Tuesday, 29 November 2016

Continued to Wednesday, 30 November 2016 — Volume 719

Sitting date: 29 November 2016

TUESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Parliamentary Precinct Buildings and Kaikōura Transport Infrastructure

1. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; with fear and trepidation that I am about to be mauled by the member.

Ron Mark: How does he stand by the statement on the new “Parliamentary Palace” that “It just makes sense long term for us to own those premises.”, when he does not have the same view on the ownership of State houses or, for that matter, State power companies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I can assure the House that if that member got anywhere near ever being a Minister, he would be the first one around measuring up the carpets and trying to check that it was a big enough office for his ego. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Ron Mark: If he says “the economics support that view”, how much rent has the taxpayer paid for Bowen House since it was sold in 1998 by a National Government that included Ministers English, Brownlee, and the current Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility—the right honourable Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member will appreciate that (a) I do not have that information. The Speaker’s office may have that, as he is someone who is responsible for the parliamentary precinct. Secondly, I was not in Government in 1998, nor was I in Parliament, but Winston Peters was.

Ron Mark: If “the economics support that view” in 2016, does that not mean that the sale of Bowen House by the National Government was hardly prudent economic management on behalf of the hard-pressed taxpayer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; I think circumstances change. But one thing that we are aware of now, I think, is that under an MMP environment, where there are changing configurations in Parliament—and, actually, with the increase in security risks, as we saw on Budget day in 2016—it makes sense overall to complete the new parliamentary complex. As I said at my post-Cabinet press conference yesterday, it makes economic sense, and I think it actually makes practical sense for Parliament as an operating unit.

Ron Mark: If the 1998 privatisation of Government buildings, which included Bowen House, was meant to build “a broad Kiwi shareholding democracy”, why was the company it was sold to subsequently taken over by Australians and de-listed?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be some prime ministerial responsibility—the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, (a) I do not have any knowledge of that, and (b) I do not have any parliamentary responsibility for that. But given that the member is in a party called New Zealand First and that he seems to be opposed to everything that migrants and offshore people do, I would have thought that he would like a parliamentary complex owned by the New Zealand taxpayer, not a building owned by a foreigner. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call Ron Mark, I just need a little less interjection from my right-hand side.

Ron Mark: If in 1997 the cost to build the “Parliamentary Palace” then was $94 million, how could the cost in 2016 possibly be $100 million, particularly when it now includes a rebuild of the press gallery—is it not more likely to be in excess of $200 million?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the simple answer is that I do not know what they were proposing in 1997, but my guess is that it was a completely different complex. As the Speaker correctly said yesterday—in his capacity in regard to the parliamentary complex—this makes sense for the taxpayer because the ultimate cost of owning the building over a long period of time is actually cheaper than paying rent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A little less interjection now from both sides of the House.

Denis O’Rourke: With regard to his many statements about Kaikōura’s post-quake transport priorities, does he see the extension of the Kaikōura Airport runway as an urgent priority for Government funding, to enable larger aircraft safe access for passenger and freight services; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have is that that is something that the council may have discussions with Ngāi Tahu about. I think that from a freight perspective, realistically, the logical use is not necessarily flying things in all of the time. As was announced yesterday, I think, KiwiRail is looking to get into coastal shipping in a more significant way. That will allow a lot of pressure to be taken off the system by freight trucks, and that will then allow some capacity for more to be trucked, actually, into Kaikōura itself.

Denis O’Rourke: What assurance will he give to Kaikōura residents and businesses that the Government will fund essential upgrades, as well as the current remedial work on the inland road, to provide a resilient and higher-capacity alternative road to Christchurch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member really needs to direct that question to the Minister of Transport, who has responsibility, via the Transport Agency, for the remedial work on the damaged roads. Clearly, the No. 1 priority is, ultimately, ensuring that there is a stable and long-term, suitable road that would form State Highway 1. But, of course, over time there will be work done to the inland road.

Denis O’Rourke: Will the Government provide funding to KiwiRail and to Lyttelton Port Co. to ensure that a new ferry service is provided between Wellington and Lyttelton, at least for freight?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yesterday KiwiRail indicated, I think, that it was interested in and would be pursuing the coastal shipping option. I think that fits in with the fact that many of the freight operators have indicated a desire to undertake firm commitments on coastal shipping while rail access is unavailable, which it will be for a considerable period of time. What is used and how KiwiRail actually secures that vessel is a matter for a commercial operator.

Housing—Affordability and Availability

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): As I said in answer to exactly the same question from the member over 3 months ago, “I stand by my full statement, which went on to say ‘But just think of the things we have done over the last 2 years alone.’ To say we have done nothing is absolutely not true. We have done a lot. So let me remind the House about the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. It includes a new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, over 210 special housing areas for 70,000 new homes, an expanded HomeStart scheme to first-home buyers, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, Resource Management Act reform, a raft of extra tax measures, the new Auckland Unitary Plan, more tools for the Reserve Bank … By any measure, this is a comprehensive housing plan.”

Andrew Little: Is he concerned that the average mortgage for a first-home buyer is now 43 percent higher than just 2 years ago?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I saw the member’s selective use of data this morning. What I can say is that of course people will be borrowing more, because house prices have risen, but the good news is that they will be paying half the interest rates they were when Labour last left office.

Andrew Little: What proportion of young Kiwi families have the $100,000 deposit needed now to buy the average first home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details; you would need to direct them to the Minister for Building and Housing. But what I do know is that the Government has introduced the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme, which enables a great many young families to get support from the Government. Many of them are required to have only a 10 percent deposit because of, effectively, the Welcome Home Loan scheme, and the like. There are, as we know, plenty of first-home buyers coming into the market. For instance, since the Reserve Bank series began in August 2014, the number of first-home buyers per month has increased by over 50 percent, from 1,277 to 1,967.

Andrew Little: Does he still not see that rising house prices are just shutting young people out of buying their first home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think when the member sees the most recent data that will be released, he will actually see that the raft of changes that have been made by both the Reserve Bank and the Government are seeing more first-home buyers actually coming into the market.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with his finance Minister that interest rates are likely to rise next year; if so, what impact will this have on young families with large mortgages?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am glad the member has raised interest rates, because they were a disgrace under the previous Labour Government. The good news is that under the careful economic management of the finance Minister, interest rates have halved. Yes, they may go up a tiny amount, on the basis that interest rates are so low that deposit rates are lower at the moment, and therefore banks have to borrow a little bit more from offshore. Actually, the offshore market is subject to all sorts of things beyond New Zealand’s control, including a more stimulatory policy from the United States President-Elect.

Andrew Little: Given that answer, can he confirm that the gap between New Zealand and US interest rates was 2.8 percent across his time in office, and 2.8 percent across Labour’s last term in Government; if so, why is he trying to claim responsibility for global interest rates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I cannot confirm that gap, but I can confirm that the gap between Labour and National was 22 percent in the last poll.

Andrew Little: Why does he not just adopt Labour’s Kiwi Build programme, build some affordable homes, and give young people a fair shot at the Kiwi Dream, instead of crippling them with dangerously large mortgages on overpriced houses?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the voters know that it is a load of rubbish, and that is why the Labour Party is polling 28 percent.

Marama Davidson: Given that under this Government too many people are unable to afford a home and the planned offload of hundreds of State homes in Invercargill and Horowhenua has failed, why is he now planning to try to transfer thousands of State homes in Christchurch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry, Mr Speaker—could the member please repeat the question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member probably knows, the transfer of State houses in Christchurch is all about increasing the number of community housing providers and social housing providers in that market. So the advantage of that, of course, is that it allows the Government to use that capital to build even more State houses, with better configurations, in places that they are required. That is also why the Government changed the previous policy, which locked out social housing providers from getting access to income-related rents. As a result of this policy, which has widely been endorsed right across New Zealand, we are now going to see more community houses, State houses, and social houses provided to families in need.

Marama Davidson: Will he insist on pushing through this failing policy of shrinking the Housing New Zealand stock in the face of opposition like the Press editorial, which said yesterday: “It is hard not to feel dismayed by the dreary lack of ambition … and to wonder whether the Government is simply washing its hands of one of its most important and central roles.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What that shows you is that that editorial writer does not understand what is happening, and that is because what is happening here is that the number of social houses in New Zealand is dramatically increasing. These are not being sold to a private developer; they are increasing because there are now more social housing providers. That money will be used to build new houses in locations where they are required, like Auckland.

Economic Outlook—OECD Report

3. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The OECD recently released its 6-month economic outlook forecasting that New Zealand will continue to grow at around 3 percent over the next 2 years. It is moved along by high net immigration, rapid growth in housing construction, and a flourishing tourism sector. It forecasts unemployment will drop to 4.9 percent; that wage growth is strong in construction, finance, and healthcare; and the OECD points out that the Government’s books are in reasonable shape.

Sarah Dowie: What does the OECD report say about New Zealand’s fiscal position and resilience?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The OECD points to, I think, well-understood risks to the resilience of the New Zealand economy, and those are house prices, household debt, and the economic prospects of our trading partners. However, a number of factors maintain New Zealand’s ability to deal with any external or internal economic challenges: relatively low net debt and Government surpluses. The OECD points out that New Zealand has room for further monetary policy stimulus if necessary, and notes that the Reserve Bank has tightened loan-to-value ratios in the housing market.

Sarah Dowie: How does New Zealand’s economic and fiscal position compare with other OECD countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Pretty good. The OECD counts New Zealand as one of seven countries in the OECD that are on track to a fiscal surplus. Over the next 2 years New Zealand will be in the top third of OECD countries on the following measures: fiscal balance, gross debt, net debt, GDP growth, and fixed capital formation. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection now coming from my immediate left has been continual since the start of question time. If I need to ask a member to leave to get some cooperation from my left, I will certainly not hesitate to do so.

Sarah Dowie: What reports has he received on the economic outlook in the United Kingdom, and how does this compare with New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have often compared ourselves with the UK, and last week it released its autumn statement. Growth in the UK has been revised down to 1.4 percent, and is expected to stay below 2 percent through to 2021 while it tries to balance its budget between 2020 and 2025. Where the New Zealand Government’s net debt is tracking down to 20 percent of GDP, the UK net debt is now expected to peak at 90 percent of GDP in 2018.

District Health Boards—Emergency Department 6-hour Targets and First Specialist Assessments

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): People have raised issues around the detail of the health targets, on and off, for 7 years. However, when I was down at the emergency medicine conference in Queenstown last Monday, clinicians told me that they strongly support the 6-hour emergency department (ED) target because it has improved the quality of care right across our hospitals. As shown by recent Auckland University research, the ED target has reduced crowding in emergency departments by 50 percent, and, very importantly, it has literally saved 700 lives per year since its introduction, and that is a very real achievement.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was on notice and it was specific: “On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?”. The Minister did not answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the answer given, and my interpretation was that the Minister was saying that that information has been coming in on a very regular basis—I think he quoted over 7 years. The way forward is that I will provide the member with an additional supplementary question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I also listened carefully to the answer. The Minister spoke about health targets in general and people making comments about health targets, not this specific target.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard the point. I have invited the member to ask an additional supplementary question. That is the way forward.

Hon Annette King: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards—on what date?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I reject the central premise of that question, but, as I said in my opening answer, people have been raising issues around the health targets, including the ED target, on and off, for 7 years. The fact is that the ED target has saved 700 lives a year and has reduced crowding in EDs by 50 percent across our hospitals. That is a major achievement.

Hon Annette King: If he has been assured of the integrity of the health targets—that they are sound, as he has claimed publicly—why is he asking officials to investigate?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, whenever Mrs King raises an allegation, I have found that it pays to go and check it. That is why.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not raise this issue; it was raised by research by Dr Peter Jones. So to say that I raised it is completely wrong and not telling the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That now becomes a debating matter, not a point of order. I invite the member to continue with her supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Does he disagree with Dr Jones’ finding that data manipulation occurs mostly in sites that were inadequately resourced to match the pressure put on staff in district health boards (DHBs) to meet his target?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not think Dr Jones has said that. I mean, I can quote you here what Dr Jones has said. He said: “The length of time people stay in hospitals across the country has reduced on average by about 7 hours since the target was first introduced.” He said: “Emergency department stays for all patients have reduced by over an hour, and for patients needing admission to hospital by about 3 hours.” He said: “Where I work at Auckland City Hospital, the average time it takes for patients to get to the ward from the emergency department once the decision to admit them to hospital has been made has been reduced significantly, from eight hours to … one and a half hours.”, and then it goes on to say—he says this direct quote: “We found the introduction of the six-hour target was associated with a substantial 50 per cent reduction in the number of patient deaths in emergency departments—that’s about 700 fewer deaths than predicted … This result mirrors the 50 per cent reduction in emergency department crowding.” And I can tell the member that I was a house surgeon with Peter Jones. I know him well, and he is a big fan of this target—a big supporter of it. He said, when it first came in, that he was initially sceptical, but now he says it is one of the best things the Government has done for EDs.

Hon Annette King: Who has directed Waikato District Health Board to shuffle resources around to focus on first specialist assessment at the expense of follow-up appointments and elective surgery, leading to fewer elective hip and knee surgeries, with 831 performed in 2015-16 compared with 966 the year before?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, what I can tell that member is that, actually, Waikato DHB has performed extremely well on elective surgery over time. There has been more and more money going into that particular DHB, and the idea that Waikato is not producing more appointments, more operations, and better access to services for people in the Waikato DHB catchment area is completely incorrect.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act (OIA) response dated 25 November 2016 for Waikato District Health Board showing that it did fewer hip and knee elective discharges in 2015-16 compared with the year before, as I said in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is unnecessary. Leave is sought to table that particular OIA response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table the increase in Waikato’s elective surgical discharges, also in its hip and knee discharges, progressively over the last 8 years.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I need to put the leave. Does the member—[Interruption] Let me put the leave first. We will tidy that. Leave is sought to table that information of output by Waikato District Health Board. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The document that I am tabling goes back to 2002, right up to 2015-16, so, in fact, when I was given approval to table it, I was already tabling what the Minister wants to table.

Mr SPEAKER: When the member sought leave to table her document, she quite specifically compared 2015-16 with the year previously. That is the information that I put to the House, and it decided to table that information.

Hon Annette King: Is he saying that orthopaedic clinical director Stewart Hardy was not telling the truth when he told management of Waikato District Health Board that “My other concern is that individual surgeons are now being approached to cancel their operating lists to do FSA [First Specialist Assessment] clinics.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Unlike the member, I do not go around accusing other people of not telling the truth.

Earthquake Recovery—Support for Wellington and Kaikōura Businesses

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Following the 14 November earthquake, the Government announced an initial support package for businesses in and around Kaikōura. Since that time, Ministers have been working closely with other affected communities and industries on the type of further support that may be needed. Yesterday social development Minister, Anne Tolley, and I announced the extension of the Government’s business support package to severely affected Wellington businesses. The package will support businesses not covered by their insurance that are unable to operate due to cordons in place in the Wellington CBD and Lower Hutt, and are unable to move and operate elsewhere. The Government will continue to monitor the situation in other parts of the country affected by the earthquakes, and would encourage anybody who is struggling as a result of them to contact the Government helpline.

Chris Bishop: How does the situation in Wellington differ from Kaikōura and surrounding areas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Wellington overall is functioning very well. A local state of emergency has not been declared, so the main impact has been felt by a relatively small number of businesses stuck behind cordons that have been put up in the days since the earthquake. So, although the level of funding will be the same per business—that is, $500 a week per full-time permanent employee and $300 a week per part-time permanent employee—we have limited it to businesses behind those cordons that are unable to operate or move elsewhere, recognising that, largely, Wellington is open for business. The situation in and around Kaikōura of course is quite different, as it was clear from the first day that it would take a lot of time to restore road access to the town and surrounding towns. So, in that case, most businesses are able to open, in fact, but do not have the customers able to return to Kaikōura.

Paul Foster-Bell: What other support is the Government providing to those affected by the earthquake?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Following consultation with the Kaikōura community, we extended the initial support package to cover larger businesses there as well. Although set for an initial 8-week period, that will be reviewed before Christmas to assess what sort of extension is required. Revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse has announced a range of measures to help those affected by the earthquake, including waiving the use-of-money interest when a person is unable to pay tax on time and the cancellation of late filing and late payment penalties. Primary industries Minister Nathan Guy has announced a primary sector relief package worth at least $5 million to lessen impacts on farmers, fishers, and growers, with a further $2 million for scientific research on the impact of the earthquake on fisheries around Kaikōura. Minister Guy and I are working closely with the wine industry in Marlborough to ensure that roadblocks to its recovery are removed, particularly in relation to storage capacity for the 2017 vintage.

James Shaw: If it transpires that there are businesses in Wellington that are at risk of going to the wall but do not meet the existing criteria, for example, being behind a cordon, how flexible is he willing to be with the criteria in order to ensure that businesses that need that support get it?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As we have said since the beginning of this period post the earthquakes, we are happy to adapt the package as required from time to time. I would encourage anybody in that situation to call the Government helpline—for the member’s benefit, it is 0800 779 997—or talk to their local chamber of commerce, the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce, or the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce. Obviously, we cannot attempt to protect everybody from the turnover impacts of this particular event. What we can do, though, is provide support for them to be able to retain their full-time employees if they are unable to operate for a period of time, which is completely out of their control.

Housing Affordability—Homeownership and First-home Buyers

6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō?

[Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census?]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes. The latest census data has homeownership at 65 percent, which is more than double the 31 percent who are renting. The 65 percent compares with 68 percent in 2001. A decline of 3 percent since 2001 is not dramatic, and I am confident it will be reversed by the wide-ranging housing programme the Government has under way, of which the most important part is freeing up land supply and reform of the Resource Management Act—which the Greens have consistently opposed.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that more than half of all Aucklanders live in rental homes, according to Statistics New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is no question that the issues in Auckland are connected to the flawed policies of a metropolitan urban limit that has seen house prices more than treble. It is ironic that the Green members, who have actually championed those tight urban constraints, now complain about its consequences. The important thing is that the Government has broken through that through the use of both the special housing areas and now Auckland’s new unitary plan.

Metiria Turei: Why is the Minister trying to deflect blame when under this Government’s watch Auckland is now the most expensive city in the world to buy a home in, relative to income?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I dispute that. I was in Sydney last week meeting with the housing Minister of New South Wales, and, actually, house prices in Sydney have been similar to those in Auckland. Interestingly, last Friday they embarked on a reform programme very similar to the new unitary plan and the new policy statements around urban development that will free up land supply and make homes more affordable for people like those in the city of Auckland.

Simon O’Connor: How has the affordability of homes changed since 2000, and what measures does the Government have in place to improve affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Home affordability was hammered during the period 2000-08 when average national house prices doubled and interest rates went from 6 percent to 11 percent. Since 2008, interest rates have more than halved to the lowest level in 60 years. Owning a home is actually now 30 percent more affordable, on average, across New Zealand than when we became the Government. The exception is Auckland, where poor planning policies have artificially driven up land prices, but the combination of new supply and the unitary plan is now seeing the house prices there cool.

Metiria Turei: In response to the Minister’s admission that Auckland housing is in a crisis, will he consider implementing the Green Party’s progressive ownership rent-to-buy programme, which would help Kiwi families, especially those in Auckland, into their first home and save them more than $100 a week compared with a commercial mortgage?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have seen the Green Party’s housing policies, and they rely on voodoo economics. That is that somehow the Government—

Hon Bill English: Just like Labour.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Just like Labour; the Minister of Finance does make the correct analogy—that Labour and the Greens’ promise to build 100,000 homes with less than 1 percent of the money that is required is nothing more than a joke.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister expect that homeownership rates will continue to fall, given that people who are earning decent incomes, who would traditionally have been able to buy their homes, are now shackled with student debt, and for many years after they graduate?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am confident that Kiwi families will improve their homeownership with the Government’s policies. For instance, through the new unitary plan there has been a trebling in the amount of Government support through HomeStart for first-home buyers. There has also been an increase to half a billion dollars a year of support through the KiwiSaver schemes, and it is the maturing of those initiatives that will reverse a trend that has been 25 years long.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister denying the evidence that came out today that first-home buyers are now having to borrow something like $400,000 in order to afford their own home; and what does it say about the Government’s economic mismanagement that university graduates, who used to be able to afford to buy their own home, now cannot do so because the prices are too high?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that if those figures are translated—and it is actually not $400,000—$340,000 is the average first home mortgage, and with interest rates at the lowest level that they have been in 60 years, a person would be paying less on average than they would by renting. But the greatest irony I find in the Green Party’s policy, which it announced just this week, is that it is going to provide the maximum support for university graduates, who actually have the highest rates of homeownership. That is where the Government’s HomeStart scheme is far more equitable.

Metiria Turei: Why does the Minister not just admit that his Government’s housing and economic policies have failed when even highly educated, well-paid university graduates cannot afford to buy their own home in this country?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the contrary; I would draw the member’s attention to the latest OECD report, which shows that the New Zealand economy is performing better than pretty much any other economy in the OECD. Secondly, in respect of housing, the boom in the level of housing that is being built across New Zealand, now up to nearly 30,000 homes per year, shows that the Government’s measures to increase supply are working.

Earthquake Recovery—Support for Primary Industries

7. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have seen first-hand the major impact that the earthquakes have had on farmers, fishers, and the wine industry. For the land-based primary sector, the Government has announced funding of least $5 million, including a $4 million mayoral disaster relief fund to help with damage to non-insurable items such as tracks on farm bridges and water infrastructure. That will open on 1 December—this week. There is extra funding to create rural recovery coordinators, support the rural support trust, and mobilise skilled workers for farm recovery work, and also there are rural assistance payments available through Work and Income. For the fisheries, the Government has announced a temporary closure of shellfish harvesting along the earthquake-affected area, and a $2 million package to investigate the impact of the earthquakes on these fisheries.

Stuart Smith: How will these measures help those affected primary sectors get back on their feet?

Hon NATHAN GUY: They will assist farmers and growers with critical access to isolated parts of their farms, and they will help with issues like damaged water supply for their livestock. For the fisheries, the temporary closures and research will help assess the extent of the losses of the affected stocks, and help inform any future management decisions that need to be made. Can I take this opportunity to thank the local member for his hard work and dedication in supporting his community.

Government Financial Position—Treasury Forecast Reliability and Contributions to New Zealand Superannuation Fund

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predictions in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I always agree with the Prime Minister, although I would state my views about Treasury forecasts somewhat more generously. It has a reasonable track record, but that does not mean it is always right—for instance, when Treasury issued its Challenges and Choices: New Zealand’s Long-term Fiscal Statement in 2009 it suggested that net Government debt would reach 223 percent by 2050. Last week when it updated that statement, the estimate is now around half of that—124 percent of GDP. So you can believe either that the forecasts were wrong or that the Government is doing a good job of getting on top of long-term fiscal pressures.

Grant Robertson: Why does he think the Prime Minister has changed his tune on the reliability of Treasury forecasts between Saturday and Monday, given that he is now spending Treasury’s forecast surpluses before he has earned them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the member that the Prime Minister is not spending the surpluses before they have been earned. In fact, the Prime Minister is very reserved in his expectations of being able to throw money around, partly because, actually, he is just a very accomplished political leader and does not have to try to buy votes the way the Labour Party does.

Grant Robertson: Does he regard tax cuts as a greater priority than restarting contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: These things, of course, in the first place, are not mutually exclusive and, secondly, the Government has had a consistent policy about restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund, which is that when net debt reaches 20 percent of GDP, it will restart contributions. But the member should read the long-term fiscal statement, because what it will show is that because the Government has taken a measured approach with Government spending, the long-term cost problem is not as large as it used to be.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why did he backtrack on his commitment to restart contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when the Government reached surplus, especially in light of the projections of superannuation costs in the Treasury long-term fiscal statement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The point about the Treasury forecast—the long-term forecast—is simply this: the participation rate, that is, the proportion of working-age population in the workforce, is much greater than was expected 15 years ago, and over time it means that the economy is bigger and that means it has got more ability to carry the costs of national superannuation. I thought the member would be pleased about that rather than unhappy.

Grant Robertson: Why did he backtrack on his commitment to restart contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when the Government reached surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure what the member is referring to—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the Government position as articulated in the last Budget was that when debt gets to 20 percent of GDP we will restart contributions to the Superannuation Fund. We have had the odd challenge along the way—like the Kaikōura earthquake, which is probably going to cost quite a bit; that makes it a little bit harder—but the Government can still manage.

David Seymour: Should the New Zealand public have confidence in the usefulness of Treasury’s statements on the long-term fiscal position; and if not, will the Government consider amending the Public Finance Act so it no longer has to produce such “nonsense”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The requirement is in the Public Finance Act as a result of bipartisan support across Parliament. The usefulness of the long-term forecasts every 4 years is to demonstrate to politicians and to the public that there are long-term consequences of what look like short-term decisions. The good news about this most recent forecast is that if you compare this long-term statement with previous ones, Treasury, despite itself, has to report something that is a little bit less gloomy. It prefers to report that things are going to go really badly, but, actually, they are not going to go as badly as Treasury thought.

Housing, Auckland—Construction Projects

9. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Last week I announced two additions to the Crown-land programme. The first is a 120-apartment complex at Great North Road, on former New Zealand Transport Agency and Housing New Zealand Corporation land, all of which will be for social housing, with the first house to be completed late next year and the development to be completed in 2019. I also announced a second development, with local MP Alfred Ngaro, on Te Atatū Peninsula, where we have secured a site for an additional 60 apartments. These projects are part of the record residential building activity in Auckland that has seen growth of 32 percent over the past year, on top of 4 years of 25 percent compound growth. I am doubtful of any alternative policy that claims you can grow a complex sector like building any faster than this.

Alfred Ngaro: What independent measures are there to support the Government figures for the construction boom in Auckland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are numerous measures, such as GDP, employment, and consenting activity, which all show Auckland is at record levels of construction. A very practical measure is the Crane Index from international firm Rider Levett Bucknall, which tracks crane activity in different cities across the world. The Auckland Crane Index is at an all-time record of 64, up from 33 a year ago. This number compares with 28 in New York, 40 in LA, and 24 in San Francisco, reinforcing that Auckland’s construction boom is globally significant.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that his own officials say that new housing supply in Auckland is currently running 8,000 dwellings per year behind demand and that the shortfall of housing in Auckland is now expected to persist beyond 2030?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. Over the last 4 years, we have had 25 percent compound growth. That is 25 percent more every year in a row for 4 years, and in the last year, it has grown by 32 percent. I would simply say to the member opposite that growing a sector that is as large and complex as building, at those sorts of rates, is actually phenomenal and shows that there is more residential building activity in Auckland right now than ever in the city’s history.

Earthquake Recovery—Earthquake Commission and Private Insurance Claims

10. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Yes; the Earthquake Commission (EQC) is actively engaging with the private insurers and the Insurance Council of New Zealand to come up with a more innovative way of dealing with things. These are matters for EQC and its management, but I believe them to be on the right track.

Dr Megan Woods: Is EQC currently pursuing a memorandum of understanding with private insurance companies to undertake the inspection and management of claims; if so, does he intend to sign off that memorandum?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, for the question in the first part, I can say that those discussions are, I believe, taking place. The second part of the question asked me to put the cart before the horse; I am not going to do that.

Dr Megan Woods: How does he expect homeowners to get a fair deal on their earthquake claims when a private insurer has the power to determine whether a claim is under cap or over cap; is that not a blatant conflict of interest?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I am now really quite confused. The member has spent the last however many years she has been in this House criticising everything EQC does, and now when we look to something that is slightly more innovative, that is wrong too. We care about those people. We want them to get a good deal, and that will be what they are delivered through EQC and any arrangements they have.

Dr Megan Woods: What specific protections will be put in place to protect claimants from the clear conflict of interest of private insurance companies self-determining whether they have any liability beyond the EQC cap?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Speaker, this answer may take a little longer than would normally be the case. I need to take that time, because, clearly, the member asking the question does not understand the link between—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —EQC and the private insurer. So here is the first bit. In 1992 or thereabouts, the private insurance market decided that it was no longer going to cover earthquake damage in New Zealand. As a consequence of that, the Government went into negotiations with insurers at the time. The position that was reached was that the Government, through EQC, would supply cover for the first $100,000 worth of damage on a property, plus GST. In addition, it would take the first $20,000 worth of contents damage, plus GST, where the damage was caused by an earthquake. For that, a premium was struck—and is regularly struck—by the board of EQC, and charged through the private insurer. No one has a direct relationship, in an account sense, with EQC; they do with their private insurer, but the obligation through the private insurer to its client is through EQC. Anyone should be able to see that they are intricately linked, and to suggest that there is some advantage to one over the other is an utter nonsense because it would be easy for EQC to discharge all of its responsibilities by simply either paying cheques or turning them over to the private sector. And, as the member knows, for the last 6 years in Christchurch, getting to a point where people do get the right result has not been easy. Those allegations she makes today—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —are irresponsible, reckless, and show a total ignorance of how the market works.

Dr Megan Woods: Given that he has now conceded the debacle that Canterbury has been, will he offer a guarantee to every homeowner lodging a new claim that they will get a fair deal and be dealt with in a timely manner, or is he going to give them the run-around like he has Cantabrians?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Had that member taken a slightly—just slightly—more positive attitude to the circumstances people find themselves in in Canterbury, she may have got a better rating in the Trans Tasman MP stakes. All I will say is this: the guarantee to people in Kaikōura is that they will get what their policies entitle them to.

Police Stations—Epsom and Mount Roskill Closures

11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I can advise the member that I have asked the same question of Police, because I very much understand the value of a community police presence. I have sought assurance that Epsom residents will have continued access to our excellent New Zealand Police service. Police has assured me that police staff will remain very much visible and working in Epsom. Police staff will continue to hold weekly community clinics in Epsom, as well as maintaining the presence of a community constable and continuing with foot patrols, school visits, and community policing as usual.

David Seymour: Will the Minister consider setting policy for Police such that the rent paid for premises for community policing centres might keep up with rising property values across the Auckland region?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that that would be actually quite outside ministerial control under the Policing Act 2008.

David Seymour: In light of a reduction in hours of attendance by police at the policing centre, does the Minister anticipate that police numbers will increase to reduce pressure on that duty, as well as others faced by the police across the Auckland region?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that that member has heard both the Prime Minister and me state that there will, in fact, need to be an increase in resourcing into the future, and I expect that he will want to wait for that announcement.

David Seymour: Does the Minister see the value in a monthly newsletter circulated by volunteers at the centre, including tips for fighting crime for residents and crime statistics provided to them by local police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes.

Stuart Nash: Are there any plans to permanently close any more community policing centres, other than those in Ellerslie, Panmure, and Epsom, which were confirmed over the weekend?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That decision would be made by the Police—it is an operational decision—and, as far as I am aware, no.

Stuart Nash: Are there any plans to reopen the Mount Roskill station to the public, as it was for many years before it was recently closed?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that member is fully aware that the matter is simply being addressed around the health and safety issues of volunteers in that particular kiosk. I would also say to him that I am, however, very soon, about to open a new police station in the city of Napier. I am sure that the local member would want to congratulate the Police on what an excellent station it is going to be.

David Seymour: In light of the Minister’s quite proper inability to intervene in operational matters of the Police, what are residents concerned about a lack of funding for community policing centre premises able to do to have their concerns heard?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously, the local member has raised the issue quite properly, and it is a matter that I am sure the Police are listening to. In relation to resourcing of police, New Zealand Police is currently at an incredibly high level of public satisfaction—I think it is now 84 percent, which is a long way from the 28 percent of some other parties.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that the people of Epsom will see some very good progress in the future.

Wine Industry—Exports

12. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I was pleased to see the near-unanimous support from this House for the successful passage of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. The bill will enable New Zealand wine and spirits makers to register the geographical origins of their products. Registration of geographical indications (GIs) will facilitate the development and protection of regional reputations for wine and spirits products within New Zealand and overseas. We have an industry that has been phenomenally successful these past few years. It was in 1998 that the industry cracked $100 million in exports. Today that figure is $1.6 billion, and rising fast. We know that the country’s wines already attract a premium in foreign markets. The geographical indications bill provides another tool to help the industry to preserve and build on that premium.

Ian McKelvie: What will the geographical indications bill do when it comes into force?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is a very good question. Once the Act enters into force, New Zealand wine producers will be able to apply to register their geographical indications in New Zealand. A geographical indication is a name—usually a regional name—that is used to identify the origins of goods where a certain quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is related, in an essential way, to the geographical origin. Having the New Zealand GI will also make it possible for New Zealand producers to apply to register in certain key markets. If a New Zealand GI is registered in another country, New Zealand wine producers will be able to take action against producers misusing it. This will help the producers to protect the premium position of New Zealand wines in overseas markets.

Ian McKelvie: What has the response been from stakeholders? [Interruption]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I know it is sometimes painful to hear good news, but New Zealand Winegrowers, an organisation that has approximately 850 grower members and 700 winery members, has welcomed the world-class registration system established by this Act, noting that it will provide a solid platform for New Zealand wine producers to promote our wines and regions—and in international markets. This is just another step that we can take as a country to grow our export markets and to deliver jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders.

Urgent Debates Declined

Parliamentary Precinct—Construction of New Building

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement made by the Speaker yesterday on the construction of a new building for Parliament. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. The Speaker is not part of the Government and is not able to take part in the debate, as a Minister can. I do note that in September 1997 the Speaker granted a similar application for an urgent debate. However, on that occasion it was in respect of an announcement made by the Government and not by the Speaker. The application is, therefore, declined.

Urgency

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction, first reading, and referral to select committee of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, and the introduction and passing through all stages of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. These are two bills in a sequence of three that the House will deal with this week. The House deals with these bills in response to the earthquake events, which are well known to everyone in this Chamber and outside.

I think this would be an appropriate time for me to acknowledge the considerable work that has been done by officials over the past 2 weeks, working very long hours in many cases, to ensure that these bills have got to a point where they can be further discussed. I want to also acknowledge the efforts of all parties in Parliament, which have come together on two occasions to consider a number of matters that are in these bills and to try to shape them into pieces of law that will do the job that we all want to see done but also show due respect for appropriate legal processes.

The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill can be described, first, as a bill that will make legal some of the things that, particularly, the rural communities have had to do to get themselves out of their farm properties or, perhaps, to put water back on for their stock or to re-erect sheds, or any of the other things that are necessary to keep a farming operation going—all, generally, with the welfare of the animals concerned to the fore. We will talk further about the details of that bill.

Can I say that there have been appropriate concerns expressed as the bill was developed, and, as a consequence, after the first reading it will go to a select committee—for just 1 day, but that day will give the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee a chance not only to further test the bill’s meaning with officials but also to consider any other matters that might arise out of that discussion.

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 was passed just 4 days before this earthquake event. It had in it a commencement date of 14 May 2017 for what are called transitional powers and authorities. What this bill does is amend the Act further to bring that date forward, but it does not put the same obligation on councils that do not need it at this point.

Grant Robertson: Is this your first reading speech, Gerry?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This is far from a first reading speech; that will be a more scintillating offering to the House, and I know that Mr Grant Robertson will probably want to record it for those hours of the evening when he is suffering from insomnia and needs a little bit of help to drift off.

For those reasons, the Government, with the support of other parties in the House, considers that urgency is appropriate on this occasion.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill

First Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House on 1 December 2016, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c).

It gives me—it is not really an honour, because what we are doing here is introducing a bill that is absolutely necessary in these circumstances, and I think it is just worth traversing the fact that the House will consider shortly a bill that will move us from the emergency state into transition. This bill, however, is about making sure that people who have taken actions over the last 2½ weeks or so can do so with the comfort that they are not going to find themselves in breach of the law moving forward, provided the reasons for their actions do line up with the relatively, I think, generous provisions that are in the law.

We know that when you get an earthquake of the size of this one, it does cause damage of different types in different places. In Wellington here, it has been the shaking damage that has affected buildings. In Kaikōura, for example, it has often been landslips and the land slumping as well as the upwelling of the earth that has caused a considerable amount of difficulty.

One of those difficulties is that a town like Kaikōura, largely dependent on tourism, finds itself now caught with just a window of 2 hours on each side of high tide when people can get the boats out for whale-watching, for swimming with dolphins or feeding sharks or swimming with seals, for fishing charters, or for any other number of activities that go along at the side of that beautiful coast. They will have to have that harbour dredged, and they need to have that done very quickly in order to preserve the local economy. So this bill enables some of that, and when the committee considers the bill during the select committee process, it will look further at some of the questions that were raised in the cross-party forum as late as last evening. But, in essence, it is a bill that will allow things to move forward as quickly as possible.

I think the real point I want to make is that many of the provisions that are going to be in all of these bills are driven by the experience that came out of the Christchurch sequence of earthquakes. So it is not as if the officials, who have worked so very hard on these bills, have not had some points of reference—they have. They have also, I think, listened to the concerns that many would have about some constitutional matters that might be raised when you are passing exceptional law like this. So it is important then that if it is an exceptional circumstance, there is some terminating date, and in this case the bill will expire in 2018. So there is time for people to move and get their lives back as quickly as possible within the parameters, as I said earlier, set by this bill.

I am not sure that it requires a great deal more discussion. I am sure the contributions from others in the House will elucidate areas that they wish to highlight or explain their positions on, etc. But I finish this contribution by thanking all those who have participated in the process to date, and I assure anyone who is watching these processes that having this bill going to a select committee for a short time recognises its unique nature, but it is absolutely necessary.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Labour Party supports this bill. Can I record my thanks in a similar way to that in which Minister Brownlee already has. I thank the Government for consulting other parties, and thank the other parties for their constructive engagement in respect of what should or should not be in this, the first of these bills.

I think that, in respect of these three bills, the most contentious, in the end, will be the third one, which we are considering later in the week. It hands over some regulation-making power to the executive to override statutes in a way that is unusual. I think that we have learnt some lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes, and that the inquiries that have been done by various arms of government—and also by the Regulations Review Committee of this Parliament—have come up with some changes that prescribe or limit the executive’s power to override statutes in a way that is more robust than was in the Canterbury legislation, which I think was properly criticised at the time as perhaps going a bit far.

Dealing with the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, in particular—there are three main parts to this, and all three of these provisions are supported by the Labour Party.

The first deals with the really publicly owned infrastructure: land and works that are within the control of the local authorities—as opposed to within the control of private people—such as network utilities and, particularly, those works that are necessary for the support of life. It relaxes the rules that are in the Resource Management Act. There are already powers under the Resource Management Act, in sections 330, 330A, 330B, that confer powers to carry out emergency works, but the time frames—for the carrying out of that work, for the notification to the local authority when that sort of emergency work is done, and then, where necessary, for the application for a retrospective resource consent to legitimise it going forward—are a bit short. Some of those time frames, for example, are only 20 working days. The next 20 working days include the Christmas period, and I think the Minister is right to want to extend the date for the giving of advice to the consent authorities from—sorry, what is it? Is it 10 working days presently? It is being extended to 40 working days, and the time frame for applying for a resource consent has been extended to 120 working days. I think both of those are right.

The next part, which relates to certain activities of rural landowners or occupiers, is currently limited—as is the first part—to the Hurunui District, the Kaikōura District, the Marlborough District, and the Canterbury District. It is narrower than the first part—which also relates to the Wellington area—but in respect of emergency activities by private landowners or occupiers in the Hurunui, Kaikōura, Marlborough, or Canterbury Regional Council areas, there are certain activities that are deemed to be permitted that, were it not for this legislation, would, theoretically, require a resource consent. We suggested to the Government that if we were going to confer the power to rural land occupiers and owners to take emergency preventative or remedial actions, they had to be reasonable, and the Government has agreed to insert the words “reasonable grounds” in clause 10(1)(a). I understand that there may be some other suggestions from other political parties that we will consider during the brief period at select committee, but I think that is reasonable.

I was down at Culverden myself last week, and was actually there before they had the worst of their shakes—it was a few hours before. But even in respect of the earlier shakes that they had—I was on some farms and I had seen some of the tanks that had fallen over, and I also heard of problems that they have had with some irrigation works. I recognise that there is a need for a practical way for these farmers to go about their business, and I think that this part is appropriate.

The third part relates to the dredging work that is needed in respect of the Kaikōura harbour. I think everyone has seen the footage on TV of what used to be the land relative to the water and the entry into the water. What was showing at low tide is now the level at high tide, so there has been a considerable uplift of the seabed and it is necessary to dredge. I am not sure how serious the work is. I am not sure whether explosives will be necessary. I am not sure whether they will be able to just dredge it or dig it. I have seen some pretty big rocks there, which I suspect might require some explosives.

I see some reference here in the legislation already to require what is done to have as little impact on the marine environment and its flora and fauna as is reasonably practical. That is already written into the bill. What happens is that this activity—the dredging—becomes a controlled activity, which means that so long as they are acting according to the controlled-activities rules that the council requires of them, they do not need resource consent. They can just do it as a controlled activity, rather than having to advertise and go through some longer process to authorise it. As a consequence, I think, that is wise as well, and the Labour Party will support it.

I know that my colleague Grant Robertson said that Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First made a worthy contribution at the cross-party grouping, where he suggested that there be some provision made so that whatever is dredged should have to be disposed of—if it is going to be disposed of at sea—in the place that will have the least environmentally adverse effect. That seemed to be a pretty practical suggestion to me as well, and I am sure that it is something that the select committee would be willing to have a look at.

This power in respect of the sea area—of all of these powers that have been conferred by Parliament today—will, I suspect, prove to be the most significant environmentally. Of course, while we are restoring the harbour—primarily for the benefit of tourism—we do not want to cause long-term harm to tourism by adversely affecting the flora and fauna, including the whales and seals and dolphins, which are the tourist attractions that we are trying to provide access to. That is already written into this piece of legislation, and I also know that the people who are to be consulted as part of the controlled activity process include the local council, the local rūnanga, and the local iwi. All of us know that the local whale-watch is owned and run by the local rūnanga, and it will, of course, have its own interest in not going too far in respect of these emergency works.

I do not think I need to take the full 10 minutes here. I think that this is a necessary piece of legislation and I think it is appropriately constrained, geographically. I note that the Government has left it open to add other regions or councils to the geographic areas that are covered by this bill, should we have aftershocks or should other parts of this earthquake sequence affect other districts. The Government has reserved the right to extend this to them by regulation, and, given the earthquake activity we are seeing following this series of quakes, I think that is wise as well.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stuart Smith—welcome back.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is good to be back, in one sense, but I am spending as much time as possible in my electorate and will be returning there tomorrow. I think one of the “pleasures” of being an electorate MP at a time like this—and I use the word advisedly—is getting around and talking to your constituents; not only finding out what issues they have got and attempting to deal with them, if you can, but also to be there on the ground and be the eyes and ears of this Parliament, because we have a lot of people coming and going but I am the constant, really.

It is a large area to get around, and the differences between the Rai Valley and D’Urville Island, all the way down to, say, Amberley or the Ashley Gorge are quite marked. Each of those areas has had its own experience—particularly from the Awatere River further south to the middle of the Hurunui, which is where the concentration of the damage from this particular earthquake is. I do mention the Awatere River because a creek in the Awatere Valley, with the rather unfortunate name of Isis, has a very large slip. If anyone has seen the photograph on Facebook of what looks like a little yellow smudge on the top of the slip—when you zoom in on it, it is a rather large digger sitting up on top of the slip—you get an idea of the challenge of clearing that slip.

I will come back to the bill in a minute or two, but there has been a lot of talk today about having alternative routes to State Highway 1. One that has been mentioned is the Molesworth route. What I think people forget is that Molesworth sits right on top of the Awatere Fault, and if you have driven up that road—and I know some members in the House have—you will know that that road gets rather challenging and rather tight in the valley as it approaches Molesworth. So the cost of getting that as a State highway would be enormous and, I think, far greater than fixing the road that we have. Also, Rainbow Valley has been mentioned: a wonderful road, if you have got a four-wheel drive. It would be hugely expensive to get that up to the level of a road. Both of those aforementioned roads are very high, and the significant snow challenge during the winter would be far greater than that experienced on the Desert Road. So I just thought I would put that in at the beginning.

The earthquake and getting around, I think, is quite different to a Christchurch earthquake. It is quite different to the damage that has occurred here in Wellington. I do not want to minimise that at all—it certainly has not been good for the people involved in it—but this is an earthquake that is really about communication. It is about, effectively, cutting off a part of New Zealand.

It gives me no pleasure in being right. I wrote a column some time ago where I had actually imagined the main Alpine Fault going and the whole of the top of the South Island and the West Coast being cut off from the lower East Coast, and that has partly come true with this particular earthquake. But what we have now found as a result of that earthquake is that we have farmers in a situation where they have had to take immediate action to get stock water to their animals to avert an animal welfare disaster—and they have done that without going in and filing the necessary consents. As you would imagine, the earthquake also did tremendous damage without filing the necessary consents, so I think we need to be flexible on that, and having the retrospective clauses in this bill, which allow those things to be tidied up for everybody to actually be able to follow the law, as it were—even in a retrospective way—is absolutely right and proper.

I had a rather good conversation in Kaikōura with Kauahi Ngapora, who is the general manager of Whale Watch Kaikōura, about the problems they are going to have there. Interestingly, I have written a letter—this is around the port—I wrote a letter in support of the Kaikōura District Council applying to the tourism infrastructure fund to do some blasting in the port entranceway because there is a rock sticking up proud in there, and to also put in some beacons for boats to get in there safely. It is amazing to see it approaching high tide and the Whale Watch boats not having a chance of getting out there until right on high tide. So it is a phenomenal force that has lifted that ocean bed up there. It is something you actually have to see to understand what has actually happened there. So for the lifeblood of this town—not just for Whale Watch but for all sorts of communication—this is a vulnerable piece of coastline and always will need access to have a possibility of getting boats in to get supplies and things off. As for air traffic, as we all know getting supplies in and out of Kaikōura is quite challenging at a time like this, and an air bridge—as we attempted to do and did very successfully—is not going to be the only means of transport. The navy getting in there needed to be able to use that port, so it is great that that dredging will be able to be made possible by the passing of this bill.

I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the lead Minister here, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and the support he has had from other parties across the House to get these very much-needed bills in front of the House is fantastic. I acknowledge that and I think that when the going gets tough the tough certainly do get going. It is great to see that the House has come together to support the communities in the way that it has, and so I wanted to acknowledge that.

The communities and the councils: the Kaikōura District Council is actually our second-smallest council, if you count those on Chatham Islands, and I do not mean to leave them out in any way, but it is a different set of circumstances for the Chathams than it is for the Kaikōura District Council. Most of the area in the Kaikōura area is actually owned by the Crown—something like 70 percent of the land—and of course the Crown does not pay rates so it is quite a resource-poor, I would say, council. I actually do acknowledge how well it has stepped up to deal with the issue, but it is really stretched and this legislation with some of the clauses in it will be very helpful for that council.

The Hurunui District Council, further south, also, if my memory serves me correctly, has the most kilometres per ratepayer of any council in the country. So, again, it is a quite rural council, and we have an area that the legislation will help to cover: north of Ōhau Point up to Tirohanga Flat, which is an area including the Clarence Valley, which is effectively in no man’s land now—it is cut off from Kaikōura and it is not part of Marlborough. So this legislation and subsequent pieces of legislation will actually help to deal with those issues, and will be very gratefully received.

I do note that there has been some work done on riverbeds that has rediverted, without resource consents, rivers that the earthquake had put over farmland, but these will now be able to be applied for retrospectively. Ironically, had they waited the required period to do that work—which, of course, was not ever going to happen in this situation—it would be a much more difficult task because the river would have cut in and cut its path much more deeply that it had in the past.

I think I probably should end it just about there, but I would really like to go and circle back to the people who are most involved in this. The people in Kaikōura are watching—they may not be able to watch it on television but they will be hearing what is going on here today. It is very important that we move quickly as a Parliament—and we have. If we do not move these things quickly we will not get the result that we need. We had some of the highest levels of traffic on State Highway 1 south at this time of the year—it could not have been a worse time—and we do need to move things as quickly as possible and so I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā koutou ngā rau rangatira huri rauna i tō tātou Whare. Me pēnei taku korero: ko Te Tapuwae-ō-Uenuku te maunga, ko Te Tai-ō-Marokura te moana, ko Takahanga te marae, ko Ngāti Kurī te hapū, ko Ngāi Tahu te iwi, nō reira; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you esteemed ones of a hundredfold throughout our House. Allow me to say this: the mountain is Tapuwae-ō-Uenuku, the sea is Te Tai-ō-Marokura, the marae is Takahanga, the subtribe is Ngāti Kurī, and Ngāi Tahu is the tribe; therefore, salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to you and to us all.]

I wanted, at the outset, to relay the pepeha for my whanaunga at Kaikōura, the hapū of Ngāti Kuri, and also extending through to the community of Kaikōura. Those geographical features of the landscape—yes, they have withstood a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, but the mountain, the moana, the coastline, the marae, the hapū and the iwi stand firm, stand resolute, and stand strong. So I wanted to, first of all, acknowledge this in this my first contribution back in the House.

I want to acknowledge Mr Smith, my colleague. We share the same geographic space, with the Kaikōura and Hurunui districts, albeit mine is slightly larger. You could add another 20 more electorates on to his electorate and you will just cover Te Tai Tonga, but I would like to acknowledge his work in the immediate aftermath, as the local member. There is one other constant, and that is the Māori member—and that is I. I am the other constant member, the other local constant member who is there to dutifully serve my constituents, who mostly are my whānau, and I would like to put a plug in for the Māori member as well.

Last Wednesday, I was fortunate enough to speak at the daily public briefings that take place on Churchill Park, and I was joined by our leader, Andrew Little, and also Mayor Winston. It was heartening just to see that although there was hardship amongst the local community, there was a real sense of determination to get things back to normal in Kaikōura. That was very strong. Do not get me wrong—things are tough there at the moment, particularly with the access routes being closed off and the flow-on effects, obviously, through the damage done through the earthquake to the infrastructure, and, in particular, the impact on housing, the temporary relocation of whānau outside of the district, and the economic impact on the tourism industry in particular, and on all the interconnected businesses and the fisheries industry. But there was a sense of determination that they would get through this and that they wanted to bring normality back to their lives.

I spoke at that public meeting, as did Andrew Little, and we gave a reassurance—because that meeting took place just in the initial stages of the crafting of this legislation—that we would work in a cross-party fashion and approach to ensure that we would expeditiously pass this legislation. So I am delighted to be able to do that—to be able to stand here at this first reading.

I want to take this opportunity—because this is my first—to say that although with this bill we are moving into a recovery effort, a recovery phase, I must give some acknowledgments to those who responded at the emergency phase whom I have had the pleasure of mixing with in my various helicopter visits and vehicle rides over rough terrain and massive cracks and landslips. I got to talk to the local people and also the wonderful emergency services and other support that have been there and that continue to be there.

In particular, I do want to acknowledge the community, obviously, of Kaikōura. We are there and we are supporting them through this, but I also acknowledge the local hapū, Ngāti Kuri and the wonderful work that they have done and continue to do in Takahanga Marae. I also acknowledge Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the wonderful work that they did with the use of their helicopters, the deployment of staff, support, getting provisions in, dealing with local families—absolutely unbelievable—and even extending that back to the whānau in Tuahiwi, Ngāi Tūahuriri, who have been hosting, and still are hosting, some evacuees at the marae there. This effort cuts across all the communities, and we are putting forward this legislation, which is going to help get the resulting approvals or consents that are required to deal with all of the compliance aspects of emergency work that is being undertaken.

I do not intend to take up too much time, but I wanted to say just quickly that we know that we are dealing with an emergency situation, so the usual time frames, even the usual emergency time frames, have to be extended in extraordinary circumstances. We all support and endorse the intent around that, but I want to focus on the restoration of the harbour aspect. For those who know Kaikōura, South Bay is the main marina, the main access route for all boats and other vessels, so it services the fishing industry and the tourism industry right there in that marina. As we know, there has been a major uplift of the coastal area, which means that access is permitted only roughly around high tide, so it has caused a huge disruption. But I was fortunate enough to, again, talk to my whanaunga at Whale Watch Kaikōura, Kowahinga and Ngāpora, and also the wonderful people at Encounter Kaikōura, who also run a well-renowned business with the dolphins. It is essential that this dredging work take place to allow access to the port. It was good to talk to the engineers who were already on site. Engineers, Environment Canterbury people—there is a lot of mobilisation of expertise, and these people are planning how they are going to tackle those works.

Having fished in South Bay recreationally, I have lost quite a few cray pots just beyond the passage routes where the vessels come in and out. It is rocky; it is pretty hard down there. So I am sure that there will be quite a lot of works that will be required, and, as we know, the work that will be taking place will require some exceptional amendments to the Resource Management Act to ensure that it can be carried out in compliance with the law.

Just in conclusion, I do want to once again commend everyone who has been involved from all sides in the creation of this legislation, and I also commend the referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I know that it will be continuing this good work tomorrow, however long it takes, while the House is sitting, to hear and follow a robust process so that we can bring the bill back on Thursday and complete its passage through the House.

To conclude, I would just like to say: apiti hōno tātai hōno, rātou te hunga mate ki ā rātou, āpiti hōno tātai hōno, tātou te hunga ora ki a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai anō tātou katoa.

[The lines are joined, they the dead to themselves and we the living to ourselves. So salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to us all once again assembled here.]

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a short call on this Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, but before I commence my comments, I would just like to acknowledge the contributions of the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, and also of my friend and colleague Stuart Smith, the local member of Parliament in Kaikōura. I thank them for the work that they both are doing on behalf of their constituents at a time of exceptional circumstance and a time when, actually, exceptional responses are required.

It has been just on a fortnight since the 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit, and in that time the Government and this Parliament have responded promptly, quickly, and with great urgency to the situation, which is now one of recovery. But during that period of time, it became very clear—and one of the learnings from the disaster in Canterbury and Christchurch 5 or more years ago was that it was really important to get communities and businesses up and running and on their feet again absolutely as soon as possible. For some of the farmers and some of the people involved in horticulture and other businesses in the area, they have had to make some on-the-spot, on-the-ground, urgent, prompt decisions that may have taken them outside the realms of existing legislation. So what this bill seeks to do is to actually put right some of those things in terms of their legal responsibilities, and it is legislation that means that, in a sensible and realistic manner, property owners, businesses, farmers, and the like will be able to do—and have already done—some emergency work in order to allow access, to facilitate the flow of water, and to ensure that sewage and effluent is being properly managed and treated. They have had to take some measures to make sure that that happens.

So this bill essentially does three things. It provides a temporary increase in the time frames with regard to retrospective consents for emergency works undertaken under the Resource Management Act, and that is right and appropriate, given the situation that we find ourselves in. Secondly, this bill proposes that emergency works to farm properties become permitted activities through until the end of March next year, and that also seems to be an appropriate and sensible time frame. Thirdly, this bill allows for work to be commenced on the restoration of Kaikōura’s harbours. If Kaikōura is to thrive again, and thrive again quickly, then access to the sea is essential.

I noted just this afternoon that the Environment Canterbury Chair, David Bedford, has said that he was “pleased the Government has … acted quickly and decisively”, that this legislation “will enable a pragmatic approach to rebuilding the communities as quickly and as efficiently as possible”, and, thirdly, that many of the provisions that have been introduced in this legislation are a direct result of the learnings that have taken place after the Christchurch earthquakes.

In a slightly unusual situation, this bill will be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for a day. We will sit tomorrow to go through it in more detail, and I am looking forward to working—as we always do on the committee—collaboratively with members across the House to ensure that this bill is scrutinised with care, albeit in a quick way. I commend the bill to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. I have seen the twisted bridge over the Ōtākaro/Avon River, the massive slumping and cracks beside the Avon in Christchurch, the liquefaction, the sand volcanoes, and I have heard the cliffs tumbling down in Lyttelton Harbour, but that still did not prepare me for seeing firsthand the massive damage that the earthquake has wrought in the Kaikōura area—the size of the slips and the major uplift that has occurred in the seabed, which is quite unprecedented. When we hear of our island moving centimetres north as a consequence of the earthquake, the scale of the response needs to be similarly significant.

That is one of the reasons why the Green Party is supporting the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because we know that in emergency situations like this the Government does need to act quickly. We certainly appreciate the discussions across Parliament that Minister Brownlee has convened, and his willingness to accept the suggestions of some of the Opposition parties. We would suggest that if he could commend that approach to some of his colleagues, particularly where it comes to the Resource Management Act and the changes we are seeing there, that, actually, will result in better legislation. So we would like to place on record our thanks to the Minister for the collaborative way in which he has gone about developing this legislation, and we are pleased that, even as late as at last night’s meeting, some of the changes that were suggested there have been developed by officials and included in the bill. So we also acknowledge the huge amount of work that public servants have been doing on this legislation.

Kaikōura had grown from a small and pleasant coastal town to a thriving nature tourism destination before the earthquakes, and we hope that it will be again. This is because of its natural geography, because of that spectacular wild and distinctive coastline and its marine environment. The feature of the Kaikōura Canyon, going offshore just north of Goose Bay and staying quite close to shore for a couple of kilometres—it is that deep canyon, and the very biologically rich waters of the canyon, that attracts a lot of the marine life, particularly the whales and the dolphins. That is fundamental to why people come to Kaikōura.

So, of course, with the seabed uplift preventing boats accessing the pontoons that the whale watch vessels, the dolphin encounter vessels, and other vessels use, meaning that those can be accessed only at a much more limited range of the tide, there is a need to ensure that boats can get back into the harbour by doing some rehabilitation works. The concerns that the Green Party has around changes to the Resource Management Act are where they override processes that allow the community to contribute the information that they have about places that they value and care about, and places that they often know a lot about.

So this bill, in terms of the provisions around South Bay and also the north harbour at Kaikōura, around the Ingles Bay wharf, does override the Resource Management Act. It provides for a truncated process: one where there are no appeals and one that is considered as a controlled activity, which of course means that the blasting, the dredging, and the work associated with that must be given consent to by the councils, but conditions can be added in terms of how that activity is carried out.

We are pleased that there was a small change made to the bill, because at the moment, under the truncated process, there is a range of organisations that are consulted with—Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu, and any relevant Papatipu Rūnanga, and the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, who were appointed with the establishment of the whale sanctuary and Hikurangi Marine Reserve—but there was originally no provision for notification to the public. Now there is the possibility of councils actually notifying it. So we would encourage the councils, Kaikōura District Council and Environment Canterbury, to do that because people like fishers and residents can often contribute a lot of valuable information that assists in ensuring that the decision is a good one and that appropriate conditions are attached to avoid, remedy, and mitigate any potential effects.

With blasting work, particularly, some are talking of significant rocks being blasted as part of this work, and that will have impacts on the marine environment. They will reduce marine habitat, there will be sediment, and of course there is the critical issue of where the blasted and dredged material is deposited. The bill, as I understand it, provides for that to occur on land rather than at sea, and then where that happens, because of the large volumes of material that will probably come out, is also important because it is the natural character of the coast and those distinctive landscapes that people enjoy about Kaikōura. We do not want to see this urgent activity undermining the attractiveness of the coast and the town for the thousands of visitors who we hope will be coming back to Kaikōura in future when the transport links are restored.

The bill, as well as allowing the rehabilitation of the harbour, also, as others have noted, overrides the Resource Management Act in allowing farmers who need to do works in riverbeds, to do earthworks, and other associated work in response to the earthquake to do that as a permitted activity without the need to get a retrospective consent from the relevant district council. It also extends the time frames for people who have done emergency works, using the existing provisions under the Act, to actually notify the councils of those works. So this bill does go some way to reassuring those who have done work urgently that they do not have to go through the resource consent process. We have more concerns about the legislation that will be brought to this House later this week, where Ministers are likely to get quite significant powers to override not only the Resource Management Act but a number of other pieces of legislation.

We are pleased that in this bill there have been some safeguards put in, but there is a range of organisations to be consulted with around the Kaikōura Harbour works. We will also be looking very closely at the bill that is introduced later this week in order to look at the extent to which there are further safeguards as suggested by members of the cross-party group. We are pleased that the bill that is coming later in the week has got additional safeguards compared with the legislation that was introduced in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes.

It is a major task for everybody in Kaikōura. The community there is responding in the way one would expect. People recognise, I think, that it is a long hard road to recovery. This bill, with the changes around the harbour, does take a step to ensuring that those nature tourism trips—for the whale watch to work and for the dolphin encounter people to take visitors out—are able to happen in the most expeditious way possible. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will be very happy indeed to support this bill and, indeed, to do all we can possibly do to support the people of Kaikōura and surrounding districts. The scale of the damage to homes, businesses, farms, and roads and other infrastructure demands urgent action to ensure that the complex provisions of the Resource Management Act do not operate to prevent quick action to facilitate recovery—and for as long as is necessary, while, of course, still optimising environmental protection as far as it is practicably possible to do.

The first thing the bill does is extend the time frames where that is needed. The time for people who have had to undertake emergency work on their land will now be 40 working days—or, in other words, 8 weeks—instead of 1 week, to advise the relevant consent authorities. The time within which a resource consent for such works must be applied for is increased from 20 to 120 working days. New Zealand First would have been happy to support longer periods, if that had been proposed. We know that when people are under stress and have such a lot to do as a result of an event like this, we actually need to give them ample time and opportunity to comply with the law, so if the time limits were greater, we would have no difficulty with that at all. We also support the list of the districts that the bill applies to, stretching all the way from Hurunui, through Kaikōura and Marlborough, to Wellington and Hutt City. We also support, in that regard, the provision to add other areas, should they become affected by the continuing earthquake sequence, by way of Order in Council.

I want to turn now to the all-important issue of Kaikōura harbour access, because that, of course, is one of the most urgent matters needing attention. As we know, around 100 metres of coast has been uplifted as part of the ongoing and intense geological processes of mountain-building in this part of New Zealand, which has gone on for incredible periods of time and, no doubt, will continue to do so. Kaikōura harbour sits right there—right on the edge of that process—and its works are critical infrastructure, not only vital for tourism and fisheries businesses but also providing access for many other things, including emergency supplies.

Even before the earthquakes, I know, from using my own boat in that area, that access on both sides of the Kaikōura Peninsula was actually always very difficult—it is very rocky and quite a difficult place to gain access to the shore from—so I have got some idea of what will be involved now that the seabed has risen. I am told that it has been lifted by something like 2 metres, on average, across the whole area, which is actually massive when you think about it. That means that many of the harbour facilities are either out of action or can be used for only very short periods of time, at the top of the tide. Dredging is going to be needed as soon as possible to address that problem, and sections 330 and 330A of the Resource Management Act, which authorise emergency works, will be necessary to implement it.

But, of course, current planning rules make that seabed work non-complying. This bill makes it a controlled activity so that retrospective consents will be obtainable and so that the work can be carried out as of right but with suitable conditions. New Zealand First has no difficulty with that and thoroughly supports it. We have asked for only one minor change to clause 15, in relation to the deposition of the material removed as a result of the dredging process. In addition to the provisions in clause 18—requiring, simply, the consideration of environmental effects on the activity—we have also sought in clause 15 itself a requirement for attention to be paid to the place or places, whether on land or on the seabed, chosen as the site for the deposition of the material. This is so that, to the greatest extent practicably possible, the least harm to the marine environment will be caused. The marine environment is critical to Kaikōura for tourism and fishing and so on.

With regard to the remediation work required for State Highway 1—by far the biggest amount of work needed—New Zealand First accepts that the scale of the damage is so huge and the degree of urgency is so great that to ensure that the road is opened as soon as the work to remove the slips and rebuild the road can be done, both to the north and to the south of Kaikōura, the usual provisions in the Resource Management Act concerning the deposition of the vast amount of materials involved will simply not be practicably possible. Therefore, the material will simply have to go on to the foreshore as is, where is—the foreshore, which, of course, itself has already been significantly damaged by the earthquake.

New Zealand First also accepts the emergency provisions in clause 10, which allows rural landowners to take emergency remedial action where danger to life or to the environment or to stock, land, or property is concerned, provided that the action they take is proportionate to the loss. In each of those cases, the remedial activity will be deemed as a permitted one. That is very appropriate, given the need for those people to take quick action to save their stock or, indeed, to save life, and to get on with the farming activity that they need to do. We thoroughly support that approach.

Finally, the provisions in clause 19 concerning the new requirements around the consents for controlled activities—including the requirement to advise the organisations that are listed in the bill, and to allow them to comment and for those comments to be properly considered—are very necessary and very appropriate. There are many people and organisations, as well as Government departments and so on, that have expertise they can use, that can provide local knowledge, and that can make sure the right decisions are made. So it is very important that the Minister concerned does get that input, does consider it properly, and, where appropriate, does take notice and take appropriate action.

I think that that is actually a very important part of the bill. It is one that has not been mentioned so far, but I have mentioned it because I think that it is one of the most important things that the Government should do, which is to actually listen to local people and to those with the expertise so as to make the right decisions first time up and, therefore, not have to go back and fix things again later. We support the restrictions on appeals in those circumstances for the same reasons: get it right the first time, listen to the people, and, therefore, you do not need appeals because they are simply not necessary. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed, and we thoroughly approve of clause 19 for that purpose.

We in New Zealand First also wish to express our gratitude to the Minister for our having been consulted so well in the development of this bill. It is a process that we would like to see done more often. We particularly appreciate the opportunity in this case, and we trust that our input on the development of the bill has been helpful and that it will be understood and supported by local people in the affected areas as well. With those comments made, and wishing the people of Kaikōura all the best for a speedy recovery, we will certainly be voting in favour of the bill.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill in this first reading. Given that it is my first time speaking since the dreaded earthquake, my thoughts and prayers go out to the people who have endured it, to those who have lost loved ones in the earthquake, and to those who are now dealing with the consequences—living with the consequences—of the earthquake day in and day out. As part of that I would like to pay tribute to my colleague and friend Stuart Smith, MP for Kaikōura. He has done a stellar job in representing his people. He was there on the ground right from the word go. He has been listening, and he has been advocating fiercely on behalf of his community. It is a tribute to him that this Government has come in and sprung in behind him. It has the experience since Christchurch to come in behind Stuart Smith and assist the people of northern Canterbury through this dreadful period.

I actually want to touch on the fact that there is solidarity throughout New Zealand in support of north Cantabrians, and I actually want to pay tribute to the Invercargill City Council, which has sent building inspectors up to North Canterbury to help and assist with the inspections of buildings. There is also just the general public. Murihiku Marae, for example, swung in behind the efforts and had a bit of a bake off to bake cookies to send up to the people of Kaikōura to keep them in good spirits, given that they are dealing with some significant challenges given that access has been cut off and is creating significant havoc in respect of their businesses and daily lives.

This is a pragmatic bill. This is a good bill. It is one springing off the efforts of Canterbury. We know what needs to be done, and as part of that there will be emergency work that needs to be carried out to make life a little bit more normal as we move forward. It is not about overriding the Resource Management Act carte blanche, but it is about practical solutions moving forward to make sure the work occurs to stabilise land, to protect livestock, for example, or to help with animal welfare—whatever it is to make life a little bit easier, to make things come back on to mainstream more quickly and efficiently.

So the bill is one that, as I said before, is pragmatic, and I am very pleased that it is well supported throughout the House. Again I pay tribute to Mr Stuart Smith. He has been on the ground. He has been advocating. This is a Government that has swung in behind the efforts. We have the experience. We are in a good fiscal position to be able to manage our way through this earthquake. I wish the people of northern Canterbury all the best.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Steffan Browning.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. The earthquake has, obviously, affected everybody here, but some of us maybe a little more personally. I had to evacuate straight away from Aorangi beach near Blenheim. I ultimately went down to Clarence almost as far as I could go on the Monday afterwards, basically because we were aware of a flood potentially coming down the Clarence River that would potentially knock out homes and take lives of people when the lake that had built up behind a major slip into the Clarence River breached.

At the emergency hub that morning I noted that they had no communications into Clarence at that stage, but they had had a thumbs-up to the helicopters from every house, although some of them were extensively damaged—totally written off, I would say. When I got to Clarence that next day the thing that stood out, in a way, was the effect on water. Farmers’ tanks had been ruptured. Their pipes that had solid offtakes had broken. They definitely will be replaced with flexible offtakes in the future. They had no stock water—and this was on very big farms. Waiau-Toa Station, on the coastal side of the Clarence River, was totally inaccessible because a significant bridge had gone. I noticed that on the 12 o’clock briefing paper that very first day they still had not noted that.

This bill is very, very relevant to that, because the farmers and the landowners in that area have already pushed a road through on the south side of the Clarence to make sure that everybody can now get out. For a number of days that was certainly not possible. There is massive slippage and slumpage in that area from the Papatea Fault, which has done major uplifting of the seabed in that area too. That has made the local crayfishermen not even be able to get their boats out, because the ramps are lifted high and dry from the water. This bill will help those farmers with their retrospective Resource Management Act (RMA) work.

That bridge, when it fell up there, probably diverted the Clarence River, because it now flows across what was very productive pasture. I have photos of that in previous times. They have got an alternative route along the back, but now there seems to be a permanent river flowing up above the old riverbed. Farmers can get in and make some recovery of that all the better from this bill. When I went down to Kaikōura by chopper on the Wednesday I was able to look down into there. Actually, I dropped in three cartons of what was seen as top of the list then: Portaloo sanitisers were needed. They had the loos but nothing to stop disease or illness getting through Kaikōura. At Whale Watch Kaikōura we could see that those boats could get out only on a medium upwards tide. So, again, if we want that tourist industry to flourish we will need the application of this bill.

Although this bill gives wider power or ability for things to happen that might not quite go to the extent of RMA consents and the likes, it will be an obligation on everybody operating under it to still take responsibility to protect both the safety of people around them and the environment. We will be supporting this bill to select committee. It is a very necessary bill in its present state. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Labour supports this bill. It seems, on the face of it, to be a very sensible piece of legislation at a time when there is urgent action needed by both the Government and councils. Labour has had some input into it—and I acknowledge the Acting Minister of Civil Defence—one piece of that being quite an important adjustment that says that all things should be “reasonable”. We are not asking for absolute powers here. Everything should be judged against a reasonable proposition put forward. I hold up this paper here, one of the farming papers, Farmers Weekly. The headline is “Shocker”. I guess that summarises what the rural sector thinks of what has happened here.

I go back to the 1980s to just remind people what Kaikōura was back then. Many people had written it off, really. There were a few farms. But through amazing efforts—and I have to acknowledge Wally Stone and his determination and his appreciation of what Kaikōura had. It had amazing wildlife and in particular it had a few whales that were spouting off the coastline. With the help of Ngāi Tahu and their commitment, that was turned into an amazing venture that brought that town to life. Unfortunately, nature has once again brought it to its knees, and I think we have an obligation in Parliament to do everything to help it get back on its feet and up and running. It will not be an easy job.

The provisions in this piece of legislation are sensible. They just mean that if work has to be done—reasonable work—to help farmers in particular to get water back to their stock, or to open up their laneways to allow stock to move from one paddock to another, or just to get them up and able to milk their cows again, then that should take place. If it would have required a resource consent, then they can apply for that retrospectively, and I am sure the councils will deal with that very, very sensibly.

There is not much to argue about, but I will say that I went and I visited on the Friday before last. I have to acknowledge Hamish Dobbie, who was there as the chief executive of the Hurunui District Council. He fronted a meeting—the first public meeting of that community. I have to say—this is a message for the Government—that they were very wary. Many of those people were refugees from Christchurch. They had gone up to Waiau to seek refuge, to get a safer place. They did not have a lot of money, and they were being told by officials that “All will be good. We’ll look after all your insurance claims.” Well, I have to say, those local people were very, very cynical. It will be up to the Earthquake Commission and the other Government agencies to treat those people with more respect than they perhaps have had in Christchurch and to deliver on the ground in a more timely way than has happened. I am sure that everyone will be learning from that.

I have to say that there are some things we should learn from this. The legislation cannot legislate for it, but we are helping things to get back on the way forward. Resilience is a very trendy word at the moment, but it is actually a very true one too. What the Government has done is, of course, squeeze funding for roading through the whole of the South Island. I drove through Lewis Pass 4 days after the earthquake. There were huge potholes appearing. The road was being hammered. There will be requirements, I am sure—and I acknowledge this legislation does allow for resource consents outside the two core areas—for urgent work. I think there will be urgent work required on the Lewis Pass road and the other roads around Murchison to ensure that they remain safe. If we end up with huge potholes without work being done to fix them they will become unsafe very, very quickly. The bill does allow for that, as I understand it. It is not just the Hurunui and the Kaikōura district councils. They are not the only two that have relief through this legislation, and I know the Government will have to do that.

I am not going to say any more, because we do want to pass this bill. I have just a couple of other reminders, though. I think Fonterra might be regretting the decision to close the factory at Kaikōura. I think that the message for Fonterra is, again, resilience. Having huge big super-sites may not always be the best solution in a country that is very, kind of, young and very seismic. We need to keep at the back of our minds that these events will happen and that we always need a plan B. This legislation allows Kaikōura and North Canterbury to get up on their feet again, and Labour supports it.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on this bill. I want to add my thanks and tributes to Stuart Smith, our member of Parliament in the Kaikōura area. Stuart has done an amazing job since the night of the earthquake, something that is terrifying, and I think that what he did from the time the earthquake struck—going out to see what he could do—right through to today and beyond is a tribute to him. Well done, Stuart. I also want to put my thoughts and thanks to the people of the Kaikōura and Hurunui districts for your resilience. As they said, that is the key word in the House today; it is resilience—staying in your areas and slowly but surely working through the repairs that are going to be required.

I want to thank our Minister of Defence. He has done an amazing job—the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who is also the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission—in mobilising the Defence Force as quickly as he did. Thank you to the air force for the air transport and air evacuation and surveillance and to the army for getting the supplies into Kaikōura as soon as those roads were open—and thanks to the road workers for making that happen, and keeping an eye on those roads, because I have seen photos of what could be a potential big slip happening along that road, so I want to thank them, as well. Thank you to the navy, the HMNZS Canterbury and Wellington, for transporting the people, the tourists and the people who wanted to leave Kaikōura, on their ships down into Lyttelton. I want to thank countries—the US, Australia, Canada, and Japan—for offering their naval support in our time of need, and I want to thank especially the USS Sampson, the HMAS Darwin, and the HMCS Vancouver for coming to our assistance, as well.

Finally, I want to thank the whānau of Takahanga Marae for the thousands of meals that they supplied throughout this whole time, right up until Sunday, and for the shelter that they offered to the many who required it in Kaikōura. Thank you to Sir Mark Solomon for actioning Ngāti Kuri into and being part of that whole support system. Many think that marae are there for Māori to do Māori things in, but this particular event showed that they are not. They are there for the community, for community to use. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

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

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my appreciation at the same time to all of us, the members of this House.]

It is pleasing to follow on from all previous speakers, who have spoken in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. Can I first acknowledge, particularly, those who lost loved ones in this tragedy, the families who are still picking up the pieces, and the community of Kaikōura. As the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti we have had our fair share of disasters, but, at the moment, I am acknowledging your particular disaster and I am acknowledging those who lost dear ones.

I want to acknowledge the resilience of the community of Kaikōura. Yes, we have all responded—the Government has responded, the wider community of Aotearoa has responded—but at the end of the day, the community of Kaikōura still has many challenges ahead of it. This is where this bill is, as the Minister has said, an attempt to move barriers and inhibitors, particularly around the Resource Management Act, to ensure that those who are picking up the pieces on the ground are able to do that in a timely and efficient way.

Recovery, repair, restore, re-establishment—all these “R” words are what this particular bill is attempting to do. There have been comments that retrospective lawmaking is not ideal, but in this situation, where we have got this tragedy in front of us, we do need to come together as parliamentarians in this particular House to make sure that we are putting in the right legislation to enable the recovery, the repair, the restoration, and the re-establishment. I do also want to echo the Minister’s acknowledgment of the officials who, since the earthquake, have obviously worked really, really hard to bring these two particular bills to the House.

The bill does three things. Firstly, it temporarily increases the time frames for notification of retrospective resource consents for emergency works from 7 working days to 40 working days, and the time to apply for resource consent will increase from 20 working days to 120 working days. Secondly, it makes emergency works for rural landowners “permitted activities” that they must notify the council about within 40 days. Thirdly, it allows the dredging of the Kaikōura harbour, which was blocked by the earthquake, to allow the resumption of tourist activities and fishing.

There is not a member in this House who cannot recall seeing those images on our television sets of the multiple pāua and the kōura that were left exposed as the sea floor came up, I know there was not. And particularly in the electorate that I represent, where pāua is an iconic species to the Ngāti Kahungunu people, to see so many exposed through this tragedy broke our hearts in so many places. So I again acknowledge the local people, working, obviously, with the Ministry for Primary Industries to try to salvage those exposed kai moana. One thing, as a Māori, you do not ever want to waste kai moana—an absolute delicacy—but, look, this is just to ensure that, again, this bill has the tools to allow the recovery process.

In terms of the harbour, I just want to acknowledge the work—the tourism of Kaikōura. In my maiden speech in this House I talked about Whale Watch Kaikōura and, in an indirect way, having had some involvement with the establishment of that industry. I recall travelling to Kaikōura back in the mid-eighties, and then going back to visit it in the last 3 years. I can tell you that the transformation from the mid-eighties to early 2013 was very dramatic—the role that Whale Watch, particularly, had on that community, with the opening of supermarkets and hotels that resulted from that particular industry. So I just want to add my words of acknowledgment, not just to the whale watching industry but to the importance of tourism and the flow-on industries that they have in Kaikōura. The sooner we can get them up and running, and the sooner we can get that harbour dredged—I am sure the people of Kaikōura will be very appreciative of that.

Having said that, I have made a couple of references to our own tragedy up on the East Coast in the mid-eighties: Cyclone Bola in 1988. I raise this perhaps as a cautionary note to the Government in its commitment to seeing that we are removing all legislative barriers to ensure we have got recovery in place, and, of course, to the rescue package for businesses, and the commitment to clear the major highways.

One particular point I noted in researching the Cyclone Bola investment from the Government at the time was the East Coast forestry project that the Government put substantial money into up the East Coast. That was purely to address the erosion and to protect the land. My point is that we are now—1988 to 2016; that is 28 years, if I am correct—28 years on and we still have major erosion problems up the East Coast: there are major erosion and water quality issues. And so, I guess, my cautionary note to the Government is that we need to put regular review points in the recovery from major disasters in this country, simply because they may not show themselves for 10 years, 15 years, or, in my instance up the East Coast, until 28 years later. So, these are just some of the lessons of the past that I hope—and I am sure—the Government will take on board. For recovery, the instant removal of legislation that this bill is attempting to do, and the ongoing financial contribution to businesses in Kaikōura, we also need to make sure we are factoring in regular reviews—that is, 5-year, 10-year, 15-year ones—to ensure that any issues like erosion are addressed and that we have got the proper tools to address them in that respect.

I do not want to talk any further, but it is my pleasure to stand in support of a piece of legislation that will enable us to do exactly what this House is committed to, and that is the quick and expedient recovery of the community of Kaikōura. In closing, I want to add my words of thanks to the local MP Stuart Smith: you did a stellar job, Mr Smith. Of course, I also want to acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who was down there as quickly as he possibly could—when he could get transportation in there—at the Takahanga Marae working and feeding the many tourists that the marae of Takahanga opened its doors to. So, like everybody, I commend this bill and look forward to its speedy passage through the House. Kia ora tātou.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. In speaking on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill I want to first begin by congratulating and thanking the Minister of Defence and Acting Minister of Civil Defence, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who, along with Stuart Smith, the local MP for the Kaikōura electorate, has been making absolutely herculean efforts to make sure that the emergency is responded to quickly and appropriately and that people are given every possible assistance that they can receive.

This bill forms part of the response to this disaster, and, as others have canvassed, it temporarily increases the time frames for emergency works that are permitted under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It allows permitted activity for certain emergency farming practices that might be otherwise not acceptable but, in the case of this situation, should be allowed, and it aims to restore Kaikōura harbour to operation.

There is a little piece of it that has not really been touched on too extensively, and that is the ability for an Order in Council to be passed to specify additional local authorities under the purposes of this bill. I was here in Wellington when the quake struck, and the building I live in shook. It was a very scary experience, and we have suffered considerable damage here, and so it is heartening to know that here in the capital where we have sustained some damage, as well as in those areas most affected in Mr Smith’s electorate, there is a Government that is willing to look to increase the support and emergency provisions as required to enable us to recover from this disaster. It is a very good bill, and I commend it fully to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be reported to the House by 1 December 2016, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill, effectively, amends a bill that was passed through the House with unanimous support just 4 days before the Hurunui/Kaikōura event occurred. One of the features of the bill is that it brings in to existence a thing called a transition period, which means that after a state of civil emergency has largely dissipated in an emergency sense there is a need to continue with recovery. While that might take some years, there is a transition to that recovery, as well. What this enables is the establishment of the transition period and of transition managers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016. We have, effectively, brought a provision forward that was going to come into effect on 14 May 2017; this amendment bill would bring it into effect on 28 November 2016. I do not think I need to speak too much more about that, because these matters have been well discussed by the House and, in fact, have received unanimous support, as I said.

I do want to talk about a new little aspect to this bill, which was considered broadly by the cross-party discussions of the last week or so, and that is to give the power to civil defence controllers and recovery managers to require building assessments. Unfortunately, it is just a gap in our law, but it is unacceptable—building owners do not always have to assess their buildings after a big earthquake. Their obligations stop at the health and safety legislation, which requires them to provide a safe workplace for either employees or tenants. What this bill does is to say that if one of those managers has a reason to request an assessment of the building, then the assessment must be done. There is an appeal against that, but the expectation in that circumstance would be that responsible landlords will act responsibly. I have to say that there is no particular group—of landlords or others—that has prompted this; it is simply the gap in the law that has prompted it.

I would note that there is one very prominent landlord in Wellington who said that he had, of course, inspected his buildings and had engineering reports, but did not believe he was required to hand them to the council. I think that what happened there was that there was a protocol with the engineering profession that they would hand them on—but it is just not clear. What we are doing here is making it absolutely clear that if it is asked for it needs to be provided. I do not want to sound like we are coming after landlords at all—that is not the case. It is just a gap in the law that we are filling in.

There were a number of concerns raised about this at the cross-party forum, as you would expect, and I think that the wording that we have finally settled on is going to ensure that we do get sensible behaviour around this. First, there are tests that would require that it is in the public interest and proportionate to the circumstances. If we had a minor shake here in Wellington, where it has quite clearly not caused the sort of damage that you get with something that is much more major—as big as the shake on 14 November—then, of course, you would not expect the same degree of response. Second, there are some requirements that the decision makers must have regard to whether the structure—or type of structure—that they are looking at may, in the circumstances, pose a risk to the safety or the lives of individuals, or to other property. We do not want a situation where a local community hall that is used periodically and which is a single-storey timber building—this was raised by the New Zealand First Party, and, I think, appropriately—ends up having to go to a committee that is cash-strapped to find a lot of money to tell them what they can know at a glance.

It is, therefore, a bill that is necessary in the circumstances, and I think I would similarly like to say that I appreciate the way in which it has been dealt with by that cross-party forum. It has left us in a very comfortable position about bringing forward legislation that is already law, albeit not quite timely at the moment.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to thank the Acting Minister of Civil Defence, Gerry Brownlee, for that. I stand here today as the acting Labour Party spokesperson on civil defence—it is like the Oscars here today with the amount of acting going on, but it is important that we are here today to pass this legislation.

The Labour Party is generally fairly reluctant to see bills go through all their stages under urgency and without any select committee process, but we looked at this bill and realised, firstly—as the Minister has stated—that we have just very recently passed this legislation. It has been through a very thorough select committee process and was unanimously supported by the House, and so the provisions of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act, which the substantive part of this bill brings into force, are ones that have been thoroughly worked through.

The other part of the bill—as the Minister has indicated—around the requirement for building assessments, is urgent in our view. I will come to talk about why that is the case, both in this speech and in some other calls as we go through the stages of the bill.

To begin with, the Act that has recently been passed here was supported across the House because it was seen as the first stage in a series of changes that would give New Zealand a much more robust civil defence and emergency management regime. In particular, as the Minister has said, the Act that has been passed—and will now come into force more speedily—is about that transition from response to recovery. We are learning lessons in New Zealand—quite tragic lessons—about the importance of that transition, about the balance between ministerial powers and the powers of local communities, and about the importance of consultation with local communities about what happens in that phase. It is difficult—no one will underestimate that, now that we have been through the Canterbury experience, and we are already beginning to see it with the Kaikōura earthquakes.

We feel that, as the first stage of the review of the legislative framework, the amendment Act is good. There was good cross-party work when the Act went through. A Supplementary Order Paper around the importance of a national civil defence and emergency management plan—which Clare Curran, I know, backed—was accepted. We are pleased to see that coming in more speedily. There is some flexibility built into this bill, which means that local authorities that are not affected by the sequence of earthquakes that we have seen can choose whether or not they adopt the provisions now or wait until the original date that they were to be put in place. That is appropriate, but it is, obviously, in the areas where the quake has had the most effect that we want to see the provisions of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act come into force right away, and so we are very supportive of that part of this bill.

I do want to raise, as we come to the second part of the bill, the whole question of the gaps that are in our law and the importance of our closing them now. In doing so, I do not want to diminish any of the incredible work that has gone on in the last couple of weeks in responding to the quake by Civil Defence staff, by local council staff, or by the emergency services. They have worked remarkably, as they always do in these circumstances, in responding—in the middle of the night; in times of stress—and so I want to put on record that those people providing those services are truly valued by this side of the House and by New Zealanders generally.

But what a lot of New Zealanders have been asking since the Kaikōura quake is whether we are adequately prepared as a country. Do we have a robust civil defence response plan? Gaps have been found. The absence of a proper national disaster warning system, the confusion that arose with the tsunami alerts, and also, I have to say, the lack of clarity and transparency around building assessments here in Wellington—which is being dealt with in this bill—are of real concern to New Zealanders. The fact that modern buildings like Statistics House could fail in the way they did is of real concern to New Zealanders, and I credit the Minister for starting an inquiry. I hope that that inquiry, when it comes back, will talk to us about all of those modern buildings that have not survived in the way that we would like. New Zealanders are rightly asking those questions now.

I think that something the Government needs to consider is the next stage of changes that are coming. They need to be put on the fast track as well. We have got to get through this stage of immediate recovery now, but on this side of the House we want to work with the Government to bring the next stage forward, to make sure that New Zealanders can have real confidence and that we avoid the confusion that has been caused. Although I respect the fact that local civil defence groups—the 16 of them that we have around New Zealand—play a really important role in being close to their communities and being connected with what is going on, the absence of a national disaster management system and the absence of good, clear, Government-led alert systems around tsunamis is not on. We have got to do better than that. The Government put about half a million dollars into developing a system and then shoved it on to the back-burner. It has to come forward now, to build confidence for New Zealanders.

In terms of the specific element of this bill—the power to require an assessment—I strongly support that. In my own electorate here, Wellington Central, I have now had several examples of people who are in buildings where they cannot find the assurance they need that proper work has been done. I was approached only on Monday by a group of tenants in a building who were told by their building owner that their building was safe and had been assessed. They asked to see that assessment and were told that they could not see it because of privacy reasons. There is scepticism among those tenants that that assessment exists. The idea that after a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, building owners could do a visual inspection themselves and decide that a building is fine is not good enough, so the powers that are in this bill will mean that city councils and other offices will be in a position to require those checks and then see that assessment.

It is hard to believe, in many ways, that that is not the case now. I suspect that many New Zealanders have been operating under the assumption that it is the case—that on the Monday after the quake, when the Wellington CBD was shut, there was a formal, legislated process that was being worked through, where buildings were being assessed to a consistent set of criteria. That was not necessarily the case. It was, in most cases. Most building owners were responsible and did the right thing: they got an engineer in and did the checks they needed to do. But there are always some who will not, and we must pass a law that gives New Zealanders an assurance that there is a proper, consistent process. This legislation is the first step in that process. There is more work to do, but, at the very least, this will give the authorities the ability to require those inspections.

It is important to note that the nature of New Zealand is changing. There are 15,000 to 20,000 people whose homes are in the central Wellington CBD—not businesses, not places they go to to work, but their homes. We have to do much better by those people, in terms of the rules and regulations around them and knowing that they are safe. Just leaving it to the health and safety legislation—which is what we have at the moment—is not good enough, and the Government has clearly recognised that by proposing this law.

There are big concerns among people in Wellington about certain buildings, and I am heartened to read today that the Mayor of Wellington, Justin Lester, has said that the moment this legislation is passed it will be used. It will be used to undertake the inspections that the council is concerned about. That is why we have to pass this bill under urgency. But I want to lay on the record, in this first reading, that this is only the beginning for New Zealand getting a robust regime in place to ensure that we have the warning systems, the recovery systems, and the assessment systems that we need.

Having said that, I want to thank the Acting Minister of Civil Defence for the way he has gone about including parties across the House in the development of this legislation. I want to thank the officials, who have worked incredibly hard to put it together in a short time frame. I acknowledge to the House that the Labour Party will certainly be supporting this bill.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. It seems somewhat ironic that we are amending an Act that has only really just come in, but it is also good to acknowledge that things are missing and to sort them out quickly.

Certainly, seeing civil defence organisations operating both in Kaikōura and in Marlborough itself, and seeing how those people organise themselves and operate, it is fantastic—the people who are on the ground, and the dedication they have to that job. But I think we have to acknowledge that in the first instance, in any emergency, what will reign is confusion. It may not reign in the headquarters, but it certainly does out on the ground, and it takes some time to get things in order and get them under way. Having a real clarity around how the Act that they operate under is to be implemented will be welcomed by all of those people, I am sure.

I think what has been highlighted in these recent events—to me, anyway—is that the civil defence campaign urging everyone to plan to get through an emergency is something that I am quite sure most people are not taking enough notice of. I would take this opportunity to remind people that you could be cut off for 5 days, and if you are in a rural environment, it could be for weeks. What I have noted is that the people in the rural environment are more than capable, most often, of getting through for 5 days, at least, because that is just the nature of how they go about their daily lives. If every one of us sat down for a moment today and imagined how we would be able to get through for 5 days with what we have in our houses and without electricity, I think a few people would be in for a shock.

This bill is making things crystal clear for those people operating in this area, and I think that will be very welcomed by them. I know certainly in the Marlborough area, they relooked at their whole system after the Boxing Day fires in 2000 because that was not handled very well, and they have ended up with a system now that runs fantastically well. It stood the test through this earthquake period, although the significant challenge was really in Kaikōura itself, where people were cut off in lots of ways, and they have managed to deal with that very well. I think that although they have managed well, they do need some more clarity in this area.

It is really with great pleasure that I commend this much-needed piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Often I begin my contributions in this House by saying it is my pleasure to take a call on a piece of legislation. But it is not my pleasure to take this call, acknowledging that we are here only such a short period of time after this primary legislation was passed. We are back here, amending it, to bring it into force earlier than any of us ever hoped it would have to be used. I would like to extend my condolences to the family and friends in the communities of the people who died in the recent earthquake. These are very difficult times for communities to get through, and it is our job as lawmakers to make sure that the right laws are in place to make this as easy a time as possible for local communities.

I would also like to extend our sincere thanks and support to the emergency workers and responders, and the members of the public, who have been working tirelessly in the communities impacted by these earthquakes. We know that so much of the civil defence emergency response is around those people in communities working at that very local level, making sure that people are looked after. I would also like to acknowledge the cross-party work that has got us into the House so quickly to pass this amending legislation. The Acting Minister of Civil Defence, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, has worked well across parties to bring people together and to talk about this legislation, and I think this is an example of this Parliament working well.

Other speakers have traversed that what we are doing with this law is bringing a bill into play earlier and getting Royal assent for a bill that was passed on—I think it was—10 November. But, in addition to bringing that legislation forward, some other very important provisions have been made—and I think that is something that has been, once again, brought to light by an earthquake sequence. We certainly saw it in the experience in Canterbury, in terms of the need to make sure that the buildings that people are living and working in are safe.

At present, the only real legislative levers that we have to ensure that buildings are inspected are health and safety laws. What this legislation does is to bring into play an additional clause, clause 11, which inserts the transitional provisions for the bill that make it optional for territorial authorities to implement the mandatory requirements of the bill around recovery managers. It is the need to inspect properties that is absolutely paramount here. Labour has previously called for these powers to require assessments to be undertaken, and we are very pleased to see this put into this bill. We have a patchwork of local government trying to cope with a disaster when it happens. How is it that it can inspect its own properties—its own public spaces and its own public buildings—but the ability for it to require private properties to be inspected has not been there? So it was very pleasing to see that provision. We know that we have seen here in Wellington, with the effects of the quake, that there is going to be a need for this. There have been a number of government buildings that have been shown to need cordoning off and to not have the public enter them. Now the public needs reassurance that all buildings are going to be safe.

Really, the only power that local authorities have been able to have beyond inspecting their own buildings is to use the cordon, and the cordon is something that a council can put in place, keeping the public out of whole areas. But it would be much more satisfactory that we would go in and do the assessments of those buildings. I, like many people who sleep at night in an apartment building here in Wellington, would like to see the safety inspection certificate for the building that I am spending time in and to know that building is safe. I am sure that is not something that I am alone in.

It is not only in the buildings that we have seen here in Wellington where we can see that there is real risk—and some of those buildings have been worked on—we also have the findings of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission on what went wrong with buildings in Canterbury, most notably the CTV Building and what happened there. That is where we saw the failure of a building and there was the cost of lives. What we are talking about here is of the most serious nature. We are not talking about red tape and bureaucracy; what we are talking about is our role as lawmakers to ensure we are putting the right rules in place so that people’s lives are not unduly lost in the case of a disaster. We have this opportunity here with this bill to do that.

So Labour is very happy to support this legislation—bringing into force legislation that we had already passed. It is pleasing to see that that work had already been done, that the Parliament had already grappled with those questions, it had gone through and had a good consultation in the select committee process, and now we have the opportunity to add to that to ensure that, here in Wellington, the buildings can be made safe. So Labour is happy to support this bill.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am delighted that there is broad cross-party support for this Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill—it is quite a mouthful—because, as the previous speaker, Megan Woods, referred to, it received Royal assent only a couple of weeks ago.

It is a very simple piece of legislation. It does two things. First, it brings forward the commencement of some of those provisions—which, though they received assent from the Governor-General a couple of weeks ago, were not due to come into place until later down the track, or even next year—so that we can apply them urgently to the situation that is unfolding in Kaikōura, but also here in the capital, in Wellington.

The second main provision of this bill is the power to require building assessments. This is not a power that is given lightly because we do not want to, for instance, put building owners in a position of being required to do something that is impossible. For instance, after an emergency, if you were to require every building owner to go and do this, obviously, with the shortage of engineers and qualified people, it could be some months before they were in a position to get that expertise. So this bill very carefully provides that a controller or constable under a state of emergency, or a recovery manager under transition notice, may require the owner of a structure—particularly apartment buildings, as has been referred to—to arrange for a suitable assessment of the effect of that emergency on the building.

We have seen around Wellington some instances of buildings where, certainly, there were people where there should not have been. The building I live in is an 80-year-old apartment block, and it is reassuring to know that our apartment block manager has actually gone in and had that assessment done. I think everyone has that right to know that the building that they are staying in is safe to live in. So this is a very sensible and pragmatic provision. I commend it fully to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to rise and take what, I suspect, will be my first call of several today and offer the Green Party’s support for this bill, along with the other parties in the House. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the people who lost family and friends in the quake, and those who are no longer able to live in their houses or their apartments, or whose lives have been turned on their heads and who are unable to resume their lives as they are used to them. We, in this House, clearly take your situation seriously, and want to do our best by all of those people. I too want to add my thanks to the Acting Minister of Civil Defence for the process that we have been going through up to this point. There have been two meetings across parties where we have had a chance to consider drafts of the legislation in detail and amendments have been made up to this point. It is a really good process, and it is Parliament working as, I think, most people would hope we worked more often.

It is very rare for us in the Green Party to support legislation passing through all stages under urgency, because we value the select committee process and public scrutiny and are very aware that a small group of heads is never as good as all the wise minds in this country. In this instance, our members are comfortable seeing it pass through under urgency, partly because a significant part of this bill is just bringing forward the commencement of a piece of legislation that we have so recently considered and debated. It was only, you know, 10 November when I was standing in the House talking to this bill at its third reading, saying that we were very concerned—we realised how critical this legislation was and that it was about the balance between central power and local power and enabling communities—and we would be listening in the event of any event to communities very carefully to find out whether we had got the balance right or whether we had missed anything.

I am, on one hand, gutted that we are back so quickly after having had an event, but I am really pleased that, actually, part of bringing this back is that the Minister seems to have listened to those local councillors who told the Minister that there was a gap in the legislation that we needed to address—and that that is what we were doing. I was hoping it would be a longer time frame and we would not need to be doing this so quickly, but here we are. That is the reality, and we have identified a gap. I think that is the nature of disasters—we cannot think ahead of time what is going to happen and what we need—there does need to be process of constant iteration to make sure that our settings and policy and legislation are right.

The key part of this piece of legislation is addressing and providing the legal certainty and backup for councils or recovery managers to be able to request or require a building assessment to be done, and given and presented to them, so that they can see that a building has been properly assessed. We do know that there are several benefits in that, but first of all I will speak to some of the checks that were added to that through the cross-party discussions, and acknowledge New Zealand First for one of the amendments that has come through around strengthening the requirement for that manager to have regard to whether the structure may cause harm. I think that does add a little bit more understanding of the purpose of these provisions in the bill: we want to prevent harm and provide kind of a chain of accountability to prevent harm.

It is also for people to know that if an assessment is required and the building owner or structure owner thinks that is unreasonable they can go to the District Court and appeal that assessment. It will not stop them having to get the assessment done, but if the court upholds their concern that it was unreasonable and did not meet the legislative requirement to ask for the assessment, then they would get the costs back for that work. So that is also another check that is in this legislation—if any building or structure owner was concerned about that, then we have thought through that balance of power.

I would also just like to mention that there has been quite a bit of discussion in the debate so far about buildings and residential properties. Of course, so many of us know people who are worried about sleeping at night in their residential properties. That is going to be an immediate concern, but this also applies to structures that people may not be living in, and so the owner of that structure may not have such an immediate prompt to get an assessment done. Maybe the council, if it has that oversight of our areas, would be more likely to identify whether there may be need for an assessment of a particular structure. So I think that is important for people to think about: that this is buildings, it is homes, and it is structures. The whole point is about preventing harm.

I note that it is really good to hear, too, that Justin Lester, the Mayor of Wellington, has been in the media saying that this legislation, when passed, will be used by the council immediately—that it sees a very clear need for it. I assume that is where the desire for this clause has come from—and I think that is good. It has been traversed that some people are feeling unsure—which is a natural reaction after any significant event. An earthquake creates instability and uncertainty.

We do know that this provision will also create a baseline, where the council will know that these buildings have had an assessment and will know the standard of them. Some of the feedback through the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission was that we should be seeking to have that baseline and standard so that if there are significant aftershocks then that can be our measure of the stability of those buildings at that time, and then—if there is another aftershock—we will know the impact of that event on that baseline. So it is about the immediate safety of those buildings, but it also helps us assess that over time in a way that, I think, is quite critical for those involved in the recovery to be able to manage. As I said, the Green Party is very happy to support this legislation.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I would like to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to also join in the chorus of sympathy for the people affected by the Kaikōura earthquake, particularly those people who have lost loved ones. I want to acknowledge Minister Gerry Brownlee for giving the Opposition parties the opportunity to go down there on the Thursday prior to the adjournment to go and meet with some of those people, to see first-hand the effect that the earthquake is having on the local community but also to see first-hand how they are dealing with it, and they really are dealing with it in spectacular fashion. Although we were down there for only the best part of a morning and the early afternoon, we were as busy as bees with bums full of honey as we went from place to place to talk to the people with regard to their situations.

The comment coming out of Kaikōura is: “We just need support.” Obviously, they were having difficulty with water. A big part of that was removing the burden, I guess, of the tourists, whom they wanted to get out of the area. Food was, obviously, a concern and, of course, fuel. But they have a number of issues that they need to contend with, and they just want to get on with it and get the support from able-bodied people to be able to assist with getting themselves into the recovery mode and back on their feet. So I would like to thank the Minister for that opportunity. It really was very much appreciated.

I would also like to go further by saying the cross-party meetings that have been held both last Wednesday and again yesterday afternoon were fantastic, and it just shows a very, very cordial approach. I know we sometimes squabble over what some people might think is quite trivial, but, really, when the rubber meets the road and things get very serious, then we certainly do bond together to come up with very, very pragmatic, sensible, common-sense approaches to legislation, and I think we are showing here today in the House that we too want to get on with this and make it very, very easy for the people of the affected areas to also get back on their feet.

I have to say that only 2½ weeks ago, or nearly 3 weeks ago, we were sitting in this House speaking in the final reading of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill and putting that through. In fact, in every stage we had, I spoke to that bill and said we should have been putting it through under urgency because it is not a matter of if we have a civil defence emergency in this country, it is a matter of when. We are still in the situation right now, here today, with the possibility of another big shake and with tsunami warning systems that we do not have in place, which we have been continually speaking about.

We are saying that this is the sort of thing where you have got full support across the House, with all the parties involved, and that we should be putting urgency into these discussions to make sure that we are prepared and ready for action in the event of something unforeseeable happening. We are here now, today, discussing exactly that. We said we would like to see the 180 days taken out of the last bill to be brought in after the Royal assent, and that is exactly what the first part of this bill is doing. There is nothing more antiseptic in life, I guess, than when you have the opportunity to say “We told you so.”, and we have been banging on about that.

We would also like to say, as we have been saying, and, seemingly, sometimes banging our heads against the lectern, that part 2 of the Christchurch earthquake review, which was to look specifically at large-scale events such as the one that happened only literally 2 weeks ago—we need to get that part 2, which is dealing with those large events, under way. Part 1, which we put through the House 2½ weeks ago, was dealing with small-scale events, and we are using that legislation—pan it up a little bit—to make it at least fit for purpose for this current situation.

But it begs the question as to when this second part, the important part, of this review, is going to be taking place and when that legislation, in its entirety, is going to be brought to this House for discussion, because I do believe, Minister, that you have seen today how the parties have come together and are working together to come up with sensible legislation, and I think once that legislation comes to the House it can also be put through under urgency.

This bill is about public safety, first and foremost, but it is also about understanding the importance of peace of mind, because like Paul Foster-Bell, I too live in an apartment during the week, down here in Wellington. I was here on the Monday night, post the earthquake 2 weeks ago, and I felt very uncomfortable staying in an eight-storey apartment block, with lifts that did not work, and cracks up the stairwell. It did make things feel very, very uncomfortable. To be fair, it gave me some comfort the next day when of course the corporate body came forward and said: “No, we’ve done our checks. We are good to go.” That peace of mind you cannot put a value on. I mean, I checked the fire escapes and I would be off like a robber’s dog out that door if that ground started shaking, because that is very important.

It is also very important to know that we currently have 11 ministerial offices in the centre of this city that have now been condemned and shut down, and some of them have already had the demolition clauses applied. There are others—we have got shopping centres, we have got car-parks, and of course we have had some movie theatres that closed themselves down as well, after getting those assessments done. But how many businesses and buildings in this city have not had those assessments done? Is it just the ministerial offices that are the most unsafe buildings? It begs the question. I would say that there are a lot more businesses in buildings in this area that are not fit for purpose, that have not been checked, and this bill addresses that situation very, very clearly, and, as has already been mentioned, Justin Lester has said he will enforce this almost immediately because that is a practical step.

So what this bill does is two things. It brings the enforcement date forward to today, so this bill at the end of tonight will be in force immediately, so people can get on with their jobs tomorrow and use the transition notices about the recovery periods that we can get happening to tidy up these areas. The second part is that it puts into legislation, into law, the fact that if a constable or an officer gives notice to a building operator or owner or the said person, they must get a seismic assessment done on that building.

I will have some questions for the Minister when we get to the Committee of the whole House. I am sure he will be able to answer them, and we have signalled what those questions will be. They are around a situation where we have a building owner or an absent owner who (1) cannot afford to pay for a seismic assessment or (2) just flatly refuses to do so. I know there is some legislation that could potentially be used, but certainly having an idea—forward planning—should that incident occur, as to what are the right protocols to take place, because of course those assessments will need to be done regardless. Does a council take a charge over that structure or does it get on and get the assessment done and then take a civil action against the building owner or operator? I think that needs to be looked at and addressed. I did say we have signalled that, so I am sure that has come up.

We are very, very appreciative of the cross-party meeting that has taken place, and some pragmatic solutions towards some of our concerns from New Zealand First relating to the practical criteria around what buildings will be expected to be assessed. For example, you may have a pergola out there in Waikanae and an overzealous officer decides that we need to get that pergola checked, and that is obviously a cost, and an unnecessary one, on some of those organisations, people, businesses, etc. It could be a wooden structure that is on wooden piles, it is 150 years old, and is a hall. We would not expect some of those structures to be expected to come up with a seismic assessment, which is an unnecessary cost.

It does then come back to letting the people of New Zealand know, because as the Minister has made it very clear, this is not an attack on the landlords of New Zealand, and New Zealand First is very, very strongly in support of that ideology. But it is about making sure that they are better prepared, and it does beg the question for those people involved in owning buildings and structures, etc. that they make sure with their insurance company that (1) they have cover and (2) if they do not, then that would certainly beg the question that they should start thinking about what sort of cover they may need to ensure that they are covered when a seismic assessment is done. Thank you for your time, Mr Assistant Speaker. We will be watching this through the bill and supporting it through all stages. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, it was a scary night 2 weeks ago on Sunday. I was doing some emails about 3 past 12 when a shuddering like I have never really felt before came through our house in Pētone, and I will freely admit to being pretty frightened. As a Wellingtonian growing up, a born and bred guy from the Hutt and living in Wellington for all but 3 of my 33 years, you do get used to earthquakes and you get used to the small jolts and the shudders, and you sort of ride them out. But this was like something no one has ever felt before, and I guess I have a new appreciation for the people of Christchurch, for all their hardship in the 2010 and 2011 quakes. It was a sort of roiling, thunderous cacophony of noise and sound at our place and it was a pretty frightening experience.

We have been affected out in the Hutt. One of the by-products of the earthquake has been the Queensgate shopping complex—the Event Cinemas there and the carpark underneath have been pretty badly affected and, as members will know, are having to be pretty urgently demolished. Of course, the surrounding shops, particularly New World and the Angus Inn next door are within the cordon and have been evacuated, and people are not allowed to be in there or work in there because of the potential danger that if another quake strikes that building will fall down. It is being demolished reasonably quickly, probably sometime before Christmas. My office actually is just literally right outside the cordon and the house is probably about 60 metres as the crow flies from a couple of those stores—from the Angus Inn and from New World.

So I have, I guess you would say, an acute appreciation of some of the issues that are happening. It is great to see the Government’s support package being extended to the Hutt Valley and I want to place that on the record for the House. It is extended to the Hutt Valley and to Wellington as well. I know my colleagues Paul Foster-Bell and Brett Hudson are very appreciative of that as well—as I know Grant Robertson is and Labour colleagues across the House.

That is the other point I would make—that this is really Parliament at its best, I think. We have already heard the fulsome tributes from Mr Mitchell to the Acting Minister of Civil Defence, Gerry Brownlee, and the wider Government team for the spirit of collegiality and camaraderie that pervades this issue that we are dealing with and the bills that have been placed before the House—and that is great to see. It is great to see that MPs can put aside party political differences, and, probably, members of the public would argue that we should put aside party political differences on more occasions than just dealing with earthquake recovery legislation, or, in this case, civil defence emergency management legislation, and they would probably be right. But it is good that on this really important issue we can put aside those politics.

This is a very simple bill. Members opposite and on this side of the House have canvassed its simple provisions. It is a sensible piece of legislation and I do not have anything much more to add than to endorse the comments of my colleagues so far, from both sides of the House actually, and endorse this bill to the House.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to take a call in support of the amending legislation that is an amendment to the 2016 amendment to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. I agree, and, in fact, I was somewhat surprised, as I am sure a lot of members would have been, to learn that there is no power to require the owner of a building that may be in need of repair or assessment as to whether it is safe—there is no regulatory power easily available to the Government to require that that building be inspected. So I agree that it is necessary.

It is a somewhat small step in that I think we are going to have to have a serious look in New Zealand as to whether the building code has been up to a high enough earthquake prevention standard, given the relatively young age of some of these building that are no longer occupied. I think we should also—and this is addressed to Minister Brownlee—be looking at whether some of the warnings given by occupants of buildings following the 2013 earthquake off Seddon, where there was damage to buildings or defects had shown up in buildings at that time, were not properly looked into by landlords or, I would suspect on other occasions, by Government departments. I am aware of at least one of the buildings that are now unoccupied, Mr Brownlee—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m listening.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —oh, thank you—where I am told that, in 2013, staff raised concerns as to the integrity of the building, and they were not taken seriously. I do not know whether those accusations are correct. The people whom I had that information from are not reckless people; they are people whom I know quite well, and I place some trust in their word. I think we should have a look at whether some of the buildings that are occupied by Government departments were showing flaws in 2013 that the management of those organisations did not respond to adequately. They are actually not buildings that were built during the tenure of the National Government; they were built during the tenure of the prior Labour Government, but I have had some suggestion that there were concerns raised in 2013 that were not looked into properly. We did not need a new power under the civil defence legislation to require Government departments to do what they should have done. We do now sometimes need a power of compulsion in respect of private building owners and private building occupiers, and that is what this amendment bill does.

In respect of the Government, and the civil defence authorities, which are, effectively, an agent of Government in times of emergency, when they go too far and make an onerous or unreasonable request of a building owner, there is protection set out in clause 7 of this bill, which inserts the new clause 26A into the principal Act—sorry, which inserts new section 26A into the amendment Act, which changes section 91 of the underlying Act. It is a bit confusing, but, effectively, this new power is to be found after this amendment goes through in section 91 of the underlying Act. It is subsection (6) that says: “The owner (or the owner’s agent) may appeal to the District Court on the grounds that the direction is unreasonable.” So I presume, and we will ask the Acting Minister of Civil Defence this during the Committee stage—because I have been racing around trying to follow this through in the underlying amendment, which was just passed in 2016, and in the 2002 Act—that the effect of subsection (7) is to say that they have still got to do the review, they just have the ability to get back the cost of that review if the District Court later finds that the request made of them was unreasonable.

So I think that is a fair enough check and balance. I think that the emergency powers of the civil defence people ought to be able to say “You need to get a report now.”, and if they do not, there needs to a consequence, and that consequence, presumably, would enable the recovery manager to direct someone else to have access, if the owner or the agent has refused to do so. That is another matter we should be checking at the Committee stage of this, because if you have got an unreasonable owner, then I think the State should be able to do the report itself and recover the cost from the building owner.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call in support of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. Like the Hon David Parker, I was a little surprised that there is this gap in the law, given that the principal Act, which was before Parliament only recently, allows a huge range of powers during the transition period to carry out works, to clear roads, to evacuate premises and places, to close roads and public places, to give directions to stop any activity or take any action, and to limit the consequences of the emergency, yet it did not have this power to direct an owner of a building to carry out a building assessment to ensure that the building was safe after an emergency, or if things changed after the emergency, such as there was another aftershock.

So it is a very sensible change to the principal Act, because at the moment the only obligations, really, are under the health and safety legislation for owners of buildings that are places of work to have to identify and manage hazards in a place of work, and under the Residential Tenancies Act so that landlords must check the premises that they own after an earthquake to ensure that it is safe for tenants to remain. The building owners may not be aware of the detail and the type of the assessment that is needed, and there is no centralised register that gives authorities an understanding of whether buildings have been assessed or not. So this bill has a major advantage in allowing the controller during the transition period, such as a council, to actually require these assessments to be done and then to collate this information.

That is quite critical, because the council may be very aware of certain types of buildings, like buildings of a similar design to the CTV Building in Christchurch, that are quite vulnerable and more prone to collapse. The bill will enable councils, particularly here in Wellington, to actually require that these more detailed assessments are done if they are aware that there may be systemic issues in certain types of buildings that make them liable to partially or fully collapse in an earthquake. In terms of property owners, they may see this as a slight encroachment on their rights, but no one wants on their conscience owning or managing a building that causes death or injury in an earthquake.

So Parliament is acting collectively to ensure that we fill this gap in the law and that we do everything that we can to protect ourselves, all citizens, in the event of continued earthquakes and other natural hazards. The Green Party supports this bill, and, as my colleague Jan Logie explained, although we do not normally support bills going through under urgency, the continued sequence of aftershocks after the Kaikōura earthquake means that there is an urgency—a real urgency—in filling this gap in our law.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, a bill that has unanimous support in the House. There are many things that have been learnt from disasters such as the Christchurch quake and, indeed, the smaller incidents such as the Whanganui floods. One of those is that there is a need for greater provisions, rights, and authorities as we move from a response and transition towards full recovery mode.

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016, which passed with unanimous support in this House just a couple of weeks ago, was scheduled to come into force some months away, in 2017. I think it is highly appropriate, as I believe all members here do, that we bring forward those commencement dates so that we can make use of the authority and provisions of that amendment Act in the recovery from this event around Kaikōura and Hurunui and, indeed, in Wellington City.

We will have the opportunity in subsequent readings to talk about the provision for assessment of buildings, which I think is a very worthy provision. But at this stage I would just like to commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to take a call on this Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. I do not want to traverse the territory that has already been covered. We know the background as to the introduction of this legislation—albeit missed by about 4 days, so we are activating the transition period now.

But I want to pick up on a point that Mr Parker raised, and this is just in relation to the rights to appeal. I am sure we will be able to pick this up in later stages, but I just want to flag the House’s attention to section 77 of the principal Act, which is amended by clause 8(7) in the bill. When a building owner is required to deliver a building certificate—and there are various tests that are laid out in that section—there are rights of appeal, for the building owner to appeal to the District Court on the grounds of unreasonableness.

I just want to flag—and I am sure it will be picked up later on—that in section 77(4) in the principal Act it states that “An appeal against a requirement to give information operates as a stay of the requirement.” Surely, on the face of it, although a building owner may appeal, the obligation for them to provide the information should still stand. They should still, in spite of the appeal, be required to deliver that information. And so, I just wanted to raise that briefly, and I know that might be a matter that will get further attention as we progress through the later stages.

Apart from that, I do want to focus on the directions to building owners to provide safety inspection certificates and building assessments, which has been the focus so far. When we look back to the Christchurch earthquake, one cannot help but think of all of the victims who were in the CTV Building—75 percent of the fatalities in that quake occurred in that one building. I believe it was 117-odd Kiwis and international students—people lost their lives. So I think safety should be front and centre, in particular safety of our buildings, just purely in light of that shocking statistic, which we have come through with the Christchurch experience.

I do not want to bring a sombre tone to the debate, but I think that for the safety of tenants—those who occupy—if building owners are not supplying information or giving that reassurance when the controllers in an emergency situation or an in-transition situation require that information to be delivered, they should deliver that information. They should get the work done, regardless of the cost.

I know that there are tests that are prescribed in this legislation, so there are the checks and balances. It must be proportionate, so I think great care has been taken. But I do believe that we need to focus on the rights of appeal and whether the provisions match up with the actual primary bill itself. But apart from that, this is a very good piece of legislation. We are just accelerating the introduction of legislation that has already been fully debated just a few short weeks ago. The addition of the requirements for building owners to provide that assurance, to provide those extra reports, is very important when we look at Wellington City. It is evident that if a building is not safe, and if a building owner is shirking their responsibilities, they should be compelled to do the right thing and deliver up that information. I will conclude there, and I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, and I think that every New Zealander would be encouraged to see the speed of the response from this Government—from Minister Brownlee and the Prime Minister—and this Parliament to their situation of need. And it gives great encouragement to this country to see a Government so responsive. This legislation is going through a process of urgency, and that is because we want to enable our Government to respond adequately to this time of need. So I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. During the course of the first reading, it became clear that there was one small matter that the cross-party group, when doing its considerations over the past 2 weeks, had probably not considered as well as it should have. It is a minor matter, but I am grateful to the Hon David Parker for the work with officials to sort that out, and it will be an amendment that comes in at the Committee stage, immediately following the second reading. I will not go into the details of that. I am sure that other speakers will want to cover that off.

This bill brings into force powers that can help communities in affected areas, as has been discussed over the previous few minutes. It has been the experience of this House that when it comes to emergency legislation, we do work together, and I again commend people for doing that. It is what our communities expect of us, and although we do not always get it exactly right, this is a very, very strong indication that this Parliament will move to make things as easy as possible for people in badly affected areas.

As I said earlier, the bill brings forward proposals that have already been unanimously agreed to by the Parliament, and it would be, I think, somewhat of a waste of time to go over all of those again. I simply want to say that I think the contributions in the Parliament so far have indicated, as I keep saying, the positive nature of things.

I do want to mention Minister Nikki Kaye, who is the Minister of Civil Defence. I am acting on her behalf at the moment. I know that this legislation is something that she is keeping an eye on and is watching, and she is beginning to think about how the future of the portfolio may shape up, as well. There have been a lot of good contributions that indicate a positive way of achieving some of the results that people would expect to be automatically in place at a time like this. I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): This is my first opportunity to take a call since the quakes, and I want to add my comments to those of my colleagues here in the House who have reflected on the loss of life—the two people who died in the quakes at Mt Lyford and Kaikōura. I also want to recognise the members of Parliament in the affected areas—people like my colleague Rino Tirikatene; Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura; and Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins in Wellington. I also wanted to mention the Labour candidate in Kaikōura, Janette Walker, who does a lot of work in the town of Blenheim, working with some of the most disadvantaged and displaced people whose lives have been upended by the natural disaster. She has been doing some amazing work.

As colleagues have noted, we come to this debate with consensus across the House that this is the appropriate course of action in the wake of a disaster like the recent earthquakes. There is, I think, unanimous, all-party support for the measures that we are debating in the House today.

These truly are the shaky isles, and the most recent quakes are, I think, a reminder that earthquakes not only make this country in a geological sense but also kind of make us who we are. There is no doubt that the experience of the Canterbury quakes, the thousands of aftershocks, and this recent flurry of quakes has made us. And there have been some really interesting reflections on how communities and people have responded to the disaster and how they have reached out to their neighbours—the efforts of marae and others in the community to look after their fellow citizens.

Notwithstanding the general atmosphere of non-partisan commitment to the recovery and transition, there are some serious questions that need to be answered, some of which we are debating with these bills. For example, why did so many modern buildings sustain such serious structural damage in the earthquakes? I was pleased to see the Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister of Building and Housing, announce that there would be, I think, within a couple of days of the quakes, an inquiry into that. And so that is one of the really pressing issues, but there are others.

I think a lot of people around the country have been asking why we do not have, in a country that is so prone to earthquakes, a decent nationwide tsunami warning system. There has been quite a debate about Geonet and whether or not the seismic monitoring service should be better resourced so that it can provide 24/7 coverage. I suppose the other question is for all of the people whose homes and assets and businesses have been damaged or destroyed by the quakes, and that question is whether or not the insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission have learnt the lessons of Canterbury, where there is no question that much of the pain and the protracted delays in the rebuild in Canterbury were a result of the insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission not living up to their side of the bargain. It is our hope that those hard questions will be dealt with.

So what does this bill do? It basically brings forward the commencement of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 by about 6 months so that as soon as it gets the Royal assent from the Governor-General, that Act will come in to force, and that is completely appropriate. What it does also is it gives powers for building owners to be required to carry out assessments and evaluations in the wake of a natural disaster, like one of these earthquakes, or a flood, for example.

There are a number of issues that we need to tease out in this debate, and one of them is to just come back to the question of buildings and the fact that so many modern buildings sustained serious structural damage. I think is it appropriate that procedures are in place for a very speedy assessment—an appropriate assessment—of buildings that are damaged by earthquakes, but I also think we have to ask some hard questions about whether or not we have a problem in New Zealand with compliance with the building code and the standards within the building code. I am no expert on this, but I suspect we will find that the building code and the standards are in pretty decent shape but that there is a real problem with compliance and there are many buildings out there that are apparently built to code but, in fact, are exposed in an event like this as falling woefully short of the standards required.

There are other examples that we can see of this—the epidemic of shoddy building in Auckland that is going on at the moment is one example of it. In Masterton recently the local paper has been running stories about several buildings in the main township of Masterton that are falling unbelievably short of the standards in the building code and have major structural problems. That raises some pretty serious concerns for us, and they are exposed and highlighted in the event of a disaster like this. I think that the post-disaster period, when these assessments of buildings are taking place, is particularly important given that in a CBD like Wellington’s you had something like 60-odd buildings empty and cordoned off, and in fact 2 weeks after the quake they are still finding buildings that have sustained structural damage and pose a risk. When buildings are sustaining that kind of damage in an environment where there are repeated aftershocks, the potential risk to the public is massive.

Unless we are satisfied that we have a system in place that can adequately assess the risk posed by those damaged buildings in an environment where there are large numbers of aftershocks, how can the public have confidence that the streets and buildings of these city centres are safe? I think that one of the issues that we are going to have to deal with is we are going to have to test whether or not the standards for compliance are up to scratch in order to restore public confidence. We are going to be very interested to see the progress of Dr Nick Smith’s inquiry into why so many of the modern buildings in Wellington copped serious damage.

There are some other issues, I think, that emerge out of this. The assessments themselves need standards, and colleagues have already commented on how surprised they were that there were in fact no powers to compel building owners to undertake these assessments. So there is a huge gap here. This bill appropriately gives those powers, but I think we also want to see risk-based standards so that timely assessments can be done that will not be unduly expensive or time-consuming given the wide range of possible buildings and situations that need to be taken into account.

The information from the assessments will be critical, and that is about how we gather up the data that is generated by these assessments—it will be a hugely important source of data—and how we respond to future earthquakes. It is critical that we learn the lessons as the royal commission attempted to do in relation to the CTV Building collapsing in Canterbury. We have to learn the lessons from these earthquakes to ensure that we are constantly improving our system in order to give the public confidence.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would like to start by actually acknowledging the Minister Nikki Kaye and the work that she has done on the Act—that was the bill, of course, before it came the Act. Unfortunately, she is not able to be here on this particular bill and the little bit of a tidy up.

Providing a power to require a building assessment, I think, is a really important part of this bill. I know from being on the ground that the interests of the person in the building and the interests of the person who owns the building are sometimes a bit clouded in the aftermath of an event, and they certainly need the rigour of having a very clear requirement that the building has an assessment, for the safety of everybody concerned. So I applaud that part of this bill.

I am not going to take any more House time up on that, and I would just like to commend this bill once again to the House. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a privilege to speak to this bill, and as I rise, I would like to acknowledge the member who just sat down, Stuart Smith, and acknowledge the work that he is, obviously, doing in his electorate. I would also, obviously, like to acknowledge my own colleague Rino Tirikatene, who has spent some time in the earthquake-affected area. One of the important changes within this bill is the obligation for owners of buildings to get an assessment of the safety of the building after an event, whether that is an earthquake or another natural disaster.

There has been a very good process that has been had amongst all parties, and, in that spirit, there is going to be a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I think it is important that we do note that, and it was noted by my colleague David Parker and has been mentioned by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I will just make sure I get this right—in new section 26A, inserted by clause 7, in new subsections (2) to (8), there is the ability for an owner to appeal a request for an assessment of a property. The issue that David Parker has found within the proposed legislation as it stands now is that it should not act as a stay in the process of getting an assessment. So it is my understanding that along with the help of Mr Parker and also with the Government an SOP will come to this House to make sure that is made very plain and clear through that legislation—and that is a good process.

It is an important process, because I think it must have been an issue for many building owners and members of Parliament in the Wellington region on the day after the quake. I know that a lot of people on the Monday were asked to stay away from their workplaces and their offices. On the Tuesday, as my staff went back to work, I went and saw my landlord and asked him what the situation around the structural safety of the building was. I am lucky because he has acted in good faith. He has seen the importance of making sure that an assessment is done. He has had a very quick one done, initially, and he has committed to making sure that another one will be done when time allows and when the availability of a structural engineer allows, to make sure a proper assessment of the building is done.

This piece of legislation does create an obligation, other than the current health and safety legislation requirements, for an assessment of a building to be made to make sure that it is structurally safe. In those hours on Tuesday morning, when I wondered whether or not my staff would be safe in the building, I wondered what the obligations of a building owner are. I am glad that that has been clarified in this piece of legislation.

As I acknowledged, obviously, Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, I would like to send my condolences to the families affected by deaths there, and, obviously, to the community of Kaikōura. As a youngster I spent a lot of time in South Bay of Kaikōura. I had some very good family friends there at the time. Sarah Bradbury—now Sarah Thompson—was in Kaikōura at the time, and I was very happy to see via Facebook that her family who live in South Bay now, Ian and Bev, are safe and well. I wish them our love, as well.

The other issue I wanted to raise—because I do not want to take up my full 10 minutes—is the issue of preparedness. There was some confusion, especially, I think, in the Wellington region, and especially in my area of Mana, around the tsunami warning system and some of the confusing messages that were sent to the public. We were first told when the notice came out on RNZ National that the tsunami alert was for the eastern areas of New Zealand. Then we were told that it would be widened and also included Wellington. That did not specifically cover the areas of my electorate. I live in Tītahi Bay, quite close to the beach, so I, like many people, was confused by some of the messages coming out on the radio. We were not sure whether Wellington included us. If we can learn some lessons from the 7.8 quake that we had recently, I think it is that kind of thing that needs to be sharper.

The other issue that has certainly been raised by constituents in the areas that are coastal in the electorate is a tsunami warning system—that is, whether or not there are tsunami sirens in our area. After speaking with the senior manager of the Wellington Region Emergency Management Office in Porirua yesterday we were told that there is no siren—and that is a good thing to know, as a definitive—because there are not the back-end processes or systems in place for there to be an effective tsunami warning system there. My colleague Grant Robertson has mentioned it already, but I think a big lesson that we need to learn from this is that we need to take a serious look at making sure that we are as prepared as we possibly can be, and we need to have a Parliament-wide discussion about warning systems, such as a tsunami warning system, where people can get the message nice and early when there is a local earthquake event where minutes make the difference.

I know the Government has mentioned that there could be the ability to have a text message service that is specific to specific areas, and I would ask that that be expedited, because that is the kind of thing that I think people who are a little bit anxious in low-lying areas, certainly in communities that I represent, would like to see happen. Another example is a simple nationwide system where the local volunteer firefighters’ alarm can be sounded continuously and people know what that message is. The system around the country at the moment is patchy. I understand there is a siren in the likes of New Brighton and such in Christchurch, but there is no system in Porirua. I think one of the learnings is that we need to make sure that we take a decent and thorough look at a tsunami warning system where people have good, clear messages about who is going to be affected, what the messages are about when the alarm sounds, and where to go. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): This bill does a number of things that I think will help our businesses that have been affected, particularly here in Wellington. I did note with interest a couple of quotes in the media from business owners, including one from Greig Wilson, who manages bars down in the central Wellington, entertainment capital of New Zealand, down on Courtenay Place. He said that he had been advancing loans so that staff were able to meet their rent and food costs—their basic living costs. Obviously, the business package that the Government has brought in is useful for maintaining this.

In the longer term it is important that we move from the emergency response to the recovery and restoration phase. This bill does a number of things that will allow those cordons to come down and those businesses such as Mr Wilson’s to resume functioning, so that their staff can start getting their proper pay cheques in before Christmas and so that people are not going into that holiday season in the sort of bleak situation that might be there if this bill did not allow us the flexibility to embark on recovery and allow some of the powers that are required in order to make sure that that recovery happens.

I think that for those reasons this is a very, very sensible, timely bill. Obviously, the basic legislation that it amends was passed by this House only recently, but we had no appreciation that such a major disaster was about to befall our country so soon after its timely passage. It is very important that this bill is enacted as soon as possible, so that those recovery actions can be taken, and so I am not going to take up any further time in the House, other than to commend it. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this, the second reading of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill, which is normally the time where we feed back contributions that have been made in the select committee. Obviously, there is not the opportunity to do that, because of the need for urgency and the fact that we have covered the substance through the recently passed Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016, but I would just like to note for people who may be listening that there has been external consultation on the bill. That shows up in the departmental disclosure statement. There has been input into this from a wide range of ministries.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet undertook consultation and provided a draft of the bill to “the Ministry for the Environment, the Departments of Conservation, Internal Affairs; the Earthquake Commission; the Inland Revenue Department; Maritime New Zealand; the Ministries for the Environment, Primary Industries; the Ministries of Business, Innovation and Employment, Culture and Heritage, Defence, Education, Health, Justice, Social Development, and Transport; the New Zealand Defence Force; the New Zealand Fire Service; the New Zealand Police; the State Services Commission; Te Puni Kōkiri; and the Treasury.” Affected parties were previously consulted in the passage of the earlier Act. Although it is always uncomfortable, I hope, for everyone in this House to pass things through under urgency, there have been a number of eyes on this bill.

Yet still we have an amendment coming in the Committee stage thanks to the sharper eye of Labour member David Parker. He will, I understand, be adding an amendment to clarify that the intent of the bill is that the recovery manager or controller is able to require an assessment on a structure and that that assessment will be done in a timely manner and returned to them within that time frame. The owner or owners of that structure can appeal that request for an assessment, and that can go to a District Court. But the intent of the legislation, as we had discussed it before it came to the House today, was not for that appeal to be able to stop the assessment. It was only that if the court ruled in their favour, they would get the costs of the assessment back.

The provision in the bill that I think was intended to deliver that policy intent, new section 26A in clause 7, says at the moment “Any relief that may be granted under subsection (6) is limited to the reasonable costs associated with obtaining the assessment.”—i.e., reading from that, the relief would not be relief from being required to undertake the assessment and follow through on delivering it. I would imagine we will be supporting the amendment in the Committee stage to just make that that much clearer, because I think that is absolutely the policy intent in this bill and it is good to be clear on that.

I also would just like to touch on, for people, that this is bringing forward the commencement of the legislation that had its third reading on 10 November—the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016—which creates a part of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act that specifically looks at recovery and helps move local communities from a state of emergency to a formalised—

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

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

JAN LOGIE: As I was saying before the dinner break, we are bringing forward the ability to start the recovery phase, which is what the legislation we passed just 3 weeks ago set in place. It was a process that was developed, I understand, in light of the learnings from Christchurch, which recognised that the legislation that we had covered us well for immediate response to significant events but did not support people moving into a recovery phase. So that legislation provided a framework for planning and managing recovery efforts. In particular, it provided the powers to support transition from response to recovery. It did this by providing a mandate for roles and responsibilities that apply for the duration of the recovery from an emergency. It re-strengthened that planning process and ensured—we hope it will ensure—a seamless transition from the response to an emergency to the initial recovery period by ensuring that the appropriate and effective powers and arrangements are available for those people on the ground, because we have learnt from Christchurch that those systems were not well supported by legislation and were not necessarily clear.

What the bill does provide is the power to require information, the Minister’s power of direction if needed, evacuation of premises and places, entry on to premises and places, the closing of roads and public places, the power to give directions, and for a person exercising emergency powers to provide proof of identity as well as recording—it is all within this legislation that we are bringing forward. The hope is that Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Marlborough will be in a position to be able to move into recovery and away from immediate response soon. We do not want the state of emergency prolonged unnecessarily, and that is part of what these clarifications in the bill enable—moving from that state of emergency into recovery.

There has also been some mention in the House this evening about the stage that needs to go alongside this, which is not covered by this legislation but is about the importance of preparedness. In some ways, that is part of what giving councils the ability to get assessments of buildings is about; it is about preparedness for significant aftershocks or other events. But I did note the comments from the Labour MP for Mana, Kris Faafoi, about the need for a consistent response around tsunami alerts, and I do recommend to people in the Mana area that they check on his Facebook page the interview that he did yesterday with the civil defence people on the ground there about that system and what is in place in the community.

Thankfully, living in Cannons Creek, up in the hills, I do not need to worry about the risk of tsunami; because of quality property up on the hills, we are OK. But I do understand that those people down on the shores and closer to the beaches are feeling unsettled, and it is good to know what the systems are and to get some sense of security. The key message for all of us is to get prepared because we do live on unstable land and we do not know when or if something might happen. So the best way to gain a sense of confidence again after the quakes is, particularly for those in the Wellington region, to get yourself prepared so that you do not have to have that added uncertainty of not knowing what you will do or if you have got what you need. So, on that note, I will finish this second reading contribution because there will be more speeches to come. Thank you.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Damien O’Connor. I was expecting someone—

Ron Mark: Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ah, there we go. Ron Mark.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I’m just keen.

RON MARK: Well, he is very keen, and that is the thing about the West Coast: you have really got to stay alert—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as you did not think I had forgotten your name.

RON MARK: —because they get the jump on you, do they not? So that is why he is the dynamic MP he is and he does so well on the Coast, we continue to hear.

I am very, very conscious and aware that the second reading always follows on from a select committee hearing and a select committee report to the House, and this bill has not been to a select committee. I guess we could say, though, that it has had its select committee hearing at the cross-party discussions chaired by the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

I am going to start by saying: if only all legislation was as easily managed into the Chamber. What we saw in that process was all of us coming together around the table, with the officials and advisers there, a narrowly focused bill, and some clear statements from the Minister that it was not the Government’s intention to introduce legislation such as we had seen in Christchurch and that the bill requirements were narrow and focused, and, hence, we have already had the bill read a first time. The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, which focuses on Resource Management Act matters, was read. This bill focuses specifically on a matter that has clearly fallen through the gaps when it comes to civil defence legislation and empowering territorial authorities or local government.

Of course, it is clear that when earthquakes of such magnitude hit, as this one has—and this one is quite unique in that it did not affect just the Kaikōura area; it has hit us here in Wellington. It raised some interesting issues, which were discussed in those two cross-party meetings. New Zealand First—being, as we are, very focused on rural and provincial New Zealand and also very aware of the realities that face us in metropolitan New Zealand, such as here in Wellington—did take the opportunity to express to the Minister a couple of concerns, and we are very pleased that those concerns have been accepted and have been catered for in this legislation.

I will touch on a couple of them. Firstly, some of the phraseology, the wording, that was used in sections 26A and 26B in clause 7 we did not believe was definitive enough and specific enough, and you know how we in New Zealand First like to be quite specific. We are very happy that words such as “obtain” were—or I will go back to the original wording. What was there—“arrange”. They are words that were used in section 26A(2)(a) and (b) in the first and second drafts. The Minister and his staff decided that we were correct, and so that wording was changed to the word “obtain”, which makes it much clearer as to what the owner or the owner’s agent is required to do under that section.

But the one area where we had some discussions—and I have got to say at the outset that people were maybe just a little dismissive of our concern, but as this conversation has moved on, so too did the understanding of what New Zealand First was trying to express. Our concern—and I do need to put it into the Hansard, so that those who might be engaged in litigious action down the line, who wish to then refer back to the readings and the Hansard, might have an understanding. New Zealand First was a little bit worried about the conversation around ordering assessments to be done. It is fair to say that the notion of a zealous inspector requiring a wide-ranging number of buildings to be assessed, particularly in rural New Zealand, where those buildings might be one or two storeys, might be wooden, might be on piles, might be on ground that is not prone to liquefaction, and might have actually withstood the 1942 earthquake in the Wairarapa and withstood the 1855 earthquake and, indeed, have come through this November 2016 earthquake totally unscathed—I guess our concern is about what the position would be for that landlord, that owner, if a zealous officer was to demand that an assessment be done.

When we started looking at some of the buildings that are affected out in places like Culverden and Waiau, out in the hinterland of rural New Zealand, there are many such halls, and I can relate them specifically—Akitio, to community halls out at Tīnui. These halls are single-storey, wooden, and on piles, and, as we said to the Minister, it would seem incomprehensible if a community was asked to have an assessment done on that building because a zealous controller or officer decided that that was what should happen.

We had the conversation, and I am very pleased that the clauses now have changes. We have new section 26A(3), which, as amended—I am just looking for the latest version—reads quite differently now. It requires that “A person may not give a direction under subsection (2) unless the person has had regard to whether the structure or type of structure may, in the circumstances, pose a risk of injury or a risk to the safety of life or the safety of other property.” We are very, very pleased that that change was accepted by the Minister and the staff and was specifically written in there, because that does establish some criteria and guidance for the controller, the constable, or the territorial authority that is issuing this instruction that an assessment be done.

So we would like to think that local government in outlying areas, in particular, would pay mind to that specific clause and would think cautiously about identifying what the specific risk of injury or risk to the safety of life might be. I mean, a hall stuck out at Akitio that has no one living in it, has no high-rise buildings around it, and is not threatened by smaller buildings beside it might be deemed to not pose a risk of injury and not pose a risk to the safety of life of other people and, therefore, might not be required to have an assessment.

I say these things because we in New Zealand First are very pleased with the way in which the cross-party discussions happened. We saw numerous changes made as a result of points raised by other political parties, and we saw the Minister force discussion on those where he initially believed that they were not justified and concede and instruct officials to go back and have a rethink and a relook at the wording. Hence, we have a bill here that we are perfectly happy to be supporting.

We believe that there are serious risks posed by buildings in metropolitan New Zealand and that some building owners probably need to be more proactive themselves. Given the size of their buildings and given the structures of their buildings, they need to be stepping forward themselves and initiating those assessments. On the occasions where they are not prepared to do that and have not done that, then it is absolutely essential in terms of preventing risk of injury or the loss of life to innocent New Zealanders that the territorial authorities—local government—have the ability and the powers that this legislation gives them, which is to order such assessments to be made.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill in its second reading. I would also like to talk about the powers to require building assessments. In the ideal world, after a significant magnitude earthquake—particularly such as the one that was felt on 14 November of this year, but also, actually, back in 2013 here in Wellington—we would like to believe that building owners would take appropriate steps to ensure the safety of their tenants and their tenants’ employees by undertaking proper assessments. I do believe, as Mr Robertson also said earlier this evening, that that is probably done in most cases.

Unfortunately, it is not necessarily done in every case. In Wellington, after this latest quake, we have already seen a number of buildings that were reoccupied within 24 or 48 hours of the earthquake that have since been cleared. Once such example not too far from here is Asteron House, down on the corner of Bunny Street and Featherston Street, where the Inland Revenue Department, amongst other businesses, is housed and which was back at work for some period after the earthquake before being evacuated, quite frankly, last Thursday afternoon because of concerns about the structural integrity of the stairwell—not on a day-by-day basis, but were another significant incident to occur in the next wee while.

When you look at that, it is not unreasonable that employees—or tenants, if it is a residential apartment area—might believe that they have some right to, and the building owner should have some obligation to be able to give them, evidence that the building that they are reoccupying is safe either for habitation or for their work environment. I think it is an extremely good idea that we are permitting the authorities to require such assessments to be taking place by suitably qualified assessors—so that it is more, perhaps, than just the building owner having a quick recce themself and declaring everything to be just fine. Not only does that give us all some sense of confidence that the buildings are safe to occupy, not only now but after potential further aftershocks, but, more importantly in the immediate sense, it gives those inhabitants—those workers or those residents—confidence to return to and remain in those buildings for work or for their inhabitancy.

I think it is a very worthy addition to the bill. Living on the edge of a built-up city, I think it is something that is extremely important for the environment we are in. I think it adds a great deal of power and usefulness to this amendment bill, and I commend it to the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Eugenie Sage.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call in this second reading on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. Other speakers have commented that the cross-party discussions sort of served as a de facto select committee. That would not be the Green Party’s view. We have noted our appreciation for the Acting Minister of Civil Defence actually engaging in those cross-party discussions on two occasions, but it is actually the submissions from members of the public that always contribute to improving legislation, and we, obviously, have not had the opportunity for those on this bill.

One of the reasons that the Green Party has been prepared to support the urgency is that on the principal Act, which we were discussing very recently, there were only 12 submissions to the select committee. There was general acknowledgment of the appropriateness of the transition powers that the principal Act provided for the controller and recovery managers in that transition period. Those powers, and the safeguards around them—the fact that they must be exercised in the public interest—are carried over here, as we understand it. If they are not, we would be grateful, in the Committee stage, for the Minister’s explanation of why not, but, as we understand it, the safeguards that apply in the principal Act to the exercise of these powers also apply to this new power to direct that an assessment be done.

I think we have all focused on earthquakes, but my understanding is that the bill will also apply in terms of other events, such as the big flooding that we had in Whanganui last year and the ability for the controller, or constable, or other person with those powers under the civil defence legislation to require an assessment of buildings there. If that is not the case, we would welcome an explanation of that.

I think I would just conclude by endorsing the comments made by my colleague Jan Logie about preparedness. Individuals have a responsibility to be prepared. This bill is valuable in ensuring that we, as a Parliament, do what we can to maximise public safety and reduce the risk to individuals in buildings that have been affected by quakes. But individuals also have that responsibility to look after themselves, recognising that authorities may not be able to assist them in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. But as a society we also have to get more prepared by investing more in resilience. With more intense storm events, not just the natural hazards of earthquakes, we need to make our stormwater infrastructure more resilient. We need to look at how and where we build. We need to ensure that there are natural wetlands in other areas, which can soak up that run-off. We need to look at the capacity of our stormwater systems. We need to think much more clearly about natural hazards and how we retrofit some of our urban areas, perhaps with councils buying properties that are subject to frequent flooding, so that there is less impact on individual households and communities after these events, and that we are planning and preparing as individual households but also as communities. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Again, I will take a short call just to state once again that Labour will support this piece of legislation. It is not very often in this House that anyone can stand up and say that perhaps we have had a visionary and timely piece of legislation that has not been, in some way, retrospective. But, indeed, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 was very timely. What we are doing, of course, is just making some adjustments so that it can be implemented in a shorter time frame than was originally proposed in the bill that was, literally, just passed in this House on 10 November. So it is kind of sensible, and some of the discussions have been had, but, like everything, improvements can be made, and that is what we are talking about here.

It is hard to have arguments with anything in here, but I cannot help, in going through the particular provisions, but ask a few questions as to why and point out, as has been said in the House before, the human realities and commercial realities that do not always exist when we assume that people would check their buildings after such a large quake. We would assume that people would ensure they are safe after a quake. In fact, that does not always occur. There are a whole lot of, I guess, in some cases, desperate situations and in some cases presumptive situations where they might think the building is new and it should stand up to an earthquake. But as we have seen with the Statistics New Zealand building and the Defence Force building, they are indeed very, very new but have ended up being quite unsafe. Yet we can walk around Wellington here and see some very, very old buildings that, at this point anyway, we assume are safe.

What we do need to know is that they have all been properly assessed. As has been pointed out here, owners can appeal if an assessment is done, because as we have seen from the Christchurch disaster, engineers are not all the same. We need to ensure that there is an ability to check their capability, I guess, in their assessments themselves.

Clause 7 did raise an interesting issue for me. It says that during a state of emergency, or a transitional period, of course, a direction can be given to prevent risk of injury or risk to safety of life or safety of property. It does not add risk to health. But we would assume that risk to health is another one of those things that should be assessed. Doing that, of course, in a state of emergency or in transitional periods would beg the question: what about at other times?

Indeed, there are a lot of other times when risk to health and, indeed, risk of injury, which is often the same thing, are not assessed, because this Government refuses to implement a warrant of fitness on many, many houses and buildings throughout this country that are, quite frankly, unhealthy to live in. Is that unsafe? I do not know. I guess people listening could make that judgment themselves. I think unsafe is unhealthy, and I would like the Government to pick up what it is doing here in this piece of legislation and, later on, over the next 6 to 9 months that it might be in Government before we get in there, implement a warrant of fitness regime for all tenancy arrangements throughout New Zealand. I think that would be real progress.

I would just like to say once again that Labour will be supporting the legislation. I think the technical things that should always have been included in the original legislation—the question of why not; that it is an offence to withhold information or give false or misleading information. We would just assume that that would be in place already. But, anyway, a tidy-up and a hurry-up, which is what we are doing for the main piece of civil defence emergency management legislation, is something that Labour supports because we want to help the people who have been affected by this earthquake. Kia ora.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): This is my first opportunity in the House to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Stuart Smith. I just want to place on the record—into the Hansard—what is, I think, the widespread admiration of the whole House, actually, for the great work that Mr Smith is doing down in Kaikōura, his electorate. Obviously, as a Hutt Valley - based MP, I say we have not been immune to the damage wrought by the earthquakes of 14 November, but it is certainly true to say that the Kaikōura region, Culverden, and the areas listed by other speakers so far tonight have definitely been the worst affected. We have all seen the video, Stuart, and we have all seen the photos online. I think most people in America have seen the video and some of the photos on CNN. We really appreciate all the hard work you are doing.

Other speakers have canvassed the main substantive provisions of this piece of legislation. I think it is a sensible and pragmatic response to what we are faced with. I think it is fair to say that this is Parliament really working at its best. I think I made that point in my first reading speech on this piece of legislation. It is really great that the parties have been able to come together in a collegial way, in a consensus-driven way, to try to come up with something that everyone can support. You really want to put party politics aside in these circumstances. I think speakers opposite, throughout the course of the first and second reading debates, have paid tribute to the hard work of the Government to try to shape that consensus, and I think that is a good thing. The Acting Minister of Civil Defence, Gerry Brownlee, and his colleagues have shaped this legislation—the trio of bills that the House is considering—with that in mind. I think that is all to the good. With those brief remarks, I want to commend this bill to the House at its second reading.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very pleased to see this Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill progressing through the House at a reasonably steady pace this evening. I am pleased to see the introduction of the new powers in the bill as it is—but it will become an Act—that will allow local authorities to require building owners to have proper inspections done following an event such as an earthquake.

It is a sad thing to say, but there have been reports of some pretty disgraceful behaviour by a small number of building owners, following this most recent earthquake. The idea that a building owner could walk through a building and say that they had deemed it to be safe and tell their tenants that they had deemed it to be safe is not good enough. Actually, one of the responsibilities of being a landowner and a building owner is making sure that that property is safe. After an earthquake, very few people actually have the appropriate skills and knowledge to be able to undertake those detailed assessments. It is only right that they bring in those people who do, to make sure that the building is safe.

I want to make an observation based on some of the comments that I have heard. It is that no two earthquakes are the same, and so the fact that a building stood up during one earthquake is no guarantee that it is going to stand up during the next one. Earthquakes are located in different places, they move in different directions, and they have different effects; so to say that a building withstood a great earthquake at some given time and therefore it will be fine—that is simply not the case. Earthquakes do not behave that way; every one of them is different. Therefore, it may well be that after each quake the building has to be reinspected because we do not actually know what the particular effect of different quakes is going to be on that building. So I think we have to err on the side of caution, and therefore it is one of the costs of being a building owner.

I acknowledge the legitimate concerns that people have raised about the potential for significant cost to building owners in a case such as this. Unfortunately, that is simply the cost of the line of business that they are in. When an earthquake like that happens, they have a responsibility to ensure that their buildings are safe, and they should be getting in the appropriate expertise in order to do that. The cold, hard reality of it is that if a landlord is so badly capitalised that the costs of getting building inspections following an earthquake brings into question their viability as a landlord, then they are in the wrong business; they should actually get out and make sure that the building is taken over by someone who is in the position to do that.

Ultimately, if something goes wrong—yes, we have got health and safety laws that suggest that that landlord would be liable if something went wrong—it is too late by then. We have got a responsibility to act before something goes wrong, to ensure that people are safe. So these provisions are welcome. To be honest, I was quite surprised that we did not have provisions like this in the law in the first place, so I welcome the fact that they are being inserted into the Act. I do not intend to delay the bill’s passage any further.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all clauses in this bill to be debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Clauses 1 to 11

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I am sure my colleague David Parker will take a call in a moment. I just wanted to make reference to two specific points in the legislation. There has been a lot of discussion around the general policy objectives of the bill, and the importance that, I think, all parties in the House put on making sure that we tighten up the rules around the assessment of buildings, and that we bring into force the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act at a faster pace so that we can make that transition to recovery in the Kaikōura and Wellington areas as soon as possible.

The two specific matters I wanted to raise were around the extension of the powers and addressing the issue that was raised initially by, I think, New Zealand First during the discussions. Although we all want to make sure that, for example, a multi-storey apartment building here in Wellington is assessed, and if the building owner is not assessing that or if the council has a reason to believe that an assessment is necessary, then it should be able to do that. But, on the other hand, we do not want to create a situation of unnecessary compliance for, perhaps, a single-storey dwelling. The example that has been used throughout is the sort of voluntary trust that owns a community hall.

The discussion went backwards and forwards in the cross-party talks, and we have ended up with what appears in various places in the bill, but in particular in clause 7, which inserts new section 26A. The wording of that now reads: “(3) A person may not give a direction [for there to be an assessment] under subsection (2) unless the person has had regard to whether the structure or type of structure may, in the circumstances, pose a risk of injury or a risk to the safety of life or the safety of other property.”

I think we all feel that that actually does capture what we are trying to say here, particularly by the insertion of the phrase “type of structure”, because that allows us to break out those small halls and so on, where there actually would be an undue burden or an unnecessary examination.

My own view is that I think it is highly unlikely that any local authority would do that. I think, for the most part, local authorities know exactly the kinds of buildings they want to get here, but it is better to be absolutely clear about that as we go through this.

I am particularly pleased about the reference in there to the “safety of other property”, because that has been an issue within the Wellington area, where there is concern from people who are adjacent to buildings, as to whether or not those buildings have actually been assessed. So it is important to be able to have that within the assessment that is being made. So we are very pleased to see that included in here and we want to support that.

The other matter that I will just mention in this brief call is around emphasising again that the bringing forward of the implementation of the Act is for those areas affected by the earthquake sequence, and that it is open to other local authorities and other territorial authorities to also bring the Act into force at an earlier date, if they so choose, but it is not compulsory. I think a number of local authorities will choose to do that.

I think we have got ourselves in a position now where a lot of people around New Zealand are very seized of the need to be better prepared, to be in a position to make that transition out from the immediate emergency stage and into the recovery stage, and have the coordination that needs to take place between central government and local government. I am pleased that we have got the flexibility built into the law, and I do believe a number of others will do that. I will let Mr Parker now have his moment to discuss his proposed amendment, which I warmly endorse.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I do have a proposed amendment to this bill, and I want to explain it to the Committee and thank Minister Brownlee for his indication that the Government is going to support it. It actually arises from a contribution I made in the first reading debate, and it relates to the issue that my colleague Grant Robertson has already referred to, which is that through this bill we are conferring upon the Controller or a police constable, during a state of emergency, the power to require the owner of a property to obtain a report as to the structural integrity of the building, if that building poses a “risk of injury or a risk to the safety of life or the safety of other property.”

Then, in new subsection (6) of new section 94N inserted by the amendment Act, the bill confers a right of appeal to the District Court to the owner or the owner’s agent who is being asked to pay for the cost of one of these reports and to commission one. That is an appropriate safeguard. The intent of the legislation is that the relief that can be granted by the District Court, effectively, refunds some of the cost if the original request to get a report was unreasonable, and that imposes a degree of countervailing rights for the person who is being asked to get that report, if it is an unreasonable request. Although there will not normally be an unreasonable request, it is easy to envisage that occasionally there might be—particularly, not during the emergency stage but during the recovery phase, which is covered by clause 8, inserting new section 94N in section 27 of the Act, where there is a similar provision.

I went and read the provisions in the underlying 2002 Act, which are found at sections 77(2) and 77(3), which are said to apply in respect of these appeals. I spoke with Minister Brownlee, who said that the intention was that the only relief that someone could get if they appealed was a refund of their costs; they could not refuse to get the report. I was concerned when I read section 77(4) that we had not made it clear that that section in the underlying Act would not apply in this situation, because that section says that by virtue of the appeal, the request for the report is stayed.

The policy intention was not that we stay or put aside the request that has been made by civil defence or by the police to get a report; we were just trying to confer a remedy against an unreasonable request—i.e., refund the money. Most people, or the people who are requested to do this, will be able to afford to get a report, and they should have to do so. So it was unclear. I think it is fair to say it was ambiguous rather than clearly wrong, and the Minister, with the help of officials, agreed that he would clear this matter up. That is what my amendment does, which has been drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and I thank it for doing that.

It makes it clear that section 77(4) of the principal Act does not apply. It puts it beyond doubt that someone appealing against the demand gets a report as to the structural integrity of the building, and their appeal does not act as a stay of the request. The only remedy they can get from the court is not the ability to not get the report; they can just get a refund for its cost. So that is where—if this amendment is passed—the matter will end.

The procedure in sections 77(2) and (3) will apply, but the stay provided for in section 77(4) of the principal Act will not apply. That amendment is being made to both new clause 7, by amending section 91 of the principal Act, effectively, and also the same provision in respect of the recovery phase in clause 8. I do not think I need to explain that further. I hope the Committee will support that amendment.

JAN LOGIE (Green): This will just be a short contribution. I am wanting to get some clarification from the Minister Gerry Brownlee, actually, just so it is on the record, and so that it is clear in my head and I can be 100 percent sure that I do understand the full implications of some of the provisions in the bill. Before raising those questions I do want to say that we will be supporting the amendment in David Parker’s name, which clarifies the policy intent that appeals to the District Court will not stay the process of assessment until that is resolved. That is absolutely clarifying the intent as we understood it.

I am just wanting to—and it kind of actually goes to the heart of it, really. We have had explained to us that the provision to enable councils to request an assessment, put a time frame on it, and get the report back—that they do not have that power at the moment and that they need it, and that at the moment the only provision we really have covering properties is residential tenancies and health and safety. I guess it was just that I wanted to be clear in terms of the original Act and in Christchurch, and was wondering why we would not have had this come up as being identified as a problem in Canterbury.

I understand that in the amended legislation that we are bringing forward there is a power to require information and the ability to have entry to premises and places, and I wanted to know whether this bill is about putting the requirement on the building owner, and for them to be covering the costs of those assessments, as I would support as a running cost of having a structure or a business—that we could have that reasonable expectation of them providing that assurance of safety.

But I do just want to be clear—if my understanding is right—that there is an ability with this bill for a council, in either a state of an emergency or in a formal recovery stage, to be able to do its own assessment, and this will add the ability to require somebody to do it themselves. That is my question. Thank you, Minister Brownlee.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair, for indulging me. I do have a question for the Minister in the chair, Gerry Brownlee. I saw him jump to his feet and I was just hoping to get to him before he does answer, as I know he would. I did speak in my first reading speech with regard to a question to the Minister, which I am sure he will address in a moment, and the question is around what would happen in the event where an absent landlord or an overseas landlord who has a property (1) was not in a position to be able to pay for that assessment to be done, or (2) defied the ruling for that assessment and did not implement it.

There are a number of options. Obviously, if the assessment has not been done and the building may or may not be fit for purpose and may need to be removed or altered in some way, what happens with the cost of that? Does the assessment go ahead regardless, and a hold is then put over that building using the Local Government (Rating) Act? Is it potentially demolished? Is it just red-stickered and not to be used because it is not fit for purpose?

There are some questions with regard to the notice requirements. I think the notice requirements are very, very good, requiring the best endeavours of the agent to ensure that the neighbouring properties and tenants are aware that the building is undergoing an assessment—obviously, a seismic assessment. But the legislation does not address the fact that once that assessment has been done—what are the requirements of either the territorial authority or of the constable to ensure that the tenants are aware of the outcome of the assessment that has been undertaken?

If it happened on a Friday afternoon, for example, and the assessment came through and was given the green stamp—the rubber stamp of approval—but the council had not had the opportunity to pass that on to the tenants, then they might be still out in the community, staying on other people’s beds, couches, and floors or in hotel accommodation. Could it not potentially be put in the legislation? Does he see that there could be a requirement for it to actually be facilitated in there that the tenants, also, would get to see the outcome of those assessments as soon as practicably possible—that is, as do the landlords and, of course, the neighbouring properties, which has been clearly articulated in this legislation.

New sections 26A and 26B in clause 7, with regard to the assessment of the structure, will be inserted into the principal Act. They concern the power to give direction by “a Controller or a constable,”—as I have just been saying—“or any person acting under the authority of a Controller or constable,” to direct or order “the owner of a structure (or the owner’s agent) to obtain an assessment of the effect of the [event] on that structure:”. We in New Zealand First outlined, during the cross-party meeting, that should criteria be handed down by an overzealous worker, we should have the criteria that would enable them to work that into it. I see that that has been put in, and we are very pleased to see that there.

We are supporting this bill through all its stages. We do support the amendment from David Parker going through the Committee, and if we could just have some clarity from the Minister, that would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): Can I first acknowledge David Parker and thank him for bringing that matter to our attention. There are some who would say it is probably more belt and braces than anything else. I personally think you have found a problem that could have occurred. So it is appropriate that it is fixed, and I acknowledge the vigilance of the member in finding that.

Grant Robertson: Ha, ha! There are other words.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I am not in that caucus, so I do not know those words.

But can I just answer the questions raised by Jan Logie. Firstly, in Christchurch we had the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, and that Act gave not only the Minister but also the chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority very extensive powers inside a defined geographical area. So you also had a very large number of very obviously dangerous buildings, and that is why the CBD was put into a cordon as a whole and then gradually that cordon was let out as buildings were demolished or remediated.

The point here is that you also have the Building Act, which makes it very clear what happens in the event of a dangerous building being evidently so. The gap we are trying to fill here is perhaps that there may not be an outward physical manifestation of something that does make it dangerous. So we are trying to ensure that there is a way of finding that out, in this particular bill, and I think it is not unreasonable to give people that level of comfort.

The other point was this. Clayton Mitchell raised the issue about the absent landlord and therefore defying it. Well, there should be an address for service in New Zealand for every building, and that presumably would be the agent who has some authority in this case and who would certainly have an ability to receive the demand. Defiance could well lead to the council also reverting to the Building Act and slapping a section 124 notice on the building, in which case every tenant would be notified that it cannot be entered. What we are trying to do is put in a halfway house. Mr Mitchell spoke also about the overly zealous person who gets the clipboard, etc. You could take care of that latter problem, in which case you would be a little more lenient on the person who might be in the defying position. So we are really trying to get a bit of a middle ground here.

But, once again, if that building was—if they just said “Well no, we’re not doing it.” and the council believed that there was a problem, and it would be asking, remember, under the terms of this bill only if it believed there was a problem, then it could put that section 124 notice on, all tenants would be notified and automatically evacuated, and the cash flow on the building ceases at that point. So there is quite a bit of incentive on landlords to play ball.

I want to say again that I think landlords will. It is just where you get the one or two who might not be willing to face the reality of what they are dealing with. I think the gentleman who is the owner of 61 Molesworth Street has set the pace by being very, very cooperative with the council, absent of all this provision, simply because he could see that there was a greater need and he presumably had arrangements with his insurers, which recognised that as well.

The other point was post-inspection: what if the inspection is done on a Friday or is completed—because it would be a long assessment, several days—on a Friday and the tenants are not notified until the Monday. Well, if the building was found to be, on the Friday afternoon, in a bad state, once again it would be red-stickered and evacuated. So those are the provisions that exist in current law. Just remember, that this little bit that we are putting in here fixes a little gap in the whole thing. I think it goes far enough to prevent the overzealous approach, but makes it very clear that there is a high level of expectation that those who have big buildings where human life could be at stake if there was some sort of catastrophic event should play ball.

There was also a question raised about the tenants’ rights to receive the information. [Bell rung] I will not be much longer. I think it would be interesting to know what the provisions are in each lease deed on any building, but I would expect that there will be responsibilities outlined in that lease around the maintenance and care of that building, and the delineation between what a tenant will do in that building and what the expectations for the landlord will be. In any event, there is the wraparound of the health and safety legislation, which means that if you own a building—and you may be a body corporate doing this, which I think will challenge a lot of bodies corporate throughout the country on this. We may even discover, as we did in Christchurch, that many buildings should have had bodies corporate but did not, and I hope that that will get remedied in a relatively short period of time. But what you then have is the duty of care to all those who are occupants of that building, under the health and safety legislation.

So, to repeat, we have got a lot of Acts that sort of go around the edges of this. What this bill tries to do is pull it all in so that there is that strong expectation, that strong requirement, that legal requirement, that if you are asked to deliver something, you have to. We now have these amendments coming in from David Parker, which mean that once you are asked you have got to comply. You can go off and appeal if you like and look at your costs, and you might be awarded costs because it may have been unreasonable, but you must comply, and I think that is the strength of where we have got to today.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I want to rise to thank the Minister for that, and, now that the Minister is able to hear, I just want to congratulate him on behalf of New Zealand First on the manner in which he has shepherded through this legislation and the cross-party discussions, because it was very constructive. New Zealand First is very pleased and very happy with the changes that we have sought and the manner in which the Minister has accepted those changes.

There has already been some discussion—and my colleague Clayton Mitchell MP has discussed new section 26A, “Section 91 amended (Power to give directions)”. I just want to clarify, because there has been some discussion from colleagues from this side of the Chamber—from Grant Robertson, who said we would not expect councils to behave in an overly zealous manner. Well, I do have to say to the Committee that in parts of rural New Zealand we are already seeing it. I can say that in parts of rural New Zealand there are already people who own old wooden buildings, and I guess for some of our whanaunga who own marae that might be very old and might have had a bit of a jolt in the 7.8 quake there were some worries.

It was pleasing to be able to have this conversation with the Minister and the staff at the cross-party discussions about the consequences for these people—whether it was relating to the Belvedere Hall on upper Belvedere Road in Carterton, which is 140-odd years old, I think, and suddenly is now being required to have an assessment done on it, despite the fact that it is on piles, it is wooden, and it has withstood every quake since, I think, 1855 or whenever it was. It certainly withstood the 1942 quake with no damage and it certainly came through the 7.8 quake—which shook our house pretty severely—without one piece of damage. But what we are seeing in some parts of New Zealand are people who have purchased wooden buildings—two-storey, or single-storey—in rural provincial New Zealand being told they have to get an earthquake assessment done on them, despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence that these buildings actually present a risk.

We talked about places like Pongaroa, which has a wooden façade and has withstood. A zealous controller or constable might have determined that that building posed a risk, although you could walk down a street in Pongaroa at 2 o’clock in the morning and the front could fall off the building and no one would even know, other than the people who are living in the building at the time. Buildings built of wood would pose very little risk to them. But the question of just covering that off was one that we felt very strongly about, and we thank the Minister for making some concession in the legislation and recognising it and covering it off.

We also endorse the Minister’s focus on ensuring compliance in metropolitan New Zealand. We are seeing it here in Wellington, and I do not think anybody in this Chamber would have actually imagined that a quake—and we have had quite a few, post-Christchurch, in and around Seddon over the last 6 years—in Culverden or in Seddon would damage Wellington so severely, but, now, here we have it. The consequential risk to life of innocent people who might be living in those buildings or living in adjoining or neighbouring buildings or who happen to be walking down the footpath at the wrong time—the risk to those people is just thoroughly unacceptable. The fact that councils did not have the power to order an assessment was a gap that is now being closed—rightly so—and we just hope that in exercising that power, they will do so with due cognisance and attention to new section 26A(3).

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon David Parker be agreed to:

insert in new section 91(7) in section 26A in clause 7 “, and section 77(4) does not apply” after “modifications”; and

insert in new section 94N(7) in section 27 in clause 8(1) “, and section 77(4) does not apply” after “modifications”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 11 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill be now read a third time. There has been a lot of commentary made in the House over the last few hours as we have passed this bill to this point. I just want to take this time to acknowledge the officials who have worked very hard on this, but also to acknowledge the civil defence officials and groups throughout the northern part of the South Island and here in Wellington who have worked so well over the last couple of weeks to try to make things a little easier for those who are most affected.

I also want to acknowledge the many contractors, the many engineers, and the many other people involved in assessment and doing things for the work that they have done, and alongside them, of course, the New Zealand Defence Force and some of our friends from visiting navies throughout the world who also helped at this difficult time for the people of Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Wellington districts, as well as some parts of Marlborough.

This bill passing tonight—as I am sure it will—will enable Parliament to respond to the needs of communities up and down that part of the country who are most in need. I want to thank the House for allowing this urgency motion today. It is not something that the House does lightly. Periodically, the Government will determine that, in our opinion, something needs to go through more quickly than usual. It is seldom that you get the whole House agreeing like that, and I think that indicates the goodwill that has been demonstrated here.

This is a bill that enables us to now move into transition from the state of emergency. It will allow greater focus on recovery, and it will ensure that, particularly here in Wellington, where there are concerns about buildings, those concerns can be known and actions taken to ensure that people who use those buildings are in as safe a situation as possible. I commend the bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to add Labour’s endorsement to this piece of legislation. I thank the Minister who has just resumed his seat—the Acting Minister of Civil Defence, Gerry Brownlee—for his work in bringing forward the legislation to the House and for being accommodating with changes that have been sought from around the House throughout the process, both in the days before we came here today and, indeed, on the floor of the House today. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the officials who worked very hard to put this piece of legislation together and, indeed, the other post-earthquake legislation that will come before the House. Those officials, looking at their faces yesterday, many of them are very senior officials who have clearly been putting in a lot of time over the last few days to make sure that we get this legislation right. It is not easy to do that work quickly.

Just as a small and not at all meant to be negative aside, I do enjoy it when there is a spelling mistake that can be found, and I know my colleague Peeni Henare is a great fan of these, particularly in Te Reo Māori versions of bills. In fact, you might like this for another reason, because the word “for” has become “fro”, and who does not like a good fro on a good day? But I do, in all seriousness, want to say to the officials that they have done a magnificent job in putting this together.

I also want to continue to emphasise the fact that what we are doing in this House is trying to pass the legislation that will help communities transition from their initial response to the recovery phase. On paper that can look like an exercise that is relatively simple. In reality, for the communities that have been affected by this quake, that is far from simple, and in Kaikōura, in Hurunui, and even here in Wellington, we have people who are going to take some significant time to rebuild their lives. I do not think there is any doubt at all that in Kaikōura there are darker days ahead in terms of the economy, in terms of the way that people feel, because we are not going to see the summer season of tourism that we were. Hopefully, we will be able to make something work for the people of Kaikōura, but as a country we need to gather together to support those communities in this recovery phase. This is the limited thing that as parliamentarians we can do: bring forward the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act and have that come into force for those communities, and for the processes under that to be advanced.

Most of the discussion around the bill has focused on the new provisions around the requirement or the ability for a direction to be made to owners of structures or types of structures to obtain an assessment on the effect of an emergency and any related subsequent events on those structures. This does represent, I believe, the beginning of some changes that will need to take place around these assessments. I think this is a particularly useful development for the small number of building owners who are not prepared to go as far as they should in assessing the safety of their buildings.

We have had the talk about the various Acts that exist—the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Residential Tenancies Act—and they provide some assurance for people, but this clause will mean a much greater degree of assurance. I hope the officials, in the next phase of their work in this, will look to make sure that this is absolutely clear—not only that assessments must be done when there is a risk to public safety but that the information from those assessments is made available. To pick up my colleague Jan Logie’s reference before, also bear in mind that I suspect these assessments will be available through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. So I actually think there would be a way of requesting the assessments if it were to come to that.

But I want to highlight the case of a person in my electorate who, when told by the owner of their building that their building was safe, then asked to see the assessment and was told they could not see it. That person made a very good point to me that, as an individual tenant, they had no ability to pay for an engineer to come in. They barely had the ability, perhaps, to even get the engineer in, in terms of being allowed to bring them into the building. If we look down the road here at the Asteron building, that building was seen, the owner brought an engineer in, and the engineer cleared the building. The Inland Revenue Department, as a tenant, was able to afford to bring in its own engineer, who then came up with a different conclusion—that the building or the stairwell was not safe. So because the Inland Revenue Department could afford to do that, and, being a good employer, did it, a different outcome occurred. There is no one working in that building today, and remediation has been required. That could easily have happened in that residential apartment that I just talked about. Had the tenant been able to afford to bring an engineer in, the engineer may well have come to a different conclusion.

So this piece of legislation is important. It is urgent. The use of urgency is something that we need to be very careful about in this House, but on this occasion I believe that this bill is exactly the kind of thing we do need to use urgency for: to give assurance to those communities who have been affected by these earthquakes that we care, that we understand the things that need to be done quickly, and that we are prepared to take action on that. I want to reiterate what I said in my first-reading speech, which is that I have read the press release today from the Mayor of Wellington, Justin Lester, who has said he will use this legislation as soon as it is passed. That is the importance of passing it, so that we can, in the small number of cases where there have not been appropriate building checks done, ensure that those assessments are done.

I want to acknowledge, as the Minister did, David Parker for his amendments that we have just passed in the Committee stage. These are to make clear that in a situation where someone believes that the requirement to undertake an assessment is not reasonable—and it does have to be reasonable; if they believe it is not reasonable—they have the ability to go to the District Court to challenge that, but that assessment still needs to happen. If it is found in the District Court that it was unreasonable, they will get the costs for that paid back. That is an important clarification and one that I think gives the whole House a lot more certainty and security that the assessments that need to be done will be done, but if authorities have overstepped the mark in doing so, then they will be held to account for that.

The final point I want to make on this matter is to just be absolutely clear that there are rules around requesting these assessments. The purpose of the assessment has to be specified, the time frame within which it has to happen has to be specified, and the requirement for the owner to give a copy of the assessment to the council is also there—and that, in deciding to undertake an assessment, the council must look at the structure of the building, the type of structure, its circumstances, the risk of injury, the risk to life, or the safety of other property. Those are important caveats that make me absolutely confident that we are doing the right thing here tonight—that there are enough checks and balances that councils will not go over the top with the use of these provisions, and that we will actually get a better and a safer assessment and provide a bit more security and certainty to those people who feel, in a situation like this, that they have not had a proper assessment done on their building.

I want to again thank the Minister and all parties in the House for their cooperation on this bill, and to reiterate that, from Labour’s point of view, we remain committed to cooperating with the Government on the next phase of changes to make sure that we have a proper national-level disaster management system, that we have a proper warning system, that we work out exactly what is best in terms of tsunami warnings, and that we do not wait any longer. The Government cannot leave that work on the back-burner. It has spent half a million dollars on the possibility of a national disaster warning system. Let us make the best use of that work. Let us see the next phase of changes brought in as soon as possible, so that we can hold our heads high and say to New Zealanders that we have done everything we can to ensure that they are not only safe in an emergency but supported in the recovery from it.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): One thing about civil defence emergencies that we can all be sure of is that we have a plan, an emergency comes along, and then we find a lot of shortcomings, so that we have to then virtually tear up the plan and start again. That is what we are doing here with this legislation. No doubt when another emergency comes along, we will find shortcomings in the legislation again, and we will have to go through the whole process again.

We should not be apologising for that—that is good process and it is something that we have to do. Every emergency is different, and we need to react to them all slightly differently. What we really need from our legislation is enough flexibility for the officials and civil defence to act appropriately at the time and get through that emergency, and we then tidy up the legislation for the next one.

I would like to acknowledge, as others speakers have, the Hon David Parker’s contribution with his amendment. It is quite right to iron out all those crinkles if we can, and it is good due process. I will not take any more of the House’s time. I commend this very fine bill to the House. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to add my support at the third reading of this bill. It has been put through under urgency, but, as we know, the subject matter is very important and requires us to pass the legislation as quickly as we can. I am pleased to hear that the Mayor of Wellington, Justin Lester, is at the ready, and ready to swing into action directing some building owners to do some proper assessments and to give effect to the provisions of this legislation forthwith.

I will not take too much time, but I do want to add my acknowledgments, as well, to all who have participated in putting together this legislation, at a considerable pace. In particular, I acknowledge the officials and the cross-party approach that has been adopted throughout; I do support that. I do support the amendment that Mr Parker sponsored. It is great that we were able to get a handwritten amendment in place to correct what was one of those little things that an experienced legal practitioner could pick up. That is a good example of this House working cooperatively in an effort to pass this legislation.

When I think of the Civil Defence, a particular gentleman comes to mind, and that is Murray Sinclair. He is the local controller in Kaikōura, with his team that works under him. He is doing an amazing job on the ground there, under very trying circumstances—and, yes, he has been burning the midnight oil for quite a few days now. I just really stood there in awe when I had the privilege of seeing the work that he was doing and that was, particularly, paying close attention to the individual needs and concerns of the residents of Kaikōura. Obviously, he is under a lot of pressure and inundated with a lot of demands and requests from various quarters, but he was very professional in the way he approached all of his work, and especially in the way that he dealt with people—and, indeed, in the way that he gave a briefing to me and other colleagues as we travelled through Kaikōura. He is doing an outstanding job and he is a credit to his organisation.

I do not want to prolong this any further, but I do support this legislation. We are bringing forward these provisions to ensure that there is a seamless transition from this emergency through to the recovery phase, and that they align the legislation with the reality of what is happening on the ground in the Hurunui and the Kaikōura region, and so I commend that.

I also commend the amendments in relation to the requirement to direct building owners to do building assessments. I do not want to tarnish all building owners with the same brush. Actually, I believe that most building owners value the investment they have in their buildings and want to ensure that they are structurally sound, fit for purpose, doing the job properly, and generating a return for the owner. In some instances, unfortunately, there are may be some owners who are derelict in their duties or who perhaps think that it is not necessary to go that extra mile, in their minds, to provide this information.

I believe we have struck the right balance in the drafting of this legislation to compel the owners to provide the proper information, and to give assurances to the controllers, to the tenants, and to the public at large. I am certainly sure that we will be seeing, over the next few days, public notices, as are a requirement under this bill. Public notices will be issued advising the public at large that these directions have been made on building owners. Therefore, the public will know that—at least in relation to those buildings concerned—there is a requirement on the owner to actually come up with the required information to ensure that the building is structurally sound and to give the assurance to the powers who are overseeing the safety issues.

Ultimately, this is what this legislation is about. It is about ensuring safety—we do not want to see the tragedies like that which occurred in Canterbury with the CTV building. As we know—that tragic event—three-quarters of the fatalities in that earthquake occurred in the CTV building. Now, I am not saying that if this legislation was enacted that could have been prevented. Maybe it could have been; maybe it could not. It is not for me to judge, but certainly the fact that we have closed this loophole, fixed this gap, made this requirement—a very sensible requirement; it is not too onerous—does the job in ensuring that building owners do meet their obligations. With that, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, pō mārie. In speaking in this third reading debate on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill I want to join with other members from across the House in congratulating, in particular, the Acting Minister of Civil Defence, Gerry Brownlee, whose indefatigable efforts have steered us through the very worst and most dangerous aspects of this disaster situation. I do also want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Stuart Smith, the local member for Kaikōura, whose tireless and monumental hard work up and down that electorate I think has been acknowledged widely by members of the public.

In referring to the provisions of the bill in front of us, I think it is a tribute to the Minister who drafted the initial legislation, the Hon Nikki Kaye, that so little in the way of change is required to cope with this situation. We are bringing forward the commencement date, and there is that change that members have extensively canvassed that gives the power for regional controllers and constables to require landlords and building owners—the vast majority of whom are very responsible, but for those tiny minority who are irresponsible—to undertake those engineering assessments to make sure that our apartment dwellers and the businesses that are in those buildings are safe, as every Kiwi has the right to be. It is a very good bill. It is very timely. I will not take up any more time. I commend it.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to speak on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill at this, the third reading. Firstly, in this final contribution, I want to offer my acknowledgment and thanks to the many public servants who have been providing really valuable advice through this process, and who have enabled us to get the bill to this stage today. I think, sometimes, many people in New Zealand think of public servants as these faceless people who are a drain on our system, who all live in Wellington, and who do not understand what real life is like. Well, I think the advice that we have had and this bill are an indication of the massive value that they offer to all of us, and when Governments listen to the people and respond—and public servants provide the support beside that—then, actually, this is what collaboration looks like.

It is—I do need to say again—unusual for the Greens to be supporting legislation through under urgency. We are comfortable doing it in this situation for two main reasons: one, the largest part of this bill is bringing forward legislation that has already been passed very recently and that went through a full select committee process. The second reason is around ensuring councils or recovery managers and controllers have the ability to require building assessments to be done within a specific time frame and the results given back to those controllers. There is a need for that right now in Wellington. We understand that, and we think this is appropriate to be done under urgency.

I would, on that note, refer back to the story that was in the paper just a few days ago of the New Zealand Public Service Association raising the alarm on behalf of staff of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) who had concerns about the safety of their building. It turned out that a manager at NIWA had signed off the building as safe without it having had an engineer’s assessment. So the union had to come behind those staff to be able to protect them from being in a building that they were unconfident was safe. So we do know that there could be a problem, and so it is appropriate to provide Wellingtonians with that security. I am pleased to hear that the mayor himself was saying that he will be using this provision. That is about being able to be confident about the safety of those buildings across Wellington and in other areas, now.

It is also about knowing that there is going to be a series of aftershocks, and we do not know how significant they are going to be. If we can get those assessments done now across the region, then we have got that information on record at council. So if there are further significant shocks, then we have that record of what state the buildings are in. Even if they are safe for people but there is damage, we have that as our base, which the council and the recovery team can use to be able to assess whether there needs to be another assessment done. That just helps with the recovery process and makes sure that things are streamlined, which is part of the intent of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016, which we are bringing the implementation of forward.

I will just reference a couple of points that came up through the select committee process of that original amendment bill, which was the acknowledgement that it is important that local communities and councils are engaged in that recovery process and that the civil defence emergency management framework recognises that principle of acting locally, coordinating regionally, and supporting nationally. That is what this legislation, at heart, is about: us in this Parliament providing the support for that local action, and it being collaborative and supporting agencies working together is a theme of the civil defence emergency management plan. It has been really pleasing to see that in practice through the process of leading us to this legislation today.

When we heard submissions from Christchurch people on that bill, they were telling us that the key lesson from the Canterbury earthquakes and the effect on Christchurch was the value of the collaborative approach. This legislation is an example of that collaboration, in fact, and will enable better planning and coordination for smoother collaboration at a local level as it implemented.

There have been quite a few acknowledgments this evening of the National Government member Stuart Smith and Labour Party member Rino Tirikatene. And I do want to just acknowledge my Green Party colleague Steffan Browning who is also from the area and has been all over the area and went into Clarence at the time when the dam was building. He was checking on people and making sure that they had what they needed, and he has been providing us with feedback from people in the local communities to make sure that our understanding of what is happening is grounded in those local experiences as well. That is so crucial—that this concept of collaboration does not apply just to Government. It is for all of us in this process of understanding to be grounding our understanding in the experiences of those most affected.

What also has been raised is the issue about us needing to be able to address some of those wider issues at a later date in terms of the warning system. That is something that we also support in the Greens and it was mentioned how that applies in Porirua. I also would like to make particular mention that I lived in Japan at one stage in my life and there was an earthquake over there at the time. There was a tsunami warning alert that came out and I did not speak Japanese at that stage, so the only word I could understand over the loud hailer was “tsunami, tsunami”. It was absolutely terrifying.

There is an understanding that the Deaf community is wanting a response to civil defence emergencies that will alert them—one that is not siren based, because that relies on hearing. We need to ensure that people who do not have English are also alerted to be able to understand these warnings. That is also a lesson that we need to apply when we are talking about preparedness, as we have in the House this evening, which is something that needs to be happening across the country, but particularly across the areas that have already been affected and are shifting into recovery.

We do know that there are risks of significant aftershocks ahead of us, and we do not know what scale they will be on. For all of us to be able to have a degree of comfort, the comfort can come with preparedness, and that is about getting your plan ready, about getting your kit ready, and about knowing where you are going and how to get to the people you want to be with. That has been pleasing to hear in the debate this evening—the common understanding around that and the support for people to be able to move forward into the future. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): To members of the House here tonight and to ladies and gentlemen back home watching exciting, entertaining late-night TV, it is not a matter of “if” we have another earthquake; it is a matter of “when” we are going to have another earthquake, or a sizable civil defence emergency, in this country. We do not know how big it is going to be, but it is inevitable. We are going to have some more of what we have had, and potentially larger than what we have got.

This bill is about readiness and recovery, but it is more about the recovery side. It is not really about readiness because I do not think this bill covers off the large extent of the earthquake or civil defence matters that we are talking about here, whether they be tsunamis or landslides or, dare I say it, seismic shifts that are going to bring buildings down. This bill here as it stands in the House is just a quick fix. It is a band-aid. There is a template here that we need to grow on, and New Zealand First certainly would endorse a speedy bill being brought to this House that looks after the “part 2” of the Kaikōura earthquake. As we sit here now today, we are only patching up a few areas that we have seen we have got some flaws in. The bigger picture is actually to be really in a state of readiness, so that we can quickly recover and get our communities and our lives back intact and back on track once we have an event such as we have just witnessed down in Kaikōura.

Dare I say it—it is a bit clichéd, I know—there is a certain steady resolve of the people down in Kaikōura. Somebody made a comment about something that I had posted on social media, saying: “That’s just a cliché. Nobody’s ever ready for that.” But going down there and actually speaking to the people of Kaikōura—and I would have loved to have spent more time going into more remote areas—there is a bit of a “Keep calm and carry on” feel down there. Panicking or getting themselves into a state of flux is not going to help. They know that they have got a job to get on with, and they expect us to be here as Government officials to ensure that we can actually help them with that recovery state, which, again, this bill helps to do. It does deal with recovery; it does not prepare us for the readiness that we are talking about for those large events.

Going down to Kaikōura and speaking to police and spending some time down there with some of the issues that they have had—with visitors and moving those groups of people out of the area, and with the huge amounts of food and water and fuel that were required to keep that community operating—the goodwill of the people, particularly at the marae, where they were housing and feeding up to a thousand people a day and were just so happy to do so, was great to see. There is a resolve, a “Keep calm and carry on” attitude of Kiwis, that I love to see. I certainly do applaud the manner in which people have conducted themselves, despite the deplorable actions of a very, very small group of people who decided to take the opportunity to do some looting in the area—something that is frowned upon by all corners of our communities and something that we hope to see stamped down on with very strong, severe punishment, and with the legislation to do so.

We certainly will be continuing our support to get this bill through the House as we go through the night so that it can actually be implemented tomorrow. We have heard the mayor here in Wellington himself, Justin Lester, say that he will be implementing aspects of this new legislation for Wellington. If you look at the trajectory from 2011, when the earthquake was in Christchurch, to Kaikōura—if you are plotting a graph, you can see that there is almost an “inevilability”—that is not a word; I made that up, but it sounded sort of right, did it not? There is an inevitability that there is going to end up being an earthquake here. It is something that has been predicted for a very long time.

Making sure that the large buildings and structures in this city are ready and actually fit for purpose is hugely important as we move forward. It is about making sure that people have the resolve—“peace of mind” is the phrase I am thinking of. Public safety is one concern, but peace of mind—although the bill does not directly specify that the seismic reports on these buildings are given directly to the tenants themselves, they certainly will be accessible, because, of course, through territorial authorities and councils you can access that sort of information on building plans, etc. But it certainly would be nice. I am sure that in many cases—in most cases, even—you will have landlords acting responsibly, making sure that that information is available for their tenants. It is, of course, in their best interests that they have got tenants who feel comfortable working in that environment and that building—and living and sleeping while being in that environment, also. We hope to see the good nature of that.

That does bring me to a conclusion. In so far as we have had 11 Government buildings be all but condemned after this recent magnitude 7.5 shake, I have to say that, of the number of earthquakes that I have been in, this was probably one of the most gentle. I felt it in Tauranga at 6 minutes past midnight, but it was quite gentle, and I understand from people who were here in Wellington that it was not the sort of violent shake that Christchurch felt. If it had been a different shake, we might have had a different result. I cannot believe that out of the number of properties that have been red-stickered in Wellington, 11 of them—the vast majority of them—are Government businesses. I just think that a lot of the work has not been done yet. Are we adequately resourced with those building inspectors to ensure that? Are they resourced with the right numbers of staff to get around to make sure that that work happens? I certainly hope that councils and this Government ensure that that can be done swiftly, effectively, and efficiently, so that those people can feel safe and be safe in our streets.

We will be continuing our support for this legislation. We would like to see it brought to fruition tomorrow. We would certainly, again, ask urgency of this Government to bring part 2 of this legislation, which encompasses recovery and readiness for large-scale events. This is just a band-aid fixing that up, but we need to think of the bigger picture as we move forward. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in what appears to be a speedy and successful conclusion of this very important bill. I would like to acknowledge Minister Brownlee and the other members across the House, including Mr Parker, who have worked together very constructively to bring us to where we are. In fact, Mr Parker’s position helped to make a good bill that much better. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my colleague Stuart Smith, who has responded extremely well for his local communities. He has been there to support them, to listen to them, and to give them a very, very strong voice back into Government.

I could take an opportunity to rehash the provisions of the bill, but I think at this stage, actually, what is best is that we conclude this business so that our authorities can get on with helping people to recover from the earthquakes. I commend this bill to the House.

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

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. Like the previous speaker, I am not going to rehash provisions of the bill in this third reading, but I would like to place on record our thanks to all of the professionals in Kaikōura, North Canterbury, and Marlborough, who are working so hard to deal with the aftermath of the earthquakes. People like the scientist Dr Kelvin Berryman, who has been on video just explaining the whole process of the uplift on the coast—helping us to understand the energy that the quakes released, the damage that that has done, and assisting people working to reopen the road. People like all of the professionals from the Canterbury District Health Board, who are there, having experienced the Canterbury earthquakes, knowing how to respond, and working alongside people in Kaikōura.

Going down to the new council building about 10 days ago—and that is now the hub of the civil defence activity—an enormous number of people there are putting in very long hours to provide that practical support to the community, working alongside a lot of volunteers in the Fire Service and elsewhere. There are all of the folk on the marae who provided such enormous hospitality and support for a lot of tourists and others, and the large number of public servants here in Wellington who put in a lot of time developing and drafting this legislation. I would also like, again, to acknowledge the Minister and his consultation, and councils such as Waimakariri, which have provided staff to work alongside the very small Kaikōura District Council, to share their experience of responding, and the best ways of the community and the council working to pick up the pieces after the quake.

Given the collaborative nature in which this bill has developed, I would encourage the Government with the national emergency response—the bill that is going to come into the House later—to produce an exposure draft. That is because where there is an opportunity for all parties and stakeholders to comment on that before it goes formally into the House it develops better law, we have a better and more constructive debate around the provisions, and it is just generally better informed. So this process with this small but important bill has been a good one, and, I think with that, thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to join in the chorus of support in the third reading of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. The bill brings forward by 6 months the commencement of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016, I heard the Minister say it is to 28 November, when this bill received its Royal assent. What the second part the bill attempts is to add a new power to the Act so that during states of emergency or transition periods building owners can be required to carry out assessments of structures to determine whether they are sound and to provide a copy of these. This can also apply to situations like a flood as well as an earthquake.

On 14 November I was not in Wellington, but I did feel the earthquake in Hawke’s Bay. But like many members in this House, I have an apartment here in Wellington and it received quite a bit of damage. My university-age son was in the apartment at the time. I took a call just after midnight. This son of mine is no daisy; he is about 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighs about 100 kilograms. The fear in his voice—he is probably going to get me if he hears me talking about him, but, seriously, he was very, very frightened. He had never been in an earthquake. All I remember saying to him was to get out of the apartment—get out of the apartment.

So that was Monday the 14th. On Tuesday, 15 November, as we all do, we returned to Wellington, and, of course, my son completely said “I am out of here, Mum. I am not coming back to your apartment.”, and I do not think he has returned since. Having said that, the issue around making sure that I was going back to a safe apartment was critical in my mind. I want to share with the House that I instigated calling the property manager, from whom I had rented the place, notwithstanding that it was only a 3-year-old apartment building.

So I started the process of ensuring that it was safe before I went in. I can tell you that on Monday I could not get hold of anybody from this particular property management company, and I finally got hold of them on Tuesday. We were here in Parliament, obviously, right until 10 p.m., so I did not get back to the apartment until 10.30 p.m., and, as I expected, literally every piece of glass and cutlery in my kitchen was on the ground. I guess I was more devastated by the fact that there was a bottle of red on the floor. Of course, we all—

Hon Member: Hawke’s Bay—Hawke’s Bay.

MEKA WHAITIRI: It was a very good Hawke’s Bay merlot, I must say, but I think I was more devastated by that than anything else. The point I am making is that this bill has been born out of disaster, and we have all acknowledged that in terms of this earthquake. Many tenants and building operators are looking for something that gives some surety that buildings are safe post-earthquake. So I do want to commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House and adding that particular assurance to many tenants around Wellington in particular.

Of course, we acknowledge the people of Kaikōura. We have acknowledged everybody involved in bringing this bill here, and can I say that we acknowledge all the people in Kaikōura and all the people helping that community and the Wellington community to get back on their feet.

Can I say that in disasters come good things. One of the good things I believe this bill brings is an opportunity for members of this House in terms of their pronunciation of Kaikōura. Tonight I have listened to very varied versions of Kaikōura—“Kaikōura” not “Kaikura”, and doing a bit more when it comes to pronouncing our Māori language is probably something all of us in the House can reflect on. I just want to leave that as a gesture of goodwill to members—we should work a bit harder, because people do look to this House when it comes to our languages in this country, and we have more than one. Like all members in this House, I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the third reading of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. From a proud born and bred Cantabrian, who for many years pronounced it as “Kaikora”, it was always a great trip up to Kaikōura; but, alas, we learn over time, and I am happy to now attempt to pronounce it “Kaikōura”.

Hon Member: Come on.

MATT DOOCEY: I am getting there. [Interruption] We Cantabrians learn slowly, but we do get there. Could I just acknowledge the MP for Kaikōura, Stuart Smith, for the fantastic work he is doing on the ground.

As a North Canterbury resident, it was quite a shake in the early hours of that Monday morning. Your initial fears are for your family and then you start thinking about your local towns that you live in, in my electorate, Kaiapoi, Rangiora, Pegasus, Waikuku, Woodend. There were many fears based on the previous experience we have had—the earthquakes in 2010 and in 2011. Of course, we lost a lot of housing in the first earthquakes in 2010 in Kaiapoi. But I must say thanks to building owners and the Waimakariri District Council where there are a lot of investments into upgrades, and it has increased our capacity to cope.

This bill is based on building assessments. In the first earthquakes, Rangiora was still having problems with buildings that were open a year after the earthquakes, so it is right that we are focusing on building assessments. It is a great bill. I commend it to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Not much remains to be said in this debate, so I will keep my contribution short. This bill, I think, has attracted a lot of agreement and support from around the House—both process and content. It is a small part of the much bigger, broader response to the quake recovery and transition stage, but it will allow councils in areas that have buildings that are affected by earthquakes and other disasters to require assessments of those buildings.

We support this bill. There is much more beyond the scope of this bill that needs to be done in terms of determining the lessons that can be learnt about why, for example, in Wellington so many relatively modern buildings sustained such serious damage; real questions about the standard and the quality of compliance with the building code, and the standards within the code; and, interestingly, in Wellington, I think why such a high proportion of the affected buildings are government buildings—publicly owned or publicly tenanted buildings. That is an interesting question that I hope Dr Nick Smith’s inquiry will shed some light on.

Really, I think it is the Wellington experience that has prompted the need for this bill: where you have got a CBD that was still working soon after the quakes, but the map is peppered with buildings that were affected, with serious damage, emptied of tenants, and cordoned off. It is vitally important that the public can have confidence that the authorities are on top of the situation and can very quickly determine whether or not buildings are safe for the people in and around them. I give credit to the Acting Minister of Civil Defence and all the parties, I think, for working on this bill, getting it together, making the necessary improvements, and taking it through the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I want to take this opportunity to briefly reflect on the journey of this bill. In April 2016 I released the Government’s response to the final report of the expert panel I had appointed to review the current childcare protection and youth justice systems in New Zealand. The report made a very clear case for change, proposing a bold set of recommendations for child protection and care. As a result, the Government agreed to major State care reforms and a complete overhaul of these systems to improve the outcomes of New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and young people. I would particularly like to acknowledge the children and young people, and their supporters, who have bravely shared their experiences of our current system. Their feedback on what more we can do to provide them with stable and loving homes has been absolutely invaluable.

This bill is just the beginning of delivering what will be lasting and transformational change for vulnerable children and young people. I expect to introduce a further set of legislative reforms to the House by the end of the year, which will continue this focus on delivering better long-term life outcomes for these children and young people. On 1 April 2017 the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki will be in place, and this bill is intended to provide the legislative foundation for a child-centred system.

Can I thank the Social Services Committee for its consideration of the bill. The changes that it has recommended have greatly improved the clarity of the bill, in line with the policy intent. I also want to thank the members of the public who assisted the committee in its consideration of the bill through written and oral submissions. It is always encouraging to hear how passionate New Zealanders are about making a difference in the lives of our most vulnerable children and young people.

I also want to acknowledge the broad support of the members of this House for most aspects of the bill, and their thoughtful approach to this first piece of legislation. We know that the current system does not place children at its heart, and it is not meeting the needs of vulnerable young people as they move into adulthood. We know that leaving the care and protection system at the age of 17 can seriously impact a young person’s life. Young people who have spent time in care have spoken of their pronounced sense of vulnerability as they moved into adulthood. This bill extends the statutory age of care and protection to include young people under 18, and it will enable vulnerable young people aged 17 to remain in State care for an additional year, and, if necessary, to have access to interventions under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act to protect them from maltreatment.

This is the first step towards delivering a system that provides children and young people with the safety, care, love, and support that they need to transition into adulthood. The next step will be to enable young people to remain with, or return to living with, a caregiver up to the age of 21, with transitional support and advice up to 25. That will be part of that further legislative reform introduced later this year.

Young people whom I have spoken to—up and down the country, actually—have told me that they do not feel that they have a voice in the decisions that are being made about them. This bill helps to address this by supporting the establishment of independent advocacy services. It places a new duty on the chief executive to ensure that services are available that provide children and young people with an opportunity to, and support to, express their views about matters that are important to them and about the system more generally. The bill also enables children and young people to participate in decisions being made about them, through strengthened obligations in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. Children and young people will be encouraged and assisted to participate in proceedings and processes, and will be given opportunities to express their views on matters that may affect them. These views must be taken into account.

The bill also includes a new duty on the chief executive to ensure that the views of children and young people are taken into account in the development of departmental services and policies. This will ensure that their views are embedded in the system. Supporting children and young people to have a stronger voice in the system is the key to creating a system that is truly child-centred. That is what this bill is all about.

The new ministry will take a more multidisciplinary approach to child protection work and decision making. The bill supports this by enabling a broader range of professionals with specialist skills to perform functions and powers under the Act to identify and meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people.

The bill vests functions and powers that currently sit with social workers in the chief executive. The chief executive will then be able to delegate these functions and powers to social workers and to other appropriately qualified individuals. Too many of our young people today are presenting with higher and more complex issues that cannot be solved by social work alone. We need this multidisciplinary approach—many professionals coming together and working collectively—if we are to help children, young people, and their families. This model is common to English-speaking jurisdictions. It is worth emphasising that, in the delegation of these functions, the responsibility for the exercise of the function remains with the chief executive.

I do want to take time to acknowledge the special contribution that social workers have in the care and protection and youth justice systems. On a daily basis social workers navigate challenging circumstances and make tough decisions in order to keep children safe and ensure their well-being. Social workers are expected to continue to be the main professionals responsible for carrying out many of the functions under the Act. I recognise that this is a significant shift from the status quo, and that is why this bill imposes additional controls on the chief executive’s ability to delegate those powers and functions in addition to those set out in the State Sector Act 1988.

The additional controls will ensure that delegates are appropriately qualified to perform those powers or functions, and the delegation will be supported by contractual obligations to ensure appropriate exercise of the delegation when it is outside of the State services. Further to this, all delegations will be publicly notified so that the public can see who these powers are being delegated to. Together, these requirements will ensure that the functions and powers are carried out in a controlled and a transparent manner.

I want to conclude by reiterating this Government’s commitment to improving the long-term life outcomes for children and young people who have contact with the State care protection and youth justice systems. We must have a system that puts the needs of children and young people first in everything it does. This bill is the first crucial step in major and far-reaching legislative reform to underpin a truly child-centred system that delivers the life outcomes that these vulnerable young children deserve. I commend the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Labour is actually opposing this bill—not because there are not some parts of it that are important and do make significant change but because there are significant parts of it that we cannot agree with.

The Minister referenced a particular phrase around vulnerability. Like the Minister, and the previous Minister for Social Development, the sector has been engaged in discussions about vulnerable children for several years now. I recall when the sector was engaged in the discussion, which was the green paper that became the White Paper for Vulnerable Children, and then went on to become the Vulnerable Children Act. What was difficult at the time—which was never fully explored—was, what is the definition of “vulnerability” as it applies to our children. I am afraid that in this piece of legislation we are again at the stage where we are not able to completely define what vulnerability is. I recall, during those earlier discussions, people saying things like: “By virtue of your age you could be vulnerable or not”—by virtue of a birthday, you would be put in a situation of vulnerability or not. I do not think we have necessarily addressed those concerns in this piece of legislation.

In my contribution I want to address three key principles that are not significantly addressed under this legislation. The first is: what happens with the wider context of reforms that will go in place, which the Minister has alluded to? We have singled out a piece of legislation that is quite significant in regard to the care and protection of children, but we have been given no ability to see it within the wider context of reforms that the Minister refers to.

The submitters to this particular piece of legislation were concerned about that. Some of the submitters—the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, the Nurses Organisation, and the Public Service Association—said that they were really concerned that legislators are being asked to support radical reform to the core functions of the State before any detailed design, including impact analysis and stakeholder consultation, was undertaken. Further to that, they were dubious about agreeing broadly to these preliminary proposals, without knowing how they might impact on advocating for vulnerable children in the future. Our providers, the sector, and the people we rely on to provide services and to guide us in terms of our decisions around what we may put in place for our vulnerable children, are saying they cannot get a good handle on this piece of legislation, in the context of what may come later. So how can we fit this legislation into a wider picture if we do not know what that picture is?

There is no doubt that there have been significant reforms and discussion of significant reforms, and we are keen to see that the age for children in State care has risen to 18 years. But there is extraordinary pressure on the staff at Child, Youth and Family—and, in fact, across the Ministry of Social Development—to ensure that sufficient care is put in place, that children actually have an appropriate placement, and that those placements are safe for those children to be placed into. We know the kinds of pressures that social workers are under to ensure safe placement for children, and we also know that the vetting processes for those foster families are sometimes curtailed because of the desire and the need to actually place those children; there is an enormous amount of pressure. Do not get me wrong—I think the Child, Youth and Family social workers do an extraordinary job, under some very, very difficult conditions. They are required to uplift children in the first instance, and to place them, under extraordinary pressure. So I do not think we have addressed that particular part of the pressure on the system.

The second principle I have concern around is the delegation of responsibility. The Minister raised that in her contribution. We have not actually been given an opportunity to explore who those professionals may be to whom the delegation may be afforded. One of the examples that is used is around the process for the uplift of children and then placing them into suitable care. It is of significant concern to many people that that process is absolutely done with the most robust attention possible. But we are concerned that there may be opportunities for other organisations to become involved in the uplift and the placement of children, which we will find very difficult.

The uplift and placement of children has significant importance to specific population groups, particularly Māori and Pacific. I know that the process around Pūao-te-ata-tū was around ensuring that the placements for Māori children in particular could be as culturally sensitive as possible. There is no regard for that within this legislation. So what will happen to the care of our Māori and Pacific children if that is not part of the legislation—if the Minister has not considered that important enough to ensure that that is part of the legislation? I have a real concern about that.

The third principle that I am worried about is accountability. When we bring other people into a process where they may or may not have been part of that process in the past, will they be required to be held to account as closely? Will their practice and performance be monitored and managed as closely as someone who is in the employ of the State and the Government? We have real concerns about accountability, as we should do, because the care for our children is the most important. These are very vulnerable children who are going through very difficult times; the families who are engaged in this are very vulnerable and going through difficult times. We must ensure that those professionals working with the children and families are as accountable to the process and to those children and families—and to the people of New Zealand—as possible.

Those are the three main points that I wanted to make in my concern for this legislation and my opposition to this legislation. We must know the wider context of reform that this legislation will sit within. We must have some clear guidance around whom that responsibility will be delegated to. And, after that process, we must know that they will be truly accountable back to the children whom they serve.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. It was in April of this year—in 2016—when the Minister commissioned not only just a review but potentially an overhaul of the system. This is the first part of that system. I can remember that we had not only the expert advisory panel (EAP) but what was also significant, I think, was the Youth Advisory Panel. I want to mention that because their voices were quite critical to the concerns that were raised by the EAP and then also by the Youth Advisory Panel. I just want to make mention of that, because some of those comments that they raised were quite significant in the shaping of this bill, where it is today, and some of the significant elements of the bill as well.

The Youth Advisory Panel made it clear in its submissions, both to the Minister and to the Government, that it wants the State to stop experimenting with young people’s lives. That is their impression—those who have been in care for some time had simply asked whether we could stop the fact of the transient nature that they were often experiencing. The trauma that it created for them was such that they asked that they be able to have clear lines of accountability, and also that they not have the transience that was traumatising them. They also said that they want a child’s first care placement to be the best, and to ensure that it delivers a loving, long-term, and stable home. The current system, in contrast, sees children as young as 7 having already had eight different placements, resulting in trauma that can affect these young people often for the rest of their lives.

We know that the research has clearly shown that children who are in State care up to the age of 17 are 22 times more likely to be in the State system, in a variety of different ways, whether it be through the youth justice system or in the welfare system. We know that we must do a better job.

I want to commend the Minister for Social Development because what she took on was not another review; in fact, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act has been reviewed over 14 times. She chose, rather than another review, to have an overhaul. This is the first part of the overhaul of that system. I just want to be able to acknowledge her leadership in that regard.

One of the things that was really clear that came out of both panels—the youth and the expert advisory panels—was that when they looked at the current system as it exists, it did not place children at the centre. You would think that in its paramountcy foundation—I know that Peeni Henare talked around Pūao-te-ata-tū, where it talks about the paramountcy clause and the principle that our children, our tamariki, should be at the centre, as well as our whānau. Yet is it not interesting that a system that has been operating for such a long time still did not place children at the centre of this? That is the essence of this, as well.

The other aspect that was important is that it does not meet the needs of vulnerable young people as they move into adulthood. Here is the transition phase that we are talking about, which is a critical part of this element. It is fragmented, it does not have the clear lines of accountability, and it is not organised around a common purpose. I think that the bill as it stands—the first part of that transformation and change—is trying to address these issues and has addressed them in the best possible way as well.

One of the things that I also want to address—I know that there have been some comments from the Opposition. In fact, I know that it was Jacinda Ardern who, in the Committee stage, put forward Supplementary Order Paper 248, which was trying to address, I suppose, the lines of accountability for the chief executive. I know there has been some criticism around that, hence the reason why members of the Opposition are not supporting this bill. There is some disappointment around that, because I know that I was actually at the Dingwall Trust with Ms Ardern. We heard the submissions. We heard the calls from those young people to raise the age of State care to ensure that there was a smoother transition into adulthood, and that is what this bill is trying to do. So although there is opposition to the bill as it stands, I know there are elements of it that those Opposition members do support, and this is one of them. I think that is quite critically important to raise that as well.

Some of the Opposition members have a problem with the power to delegate these functions. I want to make it really clear that as a Government we know that it is important that it is not only registered social workers who play a critical role but there has also been a significant number of other key stakeholders. We have a variety of different skill sets that are critically important to that care—that wraps around the child as well. You can have everything from child psychotherapists to psychologists; you could have speech language therapists—there are a number of other key roles that are quite critically important. At that point in time, in a form of trauma, it is what the child needs most to gain trust and confidence in a process of healing. So we believe that this is important, and the reality is that we need a mix of skills.

Work is currently already continuing in the new model, which is a transformation team that is busy introducing—and it is supported by a budget, which was announced in our Budget of 2016, of $200 million that takes us alongside the normal Child, Youth and Family operations as well. So that is an extra $144 million that we are putting in to address not only the cost pressures but also some of the changes that need to happen. What we are simply saying here is that the delegated powers will not be carelessly given to those who are not approved—in fact, it will be given to those who are approved. It will be given to those who have specialist skills that are much needed, again, to meet the form of trauma that these young people have as well.

In my brief contribution to the House, can I just commend the Minister for her leadership. Can I also say that throughout the process of hearing these submissions—can I thank the submitters, both in NGOs and also others who came personally to submit—I actually felt that we had a good working relationship inside the Social Services Committee, right across the different parties, and were able to address this bill and bring it back in the best form that we could.

Again, it is one part of the transformation change of legislation that the Minister is introducing. It will increase the age settings for care. It will ensure that children are at the centre of the system of childcare and protection. It will also ensure that there is an advocacy service that allows for that care and that transition into adulthood for our young people as well. I do commend this bill. I look forward to its Royal assent and also to its implementation in a much needed part of our sector of care. I commend this bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill. In my short life, I have had the good fortune of working in the public sector—a very strong public sector. Right across all of the roles I have held in the public sector, and even today as a member of Parliament, I often hear the Māori expression:

Unuhia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te kōmako, e kō? Whakatairangitia, rere ki uta, rere ki tai; ui mai koe ki a au, he aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? Māku e kī atu: he tangata, he tangata, he tangata!

[Remove the centre shoot of the flax and where will the bellbird be, where? It will mill around, fly inland, fly seawards; and then you will ask me, what is the greatest thing in the world? I will respond by saying: it is people, it is people, it is people!]

It is everywhere. It is emblazoned on the walls in Work and Income centres, it is the mantra of a lot of social services and how they operate—it is their mantra. I just want to take a very brief moment to explain the origin of that particular saying. An ancestor from Te Aupōuri in the far north—Mr Kelvin Davis’ territory—a lady by the name of Meri Ngāroto is responsible for those words “Unuhia te rito o te harakeke” [“Remove the centre shoot of the flax”], and it goes on to “he tangata, he tangata, he tangata!” [“it is people, it is people, it is people!”]. And if the members across the House who use it, and will nowadays, were to understand its origins I think they would second-guess whether or not they would use it. It was actually a remark made to her father, who was about to offer her to a rival tribe as a peace offering, knowing full well that she was unable to have children. So she expressed to him “Hūtia te rito o te harakeke”—and the rest is history.

Now we are saying it is about celebrating the focus on, and importance of, people. But I just thought I would put that one out there because when we consider bills like this it is about the family and it is about our tamariki. It is about the most vulnerable children of the most vulnerable people in our society. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, as I mentioned in the earlier stages of this bill, there is a large number of Māori tamariki in Child, Youth and Family care.

Just recently, I and the member Jan Logie met with concerned whānau, social service workers, and stakeholders—very recently—who wanted to express to us their concerns, not just about this particular bill but about the whole system, and the experiences that they have had. We are encouraged that this House is considering a change to that system. We are very encouraged by that. It is long overdue. We have got no dispute with that.

Pūao-te-ata-tū, I thought, lit up a pathway that would have made things a heck of a lot better for our tamariki and for our families. Sadly, the numbers that were presented in the Pūao-te-ata-tū book way back in the 1980s are still very similar to the numbers we have today. I think that does not speak to the failure of Pūao-te-ata-tū but of successive Governments to fully consider the recommendations of Pūao-te-ata-tū and, more importantly, to resource them to make sure they are implemented.

Tamariki must be at the forefront, and it is with some dismay that we do not support this bill. We do not support this bill. Although we supported aspects of this bill, I cannot help but think this process has ankle tapped us in some respects, because we agree that youth advocacy is a fantastic opportunity for tamariki and for whānau—those directly affected by legislation such as this—to have their say. Their say will be considered and, for the most part, implemented, we hope. That is a fantastic thing. Labour has also been very clear with its support of the raising of the age of care. We have always been very clear about that and we think this is a step in the right direction.

The Minister, in her opening address this evening on this bill, mentioned that this is one part of a larger picture. From this side of the House there is reluctance, having not seen what the picture looks like. Having seen the entire picture, we know what we want to achieve. We want to achieve an Aotearoa New Zealand where our tamariki are not impoverished, where they are not seriously affected by a system that we believe is inherently broken. That is what we all want—I am sure about that. But it is hard to support small pieces of legislation in the hope that at some point in time in the distant future we are going to be able to step back and all of a sudden a beautiful piece of art is presented before us. That is a real concern for us.

I am encouraged to hear from the member Mr Ngaro about the increased funding, because that has also been an issue for the Labour Party members and this side of the House about the capacity. I spoke about Pūao-te-ata-tū and how great it was, and how the failure of the system from then until now is not a reflection of the recommendations made in Pūao-te-ata-tū, but the capacity—the capacity to make sure that they are implemented and carried through. So we are encouraged by the fact that Mr Ngaro talked about the increase in funding. Of course that is fantastic.

Māori whānau and groups involved in this sector also had far more questions than, I would argue, some of the members in this House about the powers of delegation afforded to the chief executive. We understand that this particular power is given in often tricky circumstances. My colleague Poto Williams has spoken about how traumatic it can be when you remove a child from a home. Quite often it is a sledgehammer when a small nutcracker is all that is needed. No, no—we accept that. On other occasions there is the need for a sledgehammer—in really bad cases. But what is the extent of it? What is the scope of it? Where does it start and where does it end? That has always been the concern that we have had, and we have made that very clear throughout the process of this bill in the House.

We have also even offered a Supplementary Order Paper, and had it been accepted by this Government this speech might have been quite different. This speech might have had more stories about plucking the pith from the flax bush and where shall the bellbird sing. But, sadly, that is not the case, and we will not support this bill. I have given the reasons why we will not be. I have already mentioned some of the good parts in the bill, but I think the overall thrust of this is about this bit piece legislation-making that really does not present us a full picture—a full picture of what the landscape might look like for Child, Youth and Family moving forward, a change of name, and questions about that.

What else is on offer? I can only think—like other bills that have come through this House and I have spoken on; Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is one of those—about how our whānau and how those working in this sector are actually able to digest this, fully engage with it, and fully understand it. It is all fair and well for us with all of the papers, all of the reports, doing what we do in this House, but it means very little if it does not have the cut-through, the traction, or the support from the people who are implementing it on a day-to-day basis.

Finally, in conclusion, I do just want to ask all of us to remember those tamariki whom, sadly, the system has failed. We know what their names are and, at times like this, we have got to reflect upon that and remind ourselves that when we make changes like this they must be significant. There has got be a huge transformation to make sure that the sad cases of the past are not revisited in the future. Nō reira, kia ora tātou.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in wholehearted support of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce, and Age Settings) Amendment Bill in its third and final reading. Just to pick up from when that last speaker, Peeni Henare, resumed his seat, he used the phrase that the system was “inherently broken”. I think the Minister—and I acknowledge the work of the Hon Anne Tolley—has been very clear from the outset, around this bill and future legislation, that the system is broken. I do not think we can go through another reform. There have been enough reforms well traversed in this House over the course of this bill, and that is why this bill seeks to bring in a root and branch review of an inherently broken system. We hear things from the expert advisory panel, when it makes statements like “We did not know whether we were causing more harm by removing our vulnerable young people from their families into State care.” We did not know whether we were causing more harm.

That is why it is disappointing to hear from the Opposition that it will not be supporting this bill tonight. I mean, what do you come into politics for if it is not to support the vulnerable? What do you come into this House for if it is not to support the vulnerable? What do you seek to do in Parliament if it is not to support the vulnerable?

It is this Government that supported the vulnerable over the course of this last term. If it is not getting more vulnerable into work and getting young people out of benefit-dependent families, then it is increasing the benefit—for the first time in 43 years—and now bringing in legislative change that will put vulnerable young people at the heart of a service that will seek to make a difference in their lives. That is what this bill is about. So I acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Anne Tolley and, of course, the chair of the Social Services Committee. When you look at the facts—OK, the departmental report said that out of the 22 submissions, all submissions supported the intent of the bill. All submissions—only 22 submissions and they all supported the intent of the bill. That is in the departmental report.

So what this bill seeks to do is not only increase the State care of these vulnerable young people from 17 to 18 but put them at the centre of the decision making, not only of the care planning meetings but at the preparatory meetings as well, putting them at the heart of it but also providing the ability to bring in specialist care. For some of these vulnerable young people we need to make a change, and the way you make a change is by bringing therapeutic skill sets in—psychology, psychotherapy—as well as bringing in an advocacy service. Let us remind ourselves of some of these vulnerable young people: seven out of 10 will leave school with no qualifications; 90 percent will be on a benefit before the age of 21; six in 10 young men will have corrections sentences by the age of 21, and 21 percent will have received a custodial sentence. This is a brave step to addressing, as the previous speaker said, a system that is inherently broken, and I wholeheartedly support it to the House. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): We have made very good progress today, and it would seem unfair to require a member to start their contribution less than 2 minutes before the House rises, so I seek leave for the House to rise at this point.

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

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2016

(continued on Wednesday, 30 November 2016)

Karakia

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātau katoa. I ngā rā pēnei i tēnei i ngā marama, i ngā tau kua hipa, kua puta te whakaaro i te mea kua tae mai ngā Māori o Te Motu, ngā iwi o Te Motu, ki runga o Te Whare Pāremata, kua puta te tikanga kia tīmata tō tātou rā i roto i te āhuatanga o te karakia.

I tēnei wā kai te īnoi atu ki Te Whare kia whakaae atu tātau ki tērā āhuatanga, te tikanga ia kia waiho ake mā tēnei o tātau mā Peeni Henare tērā e tuku, tētahi kupu kōrero ēngari, he īnoi anō hoki kia whakatakoto i tēnei momo tikanga i mua i te aroaro o Te Business Committee, hei tikanga mō ake nei, kia kore ai tātau e hoki mai ki te whaiwhai haere i tēnei tikanga ā te wā, nō reira, i tēnei wā, mō tēnei ata, he īnoi ki Te Whare, kia waiho ake mā Peeni Henare tō tātau karakia e tuku, kia whakatau i te āhuatanga o te nohotahi ki roto i tō tātau Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us all. In days like this one in past months and years a view has emerged when Māori, when Māori tribes of the land, descend upon Parliament, and the practice has emerged that our day should commence with a prayer.

At this point I seek the leave of the House that we agree for that to take place, essentially that we allow Peeni Henare, this member amongst us, to perform and utter that prayer or words on our behalf. Furthermore, I seek leave also that this kind of protocol be placed before the Business Committee as a procedure to be adopted as part of the Standing Orders, so that we would not have to seek leave in future, but at this time and for this morning, I seek leave of the House to allow Peeni Henare to give our prayer to put us at ease as we sit as one in our House.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, that is fine—Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Ā, kia ora anō tātau: “ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri”. Kua tonoa mai māku nei tō tātou karakia i te ata nei, kia īnoi tātou let us pray. E Te Atua, tēnei mātau āu pononga e tuku whakawhetai, e tuku īnoi atu nei ki a Koe i tēnei wā, kia toro mai tō ringa manaaki, to ringa atawhai ki runga i a mātau e koropiko atu nei, kia tau tonu mai tō wairua ki roto i ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare Pāremata.

E Pā, tiakina mai mātau e tutuki ana i ngā mahi ki tāu hiahia ki runga i te mata o te whenua, kia toro mai tō wairua, kia toro mai tō mana, tō kaha ki roto i ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro, kia tiakina anō e Koe te hunga kei te kāinga i tēnei wā. Ka whai whakaaro mātau tēnei Whare i a rātau e noho pani ana, e noho rawakore ana, e noho herehere ana i tēnei wā. E īnoi atu nei ki a Koe kia hōmai i tō kaha me tō māramatanga ki runga i a mātau katoa e īnoi atu nei. Ko ēnei īnoi katoa ka tāpae atu ki a koe i runga i te ingoa ō tāu Tama, tō mātau Kaiwhakaora a Ihu Karaiti, āmine.

[And so acknowledgments to us once again: “the leader is in the fore and the worker is at the back”. The request has come for me to conduct this service of ours this morning, so let us pray. Here we are, oh Lord, your servants, offering thanks and prayers to you at this moment in time. Extend your protective and caring hand upon us as we bow before you so that your spirit alights upon the work that is before Parliament.

Protect us oh Father as we fulfil tasks according to Your wishes upon the face of the earth, so that Your spirit, influence, and strength extends into the tasks before us and so that You also take care of the ones back home at this time. We of this House think about the bereaved, the impoverished, and the ones in prisons at this moment. We pray that You give us Your strength and enlightenment upon us all praying here. We place these prayers before You in the name of Thy Son, our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Amen.]

Bills

Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Taranaki Maunga, te taumata tirohanga kanohi o ngā waka Aotea, Tokomaru, Kurahaupō. Taranaki Whenua, Te Ūkaipō o Te Iwi. Taranaki Tangata, ngā kaihāpai o ngā tohutohu o te hunga kua mene atu ki Te Pō, arā, te korero: “Mai i Te Rangi ki Te Nuku-o-Te Whenua ka puta ake Te Ira Tangata i Te Pō ki Te Whaiao, ki Te Ao mārama”, nau mai, haere mai.

[Taranaki mountain, the summit face viewed by the canoes Aotea, Tokomaru, and Kurahaupō, Taranaki land, the sustenance source, Taranaki person, supporters of the teachings that belonged to those who have assembled at the void, there indeed is the aphorism: “From the sky to the earth the human element emerged from the void into the world of light and enlightenment.” Welcome, come hither.]

I am so pleased to be here as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to move the third reading of this bill. It is a day of huge significance, and I am so pleased that we are finally here for the third reading, given recent events. In the interests of harmony in the House, I will say no more than that. Over the next few hours, we will see Ngāruahine join their whanaunga Te Atiawa and Taranaki iwi in celebrating the third readings of their settlement bills, bills that seek to address some of the gravest moments in our country’s history and that will, hopefully, path a way for a positive future for the iwi of Taranaki. To the many people of Ngāruahine here in the gallery, I and other members of Parliament have eagerly awaited this important moment, and we feel privileged to be here. You and your tīpuna have fought for over 170 years to reach this point. So, once again, I extend my warmest greetings to you all.

In a third reading, it is appropriate to acknowledge those board members and others who have played such an important role in reaching this stage. Some of them are sitting in the gallery today—these include: John Hooker, Peter Moeahu, Allie Hemara-Wahanui, Bonita Bigham, Christine Hēnare, Te Rau Oriwa Davis, Puhi Nuku, Acushla Deanne O’Carroll-Sciascia, Omahuru Robinson, Ngaraina Brooks, Patricia Coles, Te Oti Kātene, Karl Adamson, Pat Gallagher, and Marty Davis.

Can I also acknowledge Matekitewhite Kaa, Hine Toki, Hine Waitoa, Josie Bigam, Ronald Hudson, and others who were instrumental in ensuring the very best outcome for Ngāruahine. And it is so appropriate to read all those names into the permanent record of this House. Finally, I want to recognise the outstanding contribution of Daisy Noble, the contribution that she has made to this settlement, along with the other Ngāruahine negotiators. Her tenacity and drive during negotiations was invaluable. Her commitment was totally unwavering, right up until today. Late one night when we were dealing with the Committee stage of the bill, I looked up into the gallery and there she was.

It is also fitting to pay tribute to those who have passed on but who were so influential in Ngāruahine reaching this final milestone. I speak of Pue Whakaruru and John Nyman. Others include Tohe Ngātai, Lawa Nuku, Margaret Kahupūroko Olley, Eric Taha, John Kato Luke, Steven Toki, Jean Teira Nuku, and Cyril Tamou. And there are so many others who have worked long and hard on this negotiation but who cannot be here today.

The contribution of all those I have mentioned in seeing Ngāruahine’s grievances addressed is testament to their dedication in ensuring that their people will flourish. And it is so very important to record in Hansard those names for ever more.

Finally, although his name has been in Hansard on many occasions over the years, can I mention my chief Crown negotiator Rick Barker and thank him for his great work on the settlement. And can I also acknowledge all the officials from various Government agencies for helping me over the years so that we could reach this day. I greatly appreciate the hard work of representatives of the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and so many others.

At the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill’s first reading, I recounted the bleak history of what the Crown did to the people of Ngāruahine. I took those present through some of the major elements of the settlement finally agreed between the Crown and Ngāruahine in August 2014. I do not want to detract from its significance, because today is a day of looking forward, and I suspect that others are going to speak in some detail about these important matters, in any case. But it is important briefly to touch on the history, and this I now do.

Before 1860 Ngāruahine were thriving, they were economically successful, and they retained ownership of their lands and resources. By 1865 every acre of the Ngāruahine rohe had been indiscriminately and unjustly confiscated by the Crown. By 1879 many Ngāruahine had relocated to Parihaka and supported its leaders, Te Whiti and Tohu, and their movement for peace and independence. Some were among those who were arrested and exiled to South Island prisons, where they were detained in harsh conditions for at least 17 months without trial. In November 1881 Crown troops invaded and dismantled Parihaka, again displacing Ngāruahine from their settlement.

During the 20th century the Crown’s efforts to address the grievances of Ngāruahine failed time and time again. Compensation may have been paid, but it was not discussed with Ngāruahine beforehand. Inquiries may have been undertaken, but they were limited in their scope.

We must, therefore, focus on where we are today and where this great iwi is going in the future. The settlement will provide a base for the iwi to grow and develop. It includes $67.5 million of financial and commercial redress, a right of deferred selection over 10 sites, and vesting of four culturally significant sites. There is also provision for overlay classifications, statutory acknowledgments, and deeds of recognition.

One of the more novel aspects of the package is the right of Ngāruahine, together with the seven other iwi of Taranaki, to nominate members for appointment to two of the Taranaki Regional Council standing committees, and we heard about that in some colour in recent weeks. Although initially contested by New Zealand First in Parliament in September, the Committee of the whole House voted in favour of retaining this provision intact.

During the debate, mention was made of the huge benefit of having the iwi of Taranaki at the council decision-making table. Members also spoke more broadly of the importance of having a Māori perspective in all elements of decision making, and I look forward to seeing this arrangement in action. And, frankly, who can contest such an arrangement when exactly the same provision is extended to Federated Farmers? I firmly believe the region will benefit from this arrangement, and any suggestion that we are on the road to apartheid is garbage.

In closing, I acknowledge the generosity of the Ngāruahine people. Their tīpuna were subjected to so much unfairness, and yet they sit amongst us today to join in this very important occasion. That is testament to the mana of these people, and I thank them for that.

So this is the final stage of the legislative process. At this moment, I again remember what happened in the past and recognise all those who are no longer with us but worked so hard for Ngāruahine, and I also pause to stop to reflect on the importance of today and what it will mean for the people of Ngāruahine going forward. It is a wonderful day, I look forward to celebrating it with my friends in the gallery later in the day, and I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. “Papā te whatitiri, hikohiko te uira, kahukura ki te rangi. He aitū ka riri ka rongo mai ka hē ko Ngungunu, ko Ngangana, ko Apārangi. Ko te titi o te rua, ko te tao whakawahine, ko te tao o te tupuna a Hineamaru, tihei wā mauri ora!” Kāti ake rā e te iwi kua tae tātau! I te ata nei i tuku īnoi tātau ki tō tātau kaihanga, kia toro mai i tōna ringa manaaki, tōna ringa atawhai ki runga i a tātau, me te mahara anō ki a rātau kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō.

E Ngāruahine, e koutou, e ōku karanga maha, haere mai rā koutou, haere mai rā koutou, haere mai rā koutou! Pīkauria mai e koutou ngā aituā maha kei runga i a koutou, ngā aituā maha o te wā nei, o ngā rā kua pahure ake. Kua wahaina mai e Te Minita ētahi o tātau kua riro atu ki Te Pō. Kāti, rātau kua whetūrangitia, haere atu rā koutou ki Te Pūtahitanganui-ā-Rēhua, ki te huihuinga o te kahurangi, ki te oti atu. Kua takahia atu rā koutou i te ara whānui, i takahia ai a Māui ki Te Pō, ki Te Anu-mātao, ki Rarohenga, koutou o Te Pō, e moe, e moe, e moe!

Kia whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki te tāhūhū o tō tātau Whare, haere mai, haere mai, haere mai! Kua roa rawa koutou e takahi ana i tēnei huarahi. Kua kōrero mai Te Minita mō ngā tāngata kua pā nei te ringa ki ngā mahi e tutuki nei i tēnei rā. I kapo ake ahau i te ingoa i wahaina e Te Minita, o tōku whaea kei roto i a koutou a Christine. E tika ana, e mihi atu, e tangi atu. I tērā atu pānuitanga i kōrero atu ahau mō te wā i a au e tupu ana ki roto i te kāinga. Ko ngā pepa katoa kei runga i ngā pātū o tō mātau whare, e kīia nei, ko ngā kōrero o Ngāruahine, ko ngā take a Ngāruahine, ko ngā hītori a Ngāruahine. Ahakoa kei Te Tai Tokerau au i tupu mai, nō reira ka hoki atu ngā mahara ki ngā wā i haere ai mātau ki roto i a koutou, ko tēnei take, ko tēnei kaupapa te mea i karanga nei i a mātau, kāti kua tae mai. E huri tū atu ki a koe e te pāpā e Mahara, e tika ana e mihi atu ana au ki a koe, me ō tāua mātua, ō tāua tūpuna i noho mai ki roto i ngā tūru o tēnei Whare, tā te mea, i tīmata ai ngā kōrero o tēnei kaupapa mai i taua wā, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā.

E Te Minita, i kite atu ahau i ngā māka i hoatu ki a koe ki roto i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei. E tika ana e mihi atu ana au ki a koe mō ngā mahi nunui kua oti i a koe ki roto i ngā tau. I te rā nei, ka tutuki anō tēnei Whare i ngā moemoeā, i ngā mahi nui, i mahia e koe, e tātau Te Iwi Māori, anā, me ngā āpiha kua wahaina mai e koe. Ngā āpiha puta noa ki roto i tō tari, ki roto i te Tari o Te Minita Whanake i ngā Take Māori, ngā tari katoa. Kua wahaina mai e koe i te mema tawhito a Rick Barker, e tika ana me mihi atu au ki a ia, kāti, ka waihona atu ngā mihi ki konā. Kua roa rawa tō tātau noho ki roto i ngā mahi o te rā nei, kāre e kore ka haere tonu ngā mihi, ka haere tonu ngā mihi.

Kua kōrero mai nā Te Minita mō te rahi o te pūtea ka hoatu ki a Ngāruahine, ka mihi atu ahau. Rawa au mō te tū i taku ihu ki tērā rahi pūtea, kāhore. E tika ana tana kōrero. Me aro atu ngā whakaaro me te titiro ki ngā tau kei mua i a tātau mō ngā uri whakatupu ka noho mai ki runga rā, me ngā uri whakatupu kei te kāinga e noho ana. Ko reira te oranga o tāua Te Iwi Māori, ko reira te oranga mō Ngāruahine, ko reira te oranga mō ngāi tātau katoa.

Hoinō tāku atu ki Te Iwi, ahakoa tēnei hōnore nui, ahakoa te tutukitanga o tēnei pire, ko tāku atu ki a tātau—me tito i ngā waiata, me tuhia i ngā pao, me hakaina e tātau i ngā haka, ka kore tātau e wareware. Ka kore tātau e wareware i te takahanga mai o Ngāruahine ki roto i ngā tau, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Kia kaua ngā uri whakatupu e wareware ki ngā ingoa i hinga atu ki Te Pō, i ngā ingoa i pā te ringa ki runga i ēnei mahi, nō reira kia kaha rā koutou! Mahara ake ana au ki ngā kōrero a tōku tupuna a Tā Hemi, kua roa rawa, ā, kua tawhiti kē tō koutou haerenga mai i te kore e haere tonu. He nui rawa ō koutou mahi ki te kore e mahi nui tonu. Me kaua koutou, otirā, tātau e pōhēhē he nui ngā mahi kei mua i a koutou. I kite atu ahau i ngā matakitetanga, i te mahere o Ngāruahine ki runga i te ipurangi, ō koutou hiahia, ō koutou wawata, ō koutou momoeā, he nui ngā mahi kai mua i a koutou. Nō reira, kia kaha rā koutou ki roto i ngā whāinga kei mua i a koutou. Kia kaha rā koutou ki te pupuru i ngā maharatanga o ngā mahi i tutukina i a koutou me ngā mahi ō rātou mā kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō, kāti, tēnā koutou.

Tētahi o ngā whakaaro o ngā whakaritenga o te pire, ka whakaritea nei i te wā hononga ki waenganui i Te Iwi o Ngāruahine me ngā tari Kāwanatanga. He mea pai tēnā. Tautoko mārika ana au i te whakatau a Te Minita, arā, ko te nuinga o te wā ko te tirohanga, ko te kaikiri a Te Pākehā ēngari, ka ora mai anō a Aotearoa whānui mehemea ka whai reo, ka whai wahanga tāua Te Māori ki runga i ngā mahi katoa, me ngā nekehanga katoa e haere ake nei. Kua kite tātau ki roto i ngā mahi tatūnga kerēme, tatūnga take Tiriti anā, ko te mahi ngātahi me Te Papa Atawhai, kia whakahokia mai i ngā wāhi tapu, i ngā whenua o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna, ki roto i ngā mahi whakahaere a Te Iwi. Ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā tūāhuatanga. Anā, ko ngā wāhi whenua kei roto o Ngāruahine i tēnei wā, kei a rātau ngā kōrero mō Te Kohinga, mō Te Ngutu o Te Manu, mō Waipakari, mō ngā wāhi whenua kei roto i a rātau. Nō reira e tika ana, me whai wāhanga a Ngāruahine ki roto i ngā mahi whakarite, i ngā mahi whakatū mahere mō aua wāhi katoa.

Nō reira ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā atu āhuatanga, me tērā atu ki te taha o te pūtea e kīia nei ko te right of first refusal. Ki roto i ngā tau e 2 i a au e noho ana ki roto i tēnei tūru, ka kite atu ahau i te whanaketanga o tēnei tikanga a te ture nei, arā, ko te right of first refusal. Pai te kite atu ki roto i tēnei pire kua whakapakari ake. Kua whanake anō tēnei tū āhuatanga ki roto i te pire kei mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i te rā nei. He mea pai tēnā. Kia kaua e hoki atu anō te kurī ki te kai i tana ruaki! Kia kaua anō te tiro whakamuri ki ngā hē i tutuki nei ki roto i tēnei Whare, e herea nei i ngā mokopuna me ngā uri whakatupu ā taihoa ake nei.

Kāti, kua tata pau te wā ki a au mō tēnei take. Hoinō tāku, e mīharo ana! E manawanui ana, nā runga i te taenga o ōku ake, o Ngāruahine, o Taranaki Whānui ki roto i tō tātau Whare. I mua i taku urunga mai ki roto i Te Whare i te rā nei, i kōrero atu ahau ki tōku pāpā nei ki a Mahara Okeroa, me te kī atu, mangū pai tō tātau Whare i te rā nei! Kāti, ka rongo i te wairua o Te Māori, tēnā koutou e Ngāruahine, tēnā koutou katoa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “The thunder crashes, the lightning flashes, a rainbow adorns the sky. An angry calamity is heard that troubles Ngungunu, Ngangana, Apārangi. It is the nipple of the pit, the opening spear of womanhood and of the ancestress Hineamaru, behold the breath of life!” And so, people, we have made it! We offered prayers this morning to our creator to extend his caring and kind hand upon us, and also remembered those lost to the void.

To you Ngāruahine, to my many callings, welcome indeed, come forth, come hither to you collectively! Bring forth the many, many deaths that are upon you of the moment and from past days, and some of us who have gone to the void were borne here by the Minister. And so to them and to you collectively who have become immortalised in the heavens, go forth and depart to the great confluence of Rehua, to the gathering of the illustrious for all time. You have walked the great path that Māui traversed on the void, to the chilling cold, to the place where the spirits of the dead are, to you collectively of the void, sleep, rest, slumber on!

I bring back the lines of the contribution to the ridgepole of our House, and so welcome, welcome, welcome! You have travelled this path for a very long time. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has told us about the people whose hands were involved in the tasks that concluded this process today. I pick up the name that the Minister brought forth, my Aunty Christine, amongst you. How apt, I acknowledge and grieve her. In that other reading I spoke about my upbringing back home. All the papers that were on the walls of our house were what are referred to now as being the stories and matters about Ngāruahine and about the history of Ngāruahine. Even though I grew up in the Far North, and so the thoughts must go back to the times we travelled amongst you, this matter, this policy was the thing that called us, and so you have arrived. I turn and face you, fatherly figure Mahara. It is apt that I acknowledge you and our fathers and forefathers who sat in the seats of this House, because the discussions about this matter began in those times right down to this very moment.

Minister, I saw the figures that were given to you during the past days. It is apt that I commend you for all the great work you accomplished during the years. Today this House has again realised the dreams, the great work you did, we the Māori people did, and the officials that you brought along, officials from throughout your department, the Ministry of Māori Development, and all the other departments. You brought along the former member Rick Barker. It is appropriate that I acknowledge him, and so I leave the acknowledgments there. We have sat through today’s proceedings for a long time, and undoubtedly acknowledgments will continue.

That Minister has spoken about the size of the funding given to Ngāruahine—I applaud him for that. I would never turn up my nose to that large amount of funding—never. What he has stated is correct. Thoughts and outlook must focus on the future before us, and upon the coming generations in addition to the younger ones living at home. That is where the well-being is for us of Māoridom, of Ngāruahine, that is where it is for us all.

Mine to the people, regardless of this great honour and the settlement of this bill, mine to us is this: let us compose songs, ditties, and perform our posture dances, so we do not forget it and the time it took Ngāruahine over the years to this moment, so that generations to come will not forget the names of those who fell to the void, and of those who had a hand in these tasks, so go hard! I recall the words of my grandfather Sir James: it has been a long time and you have travelled such a long way from nothing and continue to do so. You have done much and still continue to do much more. You, indeed all of us, must never assume that there is a lot of work ahead of you collectively. I saw the visions on the internet about Ngāruahine’s plan in regard to your needs, aspirations, and dreams. There is much work ahead of you. So work hard through the objectives that are before you. Be really strong in storing the work you completed and the work done by those who are lost to the void, enough of that, well done.

One of the thoughts about the provisions of the bill was about a partnership between the tribe of Ngāruahine and Government agencies. That is a good thing. I wholeheartedly endorse the ruling of the Minister most of the time, but there is the Pākehā perception of racism. However, the whole country will benefit if we Māori have a voice and a part to play in all operations and facets currently. We have seen it at work in settlements and Treaty matters, and working there in partnership with the Department of Conservation in terms of returning sacred sites and lands belonging to the fathers and forefathers, and in operations run by the tribe. I applaud that kind of situation. And we see it there as well in the lands that belong to Ngāruahine currently. They have the commentaries about Te Kohinga, Te Ngutu o Te Manu, Waipakari, and parcels of land they own. And so it is only right that Ngāruahine be involved in the decision-making process, in setting up strategic plans and in all those kinds of things.

And so I doff my hat to that kind of situation, and to that one, too, on the side of funding alluded to as the right of first refusal. In the past 2 years since I occupied this seat, I have seen the development of this legal procedure of this law, namely the right of first refusal. It is good to see that it has been strengthened even further. This kind of situation has been developed again in this bill before the House today. That is a great thing. The dog must never be allowed to consume its vomit! The wrongs that were determined in the past in this House should never be revisited to encumber the grandchildren and generations to come.

And so, in conclusion, the time for me in relation to this matter has nearly expired. All I can say is: admirable! I am dedicated because of the arrival of my own ones of Ngāruahine and of greater Taranaki into this House of ours. Before I came into the House today, I spoke with my uncle here, Mahara Okeroa, and said to him that our House is nice and dark today! And so I feel the Māori spirit, well done, Ngāruahine, and my appreciation to us all!]

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is indeed an honour to be able to stand and speak in the third reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has very aptly, sincerely, and deeply led the process through which we come to a conclusion today. I would also like to acknowledge Daisy Noble. In fact, there are many in the House today to acknowledge, but also Will Edwards, John Hooker, and Peter Moeahu. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Mahara Okeroa, and also all the supporting hapū and iwi from Taranaki who are here today.

The rohe of Ngāruahine is where I was born and grew up as a young boy. We lived down the end of Rama Road and Kaupakanui is my awa. As a 16-year-old my first job was working for the Kiwi Dairies factory at Kaupakanui, back in the day when we made cheese the hard way. I remember over that summer, between my fifth form and sixth form, losing 2 stone in weight in 6 weeks because of the hard work. And, yes, some of you might think I need to go back there. As a 17-year-old I left for Palmerston North, where I trained to be a teacher, but then as a 28-year-old I returned to South Taranaki, where I taught at Ramanui Primary School in Hāwera. But I still travelled to Manaia several times a week where I played my rugby for Waimate.

Some of my earliest memories as a boy are of standing on the ground down the Rama Road looking to Mount Taranaki—something that many of you would have done, and still do. In fact, your heart reaches out to that, because you want to stand on your land, and look to your maunga. I vividly recall doing the same when my father, Venn Young, passed away. Taranaki has remained constant and central in all of our lives. He would have loved to see this day, and I am privileged to stand here in this House representative in some way of him, as well, as we come to this very, very important day.

As Minister Finlayson has said, looking at the historical account, we see the serious breaches that have happened to the people of Ngāruahine. So it is important on this day, in the time that I have, to acknowledge that but I also wish to look to the future, as Ngāruahine are doing, as well. As I looked and saw their document—their strategic plan of 2009 to 2034—charting a new course, I saw that strategic goal one was that a divided house cannot stand. So not only do they speak here today of their sense and purpose of unity, but our hope and prayer is that today, in the passing of this bill, we would all be together, and that there will not be a divided house in Taranaki but that we would see great support for this great iwi group.

I would like to also mirror and reflect the words of Minister Finlayson when he thanked Ngāruahine for their great generosity in coming to this House, negotiating, and coming to this agreement with the Crown. We know that only a very small proportion of that which they have lost has been returned, but our prayer is that this will become a strong foundation to go forward and to develop the economic base, the cultural base, and the educational, the economic, and the employment base for their future.

I would like to speak longer, but it is important for us this morning that we progress our bills in a timely way because we want to come to a completion today in these third readings. I commend the people of Ngāruahine to this House. I commend this bill to this House. I am so pleased and privileged to be able to stand in support of it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): “Whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. Kia hī ake ana te atākura, he tio, he huka, he hauhunga; tihei mauri ora!” Tēnei te tāpiri atu i aku mihi nō Waikato-Maniapoto ki a koutou kua tau mai nei ki tēnei Whare Pāremata, tā koutou Whare i tēnei rangi. Nō reira, Ngāruahine, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou me te mōhio anō o te maha o rātau kāre i tae ā-tinana mai. Rātau e hiki me kī, e kawea te toimahatanga o ēnei tūāhuatanga, a koutou koroheke, rūruhi. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a rātau katoa kua wehe ki te Pō. Tēnei anō hoki e mihi atu ki a koutou ngā mahuetanga iho e kawea nei i tēnei tutukitanga i mua i te aroaro o te Pāremata, hei kanohi mō tēnei tūāhuatanga, hei kanohi mō ngā mokopuna me ā rātau whāinga i raro i ngā tikanga o tēnei tutukitanga. Nō reira, i roto i ērā o ngā whakaaro ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[“Cease the winds from the west, cease the winds from the south. Let the breeze blow over the land; let the breeze blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air, a touch of frost a promise of a glorious day; behold the breath of life!” I add my tribute on behalf of Waikato-Maniapoto to you collectively who have arrived here at this Parliament House, and, indeed, your House today. And so I welcome you, Ngāruahine, knowing full well that many of them didn’t arrive here physically. They, your old folks and elderly ones, are ones who picked up the burden of these kinds of situations and carried it upon them. I also acknowledge you, the ones left behind, as a face for this kind of situation and a representative for grandchildren and their aspirations under the customs of this settlement; bring it upon you at this settlement before Parliament. Therefore, within those thoughts I congratulate you all immensely, well done, and my appreciation to you collectively.]

I stand in the third reading of this particular bill with some trepidation, because I understand the enormity of what is being achieved today with three settlement bills from Taranaki coming to a conclusion. I do that with trepidation because the history, which is detailed in the settlement bills, expresses a long-held view of a history that was never told. We can only take some comfort as New Zealanders that when we seek to correct the history of New Zealand so it may see the light of day that your descendants—of Ngāruahine—and the many descendants of this country can somewhat hope to see a way forward.

I read, with some interest, for this third reading bill about the way in which negotiators worked hard to construct the historical accounts and the acknowledgments leading to the Crown apology. We have had a number of efforts to negotiate the substance of the bill; Minister, you have outlined some of that detail. Can I assure members of the House that through the select committee stage, as difficult as this Treaty settlement process is, we did work hard to try to ensure that all the views within Ngāruahine were able to be heard and given due respect through our proceedings—and you will see it in the select committee’s report. That said, we acknowledge that this settlement that is being achieved today is a positive one for Ngāruahine.

Although there have been challenges, and I acknowledge that, there are many opportunities. Those opportunities will be realised by the generations yet to come. We are optimistic about that—we have to be—because reducing the wrongs and hurts of the past allow another generation to look forward. So I want to take, with your forbearance, the time of the House to read out the apology, because the bill when enacted will be your record of what you have negotiated with the Crown. But the apology, as read in the Hansard, will be New Zealand’s record of the Crown making its amends for some very hurtful wrongs of the past.

As you, Ngāruahine, have set out the apology in negotiations with the Crown it reads, as follows: “(1) The Crown offices the following apology to the tūpuna, the descendants, the hapū, and whānau of Ngāruahine.

(2) The Crown regrets its actions that led to the outbreak of war in Taranaki. During those wars, Crown forces mounted numerous attacks against Ngāruahine kainga, and used scorched earth tactics that devastated Ngāruahine cultivations, livestock, and food stores. These actions caused severe hardship, deprivation, exile and death for many Ngāruahine people. For both its actions and their effects, the Crown unreservedly apologises.

(3) The Crown is sorry for the immense prejudice it caused by confiscating land that had sustained Ngāruahine tūpuna for centuries. The raupatu was indiscriminate, unjust, and unconscionable. The Crown deeply regrets the serious damage its actions have caused to Ngāruahine and its people.

(4) The Crown deeply regrets its unjust treatment of the Ngāruahine people it imprisoned for taking part in campaigns of peaceful resistance. The Crown sincerely apologises to those tūpuna it exiled hundreds of kilometres from their homes, to the whānau who grieved in their absence, to the descendants, and to Ngāruahine.

(5) The Crown deeply regrets and unreservedly apologises for its unconscionable actions at Parihaka, and for the harm those actions caused to the community and those Ngāruahine people who resided there.

(6) For generations the Crown has failed to live up to its obligations to Ngāruahine under the Treaty of Waitangi. The effects of its actions over generations have damaged their autonomy, cultural and spiritual heritage, and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities. The Crown solemnly apologises to Ngāruahine for all of its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

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

Kei reira te whakapāha atu o te Karauna ki a koutou Ngāruahine.

[And it is there where the apology of the Crown is to you, Ngāruahine.]

I think when generations to come read the apology, they should be uplifted to know that this generation tried with its best efforts to seek redress for some of the most hurtful things of the past, with optimism. So, just as my colleague Peeni Henare said in his erudite speech: songs should be written, haka should be performed, and, at the heart of that hurt, optimism for the future remains a vibrant light to guide the path forward.

I have no doubt that the negotiators for this claim have carried much. I think the Crown, the Office of Treaty Settlements officials, necessarily have had to endure a lot of truth telling. That said, my small part of optimism is for the bravery of those kaumātua and koroheke and rūruhi who saw fit to ensure that today would be a day of celebration, always remembering the past; a day of optimism, always remembering the sacrifice; a day of nation building, understanding the necessary aspects of the relationship between Ngāruahine and the Crown. For that, we thank you, because this is what New Zealand’s fabric will be built on: a relationship on the Treaty of Waitangi—two partners, trying to come together to make things happen.

This is a lesson for Parliament as we all sit in this House debating pieces of legislation like this. The onus is upon us, across the House, that no matter what political hue we come from and what colour we wear, if the relationship is not upheld, then there is no substance to the words on the paper. So it is determined on the leadership of every generation to make sure that the relationships and the intent envisaged through these Treaty settlements, such as that which we have witnessed today with Ngāruahine, can be upheld with the spirit that is intended to heal the wounds of the past. Nō reira he paku, he paku, he iti tāku kia tāpiri atu ki ēnei o ngā momo kōrero mō tēnei ki te kōrero ki a koutou i tēnei wā, Ngāruahine, nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[So this is but a tiny, small, teeny bit and morsel of mine to add to these kinds of contributions about this; to say to you collectively at this time, Ngāruahine, therefore, acknowledgments and congratulations to you collectively and my appreciation to us all.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ata mārie koutou katoa ōku hoa kaimahi o tēnei Whare Pāremata tēnā tātau katoa. Ā, huri noa ki a koutou tēnei te mihi ki a koutou e ngā iwi e toru o Taranaki whānui kua tae mai nei ki tēnei Whare, ki tēnei whenua ō koutou, i Te Ūpoko-o-Te Ika, nō ngā rekereke o Te Maunga Tītōhia. Ka tautoko ahau i ngā mihi kua mihia kia whakatau i a koutou ki roto i Te Whare nei. Ka tuku au i ngā mihi aroha o Te Rōpū Kākāriki ki a tātau i tēnei rā whakahirahira rawa atu. Hari koa tēnei, te uri o Te Rarawa, Ngāpuhi, o Ngāti Porou hoki ki te kite i a koutou! Ka kīkī mai tēnei Whare i a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa. E ai ki te kōrero a Tītokowaru: “e kore au e mate, ka mate ko te mate, ka ora taku toa!”.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. A peaceful morning to you all, my work colleagues of this House of Parliament; acknowledgments to you all. Turning to you collectively, I greet you the three tribes of greater Taranaki who have arrived here in this House from the heels of Barren Mountain, to this land of yours at the head of the fish. I endorse the tributes accorded to welcome you collectively into this House today. I extend the empathy of the Green Party to us on this day of huge significance. This offspring of Te Rarawa, Ngāpuhi, and Ngāti Porou as well is rapt to see you collectively. Your presence fills this House. Well done, congratulations, and accolades to you and to us all collectively. According to the aphorism of Tītokowaru: “I won’t die; it is death itself that will, and my gallantry will survive!”.]

I shall not die, I shall not die. When death itself is dead I shall still be alive. Long after I am dead my deeds will echo through time. This was spoken by Tītokowaru, who was the rangatira of Ngāruahine and one of the greatest military strategists ever, and we had a few of those in our history. I reference Tītokowaru in relation to raupatu and that he eventually laid down his arms at Parihaka. It speaks very clearly to the enduring strength and mana of tangata whenua through raupatu, through serious, deep injustice, and indeed through the working through of this very settlement that we are here for today, the third reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill.

I want to tautoko my colleague, my tuahine, Nanaia Mahuta when she speaks of the anxiety and the incredible honour that is on our shoulders as Māori MPs, as Māori members of Parliament, in this House when we are surrounded by the mana, the strength, and the tūpuna of all of you from Taranaki iwi whānui who have come here today, carrying both the generations of mamae and also the generations of resilience, of strength, of courage, and of generosity going forward, as we here honour the settlement today for your people.

It is always with anxiety and incredible honour and responsibility that we stand here, that I stand here, among our people with these settlements. The Green Party has long understood that these settlements can never be full and final. We know that you yourselves have acknowledged that these settlements barely cover any of the injustice that has happened, but in the spirit of generosity and in the spirit of the strength to continue forward—because we shall never die—you are here with all of that to do the best that you can for your mokopuna, and for your tamariki in generations to come.

To do our jobs properly as representatives of Te Ao Māori, we want to acknowledge that difficult process. I recall fondly—like many of my colleagues have in earlier readings—in particular, Peter Moeahu of Ngāti Manuhiakai hapū, who embodied the length of time that these processes take as well as the burden that is carried by hapū and iwi through the settlement processes. When he spoke at the beginning he presented his seven children and his first mokopuna to the tribunal and said: “This is who the Crown steals from and has stolen from.”

Then at the hearing for Ngāruahine, which was my very first hearing ever for the Treaty settlement processes, he appeared, having accumulated seven children, 14 grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren, and he said: “This is who the Crown settles with.” So I acknowledge you, Peter. I acknowledge you as an example of the generations that happen through these processes for our iwi, and I acknowledge the people we lose—and there are many—through these processes for settling a Treaty claim. We know that the injustice can never be settled. So I acknowledge those submissions that I heard that day.

We know how fraught this whole process is. I do want to acknowledge that the Greens have always been very clear about the wedges that happen and have happened in every single Treaty settlement process—every single one. The large natural groupings that are preferred through this Crown process mean that we have—and I do want to acknowledge and recall, as an example, that we heard from Āraukuku that day as well. They felt aggrieved by this process.

I want to acknowledge that this is part of why Te Pāti Kākāriki knows that the generosity of our people far exceeds the fact that hardly anything that was taken is actually returned. But in this process those wedges happen, and they have happened around the country. As I said in, I think, the first reading, I am not one to stand here and cast any sort of judgment on those wedges, because you wait till Ngāpuhi happens. So I want to acknowledge that I understand and that it is important that we are clear about that process.

I quickly want to pick up on when Minister Finlayson referred to the absurdity of some of the comments about the representation clauses to allow Ngāruahine representation on the Taranaki authority, and I completely agree with him that it is absurd to think of it as anything less than upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership. Actually, the heart of upholding Te Tiriti is something quite different from some of the fear of the representation of Māori on authorities that we did have in a couple of the submissions that were opposed to that particular clause of representation. I want to pick on that representation on authorities, and although it is not the be-all and end-all of honouring mana motuhake under Te Tiriti, it is an important part of upholding the relationship, and we all benefit when we can ensure that mana whenua do have that representation at that decision-making level.

I recall events around waste water sewerage, in particular, around the regions, around Aotearoa, actually, and in Taranaki, where if we had had iwi representation from the get-go—30 or 40-odd years ago at the planning stage when our own people were saying “This is not going to end up well for the mauri of our water.”—perhaps better decisions would have been made that would benefit all of us. I am very pleased to see the Crown acknowledge that representation through this settlement also.

As I sum up, I am happy to see all of our Taranaki iwi whānui here today. They will continue to pick up the ongoing threads. I want to finish off with the acknowledgment of the importance of our historical Parihaka context. It is relevant through all of these reconciliation processes, and I thank the Crown for having a separate reconciliation process to come. Nā reira, taku mihi ki a koutou o Ngāruahine. Tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātau e noho nei i roto Te Whare. “Tiwhatiwha Te Pō, kakarauri Te Pō, ki a au i Te Pō tiwhatiwha, haratuatia, takawiritia ngā marae a Māui, ka puta te ira tangata ki Te Whei Ao, ki Te Ao Mārama, tihei wā mauri ora!” E tātau mā, he tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi a taku tuakana a Peeni ki te whakatau i a koutou ngā iwi o Taranaki, nā reira nau mai, haere mai!

Kia mōhio mai koutou, ko tēnei he karere. Ko au te karere mō Te Rōpū Aotearoa Tuatahi. Nā reira, karekau i hakahēngia ngā kōrero o ngā kaikōrero i tū ake i mua i a au nā te mea, e tika ana kua tae kē tēnei pire ki te whakatau i tā koutou kerēme. E tika ana hoki, ahakoa me pēhea te kaha o Te Karauna i whakapāhā ki a koutou, ēngari, korekau kē i tae ki te whakautu i ngā mamaetanga i taka mai i runga i a koutou i tērā atu rautau. Nā reira, kia mōhio mai koutou koinā te whakaaro o Aotearoa Tuatahi. Ēngari, ā, koinā te mea nui ko te ari kē!

Ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu o tōku kōrero e tika ana kia mea atu ki a tātau i te āhuatanga i puta mai i tēnei pire, he wā tino taumahatanga i roto i te hītoria o ēnei motu.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments also to us seated here in the House. “The void is gloomy, the void is dusky, while I am in the gloomy void, I slash at the unbalanced and cross-grained marae of Māui, and so emerges the human element into the glimmer of dawn and the world of enlightenment, behold the breath of life!” To us the assembled, this is a short call to endorse the tributes of my elder relative Peeni when welcoming you, the tribes of Taranaki, so welcome, welcome!

You collectively must understand that this one is a messenger, in that I am the envoy for the New Zealand First Party. Therefore I did not oppose the contributions of the speakers who got up before me, and quite rightly, as well, because this bill has already reached the point where your claim has been settled. It is fitting too, regardless how hard, the Crown apologises to you collectively. But it did not get there to respond to the pains that fell upon you collectively in the last century. And so you collectively must understand that is the view of New Zealand First. But that is the main thing, it is clear!

But before I go on with my address it is fitting that I inform us about the situation that came out of this bill. It was a period of great difficulty in the history of these islands.]

I just want to say that I stand in support of the welcome extended by my older brother Peeni Henare to our visitors to their House today. I also stand to acknowledge all those who have passed and to acknowledge those also who have been responsible for bringing this claim, this settlement, to this point in time. Although we have heard in previous settlements that the Crown can never apologise enough or recompense the iwi enough to meet the full breach that the Crown imposed at the time on iwi Māori, I want to take this opportunity of supporting that acknowledgment, and in so doing I hope that the people of New Zealand will also accept that very point.

As the previous speakers have pointed out, in 1860 Ngāruahine had their own independence. They were economically sustained by their own efforts, and yet 5 years later all the asset base on which they relied for that same sustainability, for that same rangatiratanga that we talk about, was gone. They moved as a consequence of that, and in 1881 they were again dismantled. Some were taken off to prison without any formal charges being laid. This bill is all about compensation for those breaches.

Some speakers have talked about a particular clause in the bill, and I want to base my contribution to this debate around that. I am referring to clause 86, “Iwi representation on Council committee”. I appreciate that this was what was asked for by those who represented the iwi, but I want to just remind this House that a little over 2 months ago we had a series of local body elections. A number of Māori were elected on to councils. They got there without the need to have special legislation. It has often been said that one of the reasons Māori are not as represented as they should be on local body councils is that people do not vote. I know that those who have been responsible for bringing this bill to this House today know that they need to focus on their young people. I am talking about those who have reached the age when they are allowed to vote through to, say, 35, because it is that group of people who do not vote. If we are not going to have people voting to get our people on to councils, then we will have the situation that this clause tries to address.

I want to also remind the House that in 2001 the then-Labour Government introduced a bill that established two seats dedicated for Māori on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. At the time that council had six members who claimed Māori descent. Subsequent to the passing of that piece of legislation, that council has had no more than two Māori representatives on council. What I am suggesting is that this clause within the bill will limit Māori representation to just that committee unless our people get out and vote. If they do not do that then councils will be bereft of that representation.

I also want to make the point about particular interest groups like Federated Farmers. We oppose that, as well. This is just to make this House aware that we oppose that. That is in spite of Taranaki area having a number of Māori farmers, who probably are represented by Federated Farmers. I just want to make that point.

With the time that is left for me, I just want to wish Ngāruahine the best as they go forward. If they think that the task of getting this to this stage has been one of hard work, can I suggest that the future will be even harder. While I am on my feet I just want to ask whether or not some of their negotiators might want to join my relatives in the north and help us get our settlement. Then again, that is something for the north. Nā reira e tātau mā, kia tau te rangimārie ki runga i a koutou i te wā i anga mua i a koutou, nā reira tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātau.

[Therefore to us assembled, allow the peace to settle upon you collectively in the time ahead of you, so congratulations and my appreciation once again to us all.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, anei te mihi atu ki a koe, otirā, ki Te Whare, tēnā koutou! Tēna koutou e hui nei i tēnei wā, te ātaahua, te rawe te kite atu i a koutou kua tae ā-tinana mai ki tēnei Whare o tātou. Kua hipa kē te wā, kua mahue kē ngā tau ēngari, kua tae ki tēnei rangi, he rangi whakahirahira tēnei! He rangi whakahirahira tēnei, kāre e kore! Nā reira, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai Ngāruahine! Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare ō tātou, ōku pou, ōku rahi, kai waenganui i a koutou! Kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, ko koutou ngā mea i whakamanahia tēnei Whare, ko koutou ngā mea i tau ki konei me ō koutou māramatanga, hītori, ō koutou rangatiratanga. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai!

[And so I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you and indeed the House. Salutations to you collectively, greetings. Acknowledgments to you meeting here at this point in time. It is so beautiful and wonderful to see you collectively who have arrived here physically in this House of ours. The time and years have absolutely passed but we have reached this day, and it is a truly magnificent one. Without a doubt it is a memorable day. And so I pay a tribute to you collectively; welcome, come hither Ngāruahine. Welcome to this House of ours, my pillars and my numerous amongst you. I acknowledge you particularly because you are the ones who enacted this House, who landed here with your understanding, history, and self-determination. Therefore, accolades to you collectively, welcome, come hither!]

E Te Whare, I will not labour the point. I have been reminded in recent times to be mana-enhancing. I am just going to say that maybe it was really lucky they had those two seats, or they might not have any Māori representation in Rotorua. So I absolutely support Māori representation as a right under the Treaty, and I will leave it there.

The aspects of this settlement have been well documented. The aspects of this settlement and grievances have been well articulated. You know better than I the pain and the heartache that have been endured by your people. So today I actually want to focus my comments on our rangatahi, on our young people. They will be the ones who inherit the future and the decisions that we make. They will be the ones to choose who takes up those seats in the future to ensure that representation and a voice for our people are never lost again. They will be the ones who carry forward into the future the stories that you have told, the histories that you have researched and brought into visual existence again.

So, I want to focus my comments on you, e te hunga rangatahi. The raukura that you wear is a symbol of many things, actually: the harmony of spirit, the physical harmony, the communal harmony, and unity of your people—a symbol of peace. Let us talk about that spiritual connection. When you, as young people, put the raukura in your hair, does your mind immediately go back to the origin? Are you immediately connected ā-wairua to your tūpuna? Do you immediately draw upon all of their knowledge—all of their ancestral knowledge, the culmination of all that was that brings you to this point? Not just in your immediate past—those 175 years ago, those 150 years ago, when your people were convicted, tortured, ferried away, enslaved, and killed. Not just that; go back to the journeys of our ancestors who crossed these oceans, and who navigated not only by the stars but by the phosphorus in the oceans, by the currents, and by the tides. You are the culmination of all of our strength and all of our greatness, and when you wear that raukura your spiritual connection brings you closer to them, as it reminds you and draws your memory back to the greatness of our people. Do not forget that as you battle the future that comes upon you and as you navigate the pathways of your youth—oh, to be young again! Ha, ha! As you navigate the pathways of your youth, do not forget that. You are a seed born of greatness, and the raukura reminds you of it.

Physical harmony—your people are about to come into monetary wealth, to have some land returned, and to have taonga returned, or to have the ability to create new taonga. Think about the reasons that your ancestors fought so hard to retain whenua, to retain taonga, to retain mana motuhaki, and to retain rangatiratanga. In the decisions that you make in the future, do not waste that effort that they have made on your behalf. You know, it is a pittance—it is a pittance—but you are born into a brightness of hope, because the thing about the future is that it is not yet determined. You have the power in your hands to determine your own pathways, to determine your own futures, to put to good use the resources that will be returned to your people today, and to put to good use the learnings and efforts of the struggle of your ancestors, the negotiators, the researchers, the nannies who turned up at the marae for all those hui, and the cooks in the kitchen who made sure everybody was fed. You know, every part of that cannot be wasted as you get to determine your future—and the future is bright, because the potential is limitless. Make the decisions wisely that enable our whānau to hold up their end.

The last thing—we talk about harmony and unity. You know, you guys know harmony better than me. I have heard you sing. Harmony is not all singing the same tune—well, actually, same tune, but different notes. Ha, ha! Harmony is not all singing the same note. It is the opportunity to embellish each other, to enhance each other, and to enrich each other’s note by recognising each other’s difference and working together as one. We can be different. We can have different points of view. We can have different pathways and different dress styles—just quietly. We can wear our hair differently. None of those things have to be done in isolation from each other. As young people we grow up “on the mock”. We are pretty good at that: “I’m trying to be mana-enhancing. I’m holding it in.” Harmony and unity mean working side by side with one another, for the mutual benefit of all of us. The raukura symbolises all of those things, and when we have those things we realise the aspirations of our tūpuna, and we move together in peace, harmony, and unity—both spiritual and physical.

E te hunga rangatahi, hold on to the words of your ancestors. Push them forward to your future. Learn from them, grow from them, and mark your own path. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e tika ana kia huri atu anō ki a rātau mā i hinga mai nā puta noa i ngā moutere nei, nō reira, e ngā mate maha o te wā, hoki wairua atu ki a rātau mā te tini me te mano, hoki atu ki te wā ki a koutou, nō reira e oki, e moe, e moe, ā, kāti mō tēnā!

E tū ake ahau i tuatahi e Te Māngai o Te Whare kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Ngāruahine. Nō reira, koutou mā kua tae mai ki Te W’are nei, anei ahau e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai rā ki roto i tēnei Whare, e kīia nei, Te Ana Raiona! Otirā, i tēnei rā e tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi o ngā mema o Te Whare nei. E tū tahi mātau ki roto i tēnei Whare ki te tautoko i tēnei pire, nō reira koutou mā, Ngāruahine, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātau katoa!

[So thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time it is fitting that I turn to them, the ones who have fallen throughout these islands, and so to you, the many dead of the moment, return spiritually to them, the innumerable and the multitude. Go back to the time that is yours, so rest, sleep, slumber, enough!

I rise in the first instance, Mr Deputy Speaker, to offer a tribute to the families and subtribes of Ngāruahine. So to you collectively who have arrived at this House, here I am offering a welcome to you. Welcome, welcome, and welcome into this House, referred to as the lion’s den! But today I am endorsing the tributes by members of this House. We stand as one in this House to support this bill. Therefore, congratulations and accolades to you, Ngāruahine. My appreciation to us all.]

Today is a special day. Today is a day to celebrate a long, long process. I want to acknowledge the perseverance and the tenacity of those who have guided Ngāruahine to the House today for the third reading of this claims settlement bill. It is a journey that did not start with the signing of terms of negotiation or mandate. It started very much before then. It actually started on 6 February 1840, and almost immediately—probably on 7 February—that Treaty was being breached. For that length of time, our people throughout the nation not only have tried to make the Treaty of Waitangi a living document, one with substance and one that we have upheld, but have had to face the challenge that it was being breached.

Today we find ourselves here to have the third reading of this bill. Supposedly, it is a full and final settlement. If I may add a few words to the words that Marama Fox has just said to the rangatahi: a day will come when you must surely relitigate this settlement, like every other rangatahi and their iwi must do. That is not a challenge to the Crown or even to us passing this today; this is just an acknowledgment of the reality of this process. It is a negotiated process.

I want to congratulate, as I said before, the tenacity of those negotiators who have brought this settlement to this House. It has not been an easy settlement, like every other settlement that has come to this House. The process requires that all whānau and all hapū of every settlement group, of every iwi that makes a settlement, must be in agreement. Of course, we all know the reality of that. The reality is that not everyone will be happy. But I think the majority will be, with this settlement. In the days and months and years to come there will be the opportunity to reconcile those differences. That is something that only Ngāruahine can do. But we are all here to support that process, to support the many mechanisms within this Treaty settlement that will enhance and benefit all of the whānau of Ngāruahine. It will take time, though. It will take time because the settlement mechanisms, and in particular the financial redress—it is but a fraction, as we have heard already in this House, of the loss that was sustained by Ngāruahine.

I want to read again the first line in the historical account. It says: “Before 1860, Ngāruahine were prosperous and economically successful, and retained ownership of their lands and resources after consistently opposing the sale of land in their rohe to Europeans.” I think that really does outline the strength and the foresight of the people of Ngāruahine in 1860, and that is evident in the people today.

The financial redress is but one part, a very important part, of growing the Ngāruahine nation. I take my hat off to the post-settlement governance entity for the work that it has done already in growing that asset and the work that it has done in contributing to our nation. I have noted a number of bills that are currently before the House where Ngāruahine have made submissions. These are really important issues and really important things for this House to acknowledge.

All of these things mean that Ngāruahine, in moving forward, will be a greater nation through this settlement, and so I stand here before you to fully endorse this settlement in its entirety. My kōrero today is to really celebrate, along with you all, this settlement. My hope for the future is very much the same as has been expressed in the House already today, and that is that this settlement is less about my generation and the generation today, but is for generations to come. Those rangatahi in the Whare today will bear witness, on behalf of all future generations of Ngāruahine, that they have witnessed today the passing of this bill into law. So I congratulate all of them. I want to acknowledge, also, the presence of the New Plymouth District Council in the gallery and other members of the public who have also come to witness this day.

I do want to briefly touch on the cultural redress mechanisms within this bill. They are a very important part of acknowledging the mana whenua of Ngāruahine within their rohe, and in particular the statutory acknowledgments, of which I think there are around 20. These are really significant mechanisms that allow whānau, hapū, and iwi, and even individuals, to go into the likes of the Environment Court and quote from these statutory acknowledgments about their connection to these lands. This is no small thing for the people of Ngāruahine.

It is a real pleasure for me to stand here to speak to this bill today. Taku mihi w’akamutunga atu ki a koutou, tuatahi ki a koutou ngā rangatahi kua tae mai, ko te tūmanako kia ūhia mai e ngā tūpuna i te wāhi ngaro ō rātau aroha, ō rātau manaakitanga ki runga ki a koutou, nō reira koutou mā me ō koutou mātua me ō koutou tūpuna, tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[My concluding tribute to you, firstly to you, the young people who have arrived, the hope is that the ancestors at the place out of sight bestow their love and care upon you, and so my congratulations and accolades to you, and particularly to all your parents and grandparents. My appreciation to us all.]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E Te Mana Whakawā tēnā koe i tēnei ata, ka mihi rā ki a koe Peeni mō te āhuatanga o tā tātau whakarite i tēnei rā, ka mutu, ki ngā kōrero kua puta i tēnei rā. Kai ngā huānga o Taranaki Maunga, Te Maunga Tītōhea, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e rarau ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata. Hara mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, ā, hāunga āhua tūreiti tā koutou haramai, waiho tērā take ki reira!

Kia whaiwhai haere i te kōrero o taku tuahine, kia tau te rangimārie ki waenganui i a tātau. Ko te kaupapa nui, kua tae mai koutou i tēnei rangi, ka pai, ka pai, ka pai. Ko tāku he whakapiri atu ki ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia e aku tuākana, e aku tuāhine ki a koutou, haere mai, haere mai me ngā mate huhua kua pā mai ki a koutou o Taranaki, a Taranaki Whānui tonu.

I rongo nei i ngā kōrero o Te Minita i tēnei ata mō te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi, ka tangi ake! I rongo i ngā ingoa, i kitea, i rangona e au i te wā i a au e noho ana i Taranaki. Ko John Almond mā, ko tērā momo, ko Mate Kaa, Josie Bingham, tērā hunga i kaha nei ki te hāpai i tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Ko ētahi kua ngaro, ēngari anei koutou kua tae mai i tēnei rā, Daisy, koutou ko tō tira,Wīremu, haere mai! Whaiwhai haere i ngā tapuwae o rātau mā.

Ko te kōrero tuatahi kua tīmata te tangi, ā, he oranga ngākau kua tae mai koutou i tēnei rangi ki te whakatutuki i tēnei kaupapa. Kua oti kē i a rātau te whakatakoto kōrero, ko te wāhi ki a au i te whakaaro ake me pēhea e taea ai te whaiwhai haere i ērā kōrero i te mea, i ruku hōhonu nei rātau ki te hōhonutanga o tēnei kaupapa. Nō reira ko tāku e pēnei ana kua huri ki Te Reo Pākehā he māmā ake taku kōrero.

[Thank you, this morning, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my appreciation to you, Peeni Hēnare, for opening our proceedings with a prayer today. To you, the relatives of Taranaki Mountain, Barren Mountain, salutations and acknowledgments to you collectively captivated here in Parliament. Welcome to the Chamber, despite your being somewhat late, but we will leave that matter there!

I will follow up on my sister colleague’s statement that peace must prevail amongst us. The main thing is that you collectively have arrived here today—well done, wonderful, great stuff! Mine is merely to add to the contributions made by my elder and sister colleagues to you. Welcome, come forth with the many deaths that have affected you, collectively of Taranaki, really broadly.

I heard the Minister’s references this morning to those whose faces are lost from view and no longer seen, and so I mourn them. I heard the names I recognised, and heard about them when I lived in Taranaki: John Almond and them of that ilk, Mate Kaa, Josie Bingham; those ones who worked hard to take up this one of the issues. Some have gone but you are here and have arrived today—Daisy, you and your travelling party; Wīremu and their travelling party, following in the footsteps your ancestors. Welcome.

It is the first contribution, and I begin to cry, reassured that you have arrived today to complete this matter. Others have already set down their views and my part is to consider how I should follow up those statements, because they have delved deeply into this matter. And so from my perspective, I will turn to the English language to make my address less restrictive.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, as someone who lives sort of close to Taranaki maunga, or at least can see it from Whanganui, I am sure you will join with me in welcoming our visitors to Whare Pāremata. About 30 years ago, maybe 40 years ago, young as I look, I went across to Taranaki, having been chased by my wife to head across to Taranaki to try to contribute, on my wife’s side. I have got to say that when I arrived in Taranaki, as someone who went from Rotorua, I was taken aback by the few speakers of Māori whom they had amongst their people. I was taken aback by the understanding of history.

I was taken aback by, I suppose, almost a depression that you sometimes felt when you went out to Parihaka on the 18th and 19th of every month. I never got to grips with it until I actually understood that when you have your land taken from you, you are bound to be depressed, you are bound to be angry, and you are bound to be deeply sad. And would you put it out there? Probably not. These people are very understanding. These people are very understanding, and they decided “No, no, we won’t go the war approach.”—well, yeah, they did, actually. But there is another way. There is another way.

So I want to talk about three people, not just because—well, actually, they are people whom I sort of know about. But I thought rather than duplicate some of the other information that has been around, they, for me, sort of give me an idea about how Taranaki feel about certain issues. When I was there, we tried to wake that sleeping giant. What we call “proactive initiators”, others will call “protesters”; but for us we call them “proactive initiators”. The idea was to try to give information to people, and, boy, did we awake a bit of a giant. We will talk about that later on in the Taranaki and Te Atiawa bills.

But there are three people, I think, who really gave it to me in terms of a real understanding about Taranaki history and about how they feel about confiscation and what happened to their people. The first person goes by the name of Tohe Pakanga Ngātai. I met that koroua—he gave me the willies. Why? Because he was a direct sort of fulla, he just came straight—bang. And you would understand it, because his name was Tohe Pakanga, tohe meaning to fight and pakanga meaning a battle.

His whole life was understanding the confiscation issues of Taranaki, and his tūpuna before him obviously knew it was a big issue, because they called him Tohe Pakanga. He did not let them down, because he lived by “tohe pakanga”. Everything he did was about tohe, even how he talked. Actually, at his heart, he was a very humble man—but, man, talk about confiscation and you wake a sleeping giant. Why? Because he learnt from his elders about the effects of confiscation on Taranaki people, across the board. So I pay tribute to Tohe Pakanga. Actually, there are a couple of other people in this gallery whose names are called Tohe as well—even not officially, some of them are still Tohe.

The second person I want to pay tribute to is a person by the name of Hōri Manuirirangi. Hōri Manuirirangi—I do not know whether he is in the gallery today; probably not. Ha, ha! Hōri Manuirirangi is probably not in the gallery because he does not necessarily agree with what is happening here. And you would understand that as well, because when I was there 30 to 40 years ago, Hōri Manuirirangi used to haul me up, especially after we got these courses going and say: “Righto, what are we going to do? Let’s march. Let’s do something. I want my land back. Give it back to Ngāti Tū.” That is all he has ever been on about.

Even 30 years on, when I see him in Taranaki: “Te Ururoa, let’s have a talk. I want my land back. Get it off PKW.” And you would understand that, because Hōri Manuirirangi is of that generation, like Mate Kaa, who heard about and talked about confiscation on their marae at almost every opportunity. You would understand that, because most of the waiata—this is from Te Arawa fulla—are all about confiscation. They are all about the effects of the Crown on Taranaki people—pretty much most of them.

I think that when we hear the waiata from Te Atiawa it will be “E Rere Rā”—maybe not. But that is all about the arrival of the soldiers into Parihaka. When Taranaki come in, we might hear about the piukara, piukara meaning the trumpet, the bugle—maybe not. They might sing another waiata, but it does not matter, because whatever waiata they choose—“I Te Rā o Māehe”—pretty much all of them are all about confiscation. Pretty much all of them, and that is how deep-seated confiscation is in the hearts and minds of Taranaki people.

For me, as somebody who went and stayed there, you cannot understand the issues of confiscation until you go to the people, you sit with the people, you actually live with the people, and you understand their hurt. There must be something to it, because for the last umpteenth hundred years—well, maybe not a hundred years, but certainly for a fair while—people have gone to Parihaka on the 18th and 19th of every month, not broken. Why is that? Why, because they have an opportunity to talk to their issues. What are their issues? Confiscation, land, disempowerment—the whole shooting match.

So there is the second person I want to talk about, Hōri Manuirirangi. I love him to death. I do not mind those ones—I do not mind those ones. It is important that they have a voice. It is important that they have a voice to keep us all rock solid. It is a bit of a hōhā at times, but that is all right. Hōri Manuirirangi, no one can question his commitment to his people—no one. He might have a different view about the world, but that is all right. Koinā te āhuatanga o te tangata.

[That is the trait of the individual.]

The last person I want to talk to is somebody I never had the fortune to meet—well, I wish I had done. His name was Tītokowaru. I say Tītokowaru because, again, Tītokowaru is somebody who is in the hearts and minds of, certainly, the people who are here today, Ngāruahine. Why? Because you have got to ask yourself how a person can have their land lost from them, get into scraps, deal to the settlers, have battles, and, against all of that confiscation, flip to the absolute opposite of passive resistance. How is that possible? With all that pain, you lose your land, you are scrapping all the time, year in year out. I have got a whole blimmin biography of Tītokowaru. Over years, he had five conferences to try to pull everybody together, he formed alliances up in Waikato, and then for some reason he goes flip—over to the other side. Christianity, a faith and hope for his people, and, again, he called people together to, in a sense, stand with Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi in a whole new way of thinking about the engagement with Crown forces. Peace, for goodness’ sake! Peace, after what happened to them and the loss of their land!

I do not know that I will ever get a full understanding of the loss, of what that feels like for somebody to just come in—actually, I have seen the map. You see the confiscation line. Actually, probably somebody in here at the time did some lines. They were lousy drawers, because it went crooked now and again, but that was the confiscation line that just went down the page on a map, a few kinks here and there, and said that everything to the left was now the Crown’s. I mean, can we really get any understanding of that happening in here. Somebody did it—put a line on a map, said “Oh, a bit hard that way; too much bush. Let’s go a little bit left.”, straight down, and said that everything to the left now belonged to the Crown. I mean, there must have been something seriously wrong at that time. There must have been some—who knows? That somebody could do that and say: “Righto, go make it happen.”

So I talk about names because some names in Taranaki history are celebrated on some of those street names in Hāwera, Ōkaiawa—oh, I do not know about Ōkaiawa; there are only a few streets there. I am just saying—Ngāraina Brooks, there are only a few streets there. But names are important, because, despite the fact that we are doing a settlement today that will hopefully be the light into the future, the names of those people who are involved in that issue are still in the hearts and minds—and the worst part is that they always will be. Why? Because they are the street names of a number of streets in Taranaki and Hāwera and New Plymouth and Ōpunake and, possibly, Ōkaiawa. That being the case, let us think about history. I hope that the journals that come from the Taranaki settlement are available to every school in this country. In fact, people should read them—in particular, people associated with Hobson’s choice—to understand what happened in this country’s history.

The final point I will make—talking about names, and just to wrap it up—is that I want to name the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for the work that he has done to advance this kaupapa. We could have been coming back next year to do this. Ki a koe e Te Minita, ka nui te mihi ki a koe i akiaki nei i tēnei kaupapa ki tōna taumata, me mihi rā Te Ao Māori ki a koe. Ko te wāhi ki a au ā-Minita nei kia tū i tō taha ki te whaiwhai haere i ēnei kaupapa.

[As far as you are concerned, Minister, I applaud you greatly for urging this matter on to its pinnacle. Māoridom must commend you for that. The part for me as a Minister is to stand beside you and to follow up these initiatives.]

I want to acknowledge you and the work that you have done. E te iwi, it is going to be a long morning. I have got other good things to say this morning, but for now, ko tāku ko te kī atu, hara mai me te pare kawakawa o te hunga kua ngaro, kia tangihia e tātau i tēnei rā ēngari, waiho tērā ki reira. Āpōpō he rā anō, kua whiti mai te rā, kua kite mai ai te māramatanga o ngā kaupapa kōrero i kōkirihia i tēnei rā tonu nei. Kia kaha, kia toa i roto i ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro! Kia kaua tātau e hoki whakamuri ēngari arā anō te paerangi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[I say to you, welcome with the garland of grief of those who are gone for us to mourn on this day, but leave that there. Tomorrow is another day when the sun shall rise and the significance of the initiatives discussed on this very day will be recognised. Be strong and brave in the years ahead. We must never go backwards, but there indeed is the distant horizon ahead. Well done and congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ā, tēnā koutou e Te Iwi o Ngaruahine, e ngā Iwi o Te Maunga o Taranaki, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you, the tribe of Ngaruahine and the tribes of Taranaki Mountain. Accolades to you all.]

At the first reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill I got up and gave a speech, and said that I am not allowed to give a speech, so if I am not careful I will have to boot myself out of the Chamber. As I stood, I heard my cousin say: “Oh, God. Is he going to speak? We’ve gotta move on.” Just to acknowledge, too, that everything I wanted to say, Te Ururoa Flavell has just said.

It was recently—30 years ago; it was 18 December 1985—when I started knocking around with you guys, when I came to Pātea to be the local cop. I met up with Ngāti Ruanui, and Ngā Rauru not long after that, and then the rest of you all around the mountain. In that time we have become pretty good mates. We have been in and out of trouble together; sometimes on the same side and sometimes on opposing sides. Nevertheless, you have inspired within me a renaissance, as a citizen of this country. I believe our future is bright.

I thank you for the struggle that you have had. I hope that we are soon going to see the end of that as we move towards a brighter day and these things get dealt with. Nevertheless, today is a day of celebration. I look forward to being in the Chair through a big chunk of that. Although you will not hear me speak again—

Kelvin Davis: He wai!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: God bless. Tēnā koutou katoa.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. I want to begin by welcoming to this Chamber the people of Te Atiawa. It is a real privilege to be here with you on a day that marks a very important step in that ongoing relationship between Te Atiawa and the Crown. As the Crown acknowledges in this bill, recognition of Te Atiawa’s historical grievances is long overdue. Many present in the gallery have spent so much of their lives working towards this day, and I want to acknowledge their work and determination, and the sacrifices that they have made. I also acknowledge those tūpuna of Te Atiawa who carried the flame before the current members but who are no longer with us.

As I did in the previous debate, I want to acknowledge a few individuals who have been instrumental in making today a reality. I have to mention Te Atiawa negotiators, and, in particular, I want to record my thanks and admiration for Peter Moeahu and for the late Wikitōria Keenan. Peter and Wikitōria carried an enormous responsibility for negotiating the settlement of these historical claims and for leading negotiations from start to finish. I am sure that all of us here today share my sense of admiration for the key role played by Wikitōria in these negotiations, my appreciation that she was able to be present from her hospital bed to see the Te Atiawa deed of settlement signed, and my sadness that she is not in the gallery today. So my thoughts are very much with Wikitōria and her family.

I also want to acknowledge the work of all members of the Te Atiawa Iwi Authority and Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust. From here in Wellington, we can really see a young leadership emerging in Te Atiawa—and I look up and see Liana Poutu staring down at me. I very much look forward to seeing where you and Hēmi are going to take your iwi in the future.

Finally, I want to thank my chief Crown negotiator Rick Barker, my team at the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the staff of other Government organisations, who really have contributed to making this settlement a reality. The cooperative nature of these negotiations will continue to be a feature of the relationship between Te Atiawa and the Crown, and that I promise you.

This is a day of very mixed emotions. To the extent that this bill marks a new beginning in the relationship between Te Atiawa and the Crown, it is certainly a moment to celebrate. But when we reflect on the history that makes this bill necessary, other emotions inevitably arise: anger, sadness, and, on the part of the Crown, a real sense of shame. This is as it should be. We are not here to forget history—I can assure Te Atiawa of that—nor are we here to leave it behind; we are here to acknowledge it and to place it on the permanent record of this House so that all New Zealanders can learn from it, both now and in the future.

It was in 1839, during a period when many Taranaki Māori were living away from their rohe, that Europeans, also attracted by that region’s rich resources, made their first attempt at acquiring land in Taranaki. Once started, the pressure to sell land did not abate. When the Te Atiawa rangatira Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake expressed his intention to bring his people back to his ancestral lands at Waitara and resist their alienation, the Governor himself threatened to have their vessels destroyed. The threat did not work, and by the end of the 1840s Te Atiawa were back at Waitara. As new economic opportunities emerged, Māori from throughout Taranaki became even less inclined to sell their land. The use of secret payments by Crown agents increased tensions within and between hapū, which in 1854 erupted into armed conflict, costing a number of Te Atiawa people their lives.

For a time, purchasing halted, but in 1859 the Crown attempted to purchase the Pekapeka Block. When Wīremu Kīngi’s people prevented the survey of Pekapeka in early 1860, the Crown declared this to be an act of rebellion and commenced hostilities against him and against his people, plunging Taranaki into war. Te Atiawa received support from other Taranaki iwi, and after a year of fighting the Crown negotiated a peace agreement. In April 1863 the Governor decided to renounce the Waitara purchase. However, before this decision was announced, war erupted again and fighting continued into 1864, during which many Te Atiawa people lost their property, their homes, and their cultivations. Many also lost their lives. Then in 1865 they lost their land. In response to the so-called rebellion, the Crown proclaimed 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land confiscated, including every acre—every acre—of the Te Atiawa rohe.

Te Atiawa of course know this story, but it is so very important to record it here in the permanent record of this House. As you know, it is perhaps impossible to overestimate the devastating effect that raupatu had on Te Atiawa individuals, on whānau, on the welfare, economy, culture, and social development of Te Atiawa as an iwi ever since. It is also difficult to imagine a worse breach of the Treaty that the Crown had signed only 25 years before. The Crown then compounded this injustice with other failures and further breaches. When a small amount of land was finally returned in the 1880s, virtually all of it came under non-customary, individualised title. In a further insult, the land was not returned to Te Atiawa people outright but placed under the administration of the Public Trustee, who then either sold the land or placed much of it under a regime of perpetual leases that remains in place to this day.

It is important to acknowledge and record that Te Atiawa were never passive victims. Time and again, Te Atiawa men and women actively opposed land sales, prevented surveys, resisted Crown military force, and refused to accept the return of land under individualised title. Te Atiawa also played a prominent role in the establishment of Parihaka and the movement for peace and independence that developed there. The form of resistance that emerged from Parihaka was anything but passive. Between 1879 and 1880, under the leadership of Te Atiawa rangatira Te Whiti o Rongomai and his co-leader, Tohu Kākahi, Te Atiawa people were among the many who participated in campaigns of peaceful resistance against Crown injustices, but they were arrested and exiled to South Island prisons, detained in harsh conditions without trial. Although some Te Atiawa people were among the very few protesters who did receive trials, the Crown then detained them beyond the terms of their Crown-imposed sentences. Some died while in prison. In November 1881 Te Atiawa people were among those displaced from Parihaka after more than 1,500 Crown troops invaded and systematically dismantled the settlement.

So this is a very difficult story. The settlement package that the bill delivers to Te Atiawa cannot compensate them for the losses and the anguish they have suffered for generations, but it is a testament to the vision and generosity of Te Atiawa that they were willing to negotiate with the Crown on these issues and to negotiate a settlement—a settlement that does not compensate for their losses, but, hopefully, will enable them to resume their place as a major economic force in their rohe, to rejuvenate their social, their cultural, their political life, and, once again, imagine a future with them in control.

To that end, this settlement will provide Te Atiawa with resources to help them develop their economic and social well-being. It includes $87 million of financial and commercial redress, the option to purchase a number of Crown properties, sale and leaseback over two Crown properties, and a right of first refusal over a range of properties. Cultural redress includes the vesting of a key site, the Taumata property in Te Atiawa, and a range of redress mechanisms that highlight the significant relationship of Te Atiawa to the land.

I acknowledge, as indeed I must, that one of the emotions being felt by some Te Atiawa today will be frustration around the issue of the Waitara endowment lands. I hope this will be a generation that reaches some resolution over this land. Waitara remains one of the most complex issues we have ever dealt with in a Treaty settlement, and although the outcome may be less than what many Te Atiawa would have wanted, it is a testament to their negotiators’ persistence and their pragmatism that every possible opportunity was explored both with central and local government.

It is a great pleasure to be here as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, speaking as the first speaker in this third reading. I know that I always seem to have notes, because I want to read very carefully into the record of the House what happened, and it is important to record it accurately. But I want to conclude without notes by saying to Te Atiawa that it has been a great journey with you. I always recall Ōwae Marae and Māui Pōmare Day in 2009, when I was invited to speak. I said: “Why don’t we start negotiating again?”. When I went back to the Office of Treaty Settlements on the Monday morning to tell them that I was lining up Te Atiawa to negotiate, there were a few coronaries that morning, because it was not in their scheme of things, but I had to remind them that I am the Minister.

So on 17 March 2010 we signed the terms of negotiation, again at Ōwae Marae, and it has been a fantastic journey with wonderful people. There is nothing better than walking up to the top of Mount Kaukau in Wellington on a clear day—and we do have those in Wellington—and looking out to see in the far distance the majestic Taranaki. So to have been part of this journey is indeed a great honour. There is a bit more for us to do, and I will say more about that in the Taranaki debate, but for now I commend this bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the question is that the motion be agreed to, and I remind them that we should not take a leaf out of the Minister’s book and speak for 5 minutes and 30 seconds over their allotted time.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, kei te mihi hoki au ki a koutou ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Te Ātiawa, nau mai, hara mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā mō te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei tō tātau pire i mua i a tātau, nō reira, tēnā koutou, nau mai hara mai, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time I commend you, the families and subtribes of Te Ātiawa. Welcome, and come forth to Parliament House on this day with regard to the third reading of this, our bill before us. Therefore, congratulations to you collectively. Welcome, welcome, and my appreciation to us all.]

First of all, can I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for all the work that he has done on all of the Taranaki iwi settlement claims. Can I also acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee and the chair of the select committee, Tutehounuku Korako, for the work that they have done on this bill. I had the pleasure of listening to the submitters and I want to acknowledge all of those who have made submissions on this bill. Probably the one that sticks in my mind the most is actually the submission that was made by Peter Moeahu, and I want to acknowledge him for his submission. I think he contextualised this settlement very well, in that he talked about his mokopuna—the mokopuna whom he had at the time that this started, and the many more whom he had at the time of the submissions—so I want to thank him for that context.

I want to read part of the acknowledgments and part of the apology that is made through this settlement. 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;”. In the apology, it states: “(c) 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 really important that when we make an acknowledgment and apology we actually follow through on it, and I have to say, as I said in my second reading speech, and after hearing submissions on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, I do think that a shadow has been cast upon this settlement. I read those out specifically in relation to the Pekapeka Block. I think it is important that it is also recorded in the debate today. The words that we use around this block and what happened there is important to be acknowledged.

To talk about “endowment lands” actually reinforces the history of those lands. They became endowment lands, as we heard in submissions on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, through a process that was unfair and unjust. So the terminology that we use today is important to be acknowledged—we are actually talking about the Pekapeka Block. I refer to these acknowledgments and apology in this context. The other bill before this House, potentially, if we are not careful, will impact negatively on this settlement and the people of Te Atiawa. I want that recorded because I think it is important that we go into this with our eyes wide open and fully cognisant of the potential of that other bill. That is not to say that we will vote against it—no, we will support this bill in its third reading. It is clearly what the people of Te Atiawa want.

Within this bill there is clause 117, which outlines a process around the Pekapeka Block, or, as we are calling it, the endowment land. The other bill that is before the House will remove that, and that is the bit I am really concerned about. But those are issues that the Māori Affairs Committee must deal with with the other bill, not this one. It is clear that this bill needs to pass, and I stand here in support of it, but it would be remiss of me not to actually mention the magnitude of what is being proposed. That is something that the post-settlement governance entity needs to be very clear and direct about in its oral submission when it makes it next year.

The paper trail tells me that the heads of agreement for that agreement between the district council and Te Atiawa was signed within days of the deed of settlement. It kind of tells me that these discussions had already taken place and are directly linked to this settlement. I want it on the record that the submission of Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa now opposes the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, and I want that on the record in the reading of this bill.

It is a very difficult situation for negotiators. This is not an easy process to navigate and to get through, with so many competing interests. But my words to Te Atiawa and to the post-settlement governance entity are words of encouragement, to encourage Te Atiawa to take every opportunity it can to reconcile this issue, not only with those who are opposed but also with those who are in favour of it. Not an easy task, I acknowledge, but I want to acknowledge everything that is in this bill for what it is.

I have said on a number of occasions before that the Treaty settlement process is a flawed process, and we must all enter into that process with our eyes open. We must acknowledge what it can deliver and what it cannot deliver, and be absolutely aware of those two things. As I have said to the House on a number of occasions before, we must then ask the question whether or not the claimant group—the iwi—can accept what it can and cannot deliver, and whether or not we can live with it. Those are the important questions, before even entering into this process.

I have to ask whether or not everyone connected to this settlement considered that question, because there have been a number of objections to this settlement, and even requests to have this settlement legislation delayed—which I do not agree with. But those are questions that I wanted to pose within this debate, with humble respect to all of those who participated in this process.

Tēnei au e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou, ko te tūmanako kia ūhia mai e rātau mā i te wāhi ngaro ō rātau kaha, ō ratau manaakitanga, ō rātau aroha ki runga ki ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Te Ātiawa, nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnei te mihi atu ki a tātau katoa o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa.

[I accord this tribute to you collectively with the hope that they and others at the place out of sight bestow their courage, kindness, and empathy upon the families and subtribes of Te Ātiawa. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend us all of this House. Well done.]

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I wish to welcome and acknowledge members of Te Atiawa here today. Liana, Hemi—good to see your whānau. Peter, kia ora, welcome—and many others who are here today as well, in support of this bill. I would like to also acknowledge Mayor Neil Holdom—great to see you here. Also the deputy mayor from South Taranaki, Phil Nixon; Craig Stevenson, Kelvin Day, Basil Chamberlain, Barbara McKerrow, and I saw Howie Tamati in the crowd as well—kia ora, Howie. I would like to acknowledge the negotiators Peter Moeahu and also Wikitoria Keenan, and I acknowledge Wikitoria’s passing. No doubt, today is a day that she would have greatly desired to be here.

I would like to read a passage from The Taranaki Report—Kaupapa Tuatahi, and then I want to go back in history, with the hope that we might understand some of the deep background of what has taken place here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The report says “We have been struck by the coincidence between this current perception of partnership and good faith”—speaking of Te Atiawa—“and the view of Maori leaders at the time. The predominant Maori view, as we see it, was that there was a place for Pakeha, provided Maori authority was also acknowledged. Nor was this expectation of respect couched in unreasonable or demanding terms. On the eve of the New Zealand wars of the 1860s, for example, as the Government was preparing to attack him, the Te Atiawa leader, Wiremu Kingi, wrote simply to the Governor: You should remember that the Maoris and Pakehas are living quietly upon their pieces of land, and therefore do not you disturb them. Later, when a military commander presented an ultimatum, a virtual declaration of war alleging Kingi was in rebellion, Kingi replied: Friend, Colonel Murray, salutation to you in the love of our Lord Jesus Christ. You say that we have been guilty of rebellion against the Queen but we consider we have not. This is my word to you. I have no desire for evil, but on the contrary, have great love for the Europeans and Maories. Listen, my love is this, put a stop to your proceedings, that your love of the Europeans and the Maories may be true.”

“Twenty years later, when the war had come and gone, the leadership, as represented by Te Whiti, still maintained the same position: there was a place for Pakeha and a place for Maori but Maori authority had to be recognised and dialogue between Maori and the Government had to be maintained. Te Whiti and Kingi, in turn, were adherents of the Kingitanga, the movement under the Maori King, where the relationship between the separate authorities of the colonisers and Maori was exemplified in the symbolic depiction of ‘the [Maori] King on his piece; the Queen on her piece, God over both; and Love binding them to each other’.”

Another reason why I wish to speak of this is because of my family ancestry. My tupuna John Hobbs—my great, great, great, great-grandfather—came to New Zealand on 3 August 1823, to the Bay of Islands, as a young 23-year-old, after working in Tasmania, ministering to the convict population there. He was an accomplished musician, he was an artisan, demonstrating great ability to improvise, and he offered his assistance to the Wesleyan mission in the Bay of Islands. He was a skilful linguist, who learnt to speak nine languages, and he became an interpreter. Did I say he was a very handsome young man as well?

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: No you didn’t. You missed that part.

JONATHAN YOUNG: So I missed all those bits about him. Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840 Hobbs had lengthy discussions with his friend whom he had helped encourage into Christianity, Tāmati Waka Nene. It was Nene’s speech, according to the encyclopaedia of New Zealand, Te Ara, that turned the tide in favour of the Treaty during the signing of Waitangi. At the Mangungu signing, Hobbs interpreted for Lieutenant Governor William Hobson. In 1847 he noted that he had translated Hobson’s assurances that the Crown wanted sovereignty, not land, and that land would never be forcibly taken.

What we see is broken trust. What we see is not just the loss of the land but the loss of a relationship that should have been based on trust, mutual acknowledgment, and respect and understanding. When I plug my iPhone into my computer, the question comes up “Is this a trusted device?”, because unless I say “Yes”, there is no communication between those two devices. What I hope for, out of all of this, because we know that what was lost was hugely greater than what has been returned—but what I hope may be restored is trust.

I want to acknowledge my good friend the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who, I believe, has made that word “honourable” true in this Parliament, in this country, because he has sought to build trust and to build communication. He has sought to bridge the huge divide that has existed, and we know that what is needed is just this foundation to go forward.

I remember that once when a news article came out in our local paper, the Taranaki Daily News, about the progress of the Treaty settlements, I put it up on Facebook, and somebody commented to me. They said: “How much is this costing us?”. I came back straight away and said “Nothing, compared with what it has cost our iwi.”, and the reply came back “Fair enough.”

I think if people understand the loss, they will also understand that what is being returned is, essentially, token in comparison. But it is something that will offer a foundation that what can be, and ought to be, returned is mana, is spirit, is place, is leadership, and is well-being, with the great hope that for us in Taranaki, we can see a future together that will take us as a people in the spirit of what Wīremu Kīngi has said and what my ancestor John Hobbs has said. Kia ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa! Ka titiro au ki Te Maunga Tipua, ko Hikurangi o Te Tai Rāwhiti, hoki atu au ki ngā maunga o Tūranganui-ā-Kiwa, ko Haumī, ko Tītīrangi, ko Manawarū, ka hoki au ki te Whakapūnake Maunga o Te Wairoa hōpūpū, hōnengenenge, matangirau. Hoki atu au ki Maungaharuru-o-Tangitū. Haere ana ki te maunga teitei ko Kahurānaki o Ngāti Kahungunu-ki-Heretaunga. Titiro au ki Ruahine o Tamatea i Tamaki-nui-ā-Rua. Ka hoki atu au ki Remutaka o Ngāti Kahungunu, Rangitāne hoki o Wairarapa.

Kua tae mai ki Te Awakairangi o Taranaki whānui, Te Ātiawa hoki, nō reira, Taranaki Maunga, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou katoa. Te Ātiawa Reo, Te Ātiawa Mana, Te Ātiawa Tangata, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou mō ngā maunga teitei o Te Rohe o Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, nō reira, nau mai, nau mai, hara mai! Nau mai, hara mai i runga i te kaupapa tino whakahirahira, te whakamutunga o tō koutou pire, ka ngangaro, ka mau te wehi!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time, acknowledgments to all of us members of this House. I look at Hikurangi, the supernatural mountain of the East Coast and go back to the mountains of Gisborne, Haumī, Tītīrangi, and Manawarū, and then back to the Wairoa River full of lumps, unevenness and spite of Whakapūnake Mountain, to Maungaharuru-o-Tangitū. I go on to the lofty mountain Kahurānaki of Ngāti Kahungunu at Hastings. I look at Ruahine of Tamatea at Dannevirke and go back to Remutaka of Ngāti Kahungungu, Rangitāne, and also of the Wairarapa.

I have arrived at Lower Hutt of Taranaki at large and also of Te Ātiawa, and so to you, Taranaki Mountain, greetings, salutations, and greetings to you collectively and to us all. To you, Taranaki voice, Taranaki authority, and Taranaki individuals of Te Ātiawa, I acknowledge you collectively for the lofty mountains of the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate, so welcome, welcome, come hither. Welcome and come forth on this really magnificent matter, the conclusion of your bill; how overcoming and awesome.]

It is time to celebrate, it is time to reflect, and it is time to remember those who are no longer with us, in this passing of Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill.

As the proud member for Ikaroa Rāwhiti, I stand to bring warm greetings and salutations from the constituents whom I represent, on this historic day for the iwi of Te Atiawa. I am looking at the deed of settlement. I notice—but I will not traverse the parts of the bill—and I acknowledge that the parts of the bill are made in three areas, from the agreed historical account, acknowledgment, and apology, to the cultural redress and the financial and commercial redress. As I read the overview of the settlement, I particularly wanted to draw to the House’s attention—and, obviously, to the attention of those who are in our gallery—the statement that stays pretty much in the under-view. It says this: “The benefits of the settlement will be available to all members of Te Atiawa, wherever they live.”—wherever they live.

It is my experience that many of our people around the motu do not live within their tribal boundaries, for many reasons. They have either moved away for mahi or moved away for study, but their heart always remains within that rohe, and I want to acknowledge Te Atiawa for acknowledging those who no longer live at home. I guess the trick is how we bring those who are not at home to benefit from this particular bill, and I do not see it merely as a financial benefit but also leadership and governance and in management as you, as a people, go forward. I will be safe talking about my own iwi of Rongowhakaata—we are still trying to get our home people to accept many of our people no longer live at home. Approximately 75 percent of the Rongowhakaata people do not live in our rohe. And, like your settlement here today, you are acknowledging that it is a benefit for all. My point is, how do we include those who are no longer living in our tribal boundaries?

I then want to just quickly touch on the financial redress. I want to mention that the Crown is honoured to pay Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust, on settlement date, $69,876,000, which is the financial and commercial redress amount of $87 million, less the following on-account payments: $40,000 paid to Te Atiawa Iwi Authority board back on 26 November 1999, and I am pretty sure that was used to help awhi and hāpaitia the negotiations, and an amount of $16,724,000 was paid to Te Kotahitanga on 15 May 2014. I also acknowledge that the settlement provides a cultural fund of $985,000.

The reason why I am highlighting the financial redress is that in our particular claim we were offered a farm. I am making this reference in relation to the Pekapeka Block. In our settlement we were offered a farm. It was not productive, and our negotiators thought it was too big an issue to take on a farm that was not productive. And so that decision by negotiators at our time was to take it back to our people and to pānui through our ratification to ask the people of Rongowhakaata whether we wanted to purchase a farm that was not productive. I distinctly remember, as one of those negotiators, the kaumātua who told us at that time that our No. 1 priority was to get land back—the No. 1 priority was to get land back. They never saw the farm as turning money. They saw the farm as being land in our rohe and we had lost so much. So I am making that point because we can get into difficulty if decisions are made by the few and not taken back to the many. Enough said about that.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of your negotiators on your behalf, and acknowledge the passing of one of them. It is not an easy task to stay on top of negotiating what you believe is a fair settlement with the Crown when the Crown has all the resources. So I want to acknowledge the negotiators. I want to acknowledge you as a people for your patience and your tenacity in staying committed to resolving these historic breaches on behalf of the Crown. So thank you very much, Te Atiawa.

To the Minister, I want to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for his work in bringing this bill to the House and, of course, the hard-working members of the Māori Affairs Committee. I want to wish Te Atiawa—when I see these young ones running around, it is about their future. It is about their future, and this settlement will help in no small part to ensure that when they are at their straps they have opportunities. I do hope that we invest in our young people, through settlements, grow our own talent, and ensure that they have pathways to participate both as iwi members but also as iwi managers in the businesses and opportunities that this settlement can bring about. Nō reira, huri noa e ngā mema o te Whare nei, all the very best Te Atiawa. We look forward to hearing the successes that will come upon you.

Nō reira e Te Iwi, ōku rau rangatira mā, kui mā, koro mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa!

[Therefore, to you the tribe, my esteemed ones of a hundredfold, my elderly women and menfolk; congratulations, well done to you collectively and to us all.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa, Te Ātiawa, te toki te tangatanga e te rā.

[Thank you and acknowledgments to you all, Te Ātiawa, the adze that can remove the very sun.]

As I uttered the words about the toki of Tokomaru waka and how it refers to bindings that cannot be undone by the sun, it is appropriate as I think of the kotahitanga of all of you here today to honour this third reading of the Te Atiawa Treaty Claims Settlement Bill and the fact that not only do your people remain bound and working through historical grievances and issues together but the glare of the sun—likening it to the challenging up-and-down harshness, the wero of trying to include all the different voices, the different hapū and iwi through this settlement process can often be a threat of undoing. And yet you stand here, remaining strong and committed to doing the best you can for the future as well.

We just had the final reading of the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill, and at the end of that you have graced this whare, all of you Taranaki whānui—you stood and graced this whare with your waiata, with your pao, with your chanting, with your tūpuna words—still mopping up the stains of the tears that had to fall. It is the epitome of the dignity with which our people hold themselves through all the pain, through all the grievance, through all the difficulties, and then there you are, standing strong, proud, loud, beautiful, and blessing us with your voices and the history in the words of our tūpuna.

I want to mention that because it is an incredible symbol. It is an incredible tohu of the amazing strength and generosity that our people have in spite of some of the incredible injustice—not just the fact that every acre of land was taken from Te Atiawa through war, through perpetual leases, through other Crown mechanisms, tools of alienation, tools of theft—and yet you are here today. We are here all morning. It is a long morning. It is a beautiful long morning for all of us. I quickly had to visit our wharepaku, and on the way I met some of our Taranaki kaumātua community in two whole other offshoot rooms that were filled with all of you, and it is beautiful. You are here, having gone through all of that, not just this settlement but generations of injustice—generations—and you are here proud and beautiful and strong. We cannot overemphasise what an incredible thing, what an incredible testament to your people this is.

I had dinner a couple of nights ago with a group of Māori women. It is often said that it is a dangerous thing when Māori women group together and have a kai. Really, we are scheming—always scheming. Certainly, Te Atiawa wāhine are no exception. I had a kai with some amazing wāhine Māori including some Te Atiawa wāhine. I want to acknowledge the privilege that I have had and the friendships—the lifelong friendships that I am a part of—with some incredible Te Atiawa Taranaki wāhine and the learning that they have given to me, including through the teachings and the transfer of their own stories and their own knowledge of the injustices and of the strength of Te Atiawa Taranaki whānui history and people.

The ongoing exercising of the authority and the kaitiaki responsibilities of Te Atiawa people—ongoing, over generations, mai rā nō; mai i te tīmatanga—has never stopped. It has never stopped in the face of incredible injustice and mamae, including those tūpuna who were taken south in an unjust way and then treated with injustice. Some of them were never to return. The importance of whakapapa and the severing of it in those instances of that particular injustice—whakapapa is everything to us. The mamae that is carried when our whakapapa is severed in that way is ongoing. So, again, it is a testament to the strength and the uri who will continue the whakapapa.

I want to pick up on the right of first refusal in this particular settlement. We, the Greens, are of course supporting the Te Atiawa settlement, but the right of first refusal—I want to acknowledge my colleague Catherine Delahunty for calling on a briefing from the Crown officials about this right of first refusal and the subsequent kōrero with Minister Finlayson. In some bizarre way, it is actually the right of third refusal and it is not actually the right of first refusal. So this is bizarre. Then there is also the situation where if you have something stolen and then offered back to you for $23 million—a price that you cannot afford—where is the justice in that? That is particularly relevant to the leasehold land in Taranaki. That is important because, again, the Greens will always say that these are not full and final settlements and they are not justice. If we want to honour Te Tiriti relationship, then it is a permanent and ongoing relationship that has to be based on justice.

I want to acknowledge one of the previous members, Mr Young, and his particular plea that he hopes that this is a step towards trust. The Crown has to prove that. It is the onus of the Crown to prove that trust. As far as I am concerned across Aotearoa, the Crown has not yet gained that trust from Te Iwi Māori. The injustices are ongoing and continue to this day, and there is lots of work for us to do if we are ever to be in that fully trusting and fully just relationship. Although I acknowledge the good work of the Crown in negotiating the difficulties of these settlements, we are a long way away—we need generations of time to pass where the Crown stops creating further injustices, and then we might think about some trust.

In the short time I have got left, I also want to acknowledge my colleagues Jan Logie and Catherine Delahunty again: the peace walk they went on that left from New Plymouth and the learning that they had—which my colleague Catherine Delahunty has spoken about—and the further learning on the injustice of what happened to Te Atiawa and to Taranaki whānui, and how important it is for our country, for our children, and for all of us to come to terms with those stories of the injustice, not just for education but to help us seek true enduring justice for our entire country as we go forward. That is the sort of Te Tiriti relationship that the Green Party would like to see.

We wish Te Atiawa the best of kaha and strength as you go forward. We wish to celebrate with you. We wish to acknowledge the hardships, the disagreements—that the voices have not always been smooth and agreeing, because that is what happens in this Crown-mandated process. You have done amazing with all of that. You will continue to. From the Green Party and from myself ngā mihi nui, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the second of this trinity of legislation, which will see a number of Treaty settlements come to conclusion in terms of the legislation that will see those particular settlements completed, as far as this House is concerned. I hope that that is the case and that somewhere down the line when there are further breaches in spite of the settlements that have been made today—I just hope I do not live to see that day.

The bill itself records the Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi against the iwi of Te Atiawa and, as a previous speaker alluded, it provides a new relationship between the Crown and Te Atiawa. I do not need to restate those breaches that have led to this day. Suffice it to say that those breaches were part of, shall I say, the darkest parts of the history of this country, particularly as it affected Te Atiawa and the rest of the indigenous people of this country.

Reference has been made to the Pekapeka Block. Probably because of those issues, it became the genesis of the battles that took place that saw Te Atiawa lose their land by way of confiscation.

But this bill certainly provides the platform for Te Atiawa to regain economic, cultural, and social sovereignty for their people, and I want to emphasise that this settlement is for their people because I know, particularly from reports in the media, that there are other organisations that see these settlements as an avenue for them to have the benefits of—and I am talking about certain Government departments and certain local bodies, all mentioning that these settlements will be an advantage with regard to things like infrastructure.

I just want to say to the iwi that this settlement is for you and your people, and you determine how it should be utilised in order to promote yourselves, both economically and socially. I want to make that point, and I cannot make that point too strongly, because already I have noticed that some iwi who have settled have gone into those arrangements, and possibly at their own desire. But I just want to make the point that these settlements are for the particular iwi, and in this case it is Te Atiawa.

Of course, with this settlement there is still the issue of the Waitara lands, and Marama Davidson, the previous speaker, articulated those concerns very well. I do not need to repeat them, suffice it to say that that is a matter that is still to be considered by this House. It is now before the Māori Affairs Committee and we have yet to hear all the submissions that have been made, but we will do that by visiting Waitara early in the new year.

I also want to say, again, like with the previous bill, the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill, that New Zealand First still has that concern. In this particular bill I refer to clause 77, particularly in terms of section 77(2), where it imposes on the council that it “must” make those appointments, and yet, under the Local Electoral Act, the word that is used is “may”. We would not have had any problem with the word “may”, because it gives the local body the choice. In this instance, and in the instance of the previous legislation—and, no doubt, in the bill that is yet to be heard today—the question of “must” places the compulsory emphasis on the local bodies. If the people who elect local bodies are not in favour of that, then the respective councils have to face that difficulty.

Again, apart from that, I want to reiterate also our objection to the fact that groups like Federated Farmers are recognised in the same way. We oppose that, as well.

We believe that Māori are no less able—and are just as good, if not better, in some cases—to represent their people and their communities on councils by being elected. The recent local body elections have shown that a number of Māori around the country—admittedly, not as many as we would like to see, to reflect the percentage of our people as part of the overall population of this country. But there is the fact that we have Māori who have been elected on their own merits, not because they are Māori but because of their own merits, and I just want to refer to my relative who has become the Mayor of Porirua.

Marama Fox: What about the partnership? Treaty principles of partnership?

PITA PARAONE: That is all part of it. We subscribed to that when we signed the Treaty of Waitangi. And I believe that although this is what was agreed to by the negotiators—that is their right—all we are saying is that we can get Māori on to councils. If that is the wish of this particular clause—to get Māori on to councils—then we can do so in the mainstream by electing our people, and we need to tell our people to get out there and vote.

Having said that, I have no difficulty in terms of the settlement that has been agreed between Te Atiawa and the Crown. Suffice it to say that even amongst the iwi there are people who disagree with the settlement, so, like them, we exercise that same privilege here in the House. But, having said that, I want to wish Te Atiawa and those who have been charged to carry the terms of this settlement through all the best for the future, because, as one negotiator said, he had to wait until his great-grandchildren arrived before this settlement got to this stage. Nā reira e tātou mā tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou!

[And so to us and others, I acknowledge you collectively, my appreciation once again to us!]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am just choosing my words. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare, nei te mihi atu ki a koutou, rawe te tūtaki i a koutou anō ahakoa kua tatari roa nei mō tēnei rangi, kua tae ki tēnei wā! Hoi anō, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, koutou katoa, ngā pou, ngā rahi kei waenganui i a koutou, kai te mihi atu ki a koutou, ngā kuia, ngā koroua, tēnā koutou kua tae ki te wā!

[Greetings to the House. I acknowledge you collectively; it is nice to meet you once again. Despite the lengthy wait for this day, this moment has been reached. Nevertheless, I salute you collectively, all of you, the pillars, the great amongst you. I commend you, the elderly women and menfolk. Congratulations; the moment has arrived.]

Here is the thing: we signed a Treaty—a Treaty that guaranteed rangatiratanga, our choice, hole in one, our choice. We signed a Treaty that said we would work in partnership—yes, a partnership of trust—and in that Hobson’s pledge they said they were not interested in land, just sovereignty. So it is hard to understand—or maybe it is not hard to understand—that trust.

You know, I am a pretty trusting person. I give trust freely. You have to break that trust, and then you have to earn it back again, but I will give it freely first, and our people gave that trust. So it is difficult to say that we trust that we will be treated fairly, because our history tells us otherwise. It is difficult to say that we can give that trust freely and know that when we vote we will get our people on the council, because our history tells us otherwise. So under the Treaty of partnership, as a right to recognise our right to have a say and a vote and decision-making powers, yes, we support arrangements where our people have the right to sit at the table and be heard and to participate in decision making and be heard, because actually our history tells us we cannot trust that always in good faith what we say is what we do.

I want to talk about Wīremu Kīngi. In the first reading I spoke about that story, as articulated by one of your own: how the Suppression of Rebellion Act meant that the Governor of the day could decide what rebellion looked like and therefore roll out any measure—any measure—he deemed necessary to suppress that rebellion in order to put it to rest. But Te Rere-tā-whangawhanga, in his ōhākī, lay on his bed and reached out to his son, Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake, and said “Do not sell our lands, ever.” He probably said it better than that, and in Te Reo, and beautifully articulated, but that is the essence of what he said: never sell. And all Wīremu Kīngi ever did was try to uphold the wishes of his dying father and refuse to sell the land.

The Governor of the day deemed that to be rebellion against the Crown, and therefore enacted the first of all the Land Wars that would follow. I am just going to read something about this, because Wīremu refused all the way through—vetoed sales, pulled out the survey pegs. I wish I had a survey peg. I wish I had a survey peg right now. He pulled them out, and let me tell you what happened as a result.

“For two days Colonel Charles Gold and his Imperial troops tried to overthrow the pā, but failed. In The New Zealand Wars … [they say this]: ‘Its anti-artillery bunkers and covered trenches effectually protected its garrison from cannon and small-arms fire. Nearly 500 troops poured in a heavy fire all day from as near as 50 yards. Two 24-pounder howitzers fired 200 rounds, “every shot through the place”, from close range,’ ” but none were killed—because we are pretty clever, us Māori people. “And because the pā was so quick to put up—it took just one night—Te Rangitaake and his men had no qualms in leaving it.”

Two hundred rounds—but that war went on for the next year, and at the end they were finally overthrown by numbers; not by stealth, not by strategy, because they were amazing strategists. It was not because they gave in, but because the Crown was able to pull troops out of Australia and bring them here to carry out here what they had already done there. As a result, 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land was eventually confiscated. There is little trust, but today marks a new era. It is not about putting it behind us. Someone said to me once: “Forgiveness is to remember without pain.” I am not sure that I am there. We may not yet be there, but we are trying. Here are the examples that your people give us: Te Whiti, Tohu Kākahi. Still, to this day, you uphold their legacy and you say: “It’s OK. We’re here in peace, and we invite you to live amongst us, and we will share.”—despite all of that.

You know, the other week we welcomed descendants of Parihaka to the screening of the movie here in Parliament, which told the story of what happened to those men: bound, enslaved—enslaved. I just repeat that for the benefit of the New Plymouth District Council. They were enslaved and taken away on ships. The story says that when the boat was too heavy, some of them were made to hold on to ropes dragged behind the boat, in the water. When many of them lost their lives in the journey that followed, they were tossed overboard. They were enslaved in the bourgeoning city of Dunedin to build their roads and create the foundations of the Otago University, the council buildings, and the library. Twenty years later, they came home—those who still survived. And so, you have given so much to the foundation of this nation, in blood, sweat, and tears, and still—and still—you stand in peace, with the raukura that reminds us of all of that. My mihi to you.

I am not sure that I can remember without pain, but I am learning to live with our whānau, and try every day not to let that sacrifice go to waste. Every day in this House, every day with my babies—every day, I learn from the example that you and your people have left us, so that we can see a brightness of hope for our future. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Te Ātiawa iwi, tēnā koutou, ka tika me rongo ki te pātukituki o te whatumanawa hei arahi i ēnei kōrero i mua i a koutou i tēnei rangi.

[Acknowledgments to you, Te Ātiawa tribe. It is apt indeed that you feel the palpitations of the heart as a lead into these contributions before you on this day.]

I sometimes wish we had the benefit of foresight so that we could make contributions to these types of debates, having seen what the impact of settlements would be 20 years forward. Sadly, that is not the case, but it got me thinking, especially, on this bill. When I came into this House, the settlement process was very new. Our own settlement had transpired. In fact, when I read some of the historical record, much of the history is similar.

The first Treaty settlement bill that I was able to participate in at the select committee level was the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill. I remember some strong representations. It was a new process, and people were very unsure about the step they were about to embark on in settling their claim. I remember Te Maiharoa, mokopuna of Hipa Te Maiharoa, the prophet, coming and advocating for his people of Waitaha. Although he got a good hearing, again, with the benefit of hindsight, I think we might have just listened to him a little bit more, to hear what he was saying. This is not to detract from that particular settlement—in fact, in our own settlement, Ngāti Te Ata would be the exemplar again—but to actually offer some insight as to how difficult a step it was to take to go down the settlement path.

This is the first time in any Treaty settlement debate that I have made any contribution on, Minister Finlayson, where I have a real sense of concern, and where I need to call on the moral fibre of the character of each of us as decision makers and as leaders to ask the question: have we got it right? I want to support this settlement, and I will, because Te Atiawa has negotiated it in good faith with the Crown. Yet, I feel that there is one matter outstanding, which has not been addressed and must be, and it is the Pekapeka Block. If we go back to our history, we could say in New Zealand that the first land confiscated—that is why Maniapoto went to Taranaki, to support the cause—was actually this block. It is not good enough for us to think that we can have two different processes trying to come up with the remedy for a very difficult situation.

Indeed, we are at a point in time, in the Māori Affairs Committee, where we have got a parallel process. Yes, we have got the third reading of Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill today, and we will support it. However, we do it knowing that there remain reservations around an outstanding matter that cannot simply be washed over. If we want to truly rectify the wrongs of the past, we have to truly be able to be brave enough to challenge some very systemic wrongs that were created. Unlike Taranaki, which had to cope with reserves and leases as well as raupatu, Waikato lands were just taken—sold off. We have a situation here today where, if we ask the question “Are we doing enough to restore mana?” to Te Atiawa about what wrongfully happened to them, we cannot neglect the issue of the Pekapeka Block. It is here in the historical account of this settlement.

I am concerned for that reason, Minister. I know that this House will debate at length through the select committee process and the third reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill as to where to from here. I am looking at the honourable member for New Plymouth, Jonathan Young. You know, as we do, that this is a difficult task, but it will draw on our moral fibre and character to ask the question: can we do more and should we create space for a different way forward? If we were brave enough to do that, we can support Te Atiawa bill, with a level of concern and knowing that the issue of Pekapeka remains an issue yet to be resolved because we have an imperfect process dealing with it at the moment.

I say that, not to detract from your day and from the things that you want to see happen with this settlement bill, but in good faith, as we make all our impassioned speeches about restoring the wrongs of the past and making sure that the Crown upholds its obligations. When we debated Treaty settlements 20 years ago in this House, the big debate was around full and final settlement and durability. We cannot quite have that conversation today with this bill, because there is a matter outstanding. It requires a brave solution. It requires a different approach. It requires political intervention, because if we just do it by the law and by statute it will not happen. There are people in this House who can make those decisions. We are just a cog in the wheel, and through our humble contributions and our good conscience we are wanting to try to move this debate along. I told myself today, for this particular settlement, for Te Atiawa—knowing the history and knowing where my tūpuna stood in support of you, and knowing, beyond that, the reason why—that I think more can be done.

The reason why more needs to be done is that we need to get over the hurt of what raupatu really did to our tūpuna, but to successive generations—successive generations. If we leave a significant outstanding matter in relation to Te Atiawa’s raupatu claim unresolved or imperfectly resolved, we are going to basically reconcile half of the iwi to a world full of hurt that may not be resolved within the iwi. How can that be? We have got a chance to do something as decision makers. I hope we do. That process is continuing. Minister Flavell, I know that you have a significant connection to this area and that you are working with—well, more than significant; super-significant. I know that you would work constructively across the House with us if there was some political bravery around this approach.

The select committee will do as much as it can with regard to the local bill before us. But again, if it is left to a transactional approach of looking at legislation, without dealing to the moral obligation—the moral obligation of our country to get things like this right; things like this. There are only certain times, with certain bits of legislation, when you can stop and say that this is one of those times to get it right. It is one of those times. Twenty years into the future, if I only had one chip to saying this is the time, it would be on this issue, right now—right now; to get it right.

So, Minister Finlayson, I know your officials worked hard, and have worked hard through this process. You have expressed a keen desire to see the cohort of settlements from Taranaki progressed in unison because the maunga is the next step. But I say in all good faith to you and with goodwill that if we could do something more and better to resolve this significant outstanding issue of Pekapeka, which I believe is the first bit of raupatu land that occurred in our country, then we would be doing the nation a favour. We would be doing the mokopuna of Te Atiawa a favour. We would be doing your mokopuna, Minister, a favour. We would be doing all of our country a favour, because we would have stood up, braved the storm, found a different way, and we would have had the moral fortitude and courage to do it, because we knew it was right. If there was one time, this is it, and I say we should do it. Tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. E hoa mā, te hunga kua tae mai i tēnei ata, ka mihi rā ki a koutou e whaiwhai haere nei i a Ngāruahine i tēnei ata. Haere mai, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa. Kia ora tātau nā runga i te āhuatanga o te noho tahi kia taea ai e au te kī: “Te Maunga Tītōhea e rarau ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata.” Ko te mate kē o tēnei Māori, ka kite he tangata, ka hoki ngā mahara, ka kitenga kanohi ka hoki ngā mahara. Koinei te mate o tēnei Māori, i tēnei ata e pērā anō te āhuatanga. Ki a rātau kāore i konei i tēnei rangi ēngari, ko rātau te hunga i hoe i te wāka nei ki tōna taumata. E kōrerohia ake nei ko te āhuatanga ki a Wiki, ē, ka tangi ake! Nō nātata nei au i kōrero ai ki wāna tamariki mō te āhuatanga o te marae e wawatatia nei, kia tū ki ngā motu, ē, ka tangi ake, he ōhākī mōna, otirā, mō te hunga kua ngaro. Kai te kite atu i ētahi, ka hoki ngā mahara ki a Uncle Lindsay, ki a Mākere, ki a Uncle Tommy, ki te whāea o te mema Pāremata e noho nei, Mahara, te āhuatanga ki tō whāea. E tika ana te kōrero o te mema o Te Tai Hauāuru, ēhara nō nāianei ēnei tohe, ā, nō tua whakarere. Koirā ka tangi, ā, me te whakaaro ake, mō Te Kauhoe!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to us all. Fellow companions, the ones who arrived here this morning, I do commend you for following up on Ngāruahine this morning. Welcome, salutations to you collectively, and my appreciation to us all. My congratulations to us for being so collaborative and making it possible for me to say: “Barren Mountain, settle into Parliament House.” The problem with this Māori, really, is that when a face is sighted memories are recalled, recollections come back at the sight of a face. That is a misfortune with this Māori, and that is the situation this morning. To them who are not present here on this day, but they were the ones who paddled this canoe to its pinnacle. As mentioned here in regard to the situation concerning Wiki, I really mourn her! I recently had a conversation with her children about the situation relating to the desired marae to be erected upon the lands, I do lament her. It is a parting wish for her but at the same time for the ones gone. I sight others and memories go back to Uncle Lindsay, Mākere, Uncle Tommy, to the mother of the member of Parliament sitting here, the situation relating to your mother, Mahara. The address by the member of Te Tai Hauāuru is fitting that these disputes are not of recent times but rather are of ancient times. Consequently, I mourn and reminisce for Te Kauhoe!]

Today is a bit of a hard day because I know these people, and I am a hopeless tangiweto. But there is a huge contradiction, for me, being here today, actually. From memory, it was about 30 years ago, on one Tuesday night, that some of these people—those proactive initiators I talked about earlier—went to a marae up in Otaraua, which is just out of Waitara. Some of these people were plotting—sorry, they were strategising—to go down to a hui that was at the marae of the Hon Mahara Okeroa, the Ōwae Marae at Waitara. The marae was—not even they can remember—up the top. But we had a hīkoi organised. It was a big hīkoi. We got together; we had some planning. We talked about the damn Crown coming to Taranaki to talk about the settlement of Treaty claims. It was most of these people up in the gallery; I sort of was on the periphery—as you know. I watched these people plot. They said “We’re going to go at it from a different angle. We’re not going to go down necessarily with placards; what we’re going to do is we’re going to get some blankets,”—it was not my idea or anything to do with me; it was those fellas up there—“and we’re going to wrap blankets around ourselves, and we’ll go down at 6 o’clock in the morning.”

So we woke up—or they woke up at 6 o’clock in the morning—and they said: “Te Ururoa, let’s go.” I said: “OK; fair enough.” So we went out of the marae and we walked all the way down to the main road. We turned right. We walked down to the Waitara township. Some of those people up there had microphones. They were yelling and screaming obscenities. No, they were not. They were very kind. We were singing waiata. We got up to Ōwae Marae, and the occasion was the arrival of Sir Wira Gardiner and Sir Doug Graham, to present the fiscal envelope. I was at the back of the line—way back. Some of these people marched on to the marae. Do you know—they were against what we are doing today. So was I. We were absolutely against settling claims, on the basis that it was so unfair. How can you talk about settlement, when you are talking about only 1 to 2 percent of the real value of these claims?

So we marched up and we went on to the marae, and there are a couple of things I remember from that. The first one was that we sat down. We had our blankets, and we sat in the sun on the marae, and Taranaki presented its case to Sir Wira, who was the facilitator, and to Sir Douglas Graham. It was a sad day; it was an emotional day. The two events I remember—and they are even written about in Sir Wira’s book. He said that it was probably the most—not inspirational, but the one event that affected him so much. This is because when he came out of the marae, these people—a couple of hundred of them, sitting on the ground, with those blankets wrapped around their waists—were absolutely quiet. As I said earlier, you would think that, against raupatu, you would be pretty angry. These people—we sat quietly. No one moved. When they came out for kai, everybody said: “Come on. Come and have kai.” No one moved. That was our anger about the fiscal envelope.

And so I say to all of my in-laws that, today, you jump the fence and I jump the fence. We all came over to accept that, at the end of the day, you do what you have got to do. You do what you have got to do, and I cannot get in the road of what iwi want

Ko tāku i tēnei rā he tautoko i ngā kōrero mō te āhuatanga o te huarahi e whaiwhaitia haeretia nei e koutou.

[Mine today is to endorse the contributions about the situation relating to the procedure to be followed up by you collectively.]

So there is the first part. There is a bit of a contradiction, but I will get over it. The second part is I want to talk about, as I did this morning, a person whom I did meet. He set the scene, I reckon, for Taranaki about how things would play out. His name was Aila Taylor. Aila Taylor, I reckon—I met him; a fairly humble man—but he, pretty much on his own, set the scene by saying that allowing people to put sewage, rubbish, and offload into the river, into the waterways, and into the sea, and to upset the tide and not allow people to get kai, was wrong. What he did was he went in to bat for that and put up a claim around that. So I think about Aila Taylor today because he was a simple Waitara worker from the meatworks, but he hated—and led a campaign for 34 years to stop—discharge being washed into the Waitara marine area. His claim, Wai 6, was filed on 4 June 1981 on behalf of Te Atiawa. So here we are today, talking about the settlement of some of these issues, but, for me, you cannot go past a name called Aila Taylor in the history of Te Atiawa, and, indeed, Treaty claims and settlements. It is a landmark case and it went on to be the Motunui issue.

The other issues in respect of Waitara—other speakers have spoken about that, so I am not going to go into that. But I can say that I take up the offer from the member Nanaia Mahuta that some of these things we have got to work together on. We are always open to that.

The last point I just wanted to make in the short space of time is that, you know, sometimes some of these issues are so bound in racism. That is the hard part: that people talked about Māori getting over feeling angry about our history. Some people talk about history as being way back, but, actually, it is all around us right now. A person pretty close to me made a stand in respect of some street signs in Waitara. There was a development just recently where one of those developers up there said “Oh, I want to name this development”—two streets; one called Dreaver Drive and the other one Masters Lane—and the iwi said “Hey, how about, because of the history, Māori street names?”. Hello—there was an uproar: “You Maoris are asking for too much.” Then you think about Andrew Judd, who might be in here today, asking about seats for Māori as a right, for goodness’ sake!

Marama Fox: What? A seat for Māori?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I know, I know. That seems to be too hard, and we get hit with notions of too much privilege for Māori. So if anybody thinks history is all the way back there—confiscation, and so on—no. It is still around us now. I want to make that point because, actually, as I talked about street signs earlier, our people have to deal with these things on a daily basis. At least this settlement allows our people to move forward. So I acknowledge those who have been responsible for bringing it to an end.

Liana koutou, Hēmi, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou! Kai aku rangatira, ka tangi ake ki te kite i a koutoui tēnei rā. Kotahi anake te kōrero kai a au, taihoa ake nei ka hoki mai ki aku hoa nō Taranaki. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, haere mai, nō reirā kia ora tātau.

[You collectively Liana, Hēmi, there is much admiration for you! To my esteemed ones, I mourn indeed to see you on this day. I only have one statement for you, and very shortly I will come back to my companions from Taranaki. Acknowledgments and congratulations to you collectively, welcome, and so my appreciation to us all.]

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to sit past 1 p.m., to the conclusion of the third reading of the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill.

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

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Can I just begin by thanking the House for its indulgence. It is very important that the three bills are debated together because of the nature of the grievance and the need to progress these bills, given the events of previous weeks.

Can I welcome Taranaki iwi to Parliament and can I thank them very much for making that journey. Today represents the fulfilment of years of work from you and your tūpuna, because it has been almost 30 years since the original claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal, and it has been 20 years since that very important report of the tribunal was released. Just to remind members, it is a report that described the Taranaki claims as some of the most severe in the country, so today is a long overdue event.

I acknowledge all of those people from Taranaki iwi in the gallery who have worked to make this settlement a reality. I acknowledge those who are no longer with us but those who devoted their lives to seeking justice from the Crown. In particular, I recognise the original Taranaki iwi claimants, who carried the claims of their tūpuna but were unable to see their aspirations realised.

Can I acknowledge the Taranaki iwi negotiation team, and in particular I pay respects to Te Miringa Hohaia, who passed away in 2011 while negotiating the settlement. I also acknowledge Peter Charlton, who contributed significantly to the leadership team and set the strategy and the foundations of the negotiations. The efforts of these two have helped free the Taranaki iwi people from the mamae inflicted by the Crown and have paved the way, we all hope, for a future of opportunity, hope, and prosperity.

Special acknowledgment must go to the Taranaki iwi negotiators: Jamie Tuuta; a friend of all of us in this place, the Hon Mahara Okeroa; Toka Walden; and Wayne Mulligan—the “A Team”, as I always used to call them. They were great negotiators. I thank them for their vision, their leadership, and their unrelenting dedication—and I can say this to Mahara now—even when it used to really irritate me. I thought I was there and then the goalposts moved. I went back to my office and screamed, but having got it out in the privacy of my own office, we then moved on. I thank you for your cooperation with your neighbours, Te Atiawa and Ngāruahine, to allow this day to occur.

Can I thank the Taranaki Regional Council and the South Taranaki District Council for supporting the settlement, because they have. Opposition to the particular redress negotiated, I have to say, is not really complicated by any vestige of merit.

Finally, I thank the Crown team, ably led by Paul Swain, who has been such a tremendous negotiator over the years over a number of iwi. I know how hard he worked on the Taranaki claim, knowing that Mahara was on the other side. Can I also thank the officials from across Government departments who worked tirelessly to achieve this settlement. The Office of Treaty Settlements has, as always, been outstanding.

It is my sincerest hope that the bill we are considering today is going to enable Taranaki iwi to move towards a positive future. The settlement redress—and I know I have to read this into the record of the House. I know that it sounds a pittance, and I do not actually enjoy reading it into the House, because I know what happened up there, but I am the face of the Crown in 2016 and so it is my obligation to do so. So I read the redress into the permanent record of the House: financial and commercial redress of $70 million—the opportunity to purchase specific Crown properties through deferred selection, and the right of first refusal—the vesting of 30 cultural redress sites, including the joint vesting of Ngā Motu islands with Te Atiawa; statutory acknowledgments over 25 sites of significance, and deeds of recognition over 14 sites; and the option to purchase specific South Taranaki District Council properties if they become surplus. And, as I have adverted to on a number of occasions this morning, there is a proposed model for iwi representation on two standing committees of the Taranaki Regional Council alongside the other iwi of Taranaki and that well-known iwi Federated Farmers! So I hope that this redress will help mend the Taranaki iwi and Crown relationship into the future.

It is very important that I as the Minister leading off the debate turn to the historical claims. This morning is actually quite a grim morning, because we have had to consider the various ways in which the Crown has failed to uphold its obligations to Ngāruahine and Te Atiawa under the Treaty. Sadly, many of these failures, obviously, were experienced by Taranaki iwi. In their earliest interactions with the Crown, Taranaki iwi sought to take advantage of new economic opportunities, but to do so on their own terms. Prior to 1860, Taranaki iwi were participating successfully in a trading economy and retained control over much of their customary land. However, over the course of the following 5 years, the Crown purchased land at Waitara, leading to war with Taranaki Māori, including Taranaki iwi. In those conflicts the Crown used warships to shell Taranaki iwi coastal settlements, employed scorched earth tactics that destroyed settlements and cultivations, desecrated sacred sites by building military redoubts on them, and caused Taranaki iwi to suffer severe hardship. Then, to top it off, the Crown punished the iwi of Taranaki for their resistance by confiscating 1.2 million acres of land, including every acre—every acre—of the Taranaki iwi rohe not already purchased.

We all know about the flawed compensation process, with the consequent long delays and return of land—the return of almost all land under individualised title, which extinguished customary tenure. So it is a very unhappy history that I recount today, and it simply serves to emphasise why we need to have these settlements. And it is not just the commercial redress, as some people write to me and say; it is getting the history right and properly recorded.

In that regard, I want to now turn and say just a few words about Parihaka, because the devastation wreaked by the Crown in Taranaki is most potently seen through this small rural community at the foothills of the maunga. I have touched on Parihaka a number of times today, but I need to say something more. In 1866 Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi established a settlement at Parihaka. They sought to prevent further land loss. They sought to promote Māori autonomy through peaceful engagement with Pākehā on Māori terms. Initially, the Crown welcomed the peaceful influence of Parihaka in Taranaki; however, as the settlement rapidly grew both in size and influence, the Crown came to view the settlement as a challenge to its authority.

In 1879 and 1880 the settlement’s assertion of continuing rights over confiscated land, articulated through the powerful symbolic acts of ploughing and fencing, were met with a series of responses from the Crown that really are among the lowest points of our nation’s history. Taranaki iwi men and boys were among the 405 who were arrested and transported to South Island prisons—denied their basic human rights to a trial. Taranaki iwi were there to watch more than 1,500 Crown troops march into Parihaka in November 1881, arrest their leaders, pull down their houses, destroy crops, kill livestock, and defile their sacred wharenui. Taranaki iwi women were among those who were left to maintain the settlement in the absence of so many of the husbands, fathers, and sons, and were subject to grievous assault by Crown troops.

So these, for the people in the gallery, are not historical abstractions, not an interesting historical outline; these were real people. These are their tūpuna, their fathers and their grandfathers, their mothers and their grandmothers. So the Crown’s actions at Parihaka created pain and grievance for all the iwi of Taranaki, and that is why we do have unfinished business, and we all know that. That is why we are continuing to work with the Parihaka community to devise a package that will work for them. I reiterate on behalf of the Crown the Crown’s commitment that justice has to be done.

The Parihaka community have received the Crown package, and I hope it is going to go some way towards mending the harm. Over the months that lie ahead, the community will need to consider that package and come back to me. I certainly hope that we can achieve a reconciliation process that really does fulfil the legacy of the two prophets I have mentioned.

In closing, I want to thank Ngāruahine, Te Atiawa, and Taranaki iwi. Today has been a very significant day for the Taranaki region and for all New Zealanders. As I said, the Parihaka issue is yet to be resolved justly and with dignity. Finally, I say to the iwi of Taranaki: let us talk about that mountain some time soon. I commend the bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, ki ngā whānau me ngā hapū o Taranaki Iwi, anei au e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai ki Te Whare nei. Tēnei ahau e tuku mihi atu anō hoki ki a rātou mā, e whakarongo mai, e mātakitaki mai i runga i te pouaka whakaata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[And so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at the same time to the families and subtribes of the Taranaki tribe, here I am acknowledging you, who have arrived at this House. I also acknowledge those others listening and watching on the television, so hello and greetings to you collectively, and thank you to all of us.]

There are a number of things I want to talk about. The first thing I want to talk about—and it is in relation to the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, but also the other Taranaki settlements—is Subpart 5, “Regional council representation”. I just want to give my opinion on this, because we have been told in this House today that this is about elected representation for the council and, in fact, it is not; it is absolutely not.

The governors of the Taranaki region will remain the governors. This is about appointments on to standing committees. And, as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations pointed out, there are representatives from Federated Farmers. Why would you put iwi on there? You would put iwi on there because there are eight Taranaki iwi that are affected by everything that the Taranaki Regional Council does and the decisions that it makes. It is an acknowledgment of the mana w’enua and the considerable post-settlement contributions that all of the iwi in Taranaki are about to make or are already making. So it is really important that their voice is heard at those decision-making tables.

It has been said that it is about elected representation. Well, no, although I agree that if it were the case, then I would agree with that. But it is not about that. It is actually about the voices of the iwi being heard, and I wanted to make that explicitly clear on this bill, and reference it to the other two bills as well.

I took the opportunity to read the historical account—not the abbreviated version in the bill but the full version that was signed in the deed of settlement. I had it on me. My flight was diverted. It was going to Palmerston North and it was diverted to New Plymouth. I had a copy of that deed on me, and I took the opportunity to read it on a bus travelling from New Plymouth, supposedly to Palmerston North, but I convinced the bus driver to let me off at Wanganui. As we were passing Taranaki maunga, I was reading this. Every historical account that you read is sad, but there is an incredible sadness about all of the Taranaki historical accounts beyond anything else I have read.

So I want to acknowledge the negotiators—all of the negotiators, including the Crown negotiators, because we know that this is a negotiated version of the historical account. That means both the Crown and the iwi have to agree to it. There were some pretty powerful things in there. As already outlined by the Minister, the depth of resilience of the Taranaki iwi people, particularly through Parihaka, is now part of our legal history and our parliamentary history. I want to stand and acknowledge not only the negotiators but everyone who, obviously, would have had to contribute to the telling of that story. I know, through my own experience, that getting that level and that quality of kōrero to be told is not an easy task.

The Minister also mentioned the financial redress. It is a step forward. It is a beginning. It is not the end of the financial and the economic well-being of Taranaki iwi; it is the start. I remember reading some of the statements that were made at the time that the deed of settlement was signed. What struck me was the incredible positive focus of those statements made by Taranaki iwi people.

I have no doubt that Te Kāhui o Taranaki Trust is well positioned to turn what is a fraction of what was lost into a positive asset for future generations. I commend the trust for the work that it has done thus far, and for the challenges that it will meet into the future. And it is great to be challenged, I think. It is important not only that we are challenged in that space but also that we take heed of those who do not have a voice. And I am certain that will happen; I am not saying that will not happen. But I think that is an important thing to recognise within the economic and financial well-being and future of all of our iwi.

I would like to mention the cultural redress of this settlement as well. For me, these are settlements that are made up of those three important parts. The cultural redress, for me, is so important. It can re-establish a reconnection to our land with our culture, and I note the number of different mechanisms that have been used within the cultural redress of this settlement bill. I think that, coupled with the other mechanisms—the financial ones—this will provide the means for Taranaki iwi to move forward into the future.

Can I also commend the negotiators who delayed the signing of the deed of settlement, specifically to address the needs of Parihaka. Parihaka has to be mentioned in this bill and it has to be recognised in the House today, and I support the words of the Minister. It is so important to get that part of this settlement right, and I am really pleased that Taranaki iwi took the opportunity to delay that deed of settlement. In the end, it has not delayed the legislation, because they are all going through on the same day.

I think that is something that the Taranaki iwi should be proud of—that they went through those extra steps to make certain that this bill was everything that they wanted it to be and needed it to be.

Ā, nō reira, tēnei anō te mihi ake ki a tātou, oti noa, ki a koutou e kaha ana kia hara mai ki Te Whare nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[And so I once again acknowledge us and, accordingly, you collectively who were staunch in coming here to this House. Congratulations, well done to you, and my appreciation to us all.]

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Before I start, I would like to acknowledge Toka Walden, Jamie Tuuta, and Puna Wano-Bryant. I would like to acknowledge you here today and, of course, all the tremendous support that you have around you for this very, very important occasion. I would like to also acknowledge Te Miringa Hohaia and the memory of Te Miringa, and all the work that he has done in supporting where we are today.

I would also like to just acknowledge my colleagues, the Taranaki MPs—of course, Chester Borrows here, Adrian Rurawhe, and Barbara Kuriger, who is here as well. Barbara was involved with the Local Government and Environment Committee in bringing through the urgent legislation around the Kaikōura earthquake, and so she was delayed there.

I have acknowledged these people, and I want to say that these and other members of Te Atiawa and Taranaki and Ngāruahine are people whom I very much admire. I admire their resilience, their tenacity, their incredible patience, and their goodwill. I would like to acknowledge Ruakurī, and I would also like to acknowledge David MacLeod as the Chairman of the Taranaki Regional Council, who is here today, as well.

Because of who these people are, I know that as they go forward from this day onwards, they will go forward with great strength, and I know that they will take the Taranaki region forward as well in that. When I think of the words of Te Whiti o Rongomai, he said this: “Though the lions rage still I am for peace … Though I be killed I yet shall live; though dead, I shall live in peace which will be the accomplishment of my aim. The future is mine, and little children, when asked hereafter as to the author of peace, shall say ‘Te Whiti’ and I will bless them.”

What great words. And such is the mana of that great leader, and the legacy in which Taranaki iwi—in fact, iwi all around Taranaki—walk today. When surrounded by greater odds and greater numbers, and against cannon, horse, musket, and sabre, they resisted, passively, peacefully, when they said—as perhaps the Fitzroy Pole says—this is where it needs to stop.

When you read all of this, what you see is a people who, against all odds, maintained strength of spirit and resiliency, purpose, and mana, and who never lost who they are, even though they lost much. And that is why Taranaki iwi are going to continue to prosper. In fact, out of what this settlement brings to you, being a platform of a stronger future, you will succeed because of who you are. Because of all that you have had to withstand, you have maintained your integrity and your mana, and, more than anything else, I think, that puts the complete region and Aotearoa New Zealand in a very good space.

I want to also acknowledge the Taranaki Regional Council, and I want to thank the regional council for its agreement and its willingness and its embracing of this legislation, which enables Taranaki iwi representatives to be members of standing committees. In essence, Taranaki iwi representatives are being offered what Wīremu Kīngi offered the European settlers, which is to have a part in the decision making. So I do not see it as something that is worthy of objecting to, but I think it needs to be something that is comfortably accepted and embraced, because what is good for iwi is good for everyone. They care for our environment, they care for whānau, and they care for their community, and I believe that we have nothing to be afraid of.

So, with those few short words, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): “Mā wai au e ārahi ki Tapu-Wharawhara, te puke i tau ai te matā, kia pai nā taku titiro ki te moana ki Waikare papa pounamu nei ē. Kauria ahau i te waiora o Te Karetū, rere ana ki Ōtūihu, tū ana ahau i Te Ngutu Awa o Taumārere, te awa herehere riri. Me hoki kōmuri au ki Te Whare o Tīhema, Te Whare e arohatia nei ē! He paunga waiho mai nā ō mātua, e huri noa atu rā ki te ākau ē!”

Taranaki Iwi tēnā rā koutou. Ko aua kupu, he kupu nō tētahi waiata nō tōku hapū a Ngāti Manu kei roto o Karetū, kei Te Tai Tokerau. Ko te ingoa o taua waiata, he waiata aroha ki te whenua, e whakaatu ana, e whakamāramatia ana i te kaha o te aroha o te Māori, ngā honotanga o te Māori ki ōna maunga, ki ōna pā, ki ōna awaawa, ki ōna moana, ki ōna kāinga. Nā reira, ka rongo ahau i ngā hara o Te Karauna ki a koutou i wērā tau i mua, i muri, ka koropupū ake te pukuriri ki roto i te whatu manawa i te mea, ko aua hara kua meangia ai ki a mātau hoki, ki ngā iwi katoa. Ka tirohia e ahau i ngā whenua kei roto i Pēwhairangi e ūhia ana e ngā whare rahi o Te Pākehā whai rawa; ka tirohia e ahau ki tōku kāinga o Te Karetū, ngā whare iti, ngā whare taretare o Te Māori, ka āhua pukuriri ahau ki ngā rerekētanga.

Ēngari, kua rongo ahau 1.2 miriona ngā eka kua raupatungia i a koutou—ō koutou whenua katoa! Waimarie ana mātau he paku wāhi nō mātau hei tū ō mātau kāinga. Nā reira, kai te mihi atu ahau ki a koutou. E mahara ake ana ahau ki ngā kōrero, ngā kupu o Te Atua Wera, tētahi o ngā poropiti nō Ngāpuhi, ki tōna hoa a Kāwiti, te tupuna o Peeni rāua ko Pita Paraone: “Ka whakahurihia e Te Pākehā tana Tiriti hei pūngāwerewere, hei kai i a tātau Te Iwi Māori. He rite tātau ki te pāpaka, ki te tātarakihi ōna toto, ōna whēkau kua ngotea, kua kainga. Ka whakarērea ki muri he pāpaka, ko taua pāpaka ko tāua Te Iwi Māori!”.

[“Who will lead me to Tapu-Wharawhara, the hill where the obsidian settled, so that I have a good view indeed of the dark green sea surface at Waikare. It is there that I will wade at Karetū, and then flee to Ōtūihu and stop at the river mouth of Taumārere, the river that binds up aggression. I must return to the house of Tīhema, which I indeed have much compassion for. It is a relic left by our forefathers, and so I turn and nostalgically gaze along the banks of the river and the coastline indeed!”

Acknowledgments to you the tribe of Taranaki. Those words are words from a lament that belong to my Ngāti Manu subtribe in Karetū at North Auckland. That song is a lament about the land, revealing and explaining the powerful empathy that Māori have in terms of their connections to their mountains, pā settlements, valleys, seas, and dwellings. So when I hear about the transgressions inflicted upon you by the Crown in those past years, anger wells up from within the heart, because those violations were inflicted upon us as well, and upon all tribes. I looked up the lands in the book Pēwhairangi that were covered by the large houses that belonged to well-to-do Pākehā; I looked at my settlement of Te Karetū, at the small and dilapidated Māori houses, and I got angry at the differences.

But I heard that 1.2 million acres were confiscated from you—all of your lands! We were lucky we got a small patch of land for us to put our homes up on it. So we congratulate you collectively. I recall the sayings, the utterances, of Te Atua Wera, one of the prophets from Ngāpuhi, to his mate Kāwiti, the ancestor of Peeni Henare and Pita Paraone: “The Pākehā will turn his Treaty into a spider to consume us, the Māori people. We are like the crab and the cicada, whose blood and entrails have been sucked out and consumed. What remains is a crab, and that crab is indeed us, Māoridom!”.]

I will translate that. I just acknowledged the extent of the loss of Taranaki—all the 1.2 million acres, all of their lands—every acre, as the Minister said. And it reminds me of the saying of Te Atua Wera, a Ngāpuhi prophet, to his friend Kāwīti, who happens to be a tupuna of Pita Paraone and Peeni Henare, when he said: “The Pākehā has converted the Treaty into a spider to eat us, the Māori people. We are just like the shell of the cicada. Our blood and our innards have been sucked out and eaten, and all that is left is the shell, and that shell is us, the Māori people.”

Ēngari, ka titiro ake ahau ki a koutou e Taranaki Iwi, ka kite ahau ēhara ko te pāpaka noa iho kua toe. He Iwi kaha koutou. Ka mahara hoki ahau ki ngā kupu o Te Tohu Kākahi, nāna i mea mai: “Kāore ana ahau kia koropiko ki te mana o Te Kuini.”, nā reira, ātaahua rawa atu ana āna korero. Ka kite ahau kīhai koutou i koropiko ki te mana o Te Kuini, ki te mana o Te Karauna. Nā reira, kei te mihi atu ahau ki a koutou e manakohia ana, mā tēnei taunga o tō koutou kerēme, ka āwhinatia i te tātarakihi kia whakahokia ōna whēkau, ōna toto kia tino puāwai, kia tino rere, kia rongo tātau i tōna waiata i roto i ngā ngahere o Taranaki Iwi. Kua rongo ake ahau i ngā kōrero a Jonathan Young i tāna whaikōrero i mua ake rā i ngā kerēme mō Te Ātiawa. Nāna i kī mai ko tō koutou tupuna a Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitāke nā Colonel Murray i haere atu ki a ia.

[But I look up at you, Taranaki tribe, and I see that it is not just the crab that is left. You are a capable tribe. I also recall the words of Te Tohu Kākahi, who said: “I have not yet bowed to the Queen’s sovereignty.”, and so his words are really lovely. I see you have not bowed to the integrity of the Queen and the Crown. Therefore, I commend you, because in your hearts you know that this settlement of your claim will help the return of the cicada’s entrails and blood so that it blossoms and flows in order that we hear its song in the forests that belong to the tribe of Taranaki. I have heard the sentiments expressed by Jonathan Young in his earlier address in regard to the Te Ātiawa claims. He said that your ancestor Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitāke was approached by Colonel Murray.]

Colonel Murray said that there was a virtual declaration of war alleging Kīngi was in rebellion, and Kīngi replied: “Friend, Colonel Murray, salutation to you in the love of our Lord, Jesus Christ … You say that we have been guilty of rebellion against the Queen, but we consider we have not,”.

Ko tāku e whakapae ana ko tērā; Te Karauna e whakawātia ana i a koutou o Taranaki Iwi. Nā ka huri ahau ki ngā kupu o tētahi o ōku kaumātua nō Ngāti Hine, arā, ko te taokete o Pita Paraone, a Hirini Hēnare. Wēnei āna kōrero ki Te Taraipiunara o Waitangi i roto i a Ngāpuhi: “He aha kē ahau te tangata kore hara i mua i Te Atua, e tū nei kia whakawātia e koe te tangata tāhae, te tangata hara, te tangata kore tikanga? Ko koe kē te tika kia tū ki konei. Māku kē koe e whakawā i raro i ōku ture o te tikanga; kotahi anake te tatūtanga ko te pono!”.

[That was what I was alleging; the Crown was investigating you the tribe of Taranaki. I turn now to words of one of my aged from Ngāti Hine, namely the brother-in-law of Pita Paraone, Hirini Hēnare. These are his words to the Waitangi Tribunal in Northland: “What indeed am I, a person who is sinless before God, standing here to be investigated by you, the thieving, sinful one who has no principles? By rights, you indeed should be the one standing here. I should be the one investigating you, under my lore; quite frankly, there should have been only one settlement, and that is the truth!”.]

In other words, I was saying that Colonel Murray judged Wīremu Kīngi Te Rangitake, and I just want to refer back to the words of a kaumātua of mine from Ngāti Hine, who happens to be the brother-in-law of Pita Paraone. In his words he said: “Why is it that me, a person without sin in the eyes of the Lord, stands here to be judged by you—a thief, a criminal, a person without customs or tikanga? It is proper that you should stand here before me and let me judge you under my laws, under my tikanga, and there will be one result and that is the truth.” Beautiful words, and I think they apply to not just Taranaki iwi, to be honest, but all of the tribes that have had their land unfairly confiscated. The land was confiscated and taken for the most shallow of reasons, and we were all judged rebels and savages, and all those sorts of adjectives were thrown around about Māori. Yet if we could just let non-Māori see that, actually, if we were able to apply and judge others using our tikanga there would be a different result.

This bill goes a very small way to righting the wrongs of the past: 1.2 million acres were stolen from Taranaki iwi; every single acre that they possessed. As we have said, what we are returning is just a fraction of what was taken. I often refer to what Minister Finlayson says, that we should never actually just focus on what has been returned; we should focus on the extent of what was taken, because 1.2 million acres is enough for every man, woman, and child in New Zealand right now to have their own quarter acre section. That is the extent of the confiscation, and I do not think people realise that, in all, we are getting back—I would not say a lousy couple of million dollars, but, in the greater scheme of things, you know, it is just a mere fraction.

So I acknowledge you and I thank you all. This is a day, I believe, when we need to commemorate the past, when we need to celebrate today, but, most of all, we need to anticipate the future.

Nō reira, huri rauna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātou.

[So congratulations, well done throughout to you collectively, and thank you once again to us.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Kia ora koutou. Āe, ko Mārama Davidson, tika tāu, kia ora! Taranaki tūturu, ā, tēnā koutou anō, koutou ko Taranaki whānui hoki. Kia ora.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hello there you lot. Yes, it is Marama Davidson, you are right, thank you! Greetings to you collectively once again genuine Taranaki and you as well Taranaki at large, thank you.]

I want to thank the Minister, Chris Finlayson, who, at the start of his kōrero in the final reading of this, the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, acknowledged fully—well, I think you can never acknowledge fully the injustice, including what happened at Parihaka, but he put on to the record of the House the scorched-earth confiscation of land, the invasion of Parihaka, and the taking of those tūpuna down to the south without trial, some of them never returning, and, particularly, as a wahine, I want to acknowledge the Minister for reminding us of the assault that those wāhine faced.

I cannot stand here without emphasising and acknowledging the deep takahi of the mana of wāhine that happens when that happens, particularly as I was removed from this House within the first 5 days of my standing in it for wanting to maintain a voice to acknowledge the mamae of survivors, wāhine survivors, of assault. I do thank the Minister for putting that on to the record and actually saying those words. I stand here to recall those wāhine in those moments. It is the assaults that we want to continue to speak out against and not isolate our people who have gone through those similar assaults, and I will stand in this House today to recall those wāhine and all of the whānau of Taranaki tūturu, Taranaki whānui, and descendants of Parihaka. Kia ora.

I want to pick up again the issue of representation. I listened to my colleague Adrian Rurawhe when he distinguished that the settlement has actually resulted in an outcome of provision for iwi representation but on the committees—the Taranaki Regional Council’s policy planning committee and the consents and regulatory committee. I look forward, in particular, to the Taranaki representation on the consents and regulatory committee, on both of those committees, because the representation, the honouring of Te Tiriti, and the representation of mana whenua in making decisions is at its heart about upholding the kaitiaki responsibilities to care for our people and our land.

So we need to pull the narrative away from “Oh, they get a seat here and they get a seat there.” It is not the point. The point is—and this is why whether it is representation on committees or at governance level is not in itself the outcome. The outcome, as it always was supposed to be, was to address the structural injustices that prevented mana whenua from engaging in those decisions in the first place. It is not giving something; it is returning something that was stolen. It is returning the representation at that decision-making level that was stolen.

Here, my Ngāti Hine whanaunga and I will tautohetohe that for ever and a day on our differing positions when it comes to representation and mana whenua upholding their kaitiaki responsibilities to ensure that our whenua, our wai, our tamariki and mokopuna for generations to come can benefit, can survive, can uphold the whakapapa of Taranaki, and for that to happen as our tupuna always wanted when they envisioned Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we need to have our people in those places of making decisions. That has to be guaranteed. And when we are a minority in Aotearoa, in a democracy, then we need those guarantees, and the guarantee of that representation will benefit all citizens, all people of Aotearoa, whether you are Māori or not. That is the point of what was fought for in this settlement, in Ngāruahine, and it is why the Green Party, Catherine Delahunty, and Jan Logie took part in the hīkoi with Andrew Judd and all the people to arrive at Parihaka to stand for that representation and uphold the kaitiaki responsibility. So I want to be very clear about where I and the Green Party stand on that outcome of representation.

I cannot stand in this House without also acknowledging Te Miringa Hohaia, a man whom I have heard much about and whom I never had the honour of meeting, but whose whānau and tamariki and descendants I have the privilege of being involved with, and they, I will say, are unsure about whether or not he would have fully agreed to the settlement that we are talking about today. Through all the settlements that is a recurring theme. Nevertheless, we acknowledge those differing voices. We acknowledge the hard work, the challenges placed upon these settlement processes by the Crown. Tēnā koe, Te Miringa.

I want to acknowledge the hard work in the ratification process that happened, and I note that the deed of settlement was initialled in July and then there followed numerous ratification hui and ballots. I want to acknowledge Te Kāhui o Taranaki Trust as Taranaki iwi’s post-settlement entity for the democratic process for passing the ratification and in particular getting the views of those beyond the mandated negotiators. It is a trying process to try to get any sort of mandate and consensus. I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge the particular efforts in this case that happened and the difficulty, the ongoing difficulty, and that difficulty does not stop here. There will be the ongoing conversations about decisions that are made over certain awa, whenua, papākainga, and over what we involve ourselves in, and what business ventures we uphold. All of that will continue to be an ongoing conversation, and I wish Taranaki all the luck in maintaining that dialogue and reaching beyond just the few voices that are always easier to progress those kōrero with. Tēnā koutou.

Just in my last bit, Taranaki Maunga is such a tupuna that it deserves its own whole process. I am pleased that Minister Finlayson has indeed signalled his commitment for that to come up next. And, again, Parihaka and the injustice of the story too deserves its own entire settlement process and reconciliation process. So I want to put on record that we are pleased. Those will be hard.

One of the things that this process has done, that Te Tiriti settlement deeds have done, is it has brought these stories to the fore for a lot of us who never knew—a lot of us. I am talking about even my own iwi. The tribunal hearings have brought so much of that to the fore, to benefit all of us so that we have a bit of a better understanding of what has happened. That needs to continue. So, as I sum up, for all of the Taranaki iwi settlements that have happened this morning, Ngāruahine, Te Atiawa, Taranaki tūturu, this has been an incredibly humbling position today—to stand here with this enormous responsibility to try to uphold the mana with which you have all held yourselves throughout this process.

Kia kaha, Nō reira, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi ki a koutou i waenganui, i roto i tēnei Whare. Kua tae mai koutou ki tō whenua nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēna koutou huri noa, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Be strong. And so I acknowledge, commend, and congratulate you collectively amongst and within this House. You have arrived at your land, so well done and congratulations to you collectively throughout, and my thanks to us all.]

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Whānau, I am going to be brief, I am going to be succinct—well, I will try. Actually, I probably will not be succinct. I just want to make a couple of acknowledgments. I have tried to be a little mana enhancing, and sometimes I give my mate Pita Paraone from New Zealand First a bit of stick, but I want to acknowledge him; he has agreed to switch calls with me, and I am going to tell you why. Thank you, Mr Paraone. I still do not agree with the politics, but I cannot say that you have not been accommodating. So thank you. If you could be a little more accommodating to Taranaki and their whānau and agree with the bill, then we could go the whole way.

I have to apologise again. I have been down here; you might have seen me go in and out. We had a bit of paper and a bit of a conversation and a sneaky phone call over here while these proceedings have been going on. I do not want to be disrespectful to this moment at all, and there is a point to what I am about to say. This here—this big document with all the pretty colours—that is preparing Budget bids for next year. Shh, top secret stuff, that! The phone call I had was about the Child, Youth and Family review and the development of the new model Oranga Tamariki. There was a bit of to and fro, which you might understand is going on at the moment.

Why do I say this? Because, whānau, Māoridom is on the precipice right now of greater self-determination in this nation. We are on the precipice of a greater say in this country over our future. We are on the precipice of a more local, regional government say in decision making and mana. Whether or not you agree, the Resource Management Act, which we have just negotiated, says that you must have a mana whakahono arrangement with your local regional council so that every iwi gets to nut that out before we go down the road of consenting, and so on, and so on.

Why am I talking about this? Because this is exactly why you are here. We have waited far too many generations to get to this point, and we cannot afford to wait for any more generations to go through before we take the opportunity to have that say. Here you are, having your say. You have negotiated this settlement. You have put your best people, your best minds, on it. You have spent years coming to this decision. Most of you did not want to do this, back in the day. You sat with blankets, on the ātea—[Interruption] I am not sure what they are talking about. Shocking! Shocking! But here we are, Māori mā, on the precipice of a bright dawn of hope and future. The mana is in your hands. The mana is in your hands, with this settlement, to determine what that looks like. That is what we are about. And that is why, unfortunately, I am going to take a really brief call, because I have got to get to a meeting. But that is why we are here. That is why we fight every single day in this House.

Never mind what Twitter says, never mind what Facebook says, never mind all the argy-bargy and the game playing, and “Yes, we’ll work with you, and maybe we won’t tomorrow; this one’s OK, but never mind that one.” I mean, it is a bit of to and fro. But that is why we are here—to fight for you, to back you up so that you can have realisation of rangatiratanga in this nation. And it is about time—it is about time. This bill helps you to get there. It helps you to have your say, and I absolutely applaud you for every effort you have made to bring us to this day. I am a proud Māori today; I am. I am proud of our people. It is an emotional day, and it has been a hard day, but I am proud. I am proud of you.

Tū whakahīhī. Tū whakahīhī i runga i te ngākau, i runga i te rangimarie ēngari, tūwhakahī! Tēnā noa iho taku kōrero i tēnei wā ki a koutou me ō koutou ringa kaha. Kai a koutou te ringa kaha ahakoa whakaae mai, ahakoa whakahē mai, kei roto i ō ringa, nā reira e Te Iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātau katoa.

[Stand proud. Stand proud upon the heart and upon peace, but stand proud! That is my contribution at this moment to you collectively with your powerful hands. Regardless whether you agree or disagree, it is in your hands, and so to you the tribe, congratulations, well done to you collectively, and thanks to us all.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia ki Te Iwi o Taranaki kua tae mai nei i waenganui i a tātau i te rā nei, ki te whakarongongia ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te pire i mua i te aroaro o tātau i te rā nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I endorse the tributes accorded to the Taranaki tribe who has arrived amongst us today to listen to the contributions relating to this bill before us this day.]

I do not know why I must feel like the loneliest fella in this House at the moment, but I just want to remind people that that is the effect of democracy: that people are allowed to have a different point of view. And I must acknowledge, despite my party’s different point of view, that people have taken that on board and have not entered into the vitriol that normally arises on such occasions. I also want to remind members that those who have a different view also lie within the various iwi And although we have not settled in the North, you can see that there is a large proportion of dissatisfaction just in appointing negotiators. We have not even got to the table and we are fighting.

Kia ahatia!

[So what!]

I digress. This bill is the culmination of a very long journey on the part of Taranaki iwi—in fact, 30 years—and it goes some way to righting the wrongs of the past. And I hope that it augurs well as Taranaki iwi, Te Atiawa, and Ngāruahine look to the future, to build a future that the following generations will gain the benefit of. And I make that reference because last week I had the privilege of attending Te Rangi Hīroa Day at Urenui. Yes, I got a lecture—well, I did not get a lecture; I was just part of the class that was there, and we got a lecture from the Rev Tiki Raumati.

As I travelled to that part of Taranaki, I was wondering what sort of reception I would get, knowing that I was the bearer, on behalf of New Zealand First, of a different point of view to the settlements. Might I add that I was really impressed, and I hope that such days continue. I was similarly impressed with the 2 days each month of Parihaka. I just put out a hint that if you still love me after today, I am quite happy to come, but I will make sure that I lose weight, because then you will not want to eat me. Kāti, again.

During the course of this debate, the different view of New Zealand First—we have never said that this bill is about council representation. What we are saying is that there is a clause in the bill that we do not agree with, because I think that we as Māori can do better. And if we look at, for instance, this House, where we have the seven Māori seats, and apart from two other Māori in this House who have won their general seats, there are no more who hold seats in their own right. And the point is that unless you have more seats, you are going to be restricted to that number. And the opportunity is for Māori to stand for general seats.

All we are saying in New Zealand First is that the clause—and in this particular bill, Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, it is clause 99(3)—where it says that the council “must appoint” iwi representatives; we are asking why this is different to the Local Government Act, which says that councils “may”. I know why we have “must”: so that it puts it on councils to have to make those appointments. But then the previous speaker made reference to the Resource Management Act amendments. We have not seen the final details, and, obviously, they have been able to negotiate that there is iwi representation, but what about those councils that do not have this clause? That is the question. But then we will debate that issue during the course of the Resource Management Act amendment legislation.

Of course, the passing of this legislation does not complete the claims of all Taranaki. There is the issue of the mountain. As we say with our maunga Hikurangi in Ngāti Hine—and I do not want you to confuse it with the Hikurangi in Tai Rāwhiti—we refer to our maunga as: Mō Tetau Tū Teao Tū Tepō [Our mountain].

Mō Tetau Tū Teao Tū Tepō.

And, similarly, I would like to make that same reference to Taranaki:

Nā reira, kore e tōroa tēnei tū, nā te mea i whakatakoto wā mātau whakaaro kia mōhio mai koutou te āhua o ō mātau tū, nā reira, i tōku kōrero whakamutunga, ngā mihi hoki ki a koutou. Ngā mihi ki tēnā, Te Miringa, nā te mea mahara ana au i a ia i te wā e ora ana, ko ia tetahi i haere mai i waenganui i a mātau, ia tau, ia tau ā Te Rā o Waitangi, ki te totohe ki a mātau o te hau kāinga. I muri mai i tana totohetanga, hoki mai a ia ki raro i tana maunga a Taranaki. Mihi hoki ki a ia me koutou ngā kaikawe o tēnei kaupapa. Tino mīharo ana au ki a koutou kia kawe atu i tēnei kaupapa ki te rā nei. Nā reira, ngā manaakitanga kei runga i a koutou, kia haere koutou i runga i te rangimāria. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai anō tātau.

[Therefore, I will not prolong this stand, because we set our views so that you would know collectively the nature of our position, and so in my closing remarks, acknowledgments to you collectively as well. Thanks to that Te Miringa because I recall that person when he was alive he would come among us annually every Waitangi Day, to argue with us, the ones from back home. Soon after his argument he would come back to be beneath his Taranaki mountain. I pay a tribute to him and to you collectively the bearers of this matter. I really admire you as bearers of this matter to this day. May acts of kindness be upon you in order that you go harmoniously with peaceful intentions. Congratulations and well done to you collectively, my appreciation to us all once again.]

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): An act of man meant that this morning my heart was in this room; an act of mother Nature meant that I was physically required to be somewhere else. So for that I apologise. I would have loved to be here this morning, but in order to restore the livelihood of the people of Kaikōura, I was in another place.

He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. This is a very short call. Everything has been said over many, many years. I am late to the piece, not only in terms of this whole process but also in terms of this morning. I do not wish to delay this celebration any further. Marama Fox spoke of a bright dawn, and I just want to finish with a quote from Te Whiti and Tohu, which says: “Just as night is the bringer of day, so too is death and struggle the bringer of life.” Kia ora.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tā te mea nā Taranaki Maunga tōku Reo Māori i homai, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. E tika ana ka waiho nā atu mā Ngāpuhi, mā māua ko Te Ururoa ngā kōrero hei whakakapi i te rā nei. E ōku rangatira, e tautoko atu ana au i ngā mihi ki ngā tini aituā, kua kōrero nei, arā, ko Te Miringa tēnā, rātau kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō ki roto i ngā tau tata, ki roto i ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei. Koutou o Te Pō, e moe, e moe, e moe!

I kite atu ahau i ngā kanohi e tiro iho mai nei, ki a koe e te tuakana, e Whare, ko ngā maharatanga ki tērā o tāua kua riro atu, e tangi! Ki a koe e te tuakana, e Hemi, me te wero atu ki a koe me tō tāua reanga, he nui ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro! Tāpae atu tēnā ki a koe e te tuakana, e Jamie e tika ana - ki te hoe! E Ruakere o tō tāua Reo Māori, ka piki ki runga ki te teiteitanga o Taranaki maunga e tū mai rā! Koutou e ōku rahi, tēnā tātau katoa!

I te matenga o pāpā, i hoki atu ahau ki te pānui i wāna tuhinga, ko ētahi o wāna tuhinga e pā ana ki te tāima ka noho mātau ki roto i a koutou o Taranaki. Ko te kaumātua i tauawhi, i tāwharau i tōku pāpā, ko Sonny Waru. Ka mutu tō mātau mahi i te mahi a pāpā ki roto i a koutou, i wehe atu, i hūnuku mātau ki Amerika. Nā, ka mokemoke te noho a te whānau Hēnare ki Amerika. Tae mai te kaupapa nui a Te Māori, nā, haere mai te katoa o Aotearoa ki runga i a mātau te whānau ki roto o Amerika. Nā, i roto i ngā tuhinga a pāpā, i kapohia ake e ia ngā kōrero me ngā wānanga o ngā tino rangatira o taua wā.

Ki roto i te rūma o tō mātau whare, ko karanipāpā, arā, ko Tā Hēmi, arā, ko Sonny, arā, ko Te Ātairangikaahu, arā, ko Tā Hepi, ko Tā Kīngi te tini o rātau! Anei tana kōrero e ai ki a pāpā, te kōrero a Sonny ki a ia, “ka tuia Te Rangi tāhuahua ki te hekenga o Aotea waka, ko Waimirirangi te tupuna”, ko ngā puna mahara, “ko Te Pārengarenga ki te raki, ko Te Rerenga-tōpuni ki Taranaki”, kāti, ka waiho nā atu tērā kōrero ki reira. Kua rongo atu tātau ki ngā pānga, ki ngā take kei roto i a koutou, ko ngā whakapapa, ko ngā mahi, ko ngā moemoeā e whakahono nei i a tāua, tātau, ahakoa nō hea, ahakoa ko wai!. He mīharo te kite atu i tērā tūāhuatanga!

I kōrero mai tōku tuakana mō te tangi a tō māua iwi, a Ngāti Manu ki roto i Te Pēwhairangi te awa o Taumārere; i roto i a koutou i tērā wiki, i te wā i whakahōnore ai tātau i tērā kaumātua rongonui a Huirangi, anā, ko ngā hononga kei roto i tana ingoa, ko Waikerepuru, kei roto i a māua o Taumārere, nā, ko Waikerepuru kei roto i a koutou o Taranaki, kāti mīharo!

Mīharo te whakaaro ake, ka tupu aku tamariki ka whai karahipi. Ka whai karahipi, ka whai tautoko mai i a koutou o Taranaki. Koinā te pai o te whakapapa! Koinā te pai o te whakapapa! Ko aua take katoa, ka huri tū atu ki a koe e te tuakana, e Bernie, kite atu au i a koe! I a tāua ka noho ki roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau, i kōrero mai koe mō ō moemoeā mō tō wā kāinga. Ka kite atu i tēnei tūāhuatanga ki roto i Te Whare, ā taihoa ake nei ka puāwai, ā taihoa ake nei; mō āu mokopuna, mō ngā uri whakatupu kei roto i a koe ahakoa kei Taranaki e noho ana, ahakoa kei Tāmaki-makau-rau e noho ana, e te tuakana e Bernie, tēnā koe! Kāti, kua kōrero ahau mō ngā moemoeā e haere ake nei!

Ka whakaaro ake ki ngā kōrero me ngā tohutohu o ngā mātua tūpuna, e kī nei, “ka pō, ka pō, ka ao, ka awatea!”. Ka awatea i te rā nei e Taranaki Whānui! Taranaki Whānui kaua au mō te wehewehe i a koutou ēngari, ka kī nei ki raro i te maru o Te Maunga Tītōhea, tēnei ka mihi, tēnei ka tangi! Kāti, ko aku kōrero whakamutunga i te rā nei e Te Māngai o Te Whare, e mōhio ana tātau ki ngā taumahatanga ki runga i Te Kīngi Māori, ko reira ngā whakaaro o tēnei, otirā, o tātau ki roto i tana takahanga ki mua i a ia, me tana whānau. E te tuahine e Nanaia kei roto i a koe, otirā, i a tātau ngā whakaaro nui, me ngā īnoi ki Te Kaihanga mō tō tāua Kīngi, kāti!

E aku rangatira, ka waiho nā atu ngā pahupahu a Ngāpuhi, a Ngāti Hine e tū nei ēngari, he wero tēnei ki ōku ake o te kāinga! He wero nui, tino nui! Tēnā pea ka kore e eke, e aua! E kī atu ana anei te tauira, anei te tauira, whāia! Kimihia, rangahautia! Kei mahue a Ngāpuhi ki muri! Koinā te take ka tūhono waku tamariki ki a koutou, kia kaua e pōhara waku tamariki, ā taihoa ake nei! Kāti, e aku rangatira kua nawhe ngā kōrero i te rā nei! Ātaahua ngā mahi, ātaahua ngā kōrero! Mā Te Atua koutou, tātau e manaaki, e tiaki ki roto i ngā nekehanga o te wā, ka tau, ka tau, kia ora tātua.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Because Mount Taranaki gave me my Māori language, I will continue and remain speaking in the Māori language. It is fitting that the closing contributions on this day would be left to Northland, and to Te Ururoa and me to deliver. To my esteemed ones I endorse the tributes accorded to the numerous deaths, and, as alluded to, namely Te Miringa and all of them who are lost to the void in recent years, and the many past years. To you of the void, sleep, rest, slumber on.

I saw faces looking down here your one elder sibling Whare, and memories went back to that one you and I know who has gone, let us shed tears. A challenge to you elder sibling Hēmi and to our age group; there is a great deal of work ahead of us. Further to that, quite right elder sibling Jamie—to the paddle! And as far as our Māori language is concerned, Ruakere, it has reached the height of Taranaki Mountain standing over there. As for you, my numerous, well done to all of us.

When dad died I went back to reading his writings, some of which related to the time we lived amongst you of Taranaki. Sonny Waru was the elder who embraced and groomed him. Our role was to help dad’s work amongst you, and when it was done eventually, we left and shifted to America. And so life in America for the Hēnare family became a lonely one. The great Te Māori exhibition arrived and then we, the family in America, were overwhelmed by the whole of New Zealand. Now, in dad’s writings narrations and deliberations by real leaders of those times were snapped up by him.

In the room of our house was grandad, namely, Sir Hēmi, Sonny, Te Ātairangikaahu, Sir Hepi, Sir Kīngi, and a host of them. According to dad, here is Sonny’s statement to him: “Lumps of the sky were lashed to the Aotea canoe when it migrated, Waimiringa was the ancestor.” and according to the pools of memory: “Te Pārengarenga was to the north and Te Rerenga-tōpuni was to Taranaki.” Enough, I will leave that statement there! We have heard the impacts and issues within you collectively, and the genealogies, tasks, and dreams that connect you and I, us, regardless where we are from and who we are. It is wonderful to see that situation.

My elder colleague mentioned to us about the grief that our people of Ngāti Manu have within Te Pēwhairangi at the river of Taumārere; within you last week when we honoured that well known elder Huirangi. Now then, the Waikerepuru connection in his name is in the connections that my elder sibling and I have of Taumārere. So there it is, then, Waikerepuru is in you of Taranaki. Enough, it is wonderful.

What an amazing thought that when my children grow up they will get a scholarship, they will get one from you of Taranaki. That is why genealogy is so wonderful. That is why it is so amazing. In terms of all matters like those, I turn and face you elder sibling Bernie; I see you! When we lived together in Auckland, you told me about your dreams for your place back home. I visualise this situation in the House, and in time it will come to fruition, by and by for your grandchildren and those to come in you, even if they are living in Taranaki and Auckland. I really commend you elder sibling Bernie. Enough, I have alluded to forthcoming dreams.

I reflect on the conversations and instructions by the ancestral forefathers that state: “It is night, it is night, it is daylight!”. It is daylight today Taranaki at large. I will not separate you Taranaki at large, but under the shadow of Mount Tītōhea, I applaud and lament. So my closing remarks on this day, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that we are aware of the difficulties upon the Māori King and that is where the thoughts of this one and indeed our thoughts are in terms of the transgression before him and his family. There are numerous thoughts and prayers within you sister colleague Nanaia, and indeed within us to the Creator about our King. Let us leave it there.

And so my esteemed ones, I leave the ravings-on there of this one of Northland and of Ngāti Hine standing here. But this is a challenge to my own ones of home. It is a big challenge and a huge one. Perhaps it is unachievable; I do not know. I say, here is an example and a model; pursue it! Seek and research it. Northland might get left—right at the back. That is the issue—my children are connected to you and they will not become impoverished in years to come. Well, then, my esteemed ones, that is enough discourse for this day! The operations are wonderful and so is the discourse. May God take care and look after you and us collectively through the movements of the period. I alight and rest; my appreciation to us.]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. “Titiro, titiro ki Te Maunga Titōhea, runga o Parihaka, Waitoto-roa, nā ki Moea-u, Ngāti Haupoto! Ko te tākiritanga i Te Kahu o Wikitōria, ā, kaitoa! Ko Tohu, ko Te Whiti ngā manu e rua, i patu te hoariri ki te rangimārie, kss auē, kss auē! Ahakoa te pāhuatanga o Parihaka, uē, uē, uē, hā!” Kia ora tātau katoa! Te āhuatanga o tērā waiata, he whakatau i te āhuatanga o Parihaka ka tahi, o te ekenga o te hōia o te rangimāria ahakoa ngā pēhitanga ki runga o Taranaki whānui tonu. Nō reira ka whakairia tērā kōrero ki te pakitara ā-Whare hei tīmatanga kōrero māku i tēnei ahiahi.

Kua riro māku anō rā ngā kōrero hei whakakōpani. Kei ngā huanga, kei ngā whanaunga, kei ngā taokete, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa! Me whai wāhi au i te tuatahi ki te kōrero ki a koutou nā koutou te kaupapa nei i ārahi ki tēnei Whare! Kei taku rangatira e Mahara, koutou ko Jamie, e Toka, Wayne, koutou i kawe nei i te kaupapa nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau. Waiho te hunga mate ki te hunga mate mō te wā! Kua kōrerohia rātau, ko Peter Charlton mā, ā, engari anō a Te Miringa taihoa ake nei ka hoki mātau ki a Te Miringa!

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. “Look, look at the Barren Mountain over Parihaka, Waitoto-roa and there over Moea-u and Ngāti Haupoto! It is the unloosening of Victoria’s cloak, serves her right! It is the two birds, Tohu and Whiti that slew the enemy with peace, heck kss! Oh dear, kss! Despite the pillage of Parihaka, push, shove and shake it!” Acknowledgments to us all. The circumstances in terms of that chant: one, an acknowledgment of the Parihaka situation, the arrival of the soldiers, and peace despite the oppressions imposed upon greater Taranaki. And so I hang that talk upon the wall of the House as a way for me to commence my address this afternoon.

The closing address has also been left for me to deliver. And so to my relations, relatives and in-laws, acknowledgments and accolades to you collectively, and thank you to us all. I should find an opportunity in the first instance to address you collectively. You are the ones who guided this matter to this House, you my esteemed ones, Mahara, Jamie, Toka, and Wayne. You are the ones who bore this matter here. Congratulations, well done, and thank you to us. Leave the dead to the dead for the moment. They have been referred to, Peter Charlton and others, but as for Te Miringa, we will come back to that one shortly.]

To wrap up our day, can I just start by saying that I told a story a little bit earlier about some of the people up in the gallery marching on Waitara marae over the fiscal envelope, but I left out one part of the story that is actually quite interesting. One part of the story is that as we were going on to the marae, one Ngahina, only about 16 to 18 years old, ran on to the marae with a New Zealand flag—and it was burning. She was tackled by a New Zealand Māori warden, who happened to be an Anglican minister. I do not know whether that fella has still got his warrant or not at the moment—because I sign them off—but I say that because

Ngahina is the daughter of Te Miringa Hohaia. I think it is a symbol of the fact that father, son, daughter—those ones, in particular—had a huge connection to this kaupapa. The first time I arrived in Taranaki, I went with Te Miringa to the first of the hearings held out at Ngāti Tama, and there I saw the tribunal sit in front of Taranaki as they told their story. I think about the meeting today, because he gave so much to this particular kaupapa, and it is so sad that he is not here today. I am sure he is ā-wairua nei [spiritually].

I remember him in his—I think it was—Mark II Zephyr car. He travelled backwards and forwards from Parihaka daily to try to advance his case. I remember him taking me to the Pungarehu post office—a little place, a working space. He did it on nothing; he did not get a lot of money out of that kaupapa. I just think of him. I remember one protest. I happened to be broadcasting on the hottest talkback show in Taranaki, broadcast on Te Korimako o Taranaki 94.8 FM. It was the hottest talkback show that you will ever hear. There was me, and there was Takawai.

We had a plan. What we would do is say: “Te Miringa, you get out there.” So there was a protest out at Motunui, I think: the plan was that he would ring in to the radio station and we would appear to be startled by the fact that he was having a protest. So he rang up and said “We’ve got a protest out here. They’re trying to sell land.”, and the idea was to try to tell everybody that there was a protest going on. That was how we worked—it was great fun. It was great fun that Te Miringa could ring straight in to the radio station, unbeknownst to us, of course—no!—and say “Hey, there’s a protest going on.”, and our people would head out there. Those were good times. I think it was all about, as I said, awakening the sleeping giant. I do pay tribute to those who have advanced this kaupapa, and I think about Te Miringa today.

I do want to put out a particular message as we, sort of, close off. I fear that 150 years after the Crown unleashed military warfare on Māori in the Taranaki region our nation has not learnt too much. Closer to home, the majority of Pākehā in Taranaki have not learnt much about the history that once unfolded in the very place that they call home. Needless to say, it is time for Pākehā in New Plymouth to wake up: Taranaki iwi, Te Atiawa—the patient, hugely humble people are waiting. I think most of us have heard about Parihaka and how the Crown invaded the people about 135 years ago. I know that story because I have been there, as I said earlier. My in-laws tell me constantly, and I have felt that passion and that sadness felt by many of our people, who go to Parihaka—and, indeed, to Taranaki.

In my first speech ever in this House, back in 2005, these were some of the questions that I posed. Do people know what it is like to face the people of Parihaka and talk about the 1880 Māori Prisoners Act in which more than 200 Taranaki Māori were placed in prison without trial? Do people know that the 1881 West Coast Settlement Act made it legal to arrest Taranaki Māori without a warrant, with a further penalty of 2 years’ hard labour if they hindered the surveying of land? Do people know of Dunedin? Do they realise that the harbour that has, basically, cut through and joins pieces of land down there was built by people imprisoned without charge? Many of them died because they froze to death in the caves that they were left to sleep in.

While I lived in Taranaki I heard the people of Parihaka talk about the soldiers who came into the village while the children played. I heard them talk about their people being taken away, their villages being burnt. I heard about the women bringing out kai. I heard them talk about a kōrero that said “E tu tama wāhine i te waa o te kore.”—a reference to our women to stand strong when no one else is around, when the men have gone and they have been taken to prison. I see them wearing the raukura, the white feather, as a symbol of peace. I hear them say: “He hōnore, he korōria, he maungārongo ki runga te whenua he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa.”

[“Honour, glory, and peace upon the land, and goodwill to all mankind.”]

I hear them sing, “Piki mai Pungarehu, waiho tērā kōrero ki reira. Mā koutou tēnā kōrero e waiata!”

[“Ascend Pungarehu, leave that statement there. You can sing it!”]

I hear them sing about the about blowing of the trumpet at Pungarehu—a bugle. There were others, as I mentioned before. E Rere Rā Te Motu nei, i te rā o Māehe. Titiro, titiro.

[Flee indeed this here nation on the day of March. Look, look!]

That is Taranaki history, and they sing about it every day. So when the former Mayor of New Plymouth Andrew Judd came out recently calling on his fellow Pākehā in Taranaki to learn about the historic battles between the Crown and Māori he won the hearts and minds of a heap of Māori throughout the country, but he lost the votes of most Pākehā.

I want to say to the Pākehā people of Taranaki: you have nothing to fear. You have nothing to fear about learning the history of your area. My brother-in-law, Mr Tamati, talks to me often about how hard it was getting a fair deal for our people at that council; it was such an uphill climb. So Mr Paraone believes that two people in this Parliament who win general seats out of 63 is really going to make a difference? Give me a break!

Ka nui te aroha ki tērā whakaaro, kāore au i te paku whakaae atu ki tērā momo whakaaro! Me whai wāhi tonu tātau ki runga i ngā poari, pai mai, kino mai, nā runga i te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[There is much empathy with regard to that thought; I do not agree with that kind of view, not one bit. We must have a place on boards, be it good or bad, because of the Treaty of Waitangi situation.]

But my brother-in-law, Mr Tamati, also tells me that Andrew Judd’s journey of becoming a recovering racist has inspired many Māori in New Plymouth to believe that change is coming. Slow it may be, but, nevertheless, it is coming. Although the New Plymouth District Council has voted down the proposal for guaranteed Māori representation, I know it will come soon, and they will be able to sit at the table—Taranaki iwi, Te Atiawa—with the council. Taranaki iwi and Te Atiawa will become an economic force in the region. The mana, not the money, of Taranaki iwi, and the history they share with all peoples in the region should be the driving force behind such a relationship. So, whether the council chooses to go there or not, we in the Māori Party hope that they will continue, and there will be some advocacy so that battles fought amongst our people and against the Crown throughout the country, including Taranaki, are taught in the schools of this country and that those battles are commemorated and shared with the nation. We must educate the next generation about those battles that sit right on our back doorstep.

Rangiriri, Rangiaowhea, Te Taratara, actually Parihaka and today, ko tāku ki ōku hoa anō i tēnei rā, ā, tēnā koutou i hara mai tawhiti i tēnei rā. E aroha atu ana ki a koutou me te āhuatanga o ngā whakaaro mō te hunga kua ngaro ēngari, i tēnei rā ka pai, kua tutuki, kua tutuki i tā koutou i wawata nā. Ko tā mātau ko te tautoko ake i ēnei kōrero. Nō reira, huri, huri, huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Rangiriri, Rangiaowhea, Te Taratara, actually Parihaka and today, my advice indeed once again to my colleagues on this day, and so I acknowledge you, collectively, who have come from a distance today. I sympathise with you about the situation concerning those who have gone, but on this day it is fine, it is done. What you yearned for has been fulfilled. Our part is to merely endorse these speeches. Therefore, congratulations and well done to you collectively throughout, and my thanks to us all.]

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

The House adjourned at 1.32 p.m. (Wednesday)