

[I add my acknowledgments to you of Hineuru, to those comments from my colleague Louisa who outlined much of the historical background, in other words, much of the memories in regard to circumstances that impacted on you.

I will summarise some of the benefits for us to consider, shall we say, of how the water flow at Waipuna might further the development of Hineuru. I highly commend your proposal to bring your connections back to those waters in terms of the circumstances for the multitude to chew over, insofar as whether Hineuru has a possible connection; if it has, there is an issue for Hineuru to sort out.

There is much awareness about local council operations in terms of seeking out your views and consulting with you in matters pertaining to the settlement of your bill. There is a provision for you to be on a standing or planning committee, shall we say, of your local council as their representative on that other entity dealing with issues concerning the Rangitāiki. There you are, the time has come to view that situation whereby tribes work in collaboration with regional councils on the kinds of traditional treasures that are there in their own region, as may arise.

Now you have seen the situation again where you have an opportunity to purchase that Woodstock chattel—even though the price for that might be too high perhaps, the main reason for that being that the mountain of Hineuru, which was mentioned to you, is there. Also present are aspects where funding is required to extend your work on your customs and on your obligations to the various characteristics of Hineuru. That is a good job for the younger generation.

So those are some of the benefits I have observed, plus the tribal focus for Hineuru in regard to the pillars to be erected for you own house—the six pillars mentioned for the house. I have been thinking about them and came to the conclusion, now that is a rare breed, to build a house for the coming generations so that they fully comprehend, this is what Hineuru means to your region, here is Hineuru’s real objective, here are tomorrow’s visions, here are the stories about the ancestors who live on inside this house that you are building. Therefore, there is much to commend you on.

Many, many stories have been set down before you and observed. In terms of these revelations, inasmuch as the objectives are concerned, you indeed have the remedy. You have the attributes to strengthen yourselves, but I am amazed at the level of support you are getting from neighbouring tribes—in other words, from the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust. Their petition and support arrived before the Māori Affairs Committee. That was admirable, because you have lived closely with each other; and with their accounts to improve, to line up our thoughts and connection as a tribe to Jesus, shall we say, less onerously—I have much admiration for you. I also note the circumstances in regard to the support from Tangōio Marae. It is wonderful to see these qualities amidst the tribe around these kinds of difficulties in terms fulfilling Treaty matters. So I have much admiration for you collectively, Hineuru.]

I just wanted to acknowledge the benefits of this settlement and, importantly, the house that is being erected by Hineuru for the future benefit of the next generation, holding on to those very important aspects of their past, their experiences, their connections to their land but also, more importantly, of how they envisage the fruition of all those aspects of Hineuru identity to transfer to the next generation.

But I want to end simply with the concluding statements from the Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc. and Te Kōpere o te iwi o Hineuru Trust submission. They conclude their submission by saying: “Overall the negotiation of our settlement is the best that we could do at this time. Our people have supported us through the ups and the downs. The ratification results showed that there was strong support for signing the Hineuru settlement. The signing at Parliament in April this year was a momentous occasion and we can only build our relationship with the Crown. Finally, having been through this settlement journey, we wish to acknowledge all of our kuia and koroua who fought to have the stories of Hineuru iwi told. We also wish to acknowledge all of our people who have worked hard and who have persevered to get us to where we are today. It has been a long, hard road for Hineuru but we are at the dawn of a new day where Hineuru iwi can stand proud and strong, and build a better future for our people now and into the future. Mai Hineuru, mo Hineuru.”

No reira ka waihotia ēnei kupu mā koutou te whakautu ki a koutou anō, mā koutou ano hei whakakapi ngā kōrero mō mātou. Ka whai mātou ki te tautoko ā koutou nei tino whainga hei painga mō ā koutou whakatipuranga, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I leave these words for you to answer yourselves, and for you to close the speeches for us. We will continue to support your goals for the betterment of your next generation. Thank you all.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): E rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, e ngā iwi katoa, kia ora mai tātau.

[Acknowledgments to you esteemed ones, all the tribes, and us all.]

It is a privilege to take a brief call on this, the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. Over the course of time and by previous speakers it is noted that in the early 19th century Hineuru lived and cultivated land in the region between Hawke’s Bay and Taupō Moana. Interactions with the Crown started from 1886 and were harsh. In October 1886 there was conflict with the Crown at Ōmarunui, and by the end of 1886—a few months later—it is recorded that Hineuru had abandoned nearly all of their kāinga and cultivations due to conflict with the Crown. Thus it started.

So today we come to the third reading. Today we go some way to make amends: the Crown acknowledgment, cultural redress, commercial redress, and the apology, the last stanza of which reads as follows: “Through this settlement, the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs, and to assist Hineuru in lifting the burden of grievance and restoring the well-being of your people and cultural heritage. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Hineuru based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

As part of this process I want to commend the Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, for his work, officials of the Office of Treaty Settlements, iwi and Crown negotiators, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, and committee members.

I want to conclude by sharing this observation. The business of this House is always special but the third reading of a Treaty settlement bill is extra special. Early in this career it was noted to me: “Shane, try and be in the House for a Treaty settlement third reading. The mood is completely different to the normal cut and thrust of the House.” I have now been blessed to be here for these moments a few times, and to me it is as if a collective sigh is expelled—the sigh of a hundred years; the sigh of a hundred peoples. And just as a sigh is a breath out, what naturally follows is a breath in—a breath that brings new oxygen, new life, and a new day. So I commend and exalt iwi and the Crown to breathe in this new air and marvel at the taste. What is that taste? Ah! It is the taste of settlement—tinged with sadness, but still sweet to the tongue. May that taste succour and sustain ngā iwi katoa for many years. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koutou e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, ā, tēnā tātou katoa. He uri ahau o Tūranga-nui-ā-Kiwa o Te Tai Rāwhiti, nō Rongowhakaata, Ngāi Tamanuhiri, Te Aitanga-ā-Māhaki, Ngāti Porou me te iwi o Ngāti Kahungunu. E tū, e mihi ana ki a koutou katoa Ngāti Hineuru whenua, Ngāti Hineuru mana, Ngāti Hineuru tangata, tēnei te mihi maioha ki a koutou. Tēnei te mihi maioha i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira; āe, kua tae mai te wā kia hōnoretia te korōria o Te Atua, nō reira, ōku rau rangatira, e kui mā e koro mā, nau mai, nau mai, hara mai.

[Acknowledgments to you members of this House and to us all. I am a descendant of Tūranga-nui-ā-Kiwa of the East Coast and of Rongowhakaata, Ngāi Tamamanihiri, Te Aitanga-ā-Māhaki, Ngāti Porou, and Kahungunu. I rise and acknowledge you, all the land, and the mandated one of Ngāti Hineuru, and you the people of Ngāti Hineuru, an affectionate welcome to you collectively. I acknowledge you affectionately upon the matter of significance; and, yes, the moment has arrived to honour and glorify God, and, therefore, my esteemed ones of a hundredfold, and the elderly men and women, welcome, draw hither, and welcome.]

I was honoured to speak in the first reading of this bill, the second reading of this bill, and today in the third and final reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. It is a day of remembrance, particularly in respect of those who are no longer with us.

I want to make special note of Whetu Tipiwai. Whetu Tipiwai was a renowned kaumātua amongst his own people. He was also a renowned kaumātua for the Māori All Blacks. He was also an unofficial chauffeur driver for my predecessor, the Hon Parekura Horomia. There were many times that we would see Whetu and Pare turn up at huis at home, and when they got out of the car we would say: “What’s wrong with this picture? Shouldn’t you be driving Whetu?”. But, in all sincerity, I remember people like Whetu. It is also a day of reflection, when we think: could we have done better? It is also a day of celebration at last, as we see the third reading of this bill—the legislative path is coming to its end. It is also a day of realisation that the work is only just beginning.

I may, just to set again—and I know previous speakers have mentioned it. I do want to draw and make some references to the historical account in this bill, because it does give in a succinct way what the people of Ngāti Hineuru experienced. In the mid - 19th century the tīpuna of Hineuru lived and cultivated in the Waipunga and Mōhaka river valleys, and at Tarawera, Waiparatī, and other kāinga in the mountainous inland region between Hawke’s Bay and Taupō Moana. In November 1851 the Crown purchased the Ahuriri Block of approximately 265,000 acres from another iwi without including Hineuru in the negotiations. The Crown also forgot to reserve any land for Hineuru.

By the mid-1860s some Hineuru had converted to Pai Mārire. Pānapa, the Pai Mārire leader among Hineuru, established a Pai Mārire settlement at Waiparatī. In 1866 Pānapa and Hineuru rangatira Te Rangi Hīroa wrote to the Crown that they would come with a party to coastal Hawke’s Bay in response to a Crown invitation to meet. The Crown viewed this party as a threat to the region’s security. In October 1866, after the expiry of an ultimatum calling for their surrender, Crown forces attacked a group of people, including Hineuru, camped at Ōmarunui. On the same day Crown forces also intercepted and surrounded and then subsequently attacked another group led by Te Rangi Hīroa near Pētane. About 35 Māori, including Te Rangi Hīroa and other Hineuru individuals, were killed in the two attacks. Crown forces subsequently pursued Hineuru and other Māori who had escaped the attacks into the Hineuru rohe, and plundered kāinga at Waiparatī and in the surrounding area.

By the end of 1866 Hineuru had abandoned nearly all of their kāinga and cultivations due to the conflict with the Crown. Thirty-four Hineuru individuals were among the 86 prisoners of the Crown captured at Ōmarunui and in the conflict near Pētane. Most were transported to the Chatham Islands and detained without trial in harsh conditions for almost 2 years.

That brief historical account does not give the richness of what these people suffered, but I am glad that it is recorded in their settlement bill. It is a passage that I encourage not only future generations of Ngāti Hineuru to remember but all people of the Hawke’s Bay and Taupō area. Every Government department and every local government that have anything to do with the people of Ngāti Hineuru should have that at the forefront of their own plans.

The land loss in that summary is absolutely clear. The loss of land and the loss of lives through the two battles are clear. And, clearly, in terms of those who were imprisoned on the Chatham Islands without trial, that shows the severity of the breaches of the Treaty: land loss, loss of life—severity of breaches. The settlement today can in no way compensate for the losses suffered at the hands of these people, but it is a small recognition, for this House particularly, to acknowledge those breaches and to offer up a deal—like my colleague from the Greens has mentioned—through this settlement, to acknowledge that you have much work to do ahead. And I join with all members to acknowledge that.

In terms of the day of realisation, I am encouraged to hear the planning—and I noticed this in the second reading of this bill—that has gone on to date in preparing you for the post-settlement entity period. There are the six pou that were talked about by previous speakers and in previous readings. The fact is that you, Hineuru, are one of the smartest people, for qualifications, which I would say may be second to Rongowhakaata’s, I acknowledge. This says to me that your settlements will be in good hands. It is not for me to advise you on how best to use that. All I can offer is, ensure that your people are at the centre of what you do. Always remember that it is these young ones, whose histories and journeys are only just starting. So, as we celebrate when we leave this House that we have got over this milestone, there has been some planning already to date and there will be planning yet to come.

Like many members in this House, I get to travel around not only my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti but throughout the country, and we get to see some quite innovative Māori enterprises that are going on out there. I am always biased when we are running enterprises—I want our people to be at the heart of not only running those enterprises but actually benefiting from them. And so as we stand and celebrate the passage of this bill, I too want to acknowledge the work of the Minister, your negotiators, the work of the officials, and colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee.

I was at the hearings that we had in Napier. Whenever I remember Hineuru, I will remember seeing my dad walk into the back. Right next door to where the hearings were is the hot pools in Napier, and that was where my mum and dad would always go. So they came over and had a nohi. So standing and supporting this bill, I remember people like that who have supported it. Just in my last few minutes—as I said in the first and second reading, and I feel I need to say in this third reading—there is land alienation and, as we pass this legislation, acknowledgment of your own alienation from land. We have to remind ourselves in this House that when we pass legislation that involves Māori land, Māori have to be at the forefront of those changes.

And we have the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill right in front of this House. Submissions close on 14 July. I have been running workshops throughout my electorate—Flo, I did not see you at Hastings, but hopefully you will put a submission in. It closes on 14 July. Please, whānau, have your say on the future of our whenua.

I commend this bill to the House.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Hineuru iwi. Rather unexpectedly, I find myself taking this final call on behalf of the Government, but this is sometimes what happens to a whip when the House gets ahead of time, and that is what has happened. The final speaker on our list is unable to be here. Unfortunately, I am unable to speak with as much knowledge as others who have spoken before me have done on this particular bill, but I do nevertheless want to say how proud I am to be here on this day and to acknowledge the contributions of a number of those who have spoken before.

I think that what you are seeing today is Parliament at its best, and that is because this is one of those occasions when members do all listen to one another with considerable respect and acknowledge very significant chapters in our history. Considerable wrongs are being righted today. Of course, as others have said, you could never have adequate compensation for the wrongs of the past, and we do not even pretend to be doing that. But, nevertheless, I think that with the expression of genuine regret and a determination to move forward from this and with the considerable generosity of the iwi in accepting the apology and the redress from the Crown, we have an opportunity to move forward much more united and much more determined to have a better future in our country, respecting one another regardless of race or gender, ethnicity or religion, or whatever.

I am very proud, therefore, to have been a member of a Parliament that has in recent years made considerable progress in advancing the Treaty settlements that have come before this House. These special extended sittings that we have been having quite regularly on Wednesday mornings in recent times have enabled us to make that considerable progress.

But, of course, that is just the legislative stage, and I acknowledge everybody who has worked so hard for such a very long period of time behind the scenes to bring us to this point, where, on this historic day, as we conclude the third reading and finally end a process that has taken so long, we can say to you, congratulations, well done, arohanui, and may we wish you and your iwi all the very best for the future, and thank you for joining the Crown on this historic occasion.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 12.07 p.m. (Wednesday)