Wednesday, 21 September 2016

WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

International Day of Peace—Commemoration

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to commemorate International Day of Peace.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I move, That this House recognise and celebrate the International Day of Peace by acknowledging and working collectively to address the serious threats the international community faces in progress towards peace, including the ongoing North Korean nuclear test, the appalling civil war in Syria, large-scale displacement of refugees, re-modernisation of nuclear arsenals, and growing superpower tensions.

Motion agreed to.

Gaza—Women’s Peace Boat

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate in support of the Women’s Peace Boat to Gaza, including New Zealand MP Marama Davidson, to show solidarity and support to the Palestinian people.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first purpose is the member seeking leave to move that motion without notice and without debate. I will put the leave. Leave is sought—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I make the point that for some time now we have generally had an arrangement where whips’ offices contacted one another to indicate whether or not there would be support for leave. It does not look good if members move motions of this nature that are then declined, but there will often be good reasons why a Government cannot support some motions, and I think it would be timely for all parties to agree that the arrangements they had previously accepted through the Business Committee are followed—unless, of course, this week’s breakdown of the Business Committee arrangements are to be permanent.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Catherine Delahunty.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: We circulated this motion this morning and were told by National it had declined it. So what is your issue?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the point that Mr Brownlee makes is that the Business Committee is a very important institution for the working of this Parliament. We have, at times, discussed the need for more cooperation and collaboration. Whether that has happened or not on this occasion, the member has every right to seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate, so I will put the leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I move, That this House express its support for the Women’s Peace Boat to Gaza and the International Coalition of Women on that boat, including New Zealand member of Parliament Marama Davidson, as it sails to Gaza to show solidarity and support to the Palestinian people, and highlight the contributions of Palestinian women who have been central within the Palestinian struggle in Gaza and the diaspora.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Household Debt

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Is it correct that the household debt-to-income ratio is now 165 percent, and does he agree with Westpac senior economist Satish Ranchhod’s comment in response to this record high level, “you can’t continue to grow an economy just using debt, there needs to be more to prop up activity”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The answer to the first question is yes, and, to the second question, no. I would reiterate previous statements I have made. Households make their own decisions about how much debt to take on, but those households that are taking on proportionately large amounts of debt at the moment should not rely on any assumption that interest rates will stay where they are for ever or that they will not increase.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that a household debt to income ratio of 165 percent is higher than during the global financial crisis, and has increased by 36 percent since his Government came to office and by nearly 8 percent in just the last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think those numbers are probably right. The member needs to be reminded that the Government does not decide how much money households borrow. And one of the reasons for the ongoing increase is that interest rates have continued to drop in ways that neither households nor the Government nor economists expected would occur. But people who are borrowing large amounts of money right now should not be operating on the assumption that interest rates will stay low for ever.

Brett Hudson: Does he agree with Westpac senior economist Satish Ranchhod’s comment: “it’s looking like the economy will keep trucking along for the next year or so, with a range of economic indicators pointing towards continued momentum in activity.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do. The economist who pointed out the relatively high level of household debt also pointed out that the economy is moving along pretty consistently, and figures that came out in the last week or so show that the rate of growth of the New Zealand economy is among the higher growth rates in the developed world.

Grant Robertson: Why is he claiming success for the economy when house prices have risen at seven times the rate of incomes across New Zealand under his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not so much a matter of whether the Government is claiming success for the economy. The member should go out and have a look around the economy and see the confidence and investment that is going on. There has been extensive discussion of house prices, and we will be keen to see the Opposition parties support Government measures, both through the Resource Management Amendment Bill and further into next year, which will help deal with the planning problems that underwrite the house price increases.

Brett Hudson: Does he agree with Westpac senior economist Satish Ranchhod’s comment: “The strengthening in economic conditions has been rippling through the household sector. Employment is up, with business surveys showing a 2.8 percent increase in the number of full-time equivalent employees over the past year, … Conditions in the housing and construction sectors are very strong.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do agree with the economist’s comments.

Grant Robertson: Why is he not being more urgent in addressing the housing crisis, with housing debt estimated by Treasury to be more than $215 billion—

Hon Member: How much?

Grant Robertson: —$215 billion—given his own statement in 2012 that “high housing debt diverts money from more productive investments, contributes to New Zealand’s significant overall level of indebtedness and exposes taxpayers to growing demands for State assistance with housing costs.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do, and that is why the Government has invested some time and energy over the last 3 or 4 years—a huge amount, actually—in shifting the regulatory environment, and in particular supporting the Auckland Council, which has produced a unitary plan, which is a very big step forward in mitigating these problems. I might just point out to the member that the cost of servicing this level of household debt is nearly 40 percent lower today than was the cost in 2008 when he left office. So households have more debt, but the cost of servicing it is lower than it used to be.

Brett Hudson: How does household borrowing compare with other measures of household wealth, including bank deposits, total financial assets, and net worth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the same time as debt has been rising—and, as I have said, those who are borrowing large amounts at the moment are taking risks—household bank deposits have increased almost, but not quite, as fast; financial assets have increased quite significantly, around about 40 percent over the last 6 or 7 years; and household wealth, including the family home, now exceeds $1 trillion. So, yes, debt has risen; so have financial assets and overall household wealth.

Grant Robertson: Why does he think Satish Ranchhod is stating so clearly that the economy is built on debt rather than productive growth, and could it be because he has been so complacent in terms of seeing debt pushed into unproductive housing speculation rather than raising productivity and growing and developing new businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the economist overstates the position, actually. In a growing economy, you would expect more debt. You would also expect more debt when interest rates are so low, but where we would agree with the economist is that at the margin households are borrowing large amounts of money at very low interest rates, stretching their ability to service it, and taking a risk, and if that risk eventuates I do not think there would be much sympathy for people who borrow too much when the risks were obvious.

Grant Robertson: Is it not correct that after 8 years the housing crisis is now so out of control that we have the lowest homeownership rates in more than 60 years, we have more New Zealanders homeless than ever, and we now have household debt to income ratios at record levels, and all of that falls at the feet of a Government that has completely failed on housing?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that is not correct. As the member knows, at the core of what is going on in house prices has been two or three decades of misguided planning, which was intended to ration land and housing, and that has meant that when there is strong demand because of a strong economy and low interest rates, housing supply has not been flexible enough. That is why we are working with the councils and the Parliament to change the rules so we can get a better functioning housing market.

Economic Growth—Economic Growth Per Capita

2. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Finance: What impact is New Zealand’s growing economy having on trends in GDP per capita?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand figures show that the per capita measure that has been discussed much in the House here, real gross domestic product per capita, has increased by 4.2 percent in the past 3 years, which is pretty good given that it has been a time of rapid population growth. Since 2011 real GDP per capita has increased by 8.2 percent, so it is simply wrong for any number of commentators or members of the House to say that, per capita, incomes are not rising.

Scott Simpson: What other measures of per capita income growth confirm that the benefits of a growing economy are being passed through to hard-working New Zealanders like those living in the Coromandel electorate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the Coromandel they are probably tracking the real gross national disposable income per capita, and if they are following that closely they will see that it increased by 6.3 percent in the last 3 years, and that since 2011 it has increased by 10.2 percent. So it does not really matter which way you calculate per capita growth, it is consistently positive.

Scott Simpson: Apart from the rising GDP per capita, what other benefits is the growing economy delivering for all New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The growing economy is particularly delivering benefits that are directly relevant to New Zealand households: wages are increasing significantly ahead of inflation, employment prospects are strong, and people are optimistic about their future. New Zealand’s economy is characterised by moderate but consistent growth.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that real gross national disposable income on an annual average was 0.5 percent—half of 1 percent—and can he understand why New Zealanders who are living in the here and now, rather than on his trend, might feel that they are just running hard to stand still?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have pointed out any number of times, you will find periods of a quarter—that is, 3 months of the year—or, the odd time, an annual average, where the number is maybe negative, or maybe a small degree positive. But any reasonable measure over any length of time is showing New Zealand incomes, both gross incomes and per capita incomes, are rising moderately and generally consistently.

Scott Simpson: Could the Minister tell us please how New Zealand’s economy is performing relative to other developed countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of measures, but, by and large, New Zealand is doing better than many other developed countries. New Zealand’s growth rate is about the third fastest in the OECD. Our employment rate is the equal-second-highest in the OECD—that is, the proportion of the working-age population with jobs is about the second highest in the developed world.

Immigration, Energy and Resources, and Environment, Ministers—Confidence

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 3—Ron Mark, on behalf of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who’s on holiday?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the sort of interjection that leads to gross disorder.

3. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) on behalf of Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, and particularly the Minister who just said that the leader of New Zealand First must be away on holiday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I advised Mr Brownlee when he interjected that that would lead to gross disorder. No one should refer to the absence of any member, and it is equally disorderly then for the Acting Prime Minister to do so.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Immigration when Vinod Kumar Sharma, a former Indian education agent, was able to obtain an immigration licence from the Immigration Advisers Authority despite three cases of fraud confirmed by Immigration New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot comment on the individual cases other than to say that if anyone has broken the law, they are likely to get caught, and if they get caught, they are likely to get punished.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration when he has implemented only three of the 14 recommendations from the MartinJenkins review of immigration advice, which has resulted in the Immigration Advisers Authority receiving 143 complaints this year about dodgy education agents who are based in India and are giving New Zealand immigration advice unlawfully?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister is implementing the recommendations of the review, and I think the member just needs to understand that whatever the rules are, there will be people who try to break them. The Government cannot make a set of rules that mean that no one tries to break those rules, but we can be assured that if they try to break them and succeed, they are likely to be caught and will be punished.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a response to an Official Information Act request from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment dated 5 August, giving a summary of the total number of complaints received and the recommendations that have been implemented—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been described. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Energy and Resources, who will not use his section 18 powers to scrap the Electricity Authority’s unfair imposition of new power charges?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That may be the member’s view about the discussion that is going on about transmission charging, but the Prime Minister has every confidence in the Minister of Energy and Resources. In fact, I cannot recall a time when consumer prices for electricity have been less contentious. In fact, I believe, under this Minister’s watch, they have been dropping to some extent, which is a pretty major achievement, and I would have thought the member would want to congratulate him on that.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Energy and Resources when the National Party’s pet pollster, David Farrar, found that Kiwis want to pay the same electricity prices from Kaitāia to Bluff and will not forgive his Government if it betrays that fundamental principle?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whatever discussions New Zealand First is having with some pollster, I should think it will not be top of mind for the Minister of Energy and Resources. His job is to make sure that we have an efficient market, and I must say that despite the opposition of New Zealand First, the 51 percent Government-owned companies, having been partially sold down, are contributing to that efficient market.

Ron Mark: How can hard up families in Northland deal with another $15.5 million in power charges—and, for that matter, struggling businesses in Northland?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All participants in this discussion should take into account the impact on households and businesses—and, in particular, households and businesses in the region. And that is really the point of having what has been a quite transparent and very long, drawn-out process to discuss exactly those issues.

Ron Mark: How can the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in the Minister for the Environment, who was clearly demoted as the lead negotiator over the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary due to his bloody-minded incompetence in dealing with the fishing industry over its property rights?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is a very marginal question. I will let the Acting Prime Minister answer it the way he sees fit.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a bit rich coming from New Zealand First, which cannot even get itself organised to confirm some Treaty settlements that have already been done, to then criticise the Minister over negotiations that are dealing with very complex issues of property rights for Māori. It seems completely contradictory on the part of New Zealand First.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table the voting records at select committee that show—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is now trifling with the House with such a point of order.

Housing Market—Overseas Investment

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Does he stand by his statement that the evidence about—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is just too much chatter going on. Mr Mark, if you wish to carry on a conversation, do it in the lobbies. Phil Twyford, could we have the question again, please.

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement that the evidence about overseas buyers impacting the New Zealand housing market is “diddly-squat”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): That statement was made in response to the member’s claim that 40 percent of Auckland house sales were to people with Chinese-sounding names, and, thus, foreigners. We now have data on the tax residency of the buyer and seller of every property. In the first 6 months of this year we had 102,792 transactions, of which 2,907 buyers were tax resident offshore and 2,622 sellers were tax resident offshore. This net change of 285 out of 102,000 is impacting diddly-squat of the housing market.

Phil Twyford: Does he consider the $100 million in tax lost due to tax breaks for offshore property speculators—tax that hard-working Kiwi families have to then make up for—to also be diddly-squat; and, if not, how much diddly of the tax system will it take before his Government does something about the speculators who are ripping us off?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s figures are incorrect and also overlook two significant facts—that is, from 1 July law passed by this Government actually requires a withholding tax on all sales by non-resident taxpayers, and actually, given that rents are relatively flat, I think most would accept the major gains have actually been in the value of the house, rather than the rent. The second recent change is that the new loan-to-value ratio limits require a high level of deposit by investors, and that will actually reduce the amount of tax deductibility that is available on interest. The third fact the member overlooks is, actually, if you look at the data from the Inland Revenue Department, the New Zealand investors were paying less tax on their invested properties than those from overseas.

Stuart Smith: Is the Minister aware of any concerns being expressed about the targeting of ethnic Chinese in New Zealand in the debate on housing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am aware of concerns. A number of people have expressed concern to me that assuming people with Chinese-sounding names are immoral foreign speculators is unfair. I am also aware that a particular mayoral candidate for Auckland has distanced himself and apologised to the Chinese community for Labour’s racial profiling. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Phil Twyford: What is the benefit to New Zealand of negative gearing tax breaks, which last year allowed 35 percent of offshore investors to pay no tax on their rental properties?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, the member is incorrect in that, with the new tax law, we now require withholding tax on the sale of any properties. As I said, most of us would accept, particularly in the Auckland market, that the rents actually have not increased substantially, and the gains would actually be in re-sale. The second point I would make is that the tax working party looked at the issue of negative gearing, and concluded that there was no gain to the taxpayer from the changes that the member has advocated.

Phil Twyford: How does allowing offshore speculators to own properties in New Zealand help young Kiwi first-home buyers, when those speculators are so aggressively using negative gearing tax breaks that they are paying only half as much tax per property as local landlords do?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s claim is incorrect. The number for overseas people was 35 percent; the number for New Zealand investors was actually 43 percent—i.e., there was a larger proportion of New Zealand investors in the property market. I also point out the fact that, actually, the level of offshore investment from overseas residents, in respect of property, is small.

Phil Twyford: When will he stop backing offshore speculators and instead start backing New Zealand first-home buyers by banning offshore speculators and shutting down negative gearing tax breaks for property speculation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand tax law treats those who are offshore exactly the same, in terms of their tax liabilities in New Zealand, except with the change that we actually made on 1 July with requiring a withholding tax. I would also point out to the member—what has he got against New Zealand citizens who may be working overseas for a period, who own a property in New Zealand and rent that property out? Why should they be taxed any differently from any other investor?

Resource Management Act—Nova Energy, Power Plant Application

5. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Will he call in Nova Energy’s application to build a new gas-burning power plant, as a matter of national significance under the Resource Management Act 1991?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am yet to make a decision or give consideration to calling in the particular application. I would note that Simon Upton, the previous environment Minister, did call in the Stratford gas-fired power station in 1993, but a significant change was made in the law in 2004 by the previous Government that specifically excluded the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, in respect of such resource consents. The last point I would make is that this Government introduced an emissions trading scheme (ETS), which currently applies a charge of $18.80 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. That discourages those power stations, and actually the level of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector is at a 20-year low because of the effectiveness of those policies.

James Shaw: Is he aware that under section 142 of the Resource Management Act he can call in a project because of its impacts on New Zealand’s international obligations, including its commitments to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. But the member also needs to be aware of the change that was made to the Resource Management Act in 2004, which specifically said that any air discharge of carbon dioxide, in respect of climate change, is specifically excluded from consideration under the Resource Management Act, because of the fact that the emissions trading scheme imposes a cost on greenhouse gas emissions. The member also needs to note that our system of electricity does require backup for wind and hydro—and I would much rather that backup was an efficient gas-fired power station than the old Huntly power station, because its emissions are about half.

Sarah Dowie: What progress has this Government made in increasing the proportion of renewables in the electricity sector, and how does this compare with previous Governments?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! To my learned colleague and Assistant Speaker, I would be grateful for less interjection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very pleased to share with the House the progress on renewable electricity. Let me give you the numbers: in 2000, 75 percent of New Zealand’s electricity was renewable, but after 9 years that had dropped to only 65 percent. In the 8 years that we have now been in Government, it has actually improved from 65 percent to 81 percent—and is now at the highest level of renewables that our country has ever had.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Is this a point—[Interruption] Order! I have a point of order from Richard Prosser.

Richard Prosser: If the Minister was quoting those figures from an official source, I would ask that he table it.

Mr SPEAKER: Was the Minister quoting from an official document?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They are on the net.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

James Shaw: Will Nova Energy’s proposed new gas-fired power station increase or decrease New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The nature of New Zealand’s electricity system, with its dependence on both hydro and wind, does require that we have thermal backup. At the moment, the bulk of that thermal backup is provided by the very old coal-fired power station at Huntly. If this new Nova station was to replace that coal backup with the latest technology of gas, it would actually halve the amount of emissions per unit of electricity. That is an issue that is incentivised by the ETS—that discourages emissions, with, actually, one of the highest ETS charges in the Western World, now at $18.80. We think that is a more efficient way to discourage greenhouse gas emissions than the blunt tool of a yes or no on a resource consent.

James Shaw: So, then, can he guarantee that if it is built, Nova’s new gas-fired power station will replace Huntly coal; and would it not be better for the environment if we were to replace Huntly coal with renewables rather than with another fossil fuel - fired power plant?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is a difference of view as to whether you run a command-and-control electricity system or a market electricity system. The Government’s view is that you should have a market but that you should discourage thermal generation by imposing a charge. I note that New Zealand actually has one of the highest charges, with the ETS price now being $18.80—

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

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

James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was whether he would guarantee that one power plant would replace the other. He actually has not addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that was the first question. The member actually asked two supplementary questions. He should have only asked one, but he asked two, and I think on this occasion the Minister addressed, very definitely, the second question that was asked.

James Shaw: Given that last month he told my office that he had not received any information or advice on the plan to build this new fossil fuel power plant, does he think that as environment Minister he is on top of all the relevant issues in his portfolio?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is a strict legal process around me using those call-in powers, and that is why today, when he asked me whether I am prepared to give an instant decision on whether I will be using those powers or not—when he asked the question, no application had been lodged.

James Shaw: Given that climate change is an issue of not just national significance but international significance, should not all New Zealanders be able to have a say about the new fossil fuel power plant through a board of inquiry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member should have a chat with his new-found friends in Labour who amended the Resource Management Act and specifically excluded the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions—discharges—in any resource consent application.

James Shaw: So if New Zealand’s international obligations under the Paris Agreement are not enough to make him call in this proposed power plant for a board of inquiry, what would be enough?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will make a decision through the proper legal process on whether I will use my call-in powers on this application, or not. But I would point out to the member that in New Zealand meeting its Paris climate change obligations, the best tool to achieve that is through an effective emissions trading scheme. That is what numerous reports have stated. We can see the record, under this Government, of an increasing proportion of renewable electricity that shows that our policy approach is working. Actually, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are at the lowest level in 20 years.

Regional Economic Development—West Coast

6. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made about economic development on the West Coast?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yesterday, alongside Ministers Adams, Bridges, and Flavell, and of course the local member herself, I released the Tai Poutini West Coast Regional Growth Study—a detailed report on the economy of the West Coast that outlines significant potential to attract new investment and diversify the economy of the region. After a strong economic run, the West Coast has been affected by global economic headwinds that have dropped international prices for minerals and milk powder, although they have started to recover more recently. The West Coast regional growth programme is a unique opportunity for the local community and business leaders to work alongside central government and commit to an action plan to grow the region through new investment and new industries.

Maureen Pugh: What economic opportunities for the West Coast does the report identify?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The report names a number of areas of strength for the West Coast and a range of new opportunities. Of course, tourism is one important industry on the Coast, with huge untapped further potential, based on the stunning scenery and cultural history. In the primary sector, although dairy is likely to remain an important part of the economy, the Coast is home to a number of food and beverage entrepreneurs exporting high-quality products like cranberries, blueberries, honey, meat and vegetables, and power cookies. The report outlines that the minerals industry on the Coast will remain important, but industries like aquaculture and ICT will also provide opportunities. Due to its distance from markets, high-quality infrastructure is critical to encourage growth on the Coast, and this Government will continue to invest in this area.

Maureen Pugh: What investment is the Government making to encourage—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the question. I want less interjection, and it is coming from right across the House.

Maureen Pugh: What investment is the Government making to encourage economic growth on the West Coast?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A couple of months ago I was pleased to announce that Greymouth has become New Zealand’s 12th fully fibre town, under the Government’s ultra-fast broadband (UFB) programme. In addition, four West Coast towns—Hokitika, Reefton, Rūnanga, and Westport—are on the candidate list for the next stage of UFB. We are investing more in other critical infrastructure, including the Taramakau road bridge duplication near Greymouth and the Mingha Bluff to Rough Creek realignment near Arthur’s Pass. There is new tourism development—the Old Ghost Road cycleway involving a $3 million Government investment, and our $10 million commitment to create New Zealand’s 10th Great Walk, between Blackball and Punakaiki, to commemorate the Pike 29. This Government is working hard with the West Coast, despite the derision of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will this study compensate for the 5 percent annual reduction in GDP and the hundreds of jobs lost on the West Coast, after 8 years of a National Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I note for the member that, actually, employment on the Coast has grown in the last year. The issues of the dairy industry and the minerals industry have caused issues. I also note that the member too was present at the launch yesterday and was very proudly displaying his copy of the report, after the launch was released. Thank you very much, Damien, for showing your support.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Having taken the time to read the report, how comprehensive is the study when it states that “No specific opportunities have been identified for the dairy sector”, given this is the second-largest industry in our region and growing—what can we believe? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am vitally interested in the answer, so I do want to hear it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Perhaps the report writers have been listening to Grant Robertson saying that we should not have anything to do with the dairy industry, but the point that they were actually making is that the dairy industry is a mature industry on the Coast. It will continue to be important, but the new industries will be adding in alongside the dairy industry that this Government is very keen to support.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table this report, which states on page—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The report is freely available. Members can have a look at it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What role do iwi play in encouraging economic development in the regions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A very important role, including, for example, yesterday on the West Coast, when Ngāi Tahu were making the point that they are investing tens of millions of dollars in businesses and new industries that employ thousands of New Zealanders, including on the Coast. Iwi’s role in regional development is one of the key reasons this Government is keen to progress Treaty settlements as quickly as we can, and that is why it is so disappointing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any more of the answer. [Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You could see where that Minister was going—rather cack-handedly, but very obviously—and he should be stopped in his tracks.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member had observed, I gave the Minister time before I could observe where he was going. When I saw where he was going, I quickly brought the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.

Mr SPEAKER: It is my pleasure, Mr Peters.

Child Poverty and Homelessness—Measurement and Role of Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki

7. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the official measure, and number, of children living in homelessness and poverty in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): In answer to all four of those questions, the Government does not believe that one measure or number can accurately define these complex issues. In terms of homelessness, there is no official measure of homelessness amongst children. There are a number of ways to measure homelessness or severe housing deprivation. In terms of poverty, the Government uses the Household Incomes Report and the companion report using non-income measures produced by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). These reports use a multi-measure, multi-level approach to better capture trends, including material hardship measures, before-housing-costs income measures, and both anchored and moving-line after-housing-costs income measures.

Jacinda Ardern: When just a few days ago she stated that she told the United Nations “Of course we do have an official measure of poverty and children who live in homelessness.”, what official statistics was she referring to, when she in her first answer refused to give a number?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That member has completely misquoted me—that is the reality, but it is not unusual. However, the answer that I gave at the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child was very similar, but I did give them MSD’s current figures, which is one of the measures of homelessness, but I also stated that there is no measure for homeless children.

Jacinda Ardern: Will her Ministry for Vulnerable Children be required to adopt a plan to reduce child poverty?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member confuses the role of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, which is the correct name of the ministry, with the concept that only poor children are abused. In fact, the focus of that new ministry will be on reducing the abuse and neglect of children. That is the intent of the ministry and that is its unashamed focus—and that goes across all spectrums of society.

Jacinda Ardern: Is a child living in poverty vulnerable?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are families who do not have a lot of money—and there are many in New Zealand who do not have a lot of money—who look after their children extremely well. It is difficult, but they look after their children extremely well. I find it offensive that the Opposition is suggesting that just because you are poor you beat your children.

Jacinda Ardern: If, based on her answer, her ministry will deal only with children who are being abused, is this just a rebrand of Child, Youth and Family?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, we have had a lot of discussion from the Opposition as to what it thinks this ministry should be doing. I refer the member to the statistics that were produced by the expert advisory panel on the outcomes for children who are taken into State care. I have made it very clear this is not a rebrand of Child, Youth and Family. We have had that many, many times before and children continue to be abused and neglected. This Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, is going to focus on making sure that those children who are being beaten and abused by the very people they should be trusting to love and look after them will get better care from this Government.

Jacinda Ardern: Was the name of her department—the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki—the only option she advocated for or presented to Cabinet?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, Cabinet decisions have Cabinet responsibility. I proposed to Cabinet the name Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, and Cabinet agreed.

Crime Victims—Evidence Amendment Bill and Court Processes

8. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Justice: How will the Evidence Amendment Bill passed last night help vulnerable victims through the court process?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Minimising the trauma that can result from helping to bring offenders to justice is an essential part of the Government’s commitment to supporting victims of crime. Giving evidence can be especially tough for young and vulnerable witnesses. The changes we have made through this bill will help make the court process less traumatic for those it may affect the most. For example, the bill creates a presumption that child witnesses will give their evidence through either the video of their police interview, via closed-circuit television, or from behind a screen, and that all child witnesses will be automatically entitled to have a support person with them during this process.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What protections does the bill have for sexual violence complainants?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Giving evidence in a sexual violence trial can be particularly traumatic for complainants. The new bill will mean that the judge’s permission will need to be sought before the trial begins if the defence wants to question the complainant about their sexual history with a person other than the defendant, and it ensures that strict controls are in place to protect the video records of victim statements. The changes in the bill are an important step in delivering on the Government’s commitment to improve the experience of victims.

Environmental Protection Authority—Funding and Reassessment of Potentially Hazardous Substances

9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does the Environmental Protection Authority have sufficient funding to reassess the use of hazardous substances that it has agreed should be reassessed as a potential risk to people and the environment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has a budget for doing reassessments and has prioritised it on the basis of those that pose the greatest risk in the New Zealand context. It is not practical to remove every potential risk, but I do have confidence in the EPA’s priority setting process.

Catherine Delahunty: Is it acceptable that even though the EPA has said there are valid reasons to reassess triclosan, a common ingredient in soap and handwash, it will be looked at only if I—the person requesting reassessment—pay $50,000 to ensure that it happens?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, because the taxpayer and the Environmental Protection Authority prioritise the reassessment process on those things that pose the greatest risk. In respect of the particular chemical the member raises, the EPA does put a limit on the level that that chemical is allowed in products like hand sanitisers. There is no other country in the world that currently prohibits the use of that chemical. There is a question mark as to whether all of the possible tests have been done on that, and on that basis the EPA believes that there are other chemicals that pose far greater risk and so are higher priorities.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that the US Food and Drug Administration just banned this hazardous substance, triclosan, in soap due to its toxic effects and ineffectiveness as an anti-bacterial agent, will he instruct the EPA to carry out this reassessment in the public interest?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, and I would note that the Australian and European authorities do not share that view. The member further overstates what the EPA has said, in that the United States Environmental Protection Authority has simply said that it does not have sufficient evidence to be reassured. The third point I would make is that the Environmental Protection Authority is reassessing a number of organophosphates because it believes they pose a greater risk. I think it is absolutely valid that the EPA makes that decision on the grounds of scientific evidence, not politics.

Catherine Delahunty: Is it more in the public interest to reassess the safety of veterinary products, which the EPA says is its priority, than the triclosan in our toothpaste, deodorant, soap, and kids’ toys?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Environmental Protection Authority makes its decision about what chemicals need to be reassessed on the basis of those that pose the greatest risk to New Zealand health, in the New Zealand environment. I think it would be a tragedy, actually, if politics rather than proper scientific assessment got in the way of the way in which the Environmental Protection Authority does that work.

Overseas Investment—Economic Benefits

10. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister for Land Information: How is overseas investment benefiting New Zealand and contributing to growing the economy?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): Overseas investment is fuelling growth in New Zealand. Regional economies are particularly benefiting from this capital, as it is used for expanding operations and helping to grow New Zealand’s exports. It means growth for our regions and for New Zealand generally. It means more New Zealand - made products are sold overseas. It means an increase in local jobs for New Zealanders, including in the construction of new facilities. Overseas investment can also bring access to new ideas, technology, or production processes that help innovation and add value to goods and services that we produce.

Jono Naylor: What examples has the Minister seen of delivering on these benefits?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are many examples of benefits being delivered from this overseas investment. One is Andros, a French company, which has acquired Barker’s fruit processors in Geraldine. In only 11 months export volumes increased by 10 percent. Japanese company Daiken Corporation invested in a premium wood products factory in Rangiora, then spent significant amounts to increase the productivity of the plant. In addition, new technology has been introduced, such as resin producing technology to reduce formaldehyde emissions, as well as increasing the volume of timber it processed in New Zealand by 13 percent.

Jono Naylor: What does this mean for New Zealanders?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are many cases in addition to economic benefits in the environment and in the community—for example, new recreational opportunities for New Zealanders, including increased access for fishing, hunting, mountain biking, and walking. As well, there are new covenants protecting natural habitats and environments. In 2014-15 land in four high country stations between Lake Wānaka and Arrowtown was placed under conservation covenants in one of New Zealand’s largest private land protection agreements. The covenant protects a wide variety of ecosystems, from wetlands, tussock grasslands, native shrub lands, alpine cushion fields, and mountain peaks.

Fisheries—Commercial Fish Dumping and Recreational Bag Limits

11. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Why were bag limits for recreational fishers reduced when the Ministry for Primary Industries has ignored thousands of tonnes of fish being dumped by the commercial sector for years?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I am presuming that the member is asking specifically about Snapper 1, because his question is slightly confusing. It is not correct to imply that dumping was the cause of the decrease in the recreational bag limit to do with Snapper 1. As the member should be aware, the total allowable catch of snapper actually increased by 500 tonnes, and this was all allocated to recreational fishers. However, given growth in local population, this meant a small decrease in the daily bag limit. I also refute the member’s assertion that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has ignored the thousands of tonnes of fish being dumped. The Heron report clearly shows that MPI made a flawed decision not to prosecute in the case of Achilles but that, in general, it has a robust process and professional staff, who conduct around 300 prosecutions every year.

Kelvin Davis: Why, then, did his officials say in 2013: “…the fact that we have known about these dumpings/discarding issues for many years, and would appear to have done little to combat it, would be very difficult to explain and be unpleasant at best.”?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, I transgressed over this point several times yesterday—[Interruption]—in the House. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The important point is that—[Interruption] Order! The question has been asked, and an answer is to be given, and substantially. If I have got to start asking people, and giving final warnings and naming people, I can. The level of interjection is just too high, particularly from my left, but not only from my left. The Hon Nathan Guy is to answer the question.

Hon NATHAN GUY: What I meant to say was I traversed the answer to the questions in the House yesterday around this topic, and what I said was that since the QMS has been in, successive Governments and officials have been grappling with the dumping issue, and there is no evidence that dumping has been a determinant in reducing recreational bag limits, because 96 percent of our stocks of known value are at or above sustainability levels.

Kelvin Davis: Under his ministerial leadership, who is more likely to be prosecuted: a recreational fisher who grabs one undersized snapper, or a commercial boat that dumps thousands of fish?

Hon NATHAN GUY: We take it very seriously—to do with any issues of reporting, and to do with anything that comes to light to do with dumping or discarding or recreational fishers not adhering to their bag limits. We have about 300 prosecutions a year across recreational, customary, and commercial fishing. Also, we do about 3,000 infringements a year and about 1,000 vessel inspections. We take this very seriously, but, unfortunately, with Operation Achilles, as Queen’s Counsel Heron’s report says, it was a flawed decision, and I regret that MPI did not follow through with a prosecution.

Kelvin Davis: Given that answer, can he confirm that commercial fishers who dump thousands of fish make up less than 1 percent of all prosecutions compared with recreational fishers, who make up more than 50 percent?

Hon NATHAN GUY: It is a little bit hard to get into those numbers, because what the member needs to take into account is that there is a large volume of recreational fishers—I think about 600,000 or so; there could be 7,000 recreational fishers in the Hauraki on any one day—versus about 12,000 vessels fishing in the commercial sector. What we have done is double the number of observers so that we have more transparency in what is happening in the commercial fleet. We have also rolled out cameras, electronic reporting, and vessel monitoring systems in the Snapper 1 area, which is hugely important for recreational, customary, and commercial fishers.

Kelvin Davis: If his ministry had actually prosecuted commercial fishermen for illegal fish dumping, how many millions more fish would be available for recreational fishermen?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I have already answered that question in part by saying that there is no evidence that dumping has been a determinant in reducing recreational bag limits, but what I have told the House over the last couple of days is that the Ministry of Fisheries and MPI have been grappling with this issue to do with dumping and discarding for a long period of time. It is not only New Zealand that has been grappling with it; other countries around the world have been grappling with it. I am determined to get on top of this particular issue to do with rolling out electronic monitoring, make the changes that need to be made through the operational review, The Future of our Fisheries, and come into the House and change the law, because it is hugely important that mum, dad, and the kids can go out and catch a fish and that we protect this precious resource for everyone to enjoy in the future.

Kelvin Davis: Supplementary question?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the number of Labour supplementary questions has been used up for today.

Pest Control—Predator Free New Zealand 2050, Costs

12. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation: What analysis has been carried out in relation to the costs involved in making New Zealand predator-free by 2050 and maintaining this status?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): The financial analysis that has underpinned the Government’s initial investment of $28 million over the next 4 years includes setting up a new Crown-owned entity, Predator Free 2050 Ltd, now just weeks away from being launched. We will enable businesses and philanthropists to contribute $2 for every $1 invested by the Government. We have acknowledged from the outset that we do not yet have the technology to meet our goals, so we are investing heavily in scientific research and new technologies and solutions. The Government is also taking a leadership role in setting up large-scale landscape projects, and expects an announcement on one next week.

Clayton Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that in 2013 the then Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, announced that the 329 hectare Rakatū Island would be rid of rats in 2 to 3 years, but this island is still plagued by rats, despite having $190,000 made available to achieve it; and how does this bode for a 27 million hectare New Zealand project?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions—the Hon Maggie Barry.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The island the member is referring to was due to be dealt with last year but, unfortunately, because of the cyclone, that pest eradication was held up. I would point out that the Department of Conservation is very successful in ridding New Zealand of mammalian and other predators—and weeds, for that matter—and that we have successfully cleared 150 offshore islands, which are predator-free. I would draw the member’s attention to some remarkable technological advances in controlling mammalian predatorship, which we are on top of.

Clayton Mitchell: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I would be grateful if the member’s colleagues would then listen to the next answer. Clayton Mitchell.

Clayton Mitchell: If the Government is truly serious about making New Zealand predator-free by 2050, why will it not introduce new legislation under urgency to stop the breeding and selling of rats in New Zealand?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: That member and that party’s capacity to dwell in the minutiae and the fringes amaze me to this day. I would draw attention to a more successful approach, which has been achieved just last month in America, where a company called SenesTech was registered with the US Environmental Protection Agency—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked why she did not, under urgency, seek to pass legislation to get rid of rats. She has not answered that, so she should sit down.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion, I had difficulty hearing the answer because of the yelling coming from the member’s own colleague. I think, on this occasion, the answer is sufficient and we are moving on.

Questions to Members

Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Member in charge of the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill: He aha ia i tuhi hukihuki ai i te Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill?

[Why has she drafted the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill?]

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Member in charge of the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill): I drafted the bill because I was inspired by Patricia Grace and her whānau’s fight to protect their land from confiscation under the Public Works Act for the construction of the Kāpiti Expressway. It is one of the most recent examples of how the Public Works Act has been used, time and time again, to alienate Māori from their land, including their historic struggles for Takaparawhau—Bastion Point—and Whāingaroa, the Raglan golf course.

Metiria Turei: He aha ngā hua mō tēnei pire ki Te Iwi Māori?

[What are the benefits of this bill for Māoridom?]

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: The connection to whenua is fundamental to—

Mr SPEAKER: Catherine Delahunty.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just too fast, am I not? Connection to whenua is fundamental to Māori identity, but less than 5 percent of land in Aotearoa is still held in Māori ownership. It is completely unacceptable that the Public Works Act can still be used, in the 21st century, to confiscate Māori land. The Crown has a responsibility to protect Māori land for the benefit of future generations.

Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill—Support

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Member in charge of the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill: He aha ngā whakamōhio tautoko kua whiwhi i a mō te Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill?

[What indications of support has she received for the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill?]

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Member in charge of the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill): We have received huge support from Māori across the country for this bill. We took a petition around the motu and received almost 5,000 petition signatures, and at almost every consultation hui for the Government’s Te Ture Whenua Māori Act reforms, the impact of the Public Works Act on Māori land was raised. Māori are calling on Parliament to pass this bill and end compulsory confiscations once and for all.

Metiria Turei: Kua whai pūrongo a ia e pā ana ki te tautoko o ērā atu pāti i te pire?

[Has she received any reports from other parties about supporting the bill?]

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I am delighted that the Māori Party and Labour have expressed strong support for my bill. The Government still has the opportunity in the House today to ensure not one more acre of Māori land is taken without consent. I challenge it to take this opportunity and vote for my bill.

General Debate

General Debate

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In a spirit of great positivity, can I say that last week New Zealand heard some very positive news. We heard that the economy has grown by 3.5 percent compared with the previous year, and the Government has been at pains to point out that this is one of the strongest levels of economic growth of any developed country across the OECD. So this ought to be a cause for celebration, and in some circumstances it would be. But, of course, if you look at different figures—if you look at the per capita rate of growth—not so much. It is not necessarily so good. And, according to Bill English’s answers in question time today, if you sort of squint your eyes and turn the page up the other way, you will see it trending in a direction, but, actually, not necessarily up.

There are other numbers that tell a different story about New Zealand. The week before last we saw the numbers from the income survey that told us that, on average, the bottom 20 percent of households in New Zealand now spend more than half their income on housing. We heard that 28 percent of families in New Zealand are spending nearly a third of their income just on housing, either paying a mortgage or paying rent—just having a roof over their heads—and yet the top 20 percent of households by income have seen the proportion of their income going on housing falling, and the average cost to them in terms of proportion of income is just 9 percent.

We have a problem in New Zealand, still, of rapidly growing inequality. It is unfair and it is wrong. It is little wonder, then, that we are also home to that very embarrassing statistic in a country of 4½ million of having 42,000 people who are homeless. For far too many New Zealanders, their incomes are simply not keeping up with the real cost of living, and we heard the figure that for the top 10 percent of earners, their income is now nearly 10 times—10 times—the income of the bottom 10 percent. Thirty years ago it was just six times that. Housing costs are out of control. The average house in Auckland is now $1 million, and across New Zealand it is $750,000. We have a young generation coming out of further education and training saddled with debt, and it is affecting their life choices and their life chances. We might have a growing economy, but we have something else that has grown at an extraordinary rate, and that is inequality. We can do better. We can be a better New Zealand.

You see, a better New Zealand will make sure that there are affordable houses for all New Zealanders, to buy and to rent. A better New Zealand will pass the laws, work with the developers, work with the councils, and work with iwi to make sure that this can happen. A better New Zealand will make sure that there is a State housing organisation that is about looking after the vulnerable, not about passing on excessive profits to the Government of the day.

A better New Zealand will make sure that we have a well-supported and fairly funded education system that will give our children the chance of success. A better New Zealand will make sure that every school will have the resources and the means and the leadership to offer our children—all children—the best teaching and learning.

A better New Zealand will make sure that we have a health system that has healthcare available to all New Zealanders when they need it, and will not discriminate against the elderly, or depending on where you live.

A better New Zealand will make sure that we have a police force that has the resources and the support to keep our communities safe. A better New Zealand does not have rising burglaries, rising assaults, and rising violence.

A better New Zealand will go the extra mile for our young people who are presently not in work to make sure they get work, they get training, they get skills, and they get ahead. A better New Zealand will get to work on lifting incomes, and will work with business and with workers and their unions so that they can work together to lift productivity and lift their incomes and live with greater dignity.

Labour stands for that better New Zealand. Labour stands for dignity. Labour stands for a successful future for all New Zealand.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): That speech from Andrew Little just proves that it did not work. The Leader of the Opposition flew off to Canada to get advice from the second-most positive politician in the world, after John Key, and he said: “Mr Little, be positive.” He got off the plane, and I thought: “OK. I’m sceptical, but I’ll be positive. This might work.” But, as the days have gone on, including today, it turns out that some things just cannot happen.

The Opposition being positive? Well, it is like Andrew Little looking happy—it just cannot happen. Grant Robertson looking industrious? It just cannot happen. The Labour Party coming up with a progressive idea? It just cannot happen. New Zealand First acting rationally? It just cannot happen. So the trip to Canada was a waste of time, and it should not have been because there is so much to be positive about—so much. It is overwhelming, actually, in respect of the economy—an overwhelming amount of evidence that the economy is progressing positively and delivering consistent and moderate benefits to New Zealand households.

The growth rate is pretty good. We are third or fourth top in the OECD. Unemployment is at around 5 percent. The Government books are stable and in surplus. Employment growth is stronger than it has been for a while. There is a big turn-around in the number of New Zealanders leaving this country—thousands of them are staying home, when they were leaving in their thousands just a few years ago. Even in the dairy industry commodity prices are picking up.

But, of course, from the Opposition’s point of view this is not how it was meant to be. We had the manufacturing crisis, the cost of living crisis, the jobs crisis, and the post-earthquake crisis, when the economy was meant to fall in a hole after the earthquake. But my favourite is the dairy crisis, because we have had two crises with the dairy industry: first, that it was going too well, and then that it was going badly. They were both a crisis. And, of course, what we know in this House is that as soon as the Opposition says it is a crisis, it starts going really well. That is what happens every time.

What did those members do to be positive? Grant Robertson and Andrew Little both stuck to their jobs. Andrew Little went to every poll he could to try to find the negative one, and he did, on his desk—the poll he had done himself. That was the end of being positive about Government in New Zealand. Grant Robertson, surprisingly, I have to say—and I am positive about this—went through 22 pages of economic data. That is probably more this week than in the previous number of years he has been the spokesman—22 pages. He found a negative number, one-quarter of real disposable income after tax for one quarter, and he said: “That’s negative.”

If Justin Trudeau was ever interested in whether anyone ever listens to him, then he should ask the New Zealand Labour Party, because it did not. And that is Labour’s problem. It is fundamentally out of kilter with the aspiration and confidence of New Zealand. It is running the best arguments out of 1996 about the economy. But it has changed: it is better. It is different. It is strong. It is forward-looking. It is aspirational. It is delivering the ability to solve a whole range of problems, from Treaty settlements through to how we get more effective public services.

Labour’s positive phase is over. It lasted from the door of the airplane to when Andrew Little got through customs, and that was it. Now it is back to the same old grinding negativity, although you must say the Leader of the Opposition is well adapted to that task, and I am sure he is going to stick to it.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. It is with a bit of a heavy heart that I take a call today. I have a heavy heart because—

Clayton Mitchell: Here we go—here we go.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: You know what is coming, eh, boys? You know what is coming. I thought that tomorrow was going to be a good day. Four iwi tribal nations were going to come to this Parliament and be hugely grateful because the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was going to deliver some goodies for them to allow them to go into the future. I come here with a heavy heart, because I know many of those people. I know many of those people in Taranaki who are waiting for tomorrow—actually, not just tomorrow, but for Friday. Actually, I have pretty much never been here on a Friday because we go and do business out in the community. What happened was New Zealand First pulled the plug. It pulled the plug on Māoridom—it pulled the plug on Māoridom. Let us have a look at it: 2 weeks ago all parties in this House agreed at the Business Committee that five—five—settlement bills would be brought to this House this Friday.

Hon Members: So what?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: So what? So what? New Zealand First pulled the plug on it. It pulled the plug on Māoridom to allow them—

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to clarify for the House’s record that we have not pulled the plug. This is nothing to do with New Zealand First—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member uses a point of order like that again simply to break a speech, I will deal with it very severely.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ngāruahine from Taranaki, Te Atiawa from Taranaki, my in-laws Taranaki iwi, Rangitāne o Manawatu, Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa—today they are hugely brassed off. Why? Because over 400 people were coming to Wellington from the Far North, from Taranaki, and from Manawatū. Why? It was because they wanted their day in the sun. Te Atiawa has been waiting for 30 years to come to this Parliament. I was there. I met the people. I know their pain, unlike some of this lot—unlike some of this lot. So it is a huge disappointment that they have been let down, and they should never trust New Zealand First to back them—never trust them at all. Hundreds of people made arrangements to come to this House. They paid out of their own pockets. They organised their own transport and accommodation for 2 days. And you know what? They are going to have to pay for it, because it has all gone down the gurgler. Why? Because New Zealand First found some sort of technicality to decide that it was going to pull the plug on Māoridom.

It could have done a number of things—it could have done a number of things. It could have raised issues at the agreement in principle phase. It could have raised issues before the deed of settlement. It could have raised issues in the select committee process. It could have had a Supplementary Order Paper. And, of course, it could have gone back to the iwi. It could have done all that long before yesterday. Oh, but no, no, no, no—“We’ll do it 2 days in advance. That is plenty of time for 200-plus people who were coming from throughout the country to cancel their planes.”

I say that one party in this House should be absolutely ashamed of itself today for what it has done to our people, who have so many dreams and aspirations that they want to realise. But it is all held up because it is as if one party has said: “Oh, we’re changing the rules of Parliament.” I do not think so—I do not think so. [Interruption] We are playing with the rules? There is only one party that is playing with the rules, and it is called New Zealand First. Why? I will tell you why: because it talks about this vote. It talks about a party vote.

Actually, pretty much most of us were going to go out and do the community stuff that we are all asked to do, including—oh, maybe not New Zealand First. But, anyway, the rest of us work, and it is common protocol to follow the course of action that is set out. But for one reason—and Taranaki and Manawatū have not been told yet by New Zealand First why—it pulled the plug.

So, just to help us, I will just take one quote. Here is a quote—this is from Peter Moeahu—“I attended Māori Affairs select committee hearings where submissions were heard, all of them in favour of the bill reading. Their member sat through the select committee process and at that time said there were no problems at all. We can have no idea as to why they called late information, or where this came from. Frankly, we are very disappointed and disgusted at New Zealand First for what they’ve done.”

My message is this to Te Ao Māori: Te Ao Māori, kia tūpato ki tēnei ngāngara! [Māoridom, be careful with this creepy-crawly!]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting for silence, and then I will hear the point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member, Te Ururoa Flavell, is digging such a big hole, I seek leave for the House to give him extended time. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The time for his speech has finished, and the member cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I want to rise, firstly, and support Te Ururoa Flavell because he is one member of this House who supports and promotes regional economic development, in deed as well as word. Unlike one or two other members of this House who talk a lot about regional economic development and do less than diddly-squat—less than diddly-squat—for regional economic development, Te Ururoa Flavell is out there every day working for New Zealanders in regional parts of the country, and encouraging them to have aspirations for themselves and their families.

This Friday was to be another step forward for some of those regions, and the weasel-worders of New Zealand First have ankle tapped that aspiration for regional New Zealand. Regional New Zealanders will recognise that. They will recognise the level of contempt for their time, for their money, and for their efforts to come to this city and be aspirational for their futures. They will not forget that this Friday.

This country is growing strongly. It is growing strongly, not on the efforts of clowns like the Rt Hon Winston Peters, but on the efforts of hard-working New Zealanders in regional New Zealand—people whom the Labour Party was laughing at today on the West Coast; people whom the Labour Party was treating with derision today for their aspiration to grow their region and for their aspiration and their coming together with central government yesterday to create a positive plan for the growth of their region.

Up and down this country, people in small, medium, and large companies—not Governments and not politicians; small, medium, and large companies—are the people who have grown this economy 3.6 percent over the last year. It is small, medium, and large New Zealand companies that are hiring the people who have seen 325,000 more jobs in this economy since the height of the global financial crisis. It is small, medium, and large companies that are building the biggest building boom that New Zealand has ever seen.

The Labour Party might like to sit over there and deny all of that because it is the progenitor of post-truth politics. It does not want to believe the evidence at all, because Grant Robertson, when he runs around talking about post-truth politics, is talking about himself. That is a denial of what hard-working New Zealanders are doing every day to get this country running, to get jobs growing, and to provide people with aspiration and opportunity and wages so they can lift themselves up out of the challenging circumstances that some find themselves in.

As a result, we have the lowest level of youth—15 to 19-year-olds—out of work, education, and training that we have ever had, but not according to the Opposition. Again, that is not the politicians’ actual work; that is because this Government has worked hard to get it to a point where those things can happen. Across the other side of the House, members are in denial. They are in such denial that they are even denying the polls of New Zealanders. So they are not just denying the businesses; they are denying the attitudes of New Zealanders who are recognising what this country is doing to succeed in every region of this country.

This week we have seen New Zealand First show the most contempt—the most contempt—for the people of regional New Zealand by getting them to book tickets to come to this city to celebrate their Treaty settlements, and Winston Peters has given them what is known up my way as a two-fingered salute and said: “It’s all about me. It’s not about you. It’s not about your aspirations, your young people, and your futures.” That is the selfishness that is New Zealand First.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I would like to start by paying tribute to my departing colleague, Kevin Hague. Last night, in his final speech, he talked about the worthy issues that have, unfortunately, been ignored by this Government over the last 8 years, and the frustration of the partisan political response. We have watched this lot this season—for eight seasons—and I want, in this contribution, to ask what the Government’s story is.

I agree with Kevin’s sentiment. It has been a Government that has taken only a token response to the tough questions. It has been a “bare minimum” Government. You only have to look at the announcement it has made to look into it. Take “50 by 50”, which is its greenhouse gas target. It is a snappy slogan, sure—never mind the science—but the fact is that all its Government policies are actually around increasing emissions and pollution, not reducing it.

Take the policy for a pest-free Aotearoa by 2050—great. It is pretty hard to find anyone in this country who is opposed to that, but then the Government does not fund it to meet the target, and members go off and have photo ops with a bunch of kiwis. Take electric vehicles—another area where it is great to see intention. It is an area where we have got an issue that takes more dollars and sense than almost anywhere else on the planet. However, Simon Bridges decides to set a target that is less than his officials’ do-nothing scenario, and then he does nothing. Simon Bridges has launched that one eight times.

The Government has set so many empty targets across the 8 years, you have got to wonder: does National actually have internal key performance indicators, internal meetings, to come up with setting those empty targets? It is Government by meme, Government by slogan, Government by focus group. It is a Government that cares more about looking like acting than actually acting. You have got to give its members credit though: they are pretty good performance actors.

It is damaging, because the country faces huge challenges and we need action, not a bunch of actors. Instead, when we do get the substance, what we see is the Government selling things off or passing them on to its corporate mates. It sold our power companies and it is selling our farms. It sold out on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. It sold out on charter schools, and, in the midst of a housing crisis, it is selling out the State houses.

Once upon a time, there was a great Prime Minister in this country who was immortalised carrying in the dining table to help a family move into their first State house. In contrast, Key, who grew up in a State house—the supposed character from central casting—is the one putting a “For Sale” sign out front.

There is something important I want to touch on: Key is the Government’s best actor out of that lot. He is going to contest the next election, but I want to ask: will he continue the role if, by chance, he scrapes through on another one-seat majority into a fifth term? I doubt he is going to continue in that role. So the question for voters is: who is going to be picking the next Prime Minister? Is it going to be the bunch over there—the extras on the backbench? We have seen it in Australia in 2010, 2013, and 2015. We saw it in Britain this year. Who is going to be picking the next Prime Minister? Is it going to be the National backbench extras or the people of New Zealand directly?

The Government’s plan, of course, is to ignore the pressing issues, ignore unswimmable rivers, ignore inequality, and ignore homelessness. It must be hard writing a script to avoid the issues every week, but, luckily, Nuk Korako—he stepped up with an adventure story of how to rescue bags from airports. In his legislative cameo, Matt Doocey is taking up parliamentary time with a story about how we can email instead of writing letters to shareholders to see whether they want a hard copy of the form.

But what we know is that we sometimes see the incompetence behind the bad acting. Take Nick Smith. This guy has got the reverse Midas touch—everything he touches turns to dust. He announced grand plans to release land, but forgot to mention he was talking about cemeteries and substations. There are measures, there are policies, there are initiatives, but there are not houses being built. This is the Minister who took something that the vast majority of New Zealanders support, including many iwi—the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary—and somehow managed to turn it into a Treaty of Waitangi breach and a threat to Government stability. Can I suggest, as he considers retirement, that he considers—and I, please, ask this—a position in the coaching team for the Wallabies?

Then we have got the invisible Minister for Women doing her worst impersonation of an out-of-date stereotype, which is to be seen but not heard.

It is time for New Zealand to have a conversation about not acting, but action. It is time for solutions, it is time for a positive vision, and it is time for less of this focus on treating New Zealanders as viewers. It is time to treat New Zealanders as informed citizens, give them the information, show the leadership, and take the tough calls. It is time for a new chapter.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): As we are here in the debating chamber this afternoon, there are unlikely to be a lot of New Zealanders watching us, but for those who are, they might be—[Interruption] An extra 250,000 New Zealanders are not watching us because they are in work now. But let us think about the demeanour of the parties in the Parliament at the moment.

On this side of the House, we could throw a party—and I will talk a little bit more about why soon. But, in the meantime, let us just examine what is happening on the other side of the House. Disappointment reigns in Labour—disappointment because the money it expended, or, rather, the taxpayers of New Zealand expended, sending its leader off to Canada so that he could transform from “Angry Andy” to “Sunshine Sandy” did not work. No, it did not work.

Then, I have to say that the Green Party must be feeling disappointed on two counts. I, first, want to acknowledge Kevin Hague and his work while he has been in this House. There must be disappointment to lose talent like this, because Kevin has worked creatively and positively with many other members of this House. That has been acknowledged here this week, and I too want to acknowledge him—you will be missed.

But there is also disappointment that the Greens’ potential partners—if and when the people of New Zealand ever think they are worthy of the Government’s Treasury benches—are unbelievably disorganised, so much so that any possibility that New Zealand First members might appeal to Māoridom to vote for them, for whatever reason, is out the window, down the drain. How horribly embarrassing for the position that New Zealand First now finds itself in. Think about how much it cost those 400 people to book their flights, to book their accommodation—but no, New Zealand First does not care. The outrage from the Māori Party is absolutely as it should be, on behalf of the people who will be missing out. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now getting to the stage where I cannot hear the speaker. The main interjector is Darroch Ball. If he continues to interject through the general debate, I will be asking him to leave.

Hon JO GOODHEW: Thank you for the opportunity to continue, because it is time to talk about why we might party. There are lots of reasons why we might party, but we are not going to because there is still a hang of a lot of work to do. The reason we might party is that New Zealand is growing the third-fastest in the OECD—3.6 percent for the last year. It is the envy of so many other nations, but there is a lot more to be done. We are getting on with the work.

I want to talk about the unemployment rate in Canterbury. Actually, it is a little worrying because it is now down from 4 percent 2 years ago to 3.2 percent, and we are crying out for people to fill the jobs. On a recent visit to my electorate of Rangitata, Steven Joyce discovered that Industrial Controls, a tech company, is going gangbusters and could easily take on 20 more people in the next 2 years, but those people are quite hard to find. We have got good accommodation for them—affordable accommodation for them—great schools, and a fabulous community to live in, but unemployment is quite low. We would love the people from the rest of New Zealand who need those jobs to come and live in the Rangitata electorate. So that is good news.

We have got real wages—that is, wages adjusted for inflation; not pretend wages—growing at 1.4 percent per annum. That is 50 percent faster than it was under Labour—a fact it is not particularly interested in. The real families of the Rangitata electorate want to know they have got a job, they want to know that their wages are growing, and they want to know that their mortgages are going to stay, hopefully, really, really low, in the way they have been. That has been such a bonus for them making ends meet.

The people of New Zealand are out there saying: “Government, you’ve still got some work to do.” We know that. We understand that, and we have plans for many, many more initiatives that will tackle some of the really hard stuff that the Opposition would rather talk about than come up with plans about. So it is all talk, no plans, terribly negative—embarrassed over there, and ashamed over there. It is positive over here, but no time to party just yet.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Yesterday I was back in my old home town of Dunedin, and as I walked along the streets and saw the familiar landmarks, the wonderful historic heritage, and the haunts of my youth, I thought about how fortunate I am to have grown up in that city and, indeed, in this country, blessed as we are with incredible natural resources, talented and creative people, and a solid foundation laid by previous generations. As a boy from South Dunedin, I benefited from New Zealand at its best, growing up in a home that was purchased from capitalising the family benefit, going to fantastic local schools with kids of all backgrounds, and enjoying the coastal environment, in the hope that my life would be better in the future.

I got to thinking yesterday about the kids growing up in South Dunedin or South Auckland or south Waikato, and I thought to myself: “Are we giving them the chances offered by New Zealand at its best?”. Sadly, the answer, with the Government we have today, is that we are not. New Zealand at its best means that no matter who you are or where you are from, it is your talent and hard work that will define your success, but at the moment in this country, we seem to have delinked those things. Who you know is more important than what you know under this Government—the Koru Club economy, where whom John Key or Steven Joyce meet at the buffet matters most, rather than what they are providing in terms of productivity for New Zealand; where commercial fishers seem to get away with it and recreational fishers do not; and where Saudi sheep farms are the priority, not New Zealanders working hard.

New Zealand is at its best when we stand up for the marginalised or for those who are left out, and not when we have a Government that makes excuses or will not measure a problem to know whether it even exists, and not when we have a country where 10,000 extra young people in the last year were left living with too few pairs of shoes or without a good bed to sleep in. We are at our best when we offer every New Zealander a fair share in prosperity. We have seen growth numbers this week, but they hide what is really happening. Disposable income is falling. The poorest New Zealanders are shouldering the burden of the housing crisis, with half of the bottom 20 percent of income earners paying 50 percent of their income in housing costs. Forty thousand New Zealanders are homeless. Wages are stagnant. That is not New Zealand at its best.

We are at our best when we celebrate success and prosperity and we all do and pay our fair share, when we do not give a free pass to those who fail to do this, and when the Prime Minister does not stand up and say: “If you’re worth more than $50 million but you’re claiming to earn only $70,000, it’s OK because you pay a lot of GST.” That is what John Key said. Hard-working New Zealanders pay a lot of GST, and they pay their way.

And New Zealand is at its best when we offer to every young New Zealander the opportunity to grow up in a safe, warm, and secure home, with a world-class education at their local school and with their parents safe in the knowledge that if they get sick, they will be looked after.

We have built this hopeful sense of opportunity on the efforts of past generations, who have been dedicated to the idea that the next generation should be better off than them. But we are facing the very real prospect that the next generation will be the first to be worse off than the one that preceded it—high levels of student debt, insecure work, and some of the lowest levels of homeownership that we have ever seen. New Zealand is at its best when people work hard, do the right things in their communities, and know that there is a Government that will back them, and not be a disinterested bystander stuck in an ideological rut like this Government is.

Labour wants New Zealand to be at its best again. That is why we are focusing on building opportunity for a good life—wherever you live in New Zealand—supporting high-wage industries and jobs, supporting strong regions, and giving people more hope and opportunity through policies like 3 years’ free education post-school or training, restoring health funding, fixing the homelessness crisis, and giving New Zealanders the chance of the security of homeownership. When I was in Dunedin yesterday I was talking about the future of work. That is what Labour is focused on—building an adaptable, resilient, and inclusive economy where people can have good jobs and high wages into the future. That is New Zealand at its best, and with a Labour Government, New Zealand will be at its best.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It will come as no surprise that there is one party that should not be in this Parliament, and that is the New Zealand First Party. I have said it for years. It should not be here, and its members should never be allowed in this Parliament because they do not represent what is important for New Zealand. They are deliberately using the system just to promote their personal interests and get their own gain out of it. That is all they do. That is all the New Zealand First Party members ever do. That is all they do.

We can see it with the Treaty settlements that were supposed to be here on Friday. We heard a great speech from the Māori Party leader, who was telling us about—

Ron Mark: What’s his name?

DAVID BENNETT: It is Te Ururoa Flavell. He told us what you, Ron Mark, need to know, and that is that Ron Mark deliberately broke that process down, the process that would have actually enabled settlement for people who have been waiting for 30 years to have their day in this Parliament—30 years. Mr Winston Peters has been in Parliament for that long. He has been in Parliament for 30 years and could not give other people their day. He could not come into this Parliament and make a decision and help them out. This is something that had been agreed on by the whole Parliament.

This is not something new. This is something that the New Zealand First Party just tried to make political capital out of. That is what the New Zealand First Party is about. Its members have been doing it for years. Every time we talk about migration, they make political capital out of other people. It is the fear factor. Taking advantage of other people—that is what that party stands for. Those members cannot, and should not, be in this Parliament. We should not give them the time of day. But people need to know what they actually stand for. People need to know what New Zealand First actually means. New Zealand First members never vote for anything in this Parliament. They never do anything in this Parliament. They are just here, clipping the ticket, and watching. That is all the New Zealand First Party has ever done.

Look at them all sitting there. None of them have done anything. What have they ever done for their electorates? They have got no electorates, so they cannot do anything. What have they ever done for New Zealand as a whole? Name one piece of legislation New Zealand First has put up in this Parliament that has helped New Zealanders—name one. Name one piece of legislation that has actually gone through and helped New Zealanders. You cannot name one. Name one piece of infrastructure that they have provided for New Zealanders. You cannot name one. It is impossible to name one because they have done nothing. Thirty years in this Parliament, and what is the response? Nothing. They have done nothing but create fear, create anger, create disappointment, and let people down. That is all the New Zealand First Party will ever be known for. That is all that its members will ever have done. They are a disgrace to Parliament, and we all know that in here.

The people who would have come here on Friday, who have given years of their lives to see this—that will not actually happen because the New Zealand First Party members deliberately destroyed that process. They deliberately destroyed it for their own gain. They will not win out of this—the New Zealand public are not that silly. The New Zealand public will see through salesmen like that—shoddy salesmen who are trundling the old goods that they have been trundling for 30 years. The New Zealand public will see through this—they will see through this.

We do not need the Donald Trumps of the world in this Parliament. We need people who are actually going to build a country, who are going to respect all people in this country, who will respect people who come from different countries and make New Zealand their home, who will respect the people of New Zealand who come here with legitimate grievances, looking to this Parliament to sort them out, and who will respect our country going forward. New Zealand First members will do none of those things. They never have, and they never will. Name one of the things that they have ever done to help New Zealanders. We would love to hear that.

Hon Member: Work for the Dole.

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, Work for the Dole—these guys here are all on the dole. They are all on the dole. They are all sitting there, and they are sitting there only as long as they vote for Winston when he tells them to. Even better than that, not only do they have to vote for Winston but Darroch Ball has to get Winston to write his questions for him. He has to get him to write his questions. They cannot even write their own questions—Winston writes their questions. They all vote for Winston.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are prepared to take that sort of address—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —but the point is that you cannot mention a member by their first name.

Mr SPEAKER: I agree.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And that is not the least—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no more. On this occasion the Rt Hon Winston Peters is absolutely right. We are not going to have this Parliament reverting to members referring to other members simply by their Christian names. Mr Bennett should refer to Mr Peters either as Mr Peters or as Winston Peters. [Interruption]

DAVID BENNETT: Or “Whatever”—“Whoever.” Sometimes I wonder whether he actually still exists, or whether they just trundle him out every 3 years, bring him out, and put him on a campaign slogan. I remember this campaign slogan from the last election: “It’s Common Sense! … Join this historical campaign and stand up for the values that make our country great.” The values—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I do not know whether the member who has just resumed his seat is aware of this, but we have microphones in front of us and there is a sound system throughout the whole building. There is no need to yell, Mr Bennett. In fact, if your microphone was off, I would still be able to hear you too much, to be honest.

The arrogance of that member, who thinks that he can come into this Parliament and dictate which other parties are represented—it is called a general election, and enough people voted for New Zealand First that it is entitled to be here. All of us imagine how it would be if everyone else voted the same way as we wanted them to, but that is not democracy. We have a healthy democracy in New Zealand, and we end up with people in National, ACT, United Future, the Greens, New Zealand First, and the Māori Party. Not all of us like it, but it makes for a healthy democracy. So put away the arrogance, Mr Bennett, and think about what people outside in the real world actually voted for. To have a lecture on racism and race relations from that member, whose party paid for billboards that said “Iwi/Kiwi”—that is taking arrogance to a new level.

I think an increasing number of people are saddened by what they know and understand and see as growing inequality in our country. That is what we have seen every year for the last 8 years. For many New Zealanders, the dream that I grew up with, the Kiwi Dream of being able to have a good education, get a job that pays properly, work hard and save, and be able to buy a home of your own—that Kiwi Dream that I thought everyone would be able to grow up with is just slipping away, because over the last 8 years house prices have gone up at a crazy level. There has been an over 62 percent increase in average house prices in New Zealand over the last 8 years. We know it is even worse in Auckland. You would have to save for years to have a deposit on the front doorstep of an Auckland home now. The average price is over a million dollars. Other than high-income earners, which we all are in this House, how many do we know who would just be able to get a job, work hard, save hard, and have a deposit on a $1 million home in Auckland? How many? I am asking the National Government members. How many average people in your electorates do you know who would be able to do that—get a job, work hard, save hard, and put a deposit on a house in Auckland for $1 million? A lot of people now just have that Kiwi Dream slipping away from them.

We know that the gap between those who have and those who have not is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Is that because people on low incomes are lazy, as Bill English would point out? I do not agree with him. I know many people on low incomes who work a lot harder than many members of this House, and we are on very high incomes. We have a privileged position in this House, but it does not mean that we should be patronising and dismissive of people who are on low incomes and who work as hard as they possibly can.

If you look at every income group in New Zealand, for the lowest two income groups particularly—the people who earn less than most other people in New Zealand—every year the percentage of people in those two income brackets who pay more than a third of their income on housing costs has gone up. So every year for the last 8 years, the percentage of people on the lowest incomes who pay more than a third of their income on housing costs has gone up, and, at the very same time over those 8 years, the percentage of the top bracket—the top 20 percent of income earners—who pay more than a third of their income on housing needs has gone down. So the highest-income earners pay less as a percentage of their income on housing while the two lowest income brackets pay more. How is that fair? That is on Minister Anne Tolley’s department’s own figures. Official Government figures say that the highest-income earners pay less and the lowest-income earners pay more. I do not think that is fair at all.

Growing inequality in our country is just wrong. In my view, and in Labour’s view, every single member of a New Zealand society and community should have a chance—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Barbara Kuriger—I would have called the member earlier if she had called loudly.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a week of highs and lows, and to get up in the morning for the last few dairy auctions and find that the price is gradually starting to change—the 50c announcement in the forecast from Fonterra recently was absolutely brilliant for our farmers. Today, to wake up again—I am actually starting to look forward to waking up every fortnight, on a Wednesday morning, and seeing things gradually starting to change. It goes with a word of caution, though, because there is quite an amount of debt that has accrued over the last 2 or 3 years, so there is still caution in place because there is a lot of debt to be paid back.

What has disappointed me over the last 2 or 3 years is that everything in the economy has been going particularly well for many of our primary industries, but, unfortunately, the cream on the top, which has been dairy, has been missing. I look forward to that cream on the top coming back again and our dairy farmers starting to smile.

I acknowledge the people from the rural support trust who have been out there helping over that time to keep people afloat, not only financially but in terms of the care and attention needed when people are under pressure. So that is a high. The low has been that I was looking forward to Friday of this week because the iwi of Taranaki, Te Atiawa, and Ngāruahine were really looking forward to coming here. We have got 3.6 percent growth in this country, and we have got iwi here that are looking forward to partaking in this growth. They actually have a vision, they have a future, and I know that they were looking forward to coming down here on Friday. I am going to be here on Friday—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume her seat. It is not so much the volume of the barracking, but the nature of it. I will assure members that I did not have leave, and they are to cease asking me.

BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So, yes, in answer to your questions, I will be here on Friday, but, unfortunately, I am not going to be doing what I thought we were going to be doing on Friday, and I am deeply disappointed for our local iwi.

On a more positive note, I want to talk about last week. I was at a Careers and Transition Education Association seminar in Taranaki with local schoolteachers, looking at how we transition our young people from school and into work. If there is one thing that provincial New Zealand really needs, it is more skilled people. No one can ever tell me that there are no jobs in provincial New Zealand, because I go out there every day and I talk to employers, and not only do they want farm workers, but they want truck drivers, they want plumbers, and they want electricians. I commend these teachers and these people who are actually transitioning process—the three in two in schools.

We have actually given $14.4 million in Budget 2016 for another 5,500 apprenticeships by 2020, and that has been allocated. If there is one thing that rural New Zealand needs in spades, it is skilled people, because now we have actually got out there, we are getting the roading infrastructure, we are getting the broadband, we are getting all the technology—young people will come and live in provincial New Zealand if they can pull their cellphones out of their pockets, if they can connect online. Other people will come, and are coming. We are seeing them coming and living in the parts of the world that we represent. They can come and live there, and they can now do business because the infrastructure is right there for them.

The other thing is, with roading—I have seen the commitment in my electorate. I have just had Minister Bridges out, opening the first safety road in his $600 million Safer Roads and Roadsides Programme—State Highway 37. It goes out to Waitomo. It is integral to tourism. Tourism is another thing that is growing, particularly in provincial New Zealand. I see it all the time. We have got a $1.2 million grant going into 80 beds in the middle of the Pureora Timber Trail. Most people do it over 2 days, it is 85 kilometres—we have needed that accommodation. We get people to come here, and we get people to stay here longer.

I am really proud to represent Taranaki - King Country and have this extra money going into roading, tourism—all of the things that we aspire to as a Government. We are the third-fastest growing economy in the OECD, and I am very proud to be part of this National Government. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): What a load of absolute drivel this House has been subjected to over the last 40-odd minutes. All of the assertions coming from Te Ururoa Flavell and from the Government members about what New Zealand First did or did not say would all be disproven quite easily if I tabled my phone and the records that are contained in it. So let us be clear: the National Government and its cling-ons have the numbers to vote to go into urgency or extended hours on any day, at any time that they like, whether or not it suits us. They have the numbers. The National Government and its cling-ons have the numbers to pass the Treaty settlement bills without New Zealand First’s 12 votes. Between them, they have 64 votes, plus Labour in support. They do not need us—they can do what they like.

The third point is that if these bills were so important to National, it would have had its full muster of MPs and Ministers in the House for Thursday and Friday, it would have moved extended hours as it had planned, and it would have had the debate, had the vote, and passed the bills. Here is the fourth point: if it knew so many iwi were coming to the House to attend those hearings, why did it not stick to its game plan and carry on? Well, we know why, because the email trail proves it: it had all these leave applications, and it wanted people to go off on leave. Well, that is not our issue. If the Government finds the Treaty settlement bills so important, then why is the entire Government not here to see them through and to join in the celebrations with iwi?

Here is another point: a couple of press releases have come out from the drama queens—Gerry Brownlee, Chris Finlayson—and were supported by that gangsta lookalike Marama Fox on TV last night. What did they say? They accused—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member has referred to a member in a way that is inappropriate. I am warning him to not do it again.

RON MARK: So what they do is they then—

Hon Anne Tolley: You always go too far. Why do you always go too far?

RON MARK: Oh, blah-blah-blah, Miss Anne Tolley—there she goes. So they have said a number of things in press releases that are just simply inaccurate. The last one that came out from Gerry Brownlee said on the first page: “On Monday this week, Mr Brownlee spoke to Mr Mark, who confirmed his party’s ongoing support for the bills.” Correct—he did, and we did say that—and then we said we would support a voice vote. He continued: “On Tuesday morning, Mr Mark phoned back to say New Zealand First was not going to support two of the settlement bills”—correct—“and, therefore, could not support the voice vote only proposal for Friday.” That is absolutely incorrect.

I will read the transcript of that phone call: Gerry—Brownlee, that is—“Hello, Ron.” Ron—Mark, that is—“Gerry, how are you, man?”. Gerry Brownlee: “Good.” Ron: “I needed to call you immediately. I’ve just—er—we’ve just—adjourned briefly from caucus. We’ve had a long discussion on two of those iwi bills, Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement and—er—Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa—umm—we are going to oppose both of those, Gerry.” Gerry: “Thanks, Ron.”, and he hung up. No mention in my telephone at all of that statement that we withdrew our voice vote - only proposal—nothing, nyet, zip, nada. That is a total untruth. So, on that big, drama queen reaction, the Government pulled it.

Well, here is the challenge, Government: declare urgency now; declare extended hours now. Put those bills on the Table on Friday. We, New Zealand First, will be here in full muster. We do not care whether all you guys are taking an early break and you have got your kids pulled out of school so you can start your holiday early—we do not care. We will be here. We will cast our votes against the two bills we said we would, and we will give you a voice vote, Government—a voice vote on the other three, as I said we would in that telephone conversation.

This is a disaster and a debacle of Gerry Brownlee’s making. This is not our making; this is his. If those members want me to table the telephone recording, I will.

This is a debacle of the Government members’ own making. This is an indication of their incompetence, their stupidity, and, actually, their disrespect for Māori, because they never had any intention of sitting there on Friday and seeing those bills through as a Government in support of those iwi, whom they now claim they mourn for. Give me a break, you most insincere, pathetic Government. I just have no time for you, and nor does New Zealand First.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It appears that the previous speaker, Ron Mark, is unaware of the old political adage that explaining is losing. But on to—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I would just like to ask the two relatively senior members of the House to let Mr Smith speak. If people want to seek leave to table something, they can, and now would be the appropriate time to do it, but I do not think we should have the back and forth about whether it should be done or not. Stuart Smith—starting again.

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think I made my point before, but on to our economy. With 3.6 percent growth in GDP we are the third-highest in the OECD. There has been some talk about this being led by immigration, and I think that what is, in fact, behind this is that people are voting with their feet. They are not leaving and they are coming home. Coupled with the 3.6 percent GDP growth, we have the second-highest employment rate in the world. That is fantastic. So it is not a migration-driven thing. If it was, we would not have that high employment rate.

There was also talk about dairy and how it was causing all of the fantastic growth we have had over the last 8 years under a National Government. But dairy has gone through a very rough patch lately. Fortunately, it has improved, but the economy has sailed on none the less and is doing extremely well, and I am very pleased, like my colleague who mentioned it just before, that the Global Dairy Trade was up again last night: $2,780 for that critical whole-milk powder price. We need it to get up to $3,000 a tonne, but we are over $5 a kilogram, which is what farmers need to really make money. Fifty cents up is the projection—up to $5.25—by Fonterra, and when you take the share dividend into account as well, it is a $5.75 to $5.85 return to the farmers. That is fantastic.

Horticulture exports are doing fantastically well, led by kiwifruit, which is up 41 percent to $1.7 billion. That is a fantastic performance. The wine industry, which had only $18 million of exports back in 1990, is at $1.6 billion today. That is a fantastic performance from the wine industry. But I want to take that back local to my electorate, which is the home of three-quarters of New Zealand’s wine production, but we also have many other industries and strings to our bow. Airbus, one of the two largest aircraft manufacturers in the world, has only ever bought three other companies in its entire history and one of those is Safe Air, based in Blenheim at Woodbourne airbase. Safe Air has a fantastic prop shop in Marlborough, where propellers are refurbished. It also has a wonderful electroplating bay. Those are very difficult to build now, so all of the electroplating in New Zealand is really done in Woodbourne, and even foreign air forces use the prop shop to get their propellers refurbished.

Aquaculture is also going extremely well. We had Dr Jason Clay speak here in Parliament in Minister Smith’s office for a cross-party lunch the other day. He was pointing out how we are going to go and face the growing population and deal with the global paradox of 1 billion people not having enough to eat and 1 billion people being obese—in part, this will be through aquaculture. In Marlborough in New Zealand, 1 hectare of salmon farm produces 22 jobs and $13 million of revenue. That is $590,000 per job. High-end manufacturing is one of the few industries that will get into six figures: $590,000 per job is a phenomenal amount of money, and I think, as Dr Clay pointed out, that we have to start looking at these other industries to feed the world. Farmed fish exceeded beef in production a couple of years ago, so we are looking at the world through a completely different lens now.

Looking back to Marlborough, we have great tourism growth as well. We are having three significant openings next month. The aviation heritage museum is opening its World War II display—a new hangar, which is, in part, supported by Peter Jackson and some of his aircraft. It is a phenomenal facility. That is going to be open. The ASB Theatre Marlborough is a 740-seat theatre in which Dame Kiri Te Kanawa spoke earlier in the year. She proclaimed it as having the best acoustics in the country. In addition to that, a local five-star hotel has almost increased its capacity by 50 percent, and is opening that wing next month as well.

The wine industry, of course, is going phenomenally well and will be increasing by 2,000 jobs in the next 4 years, which is 10 percent of the working population in the Marlborough region. So that is a phenomenal success to go along with the success of other regions in New Zealand and our economy, in part due to a good Government. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill

Second Reading

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move, That the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board in getting this bill to the House. This bill was brought to the House to amend the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act of 1943 so that the board can better manage its functions.

The trusts have a long history in the Wairarapa, going back nearly 170 years, when two blocks of land were donated to establish a school in the Wairarapa. It involved the Lord Bishop of New Zealand as part of that Act, and since that donation those trusts have managed a Māori boarding school, from 1860 to 1865; then the Papawai Native School, which was opened in the 1930s; and then a further piece of land was added to the estate, which was purchased for Hikurangi Primary School, which operated for a few years from 1930 to 1932, which was then destroyed by fire. So that is a little bit of the history of the trusts.

The Act came into force in 1943—the Act that we are talking about today—to extend the powers of the trusts so they could better manage the practical use of the funds to advance specifically the education of the tangata whenua of Wairarapa. The Act is extremely archaic, it is out of date, and it is quite patronising in its terminology and what it is doing. So, for example, the Act required the trusts to donate two-thirds of their income to a post-primary education fund for scholarships for Ngāti Kahungunu, first, then for children of Māori descent on the East Coast, and then for Māori descendants anywhere in New Zealand—but controlled by the Anglican Church. So that is two-thirds that had to go to schools, specifically around the Anglican Church. The remaining third was to be paid out for the use of any post - primary school scholarship for books, clothing, equipment, assisting parents, and even residential costs, but it was specified.

This bill changes all that. This bill gives greater flexibility to the distribution of the funds by allowing scholarships for the post-primary education of children who have whakapapa in relation to the tangata whenua of Wairarapa. So it is not iwi-specific. It is for a wide range of uses—not specific uses—relating to education and educational support, and the requirements for scholarships to go to schools, as I say, conducted by the Anglican Church are outdated and archaic. The current Act—this is to do with the governance changes proposed in the bill—requires 10 members of the board, one of which must be a representative of the Ministry of Education, one appointed by the Māori Land Court, and four Māori descendants. So it is very, very prescriptive. The bill will establish a far more robust nomination process for board members. There will be eight board members, consisting of four members appointed by the bishop and also others appointed or elected by tangata whenua of Wairarapa in accordance with the process adopted by them and publicly notified, as you would expect. So this change will empower tangata whenua of Wairarapa by giving them the authority to decide whom they would like to see manage their trust funds and to decide on an appointment process that meets their needs. So there will be none of this patronising, dictatorial specification that is currently in the Act.

The Act also restricts the powers of the board by requiring all leasing of land to be in accordance with the Public Bodies Leases Act. The board could sell the land only with the consent of the Ministry of Education, but the Minister could not consent to the sale of land that had been required from any Māori tribe unless the Māori Land Court had been involved and given consent. So, again, it is very specific and very archaic—without giving any trust or any delegation to the people who are running the show. The requirement is unnecessarily complicated and needs updating. The bill will warrant the selling of the Clareville land, if the board wishes, but not the Papawai land or the Kaikokirikiri land without going through this process that I outlined.

I would like to acknowledge the board. The board would also be able to lease the three pieces of land that are available to them as they see fit—so, again, the bill is giving the trustees a lot more scope in conducting affairs as they should.

I would like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee members across the House for reviewing the bill and suggesting some changes. They have suggested the bill be enacted in Te Reo Māori as well as in English.

Clause 5 will be amended to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that was quite interesting because the original Act said that a trustee had to be of sound mind and have mental stability, or some such words. That actually breaches the Bill of Rights Act, so that wording is being changed. Of course, if those words were still there, half of us would not be able to be trustees of that board! There is a new section 4A, in clause 5, to specify the term of office of board members, and there have been some minor amendments to replace references to “2015” with “2017” to ensure that the bill passes before that date.

The bill will modernise the current Act to establish a more robust nomination process of trustees, remove the unnecessary restrictions on the distribution of funds and the use of the Clareville land, and allow for a much more flexible distribution of funds by the board, as they see fit. The bill can be achieved only through legislation, which is why we are here today. I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to take a call on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill in its second reading. As an uri of Papawai, o te whanau Rōpiha, as a practising Mihingare of the Anglican Church, and, of course, as the local member of Parliament for the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, from which this bill stems, I stand in support of the intentions of modernising the Papawai and Kaikokiriri Trusts Board. I want to acknowledge the local member who has brought this bill to the House.

The convention for what I consider a non-contentious bill, like this one, is that you generally reach out across all members of the House to ensure that all views are taken into consideration when bringing a bill to the House, to ensure its safe passage. I just want to make that point because, in this case, that was not done.

I want to stand and say on record that we have got some fine people in this House who have whakapapa to Papawai. I particularly want to acknowledge the co-leader of the Greens Metiria Turei. Of course, we have got another colleague there, Ron Mark, and myself, and I have got colleagues from this side of the House who also have whakapapa to Papawai.

But back to the bill, Labour does support it. I want to share a bit of history around the word and kupu “Papawai”. Papawai has been a home to Wairarapa Māori for hundreds of years. The word “Papawai” literally means “a variety of fern root” or “water that lies on blue-coloured clay”. Some say that “Papawai” means “the tears of Papatūānuku”, when she was separated from her husband, Ranginui.

Papawai is still very much a working marae today. It has historic and cultural significance to New Zealand. In the last years of the 19th and 20th centuries Papawai was not merely the most outstanding marae in Wairarapa but one of the most culturally important in Aotearoa. At the peak of its national importance, Papawai was the largest marae in the country and the place where the Māori Parliament was built. Papawai was revered throughout the country as a place of great learning. A whare wānanga school of learning stood at Papawai. The oral history taught by important tohunga—experts—was recorded by Hoani Te Whatahoro Jury and Rīwai. Much of the basis of Māoritanga that is part of the New Zealand school curriculum has its roots in the teaching from the wānanga, houses of learning.

Papawai and Kaikokiriri Trusts Board was incorporated under the religious, charitable, and educational trusts Act of 1908. The college established by that board was destroyed by fire in the year 1932, and the trust funds were insufficient for the re-establishment and maintenance of the college, as set out in the trust deed. The purpose of the bill, the intention of the bill, which is, like I said, uncontroversial, is that it intends to modernise the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943. The objective of this bill is to ensure that the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokiriri Trusts Board, the bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and the tangata whenua of Wairarapa is upheld. The intention is also to establish a more robust nomination of board members process, to provide fairer distribution of funds for the tangata whenua of Wairarapa, and to facilitate the long-term development of land. The bill also changes the way the trust applies its funding, and no longer limits distribution to just Anglican Church schools. The board, for example, must appropriate income for each financial year to a fund, to be called the “Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Scholarship Fund”, and the bill sets out the process by which this fund is limited.

The bill also changes the make-up and appointment process for the board. It reduces the board from 10 members to eight and makes some minor amendments to definitions within the original 1943 Act. The bill further deals with the alienation of land—which I will mention again later—allowing the board more flexibility as to how it manages the land under its control. It was interesting that the member who has brought this bill to the House mentioned in his opening address how the land was donated. The bill changes the way the board’s investments are managed. That is the intention behind the bill, and anything that allows the descendants greater control over the lands and the running of the trust we here in Labour support.

But I want to turn to the report provided by the Māori Affairs Committee. I am not a member of that select committee, but I want to congratulate the chairman, under his chairmanship, and the members on that board for doing a very good job in bringing this bill to the House. I note that we had two written submissions and one oral submitter.

I just want to draw the House’s attention to two points that were made as part of the select committee process. One was on the definition of “tangata whenua of Wairarapa”. I want to acknowledge the post-settlement entity group, Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, who just noted and gave some recommendations to the Māori Affairs Committee about making it really clear that we are talking about Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, and also made some useful references, I think, to the fact of introducing the kupu of “hapū”. I see that the select committee considered and did not feel that it should adjust the definition, but, I think, for future purposes—because, you remember, this trust is going to be around a lot longer, after we have all gone—it is important that we actually allow descendants of those hapū, of those iwi, to see themselves in this bill.

The other one was around—and I mentioned it earlier—the timing for selling or leasing lands. I do want to commend the member who introduced it, making it really clear that the corpus lands—or the ones you have identified, Papawai and Kaikokirikiri—are protected under this bill, so that it is very clear that they cannot be sold, but making it really clear that Clareville lands could potentially be sold or leased on. So I just want to commend that particular amendment in this bill. Given our history around land losses in this country, it is something that I am very passionate about in this House—to ensure that not one more acre is lost, as legislators. So I just want to acknowledge that under the Act it was fairly broad in that you could potentially sell that land, and in this amendment bill that you are bringing to the House, you are making it really clear that you cannot sell those corpus lands. So I just want to acknowledge that.

Finally, I want to just comment on, again, one of the recommendations from Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, and that was the use of Te Reo. I read the Ministry of Justice’s response about how cumbersome it is to change not just this bill—because you have to actually change the entire Act, and that would take a long time, and of course we do not want to stop the passage of this bill. Can I just make the comment that in this country, as legislators, the fact is that Te Reo Māori is an official language of this country.

It may be something that you, as Speaker, or this House need to address: that we should not just be saying that in future we should be looking at introducing dual language bills into this House; we should have a more streamlined process for existing Acts if it is wished—if the people subject to those Acts want a dual translation. I just want to go on record as saying that I read the reason why they will not do it, but I am sure that there is an opportunity here as a House for us to be looking at creating mechanisms where dual usage—or multilingual, if that is what we want to get to—is not prevented simply because it will create a whole lot of unnecessary work and we have to draw the process out. So I just want to make that point, and, hopefully, when we come to the Committee stage, we might have some responses as to why we did not introduce the word “hapū” by the member. All in all, this is a very non-controversial bill. Labour does support it, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, e mihi atu ki a koe, huri noa i Te Whare nei, tēnā koutou. Tēnei te mihi o te whanauka o te waka o Tākitimu, Kahungunu, e mihi atu ki a koutou.

[My thanks and acknowledgments to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to those of you throughout the House, greetings. I, this relative of the Tākitimu waka, acknowledge you, Kahungunu, my congratulations to you collectively.]

I take this call on the second reading of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. First of all, I want to congratulate the member of Parliament for Wairarapa on bringing this bill to Parliament and also to acknowledge the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, our previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, who gave us a very good overview of both Papawai and Kaikokirikiri. I also want to acknowledge my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who have worked really constructively on this bill. The other part is that in respect of those who did submit—there were very few submitters—it was really important that we did hear from them, particularly from the trust and Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā. I think the important thing that came out of that was the fact around the Te Reo Māori version, and the other part of it really was to make this fit for purpose for the 21st century.

The Māori Affairs Committee looked at this bill, and we continually will after this second reading, particularly around the Committee stage. One thing that I think is really important, and it was touched on very quickly by previous speakers—just to cut across a couple of amendments that we have actually recommended for the bill. One of them is actually around an issue that has arisen, in that the Attorney-General had issued a report under the Bill of Rights Act. Under that, it concluded that one provision in this bill is actually inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The issue here centres around the provisions in the bill itself, which require a member’s position on the trust board to be vacated in certain circumstances. These circumstances—just to sort of highlight them—include members of the trust board becoming subject to a compulsory treatment order; that was the first one. The second one is becoming a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. And the other one was having an order made about them under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I thought that this one here was a really important part, particularly around the report that came back from the Attorney-General. These provisions are obviously well-intentioned within the bill itself, but the intention is to ensure that if a person no longer has the capacity to carry out the work of a board member, they are removed and their position is replaced. That is where the issue lies.

However, the issue with the provisions as originally drafted is that, in fact, compulsory treatment orders under the Mental Health Act do not, by themselves, signify that someone lacks the capacity for a particular position. So, as originally drafted, this bill used these orders in a way that was not intended in the Mental Health Act and would, therefore, potentially invalidate the position of a board member who became subject to such an order but who was still perfectly capable of carrying out his or her position. This is what caused this provision to fall foul of the Bill of Rights Act, and particularly the right to be free from discrimination. That is one amendment that we looked at and was discussed, particularly after receiving the advice from the Attorney-General’s office.

There was another one that I think is worth highlighting, and this one, particularly, is bringing this trust into the 21st century, making it fit for purpose, and it is clause 13 of the bill, amending section 15 of the principal Act. We believe that the intention of the trust board, although the board wants to have more control over its investments, including the ability to diversify its investments to better provide for its beneficiaries—the bill as originally drafted would have limited the trust board to investing in land. So what we recommended, as another amendment, is that it take out one of the clauses particularly that specifically actually signifies that it can only actually invest in land. What we did was we put in another clause, or recommended another clause go in, whereby the investment can be more than just land; it can actually be a number of diversified investment products right across the board.

In saying that, they are the two main recommended amendments that I am just highlighting here in the second reading. I think the other parts of it are particularly around this situation about whānau, about the whānau of Wairarapa, and it was actually an issue that was considered within the language of the bill. I want just very quickly to say something around the submission from the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust—particularly around the Te Reo Māori version—around opening it up more instead of being specific about certain whānau who were going to be beneficiaries under this. The bill has actually been extended out further to talk more about the whānau of Wairarapa. That is another one of the recommendations we have made—not just specifically—about kotahitaka [unity] right across the board of Wairarapa. They are the amendments that I wanted to profile here today at the second reading, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tērā tētahi kīanga kei roto i tō tātou Reo Rangatira, tō tātou Reo ātaahua e pēnei ana: “Kua taka te kapa”. Ākuanei ahau e whakapākehātia wēnei kōrero kia mōhio te katoa ēngari, i rongo ake ahau i ngā kōrero o te tuahine, a Meka, nāna i kī mai ko tōna whānau o ngā Rōpiha ka whakapapa atu ki tēnei wāhi whenua o Papawai. Kua rongo ahau i te ingoa Rōpiha, kua taka te kapa i te mea, he uri ahau hoki nō ngā Rōpiha, nō roto i Ngāti Kahungunu. Ko tōku tupuna, a Pānapa Tuari, nā, kua whiwhi tōku pāpā i taua ingoa. Nāna i moe i a Arapera Rōpiha ka puta ko Maora Pānapa. Ka moe a ia i a Uru Davis kua puta ko Walton. Ka moe a ia i a Maki kua puta ko Pānapa, arā, ko tōku pāpā kua moe i tōku māmā, ā, kua puta ko ahau. Tērā pea aku tamariki, mā rātou hoki e whiwhi tētahi o ēnei karahipi, nā, kua taka te kapa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. There is an expression in our esteemed language, our beautiful language, which goes like this: “The penny has dropped”. I will provide an English translation of those words shortly, so that the majority gets an understanding of what the term suggests, but I heard the sentiments uttered by my sister colleague Meka. Her Rōpiha family have a genealogical connection to this Papawai piece of land. I heard her mention the Rōpiha name, and the penny dropped, because I am also a descendant of the Rōpihas, from within Ngāti Kahungunu. My grandfather was Pānapa Tuari—my father got his name—he married Arapera Rōpiha and Maora Pānapa was born. She married Uru Davis and begat Walton, who married Maki, who begat Pānapa, my dad, who married my mum, and I popped out. Perhaps my children will also be able to get one of these scholarships, and, therefore, the penny has dropped!]

I was just saying that in our beautiful Māori language there is a saying that says “Kua taka te kapa”, which means “The penny has dropped”. Obviously, it is not a traditional saying from 500 years ago in that we did not have pennies in our currency. When I heard Meka stand and say that the Rōpiha whānau whakapapas to the Papawai Trust, and that is a connection she has, the penny dropped, or the light bulb went on in my head, and I said: “Oh, crikey, I am a descendant of the Rōpiha whānau as well through my Kahungunu side.” I also just laid out that whakapapa: Arapera Rōpiha married a fulla called Pānapa Tuari, who had Maora Pānapa, who married Uru Davis, my great grandfather, who had, obviously, my grandfather Walton, who married my grandmother, who had my father, whose name is also Pānapa, from Kahungunu. Obviously, I came from that union. Then I said: “Oh, I guess now my children might be able to qualify for one of these scholarships from the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board.”

Actually, there is another connection, too—us Kahungunu—not many people know that Kahungunu, although they are domiciled on the East Coast around Hawke’s Bay, Kahungunu was actually born in the very far north, and we knew him as Kāhunuhunu. I was actually visiting a kaumātua in Te Hāpua right up the very far north, a couple of miles south of North Cape, and he said: “Come and stand here and look out my kitchen window. Do you see that maunga there? The maunga is called Wharerū and that is where Kāhunuhunu was born.” So that was interesting, because there is another story saying they he was born further south, around Kaitaia, but Kahungunu, as we all know, was born up in the north and moved down south. He was a bit of a womaniser—he had a number of wives—

Hon Member: Henry VIII

KELVIN DAVIS: Henry VIII, yes.

Hon Member: Which bill are we on?

KELVIN DAVIS: Getting back to the bill. Just a little bit of history there. Getting back to the bill, and I would just like to acknowledge the member for Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, who has brought this bill on behalf of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board. Just before I do that, too, we debated whether this bill should be in both languages, and in the end it was just going to be too hard, for various reasons, but kei te hiahia ahau ki te kī atu ki te kaimātakitaki, arā, a Andrew Judd Te Koromatua o Ngāmotu, e mihi atu ki a koe Andrew mō tō kaha tautoko i tō tātou Reo Māori, ngā tikanga Māori, wērā āhuatanga katoa.

[I want to say to the audience, namely to Andrew Judd, the Mayor of New Plymouth, I commend you, Andrew, in regard to your robust support of our Māori language, Māori protocols, and all those situations.]

No doubt, I am sure, Andrew, that you would agree. You would like to see bills written in both languages. That was something that we explored; it was just going to be a bit difficult. But in the future it is something that we should really, in the Māori Affairs Committee, look at: dual language bills right from the outset.

The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, as the member for Wairarapa started off by saying, was set up on lands to establish a Māori school. The Māori school was there for a while. I think it was in the 1930s when the school burnt down. They were not able to re-establish the school, but instead they used the funds for these scholarships, which were to be distributed to descendants, the Māori children of Ngāti Kahungunu descent in the first instance, Māori children from the East Coast, and then Māori children from throughout New Zealand. The new bill is now saying: “Let’s not say Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne; let’s just talk about the children who descended from Wairarapa.”

I actually learnt the hard way about confusing or mentioning Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne in the same breath, when I got the boot from Parliament in 2011. Soon afterwards I went down to Dannevirke because my cousin was having a pōwhiri as the new police sergeant in Dannevirke. When I get got there, I said to one of the people: “Gee, just who exactly are the local people that I need to acknowledge? Is it Kahungunu?”. Well, I just about had my head bitten off. It was: “Don’t you dare say Kahungunu here; it is Rangitāne you must acknowledge.” So to avoid getting into any sort of conflict, I think it is actually great that we just talk about children who descend from Wairarapa and not make that differentiation between Kahungunu and Rangitāne. I would hate to start another land war.

The scholarships were to go towards children attending Anglican schools. We know that we have had a rich history of Anglican education through St Stephen’s, Queen Victoria, Te Aute, Hukarere—those schools—and, sadly, those schools have fallen off. So it is appropriate that, actually, the funds do not just go towards children who are attending Anglican schools, or towards Anglican children, but that they just go out to all Māori children to support education. Most people remember that I was an educator for 20-odd years. Funding and receiving financial assistance for education is a big thing—that whole poverty and lack of finance is actually a barrier to many children achieving in education as they should.

It has also been mentioned that section 5 of the original Act was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the language has been refined in new section 5, inserted by clause 5, to make sure that people who have mental health issues are not discriminated against. I believe that is just the right move to make. Just because somebody might have a mental health issue does not mean to say that they cannot function at a certain level, and we need to remove steps that discriminate against people just because they are unwell in that way.

For the term of office, the trustees are going to be staggered so that some will have a term of 4 years, some of 3 years, some of 2 years, and some of 1 year. That is sensible so that when the board turns over, you do not lose all that institutional knowledge—that there is a rolling out of the old and in with the new, although board members who have been voted out may still be able to come back in again in the next election.

It has been a pleasure, on the Māori Affairs Committee, to go through this bill. I think it is going to help those children from the Wairarapa. It will help them access education, and so we commend this bill. Kia ora.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. I stand to take a call on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, and I too want to just pick up on a couple of threads from the speech of Kelvin Davis, the previous speaker, when he talked about Kahungunu and his travels around the North Island. I must say that Rangitāne, my ancestor on my mother’s side, also lived a pretty roaming kind of life, which begat Rangitāne ki Wairarapa, Rangitāne ki Wairau, Rangitāne o Tāmaki Nui ā Rua, and a few other Rangitānes around the place.

As I said, my mother hails from the Wairarapa. Her ancestress down there is a woman by the name of Ākura, and I too also whakapapa into the Papawai Marae through her. Just a little bit about the Papawai Marae—the Papawai Marae was the first marae in the country to hold the Māori Parliament, so it has got some amazing history behind it. I am very proud to come from the Wairarapa, and proud of the history that I learnt later on as an adult, as my mother became more and more open with her whakapapa, which she held fairly close and to herself.

My mother was very driven when it came to education, and I must say that our educational background, as her children, was derived from that. That kind of got into the head of my father as well. They said to us that the only way to success and freedom was to have a good education. So this particular bill, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, is about education and the education of Māori. I am pleased to see that it has widened out, because our whakapapa across Aotearoa New Zealand is wide, and it offers the ability for everybody to be able to gain from the funds that this trust generates on an annual basis.

So when we start looking at the land amounts, or the acreage, we are looking at a quite significant land block, which at around about that time would have totalled 722 acres—nothing to be sniffed at—and the revenue gained from that has helped a number of our mokopuna go through the education system over time.

Previous speakers have touched a lot on where the bill has come from. I too want to thank Alastair Scott, my colleague, for bringing in this member’s bill as its sponsor, and I thank the whānau who took the time to bring the old bill and work with Alastair to modernise it into today-speak, which has resulted in a widening of the number of people who can actually access the education funds.

When we start to look at that area around the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts’ lands, we do see a steeped history of the school—as the previous speaker said—being built, burning down, and not really coming back to its full strength. But when the submitters came to the Māori Affairs Committee, I was really impressed with the way that the trust has been set up for educational purposes. I believe, as I stand here today, that it is one of the leading Māori educational services in our country. I was very proud to hear what they have done and how they are doing it.

As I said, there is lots that this bill has changed—all the little tweaks, and that—from the 1943 Act, which had 10 board members, down to having eight board members. There is the way those board members have been going through selection, with four of them coming from the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika and four obviously from within the tangata whenua or mana whenua of Wairarapa Kahungunu, and to be able to not throw the baby out with the bathwater—to have it so that once their term finishes or the office becomes vacant, they can actually reapply and go back on.

The other area that I was looking at in the old Act was the remuneration for these boards of trustees. I see in the new bill that there is a facility in there for that, because they do work hard and they are appointed because of their expertise and ability within the education field and within their representation of the iwi as well, so it is nice to see that there is some sort of remuneration for them with this bill.

There is not a lot more that I want to say. I just want to thank the members on the Māori Affairs Committee, ably led by my colleague Nuk Korako, and I look forward to the further progress of this bill as we move towards its Royal assent. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I just want to add the Green Party’s support for this bill. It is a little bill. It is just the modernisation of the trusts and their powers, and that is good—this is what a local bill is for—and we are very pleased to support it. I have to say I am quite impressed with the number of members who have in the past declared their whakapapa back to Papawai—myself included—but more and more are coming out as we go on through the conversation. It is fantastic. Papawai, the takeover of this Parliament by the Māori Parliament seems to be growing day by day.

Meka Whaitiri: A prize strategy.

METIRIA TUREI: Yes, it is a great strategy.

Meka Whaitiri: Don’t be afraid.

METIRIA TUREI: “Don’t be afraid.”, Meka Whaitiri says. Yes, the Māori Parliament is taking over slowly, bit by bit, but we will be gentle and will take good care.

I have always thought it was a little bit spooky, actually, that Papawai, given it was the home of the Māori Parliament, has had such an influence and has actually produced so many Māori MPs across the political spectrum. So it is not just that there is a whānau commitment to a particular political party, but there is a commitment to politics, to education, and to advancing our children through the system so that they can be strong advocates for our whānau in this place and in other places as well. That is what these trusts do. By being clearly established and well-established and by providing the funds for educational scholarships for the children of Wairarapa, these trusts are helping to build that expertise from the Wairarapa—from Papawai and elsewhere in the area—and so that is a great thing.

It always interests me that when hapū have been the most constrained in resources—and across the country, not just in Wairarapa and with Papawai—or have had the least resources, they have directed whatever resource they have to the education of their kids. That has always been the first priority for hapū—to do whatever is necessary to get our kids as well-educated as possible so they can live the best lives that they can and so they can be strong advocates for their whānau and hapū later in life. It just goes to show that despite all of the difficulties that iwi Māori and hapū Māori have suffered over the last 200 years, always the focus is on our kids.

I do just want to acknowledge the changes that were made to the bill by the Māori Affairs Committee, and particularly the tidying-up of some old wording. The issue of the inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was really just, I think, a drafting issue that arises when you are using older legislation as a model, and it is good that we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting that reminds us to be clearer and fairer in our language. So I am very pleased to see those changes. We are happy with retaining the definition of “tangata whenua of Wairarapa” as the group of kids who would benefit from the trusts’ resources.

I too would just reiterate that there is an express provision in the bill that prevents the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board from selling the Papawai or Kaikokirikiri land. Not only does the bill say that the Clareville land can be sold but not the Papawai or the Kaikokirikiri land, but it goes on to say: “To avoid doubt, the Board may not consent to the sale or otherwise permanently alienate the Papawai land or the Kaikokirikiri land.” I think it is really important for everyone at home to know that the law requires the trusts to hold on to that land for the purposes of deriving an income so that kids who are in need of some financial support for their education can get it.

I am pleased too that the application of trust moneys from this is quite broad. It is not just about fees; it is actually about the things that kids need in order to be able to get a decent education—books, clothes. In increasingly impoverished families, just getting decent clothes to send kids to school in is a problem—and uniforms. Other equipment is available to be purchased too with funds from these trusts for our kids. In an increasingly digital age, when it is becoming more and more difficult for kids to access the internet and the technology to access the internet—that is really important too.

We are very pleased that the bill has come forward. Congratulations to the member who brought it to the House, Alastair Scott. We look forward to its passing. Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare. Āe, i rongo au i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā herenga o ētahi o ngā mema Māori e noho nei i roto i Te Whare ki te rōpū nei. Tēnā pea ko te take nei, kua taka te kapa, ka hiahia ētahi ō tātou kia mau aua kapa, kia ahatia? Ēngari, ko te mea nui mēnā e tika ana wā rātou whakapapa. Korekau he raru!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations to you seated here in the House. Yes, indeed, I heard the comments about the connections that some Māori members seated in this House here have to this organisation. Perhaps this matter about the penny dropping is due to the fact that some of us want to catch those pennies, but for what purpose? However, the main thing is to examine whether their genealogies are correct. There will not be a problem if it is fine!]

Just by way of explanation, I was acknowledging everyone in the House and referring to the comment of Metiria Turei, the previous speaker, about the number of Māori members coming out of the woodwork, so to speak, and making their genealogical connection to these trusts. I made the rather facetious comment that perhaps the reason that we are doing that is that the penny has dropped—in other words, there is a possible monetary rationale for their connection. But, in spite of that, I acknowledge their right to claim their whakapapa to the Wairarapa.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I can say that we will be supporting this bill, and I acknowledge Alastair Scott, the member who brought it to the House. I should say that we certainly do recognise the need to update the wording of an Act that has used rather archaic language, particularly in terms of its description of the Church of England. I think the bill does that very well, and it has the support of members of the trusts’ board who came before the Māori Affairs Committee and made their submission.

I should also say that, for me, I am not quite sure whether, in fact, the description “tangata whenua of Wairarapa” is prescriptive enough. But then the members of the current board accepted this description of those who would be entitled to apply to the trusts for assistance, and I acknowledge that. But I just make that comment as someone who has seen a lot of people use the description “tangata whenua” to go beyond the original intent of the comment. But, having said that, I support the members of the trusts’ board who have said that.

Reference has been made to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act inconsistency, and I, certainly, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, was grateful for having that issue pointed out to us. I think that the bill reflects our acceptance of the issues that were raised in regard to that part of the bill.

The other thing I want to comment on is the request by members of the trusts’ board seeking to have the bill written in Māori. The reason that the committee has given for not being able to do so was that the original Act that this bill amends is not in Te Reo Māori. So we accept that, but we certainly—and I, certainly, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee—look forward to having all bills that are passed through this House written in Te Reo Māori.

The other part I want to make comment on is that the bill widens the range of investments to anything lawful. You might have thought that with the influence of the Church, that may have included putting thought to making moral investments, and I say that only because that has been an issue with regard to some of our KiwiSaver administrators and because of the comments made about where they invest those funds. Although they may have invested those funds towards legal investments, the public of New Zealand certainly raised the question as to whether or not they were moral. But, again, the members of the trusts’ board accepted that, and I am quite happy to support them in that regard.

I do not have too much to add, other than to say that we in New Zealand First certainly support the bill and we commend it to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is a privilege to stand and say a few words on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill’s second reading here this afternoon. Every now and again you get asked to stand and speak on a bill that you have not had the privilege of sitting through in a select committee context. I do not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, so for me, sitting here and listening to the debate, this is the first time I have been exposed to this particular issue and the solution that we have in front of us.

I, like others, have been quite surprised at how many MPs whakapapa back to Papawai. I am, obviously, impressed with the original contribution there by Meka Whaitiri, and then Metiria Turei and Jo Hayes. I was quite impressed with Kelvin Davis’s extended attempt to try to identify some whakapapa of his in respect of Papawai, and it got me thinking. My family arrived from Prussia in 1862 on the SS African. I am sure they might have done a road trip to Wairarapa sometime in the last 100 years, but, as much as I have thought about it, I just cannot seem to find a way to add myself to that extraordinary, extensive list. In fact, my colleague Jo Hayes reminded me that there is somebody from each one of the political parties represented in this House who whakapapas back to Papawai.

The other, I guess, perspective that I reflected on, as I looked through the notes and the report back from the select committee, is the genesis of this, actually. As they often do when we reflect on Māori trusts when they are in front of this House, the genesis of this started as a gift from a people to, essentially, the country, and, in this case, it was expressed through the Anglican Church, for a specific purpose—in this case, education for their people. I think we overlook that at times, particularly in today’s world—the genesis of so many of the Māori trusts came from expressions of generosity that then had legal frameworks that were fit for the time wrapped around them.

But as we stand here, in 2016, they are no longer fit for purpose, because they unduly constrain the successors of that initial gift to the country. It is appropriate, therefore, that we actually reflect on those frameworks and ensure that that initial gift has legislative support to enable it to thrive, not only in today’s context but also for the generations to come. So I will acknowledge my colleague Alastair Scott, who, as the local MP, has taken this up. It is with gratitude that I hear of the level of collective endorsement from around the House for his leadership on this issue, and the fact that that has meant that we have a bill here that is supported by all parties.

The framework initially was very paternalistic—we have heard that referenced—and very prescriptive, and it certainly did not allow the trust arrangements to breathe and grow with the aspirations of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts of today. There have been some key changes envisaged right through this bill—we have heard some good speakers already talk through the key components of that—particularly broadening the definition in terms of who will be able to receive the scholarships. Obviously, it still has education at its heart, as it should be, because that was the original intent of the original gift all those years ago. So it is good to see that the changes not only create a greater flexibility but reinforce the importance of ensuring that education remains core for the trusts’ purpose.

I think that the changes, in respect of governance, again move from a highly paternalistic and prescriptive approach to one that has, at its core, the view that the four members of the eight will be appointed from tangata whenua of Wairarapa. So, again, we will have a board here that is very much of the local people, for the local people, and that reflects the expectation of the local iwi and, indeed, the expectation of this House. It has been very interesting and a privilege to be part of this conversation. It is an example of Parliament at its best, and I am very pleased to be able to add my voice to those in this House. I commend it to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā poutiaki o Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri, oti noa ki a tātou katoa o Te Whare.

[And so, my appreciation to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time it is fitting indeed that I accord a word of acknowledgment to the trustees of Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri, and to all of us of the House.]

At the first reading of this bill, I spoke about a number of things, including wanting to hear from submitters on this bill. I did not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee for this bill, but I commend the Māori Affairs Committee for the work it did on this bill. There were only two submissions, so I read those submissions. In my part of the world, when you get only two kaikōrero on an issue, it means that everything must be ka pai, because if it was not, we would have got a lot more submissions on this bill. So I just want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee because, obviously, although there were only two submissions—and the advice from the officials, no doubt—I think it has come up with a very good position on the definition of “tangata whenua o Wairarapa”. I think it is a very good way of expressing whom this bill benefits, but also the very inclusive nature of this part of the bill, so I acknowledge that.

My reading of the 1943 Act and the language it uses shows it to be very prescriptive, and it is very paternalistic as well in the way it is written, so it is well overdue for a review. I also acknowledge the member for Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, for the work he has done on bringing this bill to the House. I always believe that reviewing legislation like this should empower the whānau—the people—it benefits. Quite clearly, the new governance arrangements—the new terms within this bill—do exactly that, so it is very easy for me to stand in support of this bill. Like a number of others, I thought I would add some whakapapa korero of my own to this debate. My grandmother—

Kris Faafoi: You’ve only got 7 minutes.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: That is just about enough time. My grandmother—my dad’s mum—is from Ngāti Kahungunu, and I am very proud about that part of my whakapapa, as well—my dad’s mum. It was very interesting listening to the contribution, particularly, of my colleague Kelvin Davis. He does not know this, but I have Rōpiha whakapapa as well.

I was really interested in the way that the Māori Affairs Committee dealt with the inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It was obviously, within the drafting of the legislation, an unintended fact that was placed in this bill, and, consequently, the Māori Affairs Committee came to an agreement on how to address the concerns of the Attorney-General. It is always important in these pieces of legislation that they are fair and that they do not contravene this very important Act—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and in this instance the Māori Affairs Committee has done a very good job in addressing that. I do not have any more to contribute, except that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure today to stand in support of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. It is probably not a surprise that I have no whakapapa back to Papawai, but I do have it on good authority that a friend of mine, Mr Nuk Korako—his uncle, the Hon Ben Couch, whakapapas back to Papawai.

I acknowledge the work of the hard-working MP for the Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, who has brought this private bill to the House. I also acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, which has obviously worked together to manage the process of progressing this bill to its second reading today.

The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board has been managing its activities since the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act was enacted in 1943. It distributes scholarships for post-primary education of children who have whakapapa in relation to the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa. It uses it for a wide range of uses in education and educational support—that is for things such as books, clothing, grants, or even for maintenance of school buildings. That is a very honourable purpose, but one of the things that did impress me about the focus of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board is that one of its four goals is to make a positive contribution to the education of tamariki, which empowers whānau. That certainly is the understanding of this Government, and we certainly, too, understand that there is no greater investment that anyone can make than the investment in our children.

After 73 years, the time is now right to modernise this Act so that the board has the flexibility it requires to best meet the needs of the trust in this 21st century, and to make sure, as we have heard today, that it is fit for purpose. This is a very non-contentious bill. I have pleasure in commending it to the House, and I extend my very best wishes to the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board for its future investment in the education of its tamariki. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. Firstly, I want to join in support of my colleagues, in Labour and across the House, in supporting this bill. Alastair Scott, thank you for introducing it—it was relatively painless before the Māori Affairs Committee. I do not want to traverse areas that members have already covered; I would probably be of no great use to the debate of the House to cover those matters. But I think there are points of clarification that will be useful, which have not been focused on by members previously, and that is around the dual translation of legislation.

The committee considered in part the prospect of translating this amendment bill through this process. However, we were advised by parliamentary counsel that the best way to address the issue of dual-language bills is when you are creating an entirely new Act. We thought about the precedent that it would set if we were to go down the path of drafting amendments in Te Reo Māori while the principal Act was going to remain in English, and we considered that not to be a good precedent. However, in saying that, we saw the virtues of the Māori Affairs Committee starting to think about the way in which we could address the issue of dual-language bills. It just so happened, however, that Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill was the bill before us—some 400-odd pages—so whether or not we eventually decide to go for a dual-language bill in that particular instance remains to be seen, but it would be of a good precedent-setting nature for the committee.

The other thing that is of useful comment with regard to the modernisation of this bill is the rotation of the term of office for the board. It is helpful, I believe, that in the fifty-fifty representation of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board they have outlined exactly how the rotation will occur and the term of office that each board member will serve. That is really to ensure that, like all good boards, there is active succession planning and rotation of members to be able to get the contribution of people to the activities of the trust.

A lot has been said about the way in which funds will be distributed. I took some time—a little bit of time—to read the original bill. In terms of the distribution of grants, they were also used for residential scholarships as well, so I take it that that was to enable people to go to boarding school. That was a very real prospect in the early years in which the trust was in operation. I hazard a guess that many people went to Te Aute College and St Joseph’s College, as two schools within the Wairarapa/Kahungunu area. That would have been a very useful grant for families to receive to help their kids get to school and further their education.

I want to endorse all the comments about education being a window to opportunity and a real way to lift the aspirations of people—no matter where they are from and what their status is, so to speak. I know from very small communities that trusts like the Papawai Kaikokirikiri Trust have made a significant contribution to growing leaders within the Māori community, so I want to applaud that as a continued ambition of the role of the trust.

One minor bit of focus that I would like to draw the attention of the House to is that the select committee amended the bill to enable the trust to invest in more than just land. That is just recognising that the modern investment decisions that boards are making now go well beyond land, and should the trust want to diversify its interests, in whatever way it decides fit, the bill provides for that. I think that is a really positive move forward.

I also want to, like Metiria Turei, comment on the issue of the selling of land. The corpus lands remain intact, and that is very clear. However, should the trust want to purchase further lands and then sell them, that is fine—they can do that, but the corpus lands remain intact. I think that comes back to the original intent of the gift that established the trust: the strong connection, since 1843, that people will have to the lands that were originally vested in the Papawai Kaikokirikiri Trust, and also to reaffirm the tangata whenua connection of the people in the Wairarapa to these lands, the benefits that come from them, and the distributions to the various aspirations of the board.

With that said, this has had a fairly, I would like to say speedy, but, I think, average kind of passage through the role of the select committee. We did give it some strong attention. We did not want to dilly-dally around with its progress before the committee. I want to mihi to those trust members who came to the select committee. I think they were a little bit overwhelmed with the whole select committee process, but we were all the richer for hearing from them, the aspirations of their trust, and what they want to do for the future. That just confirmed our belief that in modernising this legislation and enabling the trust to get on with its business, having some guidance that can help its operations would be a very positive and fruitful exercise to help them achieve their aspirations. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Māngai Tuarua o Te Whare, mauri ora, e ngā mema o Te Rōpū Reipa kia ora tātou, e ngā mema o Te Rōpū Kākāriki tēnā koutou, e ngā mema o Te Rōpū Aotearoa Tuatahi, kia ora, tēnā koutou.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, good health to you, and greetings to the members of the Labour Party, the members of the Green Party, and to the members of New Zealand First; hello and salutations to you collectively.]

In taking a brief call on this Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill in this second reading debate, I want to actually agree with all that has been said by the members who have spoken so far. It is a wonderful thing—particularly this week, when we started with some discord on the passage of legislation that is relevant to iwi Māori in this country—that we have managed to come together and put aside some of the game playing that has been undertaken by certain parties in this House, which need not be named on this happy occasion, and, in fact, progress this piece of legislation, which does much good. It modernises an obsolete piece of legislation, updates it for the circumstances of the modern world, and gives the trust board the flexibility to operate in a way that maximises the benefit accruing to the people, particularly of the Wairarapa but, actually, to Māori people throughout New Zealand.

This bill does a number of very practical things. It reforms the governance arrangements of the trust board so that half of the board of eight will be appointed by the local iwi. The other half will be appointed by His Grace the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, or the Anglican primate of this region in which we are currently standing.

The whakapapa relationships of certain members in this House with the marae in question have been raised, so far be it from me to fail to follow that precedent. Unfortunately, I whakapapa to the very far north: Te Tai Tokerau. Ko Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa te iwi, ko Ōtangaroa te marae. [Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa is the iwi, Ōtangaroa is the marae.]

My ancestor was the same as that of co-leader of the Māori Party Te Ururoa Flavell: his eponymous ancestor, the chief Te Ururoa, who was the paramount chief of Ngāti Kahu at the very start of the 19th century and also the famous victor of the battle of Kororāreka, who made some significant progression south on his raids. I am not quite sure whether he got as far as the Wairarapa, but you never know. There may be some very distant cousins present in that situation. My whakapapa is somewhat more tenuous than that of others, than that of my colleagues and members opposite. I am Ngāti Kahu, not Ngāti Kahungunu, so cannot claim that direct connection. But any intelligent person, on reading this legislation, will see the benefits that will accrue to Ngāti Kahungunu and others who benefit from the use of the land.

I just want to comment on a theme that has been raised, I think particularly eloquently, by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, which is that times have changed and that the assets of the trust board can be put to more productive and more lucrative use for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust than people would have imagined back in 1932 when the schoolhouse burnt down, or even in 1943, in the midst of the Second World War, when the legislation was most recently updated. In a wonderful area like the Wairarapa, which is so ably represented by my distinguished colleague Alastair Scott as its local member, you can imagine the kinds of industries that may now be the most prosperous and lucrative. Perhaps wine growing for export is a good industry to be in. Maybe high tech—the lands could be used perhaps to house cloud-based server systems and offer those services all around the world. These are things that people back in the 1940s could not possibly have imagined. I commend that particular aspect of the bill as being incredibly positive.

As other members have stated, this bill has had thorough but not slow consideration by the Māori Affairs Committee, ably chaired by its wonderful chairman, Tutehounuku Korako, my distinguished colleague of noble heritage, who bears that proud name and does so much good work on the Māori Affairs Committee, and in such a consensual way with its deputy chair and with other members—

Pita Paraone: Stop embarrassing him.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —with Pita Paraone, who also is a very hard-working member of that committee, when his leader allows him to participate. This bill has been through the select committee process, and, as others have commented, that old saying applies: “If there isn’t too much interest, if there aren’t people coming in to submit, it must actually be a pretty good piece of legislation.” You generally only get a huge queue, a horde, of submitters coming in to petition their case when there are flaws with the legislation. I think that is hugely positive, and it is a huge credit to Nuk Korako, to his committee, and to all of those who have played a part—including the Parliamentary Counsel Office and others—and have contributed to the fine-tuning of this piece of legislation.

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the very nature of this bill. This is a private bill. It is actually a relatively rare and obscure form of legislative instrument that we see in this House. It is the rarest form of bill that comes here—Government bills, of course, being the most common. We do see members’ bills drawn regularly, and we will be dealing with some of those later today. We have local bills. Local bills are not entirely uncommon; we have had several through this year. But private bills are relatively rare. We dealt with the Royal Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal legislation, and that organisation transitioned into being just a conventional trust, like any other charity or NGO. But it is appropriate that these trusts, given their heritage, given the conditions that prevail in the area—that we do not just simply repeal the previous piece of legislation, as we are doing with 124 other pieces of legislation in the Statutes Repeal Bill. It is appropriate that the bill is modernised, it is brought up to date, it is made fit for purpose, and it is done so in this way, as a private bill in the name of Alastair Scott.

I really want to commend Alastair Scott. He is both a strong local member and someone who clearly wants to support these institutions that do a lot of good in his own community. Without much further ado—actually, there is one more point I would like to make, and it is quite an important one. The committee recommends that this bill be enacted in Te Reo Māori as well as in English. We had quite a historical event earlier this year when Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Act became the first where the text in both languages carried equal weight. This is not a unique situation in the Commonwealth.

I had the pleasure of having dinner with the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales earlier in the year. He also happens to be a Welshman—a very proud Welshman—hailing from Cardiff. He was discussing the way the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff legislates in both the Welsh language and in English. We also have a Commonwealth equivalent in the province of Quebec, in Canada. I also met the Chief Justice of Quebec. The French language is given equal weighting and bills are simultaneously dealt with in both French and English. They are debated in the House in both languages, they are drafted in both languages, and when lawyers are interpreting them they are given equal weight in both languages. Of course, when judges are ruling on them, the judges have to be completely fluent in both English and French, in both the common law tradition and the civil tradition derived from that French Napoleonic heritage that they also have in Canada.

It is a wonderful thing, in this bicultural, multicultural country of ours, that we are embracing the indigenous language—one of New Zealand’s official languages. The committee did make the recommendation that the bill be enacted in both languages, and I hope that this becomes somewhat of a precedent in this House, and that we do more and more, as the capacity allows, as the fluency in Te Reo of judges allows, and as the ability of our legal profession to deal with two languages allows. Let us give maximum opportunity for the beautiful Te Reo Māori to be used in this way, and also we should probably include New Zealand Sign Language, which is the third official language of New Zealand—I had better say that, as the Minister for Disability Issues is in the House today.

This is a very good bill. It is non-contentious. I have taken up more than enough time on extolling its virtues. It carries my full commendation to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill

First Reading

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I move, That the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā tātau e Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the powers, languages, and the four winds, acknowledgments to us, the House, greetings, salutations and accolades to us all.]

I welcome the people of New Plymouth and Waitara to this House today, whether you are here in person or whether you are watching via television. It is a journey that is of some distance, not just from North Taranaki but through the difficult history that the people from North Taranaki have travelled. I acknowledge those who have gone before and cannot be here—I acknowledge you. This is a local bill and I acknowledge the New Plymouth District Council. I acknowledge Mayor Andrew Judd, who is present today, and councillors Craig McFarlane and Colin Johnston, representing Waitara. I acknowledge the people of Te Atiawa—Liana Poutu, chair of Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust. I acknowledge the leaseholder residents of the town of Waitara.

The New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill seeks to provide a new future for the town of Waitara in North Taranaki. Waitara has just under 7,000 residents. It is a beautiful town, with the Waitara River passing through it. The views of Taranaki maunga are stunning. There are rugged surf beaches and excellent fishing, and a climate second to none in the Taranaki region. It is a classic New Zealand town, in many respects. It has a strong community. However, it has seen some challenging times, with a difficult and dark history. There are those with a strong sense that it has been held back by legislation of the past, in more ways than one.

The challenges for Waitara arise from its role in a pivotal moment of our country’s history. Waitara was originally a Te Atiawa settlement. The Crown first attempted to purchase Waitara in 1859, against the wishes of many of the iwi, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the first Taranaki War in Waitara in 1860—a war that then spread throughout New Zealand. Waitara was then confiscated, along with much of Te Atiawa’s homelands, in 1865 by the Crown as retribution for the wars. The Crown has acknowledged and apologised for this grievous wrongdoing, and this House is currently considering settlement legislation for Te Atiawa in a separate piece of work and legislation.

Some of that confiscated land was vested by law in the predecessors of New Plymouth District Council as endowment land. These endowments were made to enable the town to develop. Endowments were a common way of financing local authorities and public institutions in those days. The endowment land is now largely leasehold land, subject to perpetual leases. Just under one-quarter of all residential houses in Waitara have these Glasgow leases, and leaseholders have long sought to buy the land under their houses. The council is restricted to using the endowment income for a short list of outdated purposes, such as reconstructing the town’s bridge if it were to fail.

Even from this short summary of the history, it is clear that there are various and competing interests in the land held in Waitara by the council. Te Atiawa seek the return of their lands, leaseholders seek to freehold their houses, and the community is not able to best use the proceeds from the land. The council caught in the middle has attempted to resolve the issue each way in the past. Firstly, the council tried to enable leaseholders to freehold by introducing a bill into this House in 1992. That bill was stalled in select committee because of concerns for Te Atiawa’s Treaty settlement. The bill was finally withdrawn in 2004, after the council agreed to sell the leasehold land to the Crown for the Crown to include it in Te Atiawa’s Treaty settlement. Following 6 years of court cases brought by the leaseholders challenging that change of direction, the Crown and the council entered into a conditional sale and purchase agreement in 2010.

Ultimately, Te Atiawa negotiators decided against accepting the land in 2014. Since then, the council has worked with Te Atiawa and the community to present us with a new resolution of these issues for us to enact. The council and Te Atiawa entered into a heads of agreement on the broad principles of the bill. The council then developed the bill and consulted with the wider Waitara community. The council listened and changed aspects of its original proposal as a result of feedback, and has provided us with the bill.

Because of this heads of agreement and the tripartite discussion, I entreat parties in this House to support this bill at least through to select committee, where the Local Government and Environment Committee can call for submissions and the views of different groups can be heard before this Parliament. The New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill provides a way forward that benefits leaseholders, Te Atiawa, and the Waitara community. It is for this House to decide whether to enable Waitara to move forward, or to continue with the problems of the past.

There are three main policy drivers in this bill. Firstly, the council will vest over 40 hectares of land in Te Atiawa. This includes about 13 hectares of vacant land zoned residential in the district plan and by the coastline. Te Atiawa can use this to develop a new base in their Waitara homelands. Te Atiawa will also be acknowledged as the owner of three pieces of reserve land, with the council providing day-to-day administration. There will be joint decision-making on strategic issues for these reserves, and Te Atiawa will also have the opportunity to purchase over 30 hectares of land in Waitara in the future through rights of first refusal if the council decides to sell.

Secondly, leaseholders will have a right to freehold. They will finally be able to buy the land underneath their family homes. Rather than being bound by 21-year rent cycles and the difficulties that brings with the banks, leaseholders will be able to become part of the normal property market. This has been long sought after by leaseholders. Those who want to continue to rent can do so safe in the knowledge that they have a statutory right to freehold at a later point.

Thirdly, the proceeds from the leasehold land will be invested back into Waitara. Proceeds from about 80 percent of the land will be split evenly between New Plymouth District Council and the Taranaki Regional Council, and proceeds from the rest of the land will go solely to New Plymouth District Council. This reflects existing statutory provisions. New Plymouth District Council will create a dedicated fund administered through a new statutory board. An equal number of appointees from New Plymouth District Council and Te Atiawa will decide how the annual releases from the funds are allocated within Waitara. Taranaki Regional Council will prioritise its funds for Waitara, and Te Atiawa will have representation on its standing committees under the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill.

Waitara will have two local authorities holding significant funds to put back into the township. Although the size of the funding will depend on many things—freeholding rates, interest rates, and so forth—New Plymouth District Council and Te Atiawa could be releasing half a million dollars a year by 2020, rising to $2 million a year by 2040. This is a significant boost to a community of 7,000 people. Waitara can be progressed positively with these funds. New Plymouth District Council and Te Atiawa will be equal partners in spending these funds for the benefit of the Waitara community. These funds could be used for a wide range of social, economic, environmental, and cultural purposes, perhaps including commemorating Waitara’s pivotal role in New Zealand’s early history.

This bill enables the competing interests in the Waitara endowment lands to be resolved to varying degrees. It is a compromise, and there remain unfulfilled dreams and aspirations. However, this bill provides a way forward to benefit Waitara, Te Atiawa, and leaseholders. I look forward to the day when Waitara becomes the jewel in the crown of North Taranaki. This bill will play a pivotal role in that journey. I commend this bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki Te Atiawa, ki ngā hapū Manukōrihi, Ōtaraua, otirā, ngā iwi katoa o Taranaki.

Ka huri aku whakaaro ki a rātou mā i te wāhi ngaro, ki a rātou mā i hinga mai nā puta noa o Taranaki i runga i ēnei whenua, i runga i te whenua e kīia nei ko Pekapeka, otirā, ngā whenua katoa o Taranaki. E tika ana kia tuku mihi ake ki a rātou mā, otinoa ki a tātou o Te Whare nei tēnei ahau tuku mihi atu anō hoki ki tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time it is apt that I accord an accolade to Te Atiawa, the hapū Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua, and indeed to all the iwi of Taranaki.

My thoughts turn to those in the place lost from view, in conjunction with all of those who have passed away throughout Taranaki on these lands and, in particular, this land called Pekapeka but indeed on all the lands of Taranaki. It is fitting that we pay a tribute to them all.]

I rise to speak on this bill, the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill. I thank the member for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, for his explanation, in a very brief way, of the history of this issue around the Waitara lands. It, of course, goes a lot further, and that is explained in another bill before the House, the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill.

I want to acknowledge all of the interested parties in this particular bill, and the member for New Plymouth has outlined the competing interests associated with all of those interested parties. Can I go through a list of who I think the interested parties are, and give a message out to each and every one of them. First of all, I acknowledge the leaseholders who have lived on these lands—on endowment lands with perpetual leases—who, through this bill, will have the opportunity to purchase the land that they live on. I want to acknowledge Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua as well, the original owners of this land. I cannot help but recognise the pain that they are going through right now—the pain around the loss of land from 1865. We talk about historical and intergenerational trauma; the current generation holds that trauma today. It would be wrong not to acknowledge that.

Within the settlement process, Te Atiawa received a mandate from all of its hapū, as I understand, and negotiated a settlement based on their aspirations under the mana that that mandate gave them. Could I mention at this stage that the settlement process is a flawed one, and it is incumbent upon every settlement group, every iwi that enters into that process, to understand what the process can deliver, what it will never deliver, and whether or not they can live with it. That is the most important thing in that process.

We find ourselves in this House having two bills before it. We are debating this one here around the Waitara endowment land, but there is another bill before this House that will be debated tomorrow, and that is the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill. Within that bill the rights of Manukōrihi and the rights of Ōtaraua will be extinguished by that bill, and the settlement that they will receive for their lands is within that bill.

We on this side of the House—along with everyone in this House, I believe—believe in the endurance of all settlements, and the Te Atiawa bill, like every other settlement bill, must endure. It has been through a process, it has been accepted by their people, and one day in the near future that deed of settlement will be enabled by an Act of Parliament. But I still feel strongly for the people of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua. Their rights under that bill will be extinguished, and I think it should be noted in this House today. They will never give up their fight to have that land returned—that is very clear. They will never forget. They will carry it generation to generation, and it is an unfortunate thing that it was not able to be settled to their satisfaction through the Te Atiawa settlement bill. But that is an issue, really, for Te Atiawa and ngā hapū o Te Atiawa.

We have our part to play as parliamentarians because we enable those settlement claims. Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust is an interested party, as well, with competing interests. Through this bill there will be land transferred to Te Atiawa from the council. They will sit at the table that makes the decisions around how the money that is collected through that trust is distributed. They have an interest in that they will make up 50 percent of that trust. The New Plymouth District Council also—and I acknowledge the presence of the Mayor of New Plymouth, Andrew Judd, and councillors—has a competing interest as well, I believe. Its interest is to take into account the needs of its community, the needs of Waitara, the needs of the leaseholders, and the needs of the iwi who are within its rohe. So it has an interest as well. The Waitara community under this bill has an interest. The Waitara community will be the beneficiaries of the collection of the rents on the leasehold properties, and they will be the beneficiaries also of the sale of the leasehold lands. So they have an interest in this.

So with so many interests—conflicting interests—what is the thing that we as responsible parliamentarians should be doing? I believe, and my party believes, that the best way forward for all of the interested parties is that they make submissions to the select committee so that the bill can be thoroughly examined by the select committee and so that everyone with interests in this bill has their say. So to each one of those competing interested parties, I say to all of you that you must ensure that you have your say. You must make sure that you give the select committee compelling arguments and reasons as to why your interests should be above someone else’s. That is really up to the communities, the interested parties in this bill.

My preference actually is that this bill goes to the Māori Affairs Committee. I think it ought to go there. It is well led by Nuk Korako, and the membership of the Māori Affairs Committee would have an in-depth knowledge and skill and ability to decipher all of the issues associated with the competing interests on this bill. I highly recommend that we do that.

There are some aspirational things also about this bill. The future of Waitara—what it might look like in the future. Would it not be wonderful if we could address all of those issues through the iwi, through the hapū, through the wider Waitara community, and all of the parties interested so that we could get to a place where Waitara can truly move forward so that it can use the benefits of this trust, if that is what the people of Waitara want?

Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, kāore e kore ā te wā ka tukuna atu ētahi atu kōrero ki tēnei pire. Mā te wā ka whakarite mātou i tā mātou tū i runga i tēnei pire mēnā ka pōti, ka tautoko ai, ka whakahē ai rānei. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou.

[Therefore, this contribution is not a long one, and without a doubt other contributions will be made on this bill. In time we will deliberate our stance on this bill and vote whether to support or oppose it. So congratulations and accolades to you collectively, my appreciation to us all.]

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I would also like to acknowledge Mayor Andrew Judd and councillors McFarlane and Johnston, who are with us today. It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill. The previous speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, referred to parties understanding what their needs are, and I would like to make a comment that getting to this point in this piece of legislation has taken many, many years to build. It is like doing a jigsaw, and I acknowledge the many, many parties, including the council and the people of Waitara and Te Atiawa, who have all put some conciliatory efforts into making this work.

I just want to talk today about a change in conversation that might enable us again to hear the words of Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake, a 19th century Waitara chief of great influence and authority. As a leader of Te Atiawa, he spoke for the original owners of these lands. Wīremu Kīngi often wrote of his wish for friendly relations with Pākehā settlers, but he did not believe he should have to sell the land to achieve this result. Just before the first shots were fired at Waitara, Wīremu Kīngi wrote a letter to Donald MacLean, the Chief Land Purchase Commissioner in the 1850s. Protesting the pressure to sell, Kīngi wrote: “These lands will not be given by us into the Governor’s and your hands, lest we resemble the sea-birds which perch upon a rock, when the tide flows the rock is covered by the sea, and the birds take flight, for they have no resting place.” But war and the legislative confiscation of the land did follow, forcing many Te Atiawa families to become the seabirds that Kīngi predicted, and those seabirds are still with us to the present day.

So in speaking to this piece of legislation, where there are many parts to the redress, I say, firstly, the council will vest over 40 hectares of land in Te Atiawa. Secondly, leaseholders will have a right to freehold, and they will finally be able to buy the land underneath their family homes. I know from my own memories that this has caused a lot of grief to a lot of people—not only the local residents of Waitara but the people going back to the 1800s—and I look forward to working through this bill to get some resolution. Thirdly, the proceeds from the leasehold land will be invested back into Waitara, and I think that is important because not only Te Atiawa but Waitara and everyone have moved forward in this process. So I am really pleased that we are actually at this point now where we can start doing something, because it has been very divisive.

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

BARBARA KURIGER: It is a pleasure to complete my call on this bill. It is a really important piece of legislation because it is going to remove those statutory restrictions and enable rental and sale proceeds to be used for the wider benefit of the Waitara community, and that is something extremely important. So it will provide lessees the option to buy their leasehold properties from the council. Under the terms of the bill, Te Atiawa will receive 13 hectares of vacant residential land that is termed the Brown Road land, titles to three reserves currently administered by the New Plymouth District Council, referred to as the transfer land, and the right of first refusal over the sites where Ranfurly Park and the Waitara Golf Club now sit, if the council wishes to dispose of either section in the next 172 years. The Waitara Golf Club, which is part of this legislation, is in the Taranaki - King Country electorate, and I just have to declare that I have played one game of golf in my life, really badly.

Tim Macindoe: You were very good.

BARBARA KURIGER: And I was very bad.

So, again, I just want to acknowledge in the short time I have got left the amount of effort that the council, Te Atiawa, and the people of Waitara have put into getting us to this point. It is a pleasure to be standing and taking a call, and I would just like to say: tūngia te ururua, kia tupu whakaritorito te tupu o te harakeke—clear away the encumbrances so that the new growth of the harakeke can flourish. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā koutou Te Whare nui o tēnei pō. He mihi nui ki te mana whenua o Waitara, Te Manukorihi hapū me te whānau, Te Atiawa, notably Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa, me ngā tangata Tiriti katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to you of this great House collectively this evening. I extend a huge acknowledgment to the mandated authority of Waitara, Te Manukorihi hapū and whānau, and notably the confederation of Te Ātiawa plus all Treaty people.]

Acknowledgments to Mayor Andrew Judd and the New Plymouth District Council. Mayor Andrew Judd and I walked together some of the last day of the hīkoi to Parihaka. We walked for peace. I am not sure this is peace yet. Andrew Judd and I were at a hui last week on finding an end to institutional racism. I am not sure that this bill, despite its best intentions, achieves that yet. Another hīkoi, Peace for Pekapeka, took place today. Their kaupapa is they want peace too, and they want their land back. We support that kaupapa.

The people of Waitara have a history like no other and a place in the history of Aotearoa like no other. They could change history by stepping up to healing the extreme raupatu in the rohe, which was committed against the tangata whenua. Despite the efforts of many people and the council, this bill is not the healing if it allows land to be freehold and then sold, taking away the people’s hopes for justice for ever.

The Green Party has grave concerns about the bill, but, in dialogue with Taranaki Māori women who oppose it and Te Atiawa negotiators, we have decided to support it to the select committee with no guarantee that we will vote for it any further. We do this because the voice of the least powerful hapū members who marched today must be heard by this Parliament.

However, our co-leader Metiria Turei is putting forward a second select committee nomination—that this bill go to the Māori Affairs Committee—which she will speak to in her speech on this bill. We ask the other parties to support this because, call it what we like, this is a Treaty issue. It is about breaches, violence, and colonisation against Te Atiawa hapū katoa. The Māori Affairs Committee is the best place to hear these painful truths.

This bill has been described as an effort to balance competing interests. I do not accept that. The leaseholders who accepted perpetual leasehold homes at least have the security of their leases, but the mana whenua have no security through this bill. The homes and the whenua can be sold; many will be. This is a form of alienation, a modern form and a permanent form.

Te Rangitake and the people of the land were stripped of their rights. The war against them began. The perpetual leases were not paid to them but to the Land Court. They were not deemed fit to receive their own money. They still do not get direct benefit of the rent. They get small blocks of land, and they get to be part of a committee that makes a decision about the money for the benefit of the wider Waitara community. That is not returning stolen goods. That is a compromise, and we acknowledge Te Atiawa’s effort for that compromise, and the council, and everyone. But we have not healed the wrong.

Moana Jackson says that these are not land wars that we should be addressing; they are sovereignty wars. And, actually, they continue until we Pākehā and the Crown find another way. I pray that this bill is amended strongly to address mana whenua rights at the select committee, because we cannot support it any further without that change.

When we walked to Parihaka, we attempted to build a bridge of peace through the land, but Pākehā have to step up, councils and citizens, and say that we are the ones who hold the power. We are the ones who have enjoyed the privileges of those perpetual leases and the privileges of the use of the lands, the vast quantity of land that was taken under raupatu. We actually need to be more generous than this.

I understand the dilemmas that are faced, and I understand why Te Atiawa have supported this, but read the Pekapeka history. Read how the imperial troops came. Read how the history of this country was changed by the greed and hunger for land. We cannot allow ourselves to believe that these huge compromises are the final piece. If they were the final piece there would not have been a hīkoi today. The people marched today because they want to be heard. The least we can do in this House is make sure the bill goes to the right select committee, where they have a chance to be heard, because if there is no peace in Waitara there will be no peace in Aotearoa. We have to do better and we have to do more. It is on this House and my culture to step up. It is not balancing interests; it is justice that we need to make. Kia ora koutou katoa.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Kia ora. It is a privilege for me to stand and speak to this bill. Just a couple of months ago I was in Waitara with my colleague the MP for Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian Rurawhe, and our Labour leader, Andrew Little. We were walking up the road and actually ran into a former teacher at one of the schools I went to. Her name was Mrs Kearns. During that visit Mrs Kearns said to me: “We want to see you stand up and speak to bills about Waitara, Carmel.” Andrew Little and, I think, Adrian heard that, so here I am tonight speaking to a bill on Waitara. I do so in relation to this bill with some trepidation as I am fully aware of the tensions and competing interests in relation to this bill.

I did have the privilege of being born and raised in Waitara. I am not Māori—I am Samoan, Tongan, and New Zealand European—but with teachers like Tiri Bailey, Hone Niwa, Whero Bailey, and also Te Kauhoe Wano, who, unfortunately, has passed away, I did grow up with many insights into the history of Waitara, the atrocities that have been inflicted on the mana whenua of Waitara, the illegal and mass confiscation of land, and the impact that those atrocities have had on the generations that followed. Much of that history, those atrocities, and the impact of them have been understated in our history books. I think that is the starting point for me speaking on this bill tonight.

It is of no surprise to me that tensions have arisen in regard to this bill and in respect of what it proposes. I think it is important to reflect on what the bill is attempting to do before I go into some of the reservations that I do have. In brief, land was confiscated by the Crown from Waitara hapū in 1865. Those confiscations were illegal. In 1876 the Crown vested land in the Waitara Harbour Board and the Raleigh Town Board for harbour improvement and municipal development. During the next 70 years further land was vested in the New Plymouth District Council’s predecessors for those purposes. As a consequence of a series of local government amalgamations the land is now vested in New Plymouth District Council.

For some time, issues surrounding the council-owned land at Waitara have been divisive for the Waitara community. Some leaseholders have sought to freehold the land and Te Atiawa have argued for the return of the land. The council has argued that existing statutory restrictions that affect the Waitara endowment land are outdated and restrict the ability of the council to use the land and any income derived from it. This bill would remove those statutory restrictions and enable rental and sales proceeds to be used for the wider benefit of the Waitara community. The bill would provide lessees with the option to buy their leasehold property from the council.

That history was an overly simplistic version of events, but in the 5 minutes I have to speak about this bill I am, unfortunately, unable to do justice to the history. Just last week the New Plymouth District Council and Taranaki Regional Council met with us, with members of our caucus, to provide a very thorough briefing on this issue, and I acknowledge them for that. I acknowledge those who have worked on this issue—some for decades. I also acknowledge tonight that we do have councillors here—Craig McFarlane and Colin Johnston—and we also have the Mayor of New Plymouth, Andrew Judd, who is absolutely passionate about this issue as well.

As my colleague has said, we are supporting this bill to the select committee, but there is no guarantee at this stage that we will support it the whole way through. We are absolutely aware of the competing interests here. We are absolutely aware of some of the individuals who have stepped up from the hapū in Waitara, and we need to take all of those voices into consideration. Some who are big critics of this particular bill and what it is attempting to do might question why we in the House are even supporting it to the select committee, but I think it is important—and my colleagues on this side of the House believe it is important—that we hear from all of the stakeholders, we hear from the leaseholders, we hear from the community of Waitara, and we hear from the very people who come from the hapū of Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua. And we can hear from them on this issue only if we allow this to go to a select committee. I do believe that this is not one of those issues that will be used as a political football in this House and that we all have the best intentions here to work towards a good result for Waitara, for the hapū in Waitara, and for all those who are affected by this in Waitara. So we work together in good faith.

I do acknowledge my colleague and the MP for Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian Rurawhe, who was our lead on the side of the House for this. I absolutely acknowledge the fact that he has his head around the detail on this and will continue to lead us in respect of this issue. So we will support this bill to the select committee and then we look forward to receiving the submissions from the many different groups that have a vested interest in what is happening here. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, nō reira huri noa i Te Whare nei he mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ā, tēnei te mihi ki Te Kaunihera o Ngāmotu. Ngā mihi, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata ki a koutou Te Kaunihera o Ngāmotu. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and so acknowledgments to you all throughout the House. I extend a welcome to the New Plymouth District Council. Acknowledgments, salutations, welcome to Parliament House to you, the council of New Plymouth. Therefore, I commend you all.]

It is indeed my pleasure to be able to speak in the first reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill. I am speaking here as part of the Government but also as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, particularly around a perceived issue of whether this bill should be at the Māori Affairs Committee or at the Local Government and Environment Committee. My whakaaro here is that we can show true kotahitanga in the way that, first of all, the Māori Affairs Committee is dealing with the Te Atiawawa ki Taranaki Treaty settlement bill. What better way to actually show that kotahitanga, and particularly working in with an organisation that truly believes in a resolution. To me, in doing that, it is important that we actually travel this road, we go on this journey together, as the Māori Affairs Committee to do our work with the Te Atiawawa Claims Settlement Bill and then also allow Te Kaunihera-ā-Rohe o Ngāmotu, or the New Plymouth District Council, to actually do their work so that we are actually hoe-ing this waka together in the right direction. So that is my whakaaro on that situation around where this bill should actually find its home.

I want to also start with acknowledging Jonathan Young. Jonathan is the very hard-working, locally connected MP for New Plymouth, and I want to congratulate him on the work he has done along with the New Plymouth District Council to bring this bill to the House.

This bill addresses some land issues in Waitara, an area that has been the site of some of the most contentious episodes in New Zealand history. It was in 1865 when land in Waitara was confiscated from Te Atiawa by the Crown. It is a wrong that is only now being corrected, with the Te Atiawawa Claims Settlement Bill that is currently before this House.

The situation in Waitara now is that much of the town’s land is vested in the council as an endowment, but in a way that heavily restricts how the land may be used. One-quarter of all homes in Waitara are on this land, with a perpetual lease. The residents of these homes have long sought to freehold their land but are currently not allowed to do so. The income that the council receives from these leases can be used only in very specific ways that are not necessarily what the community needs.

There are three main groups with competing interests in the land: Te Atiawa would like their land returned—ideally, all of it—leaseholders would like the power to freehold their land, and the council would like to be able to use the funds from leases or the freeholding process. This bill is a compromise that balances these competing aims through the following three main provisions. The council will vest over 40 hectares of land in Te Atiawa, allowing the iwi to add to the economic base they will begin building with in the upcoming Treaty settlement. The leaseholders will also gain a right to freehold, and proceeds from the leasehold land will be vested back into Waitara. That is the really important part of this. A lot of the land that is vested back into Waitara through the New Plymouth District Council and Taranaki Regional Council—so a lot of the administration, statutory boards, equal appointees from the New Plymouth District Council—is actually about kotahitanga. It is about actually working together as part of the completion of this particular process.

Te Atiawa would like their land returned, and we know that, but they have actually agreed, even in discussions and kōrero with them during the Treaty settlement bill—they actually see a true resolution coming out of here, working together in unity with the council itself. I think when we look at the commercial redress from this bill, actually everyone wins. It is estimated that this could result in half a million dollars per year going back into the community by 2020. So it is a win-win—you know, $2 million by 2040. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, tēnā hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare nei. Kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia ki wā tātou manuhiri e noho nā kei runga, nā reira, e Te Koromatua me ngā mema o Te Kaunihera, nau mai, haere mai.

[Thank you, and acknowledgments as well to us seated here in this House. I endorse the tributes accorded to our visitors seated above, and so welcome to you, Mr Mayor and members of the council, come hither.]

I take this opportunity of supporting the sentiments of welcome to the mayor and members of his council. Can I say from the outset that recent events that have seen the mayor make the decision to not stand again, I think, reflect on the situation surrounding the history of this land and the divisive thinking amongst members of that particular community. I think there are enough compelling reasons to have this bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, but at the end of the day it will be the decision of this House as to whether or not that should be the case.

I want to say from the outset that this is like a settlement bill. It is not a settlement bill in the sense that we have come to know them—and which we will know more of tomorrow, and, hopefully, on Friday—but this certainly has the elements of a settlement. As has been articulated by previous speakers, there are three parties involved: leaseholders, the original owners, of course, and the local body. Quite clearly, because of the position taken by the descendants of the original owners, we have got to the situation where this bill has come before the House.

I want to commend the people of Te Atiawa. Like all settlement bills, the iwi involved do make some very, very great sacrifices. Although they may have been offered the total land block for a sum that may seem a bit high—but, in context, I think was pretty low—they chose not to accept that offer, and now we have got to the stage where this bill will see at least 40 hectares returned to them. I want to remind this House that in the late 1980s or early 1990s, there were—and the farmers in the area will appreciate this—perpetual leases on farmland known as the west coast land leases, where farmers had similar arrangements, albeit in relation to farmland, to the leaseholders whom we are talking about in this bill. That problem was resolved. It was resolved by the Crown making some recompense to the farmers to allow them to forgo their perpetual right to lease that land. In fact, originally, the Māori landowners were not offered anything. I can say with pride that there was one party, which is in this House, that was then responsible for ensuring that the iwi of Taranaki received compensation as well.

With the time that I have got left to me, I want to say that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill to the select committee, because I think it is going to be a very interesting time for this bill during that process. Kia ora.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa. Ka mihi rā ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero, ki ngā manuhiri kua tae mai i tēnei pō, haere mai, ka mutu ki a tātau e noho nei, ā, i roto i tō tātou Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations to us all. I acknowledge the tenor of the contributions, and to the visitors who have arrived here this evening, I welcome you and, furthermore, us seated here in this House of ours.]

Can I join with other speakers in acknowledging the member who is sponsoring this bill, Jonathan Young, and thank him for the opportunity to meet with the New Plymouth District Council and with Mayor Andrew Judd, who came to my office last week to give us some overview about this particular bill—and members of the council as well.

I have got to say that I know this area well. I know many of the people involved, and I heard Carmel Sepuloni talking about Te Kauhoe Wano, a good friend. So it is nice to know those connections—and, of course, your connection there too, Mr Deputy Speaker, to Te Tai Hauāuru.

What I said to the council and to the mayor was that in these sorts of cases, if iwi will give support to these sorts of bills, then we are prepared to give support as well. This week has been sort of a strange week. At the beginning of the week we had a hīkoi from Ngāti Ruanui coming down to tell us that they wanted no more mining on the west coast. We also had a hīkoi in Waitara, today, I think, at Ōwae Marae, where a number of the hapū members were a little bit unhappy with decisions made by their trusts, and I will come to them shortly. We have also had the debacle with regard to no discussions on bills on Friday, and then, of course, today we have this bill, so Taranaki is in the limelight for this particular week.

Be that as it may, I know many of the people involved had to come to some sort of a decision about how we are going to go with this particular bill. On the one hand, we have a trust, Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, which is a post-settlement governance entity. It is a private trust with the purpose of receiving Treaty settlement assets, and holding, managing, and administering the trust fund for the benefit of its members.

In August 2014 the district council and the trust entered into an agreement to start having the discussion about the Waitara endowment lands. Since entering into the heads of agreement, both parties have been engaging—and I heard that story very much from the mayor and the council members and representatives, and I also took the opportunity to ring those of Te Atiawa to try to see where things had landed.

On the one hand, I know that there are people who disagree with this particular bill—absolutely—because they were marching in the streets of Waitara today. I have got to say that this is not about Treaty settlements; this is about a specific issue with regard to the endowment lands. But, in a sense, they are actually almost tied together because they came about from raupatu, so you cannot get away from that.

On the one hand, the group that is stuck with this particular situation—and there are all sorts of players in it: the leaseholders, the council, the Government, Te Atiawa, those opposed, the hapū, the rūnanga, those who signed it a fair few years ago, and those who are now stuck with having to make decisions. It is not a nice situation.

I have to say that under the situation that we have, the Māori Party has no choice but to support the bill in its first reading. I endorse the comments that have been made already by people like Carmel Sepuloni and Pita Paraone. Why? To allow the iwi to come forward and have their say. After that, I have got to say—I rang Mayor Andrew Judd and I told him, and I do not know whether I have caught up with the member Jonathan Young—all bets are off. I am not too sure. We have just got to see what is going to happen after that.

It will be disastrous if we cannot advance it, but on the other hand, Te Atiawa, through the trust, has also said that they have some concerns. In fact, they set some of those out to me. So, although on the one hand they do want to advance and they say specifically that in terms of the discussion with Te Atiawa, it has been about the transfer of some land in Waitara to Te Atiawa, the right of leaseholders to freehold their property, the lifting of restrictions on how to proceed from the endowment lands and how they can be used, the establishment of a statutory board, etc., etc.—there are other bits and pieces in the bill. In the short time I have, I am not going to go into them.

Te Atiawa say that there actually are some key outstanding issues that they want to take up. For example, in the current bill there is the appointment of the chair of the joint board by the council. They suggest that actually they could leave it over to the board itself, as opposed to the council making the appointment—leave it to the board. They do not necessarily want to do it themselves. They say that there is no ability for Te Atiawa to have a first right of refusal over residential and commercial properties that the council may dispose of into the future. Of course, when you are talking land in Taranaki, these sorts of issues are serious stuff. In respect of the ability of the Taranaki Regional Council to apply its portion of the proceeds from the land outside Waitara, that is a debatable issue that they do not feel very comfortable about.

There are other bits and pieces that will come up in the select committee. I am hoping, of course, as we refer it on to it—and I am comfortable with the Māori Affairs Committee—that we can actually tease some of those issues apart and get a better feel from the community, and in particular about Te Atiawa. I do not envy the select committee the job because it is a hard job, and in one way or another not everyone is going to win, but the hope will be that by putting it into a select committee process, allowing the process to go ahead, we will hear the views of the community and the council and then be able to make informed decisions from there. Ka nui te mihi, kia ora tātou.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, but at the same time my acknowledgments to us all, members of this House, greetings.]

I am pleased to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, and can I too first acknowledge Mayor Judd and his fellow councillors who are here in the gallery. I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, particularly for his comment around supporting this bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is a very, very hard-working select committee, but I do want to acknowledge that although this bill is not a Treaty settlement bill, it is still addressing very fundamental parts of every Treaty settlement that we have in this House, which are land loss and how land was taken.

If we look at the history in this case, I am reminded of my own iwi of Rongowhakaata in Gisborne in the 1860s, when wars were declared on the locals in Gisborne, or Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, in about 1865. When I was reading this particular history of Taranaki, I could see an absolute resemblance to my own in Gisborne. A million acres was taken. Our land battle over there was called Waerenga a Hika, and in Taranaki, it was Pekapeka. We have got to acknowledge and understand our own history and those wars, because at that time there was a need to get more land for our settling communities, and I am pretty sure that this House had a role in that.

So let us fast forward. We are now in 2016 and, of course, the land that is in question here resides with the council, but we cannot overlook the fact of the history of how the council came upon that land. So here we are debating, and I support this side. We will go to a select committee and we want all the stakeholders—and they are numerous, and they have been covered by previous speakers in this House. There are the leaseholders, there is the community of Waitara, there is the city council, and, of course, there are the hapū of Waitara itself.

Yes, we are dealing with the Treaty settlement bills through a separate process, but they are actually indivisible, because we are talking about whenua, and we are also talking about a history that happened to a particular people in this country—namely, the hapū of Waitara. By simply saying “Well, we addressed your issues through the Te Ātiawa settlement. This is a completely different matter.”, I think we are overlooking, and I think we are being naive.

I do want to acknowledge that when I read through the purpose of this bill, I can see the concessions that have been made by the council in trying to set this joint committee up, which will have both Te Atiawa representatives and the council on it, and I want to acknowledge that. But I do believe that we have to actually allow the hapū, the community, the councillors, and everybody else the right to have a say on what this actually means. That is why I wanted to make a contribution around looking forward, and supporting and acknowledging the member for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young, for bringing this bill to the House—and, honestly, like everybody else has said, it is like a can of worms, and I want to acknowledge everybody’s attempt to try to address it, from the council to the local people, to the local member, and to my own colleague Adrian Rurawhe here.

It is a can of worms, but that is New Zealand’s history. That is New Zealand’s history. It is a can of worms, and we cannot put up that can of worms and think that we can deal with it in a linear way. There are interrelated relationships, and our history is tied up in this bill—this bill reflects a part of our history that led to a whole lot of hurt and a sense of loss of identity. If we, through this House, can enable the healing of that history by giving all those parties a fair shot, then I think we have done our job not just as parliamentarians but as legislators.

So, with that short contribution, I really do hope that the member takes on board the comments by the Minister for Māori Development and supports this bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee, simply because of the tikanga around awhi and manaaki—and supports those hapū, particularly, to come forth and share their story about the impact of this, as well as all the other vested stakeholders. Kia ora tātou.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I have submitted to the Clerk a nomination for the select committee for this bill and that nomination is that the bill goes to the Māori Affairs Committee, not to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Before I go into the reasons why, I just want to describe the process of what will happen with that nomination. I am urging members to vote—actually, I am urging one of two things: either Jonathan Young may well want to change his motion and send the bill to the Māori Affairs Committee, and it is in his power to do that, or, if he chooses not to, I urge members to vote against the motion to send the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. If that motion fails and the No vote wins, then my nomination to send it to the Māori Affairs Committee will come to the floor of the House and we can vote for it to go to the Māori Affairs Committee.

This is not an attempt to hijack what the council is trying to do. It is enormously controversial, what the council is doing with this land, and although the parties in Waitara have been trying to work together to get it to this point, we too have been in contact with Te Atiawa and we know that there are still very serious concerns. We know that there are concerns from others in the community who marched today and who are deeply fearful that this bill will be, in effect, another raupatu.

So then the question is: which of the select committees in this Parliament has the expertise to deal with both the legal issues that arise out of a local bill and the Treaty issues, the Māori issues, that arise out of this bill? There is only one such committee that has the general legal expertise to deal with legislation and has the specific expertise to work on issues where there is a deep Māori complexity—Treaty complexity—to it. This bill has that complexity, and this is why the Māori Affairs Committee members should be the ones who consider this bill. Only they have the breadth of experience across all those stakeholders that Te Ururoa Flavell talked about and others have talked about to make sure that all of those interests are, as some have described, balanced—I do not agree with that approach, but that may be some way—but, more importantly, that all of those people who are involved with this legislation have a place to go where the members who sit on that committee understand the complexity of all of those issues.

I do not think we should be sending this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because those members do not have the experience of dealing with complex Tiriti issues around land confiscations and raupatu. That select committee is not designed for that purpose. The Māori Affairs Committee and the members on that committee are themselves legislators. Those members know how to deal with general law and they are members of other select committees—as with Meka Whaitiri, who is on the Local Government and Environment Committee—but they also have the particular expertise that will need to be applied to this bill if all of the stakeholders are to have some comfort that they will get a hearing where they are understood and where the issues that they bring will be understood by the members in their consideration.

Because of the potential of this bill to be in another raupatu against iwi who have already suffered enormous harm—as we in this House know; we have dealt with this before—it is absolutely critical that that iwi has the opportunity to put its case to those who understand the complexity of it, which is why we are putting forward this second nomination. I have enormous faith in the Māori Affairs Committee to be able to deal with the complexity of this bill. I believe that if this Parliament does agree—as we seem to have been—that there are serious Treaty issues here to deal with, it is the right thing to do to send it to the committee that is best competent to deal with Māori issues and with the legal issues inherent in it.

And I would hope, actually, that the council will agree. I hope that the council itself, which has been moving on issues—and there has been a lot of controversy and discussion about Māori issues through this council—would agree that it is important for the Māori issues, the Treaty issues, to be dealt with fairly, by those who have the most expertise. So it may well be that in just a few minutes’ time we have an opportunity to do a good thing for the community and make sure that this bill has the proper hearing that it should have, with the select committee that has the expertise to deal with it competently. Thank you very much.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I would like to thank all the contributing speakers. Thank you very much for the genuine contributions and, in particular, for your depth of understanding of the issues. I believe that means that we as a Parliament can make some positive progress, as best as possible, on understanding the incredible complexity of this bill.

As I stated in my first speech, the confiscation of land occurred in 1865, but it started prior to that. It goes right back into the nub of the relationship between Europeans and Māori, and has been, in a sense, very much a part of the DNA and development of this nation. Coming to this place, to this House, to look at this issue, is it a settlement bill? I think it is bigger than that. It is a nation bill. It is a bill that is about New Zealand. Yes, it is addressing the confiscations. It is addressing all of those issues. It is addressing how the New Plymouth District Council has sought to work with all the competing parties around this to come to a conclusion.

Thank you to Adrian Rurawhe, who identified the various competing elements of the community. It is sad that we have a reasonably small community of 7,000 people who have such competing interests. Would it not be great if, through this process, we can work in a very integral way so that we could see a community come together and collaborate and not be competitive but be supportive? Thank you, Carmel Sepuloni, for your very good comments and your deep understanding, not only because you have lived there but because you have also kept in contact with many of the people. I think that is a good, good thing. Thank you very much, Catherine Delahunty, for your comments and the willingness that you have to support this bill to select committee. We have a bill on the table, and I think that what is incredibly important is that we all commit to sit around that table and discuss these issues.

I have heard the requests that this bill go to a select committee other than the one I nominated. You would have heard and seen us having quite a discussion here amongst ourselves, and I have been in discreet contact with the originators of the bill. There is an openness for it to go to the Māori Affairs Committee. In this regard, I think I could say that this is a measure of our willingness to cooperate around this and to try to find a common way through.

I think that what we want to see is this community and the past resolved. We want to have a vision for the future. We want to see a people who have been injured healed. We want to see people today who have a sense that Waitara is their home—both Māori and non-Māori. We want them to be able to feel settled and to feel, together, that it is their community. Would it not be great if this Parliament could help in that process?

I commend this bill to the House, and we make the recommendation that it go to the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

The question was put that the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Question not agreed to.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill.

The question was put that the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Question agreed to.

Bills

Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 24 August.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare nui. Not one more acre. Tangata whenua means people of the land, not a landless people. Tangata whenua means people who have land. That remaining land needs to stay in their hands. Not one more acre. No more public works confiscations. The Government has a responsibility under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to protect Māori land from alienation for the benefit of future generations. This can happen if everyone in this House—every party—will vote for my bill tonight. We can act on our responsibilities. We can demonstrate what was just demonstrated in the previous bill, which was cooperation to achieve something positive.

Less than 5 percent of land in Aotearoa is still held in Māori customary and freehold ownership, so it is unacceptable that the Public Works Act can still be used in the 21st century to confiscate remnant remains of Māori whenua. Whether this Parliament votes for this bill or not, we are going to keep fighting for this. We have received huge support from Māori across the country, with almost 5,000 petition signatures. At every consultation hui on Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill, the Public Works Act was raised as an issue. We do not have answers from the Government yet as to how that would be addressed. If I knew how that was going to be addressed, I could let this bill go, but there is no clarity in what we have seen of Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill that that is the case. Until I know that there is a way to protect remnant whenua Māori—customary and freehold Māori land—from public works, we will not let this go.

We have heard so many stories of the suffering and confiscation that has been endured as a result of the Public Works Act. “What public?”, we might ask. Not the public who are customary or freehold Māori title owners who have been forced or manipulated away from their land. So I say to this House: no more pressure to sell. No more divide and rule. It is time for a united approach to the remnants of whānau land. Not one more acre. Once it is gone, it is gone. The land is a taonga to these people. Not one more acre. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is my pleasure to take this call on the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill in the first reading. In the lead-up to this bill coming to the House, I have had a number of people speak to me about it with the assumption that, as someone of Māori descent with a number of interests in Māori land, I would be supporting this bill wholeheartedly. That is not the case. But before I get into the reasons, I think this bill is unnecessary and quite unhelpful, actually. I want to acknowledge some of the common ground, though, that has actually been covered.

The Public Works Act was in the past often used as a mechanism to alienate Māori land. A huge percentage of alienation of Māori land actually happened because of this Act. Our land was preferred for public works because Māori had less political power than anyone else, actually, in this country, and so could not so effectively fight back against the alienation of land. Seizure of land under the Act happened without consultation—indeed, with barely any communication—and, in many cases, the public works for which the land was used did not actually benefit Māori. In some cases there was no compensation paid for Māori land, which was illegal under the Act, but, nevertheless, it was another example of an abuse of power by the Government of the day. But that is not how the Public Works Act works in practice today—that is not how it works in practice today. The practices that allowed wholesale alienation of Māori land without consultation are actually no longer allowed under the Act—they are no longer allowed under the Act.

We have debated many Treaty settlement bills in this House that provide full and final settlement to iwi for the confiscations that occurred under the previous versions of the Public Works Act—under the previous versions of the Public Works Act. Given the settlements and, often, official apologies that have been given and accepted for past wrongs and the fact that there is no prospect of the Public Works Act being used for ongoing confiscation of land, that is why I do not believe that this bill is necessary. And, given the way this bill creates a different regime for Māori and non-Māori, I believe it actually has the potential to do more harm than actual good.

If the member and her party believe that land should never be acquired for a fair price for public works, then the member’s bill she puts up should be to scrap the Public Works Act—just scrap it. That is not something that I would agree with, because I think there are certain works that are in the public interest, and the Government should actually have the power to compulsorily acquire that land. If the member was to disagree with me and put it up as a bill to repeal the Public Works Act, I could respect it, but what she has actually done instead is put up a bill that suggests that, as a Pākehā, her land should be open to compulsory acquisition, while the Māori land in which I have interests needs a special protection not afforded to her land.

“Division” and “separatism” are words that are thrown around very lightly by some who oppose Treaty settlements, who argue that the only way to be united in this country is to ignore the wrongs of the past and actually forget about our Māori heritage. These are words too often used as a dog whistle to those whose views are, at best, the result of ignorance of our history or, at worst, outright racism, but many of these terms have been misused to oppose Treaty settlements. Māori involvement in resource management, or in pretty much any policy that seeks to advance Māori or compensate them for the wrongs of the past—the risk of separatism and racial division in our country, as we know, is still very, very real. This bill is the kind of provision that I believe does lead to separatism and, actually, racial division.

Treaty settlements have a huge potential to bring our country together. So many things this Government is doing to improve educational outcomes for Māori, to lift families out of poverty, and to do a better job for our most vulnerable mokopuna have the potential to eliminate the divisions that currently exist between Māori and Pākehā.

Māori have been disadvantaged in this country for far too long, and I know that the sponsoring member and I will agree on that—we will agree on that—but the solution to that problem is to acknowledge the Crown’s past wrongs, to deliver the apologies that iwi have been waiting so long for, to deliver the redress that provides a way forward for iwi, to acknowledge the special place that iwi have in our country under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to move into the future with a new relationship and a new understanding between the Crown and Māori. But the new relationship cannot be built on having special privileges for Māori. It cannot be built on special privileges.

“Māori privilege” is actually a loaded term. It is a loaded term, and another that is so often misused. Māori have been told that we are privileged since before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, but in most cases that just means we have had the privilege of having our land taken from us and our rights trampled on.

There is no such thing as Māori privilege, but, in overturning and moving on from decades of ill-treatment by the Government, our road to the future is not to have privilege bestowed on us by the member’s bill. Our road to the future is to live as equals in our nation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, with the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship. That was what the Treaty of Waitangi should have given us; instead, we got ripped off and disenfranchised. But the solution is not to create new rights for Māori that are not afforded to every other New Zealander. We do not want to be a special class with special privileges—we do not want to be that. We just want to be equal citizens in our own country.

I cannot support this bill, despite Catherine Delahunty’s best intentions. They are your best intentions, but this is not the right thing for Māori and it is not the right thing for New Zealand, so I cannot support this bill. Kia ora.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I am quite stunned, actually, by that contribution from the member Nuk Korako. If he is talking about separatism and division, we just need to look at how Māori over the years have been separated and divided from our land. Māori used to possess 100 percent of the land; we are now down to less than 5 percent of the land, and yet he talks about equality and not being separate. Look, quite frankly, I am disappointed. I mean, there have been so many ways that Māori have been separated from their land—from our land, I should say—over the years.

Let us look at some of the ways—the old land claims, for example. Back in the day, a settler would turn up and say “I’ve purchased 10,000 acres from this old chief up north.”, and then the Crown comes along and surveys it and says: “Actually, you’ve only purchased 1,000 acres.” You would think that the other 9,000 acres would be returned to that old chief up north, but instead it would go to the Crown. That is wrong.

Let me give you an example: think of the area south of Whangarei, around Ruakākā and Waipū. There was a Waipū Block that was 40,000 acres; the Ruakākā Block was 14,800 acres. Not a single acre is left for the Patuharakeke tribe around that area, because it was taken to settle Nova Scotian settlers. Also in that area—people wonder why there is only one marae in that area, Takahiwai. That is because James Busby, 6 weeks before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, went out and—for the princely sum of £40—bought a few knick-knacks, 60 blankets, and a mere 100,000 acres of land. Some 25 years later he was compensated—because he ended up losing that land—£36,000. What a capital gain over 25 years: from £40 to £36,000. Those sorts of transactions went on all the time, and it is why we are at the point where we are now: where Māori own less than 4 percent of the land. It was taken for settlers.

We just need to read—in fact, consider the Taranaki. It is interesting that we have been talking Taranaki all evening. We just need to read the Taranaki claims bills and see the lengths that were taken to dispossess the people of Taranaki of millions and millions of acres. We have heard the story about Parihaka: how, through peaceful protest, the villagers of Parihaka went and pulled up survey pegs and that—and for that sort of resistance, they had their land confiscated.

The Native Land Court: that was just a mechanism to separate and divide Māori from their land. Instead of land being held in tribal ownership, the land was divvied up—10 owners per block—and then it was easier to pick off those owners and land. The tribes and Māori were dispossessed from their land.

We just need to look at rates—the way Māori could not afford rates, even though they got no services. I remember reading some research around the Ngāpuhi settlements. There are some beautiful islands in the Bay of Islands. Māori could not afford the rates—the rates were for street lighting, rubbish collection, and all that sort of stuff—on this island where nobody lived. But because they could not pay for the rates, the land was confiscated. They were compensated by a bit of land in Whangarei around the area of Ōtāngarei. No disrespect to the area of Ōtāngarei, but if you compare that with living on one of the islands in the Bay of Islands—I know where I would prefer to live.

The Public Works Act has been used, for example, to build schools. Then, when the schools have closed down, the land does not necessarily go back to the original owners—it certainly does not swiftly go back to the original owners—so whānau have been dispossessed from their land through that mechanism.

We in the Labour Party support this bill to the select committee. Personally, as a Māori, I think it is really good. Catherine Delahunty, I appreciate the fact that you have put this in the ballot and that it has been drawn. I certainly was a little bit dismayed at the contribution from the speaker before me. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am here, obviously, to take a call on the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. It will be no surprise to the House that I oppose this bill, for a number of reasons that I am very happy to elucidate.

First and foremost I acknowledge the words that my colleague Nuk Korako shared—I think, with quite an eloquence there—in raising the arguments, particularly around how this bill does the opposite of what it intends to do. It does not actually bring people together; it does not facilitate healing; it actually encourages a separatist mind-set, which is somewhat paradoxical coming from the Green Party, which talks about human rights and communitarian principles, and so forth.

I think my fundamental problem with this bill is that it is an attempt to fight injustices of the past by passing a bill that looks towards the future. I doubt that anyone in this House who looks back to how Māori land was acquired in the past would say that it was a good thing. People would acknowledge, quite rightly, as would I, that the Public Works Act was used to facilitate that—that is, the Public Works Act of the past. In many ways, this bill is just trying to—I would argue—tokenistically fight the battles of the past in a way that is incredibly unhelpful. We have a process in place through the Treaty settlements to address a number of the elements that have been raised here today, including from the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis. So this bill, I remind the member Catherine Delahunty, who put the bill forward, strikes me as rather tokenistic and as trying to fight the past and relitigate the past.

We do not have this issue at the moment. We have a Public Works Act that applies to all land, regardless of one’s ethnicity. If, in theory, roads were being built and gerrymandered, if you will, to acquire only Māori land, then maybe there would be some credence in this discussion, but that is not the case. The Public Works Act, in modern-day New Zealand, is there for roads, for schools. It is not done willy-nilly; it is done very cautiously. In fact, I have got a situation in my own electorate at the moment where there is a suggestion that the Public Works Act may be used to acquire a small piece of land. In fact, the Green Party might like it, because it is for a cycleway, but it is actually raising some controversy and there is a lot of discussion. Funnily enough, the discussion does not need to be about who owns the land, per se, on the basis of ethnicity; it is about whether the land is needed for the good of the community. I have been struck that speakers, particularly those in support, so far have not mentioned the community. That is the point of the Public Works Act in modern New Zealand: to facilitate the needs of the community.

Fundamentally too, what has been missed out—probably conveniently—is that, actually, if the Public Works Act is invoked at the moment and it does touch on Māori land, then an application needs to be made to the Māori Land Court. Others who will have a much deeper insight into the Act may be able to speak to that, but there is already a process in play here, and that, in and of itself, is relatively important. So I cannot support this bill in any shape or form. I do not think it has a place in modern-day New Zealand, I do not think it has a place in mature discussions, and, particularly—I want to stress again—I do not think it has a place in a mature discussion that allows us to confront the past and the injustices of the past. This, in a sense, retrenches some of those mind-sets or behaviours, and I do not personally believe that is the way forward.

I want to reiterate that we have a mature process at the moment—in fact, we were trying to do it, dare I say it, come this Friday—where, through Treaty settlements, through robust discussion and debate, we do look back at the falsities done under the name of the Crown and we do look at the falsities done under the Public Works Act. This bill, in and of itself, does not address that. I personally see it as particularly harmful, ultimately, to that dynamic. I think it is really important too to understand what the Act in the past was used for—that being the Public Works Act—and what it is used for now.

In fact, the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, noted schools. Yes, he noted that once land is acquired it is not handed back to people, by and large, unless it is part of a Treaty settlement—in fact, I am thinking of a piece of land in my own electorate in Glen Innes that I am pretty sure was acquired under the Public Works Act. It was a school, but under the Treaty settlement, I think, one of those rights of first refusal has been put in operation. So, again, I do not think that this is a mature approach to the Public Works Act, and I just reiterate that relitigating the past by trying to adopt a piece of legislation for the future is not a useful way forward for this country. Thank you very much.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to signal to the honourable member, Catherine Delahunty, that, unfortunately—regretfully—we will not be supporting this bill. I thank the contribution from the honourable member on the other side of the Chamber, Nuk Korako, who gave some very good reasons. In fact, I would have thought that came straight out of a New Zealand First handbook, that speech—talking about equality, one rule for all, and all of those things. We will probably frame it, and when that member applies to join the fastest-growing political movement in the nation, we will drag it out on his candidature.

I guess the thing I need to say is that it has been a bit of a day of contradictions, has it not? We have a bill being put up by the Green Party that seeks to end the confiscation, or the taking, of land by the Crown under the Public Works Act, and yet this is the same party that has sat there and wholly supported the Kermadec legislation, which sees the Crown take a property right off Māori.

Catherine Delahunty: Did you hear Metiria on the radio?

RON MARK: And we have to say—it does not matter what the Green Party is saying right now, I say in response to that little interjection. I sat in the select committee, I saw the clause by clause voting, and I have heard the rhetoric. People may wish to dance on a pinhead and adjust their position because, politically, it is proving to be an untenable position, but it is totally contrary to the way we see things for a party to say that the Crown should not confiscate or take one more acre of land from Māori, using the Public Works Act, whilst at the same time endorsing the confiscation of a property right from Māori under the Kermadec legislation. This just does not match. It is like “One of these things is not like the other”. If I could put it more simply than that, I would, but that is as simple as I can put it.

There is something else about the bill that smacks of a little bit of paternalism and a little bit of maternalism. You are coming down to Māori, saying: “Look, we’ll do this for you, make it all look better.” The truth is that many of us who have been engaged in Treaty settlement negotiations—myself for 10 years plus, for my iwi—have been dealing with these issues, with the honourable Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, for a long time.

If I take the Wairarapa, for example—there are numerous examples. In fact, one of my own marae, Hurunui o Rangi, in the Carterton district—or the Taratahi district—had land taken off it for a road that was put through. Unfortunately, what that did was it separated our marae from our urupā, and they did not just take the strip they needed for the road; they took a whole lot more. The Minister is very familiar with this, because he has had a tour through there. They did not take just the piece of land they needed for the road; they took more, and then they kept it. They never offered it back after they had built the road. In fact, they dug a big hole in it and used the aggregate out of that hole for roading, then turned that hole into a rubbish dump, which it still is to this very day. It needs cleaning up, thank you very much. We have discussed these matters with the Minister, we negotiated these matters as an iwi, and we have come to what we believe will be a lasting and enduring settlement.

We know that there are issues about the Public Works Act, but if we are to redress that, we should redress the fairness in the way settlements are made, so that the Crown gives fair and proper compensation to those people who are having their land taken, be they Māori, Chinese, Indian, non-Māori, Pākehā, or whatever blend they might be. There should be one law across the whole of the nation in respect of this. It should not single out Māori; to do so stigmatises them, demonises them, and sets them up for criticism as receiving something special that other New Zealanders do not get. That is fundamentally wrong.

Yes, there are issues with the Public Works Act. Look at how the Public Works Act has been changed recently to enable affordable housing, rather than offering the land back to the original owners: Hobsonville, all these other properties—Ardmore. Look at Hood Aerodrome—that was sold off to the Masterton District Council for one dollar. That should have been offered back to its original owners, the iwi.

There are issues in there, but let us deal with those issues in a sensible way, rather than have a carte blanche solution, such as this bill imposes, that will be seen as inequitable—actually, racist and separatist—and will not resolve the problem in the long run. Thank you very much.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Before I start I want to congratulate the member Catherine Delahunty on getting a bill drawn out of the ballot. Some of us will probably live in this place for years and never get a bill drawn out of the ballot. I am starting to think like that myself. I also want to say, before I start on what I am going to talk about, that I do have some sympathy for the origins of this bill. I am not going to support it, however, and I will give the reasons for that as well.

If you think about the history of New Zealand—and there has been a lot of talk today about where people come from, and where they live, and whatever else. My family comes from the Rangitīkei. We have been there since 1850. In that time we have been subject to the Public Works Act. We have also been subject to the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1915 and the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act 1943, so I have some sympathy for the grievances that a number of the previous speakers have talked about. However, that is no reason for us to pass this bill.

Imagine the Government now passing a law that confiscated a whole lot of land off people compulsorily and giving it to someone else, which is, effectively, what those three Acts I am talking about enabled. Those days are long gone, and I think Nuk Korako, in his speech to the House, talked about the fact that the world is so different now. We have made a lot of attempts in this Parliament to rectify the wrongs of the past. We will never entirely get to that point, but Minister Finlayson, with his work, and many of our other Ministers, both in this Government and in previous Governments, have made significant attempts to change and rectify things that have happened in the past that perhaps should not have happened. I think there have been many gross injustices in the past, some of them brought about by the Public Works Act and many by other means. As I said, the country has changed significantly in that time, and I think we are in a pretty good space now in respect of how we acquire land.

Local government—I was involved in local government for quite some time, before coming here—has to get its planning right. It has to enable public infrastructure to be built—so does central government—and the only way we can effectively enable infrastructure to be built for the future and for future generations of New Zealanders is to plan it well and make sure that it is put in place in a manner that, I guess, does the best for our communities. Sometimes—in fact, very seldom; I understand this Act has only been utilised once in the last 10 years, though obviously the threat of it is there—it is necessary to acquire land that people do not want to give up to enable infrastructure to be built. It is essential that a Government has the ability to acquire land from whomever to enable the creation of infrastructure for future generations. That is what this Act was put in place for in 1908, when it was first put in place in New Zealand. It might not always have been used in the manner that we now would intend to use it but, none the less, it is important that we have that ability to use it. It is hugely important as well that we protect the rights of those people whose land is acquired, and I think that we have the facilities in place now to do that.

Catherine Delahunty, in her address, said that there is to be no more divide and rule. I consider that this bill is, effectively, creating a case of divide and rule, and I think it would be very unfortunate for us to go down that track now, having gone through such a lot of pain, certainly in the last 20-odd years, trying to rectify a lot of the stuff that divide and rule caused. Also, in the preamble to this bill it says that the Crown has the responsibility to protect Māori land for future generations. The Crown has a responsibility to protect all land for future generations. We have a responsibility to protect the rights and opportunities for all New Zealanders, and we also have a responsibility to ensure that those people who are privileged enough to own land manage that land in a manner that future generations will be able to utilise and enjoy. I cannot support this bill. I can understand the sentiment behind it, but I do not think it should go any further. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I join with Labour colleagues to support the passage of this bill, and acknowledge the effort that its sponsor, Catherine Delahunty, has gone to to put together a case for it to be considered by the select committee.

If we look at the evidence and the current shareholding of Māori land that has been retained, one would see a disproportionate argument in the way in which Government members have said there would be unequal treatment. The reality is that huge tracts of Māori land have been taken, either by confiscation through the Public Works Act, through some deeds of sale that were a little bit dubious, or through a number of measures. But it is right, and I want to acknowledge that Treaty settlements in part are one way to address some of these historical wrongdoings of the taking of Māori land. I believe that the bill should go to the select committee, because there will be a number of families with some very practical examples of where lands have been taken under the Public Works Act for a specific purpose and not given back to the families when it was not used.

Let us look at Te Kūiti, for example, and the aerodrome there. I connect to the people of Maniapoto. This is a very good example where land was taken for a specific purpose, not used for that purpose, and for some reason got acquired by the local council, and then, for some reason, got sold to a local lawyer who happened to be the lawyer of the council. It then became the aerodrome. There is no remedy for that family to be able to get that land back, except by going through a tribunal process, arguing their case, and then saying: “Actually, what was supposed to be a public work, which did not happen, now has to be resolved by a Treaty settlement.” I understand the nature of the historical, I guess, basis on which that issue arose, but you can see how there would be a lack of faith by the several people who have had direct experience of a process that really does fail them.

What this does is it raises issues that sit outside, for example, current processes. One of the biggest challenges for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is that issues relating to the Public Works Act are not actually addressed at all within the context of that particular bill that is currently being considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. If the Government was genuine about equal treatment before the law, then surely it would want to ensure that this bill at least gets through the first reading and goes to the select committee, so that we can hear the breadth of interest around this particular issue. This is about protecting whenua. It is not about anything else but ensuring that people have a legitimate ability to protect whenua, and I think that is an important thing.

I listened carefully to the chair of our select committee, who is a very good chair, and his concerns around what he said was the unequal treatment in the application of this bill, but you would only have to read the advice coming from the chief legal counsel around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test, which is that there is justified reason for having a limited discretion in the way in which this bill proposes. I would say on that basis alone the House should seriously consider—if for no other reason than a fair hearing—passing this bill’s first reading so that it would get to the select committee for a full consideration of the way in which the bill could actually impact, not perceptually impact, on the protection of Māori land that sits outside of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and to then determine the extent to which it is an unequal treatment. I think the determination that was made, which has Minister Finlayson’s name on it, will show that it is quite justified to have a measure of this level, to be able to protect Māori land—what little Māori land is left in Māori hands.

There are numerous examples throughout all our regions where land has been taken from Māori under the Public Works Act, and the avenue to be able to secure it back has been a long and winding road. Many have had no prospect of relief. For that reason alone, to the sponsoring member, Catherine Delahunty, I say that I certainly support the bill going through its first reading and to the select committee. I hope that members will consider it seriously.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I have a great deal of sympathy for this bill, and I think the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, raised some very strong points, because there are cases where the Public Works Act was used for purposes that it should not have been. There are many families who are justifiably aggrieved, and in those days—and you can probably argue these days as well, sometimes—the process in law had reasons it was doing what it was doing other than fairness and equity. A lot of families may have been in that situation that the previous speaker spoke about, and are justifiably looking for some recourse and some way of dealing with those issues, so I take a lot from the previous speaker and her personal example.

I also think that with a lot of returned land that iwi may get now through settlement processes, some of that land is associated with transport routes. It is Government land; it may have been purchased for the New Zealand Transport Agency, railways, or suchlike, so it is very much on infrastructure routes, and so its likelihood of ever being used for public works in the future is probably a bit higher. It is actually in a position where other infrastructure that may be used in the future may actually come along that land, so there could be a particular difficulty in the future with those settlements. It may seem like they are progressing the transfer of land, but it may actually mean that there could be a situation where the Public Works Act comes into effect on that land and causes further dilemmas for the people who did get that land through the settlement.

Those are just two examples you can think of where there are issues in the way the Public Works Act operates in regard to, specifically, Māori land, but all land in particular. There is an argument that the Public Works Act in any case is too strong for any landowner, and that a Government’s ability to do what it wants, or a council’s ability to do what it wants, could sometimes be questioned anyway. That may be a further issue that we need to take into account, because the all-knowing, all-good nature of Government is not necessarily the case at all times.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the bill. I think it actually raises some very valid concerns. It is something that I appreciate that the Green Party has brought forward to the House, and I thank them for that. I just do not think it is the right solution at this time, though, but I do think that there needs to be more discussion about how we can find a solution for those kinds of issues going forward, because I do not think that families who have felt aggrieved in the past and do not feel they have had any recourse should actually be told to just “suck it up” and wait. I also think there could be issues around future settlements with the land corridors that would be involved—that could actually create some problems. I think you have raised a genuine issue; this probably is not the solution for it, but, certainly, I think that the nature of Parliament is that other solutions come forward over time and can actually try to address that issue as well.

So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Although we oppose it, we do understand that there are some very valid concerns involved, and look forward to, in the future—

David Shearer: But you oppose it? You oppose it, do you? It’s very good, but you oppose it?

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, we oppose it. A bit like you and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—you think it is very good, but you oppose it. It is good that that member is here. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member, I do want to remind David Shearer that he appears to have an illicit cup in the House, and I am going to ask him to take it away.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a short call on the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill, and I want to congratulate our colleague Catherine Delahunty on being brave and bringing this particular bill in front of the House.

On 14 September 1975 Dame Whina Cooper departed the Far North. That picture of her walking down a lonely dirt road, holding her mokopuna’s hand, is now famous worldwide, and the catch cry of that protest was “Not one more acre”—not one more acre. I think this particular bill is a brave step to make that cry known again, to say: “Not one more acre.”

Mr Bennett speaks about those landowners who have been affected in the past by the Public Works Act, and says they should just suck it up and move on.

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to warn the member that I cannot see a valid point of order, and I am going to warn the member that if he does not make a valid point of order, he will be withdrawing and apologising.

David Bennett: OK. I think you know what I meant.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Disagreeing with a member does not give rise to a point of order. It is called a debate—that is what we are having.

PEENI HENARE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I come from a small place called Ōrauta, approximately 45 minutes north of Whangarei. The Public Works Act took large tracts of my family land—the farm, our neighbour’s farm—to build a railway. That railway was taken out of commission after years of operation. It was taken out of commission and it sat idle for no less than 12 years—12 years—and my family fought long and hard to get that land given back to our family. It runs right along our farm, formerly owned by us, taken by the Public Works Act, and that particular railway sat idle for 12 years. We got no explanation, nobody told us what they were going to use the land for, it was still fenced off, we were not allowed to go on it, and all of a sudden it is now a cycleway. But for those 12 years nobody knew what was going to happen with it—nobody knew what was going to happen with it. We begged local members of Parliament, we begged the council, and we begged ministry officials and asked them to return that land to us—to return that land to us.

Interestingly enough, that particular railway also ran through what used to be known as the Kāwiti station—also taken under the Public Works Act. After the Kāwiti station was decommissioned, they kept the land, took out all of the scoria, and it changed from the Kāwiti station to the ballast pit—all part of my family land.

The Public Works Act has had a significant effect on Māori people. The research tells us now that Māori-owned land is just under 5 percent—just under 5 percent. It is my job—and certainly the job of this House—to ensure that that number does not decrease any more. However, I do temper that contribution by also saying that our country is growing. We do need to grow. We know what the issues are around housing, we do know that infrastructure is a big problem here in Aotearoa New Zealand, and in order for us to be competitive and to grow, we must make parts of land available for that growth. However, given the injustices suffered by Māori for many, many years since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, I support this bill. I say that it is a good, brave step for this Parliament to ensure that no more land is taken without good reason—without good reason—so that families like the Henare family of the Ōrauta valley do not lose large tracts of their land for, in the first instance, a railway that sat idle for far too long and, now, for a cycleway.

I just want to say thank you, Catherine Delahunty, for bringing this bill to the House. We support it in the Labour Party, and we look forward to support right across the House. Kia ora.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I have to confess that when I first became aware of this bill, I thought, initially, it had some merit and warranted a little bit of a closer look. So I did take a closer look to see whether or not this bill would actually achieve some of the things that I thought perhaps it was intended to achieve, but it does not.

We just heard a great, impassioned speech from Mr Henare from over the way there about his family’s experience—

Peeni Henare: Over the railway track.

JONO NAYLOR: —from the other side of the railway tracks, yes. There has obviously been something that has gone on that was not ideal for his family. In fact, it would have been great if they had been responded to earlier, perhaps, and if that railway line had not sat empty for 12 years, as you said, before some action was taken. If this bill could do anything whatsoever to resolve that situation, then that would be useful, but guess what? It does not, because, actually, the issue that he would like to see resolved needs a different bill. It needs a different set of legislation. It needs a different policy from the organisations, like the railway, that end up owning that land and making different decisions at different times, to help that family resolve their issue.

There is no doubt that over the history of time in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Public Works Act and other legislation has been used inappropriately to alienate Māori from their land. Successive legislation through the Māori land Act and its various iterations at different times were not proud moments if we are to look at the history of New Zealand and at what was done to Māori in terms of alienating them from their land. That is something that I do not believe that any of us in Aotearoa New Zealand should be proud of. But this bill does not actually put any of that to rights. There are other processes in place, and we are working very hard through our Treaty settlement processes to do what we can to at least make some measure of putting those things right, but this bill, in and of itself, does not.

It has been talked about that not one more acre should be confiscated, and I just want to remind members of the House that the Public Works Act does not allow the Government to confiscate land; it enables the Government to purchase land. I just want to go back to when the Public Works Act was brought in in 1981 and the opening speech by the Hon W L Young, who introduced that legislation. In his opening remarks, he said that “When land is required for essential work, the Bill specifies that a formal notice is to be sent to the owner, inviting the owner to sell the land, and advising the owner of the estimated value of the land. Every effort must be made to negotiate in good faith with the owner in an attempt to reach an agreement acceptable to [them]. Unless these steps are taken, it will not be possible compulsorily to take any land for an essential work.”

This is not confiscation; this is about—under the Public Works Act—giving a fair price for a piece of land that is required by the Government or a local authority for essential work. What Ms Delahunty is actually proposing through this legislation is that a party who owns a particular piece of land will have an ability to stand in the way—the ability to hold the rest of New Zealand to ransom. So if, for example, a piece of land was required to provide flood protection to a significant part of the community—if this legislation was to pass and that piece of land was one of the bits of land that has been referred to in this bill, then the owners of that land would, effectively, be able to write themselves a blank cheque and hold everybody else to ransom, and flood protection would not be provided. That is just one example of what could happen.

I cannot stand here and support that. This bill may have great intentions, but it is certainly not going to achieve any useful intentions, and it is not going to address any of the historical wrongs that have been done. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I have been fascinated by this debate, and I recognise the privilege of having five members’ bills selected from the ballot. The National Party may not be on my side, but the gods are, because sometimes an issue needs to be brought into the light and I am very grateful for the opportunity of bringing this issue into the light.

I do need to clarify a few things. First, I want to thank the Māori Party and the Labour Party members for your support still. I really appreciate the support and the speeches, and the understanding that this is an important contemporary issue as well as an historical issue. I clearly need to spell out in simple words that this bill is not an attempt to address historical wrongs, even though they need to be addressed. We need a process for that, and my petition to the select committee may open the door for that. But this bill is to acknowledge that this is about the current risks from the Public Works Act. If we are going to talk about holding the country to ransom, let us talk about who is being held to ransom.

The reason we wrote the bill was that Patricia Grace’s whānau less than 2 years ago were held to ransom. Speakers from the National Party say this is in the past and it cannot happen. What happened, which I described in the first part of my first speech, was that she did not even get told it was going to happen. She found out at the eleventh hour that her land was up for Public Works Act confiscation.

Call it what you like, this is not about—for the benefit of Nuk Korako—blocks of land that are the same. Customary-owned, freehold Māori land collectively owned is not the same as individual title. We are trying to protect what is left of the collectively owned land, of which there is only 5 percent in Aotearoa. We are trying to make sure that that does not shrink. We do not accept the argument that this is separatist or racist or holding anyone to ransom.

The people who are still being talked to by development agencies about taking their land are to this very day being told that the Public Works Act can be used against them. It is a forced sale. What is the difference between that and our previous bad history when it is about the small blocks of collectively owned land that are not addressed—read my lips, National Government—by the Treaty settlement process?

We have to be honest about the risks still existing; the Grace whānau story and what happened to their neighbours just less than 2 years ago is a case in point. Their neighbours lost their land because of the divide and rule tactics of the Transport Agency, which managed to separate them from their land; they did not have the Grace whānau’s ability to challenge. That is not right. It is a contemporary issue. It is not right that it should be still going on.

It is really extraordinary to hear about privilege—that we will be creating privilege. What privilege is there when 96 percent or more of your land is gone and a bill seeks to protect any more being alienated? Where is the privilege in that? This is the time for us to face up to some facts here. We do not live in an equality paradise where every landowner and every whānau or family has the same rights before the law. That does not exist.

If we are going to protect what remains of that land and stop fantasising about the myth of the kind of country we live in—that everything is sorted now because we have got the Waitangi Tribunal process—we will never address the risk of ongoing alienation of Māori-owned land. I am not talking about individuals; I am talking about customary, collective, freehold Māori title. It is not the same. Read my lips: not one more acre of the customary tangata whenua identity should be threatened or manipulated, or divide and rule used for developments that they do not want.

Yes, we need to address the historical injustices, but as a Pākehā, as a person committed to Te Tiriti, I am proud to have stood up in this House, to have brought this bill, to have stood tūturu for this kaupapa. I am not here to create separatism; I am here for justice, because people have told me—as the nearly 5,000 people who signed our petition said—we have been through enough with the Act; no more. They want a line in the sand and I have attempted to draw it, no matter how we vote tonight. Kia ora koutou katoa. Not one more acre!

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 48

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

Noes 73

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I move, That the Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 January 2017. This bill looks to improve consumer protections and reduce consumer costs. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 is a cornerstone piece of legislation protecting consumers. While the Fair Trading Act provides pre-sale protection, for example against misleading advertising, the Consumer Guarantees Act, herein referred to as the CGA, provides post-sale protection by requiring suppliers to remedy any defect in goods or services provided. Over the years, the Act has been updated to take into account changing consumer needs and to make important clarifications.

This bill looks to make a clarification that is small but that stakeholders tell us is important. Specifically, this bill seeks to clarify when lenders should be liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act and when they should not. As will be shown, the existing legislation is ambiguous and the solution that this bill proposes is the concept of related-party connectedness. If the trader and the lender are not connected, then the lender should not be liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act. The reverse should also hold. If the trader and lender are connected, then the lender should be liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act. The trader, of course, is always liable.

In the first scenario, lenders who have no connectedness to traders are at a distance from the relevant transaction and should not reasonably be expected to be liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act. As we will show, international precedents in Australia and the United Kingdom strongly support this concept in their consumer protection legislation. In the second scenario, we are very concerned about traders and lenders who do have connectedness, and believe that the lender should definitely be liable for Consumer Guarantees Act remedies. This will be referred to as one and the same trader-lenders. It is simply not good enough for a trader who has both sold a faulty domestic item and been the loan financer to pass off their responsibilities for remedy to their reneging lending arm when they are both, effectively, one and the same. This bill will bind that lender to the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The legislative ambiguity arises from the definition of “suppliers” in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and the attempt to connect traders and lenders with the word “arranged”. The full legislation reads under the definition of “supplier” in section 2(1)(b)(ii) that a supplier is “a creditor within the meaning of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 who has lent money on the security of goods supplied to a consumer, if the whole or part of the price of the goods is to be paid out of the proceeds of the loan and if the loan was arranged by a person who, in trade, supplied the goods:”—arranged by a person who, in trade, supplied the goods. In simple terms, if a trader arranges a loan with a lender, then they are both suppliers and both liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

It is ambiguity in the wording “arranged” that is leading to uncertainty and differing practices in the New Zealand market place, not all of which benefit the consumer; some of these practices do. Contest that connectedness between a trader and a lender by saying the trader did not arrange the loan but merely made an introduction, and the lender walks away. In Sudfeldt v UDC Finance Ltd and others, the court interpreted their interactions as an “introduction” and the lender was, therefore, potentially not liable to Consumer Guarantees Act remedies. Another common practice is to utilise the available option in legislation for the lender to seek indemnification from the trader for any Consumer Guarantees Act recourse. This is routinely done as back-to-back indemnities, with an administrative cost that is borne by the consumer, and, again, the lender walks away.

The problem here is that the word “arranged” is a functional activity that offers no comment on structural relationships where the trader and lender may be related as joint ventures, cross-shareholdings, or otherwise connected. International legislation, especially in Australia, is very prescriptive on how structural relationships connect traders and lenders, and should be taken into account. Various terms and detailed descriptions are used to describe the trader-lender relationship, including “tied”, “linked”, and “connected”. For the purposes of this reading, I am describing the trader-lender relationship as connectedness. Connectedness then is clearly important, and a deeper dive into international definitions is informative.

The influential UK Crowther report talked in terms of “connected loans” and “connected lenders” and made the following statement around joint liability: “There are compelling reasons for distinguishing connected from unconnected loans. The connected lender and the seller, where not the same person, are, in effect, engaged in a joint venture to their mutual advantage and their respective roles cannot be treated in isolation.” The committee of the Law Council of Australia similarly recorded that a lender with a tied loan organised by a trader has connectedness and should have liability to a consumer as follows: a financier who has made a tied loan to a consumer would, to a limited extent, be obliged to underwrite the liabilities of a supplier to the consumer in respect of the consumer credit sale. These examples describe international legislation where traders and lenders should be connected and lenders made liable. There are also clear international precedents for when traders and lenders should not be connected and should not be liable, and the report from the Law Council of Australia and the UK Crowther report talk to both of these.

The specific reference in these two examples is to a loan as the credit instrument. This lends itself here to a comment on the deliberately narrow scope of this bill, which I will state here as applying only to goods and not services. The Consumer Guarantees Act covers goods: for example, personal and domestic goods, goods where the goods are acquired on credit and where there is a secured creditor, and goods purchased with personal loans as the credit instrument. Other credit tools, especially those most frequently used—namely, hire purchase agreements—have a different complexity of connectedness associated with who owns the goods. They are covered by several different Acts and are not in scope for this bill. This bill also has little impact on traders who go out of business, as this bill is addressing a different issue.

I have made the case that connectedness between traders and lenders is an important concept that is ambiguous in our legislation. In the UK, in respect of trader-lender connectedness, the Crowther report used the term “connected lender” and defined this as “one who, pursuant to a regular business relationship with one or more sellers, makes a loan which is used to buy goods or services from one such seller”. The Law Council of Australia report was much more specific on connectedness and stated: “Where a supplier has the required commercial link with a financer he is termed a ‘linked supplier’. This includes the supplier having a trade agreement with the financer, referring customers to the financer, and having blank finance application forms on the premises.” Clearly then, the Australian definition is much more prescriptive. For our purpose, this bill looks to define connectedness using existing New Zealand tools such as the New Zealand Equivalent to International Accounting Standard 24, which defines “related parties”.

Finally, we turn to consumer and industry implications for progressing this bill. Firstly, consumer protections are increased by adding clarity and robustness to legislation that makes lenders liable to the Consumer Guarantees Act. Secondly, consumer customer service is improved by providing clarity around lenders who are not bound to Consumer Guarantees Act remedies. This benefit occurs by requiring traders to provide better customer service if they know they cannot by default refer to the deep-pocket safety net of lenders. Thirdly, unconnected lenders, freed of the risk of liability under the CGA, will be more willing to lend to consumers, making consumer credit more widely available. Finally, customer costs are reduced because lenders who are unconnected and no longer liable to Consumer Guarantees Act remedies will no longer need to adopt back-to-back indemnification against the trader as a default practice, and the administrative costs will not be created and passed on to the consumer.

In conclusion, this bill looks to strengthen consumer protections and standardise industry practice by removing legislative ambiguity in the word “arranged”, which currently connects traders and lenders. A framework is proposed that is more consistent with international best practice. I very much welcome the wisdom and dialogue of others from across the House and, without presumption, guidance from the select committee. It is with pleasure, then, that I introduce the first reading of this bill to the House.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Well, for those people watching this debate who are not commercial lawyers or accountants, let me just start by saying that I have a lot of respect for that member, Dr Shane Reti, and the work and the argument that he puts up. But part of the role of this House, and certainly of the Opposition, is to scrutinise bills, particularly members’ bills, and to look at them as to whether they will enhance or in some way assist in making New Zealand a better place. This is a bill that I just get the sense is a solution looking for a problem. I really cannot find any real problem out there that people have identified that means that the House’s time should be taken up with this change in this bill.

What I have found when I looked at the amendment to the Consumer Guarantees Act that has been suggested by the New Zealand Initiative—this is on page 16 and is one of the things that it has put forward. It seems to me that it is more about trying to, in a sense, limit consumers’ rights and enhance the rights of lenders, and particularly finance companies, rather than do what I believe is the right thing to do, which is to stand up and look after consumers. So I have a problem here.

I suggest that perhaps what this member has been given is one of those bills where, when you come into Parliament, somebody says: “Here’s a member’s bill. Put it in the ballot.” Unfortunately for Dr Shane Reti, it got drawn out, and then he has got to get passionate about it and lie awake at night and worry about it, when in fact it does not seem to me to be something that you need to be worried about at all.

Look, the guts of this bill is really that if I go out and buy a good, and I need finance, and I arrange for finance through the seller of that good, they are linked together—the person who is the lender, if you like, and the seller. Shane Reti’s bill does not, as I understand it, change that relationship. But if the lender is a different organisation that is out there, and I have a problem with that good—I buy a good from Dick Smith Electronics, for example, and I have a problem with it—I can go back to Dick Smith Electronics, like anybody can, but I also, at the moment, can go to the financial organisation that arranged my finance, and that finance organisation has some accountability in terms of the money that it lent to me in respect of that good. Dr Reti wants to take away that degree of compliance and accountability—take that away.

So as a consumer, am I better off or worse off? I am actually worse off, because I have less ability to seek redress for a faulty good. If a company, for example, goes under and the good is still faulty, I am left still paying the finance company for that good that is no longer of any use to me. So, suddenly, I am in a very difficult position. I have a good that is useless. I have a manufacturer or a seller that cannot give me any redress, my finance company is demanding that I still continue to pay the bill, and that finance company is let completely off the hook. That is how I see this bill, in words of one syllable or less, rather than the account that we have just heard from Dr Reti.

So for that reason—and I am willing to be proven otherwise—I believe it is something that is (1) not really a problem; (2) ideologically driven; and (3) I do not think that it lives up to protecting the consumer, as Dr Reti says, in terms of the change that is necessary. It actually advantages finance companies to the disadvantage of consumers, and it is taking away some of the rights that consumers have at the moment. There may be a little bit of confusion in and around those definitions between lender and trader, etc., but that is not insurmountable. But what we are doing with this bill is taking away some of those rights that consumers have. I believe that that is wrong.

Secondly, it also does a couple of other things. I think it introduces a degree of vagueness. Let me give you, perhaps, another example. Car dealerships often have their own financing. I am unsure about how a franchise relationship would affect the mix, so if I buy a car from a Hyundai franchise, using Hyundai finance, this may not be a related-party transaction. In other words, although it seems to be related in terms of the car that I am buying and the organisation that is there, the franchising makes that rather vague. So, actually, rather than introducing greater clarity, as Dr Reti is suggesting, it introduces a greater degree of confusion.

There is a third reason why I think we should oppose this bill, and that is what is often referred to as the “Henry VIII” clause; that is, bringing through Parliament issues that should be resolved in Parliament by statute rather than by regulation. The definitions that Dr Reti is using within the accountancy bill here, which are from International Accounting Standard 24, mean that the definition is not explicit in this bill, but, in other words, is being brought in by another means. It is not good form and it is not good practice, and that is why it is called the “Henry VIII” clause, because Henry VIII changed things according to what he wanted to do, rather than actually taking them through the proper process.

But I come back to the main point that I made at the beginning: this is a bill that will disadvantage and take away some of the protections that consumers currently enjoy when they buy goods, the goods turn out to be faulty, and they take them back. If the trader or the manufacturer is incapable, for whatever reason, of being able to give the consumer satisfaction in terms of a replacement or a repayment or whatever, the consumer at the current time has the ability to go to that finance company that financed that good—if in fact that was what the consumer did, get financing—and if that financing company is disassociated from the seller, is not linked to the seller at all, then that finance company has, at the current time, a responsibility to give some redress to the consumer. Under Dr Reti’s new bill that link will be cut.

I actually believe that if you are a finance company or you are lending money to a consumer, there is a right of doing due diligence and looking at the ability of the borrower to pay and looking at what that borrower is wanting to buy with the money that you are lending. I actually think that that is good practice. What we are doing here is letting the finance company completely off the hook. I believe that that is not good practice. It is not advancing consumer guarantees and consumer protections, which, as Dr Reti says, this bill purports to do. In fact, it takes some of them away.

It is for that reason—I am sure that the bill will pass, because I am sure that he will have the numbers in the House—that we are not supporting this bill. I say this because I have looked at it quite closely and, as I say, I respect the word of the member there, but I just do not think that this bill stacks up in terms of giving consumers better safety protection.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise in the first reading of Dr Shane Reti’s member’s bill. Just to comment to the member who has just sat down, David Shearer, I have to actually commend the member Dr Shane Reti. He is a conscientious member. When his bill was drawn from the ballot, he actually came around to my office with the bill and the explanatory note, all ready for us to go to debate this bill, because he was sending it to the Commerce Committee and he wanted to brief me. As David Shearer, who is the member for Mt Albert, has said, he has tremendous respect for Dr Shane Reti.

I have tremendous respect, too, for David Shearer. He has had a worldly experience, but I am slightly confused as to how he thinks that a bank that lends customers money to buy certain consumer goods can be jointly liable with the seller of the good. What he is actually, literally, saying is that if banks loaned money to people who purchased homes in Christchurch, which was devastated by earthquakes, and those people have earthquake damage, then those banks are liable for the damage as well. I think that is what he is saying. I am a little bit confused by his analogy as to how a third party who is the lender of the money to consumers can be jointly liable for something that goes wrong.

You may not understand, but some of us girls have to get shavers for our hairy legs as well. Recently, I had the experience of purchasing an epilator that did not actually work. I had to go back to the shop to return the good and say that it did not work. If I had, in fact, borrowed money to purchase that epilator, and it was not just the shop that sold me a bung epilator that was liable but also the bank that loaned me the money to purchase that epilator was jointly liable—that just does not make sense. This bill is about separating the supplier of the good and the financier—the lender of the money—because they are the unrelated third party who should not be liable.

Jami-Lee Ross: You can tell that Shane Reti wrote this speech.

MELISSA LEE: Ha, ha! He is listening. I am not so sure he is actually liking the examples. I do not know why I actually said that.

The aim of the bill is to amend the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 by changing the definition of “supplier” in the Act to exclude the lender who is an unrelated party. As Dr Shane Reti said, if they happen to be related—for example, if I am purchasing something from, let us say, David Shearer, and I think he actually mentioned Hyundai, and he happened to be also a financier in that company, maybe as “David Shearer Finance” or something, and he is the seller of that good as well as the financier, then he should be liable. Both of those companies should be liable because he is, effectively, that one person who is selling as well as financing. In that sense, we are joining in one and separating in another. What we are actually saying is that when they are unrelated parties, they should not be liable, but if they are joint and relatable parties then they should be liable. I think I got that, Shane?

I am looking forward to the submissions process in the select committee, and I am hoping that lots of people will submit on the bill.

National believes in well-informed borrowing practices and good consumer law and smart lending policy. This bill will, in fact, clarify the Consumer Guarantees Act by making an amendment and updating the responsibilities of traders and lenders. I think Dr Shane Reti has done himself proud with this little bill, and I think he has actually been very proactive in meeting with members to explain what the bill is. It is a real shame that he did not have a catch-up with David Shearer, because, obviously, he never got the message. I think it is a little wee ripper of a bill, and I look forward to hearing the submissions in the select committee. I commend the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, I am actually tempted to call Mr Bakshi after that contribution, but I think I had better call Mojo Mathers.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): OK, well, I take my hat off to the previous speakers for managing to generate heaps of enthusiasm for what I consider to be a particularly uninspiring, pedantic bill. We will be supporting it. We do think that the basic point is correct. It was an unintended consequence of the amendment that we passed in 2003 to make the unrelated lender liable for consumer goods that were purchased by that loan. However, it is with quite a degree of frustration that we are debating this in the House at all. I cannot generate the enthusiasm for fixing up what I think is a fairly unintended mistake, because I do not see the bill as being either brave or inspiring or bold or any of those other things that I think members’ bills should be.

Yesterday my colleague Kevin Hague gave his valedictory speech in the House, and he challenged us all to be brave, to stand for something. Members’ bills are our opportunity to be brave and stand for something. We have just had my colleague Catherine Delahunty’s bill in the House, a public works amendment bill, and a number of speakers commended her for being brave, whether they supported it or they did not. We had a debate about some very real and very important issues about the grave injustice that had been done to the people in the land. I doubt that in this case there is really any grave injustice that is happening. If there is any injustice, it is happening to some firms that can probably carry the few rare occasions when that might be happening. I would be very interested to know if it does actually happen.

So, yes, it is frustrating to be standing here—a frustrating bill, an uninspiring bill. We will vote for it. That is really all I have got to say, because I do not want to be wasting the House’s time any further on this.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to speak on this, the Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill. I would like to congratulate my colleague Dr Reti on introducing this bill. This is a very, very good bill. It is seeking to ensure that we apportion responsibility where it best rests.

This Government has done a lot of work around the responsibility of lenders to ensure that people who take out loans are well-informed and that those processes are very transparent, in order to seek to tackle predatory lending conditions and predatory lenders. Similarly, we are of the view that manufacturers and sellers are where the responsibility lies under the Consumer Guarantees Act—or where it should lie—for the fitness for purpose of the goods sold and, in fact, their durability. This is the part of the Consumer Guarantees Act that most consumers understand the most—that when they purchase a good, it should do what it is supposed to do and it should last for a reasonable period of time.

At the moment under the Consumer Guarantees Act it is possible that lenders who have no part in the specifications of the good or in the selling of the good can be held responsible for those elements of the Consumer Guarantees Act, and our argument is that they really should not be. Members opposite have asked for examples of this, and I will give what I hope is a nice, simple one. Let us take the purchase of a motor vehicle. If I go to purchase a car from a local car dealer and I go along to the bank—and my bank is the Bank of New Zealand—and I take out a personal loan for a sum of money that allows me to purchase that car, there is not a person in New Zealand who would hold that the BNZ has any responsibility for the quality of the car or for its durability and whether it lasts 1 year or 10 years. No one in New Zealand, I would suggest—no one in the public—would think that the bank in that situation should have any liability if the car, in fact, turns out to be a bit of a lemon and falls over after a couple of months.

You can take other situations where the dealer has some level of involvement, but one might then still question whether the lender in those conditions should have some liability. For instance, if I go to the bank and get the money myself, no one would see a link. But if I went to the car dealership and the dealership said “Well, I can arrange this loan for you with your bank, the BNZ.”, all it is doing is relieving me of a bit of administrative burden. In that case, I would argue that most people would say that, actually, the bank still has no part in the decision, quality, or specifications of the vehicle, because the loan processing in the application is being processed by another person to assist me.

Then you get into situations where it is not, say, a major trading bank but it could be a finance company not connected, as such, to the dealership but specialising in motor vehicle finance, and you could take the situation there. So there is no ownership relationship between it and the car dealer, but because it specialises in vehicle finance, it is a natural avenue for that dealer, to help assist a consumer or a purchaser wanting to buy a car, to get the loan to complete that transaction.

I look forward, actually, to debating in the select committee whether the financier in that position should have some liability. I would suggest the answer is still no. But to use a potential, real-world scenario, where we would hold—even under the changes that are proposed in this bill—that the lender could, and perhaps should, have responsibility, take where you have a motor vehicle group, say, that may have multiple franchises and it runs its own lending organisation. In that case, the dealership and the dealer are using their group of companies’ finance company to provide the loan so that a person can purchase a car from another member of that group. In that situation, I think it is very, very plausible that the public at large—and the purchaser of the vehicle, indeed—would also say that, actually, the lender in this situation is very much a party to the entire purchase and is not simply extending a line of credit so that one can walk into a dealership and buy a car.

I am sure that is an example that will be traversed in the select committee, which is where this very, very good bill belongs. Because I sit on the Commerce Committee, I look forward to scrutinising the bill and hearing submissions. At this stage, I would commend this bill to the House.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would add my voice to those who have noted the sponsoring member’s aptitude, his intelligence, and his considered debate in the House oft-times, and, in fact, I would like to acknowledge Melissa Lee as well. She gave a good contribution this evening, so much so that both of them combined actually made me think about my position. But in the end it is a commiseration speech I give to Mr Shane Reti, because this is a non-event. It is an answer to a problem that does not really exist, and the circular nature of the contributions from that side of the House kind of underlies the issue with this piece of legislation.

Then Mr Hudson gave his contribution, which did not help the Government’s cause whatsoever. What I would point out to Mr Hudson is that he failed to recognise the Responsible Lending Code, which he kind of alluded to, but let us talk about that in a little bit more detail for the members’ and the public’s consideration. It provides the general principle that every lender must “exercise the care, diligence, and skill of a responsible lender” when advertising, before agreeing to provide credit or finance and taking guarantees, and—and—in all subsequent dealings with borrowers and guarantors. The code lays out the responsibilities lenders owe to consumers, in considerable detail.

So I put it to Mr Reti that he has kind of missed an opportunity here and, in fact, he is using the wrong piece of legislation to deal with this problem that does not really exist. He mentioned stakeholders in his original contribution, and I put it to the members on that side of the House that I think he was talking to the wrong stakeholders. He was not thinking about the consumers when he was engaging with those stakeholders. For example, I agree with Mr Shearer, in his contribution, that this is more about limiting the protections of consumers than it is about improving them. It is about improving the protection of the lenders, and New Zealand First would suggest to this House that that is not the recourse or the protection that we would want for New Zealand consumers.

So, regardless of how well-intentioned the member’s bill may be, the effect would be to weaken the protection of consumers under the Act. On principle, New Zealand First believes that where consumers’, suppliers’, and lenders’ rights intercept, there has to be a presumption and a preference to protect the consumer in those incidents, especially when we are talking about the Consumer Guarantees Act.

I have listened to the member Shane Reti about why he believes the bill would be good. However, we do not believe that, in so far as an issue of unrelated lenders being liable under the Consumer Guarantees Act exists, this bill is the best way to address the issue, as I intimated earlier. Instead, if an issue does exist, we would argue that these definitional issues are best resolved by the discretion of the courts, and they have, thus far, been doing that.

The Consumer Guarantees Act is a 1993 piece of legislation, and the courts have been using that piece of legislation to process these problems. Our courts have the ability to interpret this Act. The courts have this kind of broad interpretive discretion, and I believe that they are better placed to deal with the issue that Mr Reti so eloquently spoke to.

It is pretty clear. The intention may be right, but I think it is a missed opportunity. We do not support this bill going further. It is an answer that does not actually have a problem. We would like the bill not to proceed, and cannot support it. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to rise at the conclusion of the Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier.

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

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take what will now be a short call on this Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill, which is quite symbolic, really. This is a fairly short, simple, and technical bill, but I am looking forward to it, and I hope that, through the votes, it is coming to the Commerce Committee, where we will be able to tease a few things out.

As the member Shane Reti has rightly pointed out, this is around, I think, the definition of a particular word, but, as we all know, particular words can have significant meanings. Really, this bill is doing just two things within that. It is saying that if the lender and the trader are, effectively, the same people, then they should be treated as one entity—in my own terminology. If they are not related, then, in fact, there should not be a relationship. I think it was Brett Hudson and Melissa Lee in particular who raised that, actually, just because you go to your bank and get a loan for buying a television—some other examples were used, but I am going to stick to televisions—the bank should not be responsible for that.

All I want to put on the record is that I think it is going to be quite interesting—putting my chair of the Health Committee hat on—to look at how doctors work. Often they lend money in different ways to help their patients. I will be interested to see how this bill deals with that. So I am very pleased at this point to recommend the bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Well, in the spirit of the debate in the House tonight, can I congratulate Dr Shane Reti for having his member’s bill drawn from the ballot. Having a member’s bill drawn is an uncommon thing for some of us in the House, or a rare thing. Some of us have more bills drawn than others, but it is the luck of the draw and so it deserves to be taken seriously. Every piece of legislation—

Sue Moroney: Well, most.

CLARE CURRAN: —pretty much most—deserves to have debate about its importance. The more that I am listening to the debate tonight, the more, as a member of the Commerce Committee—if this bill passes tonight, then I think there will be an interesting ideological, philosophical discussion, actually, about principles.

In my view, this bill is not a small change; this is actually, because it is a change to the interpretation in an Act, quite a fundamental change. So there are actually important points of principle here. We note that this was actually drawn from a paper written by The New Zealand Initiative, which comes from a particular ideological point of view—and I am making no comment about that. But when you change an interpretation—a fundamental interpretation—in a piece of legislation, it actually really matters.

My first point is that the description of the Consumer Guarantees Act in your amendment bill is actually not about a further protection for consumers; it is, basically, a protection for lenders. As a result of that, it diminishes the protection for consumers, so that is basically what we will be debating and discussing when it comes to the select committee, and what the impact of that is.

Another important point to make is—this is, I guess, around priorities—about what the priority is when it comes to consumers and guarantees around consumers. I commend the New Zealand First speaker, Fletcher Tabuteau, for raising the Responsible Lending Code, because there is much work yet to be done in that space. If you are going to be talking about consumer guarantees, it would be much better if we were adopting the course proposed by my colleague Kris Faafoi in his member’s bill, the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, which strengthens the protections for consumers against loan sharks and the enormous interest rates that loan sharks can impose, and the vulnerabilities that consumers end up facing. That is a fundamental change that would actually do a lot of good, in terms of protecting consumers. There has been a lot of public outcry around that particular issue.

It is really apposite to note, around this issue—where has been the outcry? Where is the problem? David Shearer, my colleague, raised that, and it has been reinforced by others in the House. Who is actually saying that this is a problem? Where is the call for there to be a change—a fundamental change—in the interpretation of the Consumer Guarantees Act, which has been in place for some time? What is the point of changing the interpretation of that, unless there is actually a problem that you are trying to solve? Not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but the member Dr Shane Reti. I think that is what we will be trying to tease out if this bill comes to the select committee: what is the problem here? Why do we have a Consumer Guarantees Act? It is a mechanism. There are other pieces of legislation that recourse can be got from, but there are important reasons as to why the Consumer Guarantees Act exists and why those protections are there for consumers as recourse.

Fundamentally, I think this is an Orwellian piece of legislation, actually, because what you are proposing to do is the opposite of what the intent of this legislation actually is.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I would like to thank everyone from around the House for their contributions tonight. Undoubtedly, bills like this are improved when they go to a select committee, and I have no doubt that this will be too.

The only comment I would make is that when we look at international legislation and see how much stronger and firmer it is in this space—it is important internationally; it must be important for us also. I think we need to tidy up and strengthen what we are doing here. So, with that, I thank everyone for their contributions tonight, and, with the will of the House, the bill will advance to the Commerce Committee. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 44

New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a first time.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I move, That the Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 January 2017.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2016

(continued on Thursday, 22 September 2016)

Bills

Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill

Referral to Commerce Committee

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Last night, following the first reading of members’ order of the day No. 2, the House did not vote on the question that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee, the select committee indicated by Dr Reti in his speech. That was my fault. I seek the leave of the House for the Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill to be considered by the Commerce Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Karakia

Karakia

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Mr Deputy Speaker, kāre au i te tino mōhio mēnā e tika ana kia pēnei ēngari, hei tīmatanga kōrero mō tātau ko te īnoi atu ki a koe kia whakaaetia, kia tuku karakia tētahi o Te Whare—ka tahi. Ka rua, kai te kite atu i Te Hōnore Mahara Okeroa, kai te īnoi atu kia riro māna tā tātau karakia e kawe i te tīmatanga mai o tō tātau rā; hei whakanui i te āhuatanga, ki te kore a ia e pīrangi, kia rere ki tētahi atu o tō tātau Whare, hei kawe i tā tātau karakia. Ki te kore, ko koe e Rurawhe, te mea e tika ana nō roto hoki koe i tērā takiwā.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not really sure whether this is permissible but, to begin our contributions, I seek leave from you to allow someone of our House to say a prayer—that is the first one. Secondly, I note that the Hon Mahara Okeroa is present, and so I seek leave that he deliver our prayer to begin our day to honour that protocol, and should he not wish to do that, then for someone of our House to accord our prayer. Failing that, then it is fitting that you do it, Rurawhe, as you are from that area.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think it is within the Standing Orders for a visiting member who is not a current elected member to do that. I would ask the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell whether he would open with a karakia.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Ā, mōrena tātau, kai aku rangatira tēnā koutou katoa. Hai wāwahi i te āhuatanga o wā tātau mahi i tēnei rā: “Tēnei te ara kei runga, ko te ara o tēnei Tipua, ko te aro o tēnei Āriki, ko te aro o tēnei Matua ā-iwi. Ko te aro o Ranginui e tū nei, o Papatūānuku e takoto nei, kia rarau iho rā ngā tapuwae o Tāne, tēnei Te Pō, nau mai Te Ao, taupokina Te Pō, hinga Te Pō turakina Te Pō, Te Pō uriuri, Te Pō tangotango, Te Pō oti atu, Te Pō hurihia ki tua. Hura Te Rā, kake Te Rā, mate ki Te Rā ki te pae o kare taitimu, kare taipari, kare taimoana, takapau whāriki Papatūānuku e takoto nei. Piki ake, kake ake Te Rā ki te pae tū o Rangihuakina.

Huakina te umu, huakina te umu nui, te umu roa, te umu o Tū-te-winiwini , o Tū-te-wanawana, o Tū-nganahau i te ata pō, i te ata hāpara, i te ata umurangi, huakina! E tuhi rā koe e Uenuku i te rangi āniwaniwa. Ko Matawhero, ko Tautoru, ko Tāwera te whetū takiata. Tākiri te ata, hura te ata, haehaea te ata. Ka hura ka ao, ka ao Te Pō, tākina Te Pō ki tua. Te au ko te moe o Matahi taua e hoki ko te moe o Matahi tuna, e ara ko te matatū o Rongo ki te tangi mai o te kō-kō-korimako. I te atatū, tū ka takatū, koia rā e Rongo, whakairia ki runga. Tūturu ō whiti whakamaua kia tina–tina! Hui e, taiki e!”

E kui mā, e koro mā, e tama mā e hine mā i te pō, whakapiri mai, whakatata mai ki tēnei huihuinga o mātau! Tēnei te whaiwhai haere i ngā kōrero i kōrerohia i roto i ngā pakitara o tēnei Whare. He īnoi tēnei nō mātau—kia riro mā koutou anō rā mātau e ārahi i roto i ngā kōrero ka puta i tēnei rangi, kia tau te rangimārie ki runga ki tēnā, ki tēnā. Kei wareware i a mātau te hunga e rongo nei i te ngau o mamae, o pōuri i tēnei rā, me tiki atu rā i te punawai o Hou-rongo kia maunu atu, kia makere atu, kia horo atu ngā weri o te kino. Kia tū tinana wātea te ngākau, te wairua, te tinana i te ara o takatū. Koia rā e Rongo, whakairia ki runga! Tūturu ō whiti whakamaua kia tina! Tina! Hui e, taiki e! Kia ora tātau.

[And so, morning to us. Greetings to you all, my esteemed ones. To open up our proceedings today: “This is the pathway above us. It is the front of this deity, this Lord, this father of the people. It is the front of the great heaven standing before us and of Mother Earth who lies here before us, upon whom man’s footprints settles upon. It is the void, welcome the dawn, overwhelm the void; it succumbs, it is overthrown. The intensely dark void is gone for good; turn it aside. Dawn has begun, the sun has arisen. It has arrived on the horizon of the ebbing and rising tide of the great ocean. Our birthmother lies beneath us. The sun has arisen and travelled to the standing perch of Rangihuakina (The sun revealed).

Reveal the oven, the great oven, the long oven, the oven of Tū the fearsome, Tū the all inspiring, Tū who persists at dawn, at first light, at the red appearance in the sky. Make way. May you appear Uenuku as the rainbow adorning the sky. It is Mars, it is Orion, it is Venus, the morning star. Breaketh the day, unveil the day, lacerate the morning. It has risen, it is day. Night has become day, extinguish the night. Light is the sleep of a warrior unlike the sleep of an eel catcher. Awaken the alert one of Rongo to the sound of the Korimako. It is dawn; stand and be prepared. Thus Rongo, suspend it high above us. Let it be permanently secured; draw together. Affirm. It is affirmed.”

Draw closer to this gathering of ours, you elderly women, men, and young folk of the void, come closer. The task here is to follow up on the talk that was delivered before inside the walls of this House. Our plea is that you guide us in our contributions today, to ensure that peace prevails upon each and every one. We must never forget those who experience pain and sorrow today, and we reach into the calming pool of Hou-rongo to clear away any harmful evil doings and to free up the heart, body, and spirit of mankind. Thus, Rongo, suspend it high above us. Secure it permanently, draw together; affirm it! It is affirmed!]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koutou te iwi Te Atiawa o Te Iwi Taranaki, karanga mai, mihi mai aku rangatira, tēnā koutou te whānau o Te Whare Pāremata, kia ora koutou katoa. Ahakoa kāore ahau e āhei ki te kauhau i ēnei momo pire, i te wā e noho ana i runga i Te Tūru o Te Mana Whakawā, ka mihi ahau ki Te Atiawa o Te Iwi Taranaki i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Ka hoki ngā mahara ki te hunga kua wehe atu pēnei i a Wikitōria Keenan, he mea nui te mātakitaki i tēnei kaupapa. Kia pai te haere e hoa mā, ka w’hakarongo pīkari ahau, ahakoa kāore ahau i te kōrero, kei te waiata taku ngākau, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you, the people of Te Atiawa of the Taranaki tribe; summon thus, extend salutations, my esteemed ones, and greetings to you, the family of Parliament House, acknowledgments to you all. Although I am unable to speak on these kinds of bills while I occupy the Speaker’s Chair, I acknowledge you, Te Atiawa of the Taranaki tribe, on this important day. My thoughts go back to those who have passed away, like Wikitōria Keenan. Observing this event is a wonderful thing; go well, friends. I will listen intently, and, although I am not able to make a contribution, my heart is singing. A huge appreciation to you collectively, so acknowledgments, greetings, and salutations to you all.]

Bills

Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Te Atiawa that was signed on a beautiful late winter’s day in August 2014 in New Plymouth. The settlement comprises historical redress, which records the breaches and the past injustices caused by failures of the Crown; cultural redress, recognising the traditional historical cultural and spiritual association of the people of Te Atiawa with a number of their most culturally significant sites; and financial and commercial redress, reasserting the role of Te Atiawa in the region.

For me, I want to acknowledge the excellent work of Te Atiawa negotiators, and I was so pleased, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you mentioned Wikitōria Keenan. The last time that I saw her was at the signing of the deed. She was unwell but made every effort to be there. I acknowledge my ministerial colleagues and Government and other agencies that have contributed to the bill, and I also want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee and its commitment to exploring very comprehensively the matters raised by submitters.

The committee began its consideration of the bill in April this year, and it considered eight submissions from interested groups and individuals. The committee also heard oral evidence from five submitters at hearings in New Plymouth and Wellington. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with a number of amendments, which include changes to clauses relating to fines for offences under regulations and by-laws; the addition of a subclause to ensure that nominations for iwi representation align with those in the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill and the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill; an amendment of the definition of “Taranaki Iwi” to include hapū to the extent that they are composed of individuals who no longer form distinct communities within Taranaki iwi; a self-repealing clause over the Waitara lands clause of the bill so that it is repealed on the same day that the Waitara Harbour Act and the Waitara Borough Reserves Vesting Act are repealed; and other minor technical amendments that are not specifically referred to in the committee’s commentary on the bill.

I want to say something about the Waitara lands, as well as other issues that the committee raised in its report. No one is in any doubt at all—especially after last night’s debate—that the Waitara endowment lands are of huge cultural and spiritual importance to the people of Te Atiawa. The lands have been the subject of very intense negotiations between Te Atiawa and the Crown and the council over a number of years. In its commentary on the bill, the committee provided a useful summary of these negotiations and the resulting recommended amendments to the bill. The committee also notes its concern that the bill does not address all of the issues raised to it regarding the lands.

During the final stages of the settlement bill, the New Plymouth District Council proposed a Waitara lands local bill. The local bill will, if enacted, render one aspect of the Treaty bill redundant. In light of the proposed local bill the committee recommended including a self-repealing clause within the settlement legislation to account for the local bill. My officials are going to take an active part in the select committee work on that local bill, which, as we know, was sent to the Māori Affairs Committee last night, and we look forward to working with the council and Te Atiawa to reach a durable outcome for all parties.

Can I pay credit to the negotiators who have had to make some difficult decisions and significant concessions during settlement talks. This pragmatic approach and willingness to work with both the Crown and the local council has enabled a pathway forward that provides a realistic opportunity for the people of Te Atiawa to be involved in future consultation and negotiations that recognise their aspirations in relation to these lands.

In its consideration of the bill the committee addressed the right-of-first-refusal land. Although the committee is not recommending any amendments to the bill in relation to the right-of-first-refusal list, it notes that some committee members considered there should be a mechanism in settlement legislation for land that becomes available at a future date to be offered back as a right of first refusal, even if it does not appear on the list. The difficulty here is that once a list is agreed and the deed signed it is subject to the overlapping claims process and being ratified by the claimant community. The Crown’s objective is to achieve fair and durable settlements with groups. Ratification and the overlapping claims process ensures a balance is maintained between addressing the grievances of one group without creating further grievances for another group. To undo either of these key aspects of settlement negotiations risks unsettling the balance that is achieved at the negotiating table.

This bill brings to an end many, many long years of negotiation between Te Atiawa and the Crown. The settlement is the end of a long journey that signals the beginning of a new journey into the settlement area, which I sincerely hope will be a new and improved relationship with the Crown and a time for peace and a time for looking to the future, and I believe it can be, if the Crown honours its undertakings and acts in accordance with Treaty principles.

Before I commend the bill to the House I need to just say a few things about the events of the last few days. I will make these comments once only, rather than in each of today’s second readings, because I am very disappointed it was not possible for these bills and the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill to proceed to a third reading tomorrow. I was particularly looking forward to tomorrow for the iwi of Taranaki.

I remember very well—and perhaps my good friend Mr Okeroa was there as well—Māui Pōmare Day of 2009 at Ōwae Marae. I think I startled a few of the Office of Treaty Settlements officials for going off message when I suggested that it would be great to enter into negotiations with the iwi of Taranaki. And I remember very well March 2010, when we signed the terms of negotiation in the morning at Puke Ariki with Te Atiawa, and then we went round to Taranaki’s principal marae round the coast to sign the terms of negotiation in the afternoon. Ngāruahine came a little bit later. But since that time I have come to know these iwi very, very well, and I have huge respect and affection for these iwi and their leaders. They have some of the best iwi leaders in the country. I have also come to know their history. It really has been the education of a public man, learning about the Land Wars, learning about the horrors of Parihaka, and the sadness that so many people have experienced for far too long.

There is much I could say, but I choose not to. These are very dignified occasions and it is not appropriate to descend into verbal slanging matches, particularly when we have guests in the gallery. What I do want to say to the iwi present today is that I am going to do my utmost to see that we have a third reading of these bills as soon as possible, and, as I have already communicated to the iwi, anyone who has suffered a loss as a result of the parliamentary actions over the last few days should contact the Office of Treaty Settlements. I am very disappointed, but to quote the line from that song in Life of Brian, “Always look on the bright side of life.”—it was when those three were all being crucified, I think. We will get through a lot of work today and hopefully it is not going to be too long before we progress to third readings. I welcome our friends in the gallery, and I commend the bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Te mea tuatahi e tū tautoko ana ahau i te karakia ka tukuna atu e te hōnore mema a Te Ururoa Flavell i tēnei ata. Nō reira, e Te Minita, tēnei ahau tuku mihi atu ki a koe roto i te korōriatanga o Ihowa o ngā mano, Matua, Tama, Wairua tapu, ngā anaherea pono, Te Māngai hei tautoko mai, āianei, ake nei, āe! Oti noa, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a Te Ati Awa i tēnei wā, ki ngā hapū katoa o Te Ati Awa, oti noa ngā uri katoa o Awanuiārangi, te tamaiti o Tamarau-te-heketanga-ā-Rangi rāua ko Rongoueroa, nō reira ki a koutou Manu Kōrihi, Ngāti Rāhira, Ngāti Tāwhitikura, Ngāti Tūparikino, Ngāti Te Whiti, Ōtaraua, Pukerangiora, me Puketapu anō hoki, a Te Ati Awa nui tonu, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata nei. E tuku mihi hoki ahau ki Te Minita mō tōna kōrero mai ki Te Whare i tēnei ata, ngā kōrero whakamārama e pā ana ki ētehi o ngā take kei roto i te pire nei. Nō reira e tika ana kia tuku atu i te mihi ki tōna kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first thing is that I endorse the prayer accorded by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell this morning. Therefore, I thank you, Minister, in the glory of Jehovah of the thousands, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the Blessed Angels, and for the Mouthpiece to support now and for ever, yes! I extend a welcome indeed to Te Ati Awa and all its hapū at this time, suffice to say to all the descendants of Awanuiārangi, the child of Tamarau-te-heketanga-ā-Rangi and Rongoueroa, and to you collectively, therefore, Manu Kōrihi, Ngāti Rāhira, Ngāti Tāwhitikura, Ngāti Tuparikino, Ngāti Te Whiti, Ōtaraua, Pukerangiora, and Puketapu, and to all of you at large Te Ati Awa as well, I welcome you all, come hither to this Parliament House. I also commend the Minister for his address to the House this morning, in terms of his explanations in relation to some matters in this bill. Therefore it is appropriate that I acknowledge his contribution.]

I want to go straight into some specific issues within the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to, first of all, take a couple of quotes from the bill itself around the acknowledgment and the apology. Within the settlement bill: “The Crown acknowledges that—(a) it unfairly treated Te Atiawa as being in rebellion; and (b) the confiscations of 1865 were indiscriminate in extent and application and had a devastating effect on the welfare, economy, culture, and social development of Te Atiawa;”. It goes on, in the apology, to say: “The Crown is sorry for the immense prejudice it caused by confiscating the lands of Te Atiawa. The raupatu was indiscriminate, unjust, and unconscionable. The Crown deeply regrets the damage this caused to the economy and society of Te Atiawa.” It is important that we remember that, in the context of the overall bill.

Last night I spoke on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill in its first reading. One of the things that I spoke about too was the Waitara lands. I want to restate what I said in relation to that bill, here today on this bill. It is important that we acknowledge that this process of settlement is one that is flawed. It does not deliver everything that iwi would want it to deliver—it does not even pretend to do that. It is a negotiated settlement. It is not compensation; it is redress. It is incumbent upon each and every settlement group, each and every iwi that goes through this process, that it fully understands what the process can deliver and what it cannot deliver. And it is also incumbent on each settlement group to ask the big question: “Can we live with that?”. In this instance I am absolutely certain that the negotiators would have asked themselves that question

I refer to the Waitara lands—the confiscation of the Pekapeka Block—and the pain and anguish that people still carry today around that. The hapū of that area, that Manukorihiōtaraua—members of those hapū still bear the burden of that trauma that happened in 1865. It is important also to note that the negotiators came up with an agreement with the Crown and signed that deed of settlement—the deed of settlement that is a binding document; the deed of settlement that outlines how Te Atiawa, on behalf of all of its hapū, wants to move forward.

The clause within the bill, which is basically a voluntary clause around the ability for Te Atiawa to purchase the endowment lands at Waitara—that is a voluntary clause that is in the bill that gives the opportunity for Te Atiawa to purchase the lands from the district council. The bill that was introduced and read a first time last night will, as the Minister acknowledged, effectively, remove that. Within the bill, the recommendation from the Māori Affairs Committee was that there be an automatic repeal of that clause. Based on the bill that was read a first time last night, that basically makes those clauses redundant. So I think that it is important that that is in the mix in this discussion.

I think that it is really important—taking in context the acknowledgment and the apology—that we do not add another layer of breach upon this current bill. That is a big question, and my challenge to all of the participating interests within this bill and the bill that was read a first time last night—it is absolutely, critically important that your compelling evidence is presented to the Māori Affairs Committee for it to be considered. I know that there are many people who are hurting about one or both of these bills.

This is a process that needs to be inclusive. It needs to ensure that everyone, as much as possible, is on board with this settlement. The settlement needs to be enduring; it needs to last beyond several generations, for each generation that comes into the future. The reason why you would accept a redress that is considerably less than the total value of the loss—you would do it for the future generations. It is very important for this House to be confident that this settlement will endure, and to have a bill read for the first time that the entire Parliament agreed to. I think the important thing there is that it agreed to it so that everyone could have their say. From what I can tell from what everyone has said in this House about that bill: beyond select committee, there are no deals on this particular legislation. I think it should be noted that everyone should be clear about the process before us.

There are a number of other issues that I do want to discuss. I know that the Committee stage is coming and there are a couple of areas that I do want to speak about, particularly on the right of first refusal and other matters. For this time, ka mutu taku kōrero mō tēnei wā, kei te haere tonu mai ētehi atu kōrero i roto i te whakahaerenga o tēnei pire, kei roto i Te Whare nei, nō reira, ki a Te Atiawa tēnei ahau e tuku mi’i atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[I end my contribution for now as other contributions relating to the administration of this bill continue in this House, so I commend you, Te Atiawa, congratulations to you and to us all.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, ka tū ake au ki te mihi atu ki Te Whare, ki a koutou e hui nei i tēnei wā, te whakarongo ki te nekehanga o tēnei o ngā pire. Nāu tēnei pire, nā koutou tēnei pire! I ngā marama, i ngā tau kua hipa atu nā koutou tēnei pire i kawe, i tautohetohe, ki a wai? Ki Te Karauna! Nā reira, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou me ō koutou kaha ki te whakapau werawera, te tutuki i ngā kōrero katoa o te pire nei, koirā te mea tuatahi ki a au. Nā reira e Te Whare, me ōku hoa mahi o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, me ō koutou kaha, te āta wānanga i ngā take kai roto i te pire, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to acknowledge the House and you who are gathered here and listening to the progress of this one of the bills. This bill belongs to you; it is yours. You bore this bill in the months and years past. You debated it, and with whom? With the Crown. And so I salute you collectively in terms of your efforts and the sweat shed to complete all the talk about this bill, which is indeed foremost to me. Therefore I commend you, the House and my colleagues of the Māori Affairs Committee, for your efforts and diligent considerations of the issues in this bill. Well done; I commend you all.]

You know, I am not sure that I can be as conciliatory as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations this morning.

Hon Member: Really?

MARAMA FOX: I know it is a hard thing, and I have thought about this long, and I am not sure that I can be as soft-hearted. I have tried. I have tried to chill my pill for the last couple of days, but there are some things in this bill that were well debated during the committee stages. Every single part of this bill has been negotiated by people who know more about it than I do. Every single part of this bill has been negotiated by the members of Te Atiawa and Taranaki with the Office of Treaty Settlements—with their Crown negotiators—and, I tell you, over the years of these settlements, you know, our people have got better at negotiating. We are pretty good at that sort of stuff. We have been negotiating for 175 years over how to have our rights observed in the law.

The Crown has also got pretty good at negotiating, and that is why we have this debate about the right of first refusal (RFR). You know, when you look back at the Kāi Tahu settlement, they got a geographic RFR over practically the whole island—any land in the whole of Te Wai Pounamu that might come up at some time, just maybe. We have got an RFR—yay! The Crown has gotten better at that now, so now you have got to have a list: “Show me which bits of land you want.” And then, when they found out when they went to go and purchase some land that, actually, the title was wrong, and they thought it was the council but it turned out to be the Government—well, we cannot guarantee that any list that is out there is going to be correct.

So we debated long and hard over whether to have a geographic RFR as well as a list RFR, and can I say that the time has probably come for the whole RFR issue to be reviewed—the how and when. We have found out that, actually, there are a whole lot of stages before land gets offered back to iwi, if it is found to be available, and one of them is to offer it to a charity—a charity, any charity. It could be the “Fox Whānau Charity” or the “Looking After All Those Sick Kids in the Fox Whānau House Charity”. It could get offered back to them first, before it is offered back to iwi, and I find that quite despicable. I do not see the point in that at all. So I think it is time to review it completely.

However, all of those things were debated and negotiated by the whānau of Te Atiawa, one of whom you acknowledged this morning, Mr Deputy Speaker. But there is also Peter Moeahu, Wikitōria Keenan, Grant—ah, I am going to say that wrong—

Hon Member: Knuckey.

MARAMA FOX: Knuckey—thank you. I was going to say “Kentucky”, but, no—sorry, Grant. There is also Keith Holswich, Liana Poutū, and Hēmi Sundgren—I am sorry, I am really bad at Pākehā names. People mix me up with Marama Davidson all the time, so I sort of get it.

But, you know, if I echo the words of Te Whiti o Rongomai, he would say that we celebrate the forbearance, the patience, the stout-heartedness of the iwi and their negotiators in getting to this point. If there was an issue, if there was a point to be made, or if there was something that through the first reading, the second reading, or the Committee stage needed to be talked about, then surely it could have gone back to them.

Tomorrow we could have been celebrating a long, hard-fought win that started with the people of Atiawa being accused of treason, which started under the Suppression of Rebellion Act. It started because they did not fight against the Crown or the Crown’s forces, but they simply fought for house and home and refused to sell their lands, and, in doing so, they were accused of treason under the Suppression of Rebellion Act and the soldiers were wheeled in.

That is what we are talking about. All of those lands confiscated and people thrown unjustly into prison and held, killed, and taken, and after all of this time of trying to have that grievance settled, we come to the eleventh hour. This is why I am so upset.

I do not care what little thing you might be pulling out to justify the stunt that was played in this House. Thirty years of negotiations—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is showboating. We know more about this than you do.

MARAMA FOX: Is that right? Tell them that, because this is what I will tell you, Mr Peters. This is straight from the chairperson, Liana Poutū: “We were absolutely angry at the start, but now we are just disappointed.”—[Interruption]—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MARAMA FOX: —“More than that, New Zealand First have opposed the bill. What we’re hearing is it’s a technical thing, but we don’t know much about it. The fact is their actions are disingenuous, and to pull not only our bill but five at such a late stage without any explanation to the iwi whose bills they are is really disingenuous and despicable. If they actually have a substantive issue that they are opposed to in the bill, I’d rather know about it, and I’d be happy for it to be pulled to sort that issue out. They’ve pulled it without fronting up to us at all, and the five busloads of people ready to go down there, and that’s not easy—a logistical episode.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Stop showboating. You pulled the bill.

MARAMA FOX: I did not. I objected. I want it known in the Hansard of this House that I objected to that day being cancelled, strongly. And I sent a message with your whip to tell you exactly—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So did we.

MARAMA FOX: You did not. Showboating and stunting you know very much about, Mr Peters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Take a seat please, I say to the member. Let us just remember what we are doing here today. Members will have a chance to speak. Having a constant barrage across the House and then a response to that does not do anything for the dignity of what we are trying to do here today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect that view, and so does my party, but this is a debate, and at this stage it cannot be a barrage or a rewriting of history, and abuse of another party, when we will demonstrate—

Hon Members: How is this a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We do not mind them raising it for just one or two sentences, but to turn it into a barrage is not going to be tolerated by us, because it is utterly false.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance in respect of that. The point that I made earlier was that the parties concerned will have their own speaking slot in which to state their case. Interjection is something that is part of a robust debate—that is fine—but let us just remember what we are doing here, and let us retain the decorum of the House.

MARAMA FOX: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, I take it—it is noted. I am going back to try to chill my pill again, because I do get a little bit upset about this, and I am reading not my words but the words of the chairman, who was also upset: “This potential delay is messing with people’s livelihoods, their ability to move forward, and tantamount to a political party trampling on our mana.” Not my words—their words.

So we come back to the issue of the bill. We are here to support the passage of this bill through the House so that we can move on, so that the whānau of Te Atiawa can finally be able to have that redress recognised, so that they can finally have the opportunity to correct the imbalance that continues to exist, and so that they can finally take hold of the reins of rangatiratanga—supported through the redress of the Crown, both cultural and financial—and move on and move past, and offer back to the country what we have all recognised is one of the biggest koha to this country of Māoridom. It is one of the largest koha to this country of Māoridom to accept such a pittance—to accept such a pittance—for the great injustice that was carried out first here, and then around the rest of the country.

And to our whānau, I feel the weight of it. This is not the made-up, crocodile-tear grandstanding that we are accused of, because we feel the weight of it—the weight of the injustice. Your time is here, and I wish that it could be settled tomorrow, but we will have to wait. But we have waited such a long time, we are resilient and strong people, and we can wait a little bit longer. Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou Te Whare Pāremata, he mihi nui ki a Te Atiawa whānui, ki Te Atiawa Te Kotahitanga, ki te whānau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Acknowledgments to you of the House, and a huge one to Te Atiawa at large, the Kotahitanga, and the entire family.]

I would just like to stand and acknowledge the manuhiri who have come, the importance of this day, and the importance of what we are in the process of doing. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the work of the Māori Affairs Committee on this important day. I am standing here for the first time on this bill, although this is its second reading. As the previous speaker, Marama Fox, said, I also feel a weight—the weight of history that comes from what happened in Te Atiawa, and what that means to our nation. The shame I feel that so many people for so long have not understood the significance of what happened in Taranaki, in Te Atiawa, as the beginning of the total dispossession of tangata whenua across the motu—when the colonial forces decided to take the land. So I think it is very important for us to acknowledge today the weight of history, the importance of trying to do better, and, in many ways, to express to Te Atiawa that Parliament may not yet have grown up, but you grew up a long time ago—you had no choice. We need to honour that. We need to honour your effort and respond to your effort with equal respect.

I just want to talk also about the way in which war, perpetual leases, and other mechanisms have been tools of alienation of land in Te Atiawa rohe, and how profoundly devious, as well as direct, the process of colonisation is. I am using the word “is”, because I do not actually think it is over. I think this is a positive step in the right direction—a controversial and positive and difficult step in the right direction—but it is not over. The Green Party always stands to pay respect to the bill—we will be supporting it—but we also stand to pay respect to the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which was signed by Te Atiawa tupuna, does not finish. It cannot be full and final; it must be an ongoing relationship. It must be an ongoing dialogue. It does not end this day. I believe, and the Green Party believes, that we would always stand here to hear more from Te Atiawa, from the hapū katoa, about these issues. It is not over for us, because we stand for Te Tiriti, and that is about a permanent, ongoing, negotiated relationship based on justice.

I would like to also acknowledge that part of the loss is in the 20th century—the 1944 Act where the Crown attempted to say that it had compensated and recognised Te Atiawa, without the consent of Te Atiawa. That is what I meant by devious: the ongoing pretence that things have been settled in the past, right through the 20th century.

I acknowledge too that it is not only the physical loss to the people of their whenua but also the pollution issues that have affected Te Atiawa. The Waitara River that has been treated like a drain by a number of industries and by the sewage of the communities—this food source, this taonga, that leads out to a food basket and the struggle that there has been, the intergenerational struggle, to clean up that river. The relationship that Te Atiawa has with the coast and their connection to Ngā Motu is acknowledged in the settlement—yet the Dow Chemical Co. polluted that community, polluted that area with a toxic product that was sprayed over Vietnamese people, that was generated in Taranaki, and where the sick people are still affected and the environment is still affected. I want to acknowledge Te Atiawa’s burden that they have received, through no fault of their own, from the abuse of land, the abuse of the colonisation process, and then the abuse of the environment, which they cannot separate themselves from and would not wish to.

This is not an uncontroversial settlement, and hapū such as Manukōrihi and Ōtaraua are expressing concerns. Unfortunately, when the Crown dictates the terms it puts iwi in a tight box about who is a large natural grouping—who gets heard, who does not—and I acknowledge the best efforts of everyone and the ongoing issues.

Last night I had the privilege of speaking on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, the local bill, and, as others have said, our support for it to go to select committee is extremely constrained. We will not be guaranteeing any further support, because that local bill is not a Treaty settlement but it deals with Te Tiriti issues, and, in many ways, we do not believe that that bill has got there. There are too many voices not heard in that bill. We acknowledge that Te Atiawa, whom we have been seeking advice from on this, were prepared to allow it go ahead, but they acknowledged that there were flaws, and there are. Waitara is symbolic, in a way, of the deeply flawed nature of trying to fix a mess created by my culture, and benefited from—still benefiting, still doing well. Great! Fantastic! But that perpetual lease issue with the Pekapeka Block is a deep stain, and I would love to see a healing through that process that was actually about the generosity of my culture, and not just the generosity of tangata whenua. I would love to see Pākehā katoa support Taranaki Pākehā to stand up and say that these resources need to go directly back to the people. We need to find a way, and that local bill does not do that.

However, this bill that we are here to talk about has many good aspects to it, and it shows that incredible work has been done. But I do want to touch on an issue raised by my colleague Marama Fox about the first right of refusal, or right of first refusal—the more I learn about it, the more fascinated I get. In reference to the leasehold land in Taranaki, it was offered to Te Atiawa for $23 million. I always find it curious if someone has something stolen and then they have to buy it back: $23 million is an interesting response to a thieving—which may be a rude word, but I think we need to speak truth to power every day about what has happened in this country. Especially in the context—and here I want to mihi to Dr Leonie Pīhama—of the Karori campus debacle, whereby the Crown, in 2014, gave the university the right to the whenua that was Te Atiawa’s for 10 bucks—in 2014. How does that work? And then they can sell it for millions of bucks. So there is good work going on here in this bill, but still the iwi have this offer that they cannot afford—23 million bucks—because when you have been robbed you often do not have a lot. And then there is the Karori campus—ten bucks and a few blankets. It is—

Marama Fox: Criminal.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Well, it is contradictory to the stated aspirations of this House that these things are happening in the 21st century. It is a bit like my bill last night, the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Maōri Land) Amendment Bill, that was voted down by the Government—no more Māori land confiscation. People were saying it is historic; I am interested in history and the way that history is in the present, and I am interested in the fact that this bill shows deep generosity, deep commitment to dialogue, and deep kindness.

I would like to acknowledge that when we walked from New Plymouth—and I only walked the last day of the peace walk to Parihaka with Mayor Andrew Judd—every step was an opportunity to learn about the iwi katoa of the area: of Te Atiawa, who participated in the support of Parihaka, and the suffering that they paid for it. There are people who disappeared and we still do not know what happened to them because they were taken south and never seen again. Just finally, I need to say that that story needs to be taught to every single child in this country, not as an interesting historical artefact but as a passionate call for justice and a recognition of what tangata whenua truly offer this country, which is peace leadership, which is justice leadership, and that the past is in front of us.

Ngā mihi ki a Te Atiawa, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Congratulations to Te Atiawa, and my appreciation to you all.]

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I acknowledge, commend, and greet you all: the authorities, the voices, and the four winds.]

I am very honoured to be able to stand in support of this Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill. I would like to acknowledge the iwi leaders we have here from Taranaki, and it is great to have you here today. I am disappointed that it is only one day and not two, and I do acknowledge the Minister’s comments that he is going to work very, very hard to ensure that the third readings are done as soon as possible, because not only is that going to be very important to bring an end to this process but it is going to be very important to be part of the beginning of what the future is going to be.

I would like to, at this point, also acknowledge those who cannot be here, and I think especially of Wikitōria Keenan and the tremendous hard work that she has done on behalf of her people, Te Atiawa, in progressing this. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Mahara Okeroa—great to see you, sir. I have very much enjoyed getting to know you over the last number of years, and I know that you have brought a great contribution.

What I would like to say is, really, to support the people of Te Atiawa, Taranaki, and Ngāruahine, because these are some of the finest people I know. It is not just because of 176 years of duress since the pressures came upon them by the Crown to, essentially, forgo their land and they fought and struggled to retain that which was theirs. But there has been an aspect of generosity and inclusion. I think of the words of Wīremu Kīngi, who said: “You have your part, we have our part, and love will bring us together.” Even back in his time, when he led and he spoke, there was this willingness to live together and work together. More than anything else, I hope and trust and pray that these settlements will engender that, and that we will see a future for Te Atiawa that is full of promise, full of hope, full of the ability now—through the resources of this settlement—for you to become who you always have been but in greater measure, and that is a proud and a noble and a generous people.

I am very pleased to stand here. I apologise that I was not here for the first reading. I was overseas at the time and, as you know, matters in terms of the programme of Parliament can change very quickly and sometimes we hear a little bit too late that something is happening. I was in the UK at that particular point in time, but I do know that it was a great occasion.

I am not going to say much more except to say I am thrilled about today. I am thrilled about today, that we are progressing this and, as I said, my great hope and joy will be to see the people of Te Atiawa, Taranaki, and Ngāruahine continue to grow, to develop, and to flourish because of this. This is nothing compared with what you have lost, I know. In fact, somebody said to me: “How much is this going to cost us?”. I said it is costing nothing compared with what it has cost our iwi. We understand what it has cost you, and our hope and prayer is that this will become the beginning of something new. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou o Te Whare nei. Te mea tuatahi ka mihi atu ki Te Minita mō ngā Take Māori, nāna i ’hakaritengia tō tātou nohonga i te rā nei, nā reira, e Te Ururoa, ngā mihi hoki ki a koe.

I honongia i a au ki ērā o ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au, ki te ’hakatau i wā tātou manuhiri i roto i Te Whare i te rā nei. Nā reira, koutou mā, mai i Te Maunga Tapu o Taranaki e kī nei te korero: “tū te ao, tū te pō”. Nā reira, nau mai, haere mai. Hara mai ki te ’hakarongo, ki te mātakitaki i ngā āhuatanga o Te Whare nei e pā ana ki tā koutou pire, ki te ’hakatau i ngā kerēme o te iwi o Te Atiawa, puta noa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and salutations to us of this House, as well. The first thing for me is to thank the Minister of Māori Affairs for taking due cognisance of our sitting today, and so my acknowledgments to you as well, Te Ururoa.

I add my sentiments of welcome to those accorded by those who spoke before me in welcoming our visitors into the House today. Therefore to you collectively from the sacred mountain of Taranaki, the adage states: “daylight and night stands”. So welcome, welcome. Come forth to listen and to observe the procedures of this House as far as your bill is concerned in terms of settling the claims of Te Atawa throughout.]

I just want to make something quite clear. It seems, given the tenor of discussions today, that my party may be the only party that wishes to see this bill go through to its third reading immediately. I just want to say in front of the people who are gathered here today that we appear to be the only party that is prepared to see the third reading of this bill today. We will even give some leeway to the rest of the parties, particularly the Opposition, in that we will wait until tomorrow morning so that they can gather their troops. I want to make the point, as alluded to by a previous speaker, that we did not pull the bill; they did. The person who made that comment often talks about the value of sitting at the table. Well, they sit at the table, so why did they not take the initiative to say to the Government: “No, we want to proceed.”?

Marama Fox: We did.

PITA PARAONE: Well, then, what happened?

Hon Member: You pulled out.

PITA PARAONE: No, no—anyway, getting back to the bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have got a whole basketful of dirty laundry. Let us keep it to ourselves.

PITA PARAONE: Well, I am not too keen about the comment about dirty laundry, because we are pretty clean on this side. However, I want to say, for New Zealand First, that we support this bill. In fact, we support this bill, in particular, because of the tragedy that these people have had to suffer by the colonial forces of the time. I can recall—and it will be always an enduring matter for me—when I saw two young gentlemen representing their iwi of Ngāti Mutunga and doing their settlement process. I was appalled at the level of quantum that was offered to them. I asked those representatives why they were accepting that amount, given the history of that area. However, as alluded to by a number of speakers before me, they recognised, and we certainly do recognise, that any settlement will never ever be a complete compensation—or whatever you might want to call it—given the losses that they have suffered. And yet iwi—and not only the Taranaki iwi but all those who have already settled—have made a contribution to this country that many of our fellow citizens do not understand or even recognise. I want to acknowledge the contribution that Te Atiawa is making under this claims settlement bill.

I do not need to make reference to, or reiterate, the history. It is well known. It certainly is well known by those who are associated with Treaty claims. But it is not well known by the wider community. We saw a leading local body politician who finally understood what the iwi were on about—he was vilified for the stance he took. I think that is a poor commentary on the state of our country. I can recall an earlier discussion regarding a petition made by two young schoolgirls from Waikato, from Tainui. They were asking about the history of our country being taught in schools. The reaction to this particular settlement bill by the wider community is every reason why we should be teaching New Zealand history in our schools. The travesty of the time and the effects of the colonial forces on innocent Māori should not be a reason for not allowing future generations to learn about their history.

So although we have one or two concerns about the bill, we will certainly be supporting it to see it settled. I want to reiterate the point again, as the people in the gallery are my witness, that we want to settle and we are prepared to do that tomorrow morning. We will even do it today if we are allowed to, but we will certainly be here to do it tomorrow morning if there is a will on the part of the Government.

Nā reira, Mr Deputy Speaker, koutou mā e Jamie, ngā mihi hoki ki a koutou. Kia ora mai.

[Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to you all Jamie, my congratulations to you collectively. Thank you.]

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa, mauri ora Te Atiawa. Tēnā koutou ngā hapū, Ngāti Rāhiri, Ōtaraua, Manukōrihi, Puketapu, Pukerangiora, Ngāti Te Whirikura, Ngati Tapurīkino, Ngāti Te Whiti, nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My acknowledgments to the authorities, voices, and esteemed ones of a hundredfold; greetings to you collectively and to us all, and may the force of life be with you, Te Atiawa. Congratulations to you, the subtribes Ngāti Rāhiri, Ōtaraua, Manukōrihi, Puketapu, Pukerangiora, Ngāti Te Whirikura, Ngāti Tapurīkino, Ngāti Te Whiti, and, therefore, to us all.]

Today is a really special day. It is a special day because this is Te Atiawa’s day. It is the day when we as parliamentarians support the iwi in its process of resolving historical Treaty of Waitangi issues. It is when we as parliamentarians tautoko the process. So it is a bit of a sad day when we are not 100 percent focused on the whānau who have travelled so far today because of a Taranaki claim that went to the Waitangi Tribunal initiated by the Taranaki Māori Trust Board in 1987.

So we are here because of the mahi that the tūpuna of Te Atiawa undertook when we opened up the opportunity to investigate Treaty of Waitangi breaches right back to 1840. What happened after the Taranaki Māori Trust Board in 1987 took the first case was that the Waitangi Tribunal released a report on 11 June 1996. That report was called The Taranaki Report—Kaupapa Tuatahi. It took another 14 years for the process to be started again, and so in 2010 the Crown recommended negotiations with Te Atiawa.

The second reading of a bill is about the principles of the bill, and it is also to provide some korero from the submissions. So for us to do that, I just want to focus on what this process is all about. This is about the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975, and in the “Purpose” section of that Act it says they wanted to create a tribunal to make “recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and to determine whether certain matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty [of Waitangi]”. The amendment Act of 1985 then enabled us to go back to 1840.

So the bill before the House today, the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill, gives effect to the deed of settlement agreed by the Crown and Te Atiawa that was signed on 9 August 2014. I would like to read from the submission of Liana Poutū: “The settlement of these claims has taken generations to reach this point and we are grateful to our many tūpuna, who worked tirelessly on this kaupapa so that their mokopuna would not have to carry the burden that they carried for so long. I am well aware that this settlement does not even come close to compensating our people for the losses and sacrifices we have endured, but we are still here and intend on being around to see that the work of those before us is not wasted.” So, on behalf of Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, she says it supports the bill in its entirety.

I think it is really important that we focus on what is in the bill, and I want to take the opportunity to read some sections from The Taranaki Report: “3.6 Waitara”. The context is really interesting because, obviously, when Thomas Browne, who became our Governor, replaced Governor Grey in 1855, he was sent here for a very specific purpose, and that was to secure lands. It says in that report that his resolve to secure the Taranaki lands for settlement was an imperative—an imperative of his appointment. So in 1856 he appointed a board to inquire and to report on the status of Taranaki lands, and I just want to quote from that report about the board’s view. It was: “the ‘tribe’ ”—Taranaki—“that had the only authority to dispose of land, and while the individual had certain possessory rights, ‘there is no such thing as an individual claim, clear and independent of the tribal right’ ”. So it was really clear that any lands that were to be sold had to be agreed to by the tribe and that individuals could not sell land.

Governor Browne then visited Taranaki on 8 March 1859 and he announced a policy, and I would like to read that policy to the House today. First: “any person committing violence or outrage within ‘European boundaries’ would be dealt with under the criminal law;”, but, secondly, he said he “would not buy land with a disputed title and ‘would buy no man’s land without his consent’ ”, and herein, I guess, lie the issues around Pekapeka.

I found it interesting when I went on to the New Zealand in History website, because there is a section called “The New Zealand Wars” and a Taranaki War time line. It starts in 1859, and it says: “Te Atiawa tribe offers to sell land at Waitara. Surveying commences in 1860, but is interrupted by Wiremu Kingi Te Rangitake, a Te Atiawa chief who objects to the land sale.” So I found it really interesting that it said that the tribe offered to sell it, but, actually, its rangatira objected to the sale. Obviously, the issue was not about the tribe selling it; it was about land agents at that time finding someone—an individual—who was willing to sell the land.

I want to quote again from the tribunal report. The person who wanted to sell it—his name was Te Teira. Kingi was aware that he had asked for payment and that he had entered into this negotiation with Governor Browne, and this is what he wrote to the Governor: “I will not agree to our bedroom being sold (I mean Waitara here), for this bed belongs to all of us; and do not you be in haste to give the money. If you give the money secretly, you will get no land for it. You may insist, but I will never agree to it … All I have to say to you, O Governor, is that none of this land will be given to you, never, never, till I die. I have heard it is said that I am to be imprisoned because of this land. I am very sad because of this word. Why is it? You should remember that the Maoris and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land, and therefore do not you disturb them.”

In preparing for my kōrero today, I found a press release dated 10 October 2000. It was by the Hon Parekura Horomia, and it was to mark the 25th anniversary of the Waitangi Tribunal. He quoted from Judge Durie at the time, who, after 20 years of experience, had four things to say: “1. The room for ethnic misunderstanding. Therefore in its reporting the Tribunal has tried to explain Maori cultural views, as it appeared from the evidence, so that Maori and Pakeha might understand one another better in the future. 2. The need to report fully in order to put the past at rest. 3. The need to make practical recommendations so that something positive might happen in the future. 4. And that the process underlined for him how important it is that all people should have access to an appropriate judicial forum to express legitimate concerns.”

So I think what the process has endeavoured to do is to provide that forum, but for some people who are not aware of what is happening around them, they do not engage early enough, and, I think, if we look at what is going to happen in terms of the debate around Waitara and the proposition that the New Plymouth District Council has put to the House, I think it is really important that we focus on the right of first refusal for the whānau of Te Atiawa in Waitara. I just want to highlight article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, actually, where the Queen confirmed and guaranteed to Māori “the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of [our] Lands” for as long as we “wish and desire to retain” them in our possession. What we agreed, in being guaranteed our full and undisturbed possession, was that the Crown had an exclusive right of pre-emption over that land.

I guess, if we want to look at Waitara and an opportunity for Te Atiawa to have the first right of refusal, actually, we should look no further than the Treaty in enabling that specific provision in the Waitara bill, because from the council position, it is saying: “We are going to give Te Atiawa a monopoly. They will have an exclusive right, an only right, to buy the land.” Well, I guess my challenge to us is: what is wrong with that? Because that is what we said in the Treaty. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):

Taranaki Maunga tū mai rā, hei whakaruruhau mō te whenu-a,

Taranaki Maunga tū mai rā, hei kāinga mō ngā manu mumu hau tākere tō e,

Tangi nei, kia mau, kia ū ki te maungārongo, hei ruruhau mō te iwi—e, i!

Tēnā koutou. Tēnei te tū ake ki te tāpiri atu i ngā mihi ki Te Minita i te tuatahi, nāu i whakatūwhera tā tātou nei huihuinga i tēnei rāngi, kia puta ai ngā painga mō ngā āhuatanga mō ngā take Tiriti. Te Atiawa Taranaki, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai nei koutou ki te whakarongo ki ngā momo nekehanga kei waenganui i tō mātou nei komiti Māori mō ō koutou kerēme.

Ka tika me whakapuare ētehi ō ōku nei whakaaro mō tēnei tūāhuatanga: he uaua, tino uaua. Ēngari nā koutou te mana hei whakaaetia i ēnei take i mua i te aroaro o Te Pāremata, nā mātou te mahi nunui hei tautoko i a koutou nei hiahia. Ā, nō reira, ka nui, ka nui, ka nui te mihi, ā, me te mōhio anō kei waenganui i a mātou ngā tokorua e tino mōhio i tēnei whāinga: tō koutou nei mema o Te Tai Hauāuru, a Adrian rāua ko Meka Whaitiri. Nā rāua i mōhio taua tūāhuatanga, te noho ki tēnei taha o Te Karauna ki te tukituki i ngā hiahia, ngā wawata e pā ana ki te hau kāinga.

Nō reira, i roto i tērā whakaaro tēnā pea, māku hei whakapuare ētehi o ngā kōrero i puta mai mō tēnei kaupapa. I roto i te uauatanga o ō koutou nei whāinga kia whakahokia mai ngā whenua i raupatutia, me ngā āhuatanga ki te tari o ngā ture. Whakaaro ake au ko te mea tino uaua, kāre mātou i tino kite i tētehi rongoā i te Glasgow leases. I puta mai inapō ngā āhuatanga i waenganui i ā rātou, e hīkoi ana i te rori mō ngā whenua o Pekapeka. Whakaaro ake mātou: “Oh, āe, tino uaua tēnei kaupapa.”

Ahakoa tērā, kei a koutou te mahi nunui hei kawea i te hiahia o ō koutou nei iwi i roto i ētehi o ngā rongoā o te pire nei. Ko te tūmanako, ka noho pūmau Te Karauna ahakoa ko wai, tae ki tētehi wā tēnā pea ka whai rongoā kia whakahokia mai ngā whenua i raupatutia, koinā te tino hiahia. Ahakoa karekau he rongoā i roto i te pire nei, he maha ngā āwangawanga tonu kei waenganui i a mātou katoa mō te kore i kuhu mai ngā whenua o ngā kaunihera ā-rohe mō ngā take Tiriti. Ki a mātou nei, mehemea ka taea e tātou te whakaarohia ki tērā tūāhuatanga tēnā pea, ka whai wāhanga te kite i tētehi, me kī, tētehi rongoā kia mahi ngātahi ngā iwi ki te taha o ngā kaunihera ā-rohe ki te whakahaere i ngā whenua.

Ko tētehi atu anō o ngā kōrero i puta mai i waenganui i a mātou e pā ana ki ngā momo panonitanga o ētehi atu o ngā ture. Ko te hiahia o Te Kāwanatanga kia mau tonu i ngā whenua, kia whakatū i ngā whare. Ana, i tērā atu wiki kua tīni tērā āhuatanga, ngā wāhanga mō Te Housing Legislation Amendment Act, and i roto i tērā, ka whakaarohia e Te Kāwanatanga pēnā e āhei ana rātou ki te mau i ngā whenua kia whakatū whare, māmā noa iho kia panoni i te Public Works Act, māmā noa anō kia mau i ngā whenua ahakoa kua āhei te whakahokia i raro i te right of first refusal. Koinā tētehi o ngā āwangawanga. Ahakoa te tutukitanga o tō kerēme, kei ētehi atu o ngā ture ngā panonitanga, hei whakararu, me kī, hei whakatoimaha i ētahi, hei noho pēhi i ō koutou nei hiahia. Ka tika, me puta i mua i te aroaro o Te Minita nā te mea, me kauwā e waihotia mā taua pire anake e puta mai ngā āwangawanga mō te tutuki pai o ngā kerēme. Nō reira, e Te Minita, kua kite atu mātou katoa i tō hiahia, kia wawe te haere o te tutuki o ngā kerēme. Ko taku hiahia, kia taea e Manaiapoto te haina i ā rātou nei kerēme i mua i te mutunga o te tau. Atu i tērā, ka whakaaro ake mātou mō tērā tūāhuatanga mō ngā kerēme o mua.

Nā, ka titiro atu au ki te whiti 14(3)(a) me te (b), kei roto i tō koutou pire te whakahuatia o ngā momo tangata, ngā kaikerēme i tukuna ō rātou hiahia i raro i Te Taraipiunara. Nā, kua kite whānui ake i te nui o ngā tāngata i raro i tā koutou nei pire. Ka nui te mihi atu ki ā rātou katoa, ki ō rātou whānau, ō rātou uri whakaheke me te mōhio anō, he roa te wā kia kite mai tēnei rangi, ka nui te mihi atu. Kāti!

Ko te kōrero e pā ana ki te whiti 117, ki a mātou nei, i te wā e kōrerohia ana mātou, i tīmata mātou ki te whakaarohia me kaua e tangohia tēnei wāhanga, kia noho tonu, ahakoa kua mōhio mai, ka haria mai e te kaunihere ā-rohe tā rātou pire motuhake. Whakaaro mātou inā ka noho tonu i roto i te pire, hei whakaara mai ki Te Kāwanatanga, ki Te Karauna, ko te hiahia ā tōna wā, ā te wā tika, ka whakahokia mai ēnei whenua ki a koutou a Te Ātiawa. Koinā te take i whakaarohia e mātou, me noho tonu i roto i te pire. Ēngari, kua rongo mai ki te kōrero a te Minita, a taku tungāne a Adrian, ka pāhi ana te pire o te kaunihera ā-rohe, ka whakakorengia tēnei wāhanga o tō pire, me ngā whakamārama ki tēnā. Ēngari, e ū tonu au inā ka noho i roto i tō pire, ka mōhio tūturu Te Karauna, he wā anō pea, he wā anō pea kia whakahokia mai ngā whenua ki a Te Atiawa. He uaua ēngari kia whakaara mai te hiahia.

Nō reira, ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, ka nui te whakaaro ake ki—te roanga o te kawe i tēnei kaupapa kia tutuki tika. Ka whakaaro ake ki te toimahatanga kei waenganui i a whānau mō te pupū ake o ngā nawe, ā-whānau mō tēnei āhuatanga. Ko tā mātou nei, nō iwi kē ēhara nā mātou te kī atu ki ētehi atu o ngā iwi, me pēnei, me pērā te whakatika i ngā raru kei waenganui i a koutou anō, me waihotia mā koutou hei whakatikatika!

Nō reira, atu i tērā, he poto te wāhanga māku ki te mihi atu ki ngā āpihā o Te Minita. E wero ana mātou ki a rātou, me whakautu pai ō mātou nei pātai i mua i te komiti; e wero ana mātou ki a rātou, kia tika ai te whakatakoto i ngā whakaaro o ngā iwi i mua i te aroaro o te komiti. E pai ana tā rātou nei mahi. Nō reira, atu i tērā, Nuk, te nui o ngā mihi ki a koe. Ahakoa te toimahatanga kei runga i a koe mō ngā kaipētihana i hara mai ki mua i te aroaro o te komiti, kua tūwhera te kuaha kia kuhu mai rātou, kia noho, kia whakapuare i ō rātou nei whakaaro katoa, he mea pai tērā. Nāu taua tū āhuatanga, kia noho marere tō mātou nei komiti i raro i aua piki me ngā heke. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa Atiawa, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Rise up, Taranaki mountain, as a shelter for the land,

Rise up, Taranaki mountain, as a habitat for the esteemed, boisterous, and risk-taking ones,

Lamenting for peace to be grasped resolutely indeed, as a haven for the people.

Greetings to you collectively. In the first instance, I rise to add my acknowledgments to you, Minister Flavell, who opened our assembly with a prayer so that benefits relating to matters about the Treaty can emerge on this day. I welcome you all, Te Atiawa of Taranaki, who have arrived here to listen to the kinds of deliberations that went on amongst our Māori Affairs Committee in regard to your claims.

It is apt that I express some of my thoughts about this: it is hard. It is very, very difficult. But you have the mandate to pass these matters before Parliament, and we have the enormous task in terms of endorsing your aspirations. And so there is much acknowledgment, massive and huge, knowing full well at the same time that we have in our midst two people who have a good understanding about what is being sought: your member for Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian, and Meka Whaitiri. They are familiar with that kind of situation of being on this side of the Crown to challenge its needs and aspirations relating to back home.

Therefore, with that thought in mind, perhaps I should reveal some comments that emerged about this matter. Within the difficulties you experienced in seeking that confiscated lands be returned, and in those aspects relating to the office of Acts. I considered that the thing that was really very difficult was that we did not really see any remedy in the Glasgow leases. The circumstances within themselves about the lands of Pekapeka emerged last night as they were marching on the road. That got us thinking: “Oh yes, this matter is a really hard one.”

Regardless of that, you really have a huge task in terms of carrying out the aspirations of your people within some of the remedies relating to this bill. The hope is that the Crown will remain committed, regardless of who it might be, that a point will be reached when a remedy might be found for the lands that were confiscated—to be returned, that is the real wish. Even though there is no remedy in this bill, many concerns remain amongst us all still for the non-inclusion of regional council lands in regard to Treaty issues. In our view, if it is possible for us to give due consideration to that kind of situation, then a way might be found—a remedy, shall we say— for the tribes to work collaboratively with regional councils to manage the lands.

Another comment that emerged from within us related to the kinds of amendments to some of the legislation. The wish of the Government is to retain the lands and to build homes. Just last week some circumstances, some parts, relating to the Housing Legislation Amendment Act were amended, and, as a consequence, the Government considered that if it was able to retain the lands to build houses on them, amending the Public Works Act would be a mere formality—retaining the land would be easy enough, even if they are returned under the right of first refusal. This indeed is one of the concerns. Even if your claim is settled, amendments to other Acts may encumber, weigh down, or put pressure, shall we say, on your aspirations. It is right that these be placed before the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, because drawing out the concerns to settle the claims well should not be left solely to that bill. Therefore, Minister, we have all noted your desire for claims to be settled expeditiously. My hope is that Maniapoto is able to have their claims signed before the year ends. Further to that, we have considered that situation relating to earlier claims.

Now I look at clause 14(3)(a) and (b) in your bill, where all types of people are mentioned, the claimants who submitted their needs under the Tribunal. We note broadly just how many types of people there are under your bill. I commend them all hugely, their families and descendants, knowing full well just how long it has taken to see this day, today; a huge congratulations to them. Enough!

In regard to the commentary relating to clause 117, our considered view during our discussions was that we started by saying that this should not be repealed. It must be retained, even though we understand that local government would bring their own separate bill. We considered that if it is retained in the bill it demonstrates to the Government, to the Crown, the desire—in due course, at the appropriate time—that these lands be returned to you of Te Atiawa. That is the reason why we thought it should be retained within the bill. However, I have heard what the Minister has said and what my colleague Adrian has stated—that when the local government bill is passed, this section of your bill will be repealed—as well as the explanations. However, I am resolute that by it remaining in your bill, the Crown will know emphatically that perhaps at some appropriate time the lands should be returned to Te Atiawa. It is difficult, but the intention needs to be raised.

Therefore, I commend you all greatly. There is much to think about—the length of time this matter has taken for it to be completed properly. Personally, we think it is an iwi issue, and it is not for us to say to other iwi: “This is how problems among you should be dealt with.” It should be left for you alone to resolve.

Therefore, in addition to that, there is a brief opportunity for me to thank the Minister’s officials. We certainly challenged them to respond well to our questions before the select committee; we challenged them to set down iwi perspectives correctly before the select committee, and they did a fine job.

Therefore, Nuk, much of the accolades go to you. Despite the burden imposed upon you in regard to the petitioners that came before the select committee, you opened the door to them to enter and to express their views totally. That was a great thing you did for them and for our committee to be generous and to give freely of each other, regardless of the ups and downs. And so, to all of you Atiawa, I commend you and us all.]

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would really like to welcome our people of Te Atiawa here this morning and acknowledge you for being present in the House. It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I would also like to acknowledge Maharoa Okeroa, our Minister Finlayson, and also I would like to acknowledge our committee chair, Nuk Korako, who has worked tirelessly not only on this legislation but on a number of pieces of legislation.

I would also like to acknowledge the Te Atiawa iwi, those who have gone before us. I know the work that people such as Wikitōria Keenan put into preparing for this deed of settlement. I would also like to acknowledge the Te Atiawa generosity in accepting what has been offered in terms of this negotiation, because for everything that the iwi has been through over the last 156 years, or whatever it is, it has just been an awful situation, and it has taken a very long time to redress.

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

The Crown exacerbated the terrible impact of the wars on Taranaki by indiscriminately confiscating the entire rohe of Te Atiawa in 1865. In the 1870s and 1880s the Crown caused great distress to the iwi by the repressive measures it took to suppress the peaceful resistance campaign of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi who established the settlement of Parihaka. In 1879 and 1880 many Te Atiawa were made political prisoners and detained without trial in the South Island.

Although the lands confiscated made a significant contribution to the wealth and development of this country, in recent years many Te Atiawa people have lived in very poor economic circumstances. The resilience of these people is evident, and today this growing iwi has a vision of the future that moves from raupatu to restoration.

I would like to acknowledge the iwi today. I would like to acknowledge the vision that you have for your people of Taranaki. I would like to help you, and offer to be part of anything that you would like to do going forward. We have a lot of making up to do, and this settlement is only a very small part of that. So thank you very much for the opportunity. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.

Waiata

Bills

Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and Taranaki iwi, which was signed in a very emotional ceremony at Pukeiti gardens in September 2015. It provides financial, commercial, and cultural redress, and acknowledges the losses suffered by Taranaki iwi arising from very serious breaches by the Crown of its Treaty obligations.

Can I acknowledge the work of the Taranaki iwi negotiators, as I stare at Mahara Okeroa. Can I acknowledge my ministerial colleagues, local 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 very 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 25 March. Seven submissions were received from interested groups and individuals, and the committee heard from four submitters at hearings in New Plymouth on 2 June 2016. The committee reported the bill back to the House just a couple of weeks ago and recommended it be passed with a number of minor technical amendments. These include amendments to clarify the vesting of cultural redress sites, to clarify the right of first refusal provisions, and to update the legal descriptions of redress sites.

Can I say, it is a testament to the hard work of the negotiators that the Taranaki Regional Council fully supports representation of the iwi of Taranaki on the two council standing committees. Taranaki iwi also have the support of their neighbours for the progress of the bill and for joint redress, including the vesting of Ngā Motu with Te Atiawa. The matter of iwi representation on the Taranaki Regional Council standing committees also arose last week at the Committee stage of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. I mention it because it is relevant to both this and the other Taranaki settlement bill going through the House today, which contain the same provisions in relation to these committees.

At the Committee stage of the Ngāruahine debate, New Zealand First proposed a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to remove iwi representation on these two standing committees of the Taranaki Regional Council. I then explained to the Committee why it was appropriate to have iwi representation on these committees, just as, for example, some other members of the current committees are appointed from external bodies, including from Federated Farmers, who are, in effect, an unelected member. After my explanation, New Zealand First withdrew its SOP, and as far as I can tell—and I acknowledge that I am not a psychic—this could be one of the reasons New Zealand First has raised an eleventh-hour objection to this bill. It is simply unclear, but I very much look forward to hearing the explanation, because I think it is about representation. But I do say to those members, the clauses in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill dealing with this issue are exactly the same as in the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill, which, of course, they voted through a few minutes ago. So it is all confusing, and I very much look forward to hearing what I am sure will be a splendid explanation from Pita Paraone, or Mr Peters—well, from Mr Paraone.

The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi was the Waitangi Tribunal report about which mention has been made already this morning. It was released in 1996. It is well worth a read, including by people who write to me, as someone has this morning—I will not mention his name, because I do not want to embarrass him. He could be a New Zealand First branch chair. He wrote “I read with real disgust your further attempts to impose Māori on the rest of the population without the population’s consent.”, and then he commented along those lines—a very helpful contribution to the debate! But I do think it would be useful for people to look at the events underlying the Taranaki iwi claims, because they are some of the most severe in this country. I very much look forward to people like my correspondent learning more about Treaty settlements and, in particular, the history of Taranaki iwi and what they have suffered, and the history of what happened at Parihaka—and it was not all that long ago. I look forward to the continued benefit of Treaty settlements for our regional economies and Māori communities. These settlements, once they receive the Royal assent, will bring over $200 million into the great Taranaki province.

Throughout negotiations Taranaki iwi have signalled the importance of addressing the issue of Parihaka. The Crown’s actions at Parihaka were some of the worst examples of colonial repression in New Zealand, and judging from the contributions made by various members around the Chamber this morning, I think people know that pretty well around here. The Crown has to address the harm its actions caused the residents of Parihaka, both past and present. The Crown is working to restore its relationship with Parihaka, to re-establish trust with the community, and I think both sides are working very carefully and are not rushing things because this is a very, very important issue. As a first step in May this year, I signed a compact of trust with Parihaka. We are now on the road to reconciliation with the community, and it is a journey that is long overdue.

Ngāti Maru has now signed terms of negotiations and is ready to negotiate. That is the last iwi of Taranaki that will be involved in negotiations, and that now means that the Crown and all the iwi of Taranaki can look to the issue of the maunga. All iwi have connections to Taranaki maunga, and I look forward to beginning those negotiations in the near future with all the iwi of Taranaki, to recognise the importance of the maunga.

This second reading brings us closer to the concluding stages of the settlement process for Taranaki iwi, and seeks to recognise what is important to the people of the iwi and to provide redress for the historical breaches. I very much look forward to hosting the iwi of Taranaki here in Wellington for a joint third reading of the Taranaki iwi, Te Atiawa, and Ngāruahine claims settlement bills in the very, very near future. I commend this bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Te mea tuatahi māku e mihi kau ana ki tērā o ngā tuākana a Te Ururoa, nānā i whakapuaretia tō tātou huihuinga i te ata nei i runga i te huarahi tika, arā, mā ngā karakia. Tuarua, ki a koutou e Taranaki Iwi, tēnei ahau e mihi atu nei ki a koutou i tau mai nei ki raro i te tuanui o tō tātou Whare kia rongo ai i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tō koutou pire; nā reira, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki roto tēnei tō tātou Whare, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Ā, ka huri ake ahau ki a koe, e Mahara, mihi kau ana ki a koe nāu nei i whakapau ō kaha i tō wā i roto i tēnei Whare, i nāianei, e whakapau ana i ō kaha hei whakatau i ngā kerēme, nā reira, ka mihi ake ahau ki a koe mō ō mahi.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Acknowledging that senior colleague Te Ururoa, who opened our gathering this morning in the accepted manner, namely, through prayers, is the first thing for me to do. Secondly, I acknowledge you collectively, the iwi of Taranaki who have arrived here beneath the roof of our House to listen to the contributions relating to your bill; so welcome, draw hither, alight in this House of ours, I commend you. I turn to you, Mahara, and really commend you on the efforts that you expended during your time in this House, and now you are spending your efforts to settle claims, so I applaud you for your work.]

First of all, I would just like to say that I am disappointed by the exchange that I have seen this morning between members across the House. Yesterday in our Māori Affairs Committee we asked officials to leave. The members remained and we had a discussion around this when we expressed our views, led admirably by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. We said we would have our say in that select committee, we would do it face to face, and we would leave it there. So it is really unfortunate to see that the confidence of the Māori Affairs Committee, a committee that generally works very well together, has been broken. It was disappointing to see those exchanges because, to me, it was posturing, when we had had our say yesterday and it should have been left in the room there.

This second reading is a time to talk about the people and about the bill, and so we need to do that. Taranaki iwi, along with the other iwi around Taranaki maunga, were subjected to some of the most atrocious conditions by colonial forces back in the time. Some 1.2 million acres of land was confiscated from them. If we put that into the context of today, with our population of 4.8 million, 1.2 million acres would, in fact, provide a quarter-acre section for every New Zealander alive today. That is the extent of the confiscation of the land in that time. We need to reflect on just how great an impact that sort of confiscation would have on a people.

I think it was the first reading when I said that if somebody came and invaded our country and confiscated land, we would go to war to defend ourselves, and, quite frankly, that is what—well, actually, it is not quite what Taranaki did. In the first instance, they resorted to peaceful resistance. People who resorted to peaceful resistance were then arrested in their hundreds—most of them detained without trial—and yet nothing happened to the invader. The invader was, in fact, rewarded for its acts of aggression, and, consequently, now possesses most of the land in Taranaki, leaving Taranaki iwi basically landless. So this bill contains acknowledgments of the Crown’s actions that breached the Treaty of Waitangi, and it contains an apology for those breaches.

The apology and the quantum that is being returned—and I heard from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that some $200 million will go into the Taranaki region. That $200 million is great, but if we put it into the context of 1.2 million acres being confiscated and the price of land these days, we will see that it is just a drop in a bucket. I have also said in this House previously that we need to—sorry, I will just go to that text that the Minister read out. It was somebody basically objecting to all of this, and focusing on “You’re giving Māoris this and you’re giving Māoris that.” We should focus less on what Māori are getting and focus more on what has been lost.

When we look at the size of the loss and the scale of the loss, the $200 million that may be coming back pales in significance. It represents the ongoing impact of all of those actions of the Crown in the 1860s that are having a lasting effect on Taranaki iwi, and it has been replicated right throughout the country over time, through all iwi. The ongoing effects that we are now seeing in terms of Māori incarceration, the lack of Māori achievement, educational achievement at school—just the loss of Māori potential. It is the genuine hope that that $200 million will go towards turning that around, so that Māori in Taranaki can fulfil their potential from here on in and become the leaders in the economy, the leaders in business, the leaders in education, and the leaders in the community.

The bill provides a mechanism for iwi representation on the Taranaki Regional Council. That is admirable, despite the text that the Minister received and read out parts of. Minister, you should have a word to David Seymour about sending texts like that! The iwi are able to nominate three members for appointment to the committee of the council.

I really fail to see what the country is scared of when we have Māori representation. Let us face it: Māori are environmentalists—you know, into conservation, into doing what is right for communities and for the environment. Really, Māori participation in council and decision making is only going to bring strengths to the Taranaki region. It is not something that Pākehā should ever be scared about. The fear is really something that is self-generated and self-perpetuating.

The bill provides for changes to place names, and one of those place names is St George’s Redoubt. I went online to check out exactly the history around St George’s Redoubt. “St George” as a name for a Māori area to me is quite strange. I had to look up who the heck St George was, and apparently he was a Greek in the Roman army who was martyred because he would not give up his Christian faith. That is honourable, but what does a Greek Roman soldier have to do with Taranaki? The name is going to be changed to Tataraimaka. The history around St George’s Redoubt—basically, there was some armed opposition to British forces. There was a battle. There was retaliation by Sir George Grey, when some 29 locals from Taranaki were killed, and the remains of 28 of them were transported and buried in an unmarked grave. It was unmarked, except for a concrete slab, for some time. They were buried in this area.

It is important we realise that when we are talking about Treaty settlements we are actually talking about lives, about people who lived and existed and died for their cause. Those people died in a battle, and many more died in a battle of different sorts—just the battle to survive over the years. That is why it is really important that we do settle these claims. That is why I look forward to the swift passage of this bill through the House through all its stages. Nā reira, huri rauna i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, I acknowledge, congratulate, and commend you and us all throughout our House.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā, anō nā ka mihi ki a koutou e whakarongo mai nei i tēnei wā.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively there, once again, who are listening at this moment.]

I used to teach in a wharekura o Wairarapa. Every now and then I had one of my favourite students go: “Whaea Marama, ooh-sa—just chill.” I am going to take that on board at the moment, but I will be very interested to hear what the objections are in regard to this bill.

I want to echo the words of Te Whiti again: forbearance, patience, and stout-heartedness—that of the Taranaki people. I acknowledge Jamie Tuuta, Matua Mahara Okeroa, Toka Walden, Wayne Mulligan, Te Miringa Hohaia, who passed in 2011, and Peter Charleton, who passed earlier this year. Their efforts have brought us to this point, in hard-fought, hard-won negotiations. As long as we are here, we will have your back. As long as we continue to stand up and speak we will voice your concerns, as all of us in the House endeavour to do. I acknowledge all of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee and all of the members who have taken the time to consider the issues that have been brought before us.

You know, they are right. This is not the embarrassment of one group, that we do not see it all the way to the end. It is the embarrassment of the whole House. I take that on board. Our people have been mucked around by the Crown. That is why we are here. That is why the grievance exists. And we have been mucked around again. We all need to accept that that is our issue to bear. So I apologise, on behalf of the House, that we could not see this all the way through tomorrow. In The Taranaki Report, released in 1996, the Waitangi Tribunal said: “If war is the absence of peace, the war has never ended in Taranaki, because that essential prerequisite for peace among peoples, that each should be able to live with dignity on their own lands, is still absent and the protest over land rights continues to be made.”

The Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi in Taranaki included warfare and they involved loss of life, the scorched earth tactics, imprisonment, raupatu, disempowerment, and the Crown’s unprecedented actions at Parihaka. Given that just the other day was the day that we remember the suffragette movement—and if you see the flowers around the House, that is the acknowledgment of women’s right to vote—I want to take this whakataukī, this proverb, this expression, straight from Parihaka: “E tū tamawahine i te wā o te kore”.

[“Stand up, young women, at a time of nothingness”.]

That reference was made, and it encouraged the women of Parihaka to stand and speak, because all of the men had been taken away to prison, without trial, under the 1880 Maori Prisoners Act. And another is: “Piki mai i Pungarehu, ka tangi mai te piukara, he tohu reo ngā ngonga, e rere te manu nawa.”

[“Ascend at Pungarehu, the bugle sounds, the voice of the crushed is a signal, the bird in the distance flees.”]

This verse is from the waiata that refers to the bugle call at the army camp at Pungarehu. It signals the final stage in the process of loss for the people. You can almost feel and hear that bugle call now, as we sit in this House. We are at the final stage. We are at the last hour. We are at the moment when, finally, we can have the opportunity to take back and move ahead. Although that happens in law, we fully recognise that in Taranaki you have never stopped that fight. The whānau who are here have never stopped that fight.

I want to acknowledge those members in the House who represent that area, and the efforts that you yourself have taken, Mr Deputy Speaker, and they have taken to bring yourselves to the knowledge of what happened in Taranaki, at Parihaka. It is not taught. It is not known widely. You can go and visit towns anywhere in the region and talk to the local people. They know nothing about what happened there. So I want to acknowledge the efforts that you and your colleagues have made to engage yourselves with the information, to educate yourselves in this process, and to support the voice and the call of the people—because it is their bill. Parihaka has become a symbol not just of peace but of the future, with the Kawe Tutaki, which is being headed and chaired by the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, and all of those others who are involved there. The excitement, the possibility of maybe a Parihaka Day, a Land Wars Day, and all of these things—you can hear the bugle call coming to this point. So I honour their resilience, the strength, the determination to hold on to the rope. I recognise that this settlement is an opportunity to restore the dignity and the mana, and create a true semblance of peace.

The Māori Affairs Committee has examined the bill and unanimously recommends minor and technical amendments. The bill was sponsored by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson. He has led the process for the Crown and has done an exemplary job. We want to mihi to him. But I want to mihi to the people of Taranaki for their fight, their commitment, their determination, and their forbearance, as in the kōrero of their tūpuna. I am honoured, I am humbled to be here, as part of the Māori Affairs Committee and the Māori Party, to say that we support you.

Finally, in my first speech in this House I talked about the place where they passed those laws—the Maori Prisoners Act, the Tohunga Suppression Act, the Native Schools Act, the Suppression of Rebellion Act. When I first came to this House I went to look for that place where they stood and debated them. I wanted to see the seats they sat in, the House they stood in, and how dare they. How dare they talk about exterminating the natives—how dare they—and I could not find it because it had been burnt down. “Good job.”—that is what I thought. But the record of the speech, of the kōrero, remains because it is the record of the words that are uttered in this House. So we read into the Hansard, as the Minister did, the raupatu—the confiscation—the grievances, and the issues, so that they would never be lost; though the House burns down, the words remain.

And so the words of Te Whiti, of Tohu Kākahi, and of all our tupuna, ahakoa kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō, ko tātou te hunga ora i tutuki i ō rātou nā wawata, i ō tātou nei wawata, ngā wawata mō ō tātou tamariki, tamariki, mokopuna mō āpōpō, mō tēnei rangi, mō ngā tau kai te heke mai, toitū te whenua! Ko tātou i whakapau werawera i tēnei wā, mō te aha? Mō āpōpō! Mō te aha? Mō ngā mokopuna! Ahakoa ka mate atu, ahakoa ka ngaro atu, ahakoa ka ahi, ka wera Te Whare, ahakoa ka ngaro atu a Pāremata pea, kai reira tonu te kupu o ō tātou tūpuna. Ka tū mō ake ake tonu i roto i te ngākau o te tangata. Kai roto i te ture mō tēnei wā, nā reira, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, me ō koutou kāwai rangatira kai runga i a koutou; kai konei, kai konei, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Even though they may have disappeared into the void, we, the living, have fulfilled their desires, our own aspirations, and the yearnings of our children and grandchildren for tomorrow, today, and the years to come; the land is permanent. For those of us who expended sweat at this moment, what did we do it for? For tomorrow! Who for? The grandchildren! Even if I die and disappear, the House ignites, burns, even if Parliament vanishes maybe, the word of our ancestors will remain there. It will stand forever in the heart of the individual. At this moment it is embedded in law, and so I acknowledge you and your noble kinship ties that are upon you; they are here, yes, they are present, salutations to you all.]

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. He mihi nui ki Te Whare Pāremata me Taranaki Iwi katoa: te whānau, ngā kuia, ngā koroua, ngā tamariki, ngā mokopuna, ko rātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A huge acknowledgment to Parliament House, and all of the Taranaki iwi: the family, elderly women and men, children, grandchildren, all of them.]

Acknowledgments to all those who are here today, and all who are not here today and could not be here at this historic moment. I would like to also acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Māori Affairs Committee, and also the Pākehā MPs, like myself, who are from Taranaki—I am from Hauraki, actually—and the leadership we need to take.

It is time for Pākehā to take leadership on educating our own about the importance of the history of Taranaki. I know that that is what we are committed to doing as MPs and that we have been fortunate to be on a journey that many of our fellow citizens have not been educated on or felt willing to embrace. That is up to us. We need to do this. We need to do this after this. We need this settlement to not just be between the Crown and Taranaki iwi; we need to bring our Pākehā people on board. So let us do it.

Puketoretore (the water soaked peak) has emerged

my taiaha expresses satisfaction

I tread the land there below

bearing my taiaha like

the kakau toki (ceremonial adze)

When we walked to Parihaka with Andrew Judd, the maunga was covered in cloud, and then I experienced the moment that is expressed in these words—when the maunga peak emerged through the clouds briefly. There was a rainbow and there was a moment when we could see the maunga. We could see Taranaki in all its glory. We tread that road with satisfaction because, at last, Pākehā were walking. I would just like to acknowledge that we walked to Parihaka that day, and some of the people who are in this gallery were with us because Taranaki iwi, in their generosity, walked alongside us. It is time that the hīkoi is the hīkoi of my culture in support of these settlements. It is time for that. It was a privilege to walk through the whenua of Taranaki iwi—the lush green whenua, the rich lands, the stolen lands—to Parihaka to hear the drum, to be welcomed.

I would like to acknowledge in the House today the former MP Mahara Okeroa, who was present and who welcomed us, and all of Parihaka, who welcomed us in peace. In response to 1.2 million hectares being stolen, we have been offered peace. We need to take up that offer. I really need to acknowledge the importance of Parihaka. I am aware that the Minister is leading, as he does, another process for Parihaka in a creative way and that those processes will lead, hopefully, to an even greater national understanding of this place. Taranaki led the world in peaceful, non-violent resistance, as well as strategic warfare. I mihi to both those strategies, although I am in the Greens and we are non-violent. I mihi to both those strategies—

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Ha, ha!

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —because I am Irish—no, because I cannot help it. Both the strategic military response to colonisation and the non-violent response through Parihaka are a credit to Taranaki iwi in terms of their survival. It is really important to recognise that the world talks about Gandhi, but before Gandhi there was Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi. We actually led the world—this country. How many kids get up in school and know that our peace leaders—the peace leaders of Taranaki—pre-dated non-violent resistance in India? They led the world. What happened next? We need to know, and we need to talk about what happened next. That is why we tread the road.

I was proud to work with a mayor who actually understood this. I was at a seminar the other day with Andrew Judd and he said that before he was mayor, he had never been to a marae. He aha? How is it that we have leaders in this so-called successful democracy that we protect—“so-called” because we cannot have Māori representation, some people say—when we have a mayor who had never been to a marae? I bet he is not the only one. I hope he is the only one. He is not the only one now because he has taken steps to educate himself and to acknowledge, and he walked to Parihaka to do that. And we walked with him, and it was awesome because the people of Parihaka and of Taranaki iwi are here to teach us something about not only what it is to be in Aotearoa but what it is to be human. So I mihi to them, their tupuna, and to this bill as a chance for them to have a justice that will support the leadership they have already given this country.

Talking about some aspects of that bill—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is good.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: —ha, ha, it is all about the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, fear not—1.2 million acres was stolen, and $200 million is a good start, but, as everyone has said, it is a drop in a bucket. But we have to be real. You cannot live in this world now without cash, so at least it is a start.

I want to speak more fully, though, on the issue of name change. Name change is an essential part of the Treaty settlements and an essential part of this Treaty settlement. We have to help our people—I am talking about my people—recognise and reimagine reality here, that they are on Māori land, that this is Aotearoa, and that these places had names. One of the most powerful techniques of colonisation is to wipe out the names of places and replace them with names that do not belong there. My ancestors come from the other side of the world, and we brought our names. Fine—we need to remember who we are, but we should not impose our names. We should not. So I support this settlement because it gives back and recognises the names that have always been there, have always lived there, underneath the veil of the colonisation process. So good on the settlement process for that—for the naming as it should be. We need a lot more of that.

The other aspect of the settlement that I want to talk about is the Taranaki Regional Council—three members’ representation on some committees. Guess what! The Pākehās do not vote for Māori in local government. Let us be honest. I know numerous people who have stood for local government—Māori who have stood—and have not been elected, year after year. Māori representation has not increased.

Clayton Mitchell: That’s ridiculous.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: It is ridiculous? It is true. It is sad but true that the population—we only need to look at the number of Māori on district councils and you will see that it has not increased, but the number of Māori who are standing continues to increase. So what is happening? Why would we not recognise the Treaty and actually recognise the contribution of the Treaty partner? Why is it that the Westminster model is the only way in which people can be represented? Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi recognises that the relationship of Te Tiriti is not about imposing the supposed democracy, and that is what—I do not even think this goes far enough, but at least it is a start. Again, it is a start, but it does not go far enough.

The final things I want to talk about are—there are things that haunt me and should haunt us about this. We need to celebrate progress. We need to continue, and I acknowledge the Minister for the work around Parihaka. It is really exciting.

We also need to remember that if we do not know the stories, we cannot move forward. As a person who has worked in Te Tiriti education, I want to acknowledge that I have spent many times sitting down with students, mainly Pākēha, and talking about the laws that affected Taranaki iwi—the Suppression of Rebellion Act, the Māori Prisoners Act. We need our young people to fully understand that this settlement is about those Acts. It is about trying to redress some of what was done, what was laid down then through the law, through this Parliament—this very Parliament did that. That is where it happened. The Governor ordered Captain Cracroft of the ship HMS Niger to bomb the Warea kāinga. Redoubts were established—that is a small sentence; it is a cold sentence. We need to realise that bombing took place.

Now we need to do the healing. I honour Taranaki iwi, I honour Parihaka, and I honour the steps forward. Kia kaha. I am proud to have an opportunity to acknowledge you and to speak on this bill. Kia ora koutou katoa.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I just say, again, greetings to our iwi leaders who are here today. Kia ora, Wayne—I saw you slip in before. It is good to see you and acknowledge Toka for your leadership within Taranaki iwi, and also, of course, Jamie, Hēmi, and Mahara—an awesome negotiation team who I believe have done a fantastic job for Taranaki iwi.

Can I just say a few words: here in Taranaki we not just have the most profound history of the incredible hardship and duress and the shocking actions of the Crown against a people but we see this amazing response that leads the world—as the previous speaker, Catherine Delahunty, was saying—in terms of a peaceful resistance, which I believe is an international story. My hope, and I am sure it is yours as well, is that it becomes something that is increasingly recognised around the world as being something of tremendous forethought, thinking, depth of understanding, and nobility, and wanting to work through all the issues that all of that means.

We think back to May 1879, when the followers of Te Whiti and Tohu began to plough across Taranaki as an assertion of their rights to the land. By the end of July, just a few months later, 182 ploughmen had been arrested. A number of years ago, I went to Dunedin to look at the place of incarceration because, as Catherine and others have said, we have, certainly from Taranaki, wanted to know the story. I was shocked and appalled to see that place of incarceration that they were taken to, many without trial—and what trial, anyway, would ever be considered to be righteous? It never was. So I think what we see here is an action and a series of actions against a people who sought to stand on their ground and who sought to oppose in a peaceful manner, and yet were treated so poorly throughout the years that followed. Even the Crown’s compensation courts continued to perpetrate the confiscations in many, many regards.

I want to say just a few more words, because I think that there is, right now, this turning point between looking at the past, understanding where we have come from—which is very, very important—and then, also, being able to step forward into our future. When we have the third reading of this bill—and then from that comes the greater release of the redresses and the settlements—there comes the opportunity to rebuild the economic base that once was.

I look at the tremendous example of Ngāi Tahu, and my good friend and colleague Nuk Korako took us to Ngāi Tahu at the beginning of last year. We visited and met with them and learnt what they have done through their great skill and capacity, and how back in 1998, 18 years ago, they received a settlement of $170 million. They then built that asset base, as we know, to well over a billion dollars. They are the most prolific tourism operators, they have great holdings, and they have an amazing way of supporting their iwi, and I came away incredibly impressed at the industriousness and the great skill and strength that Ngāi Tahu bring not only to their people but also to the people of Canterbury and the South Island and to the whole country.

I see and acknowledge what is able to be contributed to New Zealand through these settlements. First and foremost, it is for our iwi to have that economic base so that they can fulfil their aspirations, but we know that when you are strong, we are strong. When you succeed, we succeed. This is important because all of New Zealand should be celebrating these settlements, because it is coming to an opportunity where we can see that dark and difficult past dissolve into a brighter and a greater future.

I want to say, as a member of the Taranaki community, that, particularly around Parihaka and the compact of trust, you can count on me to work with you to ensure your success. That place is going to be remembered and strengthened, and I believe it will be a place of great opportunity for the world to see what you have done in these difficult times. Kia ora.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Kia ora, tēnā koutou katoa. Can I just say to the people of Taranaki, who have heard all these statements out of this House these last 48 hours, to consider some of the facts. The Minister in charge of this bill, Chris Finlayson, says he came here to do good—his very words. No, he did not. He came here to make himself a Queen’s Counsel by self-appointment on 13 December 2012. He used his office as Attorney-General to make himself a Queen’s Counsel. He never got it from the profession, and surely he wants—after this, of course—to get a knighthood and be a judge as well, but he cannot win a seat.

Can I ask you this question—ask anybody in Taranaki mindful of the west coast leases and what the National Government then offered to the people of Taranaki back in 1997: a lousy $28 million. One party stepped up, with its leader, and said “No, we’ll pay the full price, $60 million.”, and we did. That is our record, not National’s. On the question of the Kermadecs—which is of interest to the people of Taranaki, as well—what happened in the Kermadecs? Well, the Government went down and sold out the total legal right, right under your nose, and the Māori Party was asleep. So before you hug your whānau from around the country, find out the Government’s record. Mr Finlayson told my colleagues—

Tim Macindoe: This is outrageous, even by your standards—absolutely outrageous.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and I do not want to hear from that flyboy from Hamilton, who would not know a Māori if he fell over one. Just keep quiet—you, sir, know nothing about the Māori world. I am talking about bills that I have been aware of since I was a young lawyer in the early 1970s. I do not want to hear from a schoolteacher like you who knows nothing.

Back to my point—back to my point. Mr Finlayson told my colleagues, he said: “Don’t worry about this provision in the bill. It’s identical to the Local Government Act.” He said it is identical to the Local Government Act. At that point, my colleague pulled the Supplementary Order Paper on his assurance. Mr Finlayson, that was false, and I will prove it to you. That was demonstrably false, and the whip can get up and make any comment he likes, but the reality is that I will prove, on the documents today, that what he said was false.

Todd Barclay: Sit down.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Here are the documents—oh, no, I am not sitting down. I will be here long after you have gone, sunshine. Ha, ha! I will be here long after you, because these Māori people up here are not going to be sucked in by your words of integrity and honesty and how you feel all the passion. Boy, I have been around in the Māori world a long time, and the last thing I am going to believe is you—make no bones about that.

Do you know what the Local Government Act says—hear these words: “The members of a committee or subcommittee may, but need not be, elected members of the local authority, and a local authority or committee may …”. If you go the bill that he said was identical—this “Blackstone of the Antipodes”, this leading legal mind alongside Lord Denning from the Commonwealth. He told everybody on the Māori Affairs Committee that it was the same, but listen to these words: “The Council must appoint …”—

Todd Barclay: Talk about the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is the bill, sunshine. I am reading from the bill—dummy from Gore. I am reading from the bill. The man whose—half his electorate organisation walked off and joined New Zealand First, and you can see why. In the deep south they like the truth. They like honesty.

Here we go: “The Council must …”. Is “must” the word “may”? Are they the same? Mr Finlayson, are “must” and “may” the same? Well, do not go to the select committee and pull a whole lot of flannel and think that you are going to get away with it. You are found out, sunshine.

He gets into a right little hissy fit. Did you hear him this morning? All the venom—“I came here to do good.” Oh, really? What did he do about the Kermadecs? Go and ask the people of Ngāpuhi. What did he do about the Kermadecs? Ask Ngāi Tahu. You thought you could walk through there without the member finding out. Well, thank heavens they have got a party called New Zealand First. They have got a party called New Zealand First, and we keep the system honest.

Tim Macindoe: Speak about the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is the bill, idiot features. Here we are, page 50—all right—clause 99(3). This is what is in the bill; I am reading it to you. That is how familiar he is, and that man is the whip. He is the organiser. You can see why National is falling in the polls, because that is the kind of “loony tunes”, disorganised twit it has got organising the National caucus. But here we go—here is Gerry Brownlee—

Tim Macindoe: Absolutely outrageous behaviour—horrible, even by his standards.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, lighten up, sunshine, I could eat you for breakfast.

Tim Macindoe: No, not for you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! I could eat you for breakfast. Listen to him—loud-mouth.

Here was Gerry Brownlee on Morning Report—he gets asked this: “How many National MPs were going to be there on Friday?”. Do you know what he said? “Ah, look, I can’t go into that because I am not the whip.” He is the Leader of the House. There is Tim—that is the whip there. I know you find this incredulous. I know you find this unbelievable, that he could be a whip. But Gerry had not even consulted with him, and perhaps he had an excuse there. But he said: “I am not the whip, and don’t have that info in front of me. But it would have been in the vicinity of, sort of, 40 people.” Right, so if he has got 40 and we have got 12, what is the problem? Come on, let me ask you this question. If we have got 12 and they have got 40—according to Gerry—plus the Māori Party, plus the Greens, and plus Labour, then why are we not here tomorrow on this bill? Those members shut down your right. They shut down your entitlement. They pulled—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Gerry Brownlee pulled the vote. “Mr Whip”, your bulbous, loud-mouthed behaviour does you no good at all. I have the transcript here of the Business Committee’s workings and its diary, and it says that you are telling bulldust, so leave and go somewhere else—thank you very much. The House has got better all of a sudden. Ha, ha!

Look, the interviewer is on to it. She said: “If there were 40-odd, wouldn’t that—hang on a minute, Mr Brownlee. If there was 40-odd, wouldn’t that give you the numbers?”. This is from the Morning Report interview this morning—a direct transcript. Guess what Gerry said—he said: “I think you’re missing the point here.” What point would that be? Could the House sit tomorrow—yes or no? Today he says you are missing the point. But this is the point, though: “If you had 75 percent of the MPs here, which I think is about 44 members in National’s case, then would you have had the numbers?”. Listen to this one here—I know the people in Taranaki have heard too much bulldust over the years to fall for this sort of flimflam from them. Guess what Gerry said: “No, because”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, Mr Brownlee, sorry.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Thank you, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I apologise. The erstwhile Mr Brownlee: “No, because there is a formula for how you cast your vote.” What formula would that be? The people of Taranaki are being taken for a ride right now. Pray tell me, the next speaker from National, what formula would that be? [Interruption] Do not laugh. Oh, they are looking down now, are they not? Ask the genius—the genius, the “Blackstone from the Antipodes”, the man who thinks he is up there with Lord Denning. What formula, Mr Minister, would that be? Caught out—he has been caught out by his own words.

Let me say this here: there is nothing to stop this legislation passing today and tomorrow. My party would be here to make sure it happens, as we said we would. I understand that every other party would have been as well, but National and the Māori Party briefly saw a chance to try to make some mileage. Well, it is not going to cut it—[Interruption] Do not shake your head. I know why you do that, because that is how you were born—with that stupid look.

Can I just say, very clearly, that what matters is that in the dark of the night, the Government sneaked a provision into legislation that had been voted down dramatically in New Plymouth in May of last year, when 83 percent of people in the Taranaki area came out and said they did not want race-based appointments to the council. There were 83 percent who said that, but not this National Party. Having campaigned on “Kiwi not iwi”—which got it in here—it is now going back to an apartheid-type system where it wants, under this law, to appoint six people, paid for by ratepayers, on to the council, and none of them would be elected.

This is the home of Sir Peter Buck. Sir Peter Buck, one of the greatest people ever, came to this Parliament. Māoridom still has that capacity in this Parliament, and what you are seeing today, I might tell you—whether you agree or not—is this: there is a party in this Parliament where Māori do not regard themselves as being pigeon-holed, being second-class citizens, or being tabulated by people like the Attorney-General. That party is called New Zealand First, and that is why we are making the stand we are making now.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e tū ake au i runga i ngā kaupapa o ngā poropititanga o Taranaki. Nō reira, kia tau anō te rangimārie ki a tātou. Taku kōrero atu ki Te Whare nei “kia ū, kia ū, kia ū” ki ngā kaupapa kōrero o ngā poropititanga e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Nō reira, e tika an kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā hapū katoa o Taranaki Iwi, ki a Ngāti Haumia, Ngāti Haupoto, Ngāti Kahumate, Ngā Māhanga-ā-Tairi, Ngāti Moeahu, Ngāti Kamarongo, Ngāti Tara, Ngāti Tūhekerangi. Nō reira, Taranaki Iwi, tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou: nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai nei, ki tēnei te ana raiona, nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so I say, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time I stand upon the philosophies of the Taranaki prophecies. Therefore, allow peace to prevail over us once again. My word to this House is “be firm, staunch, and resolute” to the philosophical talk about the prophecies as they relate to this bill. So it is fitting that I extend a welcome to all the hapū of the Taranaki iwi: to Ngāti Haumia, Ngāti Haupoto, Ngāti Kahumate, Ngā Māhanga-ā-Tairī, Ngāti Moeahu, Ngāti Tamarongo, Ngāti Tara, and Ngāti Tūhekerangi. Therefore, I say to you collectively, the iwi of Taranaki: welcome, come hither, and alight here into the lion’s den, salutations to you all.]

I am pleased to take a call on this bill—this bill here, the totality of this bill and its history in getting to the House today. Ki a koe, e Mahara Okeroa, tēnei te mihi ake ki a koe, mō ō ma’i ka ma’ia mai e koe, me koutou katoa e whakatū ana i t’ēnei, nō reira tēnā koe, tēnā koutou.

[To you, Mahara Okeroa, this is an acknowledgment for all your work, and that done by all of you as well in putting this up, so acknowledgments to you, Mahara, and to you collectively.]

I have said it often, and I am going to say it again on this bill: this is an expression of the generosity of an iwi to this country. When you accept a negotiated settlement that has a far lower value in commercial terms, then that is a gift to the country, and that needs to be acknowledged—despite everything around it, and in spite of all the issues that have been raised that are not really relevant to this bill within this, the lion’s den, and I suppose that we have to acknowledge that that is what it is. I acknowledge all of the negotiators—both the Crown negotiators and the iwi negotiators as well—for bringing this issue to the House. I started off by recognising our poropititanga, and I join with other members who have acknowledged Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi for their visionary way of taking action in a way that never ever diminished their integrity, their mana, and the interests of the people. That is why I say to the House today this is an act of generosity.

I support the bill because it is supported by all of the hapū of Taranaki iwi—that was very clear through the Māori Affairs Committee process. The changes that the Māori Affairs Committee has made are technical, and they make the bill a better one. I do want to address the issue of the Taranaki Regional Council. I think it is absolutely incorrect and wrong for anyone in this House to stand up and say that these clauses are race-based—they are not. These provide positions on a standing committee, not on the council itself. I think the issue that we also have to acknowledge is that Taranaki iwi, along with all the other iwi that have settled or are about to settle their claims, are a significant group within Taranaki, just like Federated Farmers are, and they have similar arrangements as well—without an Act of Parliament, without a deed of settlement. This is not about being Māori; this is about a large group of people within Taranaki who have—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise to the member, but two of my friends and colleagues are having a conversation that is somehow getting into the sound system, and neither of them have quiet voices.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: Thank you, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As I was saying, this is a standing committee of the Taranaki Regional Council, not the council itself. It will play a very important role in the future of all of Taranaki, and a major voice of Taranaki iwi needs to be at that table. They need to have their voices heard in that context, and I mihi to the mana whenua. It is not all Māori who live in Taranaki. This is not about race; this is about iwi rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall in her earlier contribution and Catherine Delahunty in her contribution, who highlighted those very facts. This is about upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I spoke earlier about ensuring that all settlements are enduring. It would be a travesty for this Parliament to pass a piece of legislation based on a deed of settlement and then to try to back out of it. Parliament is better than that. It is wrong for Parliament to even attempt to do that. A deed of settlement between the Crown and the iwi is a binding contract—binding. We, as a Parliament, have an obligation to make sure that we work through all of those processes and that we try to make the bill a better bill—not to change the substantive issues within it, but to address technical issues and make changes where there is an agreement between the iwi and the Parliament. So I stand here to refute everything that was said by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on this issue. Aroha mai, e te matua, kai te hē, kai te hē.

[I am sorry, sir, that is incorrect and wrong.]

I want to speak about the major part for me, and for many, which is around cultural redress. The cultural redress mechanisms cannot be quantified in monetary terms, but it is huge, in this bill, within this settlement. There are well over 20 statutory acknowledgments and there are deeds of recognition. There are all the cultural redress mechanisms within this bill, which add and acknowledge the mana of Taranaki iwi. I want to acknowledge those negotiators who had the tenacity to bring together such a comprehensive cultural redress mechanism within this bill. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Quite often, I think, those issues are lost within the context of the discussion in this House.

I do not want to prolong this discussion. I think in the second reading we need to move this along and make sure that we get to third reading at the earliest possible time. Nō reira, e Te Whare, tēnei ahau anō e tuku mihi atu i roto i ngā āhuatanga o ngā poropititanga; kia tau anō te rangimarie, kia ora mai tātou.

[Therefore, to the House, I once again extend a tribute of acknowledgment in the circumstances of the prophecies; allow peace to prevail once again, my appreciation to us.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Ā, Taranaki Iwi tēnā koutou! Kua rongo atu ki ngā korero i puta mai i te rangi nei e pā ana ki ngā taonga i waenganui i a koutou. Kua kawea e koutou tērā tino taonga mō tātou Te Māori, te maungarongo, hei ārahi i ō mātou nei whakaaro ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke, ahakoa ngā pēhitanga kei runga i a tātou.

Kua kite mai e au tērā tū āhuatanga kei waenganui i a koutou, nō reira, ka nui te mihi atu ki ngā whakaaro i puta mai e pa ana ki ngā mahi o ngā kaunihera ā-rohe. Ēhara tēnei wāhanga ki tō koutou nei pire, he wāhanga hou. Kua whai tauira koutou pea i tērā o ngā whāinga kei waenganui i Te Rohe o Ikaroa-Rāwhiti i raro i tērā ture mō Te Hawkes Bay Planning Committee. I hipa tērā pire, me ērā o ngā tauira, kia noho tata mai ngā mea Māori i runga i tērā komiti, kia aro atu ki ngā mahere, ngā rautaki o tā rātou nei iwi, nō reira, kua kite mai te āhua tauritetanga o te noho i roto i te wāhanga iwa tekau mā waru, atu ki te iwa tekau mā iwa. Kāre au e whakapono ki ngā kōrero i puta mai i te kaihautū o Aotearoa Tuatahi. Ko au tētehi i whakahē i tana kōrero nā runga i te mōhio, ahakoa ka tūtū mai ngā ringa Māori kei waenganui i ngā kōwhiringa pōti ā-rohe, he uaua kia eke i runga i ngā kaunihera. Ā, ka ahatia? Ka kitea i te tuatahi tēnei tū āhuatanga, whai muri i tērā, ka tae ki te wā ka noho he mema ki runga i tētehi Kaunihera ā-rohe. Nō reira, e whakapono au, he tīmatatanga tēnei, he tīmatanga.

Whakaaro ake au ki ngā momo tīnihanga o ngā ingoa Māori. E kaha ana te kōrero o Te Komiti Māori mō te whakamōhiotia kei waenganui i ngā kura, ngā hītori tūturu o ia rohe i te wā i tutuki ngā take Tiriti. Ka tīmata ki konei! Tīni ki ngā ingoa tika kei waenganui i ngā iwi, kia noho tūturu ngā ingoa Māori i runga i te whenua. Arā, mai reira, ka āta whakaarohia, he aha te tino pūtake o tēnei ingoa ki tēnei wāhi, he aha ngā whakamārama. He mea pai tērā e kite nei e au! Ko tētehi atu, ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki ngā wai māori, ngā manga me ngā awa, kua kite au i roto i ngā kōrero o te wā mō te mauri o te wai, te mana o te wai! He wāhanga tēnei kia tū tētehi pou hei whakatakoto i ngā hiahia o Taranaki ki ō rātou nei wai māori.

Atu i tērā, e Te Minita, tino whakaaro ake au ki ō kōrero e pā ana ki a Parihaka, me aku kōrero ki tēnei rangatira a Mahara, kia haere ngātahi ngā hiahia o te iwi e pā ana ki ngā take mō te whenua, ngā mea kei roto i te pire nei, ki ngā hiahia o te kāinga o Parihaka. Ko te tūmanako, ahakoa te aha ā tērā tau, ka whakatinanahia e tēnei Pāremata ngā wawata kei runga i tērā pā, a Parihaka. He tauira tērā ka pā ki a tātou katoa, Māori mā, Pākehā mā, kia kite i tēnei taonga o te maungārongo, te rongomau mō tō tātou nei whenua, atu i ngā take Tiriti, kei reira te tino whāinga: me pēwhea e taea tēnei motu e mau i ngā rongo, hei noho marire, hei noho pai tātou i runga i te mata o te whenua, hei mahi ngātahi kia puāwai pai a tātou tamariki katoa? Nō reira i kite au i te tino hua o te puāwaitanga o te whakaaro e pā ana ki Parihaka.

Karekau e hiahia ana ki te whakaroatia ngā kōrero, e tautoko ana i ngā kōrero o aku tūngane, a Adrian rāua ko Kelvin. Kia tāpiri atu ki te kaupapa nei, nō reira, Taranaki Iwi tēnā koutou katoa.

[And so greetings to you, the tribe of Taranaki! You have heard the contributions that have been made today about the treasures you have amongst you. You have borne that prized possession, peace, for us Māori as a guide for our thoughts regardless of the ups and downs, and despite the pressures upon us. I have noted that aspect amongst you, and so I admire you greatly for that.

I have much admiration for the views that have emerged about the functions of regional councils. This part of your bill is not a new one. You might have gained an example, perhaps, from one of those aims amongst the region of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, under that Act for the Hawkes Bay Planning Committee. That bill and other examples were passed so that those Māori members on that committee living close by could give due consideration to the plans and strategies that relate specifically to their tribe, therefore the similarity to how sections 98 and 99 sit can be seen. I don’t believe the statements made by the leader of New Zealand First. I am one who opposes what he said, because I know that despite the fact that Māori hands are raised to enter local body elections, it is very difficult for them to get on to councils. So what happens? In the first instance, this situation is identified and, after that, one eventually is able to sit on a regional council as a member, in time. So I truly believe that this is a beginning, it is a start.

I think about the various changes to Māori names. The Māori Affairs Committee has spoken strongly about the understanding there is among schools about the real history of each region at the time Treaty matters are settled. The change back to the proper names among the tribes begins here, so that the original Māori place names on the lands remain permanently. So from there the relevance and actual meaning of that name to this place can be carefully considered. I perceive that as a good thing! Furthermore, in terms of matters relating to fresh waters, mountains, and rivers, I have found out about the vitality and power of the water in the stories of the time. This part sets up a marker for Taranaki’s aspirations to their fresh water.

That aside, Minister, I have really considered your statements about Parihaka, and my comments to the esteemed Mahara Okeroa, and how they must go in unison with the aspirations of the tribe about matters relating to the land, things that are in this bill, alongside the needs of the Parihaka settlement. Regardless of what happens next year, the hope is that this Parliament implements the expectations placed upon that settlement of Parihaka. That model touches us all, both Māori and Pākehā, and to witness this treasure of peace and serenity for this country of ours, aside from Treaty matters, that is really what is being pursued here: how will this nation maintain a peaceful existence and work well together so that all of our children can come to fruition properly? And so I can see the real benefit in regard to the philosophy about Parihaka coming to fruition.

I do not wish to prolong the contributions, and endorse those of my colleagues Adrian and Kelvin as an addition to this matter, so congratulations to you, the tribe of Taranaki.]

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take another short call on the settlement for Taranaki iwi. Of all the Treaty settlements that have already been done to date, this one is actually the one that is probably the most meaningful for me, because this is the area where I grew up. I was born in Ōpunake and I lived a fair proportion of my early life near Ōrimupiko Marae. When I got married to my husband, Louis, we moved to a place called Ōaonui near Te Pōtaka. I went to school with many of the people who lived in and around Parihaka at that time—at Ōpunake High School. So, for me, this is actually very close to my heart and very close to home.

I would just like to reiterate some of the words that have been said around Parihaka from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in her speech that she has just made, about fulfilling the aspirations of the people of Parihaka. If you go into Puke Ariki museum in Ngā Motu you can actually see pictures of what Parihaka used to look like. To me, the devastation and everything that went on there—there are no words and no amount of money that can make up for that now.

But, again, I want to comment on the generosity of the Taranaki iwi in accepting this settlement, and I also want to make mention of Adrian Rurawhe, who talked about the economy. I have actually got a copy of an article that he wrote for the Opunake and Coastal News about the growing Māori economy and about the development phase and about the work that will happen for the young people. I really want to fully endorse that.

I really want to wish Wharehoka Wano well as tumuwhakarito of Te Kāhui o Taranaki Trust, and the trust chairman, Toka Walden, who went to school with me. About the 5-year strategy, I know there are plans, I know there are visions, and I look forward to seeing not only the economic benefits that come from this Treaty settlement but, I think, more importantly for me, the cultural redress. I look forward to Parihaka being a wonderful place again for your people.

So, for me, it is about any partnership between the Crown and the Taranaki iwi that can help to develop Parihaka, in particular, back to its status. It will never be what it was. It was taken away, and it is really sad that it was taken away in shame in such a peaceful protest, but we can develop Parihaka into something really fabulous again. So it is the economic redress, but, more importantly for me, it is the cultural redress. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and the iwi, which was signed in December 2015, the closing stages of last year. It provides financial and cultural redress and acknowledges the losses suffered by Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa arising from serious breaches by the Crown of its Treaty obligations. I want to, as I do always, acknowledge the work of the negotiators for Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, my ministerial colleagues, and the 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 hard work during the consideration of the bill and for the exploration of the issues that were raised in submissions. The bill was referred to the committee on 13 April this year, 19 submissions were received from interested groups and individuals, and the committee heard 11 of these at hearings in the Waitangi Treaty Grounds and in Wellington in June this year. The committee reported back to the House on 2 September, and it recommended that it be passed with some technical changes to land descriptions.

There is one particular matter I want to refer to. In its commentary on the bill, the committee noted there were several submissions that asked for Stony Creek Station to be transferred to Ngāti Aukiwa rather than Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, and they wanted it transferred as a distinct tribal entity. Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, who are the mandated negotiators, have repeatedly advised the Crown that most marae and hapū have associations with the Stony Creek Station and the adjacent Thomson and Clarke Blocks. For a number of years, certain members of the Ngāti Aukiwa hapū within Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa have occupied the Stony Creek Station.

There have been numerous attempts to repair the relationship between the iwi and the occupiers and have the occupiers leave Stony Creek. It is vital for the success of the Treaty settlement that the iwi can obtain its major Treaty settlement assets unencumbered and that they work together. The iwi is going to need to redevelop a farm that has been neglected and develop their assets for the benefit of all its beneficiaries.

The station and adjacent blocks are going to be vested in the post-settlement governance entity (PSGE) on the proviso that the PSGE is responsible for finalising ownership. The trust deed of the PSGE requires the trust to develop a fair and transparent process, open to all members of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa to review and determine the final ownership of Stony Creek Station no longer than 4 years after settlement date. If the process is not undertaken, any adult member of the iwi can apply to the High Court to have the conditions enforced.

The second reading brings us one vital step closer to concluding all the work that has been done on this settlement over many years, including by Dr Michael Cullen. It is a process where the Crown, with iwi, has sought to identify what is important to the people of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and to reach agreement on redress for historical breaches of the Treaty. I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ka tū au ki runga i te take o tēnei pire, Te Pire Whakataunga i ngā Kerēme a Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. I te tuatahi, ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki tō tātou Kaiwhakarite i te ata nei, nānā tō tātou huihuinga i whakarite kia aro pū ai ngā take ki roto i te wairua o ngā tūpuna, o ngā mātua kua riro atu ki Te Pō, kia tau tonu mai taua wairua ki roto i tēnei huihuinga o tātou. Ka tautoko anō hoki i ngā mihi ki ō tātou mate, ngā aituā maha o te wā nei, kia kotahi ai te tangi, kia kotahi ai te poroporoaki atu ki a rātou, haere mai, haere!

I tēnei wā, ka huri atu ahau ki ōku whanaunga nō te wā kāinga kua haere mai, kua takahia nei i te ara roa mai i tawhiti ki tēnei wāhanga o te motu, nō reira piki mai, nau, kake mai koutou ki roto i te tātou Whare i te rā nei. Mauria mai ko ngā aituā kai runga i a koutou, ngā aituā o te kāinga, kia tāpae atu ki te tāhuhu o tō tātou Whare, kia tukuna atu te reo poroporoaki me te tangi atu ki ngā mate. Koutou e ngā whanaunga, kua piki te ora, kua piki te wairua o tēnei ki te kite atu i a koutou i te rā nei, tēnā koutou, nau, haere mai!

Tēnā pea me tīmata ake taku aronga ki te pire nei mā ēnei kupu, ka kī atu: “Ko Waimahana te marae, ko Puhi o Te Waka Te Whare, ko Ōkōkori Te Kāinga, ko Mātaatua Te Waka, ko Hīona Te Maunga, ko Ngāti Aukiwa Te Hapū.” Ka pā taku whakapapa ki roto i ngā take katoa o tēnei pire, nō reira, e manawanui ana te kite atu i ētahi o ngā nekehanga kua whakaritea nei e Te Minita me ōna āpiha ki roto i tēnei pire. Ko aua whakaritenga, ko te whakahoki mai o ētahi o ngā wāhi whenua. Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō te wāhanga ki a Stony Creek, me ngā poraka whenua o Tamehana, o Karaka kia whakahokia mai ki a tātou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

E kōrero ana te pire nei mō ngā tātai whakapapa o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, ā, anga atu ki te tupuna rongonui, a Kahukuraariki. He āhua āwangawanga tēnei ki te kite atu i tēnei āhuatanga ki roto i te pire. Kua roa rawa ahau e mea atu ana, ko ngā tātai whakapapa o Te Iwi Māori, me kaua e whakakohatungia ki roto i ngā pire pēnei nā, ko te kī atu tetahi, he uri koe nō Kahukuraariki, nō wai atu raini, ka kī atu koe ki tēnā, ka poroa i ngā tātai whakapapa o tētahi atu. Koinā te pai o te whakapapa, ko ōna hononga katoa ka tuituia i te katoa, kaua ko te kī atu, ko koe me ō uri anake!

Mehemea ka kite atu koe i te whakapapa ō ōku matua tūpuna, ā, nā, ko ngā whānau o Kahukuraariki, nā, e whātoro atu ana ki roto i te rahi o Te Tai Tokerau ēngari, mā te pire nei e whakarite ana, anā, ko ngā uri a Kahukuraariki anake me ōna pānga, me ōna hapū katoa. Ko au tetahi o ngā uri o Ngāti Aukiwa ēngari, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki tērā taha o te puke kei roto au o mea—Te Whānau Pani, koia tērā, Te Whānau Pani! Aroha mai, ē, kua roa rawa ngā kōrero i te ata nei—ki roto i a au o Patunga, ko Te Whānau Pani. Mehemea ka kite atu koe i ngā whakapapa, anā, he tātai hononga ki ngā hapū katoa o taua wāhi. Koinā taku e mea atu ana, me kaua e whakaritea nei te whakapapa ki roto i te pire me ngā ture o te Pākehā, ko reira tātou ka raru ai! Kāti, ka haere tonu ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire.

Ko ētahi o ngā kupu ki roto i te pire nei, ko te hiahia o Te Kāwanatanga ki te whakarite i tētahi mahere whanaungatanga ki waenganui i Te Karauna me ngā uri o Kahukuraariki, me te hiahia kia whakaritea mai i taua mahere, i taua whanaungatanga ki runga i ngā uara, kua roa rawa tātou o Te Iwi Māori e mau nei. Ko aua uara, ko te pono, ko te tika, ko te aroha. Koinā ngā manako i roto i a au, i a au e pānui ana i tēnei pire me te kī, ko te hiahia o Te Karauna, ki te whakarite i tētahi whakawhanaungatanga hou ki waenganui i Te Karauna me ngā hapū o te kāinga. Āe, pai tēnā whakaaro, me whakarite i tētahi mahere ka āhei ngā rōpū katoa ki te kōrero, ā, ka totohe i ngā take o te wā ēngari, ko tāku e kī nei, me ū tonu ki ngā uara kua kōrerotia e au. Arā, he aha te tikanga o te mahere whanaungatanga ki waenganui i ngā rōpū mehemea, horekau ngā āhuatanga Māori kei roto. Kua kōrero atu ahau mō te pono, mō te tika, me te aroha. Mehemea ka haere mai Te Karauna ki roto i tōku marae, anā, ka tū ngā marae, ngā Māori o te kāinga rā ki runga i aua uara. Ko te hiahia, kia kite atu i tērā āhuatanga ki roto i Te Karauna. Hoi nō, he whakaaro noa iho!

Ka huri atu ahau ki tetahi ture tawhito i whakamanahia e tēnei Whare i roto i te tau 1874. Ko taua pire, ko te Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act. I whakaritea ki roto i taua pire, ka hoatū te wāhanga o Taimāro ki ngā uri e ono. Ka huri atu ki te kāinga o Waimahana, ka whakamanahia ki ngā uri 10, aua whenua. Anā, e whakaaro atu ana ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga. I ngā mahi māminga a Te Karauna ki te wehewehe i ngā hapū me ngā whānau nō rātou te whenua. Kua whakaritea ko te 10 anake ki roto o Waimahana, ko tokoono anake ki roto o Taimāro. I āianei nā kua kite atu, kua āhua raruraru tēnā whakaritenga. Ko ngā whānau katoa e hiahia ana kia whakahokia atu ki ō rātou ake whenua, nā, ka whai wāhanga rātou ki roto i aua kāinga. Nō reira, pai te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire. Ka whakatika tēnei pire i tērā ture tawhito arā, ko te Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act 1874.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ngā mahi o te tari Kāwanatanga, arā ko Land Information New Zealand. E mea ana ko te 6 eka i tāhae e rātou i raro i te mana o te Public Works Act. Koinā te take i tautoko ahau i te pire a Catherine Delahunty inapō rā, te Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. Ono eka i tāhaetia e Te Kāwanatanga i raro i te maru o te Public Works Act. Ka noho tārewa mō te hia roa, mō te wā tino roa. Nō reira, e hiahia ana kia kite atu te hokinga mai o te nuinga o ngā whenua o Matakaraka ki a mātou o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, he mea pai tēnā, he mea pai tēnā!

Kāti, i roto i te wā e toe nei, ka whakakapi ake, ka whakarāpopoto ake ahau i tōku kōrero me te ki atu, e tautoko ana mātou o Te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei pire. Me te hiahia kia kite atu i ngā hua kua kōrerohia mai ki roto i tēnei Whare, arā, ko te oranga o Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Kaua e māharahara, ēhara i te mea ka kī atu, he māmā noa iho te huarahi ki mua i a mātou, a Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa, i roto i ngā marama me ngā tau kei mua i a tātou, kahore! Ēngari, anei hoki ko te tūāpapa, ka āhei a Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa ki te tupu, ki te maranga ki roto i ō rātou ake kāinga, me ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki a mātou. Nō reira, huri tua atu ki a koutou e oku mātua, e te pāpā, e Pita, koutou, e tino hari koa ana ki te kite atu i a koutou, ko te manako i mau mai koutou i ngā kaimoana o te kāinga, ka waiho atu ki roto i taku tari, ā, taihoa ake nei tātou ka kōrero, kāti, kia ora tātou katoa.

[I rise to speak on the purpose of this bill, the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. First and foremost, I endorse the sentiments expressed by our member representative this morning. He was the one who blessed our gathering so that matters pertaining are focused solely upon the spirit of ancestors and forefathers who have gone to Hades, so that spirit will continue to settle within this gathering of ours. I endorse once again the tributes to our deaths and the many calamities of this moment, so that the grieving and farewelling tributes can be done jointly to them; welcome, depart!

At this point in time I turn to my relatives from back home who have arrived and traversed the long road from afar to this part of the country; therefore, welcome, climb aboard, ascend into our House today. Bring forth the deaths and the misfortunes that are upon you from back home to be set out beneath the ridge pole of our House so that farewell tributes and grief can be accorded to the deaths. And so, relatives, the wellness and spirit within me rise at the sight of you today, welcome, come hither, come aboard!

Perhaps I should begin my focus on this bill with these words by saying: “Waimahana is the marae, Puhi o Te Waka is the house, Ōkōkori is the home, Mātaatua is the waka, Hīona is the mountain, and Ngāti Aukiwa is the hapū.” My genealogy relates to all matters about this bill; therefore, I am staunch about some of the provisions the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and his officials have considered in this bill. Those provisions are about the return of some parcels of land. The Minister has commented on the part relating to Stony Creek and the Tamehana and Karaka blocks of land to be returned to us of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

This bill speaks about the genealogical connections of Ngatikahu to Whangaroa and focuses on the famous ancestor Kahukuraariki. It is somewhat concerning to see this aspect in the bill. I have been advocating for some time now that Māoridom genealogical connections should not be cast in stone in bills like these, nor to say to someone or whoever that you are a descendent of Kahukuraariki, nor to suggest to someone else that they would be removed from the genealogical ties that belong to someone else. That is the good thing about genealogy: all its connections are hooked up, it does not say that it is just you and your descendants only!

If you look at the genealogy of my ancestral forefathers, you will find all the families of Kahukuraariki there stretching out to the whole of Northland, but it is for this bill to determine that it will be only the descendants of Kahukuraariki, its connections, and all its hapū. I am one of the descendants of Ngāti Aukiwa, but give due consideration to that side of the hill that I am on of thing—of Te Whānau Pani; that is it, Te Whānau Pani! Apologies, the contributions this morning have gone on for so long—within me of Patunga, of Te Whānau Pani. If you were to see the genealogies, then you will find genealogical connections to all the hapū of that place. That is what I have been going on about. Genealogy should never be considered in the bill or in Pākehā law; that is where we will come undone! Enough, contributions relating to this bill must go on.

Some of the words in this bill express the desire of the Government to set up a relationship plan among the Crown and the descendants of Kahukuraariki, with the expectation that that plan or relationship be founded on the values that we of Māoridom have adhered to for a long time. Those values are honesty, truth, and empathy. Those, then, are the aspirations that are within me as I read this bill and stress that the wish of the Crown is to consider a new relationship among the Crown and the hapū back home. Yes, that is a good idea; consider a plan so that all groups are able to discuss and debate contemporaneous issues. But what I am advocating is that these must adhere to the values that I have mentioned. In other words, there is little point in having a relationship plan among groups if there is no inherent Māori perspective present in it. I have specifically referred to honesty, truth, and empathy. If the Crown comes within my marae, well then, the marae and Māori of that place will stand by those values. The hope is that those values are reflected by the Crown. But it is merely a thought!

I turn now to an old piece of legislation that was enacted by this House in the year 1874. That bill was the Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act. Six Taimāro descendants were considered and provided for in that bill. In terms of the settlement of Waimahana, 10 descendants were granted legal recognition to that land. And so I think about that kind of situation in regard to the deceitful actions by the Crown in dividing and separating hapū and families who own the land. Only 10 of them were considered in Waimahana, and only six in Taimāro. Right now that consideration is perceived to be somewhat of a problem. All the families desire to be returned to their lands so that they have a part in that place. So it is good to see that included in this bill. This bill will amend that old legislation, namely the Taimaro and Waimahana Grants Act 1874.

I reflect upon the role of the Government department, namely Land Information New Zealand, saying that 6 acres were stolen by them under the Public Works Act. That is the reason that I supported the bill by Catherine Delahunty last night, the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. Six acres were stolen by the Government under the auspices of the Public Works Act. It remained suspended for a long and protracted length of time. So I want to see the return of much of the lands of Matakaraka to us of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa—that is a good thing, a great outcome!

So in the time that is left now, I conclude and summarise my contribution by saying that we of the Labour Party support this bill, with the hope that we see the benefits that have been uttered in this House, namely the well-being of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa. Do not be concerned that I say the journey before us will be an easy one for us of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa in the months and years ahead of us; it will not! But here indeed is the foundation upon which Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa is able to grow, to rise up within their own homelands with all the aspects relating to us. Therefore, I turn to you collectively, my elders, to you, Uncle Pita, to all of you—I am really pleased to see you all. The hope is that you brought the ocean cuisine with you from home and left it in my office for us to talk about shortly. I leave it at that; my appreciation to us all.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. E hika, kāore au i te paku hiahia ki te whai atu i taku whanaunga, a Peeni, i roto i te whanau Heta, i Te Reo Māori mō taku hē me aku hapa i tō tāua Reo ēngari anō, kai te pirangi au ki te tū ki te mihi atu ki a koutou, ō tātou hononga whakapapa i roto i te whanau Heta, koira tāku.

Anō nā ki tēnei o ngā pire, kia whakahokia, ētahi aha? Pūtea, tikanga, ngā mea e hiahia ana koutou ki te hāpai, kai te hoki atu ki a koutou, ahakoa te mamae, te uaua. Ki a mātau, te paku o ngā rawa ka hoki atu ki a koutou ēngari, kua tae ki tēnei wā, nā reira, kai te mihi ka tika.

[So, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Heavens above, I do not really want to follow up on my relative Peeni in Māori in regard to the Heta family, not one bit, because of my faults and shortcomings in our language, but I do want to rise and acknowledge you in regard to our genealogical connections to each other in the Heta family genealogy, that is what I really want to do.

I also want to address this bill, to return what to you? Funding and correct procedure, elements that you want support with in regard to the things that are being returned to you, despite the pain and difficulty experienced. From our perspective, the resources that are being returned to you are so minimal, but, that aside, you have reached this point, therefore it is fitting that it is indeed recognised.]

I thought I might just go over exactly what is going on in this bill, for the benefit of those watching it and for our whānau. The bill is sponsored by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson. As we have said this morning, they are getting pretty good at negotiating—they do not like giving away too much anymore. We used to try to get a few things in there, back in the day, and we have got better as negotiators for whānau, but the Crown has also got better. So we acknowledge the Minister—hard fought for, some of the settlements, hard fought. The bill gives effect to the deed of settlement that was entered into in December 2015, but the agreement in principle was signed in 2007. The mandate was signed in 2001.

It has taken a long time to get to this point, and between 2007 and 2013 the negotiations that stalled were around the Stony Creek Station. We finally got to an outcome where it brings us forward, but it was an issue of contention in the Māori Affairs Committee and we debated it hotly to see whether we could find some other way to get it done. The settlement is made up of a package that includes a historical account, acknowledgments, an apology, cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress. The benefits of the settlement will be made available to all members of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, ahakoa ka noho ki hea [regardless of where they are living].

The Crown apologises—and sometimes even the apology is hard to hear—and although it is appreciated, it does little to address the issues. But the people are resilient. We have seen it over and over again. We are still here, we are still fighting, and we will push on, apology or not, redress or not, but it does go some way to try to rectify the taumaha that we find ourselves sitting under, or that the whānau find themselves sitting under.

So the cultural redress—let us just touch on that for a little minute. The cultural redress provides recognition of the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa with places and sites owned by the Crown within their primary area of interest. This allows Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and the Crown to protect and enhance the conservation values associated with these sites. Sometimes even that is hard to bear—there is a cultural redress, but the Crown still owns it. But at least we are acknowledged in it, in some small way.

The settlement provides for the vesting of 15 sites, though, back to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, subject to a few conditions. A statutory acknowledgment recognises an association between Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and a particular site and enhances Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s ability to participate in resource management processes—a step forward. The Crown offers statutory acknowledgments over four sites for which this can happen. The deed of recognition can be provided over sites where acknowledgments have been offered. So a deed of recognition says that Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa will be acknowledged in this place—thanks for that! It is hard, but thanks for that.

There is something called an “overlay classification”. It provides a very high degree of recognition and acknowledges Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s spiritual, cultural, historical, and traditional values in respect of that site, and that has got to be a step forward. Actually there are wāhi tapu across the nation that, you know, are not acknowledged. We talked about some of our Land Wars sites. I was there at the koroneihana when they returned that whenua of Rangiriri, and the kuia said to me: “Marama, you know when it’s Māori land: the road goes straight through it. When the road is straight, that was Māori land; when the road is curly, it’s going around somebody’s farm.” So even though it is hard sometimes to understand the recognition of these wāhi tapu, at least now we have it. We can articulate it, and we can start to tell those stories of why these places are important. So those classifications—they use all these flash words, but I am just trying to explain what they mean to us, in significance. We can tell our stories.

So the financial and commercial redress—you know, this is where it starts to bite a little bit. It is $6.2 million in lieu of the Crown’s commitment in the 2007 agreement in principle to maintain the stock at Stony Creek. So $6.2 million—it just seems so insignificant today compared with the generations of loss. And although we appreciate it, we also acknowledge that it is the koha of the people back to the nation that we did not demand more. But to think that since 2001 and the mandate—and that is despite the years of bringing it to that point, with the research, and those members of the whānau who have passed away coming to this day—it has been 2001 the mandate, 2007 the deed, and all the way now to 2016. It has been a long time coming, which makes the fact that we cannot be celebrating its end tomorrow somewhat harder to accept. We have heard all the debate this morning—I will not go back into it, although I am tempted.

But, whānau, I recognise that you are here and appreciate all of those who are not here, who have not made it through those 15 years since the signing of the agreement in principle, who have not made it to this point through the stalled negotiations, and who have not made it to this point since they started preparing the claim. I want to recognise them.

Nā tātou, te hunga tutuki i ō rātou nā wawata. Mēnā ka haere ā-kanohi ka kite ā-karu, ā, ka kōrero ā-waha, ka rongo ā-taringa, ā-wairua hoki ki te whakapono o ngā kupu. Kai te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki taku hoa, a Peeni, taku hoa mahi o te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, kua tautohetohe, kua wānangahia ngā take e pā ana ki a koutou, kua whakarongo anō hoki. Kua tae ki tēnei wā kia tutuki ngā wawata hei ture. Kāre i te mutunga; ā wai ake rā, ka whai tētahi rangi anō hai tutuki ā-ture nei ēngari i tēnei rā, ka neke kētia. Nā reira, kai te mihi ki a koutou, ōku hoa mahi, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[We are the ones who fulfilled their expectations. If one goes physically, one sees and hears firsthand, and spiritually as well, the truth of the words. I want to thank my friend Peeni, a fellow member of the Māori Affairs Committee that debated and deliberated and listened, as well, to matters related to you collectively. This point in time has been reached whereby aspirations are fulfilled and enacted. It is not the conclusion; in time a day will come to hand when it is effected, but it will be passed instead today. Therefore, I commend you and my fellow colleagues collectively, my appreciation to us all.]

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora koutou katoa huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou. I te tuatahi ka mihi au ki a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei aku nui, kei aku rahi i te tī, i te tā, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka tū au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. He pire nā te iwi o Ngāti Kahu me tōna whakataunga Tiriti, ā, nō reira, he mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you all throughout the House, welcome. In the first instance, I pay a tribute to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, accolades to you all. To my great and numerous from near and far, well done. I rise to endorse this bill, which belongs to the people of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa bill with their Treaty settlement, so a massive compliment to you all.]

The Green Party will be supporting this bill through all its stages. It is a small settlement in the scheme of settlements, but it has still been hard fought for by those who have been doing the work. Others have a great deal more knowledge than I do about the iwi and the hapū and the whānau connections in relation to this bill, but I do want to address the controversy that arose out of this legislation around Stony Creek Station.

There has long been in settlement bills—especially in the early days; less so these days—real issues around the recognition of hapū and the Crown criteria for whom it will deal with. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has talked about the mandate of iwi, and I acknowledge that that is the case with the process as it is, but that does not mean that that process delivers justice to all of those who have had their land taken or stolen by the Crown and who are entitled to justice through the settlement process.

There are a number of settlements that are controversial within the iwi and hapū themselves. The issue for me, as a legislator, is how we make sure that the process that is used to deliver justice through these settlements does not in itself create further injustice and does not risk modern raupatu. That is a question that has been considered often in the debate in this House, but not often enough in the review of the settlement process, which does, at times, create an injustice that cannot be resolved. It is exacerbated by the legal process, but not resolved by the legal process.

I think that that is, in effect, what is happening here. There is genuine controversy around Stony Creek Station. There was an occupation of that land over a long period of time by people who felt that they were having their land taken from them through the settlement. Whatever anyone may think of the individuals involved or the nature of that occupation, occupations by whānau, by hapū, and by iwi have been one of the only tools that they have had to demonstrate their connection to that land and their heartache at having that land taken from them.

It is occupations, actually, that have led to justice being achieved in many of those cases. It was the occupation of Bastion Point that led to the resolution of Bastion Point. The history of occupation has to be taken seriously as a means by which people who have no other legal opportunity, who do not have the financial resources to buy lawyers, or who do not necessarily have access to members of Parliament who will advocate on their behalf—it is often the only tool that they have to assert their mana over the land that they believe was wrongly taken from them and should be returned.

So I am concerned that the issue for Ngāti Aukiwa is not trivialised in this debate. It is a very real risk that, in the passing of this settlement bill, we are enacting a modern day raupatu. If we are going to pass this bill—and the Green Party members support Treaty settlement bills because we know how hard fought for they are and that there must be some restitution for the losses that iwi Māori suffer—we need to pass it knowing that. Knowing that means that there will be another day when we have another opportunity to remedy the wrong we may be committing today.

So we cannot do this without acknowledging that it is going to come back at some point and somebody is going to have to deal with it—maybe us; maybe those who come after us. In acknowledging that and in recognising that Ngāti Aukiwa, in this case, and other iwi and hapū in other cases of settlement controversy, have the right to have their injustices and the thefts of their land acknowledged and treated seriously in this House.

It is very important to us that we continue to review and reflect on the Treaty process itself to make sure that at every possible step it does not exacerbate harm, that it does not cause more raupatu, and that we are not continuing to cause harm to iwi Māori, to hapū, and to whānau. That is why we have always said that the full and final aspect of these settlements is what we write in the law, but we can never have a full and final settlement of the Treaty. The Treaty is an ongoing conversation. It is an ongoing issue, and it will be so for ever, because this is a colonised country. We cannot pretend that is not the case.

These settlement bills are one tool that we are using in the process of delivering genuine Te Tiriti justice over time. It is a tool that has its failings. It has its advantages, but it is just one tool in the ongoing process of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is why the process for these settlements must be under constant review and reflection to make sure that it is not causing more harm.

Unfortunately, I do not think that happens. We are actually on a journey with these settlements. There is a process that is under way. That process is rolled out, and there is not actually that much wiggle room. We know that iwi do not really get a chance to reassess, for example, the value of these settlements. We know that the mandating process is pretty much set in place. We know that the large natural groupings approach is pretty much set in place for the moment.

Let us not forget that all of those criteria for how these settlements occur are not criteria established by Māori; they are criteria established by the Crown and are rolled out because of the precedent of having done it so many times. That does not make it just. It does not make it the right process; it just makes it the process we are using today.

I want to genuinely acknowledge those who have worked very hard to get this settlement and to get some resolution for the loss of this iwi. I want to acknowledge all of those who have fought and lost their fight for justice for their losses as well today. Never let us trivialise the fact that sometimes we are causing harm in the process of trying to deliver justice to others. Thank you.

NUK KORAKO (National): Huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki ngā rangatira o Kurahaupō waka, ki ngā rangatira o te iwi o Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, nō reira, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Paremata. Mauria mai ō whakaaro ki te kaupapa nunui, nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[I acknowledge you all throughout the House. I acknowledge the esteemed ones of the Kurahaupō canoe and of the tribe of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, so come forth and welcome to Parliament House. Bring forth your views on this important matter, and so I commend you all.]

It is indeed my pleasure, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to speak on the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill at the second reading. I want to be quite specific in what I am going to present here, because it is very much reflective of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done since the first reading, particularly going out to Waitangi to hear submissions from right across the whānau, hapū, and iwi of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, and also to get a very, very good insight into the feelings of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa.

As has been said in this House this morning, I must say that it has not been an easy journey, but there are a number of things, and the first one would be the question around participation in that ratification process of the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa deed of settlement. We are advised that the level of participation was about 30.9 percent, and when we look at the total number of voting packs that were actually distributed, they accounted for about 2,426, but only 756 votes were received. This participation rate may seem in some ways disappointing, but we do understand that if you look at other Treaty settlements, this is considered a middle range of participation. That is the first point. Although we would all like overall participation to be higher and for more members of the iwi to have been involved, in this process our main concern is that members have had the opportunity, and we saw this. Members did have the opportunity to partake in this consensus, actually. That is the first point.

The next one is that, to me, there was also a very open and transparent process to ratify the settlement, including widespread advertising of the hui, and voting packs that were widely distributed. That is that second point. But we can only hope, particularly when we look at this ratification process—it is a signal, though, that once this settlement debate is completed in the third reading, there is still a lot of work to be done to actually bring everyone together to work together, to hoe the waka together around that really important value of kotahitanga.

The next part is that during the select committee process we heard about the disagreement over Mangawhero Marae and the settlement boundary. Looking at that, we were satisfied that the boundaries used in the settlement were appropriate and, given the support of most people in both Mangawhero Marae and Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, that the marae is a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa marae. That was really important, and that is something that we really did listen to, and we are very comfortable with that particular outcome.

We also heard about the issues surrounding the ownership of Stony Creek Station—it has been mentioned here before. I just want to mention the fact that it had been demonstrated to us that the station had been illegally occupied by some members of Ngāti Aukiwa. That has been an ongoing thing since 2007. It was quite disappointing that these members, as a subgroup of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, had devalued the asset that forms the key feature of the redress in the iwi settlement. We heard that most Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa hapū and marae have associations with Stony Creek Station, and most members of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa are also members of Ngāti Aukiwa. We have seen this before in Treaty settlements. The fact is that we did not want to play Solomon. We actually just wanted to get a very, very good overview of this issue. From the outside looking in, we were comfortable with the fact that there is that close association—bloodlines; whanauka—and so that is another part of the work that still needs to be done once this Treaty settlement has been finalised.

The other part of this is that we were alerted to the concerns that the bill would extinguish other hapū claims and relationships with the Whakaangi mauka and the Whangaroa Harbour. The relationship of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa to the Whakaangi Scenic Reserve is recognised through an overlay classification. However, this does not preclude other iwi or hapū from establishing a similar customary relationship on this site. So, again, it is actually acknowledging all of those who are involved and have relationships with the site. The other part of this is that we note that this settlement does not include any redress related to Whangaroa Harbour.

There was also some discussion as to whether the Crown should make acknowledgments to individual hapū—and this was a really important one; particularly the acknowledgement to hapū. However, the Crown’s approach—as we all know, working within the Treaty settlement process—is to settle with large natural groups, which, in this case, means that the acknowledgments and apologies are directed to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa as an iwi, rather than to any particular hapū. That was our resolution and our understanding. The only amendments we have recommended to this bill, though, are very technical in nature and relate to changes to land descriptions.

I look forward to taking this bill further after this second reading. I want to acknowledge those who have come from the Far North here to Pōneke today, and to also just acknowledge your manaaki to me, to our party, and to the Minister when we came to Ōtangaroa Marae in December to sign the deed of settlement. I was a witness to that. On that note, it has been a long journey. It will be a little longer—but we have been there—but it will suffice, and the third reading will come and you will have your settlement. As I have mentioned in my speech, this is only really the start of building that kotahitanga amongst your people and to taking that forward so that you are all hoe-ing that waka together.

Nō reira, e Te Mana Whakawā, e huri noa Te Whare nei, e ngā manuhiri tuaraki tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Therefore, to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to those throughout this House, and to visitors from afar, acknowledgments and salutations to you collectively, I commend you all.]

I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Kia ora. Tēnā koutou katoa, and greetings to the people from Whangaroa who are back home there now, watching this parliamentary debate and hoping for some justice.

Can I just say that it was curious for us to learn now that the Māori Party has members; indeed, the Green Party has members; and the National Party has members with the same reservations that New Zealand First has had for a long, long time. This matter was alive before the 1975 introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi legislation itself. That is a fact, and anyone who was a young lawyer back then would know that. So this is not new. But the point is that what we have got here is a whole lot of members of Parliament who are trying to say that a lot of people have relationships to certain blocks of land. That is not the issue; who has the principal relationship is the judgment that should be made now.

Can I just say that the second reading and the third reading of this legislation should be taking place today and tomorrow, and if people want to know why it is not—can I just put on the record a statement by Tim Macindoe from 4 September. He wrote to the other members of the Business Committee and he asked: “I imagine you are all receiving a large number of requests from your colleagues”—this is dated 12 September—

Tim Macindoe: That’s right—after the deal was done with your party and others.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no—I will read it out. I will read it out. Do not shout out. Have a Valium.

Tim Macindoe: This member is betraying the iwi and betraying the House and betraying the whips. He is deplorable.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—exercise some control. I am going to read it out. You cannot stop me—you cannot stop me.

Tim Macindoe: No honour at all.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am reading it out. He said: “I imagine”—well, given his mind, he probably imagines a lot, yes? “I imagine you are all receiving a large number of requests”—[Interruption]—“from your colleagues for leave on Friday”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Interjections are fine, but using words that the member used is unacceptable and we will not have that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “I imagine you are all receiving a large number of requests from your colleagues for leave on Friday, 23 September, as I have been from mine.” He asked whether or not there could be a reduction in the percentages and a vote on voices only. My colleague, the next day, sent a note that said: “Hi all, New Zealand First does not support this request for extra leave applications.” It is all there. He is now caught out—caught out by his own words—and no amount of bombast and shouting from the uneducated teacher from Hamilton is going to override the facts of this document. He has been caught out. The reason why we are not having the third reading tomorrow is that he has given too much leave for his colleagues to be going on an early holiday. It is that simple. All they needed here tomorrow, for the people of Whangaroa, was 13 members—all they needed was 13 members.

Tim Macindoe: They have now betrayed their members and the House and the iwi.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Do not tell me—tell the people you are lying to. Tell the people you are lying to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! I want this to calm down. The points have been made, and I ask you to just focus on what is in the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. What I am saying to the whip and to the National Goverment is—

Tim Macindoe: This is outrageous.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Do not shout out here—tell them up there from Whangaroa, face to face, that your document is not true.

Tim Macindoe: I’m very happy to stand by my documents.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no—no, you are not very happy, because you are trying to shout me down. And you are a junior member and will probably be gone very shortly.

Tim Macindoe: I’m telling the truth about your actions.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! You—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): As I just mentioned previously, I want you to calm this down. The points have been well made about the concerns, and I just want you now to focus, in the remaining time, on what is in the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, Mr Assistant Speaker, but what is most important here is that we have got a bill, in its second reading, that could be having a third reading tomorrow except that a whole lot of members of Parliament, including the chair of the committee, have grave reservations, and so does New Zealand First, and I will tell you why.

Hon Maggie Barry: Stick to the issues.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that member would not know a thing about Māoridom or, for that matter, about the Department of Conservation either, which is the reason why in the Trans Tasman Political Alert magazine she was described as a lightweight. Of course, she is going to get rid of, for $25,000, all pests in this country by 2050. If I was her, I would just keep my mouth shut.

But here is the point: what members need to understand is that you cannot negotiate justice without the facts, and in respect of what is happening in Whangaroa, what is happening here is that there is no resolution—and it is in the bill itself. It says that this is not a resolution. A long time ago, people like, for example, Dr Cullen and Shane Jones and others were up there—a long time back, in fact, they were reported in the Northern Advocate trying to negotiate a settlement up there, and there were the same problems back then as there are now. New Zealand First says that we will never settle it by passing this legislation and then saying: “Well, you can go to the court in the next 3 years, and if that is not resolved, then you come back here.” That is not a resolution at all. Why do we not put the fire power in, put the investigative capacity in, find out the truth, and pass a bill once and for all so that everybody in Whangaroa can be happy? Who could disagree with that—instead of saying: “Let’s go back to the court in 3 years’ time.” Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay for the court case?

Tim Macindoe: We’ve all agreed to. This is the member holding it up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will tell you what is wrong with this Parliament. There is somebody there who has no understanding of any Māori issue at all. He does not understand that some of us were young lawyers up there, seeing Nuku Stewart and other people, in Whangaroa, a long time ago. Some of your forefathers—I remember them so well. He does not, but he is so arrogant that he shouts down someone who does know these people—unbelievably arrogant. Why does the member for Hamilton not just keep his mouth shut?

As for “Madam Fox”, let me tell you: why is the real leader of the Māori Party not speaking today?

Marama Fox: Back the people.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Why is the real leader of the Māori Party not speaking today? Why is the real leader of the Māori Party not speaking here today? That is a party, of course, that is going to oblivion. In fact, the Government pays so much attention to them—

Tim Macindoe: This member welched on the deal. That’s the beginning and end of it—this member welched on the deal.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will tell the people of Whangaroa that if they witness what we are watching in the House today, it is every reason why they will know that they must not go with that group there. These two here: one is from Ngāti Porou; the other one is from the slum lands of England, and he is telling someone steeped in Māoridom in the north for hundreds of years to shut up in Parliament. How arrogant can you be? How arrogant can you be?

Can I just say this: I have gone back and studied this for a long, long time. This bill is not a resolution—everybody who knows the north knows that.

Tim Macindoe: It was when your party agreed to it. You have completely gone back on your word.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am dealing with the matter. [Interruption] I am on my feet and I will deal with this. I have asked members of the Government side to calm it down. Interjections are fine, but running commentaries and barracking are unacceptable. This is the third time—next time I will deal with this in a more direct manner.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I just say something? I have seen this sort of battering-ram legislation. I saw two iwi, in the case of the Tūhoe settlement, that were recognised by the most esteemed member of Parliament Māoridom has ever had here, by Ngata himself, just being ridden roughshod over. I am not going to see that happen up north—because that is what is happening here.

I do not think that myself or Kelvin Davis or Peeni Henare have the final answer to this, but we know that one is capable of being found. My point is, to run roughshod in this Parliament and override these people, without so much as a by-your-leave, is compounding the very error that this bill claims to be correcting. That is what is wrong with this. That is what is wrong with this, and that is why we are not going to back off and be shouted down. I believe it can be resolved.

For our part, New Zealand First will put the intellectual and professional firepower in to find the truth behind this matter. Because it is not possible—and we know, in our Māori world, this: what is the No. 1 principle of Polynesia or the Māori world? They who live on the land, who keep the land warm, they who are there should be the first voices on any matter. That is our rule—it has been for centuries. Why now have we got a group of parliamentarians, including some people who know nothing about this issue, telling us that they can correct it?

In short, if we cannot fix up this area, area by area, and not go for the clobbering-machine solution, let us give it to iwi, have all the fights internal—and then the Government members will get up in Parliament and say: “But we gave you all the land. We gave you all the money. Now it’s your problem. Now it’s your problem.” I can see them wiping their hands of it, and then they come in here with their fawned passion and concern. By gee, how I despise that. How many Māori out there are homeless? Tens of thousands of them. How many are in our prisons? Tens of thousands of them. Do those members have any priority about giving Māori a fair go in their own country? No, they bring in 70,000 foreigners every year to compete against Māori, and they stand up here and say they are concerned about Māoridom. No they are not. They are concerned about their own political longevity.

And I am telling you—mark my words—we will campaign on this issue all the way to the next election. We find out up there in Whangaroa who knows what they are talking about. I want those members to turn up in Whangaroa and explain themselves, but, of course, if they did, they would be run out of town. They would be run out of town, as a former Minister was when he went up there. So I say: “Tread lightly. Listen to what the local people are saying.” Why do we not come with a total resolution and not a half-pie settlement that, even in its own drafting, says that this matter will end up in the courts again. That is not legislation; that is foolery.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Māngai, oti noa, e tika ana kia tū ake anō ki te tuku mihi atu ki a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa nō reira, koutou mā kua tae mai ki Te Whare, me kī, te ana raiona, tēnei ahau tuku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. E mihi ake au ki ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, ki a Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoea, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangi Matamomoe, Ngāti Roha me Ngāti Rua, koutou katoa ngā whānau, ngā hapū katoa, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, ā, tēnā koutou.

He tino honore tēnei kia tū ake ki te tuku i taku kōrero ki tēnei pire. E tū ana ahau i runga i taku whakapapa ki a koutou, ki a Ngāti Kahu, ā, kua tae mai au i tēnei rā ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. Ka tuku mihi atu ki taku hoa mahi, otirā, ki taku whanaunga a Peeni Hēnare mō tana kōrero atu ki a koutou, me tana kōrero ki tēnei pire, nō reira, tēnā koutou.

[And so I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time it is fitting that I rise again to accord a welcome to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, and so to those of you who have arrived in the House—let us say, the lion’s den—I formally welcome you, come forth, draw close, welcome. I acknowledge all the subtribes as well of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa: Ngāti Aukiwa, Te Hoea, Ngāti Kaitangata, Te Pohotiare, Ngāti Rangi Matamomoe, Ngāti Roha, Ngāti Rua; all of you, the families and subtribes, welcome to you all.

This is a real honour to stand up to deliver my contribution to this bill. I stand on my genealogical ties to you, Ngāti Kahu, and have come here today to support this bill. I acknowledge my fellow colleague and relation Peeni Hēnare on his address to you and his contribution to this bill, so welcome to you collectively.]

It is a great pleasure to speak on this bill. Once again, I acknowledge my connection to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa. I am a descendent of Kahukuraariki as well, and I want to acknowledge everyone else who has arrived here from the Far North for the second reading of this settlement bill. We have heard a lot of discussion today around the process of settlements, and, as one of the few in this House who has had the honour and pleasure of negotiating a settlement for my iwi of Ngāti Apa, I know—I said this in my first contribution and I will say it again today—that this process has its flaws. So I want to actually acknowledge some of the kōrero that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has said around the flaws of this process. But I also want to address how that can be addressed in the future.

One of the key things around it is, of course, that settlement iwi—iwi that are in this process—have to ask themselves whether they can live with what this process can deliver and what it cannot deliver. That is an important part of the negotiating process. Quite clearly, we are in a position as a Parliament to acknowledge that they have gone through this process and have signed a deed of settlement, and now we are passing legislation that will enable that deed of settlement, which is a binding contract between the Crown and the iwi.

I want to talk about how that will look in the future, because we want these settlements to be enduring—that they stand the test of time—which is one of the key parts of the settlement process. So what are the redress mechanisms actually based on? The process means, and we have all acknowledged it, that the Crown can provide redress but not compensation, so we have to accept that. We have to also look at the basis for each of those settlements, and there are some key things that we should be mindful of when the Crown uses the mechanisms that it uses for the settlement process. It looks at things like the amount of land loss, the nature of that loss, and relativity to previous claims. It looks at any special characteristics particular to that iwi or claimant group. These are the things that we should be mindful of when we are discussing these issues about how these settlements come into being, and that it is a negotiated situation between the claimant group and the Crown.

As I have said, this process is not perfect, and it is incumbent upon every participant to ensure that they understand what is at stake. I believe that through the work of the Māori Affairs Committee—and I have read its report very carefully—all of those things have been considered. So I mihi to the Māori Affairs Committee.

So where does that take us in the future? I believe that we will not be able to address the issue of relativity until every settlement has been completed, because we do not know the relativity of this settlement to a future settlement. We know the relativity—or we might think we do—of this settlement to all previous settlements, and we, at some stage, will need to ask the question about whether that issue around relativity has been addressed to our satisfaction. So I acknowledge the contribution of Metiria Turei in this discussion, because I think she raises those very issues around how this might fit into the future.

This is a developing conversation, I believe, because if we look at previous debates on previous settlement bills, in the early stages when settlement legislation started, they could not possibly have predicted where we might be today—20 years later—and 20 years into the future. That is the discussion that we should have in a rational way so that we can preserve these settlements in an enduring way, but acknowledge that, at some stage, our future generations will have another look at it. That will be based around, I believe, the process of how we get to where we are today.

I do not want to take up any more of the House’s time. I think that today we should celebrate the really good things that are in these Treaty settlement bills, because they provide the opportunity for our people to enhance our aspirations moving forward for future generations. And so kei te mihi atu anō au ki a Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.

[I acknowledge Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa once again, and therefore commend us all.]

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Te tuatahi māku, he mihi kau ake ki ōku whanaunga e noho ana kei raro i te tuanui o tō tātou Whare: nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei tō tātou Whare, Te Whare o te motu. Aroha mai mō taku tōmuringa taenga mai i te mea, he hui anō tāku i roto i te tāone i mua ake nei ēngari, hari koa ana ahau ki te rongo i te mutunga o te kōrero a Peeni, nānā i kī mai nā koutou i mau mai ngā kai moana kai roto i tōna tari nā reira, tēnā rā koe mō tēnā koha ki a mātou. Kua rongo hoki ahau, ko Peeni e hiahia ana ki te tākaro mō te Piri Morgan, ā, nā reira, e tuku ana mātou Te Rōpū Reipa i a Peeni hei kai mō ngā toa o Whangaroa. Nā reira, e ngā whanaunga, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me is to acknowledge my relatives sitting under the roof of our House: welcome, come hither to this House of ours, the House of the nation. I apologise for my late arrival, as I had another meeting in the city prior to this one, but I am pleased indeed to have caught the end of Peeni’s contribution. He was the one who told me that you brought seafood, which is in his office, so thank you very much for that gift to us. I heard that Peeni wants to play for the Piri Morgan, so we of the Labour Party allow you, Peeni, to be fodder for the champions of Whangaroa. Therefore, thank you to the relations.]

I just first apologise for being late to the House, because I did have a meeting in town, but I did catch the end of Peeni’s speech where he said that our relations from Whangaroa brought down the kai moana and it is in his office, and we thank them for their koha. Also, we are offering up Peeni as the sacrificial lamb for the annual Piri Morgan inter-marae rugby competition that is played in Whangaroa every Labour weekend. Despite his advancing years, we are offering him.

The people of Ngāti Kahu are my whanaunga. We are related through a number of ways, but one of our whakapapa lines—one of the many lines—is through Pōhurihanga of Kurahaupō waka. Pōhurihanga had Muriwhenua—most of the Far North was named after Muriwhenua, who had Tamatea, a well-known explorer in his time, not least of all because the longest Māori place name in New Zealand is a reference to him. He had Kahungunu, and we spoke about Kahungunu in the House last night. I acknowledge my tuahine here, Meka. Kahungunu had Kahukuranui, who had Kahukuraariki. I am not descended, as far as I am aware—unless my father has got some secrets that he has not let out—from Kahukuraariki but, instead, from the sibling of Kahukuraariki, Rākaihikuroa. So that just goes to show the complexity of our whakapapa and how we are all related.

Pōhurihanga of Kurahaupō, though—and one of the reasons I brought this up is that we talk about these settlements being full and final and enduring. With the Kermadecs situation, maybe that is on pause. Maybe that is on hold; we are not quite sure. We cannot really stand here with our hands on our hearts and say that these settlements are now full and final and enduring if the situation around the Kermadecs is to continue. The reason I am trying to link it in is that Pōhurihanga’s name, I believe, was just Pō, but when he came over on the Kurahaupō waka and it started to leak a bit, he had to turn around and go back to the Kermadecs, and turning around is like huri—Hurihanga. Pōhurihanga parked up the waka on the Kermadec Islands and fixed the waka up before he proceeded on again to New Zealand. I would say that probably happened a number of times with many waka, but it is just an illustration of our links to Rangitahuahua, the Kermadec Islands, but also the significance now that the Kermadec Islands are playing in all our settlements.

There are real concerns that what was a settlement that was made around the fisheries in 1992 is no longer that permanent, enduring settlement. So we come to the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa settlement. It will go through the House and all its stages and, no doubt, it will be passed. I hope that 25 years from now there is not another MP standing up and going: “Oh, sorry, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, the Government has changed its mind and the Act as it was passed in 2016 is going to be changed.” I think it is a very important note to make that when we say that these bills are enduring and full and final, that is exactly what they are.

The bill itself relates to Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s historical claims, mainly to pre-Treaty land transactions and Crown purchasing. I spoke a bit about that last night, about the Crown’s devious ways of purchasing land—the surplus lands policy. I spoke last night about how James Busby managed to get his hands on a hundred thousand acres around Ruakākā, which is not in Whangaroa. It was just an illustration of the way that land was taken off our people and they were left, basically, landless. The Crown failed to protect Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa reserves, and took land under the Public Works Act. Again, I acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for her bill, which, sadly, did not pass last night.

There are about 3,000 people in the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa tribe. I just want to talk about the ratification process the bill went through. There was concern about whether there was sufficient support. The level of the participation and the ratification was 30.9 percent of those who participated. The process lasted 7 weeks, and of 2,426 voting packs that went out to registered adult members, 750 votes were received. There is concern that that is low, but in the scheme of things, when you look at all the different statistics around all of the settlements that have gone through, the numbers and the percentages of people who voted and participated in the ratification process, this is actually a mid-range level of participation. I guess it is incumbent on people that if they receive a voting pack for their iwi issues, they actually need to engage in the process, and it is really at that stage that people can express one way or the other. There is no point in having a democratic process and then saying that the process did not get the result they wanted if they never actually voted.

We have heard about the disagreements around whether Mangawhero Marae and Ōtangaroa should be included in the settlement boundary. We considered it, but did not consider that the boundary issue at Ōtangaroa was an obstacle to negotiations, because the Crown recognises general areas of interest rather than a precise boundary during the settlement process.

Just in the short space of time I have left—we have touched on the ownership of Stony Creek. I do have a concern that the quantum, actually, is all tied up in Stony Creek. I would have liked to think that the people of Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa not only get Stony Creek Station back but also got a dollop of pūtea to go with it. Several submitters argued that Stony Creek should belong to Ngāti Aukiwa, as a distinct tribal entity from Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa. However, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa said that most hapū and marae have associations with Stony Creek Station as well as the Thomson and Clarke lots in Taemārō Marae.

I remember, basically, this bill was my introduction to politics. There was a day in December of 2007; it was the day after the end of the school year. I had resigned as the principal of Kaitāia Intermediate School, and Shane Jones said to me: “Hey, you want to get into Parliament? Come out and meet your constituents.” So I went out to Taemaro Bay—a beautiful spot, as is the whole coastline around Whangaroa—and, not knowing what I was walking into, I should have known better than to wear jandals and a T-shirt; I should have worn my flak jacket. That was the day that Michael Cullen turned up in a helicopter and I found myself standing in between some angry Ngāti Kahu whanaunga and Michael Cullen. I was standing there, linking arms with Shane Jones’ son—thank goodness he was bigger than me, because I would not have been much protection for him, I have to admit. The interesting thing about it was that the guy who was right in my face there, being probably the loudest, is a guy whom I have subsequently worked with on other issues and find him quite a nice chap.

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

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Ā, e rau rangatira mā tēnā koutou, whakatau mai ki tēnei Whare i tēnei rā mō tēnei mahi hirahira. Nō reira, ko tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora mai tātou!

[And so salutations to you collectively, esteemed ones of a hundredfold, pay homage to this House today in regard to this important task. I therefore acknowledge you and indeed us all, greetings!]

It is a pleasure to speak to this, the second reading of the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill. I would like, firstly, to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson; the Māori Affairs Committee; and the chair of the select committee, my colleague and friend Nuk Korako, for their excellent work in getting this bill to this stage. I would like to extend the dialogue that my colleague Nuk Korako introduced when he was making his contribution, around the work of the select committee. The select committee had 18 submissions, and, it is fair to say, a number were opposed on a number of issues. Those issues included hapū ownership versus iwi, and the mandate in overlapping boundaries—issues that we have seen in other Treaty settlements. As my colleague commented, questions were raised around the participation rate, and others have also said the same—that at 30.9 percent, is that a number that is valid? As it has been noted, as we look across other deeds of settlements and other post-settlement governance entities (PSGE), it actually sits in that mid-range.

I want to drill down a bit, just to give some sense of depth as to how detailed the reach-out to the community was. There were 7 weeks of ratification process. There were four ratification hui. Voting was open for 10 weeks and 5 days. It was advertised in local papers, major national papers, local radios, email lists, and Facebook, and, as has been commented, 2,426 voting packs were sent out. The participation rate of 30.9 percent was across the deeds of settlement and PSGE.

I think that what also came through and was part of the select committee hearings was the claimant definition, which is jointly established by iwi and the Crown, and that definition was retained from when the mandate was first established 15 years previously—that is, the claimant definition is the descendants of Kahukuraariki, or any other recognised ancestor of the group, defined in Part 8 of the deed of settlement.

To review, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa went through the tribunal process in the 1990s, and the tribunal found that Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s claims were well-founded claims and recommended a settlement negotiation. The Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Trust Board sought and obtained a mandate from the Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa claimant community.

What a beacon of light this iwi is in Northland. I will make no mileage of the discourse of the past 24 hours in this House. I will make no mileage of the confused major iwi at their boundary. The mileage this iwi wants to make is to move forward, and I say to them: “Keep moving.” Which iwi will be the first to have settlement in the east coast of Northland? It will be Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa. Again, please, I say to ngā iwi katoa “Keep moving.”, and with our love and support, that is exactly what will happen. Nō reira, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 107

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. The bill gives effect to a deed of settlement between the Crown and Rangitāne o Manawatu that was signed in November last year, and that settles all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to Rangitāne. I remember the signing ceremony very well. It was in front of the beautiful whare of Rangitāne in Palmerston North, and in front of the whare there is this big pou, and there are two people on it, at the very top. One is the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham, who was the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and, believe it or not, staring vacantly into space, is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I do not know whether he knows he is on that pou. I think it is a very good place for him to be, because, basically, he has been up a pou most of the morning.

The settlement comprises historical redress, which records the breaches and the past injustices caused by failures of the Crown; cultural redress, recognising the traditional, historical, cultural, and spiritual associations of the people of Rangitāne with a number of their most special sites; and financial and commercial redress, which reasserts the role of Rangitāne in the region. Rangitāne and the Crown have worked very well together to develop a settlement package that reconnects Rangitāne with its environment and that provides a good, strong economic base for the iwi to grow.

Can I acknowledge the excellent work of the Rangitāne negotiators, particularly Danielle Harris, who worked so very long and hard on this matter; my ministerial colleagues; and Government and other agencies who have contributed to the bill. As always—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And her mother.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oh, that is a fair enough point, actually—and Ruth Harris, who passed away some years ago, who started the matter off and did a very good job. I thank the right honourable member for one constructive contribution this morning.

As always, I want to thank and acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, which, once again, has done an excellent job in progressing this bill in a timely manner. The committee began its consideration of the bill only in May and considered nine submissions from interested groups and individuals, and they heard from five submitters at a hearing in Palmerston North. The committee reported the bill back to the House early this month and recommended it be passed with very minor changes—they are of a technical nature, and I am really pleased that that is the case.

Rangitāne has done a great job. They chose a pragmatic approach to the redress they were seeking, focusing on their core area of interest, and they conducted an open and robust overlapping claims resolution process. The bill, with its very limited number of amendments, is a testament to the hard work of the negotiators. In its report, the committee commended how overlapping claims issues were addressed during negotiations and noted that “this settlement seeks to balance the interests of all iwi in the area, with the underpinning rationale that commercial redress is intended to contribute to re-establishing an iwi’s economic base.” This perfectly captures what is intended through each Treaty settlement negotiation. It describes—and indeed it was here, with the discussions that took place—the fine line that has to be walked between addressing the longstanding grievances of one group and giving them the means to move forward, while ensuring that we are not creating further grievances with surrounding groups.

One issue raised in the submissions, and it has confronted the Rangitāne negotiations since the process began, is the inclusion of the Ngāti Tauira hapū in the Rangitāne claimant definition, a very difficult issue. The committee accepted that Ngāti Tauira’s primary affiliation is with Ngāti Apa, but found that “Ngāti Tauira clearly has whakapapa, social, and political links to both groups.” I believe this settles this matter once and for all. Ultimately, members of this particular hapū have the option to benefit from either or both settlements, as long as they descend from the respective tupuna.

Finally, some submitters stated that although the settlement does not fully compensate Rangitāne for the injustices of the past, it provides an opportunity for the iwi to find some peace with the past and a path to the future, and I certainly hope that that is the case. This bill signifies an end point to the long process of negotiation for Rangitāne, and it is now time to find some measure of peace and look to the future.

I am going to leave my final thanks to the Rangitāne negotiating team until the third reading. However, before I end, I want to acknowledge the patience of the negotiators, who must be anxious to reach their settlement of these historical claims after so many, many years in negotiation. I want to assure them—and I am sure that everyone in this House shares this view—that we want to see a just and durable settlement for Rangitāne o Manawatu as soon as possible. So I look forward to the third reading of the bill and commend this bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. E kī ana te kōrero, “tini whetū ki te rangi”, Rangitāne ki te whenua, tihei mauri ora! E tika ana ki te tuku mihi atu anō ki Te Iwi Rangitāne o Manawatū, ngā whānau, ngā hapū katoa o Rangitāne, nō reira, koutou mā e whakarongo mai nā, e mātakitaki mai rā, tēnei ahau tuku atu mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

Kei te mihi atu anō ki te āhuatanga ki ō tātou tini mate, rātou katoa kua hinga mai nā puta noa ngā moutere nei, tae atu anō ki te haerenga atu, te wehenga atu o te whaea nei a Ruth Harris. E tika ana kia tuku mihi, poroporoaki anō atu ki a koe e te whaea, nō reira, koutou mā, haere, haere, oti atu te wā ki a koutou, e moe.

Ki a tātou katoa ngā mema Pāremata, tēnei anō au e tuku mihi atu ana ki a tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The aphorism states, “like the multitude of stars in the sky”, so is Rangtāne upon the land, behold the breath of life! It is right that a tribute is accorded once again to the Rangitāne iwi of Manawatū and to all of its whānau and hapū, so to those of you listening in and watching there, I accord this tribute to you all, greetings.

I acknowledge the circumstances of our numerous dead, all of those who have fallen there throughout these islands, including the departure and loss also of this auntie Ruth Harris. It is fitting that I accord a farewell tribute also to you, the beloved auntie, therefore, to you collectively, I bid you farewell, travel on, the time for you all is at hand, rest.

To all of us, the members of Parliament, I acknowledge us all once again.]

It is a great pleasure to stand to speak to the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of the Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson. The name of the whare in Palmerston North is Tūturu Pūmau. The pou that stands there has a number of other figures. I want to mention one. I started off during other contributions talking about ngā poropititanga, and on that marae we have a tribute to Mere Rikiriki, a very important poropiti, and Tahupōtiki Wīremu Rātana. I want to acknowledge the contributions that both of them had to the history of Rangitāne. It is important to mention that. It is, of course, a beautiful marae there, and it was a pleasure for me to also attend the signing of the deed of settlement.

I too will acknowledge Danielle Harris and her tenacity, which she, obviously, inherited from her mother, Ruth Harris. I think I mentioned this in the first reading. When I was the chair of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa, we often sat opposite each other at tables on various matters, and both of them are formidable. I want to acknowledge the work that Danielle has done to get this bill into the House.

Also I acknowledge Maurice Takarangi as well and all of the team behind them who have done such wonderful work. It was not easy for them, and it was not easy for Ngāti Apa, but I think that through the select committee process, on the key issue that the Minister has raised, they have come to a happy place. Might I say, it might not be what each individual iwi wanted, but from my view of the world, as an uri of Rangitauira, a descendant of Rangitauira, I am very happy to be part of a hapū that has, basically, got two settlements. It is quite a rarity. And if the Crown wants to do that, that is fine with me.

So within the settlement, of course, like the other settlements that we have discussed and debated in the House today, this particular one also addresses a sad history around the interaction between the iwi and the Crown, and the Crown’s inability at that time to address all of the issues. So we come today with a determination that this bill will move forward. I acknowledge that people were expecting this to be passed into law tomorrow. It is unfortunate that it is not happening now.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)